Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 17
02/16/2012 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB128 | |
| HB157 | |
| Mobility Coalition | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 128 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 157 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 128-BAN CELL PHONE USE BY MINORS WHEN DRIVING
1:09:16 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 128, "An Act relating to prohibiting the use
of cellular telephones by minors when driving motor vehicles;
and providing for an effective date."
1:10:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BERTA GARDNER, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as the sponsor of HB 128, stated the committee has heard a
number of cell phone bills over the past six years. She offered
her belief that this reinforces that there is not a consensus on
cell phone ban. However, the conversation is different for
minors. She raised three issues, first, whether cell phones be
banned for all drivers or only minors; second, whether hands-
free cell phones be allowed; and third, whether the offense
should be a primary or secondary offense. She explained a
primary offense is one in which drivers can be stopped for
talking on their cell phones by law enforcement and a secondary
offense is one in which drivers could only be cited if they are
stopped for some other reason.
1:12:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER explained that HB 128 simply says drivers
under the ages of 18 cannot be talking on their cell phones.
This bill does not allow any exemptions for a hands-free cell
phone use and it makes it a secondary offense. She pointed out
that it is difficult to tell a driver's age. She offered her
belief that members understand the range of statistics in terms
of driver distraction from cell phone use. She referred to one
study by the University of Utah shows that motorists who talk on
handheld or hands-free cell phones are as impaired as drunk
drivers. The National Safety Council (NSC) estimates that about
28 percent of crashes involve people talking on cell phones when
they are driving. She stated the reason to focus on the
youngest drivers is because they are the most distractible age
group, but are the least experienced drivers who are still
learning good habits and increasing their skills. She outlined
her goal is to catch drivers at the age when they are most at
risk and help them develop good habits. Although the drivers
ages 16-20 are involved in 16 percent of the crashes in the
state, this age group is involved in 34 percent of the crashes
involving cell phone use. This age group also has the highest
incidence of serious injury or death when involved in crashes.
She would like to reach a consensus on this bill to help reduce
deaths and injuries. She referred to members' packet which
included e-mails of support, although some letters reference a
bill number from a prior year.
1:14:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for the definition of a vehicular
area, referencing proposed Section 28.35.165 in Section 1 of the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER answered that AS 28.90.990 (a)(30)
defines a vehicular way. She read:
A vehicular way or area means a road, path, or area,
other than a highway or private property that is
designated by official traffic control devices or
customary usage that is open to the public for
purposes of pedestrian or vehicular travel and which
way or area may be restricted in use to pedestrians,
bicycles, or other specific types of vehicles as
determined by the Department of Public Safety or other
agency having jurisdiction over the way, path, or
area.
1:15:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether that definition would
include a parking lot.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she believed so, but she could not
speak definitively on this.
1:16:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related a scenario in which a young
person had pulled into a Fred Meyer parking lot to make a call
home to his/her parents. He inquired as to whether the driver
could be pulled over and cited for cell phone use based on
suspicious activity.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER responded that if a person is pulled over
for anything it would imply the vehicle is moving.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his belief that the behavior
could be considered suspicious behavior if it was late at night
and the driver was sitting in a vehicle in a parking lot in the
winter with the engine running.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she thought it was a fair question
and she offered to find out.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON did not think leaving such a large
loophole would be a good idea.
1:18:24 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander, "A" Detachment,
Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), related his understanding that the court has defined
operating a vehicle, for the purpose of driving while under the
influence (DUI). Thus a person could be arrested if the person
were in physical control of the vehicle. However, as it
pertains to this bill, "driving the vehicle" would mean moving
the vehicle and actually engaging driving the vehicle. He
clarified that a person sitting in a vehicle parked in a parking
lot would not be considered operating a vehicle. He related he
bases this on his experience with routine traffic offenses, in
which driving a vehicle would mean moving the vehicle down the
roadway; however, if the vehicle was parked it would not
constitute driving.
1:19:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON wondered whether a person would be cited
and must appear in court to be found innocent.
LIEUTENANT DIAL clarified that from an enforcement standpoint
the person would not be cited if he/she were parked in a parking
lot.
1:20:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN inquired as to whether it would be
considered suspicious behavior if it was 20 degrees below zero
and the driver was sitting in a vehicle while it was running or
not running.
LIEUTENANT DIAL said either would be neutral. He said the
officer could contact the occupants to assess if the people were
okay.
1:20:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked if an individual is not driving but
has placed his/her foot on brake whether it would be considered
as driving.
