Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 17
03/01/2011 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB22 | |
| HB128 | |
| HB22 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 68 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 128 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 22-NO CELL PHONE USE WHEN DRIVING
1:06:14 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."
1:07:13 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON explained that on today's committee calendar are
four bills all related to cell phones. She indicated that
Representative Doogan has declined to present his bill today.
She read his letter into the record [original punctuation
provided]:
I understand the House Transportation Committee you
chair will be taking up the issues of cell phone use
while driving on March 1, 2011. It was also brought
to my attention that you offered to look at the
several cell phone related bills at the same time,
though Rep. Munoz' HB 22 will be the likely vehicle
moving forward.
I appreciate the opportunity to present my own HB 35,
but, in the interest of time and efficiency, I will
respectfully decline to do so. I would urge the
committee to consider some of the merits of HB 35, as
it deliberates on this important safety issue. The
different between the two bills is that HB 22 makes
and exception for hands-fee cell phone use, while my
bill does not. Studies have shown the hands-free cell
use is not significantly less distracting, and that
driving ability is still impaired. It is different
than talking to a passenger in the car, because it
requirement different thought processes, and also
because passengers are aware of changing road
conditions.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to present,
though I respectfully decline, and hope the committee
will pass a bill that best provides for safe roadways.
1:08:34 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON related that the committee would not hear HB 35,
but would consider provisions in the bill, along with the other
cell phone bills, and the national studies which highlight
research and statistics for the committee to consider.
1:09:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that last legislature he
introduced a cell phone bill which did not institute a primary
stop. He related that he reintroduced the cell phone bill, HB
68, this legislature. He asked to place on the record that he
does not plan to move forward with HB 68.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then moved to adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 22, labeled 27-LS0155\B,
Luckhaupt, 2/24/11 as the working document. There being no
objection, Version B was before the committee.
1:11:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ introduced Kendra Kloster, her chief of
staff, to present the committee substitute.
KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff, Representative Cathy Munoz, on behalf of
one of the joint prime sponsors, stated the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 22 would prohibit the use of cell phones
while driving a motor vehicle. This bill version allows for
hands-free devices to be used to accommodate commercial drivers
and tour operators. The changes in the CS include a definition
for "emergency" and "hands-free mode." Additionally, as
Representative Gruenberg mentioned, the CS includes a provision
that identifies cell phone use as a primary offense. She
referred to several studies in members packets. One study
conducted by the University of Utah found motorists using cell
phones are as impaired as drunk drivers. Additionally, the AHSO
indicates that 60 percent of Alaskans are talking on their cell
phones while driving. She reported, anecdotally, that her peers
agree they often use their cell phones while driving but they
recognize this activity needs to be stopped.
1:13:09 PM
MS. KLOSTER referred to another report in members' packets
[Legislature Research Report, January 26, 2011, "Laws Regarding
Cellular Phone Use by Drivers"] which compares actions other
states have taken. She reported that 9 states and the District
of Columbia have imposed statewide bans on using cell phones, 19
states and the District of Columbia prohibit use of a cell phone
while operating a school bus, 28 states and the District of
Columbia prohibit novice drivers - usually defined as 18 years
old or younger - from using cell phones when operating vehicles,
and 30 states - including Alaska - and the District of Columbia
ban drivers from texting while driving. She also reported that
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
provided statistics, including that in 2009, 995 deaths and 20
percent of crashes involving injuries had reports of distracted
driving from cell phone usage.
1:14:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that at his request the
effective date of July 1, 2011 was removed from the CS. He
asked whether the administration would like an effective date in
the bill and if so what date should be used.
CHAIR P. WILSON informed members the Department of Law and the
Department of Public Safety have each submitted fiscal notes.
