Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/09/2000 01:06 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 283 - BICYCLE HELMET LAW CHAIRMAN HALCRO announced the first order of business as House Bill 283, "An Act requiring a person under 16 years of age to wear a helmet when riding a bicycle; and providing for an effective date." Number 0108 CHRIS KNIGHT, Staff to Representative Allen Kemplen, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to present the bill on behalf of the sponsor. Requiring children under the age of 16 to wear a helmet while operating a bicycle, he said, reduces the risk of traumatic brain injuries. Sixteen other states have enacted similar legislation. Studies at the University of Washington have shown that states with mandatory bicycle helmet laws reduce the rate for head injuries. Currently, Alaska leads the nation in the number of brain injuries per capita. He further cited that bicycle crashes are the third leading cause of serious accidental injuries for Alaskans under the age of 16; in which, 52 percent suffer a traumatic brain injury resulting in a substantial cost to the state. The average cost, he cited, for children with brain injuries is about $12,000 per admission. Who covers those costs? He answered, The state and federal governments. He cited that about 40 percent of the children hospitalized with bicycle related injuries are either uninsured or bill Medicaid for their hospital care. He pointed out that this legislation does not mandate the use of a helmet for adults. This legislation is for children only, as they often lack the judgement necessary to make logical decisions. Currently, the Anchorage and Juneau police departments conduct educational programs and give out helmets. This legislation, therefore, would encourage and incite further helmet use. He also pointed out that the Alaska Highway Safety Planning Agency [Department of Public Safety] offers free grants from the federal government for safety organizations to conduct public information campaigns on safety and the use of helmets. Number 0377 JANE FELLMAN, Co-Coordinator, Kenai Peninsula SAFE KIDS Coalition, testified via teleconference from Kenai. The use of bicycle helmets, she said, reduces the risk of head injuries by 85 percent, and brain injuries by 88 percent. Bicycle safety is a public health issue, not just an individual problem. Statistics show that the treatment of serious head injuries can be extremely expensive, and that there is a significant cost savings with the consistent and correct use of a helmet. She said, "If someone is killed and injured in a crash, many others bear the emotional suffering as well as the cost(s)." MS. FELLMAN continued. Severe and fatal injuries are not just limited to children. Adults who wear helmets set an example. It only takes one mistake, she said, by a cyclist or motorist for injury or death. Bicycle safety cannot compensate for non-careful drivers or poor cycling environments; but a helmet improves a person's chance of escaping injury and death, especially since there are more cars on the road today. MS. FELLMAN continued. Education is the best way to get a person to wear a helmet, but that alone is rarely enough to get a person to change a behavior. Research has shown that education and legislation together are the best methods of increasing the use of a helmet. She said, "Education informs but does not empower parents to enforce the use of helmets. 'It's the law,' is a great excuse for an explanation for the use of helmets. Kids who would otherwise bow to peer pressure for not wearing helmets now have a reason, a compelling one, to wear one." Number 0627 CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Ms. Fellman where she feels government should draw the line between what is safe and what is not safe for an individual. In other words: If the state mandates the use of a bicycle helmet, should it also mandate the use of shin guards for skateboarders and elbow guards for rollerbladers? He called it a slippery slope. MS. FELLMAN replied, as a child advocate, she believes that the state should watch out for its children. The state should not draw a line when it comes to promoting educational issues, especially as they relate to head injuries, for they are life-threatening. Number 0750 STEVE O'CONNOR, Assistant Chief, Central Emergency Services, Central Kenai Peninsula Fire & EMS Providers, testified via teleconference from Kenai. During his career, he has probably been to three or four hundred accidents involving bicycles, ATVs and off-road vehicles. He has seen firsthand the difference that helmets make. Head injuries are life-threatening, and helmets make a significant difference between life, functioning as a productive adult and death. It's a real tragedy, he said, to see a child sustain a significant head injury and end up being totally dependent upon a personal caretaker for the rest of that child's life. He encouraged the committee members to support the bill. Number 0885 DAN COFFEY, President, Alaskan Bikers Advocating Training & Education [ABATE], Valdez Chapter, testified via teleconference from Valdez. He is requesting that the committee members not pass HB 283 out of committee. It's the right of every parent to decide how to raise their children, not the state's. Passing this legislation into law would take that right away. MR. COFFEY continued. He has traveled and lived in Bush Alaska for many years. This legislation, he said, is not good for the entire state, for many communities do not have paved roads. If this is a urban-rural issue then it should be treated and handled as such. He's not in favor of turning parents and children into