HB-6368, As Passed Senate, December 14, 2006
August 30, 2006, Introduced by Reps. Angerer, Wojno, Clemente, Sak, Spade, Vagnozzi, Miller, Leland, Cushingberry, Bieda, Alma Smith, Lemmons, Jr., Bennett and Cheeks and referred to the Committee on Transportation.
A bill to amend 1949 PA 300, entitled
"Michigan vehicle code,"
by amending section 667a (MCL 257.667a), as amended by 2002 PA 534.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
Sec. 667a. (1) The department of state police or the state
transportation department; the county board of commissioners, board
of county road commissioners, or county sheriff; or other local
authority having jurisdiction over a highway or street may
authorize the installation and use of unmanned traffic monitoring
devices at a railroad grade crossing with flashing signals and
gates on a highway or street under their respective jurisdictions.
Each device shall be sufficiently marked or identified or a sign
shall be placed at the approach to the crossing indicating that the
crossing is monitored by an unmanned traffic monitoring device.
(2) Beginning 31 days after the installation of an unmanned
traffic monitoring device at a railroad grade crossing described in
subsection (1), a person is responsible for a civil infraction as
provided in section 667 if the person violates a provision of that
section on the basis of evidence obtained from an unmanned traffic
monitoring device. However, for the first 30 days after the
installation of an unmanned traffic monitoring device, a person
shall
be issued a written warning only. It
shall be is an
affirmative defense to a charge of violating section 667 that the
mechanical warning devices at the crossing were malfunctioning.
(3) A sworn statement of a police officer from the state or
local authority having jurisdiction over the highway or street upon
which the railroad grade crossing described in subsection (1) is
located, based upon inspection of photographs, microphotographs,
videotape, or other recorded images produced by an unmanned traffic
monitoring
device, shall be is prima facie evidence of
the facts
contained therein. Any photographs, microphotographs, videotape, or
other recorded images indicating such a violation shall be
available for inspection in any proceeding to adjudicate the
responsibility for a violation of section 667. Any photographs,
videotape,
or digital images evidencing such a of the violation
shall be destroyed 90 days after final disposition of the citation.
(4) In a prosecution for a violation of section 667
established by an unmanned traffic monitoring device under this
section, prima facie evidence that the vehicle described in the
citation issued was operated in violation of section 667, together
with proof that the defendant was at the time of the violation the
registered owner of the vehicle, shall constitute in evidence a
rebuttable presumption that the registered owner of the vehicle was
the person who committed the violation. The presumption is rebutted
if the registered owner of the vehicle files an affidavit by
regular mail with the clerk of the court that he or she was not the
operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation or
testifies in open court under oath that he or she was not the
operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation. The
presumption also is rebutted if a certified copy of a police
report, showing that the vehicle had been reported to the police as
stolen before the time of the alleged violation of this section, is
presented before the appearance date established on the citation.
For purposes of this subsection, the owner of a leased or rental
vehicle shall provide the name and address of the person to whom
the vehicle was leased or rented at the time of the violation.
(5) Notwithstanding section 742, a citation for a violation of
section 667 on the basis of evidence obtained from an unmanned
traffic monitoring device may be executed by mailing by first-class
mail a copy to the address of the owner of the vehicle as shown on
the records of the secretary of state. If the summoned person fails
to appear on the date of return set out in the citation previously
mailed
by first-class mail pursuant to under this subsection, a
copy shall be sent by certified mail-return receipt requested. If
the summoned person fails to appear on either of the dates of
return
set out in the copies of the citation mailed pursuant to
under this section, the citation shall be executed in the manner
provided by law for personal service. The court may issue a warrant
for the arrest of a person who fails to appear within the time
limit established on the citation if a sworn complaint is filed
with the court for that purpose.
(6) If there is a fatality resulting from a train-vehicle
crash
at a public railroad grade
crossing, in a city, village, or
township
with population of 60,000 or more, or in a county with
population
of 150,000 or more, the state transportation department
shall undertake
convene a diagnostic study team review, if there
has not been a diagnostic study team review at the crossing in the
last 2 years. However, a diagnostic study team review is not
required if the initial law enforcement investigation of the
fatality indicates that the motorist's consumption of alcohol or a
controlled substance or his or her disregard of an existing traffic
control device conveying a "stop" message contributed to the
fatality, or that the fatality was a suicide. The diagnostic study
team
review shall be scheduled
conducted within 120 days after
the state transportation department is made aware of the fatality.
If
the diagnostic study team review
confirms reaches consensus
that
warning devices such as flashing lights and gates device
enhancements are needed, the state transportation department shall
order such
those improvements. The cost for the improvements
shall be financed consistent with the financing of similar projects
by the state transportation department according to its annual
prioritization of grade crossing safety improvements.