02/16/2010 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB322 | |
| HB257 | |
| HB8 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 322 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 257 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 16, 2010
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Tammie Wilson
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Pete Petersen
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Craig Johnson, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 322
"An Act relating to winter tires; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 257
"An Act relating to prohibiting the use of cellular telephones
when driving a motor vehicle; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 8
"An Act relating to the purchase of pipe for use in a natural
gas pipeline project under the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 322
SHORT TITLE: WINTER TIRE REQUIREMENTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HARRIS
01/29/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/29/10 (H) TRA, FIN
02/16/10 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 257
SHORT TITLE: BAN CELL PHONE USE WHEN DRIVING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) DOOGAN, BUCH
01/08/10 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/10
01/19/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/10 (H) TRA, JUD
01/25/10 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
02/16/10 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 8
SHORT TITLE: PIPE FOR A NATURAL GAS PIPELINE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CRAWFORD
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) TRA, L&C
02/16/10 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN HARRIS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as prime sponsor of HB 322.
KELLY GAEDE, President
Johnson Tire Service
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint overview and
answered questions during the discussion of HB 322.
MICHELLE HOGAN
Johnson Tire Service
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 322.
BRAD BLYSMA, Equipment Fleet Parts Manager
Statewide Equipment Fleet
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 315.
DIANA ROTKIS, Manager
Statewide Equipment Fleet
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 315.
MARY SIROKY, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 322.
CINDY CASHEN, Administrator
Highway Safety Office (HSO)
Division of Program Development
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 315 and HB 257.
JOHN BITNEY, Staff
Representative John Harris
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 322.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE DOOGAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as prime sponsor of HB 257.
ROY HOYT, JR.
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 257.
KEN ALPER, Staff
Representative Harry Crawford
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Briefly presented HB 8, on behalf of the
sponsor, Representative Harry Crawford.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:50 PM
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:03 p.m.
1:03:56 PM
Representatives Munoz, Petersen, T. Wilson, and P. Wilson were
present at the call to order. Representatives Johansen and
Gruenberg arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 322-WINTER TIRE REQUIREMENTS
1:05:04 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 322, "An Act relating to winter tires; and
providing for an effective date."
1:05:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN HARRIS, Alaska State Legislature, remarked
that the committee would hear two bills today related to safety
issues, one banning cell phone usage during driving, and the
other one requiring the use of winter tires. Both bills are
somewhat controversial since they impose restrictions on
people's activities for improved safety. This bill, HB 322, has
to do with safety.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS explained that he was approached by tire
business owners expressing concern over vehicles being driven in
winter conditions with inadequate or bald tires. He brought the
issue of adequate winter tires forward as one that merits
discussion. Although he is not an expert, he has several
experts to explain the merits of using winter tires on Alaska's
roads. He noted some amendments for the committee to consider.
Drivers can swerve and careen out of control when roads are icy
or during snowy conditions, which pose a safety issue for
themselves and other vehicles on the roadway. He offered his
belief that this issue is worthwhile to discuss. This bill
would require all motor vehicles to have studded tires or tires
bearing the "mountain snowflake" symbol, which indicates the
tires have met certain performance-based standards for winter
driving.
1:08:47 PM
KELLY GAEDE, President, Johnson Tire Service, explained that he
worked for Nokian Tyres, a Finnish tire company that invented
the winter tire in 1936. This company is the expert on winter
driving conditions. He recalled his astonishment to discover
how few people in Alaska drive using winter tires.
1:10:35 PM
MR. GAEDE explained that this bill has a purpose, which is to
create a higher level of safety during the winter driving months
in Alaska. Use of winter tires is not just for snow and ice, he
remarked. He offered that lateral testing, or negative lateral
testing occurs when a driver turns the wheel left or right but
the vehicle does not turn. This is the single highest reason
for traffic fatalities.
MR. GAEDE demonstrated a lateral testing video. He pointed out
the speed at 28 miles per hour (mph). Over 80 percent of all
major winter time accidents are caused by lateral stability
issues, he stated.
1:12:28 PM
MR. GAEDE referred to the video that members just watched and
pointed out that the driver turned the steering wheel but the
car did not turn at all. He explained that when driving with
all-season tires, the tires do not provide feedback to the
driver, whereas when using winter tires they do provide
feedback. Those members that have driven using studded tires
may have felt the vibration of the tires, which is a form of
feedback. In situations with all-season tires on the vehicle,
there is literally no feedback. One controversy which arises in
areas that do not receive much snow is people do not think they
need all-season tires. Approximately all 90 percent of Alaskans
use all-season tires year round [slide 1]. Thus, 1 in 10
Alaskans are driving on tires that are a designated winter
project. He characterized all-season tires as completely
inadequate in all types of winter driving. All-season tries are
manufactured with generic Carbon Black compounding focusing on
mileage. This compounding loses gripping capabilities at 38
degrees by 50 percent. Finland has tested products and
discovered that the pliability of the product is similar to the
table, in that it has likely lost about 95 percent of its
capabilities to grip. At 15 degrees the tire's gripping
capabilities for all-season or summer tires is less than 10
percent. He said, "It is not just about snow. It's also about
the temperature--very, very important to know that. Winter
tires are simple. They save lives."
