Mother defends breastfeeding baby while driving (followup on idiot)

WKYC-TV/DT Cleveland ^ | 6.17.03 | Vic Gideon

[nuconvert]

Or a good way to get out of tickets

[T Minus Four]

tee hee!

[steve8714]

This is why I belong to NO MA'AM

[steve8714]

Not seat belt law, child restraint law...

[FITZ]

Several years ago I was in a van with a mother of 7.

And why was she in such a hurry that she couldn't pull over for a few minutes? Why bother having kids if their lives mean so little to you, you don't have time to provide them a little safety? Selfish morons.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

based on 257.710d of the Michigan Code, she's going to walk, possibly with a cash settlement for the Police actions. Here's the Ohio Code.

§ 4511.81 Child restraint system required; child highway safety fund. -- RC § 4511.81 is affected by Am. Sub. S.B. 123 (149 v --), effective 1-1-2004. See the 2002 Legislative Bulletin No. 4 for the version effective 1-1-2004.

(A) 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 as defined in section 4511.01 of the Revised Code, that is registered in this state 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:

(1) A child who is less than four years of age;
(2) A child who weighs less than forty pounds.

(B) When any child who is in either or both of the following categories is being transported in a motor vehicle, other than a taxicab, that is registered in this state and is owned, leased, or otherwise under the control of a nursery school, kindergarten, or day-care center, 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:

(1) A child who is less than four years of age;
(2) A child who weighs less than forty pounds.

(C) The director of public safety shall adopt such rules as are necessary to carry out this section.

(D) The failure of an operator of a motor vehicle to secure a child in a child restraint system as required by this section is not negligence imputable to the child, is not admissible as evidence in any civil action involving the rights of the child against any other person allegedly liable for injuries to the child, is not to be used as a basis for a criminal prosecution of the operator of the motor vehicle other than a prosecution for a violation of this section, and is not admissible as evidence in any criminal action involving the operator of the motor vehicle other than a prosecution for a violation of this section.

(E) This section does not apply when an emergency exists that threatens the life of any person operating a motor vehicle and to whom this section otherwise would apply or the life of any child who otherwise would be required to be restrained under this section.

(F) If a person who is not a resident of this state is charged with a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section and does not prove to the court, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person's use or nonuse of a child restraint system was in accordance with the law of the state of which the person is a resident, the court shall impose the fine levied by division (H)(2) of section 4511.99 of the Revised Code.

(G) There is hereby created in the state treasury the "child highway safety fund," consisting of fines imposed pursuant to divisions (H)(1) and (2) of section 4511.99 of the Revised Code for violations of divisions (A) and (B) of this section. The money in the fund shall be used by the department of health only to defray the cost of designating hospitals as pediatric trauma centers under section 3727.081 [3727.08.1] of the Revised Code and to establish and administer a child highway safety program. The purpose of the program shall be to educate the public about child restraint systems generally and the importance of their proper use. The program also shall include a process for providing child restraint systems to persons who meet the eligibility criteria established by the department, and a toll-free telephone number the public may utilize to obtain information about child restraint systems and their proper use.

The director of health, in accordance with Chapter 119. of the Revised Code, shall adopt any rules necessary to carry out this section, including rules establishing the criteria a person must meet in order to receive a child restraint system under the department's child restraint system program; provided that rules relating to the verification of pediatric trauma centers shall not be adopted under this section.

HISTORY: 139 v H 605 (Eff 3-7-83); 141 v S 54 (Eff 5-6-86); 141 v H 428 (Eff 12-23-86); 142 v S 53 (Eff 10-20-87); 144 v S 98 (Eff 11-12-92); 145 v H 381 (Eff 6-23-94); 148 v H 138 (Eff 11-3-2000); 149 v H 94. Eff 6-6-2001.

The effective date is set by section 206 of HB 94.

[Calvin Locke]

I had a customer that said the strangest thing he ever saw in Harvard Square, was a woman breast feeding while riding a bicycle.

Speaking of vans, I remember some news story about a woman who just bought a caravan with cruise control. Urban Myth Alert?
She engaged it, and went in to the back to take care of the baby.

Her line was "The salesman said it would [practically] drive itself.

[Chemist_Geek]

Hmm. Interesting. I'm not sure with what she is charged; but clearly, a charge of failure to properly restrain a child passenger will not stand up.

A charge under Ohio Code § 4511.202 might stand up.

§ 4511.202 Operating a motor vehicle without reasonable control.

No person shall operate a motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar on any street, highway, or property open to the public for vehicular traffic without being in reasonable control of the vehicle, trolley, or streetcar

I can't seem to find a parallel to MCL 257.677 in the Ohio code, but I haven't looked that hard.

[RgnadKzin]

The question is not: Is she crazy?
The question is: Should she be charged for doing something that is lawful?

What does the LAW say? or should we care?

1st, we take risks every day. Do we live our lives in fear or do we take reasonable risks? Whether or not you feel this is too great a risk is irrelevant. It is what she feels is a reasonable risk. At interstate speeds, it is unlikely that the child would have survived an accident even if the child were in a restraint.

2nd, do we govern our conduct based upon public opinion, or do we base our conduct on the written law?

Here is the Michigan law:
http://michiganlegislature.org/law/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-257-710d&userid=

257.710d Child restraint system required; exceptions; violation as civil infraction; points; abstract; exemption by rules; alternate means of protection.

(1) Except as provided in this section, or as otherwise provided by law, a rule promulgated pursuant to the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, or federal regulation, each driver transporting a child less than 4 years of age in a motor vehicle shall properly secure that child in a child restraint system that meets the standards prescribed in 49 C.F.R. 571.213.

(2) This section does not apply to any child being nursed.

Pretty unequivocable isn't it?
If you are the driver and I am in your car and the child is not in restraint, who gets the ticket? The driver.
If she is the only adult in the car and she is nursing, she is exempt. The statute above does not say '... by a passenger'

But she's in Ohio, so she should follow Ohio law!!!

Here is the Ohio law:
http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing.com/oh/lpExt.dll/PORC/16f81/17778/179c2?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

Subsection (F) says that the troopers must look to the law of the state where she maintains a residence:

(F) If a person who is not a resident of this state is charged with a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section and does not prove to the court, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person's use or nonuse of a child restraint system was in accordance with the law of the state of which the person is a resident, the court shall impose the fine levied by division (H)(2) of section 4511.99 of the Revised Code.

Now, I see from some people here that this is supposed to be negligence. Most all of the states have a statute akin to this one:

Subsection (D) The failure of an operator of a motor vehicle to secure a child in a child restraint system as required by this section is not negligence imputable to the child, is not admissible as evidence in any civil action involving the rights of the child against any other person allegedly liable for injuries to the child, is not to be used as a basis for a criminal prosecution of the operator of the motor vehicle other than a prosecution for a violation of this section, and is not admissible as evidence in any criminal action involving the operator of the motor vehicle other than a prosecution for a violation of this section.

Charging her for negligence is therefore improper.

The fact of the matter is that the troopers have a duty to know the law. They failed in that duty and stopped her for something for which she could not be found guilty.

Then they impounder her car and put her in jail.

Then they added two new unfounded charges a month later when she would not cop a plea.

Finally, I know that this woman has been assaulted twice by the police. I know that she has been raped at gunpoint while she attended the US Naval Academy. She does not pull over until she gets to a safe place with witnesses.

Your failure to be informed of the facts and law in this situation does not make her a wacko.

[mhking]

Two words: Child endangerment.

'Nuff said.

[Koblenz]

Some things just shouldn't be done while driving, and Breat Feeding is one of them. Sex is another (remember that dumb movie that's on comedy central about once a week where Charlie Sheen had sex with Kristy Swanson during a police chase?). Reminds me of a funny story. My mom was driving a friend and me when I was about 14. Car ahead of us on the highway was swerving all over the place. We finally pass the car and look over, and there's a guy driving, and the girl in the passenger seat is all over him. My mom was pretty frustrated by then, and said, "Well of course he's swerving all over the place. She has her hands down his..." then realized that there were two 14 year old boys in the car, and thus finished her sentence by saying, "Socks!". For us 14 year olds, we thought that was about the funniest thing ever, as we knew what was going on...

[mhking]

Sex is another

I'll have to dig it up, but there was a case this week where the driver of a car where he and a stripper were engaged in making "the beast with two backs" while he was driving down the road went off the road and hit something, impaling said stripper with the steering wheel, and leaving the driver with the mentality of an 11 year-old.

The driver's been sentenced to 10 years...

[RgnadKzin]

Obviously, you failed to read subsection (D) above.

It specifically states that a violation of the child restraint law cannot be used as evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding other than for a violation of the child restraint law.

This also addresses the post made earlier about throwing other violations at her if they can't do child restraint. There is no evidence that she was endangering anyone else.

So it really does not matter whether you think it is child endangerment or not, it is what the law says.

Or do we have to govern our conduct based on public opinion?

[Chemist_Geek]

Or do we have to govern our conduct based on public opinion?

Err, yes. Even in an anarchy, if all your neighbors don't like what you're doing, it's effectively illegal.

[mhking]

That's open to interpretation. Violation or not, it is endangerment because, since the child is not in a seat (not child seat, but seat, period), it could easily be tossed from the moving vehicle. Not only that, if you really want to pick nits, state law in most states indicates that ANYTHING that distracts the operator of a vehicle from maintaining 100% attention and control of that vehicle is grounds for "wreckless driving" or whatever it is termed in the state in question - this at the discretion of the arresting officer.

In other words, something as asinine as drinking coffee or talking on a cell-phone could be handled that way, if you really wanted to closely interpret the law.

In any event, child welfare authorities work loosely with the law in that regard; this would certainly fall within their pervue in that regard.

If a state's attorney wished, he/she could make this stick in some form.

Bottom line is that this woman is a moron; and a danger to ME as a driver on the highways. I don't want to be any damn where near her when she is idiotically being distracted by latching her child onto her breast while trying to drive. If that is the extent of her decision-making skills (or lack of the above, as the case may be), then I would submit that her judgement in taking appropriate care not to hit MY vehicle is piss poor at best.

[RgnadKzin]

Until my conduct arises to the level of a breach of the peace, you have no cause of action. Until you can properly allege ACTUAL harm or damage to person or property by act or negligence, then I can do as I will.

Or is this no longer a FreeRepublic?

[BSunday]

I myself am wondering what was so important that she apparently had no time to observe basic safety common sense. I wish the reporters would have asked/reported the reasons why she didn't simply pull over as you rightly suggested.

[RgnadKzin]

If she stops at the rest stop, changes the child's pants, feeds her some applesauce, puts the nursing pillow in her lap, latches the child on, then proceeds, there is no distraction.

The question is again: Do we care what the law says or do we ignore it?

[BSunday]

Child safety seats aside, breastfeeding while driving is child endangerment.

[mhking]

Finally, I know that this woman has been assaulted twice by the police. I know that she has been raped at gunpoint while she attended the US Naval Academy. She does not pull over until she gets to a safe place with witnesses.

Your failure to be informed of the facts and law in this situation does not make her a wacko.

The police officer pulling her over does not know this; no one else knows this, Barrister. All they know is that a lady is distracted from driving by attempting to latch a child to her chest as opposed to either pulling over to tend to business or to give the child a bottle of milk which the mother has taken the time to prepare prior to her trip.

All the cop knows is that this woman has endangered OTHER people by her erratic driving.

Finally, my "failure to be informed" certainly does not make her a wacko. But her decision to endanger others (fine, I WON'T include her child since you're hiding behind your interpretation of a poorly worded law) in other vehicles traveling at high speed on the Turnpike.

I don't have any sympathy for her. Based on the evidence, she deserves to be convicted for her poor decision.

As for her child; I'd submit that any trial evidence be presented to the appropriate child welfare authorities.