MINUTES OF THE
	SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

	Sixty-eighth Session
	March 23, 1995


The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman William 
R. O'Donnell, at 1:35 p.m., on Thursday, March 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 Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator Jon C. Porter
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator O. C. Lee

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Ernest E. Adler

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Don O. Williams, Chief Principal Research Analyst
Diane Rea, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Major Daniel Hammack, Commander, Field Operations Bureau, Nevada Highway 
	Patrol (NHP)
John Holmes, Concerned Citizen
Barbara Ludwig, Clark County Safe Kids Coalition
Greg Harwell, Legislative Representative, California State Automobile Association 
	(CSAA)
Stephanie D. Licht, Treasurer, Nevada Wool Growers Association, and Elko County 
	Commissioners
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens (NCC)
Mark McGuire, Lobbyist, Nevada Humane Society
Joseph Guild, Nevada Cattlemen's Association

Tony Yarbrough, Reno Kennel Club
Tom Bentz, Nevada Animal Wise Use and Welfare Alliance

Senator O'Donnell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 108.

SENATE BILL 108:	Prohibits driver of certain trucks from allowing minor to ride 
within truck body and space intended for merchandise 
without wearing safety belt.  (BDR 43-1067)

Senator Ernest E. Adler stated:

In 1991 [Sixty-sixth Session] I first brought this bill up; which is to 
prohibit children under the ages of 18-years of age from riding in the 
back of a truck, in space intended for merchandise, without wearing 
seat belts.  That came up in 1991.  It was killed by the committee 
without much consideration.  The genesis of the bill is; in 1991, I had 
a constituent who had a son that was about ready to graduate from 
high school.  He was riding in the back of a pickup truck.  Another 
teenager was driving; they hit a bump, he flew out and was killed 
right before his graduation from high school.

About a year and a half ago, I received a phone call from the Las 
Vegas Sun.  The Las Vegas Sun indicated that there had been a 
terrible pickup truck accident in Las Vegas.  There were several 
children in the back of the pickup truck.  It was rear-ended on the 
freeway; literally scattered these children all over the highway, 
causing death and some severe injuries to the ones that survived the 
accident.  

I have been in contact with many emergency rooms; especially in the 
rural counties.  The incidence of children coming into the emergency 
rooms who have bounced out of the back of a pickup truck are 
extremely high, as well.  I think this is an extremely important bill.  I 
think that this is a bill which will save lives.  It is a bill that most 
people think is the law already.  I would strongly urge you to support 
this.  I think its time has come in terms of passage.  


There's a couple of amendments I would recommend.  I think there 
needs to be an exception for emergency response vehicles; and for 
 certain agricultural purposes.  I think you may have instances where 
someone may have to ride in the back who is under 18-years of age. 
 There is going to be further testimony on an exemption for parades, 
and I am not opposed to that.  I think in a parade, if the Girl Scouts 
want to get in the back of a truck or a flat bed truck; that is 
appropriate.  The only other amendment I think, that is a necessary 
amendment, is that the citation to a safety belt should cite the 
systems which are approved under the federal standards under Title 
49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.  I think those are the safety 
devices we are referring to and that should be referenced in the bill.

Senator Washington asked if Senator Adler said that currently people think this is 
a law?

Senator Adler replied that a lot of people do; because it is the law in California.

Senator Washington asked if the bill had been introduced in the Sixty-sixth 
Session?  He asked for a brief history.

Senator Adler replied that he is not sure what happened.  Senator O'Donnell had 
not been the chairman at that time and the committee did not want to deal with 
the bill.

Senator Washington stated that he has always assumed this is the law.

Senator Adler stated that it is a common sense thing.  If a person goes to a high 
school and watches the number of kids that pile into the back of a pickup and 
observe the speed of the pickup as it pulls out of the parking lot; it definitely is 
necessary.  In many cases the parent has no knowledge that their kid is riding in 
the back of a pickup.  

Senator Adler continued:

I did not restart this bill.  I actually got phone calls from several people 
saying [why did you drop that, why don't you bring this up again.  
You have a new transportation committee, why don't you bring up 
this issue, because we think it is necessary?] That was people who 
work in emergency rooms, emergency response technicians, etc.  
Even the newspaper called me up and said [we think this issue is one 
that needs to be addressed.] This is a high area of accidents.


Senator Washington said that the committee needs to find out the percentage 
related to accidents and how many are really killed from being in the back of a 
pickup.

Senator Adler stated that he could name about five deaths and if one of them could 
have been saved it would have been nice.

Senator O'Donnell stated that he thinks the law would only apply after someone 
has broken it.

Senator Adler stated that it would be when an officer actually observes this and 
can pull them over.

