Posted on 06/19/2003 7:36:03 PM PDT by mhking
Edited on 06/23/2003 2:48:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
PORTAGE COUNTY -- A mother traveling from Detroit to Pittsburgh got into trouble in Portage County while trying to drive and breastfeed her baby at the same time.
Twenty-nine-year-old Catherine Donkers had fed the baby before she left Detroit but said her seven-month-old daughter was hungry again.
"I knew I was doing nothing wrong when I was breastfeeding her," Donkers said.
Donkers doesn't consider her actions excessively dangerous.
"I think there are lots of things we do when we put ourselves at risk, just by the very fact that I'm in a car and there's lots of car accidents every single day," she said. "I think it would be reasonable to say even that's a danger."
A truck driver apparently saw it as a danger and called the highway patrol. But Donkers wouldn't pull over for police until she got to a tollbooth.
"I've directed her to, that when she doesn't feel safe, she goes to a public place," said her husband, Brad Barnhill.
At the tollbooth, Donkers didn't give the trooper a driver's license. She instead pulled out an affidavit as identification and got cited for not having a license.
The couple also claims she did nothing wrong, saying Michigan law has an exemption to its child restraint law for nursing mothers.
They claim that since the turnpike is an interstate, drivers can follow the laws of their home state. But the highway patrol says that as long as the stop occurred in Ohio, they have to abide by Ohio laws.
The couple has done extensive research on the law and believes in a strict adherence to them. Donkers is facing child endangering and child seat violations among other charges. Her and her husband say they plan to fight all charges and will file a counter suit.
meeting applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards
The words you quote are in my post. And taken out of context, which is what you've done, they can be twisted to mean just about anything, as you've done.
Your selective editing is something I expect from a RAT.
Let's look at the entire sentence to see if it means what you've slanted it to mean, shall we?
I've bolded your selective edit below.
No parent or legal guardian, when present in a motor vehicle, as defined in Section 27315, shall permit his or her child or ward to be transported upon a highway in the motor vehicle without providing and properly securing the child or ward, in a child passenger restraint system meeting applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards unless the child or ward is at least one of the following:
So, does this paragraph describe where in the vehicle to place the carseat?
It does not.
It simply says that no child may be transported in a carseat that doesn't meet federal safety standards.
It's right there, in the chart I provided.
What is? This:
All children age 12 and under should ride in the back seat
Did you miss the word, "should" in the chart you passed?
Obviously you think the word, "should" means the same thing as "shall" or "must".
Well, Howlin. They don't mean the same thing, legally or otherwise.
You just don't get it, do you, Howlin? The federal government doesn't make the rules of the road. The individual states do. That's why there's a "California Vehicle Code", a "Michigan Vehicle Code", a "Ohio Vehicle Code", a "North Carolina Vehicle Code" and not a "U.S. Federal Vehicle Code"
But, let's confine our discussion to the states in question, Michigan and Ohio.
In post #29, Hermann the Cherusker posted the relevent Michigan vehicle code that deals with child restraint systems. Michigan doesn't require that a carseat be placed in the back seat.
Don't believe me. Click on the link a read the law for yourself.
Here's the Ohio code:
Ohio Revised Code, section 4511.81, states when any child who is in either or both of the following categories is being transported in a motor vehicle, other than a taxicab or public safety vehicle that is registered in Ohio and is required by the United States Department of Transportation to be equipped with seat belts at the time of manufacture or assembly, the operator of the motor vehicle shall have the child properly secured in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions in a child restraint system that meets federal motor vehicle safety standards:
Notice that the statute makes no mention of exactly where in the vehicle the car seat is to be placed, only that whatever car seat is used has to meet federal safety standards.
You state, North Carolina, does have a requirement, but according to the relevent statute in your state, children are supposed to be place in a carseat in the back seat, but failure to do so does not constitute negligence.
Don't believe me, though. Read it for yourself: (Be sure to read subsection d, part 3)
º 20-137.1. Child restraint systems required.
(a) Every driver who is transporting one or more passengers of less than 16 years of age shall have all such passengers properly secured in a child passenger restraint system or seat belt which meets federal standards applicable at the time of its manufacture.
(a1)(See editor's note for applicability) A child less than five years of age and less than 40 pounds in weight shall be properly secured in a weight-appropriate child passenger restraint system. In vehicles equipped with an active passenger-side front air bag, if the vehicle has a rear seat, a child less than five years of age and less than 40 pounds in weight shall be properly secured in a rear seat, unless the child restraint system is designed for use with air bags.
(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply: (i) to ambulances or other emergency vehicles; (ii) when the child's personal needs are being attended to; (iii) if all seating positions equipped with child passenger restraint systems or seat belts are occupied; or (iv) to vehicles which are not required by federal law or regulation to be equipped with seat belts.
(c) Any driver found responsible for a violation of this section may be punished by a penalty not to exceed twenty-five dollars ($25.00), even when more than one child less than 16 years of age was not properly secured in a restraint system. No driver charged under this section for failure to have a child under five years of age properly secured in a restraint system shall be convicted if he produces at the time of his trial proof satisfactory to the court that he has subsequently acquired an approved child passenger restraint system.
(d) A violation of this section shall have all of the following consequences:
(1) Two drivers license points shall be assessed pursuant to G.S. 20-16.
(2) No insurance points shall be assessed.
(3) The violation shall not constitute negligence per se or contributory negligence per se.
(4) The violation shall not be evidence of negligence or contributory negligence. (1981, c. 804, ss. 1, 4, 5; 1985, c. 218; 1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 748, s. 1; 1999-183, ss. 6, 7; 2000-117, s. 1.)
