Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 17
02/23/2010 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB7 | |
| HB345 | |
| HB257 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 345 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 257 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 257-BAN CELL PHONE USE WHEN DRIVING
1:27:07 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 257, "An Act relating to prohibiting the use
of cellular telephones when driving a motor vehicle; and
providing for an effective date."
1:27:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE DOOGAN, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor
of HB 257, mentioned that he is available to answer any
questions.
1:28:53 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON noted that public testimony is open on HB 257.
1:29:06 PM
MIKE LANG stated he was speaking on behalf of himself. He asked
for the reason that this bill only applies to cell phones, since
eating food or applying makeup is equally distracting. He
questioned the $300 fine for use of a cell phone.
CHAIR P. WILSON recalled prior testimony and related that some
things are more distracting to drivers, and cell phone use was
identified as one of the highest reasons for distractions while
driving.
MR. LANG mentioned that the speed limit in Sitka is 20 miles per
hour and talking on a cell phone does not have any effect on
driver safety.
CHARLES BOYLE, Staff, Representative Mike Doogan, Alaska State
Legislature, stated Mr. Lang has addressed the issue pretty
well.
CHAIR P. WILSON related her own experiences driving in Sitka.
1:31:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN agreed with Mr. Lang's point that many
other things can be equally distracting to drivers. He said he
supports his concern.
CHAIR P. WILSON pointed out that she has never tried to put on
make-up in the car, but has heard that people engage in many
distracting activities, such as eating or trying to read while
driving.
1:32:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether Ms. Cashen could come
forward since he recalled that she provided a study from
Virginia which helps identifies the severity of the problem.
1:32:56 PM
CINDY CASHEN, Administrator, Highway Safety Office (AHSO),
Division of Program Development, Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF), explained that driver distraction is
a significant factor for crashes that result in injuries and
fatalities in Alaska. While the data is sketchy, according to
research, the number of drivers distracted from driving while
using a cell phone and driving is increasing nationwide. She
referred to a 100-car driving study, conducted by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). She noted that
she has a copy of the entire study, a 20-page summary of the
study, and a 1-page fact sheet. She elaborated that the 200-
page NHTSA study breaks down various categories of distraction
and the types of distractions, including hand-held and hands-
free cell phone devices, eating food, putting on lipstick, or
any activity that takes the driver's eyes away from the road for
up to three seconds.
MS. CASHEN reported that the NHTSA study entailed 100 cars and
various types of cars and drivers were included in the study.
The NHTSA study concluded that the number one distraction was
cell phone use, she remarked. She related that little
difference exists between use of hand-held and hands-free
devices, in terms of distractibility. The NHTSA study found
that using a hand-held cell phone requires a person to punch in
numbers during which time his/her eyes must leave the road.
However, conversations made using hand-held devices tend to
result in shorter duration calls. Although drivers using hands-
free devices are able to keep their eyes on road, their typical
conversations last longer, she stated. The NHTSA study found
drivers using cell phones had impaired cognitive thinking, but
drivers could hold conversations with passengers without
impairment. Cognitive thinking is used for such activities as
turning on turn signals. The study surmised that when the
conversation was held with someone not in car, the driver's
brain focused on the conversation and not on the necessary motor
skills needed for driving. She surmised that may account for
the reason that some drivers using cell phones either speeded up
or slowed down, or perhaps would stop at a green light while
engaged in cell phone conversations.
1:36:50 PM
MR. LANG, in response to Chair Wilson, agreed the testimony
offered some explanation for the bill. However, he offered his
belief that the responsibility still rests with the driver. He
said he thought that banning cell phone use while driving would
take away a little personal freedom.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG challenged members to try using only
one hand to make a turn while driving or parallel parking a
vehicle. He concluded that essentially describes the difficulty
in driving with hand-held cell phones. He pointed out that
would be different when devices are attached to a dashboard,
although he agreed it still would be more difficult to dial a
phone while using hands-free devices.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN recalled a list of tasks people attempt
to perform while talking on a cell phone. He commented that he
has also seen people attempt to perform these same tasks while
driving when they are not talking on cell phones. Sometimes
people are not good drivers, he concluded.
