Michigan Senate Bill SB0388

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/10/25
• Refer: 6/10/25

Caption

Disabilities: other; penalties for certain violations to provision in use of travel aids by blind persons act; increase. Amends sec. 1a, 2 & 3 of 1937 PA 10 (MCL 752.51a et seq.).

Summary

Senate Bill 388 amends Michigan’s 1937 law governing travel aids for blind pedestrians. It updates statutory definitions to include “service animal” alongside the existing reference to a dog guide, and it revises the rules that apply when a driver approaches a crosswalk or other pedestrian crossing where a blind pedestrian is using a cane, dog guide, service animal, or walker. The bill preserves the requirement that drivers take all necessary precautions to avoid injury and clarifies that a blind pedestrian’s failure to use a cane or travel aid cannot be used as evidence of negligence in a civil case. The bill also strengthens enforcement and penalties. It requires peace officers to investigate alleged violations, directs prosecutors to review investigative reports, and, if requested, to inform the blind pedestrian of the charging decision and reasons. It increases criminal consequences for violations of the duty to yield and adds specific penalties for grossly negligent conduct causing injury or death to a blind pedestrian or the blind pedestrian’s service animal, including misdemeanor and felony provisions with higher fines and possible imprisonment.

Impact

SB 388 would amend MCL 752.51a, 752.52, and 752.53 to modernize the blind pedestrian protection statute and expand its coverage to service animals. It would affect drivers, law enforcement, prosecutors, and blind pedestrians by clarifying duties at crosswalks, preserving civil liability, and creating more detailed criminal penalties for negligent or grossly negligent violations. The bill also aligns the act’s terminology with other Michigan laws by referencing the Penal Code definition of service animal.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a protective, disability-rights bill with a public-safety focus. The caption describes it as increasing penalties for violations of the law protecting blind pedestrians, suggesting support for stronger deterrence and clearer enforcement. No committee transcripts or vote records were provided, so there is no documented opposition or recorded debate in the available materials.

Contention

The main policy issue is the increase in criminal penalties and the expansion of liability for drivers who fail to take precautions around blind pedestrians. Potential points of contention include whether the bill’s misdemeanor and felony penalties are proportionate, whether the gross-negligence standards are sufficiently clear, and whether adding service animals to the statute meaningfully broadens enforcement obligations. Another possible issue is the requirement that prosecutors notify blind pedestrians of charging decisions, which may raise administrative concerns, though no specific objections are documented in the provided record.