criminals for choosing not to wear a helmet. Number 1072 REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN KEMPLEN asked Mr. Coffey whether he supports requiring the use of seat belts while in an automobile. MR. COFFEY replied, no, not as a state requirement. REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Mr. Coffey whether he supports requiring the use of a safety seat for babies while in an automobile. MR. COFFEY replied, yes, but that requirement is impossible since there are many areas of the state that do not have roads. Number 1126 ELIZABETH RIPLEY, Director, Community Health & Planning, Valley Hospital, testified via teleconference from Mat-Su. She is also chairman of the Mat-Su Valley SAFE KIDS Coalition, a national organization founded by C. Everett Koop for the purposes of reducing injuries in children - the number one cause of death for children ages 1 to 14 nationwide. MS. RIPLEY continued. Alaska, she said, has the highest rate of childhood injuries per capita. The third leading cause of injury in the Mat-Su Valley for both children and adults is from ATV and bicycle accidents. According to a survey conducted by Valley Hospital, 29 percent of the parents require their children to always wear a bicycle helmet; 20 percent never require their children to wear a bicycle helmet; 43 percent always require their children to wear an ATV helmet; and 5 percent never require their children to wear an ATV helmet. The remainder of the population sometimes require their children to wear an ATV or bicycle helmet. The survey was conducted in five different communities. Wasilla was the worst, which directly correlates with the rate of bicycle and ATV accidents. According to a report by the National SAFE KIDS Campaign, safety devices such as smoke alarms, car seats and bike helmets have contributed to a 46 percent decline over the last two decades among children under the age of 14. This is largely due to the result of widespread education, better engineering and landmark safety legislation. MS. RIPLEY continued. Unintended injuries, she said, disproportionately affect poor children. She noted that the Valley Hospital and the Mat-Su Valley SAFE KIDS Coalition hold numerous bike rodeos every year, and distribute hundreds of free helmets to those in need. Please pass this legislation, she said, and make parents and care givers accountable for children to wear helmets. Number 1372 MARTHA MOORE, Trauma Registry Coordinator, Community Health & Emergency Medical Services, Division of Public Health, Department of Health & Social Services, came before the committee to testify. Children are disproportionately involved in bicycle crashes, she said, due to immaturity, a lack of necessary skills and coordination. Younger children have a larger head in comparison to the rest of their bodies, which makes them top-heavy. It's critical, therefore, that they wear a helmet. MS. MOORE continued. There are other laws in the state that protect children. She cited the mandatory use of safety belts for children under the age of 16; and the mandatory use of float jackets for children under the age of 13 as examples. It's not unreasonable, therefore, to require the use of helmets as well. MS. MOORE continued. This really is an issue of increasing the use of helmets rather than an issue of enforceability. Jurisdictions she cited, where bicycle helmet laws have been enacted, have seen an increase in the use of helmets, which has not relied heavily upon enforcement. Number 1469 MS. MOORE continued. It's important to keep in mind that helmets do not prevent crashes. A total injury prevention program is important, which would consist of the promotion of helmet use; safety education; safety standards; and making helmets available, affordable and acceptable. The Department of Health & Social Services has been actively involved in these kinds of activities and will continue to do so. A helmet law, therefore, is one more "tool in the toolbox" in promoting the use of a helmet. MS. MOORE continued. About 40 children are hospitalized in the state each year due to injuries from a bicycle accident; in which, one-third involves brain injuries. The cost of hospitalization for those not wearing a helmet is about $13,000 per patient, which is 57 percent more than for those who wear a helmet. She has seen hospital bills for well over a hundred thousand dollars. This really is a cost issue for the state, not just a health issue. Thank you. Number 1554 REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON asked Ms. Moore what the proper age is to apply this type of mandate. MS. MOORE replied, according to the facts, the rate of injuries due to bicycle accidents is the highest for children ages 5 to 15. The rate of death due to bicycle accidents is the highest for children ages 10 to 14. Number 1607 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Ms. Moore whether there are any federal efforts to impose helmet laws for bicycle riders. MS. MOORE replied that she doesn't know. Number 1625 CHAIRMAN HALCRO commented that children engage in a lot of dangerous activities - rollerblading, skateboarding, skiing, et cetera. He asked Ms. Moore where she thinks it's appropriate for government to draw the line in terms of mandating the use of a helmet for those types of activities. MS. MOORE replied, as a research analyst, she feels that it's irresponsible to ignore the evidence, especially when it shows overwhelmingly that there is a problem. Number 1694 DENNIS P. HARRIS, Cyclist, came before the committee to testify. He does not own an automobile. He a bicycle for about 90 percent of his transportation needs. He supports children wearing a bicycle helmet, but he