Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 106
03/05/2005 09:30 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB127 | |
| HB121 | |
| HB12 | |
| HB114 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 127 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 114 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 12-TVS AND MONITORS IN MOTOR VEHICLES 10:28:40 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 12, "An Act relating to televisions and monitors in motor vehicles." 10:29:12 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG presented HB 12 as sponsor, and he said the bill increases the penalties for driving a motor vehicle while watching a television or video monitor or any such screen that is in the vehicle and produces entertainment or has business applications. He said the legislation also makes it a criminal offense to install such a device that is capable of being viewed by the driver while the vehicle is moving. Exceptions include global positioning systems and map displays. It is now a traffic violation, he said. Under HB 12, violating this law will be a class A misdemeanor if the driver is not involved in an accident where someone is injured, a Class C felony if the driver has an accident that injures someone, a Class B felony if the driver has an accident where a person suffers a serious injury, and a Class A felony if the driver has an accident causing a death. A person who installs the device can be fined a minimum of $2,500, he told the committee. 10:31:35 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said HB 12 would make Alaska the second state to have such a law. He said the legislation is the result of an accident that killed two close friends of his. Watching a video is different from talking to someone in the car or using a cell phone, he said, because a person cannot keep his or her eyes on the road while engaged in this activity. 10:34:33 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked about passengers using video cameras with monitors. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said this applies to the driver of the motor vehicle. 10:36:08 AM CHAIR SEATON asked him to clarify. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he doesn't think it would be considered a video signal. 10:36:48 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked if the bill addresses moving vehicles only. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that on page 1, line 6, the language is "drive". 10:37:32 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS mentioned a past employee of his who had a car accident because of a radio that was loud, which he said could have lessened her visual acuity. There are other sensory distractions, he said. 10:39:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that would possibly be considered negligent or reckless driving. He said he offered the legislation because watching a movie is so much more dangerous than a loud radio; it's a violation of law "per se." He added that the penalties he has offered could be up for discussion. 10:41:15 AM CHAIR SEATON noted that in a previous bill a civil fine was reduced from $5,000 to $3,000 because the lower amount was easier to impose. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recollected that that was an administrative civil penalty that was low enough that a right to a jury trial was not open to a defendant. This is in criminal statute, he said, and anyone would have a right to a jury trial. 10:42:58 AM CHAIR SEATON said cell phones now have video screens. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that cell phones with video screens are not exempt; the law won't depend on the size of a screen. 10:44:31 AM CHAIR SEATON asked if it is only applicable if the driver is watching the screen, not just talking on a phone that has a video screen on it. 10:46:06 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the key word on page 1, line 6, is "watching". "If you are watching it, then you're guilty," he said. "We want the people to have their vision unimpaired," he added. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated her understanding that it's not that the driver's vision is impaired, but the driver's attention is distracted "in such a way that they are not attending to the visual requirements of operating a moving vehicle." 10:47:13 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that is correct. CHAIR SEATON said the committee might want to clarify language which now might disallow a videophone from being in a car because it is "capable" of being seen. 10:49:16 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO suggested inserting: "that is visible from the driving position," so a person could have a cell phone in a holster. Car radios now have "wicked displays that wiggle and tilt, and if you look at it to tune it, you might be committing a violation, but you don't have to look at it," he added. 10:50:43 AM CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony. DAVID WEISER said he is the eldest son of Bob and Donna Weiser, who were killed in a head-on collision on the Seward Highway in 2002. He said the committee is aware of the charges of second- degree murder of the other driver, alleging that he was watching a DVD movie, but he was acquitted of all charges. He said the incident brought national attention to the issue of driving while watching TV. 10:54:37 AM MR. WEISER said this legislation is at the vanguard of laws, and it is apolitical. "What sane individual makes the argument that they should have the right to watch a video while driving? What corporate interest argues against severe penalties for violating the inherent safety features they design into their own products?" he asked. He added, "You have the power to prevent for others the kind of upheaval our family has suffered in the wake of an acquittal of all charges against this particular defendant." 10:55:06 AM CHAIR SEATON said he doesn't think anyone on the committee opposes the bill; they just want to craft it solidly so that there are no unintended consequences. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked Mr. Weiser if he is aware of any legislation that addresses this issue anywhere. 10:56:59 AM MR. WEISER said there is legislation "without teeth." In California it is patently illegal to drive with full motion video visible, but the fines are only about $75, he said. There is legislative effort in South Florida, Connecticut, and Michigan, he said, and he appreciates the attempts of the committee to bulletproof the bill. He said that Alaska has the opportunity to set a trend. 11:00:00 AM DEBORAH JILLY, Acting Chief, Section of Community Health and Emergency Medical Services, Division of Public Health, Department of Health and Social Services, said the intent of HB 12 is to prevent motor vehicle accidents and pedestrian injuries by giving law enforcement agents the authority to cite drivers who are viewing entertainment devices. She said, "45 to 56 percent of all crashes in the United States involve factors where the driver of a motor vehicle is distracted or inattentive." A study in 2002 found 22 percent of the causes that led up to a crash were the result of dealing with technology in the vehicle, such as cell phones, beepers, navigation devices, Internet, email, radios, and music players. The National Center for Statistics listed driver inattention as the primary factor for nearly 7 percent of fatal crashes in Alaska in 2003. She said vehicle manufacturers are improving technology to minimize distractions to drivers from in-car video systems, but there is still a need to improve the safety technology. 11:03:53 AM MS. JILLY said consumers can purchase and install devices themselves and bypass safety recommendations. She said it is possible to use a laptop computer to watch a movie or rig a vehicle's map display to play movies. 11:05:46 AM CHAIR SEATON asked if the purpose of the bill is only for video signals, because the use of laptops by the driver does not seem to be included. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it did not, and he would consider a friendly amendment which does include laptops. 11:07:18 AM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if it would it be a double offense to install the device and then get in accident while watching it. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered yes. 11:07:58 AM BONNIE GODFRED, Anchorage, said she followed a driver in Anchorage who was the sole occupant of a vehicle, and the driver was watching a movie while driving 60 miles per hour. A dealer who installs videos in vehicles told Ms. Godfred that Alaska is one of the few states that does not require a switch that turns off such a screen while the vehicle is in motion. She "whole- heartedly" supports HB 12. 11:10:40 AM JANNA STEWART, Criminal Justice Planner, Department of Public Safety, Anchorage, said the department submitted a fiscal note suggesting changes in the way the four different levels of offenses would be broken out. The bill is drafted the way numerous statutes are, she said, and it can cause problems when putting criminal history records together; however, the department is not prepared to suggest a wholesale redrafting of numerous other criminal statutes, so it will withdrawn its request. She said the problem is only a technical one. The department does not have a problem with the substance of the bill and does not want to hold it up. 11:11:40 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that Ms. Stewart referred to a fiscal note prepared by the Department of Public Safety in February. He said he had extensive conversations with Ms. Stewart, and her concern was related to the offenses described on page 2, lines 18-25, which technically should be in separate sections. To do so would be a better fit with the Uniform Offense Citation Table, but the Department of Law pointed out that there are a number of statutes that are written like HB 12, and the state plans to look at all the laws at once. 11:15:03 AM MS. STEWART said it may be too complex to fix, and the department will submit a revised fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked about a driver watching a movie while the vehicle is parked with the motor running. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted again that line 6 specifies "drive". 11:17:17 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that the title uses the term "operating" instead of "driving". He suggests adding wording to disallow a device from being viewable, since it may be difficult to prove a device was being watched. CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony. 11:19:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [moved to adopt Conceptual] Amendment 1, as follows: Page 1, line 4: Delete "Operation of" Insert "Driving" 11:19:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected and asked about a driver who was stopped at a traffic light. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that would be considered driving. 11:20:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said that when the vehicle is in gear, a person is driving, but when the vehicle is in park, a person is not driving. CHAIR SEATON said this definition should be clarified. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed with Representative Gardner. 11:21:46 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO removed his objection to Conceptual Amendment 1. CHAIR SEATON announced that, there being no further objections, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. 11:23:19 AM CHAIR SEATON suggested discussing the use of computers while driving, which would not be prevented under the current bill. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said the term computer is used for many things, and he added that a person can use a computer as a [Global Positioning System (GPS)]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG proposed adding computers on line 6. 11:24:43 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said there are computers operating many parts of cars, so the committee needs to be careful in crafting the language to include just entertainment devices. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO suggested the language should not mention computers because some cars have 100 within them. He said the issue is screens that are distractions when viewed. 11:26:17 AM CHAIR SEATON questioned whether a video monitor includes a laptop screen, and suggested including a laptop computer. 11:27:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said the language should simply talk about the distraction of a device that can be viewed. CHAIR SEATON said he agrees, but using examples will help the courts and the general public. 11:28:12 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER [moved to adopt] Amendment 2, which read: Page 1, line 9: Between "applications" and "." Insert ", which would visually distract the driver, but excluding those necessary for safe operation of the vehicle" 11:30:25 AM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved an amendment to Amendment 2, to remove the word "safe". REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she had no problem with Representative Lynn's suggested amendment to Amendment 2. The committee took an at-ease from 11:31 p.m. to 11:33 p.m. 11:33:24 AM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN withdrew his amendment to Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, which would change Amendment 2 to read: ", which would visually distract the driver, but excluding those used in the operation of the vehicle". He explained that a person could have a GPS that is not necessary, but is used in operating the vehicle. CHAIR SEATON announced that Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 2 was adopted without objection. 