ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 16, 2012
1:08 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Lance Pruitt, Vice Chair
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Pete Petersen
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Max Gruenberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
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."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 157
"An Act relating to the use of headlights when operating a motor
vehicle."
- FAILED TO MOVE OUT OF COMMITTEE
MOBILITY COALITION
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 128
SHORT TITLE: BAN CELL PHONE USE BY MINORS WHEN DRIVING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GARDNER
01/28/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/28/11 (H) TRA, JUD
03/01/11 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/01/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/01/11 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/16/12 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 157
SHORT TITLE: USE OF HEADLIGHTS REQUIRED
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KAWASAKI
02/16/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/11 (H) TRA, JUD
02/16/12 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE BERTA GARDNER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 128, as prime sponsor.
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander
"A" Detachment, Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 128
ALBERT JUDSON
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 128.
TYLER SPAAN, Intern
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 157, on behalf of
Representative Scott Kawasaki, prime sponsor of the bill.
MICHAEL BAVARSKY
Fritz Creek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 157.
CRAIG BRESHEARS, Member
Alaska Motorcycle Safety Advisory Committee
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion HB 157.
AVES THOMPSON, Executive Director
Alaska Trucking Association (ATA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 157.
BOYD MCFAIL
Legislative Affairs Officer
Alaskan Bikers Advocating Training and Education (ABATE)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 157.
MICHAEL VIGUE, Chief
Statewide Plan and Transit
Division of Program Development
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 157.
DAVID LEVY, Executive Director
Alaska Mobility Coalition (AMC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint presentation on the
Alaska Mobility Coalition.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:08:39 PM
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:08 p.m. Representatives
Johnson, Pruitt, Petersen, and P. Wilson were present at the
call to order. Representative Munoz arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
HB 128-BAN CELL PHONE USE BY MINORS WHEN DRIVING
1:09:16 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the first 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."
1:10:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BERTA GARDNER, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as the sponsor of HB 128, stated the committee has heard a
number of cell phone bills over the past six years. She offered
her belief that this reinforces that there is not a consensus on
cell phone ban. However, the conversation is different for
minors. She raised three issues, first, whether cell phones be
banned for all drivers or only minors; second, whether hands-
free cell phones be allowed; and third, whether the offense
should be a primary or secondary offense. She explained a
primary offense is one in which drivers can be stopped for
talking on their cell phones by law enforcement and a secondary
offense is one in which drivers could only be cited if they are
stopped for some other reason.
1:12:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER explained that HB 128 simply says drivers
under the ages of 18 cannot be talking on their cell phones.
This bill does not allow any exemptions for a hands-free cell
phone use and it makes it a secondary offense. She pointed out
that it is difficult to tell a driver's age. She offered her
belief that members understand the range of statistics in terms
of driver distraction from cell phone use. She referred to one
study by the University of Utah shows that motorists who talk on
handheld or hands-free cell phones are as impaired as drunk
drivers. The National Safety Council (NSC) estimates that about
28 percent of crashes involve people talking on cell phones when
they are driving. She stated the reason to focus on the
youngest drivers is because they are the most distractible age
group, but are the least experienced drivers who are still
learning good habits and increasing their skills. She outlined
her goal is to catch drivers at the age when they are most at
risk and help them develop good habits. Although the drivers
ages 16-20 are involved in 16 percent of the crashes in the
state, this age group is involved in 34 percent of the crashes
involving cell phone use. This age group also has the highest
incidence of serious injury or death when involved in crashes.
She would like to reach a consensus on this bill to help reduce
deaths and injuries. She referred to members' packet which
included e-mails of support, although some letters reference a
bill number from a prior year.
1:14:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for the definition of a vehicular
area, referencing proposed Section 28.35.165 in Section 1 of the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER answered that AS 28.90.990 (a)(30)
defines a vehicular way. She read:
A vehicular way or area means a road, path, or area,
other than a highway or private property that is
designated by official traffic control devices or
customary usage 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.
1:15:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether that definition would
include a parking lot.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she believed so, but she could not
speak definitively on this.
1:16:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related a scenario in which a young
person had pulled into a Fred Meyer parking lot to make a call
home to his/her parents. He inquired as to whether the driver
could be pulled over and cited for cell phone use based on
suspicious activity.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER responded that if a person is pulled over
for anything it would imply the vehicle is moving.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his belief that the behavior
could be considered suspicious behavior if it was late at night
and the driver was sitting in a vehicle in a parking lot in the
winter with the engine running.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she thought it was a fair question
and she offered to find out.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON did not think leaving such a large
loophole would be a good idea.
1:18:24 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander, "A" Detachment,
Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), related his understanding that the court has defined
operating a vehicle, for the purpose of driving while under the
influence (DUI). Thus a person could be arrested if the person
were in physical control of the vehicle. However, as it
pertains to this bill, "driving the vehicle" would mean moving
the vehicle and actually engaging driving the vehicle. He
clarified that a person sitting in a vehicle parked in a parking
lot would not be considered operating a vehicle. He related he
bases this on his experience with routine traffic offenses, in
which driving a vehicle would mean moving the vehicle down the
roadway; however, if the vehicle was parked it would not
constitute driving.
1:19:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON wondered whether a person would be cited
and must appear in court to be found innocent.
LIEUTENANT DIAL clarified that from an enforcement standpoint
the person would not be cited if he/she were parked in a parking
lot.
1:20:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN inquired as to whether it would be
considered suspicious behavior if it was 20 degrees below zero
and the driver was sitting in a vehicle while it was running or
not running.
LIEUTENANT DIAL said either would be neutral. He said the
officer could contact the occupants to assess if the people were
okay.
1:20:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked if an individual is not driving but
has placed his/her foot on brake whether it would be considered
as driving.
LIEUTENANT DIAL said from an enforcement standpoint that he
would not consider that type of behavior as driving a car. He
said in his experience the court would find it splitting hairs
if a driver was cited while sitting in a vehicle stopped in a
parking lot, but was not driving. He offered his belief that
the court would use its discretion to say that the citation was
not warranted. He also thought the court would view the
driver's behavior as warranted, such that the driver had taken
steps for safe operation of a cell phone. He could not envision
situation in which law enforcement officers would cite the
person.
1:22:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT recalled recent testimony on a texting
bill. He further recalled testimony was given to indicate it
would be okay for an individual waiting at a red light to
briefly text. He inquired as to whether it would be okay for
someone to use their cell phone in the same circumstances.
LIEUTENANT DIAL related his understanding if the vehicle is
stopped that the person is not technically driving.
1:23:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled high statistics for youth ages 18-
20. She asked at what age the statistics show less prevalence
of crashes and whether it would be at age 21 or older.
LIEUTENANT DIAL responded that he did not know.
1:23:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ related her understanding distracted
driving in Alaska causes crashes. She asked if the statistics
identify the percentage of cell phone use that is tied to cell
phone use. She recalled that the enforcement incident report
does not list cell phones as one of listed reasons for
distracted driving. She asked whether that is still the case.
LIEUTENANT DIAL related his understanding the traffic
investigative report form has changed and that information will
be incorporated; however, he was uncertain as to whether the
distracted driving is broken out to the type of detail to
identify cell phone use as opposed to putting on makeup or
dealing with children. He did not think that information is
currently captured.
1:24:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled statistics for young people and
wondered if an equivalent statistic related to people 65 or 75
and older, who may also be in an age group with a higher risk of
accidents. He wondered whether this bill would set up a class
of citizens that is equal to another class of citizens who is
not covered by the bill. He clarified by asking if the same
risk would apply to both age groups.
LIEUTENANT DIAL recalled statistics, but deferred to the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities to better
address them. He agreed that distracted driving is universally
problematic; in fact, he did not favor making allowances for
distractions for anyone including law enforcement. He remarked
that the department has also been considering implementing
policies to curb distraction for officers. He reiterated that
distracted driving represents a safety issue for everyone to
consider.
1:27:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the department uses
encrypted radios.
LIEUTENANT DIAL agreed that most radios were encrypted, but
noted that the department is transitioning to the Alaska Land
Mobile radio system. He said some locations still use non-
encrypted phones.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he thought it was essential for
officers to use cell phones since some people intercept police
calls. He agreed cell phone use has been identified as a
distraction, but emphasized the importance of law enforcement to
have the tools to apprehend violators. He thought there might
be times when it is valid for someone under 18 to use a cell
phone so he expressed reluctance to disenfranchise a special
class of citizens.
1:28:36 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON summarized that this bill is designed to help
teenagers who are learning to drive develop good driving habits.
