If you're sitting at a light and a cop is behind you and you burn rubber when you take off, but you don't break any other laws is that breaking a law? - eviltoast

I guess the simple question is, is burning rubber illegal?

  • darkmarx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 days ago

    If it’s raining, there’s snow on the ground, or many other low traction scenarios, the cop would have to really want to pull you over. Chances are they won’t.

    On a clear, dry day, depending on where you are, barking your tires is a violation of nuisance laws. Again, most likely not getting pulled over unless you consistently did it.

    Now, if you stomped on it and your tires broke loose, you are looking at reckless operation of a motor vehicle. Expect to be stopped.

    It mostly comes down to conditions and level of egregiousness… and how bad of a day the cop is having / wanting you to have.

  • golden_zealot@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    11 days ago

    As others have said it can fall under a variety of offenses. Another offense that refers to this is “Stunting”.

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          10 days ago

          Prima facie evidence of unnecessary exhibition of speed shall be squealing or screeching sounds emitted by the tires, or the throwing of dirt by the tires of the vehicle, or both

          EVs can accelerate quickly while not making much noise… I guess it’s okay to quickly accelerate with an EV then?

      • makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 days ago

        It should be, if not. Pedestrians need to cross roads. Other cars need to enter roads, change lanes, etc. Cars accelerating at unreasonable rates will cause an accident.

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 days ago

          I agree about pedestrians, but cars changing lanes should to be aware of their surroundings, including cars that are approaching them.

          Cars accelerating at unreasonable rates

          How do you define “unreasonable” though, especially with EVs that can accelerate quickly?

          • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 days ago

            Unreasonable gives cops and judges a lot of leeway. Words like that should be illegal. If you can’t pin it down, it can’t be a law.

  • GGNZ@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    10 days ago

    In New Zealand it would be classed as ‘Sustained Loss of Traction’ and would be illegal.

  • Arthur Besse@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    10 days ago

    As others have said, it depends on the city but probably yes.

    For example, in San Mateo, California, it would be an offense under title 11 of the Municipal Code:

    11.12.050 EXCESSIVE ACCELERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES.

    It is unlawful for any person operating a motor vehicle within the City to so accelerate the same as to cause audible noise by tire friction on pavement or to cause the tires of said vehicle to leave skid marks upon the pavement, except when such acceleration is reasonably necessary to avoid a collision. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a public offense.

  • thesohoriots@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    11 days ago

    Yes.

    Source: a cop who used this exact scenario as an example of “letter/spirit” of the law, saying if it was raining and the tires chirped on the crosswalk surface, that wasn’t the same as laying it down on dry pavement.

  • AntAcid@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    10 days ago

    It’s an “exhibition of speed” and is some form of illegal in nearly all regions.

    It’s actually more interesting to figure out where it ISN’T illegal.

  • daytonah@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 days ago

    Same question but instead you only use launch control, so no loss of reaction, and don’t go over speed limit… Although the cop would hear the brup, brup, brup, brup… Braap… Brrraaaap, and you slow down the rpms to not exceed speed limit…

  • Darleys_Brew@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 days ago

    Can’t remember where it happened, but I’ve read about someone being pulled over for pulling away from the traffic lights too quick.

    • dnick@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      That just calculates into whether you get pulled over or get a ticket. He specifically asked if it was breaking a law which has little to do with where the cop is a dick or not. Doesn’t technically even depend on the judge.

        • dnick@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 days ago

          Technically yes, especially since this was a technical question, he wasnt asking if he would get pulled over, he was asking if there was a law being broken. You probably wouldn’t get arrested for hooking your donkey to a post on main Street on a Sunday in Colorado springs, but if you asked if there was a law against it, the answer would be in the codified law, not in is likelihood of a cop knowing it.

          • ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 days ago

            And yet with lack of enforcement it functionally does not exist even if it is written on some piece of paper

            • dnick@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 days ago

              That is true but pretty irrelevant. Is a law enforced is a completely different question from is it a law, and it’s not an insignificant degree of difference.

              That’s like someone asking if chocolate ice cream exists and you saying it’s possible no one likes it. Technically true but irrelevant to the question.