MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Sixty-eighth Session March 7, 1995 The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Tuesday, March 7, 1995, Chairman Thomas Batten presiding in Room 331 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Thomas Batten, Chairman Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairman Mr. Dennis L. Allard, Vice Chairman Mr. David E. Goldwater, Vice Chairman Mr. Bernie Anderson Mr. John C. Carpenter Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. Dennis Nolan Ms. Genie Ohrenschall Ms. Patricia A. Tripple COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: None GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Kathy Augustine STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Mouritsen, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Gene Temen, Nevada Towing Association D. F. Hallet, No. NV. Bike Helmet Coalition D. Hammack, Nevada Highway Patrol Robin Williamson, Nevada RTA Tom Stack Phil Galeoto, Lieutenant, Reno Police Department B. Bodeau Sue Newberry, Dept. Of Motor Vehicles/Traffic Safety Pamela A. Walker Nicole Walker Patty Smith, Nevada Auto Body Association Stephanie D. Licht, Elko County Commissioners Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens Len Nevin Warren Hardy, Nevada Assoc. of Auto Service Professionals Dave Horton Bob Crowell, Farmers Insurance Company Joe Guild, State Farm Insurance Company Robert R. Barengo, Electronic Industries Assoc. Juanita Cox Eva Kallick ASSEMBLY BILL 102 - Revises provisions relating to composition of advisory board on automotive affairs. Chairman Batten opened the hearing on A.B. 102 with testimony from Warren Hardy, representing the Nevada Association of Automotive Service Professionals. Mr. Hardy stated the association has no particular concern with the bill, however, if it is the intent of the committee and the Legislature to expand the Advisory Board on Automotive Affairs, they would like to have a member of the automotive repair industry included. Patty Smith, Executive Director of the Nevada Auto Body Association (NABA), reading from her prepared text, (Exhibit C,) said the association supports A. B. 102. The Board is the only conduit between insurance companies and automotive industry services, keeping the automotive business informed on a number of matters and providing surveys performed by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The Board meets only two times a year, so the addition of three members should not cause undue expense and will make the Board more accountable within the automotive industry. To amend A. B. 102, NABA would like to have added "automotive engine repair" because it is necessary to include all of the industry. Assemblywoman Chowning asked how long the Advisory Board had been in existence. Ms. Smith responded it had been created in 1989. Mrs. Chowning inquired what good for the general consumer had been accomplished by the existence of the Board. Ms. Smith replied it gives the automotive industry, working together, the chance to look at any proposed legislation. If that legislation might place an undue burden on the industry, and in consequence raise rates for consumers, there is an opportunity to work it out. Mrs. Chowning asked whether Ms. Smith felt lower automobile insurance rates were a result of the Board. Ms. Smith explained rate setting of automobile insurance is against anti-trust laws and is not a function of the Board. Assemblyman Carpenter queried Mr. Hardy's suggestion that automotive repair people be included on the Board. Ms. Smith agreed NABA supports that idea. Mr. Carpenter asked whether one person from the general public should be dropped from the Board and be replaced by one person from the auto repair industry. Ms. Smith felt the Committee must work that out, but should remember the automotive industry is composed of possibly fifteen different types of businesses including glass, lock, engine repair, machinists, tire suppliers, dealers, salvage and towing. If the Board is limited to nine members, one of the general public members must be eliminated. Mr. Carpenter asked if the Board should be changed to eleven or if that would make it too cumbersome. Ms. Smith believed it could be worked out and added DMV and the insurance division could make recommendations. Assemblywoman Tripple asked whether insurance representatives were included on the Board. Ms. Smith replied the insurance companies are represented as well as the State Division of Insurance and DMV--the two government entities responsible for reviewing anything automotive in the way of proposed legislation. Assemblyman Anderson inquired how long the Board had been in existence. Ms. Smith reiterated since approximately December, 1989. Mr. Anderson further questioned whether the addition of members to the Board had come before any other Legislative session. Ms. Smith believed this is the first expansion proposed for the Board. Mr. Anderson questioned why the changes are being proposed. Ms. Smith replied the rest of the automotive industry will be able to participate. For instance, the current bill would include the towing industry, a very viable part of the automotive industry that should be allowed to participate. Gene Temen, representing the Nevada State Towing Association, stated they would like to be a part of the Board. However as A.B. 102 is written, it would pertain only to certificated carriers and the Committee might want to amend that. Mr. Anderson asked about regulation of operator tow companies and how they are currently meeting certification requirements. Mr. Temen replied those requirements are met through regulation by the Public Service Commission (PSC). Mr. Anderson inquired whether the PSC makes certain a tow company is operating in the best interests of the public. Mr. Temen agreed it is the PSC's responsibility to make certain there is safe, reliable towing available. Mr. Anderson asked whether the PSC should regulate towing. Mr. Temen believes there is a need for a certain amount of regulation but it should follow federal guidelines. That would limit regulation by the PSC to insurance and safety issues and allow a tow operator to operate more in line with a normal type of service business and without the heavy- handed regulation the PSC is famous for. Mr. Anderson noted a concern he hears from the public deals with the fact some of the people who operate in the tow business may not have clean records. The PSC does not allow felons nor someone with an arrest record to operate a "hook service". He asked if Mr. Temen is contending that issue should not play a role in certification because it is not part of federal regulations? Mr. Temen replied he was unaware he would be testifying regarding certification, but it is a concern of his because he wants credible operators in the tow industry and without regulation, Class C type tow-away business and law enforcement towing might be compromised. The industry, law enforcement and government should draw up contracts that protect consumers and not stifle tow operators. Mr. Anderson responded he would not have broached the question had Mr. Temen not indicated there is something wrong with the PSC's involvement in the tow area. One of the saving factors in A. B. 102 is close scrutiny of the industry by the PSC. Without that scrutiny, he could not support such a bill. Mrs. Chowning mentioned there is a bill on the Senate side involving this issue of the PSC expanding their authority in the area of regulating tow truck operators. Those concerns could be addressed when the Assembly receives that bill. Some of the language in A. B. 102 could be deleted or the bill held until that issue is settled. Mr. Batten agreed he shares Mr. Anderson's concerns about the state only being able to regulate safety and insurance issues and not price. If Mrs. Chowning is correct, Mr. Batten has some serious concerns about tow cars being included in this bill at all. Bob Crowell, appearing on behalf of Farmer's Insurance Company, echoes the concerns expressed previously with respect to the tow car issue being certificated. He feels the issue is whether or not tow cars are going to remain being certificated throughout the state. That obviously would have an effect on whether or not tow cars should be in the bill. Remarking on the need for the existence of the Board, Mr. Crowell noted the Board has accomplished the goals outlined in the legislation that initiated it and in subsequent amendments. To that end, he urged the Committee to investigate the necessity for the continuation of the Board and its functions. Mr. Anderson noted it is his understanding another function of the Board is providing a methodology of making sure business practices of body shops, auto wreckers, motor vehicle and auto manufacturers are being regulated. He asked whether Mr. Crowell saw any redeeming factors for the Board's continuance. Mr. Crowell replied no, that Chapter 233b of the Nevada Revised Statutes codifies the Administrative Procedure Act which allows for the promulgation of regulations and rules to regulate an industry. If an industry believes neither the Division of Insurance nor the Department of Motor Vehicles has rules and regulations in place sufficient to police it, then that group can petition those two agencies to adopt rules to do that. Simultaneously, all individuals are given the right to review administrative regulations that affect the industry. Mrs. Chowning agrees Mr. Crowell is bringing up an excellent point. Too many times in government, a board is created that just goes on and on. If the function of this Board has already been met, that should be taken into consideration and the Board terminated. On the other hand, if there are other good things being accomplished as a result of the Board, perhaps those should be added into statute. If the Board is in fact doing other things than