Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/12/2004 03:35 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 255-ILLEGAL USE TRAFFIC PREEMPTION DEVICE
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced SB 255 to be up for consideration.
He noted a committee substitute (CS) had been prepared and he
would like a motion to adopt it as the working document.
SENATOR JOHN COWDERY made a motion to adopt CSSB 255, \D
version. There was no objection and it was so ordered.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Mr. Michel to step forward and speak to
the bill.
DENNIS MICHEL, legislative aide to Senator Gene Therriault,
explained that the CS pertains to splitting Section 1,
subsection (b) into two parts. Added is a second section, (2),
which includes authorized employees of the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities to the group of people that
may possess or use traffic preemption devices for official road
maintenance related purposes.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted the committee hadn't heard the bill
previously and it would be helpful if Mr. Michel would give a
brief synopsis to highlight its importance.
MR. MICHEL began by informing members that traffic preemption
devices are readily available over the Internet to anyone with
the money to buy one. The purchaser must check a box stating
they are an emergency service provider, but there's no follow up
so you won't be caught if you lie. As a result, a growing number
of civilians own and use these devices.
SB 255 makes it unlawful to possess or use a traffic preemption
device if you aren't operating an emergency vehicle. Those who
may use the devices include authorized state or municipal
employees who are installing, repairing, or maintaining the
devices. As previously stated, the CS includes DOT/PF employees
in the group that may possess or use the devices for authorized,
road maintenance related purposes.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if this would include private businesses
that put out cones for traffic control.
MR. MICHEL replied as long as the company is conducting road
maintenance type work authorized by the DOT/PF they would be
allowed to use the devices. He noted, however, that emergency
vehicles such as police, fire and ambulances use the devices
more frequently.
SENATOR COWDERY questioned whether wrecking trucks would be
included.
MR. MICHEL acknowledged he wasn't able to answer the question,
but would be happy to find out.
SENATOR COWDERY then inquired about getting radio stations that
use horns and sirens in their on-air advertising to stop doing
so. A constituent, in all seriousness, asked him to pose the
question, he said.
MR. MICHEL conceded that it would overstep his bounds to give an
answer, but he would make an inquiry.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS gleaned that the intent is for these devices
to be used in an official capacity only and inquired where the
CS states that a legal and authorized preemption device may not
be used if there is no emergency.
MR. MICHEL read subsection (c) (1) on page 2 where an emergency
vehicle is defined.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS replied the definition of an emergency
vehicle is clear. However, it isn't clear that they intend that
the emergency vehicle be on an emergency mission for it to be
authorized to have and use a traffic preemption device. He asked
Mr. Michel whether he thought that might be at all confusing.
MR. MICHEL admitted it is a bit confusing and he could look at
the wording.
SENATOR COWDERY brought up the traffic control issue again.
"There's a lot of traffic control [that] goes on here, under
contract to the private sector... I don't know if that would be
a description of an emergency, but the fact is they're out there
in high traffic zones." He used a hockey game at the Sullivan
Arena as an example.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS agreed that is one of several important
questions that must be addressed.
SENATOR COWDERY stated he would take advice from the Department
of Transportation (DOT) and the Alaska State Troopers or police.
MR. MICHEL said he previously contacted the troopers, North Star
Volunteer Fire Department and the Department of Public Safety
(DPS) and he would take the questions raised back for further
discussion.
MR. MICHEL had no additional comments.
GARY POWELL, Alaska State Fire Marshall and director of the
Division of Fire Prevention, DPS, testified that, "In a number
of Alaskan communities, traffic preemption is very important to
safe and efficient response to a genuine emergency."
The integrity of the system is important for the public to
support the system, he said. Because the devices are readily
available on the Internet, it's reasonable to assume that
private use will proliferate and traffic controls will be
manipulated unnecessarily. To maintain public support for the
system they feel this is a timely piece of legislation. He noted
the commissioner sent a letter of support.
SENATOR LYMAN HOFFMAN questioned how private users would be
apprehended.
MR. POWELL reported that in the system he is familiar with, a
log is maintained, which makes it easy to determine when someone
other than an authorized emergency responder has manipulated a
traffic signal. Locating the unauthorized user would be
difficult however.
SENATOR HOFFMAN pointed out that it's unlikely that unauthorized
use would be noted if there isn't conflicting use at a traffic
signal.
MR. POWELL responded that in the course of a normal stop, police
observe the equipment in a car so it's not impossible for the
police to notice unauthorized possession.
SENATOR HOFFMAN wasn't convinced and noted, "Many people are not
stopped for five and ten years."
MR. POWELL agreed.
SENATOR COWDERY found nothing to indicate that enforcement would
be successful.
MR. POWELL acknowledged it would be difficult to pinpoint
unauthorized use without technology to capture transmissions
from the devices. Although he wasn't sure, he said, "They
operate on a receiver basis so I would expect, if it became a
real problem something could be set up..."
CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted the bill doesn't say it's illegal to
use, "It says unlawful possession is a class A misdemeanor."
SENATOR STEDMAN asked for verification that there is a log kept
when a law officer changes a signal.
MR. POWELL said that is correct. The system he is familiar with
logs the time a particular unit preempts a signal.
SENATOR STEDMAN commented it appears that police would know if
repetitive unauthorized use occurred in a particular area.
MR. POWELL thought that would be correct.
