Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 120
04/15/2011 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB15 | |
| HB22 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 22 - NO CELL PHONE USE WHEN DRIVING
2:03:44 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the final 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 CSHB 22(TRA).]
2:04:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CATHY MUNOZ, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as one of HB 22's joint prime sponsors, explained that for
drivers 18 years of age or older, CSHB 22(TRA) would ban the use
of a cellular ("cell") phone except by hands-free mode, and for
drivers under the age of 18, CSHB 22(TRA) would ban the use of
any cell phone.
2:05:14 PM
KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff, Representative Cathy Munoz, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Munoz, one of HB 22's
joint prime sponsors, indicated that the bill was introduced in
part in response to anecdotal information about accidents that
have occurred because people were using a cell phone while
driving. She mentioned one example from Juneau involving a man
on a motorcycle not being seen by a driver using a cell phone.
Using a cell phone while driving raises a safety issue, and
there are studies available from the University of Utah - one of
them having been published in the Summer 2006 issue of, Human
Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society - which illustrate that individuals talking on a cell
phone while driving are impaired in a fashion similar to that of
"drunk drivers." Members' packets include written testimony;
studies; various articles regarding people who've been killed
because the driver of a motor vehicle was using a cell phone
while driving; and a survey designed and implemented by the
Alaska Injury Prevention Center (AIPC) titled, "Alaska 2010
Highway Safety Phone Survey" wherein 61 percent of respondents
relayed that they talk on a cell phone while driving. She too
noted that CSHB 22(TRA) allows drivers 18 years of age or older
to use a cell phone by hands-free mode, and prohibits drivers
under the age of 18 from using any cell phone. She offered her
understanding that many cell phones now have hands-free
capability.
MS. KLOSTER - in response to a question regarding CSHB 22(TRA)'s
definition of the term, "hands-free mode" - explained that the
bill's exemption for hands-free cell phone use by drivers 18
years of age or older was included in order to accommodate the
needs of commercial-vehicle drivers; proposed AS 28.35.165(c)(2)
defines the term, "hands-free mode" as meaning the use of a
cellular telephone for listening or talking by means of a
speaker function, headset, or earpiece without holding the
telephone.
CHAIR GATTO commented on the bill's unequal treatment of the
same behavior - that of talking on a cell phone - when committed
by different classes of people and depending on the form of
technology that's being used.
2:12:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES referred to proposed AS 28.35.165(a),
which says, "A person may not use a cellular telephone when
driving a motor vehicle on a highway or vehicular way or area",
and asked whether that language would include parking lots.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ indicated that she would have to research
that issue further.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES expressed concern about drivers who talk
on a cell phone while navigating a parking lot.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ, in response to further questions,
explained that from the perspective of law enforcement, the
phrase, "driving a motor vehicle" refers to a moving vehicle,
not a parked vehicle, and that for purposes of the bill, the
concept of "using" a cell phone also includes dialing and
otherwise manipulating the device; these issues were discussed
in the bill's previous committee of referral. In response to
another question, she explained that the bill is intended to
focus on the telephone functions of cellular telephones, not on
the other capabilities that many cellular telephones now have.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER surmised that some of those other
functions are probably more distracting than a device's
telephone functions.
MS. KLOSTER offered her understanding that the representative
from the Alaska Highway Safety Office (AHSO) has documentation
regarding the different aspects of the brain that are used while
performing different tasks, and documentation illustrating that
more accidents are caused by the use of a cell phone than are
caused by the use of a car radio or a Global Positioning System
(GPS), and that it is more distracting to talk on a cell phone
than to talk to someone in person.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT concurred that testimony offered in the
bill's last committee of referral indicated that the proposed
prohibition against using a cell phone while driving includes
manually dialing or otherwise manipulating the phone.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ acknowledged that obtaining further clarity
on that point was warranted.
2:20:55 PM
CHAIR GATTO pointed out that it makes no difference whether one
touches one's cell phone to hang up a call or touches a button
on the car or on a headset in order to hang up - both activities
require the use of one's hands and both can be distracting.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ noted that she herself has found it to be
easier to manipulate a device designed to be hands-free than one
that isn't so designed, and ventured that it would be acceptable
under the bill to manipulate a hands-free device.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN offered his hope that he would be allowed
under the bill to at least manipulate the volume control on his
hands-free device.
[Members then briefly discussed previously-passed legislation
from 2008 pertaining to video monitors/screens in motor
vehicles, and the facts that that 2008 legislation specifically
exempted cellular telephones and that in Alaska it is currently
illegal to "text" while driving.]
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ, in response to comments, said it is not
the intent of HB 22 to preclude a driver from using a cell phone
as part of his/her stereo system.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether there were any studies
illustrating that prohibiting [cell phone use while driving]
reduced the number of accidents.
MS. KLOSTER said she would research that issue.
CHAIR GATTO expressed interest in studies that compared various
types of distracted driving.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that under the bill,
a driver using a cell phone by hands-free mode would be
permitted to dial or hang up, that such incidental manipulation
of a cell phone was not what was meant with regard to the term,
"use"; instead, that term is meant to refer to the act of
holding the phone in one's hand while speaking on or listening
to it.