1:16:11 PM
CINDY CASHEN, Governor's Highway Safety Representative;
Administrator, Alaska Highway Safety Office (AHSO), Division of
Program Development, explained the Alaska Highway Safety Office
(AHSO) administers federal funding to data-driven effective
programs that encourage safe driving behavior. She stated the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) policy
on cellular phone use on driving is based on the premise that it
is the driver's primary responsibility to operate a motor
vehicle safely. The task of driving requires full attention and
focus and since cell phone use can distract a driver from this
task, risking harm to his/her self and to others, that the
safest course of action is to refrain from using a cell phone
while driving. The NHTSA research shows that driving while using
a cell phone can pose a serious cognitive distraction and can
degrade driver performance. Additionally the NHTSA estimates
that driver distraction from all sources contributes to 25
percent of all police reported traffic crashes. Ten years ago
that statistic was only 15 percent so the number is increasing,
she stated.
1:17:44 PM
MS. CASHEN reported that according to NHTSA data, drivers using
hand-held cell phones increased from four percent in 2002 to six
percent in 2008. The Governor's Highway Safety Association
reported that drivers visibly manipulating electronic devices
for such activities such as texting doubled, increasing from .04
percent to one percent. The NHTSA study also indicated, with
respect to hands-free or hand-held cell phones, that the
cognitive distraction is significant enough to degrade a
driver's performance. Cell phone use can cause drivers to miss
seeing key visual or hearing audio cues necessary to avoid a
crash. The results show that manual dialing equally as
distracting as grooming or eating, but less distracting than
reading or changing music compact discs (CDs). The number of
crashes attributable to dialing is nearly identical to the
number of crashes associated with talking or listening, she
said.
1:18:45 PM
MS. CASHEN offered additional statistics. The NHTSA statistics
show that in 2009, 30,797 crashes in the United States involved
45,230 drivers with 33,808 fatalities. Of the fatalities, 16
percent, or 5,474 accidents, were attributed to driver
distraction.
MS. CASHEN related that accidents involving driver distraction
increased from 7 percent in 2005 to 16 percent in 2009. During
that time, according to the Fatality Analysis Reporting System
(FARS) and the National Automotive Sampling, fatal crashes
involving reported driver distraction also increased from 10
percent to 16 percent. The two highest percentages of accidents
involving distracted drivers by age group were the under-20 age
group, which had the highest proportion of fatalities involving
distracted drivers at 16 percent, followed by the 20-29 year-old
drivers with 13 percent of its drivers involved in fatalities
involving distractions. Only 12 percent of light truck drivers
and motorcyclists were involved in accidents attributable to
distracted driving, and bus drivers had the lowest percentage of
distracted driving crashes, she stated.
MS. CASHEN prefaced her comments on Alaska's traffic accident
statistics involving cell phone use. She stated that while the
numbers are low, this is primarily due to the accident forms
that law enforcement officers currently use. The crash report
form limits the contributing factors to crashes that officers
can check to two items, such as failure to yield, missing a stop
sign, and running into the back of a car. She informed members
that currently a subcommittee is working to address the crash
form issues by adding additional items such as cell phone,
hands-free, and texting as contributing factors for crashes.
1:20:59 PM
MS. CASHEN reviewed Alaska statistics obtained from law
enforcement officer report forms. During 2002 - 2008 a total of
89,770 motor vehicle accidents occurred during the six year
period. Of those crashes, law enforcement officers reported 399
involved cell phone usage, 224 crashes involving cell phone use
resulted in property damage only, 155 crashes resulted in minor
injuries, 19 crashes resulted in major injuries, and one crash
was fatal. She stressed that the figures were based on law
enforcement officer's crash report information, which only allow
two contributing factors to be checked. She pointed out that
142 of the crashes involved drivers between the ages of 16-20,
or 36 percent, which represents a significant number of young
people. She indicated that although the state has limited cell
phone use data available, the national data was compelling
enough for the AHSO to take action. The AHSO created radio and
television advertising using federal funds to discourage
distracted driving including the use of cell phones.
1:22:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked whether any information was
available on accidents caused by distracted drivers using the
radio.
MS. CASHEN offered to check. She said she did recall any
general crash information involving radio use.
