Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 17
02/26/2015 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB88 | |
| HB91 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 88 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 91-OPERATING MOTOR VEHICLES IN TRAFFIC LANE
1:52:27 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 91, "An Act relating to operating a motor
vehicle in lanes of traffic."
1:52:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 91, labeled 29-LS0182\P, Martin, 2/23/15
as the working document.
CO-CHAIR FOSTER objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:53:02 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked her staff to explain the changes in the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 91, Version P.
1:53:12 PM
STUART KRUEGER, Staff, Representative Shelley Hughes, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of the prime sponsor, explained the
changes contained in Version P. He referred to page 1, line 4
of subsection (c), which read, "A person operating a motor
vehicle on a roadway consisting of two or more lanes traveling
in the same direction may not drive in the left lane of the
roadway except when ...."
MR. KRUEGER said that this change was made to emphasize this
bill's intention to reserve the left lane for passing, with
exceptions on multi-lane roadways. The questions about where
and when this law will apply were addressed by this provision
and the exceptions listed in the bill by providing a clear
description of "a roadway with two or more lanes traveling in
the same direction."
1:54:11 PM
MR. KRUEGER directed attention to the next change, on page 1,
line [12] of Version P, [to paragraph] (4), which allows for
persons to use the left lane when "road conditions make driving
in the right lane unsafe." This language could include unsafe
weather conditions, obstacles in the roadway, and unsafe traffic
conditions during times of unavoidable full saturation of the
roadway. For example, he said, unsafe conditions would include
rush hour traffic. This language will help clarify when and
where this law would apply, he said.
MR. KRUEGER referred to page 1, lines 13-14 of the original
version of HB 91 to subsection (d), which was removed.
1:55:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked for the effect of removing subsection
(d).
MR. KRUEGER answered that subsection (d) was removed to avoid
any contradictory intent. If vehicles in the left lane are not
moving fast enough so that cars are passing them by passing in
the right lane, the vehicles should not have been in the left
lane to begin with, he said. Having a provision that prohibits
people from impeding traffic tended to give the impression that
vehicles are allowed to travel at that speed in the left lane in
the first place. In response to a question, he said the
original language stated that the driver cannot be in the left
lane and impede or block traffic. Unless the driver is in the
left lane in the process of passing, that vehicle should not be
in the left lane, he said.
1:56:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN understood the concern about commuters
coming from Mat-Su valley driving on the Glenn Highway or Seward
Highway; however, in addition to the Glenn Highway, this
language would also apply to other highways, including Tudor
Road, Raspberry Road, Northern Lights Boulevard, and countless
state-owned roads in Anchorage.
MR. KRUEGER agreed; however, the exceptions under subsection
(c), in particular, paragraph (3), which read, "preparing for a
left turn at an intersection or into an alley, private road, or
driveway; or ...." would apply in the majority of cases since
drivers will be preparing for a left turn at some point so it
leaves enough latitude for drivers.
1:58:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to Minnesota Drive, which is
three lanes with very limited left turns, such that this bill
would prohibit a driver from driving in the left lane during
rush traffic unless the driver was passing another vehicle.
MR. KRUEGER suggested paragraph (4) will cover the
aforementioned scenario by providing the exception that "road
conditions make driving in the right lane unsafe."
1:58:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN related a scenario in which drivers are
driving on Minnesota Drive and it's a totally clear road,
without any construction, on a bright sunny day, during rush
hour traffic. He interpreted the language to mean that under
this bill drivers should leave the left lane open.
MR. KRUEGER suggested that road conditions could include
traffic. In further response to a question, he acknowledged
that the bill does not specify that language pertaining to rush
hour traffic, but after holding conversations with the DOT&PF,
he felt confident the language applied.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether a definition specifies that
traffic is part of road conditions.
MR. KRUEGER answered that he was not aware of a definition.
1:59:56 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant; Deputy Commander, A Detachment,
Division of Alaska State Troopers (AST), Department of Public
Safety (DPS), introduced himself.
2:00:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT recalled at a previous hearing on this
bill that Lieutenant Dial indicated it is fairly rare for
citations to be issued for obstructing traffic by driving in the
left lane. She asked whether it is also rare for drivers to
linger in the left lane.
LIEUTENANT DIAL answered that it a common occurrence in some
areas.
2:00:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT related her understanding that it is
rarely cited because there is lack of clarity in the statutes,
the regulations, or perhaps both.
LIEUTENANT DIAL answered that both would apply. As stated at
the previous hearing, the statute, [AS 28.35.140] has been used
to address some of the concerns presented. He has consulted
with the Department of Law, as well as discussing this matter
with two regional district attorneys. Their interpretation was
that although this statute was sufficiently broad to be used as
authority, it was not likely the intent of the legislature and
could be closely scrutinized by the court. He suggested that
enforcement would be impacted by a lack of specific authority.
2:01:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked if the provision that prohibits
drivers from impeding traffic with five cars backed up behind
them would apply to multi-lane roads.
LIEUTENANT DIAL answered that the five car law applies to a
single lane road or one lane going in each direction and a
driver that backs up five or more vehicles and has failed to
pull over.
2:02:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked for further clarification that the
Glenn Highway near Sutton with one lane in each direction is
considered a one-lane road.
LIEUTENANT DIAL answered yes.
2:02:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the Glenn Highway between
Palmer and Anchorage with a divided highway and median would be
considered a two-lane or three-lane road.
LIEUTENANT DIAL answered that it would be referred to as a
multi-lane road.
2:03:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked whether this bill would help provide
clarity to enforce left-lane traffic laws.
LIEUTENANT DIAL answered that the greatest benefit of this bill
would be the volunteer compliance of drivers who are aware it is
proper road courtesy to use the right lane when practical. He
acknowledged that at times the AST has not enforced the use of
left lane or obstruction of left lane traffic since the
statutory authority was vague.
2:04:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked for statute cite.
LIEUTENANT DIAL referred to AS 28.35.140, which read, as
follows:
Unlawful obstruction or blocking of traffic; duty to
yield to following traffic.
(a) A person may not purposely obstruct or block
traffic on any roadway by any means. However, a
service vehicle such as a bus, garbage truck, tow
truck, or ambulance may make brief stops on a roadway,
which stops on the roadway are necessary in the
performance of its services.
LIEUTENANT DIAL acknowledged that the language probably referred
to a person who might block a road by placing a log or rock in
the roadway or leaving a car in the road. He offered his belief
that the language is vague enough to interpret this to mean two
vehicles attempting to create a "rolling roadblock" on a multi-
lane road with traffic backed up behind them, which would allow
law enforcement to cite either driver. He stated that the
Department of Law somewhat agreed that it would be a pretty
loose interpretation of the law, and probably a little bit of a
stretch.
2:05:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked what is most helpful about HB 91,
Version P.
LIEUTENANT DIAL answered that drivers will voluntarily comply
and that compliance will increase the traffic flow and make
roads safer, preventing obstruction of traffic; however, from an
enforcement standpoint, it would be somewhat difficult to
observe the behavior. For example, it could be possible for
vehicles to be moving forward slightly with the intent of
passing or else slowing down to merge behind the vehicle in the
right lane. Thus it would be somewhat difficult to enforce, but
the department believes there are benefits through voluntary
compliance.
2:06:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said it sounded like this law would not be
enforced if Version P was passed, but that the AST hopes it will
encourage people to drive in a more courteous manner.
LIEUTENANT DIAL disagreed, but clarified that it would be
difficult to enforce since the officer would have to show that
one of the exemptions did not apply; for example, in terms of
loitering in left lane, that the driver wasn't moving slightly
faster in the process of passing, or if the driver were merging,
or avoiding a pothole. Still, he acknowledged that [Version P]
has benefits, but it will be somewhat difficult to enforce. He
said in some instances people will admit their intention was to
slow traffic and "play road cop" and in those instances the AST
could use this law. However, he said it is not something
frequently encountered.
2:08:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN characterized this as being somewhat
aspirational, to encourage people to stay out of the left lane;
however, a penalty is created if they don't comply. He asked
whether having this penalty will cause people to behave
differently.
