Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/08/1995 01:35 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 8, 1995
1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gary Davis, Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Eileen MacLean
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Bill Williams
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HB 161: "An Act relating to civil liability for guest
passengers on an aircraft or watercraft; and providing
for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
* HB 203: "An Act relating to the meaning of the phrase
"previously convicted" as that phrase applies to the
operation of a motor vehicle, commercial motor vehicle,
aircraft, or watercraft while intoxicated."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HB 57: "An Act relating to driver's licensing; and providing
for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
PATTY SWENSON, Legislative Assistant
Representative Con Bunde
State Capitol, Room 108
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: 465-4843
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 161
JOHN GEORGE
National Association of Independent Insurers
5328 Fritz Cove Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: 789-0172
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 161
MIKE FORD, Attorney
Division of Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street, Ste. 409
Juneau Alaska, 99801-2105
Telephone: 465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 161
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 203
JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief, Driver Services
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 20020
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: 465-2650
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 57
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 57
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant
Representative Joe Green
State Capitol, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 57
MARK JOHNSON, Chief
Emergency Medical Services
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110616
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0616
Telephone: 463-5807
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 57
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 161
SHORT TITLE: AIRCRAFT/WATERCRAFT GUEST PASSENGER LAW
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE,Toohey
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/08/95 271 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/08/95 272 (H) TRA, JUD
03/06/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/08/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 203
SHORT TITLE: PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS FOR DWI OFFENSES
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/27/95 493 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/27/95 493 (H) TRANSPORTATION, JUDICIARY
02/27/95 494 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (ADM)
02/27/95 494 (H) 3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (CORR, LAW, DPS)
02/27/95 494 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/08/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 57
SHORT TITLE: LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN,Bunde
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 35 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 35 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 35 (H) TRANSPORTATION, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/19/95 90 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
03/08/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-7, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Transportation Committee was called to order by Chairman
Gary Davis at 1:35 p.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Davis, Masek, Sanders and Williams.
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS announced the agenda was HB 161, HB 203 and HB
57 in that order.
HTRA - 03/08/95
HB 161 - AIRCRAFT/WATERCRAFT GUEST PASSENGER LAW
Number 019
PATTY SWENSON, Legislative Assistant to Representative Con Bunde,
stated she was here to testify on HB 161. She explained HB 161 was
designed to limit the liability of an owner or operator of an
aircraft or watercraft for injuries to passengers when the owner or
operator is not compensated for transportation. She explained when
the owner of a boat or plane is accompanied by a friend or
acquaintance on trips, the owner of that craft assumes liability.
She stated the risks should be shared by all participants. She
said HB 161 does not expect passengers of an air or watercraft to
give up their right to expect safe operation. Ms. Swenson
explained that when a pilot or boat driver behaves in a grossly
negligent manner, they are fully liable for injuries regardless of
the passing of HB 161. Ms. Swenson said according to Patty
Madison, who is the Accident Prevention Program Manager for the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), there are several thousand
private aircraft pilots currently operating in Alaska with only 130
accidents last year. Ms. Swenson added that all accidents are not
considered crashes. If a small plane is taxiing and hits a runway
light this is considered an accident. However, a plane in flight
that loses an engine is not necessarily considered an accident.
She indicated her point is, there are comparatively few accidents
in Alaska when considering the amount of flying that is done. She
listed other states with similar legislation; Oregon, New Mexico,
Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Montana, California, Georgia,
Alabama, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska,
Virginia and West Virginia. She explained these states have
significantly lower flying hours compared to the pilots of Alaska.
She noted according to FAA statistics, the medium hours for a
private pilot in the Lower 48 are 10-12 hours, and for Alaska the
hours are over 100. Ms. Swenson indicated in other states where
pilots have lower flying hours, they are able to afford the type of
protection HB 161 would provide. Alaskan pilots who fly more
frequently, should be protected unless they act in a grossly
negligent manner. She explained that currently aircraft insurance
is not mandatory. Ms. Swenson explained aircraft insurance may be
purchased two ways; insurance with passenger liability, or without.
MS. SWENSON pointed out if an aircraft owner chooses to purchase
insurance covering the occupants of the aircraft, then everyone in
and out of the plane would be covered in the event of an accident.
However, if the pilot elects not to purchase insurance for his
occupants, then only the people outside of the plane are covered in
the event of an accident. She indicated if an owner does not have
insurance and the occupants are injured in any way in an accident
that is not due to the owner's gross negligence, the family of the
guest passenger can sue the pilot, leaving the pilot, owner and
family with nothing. She indicated if HB 161 passes, it would
prevent the family of a pilot from losses due to anything other
than gross negligence.
Number 083
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK expressed her approval of HB 161.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS asked for clarification on the
difference from the intent of HB 161 and obtaining auto insurance.
MS. SWENSON explained when HB 161 was presented last year, the same
question was asked. She stated it was her belief that "aircraft in
Alaska is not as necessary as a car is." She explained a car will
transport a person to places closer, or not accessible by plane;
"places too far to walk, to close to fly to." She reiterated a car
is a more necessary mode of transportation. Ms. Swenson
acknowledged Mr. John George who would inform the committee on the
details of the bill as well as presenting testimony on HB 161.
Number 108
JOHN GEORGE stated he represented the National Association of
Independent Insurers. He explained he was here at the request of
Representative Con Bunde, prime sponsor of HB 161. Mr. George
stated he was a former director of Insurance for the state of
Alaska and a former risk manager for the state. He pointed out
that his background would be beneficial to his testimony. He
addressed Representative Sanders' question dealing with auto
insurance and how it differs from what HB 161 proposes. He
explained that an automobile insurance policy automatically covers
passengers; however, aircraft insurance can be purchased with seat
liability or without. If purchased without the seat liability, the
passenger is not covered. He added without the seat liability, the
cost of coverage is much cheaper. He mentioned there was a dilemma
when a person owns an aircraft and has purchased the lesser
expensive liability coverage that covers anyone hit by the plane in
the event of a crash and a friend says, "let's go fishing" and the
pilot explains he does not have insurance to cover his friend. Mr.
George explained the pilot would have to purchase extra liability
insurance in order to take his friend fishing. He explained if the
guest passenger, the person wanting to go fishing says he will pay
for the extra insurance, then the pilot is essentially chartering
his aircraft and could inevitably lose his pilots license. Mr.
George explained there was an additional cost to the owner of the
airplane to provide the required insurance needed to transport
people in his aircraft. Mr. George added if the pilot decides to
"chance it," the pilot and his family are liable and can be sued.
Mr. George mentioned this scenario can also be applied to
watercraft. He exemplified someone using a Lund skiff or other
small boat; if the people using this skiff are renters and do not
have a home owners policy covering their liability for small boats
and a person wants to go fishing with them, the same scenario
applies. The boat operators do not have specific insurance and
feel they would not do a lot of damage to a third party, so they
elect not to purchase third party liability insurance. Mr. George
explained if people are injured on their boat, the owners can be
sued. He indicated HB 161 provides an opportunity for operators of
water and aircraft who want to take passengers, but do not want to
incur additional expenses, to do so. He added if insurance is
purchased, then the coverage extends to the passengers on the
airplane; however, if the pilot elects not to purchase the
insurance covering their passengers, then unless the pilot is found
to be grossly negligent; i.e., drunk or commit an intentional act,
the pilot cannot be sued.
Number 160
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked if the insurance can be extended out to
sled dog team owners as well.
MR. GEORGE said "anything is possible." It could be added to HB
161. He indicated he was not aware of anyone who has sled dog
liability insurance, unless it is covered under their home owners
policy. He felt the more rural lifestyle a person lives, the less
likely that person is to have a home owners policy.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked for confirmation on the availability of
aircraft liability insurance for passengers, and whether or not it
was cost prohibitive.
MR. GEORGE indicated that cost prohibitive was "all relative." He
stated it was an additional and fairly expensive cost only covering
the pilots' passengers.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS proposed a scenario where a pilot already had the
insurance and crashed injuring his passengers and the crash was
caused by circumstances beyond the pilot's control, such as a
propeller falling off or some other form of mechanical failure. He
asked if this happened directly after the plane was released from
an annual inspection, how would the insurance apply to a case such
as this?
MR. GEORGE explained if the pilot or owner was negligent, then his
insurance would pay. However, if it was just released from its
annual inspection and a third party had completed the maintenance
and neglected to check all the nuts and bolts on the propeller,
that person would be liable as well.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if the intent of HB 161 is to insert
information assumed in statute regarding whether or not the pilot
was negligent.
MR. GEORGE affirmed Chairman Davis' example. He added there are
cases where the pilot does not have passenger liability insurance
and they go out and attempt a landing on a dirt strip and they hit
a pothole and lose the landing gear and someone gets injured, the
pilot can be sued.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS called attention to the definitions of negligence
from Alaska Statutes enclosed in the bill packet. He asked for
clarification when determining whether a person is negligent or
not.
Number 218
MR. GEORGE explained that with commercial aircraft there is what is
called "admitted liability." Mr. George depicted a scenario
whereby a person flies with Alaska Airlines and the plane crashes
and that passenger sues Alaska Airlines and their insurance company
will respond. He explained whether Alaska Airlines was negligent
or not is not as important as the "high expectations" that a
passenger assumes when they board the aircraft. He continued in
the event of an accident or mishap, then the airlines' insurance
assumes responsibilities. Mr. George differentiated the negligence
situation with commercial airlines and with private pilots.
Number 226
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS stated that his expectations are the same
regardless of the airline. He inquired as to the possibility of a
passenger signing a waiver stating they are aware of the risks in
flying with an uninsured pilot.
MR. GEORGE explained a waiver can be signed by a passenger, and
demanded by the pilot. However, it is uncertain as to whether or
not the waiver will hold up in court. He noted there are numerous
incidents where due to a misunderstanding on the passenger's part
of the implications of the waiver, they will not hold up in court.
He noted the waivers can be helpful, but not definitive.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS inquired if HB 161 passes, how will people
know whether or not the pilot has insurance. He suggested a
sticker placed on the door indicating whether or not the pilot has
insurance might be beneficial. Representative Sanders stated he
was under the assumption all pilots had insurance.
MR. GEORGE explained that the lack of proof of insurance could be
a shortcoming of the bill and the pilot needs to indicate whether
or not he has insurance for passengers. Mr. George proposed the
signing of a waiver along with the change in the Alaska Statute
would make it more obvious to the passenger than a sticker or some
sort of indication would be beneficial. He stated he has no
problem with people having notice as to the extent of coverage the
pilot has.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS said Representative Sanders concern is commonly
known as inherent risk and analogized that when a person is running
up someone's snow covered steps, there is inherent risk that the
person doing the running is liable and responsible for their
actions. He explained if you're going to get into an airplane with
anyone, whether they are fully insured or not, it should be
inherently known that a certain amount of risk exists. Chairman
Davis cautioned anyone of the complications that arise when a
person makes assumptions.
MR. GEORGE indicated he was familiar with the scenario where a
pilot has made it clear that he does not have liability insurance.
He stated this does not automatically protect the pilot. Mr.
George theorized if the pilot accurately explained his insurance
status, he would not be sued by the passenger or their family.
Number 298
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS reiterated his question as to the
possibility of a system similar to auto insurance and would it be
financially impossible for the pilot to afford.
MR. GEORGE explained it would be a significant additional expense.
He added with aircraft insurance, the pilot or owner buys seat
liability insurance. He explained if a plane has six seats, a
pilot or owner can buy insurance for one or as many seats as he
desires. He further explained if the pilot feels he does not need
to insure all six seats and only buys coverage for two people and
then takes a third person, he does run the risk of being sued by
that third passenger. He indicated that the insurance for pilots
has traditionally been a separate coverage and not an automatic
coverage policy.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS reiterated that there are inherent
responsibilities when operating an aircraft. He stated if the
pilots are not responsible for their passengers, then what is the
difference in their responsibility of driving people around in
cars.
MR. GEORGE stated he could not address that question directly, but
if he was in a situation where he had an airplane, he would elect
not to buy the seat liability insurance and not take a passenger
in his aircraft. He added it is a dilemma when a friend wants to
go and the pilot states he does not have the insurance. Mr. George
depicted a scenario where if it was a matter of life or death that
a person had to be transported by a pilot without the proper
insurance, the pilot can elect not to take the person.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS thanked Mr. George and introduced Ms. Patty Swenson.
He asked Ms. Swenson if Representative Sanders point about the
possibility of some notice to passengers of insurance or the lack
of, was brought up in a previous debate.
MS. SWENSON indicated there was a decision not to apply pilot
insurance as car insurance mostly due to the notion that people
assume a certain amount of risk equal to being a passenger in a
vehicle or boat. She indicated that the passenger has a choice as
to whether they want to get in the vehicle or not. She mentioned
the possibility of signing a waiver. Ms. Swenson informed the
committee she had previously spoken with Larry Strollie, Regional
Manager for EMPCO, and was informed by him that a court case did
exist involving a passenger in a rented plane from Elmendorf
Aeroclub; this person had signed a bodily damage waiver prior to
flying. She mentioned the plane crashed and the passenger died.
The family successfully sued the pilot because the passenger did
not sign a waiver that included the possibility of death. She said
when a situation arises where there are thousands of planes in
Alaska, not all the pilots are going to pick up a standard waiver
or have a lawyer on hand to draft up a waiver before the pilots
carry passengers in their aircraft.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if the person killed in the Elmendorf
plane was the pilot.
MS. SWENSON stated it was the passenger that died and the family of
the passenger successfully sued the pilot. She reiterated the
bodily damage waiver did not cover deaths.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS explained that a lot of the legal questions
pertaining to HB 161 will be addressed through the House Judiciary
Committee. He stated if HB 161 does become law, people who
currently have insurance and pay into this will not be buying the
added insurance. He indicated there would be the possibility of
additional risk. He said this would apply only if this situation
was the case. He added most cases only include negligence.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS noted that the appropriate term was gross
negligence.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS read the definitions of gross negligence and
negligence as defined by Alaska Statute. He asked for
clarification on gross negligence and negligence.
MS. SWENSON said the bill drafter should address those issues.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS announced for the record that Representatives
MacLean and Brice arrived at 1:55 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE EILEEN MACLEAN asked why HB 161 was exclusive to air
and watercraft. She expressed concern as to the inclusion of other
areas of transportation.
Number 408
MIKE FORD, attorney with the Division of Legal Services, commented
on the distinctions between negligence and gross negligence and
stated it was "a matter of degree." He stated HB 161 addresses
negligent acts and a pilot would be protected from acts of
negligence, but not be protected from gross negligence or reckless
and intentional acts. He stated it is sometimes difficult to
articulate the difference. He stated HB 161 is narrowly crafted
and the intentions were designed only for aircraft and watercraft
guest passengers. However, he noted the legislature will make the
final decision and substance of any exceptions to HB 161.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked if HB 161 would exempt air and
watercraft operators from being liable for their passengers'
deaths.
MR. FORD explained HB 161 provides immunity to the operator or
owner of an aircraft or boat. He indicated in the event of an
accident where a guest passenger dies under present law a guest
passenger might recover from the pilot for injuries. He implied if
HB 161 becomes law, they would not be able to recover due to the
pilot's negligence and assuming this scenario occurs, this would be
the distinction of a before and after consequence of the bill. He
explained HB 161 does have provisions if the pilot has insurance
then they are not immune, if the pilot does carry insurance, a
guest passenger or family can recover up to the amount of the
insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN stated she opposed HB 161 due to Mr. Fords
explanation.
Number 441
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE asked for clarification on Mr. Fords
statement regarding the pilots not being immune if they are acting
in a professional manner and are insured. Representative Brice
reiterated the fact the pilot would be immune if they do not have
insurance.
MR. FORD stated there is an immunity created by HB 161. However,
the immunity does not apply if the pilot has a guest passenger, the
plane crashes and the guest passenger is injured. He said then the
pilot would be considered negligent. He explained the guest
passenger could still recover if the pilot has insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked for clarification on the fact that the
guest passenger could not recover if the pilot was not insured.
MR. FORD stated Representative Brice's comment was correct. He
further explained if the pilot is not insured, then there is the
potential of no recovery. He explained this is assuming there is
no one else at fault.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS asked for clarification on the type of
standardized insurance required for pilots. He inquired as to
assuming the pilot does have insurance and the pilot was found to
be grossly negligent, would he be covered?
MR. FORD stated that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked for clarification on implications of
the definition of negligence stating, "it immunizes the gross
negligent acts of the pilots of watercraft or air."
MR. FORD indicated no, the act would only immunize negligent acts.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked if this covered gross negligence as
well.
MR. FORD explained it would not cover gross negligence. If someone
had committed a grossly negligent act, then there would not be
immunity granted under HB 161. He stated the arguments between
gross and just negligent are a difference of standards. He
exemplified by stating if a person actually committed a grossly
negligent act, then there would not be immunity under HB 161. He
stated a person involved in an accident could recover.
Number 460
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked for clarification on the term
reasonable care.
MR. FORD explained the term indicates care that a reasonable person
would exercise in a given situation. He explained for defining
negligence, courts have created a fictional person they believe
would and have set standards on how a reasonable person would act.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS directed his comments on the intent of HB 161 to Ms.
Swenson regarding Representative Bunde's intent with the inclusion
of the terms gross negligence and intent to make negligence immune.
MS. SWENSON stated her belief was that Representative Bunde's
intentions were to protect families of the operators and owners of
air and watercraft from significant losses. She explained the
intent is to cover the operators in the event of an accident
beyond the pilots of a boat or aircraft control; i.e., an Act of
God.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS confirmed Mr. Fords comment that an act of a
reasonable person is designed to set a standard; outside of these
standards would then be regarded as negligence. Chairman Davis
requested an example in the distinctions between negligence and
gross negligence.
MR. FORD presented a scenario where a plane crashes because it ran
out of fuel. The fact the pilot did not check the fuel level would
make him negligent. However, if the pilot knowingly mixed water
with the gas intending to stretch the mixture, that action would be
considered gross negligence. He stated it is dependent on the act
involved.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE presented a scenario in order to clarify the
intent of HB 161. He implied that he was from the Interior and
enjoyed jet boats as do other people in the Interior. He
exemplified taking a boat up the Salcha River and hitting a sandbar
going 70 miles per hour, killing his passenger. Barring any
alcohol or other impairment, would he be exempt from the intent of
HB 161.