LIEUTENANT DIAL said from an enforcement standpoint that he
would not consider that type of behavior as driving a car. He
said in his experience the court would find it splitting hairs
if a driver was cited while sitting in a vehicle stopped in a
parking lot, but was not driving. He offered his belief that
the court would use its discretion to say that the citation was
not warranted. He also thought the court would view the
driver's behavior as warranted, such that the driver had taken
steps for safe operation of a cell phone. He could not envision
situation in which law enforcement officers would cite the
person.
1:22:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT recalled recent testimony on a texting
bill. He further recalled testimony was given to indicate it
would be okay for an individual waiting at a red light to
briefly text. He inquired as to whether it would be okay for
someone to use their cell phone in the same circumstances.
LIEUTENANT DIAL related his understanding if the vehicle is
stopped that the person is not technically driving.
1:23:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled high statistics for youth ages 18-
20. She asked at what age the statistics show less prevalence
of crashes and whether it would be at age 21 or older.
LIEUTENANT DIAL responded that he did not know.
1:23:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ related her understanding distracted
driving in Alaska causes crashes. She asked if the statistics
identify the percentage of cell phone use that is tied to cell
phone use. She recalled that the enforcement incident report
does not list cell phones as one of listed reasons for
distracted driving. She asked whether that is still the case.
LIEUTENANT DIAL related his understanding the traffic
investigative report form has changed and that information will
be incorporated; however, he was uncertain as to whether the
distracted driving is broken out to the type of detail to
identify cell phone use as opposed to putting on makeup or
dealing with children. He did not think that information is
currently captured.
1:24:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled statistics for young people and
wondered if an equivalent statistic related to people 65 or 75
and older, who may also be in an age group with a higher risk of
accidents. He wondered whether this bill would set up a class
of citizens that is equal to another class of citizens who is
not covered by the bill. He clarified by asking if the same
risk would apply to both age groups.
LIEUTENANT DIAL recalled statistics, but deferred to the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities to better
address them. He agreed that distracted driving is universally
problematic; in fact, he did not favor making allowances for
distractions for anyone including law enforcement. He remarked
that the department has also been considering implementing
policies to curb distraction for officers. He reiterated that
distracted driving represents a safety issue for everyone to
consider.
1:27:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the department uses
encrypted radios.
LIEUTENANT DIAL agreed that most radios were encrypted, but
noted that the department is transitioning to the Alaska Land
Mobile radio system. He said some locations still use non-
encrypted phones.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he thought it was essential for
officers to use cell phones since some people intercept police
calls. He agreed cell phone use has been identified as a
distraction, but emphasized the importance of law enforcement to
have the tools to apprehend violators. He thought there might
be times when it is valid for someone under 18 to use a cell
phone so he expressed reluctance to disenfranchise a special
class of citizens.
1:28:36 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON summarized that this bill is designed to help
teenagers who are learning to drive develop good driving habits.
One good habit is not to answer a phone while driving and
another is to plan ahead and call rather than to start driving
and call enroute. She stressed the importance of parents,
grandparents, and legislators to consider that this bill may
save one or many lives. She pointed out that when youth are
informed ahead of time what is expected of them that they can
practice doing what is the right thing.
1:30:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT remarked if he were on his phone with his
own mother while he was driving that she would hang up on him.
However, he understood certain circumstances could arise, such
as when drivers are delayed due to an accident. In those
instances, drivers could find themselves unable to communicate
with their family that they are delayed and the other parent
needs to pick up their child. He expressed concern that under
the bill a 16-18 year old might also observe erratic driving
behavior and not be able to legally report it since he/she
cannot use a cell phone He offered his belief this bill would
disenfranchise the individual.
1:31:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled earlier comments that if the
legislature could fix something it should, and if so, the
legislature may wish to consider restricting driving of those 18
years of age or younger. This point illustrates that things can
be carried to extremes. He said he wasn't prepared to ban
drivers, but he also wasn't interested in taking on the
responsibility of training someone else's children on
appropriate behavior. He questioned at what point government
should steps in for families. He did not want to interfere with
parents so he would prefer to err on the side of families making
decisions for their children. He suggested that giving young
people traffic ticket for talking on their cell phones is likely
the last time that activity would ever happen. He certainly
does not want anyone to perish, but he expressed reluctance to
interfere with the parental role.
CHAIR P. WILSON agreed that if youth are ticketed for an
offense, they would not likely repeat the behavior.
1:34:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ, speaking as a parent, said she would
appreciate having a tool like this to discourage unsafe driving
behavior. She thinks most teenagers are "married" to their cell
phones. She characterized teen usage of cell phones as constant
cell phone use. She also said strongly supported the concept of
moving this bill forward. She characterized this bill as an
important public safety measure.
1:34:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN remarked that a young person might
suggest a smart phone is a waste of good technology on a middle-
aged person like him. He suggested that while it may appear to
be overly protective, but the fact remains that 17-year-olds are
authorized to drive. He imagined the worst possible situation
for a parent would be one in which parents had to go the
hospital because their child was in a crash or to have to bury
their child. This bill is designed to help our youth develop
good driving habits.
1:36:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT agreed the last place for youth be on the
phone is in the car. He pointed out that children are not
allowed to have cell phones at school since teachers are trying
to teach kids. Again, he asked whether the legislature should
step in for these types of activities. He described it as a
slippery slope. He asked whether this bill would restrict
hands-free use of cell phones.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER answered yes.
1:37:45 PM
ALBERT JUDSON stated he is a registered voter and formerly
worked as a Village Police Safety Officer (VPSO). He said
statistics relate to life or death and no gray areas should
exist. He cautioned that this issue is not a theoretical one
and legislators need to act with courage. He shared personal
history relevant to the bill, stating that in August 2007 he was
run over by a vehicle near Centennial Hall. He has had physical
problems since then. He lamented that the next day someone ran
over a dog and the dog made front page of the newspaper; however
there was no mention of his accident. He described another
incident when a man using a cell phone walked into him and did
not even bother to apologize, which illustrated the extent of
the problems associated with distraction.
MR. JUDSON related some statistics, with respect to teenagers
who are texting while driving, such that 10 percent of the time
they are driving outside the driving zone lines. He stated that
the average text messaging takes about five seconds to answer
while talking on a cell phone slows a teenager's reaction time
to that of a 70-year old. Additionally, 21 percent of fatal car
crashes involve teenagers 16-18 years old and teenage drivers
are 5 times more likely to be involved in a crash. He also
recalled reading that a 19-year old slammed into the back of a
construction truck and was killed along with a passenger. He
said that 38 people were also injured in the crash.
1:42:13 PM
MR. JUDSON stated that the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) has developed a graduated licensing
program, with the initial segment lasting six months, and must
include at least 30-50 hours of parent-certified, supervised
practice. The intermediate stage of the graduated license
restricts driving to 9 p.m. and restricts the vehicle to
transporting no more than one teenage passenger.
1:43:10 PM
MR. JUDSON recommended amending the bill to include texting.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked him to testify with respect to the bill,
that this bill would prohibit cell phone use while driving,
which would include texting.
MR. JUDSON suggested all states should impose a total ban on
hand-held hands-free devices, based solely on the number of
fatal accidents. He related that 30 states, including Washington
D.C. ban cell phone use by novice drivers. Every year 4,000-
8,000 crashes occur related to cell phone use in the U.S. Seven
states have enacted primary laws that ban hand-held cell phones:
California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Oregon,
Washington, and the District of Columbia. In 2011, Delaware
signed a similar law. Thirty states have a primary offense
banning all texting by drivers. He said he is opposed to making
the violation of cell phone use a secondary enforcement offense
since the officer would need another reason to pull over the
driver. Instead, he favored primary enforcement on cell phones.
He said that half of all states include a category of hand-held
electronic equipment that must be included on their accident
reports.
1:46:18 PM
MR. JUDSON said that it should be mandatory for state and
municipalities to categorize cell phones and other electronic
equipment on accident reports. He related his understanding
that reporting is non-existent or else it is too difficult for
police to compile cell phone statistics in their accident
reports. He suggested the ban should apply to all those under
19 years of age based on statistics and should include
intermediate drivers if the state has adopted a graduated
licensure program. He thought that there should be mandatory
reporting of electronic usage involved in crash reports. He
further recommended that children should be tried as adults in
the event a crash involves fatalities. Further, the bill should
apply to all taxi drivers and transit drivers. He considered
the number of crashes that have occurred since the state first
contemplated banning cell phone use while driving, including
that nationwide 4,000 crashes occurred in a five year period
which totals 20,000 crashes not including Alaska. He emphasized
there should not be any gray areas in the law and the
legislature should take a black and white approach on this bill.
He suggested that theories should not interfere with passing
this bill. He offered his belief that now is time to change
this law and also ban texting while driving. He offered to
provide the sources of his statistics to the committee.
