Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 17
02/16/2010 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB322 | |
| HB257 | |
| HB8 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 322 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 257 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 257-BAN CELL PHONE USE WHEN DRIVING
2:22:56 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 257, "An Act relating to prohibiting the use
of cellular telephones when driving a motor vehicle; and
providing for an effective date."
2:23:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE DOOGAN, Alaska State Legislature, stated
that HB 257 is an attempt to prohibit cell phone use while
driving, except for emergency phone calls. He paraphrased from
his sponsor statement, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
Distracted drivers cause accidents. Current Alaska
law prohibits the use of certain devices with screens
(such as televisions) while driving, in order to
prevent drivers from taking their focus off the road.
This prohibition includes the use of cell phones for
sending text messages, but excludes the use of cell
phones for "verbal communication or displaying caller
identification information". HB 257 would prohibit
any use of a cell phone while driving-including the
use of a phone with a hands-free device-with an
exception only for emergency calls. Violations would
be punishable by fines of up to $300.
As cell phones have become more widely available, the
number of drivers distracted by cell phones has
increased-putting more and more Alaskans in harm's
way. The use of a cell phone while driving slows a
driver's reaction time by dividing their attention.
One study showed that using a cell phone while driving
is as dangerous as driving drunk. This held true even
for drivers using hands-free devices. Another study
showed that drivers are four times more likely to get
in an accident if they talk on a cell phone while
driving.
Distracted drivers put themselves and everyone around
them at risk. By prohibiting the use of cell phones
while driving, HB 257 will make Alaska's roads safer
for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists, preventing
needless accidents caused by distracted drivers.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN concluded by stating that using a cell
phone is not a liberty. There is not any voter right to drive
while distracted. Distracted drivers should be held accountable
for their driving. While there are many other causes of
distraction, the most common cause of distraction while driving
is cell phone use. He stated that HB 257 will help keep drivers
attention on the road.
2:26:49 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON commented that her mother was involved in an
accident with someone who was talking on cell phone.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked whether the term "cellular phone"
would capture all of the devices, suggesting perhaps using the
term "mobile phone."
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN responded that cellular phone is the most
commonly used phone. He did not recall seeing anyone driving
while using a satellite phone. Any phone system with the same
characteristics, that can be dialed up, and drivers will talk as
they were driving would create the same kinds of liabilities.
He offered his willingness to expand the definition if so
desired.
2:28:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN recalled the sponsor was not interested
in allowing a hands-free exemption.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN answered the studies do not support the
theory that hands-free makes the driver any more attentive or
likely to be good driver. He related that the dysfunction is in
the brain, which is processed in a different manner than when
driving and conducting a conversation with a passenger.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for difference between hands free and
simply holding a conversation.
2:30:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN understood from studies that people are
less attentive when talking on a cell phone than talking to
person sitting next to them. He recalled the main fact that is
people are more used to talking in short verse and they are not
concentrating in the same way as when they are conversing using
a cell phone.
2:31:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON related she has observed all kinds of
distractions while people are driving. She pointed out that
children can be distracting as attempting to eat or read while
driving. She asked whether telling people to "drive" is
something that can actually be legislated.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN recalled observing a person driving in
Anchorage and noticed a driver received a phone call and her
speed changed from 45 to 10 miles per hour. He had to take
measures to avoid a crash. Some distractions are worse than
others and interacting with children is different than trying to
get your hands on cell phone to answer it, he stated.
2:33:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked whether pulling over to stop on a
narrow road would create another hazard at the expense of
stopping cell phone use.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN related that it depends on the road. Some
roads a person should not try to answer the phone. There is not
any constitutional right for people to answer their cell phone.
He hoped people would not answer their phone if it created a
risk.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON related if that was the case the bill
would not be necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN agreed.
2:34:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked how many other states have a ban
on cell phones.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN answered a number of states have bans on
cell phones, relating that the legal landscape is changing,
although he was unsure how many states currently have some form
of cell phone ban. He recalled that California and Oregon do
ban cell phones, but he did not have a specific number.