1:39:09 PM
MS. CASHEN, in response to Representative Johnson, offered to
provide a copy of the distractions listed in the NHTSA study to
the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON wondered if the top five or ten
distractions identified in the NHTSA study should also be
prohibited in the bill since they all limit the driver's ability
to perform.
MS. CASHEN mentioned that the NHTSA study provides the level of
risk for causing automobile accidents so she thought it might be
something the committee would want to review.
1:39:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked how the determination was made
that a driver using a cell phone contributed to an accident.
MS. CASHEN responded that data was collected from police and
traffic crash reports. The driver either admits to using the
cell phone caused the accident or the law enforcement officer
confiscates the device and obtains the cell phone record. She
offered her belief that cell phone records would be obtained for
accidents involving serious injuries or fatalities.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON said she thought that just because a
driver was using his/her cell phone and had an accident, that
the cause of the accident may not have been caused by the cell
phone usage.
MS. CASHEN explained that when a cell phone device is
confiscated during an accident investigation that law
enforcement can determine whether the cell phone was actually in
use at the time of the accident. She related her understanding
that the officer would examine the cell phone record.
CHAIR P. WILSON, in response to Representative T. Wilson,
explained that cell phone record would indicate if a call was
being made at the time the accident occurred.
1:42:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON stated that she did not think that
meant the accident was caused by the cell phone use.
MS. CASHEN commented that the traffic crash form allows a law
enforcement officer to check off specific boxes to indicate
contributing factors for an accident, including inclement
weather or road conditions.
1:43:14 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant; Deputy Commander, Alaska State Troopers
(AST), Department of Public Safety (DPS), related that
essentially an Alaska State Trooper would attempt to determine
primary cause of an accident during his/her investigation. He
agreed that if a cell phone was involved, it may not be the
cause of the accident. For example, when a driver is traveling
on an icy road, the icy road would constitute the primary cause,
but the cell phone may have contributed in some manner to the
accident.
1:44:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON referred to the report form and asked
whether the officer would check several boxes.
LT. DIAL agreed the officer would do so.
1:44:44 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether a box on the form exists to rank
the primary and secondary causes of an accident.
LT. DIAL responded that usually there is a primary cause listed.
Often an accident has multiple secondary causes and sometimes it
can be difficult to determine the primary cause. However, law
enforcement officers are trained and must use their best
judgment, he stated.
1:45:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled other states have restricted cell
phone use and she asked for clarification.
MS. CASHEN agreed. She reported that currently eight states,
including Washington D.C. ban hand-held devices, but other
states have not banned hands-free cell phone use, although some
states are considering legislation to ban all cell phones.
1:46:14 PM
JOSEPH STOCKER stated that he attends Pacific High School in
Sitka. He asked what would be considered an emergency since the
bill allows cell phone use for emergencies.
MS. CASHEN deferred the definition of emergency to Lt. Dial.
LT. DIAL answered that the department would classify an
emergency as something to protect property or safety. Thus, if
someone needed to call 911, it would be considered an emergency.
CHAIR P. WILSON added that she would consider it an emergency if
an accident happened.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON speculated that if he were a teenager on
his way home that he would consider calling home to tell his
parents he was going to be late as constituting an emergency.
LT. DIAL answered that such activity would not constitute an
emergency, nor would calling 911 to report such information be
considered an emergency.
1:48:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related an emergency is an objective
determination and the test would be whether a reasonable person
would consider the activity as an emergency.
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked to testifiers that Representative
Gruenberg can provide some guidance since he is an attorney.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to an e-mail in members'
packets with a lengthy description of the Virginia study.
1:50:20 PM
MR. STOCKER pointed out that he spends a good portion of his
time driving and the bill would be too restrictive to drivers.
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that as a person gets older less time
is spent in his/her car. She explained that the legislature
must consider what the best solution overall is for citizens.
1:52:35 PM
JOAN PRIESTLEY, Physician; Medical Director, Health Renewal
Institute, stated that she is a medical doctor for a private
non-profit foundation in Alaska. She explained the Health
Renewal Institute has studied the issue. Most importantly, the
legislation will not have the intended affect on safety, she
stated. She then referred to an "exhaustive review" by the
Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS), which took over
nine months to compile. She stated that from 1995- 2008, cell
phone users increased by 500 percent and between 2000 and 2008
the number of drivers using cell phones while driving has
increased by 250 percent. It is currently estimated that
approximately 10 percent of drivers are talking on cell phone at
any one time. However, the national insurance study claims that
from 1995 - 2008 the incidence of insurance claims has not
increased. She stated that the IIHS reviewed fatal and non-
fatal accidents and found a gradual decline of 8 percent for all
accidents were reported during that period. She noted the
DOT&PF report also seems to bear this out. She reported that
over 425,000 drivers' licenses are issued in Alaska, and
thousands of accidents are reported annually. Yet, from 2002-
2007 only 59 accidents annually involve cell phone use. She
reported that figure has decreased by 25 percent in Alaska in
recent years.
1:55:41 PM
DR. PRIESTLEY stated that the IIHS reviewed four states with
bans on hand-held cell phones, including New York, California,
Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The study reviewed all of the
claims submitted two years prior to the ban and two years after
the ban went into effect. The IIHS did not find any change in
insurance claims submitted in those states during the
timeframes. Next, the study compared those four states to four
other states, including Arizona, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts,
and one other state, comparable in population, that did not have
a ban on cell phones. She reported that the two graphs for the
states were identical. She stated that there was not any
decline in insurance claims when comparing the states. She
quoted the president as saying, "The key finding is that crashes
are not going down where hand-held phone use is going down.
This finding doesn't demonstrate any safety payoff from all the
new laws that ban phone use and texting while driving."
1:57:11 PM
DR. PRIESTLEY surmised that based on research this bill could
actually cause crashes. In Alaska, people want to be instantly
accessible or they may lose clients or business. If people must
pull off the road, they must find an area off the road to answer
their phones. She thought this would affect professionals,
including real estate and health professionals.
DR. PRIESTLEY stated that this bill will call citizens to suffer
needless expense in the form of fines, which basically will
"criminalize" innocent actions. She noted the subtle revenue
stream. She related that insurance is keen on passing this type
of legislation. She offered her belief that insurance companies
think accidents rates will be reduced.
1:58:42 PM
DR. PRIESTLEY explained that when a person has a record or
obtains points on their license for being cited for cell phone
use, that the insurance companies could "jack that person's rate
sky high." She related this could drive people of lesser
economic means to make a choice between paying their rent or
auto insurance.
DR. PRIESTLEY stated that HB 257 goes too far by gutting the
fourth amendment protections against unreasonable searches. The
bill would allow police to stop vehicles without probable cause.
She said this bill should be subtitled, "The Police State
Acceleration and Enhancement Act." She characterized this bill
as social engineering. She recalled several studies by American
Automobile Association Foundation for Traffic Safety. She
summarized the findings, and the causes of distractions. The
most common distraction was looking at an outside event, which
caused 30 percent of all crashes caused by distractions.
Adjusting the radio or the CD caused 11 percent of accidents.
Disciplining children or talking to passengers caused 11 percent
of accidents. Another study showed that eating food increased
the odds of an accident by 57 percent. And personal grooming or
reading increased the risk of a crash by 300 percent, she
stated. She said using cell phones caused an accident between
1.5 to 3.5 percent, based on the two studies.
DR. PRIESTLEY suggested this bill is dangerous, onerous,
needless, and expensive and has unintended consequences. She
encouraged members to allow this bill to suffer a quiet and
dignified death.
2:03:07 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether she could describe the Health
Renewal Institute.
DR. PRIESTLY stated the IIHS was formed to study issues like
this, and to promote the use of holistic medicine.
2:04:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN related that the bill makes it a primary
offense to use a cell phone. A police officer could stop a
person for talking on their cell phone. He asked whether Alaska
has enough law enforcement personnel to enforce this.
DR. PRIESTLEY answered no, not the Alaska State Troopers and
Anchorage Police Department since they have enough real crimes
to investigate.
2:05:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if she could provide the committee
with the studies.
DR. PRIESTLEY referred to a summary from the Highway Loss Data
Institute, who testified at a Society of Automotive Engineer's
meeting on January 29, 2010. She said the slides are large,
readable, and excellent and demonstrate that a ban on drivers'
cell phones will do not result in safer driving.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for copies of the studies.
DR. PRIESTLEY offered to provide studies and summary of her
testimony.