does not support mandatory helmet laws. He supports mandatory helmet laws for motorized vehicles, however. Instead, he believes in "Dad's Helmet Law." A mandatory helmet law, he said, provides police with an excuse to harass poor parents or parents who do not speak English. Dad's Helmet Law says, "If I catch you riding without a helmet, the bike goes in the garage and stays there." That type of law is the most effective. MR. HARRIS continued. The state needs to treat the cause of accidents. He suggested a program that includes bicycle safety training in the first grade, and bicycle safety training as part of the curriculum for middle school physical education teachers as examples. There is a myth that bicycling is inherently dangerous, when in fact it is safer than riding in an automobile per mile traveled. But, when a child puts on a helmet, he/she can feel invulnerable, which can be just as dangerous without proper training. In Australia, legislation was passed to make helmet use mandatory and the number of injuries did not go down but instead the number of miles cycled went down, which is a risk this country cannot take due to diseases related to inactivity. Number 2046 REPRESENTATIVE ALBERT KOOKESH asked Mr. Harris how schools can afford bicycle training classes when some can't afford foreign language programs, for example. MR. HARRIS replied most schools have a physical education class of some sort. REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH said he knows some schools that don't even have that. MR. HARRIS replied most schools have health education classes. REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH replied that bicycle training certainly won't be on the assessment test. He said, I think, if people had to pick between teaching somebody about the human vertebrae and a bicycle class because one or the other is going to be on the test, which one do you think it will be? MR. HARRIS replied Representative Kookesh is probably right. He can see problems with enforcement, and he doesn't see the need for this type of mandate in towns such as Angoon. He can see the need in urban areas, however. He also feels that this could be handled outside the school systems. Number 2097 CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Mr. Harris whether parents should be responsible for education, since he believes that parents should be responsible for punishment. MR. HARRIS replied yes. Number 2140 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he sees so many families wearing bicycle helmets today. MR. HARRIS pointed out that is because bicycle shops and insurance companies have discovered a problem with liability. As a result, many bicycle shops require a person to buy a helmet along with their bicycle. Another reason is because several thousand helmets have been given away in Juneau in the last few years under the federal grant mentioned earlier. Number 2257 JOAN W. DIAMOND testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She is speaking today as a mother and as a public health worker. Studies indicate that the cumulative effect of subtle blows to the head have serious long-term effects such as, learning problems in school and other behavioral related problems. In teens and adults subtle blows to the head can result in violent behavior and incarceration. She supports this legislation for those reasons. MS. DIAMOND continued. Not all parents, she said, are created equal. Not all parents have the ability or interest in making sure that protective devices, such as helmets, are available and used. This legislation, therefore, creates an equal field for all children. Thank you. Number 2343 RONNI SULLIVAN, Executive Director, Southern Region, Emergency Medical Services Council, Inc., testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She works with emergency medical providers throughout Southcentral Alaska. The emergency medical industry, she said, is in agreement with helmet legislation, for they are the ones who respond to bicycle accidents involving children. MS. SULLIVAN continued. This is clearly a public health issue. She said, "We know the cause. We know what intervention will work, and we know what needs to be done." She encouraged the committee members to help protect the children of the state and support the legislation. Thank you. Number 2403 BOYD McFAIL, Legislative Affairs Coordinator, Alaskan Bikers Advocating Training & Education [ABATE], Anchorage Chapter, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He has dealt with children with head injuries, and it is tragic to see. However, a mandatory helmet law is not the way to go about this. He said, "You train your children how to ride your bicycle. You train your children or inform your children to wear a helmet, or you just insist that your children wear a helmet, is the way it should be done." A mandate, on the other hand, questions a parent's responsibility and enforcement. It's the lazy parents, he said, who are doing a disservice to their children. They are the ones who should be targeted, but that is an educational issue. He said, "We believe you should educate, not legislate." MR. McFAIL continued. There are too many questions regarding the cost to the state, especially since it is experiencing trouble with its budget. An ill-fitting helmet is as harmful as not wearing one, which translates to numerous helmets over the course of a child's life. He asked, How many helmets will the state give? This is a question that must be answered because he can't see where the state would have the resources to... TAPE 00-18, SIDE B Number 0001 MR. McFAIL continued. He feels strongly that the state is taking more and more authority away from parents rather than letting them raise their children into good citizens. For that reason, he can't support the legislation. Number 0043 JUDY MURPHY, Cyclist, came before the committee to testify. When she put her toddler on the back of her bicycle in 1972, she wanted something to protect her head. She found a lightweight mountain climbing helmet; there was no such thing as a child bicycle helmet at the time. In fact, there wasn't a hard-shell adult bicycle helmet at the time either. In 1981, when her family became interested in cycling, they all bought helmets and wore them. Since that time, she has been very busy with the Juneau Safe Kids Coalition, a local program that encourages safety, which includes the use of bicycle helmets. However, she does not favor a law mandating the use of a helmet. MS. MURPHY continued. Helmets, she said, are overrated in terms of increasing safety. Proponents claim that the 43 percent decrease in fatalities between 1988 and 1998 is the result of helmets and passage of mandatory helmet laws. This is now true, however. A decrease is due to a variety of factors, only one of which is helmets. She cited an increase in the enforcement of drunk driving laws, better facilities, wider roads, bike lanes, and multi-use paths as examples. There has also been a decrease in cycling for children because parents are fearful that they might get hurt. There has also been better education of motorist and cyclists. All of these things, she said, have had an effect. As a matter of fact, that 43-percent figure is matched with a 46 percent decrease in child pedestrian fatalities. She asked, "Have you seen any pedestrians wearing helmets lately?" MS. MURPHY continued. This legislation uses a standard for helmets that expired five years ago. She cited that since March 10, 1999 all helmets manufactured and imported for sale in the U.S. have to meet federal safety standards set by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. This bill does not mention that standard; it references a standard by the American National Standards Institute, which was declared obsolete in February of 1995. MS. MURPHY continued. A provision requiring a bicycle operator should apply to all with no exceptions based on age or experience, otherwise getting rid of the helmet becomes a right of passage. She said, "Kids could hardly wait to turn 16 and destroy the thing." Also, the economic loss caused by the death or serious injury of an adult far exceeds that of the loss of a child. Yet if the law was written to include adults, it would probably be rejected. MS. MURPHY continued. A bill should provide an incentive to use protective equipment. A fine or penalty, for example, should be revocable upon proof of acquisition of this type of equipment. This bill does include such a provision. As a result, it won't protect cyclists who consistently wear a helmet but happen to forget it one time. She said, "If you forget to do up your seat belt, you can simply do it up when you realize it and it's safe. But if you forget your helmet, there's nothing you could do. It makes you subject to harassment and the inconvenience of proving to other people that you have a helmet." MS. MURPHY continued. A bill should address the issue of making helmets available to all cyclists. As a comparison, all cars are equipped with seat belts. She said, "If you pass a helmet bill, then you have to get helmets out to people, and poor people may not be able to afford them." Although there are free and discounted helmet programs, there may not be enough for all those who need one. In addition, there is no guarantee that the organizations demanding passage of this legislation will continue to provide funding for free helmets. On the other hand, if these organizations provide the helmets and the appropriate education, there will be a high voluntary use. MS. MURPHY continued. A model bill should be the basis of any legislation, yet this bill allows municipalities to adopt standards that are as strict or more stringent, which could be confusing. In other words, what might be all right in one community might not be all right in another. How will one decide what to do? MS. MURPHY continued. This legislation requires a cyclist to wear a helmet "of good fit that is fastened securely upon a person's head with a strap," yet there is no provision on how to teach the placement of a helmet properly. Helmet studies in New Zealand and Oregon have found that 70 percent of helmets are improperly worn, which can fail to provide protection and even cause an accident. MS. MURPHY continued. If a helmet law is passed, police may concentrate on harassing cyclists who do not wear a helmet, rather than cyclists who break traffic laws. She said, "We already have plenty of laws in place that if followed will increase cyclist safety. Unfortunately, our police are often so poorly educated on bicycle safety they harass cyclists who are riding safely and legally and ignore cyclists breaking the law. If the law is not enforced ... it becomes meaningless. Who cares?" MS. MURPHY continued. This legislation should include a provision to the effect that failure to use a helmet shall not be admissible as evidence of negligence in a court of law. Who caused an accident and the avoidance of injury are different questions. If a helmet law does not have such a provision, a driver who runs a stop light and injures an un-helmeted cyclist can avoid having to pay anything towards medical expenses or other damages. It could be argued that it was the cyclist's fault for not wearing a helmet, which is unjust. MS. MURPHY continued. The most important part of this issue is education. A helmet program