2:35:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether a hands free device could
be used in California.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN did not know of any states that ban hands
free devices. In response to Chair P. Wilson, he restated his
answer.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether a person stopped at a stop
light could answer their phone.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN said no. He related that if the driver is
engaged in the types of activities which are a normal part of
driving, which also includes being alert at a stop light are
required. Thus, using a cell phone at a stop light would not be
allowed, he stated.
2:37:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that it would not include
operating a radio.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN thinks that is correct, but related his
question is probably more of a drafting question.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that the distinction between
hands-free and cell phone is that it can be difficult for a
driver to turn corners with one hand on the wheel. Even if you
are talking on the phone with a headset this difference may well
be the reason for some states allowing hands-free phones to be
used while driving vehicles.
2:39:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN, in response to Representative T. Wilson,
explained that a person can pull over and stop to answer a phone
and no penalty applies unless a person is violating the normal
actions of driving vehicle.
2:40:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that if a car is parked a
person is not considered driving. He expressed concern that
this bill would affect people driving commercial vehicles along
the Dalton Highway, who rely on cell phones, especially the
"pusher car" since their work requires that they coordinate
activities. He offered his belief that some exception should be
added for the truckers.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN recognized the concern but offered that he
likes the bill just fine in its current form. He viewed it as
committee's prerogative to make changes and related that he does
not expect this bill to go through the process without
amendments.
2:42:45 PM
CINDY CASHEN, Administrator, Highway Safety Office (AHSO),
Division of Program Development, Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF), explained that the Alaska Highway
Safety Office (AHSO) receives federal transportation dollars to
administer data-driven driver behavior programs which encourages
safe driving behavior. She commented that the AHSO is
interested in driver distraction data. She read, as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
The AHSO receives its federal funding from National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Their
policy is that it is the primary responsibility of the
driver to operate motor vehicle safely.
The task of driving requires full attention and focus.
Cell phone use can distract drivers from this task,
risking harm to themselves and others. Therefore, the
safest course of action is to refrain from using a
cell phone while driving.
NHTSA research shows that driving while using a cell
phone can pose a serious cognitive distraction and
degrade driver performance.
NHTSA estimates that driver distraction from all
sources contributes to 25 percent of all police-
reported traffic crashes. Ten years ago only 15% of
the reported traffic crashes were attributed to driver
inattention.
MS. CASHEN added that driver distraction can cover everything
from turning on the radio to using a cell phone. She read
[original punctuation provided]:
The most common distraction for drivers is the use of
cell phones.
A ban on hand-held devices has been enacted in 8
states:
1. California
2. Connecticut
3. District of Columbia
4. New Jersey
5. New York
In 2006, NHTSA and the Virginia Tech Transportation
Institute released a 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study
which tracked the behavior of the drivers of 100 vehicles
equipped with video and sensor devices for more than one
year.
MS. CASHEN offered that the AHSO appreciates all kinds of data
since it helps quantify the distraction. She offered to provide
answers to previous questions using the data from the "100 car
study." In response to Chair P. Wilson, she answered that she has
the data comparison between hands-free phones and cell phones.
MS. CASHEN continued reading [original punctuation provided]:
The most common distraction for drivers is the use of
cell phones.
The available research indicates that whether it is a
hands-free or hand-held cell phone, the cognitive
distraction is significant enough to degrade a driver's
performance. This can cause a driver to miss key visual
and audio cues needed to avoid a crash.
MS. CASHEN added that the hand-held calls tend to take up less
time than the hands-free calls. She continued [original
punctuation provided]:
The results showed that manual dialing was about as
distracting as grooming/eating, but less distracting than
reading or changing CDs.
The number of crashes and near-crashes attributable to
dialing is nearly identical to the number associated with
talking or listening.
MS. CASHEN, in response to Chair P. Wilson, offered to provide
the report. She read statistics, as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Alaska Distracted Driving Statistics (Highway Analysis
System):
From 2002-2007 there were 78,162 motor vehicle crashes in
Alaska.
