Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 106
04/03/2007 03:00 PM House HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR1 | |
| HB181 | |
| HB100 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 181 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 100 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 207 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SJR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 181-TRAFFIC OFFENSES: FINES/SCHOOL ZONES 3:11:44 PM CHAIR WILSON announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 181, "An Act relating to traffic offenses and traffic offenses committed in a school zone; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 181, Version 25-LS0613\L, Luckhaupt, 3/20/07.] 3:11:53 PM ROBERT MYERS, Intern to Representative Peggy Wilson, Alaska State Legislature, addressed questions that were raised during the bill's first hearing. He clarified that the large penalties assessed by the bill are designed to clearly define unacceptable behavior. Mr. Myers pointed out that, in 1998, the legislature passed double traffic fines in construction zones to protect construction workers and last year, similar legislation was passed to protect the public in highway safety corridors. Thus, this legislation is needed to protect school children just as much as construction workers and the general public. In addition, he explained that pressuring local agencies for increased enforcement of existing laws places an undue burden on police forces and the enforcement of laws remains in the domain of local municipalities and the Alaska State Troopers. MR. MYERS continued to explain that data from 2002 through 2004, shows that there was a 33 percent reduction in construction zone accidents; however, overall accidents rose 18 percent. He opined that this data tends to support the effectiveness of the double traffic fines in construction zones. He concluded by saying that accidents in school zones increased by 110 percent during the same time period. 3:14:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked how many of the school zone accidents involved children. MR. MYERS responded that the data does not specify. 3:15:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES agreed with the intent of the bill; however, he said that he has a concern about the difficulty in collecting the fines. He expressed his hope that this may serve as a deterrent and that whatever can be done to slow people down in school zones is worth a try. 3:16:37 PM MR. MYERS replied that the problem of collecting traffic fines will exist whether this legislation passes or not. Research during the drafting of the bill showed that non-payment of traffic violations is most prevalent in Anchorage. He opined that the collection problem does not detract from the merits of HB 181. 3:17:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked whether camera monitoring can be used to enforce the school speed zones. MR. MYERS assured the committee that camera surveillance and ticketing can be set-up; however, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that surveillance is a violation of privacy rights. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN opined that violations may be challenged when the fine is $1,000. He then asked for an explanation of Sec. 5, that annuls 13 AAC 02.325(d) and 13 AAC 03.325.(d). MR. MYERS explained that Sec. 5 replaces the old definition of a school zone with the new definition in Sec. 4. He said that the old definition uses the presence of a crosswalk to determine a school speed zone. The new definition determines that a school zone is marked by speed limit signs and the fines are effective only during the times indicated by those signs. For example, double fines will not be in effect at 10:00 p.m. in July. 3:21:06 PM CHAIR WILSON informed the committee that the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) requested the clarification of signage for school zones. 3:21:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN expressed his understanding that a sign that states "School Zone" indicates the applicability of the double fines. MR. MYERS explained that a driver would only be subjected to double fines if there is a sign that states "School Zone" and states a speed limit and a time frame, or "When Children Present." 3:22:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked whether DOT&PF has been consulted on this bill. MR. MYERS affirmed that DOT&PF was consulted on the school zone definition. REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked whether there is a fiscal note for the cost of new signage. MR. MYERS advised that there would not be a need for new signs. REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH questioned Mr. Myers about the time limits that need to be added to the existing signs. MR. MYERS answered that information is already on the posted signs. REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH recalled that at her local school there are flashing lights that indicate the school speed zone, but there is no time designation. MR. MYERS explained that the school speed zone is only in effect when the lights are flashing. REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH remarked: The lights are only flashing on a collector street, which would be a street that's designated as a particular traffic volume. But the more dangerous accidents happen closer to the school where there is no flashing light, there's only a free-standing sign that says "School Zone" going in, I think they're like, neon yellow right now, going in, but there's no designation. So, if there's no time that you are going to add to the sign, ... it's 24/7 that we're going to enforce it from the police department. ... There's after school activities, there's basketball on the week-ends. ... A school zone time, as I understand it, is the hours of operation, 30 minutes before and 30 minutes after, at least at an elementary school.... 3:25:10 PM MR. MYERS deferred the question to the legislative liaison from DOT&PF. REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH further asked whether the sponsor has garnered comments from the police departments around the state. She stated her interest in knowing if the police departments believe that the bill will be easy to implement. MR. MYERS assured the committee that the sponsor consulted with the Department of Public Safety, and its issues with HB 181 were addressed in the Committee Substitute (CS). He noted that there are no laws being created; the bill merely alters the penalties for those already in force. 3:26:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked for the difference between "annulling" a statute and "repealing" a statute. MR. MYERS said that annulled is the correct term for changes in the administrative code. 3:27:16 PM MARY SIROKY, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), introduced Kurtis Smith. 3:27:48 PM KURTIS SMITH, Traffic and Safety Engineer, Division of Design & Engineering Services, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), asked for clarification of the question. REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH restated her question regarding the lack of a time designation on the signs in the school zone of her local school. 3:28:54 PM MR. SMITH answered that DOT&PF will not require additional signage. There are three ways for signs to indicate when school speed zones are in effect: flashing lights; "When Children are Present"; and by day of week and time of day. REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked whether law enforcement could issue a double fine ticket during week-end activities. MR. SMITH explained that the "When Children are Present" sign is problematic for law enforcement. He expressed his understanding that the law could be enforced on week-ends and after school hours. 3:30:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether there is a traffic safety problem at schools. MR. SMITH responded that the roads can always be safer; however, DOT&PF annual safety reviews do not identify school zones as problem areas. He opined that compliance with traffic laws in school zones is reportedly better than in other places. 3:30:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER remarked: So, if we were to accept that we could do something to make them safer, or that there was any change needed, do you think that doubling fines would be the first way you'd go for it? MR. SMITH answered: I think enforcement is the most important thing. ... Fines are already higher in school zones and ... enforcement, I think, is the key. 3:31:42 PM MR. MYERS clarified that present law elevates the fines in school zones for speeding only, not for other traffic offenses. CHAIR WILSON asked what the difference would be between speeding and traffic offenses. MR. MYERS said that other traffic offenses include running stop signs and unsafe passing. 3:32:28 PM DENNIS COOK, Transportation Coordinator, Fairbanks North Star Borough School District, stated his support for HB 181. He informed the committee that his office receives many complaints about vehicles speeding in school zones. He opined that the bill will increase safety for children walking to school and home during the months of inclement weather and darkness. In his personal experience he has seen vehicles speeding in school zones. He said that double fines are effective in slowing vehicles in construction zones. Mr. Cook thanked the committee for looking closely at HB 181. 3:34:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked whether the $1,000 fine is an arbitrary amount or the maximum set by the court system. 3:34:43 PM CHAIR WILSON responded that the fine is not to exceed $1,000; and the judge would decide on the exact amount. 3:35:00 PM MR. MYERS explained that a traffic fine is set by a bail schedule established by the Alaska Supreme Court. The current maximum fine for speeding is $300. The bill will increase the maximum possible fine for speeding to $1,000. Therefore, the amount of the doubled fines will not be limited by the current ceiling of $300. REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH verified that there is a formula that uses the speed of the vehicle to calculate the fine. 3:36:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked Mr. Cook whether enhanced and improved enforcement of existing speed limits would improve the safety in school zones. MR. COOK said yes. Speaking of his experience along the Parks Highway, he opined that the double fines are an effective deterrent in construction zones. 3:37:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN observed that the fine also includes double points against a driver's license and if a driver has two school zone speeding tickets within two years, the license is revoked. MR. MYERS agreed. He added that the first time a license is revoked for traffic points, it is lost for 30 days. 3:38:07 PM LT. RODNEY DIAL, Deputy Commander, A Detachment, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety, recited the schedule of points assessed toward the suspension or loss of a license. 3:38:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked how often the state troopers patrol the school zones. LT. DIAL answered that coverage varies upon the area. In Ketchikan, traffic offenses in school zones are low; however, a significant amount of federal support for extra highway safety patrols can be used for enforcement in school traffic zones. He informed the committee that the percentage of patrols is community specific. 3:39:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the public's awareness of more coverage by law enforcement results in better compliance. LT. DIAL answered yes. For example, he said that the troopers advertise around the holidays about [increased] DUI enforcement and it is effective. 3:40:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked Lt. Dial for his approach to improving school zone safety. LT. DIAL responded that he would dedicate officers to patrol school zones, during school hours, on a random basis. 3:41:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked whether increased fines would increase enforcement. LT. DIAL replied that the amount of the fine is irrelevant to the enforcement decision. Troopers base enforcement on the greatest need; however, increased fines may have an effect on compliance. 3:41:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER remarked: ... Kurt Smith, who was with the traffic, traffic and safety engineer with the Department of [Transportation & Public Facilities] said, "fines are already higher in school zones, enforcement is the key." Is that something that you'd agree with? LT. DIAL agreed. 3:42:24 PM CHAIR WILSON asked whether doubling fines in other traffic areas is effective. LT. DIAL responded that doubling fines may act as a deterrent in highway safety traffic corridors where there is sufficient advertising and signage to make drivers aware of the additional cost of a violation. CHAIR WILSON concluded that a difference will not be made without new signs. LT. DIAL said: I think what I'm trying to say is that if the public's not aware of it, they just wind up with a citation that's a lot higher. I can tell you that my experience as a patrol trooper, people are not even aware of the differences, in many cases, between municipalities in the state. For example, Anchorage Police Department tends to have fines that are double those of the state troopers ... if it's clearly communicated I believe it will have more of an effect. 3:43:57 PM CHAIR WILSON closed public testimony. 3:44:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered Conceptual Amendment 1 that read: Citations may be issued utilizing automated photo radar or similar technology if authorized by local ordinance. 3:44:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH objected. 3:45:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that DOT&PF and the troopers agree that enforcement is the key. He opined that when people expect enforcement, the public is more compliant and the awareness of enforcement by radar will encourage compliance and promote safety for school children. 3:46:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN recalled that DOT&PF concluded that school zones are safe, and that Lt. Dial testified that law enforcement is placed where it is most needed. He said he did not support the amendment. 3:47:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH relayed that Anchorage has experience with photo radar as a means of enforcement. The Anchorage assembly implemented a photo radar program in school zones; however, there was a subsequent ballot initiative and the city overwhelmingly repealed the ordinance. The City of Anchorage wanted a police officer, not a camera, on site to enforce traffic violations. She said that photo radar did make it easier to cite violators, although public opinion was that the program was implemented to raise revenue. 3:49:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH removed her objection. 3:50:03 PM CHAIR WILSON announced that, there being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 3:50:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said that she agreed that enforcement is the issue and the success of the program depends upon citizens' awareness of the double fine zone. She offered Conceptual Amendment 2 which read: Signs will be added to inform the public that double fines are enforced in a particular area. 3:50:49 PM CHAIR WILSON objected for discussion. 3:50:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH stated that, even though there will be capital costs, it is important to have appropriate signage to raise the education and awareness levels of the public. 3:51:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN noted that the amendment does not include the limit of $1,000. CHAIR WILSON said, "That follows with the rest of the bill." 3:51:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH pointed out that, in Sec. 1, the bill speaks to double fines. She recalled testimony that explained that the fine is calculated by a formula based on the speed of the vehicle. She suggested that the signs should be similar to those posted in highway traffic safety corridors. 3:52:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked whether signs will be posted at every school in Alaska. 3:52:34 PM MR. MYERS informed the committee that DOT&PF guidelines, copies of which are included in the committee packet, determine where signs need to be placed. He noted that some rural areas are not counted as school zones. 3:53:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER suggested that the signs need to indicate double fines and double points in order to be a deterrent. 3:53:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH acknowledged that Representative Gardner made a valid point; however, she encouraged the use of existing and consistent signage. 3:54:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES observed that the signs indicate double penalties. 3:54:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered Conceptual Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 2 that adds: ... and if automatic technology is authorized the signs shall so indicate. 3:55:36 PM CHAIR WILSON objected for discussion. 3:55:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH stated that the use of technology is a local community or municipal choice. If a local community wishes to utilize photo radar, the community could choose to add an appropriate sign. 3:56:58 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Neuman, Seaton, Cissna, and Roses voted in favor of Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 2. Representatives Gardner, Fairclough, and Wilson voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 4-3. 3:58:15 PM CHAIR WILSON removed her objection to Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended. There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, was adopted. 3:58:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked about the effect of the new signage on local communities regarding the use of photo radar enforcement. 3:59:25 PM CHAIR WILSON observed that the amendment will require a fiscal note. 3:59:47 PM MR. SMITH opined that double fine signs will be installed initially, and later, as appropriate, the local jurisdiction would add a separate plate to notify drivers of radar enforcement. 4:00:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated his understanding that DOT&PF is only responsible for signage on state roads. 4:00:49 PM MR. SMITH answered that DOT&PF is responsible for signs on state roads and on new projects. REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked whether DOT&PF will have the responsibility to install signs for school zones on state roads, or on all roads, in response to this legislation. MR. SMITH opined that DOT&PF's responsibility would be for state roads. 4:01:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH re-stated the intent of the amendment. She said: The Department of Transportation, on a state road, would go through, at their earliest convenience, to implement this law and place a sign that showed a double penalty. ... And that we would follow up, then, with how we would enforce the "and portion".... 4:01:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN agreed with Representative Fairclough, and then said that the amendment to the amendment would add that the photo radar sign would be placed by the local communities. 4:02:19 PM CHAIR WILSON stated: ... that's on the record, that, that, if the community chose to do that, then that would be their responsibility to make sure there was adequate signage. And, obviously, that wouldn't be permanent, because that's not always there, those things can be moved, and so .... 4:02:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON advised that if a municipality authorizes the use of radar, then it would be noted on the school zone sign. A community may set this type of enforcement up on a temporary or permanent basis, and the sign should reflect the presence of radar enforcement. He opined that the amendment clearly states that a local ordinance is needed to allow such technology. 4:04:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated the need for a [revised] fiscal note. 4:04:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report CSHB 181, Version 25- LS0613\L, Luckhaupt, 3/20/07, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. 4:05:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN objected and recalled that the representative from DOT&PF testified that school zones are generally safe, and that the trooper testified that enforcement is the key. He stressed that school zones should be made safe; however, this is not the approach. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated her objection, for the same reasons as Representative Neuman, and also due to the lack of documentation supporting the bill. She said that testimony supporting the bill was limited to one member of the public and agency support is absent. Representative Gardner said that she felt that the bill is unnecessary. 4:07:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH spoke in favor of moving the bill, having explained the previous reservation she had about the $1,000 maximum. She said that she felt the amendments will aid in educating the public and that the judiciary committee can further refine the bill, if necessary. Representative Fairclough referred to a letter of support from the Alaska Peace Officers Association, and other testimony supporting the bill. She expressed her belief that education will provide more of a deterrent than an individual's receipt of a costly ticket. 4:09:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated that the amendment that requires the radar enforcement issue to be addressed at the local level is important. She recalled that this is not a new idea; however, as long as it is a local choice to use this, it may be helpful. 4:10:52 PM CHAIR WILSON observed that, although enforcement may be the key, sometimes law officers are not available. She opined that the threat of double fines can make a difference. 4:11:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated his support for the bill, even though the fine increase may not change behavior. 4:12:08 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Cissna, Roses, Fairclough, Seaton, and Wilson voted in favor of reporting CSHB 181, Version 25-LS0613\L, Luckhaupt, 3/20/07, as amended, from committee. Representatives Gardner and Neuman voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 181(HES) was reported out of the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee by a vote of 5- 2. 4:13:08 PM The committee took an at-ease from 4:13 p.m. to 4:14 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|