11:35:06 AM CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection to Amendment 2, as amended. There being none, it was so ordered. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Representative Gatto if he wanted to "insert somewhere in there, devices that are visible or intended to be viewed." REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said yes. 11:36:33 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said her the intent of her amendment had been to include such devices. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said there are many things that could be listed as distractions to a driver. Many of them are allowed, like tuning the radio and picking up lipstick, and the committee can't include them all. He indicated a preference for language related to things that can be viewed, rather than a list of distractions. CHAIR SEATON clarified that the discussion is a conceptual one to decide whether or not to include distractions other than television broadcast or video signals. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said Representative Gatto is talking about devices and he suggested inserting "Devices that are visible or intended to be viewed by the driver" in front of the word "which". 11:41:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that that language is in the previous part of the sentence. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said laptops don't fall into the broadcast category, so it should be added before Amendment 2. CHAIR SEATON reminded the committee that this is all one sentence. 11:44:27 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the laptop is the signal, but also people might be watching what they are typing. REPRESENTATIVE Gruenberg moved Conceptual Amendment 3, as follows: On page 1, line 9: Between "applications" and [the adopted Amendment 2, as amended] Insert "devices that are visible or are intended to be viewed by the driver" CHAIR SEATON interjected that the sentence is getting rather long. He said he is trying to figure out where the committee is going with all this language. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said a person could be typing on a laptop and watching his/her fingers. He reiterated that [Conceptual] Amendment 3 would include, "devices that are visible or are intended to be viewed by the driver". CHAIR SEATON objected to Amendment 3. He clarified Conceptual Amendment 3. 11:46:24 AM CHAIR SEATON asked if anyone had any objection. [He treated his own objection as being withdrawn.] He asked if there was any further objection to Conceptual Amendment 3. There being none, Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted. 11:48:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he believes that will cover the telephone screen. CHAIR SEATON said he would like to get the intent of the sponsors regarding cell phones. He said, "This is talking about the device; it's not talking about what you do with the device. Because it doesn't say the driver looks at it, it says that the device is intended to be viewed." 11:49:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the word in line 6 is "watching", and the only time a person will be penalized is if he or she is watching the screen. He asked if anyone still has a problem with the word "watching". 11:51:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he does, unless it says "capable of watching". CHAIR SEATON said a cell phone is capable of being watched; users may not be watching the video on that cell phone, but they may be talking on it. 11:52:41 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO clarified that Representative Seaton is saying cell phones without screens would be okay, while others would be disqualified. 11:53:06 AM CHAIR SEATON said a mounted device needs to have a locking mechanism while the car is being driven, but there are also portable devices. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO stated that is the crux of the issue. 11:55:33 AM CHAIR SEATON said he doesn't know "where that leaves us." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said there is no definition of "watch" in Black's Law Dictionary. Webster's defines watch as "to look at or observe attentively and usually continuously," which is not what we want. 11:56:54 AM CHAIR SEATON said HB 12 will not be moved today anyway. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG read a thesaurus that lists the synonyms for watch. 11:58:25 AM CHAIR SEATON said drafters can figure out the words to use, and then he turned to the question of installed systems versus non- installed systems. The bill doesn't address portable battery- powered players, he said. 11:59:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said "My intent ... is not to criminalize, in this section, a person who just lays his laptop on the seat. Here, we're talking about the people who do permanent installations." CHAIR SEATON asked if Representative Gruenberg thought the laptop concern is covered in the other section. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered, "Right." CHAIR SEATON moved Conceptual Amendment 4, as follows: Page 1, line 7: After "monitor," Insert "laptop-type computer," 12:01:47 PM CHAIR SEATON announced that Conceptual Amendment 4 was adopted, but the sponsors would be welcome to change "lap-top" to "portable". 12:02:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to feedback from Representative Gatto and Chair Seaton, confirmed that both "watching" and "intermittently watching" should be included. 12:04:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO stated concern that some attorney could argue that a person has to occasionally look at his/her gas gauge, for example. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that this might not be the easiest law to enforce. He added that the point [of concern] is that someone may be watching a device to the extent of being distracted from driving, and he suggested language to address that. 12:05:09 PM CHAIR SEATON asked the sponsors to work out the wording outside of committee. [HB 12 was heard and held.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|