should be part of a comprehensive education program in the schools. She said, "It does very little good to put helmets on cyclists without teaching them to ride safely." The greatest danger that a child on a bicycle faces is faulty education provided by incompetent adult cyclists. She said, "Unfortunately, every adult who has ridden a bicycle a mile thinks he's an expert on bike safety. This includes adults who can't fix a tire, can't shift their multi-speed bike, have never read a bicycle accident study, and do not even know on which side of the road to ride." MS. MURPHY continued. American bicycle education, she said, has long been based on a myth, in that the chief cause of car-bike collisions is fast motorists overtaking slow cyclists. Yet for over 25 years it has been known that overtaking accidents are a small portion of car-bike collisions. More recently, researchers from the University of North Carolina have found that a mere 8.6 percent of car-bike collisions - in a sample of 3,000 from 8 states - involved a motorist overtaking a cyclist. Basing education on a faulty theory can actually increase the dangers to cyclists. The state of Texas has instituted a super cyclist program funded primarily with federal dollars. The first phase consists of certifying skilled cyclists as instructors. The second phase consists of those instructors instructing physical education teachers. The final phase consists of those teachers teaching children to ride safely. Once the program is in action, she said, the cost of maintenance is minimal. MS. MURPHY continued. In conclusion, "We want children to be safer while riding their bikes. What we should be advocating is good bicycle education. Providing helmets and instruction in how and why to use them is a far more positive way to encourage use of helmets than bludgeoning cyclists with a helmet law." She encouraged the committee members to either make many changes to the legislation or "forget it." Number 0458 CHAIRMAN HALCRO stated children under the age of 16 engage in a variety of dangerous exercises - snowboarding, skateboarding, et cetera. He asked Ms. Murphy where government should draw the line so that responsibility is on the parent and so the state is not dictating to every child that they have to wear a helmet while engaging in dangerous activities. MS. MURPHY replied it's the responsibility of the parents, not the state, for all of those activities. Number 0521 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Ms. Murphy who she thinks should pay for the costs associated with brain injuries. MS. MURPHY replied everybody pays through insurance and other "things." The best insurance is prevention. She has seen all too often a child proceed to do something foolish after putting a helmet on, which is often encouraged, as people tend to glorify those who were wearing a helmet when they crashed and it saved their life, but ignore those who are riding safely. REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH asked Ms. Murphy who she thinks should pay for the costs associated with education. MS. MURPHY replied there are federal dollars available. The state of Texas, she cited, is primarily using federal dollars for the program that she mentioned earlier. Number 0573 CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Ms. Murphy whether she could support requiring the purchase of a helmet with a bicycle or some kind of a "sign-off" form, thereby protecting retailers and putting responsibility into the hands of parents. Previous testimony has indicated that some bicycle shops are worried about liability. MS. MURPHY replied that she couldn't support a requirement like that. She certainly couldn't support a requirement of a one-to-one relationship between a bicycle and a helmet. She said, "I own six bikes and only have one head." CHAIRMAN HALCRO replied that would be the reason for a waiver/sign-off form. MS. MURPHY expressed that, she thinks, it's a personal and parental responsibility to decide if one should wear a helmet or not. Number 0646 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Ms. Murphy to comment on the children who don't have two parents or responsible parents. In other words: What should be done with them when they injure their brain? MS. MURPHY replied, "If free helmets are available, they'll be going for them." Number 0701 SHARRON LOBAUGH, Representative, Juneau Safe Kids Coalition, came before the committee to testify. She is retired from the state as an injury prevention specialist. She supports the previous testifiers and their comments, for they are experts and the facts that they mentioned are true. The Alaska Trauma Registry, as mentioned earlier, provides data for all injuries and circumstances thereof around the state. Juneau happens to be, she said, the heart of bicycle-injury-country for youngsters, which might be because of better weather, but nevertheless it's still a problem. MS. LOBAUGH continued. The question of when the state should limit and/or restrict deserves a brief history of public health. She cited that children are now dying from injuries, whereas twenty years ago children were dying from infections, measles, polio and other diseases of that nature. It was public health that invented prevention methods for those types of diseases in the form of vaccinations. The SAFE KIDS coalition is only about 10 years old, but it continues to grow every year with more and more interest from cyclists, police officers, school children, parents, and public health professionals, as more understand that injuries are the primary killer of children. MS. LOBAUGH continued. What should be done? According to Johns Hopkins University, the three