2:07:07 PM
DR. PRIESTLEY, in response to Representative Gruenberg, answered
that she is a medical doctor.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for information on the three
organizations she cited.
DR. PRIESTLEY stated that the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety is an independent organization supported by the insurance
industry. It is surprising to have a serious study done by the
insurance industry that to refute cell phone bans since the
industry seems to support laws that ban cell phones. She stated
that the Highway Loss Data Institute is a subdivision of the
IIHS and compiled claims from 1995 - 2008.
2:08:52 PM
DR. PRIESTLEY, in response to Representative Gruenberg,
explained that the Health Renewal Institute was founded this
year and does not receive any industry support.
2:09:17 PM
MICHAELLA RICE stated that this bill, HB 257, could cause more
problems than it solves. She offered her belief that the bill
would adversely affect businesses that use cell phones. She
pointed out that the bill does not allow hands-free usage. She
explained that some devices could be concealed by hair and some
cars also have devices that can answer phones. She did not
think Alaska could be compared to other states since most states
have busier highways and more distractions for drivers than
Alaska does. She recommended members consider an amendment to
the bill to allow for hands-free devices to be used.
LT DIAL added that "emergency" is defined under AS 42.20.150.
He said emergency means a situation in which property or human
life is in jeopardy and the prompt summoning of aid is
essential.
2:13:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether Lt. Dial would support an
amendment to the bill that would add a definition for emergency.
LT. DIAL answered yes.
2:13:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Dr. Priestly if she would prefer
the bill if it was amendment limited to hands-free cell phones.
DR. PRIESTLEY responded that she believes that the limit would
still be social engineering and micro-management.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether she could put aside her
personal politics and consider the scientific data.
DR. PRIESTLEY opined that there was not a basis to support
restrictions of devices, even in states that allowed hands-free
devices. She offered her view that the science did not support
this. She considered the restriction of cell phones to be an
unfunded mandate since people would likely need to buy the
phones. She said she did not think restricting cell phones
would have the hoped for results.
2:15:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked Lt. Dial if cell phones were
banned, if he could identify a type of alternative that would be
less hazardous for people to use while driving.
LT. DIAL deferred the question to the AHSO, since he did not
think he was qualified to answer this question.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked whether cell phones were used by
the Alaska State Troopers.
LT. DIAL related that the AST primarily uses police radios. He
explained that the AST would limit cell phone use to
confidential information. Further, the AST recommends officers
pull off the roadway before using a cell phone. In response to
Representative Gruenberg, he referred to AS 42.21.150 for the
location of definitions.
2:18:44 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 257.
2:19:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled
26-LS1104\E.1, Luckhaupt, 2/8/10, which read, as follows:
Page 1, line 8, following "telephone":
Insert "(1)"
Page 1, line 10, following "entity":
Insert "; or
(2) by hands-free mode"
Page 1, following line 10:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(c) In this section, "hands-free mode" means
use of a cellular telephone for listening or talking
by means of a speaker function, headset, or earpiece
without holding the telephone."
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN objected for purpose of discussion.
2:19:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ explained that Amendment 1 would allow an
exception for the use of hands-free cell phones.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his belief that this is bad
policy, that it is an infringement of personal rights. He
recalled testimony that data is missing, or is speculated. He
stated that if cell phone use is problematic, that the
correlation between number of accidents and enormous increase in
cell phone use does not indicate a problem exists.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON stated that no other states have banned
cell phones entirely. She asked how this bill would affect tour
guides and others who use cell phones in their everyday business
use, including law enforcement officers.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN offered his belief that if exclusions
were listed, the list would run into "pages and pages" of
exclusions since so many businesses use cell phones. He
understood that many companies no longer use dispatches since
their drivers all have cell phones.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN pointed out that an amendment is on the
table that deals exclusively with hands-free devices.
CHAIR P. WILSON cautioned members to keep comments to Amendment
1.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked whether statistics were available
to support the amendment.
2:23:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested members may wish to review
several research papers in members' packets. He listed a number
of the studies and information that members should consider.
2:26:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered that seven states impose
statewide bans while talking on hand-held devices. He pointed
out that Amendment 1 would prohibit hand-held devices, but
permit hands-free devices. He maintained that seven states
allow hands-free cell phones.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON agreed that seven states would allow
hands-free cell phone use.