1:49:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER responded to some of the issues just
raised. She referred to insurance companies as masters of
studying the data. She turned to Alaska drivers' statistics in
members' packets related to accidents: In 2009, the age range
for 61 and older had zero crashes, while 8 crashes happened in
the target population. She surmised the senior age group has
fewer crashes, likely because they tend not to use cell phones
as much. She recalled an earlier issue raised was that
teenagers would be prohibited from reporting accidents; however,
an exemption already exists under AS 11.81.320 that allows all
drivers to report. This statute provides justification to
report any illegal activity. With respect to interfering with
parental rights, she drew on her own experience. She related
could tell her children not to use cell phones while driving in
her car, but not all parents can enforce their rules. She
suggested that this bill would help parents enforce their rules.
She characterized this bill as one that addresses public safety.
She offered her belief that HB 128 will save lives and has broad
public support.
1:53:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noticed the statistics are reported for
ages 16-20, and questioned why the bill only limits those 18
years of age and younger.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER answered that the state collects data for
the youth 16-20 years of age and does not break the statistic
out for each age by year.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON clarified that the bill prohibits cell
phone use up to 18 years of age.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER responded that a well-established
template exists for the state and federal laws. She explained
that at 18 years of age a person can vote, join the military,
and sign contracts. She expressed a willingness to have the
committee consider the ages that the bill would apply the cell
phone ban.
1:54:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested that the combined age data may
skew the statistics to a higher percentage.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER answered that she thought the data could
be broken down for that age group, but she surmised the trend
would show older drivers have fewer accidents. She suggested it
may not be warranted for researchers to isolate the data for
those less than 18 years of age since it would not likely add
much more to the discussion.
1:55:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT referred to a Juneau Empire article in
members' packets, which read, "An insurance industry study
released last year by the Highway Loss Data Institute found that
state laws banning the use of hand held devices to make calls or
send text messages while driving have not resulted in fewer
vehicle crashes." He related his understanding that the reason
for the bill is to reduce crashes, but the data does not support
the reduction. He asked for further clarification. He asked
whether the sponsor has considered implementing graduated
licenses for teenagers, since the data suggests the risk is
highest for the period of those just licensed.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER answered yes. She recalled
Representative Gruenberg previously introduced a bill to address
that issue. She offered his belief it would constitute good
public policy to prohibit cell phone use for drivers 18 years
and younger. She suggested the committee could consider other
limits. In further response to Representative Pruitt, she
answered that the bill makes cell phone use while driving a
secondary offense.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ pointed out that Alaska already has a
graduated license law and she thought it required six months of
supervised driving, but that specific statute does not address
cell phone use.
1:58:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT agreed that establishing a limitation
might be something for the committee to consider. He pointed
out other distracted driving as something he has considered with
respect to discussions on other cell phone bills. He recalled
in one instance a student was changing the radio station and
totaled her car. He did not recall any data with respect to how
distracting radio use might be, but he was aware of other
distractions besides cell phone use. He said it almost seems
like this activity targets cell phone use, but perhaps that
activity should be addressed as part of a provisional license.
1:59:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER answered that anyone can make a mistake,
but this bill targets teenagers since they are in the process of
learning habits. She agreed there is no end to possible
distractions while driving; however, teens are more impulsive
and distractible than adults. Those under 18 years of age have
been involved in a disproportionate share of serious vehicle
accidents resulting in death or injury than the population at
large. This bill is designed to save lives in a simple,
inexpensive way that reinforces parental decisions by those who
restrict their children from cell phones while driving. She
characterized this bill as a public safety issue.
2:01:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the sponsor was amendable
to amend the bill add other distractible items, including
eating, putting on makeup, or using the radio.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER offered to consider other distractions
although she did not want to amend the bill at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he wanted to work with the sponsor
on expanding the bill by adding in other distractions.
[HB 128 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 128 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 128 Teen Driver Fact Sheet.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 128 Studies and Articles.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 128 Letter of Support State Farm.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 128 Letter of Support NSC HB 15.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 128 Letter of Support APOA HB 15.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 128 Letter of Support Allstate.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 128 Crash Data.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 128 Alaska Crash Data.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB0128A.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 157 ver A.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 157 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 157_Backup_DOTHeadlights.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 157_LTR of Support DonCallahan.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB_157 Backup_NHTSA_DRLs.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB_157 Backup_NHTSA_Headlight_Glare.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 157 Headlights.msg |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 157 Motorcycle issue.msg |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 157 Seward Hiway Safety.msg |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| AK Mobility CoalitionTra Comm 2-7-12.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |