MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Sixty-eighth Session February 23, 1995 The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 2:05 p.m., on Thursday, February 23, 1995, in Room 226 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman Senator Maurice Washington, Vice Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter Senator Raymond C. Shaffer Senator O. C. Lee COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen (Excused) Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr. (Excused) STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Don O. Williams, Chief Principal Research Analyst Diane Rea, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas Fronapfel, Assistant Director Planning Division, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) Francis Gilling, People to Protect America Major Daniel Hammack, Commander, Field Operations Bureau, Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) Lt. William Cavagnaro, Las Vegas Police Department (METRO) Jerry Lusk, Las Vegas Chad Dornsife, National Motorists Association (NMA) Jenny Hanson, State of Nevada Juanita Cox, The People to Protect America Senator O'Donnell stated that the bill to be heard by the committee today was Senate Bill 133 (Exhibit C). Senate Bill 133: Revises provisions governing rate of speed for operation of motor vehicle. (BDR 43- 1381) Senator Washington testified: For the record I am here in support of the bill to repeal the speed limit in the rural areas from 70 miles an hour to unlimited. The bill was introduced on behalf of those residence that live in the rural areas, giving them open access to the freeways and the roadways. It is a lot different living in the west than it is back east where usually you can travel from state to state within an hour or two. Travel between the northern part of Nevada and the southern part of the state is at least a good 8 hours, or even traveling from the Washoe County area to Elko, Wendover or Winnemucca takes a great deal of time. The other thing to be brought before the committee is the sovereignty of the state to allow the state of Nevada to conduct their own affairs regarding their speed limit. There are also drawbacks to the bill and there will be some repercussions if the bill is passed. In essence, the principle for the bill is good and should stand on its own merits. The committee will have to weigh the benefits against the cost. The state of Montana is also repealing the cap on the 70 mile per hour (MPH) speed limit and they have no maximum on their current law and have not lost their federal funding for their roadways. Senator O'Donnell asked if they were not sanctioned in any way? Senator Washington stated that his understanding was that they were not sanctioned. Thomas Fronapfel, Assistant Director, Planning Division, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) stated that he was there to testify against S.B. 133 and to express the departments opposition to the proposal (Exhibit D). Senator O'Donnell asked if NDOT is sure that the state would lose $128 million of Federal highway funds? Mr. Fronapfel stated that NDOT has already received notice from the Federal Highway Administration, Carson City District Office that they are tracking the bill. They have sent notice to NDOT, in a letter stating, "It has come to our attention that a proposed bill, Senate Bill 133, would remove the probation on exceeding the national maximum speed limit as required by 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 154. Failure of the state to follow 23 U.S.C. can result in the loss of federal aid highway funds and we trust that you will advise the Legislature of being taxes by this bill in the department". Senator O'Donnell asked where the state gets the federal highway funds? Mr. Fronapfel replied that federal highway funds are administered to the various states from the federal highway administration. Senator O'Donnell asked where the federal government gets the money to give to the states? Mr. Fronapfel answered from the federal highway trust fund. Senator O'Donnell asked where the federal highway trust fund gets their money? Mr. Fronapfel replied that it is from a combination of gas taxes and some other taxation revenues on the systems. Senator O'Donnell asked if this is what the residents of the state of Nevada pay into the fund? From the Nevada state treasury? Mr. Fronapfel replied it is from the taxes on gasoline and so forth that the citizens pay. Senator O'Donnell asked if he had spoken to the lady who wrote the letter he was quoting from and told her that if she would not allocate any highway funds that the state would not give her any of their taxes? Mr. Fronapfel replied that essentially it is a tier process. What the federal highway trust fund would do is to initially notify the state through the Governor's Office that they would not approve expenditure of any federal funds on projects that are currently under consideration for construction in the state. They could withhold those dollars at that point. Senator O'Donnell