what is stated in statute, that is not correct either. Joe Guild, representing State Farm Insurance Company, opposes A. B. 102 which calls for an expansion of the Advisory Board for the same reasons expressed by Mr. Crowell. Mr. Guild feels it is time the Committee address the question of whether the Board should even be in existence. Mr. Carpenter asked why the insurance companies are opposed to this Board. Mr. Guild explained there is a Division of Insurance within the Department of Business and Industry which regulates the insurance industry in Nevada; there is also the DMV which covers public safety issues and regulation and registration of vehicles operated on the highways of this state. The main purposes for which the law creating the Board was passed in the first place have been accomplished and there is no need for yet another layer of government regulation. From the insurance industry's point of view, they are adequately and reasonably regulated by the insurance division. Mr. Carpenter asked if, during the time these regulations were being enacted, the insurance industry had strongly opposed any. Mr. Guild replied he was not working as a lobbyist at that time and did not have an answer to that question. Patty Smith, speaking again for the Auto Body Industry who were initiators of this bill, sees three on-going issues. There is an insurance industry representative on the Board. There is a very good working relationship with DMV and the Insurance Division. They do not want to see this Board removed because it is the only vehicle they have for dealing with the insurance industry. Most of the businesses Ms. Smith deals with are "Mom and Pop" shops and it is hard for them to take the time to tell the Legislature how they feel. This Board is very important to their industry and makes their business operations easier. Mr. Batten inquired whether anyone in either the Las Vegas or Carson City audiences wished to speak for or against A. B. 102. There being no further testimony Mr. Batten closed the hearing on A. B. 102 and entertained a motion. Mr. Anderson stated he is not ready to vote on A. B. 102 because there are a couple of open-ended questions that need resolution. Insurance industry testimony indicates a conflict between the insurance industry and auto body shop operators on the need for this Board. Mr. Anderson requested research staff do an investigation on the originial purpose behind creation of the Board. In addition, he is uncomfortable with moving forward until it is determined what the Public Service Commission's role in regulating this particular industry would be now or in the future. Mrs. Chowning agreed she has similar concerns. In addition some of the wording needs clarification. On line 17, will those lines simply read, "Operators of tow cars" without all the qualifying language? The bill needs an amendment which would be better handled at a later time in a work session. Mr. Carpenter commented if the Committee were to make a move to disband the Board, that would call for a new hearing and input from the researcher who should research legislative intent in the creation of the Board. Mr. Batten, after requesting further comment from the Committee, proposed the matter be moved to a subcommittee comprised of Assemblywoman Ohrenschall as Chair, and Assemblymen Carpenter, Nolan, Allard and Goldwater. ********* ASSEMBLY BILL 100 - Requires bicycle riders to wear protective headgear. Mr. Batten announced Ms. Kallick and Mr. Hallet who will be introducing an amendment to A. B. 100 after which the Committee will hear opposition testimony from those unable to testify during the last hearing. Eva Kallick, testifying from Las Vegas, proposed some amendments based on the Committee's concerns during the last hearing when this legislation was introduced, (Exhibit D). The proposed amendments are as follows: Section 1, number 1, instead of all riders, would read, "a person under the age of 18 years old". A concern of the Committee's had been identifying the age of the bicyclist. That could be accomplished using driver's licenses or learner's permits. The fines in Section 1, numbers 2 and 3, have been lowered to $50.00 each. Fines, by state constitution, must go into the education fund. To fund any kind of bicycle safety education program a civil penalty is necessary. As a result, Section 4 has been condensed and edited to read, "any civil penalty collected by a court pursuant to Section 1 of this act, must be deposited with the State Treasurer for credit to the Department of Motor Vehicles and must be accounted for separately and used by the Director to support educational programs concerning safety." Sections 5 and 7 remain the same other than adding "the American Society for Testing and Materials" to the standards. Section 6, even though the language was thought cumbersome, must remain as it is because it is a point of tort. It may not be used very often, but when used in a tort situation does need to be in the bill. Mr. Anderson asked whether, in Section 4, any money would be held by the court for processing or other fees. Ms. Kallick responded not as it was written. Mr. Anderson wondered whether that would create an unusual statute for this particular piece of language, since usually the court is able to retain its own fines and penalties for the operation of the court itself. David Hallet, coordinator of the Northern Nevada Bicycle Helmet Coalition, responded the bill writing office had indicated there would be questions like Mr. Anderson's. If these amendments are accepted, the bill drafters will help wash those small problems out. The bill writers did not feel it was appropriate for Mr. Hallet to get down to the nth detail. Mr. Anderson asked if the amendments would have to be more tightly drawn because of the ambiguity. Mr. Hallet said the bill drafters indicated, if the amendments were accepted and there were still questions such as Mr. Anderson's, they would help clarify those and alleviate any ambiguity. Mrs. Chowning asked if it were Mr. Hallet's intention to alleviate the penalty portion of the bill as much as possible and more in line with a fix-it type concept. Mr. Hallet responded in Section 2, subsection 1, NRS 62.175 will apply to minors. This bill is not intended to make criminals of minors, put them in jail or have law enforcement chase them around; it is intended to be educational. For clarification, Mrs. Chowning questioned whether it is Mr. Hallet's understanding that simply by adding that section of the statute, everyone would be assured this is a fix-it type concept. If someone is cited, they would be told to get a helmet. If they do not provide proof of the purchase of a helmet, they would be charged with a misdemeanor and possibly jailed. Mr. Hallet responded Section 62.175 of juvenile courts is citation in lieu of arrest for violation of a traffic ordinance. If a bicyclist is stopped and promises to appear in court by signing the citation, the officer shall deliver a copy of the citation and shall not take him into physical custody for the violation. Further in the proposed bill, in Section 7, it points out the parent or legal guardian of the minor who violates this section is liable for civil penalty. The court may waive civil penalty if the parent or legal guardian provides proof the minor has been provided with protective headgear. It is left up to the court whether they will fine in Section 1, subsection 2. Mr. Batten mentioned a summons in lieu of arrest could be issued, but noted under current statute, if the child refused to sign the summons, he would have to be taken into custody. Mr. Hallet agreed with Mr. Batten. Mr. Batten, to clarify, mentioned a summons is not an admission of guilt, just a promise to appear in court. Assemblywoman de Braga asked for clarification of the age mentioned in the bill; is it 18 and under or 17 and under. Mr. Hallet responded 17 and under. Mr. Batten asked whether, if a child is not wearing a helmet, he would be fined and no civil penalty assessed on the parents. Ms. Kallick stated Section 7 reads "the parent or legal guardian of a minor who violates the provisions is liable for civil penalties". Mr. Batten questioned a possible additional penalty for the individual not wearing the helmet. Ms. Kallick agreed but said, that is up to the judge, assuming it gets before a judge. Mr. Batten, referencing the mention of "low income households" in Section 4, asked whether any money was going to those households to provide protective gear. Ms. Kallick replied there are a lot of non-profit agencies already providing that service. Mr. Hallet expanded on Ms. Kallick's explanation saying the section concerning low-income families has been deleted. Distribution of the fine goes strictly into the existing DMV bicycle safety education program to be accounted for separately as stated in Section 4. Assemblyman Allard asked if Mr. Hallet was aware of the Bicycle Safety Fund currently in place. Mr. Hallet replied that fund is already in existence and specifically identified in Section 4. Their intent in the proposed legislation is any fines from the civil penalties be directly accounted for in a separate account to be used by the Director of DMV to support educational programs concerning bicycle safety. Mr. Allard mentioned the Governor's budget has approximately $100,000 earmarked for bicycle safety and wondered why it is necessary to impose penalties and fines when the state is currently making an effort at bicycle safety education. Mr. Hallet responded with no fines there is no incentive to comply. Mr. Allard pointed out education does not stand alone, nor does a bill or a law. They are part of a total package and need to complement each other. He feels it most appropriate, since this is a bicycle safety issue, fines should go into the existing fund to help the education process. Mr. Carpenter, referring to Section 