1:23:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled that officers are limited in the
criteria identifying causes of accidents when reporting crashes.
She asked how broadening the criteria to add cell phone usage
would change information and if she thought it would give a more
accurate view on crashes.
MS. CASHEN offered her belief that the department could collect
far more extensive data about cell phone use in Alaska. She
acknowledged the difficulty in obtaining accurate information
based on the current crash form. The department's goal is to
increase data collection while at the same time making it easier
for law enforcement officers to fill out the crash forms.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ related her understanding that currently
the department knows that cell phone use is implicated in
accidents and can lead to fatalities. She asked whether she
thought more thorough information would indicate significantly
more accidents are due to cell phone use than previously
reported.
MS. CASHEN answered yes.
CHAIR P. WILSON commended the department for working to change
the crash form.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN agreed. He pointed out some vehicles
have a navigation device that uses a computer generated voice
for directions. He asked whether studies have been performed to
assess the level of distraction when using these enhancements
with respect to crashes. He related his own experience as a
passenger and that he found the navigation device rather
jarring.
MS. CASHEN answered that the navigation technology is relatively
new technology so she did not believe those statistics were
included in the NHTSA study. She said "a distraction is a
distraction but I don't believe it was one that was looked at in
the study." She offered to research and report back to the
committee.
1:26:42 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON recalled that verbal processes use a cognitive
process that can affect drivers differently than listening to a
radio.
MS. CASHEN reiterated her offer to research this issue. She
recalled that putting on makeup, looking in the rearview mirror
and listening to music or a radio comprise different levels of
distraction. She also recalled a table in the NHTSA study
compares the levels of distraction. She offered to review the
table for the committee.
1:27:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 1, line 5, of HB 22,
and related his understanding that language prohibits cell phone
use while driving when the vehicle is in motion but does not
apply to a driver using a cell phone when he/she has just turned
on the radio.
MS. CASHEN said she was not certain.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG further related his understanding that
the use of the term "driving" is a technical term which does not
mean just turning on the car to run a heater. There is a
distinction between "driving" and "operating a vehicle" which
requires the process of moving. He said he would like this
distinction to be clear on the record.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked for further clarification on
whether it would be legal for a person to use a cell phone while
the vehicle is running so long as the vehicle is not in motion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief a body of law exists
that pertains to driving under the influence (DUI) that
addresses this issue. He recalled the DUI provisions do not
apply and it would not be a violation of the law when a person
is parked alongside the roadway using the heater. He
acknowledged that a person could not use a cell phone while
stopped at a stop light, but offered his belief if the car was
parked off the roadway in park that it would be allowable.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ answered yes.
1:30:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT referred to Representative Gardner's bill,
HB 128 and asked for her staff's input on what the bill provides
in terms of cell phone usage. He related that the other bills
on the calendar have been addressed, except for HB 128.
HB 22-NO CELL PHONE USE WHEN DRIVING
CHAIR P. WILSON asked to now take public testimony on HB 22.
1:35:22 PM
ALFRED MCKINLEY, SR., Executive Committee Member, Grand Camp
Alaska Native Brotherhood/Alaska Native Sisterhood (ANB), stated
that he supports HB 22 because his brother-in-law, Mr. John
Hope, was killed and his sister was badly injured. He did not
want others to be killed due to cell phone use. He suggested
the bill should be expanded to include individuals riding a
bicycle while using a cell phone. He suggested the bill should
also extend to pedestrians since pedestrians sometimes step into
traffic without looking and he has almost hit people who step
into the street while using cell phones. He remarked that
pedestrians simply expect to have the right of way so they step
right in front of him. He characterized HB 22 as a good bill.
MR. MCKINLEY explained when he receives a call on his cell phone
while driving that he answers the call but tells the caller he
will call back. He acknowledged the dangers of using a cell
phone while driving. He has personally experienced this while
in Seattle driving on Interstate 5, which he characterized as
very busy, and his cell phone rang. He reiterated the problems
with cell phones and illustrated the risk by stating that his
brother in law, John Hope, is no longer here.
