Thursday, December 28, 2017

CIVIL PENALTIES FOR PASSING STOPPED SCHOOL BUS IN NC

                www.kisslinglaw.com          


New Civil penalties for passing stopped school bus in NC.  Thanks to NC SOG and Shea Denning for the information.





Four years ago, the General Assembly increased the criminal fine for passing a stopped school bus and enacted new license revocation and registration hold provisions. During the previous year—2012—there had been more than 1,300 misdemeanor charges for passing a stopped school bus and three felony charges, two for unlawfully passing a stopped school bus and striking a person and one for doing so and causing death. Not much has changed. In 2016, there were 1,400 misdemeanor charges for passing a stopped school bus and three felony charges for doing so and striking a person. This year, the General Assembly took a different tack. S.L. 2017-188 (S 55) authorizes counties to adopt ordinances that enforce the provisions of G.S. 20-217 by means of automated school bus safety cameras and impose civil penalties for violations.
The rule. G.S. 20-217(a) requires the driver of a vehicle that approaches a school bus from any direction on the same street, highway, or public vehicular area to stop and remain stopped when (1) the bus is displaying its mechanical stop signal or flashing red lights and (2) is stopped for the purpose of allowing passengers to board or leave the bus. The driver of the other vehicle may not move, pass, or attempt to pass the school bus until after (1) the mechanical stop signal has been withdrawn, (2) the flashing red stoplights have been turned off, and (3) the bus has started to move. (The exception for vehicles traveling in the opposite direction on a divided roadway is discussed here.)
Criminal penalties. Passing a stopped school bus in violation of G.S. 20-217(a) is a Class 1 misdemeanor. A driver who willfully violates G.S. 20-217(a) and strikes a person is guilty of a Class I felony. A driver who willfully violates G.S. 20-217(a), strikes a person, and thereby causes the person’s death, is guilty of a Class H felony.
Civil enforcement. New G.S. 153A-246 permits counties to adopt ordinances for the civil enforcement of G.S. 20-217 by means of an automated school bus safety camera installed and operated on the school bus. (Absent express authorization, this type of regulation would be preempted.) Such an ordinance applies only to misdemeanor violations of G.S. 20-217—not to violations that result in injury or death.
Issuance of citation. New G.S. 153A-246(b) sets forth the procedures for civil enforcement. The county must issue a citation notifying the registered owner of the motor vehicle of the violation. The owner must receive the citation within 60 days of the violation. The citation must include an image taken from the automated school bus camera that shows the vehicle involved in the violation. It must also include an affirmation from a law enforcement officer that his or her inspection of the image reveals that the owner’s motor vehicle violated the ordinance.
Hearing. A person who wishes to contest a citation must, within 30 days of receiving the citation, request a hearing in writing. The person must also submit an affidavit stating the basis for contesting the citation. If the registered owner avers that the vehicle was, at the time of the violation, in the care, custody or control of another person or company, that person or company may then be issued a citation.
The county must institute a nonjudicial administrative hearing process for contested citations or penalties. A person may appeal an adverse administrative decision to district court.
Civil penalty. Violations of such an ordinance are noncriminal violations for which no insurance or driver’s license points may be assessed. The civil penalty for the first offense is $400. The penalty for the second offense is $750. Each subsequent ordinance violation is subject to a $1,000 penalty. A person who fails to pay the civil penalty or request a hearing within 30 days after receiving the citation waives the right to contest responsibility and is subject to a late penalty of $100 in addition to the assessed civil penalty.
Registration hold. Effective July 25, 2018, DMV must refuse to register any motor vehicle owned by a person who has failed to pay a civil penalty assessed under a local ordinance adopted pursuant to G.S. 153A-246. This provision applies to the registration of any motor vehicle whose owner’s failure to pay is reported by a county to DMV on or after July 25, 2017.
No civil enforcement in the case of criminal prosecution. If a person is charged in a criminal pleading with violating G.S. 20-217, the charging law enforcement officer must so notify the county office responsible for processing civil citations. The county may not impose a civil penalty against the person arising out of the same facts as those for which the person is charged in a criminal pleading. If a civil penalty based on the same conduct was previously imposed and paid, the county must refund the civil penalty with interest.
Criminal prosecution encouraged. G.S. 153A-246(e) states that the General Assembly “encourages criminal prosecution for violation of G.S. 20-217” when school bus camera photographs and video provide sufficient evidence to support such a prosecution. Amendments to G.S. 20-217(h) clarify, however, that “failure to produce a photograph or video recorded by an automated school bus safety camera” does not preclude prosecution.
Images as evidence. New G.S. 115C-242.1(d) requires that any photographs or videos recorded by an automated school bus safety camera that capture a violation of G.S. 20-217 be provided to the investigating law enforcement agency for use as evidence in a criminal prosecution. When such a camera is installed, it must be identified by a warning sign conspicuously posted on the school bus.