7, subsection 1, asked who would pay the fine were a very young child to be fined. Ms. Kallick recommended an amendment to the amendment that would add the word "and fine" to subsection 1 of Section 7. Mr. Carpenter agreed. Then, referring to Section 2, subsection 2, he asked if the parent would then be liable for a misdemeanor. Mr. Hallet said he was unprepared to address that. Mr. Carpenter, mentioning subsection 3 of Section 2, queried if those places (a highway or path) were the only places the law would apply. Mr. Hallet replied the helmet should be worn wherever the rules of the highway apply and in places where one would normally find bicycles. The intent is not to make this a cumbersome bill from a law enforcement standpoint. Mr. Carpenter feels the bill is very unclear. Ms. Kallick promised to work with the Legislative Counsel Bureau to simplify the language. Mr. Allard also believes the bill is cumbersome, which is a problem that arises when government attempts to micro manage people's lives. Mr. Anderson presented a scenario to Mr. Batten involving two boys aged five who were not wearing helmets and who were stopped by the police. Later at age twelve those same boys were again not wearing helmets and again were stopped by the police. In Mr. Batten's view, both scenarios resulted in the time and resources of the police being consumed. In addition, being misdemeanors, those violations would have been placed on the boys' records. Mr. Hallet disagreed so Mr. Batten asked a police lieutenant in the audience to clarify the juvenile aspect for the Committee. Phil Galeoto, a Reno Police Department lieutenant, answered misdemeanor crimes are criminal acts in the state of Nevada. According to statute however, the definition changes when anyone age 17 or under commits a misdemeanor. It becomes a delinquent act because a child of the age of 17 or under cannot commit a crime; they become delinquents. From a law enforcement perspective, a child is dealt with in the same fashion as an adult, the only difference being the offender is taken to a juvenile facility. Every effort is made not to put the child into custody but if the child refuses to sign the citation, both the child and the bicycle will be taken into police custody. Mr. Allard asked Mr. Galeoto whether he anticipates problems with enforcement of the bill. Mr. Galeoto, after stating the police department has taken no position on the bill, presented his own professional opinion, based on his experience in the management of field personnel. His concerns involve the enforcement aspect, particularly if the child refuses to cooperate. What will become of the child after being taken into custody and what kind of long term impact might occur. Another unique problem involves pursuit; an auto chasing a bicycle poses all kinds of difficulties. Mr. Allard believes this legislation may be placing an undue responsibility on the parent who is to enforce the wearing of a helmet even though the parent may not be present. He does not see how this legislation will work when parents may not be riding bikes with their children all the time. Ms. Kallick responded children are minors and a parent is responsible for their minors. Mr. Allard agreed he is responsible but does not want to start policing safety equipment. Mr. Nolan outlined a hypothetical situation in which a child is issued a citation, which he signs. Of course he does not have a helmet with him so does the officer instruct him to walk his bike home, does he take the child home, or do they go their separate ways. What if the child gets back on the bike after the officer has left and gets injured. Is the police department liable? Lt. Galeoto responded police will do what the Legislature instructs them to. Mrs. Chowning asked whether this law has been enacted in other states; if so which ones and for how many years. Mr. Hallet replied bills such as this have been enacted in nine states with California the most recent one. Law enforcement in the states that have enacted this measure have found it has become a positive educational tool. Law enforcement has traditionally sought better ways to become more active with children in a positive way. Mr. Batten called for a recess from A. B. 100 to address Senate Bill 109. ********* SENATE BILL 109 - Authorizes use of television-type receiving equipment for navigation of motor vehicle. Senator Kathy Augustine presented testimony for passage of Senate Bill 109, (Exhibit E.) She explained concern exists that advances made through the development of wireless vehicle navigational devices will be rendered useless due to automobile television-type equipment prohibitions. Currently, Nevada, Texas, Utah and Wyoming are the only states that do not allow these navigational type devices to be used in private vehicles. They are already being used in police and emergency transportation. The federal government has provided money to Las Vegas to examine the feasibility of