One good habit is not to answer a phone while driving and
another is to plan ahead and call rather than to start driving
and call enroute. She stressed the importance of parents,
grandparents, and legislators to consider that this bill may
save one or many lives. She pointed out that when youth are
informed ahead of time what is expected of them that they can
practice doing what is the right thing.
1:30:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT remarked if he were on his phone with his
own mother while he was driving that she would hang up on him.
However, he understood certain circumstances could arise, such
as when drivers are delayed due to an accident. In those
instances, drivers could find themselves unable to communicate
with their family that they are delayed and the other parent
needs to pick up their child. He expressed concern that under
the bill a 16-18 year old might also observe erratic driving
behavior and not be able to legally report it since he/she
cannot use a cell phone He offered his belief this bill would
disenfranchise the individual.
1:31:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled earlier comments that if the
legislature could fix something it should, and if so, the
legislature may wish to consider restricting driving of those 18
years of age or younger. This point illustrates that things can
be carried to extremes. He said he wasn't prepared to ban
drivers, but he also wasn't interested in taking on the
responsibility of training someone else's children on
appropriate behavior. He questioned at what point government
should steps in for families. He did not want to interfere with
parents so he would prefer to err on the side of families making
decisions for their children. He suggested that giving young
people traffic ticket for talking on their cell phones is likely
the last time that activity would ever happen. He certainly
does not want anyone to perish, but he expressed reluctance to
interfere with the parental role.
CHAIR P. WILSON agreed that if youth are ticketed for an
offense, they would not likely repeat the behavior.
1:34:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ, speaking as a parent, said she would
appreciate having a tool like this to discourage unsafe driving
behavior. She thinks most teenagers are "married" to their cell
phones. She characterized teen usage of cell phones as constant
cell phone use. She also said strongly supported the concept of
moving this bill forward. She characterized this bill as an
important public safety measure.
1:34:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN remarked that a young person might
suggest a smart phone is a waste of good technology on a middle-
aged person like him. He suggested that while it may appear to
be overly protective, but the fact remains that 17-year-olds are
authorized to drive. He imagined the worst possible situation
for a parent would be one in which parents had to go the
hospital because their child was in a crash or to have to bury
their child. This bill is designed to help our youth develop
good driving habits.
1:36:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT agreed the last place for youth be on the
phone is in the car. He pointed out that children are not
allowed to have cell phones at school since teachers are trying
to teach kids. Again, he asked whether the legislature should
step in for these types of activities. He described it as a
slippery slope. He asked whether this bill would restrict
hands-free use of cell phones.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER answered yes.
1:37:45 PM
ALBERT JUDSON stated he is a registered voter and formerly
worked as a Village Police Safety Officer (VPSO). He said
statistics relate to life or death and no gray areas should
exist. He cautioned that this issue is not a theoretical one
and legislators need to act with courage. He shared personal
history relevant to the bill, stating that in August 2007 he was
run over by a vehicle near Centennial Hall. He has had physical
problems since then. He lamented that the next day someone ran
over a dog and the dog made front page of the newspaper; however
there was no mention of his accident. He described another
incident when a man using a cell phone walked into him and did
not even bother to apologize, which illustrated the extent of
the problems associated with distraction.
MR. JUDSON related some statistics, with respect to teenagers
who are texting while driving, such that 10 percent of the time
they are driving outside the driving zone lines. He stated that
the average text messaging takes about five seconds to answer
while talking on a cell phone slows a teenager's reaction time
to that of a 70-year old. Additionally, 21 percent of fatal car
crashes involve teenagers 16-18 years old and teenage drivers
are 5 times more likely to be involved in a crash. He also
recalled reading that a 19-year old slammed into the back of a
construction truck and was killed along with a passenger. He
said that 38 people were also injured in the crash.
1:42:13 PM
MR. JUDSON stated that the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) has developed a graduated licensing
program, with the initial segment lasting six months, and must
include at least 30-50 hours of parent-certified, supervised
practice. The intermediate stage of the graduated license
restricts driving to 9 p.m. and restricts the vehicle to
transporting no more than one teenage passenger.
1:43:10 PM
MR. JUDSON recommended amending the bill to include texting.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked him to testify with respect to the bill,
that this bill would prohibit cell phone use while driving,
which would include texting.