Senator O'Donnell stated that if a person has broken the law they can pull them 
over.

Senator Adler stated that if an officer observes a child in the back, they could pull 
the individual over and ticket them.  This is different than the general seat belt law.
The kids in the back of the pickup do violate the seat belt law, right now; but with 
this, the officer could pull them over and ticket the driver.

Major Daniel Hammack, Commander, Field Operations Bureau, Nevada Highway 
Patrol (NHP) stated that the division supports S.B. 108 from a traffic safety 
prospective.  He submitted a national report (Exhibit C) in relation to the number 
 of incidents occurring on Nevada state highways.  These only related to fatal 
accidents.  He provided a traffic safety facts sheet (Exhibit D) pertaining to trucks.

Senator O'Donnell asked if the other categories indicated on the national statistics 
handout are other than those in the bed of a pickup?

Major Hammack stated that it may.  It depends on how the officer classified the 
report.

Senator Washington asked if the 13 fatalities indicated are over the past 7-years? 
 
Major Hammack stated that it is the best statistics available to the committee for 
fatal accidents reporting death.

Senator Washington asked if most people are under the assumption that this is 
already a law?


Major Hammack replied that he believes so; however it is not.  It would be a 
primary violation if the bill is passed in its current form; not a secondary violation.

John Holmes, Concerned Citizen, stated that he had approached Senator Adler on 
the issue of the parades.  He stated that he hauls 4-H and Girl Scouts in parades, 
along with 4-footed creatures.  He stated that he would hope the committee would 
consider adding the exemptions for parades.

Barbara Ludwig, Clark County Safe Kids Coalition, stated that the medical advisor 
for the Clark County Safe Kids Coalition provided a letter (Exhibit E); a fact sheet 
provided by the coalition (Exhibit F); Child Death Review Team letter (Exhibit G); 
and a letter from Mercy Medical Services (Exhibit H).  She stated that in order for 
a death to count as being due to the accident, death has to occur right away.

Senator Washington asked is the committee really going to accomplish what they 
are trying to do with this bill?

Mrs. Ludwig stated that a person is violating the law, having children not in seat 
belts.  

Senator Washington asked about the overcrowding in the cab of the truck.  If that 
is the only vehicle the family has and there are several children; that person would 
be in violation of another law by overcrowding the cab of the truck.

Mrs. Lunwig stated that a large family cannot have a truck as their only vehicle.

Greg Harwell, Legislative Representative, California State Automobile Association 
(CSAA) stated that CSAA is in strong support of the bill.  Trucks are not designed 
for the transportation of passengers.  Unrestrained passengers are more likely to 
be thrown from a truck, even in the absence of a collision, than those passengers 
inside the cab of a truck.  

Mr. Harwell continued:


In a 5-year special study by the National Transportation Safety Board, 
reports that over 35 percent of the fatalities in pickup trucks are 
exterior passengers.  Over 48 percent of the people reported being 
killed as cargo area passengers were under 18-years old; as were 59 
percent of those suffering severe injuries.  A 10-year study conducted 
by the University of California in Irvine, demonstrated the need for 
addressing the potential for ejection of and serious injuries among  
children traveling in the back of pickup trucks.  The authors there also 
found that children riding in the back of a truck were more often 
injured in non-crash situations, more often ejected from the vehicle, 
and more often suffered severe injuries.  This is not surprising since, 
the passengers who ride outside the cab have neither structural 
protection nor restrain systems in case of an accident.  We do feel 
prohibiting the transportation of passengers in the back of a truck will 
prevent injuries and save lives.

Senator Neal asked what fatality or injury concerns within recent years brings his 
support for this measure.

Mr. Harwell stated that the data is not gathered consistently with respect to 
occupants of trucks.  The National Transportation Safety Board report is a 5-year 
period ending in 1979 or 1980.  In that period, they reported Nevada as tied for 
27th nationwide for fatal results.

Senator Washington asked if the bill does not pass, would it not be a lot easier to 
educate people about the danger of putting children in the back of a pickup?

Mr. Harwell stated that he feels that should happen whether the bill passes or not.

Stephanie D. Licht, Treasurer, Nevada Wool Growers Association, stated, 
"Supporting the exemption for agricultural areas; we want to express our 
appreciation considering the diverseness of our state and the agricultural 
population.  A lot of times, in the winter, we haul feed cattle, or haul lambs in 
[pickups], or any of that kind of thing.  We sincerely appreciate your concern for 
us and taking care of our needs, as well as the rest of the state."

Senator O'Donnell asked for testimony from anyone opposed to S.B. 108.

Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens (NCC) stated that she has a couple of 
questions to raise for the committee's consideration.  


There appears to be no provision to recognize that in older trucks, 
they are not equipped with any kind of restraining device; so the 
intent seems to be to completely eliminate the use of a pickup truck 
bed for transportation of people.  There does not seem to be any 
recognition of any difference between a pickup that is open and one 
with a camper.  I would ask you what the big difference is between 
a pickup with a camper shell and a motorhome?  Those are just 
thought questions for you to consider in the process.

Mrs. Lusk related her experience as a child in a large family who had only a pickup 
truck for family transportation.

Senator O'Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 108 and opened the hearing on S.B. 
110.

SENATE BILL 110:	Prohibits driver of truck from allowing dog to ride within truck 
body and space intended for merchandise without 
restraining device.  (BDR 43-1308)

Senator Jacobsen testified that he represents the western district.  He said he was 
born and raised on a cattle ranch.  When he came out of the military he spent a 
year on a sheep ranch.  He spent 40-years driving a truck.  He said he spent a year 
driving a 12-ton tanker.

It has been my observation over a number of years to see a number 
of dogs killed from not being restrained in the back of a pickup.  I 
even ran over one of my friend's ranch dogs as I delivered the 
gasoline.  The dog recognized me, jumped out of the back of my 
friend's truck and I ran him over.  I did not think I was responsible for 
it, because I could not stop the 12-ton truck on the spur of the 
moment.


I have observed over the years; and I have seen a couple of them that 
were restrained that were drug to death because they were 
restrained, but the rope was too long, or the chain was too long.  
They jumped out.  You can train a dog to do almost anything, but you 
cannot think for that dog.  I think you owe it to him to protect  him 
in whatever manner it might be.  That dog can be your best friend; 
and as you drive down the road, and he sees another dog in another 
pickup or another car, he feels that he is in protective mood and he is 
going to protect his master or his equipment, or whatever it might be. 
 I know a number of cities have this kind of a law; and I realize that 
it certainly has an effect on agriculture.  It is not meant to restrict the 
dog in any manner, when he is on the rancher's proeprty.  When he 
[the driver] is on a public roadway, he is as responsible for that dog 
as he is for one of his children, his wife, or his friend.  That dog is an 
animal that he depends on; and when I think about it, I often wonder 
...  I guess that is the reason we have horse trailers today.  Those 
horse trailers are confined to where that animal cannot leave that 
trailer without putting down the tailgate and backing him out of there. 
 I think this is only a normal situation where; if you love your animal, 
then it is your obligation to protect him.  

If you 
e
v
e
r
 
l
o
s
e
 
o
n
e
,
 
i
t
 
i
s
 
a
l
m
o
s
t
 
l
i
k
e
 
l
o
s
i
n
g
 
a
 
m
e
m
b
e
r
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
f
a
m
i
l
y
.
 
 
I
 
t
h
i
n
k
 
i
f
 
t
h
e
y
 
a
r
e
 
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
 
t
o
 
y
o
u
,
 
I
 
t
h
i
n
k
 
i
t
 
i
s
 
u
p
 
t
o
 
y
o
u
 
t
o
 
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
 
t
h
e
m
.
 
 
T
h
e
 
r
e
s
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
 
d
e
v
i
c
e
,
 
I
 
w
o
u
l
d
 
s
a
y
,
 
w
o
u
l
d
 
c
o
s
t
 
l
e
s
s
 
t
h
a
n
 
$
1
.
 
 
I
t
 
m
i
g
h
t
 
c
o
s
t
 
l
e
s
s
 
t
h
a
n
 
t
h
a
t
.
 
 
I
f
 
y
o
u
 
h
a
v
e
 
a
 
d
o
g
,
 
y
o
u
 
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
l
y
 
h
a
v
e
 
a
 
l
e
a
s
h
 
f
o
r
 
h
i
m
.
 
 
I
f
 
h
e
 
i
s
 
a
 
h
o
u
s
e
 
d
o
g
 
o
r
 
n
o
t
 
t
h
e
r
e
,
 
a
r
e
 
t
i
m
e
s
 
t
h
a
t
 
y
o
u
 
w
a
n
t
 
t
o
 
t
i
e
 
h
i
m
 
u
p
 
f
o
r
 
h
i
s
 
o
w
n
 
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
 
o
r
 
t
h
e
 
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
 
o
f
 
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
.
 
 
A
l
l
 
i
t
 
w
o
u
l
d
 
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
,
 
i
n
 
a
 
p
i
c
k
u
p
,
 
i
s
 
a
 
s
n
a
p
.
 
 
T
h
e
 
s
n
a
p
 
w
o
u
l
d
 
c
o
s
t
 
y
o
u
 
a
b
o
u
t
 
$
1
,
 
t
o
 
h
o
o
k
 
o
n
 
t
o
 
t
h
e
 
r
e
s
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
 
d
e
v
i
c
e
.
	

