03/16/2009 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB102 | |
| HB15 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 102 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 16, 2009
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 102
"An Act relating to the Uniform Commercial Code, to the general
provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, to documents of title
under the Uniform Commercial Code, to the Uniform Electronic
Transactions Act, and to lease-purchases of personal property;
amending Rules 403 and 902, Alaska Rules of Evidence; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 102(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 15
"An Act relating to prohibiting the use of cellular telephones
by minors when driving a motor vehicle; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 15(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 35
"An Act relating to notice and consent for a minor's abortion;
relating to penalties for performing an abortion; relating to a
judicial bypass procedure for an abortion; relating to coercion
of a minor to have an abortion; relating to reporting of
abortions performed on minors; amending Rule 220, Alaska Rules
of Appellate Procedure, and Rule 20, Alaska Probate Rules,
relating to judicial bypass for an abortion; and providing for
an effective date."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 102
SHORT TITLE: UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE
01/30/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/30/09 (H) L&C, JUD
02/13/09 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
02/13/09 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/13/09 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/16/09 (H) L&C RPT 5NR
02/16/09 (H) NR: LYNN, BUCH, NEUMAN, CHENAULT, OLSON
02/16/09 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
02/16/09 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/16/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 15
SHORT TITLE: BAN CELL PHONE USE BY MINORS WHEN DRIVING
SPONSOR(S): GARDNER, TUCK
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) JUD, FIN
03/16/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
TERRY L. THURBON, Commissioner
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
(NCCUSL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 102 on behalf of the sponsor,
the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
WILLIAM H. HENNING, Commissioner
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
(NCCUSL)
Tuscaloosa, Alabama
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of HB 102.
REPRESENTATIVE BERTA GARDNER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 15 as one of the bill's joint
prime sponsors.
NOAH HANSON, Staff
Representative Berta Gardner
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of HB 15 on
behalf of one of the bill's joint prime sponsors, Representative
Gardner.
MICHAELA RICE
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed disagreement with HB 15.
ALBERT JUDSON
Haines, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 15.
CINDY CASHEN, Administrator
Highway Safety Office
Division of Program Development
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 15.
SHELDON E. WINTERS, Attorney at Law
Lessmeier & Winters
Lobbyist for State Farm Insurance Company
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 15.
ROY E. HOYT, JR.
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 15, and suggested that it should be altered to apply to
drivers of all ages.
JENNIE MORRIS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 15, and indicated a preference for having the bill apply to
drivers of all ages.
JOHN ULCZYCKI, Group Vice President
Research, Communications, and Advocacy
National Safety Council (NSC)
Wilmette, Illinois
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 15, and encouraged members to support the bill.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 15, and
responded to questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:07:17 PM
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. Representatives Ramras,
Gruenberg, Holmes, Dahlstrom, Coghill, Gatto, and Lynn were
present at the call to order.
HB 102 - UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
1:08:05 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 102, "An Act relating to the Uniform Commercial
Code, to the general provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code,
to documents of title under the Uniform Commercial Code, to the
Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, and to lease-purchases of
personal property; amending Rules 403 and 902, Alaska Rules of
Evidence; and providing for an effective date."
1:08:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 102, Version 26-LS0059\S, Bannister,
2/24/09, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version S
was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, noting that HB 102 was introduced [by
the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee] at the request
of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State
Laws (NCCUSL), explained that the bill proposes technical
changes to Alaska's statutes thereby reflecting changes made to
Article 1 and Article 7 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
1:09:43 PM
TERRY L. THURBON, Commissioner, National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), explained that the
NCCUSL has identified changes to the UCC that would be
beneficial for states to adopt, and that the changes proposed
via HB 102 pertain to the statutes that govern the commercial
transactions occurring in the state, reflect the use of modern-
day technology for such transactions, and will help bring
Alaska's laws up to date. She mentioned that she would only be
addressing the sections in Version S that pertain to the UCC,
and would not be speaking to the bill's proposed changes to
Title 9 or Title 34.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES noted that proposed AS 45.01.211(b)(15)
says, "'defendant' includes a person in the position of
defendant in a counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim;"
and questioned whether the word "claim" ought to be included as
part of that definition.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that AS 01.10.040(b) states
that when the words "includes" or "including" are used in a law,
they shall be construed as though followed by the phrase, "but
not limited to". He surmised, therefore, that the definition in
proposed AS 45.01.211(b)(15) already includes claims.
1:18:24 PM
WILLIAM H. HENNING, Commissioner, National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), concurred with
that explanation, adding that the UCC contains the same
definition as proposed AS 45.01.211(b)(15).
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that Version S's proposed AS
45.07.302 - regarding through bills of lading and similar
documents of title - now reflects current federal law. In
response to a question regarding the bill's indirect court rule
changes, he explained that proposed AS 45.01.303(g) would
require that if there is evidence of a relevant trade practice
offered by one party, that party must give sufficient notice to
the other party so as not to surprise the other party; and that
proposed AS 45.01.307 would establish that documents required by
the contract to be issued by a third party would be what he
characterized as "self-authenticating." Such documents, he
proffered, would be easier to introduce [in court] and yet still
be subject to challenge.
MR. HENNING added that the language of proposed AS 45.01.307 [is
identical to that currently] in the UCC; that proposed AS
45.01.303(g) contains language that has always been part of the
UCC, and is not a burden-shifting mechanism; and that both
provisions are consistent with federal [court] rules.
MS. THURBON in response to comments, relayed that [Alaska's
NCCUSL commissioners and the drafter] took a conservative
approach with regard to including language that would effect
indirect court rule changes, and are therefore not completely
certain that the bill's proposed changes to the UCC really will
result in "standards that are different than would occur under
the court rules as they stand," but included the provisions
authorizing indirect court rule changes in order to update
Alaska's statutes even if indirect court rule changes do result.
She offered her understanding that "these provisions of the
revised [UCC] are consistent with other uniform Acts that [the
NCCUSL] has developed except to the extent some of those might
not yet have been updated."
MS. THURBON, in response to a question, relayed that with regard
to the UCC provisions, there is wide support - nationally - from
the warehousing industries, and that the business section of the
Alaska Bar Association (ABA) is amenable to [the proposed
changes to state law]. Therefore, although it might not be
urgent that the state adopt the proposed updates, doing so is in
order if Alaska is going to stay on track with the rest of the
country, particularly with regard to the warehousing provisions,
and particularly given that [almost 40 states either already
have adopted or will be adopting updates to the UCC]. Moreover,
from the perspective of various operators, a failure to update
Alaska's warehousing provisions could make it a little riskier
to do business in Alaska. In conclusion, she said she doesn't
see a downside to the [updated] UCC provisions.
CHAIR RAMRAS agreed.
1:32:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked whether shipping rates to Alaska
would be positively affected by the adoption of HB 102.
MS. THURBON declined to venture whether such would be the case,
but suggested that adopting the bill might make it easier to
litigate excessive rates. In response to another question, she
relayed that the bill is not intended to fix a particular
problem with Alaska law, that Alaska is already behind other
states with regard to updating its commercial code to reflect
the use of new technology, and that the bill would conform state
law to what is already occurring.
MR. HENNING explained that during the 1990s, through about 2001,
there was a major effort to revise the UCC generally, with one
of the goals being to create a neutral playing field for
technological advancements such as electronic signatures, for
example. Of the several revisions to various articles of the
UCC that have occurred over the last several years, HB 102
reflects some of the latest revisions as well as aspects of "the
model that was created by the Uniform Transactions Act," which
Alaska has adopted. Providing for electronic certificates of
title, for example, will help knit the rest of the UCC together,
and will bring Alaska up to date with regard to what's already
occurring in the commercial community. In conclusion, he said
he couldn't think of a single negative aspect [to adopting the
revisions to the UCC].
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 102.