using these navigational devices mostly in car rental systems. Hertz is using these throughout their system. Mr. Goldwater asked why this might be good for his constituents. Senator Augustine replied this would start in the Las Vegas area and federal grant money has already arrived. If you have an emergency or do not know where you are going, you would be able to purchase these television-type monitors for your vehicles. Robert Barengo, representing the Electronic Industries Association, spoke in support of S. B. 109 which would bring Nevada into compliance with the rest of the United States. The previous legislation, a public safety matter, was intended to prohibit people watching television (TV) programs while driving. With the advent of the global positioning network and the TV screen necessary to make that work (only about five inches in size) it is not a hazard. This might be very beneficial to tourism and will include Nevada in the information network currently existing across the United States. Mrs. Chowning wanted to know how much one of these navigational devices would cost to either the car rental company or the individual. Mr. Barengo replied Oldsmobile is considering offering these devices as an option on their vehicles and the additional cost is around two thousand dollars. Mr. Nolan commented he has used these systems before in fleet management and they are exceptionally diverse in what they can do. They not only look at maps, they can also send traffic information. They are very useful devices. Senator Augustine added the trucking industry uses navigational devices but when they enter Nevada must turn them off. ASSEMBLYMAN DENNIS ALLARD MOVED DO PASS ON S. B. 109. ASSEMBLYWOMAN PATRICIA TRIPPLE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Batten reopened testimony on A. B. 100. with a statement from Pamela Walker who introduced her daughter Nicole who was hit by a car while riding her bicycle in October, 1994, at the age of fifteen. Nicole suffered traumatic brain injury to both sides of her head. She was not wearing a helmet because she was afraid her friends might call her a "geek" or her hair might get messed up. Following six hours of surgery Nicole was in a coma for eleven days. Now, four months later, her brain waves are still not normal and she has seizure activity. No one knows if she will ever return to the person she was. Her medical bills currently total half a million dollars. Mrs. Walker stated wearing a bicycle helmet is a small price to pay to save a human life. Nicole addressed the Committee saying she wants the law passed so others would not have to go through what she has which was the hardest thing she has ever gone through in her life. She cannot do a number of things such as taking physical education classes in school, or doing anything that might cause her to fall. Stephanie Licht, representing the Elko County Board of Commissioners, left a copy of their letter opposing A. B. 100, (Exhibit F.) Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, stated they have very strong feelings about this bill. An act should be considered a crime when it infringes on the liberties of others. Acts such as murder, rape and theft are crimes; not the simple act of hopping on a bike to take a brisk morning ride. Some of the things in this bill appear to be quite unclear such as whether this is a minor infraction similar to a fix-it ticket or a misdemeanor. The philosophy of protecting us from ourselves has no natural end. With regard to the fines, which might, after retrieving the impounded bicycle, total approximately $150, those amounts are equivalent to the fines for acts that seriously endanger the lives of others. Freedom is not without risk, it is not perfectly safe and orderly and it is not even financially free. You have a choice to preserve some rights and freedoms for the people or to vest all responsibilities in the government. In summary, she stated she hopes the Committee will preserve some freedom for Nevada. Juanita Cox, representing herself, her family and The People To Protect America, testified helmets would save lives, but if the state is going to take care of its people, it should care for them all. Everyone leaving their beds should be mandated to wear a helmet; it would save on hospital bills. Everyone should also be mandated to wear their helmet in the shower and bathroom where most accidents occur. There is a place for government but this mandate is not wanted nor needed. Instead, follow Sparks' example where private citizens get together to solve their own problems without government mandates. In the Sparks Tribune of February 3, 1995 there was an article reporting on how local citizens and schools have their own solutions. There are already rules and schools are already encouraging parents and children to wear their helmets. Our police force and court system should be utilized for criminals not adults and children without helmets. This is just another way to raise additional revenue for the government. Ms. Cox asked the Legislators to consider a sunset for the bill if it is adopted so it could be reviewed to see if it is accomplishing what was intended. However, she believes adoption of the bill will further erode Nevadan's rights and requested indefinite postponement of A. B. 100. Mr. Anderson asked Ms. Cox if she is of the opinion municipal code could be adopted to fit the needs at the local community level rather than through state law. Ms. Cox, who lives miles from any municipality in Storey County, would hate to see this mandated. In a city, it should be the parent's responsibility to determine whether his child needs a helmet. Mr. Anderson, paraphrasing Ms. Cox' testimony, stated she would object to government at any level mandating bicycle helmets because all levels are viewed as an intrusion into ones ability to make choices. Ms. Cox disagreed, noting the various forms of government are run by the people. The people in a particular entity should be able to decide whether they need the law, but on the state level, she feels it is beyond the Committee's jurisdiction. David Horton continued opposition testimony stating he was the original author of the first motorbike helmet ordinance adopted in Lander County which they discovered trying to exempt those under 18 made for an impossible enforcement situation. The police are not going to be "carding" bicycle riders; this statute will not be applied. This amounts to an unfunded state mandate on a community. There are also problems regarding the way fines will be handled and whether they can be used for the educational purposes bill sponsors had in mind. That would be better addressed by adopting a county ordinance where one can control where the funds go. As the bill reads now, it may be generating funds that go elsewhere. Mr. Batten interrupted explaining comments about A. B. 100 must be kept brief because half the Committee would be leaving at 3:30 p.m. Mr. Horton, in conclusion, stated we can support and endure certain bureaucrats if they have four characteristics: high pay; good manners; early retirement and no power. As a result, local county boards should be approached to pass the legislation being sponsored here. Mr. Batten, with no further testimony forthcoming, closed the hearing on A. B. 100 and would accept a motion. ASSEMBLYMAN DENNIS ALLARD MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A. B. 100. ASSEMBLYMAN DENNIS NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Goldwater, commending the intent of the bill sponsors, agreed government should not be involved in this issue and will be supporting the motion to indefinitely postpone. Mr. Allard, also commending the proponents of the bill for their endeavors and what they are trying to accomplish, agrees bicycle helmets enhance bicycle safety however, he feels bicycle safety is not the issue. The issues are individual responsibility and freedom of choice. This is another example of government usurping the authority and private lives of its citizens. The amendments usurp parental authority. The current bicycle program of $100,000 per year should be used to educate the public. He will be supporting the motion. Mr. Carpenter, speaking in favor of the motion, believes this can be done on the local level. He also believes education is working and has seen its effects in his own family, whose members all have helmets. The hearings on A. B. 100 have had the additional effect of educating all the Committee members and the public who heard any parts of the hearings. Mr. Nolan, agreeing helmets save lives and reduce morbidity, believes the Legislature should not mandate wearing protective headgear. By mandating helmets, Legislators are telling parents what they should be doing to ensure the safety and well-being of their own children. We cannot legislate every risk out of being a human being and for those reasons he seconded the motion. Mr. Anderson also will be supporting the motion and stated the Legislators want to do the right thing for children and clearly the right thing is to wear helmets. He feels it would be appropriate for the Legislature to make a statement that a worthwhile endeavor for a local community would be to draft applicable legislation. Mr. Anderson further stated the bill is not redeemable in any of its current forms and indefinite postponement is in the best interests of the bill sponsors and the Committee and recommended the question be taken up at the county level. Mr. Batten called for the vote. THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYWOMAN VONNE CHOWNING WAS OPPOSED; ASSEMBLYWOMAN PATRICIA TRIPPLE ABSTAINED.) There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Terry Horgan, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Thomas Batten, Chairman Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairman Assembly Committee on Transportation March 7, 1995 Page