Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 17
03/08/2011 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB22 | |
| HB30 | |
| HJR4 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
1:05:19 PM CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 22, "An Act prohibiting the use of a cellular telephone when driving a motor vehicle; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was Version B.] 1:05:31 PM KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff, Representative Cathy Munoz, Alaska State Legislature, explained the changes contained in the proposed committee substitute (CS), Version B. She recapped the CS for HB 22 contains a provision to allow use of a cell phone in the "hands free mode". Definitions were added for the terms "emergency" and "hands free mode" for clarity. She addressed several items that arose at the last hearing. Committee members brought up other examples of driving distracted, such as radio use. The Alaska Highway Safety Office (AHSO) reported that some engagement with radio use resulted aware of the effective date of changes to cell phone use. Currently the AHSO has been working on a campaign for distracted driving. The AHSO can incorporate any changes included in HB 22, if it passes, into the AHSO's media campaign. The AHSO advised that it would not need additional funding to do so. The sponsor discussed this with the Department of Law and the Department of Public Safety, who thought that it might be a good idea to have an effective date, but this is a matter that left to the committee to decide. She related the sponsor has received many interesting stories about people who have encountered cell phone use. She related a scenario in which a person was riding a motorcycle needed to use his foot to avoid being trapped under someone's car since the person was distracted while using a cell phone. 1:08:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether any of the e-mails raise any issues the committee should be aware of in terms of possible amendments. MS. KLOSTER answered that some people wanted to ban all cell phone use including "hands free mode" cell phones. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered to provide copies of information on blogs on this topic. 1:10:27 PM ALFRED MCKINLEY, SR. stated that he agreed with the bill. He explained a person driving a vehicle using a cell phone resulted in his brother-in-law's death, and injured his sister. The driver's sentence was only 30 days, he said. He reiterated his testimony of last week. He offered his support for HB 22. He considered previous testimony and related that the bill would apply to cell phone use on "public land" so it is reasonable since it could protect citizens. He related that bicycles are relevant, noting he has almost hit bicyclists. He offered his belief that crashes resulting in death is one reason this bill is essential to Alaskans. He said, "I hope you pass this bill and get it on the road." 1:14:10 PM CHAIR P. WILSON, after first determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on closed public testimony on HB 22. 1:14:29 PM CHAIR P. WILSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 27- LS0155\B.2, Luckhaupt, 3/7/11, which read: Page 1, lines 7 - 10: Delete all material and insert: "(b) This section does not apply to a person (1) using a cellular telephone for emergency purposes, including an emergency call to a law enforcement agency, fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity; or (2) 18 years of age or older using a cellular telephone by hands-free mode." CHAIR P. WILSON explained that Amendment 1 would exempt a person using a cell phone during an emergency or to a person age 18 or older. 1:16:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN objected for purpose of discussion. He understood the purpose of Amendment 1. He preferred not to single out any age group, whether it is teenagers or seniors. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG disagreed with the prior speaker. He offered his belief that this bill represents changing morals and ideas. He related that a few years ago it would not have been possible to pass a bill like this. He recalled he attempted to tack on language in another bill having to do with texting to no avail. However, society has changed and this bill reflects the change. Amendment 1 attempts to expand HB 22 to those under the age of 18, who are not as skillful drivers. He did not want to jeopardize the bill, but he thought Amendment 1 could help the bill. He stressed the importance of saving lives and his belief that this bill will save lives. He said he hoped that Amendment 1 would pass. REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN maintained his objection. 1:20:36 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Munoz, Feige, Pruitt, Gruenberg and Chair Wilson voted in favor of. Representatives Representative Johnson and Representative Petersen voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 passed by a vote of 5-2. 1:21:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 27-LS0155\B.3, Luckhaupt, 3/7/11, which read: Page 1, line 1, following "vehicle": Insert "; and providing for an effective date" Page 2, following line 2: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 2. This Act takes effect July 1, 2011." REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled earlier testimony that the department would like to have an effective date since this bill will affect everyone. He added an effective date can help provide advance notice of when the provisions will go into effect. He explained Amendment 2 would add an effective date of July 1, 2011. REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT removed his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 2 passed. 1:23:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how anyone could operate a cell phone without touching it. CHAIR P. WILSON related "hands free mode" as one instance. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON described "iphone" use. He related that in order to put the phone in a "hands free mode" he would first have to push a button. CHAIR P. WILSON related some advance planning could place a phone in the correct mode plus some vehicles have voice activated phones. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON wondered whether people would need to buy new phones in order to comply with this law. 1:25:19 PM RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant; Deputy Commander, A Detachment, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), related that "OnStar" is a completely voice-activated navigation system. This bill would not allow manipulation of a cell phone if a person did so while driving on a roadway. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related his understanding that even with "OnStar" pushing a button is necessary to activate the system. LIEUTENANT DIAL indicated he has a relatively new car and uses only his voice to operate the telephone system his car uses. He recalled that some vehicles may require pushing a button and he was uncertain whether solely pushing a button would constitute a violation. In further response to Representative Johnson explained he would expect someone to do more than pushing one button before the average law enforcement officer would initiate a traffic stop. He suggested he would need to consult with the attorney general's office for clarification. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related that the language in HB 22 does not say that, it reads "hands-free mode". He even thought activating a "Bluetooth" would require pushing a button. REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled that the amendment to allow operating "hands free mode" was added due to the testimony by truckers and couriers who use their cell phones to communicate with their business or dispatcher. She wondered if adding operation to "hands free mode" could help. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested the technical aspect could be addressed in the House Judiciary Standing Committee. She directed Lieutenant Dial to check with the attorney general's office prior to the next hearing for further clarification. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that it is his intent that "hands-free" mode does not prohibit touching the phone. He referred to page 1, lines 14-15, of HB 22, and related that so long as the person is not holding the phone using the cell phone is allowable. He offered his belief that using a cell phone mounted on dash and pressing a button would also be permissible under the bill as long as the driver was using the speaker function or earpiece without actually holding the phone. 1:30:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether it would be better for him use a phone if he is sitting next to it looking down rather than having it up and just pushing a button to activate the phone. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated he does not recommend doing so. He said the point is whether it violates the law and the answer is no. One of the reasons, the chair's amendment was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he thought that the Alaska State Troopers would have to obtain an interpretation from the Department of Law prior to citing. 1:32:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Lieutenant Dial whether he would need to consult the attorney general's office or if his explanation cleared this up. LIEUTENANT DIAL agreed he understood. He related that Alaska State Troopers exercise discretion in the field. If an AST felt it was necessary to stop vehicle for someone pushing a button that the AST would consult with the Department of Law (DOL) as to whether the action was appropriate. He envisioned law enforcement officers would use their discretion. If an officer observed someone talking on the phone while driving, it would represent a violation of the law much more so than pushing a button to activate some type of "hands-free" telephone call. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether he would be in violation of the law if the phone was on seat he dialed the phone. He further asked if that action would be any less distracting than actually talking on the phone. LIEUTENANT DIAL offered his belief that holding the phone and talking on a phone longer than the time it would take to push a button would be more distracting. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether a person could dial a full set of numbers so long as he/she is not holding the phone plus the person could also text. He asked whether it would be more distracting to dial a phone on the seat than holding the phone. LIEUTENANT DIAL said he did not believe he was qualified to answer his question. He suggested that AHSO may have statistical information that could clarify the level of distraction. 1:34:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related his position is fairly clear and he did not wish to pursue this further. REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked why he would dial the phone on the seat next to him if it was not a "hands free mode" device. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON answered that he would do so since it would be legal but if he picked it up and dialed it would not be legal. He would not want to break the law, he said. 1:34:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that punching a series of buttons to text messages would be in violation of existing statute. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON understood. He merely mentioned it for emphasis. However, he might dial if it were legal to do so. 1:35:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN related his constituents asked for the amount of any proposed fine for using a cell phone while driving. LIEUTENANT DIAL related that fines are set by the Alaska Supreme Court. The DPS has no input on fines, he said. REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether he was aware of the number of points that would be assessed on the driver's licenses. LIEUTENANT DIAL responded that until the bail was set the department would not know the penalty amount. He offered his belief that the maximum allowable in statute is $500. 1:37:48 PM ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), stated the maximum fine in Title 28 for a violation is $300. She offered her belief that Lieutenant Dial was referring to a bail schedule set that may be lower. In response to Chair Wilson, she related that the court sets bail amounts based on request of the affected department. She stated it would likely be the DPS who would request the bail amount 1:38:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN clarified that the maximum fine would be $300. He asked whether that would be the amount set for the first offense. MS. CARPENETI answered that would be the maximum amount. She assumed that as with other schedules in which a bail amount is set, the bail amount would likely be substantially less. REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether she knew the number of points that would be assessed against a driver's license and whether it would depend on the number of offenses a person had assessed on his/her license. MS. CARPENETI answered that the commissioner of the Department of Administration (DOA) would set the schedule for assigning the number of points. She assumed it would be based upon a graduated point system. 1:39:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked what citation would be issued to a driver if a crash was caused by driver distraction such as changing channels on a radio. LIEUTENANT DIAL answered that currently the AST would either use negligent or reckless driving. He agreed with Ms. Carpeneti that the maximum bail amount would be $300. He previously had been relating the bail amount for insurance violations. REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked whether negligent or reckless driving could be used to cite a driver if a crash was caused by driver distraction from dialing or talking on a cell phone. LIEUTENANT DIAL answered yes. He said it would depend on severity of the offense. It would depend on the collision as to whether the offense would be negligent or reckless driving. The committee took an at-ease from 1:41 to 1:42 p.m. 1:42:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related when a person is charged with a crime and the matter is resolved through the court process it generates a cost. He asked for clarification on the fiscal note. MS. CARPENETI agreed. However, the Department District Attorney's office does not represent the state in traffic matters. The DOL would not appear and these matters of violations generally are handled in traffic court. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if there is not any cost associated with cell phone violations that it follows that no one is expected to be cited. He asked for the purpose of passing this bill. CHAIR P. WILSON responded that the bill would save lives. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his belief that the fiscal note should be positive. CHAIR P. WILSON offered her belief that fines would be collected. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON maintained the bill should have a positive fiscal note. 1:44:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled the Alaska State Troopers (AST) would decide whether to cite for this offense or something else. The same number of AST hours would be spent on the road working traffic offenses so the enforcement focus would be up to the AST's discretion. The statute dealing with fiscal notes only requires a fiscal note in the event the department will request an additional appropriation. In this case, the bill would not require an additional appropriation. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related in his experience serving on budget subcommittees that very few departments indicate the department will do more work for less money. He surmised that the budget request may not happen initially but it would likely occur in year two or three. He said it seems that when the administration likes a bill that it often has a zero fiscal note, but if the department does not like a bill, the bill would likely have a fiscal impact. He related his goal is to seek budget integrity. 1:45:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked whether the court would incur additional fiscal impact. Additionally, he inquired if law enforcement officers are attending traffic court whether this bill would add to the Department of Public Safety's (DPS) fiscal impact. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related his understanding that the same answer would apply. He explained that most of the driving offenses would be in the cities and it would likely affect municipal police rather than AST and the legislature does not require municipalities to submit fiscal notes. Additionally, AST could only write so many citations in an eight-hour shift, so the officer would cite for cell phone offenses or something else, which would not result in more court time, just in the type of citation issued. 1:47:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether the AST would cite for speeding or cell phone use in an instance in which an AST stopped a vehicle for speeding and discovered the person was also using his/her cell phone. LIEUTENANT DIAL responded that with the dedicated traffic unit, officers have a set amount of time to work traffic stops. It is not uncommon for officers to stop a driver for one offense and also discover another offense during the traffic stop. Typically, officers would not issue multiple citations. The officer would pick one violation to cite and issue a warning on any other violation. 1:49:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked whether it would be necessary to for people purchase a "Bluetooth" in order to comply with this bill. He was curious about the technology necessary to comply with the "hands-free mode." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained some vehicles have built in phones and the driver would dial a number and talk. REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT restated his question. He related that he personally does not have voice activated or built in technology in his vehicles, which is nearly ten years old. Thus, if he plans on speaking to anyone using a cell phone he would need to dial on the phone, which would not be "hands-free" or he would need to ensure that the phone could recognize his voice using a "Bluetooth." He acknowledged he could receive a call since it would only require pushing a button. However, he was unsure how it would work to dial out. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related his understanding that the "Bluetooth" is a device that is placed somewhere and the driver pushes a button to activate it. He further related his understanding that cell phone holders are rubberized mats, which are placed on the dash. The driver would dial, which he said would be okay under the bill. REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT reiterated that so long as the phone is attached to the car he could use the device. CHAIR P. WILSON referred to page 1, lines 4-6, of HB 22 which read, "(a) A person may not use a cellular telephone when driving a motor vehicle on a highway or vehicular way or area." She suggested a person could pull over and dial their cell phone. REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT responded that differs from the prior interpretation. He suggested someone could answer the cell phone but could not make a telephone call. He noted Representative Gruenberg is disagreeing. CHAIR P. WILSON referred to Amendment 1, which was adopted. She said two exceptions apply. She read: (b) This section does not apply to a person (1) using a cellular telephone for emergency purposes, including an emergency call to a law enforcement agency, fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity; or (2) 18 years or older using a cellular telephone by hands-free mode. CHAIR P. WILSON clarified that these are the exceptions. REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT pointed out that calling to tell his wife he is going to be late would not be considered an emergency, but he is sure she would like to know. He wondered if it would be necessary to pull the car over to do so. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related to the age provision which would apply and indicated that a driver could use the "hands free mode", which is defined. 1:54:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to definition on bottom of page 1, lines 13-15, of HB 22 which read: "hands-free mode" means use of a cellular telephone for listening or talking by means of a speaker function, headset, or earpiece without holding the telephone." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the language allows for a person to use the phone so long as they are not holding the phone. 1:55:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT explained it would be cumbersome to do so. He was concerned that the line of sight to the roadway would be affected. He offered his belief that if the phone was in front of him it would provide a better view of the roadway. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether "vehicular way or area" is defined. 1:55:51 PM MS. CARPENETI referred to AS 28.90.990(30), which read as follows: "vehicular way or area" means a way, path, or area, other than a highway or private property, that is designated by official traffic control devices or customary usage and that is open to the public for purposes of pedestrian or vehicular travel, and which way or area may be restricted in use to pedestrians, bicycles, or other specific types of vehicles as determined by the Department of Public Safety or other agency having jurisdiction over the way, path, or area. 1:57:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his belief that by that definition a driver could not pull over by the side of the road. CHAIR P. WILSON responded that once the driver pulls off the roadway and stops he/she is not driving. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related his understanding that a person who was under the influence of alcohol could be arrested even if his/her car was stopped if the person was sitting in the car. MS. CARPENETI pointed out that if the key is in the ignition it is considered operating, which is a different term than driving. 1:58:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report the committee substitute (CS) for HB 22, labeled 27-LS0155\B out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, the CSHB 22(TRA) was reported from the House Transportation Standing Committee. 1:58:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE objected for purpose of discussion. He said that he represents House District 12, which has a lot of highway, with reasonable cell phone coverage. He said he is loath to enact any laws that restrict personal freedom. If this bill passes, what would be banned next: putting on makeup, talking to person next to the driver, or talking on a citizen band radio (CB). He offered his belief that there is a perception that people using cell phones cause accidents, noting that statistics can be manipulated. 2:00:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE An existing statute exists to cite a person who causes an accident. He suggested leaving it up to municipalities to enact cell phone ban. He was unsure cell phone usage should be banned in Barrow or on the Richardson Highway. He did not think it should be a statewide ban. He expressed further concern over the cost of a new device. He then removed his objection. 2:03:06 PM There being no further objection, the CSHB 22(TRA), as amended, was reported from the House Transportation Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB30 updated spreadsheet with different payouts V 2.xlsx |
HTRA 3/8/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| CSHB30 ver E.pdf |
HTRA 3/8/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| CS HB 22 version B 2 24 11.pdf |
HTRA 3/8/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |