Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/30/1998 09:27 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL 11
"An Act relating to driver's licensing; and providing
for an effective date."
Senator Torgerson MOVED to ADOPT SCS HB 11(FIN) ("\H"
version, 4/24/98) as a working document before the
committee.
Senator Adams OBJECTED for discussion.
JEFF LOGAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN, SPONSOR,
explained the \H version CS. He reviewed changes that had
been requested from drafters:
· Section 1. No changes.
· Section 2. One change, page 2, line 2, now says that a
person accompanying a permittee shall be 21 years old.
The previous version said 22 years old.
Mr. Logan detailed that 21 years was the lowest age that
could be put into the bill to qualify for the federal
funding needed to implement it.
· Section 3. Goes through AS 28.15.055 and AS 28.15.057;
previously 057 included a nighttime driving
restriction, which has been deleted from the \H
version.
· Page 3, line 5, which allows the department through
the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to require that a
person who has had six points in a 12-month period to
attend a driver-improvement course. He noted a
technical change on page 3, line 7; the word "court"
should be replaced with the word "department."
Senator Torgerson turned to page 2, line 30, related to the
improvement course. He queried the definition of "traffic
law" related to conviction of violation of traffic law. He
noted exemptions in statute under the same section.
JUANITA HENSLEY, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, listed examples of offenses that would apply:
· A speed-racing contest; 10-point violation
· Fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer; 10-
point violation
· Failure to stop at a school bus while the red lights
were flashing; 6-point violation
· Speeding three to nine miles per hour over the limitl
2-point violation
· Careless driving; 4-point violation
Ms. Hensley explained that anything not specified in the
legislation that was an actual moving violation (driving a
car) would be a 2-point violation, and any equipment
violation such as a non-functioning headlight or broken
windshield was a traffic violations, not a moving
violation. She noted that the bill would not require a
driver-improvement course unless the violator received a
"point-able" offense made when a vehicle was being driven.
Senator Torgerson pointed out that the language spoke to
any conviction of "traffic law." He queried the difference.
Ms. Hensley replied that parking offenses were not
considered traffic violations.
Senator Torderson was concerned that a person could have a
4-point violation, then have a tail light out and be
required to go through a course. He wanted the requirement
to be for traffic violations. Ms. Hensley responded that a
person who had a speeding violation of 4 points and then
received a citation for a tail light would still have only
4 points; an inoperative tail light was zero points. In the
statute, if a person received two citations as a result of
one traffic stop, they would only be assessed points for
one of the violations.
Senator Torgerson turned to page 2, related to a driver's
course certified by a national organization. He asked
whether more than one course would be approved by the
department. Ms. Hensley replied that national organizations
had programs that they developed with extensive research.
For example, the National Safety Council had courses that
were nationally approved and designed strictly for certain
age groups. The AAA Foundation had nationally recognized
and approved courses available that worked. Another
approved program was an American Association of Retired
Persons (AARP) course. The Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
had criteria such as a given number of hours spent reading
material, watching film, and lectures; there was no way of
showing that the programs did not reduce recidivism of
traffic offenders, while some of the nationally-recognized
programs had the information and could show that recidivism
would be reduced.
Senator Torgerson asked whether driver education courses in
schools were nationally recognized. Ms. Hensley answered
that the schools usually put a nationally-recognized
curriculum together. She stated that the division would
evaluate the curriculum and plans for a correspondence
course for locations that did not have National Safety
Council instructors available.
Senator Torgerson questioned whether the DMV had the
authority to reject a national organization's
certification. He was concerned about whether programs put
together outside Alaska were appropriate for Alaska. He
thought the state should have some say. Ms. Hensley replied
that before a course was approved and put on the list, it
would have to be put together and all the information
compiled and submitted to DMV; DMV would review the
materials and make an determination as to whether the
criteria was followed.
Senator Torgerson turned to page 2, line 9 stating that the
department could issue a provisional license. He questioned
the use of the word "may" rather than "shall." Ms. Hensley
answered that the DMV did not want to get into a situation
where it was required ("shall") issue a license if a person
failed the test.
Senator Adams thought the measure would put more
restrictions and regulations on the public. He pointed to
Section 2 and asked how much funding would be collected
from the federal government to increment the program. Ms.
Hensley replied that the DMV had applied a couple years
prior and received a grant for $77,000 to implement a
driver licensing system; the fiscal note also reflected
revenue of $163,000 coming in for licensing as well as the
$77,000 federal grant received.
Senator Adams voiced concerns related to rural Alaska.
According to page 3, lines 11 to 13, the department could
suspend, revoke, or deny a driver's license for a person
who failed to successfully complete the driver's
improvement course required by the court; he asked how a
person from Nooksack in rural Alaska could get the course.
He wondered whether division personnel would go to
Nooksack. Ms. Hensley replied that the division had and
would be approving more correspondence courses for
locations without the course. Unless a person went to
Bethel to take a behind-the-wheel driving course, they
would be issued an "off-systems" driving course and only be
allowed to drive in that community. A person who went to
Bethel and took a driving test could be issued an
unrestricted driver's license. The division did not want a
person without training on highways to drive in big cities.
Alaska did not require an instruction permit and did not
have driver education programs in the schools.
Senator Adams stated that he was not convinced that there
was need for the legislation except for the $77,000 more in
federal funds that would be received. He did not think
there was a need because of safety issues. Ms. Hensley
replied that Alaska's youth between the ages of 16 and 20
comprised 6.9 percent of the state's licensed drivers, but
were involved in 28 percent of the state's fatal crashes.
She noted that the grant was a demonstration grant, and the
state could show that the type of program would work.
Statistics in other states showed that the program reduced
the number of fatal crashes and the number of violations
issued in the age group; hopefully insurance rates would
also be reduced.
Senator Adams noted that he had a son who would be affected
by the legislation. Other members agreed that they had
children who were lobbying against the bill.
Senator Phillips asked whether the statistics given
regarding the 16 to 20 age group were broken down in rural
versus urban areas. Ms. Hensley replied in the negative.
Co-chair Sharp wished there was a way to direct more severe
limitations on those who caused crashes. He thought
preventative education was the appropriate approach.
Co-chair Sharp clarified that the CS had not been adopted.
There being no OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Senator Phillips MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1:
Page 3, line 7:
Delete the word "court" and insert "department"
There being no OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was adopted.
There was discussion regarding whether the amendment was
Amendment 1 or Amendment 2 [conclusion unclear].
Senator Phillips MOVED to REPORT SCS HB 11 (FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the attached
fiscal notes.
There was an OJBECTION. A roll call was taken on the
motion:
IN FAVOR: Phillips, Donley, Sharp, Pearce
OPPOSED: Adams, Torgerson
Senator Parnell was absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (4/2).
SCS HB 11(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with no
recommendation and the attached fiscal note by the
Department of Administration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|