Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 17
01/26/2012 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB255 | |
| HB235 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 235 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 255 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 255-PROHIBIT DIALING OR TEXTING WHILE DRIVING
1:06:46 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the first order of business would
be 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."
1:07:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB
255 on behalf of the six co-prime sponsors: Representatives
Thomas, P. Wilson, Gruenberg, Tuck, Gatto, and himself. He
stated, as many of you know, the legislature thought it had
passed a bill a few years ago that prohibited watching videos
and texting while driving. The aforementioned bill was not
written as clearly as the courts would have liked and a number
of judges have taken the position that the previous bill had not
been intended to apply to texting. He reported that this case
is currently on appeal to the Court of Appeals and the matter
may go to the Alaska Supreme Court. He said the reason for the
bill is to reinforce to the public that texting while driving is
dangerous.
1:08:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA emphasized that members only need one fact.
He said according to the National Conference of State
Legislatures (NCSL), drivers who text while driving are 20 more
times likely to have an accident than those who do not text. He
informed members the woman who co-founded the organization,
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), has now taken the issue of
"texting while driving" on as seriously as she did the issue of
drunk driving. He characterized this issue as the "new drunk
driving" issue. He was unsure of the correlation between the
dangers of drunk driving and driving while texting - whether it
would be 20 times or 30 times riskier - but he assumed that
texting presented a similar risk since the driver endangers the
lives of other while engaging in this type of behavior. He said
this is why he introduced HB 255 four other legislators decided
to add on as co-prime sponsors of the bill.
1:09:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA described the drafting process taken and his
intent to stay as true to the original bill as possible. He
emphasized that numerous policy calls have been incorporated
into the bill, which the co-prime sponsors do not want to see
changed. He reported a previous law already addresses other
driver activities, such that drivers may not watch or operate a
video screen while their vehicle is in motion. He acknowledged
several approaches could have been taken when drafting this
bill. The bill could have been modeled after the language used
in current statutes for a person who is driving while
intoxicated (DWI). Those statutes assume that a person sitting
in the driver's seat with the key in the ignition [demonstrates
the intent to drive]. However, he admitted he did not really
have a problem with drivers viewing text messages while they are
sitting in their vehicles in a parking lot. He also admitted it
was impossible to draft the bill perfectly. He suggested the
bill could be drafted in a way to cover almost all of the bad
circumstances, or it could be drafted to cover all the bad
circumstances, but in doing so might affect a few innocent
people. Since 2009, the statutory language prohibiting texting
refers to texting while the driver's vehicle is in motion. He
described a scenario in which a driver may decide to check his
phone while stopped at the beginning of a red light. The driver
may just have received a text from his wife regarding child pick
up arrangements. The driver [hears the phone beep], and since
the light just changed knows he has another 30 seconds before
the light will change to view the text message, and then look
back at the light. He offered his belief this type of activity
would not warrant jail time. He pointed out an exemption in the
bill allows law enforcement, public safety officers, and
firefighters to use equipment installed in their vehicles such
as video screens, laptops, and communication devices necessary
for their work. He said that the bill sponsors will work in the
coming weeks to determine whether public safety agencies will
need any additional exemptions.
1:11:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA reported that 35 states currently ban
texting for all drivers. He said," It's dangerous. It should
be addressed." The Department of Public Safety (DPS) has always
had [public service announcements] informing drivers they are
not allowed to text while they drive. He expressed concern
about sending the public mixed messages. He said the co-prime
sponsors are hoping this bill will pass. He related his
understanding that some contention may exist with respect to
cell phone use in bills currently before the legislature so his
intention is to let those bills proceed separately. He advised
members of the desire to limit HB 255 to texting, which is
something his original co-prime sponsor, Representative Thomas,
and he had agreed to early on.
1:11:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is only aware of one case that
was held to the contrary. He asked whether the sponsor was
aware of any other cases.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA related his understanding that a magistrate
in Kenai has held the [2008] law does not cover texting.
Additionally, a supervising judge in Fairbanks has indicated she
would direct her magistrates to also issue the same ruling;
however, her directive may be pending. He was unsure if any
other cases have had favorable rulings, but he was aware that
some drivers have signed plea agreements admitting to texting
while driving. He said the district attorney's office has taken
the position that the activity was intended to be illegal. He
advised members that the cases are currently on appeal, and the
Department of Law and Legislative Legal and Research Services
("Legislative Legal") is comfortable with the language.
1:12:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked to place on the record that under
this bill a driver could pull over and park in a parking lot or
driveway and legally text; however, texting by the driver is
illegal activity when the vehicle is in motion on the roadway.
1:13:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT also wanted to ensure the record is clear
on HB 255 since issues have arisen with respect to a previous
bill that passed the legislature [2008], but the legislative
intent could not be determined. He asked for clarification that
HB 255 would not apply to a person unlocking his/her cell phone.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded that this bill is very specific
and does not regulate talking on cell phones so if HB 255 were
to pass it would not be illegal for people to unlock their cell
phone to make a phone call. He cautioned members of other bills
currently before the legislature may apply to cell phone use and
could impose restrictions if any of them passes the legislature.
1:14:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT related his understanding HB 255 would not
apply to a driver dialing a number on a cell phone.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA agreed. He said that a driver could dial a
number, press the answer button, and do anything else a person
normally would do to talk on his/her cell phone. He reiterated
that various proposals are before the legislature, but
restricting phone use is not in HB 255.
1:15:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT pointed out that many smart phones have a
global positioning system (GPS), such as MapQuest. He inquired
as to whether people would be prohibited from using these types
of systems.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA agreed MapQuest and GPS mapping would be
allowed in HB 255, noting that the use of these types of systems
was covered when the original bill, sponsored by Representatives
Gruenberg and Gatto passed the legislature [in 2008.]
1:15:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned he has questions on the
fiscal note.
1:16:13 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), introduced
herself.
1:16:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the fiscal notes from the
Department of Law (DOL) and from the Public Defender Agency
(PDA). He noted the fiscal note from the PDA was prepared by
Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender. He referred to page 2,
paragraph 2, of the fiscal note analysis and read, "In some
communities where judicial officers have concluded that texting
and driving is not covered by the current statute, District
Attorneys are no longer pursuing charges for texting and
driving". He stated he was not aware of the DOL's position.
Instead, he understood that cases were being dismissed so they
could be appealed. He further understood the DOL was pursuing
this since the department's position is that the magistrate's
decision in this instance is "wrong on the law." He inquired as
to whether she was aware of any communities in which cases were
not being pursued.
MS. CARPENETI answered she was unaware of any cases not being
pursued. She related her understanding the DOL has been
petitioning decisions by the magistrates and while the appeals
are not automatic the DOL has asked that the matter of legality
of the matter to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals. She
agreed that the DOL's position has been that this conduct is
covered by the statute originally passed in 2008.
1:18:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he simply has not been aware of
this situation. He agreed that any decision not to prosecute
would impact the fiscal note. Although the finance committee
will considered fiscal impact, but he stated that he would
appreciate confirmation as to whether the prosecutorial activity
is happening. He said he strongly hoped that the DOL was
pursuing these cases.
MS. CARPENETI offered to research this and respond to the
committee.
1:20:55 PM
QUINLAN STEINER Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency, offered to respond to questions about the fiscal note.
He related his understanding that Representative Gruenberg had
questions on whether district attorneys were prosecuting cases
in all communities. He reported that he obtained his
information for the fiscal note analysis from the DOL's Deputy
Attorney General Rick Svobodny. He advised committee members
that the cases have not been pursued in all jurisdictions. He
concluded that passing HB 255 would impact full prosecutions in
all communities in the state with a district attorney's office.
1:22:07 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for clarification on the impact of
prosecution on the fiscal note.
MR. STEINER responded that as long as the cases involving
texting while driving were being fully pursued and drivers were
being arrested it wouldn't have a fiscal impact; however, it
just depends on the assumptions. He described the assumptions,
such as whether police were arresting for the texting while
driving activity, if the district attorneys' offices were
pursuing all cases, and also if the parties were being fully
prosecuted. He said when he prepared the fiscal note that he
assumed the cases were not being prosecuted in all communities.
CHAIR P. WILSON said she would like a definite answer by the
next committee.
MR. STEINER was unsure if he could provide that information
definitively, but he offered to follow up with the DOL.
1:23:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that this is a
policy question. He related his understanding that the cases
involving texting while driving were being pursued until a
decision had been issued by one judge. He surmised this has led
to a hiatus, in which some communities may not be pursuing
texting while driving cases. He acknowledged that the fiscal
note is a matter for the finance committee to review; however,
he wondered whether this situation was temporary, and if so, and
how that may affect the fiscal impact.
1:24:43 PM
MR. STEINER offered to clarify with the Department of Law to be
certain of the historical prosecution of these cases. He
acknowledged the ambiguity this has created and agreed to follow
up on it.
1:25:16 PM
KATE SAKEGAK, a Denali Montessori student, provided testimony on
HB 255. She stated that driver distraction is biggest reason
for vehicle accidents. She explained that drivers become
distracted by their phone screen at the same time as the crash.
She identified the reason that texting while driving causes
distraction is that drivers can't focus on a small screen and at
traffic while their vehicle is moving. She compared this to her
own experience. She stated that her mother will not allow her
to watch television while she is doing her homework since the
television creates a distraction. Finally, she pointed out the
safety of all is worth a small limit on personal freedom.
CHAIR P. WILSON thanked Ms. Sakegak for her testimony.
1:27:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to report HB 255 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for purpose of discussion. He
suggested the committee make a recommendation rather than
individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT restated his motion, including the
recommendation of "do pass," as follows:
Representative Pruitt moved to report HB 255 out of committee
with the recommendation of "do pass" and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no further objection, HB 255 was reported
from the House Transportation Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2 HB235Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 1/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| 3 HB235 version A.pdf |
HTRA 1/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| 4 HB235 Sectional 1 17 12.pdf |
HTRA 1/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| 5 HB235 AADA Letter of Support.pdf |
HTRA 1/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| HB 255 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 1/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |
| HB 255 version I.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 1/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |
| NCSL Legisbrief Addressing Distracted Driving.pdf |
HTRA 1/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |
| NCSL Texting Law by State.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 1/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |
| HB235-DOA-DMV-1-23-12.pdf |
HTRA 1/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| HB235-LAW-CIV-01-20-12.pdf |
HTRA 1/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| HB255-DOA-OPA-1-20-12.pdf |
HJUD 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 1/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |
| HB255-DOA-PDA-1-23-12 (2).pdf |
HTRA 1/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |
| HB255-DOC-OC-01-20-12.pdf |
HTRA 1/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |