Legislature(2009 - 2010)
04/15/2009 05:17 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB36 | |
| SB48 | |
| SB148 | |
| HB181 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 181 - USE OF HEADLIGHTS REQUIRED 6:17:47 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 181, "An Act relating to the use of headlights when operating a motor vehicle." 6:17:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT KAWASAKI, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, explained that HB 181 addresses a key goal of the Alaska Highway Safety Office's (AHSO's) Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), which recommends that State law be changed to require all vehicles to use headlights at all times. Research indicates that traffic accidents - particularly head-on traffic accidents - are reduced when daytime running lights are used, and the AHSO has determined that enforcement of a headlight law could decrease head-on collisions by 7-15 percent. Furthermore, the effectiveness of such a law has been demonstrated in Alaska on the Seward Highway, where, in the mid-1990s, signs were installed requiring the use of headlights at all times when traveling between Anchorage and Seward. Both the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) acknowledge the effectiveness of headlight usage in saving lives and markedly reducing the number of crashes. REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI noted that similar results have been seen in other countries with polar regions similar to Alaska's. In Sweden, for example, studies indicate that requiring the use of headlights at all times reduces crash rates by 20 percent in urban areas and 17 percent in rural areas. He surmised that even in the summertime, when the sun lingers on the horizon, it is easier to see oncoming traffic when vehicles' lights are on. Currently 39 out of 50 states, including Alaska, require the use of headlights on motorcycles at all times, since that makes them easier to see. He offered his belief that HB 181 will increase safety on Alaska's roads by making all vehicles easer to see. He mentioned that a national insurance group has advertisements stressing that people should drive with their headlights on at all times, and that some vehicle manufactures have begun adding daytime running lights in order to increase vehicle safety. 6:22:06 PM CHAIR RAMRAS expressed concern that a violation of HB 181 would be a primary offense. REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI, acknowledging that it would be a primary offense, noted that the proposed new crime only applies to motor vehicles traveling on a highway, and that there is already a statutory definition of "highway". Driving with one's headlights on enables others - even those who have difficulty seeing in some circumstances - to see one's vehicle better, thus providing more protection. He relayed that although the AARP as a whole has not yet endorsed passage of HB 181, individual members of the AARP have spoken in support; as one's eyes start to fail, it sure helps to be able to see oncoming traffic. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM, observing that the DOT&PF's fiscal note indicates that passage of HB 181 would result in 39 signs being posted, asked how that number was arrived at. REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI offered his understanding that the DOT&PF used some sort of formula, with 39 being the bare minimum number of signs it would be comfortable posting, and surmised that those signs would be posted at highway entry points, ferry terminals, and airports. He noted that the legislature could stipulate that either more or fewer signs be posted. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN surmised that under the bill, drivers of cars that don't have headlights that turn on automatically would be obligated to turn their headlights on manually. REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI concurred, added that he does so as a matter of course when driving, and predicted that having to turn on one's headlights while driving would be an easy concept for folks to understand should HB 181 be adopted. CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether language has been drafted that would make a violation a secondary offense. 6:28:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he doesn't understand the concern about a violation being a primary offense, adding that probable cause would not be an issue because it would be obvious when someone is driving without his/her headlights on. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, mentioning that he drives with his headlights on but has occasionally drained the battery in his older cars when he forgets to turn the headlights off, expressed favor with the concept of driving with headlights on at all times, but questioned whether offering incentives for such behavior, compared to the bill's current punitive approach, had been considered. REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI offered his belief that education is always the best, cheapest, and first route to take towards compliance, adding that signage also helps with compliance, as does seeing others driving with their headlights on. He noted that his dad always drove with the headlights on and his mom began doing so after she was involved in a vehicle accident. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that his wife's newer vehicle has automatic headlights but not his older cars, and that when changing cars, sometimes he just forgets to turn the headlights on in his older cars. He surmised that under the bill as currently written, law enforcement would be able to stop him when he again forgets to turn on his headlights, since it would be a primary offense, and that if he were to be so stopped and given a ticket, it would provide him with an incentive to get a device that would automatically turn his headlights on and off when his car is turned on and off. He indicated, though, that the nuisance of having to remember to turn on his headlights does not outweigh the benefit that driving with headlights on provides. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, noting that there are already a number of ads promoting seatbelt use [and discouraging drinking and driving] and highlighting the dangers of distracted driving, posited that perhaps the DPS could be encouraged, via an appropriation or legislation, to engage in a comprehensive advertizing campaign regarding safe driving behavior, including the use of headlights at all times. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL observed that the public is being endangered by the use of very, very bright headlights, the use of misaligned headlights, and the use of what he characterized as "blinding" blue headlights, and opined that in terms of public safety, these dangers far outweigh the danger of not driving with headlights on at all times. He mentioned that he would be drafting amendments to address those issues. CHAIR RAMRAS again expressed a preference for having a violation of the bill be only a secondary offense. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG predicted that it would be difficult to make a violation a secondary offense. 6:35:07 PM TABITHA WILLIAMS, Intern, Representative Scott Kawasaki, Alaska State Legislature, in response to comments, said she personally would prefer a violation to be a secondary offense. 6:36:04 PM KURTIS SMITH, P.E., State Traffic & Safety Engineer, Traffic and Safety, Design & Construction Standards Section, Division of Statewide Design & Engineering Services, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), relayed that the DOT&PF strongly supports HB 181, believing that making vehicles more conspicuous would be a cost effective way of saving lives, and estimating that it could reduce head-on collisions and other accidents and save a minimum of one life per year as well as eliminate many non-fatal crashes. Signage would be necessary at major points of entry into the state - airports, borders, marine terminals, et cetera - in order to notify drivers that Alaska law requires them to drive with their headlights on at all times. He clarified that the DOT&PF estimates that about 40 signs would be needed, at a cost of about $135,000, and that it has already identified about $40,000 in AHSO funding for such signage. Should HB 181 be adopted, before it takes effect, the DOT&PF would fund a public education campaign to notify drivers of the new law. 6:37:36 PM CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that the committee would be holding HB 181 over. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES expressed favor with the concept of the bill, noting that as a youngster, she used to drive back and forth on the Seward highway a lot, and back then, there were no passing lanes so drivers would have to pull out into the oncoming traffic lane in order to pass slower-moving vehicles, and many times when she did so - thinking that the other lane was clear - she just didn't see an oncoming car, especially when it was gray and the day was overcast. House Bill 181, she surmised, addresses some real safety concerns regardless that the issue of primary offense versus secondary offense still needs to be addressed, adding that she agrees with Representative Coghill that super bright headlights can be potentially dangerous. CHAIR RAMRAS ventured that the bill discriminates against people who don't have new cars, making such drivers more of a target for law enforcement, and more prone to having dead batteries and in turn more likely to become stranded. He indicated that he is questioning whether the funding currently being proposed for headlight signage couldn't be spent more effectively elsewhere. [HB 181 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|