From 2002-2007 there were 335 motor vehicle crashes
involving cell phone use.
189 resulted in property damage only, 127 resulted in minor
injuries, 19 in major injuries and no fatalities.
From 2002-2007 there were 895 injuries in traffic crashes
involving cell phone use.
200 resulted in minor injuries, 20 resulted in major
injuries, and no fatalities.
MS. CASHEN provided details on the form the law enforcement
uses, which includes cell phone use. The law enforcement
officers can only check up to two categories of 26 boxes listed,
which includes a box for cell phone use. She related that is
part of the reason why data is lacking. This is a relatively
new type of unsafe driving and distracted driving definitions
and collections vary. It will take time, so the best data is
currently the date provided by the NHTSA study, since it
provides information on the physiological occurrences with cell
phone use.
2:50:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether Ms. Cashen would like to
see the forms changed to add a specific category for cell phone
use so the officer would not have to choose between the 26 other
causes.
MS. CASHEN answered yes.
2:51:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for the reason that the effective
date selected is July 1, 2010.
MS. CASHEN related that the AHSO office did not set the
effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether she had any information
on truckers along the haul road.
MS. CASHEN explained that currently an exemption exists for
those drivers for emergency purposes. She understood exemption
is already in place for emergency responders.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that he is interested in how
the bill would affect commercial vehicle drivers, truckers on
the haul road driving to the North Slope. One trucker will pull
the cargo, while another will push the cargo. He related that
the two truckers are in constant communication with one another
but they are not categorized as emergency responders.
MS. CASHEN said she did not know. In response to Representative
Gruenberg, she stated several studies involving Federal Motor
Carrier Administration that works with commercial vehicle
enforcement. She offered to provide a copy to the committee.
2:53:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether commercial drivers use hand-
held or hands-free cell phones.
MS. CASHEN offered to provide the information.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for information on crash rates in
other states that allow hands-free devices to be used while
driving.
MS. CASHEN recalled that eight states have banned hand-held cell
phone use. In further response to Representative Munoz, she
recalled a recent study provoked discussions, which indicated
perhaps drivers who used hand-held devices have switched to
hands-free cell phones. The evidence is not conclusive and
differing opinions and interpretations were made on the data.
This study was based on insurance data and not on fatality data.
Thus, the statistics were not specifically on crashes but were
based on distracted-driver related fatalities. She pointed out
that distracted driving is not limited to cell phone use since
it encompasses all types of distractions. The fatalities
involving distracted driving went down, but she did not know for
certain the reductions were due to restrictions on cell phones,
but perhaps they were.
2:56:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ said she supports the bill. However, she
does not want to create difficulties for commercial drivers.
She stated she has heard from a number of commercial operators
that have asked for a hands-free option, which she would like to
keep open for consideration.
2:57:30 PM
ROY HOYT, JR., stated that this bill is a great idea and should
be enacted to eliminate use of cell phones while driving. He
suggested that the language for cell phones could apply while
vehicles are in motion. He remarked that driving in Homer can
be frightening as people drive and use their cell phones,
especially while rounding corners. He is surprised more
accidents do not occur. He recalled citizen's band (CB) radios
previously used to talk between vehicles. He also did not
believe hands-free cell phones posed as significant a problem as
hand-held cell phones.
2:59:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN remarked that this bill does not ban the
use of CB radios.
CHAIR P. WILSON left public testimony open on HB 257.
[HB 257 was held over.]
3:00:31 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 322 winter tires backup.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 322 |
| HB322 winter tires sponsor stmt.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2010 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB257 cell phone ban sponsor stmt.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2010 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/16/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 257 |
| HB257 cell phone ban sectional.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2010 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/16/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 257 |
| hb257 cell phone ban backup.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2010 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/16/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 257 |
| HB 8 gasline pie purchase sponsor stmt.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB8 gasline pipe purchase tariff and revenue.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB8 gasline pipe purchase backup.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB 322 Presentation.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 322 |