MR. FORD stated if this situation went to trial, the jury would
have to be asked, would a reasonable person have acted in the same
manner. He postulated, what would a reasonable person have done.
For example, would they have slowed down or paid more attention to
the river or would a reasonable person have acted in the same
manner.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked what would the case be if alcohol was
involved.
MR. FORD indicated it would make a difference. He eluded to the
possibility of the jury finding the person negligent.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN stated in her opinion, HB 161 was exclusive
to water and aircraft carriers and explained it should be all
inclusive to other entities such as truck drivers and railroad
carriers.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS indicated this was a question that was brought up
previously and it was indicated that these mentioned types of
insurance are designed to be specific with regard to purchasing
specific insurance. He added auto and truck are inclusive in their
respected policies.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN stated "this would be a benefit to the
insurance companies and not for Alaskans."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE added it might not benefit the insurance
companies. He explained in order to be eligible for the immunity,
HB 161 assumes a person cannot be previously covered. But if a
person carries insurance, they are eligible.
Number 549
CHAIRMAN DAVIS directed his comments to Ms. Swenson and expressed
his desire to obtain some degree of understanding of the context of
negligence and gross negligence. He felt the sponsor of the bill
should be present and elected to hold HB 161.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there were any objections. Hearing none,
HB 161 was held over.
HTRA - 03/08/95
HB 203 - PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS FOR DWI OFFENSES
Number 561
CHAIRMAN DAVIS welcomed Ms. Margot Knuth from the Department of Law
and requested she present HB 203.
MARGOT KNUTH, Criminal Division, Department of Law, stated she was
here to testify on behalf of the Governor for HB 203. She
explained HB 203 was one of six bills incorporated into the
Governor's crime package this year. She explained HB 203 was
narrowly designed, focusing on the goals of treating convictions
from other states that allow a .08 blood alcohol level (BAL) for
driving while intoxicated (DWI) as a prior conviction under Alaska
laws. She stated Alaska currently uses the .10 BAL standard for
intoxication determination. She noted there was a ruling by the
Court of Appeals in 1991 stating that a conviction from a state
where .08 was the standard, could not be considered substantially
similar due to the possibility of the person had a lower BAL at the
time of the offense than Alaska law requires. She said the average
BAL of a person suspected of driving while intoxicated in Alaska is
.19, significantly higher than .10. She indicated this was similar
in other states. She explained before a person calls attention to
themselves as a drunk driver, they may have a BAL as high as .15
and .20. She explained the arrests that are being made in states
such as Oregon, are using the standard of .08 are usually above .1
blood alcohol level and the issue is a matter of technical
difference in the law. Ms. Knuth said she was not aware of any
opposition to HB 203 and asked if there were any questions.
MS. KNUTH pointed out the four sections to HB 203. She explained
the existing driver's license statute, 28.15.201, would have to
become obsolete if the BAL was standardized. She explained Section
1 omits "also convictions based on laws presuming that the person
was under the influence of intoxicating liquor if there was .08
percent or more by weight of alcohol in the person's blood." She
explained the next three sections added the language with regards
to the commercial driving while intoxicated laws, and the regular
DWI statute, and finally to the forfeiture provision for repeat
drunk driver offenses. She explained the language included the law
ordinance "of an other jurisdiction presuming the person was under
the influence of intoxicating liquor at a lower percentage by
weight of alcohol in the person's blood than that required in the
state."
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked what impact would HB 203 have on a
situation such as the Exxon Valdez incident, where the pilot of the
vessel was intoxicated.
MS. KNUTH stated she did not feel there would be any impact,
because the intent of HB 203 is to treat repeated offenders from
other states. She noted this year and last, there are DWI bills
pending. Ms. Knuth suggested if Alaska stayed at .10 BAL standard,
then there would be the question of how to treat people with prior
convictions from other states.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS indicated concern for Section 2 relating to
commercial driver's license (CDL) operators. He stated Alaska's
commercial law standards are .04 BAL. He asked if this was
standard for commercial driver licenses.
Number 611
MS. KNUTH stated .04 is the federally required standard for persons
operating a commercial vehicle. She indicated to the best of her
knowledge there are no jurisdictions where there is a lower BAL for
commercial incidents of DWIs and stated it may be possible a state
may have a lower standard of .03 or .02.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS stated his concern was with the carryover of the
commercial DWI had from another state. He questioned whether or
not there would be concern with convictions being required to
withdraw a CDL and would they not be transferred to Alaska.
