Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 120
04/12/2006 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB482 | |
| HB434 | |
| SB261 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 482 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 261 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 434 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 261 - REGULATION OF HWYS; TRAFFIC OFFENSES 2:29:53 PM CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 261(FIN), "An Act relating to the designation of traffic safety corridors; relating to the bail or fine for an offense committed in a traffic safety corridor and to separately accounting for such fines; and providing for an effective date." 2:30:01 PM JOHN MACKINNON, Deputy Commissioner of Highways & Public Facilities, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), relayed that SB 261 will give the department the ability to establish highway traffic safety corridors and assess double traffic fines [for violations occurring within] those highway traffic safety corridors, which will be defined as a stretch of road that has significantly higher than statewide average fatality rates. He referred to a chart, and noted that it illustrates the Seward Highway from "Potter Marsh" to Girdwood and the locations of the fatal accidents that occurred on it from 1997 to 2005. He mentioned that this past January there was a serious fatality caused by a young driver with a history of bad driving - he hit a couple traveling to Anchor Point and killed them. In response, the DOT&PF got together with the Department of Public Safety (DPS) in order to find some solutions. MR. MACKINNON relayed that the department has what he called "highway safety sanction funds," adding that they are "soft sanctions of construction dollars that are pulled out of the construction side that go into education." He said that the department was able to use that money to fund additional enforcement by the DPS on that stretch of road, and though there may not be a correlation, there have been no fatalities on that stretch of road since then. Because of environmental conditions coupled with driver behavior, it is a stretch of road that a driver must pay particular attention to while traveling on it, and education efforts have increased people's awareness of that fact. MR. MACKINNON shared that in 2005, State troopers wrote 722 citations for the entire Seward Highway, from Anchorage to Seward; this year, for the Girdwood "detachment" alone, from mid-January through mid-March, the State troopers wrote 730 citations, thus illustrating that increased enforcement works. He said that the aforementioned traffic safety corridors will have signage at both ends and intermittently throughout, and that the proposed double fines will help pay for the increased enforcement because 50 percent of those double fines will be returned to the DOT&PF, which in turn will provide those funds to the DPS or any other law enforcement agency that assists with enforcement. In other words, once initially funded, this [program] will continue to pay for itself. MR. MACKINNON offered his recollection that speeding fines ranged between $75 and $100, and surmised that doubling those fines will result in a lot of money. He went on to relay that the DOT&PF has already identified a number of areas, mostly in the central region of the state, that would qualify for a highway traffic safety corridor, such as the Parks Highway from Wasilla to Big Lake, and Knik-Goose Bay Road. MR. MACKINNON, in response to a question, acknowledged that the department has not yet done an analysis of roads in Representative Coghill's district, adding that his sense is that the traffic volumes are not high enough, though perhaps some small pieces of road in that area would qualify as highway traffic safety corridors. He explained that the department is not focusing on urban highways, where intersections can trigger accidents, but is instead focusing on rural roads because that's where driver behavior is the main cause of accidents. Referring to one of the charts, he noted that when the DOT&PF provided it to the Division of Alaska State Troopers, the troopers became aware of where they needed to focus their enforcement efforts, and that a "blue box" indicates an accident where it was proven that drug or alcohol played a part in the accident, and that a "yellow box" indicates an accident where it was not proven that drug or alcohol played a part. MR. MACKINNON, in response to questions, indicated that he is anticipating that one of the highway traffic safety corridors will be located along the Seward Highway between Anchorage and Girdwood, and that the proposed additional fines will pay for enforcement efforts rather than for educating the public that the fines will be double in those designated areas. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Mr. MacKinnon to look favorably on an amendment he is considering that would substantially increase the fines - by more than just double - in highway traffic safety corridors for those drivers that pass vehicles when they shouldn't, such as passing when there is a solid [double] yellow line. "That is not just a simple traffic violation at that point," he remarked, "that is something that is killing people, and we know it." MR. MACKINNON offered his understanding that the fine schedule for that behavior is established via regulation by the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and so the DOT&PF would be willing to cooperate with the DMV to see if they would be able to raise that type of fine. In response to a question, he said he is not sure what the current fine is for crossing a double yellow line in order to pass another vehicle. 2:38:43 PM JAMES A. HELGOE, Lieutenant, Legislative Liaison, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), relayed that under 13 AAC 02.075(b), the fine for driving left of center in a no passing zone is $150 plus 2 points. He asked that members keep in mind that if one is driving left of center in a no passing zone and another person has to take evasive action, one could be charged with either reckless driving or negligent driving, both of which carry a substantially higher penalty. MR. MACKINNON, in response to a question, surmised that doubling the current fine for driving left of center in a no passing zone would result in a fine of $300, though he, too, commented that if the driver was doing so in an erratic manner, it would most likely result in a reckless driving or negligent driving charge. REPRESENTATIVE GARA suggested that singling out the driving- left-of-center-in-a-no-passing-zone concept by tripling the fine for that conduct would allow the DOT&PF to make a public education point. His preference, he remarked is for people to know that that conduct is unacceptable, especially in highway traffic safety corridors. CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on SB 261. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, noting that Title 11 contains crimes involving vehicles, asked whether they ought to have Section 3 apply to violations of Title 11 as well as to violations of Title 28. 2:44:22 PM PETER PUTZIER, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Transportation Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law (DOL), said that the question of whether to double the fines for the vehicular crimes listed under Title 11 is simply a policy call. He pointed out, though, that for certain felony crimes, it could result, for example, in doubling [what is already] a $50,000 fine. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the DOT&PF would like to assess more points for violations occurring within highway traffic safety corridors. MR. MACKINNON said that the department spoke with the DMV and discovered that doing so would raise a due process issue because a person can't be assessed so many points for a single offense that he/she loses his/her driver's license. Currently, when a person is close to losing his/her license because of points being assessed, the DMV is required to go through the process of notifying that person; therefore, the DMV strongly recommended against doubling the points that could be assessed for violations that occur within highway traffic safety corridors. REPRESENTATIVE GARA opined that it would be in order to assess an additional 2 points and quadruple the fine for driving left of center in a no passing zone located within a highway traffic safety corridor. He said he would like to offer both of those changes as a single amendment. [Although no formal motion was made, this was treated as Amendment 1.] REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed some discomfort with the concept of even doubling the fines, and offered his belief that the lack of adequate signage and adequate "pull offs" is as much a factor as bad driving habits. He said he might agree to the concept of doubling the fines if the DOT&PF were to improve signage and increase the number of "pull offs." REPRESENTATIVE WILSON pointed out that page 2, lines 4-5, says in part, "A claim for damages may not be made against the state or its officers, employees, or agents for an act or omission relating to the designation of and erection of signs regarding a traffic safety corridor." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that the bill should include signage requirements; putting up more signs will result in only a minimal expense and could prevent infractions. He asked what the current signage requirement is. MR. MACKINNON relayed that the department is amending the "Alaska Traffic Manual", which stipulates signage requirements, such that signage notifying the public of the double fines will be required at the beginning and end of each highway traffic safety corridor, at any intersecting road, and on every speed limit sign within a highway traffic safety corridor. 2:50:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he wants to insert a requirement that there be speed limit sign announcing the double fines every three miles in addition to any other signage already required. KURTIS J. SMITH, P.E., Statewide Traffic & Safety Engineer, Design & Construction Standards, Division of Design & Engineering Services, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), relayed that the "Alaska Traffic Manual" is being modified to require a speed limit sign every five miles in a highway traffic safety corridor. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that having a speed limit sign every three miles in a highway traffic safety corridor would be more appropriate. He said he would also like to double the fines for vehicles going too slowly, because he feels that that is a very dangerous practice. MR. MACKINNON said that those concepts would be best addressed via the "Alaska Traffic Manual" - which can be adjusted very quickly - or via regulation, adding that the goal is to promote highway safety and target high-risk drivers. He gave his word that he would see that the "Alaska Traffic Manual" is altered to require signage every three miles. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that he would write a letter of intent, which would follow the bill, that the committee can review at its next hearing. 2:54:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, to alter the bill such that an additional 2 points shall be assessed for driving left of center in a no passing zone located within a highway traffic safety corridor. There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT referred to the aforementioned language on page 2, lines 4-5, and asked why that language was included. MR. PUTZIER said that the department is required to erect signs designating highway traffic safety corridors, and the concern was that someone could argue that an accident or injury occurred simply because the department failed to erect such signage; the DOT&PF is trying to implement additional safety measures and is trying to alert people, but does not want to have to defend itself in litigation. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked whether the DOT&PF should also be required to post signage designating highway work zones. MR. MACKINNON relayed that that issue had been discussed but a corresponding clause was not included because the department did not want to complicate the bill. 2:57:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3, to include highway work zones in the language on page 2, lines 4-5. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that Conceptual Amendment 3 will require a title change, as well as a House concurrent resolution (HCR) to that effect. 2:58:04 PM CHAIR McGUIRE made a motion to adopt Amendment 4, to [conform the title with regard to Conceptual Amendment 3] and to adopt an HCR addressing the title change. REPRESENTATIVE GARA observed that Amendment 4 should also conform the title with regard to Amendment 2. CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that there were no objections to Amendment 4, announced that Amendment 4, along with the accompanying forthcoming title change HCR, was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE GARA referred to language on page 2, line 7 - which says in part, "The legislature may appropriate 50 percent of the fines ..." - pointed out that the legislature can't be told how to appropriate funds, and characterized this language as unenforceable because it violates the prohibition against dedicated funds and attempts to bind a future legislature. CHAIR McGUIRE agreed, but surmised that that language was probably meant to be merely an expression of intent. 2:59:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to report CSSB 261(FIN), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations, the accompanying fiscal notes, [and the forthcoming House concurrent resolution authorizing a title change]. There being no objection, HCS CSSB 261(JUD) [and what later became HCR 44] was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|