2:27:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the Connecticut statute,
and read, "hand-held mobile telephone means a mobile telephone
with which a user engages in a call using at least one hand."
He said, "It bans them and it does exactly what Amendment 1
does. So we have seven states do what Amendment 1 does, plus
the District of Columbia."
2:28:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ explained that the data provided in
members' packets speaks to seven states that banned hand-held
devices, but all of the states allow hands-free devices,
although that information is not explicitly stated.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that seven states already
have laws in place similar to what Amendment 1 would impose.
There is a trend for other states to ban the use of cell phones.
He elaborated that some ban text messaging, a second group bans
cell phone use while operating a school bus, yet another group
bans novice drivers from using cell phones. Thus, Alaska would
be taking a step similar to what the other seven states have
done.
2:30:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN removed his objection.
2:31:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON then objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Johansen, Munoz,
Gruenberg, Petersen, and Chair P. Wilson voted in favor of the
amendment. Representatives Johnson and T. Wilson voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 5-2.
2:32:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 2,
labeled, 26-LS 1104\E.2, Luckhaupt, 2/19/10, which read:
Page 1, line 2:
Delete "; and providing for an effective date"
Page 1, line 13:
Delete all material.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON objected.
2:33:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that normally it takes a
simple majority for a bill to pass the legislature. However, if
an effective date is contained in the bill it would take 27
votes to pass the House. Thus, unless there is a good reason
for it, he suggested the effective date should be removed.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN pointed out that in the event the House
of Representatives did not vote on the effective date that it
would take 90 days for the bill to become law. He related that
the effective date has no bearing on substance of the bill.
2:34:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON maintained her objection.
CHAIR WILSON recapped Amendment 2, stating that it would delete
on page 1, line 2, "; and providing for an effective date."
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Munoz, Gruenberg,
Petersen, and P. Wilson voted in favor of Amendment 2.
Representatives Johansen, Johnson, and T. Wilson voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 4-3.
2:35:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 3, to adopt the definition for "emergency" as given in
AS 42.20.150 (1). He described Conceptual Amendment 3, which
would use the definition of "emergency" for this section as it
is defined in AS 42.20.150 (1). He stated this amendment would
clarify the type of "emergency" that would apply.
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted.
2:37:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 4,
labeled 26-LS1104\E.3, Luckhaupt, 2/23/10, which read, as
follows:
Page 1, following line 10:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(c) Notwithstanding another provision of law, a
peace officer may not stop or detain a motor vehicle
to determine compliance with (a) of this section, or
issue a citation for a violation of (a) of this
section, unless the peace officer has probable cause
to stop or detain the motor vehicle other than for a
violation of (a) of this section."
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected for purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN explained that Amendment 4 would require
a police officer to have probable cause in order to stop or
detain a motor vehicle for some reason other than for cell phone
use. Thus, a police offer must have some reason, such as
erratic driving, before the officer could make a traffic stop.
Therefore, cell phone use while driving would be considered a
secondary offense. He stated that several other states have
adopted this law. Since law enforcement officers are limited in
numbers, Amendment 4 would also allow them to ignore cell phone
use, but in the event a driver was stopped or involved in an
accident, an officer could cite the driver for cell phone use.
2:40:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether distracted driving is a
currently considered a primary offense and if an AST would pull
over the vehicle.
LT. DIAL answered that several potential citations could be used
in the event a driver was engaged in reckless or negligent
driving or if the cell-phone use caused an accident. In further
response to Representative Johnson, Lt. Dial stated that an
officer would likely cite someone for negligent driving if the
driver was distracted by activities such as putting on make-up
while driving. He further answered that the category of
reckless driving is considered a more serious charge than
negligent driving since it would create a substantial risk to
persons or property.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether a driver would be pulled
over if he/she did not swerve or otherwise exhibit erratic
driving while using a cell phone.
LT. DIAL answered no. He stated that it is quite common to
observe all kinds of distracted driving and drivers are not
pulled over if they are not endangering someone or something.
2:42:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON removed his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON stated that she noticed a fiscal note
was not attached to the bill. She then asked whether radios
would have to be installed in state vehicles if cell phone use
is banned.
2:44:17 PM
There being no further objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
2:44:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN made a motion to rescind the committee's
action to adopt Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the effect of Amendment
2 was to delay the effect of the bill. He suggested that the
bill would be effective earlier. He said he did not object if
the bill has an earlier effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN withdrew his motion to rescind the
committee's action on adopting Amendment 2.
2:47:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON made a motion to table the bill to allow
time for the committee to obtain information, including the
information referenced by Dr. Priestly, prior to passing this
bill. He offered his belief that this bill would place an
egregious burden on citizens.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN objected.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON withdrew his motion to table HB 257.
CHAIR P. WILSON stated her intention to hold the bill over since
there appears to be significant objection to the bill.
2:49:40 PM
MS. CASHEN offered to provide copies of two studies to the
committee: the AAA study and the Institute of Insurance Highway
Safety (IIHS) study. She explained the reason the AHSO office
did not use the information contained in the studies had to do
with potential bias. She explained that the Institute of
Insurance study raised many questions with the Governor's
Highway Safety Association and the National Highway
Transportation Safety Administration because the type of data
collected depends on the people involved in automobile crashes
to independently file their insurance claims. She explained
that the data fluctuates for many reasons. She pointed out that
the AHSO reviews considers "hard data" but does not consider
data that may be affected by economic reasons or similar
factors. She also mentioned that about ten years ago a change
was made so that drivers involved in accidents are not required
to wait for law enforcement to arrive. The DOT&PF currently
depends on drivers to file their own crash information. Thus,
what has transpired is that the forms submitted have
subsequently diminished since it is the driver's responsibility
to submit the form. This has definitely impacted the data
collected, she stated.
2:52:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN commented would like to see the
information contained in the actual studies rather than have the
DOT&PF interpret the data. He stated that if the AHSO has a
problem gathering data that the DOT&PF should request a statute
change.
CHAIR P. WILSON stated that self-reporting data may be slanted
since the driver may want to "put themselves in the best light".
MS. CASHEN related that the AHSO has seen the number of forms
collected decline and the AHSO has noticed cell phone usage is
not often listed. Chair Wilson's observation may be part of the
explanation for the change.
2:53:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked for further clarification on
whether a change in statute is needed to assist the AHSO in
obtaining additional information.
MS. CASHEN explained that the AHSO is concerned about what
information is requested on the reporting form.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN maintained his interest in assisting the
AHSO obtain the information it needs.
MS. CASHEN clarified that one small change on the accident
reporting form would affect every agency, including the court
system. Thus, the effect may result in agencies not having the
capability to share the information with other agencies. She
stressed the importance of being able to capture and share the
information the potential costs for computer software upgrades
to accommodate agencies, including the court system and the DMV
could be in the millions. She noted the complexity of the
reporting issues, but related that as agencies convert to
electronic citations that categories for distractions will be
added. She said she wished that capturing accurate crash data
was an easier problem to remedy, but she assured members that
the AHSO will continue to work on the issue.
2:55:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the form is no longer
required.
MS. CASHEN said she thought he was referring to one page of the
report. She offered her belief that the Department of Public
Safety does not currently have the responsibility to fill out
crash forms.
LT. DIAL explained that AS 28.35.080 addresses this issue. He
said that essentially the driver of a vehicle involved in an
accident that results in bodily injury, death, or damage to an
extent of $2,000 or more must provide notice of the accident to
the police department. He stated that the AST completes
accident report forms in those cases. However, in the event an
accident happened in the past or results in less than $2,000 in
damages, the individual is give a Participant Accident Form and
would fill out the form without the assistance of a trooper.
2:57:33 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON offered her belief that the AST cannot cover all
accidents so a policy call was made.
LT. DIAL agreed the policy change has reduced the AST's
involvement in accident reports.
2:59:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to a collision report in
members' packets and asked if this specific form was the self-
reporting form mentioned earlier.
LT. DIAL responded that all law enforcement agencies in the
state use the specified form in instances of any serious
accidents, but that it is not considered the self-reporting
form. In further response to Representative Johnson, Lt. Dial
agreed that the state currently collects data on serious
accidents.
2:59:51 PM
[HB 257 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB345-DOT-NRF-2-22-10 .pdf |
HTRA 2/23/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 345 |
| HB7-DOT-CRF-2-22-10 .pdf |
HTRA 2/23/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 7 |