Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/08/2002 01:45 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 295 - PROHIBIT CELL PHONE USE WHEN DRIVING Number 0360 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 295, "An Act relating to prohibiting the use of cellular telephones when operating a motor vehicle; and providing for an effective date." Number 0438 REPRESENTATIVE KEN LANCASTER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, offered that HB 295 will help ensure the safety of Alaska's roadways by limiting the use of cellular telephones ("cell phones") in motor vehicles to only "hands-free" units. He remarked that new technologies are available for hands-free cell phones, and indicated that HB 295 encourages the use of those type of units in motor vehicles. He remarked that AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., is giving away a hands-free unit with every cell phone that it sells, and that there are mechanisms with which to convert a car radio into a speaker for a cell phone, thus turning a regular cell phone into a hands-free unit. He suggested that encouraging "non-use" of [regular] cell phones will save lives, adding that "everyone must share the road, and we all share in the safety concerns of others." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to subsection (c) [of the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 295, version 22-LS1176\F, Ford, 2/11/02 ("Version F")], which says, "'cellular telephone' does not mean a citizens band radio". She noted that a lot of people - for example, those in the trucking industry - depend on citizens band (CB) radios, and asked why using a cell phone is different from using a CB radio. REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER said that he did not know that it is any different; however, HB 295 is not attempting to limit the use of a technology - such as that for CB radio - that already has a commercial use established. He mentioned that the types of CB radios that he was familiar with had the capability of being used in a hands-free manner, and he is assuming that the same is true of modern versions. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER, acknowledging that using a cell phone while driving can be distracting, noted that handouts in members' packets list several other types of driving distractions: things outside the vehicle, other occupants, adjusting audio equipment and climate controls, eating and drinking, to name a few. He pondered whether, while the legislature is attempting to limit cell phone use and thereby the distraction caused by such use, some of those other types of distractions ought to be regulated as well. Number 0611 REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER alluded to the synopsis of a study conducted in England that indicates that there is: Some kind of a factor that enters into your thought process as you get focused on your phone call. You actually get more than distracted versus reaching for the cup of coffee or [something else in the vehicle]. It's a different thought process that goes along with trying to concentrate on what somebody is saying on the phone and what your answer or response may be; and apparently the cell phone is the ... largest distracter of all of them. And so, ... apparently this study ... proves that point, that the cell phone is more distracting than any of the others. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER, referring to a chart produced by [the National Accident Sampling System (NASS) Crashworthiness Data System (CDS)], noted that cell phone use is one of the least distracting of all of the distractions listed. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she agrees that cell phone use can be distracting, and noted that although she has no difficulty talking and ending a call on a cell phone while driving, if she has to dial a number while driving, she simply pulls off to the side of the road to place the call. She mentioned that she has noticed that many drivers have their car stereo systems playing so loudly that she cannot see how those drivers can concentrate on anything else. She remarked that if she were to choose which type of driving distraction to target first, it would be the distraction of playing a car stereo system too loudly, rather than using a cell phone. CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that a few years ago he sponsored legislation prohibiting loud vehicle sound systems, but it did not pass. He then requested an explanation of the differences between Version F and the original HB 295. Number 0854 JUSTIN CARRO, Intern to Representative Ken Lancaster, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, explained that Version F includes a provision allowing cell phone use during an emergency, for the reporting of a crime, or during the performance of duties by emergency services personnel. Also, Version F specifies "driving a motor vehicle" instead of "operating a motor vehicle" - this change allows drivers who have pulled off to the side of the road to use a regular cell phone - and that the term "highway" has been changed to "public roadway" so that more areas are included. And, as Representative James noted, Version F contains language specifying that a "'cellular telephone' does not mean a citizens band radio". Version F also contains a provision allowing the fine to be waived upon the completion of a driver safety education course; this provision recognizes the need to educate society. In response to a question, he confirmed that violation of this proposed law would result in an infraction. Number 0919 REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 295, version 22-LS1176\F, Ford, 2/11/02, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version F was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH, noting that it appears that Congress is looking to implement similar restrictions nationally, asked whether it would be beneficial to "do it before they require us to do it." MR. CARRO said that the last he'd heard, that proposed federal legislation "wasn't going to really go anywhere." He opined that if similar federal legislation is proposed in the future, it would just be in addition to a state law, should HB 295 pass. REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH said he is interested in knowing why the proposed federal legislation didn't pass, and what the reasoning is behind having the state adopt HB 295 - whether there are statistics that show what "this distraction" is actually causing, in terms of accidents in Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER said that for him it is strictly a safety issue, and remarked that while driving around in his community - the Soldotna-Kenai area - he has seen a number of "people off in the ditch," for example, because of inattention while driving and talking on the cell phone. He also relayed that insurance companies now prohibit their employees from talking on their cell phones while driving, unless it is a hands-free unit, because of accidents and costs associated with insurance claims from those accidents. REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH again asked whether there were any statistics that led to the development of HB 295. "'The sky is falling' scenario doesn't work very well with me; I want to see a reason why we're doing this," he said. Number 1045 MR. CARRO said: There are no specific Alaskan statistics because we don't collect them, but they have changed their reporting forms to reflect it now, so those statistics will be available in a few years. But as far [as] ... national statistics go, ... using cell phones usually result in one of two things: either failing to stop and striking something, or swerving out of their lane and causing an accident to [indisc.] vehicle. But the liability for negligence, if it causes an accident -- for example, one suit cost a driver $3 million when there was a death involved. And there are between 500 and 1,000 fatalities each year, nationally, related to driving with a cell phone. And for each of those accidents, there are 660 more accidents happening which involve damage to property, ranging anywhere between ... $300 and $65,000 per year - total - with an average cost of $37,000 in damages per accident. Eighty five percent of the people surveyed in a national survey said they use a cell phone while driving, and that results in roughly 75 million people a day talking on their phones while they're driving - nationally - which adds to a large number of distractions. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked what the increase has been in the "national GDP [gross domestic product] labor productivity" due to those 75 million people using their cell phones. He said he suspects that "it'd be pretty significant." REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER countered, "I'd suggest that one life isn't worth that." REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH asked whether a person violating this proposed statute would be charged with reckless driving. MR. CARRO said: "It would be a fine above and beyond normal reckless driving" and specifically targets cell phone use. In response to another question, he said that there would not be a point deduction for this particular violation. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES remarked that dialing a phone number while driving, not simply talking on the phone, creates the main distraction; therefore, since even with a hands-free unit a person still has to dial a phone number, he/she would still be distracted. She mentioned that not everyone can be expected to get a voice-activated unit. CHAIR ROKEBERG suggested that Congress's delay in passing this type of legislation stems from a desire to wait until the technology for voice-activated units improves and becomes more available. Number 1339 MARY MARSHBURN, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Department of Administration (DOA), testified via teleconference. She said that use of cell phones falls into a category that the DMV calls distractive driving, and the overall field of distractive driving is driver inattention, during which the driver doesn't sufficiently address the factors for safe operation of the vehicle - primarily because his/her attention state is limited. Some of the things that go into distractive driving include what is known as "looked but didn't see," in which the driver has some sort of flawed visual surveillance; inattention - preoccupation with competing thoughts; or internal distractions such as turning to referee the kids fighting in the back seat or turning to look toward the passenger. Compounding all of these are the technological advances that have taken place in the auto industry - compact disk (CD) players, DVD players, navigation aids, and electronic seat adjustments - all of which contribute to distractive driving. MS. MARSHBURN said the issue of what effect cell phones have on driving has received national attention: specifically, whether they increase the risk of crashes and, if they do, what should be done about them. She relayed that according to the information which she has read, there are a number of states that have begun to look at this issue. What has come across, however, is that there is an almost universal lack of statistics, mostly because, since the use of cell phones is a fairly recent phenomena, accident reports hadn't connected cell phone use to an accident by saying that a person was using a cell phone at the time. She explained that currently, Alaska does not have any such statistics; however, the accident report has been modified, and so those statistics will be available in the future. MS. MARSHBURN pointed out that the national effort has been geared toward education and data collection, rather than the passage of laws. Anecdotally, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) information reports and reports gathered from other states indicate that in terms of distraction, using a hands-free cell phone is no better than using a hand-held cell phone. The problem with using a cell phone is two fold, she said: one, the driver is physically removing his/her hand from the steering wheel, and second - and more important - is the fact that the driver, in order to have a conversation, must be actively engaged - it is an interactive process - unlike simply having one's thoughts wander off the task of driving. Therefore, when it comes to the distraction that is posed cognitively, that occurs regardless of what type of cell phone is used. MS. MARSHBURN concluded by saying that the fiscal impact of HB 295 on the DMV would be minimal; using a cell phone while driving would simply be added to the list of violations, and the driver safety education course offered as an alternative to paying the fine is already available on-line. Number 1587 DAVID HUDSON, Captain, Administrative Services Unit, Central Office, Division of Alaska State Troopers (AST), Department of Public Safety (DPS), testified via teleconference, confirming that with the updated motor vehicle collision report forms, it is now possible to collect data regarding cellular phone usage. He explained that there are currently three [laws] which could be utilized when a person's driving behavior becomes erratic, or causes an accident, because of cellular phone use. He said those three [laws] are: reckless driving - [AS 28.35.040]; negligent driving - [AS 28.35.045]; and driver to exercise care - 13 ACC 02.545 - which says, "Every driver of a vehicle shall exercise care to avoid colliding with a pedestrian, an animal or another vehicle", and which is generally used in cases of driver distraction, as was recounted by Ms. Marshburn. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that there is a difference between those laws and HB 295 in that HB 295 could be applied even in situations in which a person is not driving erratically; law enforcement officers could issue tickets to persons that are simply seen holding a cell phone to their ear while driving. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Captain Hudson whether observing someone applying makeup while driving would give him cause to stop that person under the aforementioned laws. CAPTAIN HUDSON said that if he saw someone applying makeup while driving, but the person was driving at a safe speed in a straight line and not creating any hazardous conditions, he would not pull that driver over. Number 1812 MARK LOSCHKY, Regional Director, External Affairs, AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., testified via teleconference, and said that AT&T Wireless respectfully opposes HB 295. He said: We understand that driving safely is the first priority when operating a motor vehicle, and for that reason AT&T Wireless has been promoting safe and responsible driving for several years. We have developed and continue to provide tools to encourage safety and responsibility as our customer's first concern when operating a motor vehicle. MR. LOSCHKY noted that his company produces a handout that provides safety tips pertaining to the use of cellular phones while driving, adding that the handout did not, however, specifically reference voice-activated units. He briefly mentioned some of the features available and soon to be available with cellular phone products. He offered AT&T Wireless's belief that education and the strict enforcement of existing traffic laws are the best way to encourage drivers to remain focused on the road. He said that he is unaware of any statistics indicating that simply requiring hands-free units will increase safety. He mentioned that none of the reports referred to in his company's handout recommend mandating the use of hands-free devices, and that states which have conducted studies on this issue have not found statistical justification for adopting a hands-free requirement. He, too, noted that the [NASS CDS] chart indicates that of the many types of driver distractions that contribute to accidents, cell phone use makes up only a small portion of the total; thus he surmised that the hands-free requirement is not warranted. Number 2065 ROGER BURNS testified via teleconference in opposition to HB 295. After noting that he is an amateur radio operator, he opined that there will always be drivers who are easily distracted from the task of driving; that education and improved technology - and increasing familiarity with that technology - are key factors to eliminating problems caused by cell phone use; and that having a conversation on a cell phone is just as distracting as having a conversation with a passenger. He suggested that the committee should not pass HB 295. Number 2121 MARY ANN PEASE, Vice President, Corporate Communications, Alaska Communications Systems (ACS), testified via teleconference, and said that ACS is a strong advocate of cellular phones being used responsibly. She elaborated: While we do not oppose HB 295 - we realize that safety is a very key issue - we do hope that you take note of some of the instances where this bill could pose some problems. As Representative Meyer stated ..., cellular phones are just one of the many distractions, and we've been hearing about some of those distractions from many of the people that testified here today. Pulling over to place a call is a safe practice, and one that our customers, we hope, use. It is just one of the many safety tips we provide to our customers, and there are numerous other safety tips that are out there and are available. But you know there are other sides to cellular phone use as well, and many times cellular phones have come in and been true savers when it come to an emergency situation. So even though there are some negatives associated with them being used irresponsibly, there are the responsible users of cell phones that have provided safety and health and emergency service, and others, that would not have been available without the use of cellular phones. Every single one of the cellular phones that ACS sells today ... come equipped with a hands-free-type device - more like a headset - that can be placed on the phone and used, and it's available at very nominal prices; sometimes they're even given away with the phone as part of an offering. The hands-free kits are also available; they are slightly more expensive. It's when you get into the issue of truly voice-activated cellular phones that you're talking about phones that are slightly more expensive - they are available on the higher model cars - and are also limited in the choices that are being offered by a "cell company." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether there is a difference in the accident rate between "hand-held and [hands-free] use of cell phones." MS. PEASE indicated that she is not aware of any statistics that show whether there is such a difference. She noted that hands- free units are not truly hands-free. "You still have to use the pad on the phone to place your call; the only time it's hands- free is when you're responding to the call or you're talking on the phone," she added. CHAIR ROKEBERG said that that was not necessarily true, noting that the unit in his car has voice recognition. MS. PEASE replied, however, that that type of voice recognition system is one if the high-end vehicle options. She noted that the hands-free, voice-activated unit available from Motorola, Inc., is not that state of the art with regard to its voice recognition and is sometimes difficult to use. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ remarked that even that system is somewhat expensive. Number 2273 JOAN PRIESTLEY, M.D.; Associate, Assembly of Learning and Health (ph), testified via teleconference, explaining that her organization is devoted to increasing the public's education and awareness of certain issues. She said that she wanted to speak in opposition to HB 295 on behalf of both herself and her organization. She, too, spoke of the [NASS CDS] chart, saying that that chart illustrates information obtained from a study that examined 5,000 accidents over a four-year period. She said that this study concludes: "Distracted drivers who crash their vehicles are more likely to have been engrossed in changing a CD, eating a hamburger, or quieting a toddler than by using their cellular phones." She continued: They found that [29.5] percent of distracted drivers said that some other distraction - something outside the car, or other problems - caused them to crash, ... and only 1.5 percent blamed their cell phones. And [these statistics] seemed to be age related: those under 20 were most likely to be adjusting the radio or CD player, drivers 20 to 29 were most likely to be distracted by other passengers, senior citizens were most likely to be distracted by something outside the car. Now, there are also unintended benefits and unintended burdens, I think, imposed by this legislation. The burdens, unfortunately, are going to be borne by the public. This is an infraction, which is not punishable by jail time, but infractions can turn into misdemeanors, if I'm correct, if people do not show up for their court date, and now you have a warrant out for someone's arrest for using a cell phone. You're going to punish this by a fine of up to $300 per incident, and I believe there is other legislation raising the limit to $500. We have to be very clear that what this legislation does is criminalize an innocent act. The trooper [Captain Hudson] wisely said that there is ample legislation already covering the minority of people who demonstrate irresponsible use of a cell phone, just as they could demonstrate irresponsible use of [an] eyelash curler while they're driving down the road. But if this legislation goes through, people don't need to be driving irresponsibly or negligently or recklessly; all they need to be doing is using a cell phone. So I hope you're clear that this legislation adds a new [section that criminalizes an otherwise innocent action]. TAPE 02-45, SIDE B Number 2390 DR. PRIESTLEY continued: I should tell you I spoke to one of the men who run one of the driver's safety courses in Anchorage, and he said that they are doubling [the] price of a driver safety education course partly, not completely, but partly in anticipation of a large influx of people having to take this course in order to avoid their fine because of this cell phone legislation. I also have a couple of other studies for you out of Europe. A study from London demonstrated that, I quote: "Drivers who listen to fast music in their cars are twice as liable to have an accident as those listening to slower tracks." And this summary also says that previous studies have shown a link between loud music and dangerous driving. And I will send you these other separate packets. So, my question is -- actually my second point is: Where does this stop? The next thing will have to be, eliminate cell phones entirely, eliminate radios, eliminate passengers, eliminate cigarette smoking in cars - eliminate virtually anything which causes a distraction. And I should tell you, even as a physician, I caused a car to swerve from lane to lane a while back because I reached over to change the radio, and I acknowledge that. So radios, I think, are just as suspect as cell phones.... One more point about these ... other studies: some other people have said, "Who benefits from this?" And what they found was, when they followed the money, ... that the insurance industry ... - sometimes through several layers of organizations which trace back to insurance industries - [has] actually been the "funders," sometimes to a large extent, of some of these other studies. Why? Because the insurance industry will benefit from both ends. If you eliminate a minor distraction, which will decrease the accident rate however small [a] proportion, that's that many fewer payouts - claims - the insurance company has to make. Number 2295 DR. PRIESTLEY said: And I do have a question for you because the wording is vague in the bill itself: It simply will impose an infraction, but when [we] go and read the statutes related to infractions, there may be points involved also. So, are you going to give someone points on their license for merely using a cell phone, which can jack ... insurance company rates to the point where the people will forego their insurance and become an uninsured driver? And I think that's a potential public health problem that is an unintended ramification of this legislation. And my final thought is, ... I personally think that this is an intrusive and restrictive [piece of] legislation; it ... represents the government acting as the "nanny state" ... in a place where [we have] ample legislation to already cover people who will misuse the privilege of using a cell phone while they're driving a car. I don't think that this kind of legislation is appropriate for a state that has had such a strong tradition of individual freedom and privacy. And I personally believe that this legislation really demeans the level of competency and responsibility that you impute to the public.... I would suggest respectfully that this bill needs to die a dignified, quiet death in this committee. Thank you for your time. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked Dr. Priestley whether she believes that cell phone use provides a benefit from a "safety/emergency standpoint." DR. PRIESTLEY said: Absolutely. We all know what a tremendously unforgiving climate we live in up here; cell phones are a survival tool. You can never ban cell phones in this state. Just for safety reasons, it cannot happen. If you have points attached to someone's license for the mere instant use of a cell phone, without causing damage or driving recklessly, it's going to up their rates - that always happens. And I'm concerned that we're going to have more uninsured people who might later be involved in an accident, where they would have no coverage. Number 2161 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that he gave his daughter a cell phone because of its safety benefits, relaying that she was able to use it to get police assistance during an instance when some men tried to run her off the road while she was on the way to work early one morning. CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the committee would hold HB 295 [Version F] over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|