This may need an amendment where it would say that the restraining 
device would only be so long; at least not to the length to allow him 
to jump out and allow him to be drug to death.  I think it is a simple 
bill and I think it is something that each one of us has a responsibility 
for; realizing that animals serve a purpose, and I think that they 
deserve to be protected.


Mark McGuire, Nevada Humane Society, read his statement (Exhibit I) in support 
of S.B. 110.

Joseph Guild, Nevada Cattlemen's Association, stated that he has to disagree with 
Senator Jacobsen for practical reasons.  The bill would apply to a working dog, 
used by a rancher in the working conditions on the ranch.  He said he does not 
disagree that in an urban situation; a heavy traveled highway, this would be a good 
idea.  He said that he would ask for the committee to consider an amendment to 
the bill to exempt working, ranch type dogs.

Tony Yarbrough, Reno Kennel Club stated:


I also represent the Bonanza Kennel Club in Carson City, and 
Responsible Dog Owners group.  I am also a member of the Animal 
Control Advisory Board for Reno.  I am aware, and I have been a part 
of, the ordinance that Reno utilizes.  One of the things that we face, 
on a regular basis, even with the ordinance, is that it does not appear 
to be something that is readily enforced in a primary type of incident. 
 It is utilized in a secondary type of incident.  I think it would be wise 
to defer this type of legislation to the local entity; to the local 
governments.  Let them manage their problems as they see fit.  
Secondarily, often bills like this are introduced because of someone 
who becomes irresponsible.  The people that I work with are very 
responsible and I have seen restraint devices that are used in the back 
of trucks.  They are not inexpensive.  Sometimes they are rather 
elaborate.  I would think that the way this bill is written, there is some 
language that is lacking; because it fails to address whether we are 
dealing with the public highways, or we are dealing with private 
property.  I would think this would be appropriate to review, so that 
the private parties are held harmless and they are excepted.

Senator O'Donnell stated that there is a question raised about camper shells.

Mr. Yarbrough stated that the ordinance in Reno addresses an open atmosphere; 
not something that is enclosed.

Senator Jacobsen stated that sometimes we do not want to protect something that 
is not valuable to you, but it is valuable to me.  He asked if Mr. Yarbrough knows 
of any other animal that can be a seeing eye for a person?  That animal is almost 
like an individual person because he is the eyes for that person he is guiding.

Mr. Yarbrough stated that he has worked with seeing eye organizations and he 
realizes what Senator Jacobsen is saying.  He said that it comes down to the 
responsibility of the individual.  

Stephanie D. Licht, Elko County Commissioners, submitted two letters from the 
Board of County Commissioners (Exhibit J) and (Exhibit K).  She stated that in 
testifying for Elko County, they would prefer that it be left up to local governments. 
 On behalf of the sheep herders they would add their "me too."

Senator Washington asked if the same ordinance is effective in Elko County as is 
in Washoe County?

Mrs. Licht replied that they are different,  


Tom Bentz, Nevada Animal Wise Use and Welfare Alliance, stated that this alliance 
goes into all the major kennel clubs, takes in most of the special breed clubs and 
it includes other interests in wildlife groups.  This group has show animals so they 
are already restrained.  Their consensus is that this would be better handled by 
local enforcement.  He said that, in general, dogs in a pickup truck do not create 
a problem.  The dogs that are hanging over the side of the pickup truck or barking 
is when the problem occurs.  The same thing would occur if a dog was hanging out 
the window of a car.

Mr. Bentz stated that if a dog is to jump out of a pickup truck or a car window, and 
cause a severe accident; the concern would not be with the punishment being dealt 
out by this law.  It would be the same as if a refrigerator fell out of the back of a 
truck.  Civil liability would be the main concern.  He said the ruling would be best 
served as a local jurisdiction.

Senator Lee asked if this bill is proposed in Clark County, would Mr. Bentz be there 
in support of the bill or against it.

Mr. Bentz stated that his people in Clark County said that they would support 
language more like the Reno ordinance.

Senator Washington stated that maybe the Legislature could pass a law that would 
make people put signs on their truck alerting you to the fact that there is a dog 
inside.  This would avoid a lot of people being scared by the presence of the dog.

Mrs. Lusk stated that the Nevada Concerned Citizens (NCC) feel that if it is 
important enough to make a law for the safety of a dog, then it is important 
enough whether it is a pet or a working animal.  This is too much law and 
something must be left to personnel responsibility.  She asked the committee to 
consider that point of view.

Senator O'Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 110.







Senator O'Donnell adjourned the meeting at 2:43 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:


	
Diane C. Rea,
Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:





Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman


DATE: 	

Senate Committee on Transportation
March 23, 1995
Page