strategies for injury prevention are engineering, education and environment. Education consists of public announcements and the such. Engineering consists of seat belts, air bags and the such. Environment consists of removing that which can cause an accident. She cited the removal of a rug to prevent a slip as an example. The most effective of the three is engineering. She understands, however, that the state can't put people "in a bubble" to protect them, but it only takes little falls or soft injuries that can accumulate over time into behavioral and learning problems. It has been know, she cited, that a fall from 3 inches onto a hard surface can cause serious brain damage. It doesn't take very much at all. Number 1109 MS. LOBAUGH continued. She doesn't think a universal helmet law would pass, for it is unreasonable. But the state has a public health and public policy obligation to protect children, for they are more vulnerable; they are less skilled and tipsy. She thinks that as soon as a child climbs onto a bicycle it's appropriate to require a helmet. Number 1177 MS. LOBAUGH continued. In Juneau, police officers spend a week in the schools educating students on bicycle safety. It's called positive policing. Number 1226 CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Mr. Lobaugh how parents can afford to pay the fine called for in the bill, especially given the statistic of 40 percent mentioned earlier for those uninsured. MS. LOBAUGH replied the bill can be amended to include proof of applying the amount of the fine towards the purchase of a helmet, which also might act as an incentive. Furthermore, the 40-percent statistic includes the limitations placed on insurance. For example, when insurance runs out a person falls under public domain. She said, "When you're talking about being hit and having spinal involvement, brain involvement, paraplegic kind of things, you're running astronomical medical bills." That statistic doesn't necessarily mean that these individuals are on Medicaid. Number 1376 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Ms. Lobaugh how the state can be sure that this legislation won't place a higher standard for some areas, for it would apply to small villages that don't even have a lot of vehicular traffic. MS. LOBAUGH replied she has observed a lot of bicycles and ATVs in rural areas that don't necessarily use a road, especially in the winter, which may result in greater risks. Moreover, the bill refers to public highways, roadways, vehicular ways, bicycle paths or other public rights-of-ways. She's not sure, therefore, that this would apply to every village because of the definition of public right-of-way. Number 1616 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated he's not suggesting that this shouldn't apply to everybody; he's just inquiring as to whether or not this could be accommodated across the state. Number 1639 REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH stated Angoon is considered an off-road system. They are not considered part of the Public Highway System; they are not connected to the major highways of the state, which affects licensing and insurance as well. MS. LOBAUGH stated the data for the rural areas shows a high rate of injuries. For example, the Northwest Arctic region shows a rate of 254 brain injuries per 100,000; and the North Slop region shows a rate of 234 brain injuries per 100,000. The Anchorage region, on the other hand, shows a rate of 69 brain injuries per 100,000. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated that the sponsor needs to specify the implications in the bill. They are not clear. MR. KNIGHT pointed out that the legislation, as currently written, would apply to all areas of the state. The sponsor wants to focus on the entire state because the highest incidences of brain injuries occur outside the urban areas. MR. KNIGHT continued. Contrary to earlier testimony, he said, this legislation would not make anybody a criminal. He also pointed out that the National Helmet Program through grants and such offer helmets for a reasonable price. He cited $5.95 and $6.75 as examples. The sponsor expects that municipalities, boroughs and regional corporations would apply for such grants. The funds are available. Number 1870 CHAIRMAN HALCRO closed the meeting to public testimony. CHAIRMAN HALCRO announced that he does not plan to move the bill out of committee, and asked for discussion amongst the committee members. Number 1903 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN expressed that the legislation needs to reflect the new standard that was mentioned earlier rather than the one that expired five years ago. CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Representative Kemplen to consider a provision for a "fix-it" ticket, as discussed earlier. He's concerned about the financial implications for low-income families, especially given the 40-percent figure mentioned by Ms. Moore in her testimony. Someone should have the ability to show that the problem has been fixed, similar to what is done for broken tail lights and burned out head lights. MR. KNIGHT pointed out that there is already such a provision in the bill [Section 3, paragraph (1)]. It reads as follows: ... a court may waive the fine imposed under this paragraph upon presentation of evidence that the violator has purchased or procured a bicycle helmet and demonstrates the intention of using the helmet as required by law ... CHAIRMAN HALCRO pointed out that the language reads "may" waive. He suggested that the sponsor look at making it more definite. Number 2008 CHAIRMAN HALCRO held the bill in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|