usps carriers DRIVING on lawns washington, Nationwide

This may be one of the stranger complaints about our infamous usps. However from what others have said about them. You might understand the issue.

Several attempts to resolve the issue of carriers DRIVING on the right of way causing tracks to be worn in the grass. Whether or not this is done inside the fence. Example only. Or between the fence and curb is not the issue. According to them this is only a concern if the lawn is "newly seeded." They seem not to care not only if someone falls in the tracks. Remarks implying if you see the tracks then do not walk in them. Is missing the point.

Responses also said "Letter carriers are expected to cross lawns while making deliveries if the customers do not object and there are no particular hazards to the carrier. In most cases, delivery can be made more quickly when carriers are permitted to cross lawns, especially in suburban developments. Normally, the passage of one person a day does no injury to a mature lawn. We are pleased to report that many of our customers recognize the savings potential in such cumulative short cuts and permit their carriers to travel the most direct route from stop to stop. The Postal Service, however, follows the written requests of the resident or home owner who object to this common practice. Upon receipt of a written request from the current resident or the home owner the carrier will be instructed to comply with their request to not cross their lawn to deliver the mail." How that does not make people in the suburbs upset. Gee, if you live in the suburbs your lawn isn't worth not driving on it. After all you are in the suburbs. In case you are wondering. In the neighberhod there is nothing requiring carriers to DRIVE on grass.

They also say "

Letter carriers are expected to cross lawns while making deliveries if the customers do not object and there are no particular hazards to the carrier.  In most cases, delivery can be made more quickly when carriers are permitted to cross lawns, especially in suburban developments.  Normally, the passage of one person a day does no injury to a mature lawn."

One of the bigger issues for me with the reply is Your case has been investigated and a solution has been provided to you. If not to much work. Will you inform me where the solution is? I don't see any. Whether or not many see crossing (which one hopes means walking NOT DRIVING across lawns is a moot point. What about those who do not like this. From the response. They seem not to matter. I guess needs of many outweighs the needs of the few. Further from the reply there seems no problem for the postal system to not require carriers to use the drive of walkway. That would really put a wear on shoes. Wouldn't it.

I also wonder if the damages caused by letting carriers drive on lawns can be vandalism. Do they not do damage to lawns when driving on it. Whether or not they do it one time or fifty. Then again this is federal government service.

Very soon Washington is going to receive letters on this until something is done. The permitting drivers to drive on lawns unlike it seems from you. Is something needing a stop put to.

For you to say you expect carriers to cross lawns sounds much like you endorse them doing damage to lawns. From the attitude in the responses you sent. If they damage property so be it. We have no right to complain do we."

Where in the reply is acknowledgment they were to take my response as the written demand to stop driving on the lawn?!! I also stand by the statement the last time this happened at no time was I informed the request is required to be written!! Notice, again DRIVE not walking was told. Guess they can't read.

I guess if they receive notice to stop DRIVING on the lawn. That would be all needed. However, their attitude of the damage done to the grass is one of the issues. Another is should DRIVING on the lawn not be encouraged in the first place?

Right now as many locations as possible are being contacted to get carriers from DRIVING on grass to stop for everyone.