MR. JUDSON suggested all states should impose a total ban on
hand-held hands-free devices, based solely on the number of
fatal accidents. He related that 30 states, including Washington
D.C. ban cell phone use by novice drivers. Every year 4,000-
8,000 crashes occur related to cell phone use in the U.S. Seven
states have enacted primary laws that ban hand-held cell phones:
California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Oregon,
Washington, and the District of Columbia. In 2011, Delaware
signed a similar law. Thirty states have a primary offense
banning all texting by drivers. He said he is opposed to making
the violation of cell phone use a secondary enforcement offense
since the officer would need another reason to pull over the
driver. Instead, he favored primary enforcement on cell phones.
He said that half of all states include a category of hand-held
electronic equipment that must be included on their accident
reports.
1:46:18 PM
MR. JUDSON said that it should be mandatory for state and
municipalities to categorize cell phones and other electronic
equipment on accident reports. He related his understanding
that reporting is non-existent or else it is too difficult for
police to compile cell phone statistics in their accident
reports. He suggested the ban should apply to all those under
19 years of age based on statistics and should include
intermediate drivers if the state has adopted a graduated
licensure program. He thought that there should be mandatory
reporting of electronic usage involved in crash reports. He
further recommended that children should be tried as adults in
the event a crash involves fatalities. Further, the bill should
apply to all taxi drivers and transit drivers. He considered
the number of crashes that have occurred since the state first
contemplated banning cell phone use while driving, including
that nationwide 4,000 crashes occurred in a five year period
which totals 20,000 crashes not including Alaska. He emphasized
there should not be any gray areas in the law and the
legislature should take a black and white approach on this bill.
He suggested that theories should not interfere with passing
this bill. He offered his belief that now is time to change
this law and also ban texting while driving. He offered to
provide the sources of his statistics to the committee.
1:49:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER responded to some of the issues just
raised. She referred to insurance companies as masters of
studying the data. She turned to Alaska drivers' statistics in
members' packets related to accidents: In 2009, the age range
for 61 and older had zero crashes, while 8 crashes happened in
the target population. She surmised the senior age group has
fewer crashes, likely because they tend not to use cell phones
as much. She recalled an earlier issue raised was that
teenagers would be prohibited from reporting accidents; however,
an exemption already exists under AS 11.81.320 that allows all
drivers to report. This statute provides justification to
report any illegal activity. With respect to interfering with
parental rights, she drew on her own experience. She related
could tell her children not to use cell phones while driving in
her car, but not all parents can enforce their rules. She
suggested that this bill would help parents enforce their rules.
She characterized this bill as one that addresses public safety.
She offered her belief that HB 128 will save lives and has broad
public support.
1:53:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noticed the statistics are reported for
ages 16-20, and questioned why the bill only limits those 18
years of age and younger.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER answered that the state collects data for
the youth 16-20 years of age and does not break the statistic
out for each age by year.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON clarified that the bill prohibits cell
phone use up to 18 years of age.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER responded that a well-established
template exists for the state and federal laws. She explained
that at 18 years of age a person can vote, join the military,
and sign contracts. She expressed a willingness to have the
committee consider the ages that the bill would apply the cell
phone ban.
1:54:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested that the combined age data may
skew the statistics to a higher percentage.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER answered that she thought the data could
be broken down for that age group, but she surmised the trend
would show older drivers have fewer accidents. She suggested it
may not be warranted for researchers to isolate the data for
those less than 18 years of age since it would not likely add
much more to the discussion.
1:55:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT referred to a Juneau Empire article in
members' packets, which read, "An insurance industry study
released last year by the Highway Loss Data Institute found that
state laws banning the use of hand held devices to make calls or
send text messages while driving have not resulted in fewer
vehicle crashes." He related his understanding that the reason
for the bill is to reduce crashes, but the data does not support
the reduction. He asked for further clarification. He asked
whether the sponsor has considered implementing graduated
licenses for teenagers, since the data suggests the risk is
highest for the period of those just licensed.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER answered yes. She recalled
Representative Gruenberg previously introduced a bill to address
that issue. She offered his belief it would constitute good
public policy to prohibit cell phone use for drivers 18 years
and younger. She suggested the committee could consider other
limits. In further response to Representative Pruitt, she
answered that the bill makes cell phone use while driving a
secondary offense.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ pointed out that Alaska already has a
graduated license law and she thought it required six months of
supervised driving, but that specific statute does not address
cell phone use.
1:58:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT agreed that establishing a limitation
might be something for the committee to consider. He pointed
out other distracted driving as something he has considered with
respect to discussions on other cell phone bills. He recalled
in one instance a student was changing the radio station and
totaled her car. He did not recall any data with respect to how
distracting radio use might be, but he was aware of other
distractions besides cell phone use. He said it almost seems
like this activity targets cell phone use, but perhaps that
activity should be addressed as part of a provisional license.
1:59:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER answered that anyone can make a mistake,
but this bill targets teenagers since they are in the process of
learning habits. She agreed there is no end to possible
distractions while driving; however, teens are more impulsive
and distractible than adults. Those under 18 years of age have
been involved in a disproportionate share of serious vehicle
accidents resulting in death or injury than the population at
large. This bill is designed to save lives in a simple,
inexpensive way that reinforces parental decisions by those who
restrict their children from cell phones while driving. She
characterized this bill as a public safety issue.
2:01:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the sponsor was amendable
to amend the bill add other distractible items, including
eating, putting on makeup, or using the radio.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER offered to consider other distractions
although she did not want to amend the bill at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he wanted to work with the sponsor
on expanding the bill by adding in other distractions.
[HB 128 was held over.]
HB 157-USE OF HEADLIGHTS REQUIRED
2:01:35 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 157, "An Act relating to the use of headlights
when operating a motor vehicle."
2:02:01 PM
TYLER SPAAN, Intern, Representative Scott Kawasaki, Alaska State
Legislature, stated he would give a brief summary of HB 157.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
MR. SPAAN paraphrased from a sponsor statement, as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
House Bill 157 addresses a key goal of the Alaska
Highway Safety Office's Strategic Highway Safety Plan.
The plan recommends changing state law to require car
and truck headlight use at all times. Research shows a
decrease in traffic accidents where daytime running
lights are used. The Alaska Highway Safety Office has
determined enforcements of the headlight law could
decrease head-on collisions by five to 15 percent.
The effectiveness of "headlights on" laws can be seen
in Alaska on the Seward Highway. In the mid-1990s,
signs were installed along the highway from Anchorage
to Seward requiring motor vehicles to have headlights
on at all times. The Department of Public Safety and
the Department of Transportation acknowledge the
effectiveness of the headlight usage with
instructional signs in saving lives. According to the
Department of Transportation, there was a marked
decrease in the number of crashes along the Seward
Highway.
Similar results have been seen in other countries
located in Polar Regions like Alaska. In Sweden, which
has similar climate conditions to Alaska, studies have
found that the requirement to use headlights at all
times reduced crash rates by 20 percent in urban areas
and 17 percent in rural areas in winter months.
House Bill 157 will increase the safety on Alaska's
roadways by making all vehicles easier to see while
traveling, especially during Alaska's long periods of
dusk and dawn.
2:04:13 PM
MICHAEL BAVARSKY cautioned that increasing the stimuli, which
this bill would do, tends to make people less aware. He related
that school buses now use strobe lights although drivers
previously were alert to yellow buses and proceeded with caution
around school buses. It became necessary to put flashing lights
on buses and now strobe lights are used to attract attention.
He suggested that it is impossible to get people to be safe and
responsible just by increasing stimuli. He recalled when he
almost had an accident when an oncoming car not using its
headlights was in front of a vehicle using its headlights. He
almost pulled out, which made him realize he wasn't looking for
vehicles, but was attuned to headlights. He predicted the same
thing would happen if people were required to use headlights.
He mentioned that requiring headlights would contribute to dead
batteries and increased costs associated with more fuel use and
light bulb replacements. He offered his belief that this bill
would usurp responsibilities of people. He suggested a better
approach is to teach people to be more responsible. He doubted
the accuracy of the statistics since the studies do not take
other factors into account that may attribute to the small
increase in crashes.
2:08:36 PM
MR. BAVARSKY also asked to comment on HB 128, relating to cell
phone use. He said that no one should be allowed to use cell
phones while driving. He cited his own experience noting has
had several near misses, but none of the drivers were young. He
concluded that cell phone use for all drivers should be
outlawed.
2:09:31 PM
CRAIG BRESHEARS, Alaska Motorcycle Safety Advisory Committee,
stated that his committee advises the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities' commissioner on motorcycle
safety matters. He pointed out sometimes an effort to create
safety has an adverse effect in other areas. He related he is
also a motorcycle instructor and that he teaches drivers to
divide the lane into three pieces: a right, center, and left.
Typically, motorcycles will operate in the right or left side of
the lane in order to keep drivers safe. He advised members that
currently motorcycles are required to use headlights at all
times since they are small and hard to see. Thus use of
motorcycle headlights should increase visibility to other
motorists. He suggested if HB 157 were to pass, that headlights
may cause an accident for the motorcycle if drivers do not see
the single headlight, but rather would notice the double
headlights of a car or truck. He agreed that motorcyclists
represent a small portion of those vehicles on the roadway. He
acknowledged HB 157 could prevent crashes, but it could
adversely affect motorcyclists, who rarely walk away from
crashes. He emphasized that all motorcyclists are opposed to
this bill since it places them in harm's way and does not help
motorcyclists. He suggested motorcyclists may change their
minds if the bill included additional language, such as allowing
motorcycles to use of blinking lamps generally reserved for
emergency vehicles. He reiterated that this bill currently
adversely affects motorcyclists.
2:13:15 PM
AVES THOMPSON, Executive Director, Alaska Trucking Association
(ATA), said so long as the bill promotes safer driving that the
ATA has no objection; however, he offered that he understood and
appreciated the concerns of the motorcyclists and other
testimony given today. He urged members to consider the
comments carefully.
2:14:18 PM
BOYD MCFAIL, Legislative Affairs Officer, Alaskan Bikers
Advocating Training and Education (ABATE), stated that ABATE
opposes this bill. As Mr. Brashears testified to earlier,
motorcycles could be caught in the sea of headlights and not be
seen. Additionally, one other distraction would be from the
stimuli from the lights themselves since viewing a car from a
great distance tends to cause the lights to separate. He said
it is difficult to judge speed of oncoming motorcycles since
drivers are used to seeing two headlights. This may create a
situation which puts motorcyclists at risk since drivers may
misjudge the distance and speed of the oncoming motorcycle.
Motorcyclists are most likely to suffer injury or death. He
related that railroad engines use alternating headlights since
it allows people to better judge speed and distance of an
oncoming train than when a train only uses solid lighting. The
use of alternating headlights reduces accidents. He suggested
use of modulating headlights is legal, but the lights are
expensive. He suggested that the bill does not offset any costs
to motorcyclists. He offered that ABATE cannot support HB 157
in its current form.
2:18:42 PM
MR. SPAAN pointed out that the sponsor also owns a motorcycle.
He has taken the interests of motorcyclists in mind when
crafting this bill. He referred to research analysis performed
by the U.S. Department of Transportation. He then referred to a
document and said, "Headlight systems have also been shown to
reduce fatal opposite direction crashes between a motorcycle and
passenger vehicle by 23 percent." He appreciated Mr. McFail's
testimony on behalf of motorcyclists and concluded, "This is in
the best interests of everyone."
2:19:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to Section 28 of HB 157. He
questioned why the level of infraction is not stated in the
bill.
MR. SPAAN answered that he was not qualified to answer that
question, but pointed out that the bill has an additional
referral to the Judiciary committee. He offered to provide an
answer in writing.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON commented he does not serve on that
committee.
2:20:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked for clarification on when it is
currently illegal to drive without headlights.
MICHAEL VIGUE, Chief, Statewide Plan and Transit, Division of
Program Development, Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOT&PF), answered that 13 AAC 04.010 lists when
lights are required to be on. He read:
(a) Every vehicle traveling on a highway or other
vehicular way or area within the state must illuminate
lights
(1) between one half hour after sunset and one
half hour before sunrise; or
(2) at any other time when, because of
insufficient light or other atmospheric conditions,
persons or vehicles on the highway are not clearly
discernible at a distance of 1000 feet.
(b) Stop lights, turn signals, and other signaling
devices must be illuminated as required by this
chapter.
(c) Every vehicle traveling on a highway or vehicular
way or area must illuminate lights when traveling on
any roadway that is posted with signs requiring the
use of headlights.
(d) For the purposes of (c) of this section, lights
include low intensity headlights and daytime running
lamp devices that meet the standards in 49 C.F.R. 571
(revised as of August 29, 1996), if the headlights are
not otherwise required under (a)(1) or (2) of this
section.
2:22:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT recalled posted signs on the Seward
Highway that indicate when headlights must be used. He inquired
as to who determines the posting.
