Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/04/2012 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB190 | |
| HB365 | |
| HB212 | |
| HB294 | |
| HB255 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 289 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 255 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 294 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 365 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 212 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 255
"An Act prohibiting the driver of a motor vehicle from
reading or typing a text message or other nonvoice
message or communication on a cellular telephone,
computer, or personal data assistant while driving a
motor vehicle."
Representative Gara testified that the legislation restated
the intention of a bill banning the use of video screens
while driving that had passed many years ago. However, the
original bill did not specifically mention texting. He
detailed the importance that texting be reinstated into the
law. He accepted that the definition of what was
distracting to a driver was changeable, but stressed that
texting could be clearly defined. He said that during a
four second text message a car could advance the length of
a football field. He said that studies had shown that
texting while driving raised the risk of a crash or near
collision twentyfold. He revealed that one-third of drivers
on the road were texting while operating their vehicles. He
expressed concern that lives would be lost because of
texting while driving. He noted that the legislation took
into consideration future technological advancements to
limit typing while driving or viewing visually displayed
message.
Representative Joule wondered about texting by voice.
Representative Gara replied that it was not covered in the
legislation. The word "typing" was used in consideration of
evolving technology. He relayed that the existing
distracted driving statute was not enough because it did
not make texting while driving a crime. He also felt that
jurors would sympathize with people who texted while
driving and would not consider it a crime unless it were
labeled one under the law.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the phone could be used as
evidentiary on a texting case.
Representative Gara agreed that the phone would record the
date and time of the text.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the court would need a sopena for
the cell phone.
Representative Gara believed that the accident would give
probable cause to remove evidence from the car. He
reiterated that juries would not convict under existing
laws. He hoped that there would be a public service
campaign to educate people of the dangers of texting while
driving. He pointed out to the committee a letter from the
chief of police in member packets (copy on file).
4:16:28 PM
Representative Wilson directed attention to page 2, lines 7
through 11. She understood that the term "visual display"
pertained to anything you would look at like a GPS or and
OnStar map.
Representative Gara replied no. He explained that line 20
of the bill contained original language that exempted
mapping devices.
Representative Wilson understood that a person could expect
a misdemeanor fine of approximately $300 for texting while
driving.
Representative Gara responded only if the driver was
texting while the car was in motion.
Representative Wilson pointed out that the bill did not
distinguish between a driver who might swerve a little,
from a driver who actually hits another car or person due
to texting. She understood that under the legislation both
actions would be considered a misdemeanor.
Representative Gara relayed that the understanding was not
entirely correct. He clarified that if the driver was only
texting, and did not hurt anyone, it would be considered a
Class A misdemeanor. He furthered that under the current
law if a driver injures someone they would be charged with
reckless or negligent driving. He stressed that the
addition of texting to the latter scenario moved the crime
up a level. He asserted that texting while driving was
knowingly dangerous, therefore causing an accident while
texting could be considered a premeditated act.
4:20:00 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough asked about taxi cabs. She
highlighted that some taxi's had an electronic screen for
communicating with dispatch.
Representative Gara replied that a section for dispatch had
been written into the original legislation. He cited page
3, line 3, which allowed the viewing of a dispatch screen
for use of passenger transport. He though a case could be
made to remove the provision, but noted that the removal
could negatively impact businesses. He said that the he had
not seen evidence that the dispatch screens were a major
danger.
Vice-chair Fairclough accepted why the provision was there.
She warned that technology was advancing quickly.
Representative Gara noted that even law enforcement had
internal manuals that were followed concerning visual
screens while driving.
Vice-chair Fairclough clarified that it would not be an
illegal act if a person were texting while completely
stopped.
Representative Gara agreed. He discussed that it was only a
crime if a vehicle was moving. He stressed that the intent
of the bill was not to throw innocent people in jail.
4:24:35 PM
Co-Chair Thomas opined the reality of people being injured
or killed because of texting while driving. He shared that
he pulled over to look at any texts that he received. He
did not believe officers should have the ability to text
while driving. He offered strong support for the
legislation.
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to adopt CS HB 255 (JUD), 27-
LS1165\T as a working document before the committee.
Representative Doogan directed attention to the
indeterminate fiscal note. He noted that indeterminate
fiscal notes made the committee's job much harder because
they know what was being agreed on in terms of cost. He
believed that people should even not talk on their cell
phones when driving. He urged support for the legislation.
Co-Chair Thomas asked the committee to zero out the
indeterminate fiscal note from the Public Defender Agency.
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to zero out the Public Defender
Agency fiscal note (OMB component number 1631). There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Costello had signed on as a sponsor and was
in strong support of the bill.
4:30:26 PM
Co-Chair Thomas OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Thomas CLOSED public testimony.
Vice-chair Fairclough addressed the fiscal notes:
Department of Law, Department of Administration, Court
System, and Department of Corrections.
Co-Chair Thomas MOVED to report CS HB 255 (JUD), 27-
LS1165\T out of committee with individual recommendations
and the accompanying fiscal notes.
CSHB 255(JUD) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one zero fiscal note from the
Department of Law, one zero fiscal note for Department of
Administration by the House Finance Committee and three
previously published zero fiscal notes: FN1 (ADM), FN2
(COR), FN3 (CRT).