HB 128 - BAN CELL PHONE USE BY MINORS WHEN DRIVING 1:30:02 PM CHAIR GATTO announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 128, "An Act relating to prohibiting the use of cellular telephones by minors when driving motor vehicles; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 128(TRA).] 1:30:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE BERTA GARDNER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, explained that HB 128 would make it illegal for a person under 18 years of age to use a cellular telephone ("cell phone") while driving a motor vehicle [on a highway or vehicular way or area]; in terms of enforcement, the bill does not provide an exemption for the use of "hands-free" cell phone technology, and a violation would be a secondary offense [resulting in an infraction punishable under AS 28.90.010]. The hope with this legislation, she indicated, is to ban cell phone use by the very youngest of Alaska's drivers, those who - statistically - are the least experienced, are more easily distracted, and are "most commonly" involved in motor vehicle accidents that result in serious physical injury or death. Members' packets include a letter from the lobbyist for State Farm Insurance Companies - Lessmeier & Winters, LLC - that posits passage of HB 128 would result in an immediate saving of lives and prevention of injuries; insurance companies, she surmised, keep current with regard to what factors increase the risks of driving so as to be able to set their insurance rates accordingly. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that according to that letter, drivers between the ages of 16 and 19 are four times more likely to be involved in a motor vehicle accident; one in five of all automobile deaths is attributed to "teen driving"; the leading causes of "teen accidents" include inexperience and distraction; and a recent study indicates that nine out of ten teenagers [report that "teen use" of cell phones while driving was common], and that seven out of ten teenagers say they have observed other teenagers driving and using a cell phone while being emotionally upset. Fiscal notes from the Department of Law (DOL) and the Department of Public Safety (DPS) state that HB 128 would have no fiscal impact. Regardless that some would argue common sense can't be legislated, and regardless that that might be true, the point is that drivers who are distracted pose a danger to others on the road. In conclusion, acknowledging that there is not yet support for a ban on cell phone use while driving for all drivers, she expressed her hope that HB 128's proposed ban for Alaska's youngest drivers would be supported. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER added that in her household, she, as a parent, banned the use of cell phones while driving, surmising that other parents might appreciate being able to tell their children that the law forbids such behavior. 1:34:25 PM CHAIR GATTO characterized passing HB 128 as the right thing to do, and pointed out that the behavior of driving while using a cell phone doesn't just impact the driver - such behavior instead impacts everyone on the road. He expressed his hope, however, that the proposed ban wouldn't at some point be expanded to include the use of all cell phones by all drivers while driving. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN acknowledged that as currently written, the bill is targeting a group of drivers that have a higher rate of accidents than other groups, but expressed concern that if the bill is passed, other groups of people would eventually be added to the list of those who would be precluded from using a cell phone while driving. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER indicated a concern with precluding the use of cell phones while driving. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, in response to comments, pointed out that teenagers, disproportionately, use cellphones more and do so more often while driving, and are therefore dying at higher rates because of it. She offered her understanding that statistics included in members' packets illustrate that the crash fatality rate is highest for 16- and 17-year-olds; that the crash fatality rate for 16- to 20-year-olds is twice as high as that for other ages; that approximately two-thirds of motor vehicle accidents resulting in the death of a passenger involved a teenage driver; and that the overwhelming majority of crashes involving teenage drivers were due to the driver's failure to employ safe driving practices, failure to recognize risk, and deliberate risk-taking. Other information in members' packets indicates that ever since California, in 2008, banned the use of "hand-held" cell phones while driving, there has been a 47 percent decrease in the number of fatal motor-vehicle accidents resulting from the use of a cell phone. 1:41:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, regarding the argument that having a conversation with someone in the car can also be distracting, pointed out that at least the person in the car can help the driver become aware of potentially dangerous situations. Furthermore, [studies] indicate that a person's brain is engaged in a different manner when speaking to someone over the phone than it is when speaking to someone face-to-face. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she supports HB 128. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, in response to questions, indicated that the terms, "highway" and "vehicular way or area" as those terms are used in HB 128 are both already defined in statute under AS 28.90.990(a)(13) and (30); those provisions, respectively, read: (13) "highway" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way that is publicly maintained when a part of it is open to the public for purposes of vehicular travel, including but not limited to every street and the Alaska state marine highway system but not vehicular ways or areas; (30) "vehicular way or area" means a way, path, or area, other than a highway or private property, that is designated by official traffic control devices or customary usage and that is open to the public for purposes of pedestrian or vehicular travel, and which way or area may be restricted in use to pedestrians, bicycles, or other specific types of vehicles as determined by the Department of Public Safety or other agency having jurisdiction over the way, path, or area. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES - in response to questions and comments regarding CSHB 128(TRA)'s specific effective date of July 1, 2012 - noted that bills proposing to change Alaska's [criminal statutes] generally contain a specific effective date of July 1. 1:44:43 PM RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander, A Detachment, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), in response to a question, explained that under HB 128 as currently written, if law enforcement officers were to witness a minor using a cell phone while driving, because it would only be a secondary offense, they could either look for a primary offense for which to pull the driver over, or they could contact the driver later on and inform him/her that he/she was engaging in illegal behavior. He warned that the ability of law enforcement officers to enforce the bill could be limited if it remains a secondary offense. In response to other questions, he explained that the penalties for infractions are generally set by the court, and could involve a fine of up to $300; and indicated that providing for a specific effective date can be helpful in terms of giving the administration adequate time to inform the public about changes in the law. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, in response to another question, expressed a preference for retaining the bill's specific effective date of July 1, 2012. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, in response to an additional question, relayed that although she would be amenable to providing for an even later specific effective date, any such delay could result in more children being killed than if the proposed law goes into effect as soon as possible. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER sought clarification that the bill's proposed ban would only apply in situations involving moving vehicles, not stationary ones. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said that's correct. LIEUTENANT DIAL concurred. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER reported that approximately 80 percent of his constituents that responded to a district survey he sent out were in favor of restricting cell phone use while driving, and thus he would be voting in favor of HB 128 regardless of his personal feelings about it. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that the bill be clarified with regard to whether it also applies to the use a cell phone while stopped at a stop sign/light; and questioned whether they should amend the bill to address future technology, perhaps by adding the phrase, "or similar device" wherever the bill uses the term, "cellular telephone". REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, on the latter point, expressed disfavor with changing the bill in that fashion. 2:01:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER moved to report CSHB 128(TRA) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal notes. CHAIR GATTO said, "I'm sure there is an objection." A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg, Holmes, Hawker (alternate), and Gatto voted in favor of the motion. Representatives Lynn, Keller, and Pruitt voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 128(TRA) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.