Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 17
03/17/2011 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation by the Alaska Railroad Corporation | |
| HB95 | |
| HB62 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 95 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 62 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 95-SEAT BELT VIOLATION SECONDARY OFFENSE
1:58:32 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 95, "An Act making failure by certain persons
to wear a safety belt when operating certain motor vehicles a
secondary violation."
1:58:37 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:58 p.m. to 2:01 p.m.
2:01:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, stated that
HB 95 would retain the seat belt law, but would make it a
secondary offense so law enforcement could not just stop someone
for not wearing seat belts. She offered her belief that seat
belts save lives but the safety statistics have increased for
reasons other than enforcement of seat belt laws.
2:02:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BERTA GARDNER, Alaska State Legislature, stated
that she supports mandatory seat belts and seat belt use. She
related that her sister had a serious head injury. She also
lost a friend's 16-year-old who was thrown own of a vehicle.
She also gave her children a standard speech of what was
expected of them, including her insistence that they wear a seat
belt. This is not about seat belt use she said. This is an
issue that brings out a "libertarian" streak. She does not want
the intrusion. She agreed adults should wear seat belts but she
does not think adults should be pulled over because they have
not chosen to wear seat belts.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated that this bill would allow
Alaska to join 18 other states with seat belt use as a secondary
violation. This would disallow an office to pull a driver over
for the sole reason of not wearing a seat belt. A driver could
be cited for not using his/her seat belt, but must be pulled
over for some other reason, such as for speeding. She
highlighted reasons law enforcement officers should not be
allowed to pull drivers over for seat belt use, including
harassment, invasion of privacy, or a lack of logic since seat
belts are not the cause of a crash. One main reason the primary
offense should be repealed is due to the lack of evidence to
suggest that after issuing tens of thousands of citations
whether any seat belt use has increased as a result of
enforcement. If the goal is to save lives, that goal has been
accomplished through education and technology.
2:05:38 PM
BRANDON BREFCZYNSKI, Staff, Representative T. Wilson, Alaska
State Legislature, stated that Seat Belts Save lives. The goal
is to increase seat belt use but the current law that allows law
enforcement officers to pull over a vehicle when the occupants
are not wearing seat belts has little effect on seat belt usage
[slide 1].
2:06:38 PM
MR. BREFCZYNSKI reported since 1997, seat belt use has increased
from 59.6 to 86.8 percent, which represents a 27.2 percent gain
[slide 2]. Approximately 90 percent of the seat belt use
occurred prior to the enactment of the primary seat belt
enforcement law, which was enacted May 1, 2006 [slides 2-3].
MR. BREFCZYNSKI asked how seat belt used increased. He asked
whether seat belt use increased due to technology, education, or
enforcement. He provided a review of the facts. Technology has
had an effect on seat belt use, in particular, due to enhanced
seat belt alert systems [slides 4-7]. He explained the seat
belt technology evolution. He related that from 1974-2002,
manufacturers installed a seat belt warning and buzzer, which
remained on from 4-8 seconds to remind occupants to buckle up.
From 2003-present, manufacturers have enhanced seat belt alert
systems. The reminder will ding periodically from 5 to 9 minutes
until the driver buckles up [slide 8]. In 1974 the Congress
passed legislation making seat belt alarms mandatory, which was
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
Standard until 2003, which was not very effective [slide 9].
MR. BREFCZYNSKI reported in 2002, the NHTSA administrator urged
auto manufacturers to voluntarily install buckle up reminder
systems or enhanced seat belt alert systems (ESBAS). Studies
showed Ford and Honda conducted studies that showed a five to
six percent increase in cars equipped with the ESBAS,
respectively. By 2003, the ESBAS became the industry standard
[slide 10].
2:09:28 PM
MR. BREFCZYNSKI referred to a graph showing the seat belt use in
Alaska from 1997-2006 [slide 11]. He pointed out the spike in
2003, which he related to the prevalence of the ESBAS. He
referred to the next slide to Enhanced Seat Belt Alert System in
Vehicles - 2003 [slide 12], noting that Ford and Audi were 100
percent compliant in 2003. From 2001 to 2003 seat belt use
skyrocketed in correlation with the ESBAS, he said [slide 13].
He asked what could account for the 3.6 increase in seat belt
use after the primary enforcement law was enacted [slide 14].
Alaska saw a decline in seat belt use by .8 percent [slides 15-
16]. In 2007, the Alaska State Troopers received a grant, the
safety belt performance grant, which designated $162,415 on seat
belt media education. The goal was to raise seat belt use from
82.4 percent in 2007 to 84 percent in 2008.
2:10:46 PM
MR. BREFCZYNSKI referred to a graph that shows the seat belt use
in Alaska from 1997 - 2010 [slide 17]. He related the graphs
indicated a 3 percent gain in seat belt use during 1997-2001,
prior to the primary enforcement law and when the old technology
use was in effect. From 2001-2006, prior to the pre-primary
law, seat belt use increased by 20.6 percent. He focused on
2006-2010, to the timeframe in which the primary enforcement law
was in effect. He related that a 3.6 percent increase in seat
belt use happened during the media education campaign. The
sponsor believes that education accounted for the increase in
statewide seat belt use, which was almost 1 percent more than
the AST projected goal [slide 18]. Growth in seat belt use has
been steadily increasing. In 2009, seat belt use increased by
1.2 percent and in 2010, it increased an additional .7 percent
[slide 19]. He turned to seat belt citations [slide 20]. In
May 2006, the primary seat belt law was enacted. The Department
of Public Safety claimed that the increase in seat belt
citations issued would only last four to six months [slide 21],
plus it would be a "no-cost way to increase seat belt use by
Alaska's citizens."
2:14:23 PM
MR. BREFCZYNSKI reported that what happened instead is the seat
belt citations increased dramatically between 2006-2010 compared
to citations issued from 2003-2005 [slide 22]. Thus, the rate
of citation issuance has not decreased. He referred to the
number of seat belt citations issued [slide 23]. He explained
that after primary seat belt enforcement, seat belt use
decreased for one year by .8 percent. From 2008-2010 a slight
increase of seat belt use occurred or about 1.46 percent
increase. The greatest increased seat belt use correlates with
the trends set by the technology advancements and the public
education prior to primary enforcement commencing [slide 24].
Currently, over 45,000 citations have been issued since 2006,
but pulling over drivers has had little to no effect on overall
statewide seat belt use [slide 26]. He asserted that public
education and new technologies have had a significant impact on
drivers and overall seat belt use in Alaska [slide 27].
2:15:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON thanked car manufacturers who
implemented enhanced seat belts, which was not required by the
federal government. She pointed out initially people were able
to disconnect the warning systems but that is no longer possible
as most vehicles won't start. She said she would like to
research to find out how many drivers use seat belts without the
enhanced technology installed in their vehicles. She related as
people buy newer cars that the issue would resolve itself.
2:17:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked whether it would be more effective
to address the point of sale and to ensure that no car should be
sold without the technology.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered that people drive what they
can afford to use. She said she hears constituents say that
they used to wear their seat belts but government cannot tell
them what to do. She offered her belief that education is a
large factor in people using seat belts.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT clarified that his suggestion should be
limited to and directed at new cars sold. He offered his belief
that the bill should not apply to any car sold, but only to new
vehicles.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered that maybe the state could
offer an incentive such as an exemption from vehicle
registration fees.
2:19:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN referred to the handout titled "Seat
belt legislation in the United States." He said he noticed the
top four states in usage of seat belts are states with primary
enforcement laws. Each of them list over 96 percent usage,
noting Hawaii has 97 percent compliance. Of those with
secondary enforcement only Nevada has reached 90 percent seat
belt usage. He related he understood the point that primary
enforcement may not be an effective way to use seat belts, but
the chart shows otherwise.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON offered her belief that some states may
provide more education, may be in states with higher income, or
people may have newer cars.
MR. BREFCZYNSKI pointed out that the largest increase since
primary enforcement has been in effect is 2.5 percent, which
coincided with the ASHO's media campaign effort. The primary
enforcement had little or no effect on seat belt use, he said.
2:21:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked how it is possible to determine
or separate out what had an effect on seat belt use.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON offered her belief that it would have
been helpful to have ongoing education rather than several short
media blitzes in one year. She pointed out that law enforcement
officers can write tickets all day long and people still speed,
even though the fines are $200 to $300. She related her
understanding if penalties alone worked that people would not
continue to break the law. She hopes education and technology
would encourage seat belt use. She related she received a call
from a constituent that a law enforcement officer was sitting at
the end of road with binoculars so he could stop people who were
not wearing their seat belts. Others have reported that the
primary enforcement has been used as a "fishing expedition" to
stop drivers suspected of drinking. She stressed that was not
the point of the law, which is to save lives. She thought the
state should fund what appears to be working and should use
overtime for distracted drivers rather than seat belt law
enforcement.
2:23:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related that two arguments were
advanced by the joint prime sponsors. He stated that in the
legal sense, the presentation makes a "but for" argument. The
argument being used is that the law went into effect in 2006 and
the use of seat belts went down slightly. Therefore, the seat
belt law isn't working. The primary stop isn't working.
However, the presentation has not shown that the reason the seat
belt use went down was due to the fact the primary stop law was
in effect. He said the sponsor and sponsor's staff was not able
to make a causal connection between the reduction in seat belt
use and the fact that the primary enforcement law passed. He
offered his belief so many other factors exist that he has not
been convinced that the facts isolate the causal connection or
any lack of causal connection. He reiterated the argument is
that the primary enforcement law is ineffective as the rate of
seat belt use has diminished.
2:26:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that it is not possible to
determine whether the law had not passed whether the seat belt
usage would have gone down faster or further. There is not any
direct relationship. He was unsure of how to demonstrate that
but perhaps polling could identify reasons for using or not
using seat belts. Secondly, aside from the cop at the end of
the neighborhood, the issue raised was that writing a citation
for not wearing a seatbelt represents invasion of privacy.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled similar arguments were made in
committee at the time the primary stop bill was passed. People
did not want to be pulled over, but they did seem to mind if
they were ticketed so long as they were pulled over for speeding
or some other reason. However, they objected to being cited
solely for not wearing a seat belt. However, to counter the
argument, it is important in criminal law when the goal is to
change peoples' behavior, that the law be stable. He related
that if the laws changes every few years people become confused
and the rate of compliance will go down. If it is legal this
year and illegal next year, and legal again in the third year,
the public cannot keep track of the law. He cautioned that the
legislature must be fairly careful in traffic laws and
reiterated the importance of stability.
2:29:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON referred to the statistics, to the
first instance of increased seat belt use. She stated that very
little education happened and the only time seat belt increased
significantly was with technology. She said what is driving
this bill is her belief that police officers should be
addressing dangerous driving, drinking and driving, speeding,
shootings, and robberies, but not ticketing drivers who are not
wearing their seat belts. She related that many of the grants
were solely targeting people not wearing seat belts. Police
should ensure that people are safe walking the street. She
thought putting effort into reducing drinking and driving or
speeding would have a greater impact on fatalities than citing
for lack of seat belt use. She disagreed that this bill would
confuse the public since not wearing a seat belt would still not
be legal. Law enforcement needs focus on offenses that cause
more accidents such as distracted drivers.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked Anchorage also has a law that
requires police officers to give parking tickets since Anchorage
no longer has meter maids. The Municipality of Anchorage will
be considering a proposition which would repeal that and allow
lower paid people to write parking tickets. He offered his
remarks as an extreme example of what she is saying. He said,
"I don't like that law."
2:31:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN recalled the first time he rode in a
vehicle equipped with seat belts, and they were only in the
front seats. He wondered whether any information was available
on the number of vehicles currently on the road without seat
belts.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON related her understanding that a person
cannot be written up if seat belts are not equipped in the
vehicle. She stated that truck drivers less likely to buckle
up. She related that the future vehicles will all have
technology in place.
2:33:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ expressed concern for young drivers. She
asked whether she had any percentages on the percentages young
drivers under the age of 18 or 19.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON stated that many laws are targeted for
ages 18-24. She responded that she was not able to get a
breakdown on seat belt usage by age group. She speculated that
young people may be using used cars without technology
enhancement.
2:34:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked which organizations were in support
of HB 95.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON related her support has been from
citizens. She did not solicit support from specific
organizations. She recalled one dealership and the AARP.
2:35:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE observed that technology has had a great
effect on overall increase. He also thought some effect may be
due to the education of younger drivers commencing in 2000. As
the young drivers move to driver population, the seat belt use
probably increased. He pointed out the goal is to have a high
percentage of people using seat belts. He referred to the
handout on seat belt legislation, referred to earlier. He asked
whether she had calculated the average use of primary versus
secondary enforcement. Informally, he noted that the overall
average percentage is higher in states with primary enforcement
laws. He offered his belief that it would all be speculation as
to how it would work in Alaska. He said it does seem that
primary enforcement makes an effect. He pointed out that one
state has a $200 fine with an increased seat belt use. He asked
how many convictions have occurred for primary offense. He
offered his belief that one advantage of the primary enforcement
is that it becomes a tool law enforcement can use as a pretense
for pulling someone over. He said he trusts law enforcement to
use their instincts and this would offer them one more tool.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON responded that over 45,000 primary
enforcement citations have been issued for seat belts. She
stated that police officers were paid overtime as part of grants
the state received. She was unsure how much grant funding will
be available. Her biggest issue has been that these types of
laws try to change behavior. She offered her belief that not
imposing a secondary offense for not using ones seat belt takes
the premise out that a person was stopped solely for not using
his/her seat belt. She pointed out that the statistics do not
indicate what other offenses the person may have been cited for
such as drinking while driving.
2:39:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related that out of 31 states with
primary law enforcement, 12 states had over 90 percent
compliance with seat belt use. Of the 18 states that had
secondary enforcement, none of them were over 91 percent, and
one had 66 percent. She said if our goal is to have people use
seat belts, that it is better to have a primary enforcement law.
Those not buckling up might be angry they received a citation.
She agreed she did not know how many people of the 45,000 were
cited solely for not using a seat belt. She related her
understanding that a law is a law and if a person does not obey
it the person should receive a citation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said, "Or you change it." He pointed out
the statistics for New Hampshire, which has no seat belt law is
not much worse than Arkansas, which is a primary enforcement
state. He stated that New Hampshire's seat belt use is 69.2
percent and Arkansas has a 70.4 percent usage, but is a primary
enforcement state.
2:41:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON pointed out that Alaska has limited
resources with respect to AST. She offered her belief that
should be part of the discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled prior discussion on a cell
phone bill. He specifically recalled when a concern was raised
that people would be cited with using their cell phones while
driving, the department suggested the person may be issued a
warning. He asked for clarification on whether initially law
enforcement would issue warnings instead of citing for the
secondary enforcement offense of not using a seat belt. He also
asked whether any research has been done on that aspect.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON related her understanding that warnings
are not normally included in law enforcement statistics. She
related that the 45,000 figure represents the actual number of
citations issued. She pointed out the number that cannot be
substantiated is the number of drivers who were stopped because
they were not wearing their seat belt, but ultimately were given
a ticket for something else. She offered her belief that once
the driver is stopped, the officer would have the authority to
check for other things.
2:43:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he thought the information may be
available. He related his understanding when a person is pulled
over and a ticket is issued, that due process or probable cause
is identified. He offered an example, noting a driver may be
stopped for not wearing a seat belt but the officer may discover
drugs. He was unsure if the information is available but he
thought the probable cause for the arrest would be stopping for
the seat belt. He observed in an instance in which an officer
stops a person for a seat belt violation but discovers a "real
criminal" that the argument would be a different argument. He
inquired as to whether the information is available. He also
recalled that seat belt use is not identified by people being
stopped, but by people stand on corner watching and count the
number of people wearing seat belts and not wearing seat belts.
He was unsure if the correlation of warnings and percentages of
people wearing seatbelts. He thought the seatbelt information
was probably commissioned by law enforcement, but is simply a
survey that may not be performed by law enforcement.