1:39:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report the proposed CS for
HB 102, Version 26-LS0059\S, Bannister, 2/24/09, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 102(JUD) was
reported out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 15 - BAN CELL PHONE USE BY MINORS WHEN DRIVING
1:40:08 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 15, "An Act relating to prohibiting the use of
cellular telephones by minors when driving a motor vehicle; and
providing for an effective date."
1:40:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BERTA GARDNER, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as one of the joint prime sponsors of HB 15, posited that all
legislators have heard from constituents who wish to see the use
of cellular ("cell") phones while driving banned. There have
been a few accidents in her district, she relayed, and noted
that this has engendered a discussion within the community
regarding [such a ban]. She indicated that she's been thinking
about this [issue] for several years, and proffered that there
are several ways of approaching it. One way would be to ban all
cell phone use by drivers of motor vehicles, though there might
be significant opposition to such a proposal. Another way,
which California is attempting, would be to ban cell phone use
unless it was "hands-free." She opined, however, that it is not
using one's hands that causes the problem, but rather having
one's brain engaged in a way that's separate from driving. She
relayed that she's recently heard from a person who'd been run
over by a young person talking on a cell phone while driving;
the man said he'd made eye contact with the driver before
stepping off the curb but she ran over him anyway because she
hadn't really been paying attention - she had been preoccupied
with her phone conversation.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER offered her belief that there is a broad
consensus to do something about [the problems associated with
driving while using a cell phone], said her plan is to start
with banning minors from using cell phones while driving, and
pointed out that there is a lot of precedent for treating minors
differently than adults. She predicted that taking this
approach, rather than banning all persons from using a cell
phone while driving, would garner less opposition, thereby
increasing the likelihood that such legislation would pass. She
indicated that members' packets contain statistics regarding,
among other things, the frequency with which cell phone use by
drivers has been implicated in motor vehicle accidents.
1:43:08 PM
NOAH HANSON, Staff, Representative Berta Gardner, Alaska State
Legislature, said data he's received from the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) indicates that from
2002 through 2006, approximately one-third of all the vehicle
accidents occurring in Alaska involving cell phone use also
involved drivers between the ages of 16 and 20; that people in
this age range have the highest crash fatality rate in the
nation; and that 63 percent of teenage-passenger deaths occur
when other teenagers are driving. These statistics are so high,
he surmised, because young drivers do not have the skill level
or experience that older drivers have. When minors are learning
to drive, they need to keep their focus on the road in order to
drive properly, particularly given that they already have a very
high accident rate, as evidenced by insurance costs as well as
other available statistics.
MR. HANSON opined that removing a minor's ability to use a cell
phone while driving will decrease the likelihood that he/she
will cause more accidents; research indicates that the
overwhelming majority of vehicle accidents involving teenage
drivers is due to their failure to comply with safe operating
techniques. Banning cell phone use by minors while driving is
not uncommon, he remarked, and offered his understanding that 17
states already have such a ban. He too opined that it isn't the
act of holding the cell phone to one's ear while driving that
causes the problem; rather it's the phone conversation itself
that creates what he termed a cognitive distraction. In
comparison, when a driver is having a conversation with a person
in the vehicle, that person is able to see that he/she needs to
stop talking so that the driver can focus on the road.
Furthermore, the U.S. military has already banned cell phone use
by anyone driving a government vehicle on military property.
MR. HANSON explained that under the bill, a violation would only
constitute an infraction - with a maximum fine of $300 - and it
would be a secondary offense because a law enforcement officer
would not necessarily be able to determine whether a young
driver seen using a cell phone is still a minor. Furthermore,
AS 11.81.320 provides for an exemption - via an affirmative
defense - in instances involving necessity. He relayed that
although drivers between the ages 16 and 20 constitute only
about 7.5 percent of the drivers on Alaska's road, they are
involved in roughly 35 percent of the vehicle accidents wherein
cell phone use [contributed to] the accident.
1:49:34 PM
MICHAELA RICE said she disagrees with the bill, surmising that
it would take away a teenager's freedom to talk on a cell phone
while driving. If the perceived problem stems from using one's
hands to talk on the cell phone, that same issue arises when one
eats or drinks while driving; furthermore, many other things
going on in the car can be just as distracting or even more so
than talking on a cell phone, such as driving with squabbling
children in the car, for example, or listening to the radio, or
using a Global Positioning System (GPS). Another concern she
has, she relayed, is that the bill doesn't define what a minor
is, the sponsor statement refers to people between the ages of
16 and 24, and the aforementioned statistic seems to indicate
that two-thirds of all the vehicle accidents in Alaska involving
cell phone use involved drivers over the age of 20. She opined
that if HB 15 is passed, it ought to apply to everybody, not
just teenagers, because adult drivers can be "just as bad."
MS. RICE noted that some people who support HB 15 are more
supportive of a ban on all cell phone use while driving, rather
than just on cell phone use by minors while they are driving;
and that a June 30, 2008, article in the Los Angeles Times
referenced a study which indicates that using a hands-free cell
phone while driving is just as cognitively distracting as using
a hand-held cell phone. She also mentioned that when her father
has to drive long distances, her family calls him on his cell
phone to make sure he's okay. Again, cell phone use is not the
most distracting thing that drivers face, and if a ban on cell
phone use while driving is instituted, it should apply to
everyone, she concluded.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN indicated disfavor with the bill's focus on
teenagers.
MS. RICE, in response to a question, indicated that she might be
more supportive of the bill if it applied to everyone, but said
that she would prefer the law to remain as is so that if she
were home alone and a bad situation arose, she would be able to
call her parents even if they were driving somewhere where they
couldn't pull over. She also pointed out that the bill doesn't
specify whether hand-free cell phone use would still be
permissible. In response to another question, she surmised that
better education efforts at home could reduce the accident rate
of teenage drivers.
2:01:44 PM
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
ALBERT JUDSON said he is opposed to HB 15 because its focus is
only on minors even though it is the use of cell phones while
driving that's the problem. He offered his understanding that
it is already against the law to drive with only one hand, and
suggested that the bill be amended such that it would apply to
anyone using a cell phone while driving. Cell phone use takes a
driver's focus off driving, thus creating a hazard, not only for
the driver, but also for everyone else in his/her vicinity such
as passengers, other drivers, and pedestrians. He mentioned a
report in Reader's Digest indicating that cell phone use could
have adverse health effects as well. In conclusion, he
indicated that he is questioning why there is such an emphasis
on minors, and suggested that an undue burden is being placed on
minors without a compelling reason.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER offered her belief that having only 7.8
percent of the drivers on Alaska's roads being involved in 35
percent of the accidents is a compelling reason; that number is
just too disproportionate, and has become a safety issue for
everyone on the road. With regard to the comment about the
seeming discrepancy between the age groups listed in the sponsor
statement and the age group the bill would affect, she explained
that the age groups listed in the sponsor statement simply
reflect various statistics garnered from different studies
conducted around the country. She said that the rule in her
house was that her children couldn't use the phone while driving
the family car, but she acknowledged that some families either
don't have such a rule or are unable to enforce it if they do.
She offered her hope that when it's the latter situation, having
a law making it illegal to use a cell phone while driving could
help those parents enforce such a family rule.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said there are some very good reasons for
having a ban on cell phone use while driving apply to everyone,
but acknowledged that there would be opposition to that. She
suggested that the best approach, therefore, would be to at
least make the roads a little bit safer for a small part of the
population, and then perhaps revisit the issue in a few years
when the impact of the bill could be seen.
2:07:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN questioned whether the concept embodied in
the bill could be incorporated into the first stage of the
state's graduated driver's licensing requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER offered her understanding that doing so
would only provide for a very small period of time - six months
- during which a minor would be precluded from using a cell
phone while driving, and characterized doing so for just that
short period of time as pretty meaningless.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked whether the bill would also apply to
minors driving snow machines or all terrain vehicles (ATVs).
MR. HANSON offered his belief that the bill possibly could apply
depending on the particular roadway or pathway, but surmised
that it would be very difficult to talk on a cell phone while
operating a snow machine or an ATV anyway because of the noise
level associated with such machines. In response to a question,
he pointed out that the language in the bill specifies motor
vehicles, and thus it would not apply to bicycles.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM, with regard to an earlier comment,
clarified that federal law states that a cell phone may not be
used by anyone driving on a government military base regardless
of whether the vehicle is government owned.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES sought confirmation that the bill wouldn't
apply to a driver whose car was parked.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said the bill is intended to address cell
phone use while driving.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO questioned whether the bill is intended to
apply to any device capable of allowing the driver of a vehicle
to speak to someone not in the vehicle, such as a walkie-talkie.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said her intention was to have the bill
only apply to cell phones, though she would be amenable to
having it address other such devices as well should the
committee choose.
CHAIR RAMRAS, citing a familiarity with teenage drivers and the
accident statistics regarding drivers under the age of 24, said
he is supportive of HB 15, but expressed discomfort over the
concept of it being just a first step towards banning everyone
from using a cell phone while driving. He offered his
understanding that California has a ban, and that New York, by
enforcing its ban, recently brought in approximately $1 million
in fine revenue.
2:14:36 PM
CINDY CASHEN, Administrator, Highway Safety Office, Division of
Program Development, Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOT&PF), explained that the policy statement of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which
provides the state with federal transportation funding, says
[original punctuation provided]:
The primary responsibility of the driver is to operate
a motor vehicle safely. The task of driving requires
full attention and focus. Cell phone use can distract
drivers from this task, risking harm to themselves and
others. Therefore, the safest course of action is to
refrain from using a cell phone while driving.
MS. CASHEN relayed that the NHTSA encourages states to pass laws
that ban the use of cell phones [while driving], and indicated
that [the NHTSA's web site in part also says] [original
punctuation provided]:
Research shows that driving while using a cell phone
can pose a serious cognitive distraction and degrade
driver performance. The data are insufficient to
quantify crashes caused by cell phone use
specifically, but NHTSA estimates that driver
distraction from all sources contributes to 25 percent
of all police-reported traffic crashes. ...
The available research indicates that whether it is a
hands-free or hand-held cell phone, the cognitive
distraction is significant enough to degrade a
driver's performance. This can cause a driver to miss
key visual and audio cues needed to avoid a crash. ...
As a general rule, drivers should make every effort to
move to a safe place off of the road before using a
cell phone. However, in emergency situations a driver
must use their judgment regarding the urgency of the
situation and the necessity to use a cell phone while
driving. ...
Any activity a driver engages while driving has the
potential to distract the driver from the primary task
of driving. Some research findings comparing cell
phone use to passenger conversations while driving,
show each to be equally risky, while others show cell
phone use to be more risky. A significant difference
between the two is the fact that a passenger can
monitor the driving situation along with the driver
and pause for, or alert the driver to, potential
hazards, whereas a person on the other end of the
phone line is unaware of the roadway situation. ...
MS. CASHEN indicated that with regard to the risk posed by other
behaviors while driving, [the NHTSA's web site in part also
says] [original punctuation provided]:
The current research does not provide a definitive
answer as to which behavior is riskier. In a
controlled study, comparing eating and operating a
voice-activated cell phone to continuously operating a
CD player, it was found that the CD player operation
was more distracting than the other activities. In a
test track study conducted by NHTSA, the results
showed that manual dialing was about as distracting as
grooming/eating, but less distracting than reading or
changing CDs. It is also important to keep in mind
that some activities are carried out more frequently
and for longer periods of time and may result in
greater risk.
MS. CASHEN pointed out that motor vehicle accidents are the
leading cause of death for teenagers because of their
inexperience, risk-taking behavior, and greater risk exposure.
When those factors are combined with cell phone usage, even with
a hands-free unit, national, state, and local data illustrates
that teenagers are over represented. In response to a question,
she too pointed out that the bill provides that it would be a
secondary offense, and so police would have to have another
reason to pull someone over before citing him/her for a
violation of this proposed law.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL raised the issue of enforcement.
MS. CASHEN concurred that enforcement is key and would serve to
encourage teenage drivers to drive more carefully, and indicated
that Alaska's current law regarding graduated driver's licenses
would be upgraded to reduce distractions through banning the use
of cell phones. According to data collected for the Strategic
Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), over the past five years in Alaska,
there were an average of 86 fatalities and 880 major injuries
sustained due to cell phone use by drivers ages 16-20.
CHAIR RAMRAS, citing an example, offered his belief that young
drivers face myriad distractions.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO questioned whether the term "driving" is
interchangeable with the term "operating".
MS. CASHEN said she is sure they are not, but surmised that the
representative from the Department of Law (DOL) could address
that issue further.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
MS. CASHEN, in response to a question, pointed out that the bill
would only apply to drivers under the age of 18.
MR. HANSON, in response to another question, surmised that no
one training to be - or volunteering as - a first responder, or
operating a commercial vehicle would be under the age of 18. In
response to a comment, agreed to research that issue further.
In response to a question, he explained that the bill applies to
any use of the cell phone while driving, whether to make a call
or when receiving a call, except in emergency situations.
2:30:40 PM
SHELDON E. WINTERS, Attorney at Law, Lessmeier & Winters,
Lobbyist for State Farm Insurance Company, said that as an
attorney, he has been involved with hundreds of automobile
accidents, and that he has two teenagers living at home, both of
whom use cell phones. He offered his belief that the statistics
provided in members' packets regarding cell phone use by
teenagers while driving are understated. In 2006, State Farm
Insurance Company performed a nationwide survey in alliance with
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, with a statistical
sampling representing the 10.6 million teenagers in the public
school system in the U.S.; nine out of every ten of those
teenagers said that cell phone use while driving was very
common, and seven out of every ten of those teenagers said they
had observed other teenagers using a cell phone while driving
and while also being very emotionally upset.
MR. WINTERS said he'd questioned whether the bill would do any
good given that the behavior it addresses would only be a
secondary offense. He added, though, that although his children
might do what he tells them only about 50 percent of the time,
they do obey the law, and so that's where a bill such as HB 15
could come into play. For example, another question the
aforementioned survey asked was what would motivate the teenager
to not use a cell phone while driving, and the primary motivator
was that it was against the law to do so and there would
therefore be consequences. Although the statistics in members'
packets regarding teenage accident rates are telling and
compelling, they don't give members a sense of just how tragic
an accident involving children can be. House Bill 15 will save
some lives, he opined, and noted that such legislation is part
of a nationwide trend. Moreover, if the bill is not passed now,
it will simply come up again in the future, but meanwhile, some
people's teenagers will have died in an accident. He therefore
encouraged the committee to pass the bill now, rather than
later.
MR. WINTERS, on the issue of why the focus here should be on
teenagers, recalled that when the state's graduated driver's
licensing law was being debated, there were studies brought
forth which showed that teenagers aren't like adults: teenagers
have immature brain development, and they get distracted more
often and more easily. Bills like HB 15, therefore, are not
picking on teenagers but instead protecting them; teenagers are
society's prized possessions, and they are the ones who need
saving via a bill such as HB 15. He noted for example, that
after the state's graduated driver's licensing requirements were
instituted, the number of motor vehicle accidents involving
teenage drivers dropped dramatically. On the issue of insurance
rates, he explained that accident claims drive rates, and that
young drivers between the ages of 16 and 21 have the highest
accident rates, and therefore the highest insurance rates.
House Bill 15 is not about reducing insurance rates; instead, it
is about saving lives, and for that reason, "we" would encourage
the committee to pass HB 15, he concluded.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked Mr. Winters whether he would prefer
for the bill to ban all drivers from using a cell phone while
driving.
MR. WINTERS said State Farm Insurance Company does not have a
position on that issue, but he himself would be in favor of such
a ban. In response to a question, he offered to research how
many accidents result in injury compared to how many result in
death.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether insurance rates for teenagers
would go down at all due to the passage of HB 15.
MR. WINTERS said he simply couldn't say, but proffered that
doing everything that can be done to reduce the number of
accident claims would have a positive impact on insurance rates.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES questioned whether the accident rate for
teenage drivers has increased over the years due to cell phone
use becoming more prevalent.
MR. WINTERS offered his belief that there have been more
accidents due to cell phone use simply because such usage has
become more prevalent, but he doesn't yet have a specific number
to provide the committee.
2:41:28 PM
ROY E. HOYT, JR., after relaying that has been both a licensed
driver and airplane pilot since 1942, said he doesn't think that
HB 15 goes far enough, that it should instead apply to drivers
of all ages. For example, in Homer, he relayed, drivers in
their 30's have caused more accidents due to cell phone use than
teenagers, adding that he rarely sees teenagers using cell
phones anyway. He also suggested that the bill should specify
that it applies when the motor vehicle is in motion, surmising
that there is always an opportunity to pull over in order to use
the phone - drivers can simply let their cell phone ring, and
then, when it is safe to pull over, they can call the caller
back.
2:43:58 PM
JENNIE MORRIS relayed that she has been run over twice in the
last few years by drivers who were using their cell phones. In
response to a question, she said that one of the drivers was 24
and the other was 19. However, kids are starting to use cell
phones at much younger ages, she pointed out, so the problem is
only going to get worse, and she therefore thinks that the bill
should apply to drivers of all ages. She said she is tired of
being hit by drivers using cell phones, and is afraid for her
family and friends; something needs to be done because the
problem is not getting any better, and it's not fair or right
that responsible drivers and pedestrians have to pray before
even leaving the house that they will make it back home. In
conclusion, she said she would appreciate anything that the
legislature could do to address this situation even though it
might be difficult - simply consider which loved one it might be
that next gets hit by someone using a cell phone while driving.
2:47:21 PM
JOHN ULCZYCKI, Group Vice President, Research, Communications,
and Advocacy, National Safety Council (NSC) - after mentioning
that the mission of the NSC is to save lives and prevent
injuries, and that the NSC is a non-governmental organization
with a membership of approximately 20,000 member companies and
organizations representing a cross section of American business
and industry - said the NSC was the first national organization
to ask that state legislatures across the country ban all cell
phone use by all drivers while operating a motor vehicle. This
policy proposal, he relayed, was arrived at after many years of
research and after reviewing over 50 studies, all of which found
that some measure of driver performance is affected by the
cognitive distraction caused by cell phone use. The effects of
cell phone conversations are varied; they may include decreased
reaction times, increased deviations within driver lanes,
increased steering wheel movements, and over-steering.
MR. ULCZYCKI said that the bottom line is that for all age
groups, cell phone use while driving increases a person's risk
of being in a crash fourfold. Regardless that a massive
educational effort is needed in order to get people to
understand the risks, speaking on a cell phone while driving is
much more dangerous than many of the other distracting
activities people engage in while driving; those other
activities pose a miniscule risk of being implicated in a crash
compared with cell phone use. [Lawmakers and policymakers] must
focus on the most serious distraction - that being cell phone
use. And while there are other activities that are more
dangerous than talking on a cell while driving - such as
reading, reaching into the back seat, and putting on makeup -
far fewer people engage in those three higher-risk activities
and engage in them for much smaller periods of time.
MR. ULCZYCKI said the NSC estimates that there are over 100
million people engaged in cell phone use [while driving]; there
are 270 million cell phone subscribers in the U.S., and over 80
percent of them admit to talking on a cell phone while driving.
Cell phone use is now part of the culture, and so changing the
laws to totally ban adults from using a cell phone while driving
is going to be very difficult, he acknowledged, because most
Americans don't understand the magnitude of the risk they assume
when they talk on the phone [while driving]. It is going to
require a culture change, but the NSC is up for the challenge.
He noted that back in the 1970s, drunk driving wasn't thought of
in the same way that it is today; people used to think they
could drink 6-8 beers and drive safely - that was just part of
the culture - whereas people have now come to understand that
that's just not true. He predicted that in the future, people
will wonder why everyone was so slow to understand the science
[behind the risk of using a cell phone while driving].
MR. ULCZYCKI said a change in social norms is what's required.
For example, most people today would insist on driving when a
friend or spouse has had too much to drink to be able to drive,
but not many would insist on taking control of the car because a
friend or spouse is putting everyone at four times the risk of a
crash by using a cell phone while driving. When the social norm
changes, it will be easier to change the laws as well, he
remarked, and expressed appreciation of the legislature's focus
on the most at-risk drivers - teenagers - via the introduction
of HB 15. The statistics for Alaska are comparable to those of
the nation: teenagers are involved in fatal crashes at much
higher rates than any other age group. Nationally, 6 percent of
licensed drivers are teenagers, but they account for 14 percent
of fatal crash involvement, with the two main causes being
driver inexperience and distractions.
MR. ULCZYCKI said that's why many states have enacted graduated
driver's licensing laws that require teenagers to obtain
significant experience driving with their parents in the car
before they can drive unsupervised; that's why many states have
enacted passenger restrictions for teenage drivers - to keep
teenage drivers from being distracted; and that's why 18 other
states have the kind of teenage-driver cell-phone ban that the
legislature is considering today. A bill such as HB 15 is not
discriminatory, he opined, given that teenage drivers comprise
the group thought of as most likely to be in a crash - they are
the highest risk group as well as the group most willing to
engage in this dangerous behavior. A national public opinion
survey, for example, found that 60 percent of teenage drivers
use a cell phone while driving; even more alarming, though, is
that 40 percent regularly text message while driving.
MR. ULCZYCKI encouraged the committee to pass HB 15, and to
support law enforcement officers as they enforce it, because
what's been found in other states is that enforcement of this
kind of law is critical. If people think that a law is not
going to be enforced, then they are more likely to engage in
breaking that law. For example, why do people speed? Because
they can. This will also be true with regard to cell phone use
while driving. In states that have enacted bans against cell
phone use by teenagers while driving, studies by the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) have found that compliance
with the law increased and decreased almost proportionately with
the level of enforcement applied; if a law is visibly enforced,
and people - in this case teenagers - believe they will be
caught, then their behavior changes.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER relayed that the Department of Law has
suggested a change to HB 15, that being to replace the term
"probable cause" on page 1, lines 9-10, with the term
"reasonable suspicion".
2:55:37 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), said that
the administration supports HB 15, and that she is suggesting
only the aforementioned change. In response to a question, she
offered her understanding that the term "operating" is broader
than the term "driving", and includes sitting in a parked car
with the engine running, and so HB 15 wouldn't apply in such a
situation because the bill uses the term "driving". In response
to another question, she assured the committee that the defense
of necessity could be raised if a minor found himself/herself in
an emergency situation and therefore used a cell phone while
driving. She surmised, though, that law enforcement officers
and prosecutors would exercise discretion before attempting to
charge/prosecute a minor for using a cell phone in such a
circumstance.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked whether a violation of HB 15 could
be used as proof of negligent driving.
MS. CARPENETI said she doesn't think that a violation of the
bill would provide a presumption that a minor is guilty of a
misdemeanor.
CHAIR RAMRAS closed public testimony on HB 15.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted that by definition, the act of driving
itself requires multitasking; therefore, if one can't multitask,
perhaps one shouldn't be driving to begin with.
3:02:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, to
replace the words "probable cause" on page 1, lines 10-11, with
the words "reasonable suspicion". There being no objection,
Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted that when his son was a minor, his
son disapproved of such a ban, but now that his son is no longer
a minor, his son is in favor of it.
3:03:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HB 15, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
15(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
3:03:54 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:03 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 15 Backup.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| HB 15 Bill version E.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| HB 15 Letters of Support.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| HB 15 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| HB15 letters of support 2.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| HB102BillPacket031609.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB102BillPacket031609II.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| Letter of Support Allstate.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB015-DPS-DET-03-17-09.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 15 |