Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/11/2002 09:47 AM House RLS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 222-REQUIRE SLOW DRIVERS TO PULL OVER CHAIR KOTT announced that the next order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 222(FIN), "An Act relating to certain motor vehicles that are required to yield to following traffic." The committee took a brief at-ease from 10:06 a.m. to 10:10 a.m. Number 1002 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to adopt Version 22-LS0611\X as the working document. There being no objection, Version X was before the committee. SARA WRIGHT, Staff to Senator Dave Donley, Alaska State Legislature, presented SB 222 on behalf of the sponsor. Ms. Wright explained that current Alaska regulations prohibit traffic traveling slower than the posted speed limit with a line of five or more vehicles [behind the slow driver]. Therefore, SB 222 places this regulation in statute and raises the fine from $30 to $100. With the cooperation of the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities it increases signage informing motorists of the existing regulation. MS. WRIGHT turned to Version X, and informed the committee that Senator Donley doesn't support Section 2, which was added by the House Finance Committee. She noted that the Department of Public Safety is present to answer questions with regard to Senator Donley's opposition. Number 1076 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired as to the difference between Version T and Version X. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER related his belief that the difference is the reference to traveling at a speed five or more miles below the speed limit. CHAIR KOTT specified that the difference between the two versions is encompassed in Section 1(b). Number 1114 JULIA GRIMES, Lieutenant, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), testified via teleconference. She turned to Section 2 and asked whether the sponsor's intent is to merely eliminate the double fines if someone exceeds the reduced work zone speed limit, or is the intention to automatically restore the originally posted speed limit when no workers are present in the work zone. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER answered with his understanding that it's an attempt to eliminate double fines and return the zone to the normal speed limit when no workers are present in the work zone. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ surmised then that this exemption from double fines would only apply to this violation. Number 1231 ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), related her belief that Section 2 doubles the fines for violations in work zones. This amendment would limit the violation to cases in which workers are present. Therefore, there is concern with regard to long work zones. She posed an example in which one is speeding at mile one - where there are no workers - but there are workers at mile three; she asked whether the [double fine] would apply. She expressed the need for clarification on that matter. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE noted that much of the road work is done in the summer, which is a high traffic time. Furthermore, the roads are often in bad shape and traveling the regularly posted speed after the work zone may still place the driver and others in danger. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER pointed out that there is another law, the basic speed law, that covers such situations. One may never go faster than the conditions of the road or circumstances allow, no matter the posted speed limit. This [section] merely refers to the double fines and thus all [other] violations that may or may not occur remain in effect. Representative Porter said that clarification could be achieved by inserting the following language: "workers present anywhere in the area that is posted". Number 1329 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that often work/construction zones have posted speed limits for the zone itself. From his experience, proving that workers were present invites another component of proof for the prosecution. There is a wide variation in regard to what "present" means. Therefore, he suggested tying the double fine to something like the presence of equipment. REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN recalled his time working in road construction, and noted his agreement with Section 2 [as specified in Version X]. He stressed the need to drive slow and pay attention in construction zones. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE mentioned that laws such [as double fines in work zones] serve as a deterrent. Such laws caution people that there will be increased penalties for violations in construction zones. Number 1506 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE inquired as to how the public would know when people are working in the construction zone. In order to utilize this exemption, will it be necessary to post work hours, he asked. MS. WRIGHT said that according to the Alaska Traffic Manual Supplement, signage won't be placed where conditions don't warrant and thus are removed or covered when [unsafe] conditions cease to exist. CHAIR KOTT posed a situation in which one is driving a motor home on a highway in rural Alaska with a posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour (mph). If the motor home is traveling at 55 mph and there are five vehicles behind the motor home, would the motor home be required to pull over. MS. WRIGHT replied no. Number 1611 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING remarked that keeping Section 2 would potentially result in a less safe situation because it makes [the double fines] applicable when workers are present. Therefore, he surmised that elimination of Section 2 would result in a higher standard, and therefore safer conditions. Representative Kohring moved the following conceptual amendment: Page 1, line 2, Delete "and to fines committed in highway work zones" Delete Section 2 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING highlighted that the deletion of Section 2 doesn't eliminate the double fines because that is currently in law. MS. WRIGHT, in response to Chair Kott, agreed that the aforementioned conceptual amendment is consistent with the sponsor's intent. CHAIR KOTT asked if there was objection to the conceptual amendment. There was no objection, and therefore the conceptual amendment was adopted. Number 1740 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ returned to Section 1, and noted that he is a bit perplexed by the 5 or more miles per hour below the posted speed limit. He posed a situation in which there was a 55 mph speed limit and there is someone driving at that speed. He recalled that with radar guns there is a 10 percent buffer. Therefore, if someone is pulled over for traveling 50 mph in a 55 mph zone, it would seem that the speed would be within that 10 percent buffer. Representative Berkowitz characterized that as problematic from the proof perspective. He expressed the need for a more discretionary way of phrasing [the violation]. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER remarked that he believes Representative Berkowitz is confusing law enforcement tolerances with the law. "The law enforcement tolerance has to be based on the law in the first place," he said. Therefore, he suggested leaving the law as it is. Number 1810 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to report HCS CSSB 222, Version 22- LS0611\X, as amended out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS CSSB 222(RLS) was reported from the House Rules Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|