2:45:04 PM
SUE STANCLIFF, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), related that the department
agrees technology has increased seat belt use. The DPS has
placed a tremendous amount of effort into the education. The
DPS still runs the "Click It or Ticket" media campaign. The DPS
received funds initially to produce the commercial, which is
used during the occupant protection campaigns. With respect to
the statistics, she confirmed that the DPS provided the
statistics, which were taken from court files. The figures
represent citations that were issued by all law enforcement
officers, not just the Alaska State Troopers (AST). In 2010, of
the 7,300 citations issued, only 1,622 were issued by AST. The
remaining 5,800 were issued by other law enforcement officers,
including municipal law enforcement officers such as the
Anchorage and Fairbanks Police Departments. She related that
seat belt citations are not the AST's priority. She stated that
DPS is neutral on the bill. She acknowledged that she
personally uses her seat belt. The law encouraged her to change
her behaviors. She recalled that recently an occupant was
killed in an accident. The officer discovered the person had
buckled his seat belt behind him.
2:49:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the DPS believes the
primary seat belt bill has been effective.
MS. STANCLIFF answered yes. She related that the numbers, the
percentages speak for themselves. She suspected the numbers may
not be high, but it would certainly add to the education and
technology given. She offered her belief that part of the
effectiveness is due to people not wanting to get tickets. She
said that most people comply with state law.
2:50:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the rates in Alaska with
U.S. rates, which some members have cited. He asked whether
part of the reason that Alaska's compliance is due to the
character of most Alaskans as more independent.
MS. STANCLIFF offered her belief that it does change driver
behavior. She explained that is what the education and
technology is for, since it does change peoples' behavior.
CHAIR P. WILSON observed that once the primary seat belt law
became effective everyone was careful. That probably happens.
MS. STANCLIFF agreed. She reiterated that law enforcement does
just that. She said she cannot imagine an AST would have been
using binoculars to apprehend violators.
2:53:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether information on other crimes
is denoted on a ticket at the time the citations are issued.
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander, A Detachment,
Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), said to obtain that type of information would require a
hand search. He reported that most officers will make notations
on the citation as to the reason for the stop and any warnings
issued. The information is not tracked so to obtain the
information would require a hand search of thousands of records
statewide. He concluded that it would not be feasible. He
clarified that binoculars were not used for enforcement, but to
comply with federal grants some officers were required to sit at
intersections to attempt to determine seat belt usage. He
reported in his twenty years of service that he has never known
AST to use binoculars to stop people for seat belt compliance
for citation purposes. The AST does not have the time or the
interest in doing so, he said. In further response to Chair
Wilson, he explained that the in the past the DPS has received
federal dollars dedicated to seat belt enforcement, just as it
has previously received federal dollars for drunk driving
enforcement efforts. The focus for the federal funds is seat
belt enforcement.
LIEUTENANT DIAL related that most of the primary traffic stops
are made for other reasons, not just due to a person not wearing
a seat belt. He explained that the best benefit of the primary
law has been the effect it has on young people who are the
highest risk for collisions. The AST recognizes the effort
needed for young people, he said. Generally speaking, the AST
does not make primary stops for seat belt enforcement. He
recalled from his own experience approaching a vehicle, noticing
a driver is not wearing his/her seat belt, and often giving the
driver a warning on the seat belt issue. He reviewed the
statistics and noted that since 2007 the AST citations have
pretty much dropped in half. He reiterated that the AST
continues to look for seat belt compliance, and provide daily
reminders to drivers. He acknowledged that the AST also derives
a benefit having the ability to stop vehicles for mandatory seat
belt use as a primary offense.
2:58:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether federal money AST receive
affects the trooper's retirement
LIEUTENANT DIAL answered no. In further response to
Representative Johnson he responded that the federal funds do
not affect the "three high years" for retirement calculations.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for clarification on the $1.125
million revenue collected in fines for 45,000 citations.
LIEUTENANT DIAL answered that the fines the department assesses
are deposited into the general fund. He pointed out a $10
surcharge is assessed on each citation, which is deposited to a
training fund for all law enforcement officers statewide.
However, all funds generated by the DPS are deposited into the
general fund. He was unsure of how the municipal police
departments funding is handled. In response to Chair P. Wilson,
he did not know if the bill passed, whether any federal funds
would need to be returned.
3:00:04 PM
BRENDA HEWITT, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF),
explained that Alaska passed a primary seat belt law in 2006,
which made the DPS eligible for $3.7 million. She said the
accompanying language cautioned that it would be improper for
Alaska to accept the funding and not maintain the situation
which established it to qualify. She related her understanding
the Federal Highway Administration could ask that the funds be
returned. She also has heard that the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA-LU) did not specifically address returning the
funds for not enforcing the seat belt law. She said it would be
in question.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his belief that an attorney
general's opinion exists which indicates the state would not
have to repay the funds.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for a copy of the attorney
general's opinion.
MS. HEWITT offered to provide it to the committee.
3:01:56 PM
PEGGY HAYSIHI stated she has been an emergency nurse for 45
years. She is the mother of three children and six
grandchildren. Three grandchildren have been preparing to
learning to drive. She agreed the topics discussed are
important and her grandchildren know it is the law and buckle
up. She offered her belief that the law works in tandem, with
education, enforcement, and engineering. The Centers for
Disease Control and Injury Prevention identified the things that
really affect and change behavior. One component cannot happen
without the other, nor can we equate what one does and the other
two does not accomplish. She reiterated the importance of
education, enforcement, and engineering. She said she can cite
many times that seat belts have saved lives and the non use of a
seat belt has caused the death of a person. Certainly in the
majority of ejections from vehicles, 75 percent die or are
critically injured. These injuries add to the costs of medical
care, insurance policies, and taxes. She pointed out the
primary law is current in effect in 31 states and the District
of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Marianas, American Samoa,
and the Virgin Islands. She related a scenario in which
songwriter and singer Jewel recently survived a crash with a
volunteer fire department fire truck in Texas. She pointed out
that Texas has a primary seat belt law, with a $400 fine for
non-compliance. She highlighted that Jewel's survival has been
credited, in part, due to her wearing her seat belt. She
stressed she has case after case where seat belts have been
credited with saving lives. It is impossible in a 65 mph crash
for a 120 pound person to brace himself/herself. The force
generated from such a crash is 7800 pounds. An unrestrained
object, whether a person, a dog, gasoline, or a bowling ball,
continue in their trajectory and injure or kill drivers and
passengers. She stated that one person not buckling up would
inviolate her personal safety if she is a passenger in the same
car. She expressed astonishment at the discussion and how data
was changed to support the secondary enforcement of the seat
belt law.
3:06:39 PM
GORDON GLASER stated that he previously worked for the State of
Alaska Division of Public Health but is retired. He stated he
is speaking for himself. He commented on the misuse of
statistics and data. The education and enforcement programs
complement one another. The "Click it or Ticket" programs
consisted of providing information that if people did not buckle
up, they would get a ticket. Most people wear seat belts. The
reality is that parents are not with youth all the time, which
is where the role of the police comes in. No one wants to get a
ticket. No parent wants to get the call that their child is
dead. The seat belt law represents protective education. If
youth do not think they will be stopped, they are less likely to
wear their seat belt. It doesn't matter what the theory is
since this represents the actual practice. The federal
government offers grants because it saves money. Approximately
$50 billion per year is spent on motor vehicle crashes. More
than $50 million is due to the non-use of seat belts. He said:
Your theory or freedom of what you choose to use or
not stops when it reaches into my wallet. And the
costs that are involved with people involved in car
crashes without seat belts [are] substantial cost[s]
for medical cost. Even people who have health
insurance, it runs out, it adds to the cost because it
gets switched over to Medicare or Medicaid because it
doesn't cover it. Traumatic brain injury is
phenomenally expensive. All the money that we've
spent in terms of education or police overtime is
relatively cheap in comparison to the cost that we
spend on medical cases for people who are involved in
car crashes. I want to thank you for your time and I
would be happy to answer any questions.
3:09:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG thanked the previous testifiers. He
remarked that this has been very educational.
3:09:57 PM
CORLIS TAYLOR, Manager, Education and Staff Development,
Fairbanks Memorial Hospital; Coordinator, Fairbanks Safe Kids
Coalition, stated that she has more than 30 years of experience
in working in injury prevention. She echoed everything that Mr.
Glaser and Ms. Haysihi stated earlier. Additionally, in her
field practitioners are always looking for effective changes in
behavior. This happens with education, enforcement,
engineering, environment, and emergency medical services
response, which are known as the five Es of injury prevention.
The 5 Es work together to prevent injuries, she said. The State
of Alaska (SOA) has done a lot to protect residents. She said
she testified in 1985 and 1986 when the first seat belt law was
passed, and during the primary enforcement hearings. She
referred to statistics, that Fairbanks has seen seat belt usage
increase from 80 percent to 88 percent, which translates into
the number of people killed and injured. Since passage of the
primary seat belt law in 2006, the unrestrained traffic
fatalities in Alaska have declined annually from 17 in 2006 to
11 in 2010. In 2007, of 56 traffic related fatalities, 31 were
not wearing seat belts, which represent 55 percent. In 2008, of
44 fatalities, 24 were not wearing seat belts. In 2009 of 40
fatalities, 12 were not wearing seat belts. From 2006-2009,
traffic fatalities have declined by more than 20 percent. The
preliminary 2010 figure indicate of 30 traffic-related
fatalities, 11 were not buckled up. This represents a further
decline. Overall the traffic fatalities involving unrestrained
persons have declined from 55 percent in 2007 to 29.7 in 2010.
She offered her belief the decline in overall deaths speaks to
the larger issue, which is that the 5 Es work in tandem in
traffic safety and injury prevention. In response to
Representative Gruenberg, she offered to provide the statistics
to the committee.
3:14:22 PM
PAT LUBY, Advocacy Director, AARP, stated that the AARP
volunteers to teach driver safety courses throughout the U.S.
The volunteers teach that drivers should comply with law, and
they all should wear seat belts. He stated that the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has done extensive
comparative research on primary and secondary enforcement in the
U.S. Lives are saved when a state has a seat belt law as a
primary offense. It not only saves lives, but reduces injuries,
and saves costs in terms of wrecked vehicles and health care
costs associated with accidental injuries. He reported that
Maine also considering changing its primary offense law to a
secondary offense. One consideration Maine has considered is
the cost of Medicaid in vehicle accidents. He also reported the
average Medicaid costs for victims wearing seat belts is
$24,500, whereas the costs for unbelted victims averaged medical
costs of $74,000, or nearly triple the cost per patient. He
recalled that Senator Bunde sponsored a bill in 2006 to make
seat belt violations a primary offense. His intent was public
safety. He offered his belief that no one could accuse Senator
Bunde of being a fan of the "nanny state or big brother." He
wanted to reduce deaths and injuries for Alaskans and visitors
to our state. He based his bill on scientific evidence provided
by the NHTSA. The AARP agrees with his research. It was valid
in 2006 and it is valid today. AARP recommends a no vote on HB
95. In response to Chair P. Wilson, he agreed to provide the
statistics.
3:16:44 PM
DON SMITH, Member, Anchorage School Board, stated he is a former
legislator and also a former administrator of the Alaska Highway
Safety Office (AHSO) for two years. He said it would be a
terrible mistake to pass this bill passes. He is a little
distressed of fact and figures used to make a point. He stated
that a review of the deaths in Alaska preceding enactment of the
seat belt law in Alaska, and for each year since its enactment
will show a significant difference in the number of deaths. He
speculated that probably 250 to 300 lives have been saved in
Alaska. He raised this issue at the school board and all seven
school board members are opposed to this bill being passed. He
said he is a conservative Republican, but he feels so strongly
about this issue. He related that when he was first appointed
to the AHSO he received a call about a wreck on the Juneau
Highway past the airport. He accompanied the federal highway
personnel. He reported the driver, a 16-year-old boy had two
teenage girls as two passengers, but none wore seat belts. The
driver was ejected and killed, one girl was brain dead, and the
other was paralyzed from the waist down. They were just driving
fast, went into a cliff, flipped several times and ended up in
the middle of the highway. He described another accident in
which a woman tried to avoid hitting moose, the unbelted
passenger was ejected and the car rolled over the passenger
resulting in a fatality. This law saves lives, period. "I hope
you'll just put it in the file cabinet where you got it from
this morning and let it stay there for a couple years," he said.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG thanked the testifiers.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked them to send in testimony to make part of
the bill packet.
3:20:43 PM
ROBERT JOHN, Attorney-at-law, stated that he represents a client
who was pulled over for a seat belt violation. He related that
the legal perspective, the constitutional aspect of pulling
someone over is called a seizure. Being pulled over is
typically stressful, the person may be late for work or other
collateral consequences happen. The legislative history
indicated that at the time the mandatory seat belt seat bill
passed, lawmakers anticipated seat belt usage would skyrocket to
90 percent. Testifiers did not think it would not become an
enforcement issue. The exact opposite has happened, he said.
He recalled statistics and stories provided today, which are
valid and important. However, for the purpose of the law, the
real question is whether the primary enforcement law has
increased seat belt usage, which should not be confused with
whether seat belts save lives. It is whether the primary
enforcement law has increased seat belt usage that the law has a
purpose and effect. He offered his belief that the statistics
do not indicate whether the primary enforcement law itself has
caused increased seat belt usage. He pointed out that usage has
increased with education and technology. He noted that usage
went down the first year the law passed which tends to refute
the point. He emphasized this is the Alaska legislature and the
committee should be reviewing how the law has impacted Alaskans'
behavior. He highlighted that if an increase cannot be
observed, but 5,000 to 10,000 Alaskans are being pulled over it
represents a significant number of people whose liberty is
intruded upon. He stated that seat belt usage is going up in
and of itself. No one wants to say people should not be
educated, but if someone is not wearing a seat belt, why should
they be pulled over. An officer could use a bullhorn to advise
the person at a stop light to please put on seat belt. That
would accomplish the goal of increasing seat belt usage. He
advised that in his client's case, the officer testified some
officers are being paid overtime for seat belt enforcement.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related that he is glad to have
testimony. He offered his belief that when someone wants to
pass a bill relating to something which is not working, the
burden is on that person to prove it. He stated that the
legislature does not need to prove the law is working. However,
he noted proof doesn't exist that the primary enforcement is not
working. The primary enforcement not been shown to have any
effect at all on seat belt use.
MR. JOHN expressed his concern that at the time the primary
enforcement law passed, the testimony seems to have been based
on false pretenses, since seat belt usage has not skyrocketed.
He said that the assertion seat belt offenses would not become
an enforcement issue of its own has not been fulfilled. It has
gone the other way and has become an enforcement issue, he said.
He suggested in an ordinary situation the legislature would not
likely reexamine every little aspect. However, if the reasons
for the bill turned out in hindsight to be incorrect, the
legislature may wish to examine whether this law has been
effective, given the number of Alaskans adversely impacted each
year.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked to clarify when she was speaking
of Alaska State Troopers (AST) rather than municipal officers
she was doing so because she lives outside of municipal
boundaries. She acknowledged that the statistics apply to all
law enforcement in the state, not just the AST.
[HB 95 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HTRA Brief 3-17-11 RR Tanana briefing (2).pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 62 Backup - Statute AS 43 52 010 Vehicle Rental Taxes.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 62 |
| HB 62 Supporting Docs - Letter Barry Matteson 2-1-11.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 62 |
| HB 62 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 62 |
| HB 62 Ver A.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 62 |
| HB095-LAW-CRIM-03-11-11.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 95 |
| HB95 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 95 |
| HB95 Statutory Context.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 95 |
| Seatbelt Use Graphed.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 95 |
| Seatbelts and Automakers.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 95 |
| HB0095A.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 95 |
| HB62-DOR-TAX-03-14-11 passenger vehicle rental tax.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 62 |
| HB 95 Summary Page.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 95 |