Stopping for School Buses in Private Parking Lots

I'm looking for clarification on Tennessee's laws regarding stopping for a school bus that is picking up or dropping off kids. I haven't been able to find anything regarding this when in a private parking lot, but since police typically don't deal with accidents on private property, I'm wondering if I can be fined or prosecuted. If I recall correctly, the actual wording specifies "highways." I wouldn't think this applies, but I get the feeling the intent is that it applies anywhere that automobiles drive.

Tennessee Code 55-8-151 – Overtaking and passing school, youth or church bus — Markings — Discharging passengers — Penalties

(a) (1) The driver of a vehicle upon a highway, upon meeting or overtaking from either direction any school bus that has stopped on the highway for the purpose of receiving or discharging any school children, shall stop the vehicle before reaching the school bus, and the driver shall not proceed until the school bus resumes motion or is signaled by the school bus driver to proceed or the visual signals are no longer actuated. Subsection (a) shall also apply to a school bus with lights flashing and stop sign extended and marked in accordance with this subsection (a) that is stopped upon property owned, operated, or used by a school or educational institution, if the bus is stopped for the purpose of receiving or discharging any school children outside a protected loading zone.

Quote:

---

Quoting PayrolGuy

---

Subsection (a) shall also apply to a school bus with lights flashing and stop sign extended and marked in accordance with this subsection (a) that is stopped upon property owned, operated, or used by a school or educational institution, if the bus is stopped for the purpose of receiving or discharging any school children outside a protected loading zone.

---

I'm assuming this is meant to apply to schools and/or places such as field trip destinations. Would that also apply to a bus picking up kids at an apartment complex?

That "used by" would seem to allow anywhere on the planet. If courts are interpreting it that way, I have no idea.

Quote:

---

Quoting TurboT8er

---

I'm assuming this is meant to apply to schools and/or places such as field trip destinations. Would that also apply to a bus picking up kids at an apartment complex?

---

The definition of highway in Tennessee Code § 55-1-116 is:

"Highway" or "street" means the entire width between boundary lines of every way publicly maintained, when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.

The law regarding overtaking buses applies in two circumstances: when the bus is on a highway (which per the above definition essentially means any public road when opened to the public for traffic) or the bus is located on property "owned, operated, or used by a school or educational institution." A private parking lot of an apartment complex is neither one of those.

Of course, should you see the stop sigh and flashing lights of the bus, fail to stop as you would need to do on a highway, and end up hitting a kid as a result, you'll likely be found liable for the injuries the kid suffered as a result, so I would not advise ignoring those warnings from the bus.

Quote:

---

Quoting PayrolGuy

---

Tennessee Code 55-8-151

---

Seems pretty simple. The law applies to a "driver of a vehicle upon a highway" and also applies "upon property owned, operated, or used by a school or educational institution." I think it highly unlikely that a parking lot at, e.g., the Adventure Science Center in Nashville -- which I assume to be located on privately owned property -- is not "property owned, operated, or used by a school or educational institution" just because a school bus happens to be on that property. I think interpreting "used by" to include "anywhere on the planet" that a school bus happens to be would be unreasonable. However, one would need to research case law to be sure about this.

used to practice HR for a property management company in another state and yes, we allowed school buses to use our parking lots as bus stops with permission. So it might also depend on an agreement between the PMC and the school district. Honestly since the OP/driver would have no knowledge of this arrangement, other than seeing a bus drop off children in the parking lot, I'd suggest he/she follow the regular rules of bus signage/lights even in a private parking lot. Plus you never know when a child will dart out ESPECIALLY in a parking lot setting (which to me is MORE dangerous than a highway) towards a car that is not coming in an opposite direction.

Think of it this way. Bus is stopped has its lights on in a parking lot...you keep going, don't see and strike a child...do you really want to make the argument to a jury or judge that the bus lights/laws don't apply because the bus is not on a public street? (as said by a mom of grown kids....)

Quote:

---

Quoting pg1067

---

Seems pretty simple. The law applies to a "driver of a vehicle upon a highway" and also applies "upon property owned, operated, or used by a school or educational institution." I think it highly unlikely that a parking lot at, e.g., the Adventure Science Center in Nashville -- which I assume to be located on privately owned property -- is not "property owned, operated, or used by a school or educational institution" just because a school bus happens to be on that property. I think interpreting "used by" to include "anywhere on the planet" that a school bus happens to be would be unreasonable. However, one would need to research case law to be sure about this.

---

I would likely agree with that. However, I think that stating that the streets inside an apartment complex are not considered to be streets in the normal sense, but a parking lot instead, is probably a stretch.

Quote:

---

Quoting TurboT8er

---

I'm looking for clarification on Tennessee's laws regarding stopping for a school bus that is picking up or dropping off kids. I haven't been able to find anything regarding this when in a private parking lot, but since police typically don't deal with accidents on private property, I'm wondering if I can be fined or prosecuted. If I recall correctly, the actual wording specifies "highways." I wouldn't think this applies, but I get the feeling the intent is that it applies anywhere that automobiles drive.

---

Begs the question.

Why are you looking for laws that would allow you to just drive past a school bus picking up children in a privately owned parking lot?

People who ask those kinds of questions either got cited for something and they want to know how to beat it or they are idiots looking to commit offenses with impunity.

Quote:

---

Quoting pg1067

---

I think it highly unlikely that a parking lot at, e.g., the Adventure Science Center in Nashville -- which I assume to be located on privately owned property -- is not "property owned, operated, or used by a school or educational institution" just because a school bus happens to be on that property.

---

As written, your statement above would indicate you think it UNLIKELY that a school bus parked at the Adventure Science Center would NOT be considered "property owned, operated, or used by a school or educational institution". In other words, you would think it likely that it was property within that description. I suspect, however, that the double negative is not really what you intended here, given your use of the phrase "just because". If what you meant is that it is unlikely that the bus would be considered to be on "property owned, operated, or used by a school or educational institution" then I agree with you. It is not property owned, operated or used by a school, and I don't think the Adventure Science Center would fall within the definition of an "educational institution". In any event, it's pretty clear that an apartment complex parking lot is not included with the reach of the statute.

Heh, I was waiting for that. My neighbors in my apartment have a disabled child that boards the bus everyday around the same time I leave for work, and the bus stops right in front of my vehicle.

In the past, I've squeezed by the bus to get out (I'll wait until the kid is at least on the bus and there's no danger of hitting anyone), but today there must've been a new driver who didn't take kindly to me doing that. He threatened to report me if I did it again despite me being polite and cooperative.
Since he parks directly in front of me, I'm unable to see any flashing lights, stop sign, etc.

This post is just so I know my rights, but in the future I think I'll start parking a little further down.

Turbo, you are assuming that IF you are correct, you can pass a bus unloading school kids as long as it's on property you describe. Some other law may apply, would you think? Endangering children, disorderly conduct, causing a disturbance, breach of the peace!! Lots of laws on the books. Other traffic laws may apply also, how can you be sure they would not?

Does any Municipality have a stricter definition? Like when a bus is stopped "anywhere" or such.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

As written, your statement above would indicate you think it UNLIKELY that a school bus parked at the Adventure Science Center would NOT be considered "property owned, operated, or used by a school or educational institution". In other words, you would think it likely that it was property within that description. I suspect, however, that the double negative is not really what you intended here, given your use of the phrase "just because". If what you meant is that it is unlikely that the bus would be considered to be on "property owned, operated, or used by a school or educational institution" then I agree with you. It is not property owned, operated or used by a school, and I don't think the Adventure Science Center would fall within the definition of an "educational institution". In any event, it's pretty clear that an apartment complex parking lot is not included with the reach of the statute.

---

If you are talking about the parking lot of a high rise apartment building (or two) I might agree with you. However, if you are talking about the streets in the apartment complexes in the majority of my city, I would not. The streets in the vast majority of the apartment complexes in my city are about the same as any suburban streets.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

If you are talking about the parking lot of a high rise apartment building (or two) I might agree with you. However, if you are talking about the streets in the apartment complexes in the majority of my city, I would not. The streets in the vast majority of the apartment complexes in my city are about the same as any suburban streets.

---

But they are obviously not highways under the definition of the law and I don’t see how they would fit under the section addressing private property, at least how I interpret “used by a school or educational institution”. I believe “used by” refers to actual control by the school or educational institution. There is none when the bus drives upon the apartment lot to drop off children. Then to differentiate between a road or parking area within the complex: A drive within an apartment complex is no different than the parking areas of an apartment complex. It is private property not held out to the public and is what it is due to the assignment by the owner or operator of the lot.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

If you are talking about the parking lot of a high rise apartment building (or two) I might agree with you. However, if you are talking about the streets in the apartment complexes in the majority of my city, I would not. The streets in the vast majority of the apartment complexes in my city are about the same as any suburban streets.

---

Two points on that. First, I used the term "parking lot" and I think you (and most people) readily know the difference between a street and a parking lot. :D An apartment complex parking lot (whether high rise or not) clearly does not fall within the statute. Second, the statute uses the term "highway" and highway as defined in the statute is limited to those roads/streets that are "publicly maintained." So a private road in a HOA that is maintained by the HOA (and thus not "publicly maintained") would also not fall within the statute. In some states the motor vehicle law definitions to do extend to private roads that are open to the public to use; your state might be one of them. But not all states are the same, and Tennessee has limited its definition to those roads that are publicly maintained.

Quote:

---

Quoting adjusterjack

---

Begs the question.

Why are you looking for laws that would allow you to just drive past a school bus picking up children in a privately owned parking lot?

People who ask those kinds of questions either got cited for something and they want to know how to beat it or they are idiots looking to commit offenses with impunity.

---

Heh, I was waiting for that question. Basically, I just want to know my rights, as I don't intend on regularly driving past stopped buses. I was in a bit of an awkward situation this morning: my neighbor's disabled child was boarding the bus, which was stopped directly in front of where I was parked. I waited until he was on the bus and they were raising the platform in the back, and then I carefully started to squeeze by the front. From my position, I didn't see any flashing lights or stop sign. The driver ran around and waved for me to stop, then threatened to report me. I politely cooperated and told him I didn't see the stop sign.

I had done that many times before, but I'm guessing the driver was new and wasn't as tolerant. In the future, I plan on parking further down to avoid that situation. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand why the law is in place, but situations like that are a bit silly and if I'm not legally obligated to stop, then I'll use my best judgement and proceed past.

I'm going to throw a wrench into all of this.

You said this occurred in the parking lot of a hi-rise apartment building. Who owns the apartment building or grounds they are located on? Is this public housing by any chance or owned by a government agency? I ask this because some states (California for one) have obscure laws stating that when public traffic is allowed on paths, roads, parking lots or grounds that are publicly owned, traffic laws are just as enforceable there as they are on the highway.

If you were on on publicly owned land, you may be in a similar situation.

Quote:

---

Quoting L-1

---

I'm going to throw a wrench into all of this.

You said this occurred in the parking lot of a hi-rise apartment building. Who owns the apartment building or grounds they are located on? Is this public housing by any chance or owned by a government agency? I ask this because some states (California for one) have obscure laws stating that when public traffic is allowed on paths, roads, parking lots or grounds that are publicly owned, traffic laws are just as enforceable there as they are on the highway.

If you were on on publicly owned land, you may be in a similar situation.

---

As far as I know, it is not government owned. It's a gated apartment complex owned by a (large) private company where none of the streets are named.

In other words, if the law doesn't obligate you to stop, you're willing to risk hitting a child to avoid a short wait.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

In other words, if the law doesn't obligate you to stop, you're willing to risk hitting a child to avoid a short wait.

---

With that logic, driving past any stopped vehicle could yield the same results. If I'm 100% sure there are no children outside the bus and, like this morning, I'm moving very slow, then yes, I'm willing to take that risk.

Quote:

---

Quoting TurboT8er

---

With that logic, driving past any stopped vehicle could yield the same results. If I'm 100% sure there are no children outside the bus and, like this morning, I'm moving very slow, then yes, I'm willing to take that risk.

---

So any stopped vehicle displays flashing red lights and extends a stop sign?

The indicators are used for a reason and are to be displayed only while loading or unloading students. If you’re in that big of a hurry, maybe try leaving earlier. The problem with going around a bus displaying the indicators is the children know traffic is supposed to stop when the lights are on. That makes them complacent and they often dash out into the traffic lanes without really looking.


rather than not complying with the lights, how about contacting the school and asking they don’t use the lights where they are not legally applicable. It would be safer for the kids.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

Two points on that. First, I used the term "parking lot" and I think you (and most people) readily know the difference between a street and a parking lot. :D An apartment complex parking lot (whether high rise or not) clearly does not fall within the statute. Second, the statute uses the term "highway" and highway as defined in the statute is limited to those roads/streets that are "publicly maintained." So a private road in a HOA that is maintained by the HOA (and thus not "publicly maintained") would also not fall within the statute. In some states the motor vehicle law definitions to do extend to private roads that are open to the public to use; your state might be one of them. But not all states are the same, and Tennessee has limited its definition to those roads that are publicly maintained.

---

So, in a suburban neighborhood (not an apartment complex) where the roads are maintained by an HOA, it would be acceptable for someone to pass a stopped school bus that was loading or unloading children?

That wouldn't be the case here.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

So any stopped vehicle displays flashing red lights and extends a stop sign?

The indicators are used for a reason and are to be displayed only while loading or unloading students. If you’re in that big of a hurry, maybe try leaving earlier. The problem with going around a bus displaying the indicators is the children know traffic is supposed to stop when the lights are on. That makes them complacent and they often dash out into the traffic lanes without really looking.


rather than not complying with the lights, how about contacting the school and asking they don’t use the lights where they are not legally applicable. It would be safer for the kids.

---

I'm guessing you didn't see my comment where I explained my situation. This is something I will do my best to avoid, as I'm non-confrontational by nature. I just want to know my rights.

And your rights are more important that people's lives. I get it.

Quote:

---

Quoting TurboT8er

---

I'm guessing you didn't see my comment where I explained my situation. This is something I will do my best to avoid, as I'm non-confrontational by nature. I just want to know my rights.

---

You got the life commentary for free.

Regardless. If you hit a child, you will face the courts and given the flashy lights and stop sign were being displayed, even if ignoring them doesn’t result in a ticket, it will be the basis for proving your negligence and as such, a basis for whatever crime you are charged with.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

So, in a suburban neighborhood (not an apartment complex) where the roads are maintained by an HOA, it would be acceptable for someone to pass a stopped school bus that was loading or unloading children?

That wouldn't be the case here.

---

I wouldn't say acceptable. But as the state law is written in this instance, it would not be illegal to do it. The legislature failed to take that situation into account and it must be the legislature that fixes it if it wants that situation covered by the law. Other states do make traffic laws applicable to such roads, yours apparently one of them. But with 50 states each having their own laws, they aren't going all be the same. This is one illustration of that.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

In other words, if the law doesn't obligate you to stop, you're willing to risk hitting a child to avoid a short wait.

---

So are you trolling, or crazy?

Neither. Just responding to what he stated - that he would risk injuring a child as long as the law did not obligate him to stop.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

You got the life commentary for free.

Regardless. If you hit a child, you will face the courts and given the flashy lights and stop sign were being displayed, even if ignoring them doesn’t result in a ticket, it will be the basis for proving your negligence and as such, a basis for whatever crime you are charged with.

---

There is that whole "yield to pedestrians" law that applies everywhere, which I am aware of. So in my mind, the school bus law seems redundant. So I'd imagine in the extremely unlikely case that a child materializes under my tire, I'd be charged for failing to yield to pedestrians rather than failing to stop for a school bus. That is, if the school bus law doesn't apply in private parking lots.

Quote:

---

Quoting TurboT8er

---

So in my mind, the school bus law seems redundant.

---

It isn't redundant. It is an added protection for kids in a high-risk area because school buses stop in places that aren't normally pedestrian areas.