CHAIR P. WILSON pointed out if HB 22 were to pass that Mr.
McKinley would not be able to answer his phone while driving.
MR. MCKINLEY answered that he did not have a problem with that
restriction.
1:39:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether the Mr. Hope's accident
was caused by someone using a cell phone.
MR. MCKINLEY acknowledged that the person responsible for the
accident was using his cell phone and although it was not
proven, the person was also drinking alcohol.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that Mr. McKinley's testimony
was important particularly since this is the first time he
recalled testimony on cell phone use while operating a bicycle.
He said that as far as pedestrians, "I'm not going to go there.
People can walk and I'm not going to deal with that." However,
cell phone use by bicyclists was another matter since he/she
must balance at the same time and bicycles are often used during
the winter on snow and ice. He envisioned using a cell phone
while balancing on a bicycle as extremely risky. He asked
whether he thought the bill should also address bicyclists using
cell phones.
MR. MCKINLEY agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked the chair's permission to explore
this avenue.
1:42:37 PM
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Assistant Revisor, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency (LAA), introduced himself.
1:43:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for clarification on the term
"driving" as it pertains to cell phone use. He asked whether a
person would be prohibited from listening to a radio if the
vehicle was parked off the roadway.
MR. LUCKHAUPT agreed, noting the reason the bill language uses
"driving" instead of "operating" is to address that issue. The
broader term of "operating" is used to designate a person in
control of the vehicle so for "drunk driving" purposes if a
person has the keys in his/her pocket but is asleep in the car,
the person is still considered to be in control of the vehicle.
He advised the person could be convicted of operating a vehicle.
However, the term "driving" is considered actively driving, he
said.
1:43:47 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON recalled pulling over to the side of the roadway
to answer her cell phone. She asked whether answering the phone
while idling would be allowable under the bill.
MR. LUCKHAUPT responded that the term "driving" was used for
someone pulled over and not actively driving. He thought it
would be better if the car was also in park to avoid any driver
distraction, but he did not think she would be subject to a
penalty under this section.
1:44:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 1, line 5, of HB 22 to
the use of the term "motor vehicle" and asked whether that would
include motorcycles and motor scooters.
MR. LUCKHAUPT advised that the term "motor vehicle" is defined
in AS 28.90.990 (16), which reads: "motor vehicle" means a
vehicle which is self-propelled except a vehicle moved by human
or animal power;..." This definition would not include a
bicycle or carriage pulled by horses.
1:45:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said in the event the committee decided
to expand the bill to include bicycles that it may wish to
consider as a conceptual amendment the language: "when driving a
motor vehicle or bicycle."
MR. LUCKHAUPT agreed. He also suggested considering adding "any
other human power." He pointed out a regulation that addresses
unicycles restricts the use of unicycles in certain areas of
town. He suggested that bicycles could also be addressed in a
similar manner or the committee could expand the language to
include "any human powered device."
1:46:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether skateboard use could be
added to the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that would fall
under human powered devices.
MR. LUCKHAUPT advised that technically a skateboard would be a
vehicle although he remarked he does not normally think of it as
one. However, someone cannot ride a skateboard on a highway or
vehicular way since that activity would be prohibited. He added
it may be possible other provisions would allow use of a
skateboard in those areas. He offered to consider skateboard
use further since he has not previously considered a skateboard
as being a vehicle.
1:47:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked whether motor vehicle would also
include four wheelers, snow machines, and boats.
MR. LUCKHAUPT answered that four wheelers and snow machines are
considered a motor vehicle, while boats are considered
separately. A person cannot operate a boat on a highway or
vehicular area so boats would not be included in the bill. In
response to Representative Pruitt, he stated that a riding lawn
mower is considered a motor vehicle and people have been
convicted of DUIs while operating riding lawnmowers.