It's now obvious that funny things like facts mean nothing to you.
Here's a link that you can use to check the car seat laws for all 50 states. Car Seat Laws
The legal requirement for the placement of car seats inside a motor vehicle varies from state to state. Some states have a requirement. Most do not.
Whether you agree or not does not matter.
You are wrong.
Natch, you'll never admit it.
But, that's okay. You're in good company. RATs never admit they're wrong, either.
Wow! I didn't know about this stuff. I must have been living in a cave all these years. I guess sexual predators come in all colors. Thanks for the information.
I think in the People's Republic of Illinois it is. My husband and I wanted to take my 5 yo nephew to a restaurant in our truck but couldn't. My sister in law said it's because children under 12 have to sit in the back seat, it's the law. Our truck has no back seat.
Shame on you for thinking that this guy or his wife is a responsible adult. Their time is more important than other's safety.
It doesn't weigh nearly as much as straight aluminum foil.
'nuf said.
Well, apparently not the ones in Benton Harbor...
My late father served on an admiralty court that defined "reasonably prudent man" for all 7th Fleet admiralty cases.
That definition was "someone who checks for paper before sitting on the commode."
ROFL! Do you have the citation? I'm sure I'll eventually have an opportunity to use it...
You got it! Bingo! There is the perfect defense. Breast feeding mama didn't have time to stop because Hillary! was chasing her down the highway!
I can: "Test case."
It seems that the folks in question have considered, possibly in this order: 1. Their rights; 2. Responsibility as it applies to any immediate consequences to them.
But not: responsibility as it applies to others' lives.
They could sell tickets to the hearings on this case..!
Actually, if you follow the link I posted you can see for yourself what the laws of your state say about child restraint systems.
I checked and found no mention of pick-ups or back seats for Illinois. I might add that Illinois takes a similar tack that North Carolina does. Namely, that even if you're in violation of their child restraint laws, there's no negligence. They even go on to say that the violation can't be used as evidence in any civil legal proceeding. Note Section 5.
Here's what Illinois has to say about child restraints:
Illinois (625 ILCS 25/)
(625 ILCS 25/1) Sec. 1. Title and citation. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Child Passenger Protection Act".
(Source: P.A. 83-8.)
(625 ILCS 25/2)
Sec. 2. Legislative Finding - Purpose. The General Assembly finds that a substantial number of passengers under the age of 6 years riding in motor vehicles, which are most frequently operated by a parent, annually die or sustain serious physical injury as a direct result of not being placed in a child passenger restraint system. The General Assembly further finds that the safety of the motoring public is seriously threatened as indicated by the significant number of traffic accidents annually caused, directly or indirectly, by driver distraction or other impairment of driving ability induced by the movement or actions of unrestrained passengers under the age of 6 years. It is the purpose of this Act to further protect the health, safety and welfare of motor vehicle passengers under the age of 6 years and the motoring public through the proper utilization of approved child restraint systems. (Source: P.A. 83-8.)
(625 ILCS 25/3)
Sec. 3. Definitions. The terms "highway", "motor vehicle", "owner", "police officer", "recreational vehicle", "roadway" and "street" as used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, have the meaning ascribed to them in The Illinois Vehicle Code, as now or hereafter amended. For the purpose of this Act, "motor vehicle" does not include motorcycles. (Source: P.A. 83-8.)
(625 ILCS 25/4)
Sec. 4. When any person is transporting a child in this State under the age of 4 years in a non-commercial motor vehicle of the first division, a motor vehicle of the second division with a gross vehicle weight rating of 9,000 pounds or less, or a recreational vehicle on the roadways, streets or highways of this State, such person shall be responsible for providing for the protection of such child by properly securing him or her in a child restraint system. The parent or legal guardian of a child under the age of 4 years shall provide a child restraint system to any person who transports his or her child. Any person who transports the child of another shall not be in violation of this Section unless a child restraint system was provided by the parent or legal guardian but not used to transport the child. For purposes of this Section and Section 4a, "child restraint system" means any device which meets the standards of the United States Department of Transportation designed to restrain, seat or position children. (Source: P.A. 88-17.)
(625 ILCS 25/4a)
Sec. 4a. Every person, when transporting a child 4 years of age or older but under the age of 16, as provided in Section 4 of this Act, shall be responsible for securing that child in either a child restraint system or seat belts. (Source: P.A. 92-171, eff. 1-1-02.)
(625 ILCS 25/4b)
Sec. 4b. Children 6 years of age or older but under the age of 18; seat belts. Every person under the age of 18 years, when transporting a child 6 years of age or older but under the age of 18 years, as provided in Section 4 of this Act, shall be responsible for securing that child in a properly adjusted and fastened seat safety belt. (Source: P.A. 90-369, eff. 1-1-98.)
(625 ILCS 25/5)
Sec. 5. In no event shall a person's failure to secure a child under 6 years of age in an approved child restraint system or properly secure such child, if age 4 or 5, in a seat belt constitute contributory negligence or be admissible as evidence in the trial of any civil action. (Source: P.A. 86-1241.)
(625 ILCS 25/6)
Sec. 6. A violation of this Act is a petty offense punishable by a fine of not more than $50 waived upon proof of possession of an approved child restraint system as defined under this Act. A subsequent violation of this Act is a petty offense punishable by a fine of not more than $100. (Source: P.A. 92-173, eff. 1-1-02.)
Brad does not seem to subscribe to the idea "Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD."
This is just deep-fried unbelievable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.