2:08:58 PM
LIEUTENANT DIAL answered yes. He stated that in his experience
in stopping vehicles that are slowing traffic flow down, that
some people have a belief that they are entitled to do so since
other people are driving too fast. If this bill passes these
drivers could create "the perfect traffic stop" because they are
likely to admit they intentionally obstructed traffic in order
to slow traffic down.
2:09:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether he has ever cited drivers
for driving too slowly and if these drivers admitted they were
trying to slow traffic down.
LIEUTENANT DIAL acknowledged that he has heard people make
similar comments during traffic stops, usually along the lines
of remarking that it doesn't make any difference if the other
driver arrives 30 seconds later. He agreed it rarely occurs,
but it has happened.
2:10:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred an earlier comment he made about
Minnesota Drive or Tudor Road. He asked for further
clarification on the enforcement reality on urban streets for a
law that basically says stay out of the left lane.
LIEUTENANT DIAL responded that he has held discussions with
Alaska State Troopers who work on highways about how enforcement
would happen in areas of high traffic density. He said it comes
down to a reasonable belief of how the department would
communicate to the court system that a reasonable person
believes that the driver's actions in these circumstances were
in violation.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN clarified that his interest is not with
respect to the court system. Instead, he related a scenario in
which the enforcement officer is driving on Minnesota Drive at 5
p.m. and all three lanes are full of traffic. He asked for the
practical realities of trying to enforce provisions in this bill
that require drivers to stay in the right lane.
LIEUTENANT DIAL answered that in the aforementioned scenario, he
would not enforce the law since it would not be appropriate to
do so.
2:12:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT pointed out that one of the concerns
stems from a letter members received from the Municipality of
Anchorage, Anchorage Police Department (APD). She said the
MOA's biggest concern is the bill might encourage speeding on
highways such as the Glenn Highway, in which vehicles already
exceed the speed limit by three to five miles per hour (mph).
Thus this bill may encourage more speeders on a dangerous
highway. She said that the APD suggested carpooling, or
establishing provisions that vehicles with only one person might
be restricted to the right hand lane. She said most people
driving on the Glenn Highway are single drivers. Further, the
APD and the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions
(AMATS) expressed concern that the Metropolitan Transportation
Plan (MTP) may need to be redone for to incorporate the no left
lane traffic rule unless passing. She acknowledged that these
Anchorage organizations had some concerns, but perhaps the
proposed committee substitute will ease some of their concerns.
2:13:59 PM
LIEUTENANT DIAL answered that he has not read the MOA's letter;
however, traffic law typically involves officer discretion and
he did not envision a scenario in which officers would take the
limited amount of time they have to cite drivers under certain
circumstances that could technically be in violation of this
law, such as congestion. He did not view that as being a real
concern. Further, he did not believe the court would honor
those citations since it would not appear to be a reasonable
application of this law.
2:14:44 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES, referring back to Minnesota Drive and drivers
trying to get to work, asked about the exception on page 1, line
12, paragraph (4) and whether the language "road conditions make
driving in the right lane unsafe" would apply. If so, the
person would not be in violation due to the road conditions, she
said.
LIEUTENANT DIAL agreed that is his understanding.
2:15:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether any language defines traffic
as a "road condition."
LIEUTENANT DIAL answered that he was not certain if the law
specifically mentions it or if it is just the general practice
that law enforcement officers typically use. He said that the
AST would consider high traffic, traffic going excessively slow,
or snow as being road conditions that make driving in the right
lane unsafe.
2:16:33 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES added that in researching this issue that the
language will also cover items such as ice, snow, water, ice
berm between lanes, fog, and traffic as constituting adverse
road conditions. She noted that it might include other items,
but she recalled that it was all encompassing.
2:16:59 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER removed his objection to adopt the proposed
committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the one remaining person on
teleconference could testify first on Version P.
CO-CHAIR FOSTER related his understanding that the person is no
longer on line.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he had no objection to the committee
substitute being under consideration.
2:17:59 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER confirmed that he has removed his objection.
There being no further objection, Version P was before the
committee.
[HB 91 was held over].
2:19:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he was unsure if the person who was
on teleconference may wish to testify on the bill at a later
date. He asked whether public testimony could be reopened at
the next hearing on HB 91 if any public members wish to testify.
CO-CHAIR FOSTER said he was not opposed to do so.