Quote:

---

Quoting PayrolGuy

---

It isn't redundant. It is an added protection for kids in a high-risk area because school buses stop in places that aren't normally pedestrian areas.

---

By redundant, I didn't mean pointless. I mean it's literally redundant. I work in aviation, where a lot of stuff is redundant for safety reasons. Not pointless, just redundant.

Why does it matter whether it's redundant or not? You can be charged with everything the DA thinks he can make stick and maybe even a few things he knows he can't make stick, just to have something to plea bargain with.

I wasn't trying to argue a case, just speaking my mind. I know it doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Quoting zeljo

---

So are you trolling, or crazy?

---

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Neither. Just responding to what he stated - that he would risk injuring a child as long as the law did not obligate him to stop.

---

He did not state that. It's just your way-over-the-top, outrageous spin. Trolling it is.

Quote:

---

Quoting TurboT8er

---

By redundant, I didn't mean pointless. I mean it's literally redundant. I work in aviation, where a lot of stuff is redundant for safety reasons. Not pointless, just redundant.

---

But it isn’t redundant. It would more likely be complementary as it covers situations the general pedestrian laws do not address. Redundancy is having two systems that perform the same action. The bus laws don’t do that. They address a unique condition and put rules on dealing with that unique situation.

Regardless, my point is that especially given you were given notice of student activity by the display of the lights and signs, it would be more difficult to defend a charge of negligence on your part. In a situation where there is no notification of pedestrian activity you have more argument that the pedestrian was negligent and acted such that you did not have time to renact prior to hitting them. If warnings are given, you are put on alert of pedestrian activity and have no real defense to hitting a child. In other words: it makes it easier to convict you

and the discussion has pretty much concluded the must stop for bus lights law doesn’t apply in a tropical parking lot or private drive.

Quote:

---

Quoting zeljo

---

He did not state that. It's just your way-over-the-top, outrageous spin. Trolling it is.

---

Actually he stated precisely that.




Cbg asked :

Quote:

---

In other words, if the law doesn't obligate you to stop, you're willing to risk hitting a child to avoid a short wait.

---

Op responded:

Quote:

---

With that logic, driving past any stopped vehicle could yield the same results. If I'm 100% sure there are no children outside the bus and, like this morning, I'm moving very slow, then yes, I'm willing to take that risk.

---

Exactly.

Methinks "used by" is a fairly simple term. If this isn't simple enough, then all wording for all laws should be wiped by the books. If a school bus is using a parking lot to unload and load kids - that property is "used by". Just because it s private property does not excuse it from the simple definition of "used by".

Quote:

---

Quoting Guybrush

---

Methinks "used by" is a fairly simple term. If this isn't simple enough, then all wording for all laws should be wiped by the books. If a school bus is using a parking lot to unload and load kids - that property is "used by". Just because it s private property does not excuse it from the simple definition of "used by".

---

So riddle me this:

if the bus service is not owned by the school district (which is the case in my area with some of the school systems) would the school still,be using the private lot since the law specifies when the private property is being used by the school or educational institution?

Quote:

---

a) that is stopped upon property owned, operated, or used by a school or educational institution,

---

maybe it’s not so simple after all...or it is that simple and you are adding the unnecessary complexity by trying to interpret it to mean something it wasn’t intended to mean.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Actually he stated precisely that.

Cbg "In other words, if the law doesn't obligate you to stop, you're willing to risk hitting a child to avoid a short wait."
Op "If I'm 100% sure there are no children outside the bus and, like this morning, I'm moving very slow, then yes, I'm willing to take that risk."

---

If he's 100% sure there are no kids outside the bus, then the risk he's "taking" of hitting any is 0%. You gonna argue now that 0% risk is still a risk? Attatroll.

Quote:

---

Quoting zeljo

---

If he's 100% sure there are no kids outside the bus, then the risk he's "taking" of hitting any is 0%. You gonna argue now that 0% risk is still a risk? Attatroll.

---

Of course there has never been a child hit because some person was 100%sure there were no kids, but was wrong.

But what does that have to do with the fact you were wrong and cbg was correct?