1:15:18 PM
MR. GAEDE related that winter tires are manufactured with
specific compounds, tread patterns, and advanced studding
systems designed for winter driving conditions [slide 3]. The
winter tire sidewall is designated with the government's "Severe
Service Emblem." Thus, if this symbol is on the side of the
tire, it provides assurance that the tire will be adequate and
is safe for winter driving conditions.
1:15:38 PM
MR. GAEDE, in response to Representative T. Wilson, explained
that the government's "Severe Service Emblem" has been certified
for approximately 15 years. The emblem is on the side of every
winter tire and is a standard also used in Europe. He did not
know which tire companies in Alaska would not be familiar with
the emblem, he stated.
MR. GAEDE, in response to Chair P. Wilson, agreed the emblem is
one that has been adopted by the U.S. Government.
1:16:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether all winter tires have the
emblem.
MR. GAEDE agreed. He related that the industry does not refer
to the tire as snow tires since the tires are not driven only on
snow, but refer to them as winter tires. However, the
statistics support the fact that temperature is a critical issue
in terms of pliability and traction.
1:17:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked how many brands of tires are in
the market.
MR. GAEDE guessed that about 106 manufacturers worldwide
manufacture tires and about 75 of them offer winter tires. He
remarked that every major company is in the winter tire market.
MR. GAEDE stated that winter tires save lives [slide 4]. Winter
compounds remain pliable up to minus 40 degrees, tread patterns
expel snow, slush, and ice away from the driving path. He
highlighted Nokian believes that studded tires provide the
highest level of traction in the most severe winter driving
conditions, such as polished ice. He differentiated the
polished ice from the type of ice that is found on a pond. He
explained that polished ice creates grooves, yet a person could
not actually skate on the ice. Thus, most of the driving on
slippery roads is on polished ice, such as the type of ice in
which a crust on the driveway would turn into ice over time.
1:18:43 PM
MR. GAEDE offered that several designated winter tires already
are sold in the state which can be purchased for year round use
[slide 5]. The average set of winter tires ranges in cost from
$400 to $600. Based on usage, a person would likely need to
replace them every four or five years. Some companies build the
"true four season tire" such as Nokian WR G2, Hankook iPike, and
BF Goodrich. He remarked that about seven manufacturers make
the "true four season tire."
1:19:54 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether the tires are more expensive than
regular tires.
MR. GAEDE answered not necessarily. It depends on the type of
vehicle and the size. He suggested that a person can buy high
performance tire, such as one for a Corvette, which would cost
more. He elaborated that there are ultimate end, mid-grade and
cheaper tires. He characterized the Nokian as high end, the
Handkook iPike as medium, and the BF Goodrich would be slightly
below that quality. He related it as being similar to buying a
car, noting the difference between a Mercedes and a Ford.
1:20:59 PM
MR. GAEDE remarked that it was shocking to discover how many
people do not use winter tires in Alaska. He described a
harrowing experience he had while driving a rental car without
winter tires. He provided statistics. In 2007, 6,635 or 63
percent of all accidents happened during the winter driving
months, including on dry pavement [slide 6]. Approximately 50
percent occurred on ice, either black ice or polished ice. He
stated that 55 percent of 6,635 accidents involved 4-wheel drive
vehicles. He suggested car manufacturers create the impression
that 4-wheel drive vehicles provide traction, but the people in
the tire businesses say, "The only safety system touching the
road is your tires." If someone is using a vehicle equipped
with all-season tires in 20 degree weather, the vehicle will not
have any traction.
MR. GAEDE explained there are many benefits to legislation
[slide 7]. He explained that Finland has 5.3 million people and
performed the most extensive and comprehensive socio-economic
study regarding the mandatory use of winter tires [slide 8].
The results showed an economic and moral benefit to winter tire
use, including millions of dollars of savings in medical and
life insurance costs, personal property, and state and federal
costs associated with accidents.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for an explanation of moral
benefit.
MR. GAEDE responded that this bill will saves lives by reducing
major accidents, keeping people from being in wheelchairs, and
it will be "doing everyone a favor."
1:25:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON offered her belief it is not that
simple. She related that $400 - $600 for a single parent can
represent a hardship. It is enough for single parents to keep
their vehicle running. Additionally, for those serving at a
military base, such as Eielson Air Force Base, that it is not as
simple as changing a tire.
MR. GAEDE stated the data supports the long-term effects of
implementing mandatory winter tire use would save money.
CHAIR P. WILSON commented that some people cannot add $400 to
their budget, especially families with kids. Some people are
living paycheck-to-paycheck, she said.
MR. GAEDE understood. He said it is the biggest objection, but
also the easiest objection, although he does not want to
downplay the significance of the matter.
1:27:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked for the difference between the
cost of good winter tires and the all-season tires.
MR. GAEDE responded that the costs are negligible. Of course it
depends on the vehicle and wheel size as he previously stated,
and while some products are expensive, a mid-range set of all-
season tires is about $500 and about the same cost for winter
tires.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked when winter tires become
inefficient as they wear and whether the tread would need to be
measured.
MR. GAEDE answered no, that he did not think so. Some people
currently drive on bald all-season tires. He suggested that
people should check with their local tire company, who can offer
advice on whether to change the tires or if they are good for
another year or so.
1:28:55 PM
MR. GAEDE, in response to Representative T. Wilson, explained
that the length of time the tire will last would depend on the
manufacturer. Some tires will lose their winter compounding
benefits at 50 percent of the tire wear. Other products, such
as Nokian, retain the winter driving benefits for the entire
length of the product.
1:30:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether any other northern states
have mandatory winter tire requirements.
MR. GAEDE answered no. He said that in 1972, the tire industry
created the concept of the "all-weather, all-season" tires.
Prior to 1972 tires were either winter or summer tires. He
offered his belief that the U.S. and Canada has done a
disservice to customers in selling all-season tires as year
round tires. He does not think this will easily change but
emphasized that states like New York, Vermont, Massachusetts and
other cold weather states need winter tire products.
1:31:44 PM
MICHELLE HOGAN, Johnson Tire Service, responded to the question
about the cost. She stated she is a single mother, and the
reason for adding a slide to indicate that winter tires could be
used year round is to advise people if they can only buy one set
of tires that they can replace their set with winter tires when
it is time to replace them.
MR. GAEDE suggested that they encourage people on a budget to
buy one of the three sets listed when they purchase the next set
of tires.
1:33:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether a grandfather clause will
allow people to continue using their present tires until they
wear out.
MR. GAEDE answered no, but that it could be added.
CHAIR P. WILSON stated that the effective date of the bill is
December 15, 2011.
MS. HOGAN responded to a question on northern states. She
agreed that no other state has implemented mandatory use of
winter tires. However, Quebec recently adopted winter tire use
and allowed four years for people to comply, in order to
grandfather in products. She elaborated that Quebec instituted
a step system, suggesting their law could be used as a model.
1:34:39 PM
MR. GAEDE discussed Finland's winter tire requirements [slide
8]. Finland performed the most extensive and comprehensive
socio-economic study regarding the mandatory use of winter tires
setting a benchmark for future studies, and demonstrating an
economic benefit to winter tire use. The results included
millions of dollars of medical and life insurance costs
associated with accidents. In 1995, Finland passed legislation
requiring the use of winter tires. In 1999, Sweden passed
legislation requiring the use of winter tires [slide 9]. Since
then, accidents involving major injuries and fatalities have
decreased between 11 to 14 percent annually. In 2008, Quebec
also passed legislation, which reduced accidents by 42 percent
[slide 10]. In 2006, Germany encouraged winter tires usage
using public service announcements and accident the number of
accidents went down from 12,359 in 2005 to 5,230 in 2007, which
represented a 46.4 percent reduction overall. Germany is in the
process of adopting the law as mandatory [slide 11].
1:37:24 PM
MR. GAEDE stated that studies suggest studded winter tires
reduce the crash rate in winter by up to 10 percent, which saved
$26 million in economic costs. He related that this figure was
reported in a 2004 University of Alaska School of Engineering
study, the "Socio-Economic Effects of Studded Tires in Alaska."
MR. GAEDE reported projected savings if winter tires were used.
He projected that the avoided crashes saved $26 million per year
in economic costs [slide 13].
The graph illustrates that insurers had 52 percent in savings,
and drivers and passengers saved 27 percent, with federal and
state government saving 11 percent, and others in the community
saving 10 percent. These savings were based on 10 percent of
the drivers using studded tires. That figure is based on taxes
collected on studded tires. This bill would increase the number
of people using winter tires, and could save 7 to 8 times more
in savings. The "trickle down" effect includes health care
savings including insurance costs, health care costs, and
ultimately would cause insurance premiums to decrease. She
surmised that drivers out of pocket expenses could decrease and
they could use their savings to buy the next set of winter tires
and continue the safety circle that is being promoted.
1:40:10 PM
MS. HOGAN summarized that HB 322 would save lives, protect
Alaskans, create jobs, and save Alaskans money [slide 11].
1:40:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON referred to the statistics and related
that the accident could be due to some other reason such as
distraction or cell phone use. She asked for the reason the
accidents were being attributed to tires.
MS. HOGAN answered that the statistics were based on the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) crash
data and road surface reporting. She agreed that other factors
and circumstances could have contributed to the accident. The
statistics were compiled on accident reports that indicated ice,
snow, and slush were contributing factors of the accident.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON offered her belief that accidents are
not generally based on one thing. She said she has never had
winter tires and has not been involved in accidents. She said
it seemed that they singled out several criteria rather than
looking at other circumstances.
MS. HOGAN added that she makes a valid point. She has been
working with the DOT&PF on this. She stated that she also
pulled in statistics prepared by insurance companies in other
countries, too.
1:43:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked whether any economic impact has
been done to determine how it would affect low-income families.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS answered no. He pointed out that the same
issue happened with seatbelts in Alaska, but now is commonly
held to save lives and people have a much better survival chance
when wearing their seatbelt. The issue is the safety of
everyone else on the highway, not necessarily the person driving
the vehicle. A vehicle is a "four-wheel bomb" that can kill
people when driven improperly. He stated that the issue has
been brought forward as a discussion issue. He asked whether we
want to have the best tires possible for winter driving
conditions. Currently, the law does not require people to use
winter tires and this discussion is to consider whether the
legislature wants to implement this.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON stated that seatbelts come with cars.
This would be another layer of government. She expressed
concern that this would apply to the military. She asked how
much time a person entering Alaska would have to buy them, and
how readily available the tires would be in all parts of the
state. She said she wanted people to be safe, but she does not
want to create a hardship for those with lower income or for
people only in the state for a few months.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS mentioned that seatbelts did not
originally come with cars until the federal law made seatbelts
mandatory. For some time people could buy vehicles without
seatbelts, but people could order them installed. The industry
also added other safety enhancements such as airbags to help
keep people safe. Now, it is probably not possible to find any
vehicle sold without the safety enhancement of airbags. He
remarked that the reason for safety improvements is an effort to
address the high cost of accidents. The biggest cost in the
health care debate is the cost of insurance. The debate is
whether or not winter tires offer the best technology. He
admitted he does not drive with winter tires, although his wife
uses Bridgestone Blizzak tires and loves them. Under the bill,
the DOT&PF can determine what type of tire would suffice and
will have the discretion to do so. He offered his belief that
the discussion should be held, and considering whether winter
tires are cost effective and save lives is an important
discussion. He also understood the cost concern for lower
income families.
1:48:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether an auto dealer could be
required to sell cars with this tire installed.
MR. GAEDE answered that all the car dealers sell winter tires.
In response to Chair Wilson, he explained that some dealerships
sell an entire set of wheels and tires to trade out. He said
the dealers understand the concept of safety and using the best
tire for winter safety.
1:50:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked whether other tires currently
sold have that winter snowflake emblem designation or would be
considered acceptable.
BRAD BLYSMA, Equipment Fleet Parts Manager, Statewide Equipment
Fleet, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
(DOT&PF), in response to T. Wilson, answered yes, there are
tires, and tire dealers that sell winter tires which have the
designation described in the bill. In further response to
Representative T. Wilson, he explained that he was unsure
whether the Bridgestone Blizzak tires have the designated
emblem, although if the DOT&PF did certify tires that tire would
be a top candidate to qualify as acceptable. He clarified that
several brands are sold in Alaska which carry the winter service
snowflake designation.
1:52:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked whether DOT&PF currently uses
winter tires for its fleet.
MR. BLYSMA responded that the DOT&PF supplies winter tires at
the discretion of their staff and the tires carry the winter
service snowflake designation.
1:53:02 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON referred to the fiscal note and indicated there
would still be a large amount of funding for state to be in
compliance. She asked how many state vehicles have winter
tires.
DIANA ROTKIS, Manager, Statewide Equipment Fleet, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), estimated that
approximately 35 percent of the light-duty vehicles in Anchorage
are not using winter tires. She did not have any figures for
the University of Alaska or the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation (AHFC). In further response to Chair P. Wilson, she
agreed that the fiscal note indicates $1 million, but part of
the cost is to purchase tires with rims for convenience and to
save time in rotating tires on the fleet.
1:55:03 PM
MARY SIROKY, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF),
explained that the DOT&PF is not in a position to determine
which tires are approved for winter driving conditions. The
DOT&PF would rely on the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA),
or another organization to select the appropriate brands.
1:56:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked whether different lists would be
developed in other parts of state.
MS. ROTKIS responded that at this time the DOT&PF does not have
a designated tire difference by temperature.
1:56:48 PM
CINDY CASHEN, Administrator, Highway Safety Office (AHSO),
Division of Program Development, in response to Representative
Gruenberg, stated she was not familiar with the safety aspects
alleged for this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern and was unaware of
the potential safety issues. He expressed interest in any
federal or state studies that have been done on winter tires.
He further expressed interest in the factual and scientific
information to determine the safety necessity.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS offered to provide additional information
to members.
1:58:57 PM
CHAIR WILSON remarked that Johnson Tire Center would stand to
profit from this bill, and not to diminish their testimony, she
would like to review other neutral information and the federal
government information on the winter tire snowflake emblem.
1:59:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked for a breakdown on the Statewide
Equipment Fleet vehicles. She would like to know if decisions
are based on the regions.
MS. CASHEN deferred to Ms. Rotkis and Ms. Siroky to answer the
question.
2:00:37 PM
MS. CASHEN offered to provide Representative Gruenberg with
fatality statistics, as well as motor collision statistics. She
recalled several pages that law enforcement officers must fill
out on motor vehicle collision reports, including vehicle
conditions, road conditions, and driver or passenger
information. She elaborated that several boxes are used in the
report for each collision, including inadequate or tire failure.
This is how the HSO gathers information on the number of crashes
that relate to inadequate tires. She commented that other
factors may be involved, including inattention, road conditions,
but the HSO does gather tire data.
2:02:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG applauded the AHSO office. He
expressed interest in reviewing the federal or state law or
regulations that may apply. He expressed interest in additional
research. He asked whether any other state mandates winter
tires.
MS. CASHEN offered to provide information.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS answered no, that other states do not
mandate winter tires.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that we would be "plowing new
ground." He pointed out that this legislature is small and
usually takes the lead of other states.
2:04:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN referred to the fiscal note, and to the
$1 million revenue. He inquired as to whether the winter tires
could be phased in over a four years period, which may lower the
fiscal impact.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS responded, referring to a study from the
University of Alaska, Institute of Social and Economic Research
(ISER). He anticipated, from his experience on the House
Finance Standing Committee, that the fiscal impact could be
whittled down or eliminated. He pointed out in the event that
accidents are reduced, a subsequent reduction is had by the
Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety, and the
DOT&PF for road clean-up, which is not reflected in the fiscal
note. He characterized these types of instances would reflect
negative fiscal notes.
2:06:30 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON indicated that HB 322 would be held over. Since
no other states have similar legislation, several amendments are
pending and the committee will work on a committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS referred to three pending amendments to
the bill. He hoped the committee would consider incorporating
the amendments into the bill.
2:07:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ made a motion to adopt Amendments 1, 2, and
3.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN objected.
2:08:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ withdrew her motion. She then made a
motion to adopt Amendment 1, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
Page 1, line 11
After the word "studs." insert a new subsection to
read:
(c) In this section, "Highway" means north of 60
North Latitude and exclusive of any road not connected
to the Dalton, Parks, Richardson, Tok, Alaska, Glenn
or Sterling Highways.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN objected for the purpose of discussion.
2:08:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS explained that Amendment 1 would require
winter tires in an area of the state that has most of the roads.
Thus, Amendment 1 would exclude all of Southeast Alaska from the
mandatory requirement for winter tire use. He thought Amendment
1 might remove some of the issues raised and attempts to narrow
the focus of the bill on the coldest areas of the state.
2:09:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether Amendment 1 would exclude the
Dalton Highway.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS answered since it is connected to road
system, that the Dalton Highway is included. In response to
Representative Petersen, he indicated Amendment 1 would exclude
Southeast Alaska.
2:10:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked what areas or communities would
be excluded under Amendment 1.
JOHN BITNEY, Staff, Representative John Harris, Alaska State
Legislature, stated that Amendment 1 is an effort to craft an
exemption that would apply to areas south of Yakutat, Alaska.
Thus, Amendment 1 would also exempt roads off the main highway
system.
2:11:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON pointed out that those driving in
Anchorage must switch and she lives in Fairbanks but comes to
Juneau during the legislative session.
MR. BITNEY responded that she could leave her winter tires on in
Southeast Alaska and not be penalized. She would need them on
in Fairbanks.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked whether the tires are based on
temperature.
MR. BITNEY responded yes, based on testimony by the experts.
The current statutes are written in relation to the calendar
year for studded tires. This bill would essentially be similar,
with longer periods of time required in the northern areas of
the state.
2:13:06 PM
MR. BITNEY, in response to Representative Gruenberg, answered
that Amendment 1 would exclude the Aleutian Islands since they
are not connected by the road system.
2:13:37 PM
CHAIR WILSON expressed concern that some years the weather in
Southeast Alaska hovers between freezing and thawing.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS recalled hearing from people in
Petersburg, Wrangell, and Sitka that were in opposition to the
bill.
2:14:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN clarified that in the event a person
placed studded winter tires on their vehicle in Southeast
Alaska, that action would be encouraged but not mandatory.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS agreed. Additionally, HB 322 would not
require law enforcement to check, but if an accident occurred,
and the tires were not winter tires, but was a contributing
factor, the person could be cited. No one is expecting that the
AST will stop a person solely based on their tires.
2:16:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked whether he considered encouraging
winter tire use instead of mandating winter tire use.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS explained that the bill contains a public
education campaign, but "if you want to have any teeth to it,
you make it mandatory." Otherwise it is just a recommendation
for winter tires and it would be nice to do it.
2:16:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that some legislators have
advocated for an assessment of the impact on municipalities. He
said this bill may be a bill that should be assessed with
respect to its impact on municipalities.
CHAIR WILSON asked whether four years would be the time to buy
another set of tires.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed that is true in many districts,
but most people have older cars or take the bus in his district.
He thought HB 322 might prevent his constituents from being able
to afford a car.
2:19:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN removed his objection.
There being no objection, Amendment 1 passed.
2:19:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 5:
After the word "from" delete [December] and insert
October
After the word "to" delete [March] and insert April
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN objected for purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS explained that Amendment 2 would use an
approach similar to the dates for studded tire use.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN removed his objection.
There being no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
2:20:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked the committee to consider a
conceptual amendment to Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ made a motion to adopt a conceptual
amendment to Amendment 3, which read as follows:
Page 2, line 4:
After the word "effect" delete [December] and insert
October 15, 2014.
2:21:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for a specific technical
conceptual amendment to Amendment 3. He referred members to
page 2, line 4, and suggested deleting December 15, 2011, and
replacing the date with October 15, 2014. The proposed
Conceptual Amendment to Amendment 3, read, as follows:
Page 2, line 4:
After the word "effect" delete [December 15, 2011] and
insert October 15, 2014.
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the Amendment to Amendment 3 was
adopted.
CHAIR P. WILSON stated that Amendment 3, as amended is before
the committee, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 4:
After the word "effect" delete [December 15, 2011] and
insert October 15, 2014.
2:22:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection.
There being no further objection, Amendment 3, as amended, was
adopted.
[HB 322 was held over.]
HB 257-BAN CELL PHONE USE WHEN DRIVING
2:22:56 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 257, "An Act relating to prohibiting the use
of cellular telephones when driving a motor vehicle; and
providing for an effective date."
2:23:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE DOOGAN, Alaska State Legislature, stated
that HB 257 is an attempt to prohibit cell phone use while
driving, except for emergency phone calls. He paraphrased from
his sponsor statement, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
Distracted drivers cause accidents. Current Alaska
law prohibits the use of certain devices with screens
(such as televisions) while driving, in order to
prevent drivers from taking their focus off the road.
This prohibition includes the use of cell phones for
sending text messages, but excludes the use of cell
phones for "verbal communication or displaying caller
identification information". HB 257 would prohibit
any use of a cell phone while driving-including the
use of a phone with a hands-free device-with an
exception only for emergency calls. Violations would
be punishable by fines of up to $300.
As cell phones have become more widely available, the
number of drivers distracted by cell phones has
increased-putting more and more Alaskans in harm's
way. The use of a cell phone while driving slows a
driver's reaction time by dividing their attention.
One study showed that using a cell phone while driving
is as dangerous as driving drunk. This held true even
for drivers using hands-free devices. Another study
showed that drivers are four times more likely to get
in an accident if they talk on a cell phone while
driving.
Distracted drivers put themselves and everyone around
them at risk. By prohibiting the use of cell phones
while driving, HB 257 will make Alaska's roads safer
for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists, preventing
needless accidents caused by distracted drivers.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN concluded by stating that using a cell
phone is not a liberty. There is not any voter right to drive
while distracted. Distracted drivers should be held accountable
for their driving. While there are many other causes of
distraction, the most common cause of distraction while driving
is cell phone use. He stated that HB 257 will help keep drivers
attention on the road.
2:26:49 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON commented that her mother was involved in an
accident with someone who was talking on cell phone.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked whether the term "cellular phone"
would capture all of the devices, suggesting perhaps using the
term "mobile phone."
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN responded that cellular phone is the most
commonly used phone. He did not recall seeing anyone driving
while using a satellite phone. Any phone system with the same
characteristics, that can be dialed up, and drivers will talk as
they were driving would create the same kinds of liabilities.
He offered his willingness to expand the definition if so
desired.
2:28:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN recalled the sponsor was not interested
in allowing a hands-free exemption.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN answered the studies do not support the
theory that hands-free makes the driver any more attentive or
likely to be good driver. He related that the dysfunction is in
the brain, which is processed in a different manner than when
driving and conducting a conversation with a passenger.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for difference between hands free and
simply holding a conversation.
2:30:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN understood from studies that people are
less attentive when talking on a cell phone than talking to
person sitting next to them. He recalled the main fact that is
people are more used to talking in short verse and they are not
concentrating in the same way as when they are conversing using
a cell phone.
2:31:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON related she has observed all kinds of
distractions while people are driving. She pointed out that
children can be distracting as attempting to eat or read while
driving. She asked whether telling people to "drive" is
something that can actually be legislated.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN recalled observing a person driving in
Anchorage and noticed a driver received a phone call and her
speed changed from 45 to 10 miles per hour. He had to take
measures to avoid a crash. Some distractions are worse than
others and interacting with children is different than trying to
get your hands on cell phone to answer it, he stated.
2:33:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked whether pulling over to stop on a
narrow road would create another hazard at the expense of
stopping cell phone use.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN related that it depends on the road. Some
roads a person should not try to answer the phone. There is not
any constitutional right for people to answer their cell phone.
He hoped people would not answer their phone if it created a
risk.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON related if that was the case the bill
would not be necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN agreed.
2:34:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked how many other states have a ban
on cell phones.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN answered a number of states have bans on
cell phones, relating that the legal landscape is changing,
although he was unsure how many states currently have some form
of cell phone ban. He recalled that California and Oregon do
ban cell phones, but he did not have a specific number.
2:35:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether a hands free device could
be used in California.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN did not know of any states that ban hands
free devices. In response to Chair P. Wilson, he restated his
answer.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether a person stopped at a stop
light could answer their phone.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN said no. He related that if the driver is
engaged in the types of activities which are a normal part of
driving, which also includes being alert at a stop light are
required. Thus, using a cell phone at a stop light would not be
allowed, he stated.
2:37:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that it would not include
operating a radio.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN thinks that is correct, but related his
question is probably more of a drafting question.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that the distinction between
hands-free and cell phone is that it can be difficult for a
driver to turn corners with one hand on the wheel. Even if you
are talking on the phone with a headset this difference may well
be the reason for some states allowing hands-free phones to be
used while driving vehicles.
2:39:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN, in response to Representative T. Wilson,
explained that a person can pull over and stop to answer a phone
and no penalty applies unless a person is violating the normal
actions of driving vehicle.
2:40:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that if a car is parked a
person is not considered driving. He expressed concern that
this bill would affect people driving commercial vehicles along
the Dalton Highway, who rely on cell phones, especially the
"pusher car" since their work requires that they coordinate
activities. He offered his belief that some exception should be
added for the truckers.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN recognized the concern but offered that he
likes the bill just fine in its current form. He viewed it as
committee's prerogative to make changes and related that he does
not expect this bill to go through the process without
amendments.
2:42:45 PM
CINDY CASHEN, Administrator, Highway Safety Office (AHSO),
Division of Program Development, Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF), explained that the Alaska Highway
Safety Office (AHSO) receives federal transportation dollars to
administer data-driven driver behavior programs which encourages
safe driving behavior. She commented that the AHSO is
interested in driver distraction data. She read, as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
The AHSO receives its federal funding from National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Their
policy is that it is the primary responsibility of the
driver to operate motor vehicle safely.
The task of driving requires full attention and focus.
Cell phone use can distract drivers from this task,
risking harm to themselves and others. Therefore, the
safest course of action is to refrain from using a
cell phone while driving.
NHTSA research shows that driving while using a cell
phone can pose a serious cognitive distraction and
degrade driver performance.
NHTSA estimates that driver distraction from all
sources contributes to 25 percent of all police-
reported traffic crashes. Ten years ago only 15% of
the reported traffic crashes were attributed to driver
inattention.
MS. CASHEN added that driver distraction can cover everything
from turning on the radio to using a cell phone. She read
[original punctuation provided]:
The most common distraction for drivers is the use of
cell phones.
A ban on hand-held devices has been enacted in 8
states:
1. California
2. Connecticut
3. District of Columbia
4. New Jersey
5. New York
In 2006, NHTSA and the Virginia Tech Transportation
Institute released a 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study
which tracked the behavior of the drivers of 100 vehicles
equipped with video and sensor devices for more than one
year.
MS. CASHEN offered that the AHSO appreciates all kinds of data
since it helps quantify the distraction. She offered to provide
answers to previous questions using the data from the "100 car
study." In response to Chair P. Wilson, she answered that she has
the data comparison between hands-free phones and cell phones.
MS. CASHEN continued reading [original punctuation provided]:
The most common distraction for drivers is the use of
cell phones.
The available research indicates that whether it is a
hands-free or hand-held cell phone, the cognitive
distraction is significant enough to degrade a driver's
performance. This can cause a driver to miss key visual
and audio cues needed to avoid a crash.
MS. CASHEN added that the hand-held calls tend to take up less
time than the hands-free calls. She continued [original
punctuation provided]:
The results showed that manual dialing was about as
distracting as grooming/eating, but less distracting than
reading or changing CDs.
The number of crashes and near-crashes attributable to
dialing is nearly identical to the number associated with
talking or listening.
MS. CASHEN, in response to Chair P. Wilson, offered to provide
the report. She read statistics, as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Alaska Distracted Driving Statistics (Highway Analysis
System):
From 2002-2007 there were 78,162 motor vehicle crashes in
Alaska.
From 2002-2007 there were 335 motor vehicle crashes
involving cell phone use.
189 resulted in property damage only, 127 resulted in minor
injuries, 19 in major injuries and no fatalities.
From 2002-2007 there were 895 injuries in traffic crashes
involving cell phone use.
200 resulted in minor injuries, 20 resulted in major
injuries, and no fatalities.
MS. CASHEN provided details on the form the law enforcement
uses, which includes cell phone use. The law enforcement
officers can only check up to two categories of 26 boxes listed,
which includes a box for cell phone use. She related that is
part of the reason why data is lacking. This is a relatively
new type of unsafe driving and distracted driving definitions
and collections vary. It will take time, so the best data is
currently the date provided by the NHTSA study, since it
provides information on the physiological occurrences with cell
phone use.
2:50:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether Ms. Cashen would like to
see the forms changed to add a specific category for cell phone
use so the officer would not have to choose between the 26 other
causes.
MS. CASHEN answered yes.
2:51:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for the reason that the effective
date selected is July 1, 2010.
MS. CASHEN related that the AHSO office did not set the
effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether she had any information
on truckers along the haul road.
MS. CASHEN explained that currently an exemption exists for
those drivers for emergency purposes. She understood exemption
is already in place for emergency responders.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that he is interested in how
the bill would affect commercial vehicle drivers, truckers on
the haul road driving to the North Slope. One trucker will pull
the cargo, while another will push the cargo. He related that
the two truckers are in constant communication with one another
but they are not categorized as emergency responders.
MS. CASHEN said she did not know. In response to Representative
Gruenberg, she stated several studies involving Federal Motor
Carrier Administration that works with commercial vehicle
enforcement. She offered to provide a copy to the committee.
2:53:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether commercial drivers use hand-
held or hands-free cell phones.
MS. CASHEN offered to provide the information.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for information on crash rates in
other states that allow hands-free devices to be used while
driving.
MS. CASHEN recalled that eight states have banned hand-held cell
phone use. In further response to Representative Munoz, she
recalled a recent study provoked discussions, which indicated
perhaps drivers who used hand-held devices have switched to
hands-free cell phones. The evidence is not conclusive and
differing opinions and interpretations were made on the data.
This study was based on insurance data and not on fatality data.
Thus, the statistics were not specifically on crashes but were
based on distracted-driver related fatalities. She pointed out
that distracted driving is not limited to cell phone use since
it encompasses all types of distractions. The fatalities
involving distracted driving went down, but she did not know for
certain the reductions were due to restrictions on cell phones,
but perhaps they were.
2:56:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ said she supports the bill. However, she
does not want to create difficulties for commercial drivers.
She stated she has heard from a number of commercial operators
that have asked for a hands-free option, which she would like to
keep open for consideration.
2:57:30 PM
ROY HOYT, JR., stated that this bill is a great idea and should
be enacted to eliminate use of cell phones while driving. He
suggested that the language for cell phones could apply while
vehicles are in motion. He remarked that driving in Homer can
be frightening as people drive and use their cell phones,
especially while rounding corners. He is surprised more
accidents do not occur. He recalled citizen's band (CB) radios
previously used to talk between vehicles. He also did not
believe hands-free cell phones posed as significant a problem as
hand-held cell phones.
2:59:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN remarked that this bill does not ban the
use of CB radios.
CHAIR P. WILSON left public testimony open on HB 257.
[HB 257 was held over.]
3:00:31 PM
HB 8-PIPE FOR A NATURAL GAS PIPELINE
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 8, "An Act relating to the purchase of pipe
for use in a natural gas pipeline project under the Alaska
Gasline Inducement Act."
3:00:36 PM
KEN ALPER, Staff, Representative Harry Crawford, Alaska State
Legislature, stated on behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Harry Crawford, that this bill would empower the DOT&PF
commissioner to buy the physical pipe for the in state section
of the natural gas pipeline. Approximately 800 miles of 48-inch
pipe would be purchased and stockpiled as a visual reminder for
the necessity of the state to move forward on the pipeline.
Once the project moved forward, the pipe could be sold at cost
or could be contributed as an equity position on the pipeline.
He related that action would make money for the state.
[HB 8 was held over.]
3:02:12 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:02
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 322 winter tires backup.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 322 |
| HB322 winter tires sponsor stmt.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2010 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB257 cell phone ban sponsor stmt.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2010 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/16/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 257 |
| HB257 cell phone ban sectional.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2010 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/16/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 257 |
| hb257 cell phone ban backup.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2010 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/16/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 257 |
| HB 8 gasline pie purchase sponsor stmt.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB8 gasline pipe purchase tariff and revenue.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB8 gasline pipe purchase backup.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB 322 Presentation.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 322 |