MR. VIGUE answered that the DOT&PF makes the determination on
all four Highway Safety Corridors in Alaska.
2:23:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether any increases or decreases
have occurred for motorcycle accidents in the Highway Safety
Corridors (HSC).
MR. VIGUE said he was not aware of any specific data on
motorcycle crashes resulting from headlight use or nonuse. He
related his understanding when placing countermeasures in the
HSC a number of things occur simultaneously. Thus it is
difficult to correlate between headlight use and crashes. At
the same time signs related to headlight requirements were
initiated, law enforcement was also increased and centerline
rumble strips were also installed in the HSC. Thus it difficult
to substantiate which measure is responsible for the reduction
in crashes.
2:24:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to report HB 157 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Petersen voted in
favor of the motion to move HB 157 out of committee.
Representatives Johnson, Munoz, Pruitt, and P. Wilson voted
against it. Therefore, the motion to report HB 157 out of the
House Transportation Standing Committee failed by a vote of 1-4.
2:26:20 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:16 p.m. to 2:28 p.m.
^Mobility Coalition
Mobility Coalition
2:28:00 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the final order of business would
be a Presentation by Alaska Mobility Coalition, Mr. Levy.
2:28:26 PM
DAVID LEVY, Executive Director, Alaska Mobility Coalition (AMC),
said he appreciated the opportunity to speak about his
organization. He began his PowerPoint presentation. He stated
that the AMC is a private nonprofit organization [slide 2]. He
related that the AMC represents and advocates for community
across the state [slide 3].
MR. LEVY explained that the AMC represents over 110 member
organizations throughout the state [slide 4-5]. He explained the
organization's members range from tribal entities, nonprofit
organizations, disability organizations, trucking associations,
to consultants.
2:29:52 PM
MR. LEVY related the AMC's two priorities. He thanked the
committee and Representative Munoz for supporting HB 131, which
would create a statewide task force on public and community
transportation. He said he thought a role exists for state
government in terms of coordinating transportation and providing
efficiencies in transportation in Alaska [slide 6]. He also
advocated for the bill to help facilitate state partnerships in
public transportation sponsored by the Senate Transportation
Committee ([slide 7]. He explained that the legislature became
a partner in deciding how to provide transportation when it
authorized $1 million to address transportation needs throughout
the state, by adding additional vehicles, weekend service, and
additional bus routes. He offered his belief that this helped
to address the growing demand for public transportation. The $1
million really generates an 80/20 ratio, which equates to $4
million in federal and tribal money. He asked for the
committee's support for this funding in the capital budget.
MR. LEVY mentioned several television advertisements that
discuss public transportation.
2:32:15 PM
The committee aide ran a 30-second vimeo advertisement clip,
followed by a second vimeo, a 90-second advertisement clip that
demonstrated examples of public transportation.
2:34:41 PM
MR. LEVY concluded his presentation by showing a photograph of a
moose crossing the road in front of a public transit bus.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN remarked that the moose was a beautiful
moose. He inquired as to whether the photo was a real photo.
MR. LEVY answered that it was a photograph, courtesy of the
Anchorage Daily News.
2:35:19 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON inquired as to the additional ridership that was
provided by the $1 million in funding.
MR. LEVY answered that the funding was awarded in July and so he
does not yet have the final numbers. He offered to provide it
to the committee.
2:36:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked him to speak to efforts to coordinate
transportation between agencies and how it maximizes funding.
MR. LEVY responded that coordinated transportation is the key to
transportation in Alaska. Alaska is unique since people travel
by ferry, dogsled, airplane, and bus. He said it is challenging
to coordinate transportation and to ensure greater efficiencies
is important. He highlighted that many state agencies provide
transportation yet do not coordinate their efforts in terms of
funding and resources. He emphasized the importance and one of
the tasks of the task force is to assist government, nonprofits,
and communities in ways to work together in a coordinated way to
become more efficient in providing transportation. As an aside,
he mentioned that when the Governor's task force began its work
several years ago, a person who wanted to work in a community
could not do so since there was not any accessible van in the
town, except for the school district. The school district, by
policy, could not transport anyone who was not a student. He
mentioned that people face challenges to get medical care in
rural or urban settings. He offered his belief that
coordination of services is really the key to get people moved
efficiently and effectively.
2:39:45 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:39
p.m.