Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Newspaper Delivery Person/Seat Belt Ticket

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Newspaper Delivery Person/Seat Belt Ticket

    Hey all,

    A friend of the family who does residential newspaper delivery was recently issued a citation for no seat belt.

    I did some research and discovered this:

    MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE (EXCERPT)
    Act 300 of 1949


    257.710e Safety belt required; driver or passenger to which section inapplicable; transporting child 4 years of age but less than 16 years of age; enforcement of section; violation as evidence of negligence; reduction of recovery for damages; violation as civil infraction; reports of police harassment; effect of primary enforcement; report of findings; intent; assessment of points prohibited.
    Sec. 710e.

    (1) This section does not apply to an operator or passenger of any of the following:

    (a) A motor vehicle manufactured before January 1, 1965.

    (b) A bus.

    (c) A motorcycle.

    (d) A moped.

    (e) A motor vehicle if the operator or passenger possesses a written verification from a physician that the operator or passenger is unable to wear a safety belt for physical or medical reasons.

    (f) A motor vehicle that is not required to be equipped with safety belts under federal law.

    (g) A commercial or United States postal service vehicle that makes frequent stops for the purpose of pickup or delivery of goods or services.

    (h) A motor vehicle operated by a rural carrier of the United States postal service while serving his or her rural postal route.

    (2) This section does not apply to a passenger of a school bus.

    (3) Each operator and front seat passenger of a motor vehicle operated on a street or highway in this state shall wear a properly adjusted and fastened safety belt except as follows:

    (a) A child who is less than 4 years of age shall be protected as required in section 710d.

    (b) A child who is 4 years of age or older but less than 8 years of age and who is less than 4 feet 9 inches in height shall be properly secured in a child restraint system in accordance with the child restraint manufacturer's and vehicle manufacturer's instructions and the standards prescribed in 49 CFR 571.213.

    (4) If there are more passengers than safety belts available for use, and all safety belts in the motor vehicle are being utilized in compliance with this section, the operator of the motor vehicle is in compliance with this section.

    (5) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3)(b), each operator of a motor vehicle transporting a child 4 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age in a motor vehicle shall secure the child in a properly adjusted and fastened safety belt and seated as required under this section. If the motor vehicle is transporting more children than there are safety belts available for use, all safety belts available in the motor vehicle are being utilized in compliance with this section, and the operator and all front seat passengers comply with subsection (3), the operator of a motor vehicle transporting a child 8 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age for which there is not an available safety belt is in compliance with this subsection if that child is seated in other than the front seat of the motor vehicle. However, if that motor vehicle is a pickup truck without an extended cab or jump seats, and all safety belts in the front seat are being used, the operator may transport the child in the front seat without a safety belt.

    (6) If after December 31, 2005 the office of highway safety planning certifies that there has been less than 80% compliance with the safety belt requirements of this section during the preceding year, enforcement of this section by state or local law enforcement agencies shall be accomplished only as a secondary action when an operator of a motor vehicle has been detained for a suspected violation of another section of this act.

    (7) Failure to wear a safety belt in violation of this section may be considered evidence of negligence and may reduce the recovery for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or operation of a motor vehicle. However, that negligence shall not reduce the recovery for damages by more than 5%.

    (8) A person who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction.

    (9) A law enforcement agency shall conduct an investigation for all reports of police harassment that result from the enforcement of this section.

    (10) The secretary of state shall engage an independent organization to conduct a 3-year study to determine the effect that the primary enforcement of this section has on the number of incidents of police harassment of motor vehicle operators. The organization that conducts the study shall submit a report to the legislature not later than June 30, 2001 and an annual report not later than June 30 each year thereafter.

    (11) The secretary of state shall promote compliance with the safety belt requirements of this section at the branch offices and through any print or visual media determined appropriate by the secretary of state.


    (12) It is the intent of the legislature that the enforcement of this section be conducted in a manner calculated to save lives and not in a manner that results in the harassment of the citizens of this state.

    (13) Points shall not be assessed under section 320a for a violation of this section.
    Now with section G being said, the newspaper delivery people use their own personal vehicles for their newspaper routes, and write off all vehicle expenses at the end of the year as a business expense.

    Obviously it would take a newspaper person 2-3 times longer to finish their routes if they were required to belt up between every single one of their 250+ customers.

    Can anyone advise me if there is a different, more appropriatly worded traffic code exemption that would apply to delivery personal, if one exists?

    Thanks,
    Contact
    A true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.

    -GK Chesterton

  • #2
    Someone driving around a paper route delivering papers in their POV is not a commercial vehicle. All of our paper delivery guys that drive around in their POVs drive like idiots, and every now and then they get tickets. The ones that drive around to the different gas stations and such delivering papers are generally quite nice. Was he ticketed while in a residential area, or out on the highway? I'd give leeway to someone in a residential area not wearing the seat belt if they were actually expected to get out of their cars and put the paper by the door step... but I've never seen that. You don't need to take your belt off to throw the paper out the window.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Contact View Post
      anyone advise me if there is a different, more appropriatly worded traffic code exemption that would apply to delivery personal, if one exists?
      Michigan Attorney General's Opinion #6364says "It is my opinion, therefore, that...rural newspaper carriers utilizing their own vehicles to deliver newspapers and making frequent stops are exempt from the provisions of MCL 257.710e; MSA 9.2410(5)."

      A bill to amend sec. 710e of 1949 PA 300 (MCL 257.7as been intoduced in your legislature.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by StudChris View Post
        Someone driving around a paper route delivering papers in their POV is not a commercial vehicle. All of our paper delivery guys that drive around in their POVs drive like idiots, and every now and then they get tickets. The ones that drive around to the different gas stations and such delivering papers are generally quite nice. Was he ticketed while in a residential area, or out on the highway? I'd give leeway to someone in a residential area not wearing the seat belt if they were actually expected to get out of their cars and put the paper by the door step... but I've never seen that. You don't need to take your belt off to throw the paper out the window.
        Well, thanks for answering nothing at all.

        Maybe your area is different (and I don't know about you), but I like my paper on my porch, not thrown from the car onto my front lawn, and since I used to do the newspapers myself, I know that customers will complain if you pull into their driveways at 2:30am to deliver the paper. Aside from that, if the customer calls and complains about the location of the paper, the delivery person gets charged $5.00 by the newspaper so heaving them out the window is not a viable economical choice.

        Seventy2002, Thank you very much! Much appreciated!!
        A true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.

        -GK Chesterton

        Comment


        • #5
          Sorry but my personal opinion on this is that it's not a clear cut, substantial violation. In other words, it's a chicken **it ticket. I personally wouldn't have written a mail carrier or a newspaper delivery employee.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Contact View Post
            Well, thanks for answering nothing at all.

            Maybe your area is different (and I don't know about you), but I like my paper on my porch, not thrown from the car onto my front lawn, and since I used to do the newspapers myself, I know that customers will complain if you pull into their driveways at 2:30am to deliver the paper. Aside from that, if the customer calls and complains about the location of the paper, the delivery person gets charged $5.00 by the newspaper so heaving them out the window is not a viable economical choice.

            Seventy2002, Thank you very much! Much appreciated!!
            I notice that you didn't answer my question. Was your friend ticketed for not wearing his seatbelt in a residential area or on a highway?

            Comment


            • #7
              Sarcastic answer:

              If he wasn't on his paper route when he got the ticket, I wouldn't have made this thread.

              I don't know how many customers a newspaper delivery person would find out on the highway.


              Non-Sarcastic answer:

              He was in a residential area doing single home newspaper delivery.

              Look I'm not here to get him out of a righteous ticket. It doesn't make a bit of difference to me if the ticket stands up or not, but it is reasonable that people would be exempt from the seat belt law when they have to exit their vehicles 8 or 10 times over the length of one city block, and their route consists of anywhere from 20-40 blocks.

              I'm not defending whether he was buckled up or not, just inquiring as to whether or not a delivery person in the course of their work should be exempt from having to buckle up 350 times a day.
              Last edited by Contact; 09-12-2008, 04:06 PM.
              A true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.

              -GK Chesterton

              Comment


              • #8
                Chicken**it ticket. Unless of course your friend has been pis**ng off this cop for several days and the cop finally had enough with him.

                Comment

                MR300x250 Tablet

                Collapse

                What's Going On

                Collapse

                There are currently 2774 users online. 157 members and 2617 guests.

                Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                Welcome Ad

                Collapse
                Working...
                X