CHAIR P. WILSON offered her belief that people would not likely
hear a cell phone ring while operating a four-wheeler or snow
machine.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT said he was uncertain of this since he
recalled observing a pilot answer his/her cell phone while
operating an airplane and airplanes are noisy, too.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated that he had not previously
considered expanding the bill to add bicycles.
1:50:56 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, asked to keep public testimony open on HB 22 since some
public members may still wish to make comments on the proposed
CS.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his willingness to work on a
conceptual amendment to include bicycles and to offer it in the
next committee of referral.
CHAIR P. WILSON expressed her concern that the public may need
more time to participate so she preferred to hold HB 22 over.
She related she has experienced cell phone use while driving and
the stressed the importance of the bill. She predicted that
some people may not like the bill so she would like the public
to have additional time to testify. She also wanted the
committee to consider how to accommodate truck drivers or others
who need to communicate with dispatchers.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he worked extensively
during this past interim with the Alaska Truckers Association
this. He reported that the federal government is working to
promulgate regulations to ban all cell phone use in commercial
trucking operations. He suggested that the committee not
address the truckers in this bill since the federal regulation
will supersede the Alaska law. He offered his belief that the
Alaska Truckers Association supports this approach.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN pointed out that many truckers do not
use a cell phone but use citizen band (CB) radio. This bill
would not affect truckers using CB radios.
CHAIR P. WILSON acknowledged that the representatives present
from the Department of transportation and the Department of Law
are nodding their assent.
1:57:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN suggested that the committee should also
consider whether this bill should address cell phone use as a
primary or secondary offense. He asked whether a motorist
should be stopped solely for cell phone use. He also recalled a
zero fiscal note for HB 22, but after hearing the statistics
reported today that he was uncertain it should be a zero fiscal
note. He suggested additional officers might be necessary to
enforce HB 22, if the bill passes. He asked for clarification
on these issues.
CHAIR P. WILSON answered that she strongly supports keeping cell
phone use while driving as a primary offense in HB 22.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed that cell phone use should be a
primary offense but he said he would like to expand the bill to
include cell phone use while operating a bicycle. He said he
also would like to broaden the bill to include vehicles operated
by human power. He offered to work with the bill sponsor on
draft language to include those provisions.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for clarification on expanding the
bill to include bicycles.
CHAIR P. WILSON explained the committee heard testimony earlier
today about a motor vehicle crash caused by someone using a cell
phone while riding a bicycle.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ offered to give the idea some thought. She
related her primary interest and focus for HB 22 is to address
drivers and motor vehicles.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered to speak to the sponsor and if
she was agreeable that he would draft language for
consideration.
2:03:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN suggested considering how to disseminate
information to the broad range of people that may be affected by
HB 22, especially since fines are included in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for clarification on the public
education aspect and whether the bill should include a temporary
provision to provide an education component.
MS. CASHEN advised member that distracted driving is one of
AHSO's top priorities. She offered that the department has
implemented distracted driving and radio ads in its statewide
media. Thus, no additional costs would be incurred by the
department. The AHSO would bump up its advertising to a level
two or three, she said. Currently, the department ads highlight
distracted driving. "Don't put on your lipstick. Don't open
your cell phone. Don't look in the back of your car while
you're driving," she said. She anticipated the AHSO would focus
on cell phone use, to address hand held or hands free cell
phone, based on provisions in HB 22 if the passes. The media
piece would also identity the effective date of the bill. She
envisioned the department would use saturation advertising about
a month before the law's effective date, then two weeks before
and two weeks after the effective date. Additionally, the AHSO
would put the ad in its advertising rotation so an ad would run
periodically. Additionally, the department would periodically
change the law so people would not view the same ad year after
year.
2:06:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related his understanding that the AHSO
would not need any additional language to carry out the public
education.
MS. CASHEN answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether an effective date would
be necessary.
MS. CASHEN answered that an effective date is not necessary
since the AHSO already has distracted driving as its top
priority.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the Department of Public
Safety would need to be contacted with respect to an effective
date.