SENATOR COWDERY commented he would like to follow up on the
issue of possession.
MR. POWELL added he would like to see the bill include language
such as, "possession with the intent to use."
SENATOR COWDERY thought it was confusing and asked for the
committee to work with the sponsor.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Senator Guess if she had any questions.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS, participating via teleconference,
replied her questions had already been asked.
DAVE TYLER, Alaska Fire Chiefs Association, spoke via
teleconference to describe the system. Traffic signals have a
device mounted on top that receives a signal from the strobe
light on an emergency vehicle. Unless the preemption device is
very high end, the user will have a strobe light on their
vehicle that is visible to police and others.
He referred to page 1, line 6 of the original bill and noted
that the original bill addressed both users and people that
possess a traffic preemption device.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS thanked him for pointing that out and said
his staff also pointed that out. In the proposed CS, Sec.
11.56.825 addresses both possession and use.
MR. TYLER then answered Senator Hoffman's question about other
traffic control situations saying this only works at
intersections that have a red/green control light. The strobe on
the emergency vehicle turns that lane green and all the other
lanes red so the emergency vehicle has control of the
intersection. If more than one vehicle with a strobe is at an
intersection, the vehicle that arrived first has control. The
idea is to create a safer environment at the intersection not to
clear the intersection so you can go through at top speed.
MR. TYLER said he would like to ask Mr. Michel a question. It
was his understanding that the CS would include city buses as a
local decision, but that wasn't done. He noted that air quality
and DOT grants were available to expand these systems and the
Municipality of Anchorage was interested. With regard to
including buses, he explained that the system is actually a two-
tier priority system so that fire and emergency vehicles would
always have priority over a bus or other maintenance vehicle.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS stopped Mr. Tyler to say page 2, line 3, the
definition of an emergency vehicle excludes buses so he wasn't
sure what he was asking.
MR. TYLER replied the municipalities wanted buses to be included
because of the funding that is available if buses are part of
the system.
His final comments were to advise that wreckers and vehicle
removal equipment wouldn't have access to traffic preemption
devices and that he too finds some radio station advertizements
to be distracting.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS said the issue Senator Cowdery raised was
whether the vehicles that move the traffic cones to direct
traffic after an accident would have the preemption devices. He
understands Mr. Tyler to say they would not be included.
MR. TYLER repeated he understands vehicle wreckers would not be
included.
SENATOR COWDERY asked how school buses fit into the picture.
MR. TYLER said they don't fit in the picture. Municipal buses
were the only buses discussed.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Mr. Michel to step forward and clarify
the following:
· The definition of official capacity.
· Are vehicles that put out cones to divert traffic included?
· The issue of enforcement
· Buses
MR. MICHEL dealt with Senator Cowdery's question first and told
members that the vehicles that put down and pick up traffic
cones don't use traffic preemptory devices so they don't need to
be addressed in the bill. They were considered and the decision
was that it wouldn't be safe for those vehicles to use
preemption devices.
He asked if buses were the next issue.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS replied Mr. Tyler from the Alaska Fire Chiefs
Association asked the question about buses.
MR. MICHEL read Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities from page 1, line 15, and said, "Under there I would
see a bus being a vehicle of that public facility and
therefore..."
CHAIR GARY STEVENS told him that refers to the state agency so
it wouldn't include municipal buses.
MR. MICHEL said, "Okay."
SENATOR HOFFMAN said he thought the testimony was that buses
should be eligible to carry the devices, but emergency vehicles
would take precedence in the two-tier priority system.
MR. MICHEL agreed.
SENATOR HOFFMAN added Mr. Tyler's point was that the agreement
was that buses were to be included, but that didn't happen.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if he was talking about the definition
on page 2, line 3 and that it doesn't include buses.
SENATOR HOFFMAN said, "He's saying there should be another
section in here that buses are included, but they do not preempt
emergency vehicles."
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Mr. Michel if he knew why Mr. Tyler
wanted to include buses.
MR. MICHEL replied, "The best way to describe it is you're
trying to get traffic to flow as easily as possible and by
civilians using these traffic preemption devices - they can
disrupt traffic patterns because all these lights are timed. As
a bus using it - that's a bus filled with 50 people instead of
50 cars so that helps facilitate traffic flowing."
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if that means that a bus would be able
to use a traffic preemption device at any time along its route.
MR. MICHEL said, "That is correct sir."
CHAIR GARY STEVENS observed that might raise havoc in Anchorage.
MR. MICHEL suggested a different approach might be better.
Emergency vehicles were established as the primary group to use
the devices and exemptions were listed subsequently.
Perhaps, he proposed, clarifying how the buses work is in order.
"In other states, buses are allowed to use car pool lanes,
allowed to go through right turn only lanes. So this would just
be another way for a bus to use traffic to facilitate
transportation."
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if he had any other clarification. He
then noted Senator Cowdery had a question.
SENATOR COWDERY said he would like to clear the constitutional
problem of possession before the bill was heard again.
SENATOR HOFFMAN added the wording should be, "possession with
intent to use."
CHAIR GARY STEVENS commented the idea is sound and good
intentioned, but a number of questions were raised and he didn't
intend to move the bill that day. He asked Mr. Michel if he had
any more comments.
MR. MICHEL replied he would address the questions next time.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS said it was his intention to hear the bill
next week if the schedule permitted. He thanked Mr. Michel and
held SB 255 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|