Friday, December 22, 2017

FAILURE TO YIELD FOR PEDESTRIANS

Image result for crosswalk

www.kisslinglaw.com

Below is a great blog from Shea Denning about Failing to Yield to Pedestrians.  The reason for revisiting this issue today is that while in court today for my client's ticket for this charge, it was discovered that the local police department was running a sting on this issue.  This is not a bad thing, however, putting an officer on both sides of the street and waiting for the driver to look at one potential crosser and then having the other officer jump into the street so it looks like the driver did not stop for the pedestrian is a little too much to swallow.  I do not think we need to trick drivers into  breaking the law.  It is clear from their actions that this particular agency was just trying to see how many tickets they could write.  Not what I call "to serve and protect".

As always, thanks to Shea Denning at the NC School of Government for her fine work.

This blog post was inspired by my lunchtime jog across campus last week, and, more specifically, by the driver of the car who sped toward me as I darted across the crosswalk on Raleigh Road.  You know who you are . . .

Pedestrians have the right of way. It’s a mantra I used frequently as an undergraduate at UNC.  But is it true?  And did it give me the right to walk brazenly in front of traffic on Franklin Street lo so many years ago?  Yes and no.

Several provisions of Chapter 20 govern the rights of pedestrians. First, G.S. 20-173(a) provides that when there are no traffic control signals a vehicle must yield the right of way to a pedestrian crossing within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at or near an intersection by “slowing down or stopping if need be.” The term “unmarked crosswalk” is not defined In Chapter 20, but the state supreme court has defined it as “that area within an intersection which also lies within the lateral boundaries of a sidewalk projected across the intersection.” Anderson v. Carter, 272 N.C. 426, 430, 158 S.E.2d 607, 610 (1968). To have an “unmarked crosswalk,” there must be a sidewalk or ” ‘sidewalk like area'” on at least one side of the intersection.  Tucker v. Bruton, 102 N.C. App. 117, 401 S.E.2d 130 (1991).

G.S. 20-173(b) requires the driver of a vehicle entering or exiting an alley, building entrance, private road, or driveway to yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian or person riding a bicycle approaching on any sidewalk or walkway that extends across the alley, entrance, road, or driveway.

But what about intersections that do have traffic control signals?  If the intersection has, in addition to stop lights, pedestrian signals that instruct pedestrians to “WALK” or “DON’T WALK,” pedestrians must comply with those signals. G.S. 20-172(b). A pedestrian facing a “WALK” signal may proceed across the road and drivers of vehicles must give them the right of way. “DON’T WALK” can’t be taken so literally.  When this signal appears, a pedestrian may not begin to cross the road, but a pedestrian who is already in the roadway may continue to proceed to a sidewalk or safety island while this signal is showing.

If an intersection has signals for traffic but not for pedestrians, pedestrians must follow the vehicular signals “as they apply to pedestrian traffic.” G.S. 20-172(c). And turning vehicles must yield to pedestrians within marked or unmarked crosswalks. Wagoner v. Butcher, 6 N.C. App. 221, 170 S.E.2d 151 (1969).

Pedestrians crossing the road at any place other than a crosswalk must “yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway.” G.S. 20-174(a). And jaywalking is prohibited. Pedestrians may only cross between adjacent intersections with traffic control signals within a marked crosswalk. (If you’ve ever wondered why crossing in the middle of the street is called jaywalking, Oxford can explain.)

There is a catch-all pedestrian protection provision in G.S. 20-174(e) which requires that drivers “exercise due care” to avoid running into pedestrians on the roadway and “exercise proper precaution” upon seeing a “child or any confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway.” Likewise, G.S. 20-155 requires drivers to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing within a marked crosswalk or “any regular pedestrian crossing included in the prolongation of the lateral boundary lines of the adjacent sidewalk at the end of a block” except at intersections where traffic is being directed by officers (think Skipper Bowles and Manning Drive after a Carolina basketball game victory).

Violation of any of the above-cited provisions is an infraction, punishable by a $100 penalty. G.S. 20-176. But a violation by a driver that results in a pedestrian’s death constitutes the more serious offense of misdemeanor death by vehicle.

So, drivers, if you see me or anyone else in the crosswalk, slow down, or even stop if need be.

Friday, December 15, 2017

CIVIL PENALTIES FOR PASSING STOPPED SCHOOL BUS IN NC

                          
www.kisslinglaw.com


New Civil penalties for passing stopped school bus in NC.  Thanks to NC SOG and Shea Denning for the information.


Four years ago, the General Assembly increased the criminal fine for passing a stopped school bus and enacted new license revocation and registration hold provisions. During the previous year—2012—there had been more than 1,300 misdemeanor charges for passing a stopped school bus and three felony charges, two for unlawfully passing a stopped school bus and striking a person and one for doing so and causing death. Not much has changed. In 2016, there were 1,400 misdemeanor charges for passing a stopped school bus and three felony charges for doing so and striking a person. This year, the General Assembly took a different tack. S.L. 2017-188 (S 55) authorizes counties to adopt ordinances that enforce the provisions of G.S. 20-217 by means of automated school bus safety cameras and impose civil penalties for violations.
The rule. G.S. 20-217(a) requires the driver of a vehicle that approaches a school bus from any direction on the same street, highway, or public vehicular area to stop and remain stopped when (1) the bus is displaying its mechanical stop signal or flashing red lights and (2) is stopped for the purpose of allowing passengers to board or leave the bus. The driver of the other vehicle may not move, pass, or attempt to pass the school bus until after (1) the mechanical stop signal has been withdrawn, (2) the flashing red stoplights have been turned off, and (3) the bus has started to move. (The exception for vehicles traveling in the opposite direction on a divided roadway is discussed here.)
Criminal penalties. Passing a stopped school bus in violation of G.S. 20-217(a) is a Class 1 misdemeanor. A driver who willfully violates G.S. 20-217(a) and strikes a person is guilty of a Class I felony. A driver who willfully violates G.S. 20-217(a), strikes a person, and thereby causes the person’s death, is guilty of a Class H felony.
Civil enforcement. New G.S. 153A-246 permits counties to adopt ordinances for the civil enforcement of G.S. 20-217 by means of an automated school bus safety camera installed and operated on the school bus. (Absent express authorization, this type of regulation would be preempted.) Such an ordinance applies only to misdemeanor violations of G.S. 20-217—not to violations that result in injury or death.
Issuance of citation. New G.S. 153A-246(b) sets forth the procedures for civil enforcement. The county must issue a citation notifying the registered owner of the motor vehicle of the violation. The owner must receive the citation within 60 days of the violation. The citation must include an image taken from the automated school bus camera that shows the vehicle involved in the violation. It must also include an affirmation from a law enforcement officer that his or her inspection of the image reveals that the owner’s motor vehicle violated the ordinance.
Hearing. A person who wishes to contest a citation must, within 30 days of receiving the citation, request a hearing in writing. The person must also submit an affidavit stating the basis for contesting the citation. If the registered owner avers that the vehicle was, at the time of the violation, in the care, custody or control of another person or company, that person or company may then be issued a citation.
The county must institute a nonjudicial administrative hearing process for contested citations or penalties. A person may appeal an adverse administrative decision to district court.
Civil penalty. Violations of such an ordinance are noncriminal violations for which no insurance or driver’s license points may be assessed. The civil penalty for the first offense is $400. The penalty for the second offense is $750. Each subsequent ordinance violation is subject to a $1,000 penalty. A person who fails to pay the civil penalty or request a hearing within 30 days after receiving the citation waives the right to contest responsibility and is subject to a late penalty of $100 in addition to the assessed civil penalty.
Registration hold. Effective July 25, 2018, DMV must refuse to register any motor vehicle owned by a person who has failed to pay a civil penalty assessed under a local ordinance adopted pursuant to G.S. 153A-246. This provision applies to the registration of any motor vehicle whose owner’s failure to pay is reported by a county to DMV on or after July 25, 2017.
No civil enforcement in the case of criminal prosecution. If a person is charged in a criminal pleading with violating G.S. 20-217, the charging law enforcement officer must so notify the county office responsible for processing civil citations. The county may not impose a civil penalty against the person arising out of the same facts as those for which the person is charged in a criminal pleading. If a civil penalty based on the same conduct was previously imposed and paid, the county must refund the civil penalty with interest.
Criminal prosecution encouraged. G.S. 153A-246(e) states that the General Assembly “encourages criminal prosecution for violation of G.S. 20-217” when school bus camera photographs and video provide sufficient evidence to support such a prosecution. Amendments to G.S. 20-217(h) clarify, however, that “failure to produce a photograph or video recorded by an automated school bus safety camera” does not preclude prosecution.
Images as evidence. New G.S. 115C-242.1(d) requires that any photographs or videos recorded by an automated school bus safety camera that capture a violation of G.S. 20-217 be provided to the investigating law enforcement agency for use as evidence in a criminal prosecution. When such a camera is installed, it must be identified by a warning sign conspicuously posted on the school bus.

Friday, December 8, 2017

Drug Impaired Driving

Image result for Drug Impaired Driving

www.kisslinglaw.com

Great article from Shea Denning at NC SOG on drug related impaired driving.

Ask someone to identify an emerging area of interest related to motor vehicle law and chances are the person will mention drugged driving. Indeed, the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy in 2010 set a goal of reducing the prevalence of drug-impaired driving by 10 percent by 2015. People who work in the field frequently cite anecdotal evidence supporting the notion that driving while impaired by drugs is becoming more common. And they usually cite anecdotal evidence in support. Are they right? Are more people these days driving while impaired by drugs?



I thought the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) might have an answer. Turns out NHTSA released a report earlier this year estimating the prevalence of alcohol and drug use by drivers and how that prevalence has changed over time. The report was based on data collected from a national roadside survey (NRS) conducted between June 2013 and March 2014. That data was compared to information collected in a 2007 NRS.

Before I reveal the results, I want to say a bit about how the researchers got them.

Survey methodology.

Researchers collected data from more than 11,000 drivers at five locations in 60 sites across the United States (four of them in North Carolina) in one two-hour Friday daytime session and four two-hour nighttime sessions.

Here is how the survey worked: Randomly-selected drivers were guided off the roadway into the research location, which usually was an empty parking lot. Research bays were demarcated by traffic cones, and each driver was directed to drive in to a specific bay. A data collector explained to the driver the purpose of the study, told the driver that that it was voluntary and anonymous, and asked for consent to continue. Drivers were offered financial incentives for completing additional parts of the survey. A driver who declined to participate was asked to provide an anonymous breath sample before the driver left the location. Drivers who were not willing to do that drove on. Nearly 80 percent of drivers participated in the survey.

For participating drivers, the data collector first obtained a passive alcohol sensor (PAS) reading. A PAS can detect alcohol in expired air around a person’s face and provides a rough indication of a person’s breath alcohol concentration.

Data collectors then questioned drivers about their general drinking behavior, driving patterns, and their driving on that particular day or evening. They then asked the drivers to provide a breath sample on a portable breath testing device, which masked the result so neither the drivers nor the data collectors saw it.

The data collector then asked the driver for a saliva sample, which was obtained by placing a collection swab in the driver’s mouth for three to five minutes. While the swab was in the person’s mouth, the person was asked to complete a written survey about his or her use of alcohol and drugs.

The data collector then asked the driver for a blood sample. Forty two percent of the drivers agreed to provide such a sample, which was then withdrawn by a phlebotomist. (Drivers received $50 for providing the blood sample.)

At the end of the study, the driver was guided back onto the roadway. If the data collector suspected that a driver may have been drinking or was otherwise impaired, a supervisor obtained a breath alcohol reading using an unmasked portable breath testing device. If the driver’s breath alcohol concentration was at or above .05, the research team ensured he or she got home safely at no charge. No driver was arrested as a result of his or her participation in the survey.

The analysis.

Saliva and blood samples collected from the drivers were analyzed for drugs that have the potential to impair driving, including over-the-counter, prescription, and illegal drugs. Among the drugs included were marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, opiates, and phencyclidine. Samples that screened positive were then subjected to confirmatory testing using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry or liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry technology.

The results.

  • 22 percent of the nearly 8,000 drivers who provided saliva or blood samples tested positive for some type of drug.
  • Drivers between the ages of 16 and 20 were least likely to test positive for drugs. Drivers between the ages of 21 and 34 were most likely to test positive.
  • The most frequently encountered drug was THC, the psychoactive substance in marijuana. THC was detected in 8.7 percent of daytime drivers and 12.7 percent of nighttime drivers.
  • Opioids and their metabolites were the second most prevalent drug, detected in 5.5 percent of daytime drivers and 4.7 percent of nighttime drivers.
  • During the daytime, the next most frequently encountered drug class was antidepressants (3.5 percent) followed by benzodiazepines (2.6 percent)
  • The third most prevalent types of drugs among nighttime drivers were cocaine and amphetamines/stimulants (2.2 percent).

The comparison.

The results of the 2013-14 NRS were compared to the 2007 NRS.

  • Nighttime drug-positive driving increased from 16.3 percent in 2007 to 20.1 percent in 2013-14.
  • The prevalence of THC-positive drivers increased from 8.7 percent to 12.7 percent (an increase of 46 percent).

The limitations.

The authors of the NHTSA report note that the presence of drugs does not equate to drug impairment. They explain that the study’s purpose was to estimate drug prevalence, not to determine whether drugs affect driving performance or have an impact on crash risk. In fact, the authors noted, some prescribed medications may actually improve the driving of certain individuals. Questions about impairment and crash risk must be determined (and, the authors note, are currently being examined) in other studies.

A 2016 NHTSA-sponsored Drug and Alcohol Crash Risk Study examined the risks associated with drug- and alcohol-positive driving. The study used data from crash-involved and non-crash-involved drivers over a 20-month period in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The study confirmed previous research indicating alcohol is a greater contributor to crash risk than drugs. And when age, gender, race/ethnicity, and alcohol consumption were accounted for, the researchers found no significant contribution of drugs to crash risk.

A July 2017 NHTSA report to the U.S. Congress on marijuana-impaired driving noted that while “ethyl alcohol is a relatively simple drug whose absorption, distribution, and elimination from the body along with the behavioral and cognitive effects are fairly well documented,” the “absorption, distribution and elimination from the body of marijuana (and many other drugs), along with the behavioral and cognitive effects is very different.” In addition, the report stated that less is known about the impairing effects of marijuana use than alcohol consumption on driving-related skills. There have been fewer studies of marijuana’s effects on driving, and research methods have not been consistent. The studies that exist consistently determine that the level of THC in the blood and the degree of a person’s impairment do not appear to be closely related.

The bottom line.

The NHTSA report based on the 2013-14 NRS does not definitively establish that drug-impaired driving is more prevalent today than in the past. It does, however, show that a substantial and growing percentage of drivers have detectable quantities of drugs in their systems.

Many policy makers are not waiting for definitive research results on the incidence of drug-impaired driving to combat its dangers. In August 2013, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) partnered with NHTSA to develop the online Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) program, a program designed to improve a law enforcement officer’s ability to identify drugged drivers on the road. And several states have adopted statutes that prohibit driving with any drug or metabolite or a specified concentration of drug or metabolite in his or her body.

Drugged driving laws in NC.

North Carolina’s general impaired driving statute, G.S. 20-138.1 prohibits a person from driving a vehicle on a street, highway or public vehicular area (a) while under the influence of an impairing substance; or (2) after having consumed sufficient alcohol that he has, at any relevant time after the driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more; or (3) with any amount of a Schedule I controlled substance, as listed in G.S. 90-89, or its metabolites in his blood or urine. In addition, G.S. 20-138.3 prohibits a person under 21 from driving a motor vehicle on a highway or public vehicular area while he has remaining in his body any alcohol or controlled substance previously consumed.

A bill introduced last April (H 766) would have amended the state’s DWI laws to prohibit a person from driving with the following additional controlled substances or their metabolites in his or her blood or urine: cocaine, phencyclidine, methamphetamine, or ketamine. The bill also would have prohibited driving with certain THC levels. The bill was referred to the Committee on Judiciary I, and did not reemerge for further consideration.

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

NEW REGULATIONS FOR AUTOMATED CARS

                          
www.kisslinglaw.com

Great blog from NC SOG on new legislature on automated cars.
Last month, the General Assembly ratified a bill authorizing the operation of fully autonomous vehicles on state roadways. The legislation is effective December 1, 2017.  If you expect your car to begin driving you to work later this fall, however, you’ll be disappointed. In this instance, legislation has outpaced the technology it regulates.
The legislation. North Carolina joined nineteen other states in regulating the operation of the autonomous vehicles when Governor Roy Cooper signed House Bill 469 last week.
S.L. 2017-166 (H 469) enacts new Article 18 in Chapter 20 (G.S. § 20-400 – 403) to regulate the operation of fully autonomous vehicles. A “fully autonomous vehicle” is a motor vehicle that is equipped with an automated driving system that does not require an occupant of the vehicle to perform any portion of the operational or tactical control of the vehicle when the automated driving system is engaged. In fact, to qualify as a fully autonomous vehicle any equipment that permits an occupant to perform part of the driving task must be stowed or made unusable so that an occupant cannot assume control of the vehicle when the automated driving system is engaged.
In engineering lingo, fully autonomous vehicles are classified at SAE Levels 4 and 5. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration explains these classifications this way:
At SAE Level 4, an automated system can conduct the driving task and monitor the driving environment, and the human need not take back control, but the automated system can operate only in certain environments and under certain conditions; and
At SAE Level 5, the automated system can perform all driving tasks, under all conditions that a human driver could perform them.
Vehicle requirements. New G.S. 20-401(g) permits the operation of fully autonomous vehicles on North Carolina roadways if the vehicle meets all of the following requirements:
(1) the vehicle complies with state and federal law and has been certified as being in compliance with federal motor vehicle safety standards;
(2) if involved in a crash, the vehicle is capable of stopping at the scene, contacting the appropriate law enforcement agency to report the crash, calling for medical assistance, and remaining at the scene until authorized to leave;
(3) the vehicle can achieve a “minimal risk condition” (meaning that if the automatic driving system fails, the vehicle comes to a complete stop);
(4) the vehicle is covered by a motor vehicle liability policy meeting statutory requirements; and
(5) the vehicle is lawfully registered.
No license necessary. New G.S. 20-401(a) states that the operator of a fully autonomous vehicle with the automated driving system engaged is not required to be licensed to drive.
The owner is responsible. New G.S. 20-401(d) provides that the person in whose name a fully autonomous vehicle is registered is responsible for any moving violations involving the vehicle.
Fully autonomous vehicles are no substitute for a babysitter. A person must be at least 12 years old to travel unsupervised in a fully autonomous vehicle. G.S. 20-401© makes it unlawful for the parent or legal guardian of a child under 12 to knowingly permit the child to occupy a fully autonomous vehicle that is in motion or that has the engine running unless the child is being supervised by a person who is at least 18 years old.
Preemption. Local governments are prohibited under new G.S. 20-401(f) from enacting laws regulating fully autonomous vehicles or vehicles that are equipped with an automated driving system. Local governments may, however, continue to regulate traffic as authorized in Chapter 153A and Chapter 160A of the General Statutes so long as the regulations apply to motor vehicles generally.
Fully Autonomous Vehicle Committee established. New G.S. 20-403 creates a Fully Autonomous Vehicle Committee within the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) and specifies the categories of persons who shall comprise the 17-member committee. The committee must meet at least four times a year to consider matters related to fully autonomous vehicle technology, review the application of state motor vehicle law to fully autonomous vehicles, make recommendations regarding the testing of fully autonomous vehicles, make recommendations for DOT rules and ordinances, and make recommendations to the General Assembly on necessary changes to state law.
Where can I get one of these vehicles?  Nowhere just yet.
Ford Motor Company says it will produce a fully autonomous vehicle by 2021. But the vehicle it promises is a Level 4 vehicle, which means that it is fully autonomous only in certain areas and under certain conditions. An industry analyst explained here that such a car may only be fully autonomous in a geo-fenced area, such as the area of Pittsburgh where Uber is testing self-driving cars.
It may be another decade before Level 5 automation—think a vehicle with no steering wheel or pedals—is available.  But when it is, North Carolina will be ready.

Thursday, January 26, 2017

NC Seat Belt Laws



 Image result for wearing your seatbelt
www.kisslinglaw.com


Great post from NC SOG.  Thanks to Shea Denning for the post.  As I teach a 4 hour safe driving course, I am amazed at the reasons young people give for not wearing their seat belts.  In one class, we had a student who wore his seat belt during the day but not at night.  His reasoning was that at night he did not want to get trapped in the car in case of an accident.  In every class, we have a least one student who claims to have a friend who lived because they were not wearing their seat belt.  Maybe it is a generational thing but I cannot imagine not wearing my seat belt.

State law has mandated seat belt use by North Carolina motorists for more than thirty years. The seat belt law has, however, changed a bit over time. As a result, not everyone is clear on who is covered, what is required, and what the penalties are for violations. This post covers the particulars of North Carolina’s seat belt requirements and addresses three common areas of confusion.
1. Everyone in the car must buckle up.
G.S. 20-135.2A(a) requires that each occupant of a motor vehicle manufactured with seat belts have a seatbelt properly fastened about his or her body when the vehicle is in forward motion on a street or highway. When it was first enacted, G.S. 20-135.2A (1985) only required seat belt use by drivers and front seat passengers. Ten years ago, the General Assembly amended the law to require that everyone in the vehicle, including rear seat passengers, buckle up.
A separate statute, G.S. 20-137.1, requires that drivers with passengers who are under 16 years of age have such passengers secured in a child passenger restraint system or seat belt.
A handful of exceptions to the seat-belts-for-all-occupants requirement are listed in G.S. 20-135.2A(c).They apply to the following persons and motor vehicles:
  • Drivers or occupants of noncommercial motor vehicles with medical or physical conditions that prevent seat belt restraint;
  • Rural letter carriers;
  • Newspaper delivery persons while delivering newspapers;
  • Drivers and passengers who frequently stop and leave their vehicles or deliver property from their vehicles if the vehicle’s speed between stops is 20 mph or less;
  • Property carrying vehicles used for agricultural purpose in intrastate commerce;
  • Motor vehicles that are not required to be equipped with seat belts under federal law;
  • Occupants of a motor home other than the driver and front seat passengers;
  • Persons in the custody of a law enforcement officer who are being transported in the back of a law enforcement vehicle; and
  • Passengers of a residential garbage or recycling truck while the truck is operating during collection rounds.

2. A motor vehicle may not be stopped for a back-seat passenger’s failure to buckle up.
A law enforcement officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that a driver or front seat passenger does not have a seat belt properly fastened about his or her body may stop the car to investigate.  A law enforcement officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that a rear seat occupant is not wearing a seat belt may not. That’s because G.S. 20-135.2A(d1) categorizes the failure to buckle up in the back seat as a secondary violation for which a vehicle may not be stopped. A law enforcement officer who has lawfully stopped a vehicle for another reason and learns in the process of a rear seat belt violation may, of course, cite the driver for this offense. Nearly as many charges were issued for unbuckled rear seat passengers in 2015 (12,847) as there were for unrestrained front-seat passengers (13,808). Charges for both categories were vastly outnumbered by the 108,320 charges issued for unbuckled drivers that year.
3. You need a statute book and a calculator to figure out the penalty for front seat violations.
The monetary penalty for a seat belt violation has significantly increased since seat belt use was first mandated. Back in 1986, a violation of the seat belt law (then, as now, an infraction) was punishable by a fine of $25. No court costs were assessed. Today, the penalty for a front-seat occupant’s failure to wear a seat belt is $25.50 plus $153.50 in district court costs. That’s a total of $179.
It is much simpler to calculate the costs of a rear seat violation. The penalty is a flat $10 and no costs may be assessed.
Are statutory amendments on the horizon? 
The Child Fatality Task Force, a legislative study commission, has recommended that law enforcement officers be permitted to stop vehicles for a back seat passenger’s failure to wear a seat belt and that the fine for back seat violations be increased to $25.  The task force contends that these changes are necessary to meet occupant protection criteria established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and to shore up certain federal funds. The task force further contends that making rear seat belt requirements a primary enforcement violation will increase seat belt usage. The group cites research findings that a greater percentage of fatal and serious injuries occur to unrestrained rear seat occupants than to unrestrained front seat occupants. It also states an unrestrained back seat passenger can injure a front seat passenger in a crash.