MS. CASHEN answered that while the AHSO works closely with the
DPS, the department does not hold any discussions on effective
dates on bills. She explained that the department would only
consider the effective date for planning purpose just as it did
for the child booster seat law.
2:08:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether DPS should be contacted.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ offered to check with the DPS on the
effective date.
2:08:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked for clarification on whether cell
phone use is currently classified as distracting driving.
MS. CASHEN answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked for clarification on the criteria
necessary for a law enforcement officer to pull over a driver
using a cell phone.
2:09:12 PM
HANS BRINKE, Captain; Commander, Bureau of Highway Patrol (BHP)
Alaska State Trooper (AST), Department of Public Safety (DPS),
related his understanding the question is what the officer would
need to initiate a traffic stop for a person using a cell phone.
He answered that if a person is using a cell phone and it is not
for an excepted practice, the officer could initiate a traffic
stop.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked for clarification on excepted
practice.
CAPTAIN BRINKE related that excepted use is defined in another
statute and includes using a cell phone as a global positioning
device, and map systems, which are often in smart phones. He
described a traffic stop he made in which he had observed a
driver manipulating a cell phone. When the driver was stopped
for a violation, he/she indicated use of a global positioning
device, which was allowable under the law, he said.
2:11:22 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), introduced
herself.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked why this bill is necessary if the
state has a distracted driving law.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT said he would also like clarification on
how this bill differs from the current law would be appreciated.
2:12:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled prior discussions on an anti-
text bill. He also recalled that besides identifying the person
using a cell phone that it was necessary to show that the
activity distracted the driver. This bill would make distracted
driving per se, which would provide an easier burden of proof.
MS. CARPENETI agreed. She recalled earlier testimony by Ms.
Cashen that described the AHSO's advertising approach for
distracted driving and not necessarily to a particular statute.
She thinks cell phone use is considered distracted driving as a
practical matter.
CHAIR P. WILSON pointed out that drivers engage in distracted
driving, but unless an accident happens it is not necessarily
against the law, but is similar to other activity such as
turning on the radio. She recalled a bad accident in her
district caused by a distracted driver.
MS. CARPENETI stated that distracting behaviors such as putting
on lipstick, reading a book, or looking in the backseat are not
specifically prohibited but the state has statutes for negligent
or reckless driving that could be used to cite the driver.
CHAIR P. WILSON indicated that Ms. Cashen is nodding in
agreement.
2:15:13 PM
MR. LUCKHAUPT pointed out that the separate statutes Captain
Brinke referred to relate to operating a vehicle with a screen
device, which include texting or watching a movie. Some
exceptions to that statute allow some use for global positioning
devices or a long distance trucker is allowed to use a data
terminal to input weight points or communicate his/her
dispatcher. Another exception applies to viewing caller
identification information. He advised that none of these
exceptions would affect HB 22. This bill would not allow any
cell phone use except for a hands-free device. He said he
wanted to clarify this since the defenses in the screen device
provisions in current statute do not apply to HB 22.
2:17:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked for a specific statute that
defines distracted driving.
MR. LUCKHAUPT answered that the statutes do not identify a crime
of distracted driving but as Ms. Carpeneti mentioned, the
statutes identify reckless or negligent driving. Thus, if a
driver does something that would rise to that level he/she could
be cited, but reaching for something such as a radio does not
normally rise to that level. He commented that if someone was
riding with dog on lap and the dog was distracting the driver,
it is possible that the driver's behavior could rise to level of
an offense, but other facts would likely need to be considered.
2:19:09 PM
MITCH FALK, Owner, Bullwinkle's Pizza, stated that he has often
truck drivers use a cell phone while attempting to shift. He
offered his belief that the drivers are forced to steer with
their knees. He pointed out that kids in Juneau have hard
enough time learning to drive, especially with the lack of
driver's education. He offered his support for HB 22.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether he would get hands free
cell phones for his pizza drivers if this bill passes.
MR. FALK agreed he probably would do so. He said that
communication is necessary in order for his drivers to do their
jobs. He added that cell phone use is on the rise and needs to
be checked.
2:23:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recapped outstanding issues on HB 22. She
offered to contact DPS on the effective date. She remarked that
the AHSO can incorporate the advertising into its current plan.
She offered to work with Representative Petersen on the issue of
primary versus secondary offenses. She also offered to work
with Representative Gruenberg on whether to expand the bill to
include bicycles.
CHAIR P. WILSON stressed that HB 22 should address cell phone
use as a primary offense. She acknowledged that minors do not
have ready access to drivers' training. She stressed that if it
against the law to use a cell phone that it sends a message.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ offered her belief the bill should apply to
all drivers. She said she feels strongly about that aspect.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked to reconsider the zero fiscal note
and whether some cost may be needed in order to implement the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed.
MS. CARPENETI responded that the zero fiscal impact is not an
issue. It is not whether the activity is a primary or secondary
offense, but rather that the penalty constitutes a violation.
The agency does not appear in court for most violations so this
would not have an effect on their offices or on the assistant
district attorneys.
2:29:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Captain Brinke for his comments
on the fiscal note.
CAPTAIN BRINKE deferred to Lt. Rodney Dial since he prepared the
DPS fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for clarification on the DPS
fiscal note.
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander, A Detachment,
Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), said that passage of HB 22 would add an additional
offense officers could issue citations for. However, it would
not change the time officers spent on traffic enforcement. It
may mean a tradeoff since an officer conducting a stop for cell
phone use may not apprehend other violators such as those
speeding motorists. He reiterated that traffic enforcement is
based on allowable time.
2:32:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked how many points would be assessed
against a driver's license if the bill passed and the person was
cited for driving while using a cell phone. He asked whether
designating points assessed against a driver's license would
need to be added to the bill.
LIEUTENANT DIAL said he thought the court would probably set the
driver license points.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN related the number of points is
important to consider since it could affect a driver's insurance
rates.
CHAIR P. WILSON offered her belief that people would likely want
to be careful not to use their cell phones if they want to keep
their driver's license.
MS. CARPENETI said she was uncertain how the points would be set
if this bill were to pass.
2:33:31 PM
MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that AS 28.15.221 sets up the point
system and provides for the commissioner of the Department of
Administration or DPS to assign the points based on the
recognition of the severity of the offense. This process is
used for every new offense. He offered his belief that cell
phone use while driving would be akin to other basic offenses,
which is usually set at two points. In response to Chair
Wilson, he said the legislature does not generally advise the
department since it is usually a process set by regulation.
2:34:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ referred to the hands free provision in HB
22 as a carryover from testimony last legislature on
Representative Doogan's bill. She recalled testimony by
commercial operators in favor of hands-free provision, which is
the reason she preserved it when introducing HB 22.
2:35:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ remarked as a joint prime sponsor she has
received considerable written comments and telephone comments on
the bill. She stated that she has also received support from
the Alaska Police Officer's Association, the Alaska Association
of Chiefs of Police, the Women Police of Alaska, and several
individuals and community organizations have expressed support
for HB 22.
[HB 22 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 22 AK_2010_Hwy_Safety_Phone_Survey.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| Hb 22 Leg Research Report 1 26 11.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| hb 22 Ntl Highway Traffic Safety stats.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB 22.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB22 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| SS HB 22 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| CS HB 22 version B 2 24 11.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB22 Articles.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB22 Support Letter from APOA 2 14 11.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB22 Support Letters.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB22.Support Letter from APOA.2.14.11.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB022-DPS-DET-02-25-11.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB022-LAW-CRIM-02-25-11.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB0128A.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB0035A.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| HB0068A.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 128 Back up docs.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 128 Sponsor Stmt.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 128 Statistics.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 128 supporting docs.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 35 02-28-11 - Letter to Representative P Wilson.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 35 |