Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/17/1995 01:22 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 48 - MOTORCYCLE SAFETY Number 130 REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE, sponsor of HB 48, introduced the bill. He said it is basically a clean-up bill addressing an inconsistency in statute. Sponsor statement: "The federal highway safety act, ISTEA, requires each state to adopt a mandatory helmet law. The penalty for noncompliance in the first year (FY95) is 1.5 percent of federal transportation funding which must be transferred from the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOTPF) to the 402 fund for safety, training, and enforcement. In October 1994, (FY95) $2.6 million was transferred to the 402 fund. Each year thereafter for the remaining four years of the act 3 percent will be moved. Depending on whether the act is fully funded by the U.S. Congress, $5.2 million will be moved to 402 each year. Over the life of ISTEA the total would be approximately $23.5 million. "During the summer and fall of 1993, the state's Attorney General's office, in an attempt to bring Alaska into compliance with ISTEA mandates, issued an opinion supporting the state's ability to mandate the use of a helmet for motorcycle operators. The opinion's argument revolved around the use of `singularly licensed to drive a motorcycle.' Although the opinion has been withdrawn, this is a new interpretation of a statute that has been on the books since 1976, and is contrary to legislative intent and current enforcement policy. "To address this, HB 48 clarifies the statute to ensure that some of these funds would be used for improving motorcycle safety, a motorcycle safety program would be established under the Department of Public Safety (DPS)." REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted that he would be proposing two amendments. Number 180 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked how this would impact the federal funds that we would receive for mandating helmets. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE answered that it does not impact the current status quo one way or another. The passage of this legislation would not cause us to lose any more money, nor would it cause us to garner any more money, though there are attempts at the federal level, to take the blackmail clauses out of the ISTEA legislation. REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY was concerned about the clause giving the Department of Public Safety the authority to enact regulations regarding motorcycle helmet safety standards. He recommended the committee adopt a standard, rather than passing it on to an agency to go through the administrative procedures and take 90 days or 6 months to adopt regulations, which may end up being regulations that we do not want. Standards would be fairly easy for us to adopt. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE answered that concern had been raised in the Transportation Committee as well. According to the testimony given by the DPS, it was understood that those standards are currently on the books. What this language would require is to go through yet another administrative process to reimplement those regulations, thereby inflicting a fiscal note. The attempt here was to, in one way or another, have the fiscal note removed. To do that, we would take out Sections 1 and 2 of the bill. It is at the will of the committee whether or not to make that decision. Number 250 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY clarified that he was referring more to adopting regulations as to what makes a safe helmet. In Section 3 we would be a whole lot more free to adopt a standard. We do not need to repeat the efforts of agencies in testing motorcycle helmets. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted it is his understanding that the department has those types of standards and there are national standards that helmets in this state must comply with, that have been established through various federal procedures. REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked if the updating of new helmet standards would be affected by this bill. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE answered that this does not have anything to do with changing those regulatory standards of the helmet itself. This has to do with updating the statute to reflect the practice of endorsements for motorcycle drivers, versus having motorcycle drivers singularly licensed to operate a motorcycle. That is the question this legislation is addressing. It is not in any way, shape or manner, changing the standards for helmet safety, or for the type of helmet. Number 310 REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN asked Representative Brice to explain it one more time. AS 28.35.250 says a person who is an adult does not have to wear a motorcycle helmet. What is different about that in (b) on page 2? He could not tell the difference between the bill and existing law. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if Representative Finkelstein was referring to a memo from Deborah Boyd, dated September 28, 1993. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said yes he was. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that memo gives an inaccurate citation (AS 28.35.250). The concern should be AS 28.35.245 (b). What they are saying is that the person is the holder of a license which, under regulations, is classified as a license to operate only a motorcycle. The department had made the interpretation that if you are singularly licensed to operate a motorcycle, meaning you can operate a motorcycle but no other type of motor vehicle that would require a license, then you are required to wear a helmet. That flies in the face of a state policy that has been implemented since the inception of this statute, which currently says if you are endorsed to drive a motorcycle, and you are over 18, then you are not required to wear a helmet. The department, in an intent to say that they had substantially complied with the ISTEA requirements of having helmet laws in the books, stated that, if you are singularly licensed you are not required to wear a helmet but everybody else is required to. The fact of the matter is, the state almost provides endorsement now; we do not singularly license anybody to operate motorcycles. MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law, said she was representing Governor Knowles who supports this legislation and asked that it be passed, especially without an amendment to subsection (b), which would require helmets only for those under the age of 18. The Governor believes that it is inappropriate for government to intrude itself on every decision made by persons in the state, and that whether to wear a motorcycle helmet or not is a matter that should be left to the judgment and responsibility of an individual. Number 395 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked why we do not just put the motorcycle helmet standard in the statute, and save a lot of trouble and expense of writing regulations. MS. KNUTH answered that they already have a standard set out in regulation that was adopted some time ago. The reason why is because the standards change with increased technology, and with what we learn from traffic accidents. If it were set out in the statute, we would have to come back and ask for it to be amended regularly, to keep up with new information. At this point the standard is what is required by the federal government. There is a uniform standard. Regulations are typically easier to amend than statutes, at least historically they have been. Even though there is a process and expense, it is not as great as that involved in legislation. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE suspected there is a national organization that tests motorcycle helmets, and that with their information, the Department of Public Safety would formulate standards. Number 480 LEE ANN LUCAS, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, spoke in support of HB 48 without the amendment to delete Section 2. She said they do have existing regulations that are broad enough to provide for the licensing and certifying of those programs. They currently have a program in Anchorage which provides motorcycle training. Alaska Bikers Advocating Training and Education (ABATE) currently has an application in to begin providing for a commercial driving school for motorcycles. MS. LUCAS explained that they had a 3.9 thousand dollar fiscal note for the adoption of motorcycle regulations. If Section 2 was deleted, that fiscal note would be zero. She said the department feels it does and can cover programs, as they have been. Number 500 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if motorcycle passengers were required to wear helmets. MS. LUCAS answered that their current regulations do provide for equipment for riders. A person operating or riding upon a motorcycle on a public roadway is required to wear a helmet. Persons 18 years of age or older are not required to do so, under statute. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE clarified that current statute says if you are riding off road, in other words, dirt biking, you are required to wear a helmet regardless of your age; and if you are a passenger on a motorcycle, you are required to wear a helmet. This will not affect that either way. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move Amendment One, dated 3/16/95. The amendment would make the following changes: Page 1, line 1: Delete "motorcycle safety and to" Page 1, lines 4 - 7: Delete all material. Page 1, line 8: Delete "Sec. 3." Insert "Section 1." REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN objected and asked if public testimony was complete. VICE CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if anyone else wished to testify. There was a person on the teleconference network waiting to speak. SCOTT HAMANN, Legislative Representative, ABATE, said they support the amendments deleting Sections 1 and 2. He said they were not too worried about Section 3, because the national standards are so bogus anyway. They do not mean anything to us. They only test helmets at 12 miles an hour. They are really not in the real world anyway, so we are not too concerned about that. He urged passage of the bill. VICE CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was objection or discussion on the amendment. Hearing none, Amendment One was adopted. CHAIRMAN PORTER returned. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated he would not object to the bill, but did have great hesitancy on it. He remembered the great debate on mandating seatbelts, and the argument that maybe it was not in the best interest of our citizens. He said that death records since then show that it is in the interest of our citizens. He did not think it would be out of line for the state to look into these matters, and he was not convinced the case has been made that requiring helmets would save lives. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY made a motion to move CSHB 48(JUD) with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes out of committee. Seeing no objection, it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|