stated that he believes that there is a constitutional prohibition against the people of the state getting taxed for something they do not get. Francis Gillings, People to Protect America, stated: The people must make up their minds that they are the government and that they gave the federal government very limited power. They do not have a dictatorial power, but because the people have not done anything, many of them really believe they have it. We have had the power to undo the 55 MPH limit all along. Major Dan Hammack, Commander, Field Operations Bureau Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP), stated that the division wants to voice their opposition to S.B. 133 in the interest of traffic safety. Currently 38 percent of all fatalities occur at a speed greater than 55 MPH. By raising the speed limit, the severity of vehicle crashes also increases. Speed is a contributing factor in the majority of vehicle collisions. Of the 45,580 traffic crashes that occurred in 1993, 10,150 had speed as an element of cause. Senator O'Donnell asked how many of those were Driving Under the Influence (DUI) or had alcohol involved? Major Hammack replied that his source document was the NDOT Nevada traffic accident statistical book for 1993. The document indicates that there were 2,121 total DUI accidents and 51 DUI fatalities. Major Hammack continued: In the divisions opinion there is direct correlation between increased speed and survivor ability in the event of a traffic collision. The division would encourage the committee to vote no on S.B. 133 in the basic interest of traffic safety. He provided the committee with two handouts in relation to speed with fatal accidents. Major Hammack stated: The first draft (Exhibit E) was from the source document and gives an overview of the hosted speed limit at fatal accident locations. The higher the speed the higher the number of fatalities. The second draft (Exhibit F) is also in relation to fatal accidents and basically the statistic of 38 percent of fatal accidents occur at a speed greater than 55 MPH. There is a correlation between speed and severity, either injury or fatality. It increases significantly if you have a collision at 35 MPH, your survivor ability is considerably greater. Lt. Bill Cavagnaro, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (METRO) stated: METRO supports the NHP's position because there is a lot of rural area in Clark County and they have found in the past that oftentimes [as fast as is safe] is interpreted by drivers was [as fast as I can go]. The fatal accidents increase when the speed was increased. METRO was there to present a safety issue. Senator Washington asked: If based on the figures given of those fatal accidents, since an increase was noticed when the speed was increased, did they find more fatal accidents at a younger age as opposed to an older age? Teens vs middle aged, because there was mention that the accidents go up is courtesy a factor. Major Hammack replied: In referring back to the DOT document there is a comparison of statewide involvement in traffic accidents vs age and between 21 and 25 there is a peak and between 26 and 30 there is a peak. As you get older it definitely declines. The figures are for both male and female. Senator Washington asked what we did before the law was enacted? How was the situation handled then? Major Hammack replied: In 1973 the state enacted the 55 MPH and the reckless driving citation when it was 85, 90 or above MPH and actually got some convictions in court. Other than that they are not actually viewed as a violation. Senator Washington asked if this bill is passed would they follow the same pursuit? Major Hammack stated: With the language of the bill, it will be real subjective on enforcement. Because of the wording of [the weather and other highway conditions], that will be a suggestive call for the officer for enforcement and for the judicial branch to make a decision as to whether you were in violation of the statute. Senator Porter stated that he feels this is two issues, one of safety and one of the state's rights. He had just been faxed some statistics from the Western Insurance Information Service (Exhibit G). Page 6 talks about motor vehicle crash fatalities. Major Hammack stated: NHP and METRO are not here for states' rights. What we want is to bring up the traffic safety issue that can save lives on the highways. It is a traffic safety issue and that is what we came to emphasize. Jerry Lusk from the Las Vegas area stated: I looked at the bill from two ways. The states ought to be able to take care of the people and the locals in which they are living at the time. If the road is not safe to be driven at excessive speed, a slower speed limit should be put on it. The local people should be able to make the decision as to the safety and what the road will bare and how they are going to enforce it. Senator Porter stated that based on the design fact of that particular highway, that is the way it should be. Mr. Lusk stated: If there is a particular stretch of highway that has a problem the speed should be posted and enforceable. Chad Dornsife, National Motorist Association, State Chapter, stated: This is a classic case when it comes to safety. Everybody is sitting around yelling safety, the statistics do not jive with what they are claiming. The general trend on highway fatalities has to be based on the number of miles driven. Deaths per mile driven in the 1940s was way up and then it decreases until this year, when it is under 40,000 in highway [the] accident fatality rate. In 1973, apparently the fatality rate dropped and so there was a drop in volume. People could not buy gas, they could not go anywhere so there was no traffic on the highway so we had fewer fatalities. Mr. Dornsife continued: There are two different groups in the federal government. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration which gets funds for speed enforcement and the Federal Highway Administration which does the study on what speed enforcement does, what relative speed is, etc. Mr. Dornsife said: The first part of the report [Exhibit H] is from the highway administration and shows the average speed plus 5 mph. The chart in the report called [55: A Decade of Experience] [Exhibit I] is from the National Research Counsel paid for by congress and is a developer for risk. It shows the 55 mph plus 10 is the safest speed statistically [Exhibit J]. In every case the safer condition for driving should be 80 mph. Statistics show you are least likely to be involved in an accident. Under no study has the number of situations issued had any long-term effect on speeds nor has it shown a reduction in accident rates. In Nevada we have a higher than average accident rate not from speed. Our number one problem here is fatigue. We disregard funding for rest areas. We close down our rest areas all across the state. Mr. Dornsife continued: I have received a couple of Montana citations. Montana has all their roads posted. If they are not posted, they are assumed to be 55 or 65 mph. Their law says anyone exceeding the posted limit, as long as they are driving in a safe condition. It is a $5 fine. You pay the officer on the spot and he issues you a receipt. Nothing that goes on your driving record. Other reports provided by Mr. Dornsife in this packet are (Exhibit K) Compendium of Technical Papers, (Exhibit L) 4M-25 Speed Zone Guidelines Report and (Exhibit M) Proposed Policy Resolution PR-5-93. Mr. Dornsife continued: The current law says if you are doing 55 mph in the fast lane you technically cannot be issued a ticket because you are being lawful. (Exhibit N) and (Exhibit O) were presented regarding speed limits. Senator O'Donnell stated: I was under the assumption that the real traffic hazards are not speed, but differential in speed. If someone is going 40 mph and someone going 65 mph that is a hazard. The bigger hazard is radical lane changes and following too close. NHP's intense efforts have been on speed alone. Mr. Dornsife stated: It has been proven time and time again throughout the world that minimum speed limits will reduce accident rates where maximum speed limits have no cause and effect. The federal study shows that in no location did any of the traffic change plus or minus more than 3 mph. There is no correlation between increasing the speed limit and actual increased speeds. When the state of Nevada went from 55 mph to 65 mph, our average speed that first year increased 1.8 mph on those roads according to the statistics and the death rate went down. Major Hammack stated: The lane change violations cause a significant number of traffic accidents in the state of Nevada. The other factor is speed 9 times out of 10. If everyone on an interstate system would go 65 mph you would not have unsafe lane changes. The drivers who exceed the limit and have to maneuver around other drivers leads to the primary cause of the unsafe lane changes. Senator O'Donnell asked for statistics on the number of tickets written for these violations. Major Hammack stated that he had the computer base for that information. Mr. Dornsife stated that the statistics show that the vehicles traveling faster than average are involved in fewer accidents than those traveling slower than average on the interstates and rural highways. The faster drivers are in fact involved in fewer accidents. Senator Porter stated: In a 10 mph impact, drivers have less than 1 in 1,000 chance of dying. If the impact speed is 20 mph, the probability of death increases to about 7 in 1,000; impact at 60 mph the probability that the driver will die is more than 50 percent. In general, 10 percent increases in crash speed increases the risk of the drivers death by nearly 45 percent. Senator O'Donnell asked Major Hammack if he is familiar with the Montana law? Major Hammack stated that he is not familiar with the law. He stated that the gentleman from the NDOT could comment to the fact that they still have a speed limit, but what they changed is the fine structure. Mr. Dornsife stated: It changes one hour before sunup and one hour after dusk. The reason Montana does that is if you travel on the rural highways, you go through rooming hills and at certain times of the year there are herds of deer. The state mows the shoulders and the salt from the road along with the fresh crop, and it is right next to the road. The high animal hit problem is a problem there, so they change to speed limit. Major Hammack stated that he has contact with the Montana Highway Patrol and he would contact them to obtain information on the fining procedures. Senator O'Donnell stated that it seems to make a lot more sense to pay your fine on the spot than the expense of putting that ticket through the system. Major Hammack stated that there are several other states that would even accept credit cards on the spot for your tickets. He stated he feels it would present accounting problems with the individual officers, but he would look into that for the committee. Senator O'Donnell stated that not having to go through the system and not having to have any record or points, in terms of efficiency would be beneficial. Major Hammack stated that Nevada has some of that now in terms of minimal fine and no points. Senator O'Donnell asked if there was anyone else to testify for or against the bill? Senator O'Donnell continued: I would like to charge NHP with getting some statistics for the committee so that we can see what kind of tickets are being written and to investigate the Montana situation to see if Nevada cannot adopt some of their speeding laws. Also, from the NDOT whether or not Montana has lost any of their highway funds because of their speed limit law. The committee would wait until they got this information back before deciding what they are going to do. Senator Washington stated that the committee might look at Mr. Dornsife's recommendations for amending the bill to fit with the Montana laws. Janine Hanson, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum, stated that she had information on the federal funds issue. She has been working with Senator Duke from the state of Colorado. He was the initiator of the 10th Amendment legislation which passed out of the senate unanimously. Ms. Hanson continued by reading from the 10th Amendment legislation resolution: "When a state passes this resolution proclaiming its sovereignty that state may then claim exemption to most federal mandates under the 10th amendment of the United States Constitution. This is what happened with New York vs United States in 1992. The federal government was attempting to mandate that the state of New York accept radioactive waste for disposal .... by having claimed sovereignty, the state is in a position to select those mandates they will follow not by choice and not by edict. A sovereignty resolution does not preclude any state from participating in any program they choose, but the proponent may no longer claim it is a federal mandate, we have to do it. Each legislator, in compliance with his or her oath of office, must then examine closely before passage, the constitutionality of any law being considered. Needless to say, the feds may be unimpressed with the statement of sovereignty and attempt to impose economic sanctions against the state, as have become their pattern over the years. In anticipation of this, each state should also create escrow funds for each federally funded major program. That is, the states will collect major sources of federal funds such as gas tax and income tax on behalf of the federal government and make monthly disbursements to the feds from these escrow funds .... " Ms. Hanson stated: I have a copy of the bill from Colorado and will share with the chairman. This idea of taking responsibility for the state of Nevada through the use of the 10th Amendment and imposing federal mandates is being used on the environmental level for the evictions imposed in Colorado, but as a result it has spread far beyond that initial issue they were trying to deal with. This is another way of approaching the issues talked about today in dealing with the federal government. If Nevada is going to reassert its sovereignty we have to do it with regard to federal funds because they will try to blackmail us. Juanita Cox, The People to Protect America, stated that they believe it is time to take back the state of Nevada, assert 10th Amendment rights and to tell the federal government that Nevadans are grown people and can determine what is best for its citizens. She was here to ask for adoption of S.B. 133. Senator O'Donnell stated that the committee needs to take action on a bill draft brought before the committee at their last meeting. The request was not of the transportation committee and they need to rescind the action taken at that meeting. SENATOR PORTER MADE A MOTION TO RESCIND INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL DRAFT REQUEST SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Senator O'Donnell adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Diane C. Rea, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Transportation February 23, 1995 Page