MS. KNUTH referred to Ms. Hensley from the Department of Public
Safety and stated she could address the issue of CDLs with regards
to laws of other states.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS asked for clarification on the "law by
ordinance" statement in Section 2 of HB 203.
MS. KNUTH explained with regards to Washington, Oregon and
California, which have lowered the standards of BALs from .10 to
.08, Alaska courts have indicated that if someone from Oregon comes
to Alaska with two convictions for drunk driving under Oregon laws,
they need to be treated as a first offender in Alaska. She stated
the language of HB 203 will help view prior DWI convictions if it
was a conviction for drunk driving regardless of the BAL used to
presume intoxication.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS addressed the different ways to measure the BAL of
a person and asked if the variations of types were taken into
consideration or are the other standards ignored?
MS. KNUTH explained the BAL of .1 can be measured through a
toximeter breathalizer, blood or urine test but all the tests
indicate the person's BAL....
TAPE 95-7, SIDE B
Number 000
MS. KNUTH continued to explained, a person's BAL will be treated as
a second offense, if their next violation is under Alaska state
law. She stated this would count as a DWI conviction.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS indicated with relation to DWI laws. He questioned
the effectiveness of some of these laws and with the
implementations of new laws. He stated HB 203 "fits in the realm
of acceptability" and supported HB 203.
Number 029
JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief, Driver Services, Division of Motor
Vehicles, Department of Public Safety, explained that the
Department of Public Safety is looking forward to HB 203 passing.
She explained the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is in a position
to hear administrative hearings for DWI arrests and finds a person
to have five prior DWIs in the state of California. The state of
Alaska will treat them as first offenders. She explained even if
their BAL was .30 or .0, they have to be treated as a first
offender.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS inquired as to commercial operators and the .04 BAL.
MS. HENSLEY explained the national federally mandated standard for
commercial operators is .04 percent. She explained if a person
possessing a CDL is operating a commercial vehicle and is convicted
of a DWI and has a BAL of .04, it is a mandatory one year license
revocation of their CDL. She depicted a scenario where if Utah had
a .02 for their commercial operators and that person was convicted
for DWI and was found to be operating an 80,000 ton commercial
vehicle in Alaska, the state would not be able to use the Utah
conviction if that person was also operating a commercial vehicle
here and was picked up a second time for DWI. She stated "when we
think of commercial vehicles, we think it could be a panel vehicle
that they are using for commercial purposes. The majority of these
vehicles are hazardous material tankers, doubles and triples,
26,000 lbs. or greater." If a person was convicted of an .04
offense, it would apply; however, if that state was a lesser degree
than Alaskan standards, Alaska would not be able to use that
conviction. She indicated a second offense DWI conviction of
commercial driving is a lifetime disqualification of a CDL.
Number 093
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if a person obtains a CDL, do they carry a
separate private and commercial license?
MS. HENSLEY explained a person obtains only one license. If a
person has a CDL to operate a class A, B or C vehicle, these types
of vehicles are covered. If a person is arrested and convicted of
operating a commercial vehicle with a BAL of .04 or greater, they
only lose their CDL. However, if they are found to be .10 or
greater, they will lose all driving privileges.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN made a motion to move HB 203 out of the
House Transportation Committee with individual recommendations and
zero fiscal notes.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there was any objection. Hearing none, HB
203 was moved out of committee.
HTRA - 03/08/95
HB 57 - LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVERS
Number 124
CHAIRMAN DAVIS introduced Representative Joe Green, sponsor of HB
57.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN indicated HB 57 was introduced last
session and got as far as the House Rules Committee when we ran out
of time. He explained the bill was reintroduced due to concerns on
the abundance of accidents and deaths caused by teen-age drivers.
He indicated these deaths were not necessarily caused because of
unqualified drivers so much as "their mental attitude was lacking."
He stated a teen-ager can physically operate a vehicle but
Representative Green questioned the teen-ager's maturity and
judgment level. He explained HB 57 was necessary in order to help
teen-agers realize the seriousness of operating an automobile and
to establish a graduated system in acquiring a driver's license.
He stated driving was a privilege, not a right. He pointed out
that statistically, the majority of the accidents happen in the
early hours of the morning. He explained HB 57 implements a
restriction during phase two of the graduation system imposed in HB
57 stating that teen-agers would be restricted from the hours of 1
a.m. to 5 a.m. when most accidents happen, unless they are taking
a direct route from employment to home. He stated the intent is to
keep teen-agers off the streets at those specific times.
Representative Green asked for questions.
Number 175
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN commented on other states implementing
monetary incentive programs for young drivers. She inquired as to
the type of monetary incentives available in Alaska when there is
a fiscal note that will increase the budget within the Department
of Public Safety.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated Ms. Hensley would be able to address
Representative MacLean's concerns.
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green,
presented HB 57 in sections. He indicated the intent of HB 57 was
to establish a provisional driver's licensing system. He asked the
committee to analogize learning to ride a bicycle. He stated the
progression of starting with a tricycle, and on to a bicycle with
training wheels, then to a full size bicycle. He stated the intent
of HB 57 is to do the same in regards to creating a three-stage
system for people who operate an automobile. He indicated Section
1 of HB 57 establishes that a driver's license cannot be issued to
a person between the ages of 16 and 21. He mentioned the bill
targets people between the ages of 16 and 20, unless they have met
the provisions of 057, which is a new provision licensing section
in Section 3 of HB 57. He summarized Section 1 states a person may
not obtain a license if you are a young driver, unless you have had
a provisional driver's license; Section 2 increases the age of the
person one can drive with when they have a learner's permit. He
explained that nationally as well as within Alaska, statistics
indicate if a person is taught to drive by a person with good
driving habits, that person will more than likely acquire the same
skills. He added statistically, persons 25 years and older are
more capable of teaching others to drive. He indicated this was
the reason for the increase in age in order to obtain a learner's
permit. He explained Section 3 of the bill adds two new sections:
055 which states that the Department of Public Safety may issue a
provisional driver's license to a person who is at least 16, but
not yet 18, if that person possesses an instructional permit. He
summarized the three-stage provisional licensing system. He said
first, the learner's permit, then the provisional license, and
finally the full driver's license. He stated a person must have a
learner's permit for at least six months. The second subsection of
055 states if a person is between 18 and 21, a permit is not
required, however they do have to have the provisional driver's
license. So, in Section 3 under 055, it states that before a
person may obtain a license, that person must have had the
provisional driver's license.
MR. LOGAN then explained provision 057 which establishes the
provisional driver's license. He stated there are three
subsections to 057--A, B,and C. Subsection A provides the
provisions for the 16 and 17 year olds. Subsection B covers
persons at least 18, but not yet 21. Subsection C establishes the
night time driving restrictions. He directed attention to the
charts in the bill packet presented to committee members. He made
reference to a pie chart which offered statistics from 1993, that
while young drivers 16 to 23 represented 6 percent of the licensed
drivers, they had almost 13 percent of the accidents. He
referenced the same pie chart which showed the time of day these
accidents occurred. He stated about 32 percent of the accidents
for that particular age group occurred between the hours of 8 p.m.
and 6 a.m. He indicated what HB 57 establishes is essentially a
curfew for young drivers between the hours of 1 a.m. and 5 a.m.
MR. LOGAN made reference to a House State Affairs Committee meeting
last year where there was concern in Representative Davis's
district regarding young workers in the fish processors. Mr. Logan
explained that we have worked around that, and it would be
permissible for a person traveling directly from work to home.
MR. LOGAN explained Section 4 of HB 57 tightens up the section of
law pertaining to the state of Alaska having the right to suspend
a person's license if that person demonstrated irresponsible
behavior operating a vehicle. He indicated that currently, if a
person acquires 12 or more points within a 12-month period, or 18
or more points within a 24-month period, the person's license will
be suspended. However, if a person has a provisional license, they
are only allowed a total of six points before their license is
suspended. Mr. Logan explained once a person loses their
provisional license they have to start the entire process over. He
stated Section 5 is a definition section and Section 6 establishes
an effective date.
MR. LOGAN indicated that Ms. Hensley could further testify to the
nationally, as well as international popularity of the driver
licensing provisional system. He stated currently there are 16
states that have successfully implemented some component of a
provisional licensing system. He named some of the organizations
that are supporting a type of provisional licensing system such as
Associations of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Insurance
Associations, Mothers against Drunk Driving, Governors' Highway
Safety Representatives, and National Safety Councils. He called
committee members' attention to a brochure which listed
organizations and insurance companies primarily supporting this
legislation. He stated these organizations profit from young
drivers and noted that one would suspect they would welcome young
drivers of this higher statistic risk. He explained the fact is,
these organizations are aware of the problems caused by the higher
risk drivers and support a provisional licensing system.
Number 290
MS. HENSLEY stated from the Department of Public Safety--from an
enforcement standpoint--and the DMV within Public Safety, both
support HB 57. She indicated it was a good measure to save lives.
She reiterated Mr. Logan's point that youth drivers are over
represented in the number of licensed drivers the state of Alaska
has. She explained the graduated license system is a restricted
license program allowing youth drivers to learn over a period of
time with restrictions imposed. She explained the intent was to
help beginners learn to drive step by step by controlling their
progression toward a full driving privilege. She explained the
restrictions are lifted gradually and systematically until the
driver acquires an unrestricted license. She indicated this system
is beneficial in two ways: One, it insures that the new driver has
accumulated the practical experience needed in low risk settings;
and, second, it also means drivers are older and more mature by the
time they obtain their unrestricted license. She reiterated her
comment on the over representation youth drivers have in Alaska.
She explained only 6.2 percent of all licensed drivers are between
the ages of 16 and 20, and involved in 12.9 percent of all total
crash accidents in the state and 28.8 percent of the mentioned age
group are involved in the total crashes involving fatalities. She
added this particular age group is over represented nationwide, not
just Alaska. She added with regards to the states that have
implemented a graduated driver license program, California and
Maryland have recorded a 5 percent reduction in the total crashes
between the ages of 15 through 17. She mentioned Maryland has
reported a 10 percent reduction in traffic convictions. She said
Oregon reported a 16 percent reduction in crashes for male drivers,
ages 16 to 17, which indicated the monetary value decreases on the
cost of insurance in the state as well as the amount of crashes,
fatalities and injury accidents. She indicated there are several
stages in implementing this program, if Alaska decides to adopt it.
First, there needs to be a learner's stage, then an intermediate
stage, then a full license can be obtained. She reiterated Mr.
Logan's point that the various agencies support this legislation.
She mentioned the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the
International Chiefs of Police, Alaska Peace Officers Association,
the National Association of Governor Highway Safety
Representatives, National Safety Council and the National
Transportation Safety Board all support HB 57. She stated as a
driver license administrator in Alaska, she felt a graduated
license program has the potential to reduce the number of injuries
and fatalities, also having the potential to reduce youth crime
occurring between the hours of 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. Ms. Hensley
welcomed any questions from the Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS asked for confirmation on the $163,000
fiscal note for HB 57.
MS. HENSLEY explained the fiscal note shows $162,000 in new revenue
coming into the state. She explained the new revenue was from the
amount for driver's licensing. She indicated there is a $15 fee
for taking the road test and HB 57 implements an additional $10 fee
to go from a provisional license to a full license. She explained
there is a $100 fee for reinstating a person's driver's license in
the event they lose their license due to point accumulation. She
explained the revenue is generated in program receipts from the
additional work DMV would be conducting. She indicated only North
Carolina and Alaska applied for the incentive grants offered to all
states by the National Highway Safety Administration to implement
or to study an implementation of a graduated license program.
Alaska's grant was $77,000 and is reflected on the fiscal note.
She indicated the total operating cost is $126,000 with only
$49,500 of that from the general fund revenue and $77,000 is the
federal receipts from the grant received. She indicated there is
a total income of $163,000 to the department.
Number 385
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if the reason Alaska and North Carolina
received the grant was due to the other states previously having
the grant.
MS. HENSLEY indicated no this was not the reason. She stated she
was happy and proud that Alaska was awarded the grant and is giving
Alaska some national recognition in terms of progressive action on
a driver license system. She indicated Alaska has the lowest crash
rate and fatalities in the nation, as far as the lowest reduction
in accidents last year.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS introduced Mr. Mark Johnson to testify on HB 57.
Number 400
MARK JOHNSON, Chief, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), Department
of Health and Social Services, stated he supported HB 57. He
explained that motor vehicle trauma is the number one cause of
hospitalization and number two cause of death following suicide,
for the 15 through 24 year age group. He indicated that data is
collected from every hospital in Alaska on every injury admitted to
a hospital. He said they have that data from 1991 through most of
1994. He mentioned all the statistics that are seen nationally
apply in Alaska and the mentioned age group is represented at about
double the rate of percentages of the drivers in injury
hospitalizations and deaths. He added with respect to
hospitalization costs, the mentioned age group cost an average of
$20,000 per patient which does not include other charges billed
separately, such as physicians, ambulances, rehabilitation and
other expenses. He referred to the question relating to the
evaluation of these programs, the more data acquired by EMS or
Public Safety, the greater the ability of evaluation on the
impacts.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS recognized for the record that Representative
Jeannette James arrived at 2:45 p.m. and asked if she had heard
testimony on HB 57 last year.
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES said no she had not.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS requested HB 57 be moved out of the House
Transportation Committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal notes.
Number 435
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there were objections. Hearing none, HB 57
was moved out of the House Transportation Committee.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS indicated there was information for the Committee
members regarding the Marine Pilots Board and emphasized this was
an important scheduled bill. He added there was also information
from the Bicycle Federation of America that the Committee was not
able to attend due to an extended session at the time of the
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House
Transportation Committee, Chairman Davis adjourned the meeting at
2:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|