2:32:03 PM
JEFF OTTESEN, Director, Division of Program Development,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF),
acknowledged that the issue of distracted driving is a
complicated one, particularly given the ongoing advances in
technology. On a personal note, he relayed that since 2008, he
has been in two motor vehicle accidents, both caused by the
driver of the other car talking on a cell phone and rear-ending
him. In response to comments and questions, he pointed out that
for purposes of constituting a "motor vehicle" under the bill,
the vehicle must be one that would be driven on a highway or a
vehicular way or area. He added, however, that he is not sure
what constitutes a "vehicular area".
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON surmised, then, that the question of
whether the bill's proposed prohibition would also apply to
activity occurring in a parking lot still needs to be addressed.
2:39:44 PM
DON SMITH - after mentioning that from 2003 to 2005, he served
as the administrator of the Alaska Highway Safety Office (AHSO)
- provided some information about Alaska's seatbelt law, its
development, and its subsequent reduction in highway fatalities,
in order to illustrate how changing the behavior of Alaska's
motorists - regardless of how controversial any such change may
seem at first - can save a lot of lives. He posited that the
current administrator of the AHSO has data regarding the use of
cell phones while driving, and suggested that the committee ask
the administration to compile more such data so that the
committee can consider this issue in depth. He then offered his
understanding that the "school board" supports the concept of
HB 22, particularly as it relates to children. In conclusion,
he mentioned that although he thinks HB 22 needs more work, he
supports the bill, predicting that its passage and
implementation will save a lot of lives.
2:45:32 PM
CINDY CASHEN, Administrator, Alaska Highway Safety Office
(AHSO), Division of Program Development, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), in response to
questions and comments, offered her understanding of HB 22's
proposed changes and of the current statutory prohibitions
against texting or watching a video screen while driving;
suggested that law enforcement personnel could best address the
possible interplay between current law and the proposed law;
mentioned that traffic-safety-resource prosecutors have reported
that there is a problem with some judges misinterpreting current
law and thereby dismissing traffic citations issued for texting
while driving; and surmised that the Department of Law (DOL)
could best provide further information about that problem.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG predicted that prosecuting a driver for
cell phone use while driving would be easier under the proposed
law than it currently is under existing law because the behavior
in and of itself would then be illegal; currently, in order to
prosecute someone for particular driving behavior - in this
case, using a cell phone while driving - there would first have
to be an accident, and then the prosecution would have to prove
that it was that behavior which caused the accident.
2:53:12 PM
RICKY D. DEISING, mentioning that he rides a motorcycle and a
bicycle and that he's submitted written testimony, recounted
incidents in which cars have suddenly pulled out in front of him
- requiring him to either take extreme evasive action or be
killed - because the drivers of those cars were on their cell
phones and had their view of other traffic blocked by their hand
holding the cell phone. In conclusion, he urged the committee
to take this issue very seriously because a lot of people have
been killed because someone was using a cell phone while
driving.
CHAIR GATTO, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 22.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER opined that HB 22 won't fix the perceived
problem and instead goes overboard and disrespects drivers.
CHAIR GATTO pointed out that lives have been saved because
someone used a cell phone.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN characterized HB 22 as well intended, and
surmised that everyone is in favor of safe driving, but pointed
out that driving is inherently dangerous and involves
multitasking. Therefore, if one can't multitask while driving,
then perhaps one shouldn't be driving at all. Furthermore, he
remarked, legislation such as HB 22 raises the question of how
much other, what he termed, "nanny-state" legislation, would
then be coming before the committee. In conclusion, he said he
could not support HB 22 in its current form.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON, noting that drivers face many
distractions, said he doesn't support HB 22 at this time and
would only support it if it applied only to drivers under the
age of 18.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, opining that the bill needs more work,
expressed a preference for not moving it from committee at this
time.
3:00:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON moved to report CSHB 22(TRA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Gruenberg voted in
favor of reporting CSHB 22(TRA) from committee. Representatives
Holmes, Lynn, Keller, Pruitt, Thompson, and Gatto voted against
it. Therefore, CSHB 22(TRA) failed to be reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 1-6.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB22 Sponsor Statement Version I 03-09-11.pdf |
HJUD 4/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB22 CS(TRA) Version I 03-09-11.pdf |
HJUD 4/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB22 Version A 01-18-11.pdf |
HJUD 4/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB22 Explanation of Changes Version A to I 03-09-11.pdf |
HJUD 4/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB22 Fiscal Note-DPS-DET 02-25-11.pdf |
HJUD 4/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB22 Fiscal Note-LAW-CRIM 02-25-11.pdf |
HJUD 4/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB22 Supporting Documents-Report Leg. Research 01-26-11.pdf |
HJUD 4/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB22 Supporting Documents-Report NHTSA Research 09-2010.pdf |
HJUD 4/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB22 Supporting Documents-Report Phone Survey 2010.pdf |
HJUD 4/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB22 Supporting Documents-Statistics NHTSA.pdf |
HJUD 4/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB22 Supporting Documents-Public Testimony.pdf |
HJUD 4/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB22 Supporting Documents-Articles.pdf |
HJUD 4/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |