MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation
Seventy-Second Session
March 18, 2003
The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:38 p.m., on Tuesday, March 18, 2003. Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairwoman Vonne Chowning
Vice Chairwoman Genie Ohrenschall
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Jerry D. Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mr. Mark Manendo
Mr. John Oceguera
Mr. Rod Sherer
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County District No. 3
Senator Warren B. Hardy II, Clark County District No. 12
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst
Jackie Valley, Committee Manager
Nancy Elder, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Captain Larry Whitson, Department of Public Safety, Nevada Highway Patrol
Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office
Lisa Foster, American Automobile Association
Heather Thompson, Legislative Assistant to Assemblywoman Gibbons
Kenneth S. Kruger, President, All American Driving School
Ginny Lewis, Director, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles
Benjamin Blinn, Private Citizen, Carson City
Mary Henderson, representing Nevada League of Cities
Kurt Sawyer, Director of Building, City of Mesquite
David J. Anderson, Mayor Pro-Tem, City of Mesquite
Randy Robison, representing City of Mesquite
Susan Martinovich, P.E., Assistant Director of Engineering, Nevada Department of Transportation
Chairwoman Chowning:
The Transportation Committee will now come to order. [Roll was called]. Before we hear our bills, we have a Committee introduction.
Chairwoman Chowning:
BDR 43-1098 increases penalties for violations of certain traffic laws in temporary traffic control zones. Do I have a motion for introduction?
ASSEMBLYMAN SHERER MOVED FOR THE COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 43-1098.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Senate Bill 77: Requires driver of vehicle entering or exiting controlled-access highway to yield to vehicles traveling on highway. (BDR 43-647)
Chairwoman Chowning:
We have three bills for hearing today including two legislators’ bills. We’re going to take our legislators’ bills first. Hopefully, the others will understand. We’ll take Senator Wiener’s bill first, which is S.B. 77. Welcome, Senator Wiener, will you please come forward. This is the first time you have appeared before the Assembly Committee on Transportation this session, and we are glad to have you here.
Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County District No. 3:
[Introduced herself] It is a thrill to be on the third floor again; I enjoy being up here. I can say for the record that this will probably be the shortest testimony I have ever given in Committee. I’m appearing before you to seek your support for S.B. 77, which requires the driver of a vehicle entering or exiting a controlled access highway to yield to the vehicles that are already traveling on the highway. Please note the proposed change in the law in Section 1, subsection 2. By deleting subsection 2, you will clear up a very obvious confusion for motorists, and provide them with a definitive statutory scheme to help them note which driver is responsible for yielding in various situations. Subsections 1 and 2 currently conflict with one another. I seek your support for S.B. 77 for the reason of cleaning up what is confusing to motorists.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I have a very obvious question, Senator Wiener. How did you discover that these subsections were in conflict with each other?
Senator Wiener:
I had some people complain to me who had attended a traffic school, who said it didn’t make sense that the car which had the right-of-way was the car merging into the traffic that is already traveling at high speeds. Then I experienced it myself when I had conflict of sorts with a situation like that when I was in Las Vegas. I was in the Spaghetti Bowl where traffic comes onto the freeway, at the same place you have to exit onto D Street to go to the State of Nevada Grant Sawyer Office Building. My thought was that traffic should have to yield to me, because I am traveling at a high speed, and his thought was —probably because he had been to traffic school— that I should be yielding to him. It was such an experience that I am lucky to be here today to talk about it. I looked into it, and I realized the two subsections conflict.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I think the members of this Committee heard about a bill that supposedly passed the house in Maryland recently. Some members of the press dubbed it the “road rage reward act.” It says that if a car is traveling at the speed limit and someone wants to pass them, and they’re in that passing lane, they can be cited, because they are not getting out of the way of the person who is trying to zoom along in the passing lane. This reminds me of that, but thankfully it is not as aggressive. Are there any questions?
Assemblyman Collins:
Say I am sitting in a semi truck in the center lane and am going to turn onto the road. It gets clear, and I start turning. By deleting that second line, if that traffic coming at me can get to me before I get all the way off the road, they would not have to yield. If that part is not deleted, they would have to yield. Once I had entered the lane of travel crossing it, they would have to yield to me. Is that what you are trying to change? Do you see what I am getting at?
Senator Wiener:
The intent is that when you have traffic that is merging onto a highway, the car which is already traveling at high speed would be allowed to continue, and the car that is going to be entering into that traffic would have to yield. I’m thinking of an 18-wheeler that has to brake because a car is coming onto the freeway. The two subsections conflict right now; one says that the one merging must yield to traffic that is already traveling at a high speed, but the next section says that the traffic traveling at a high speed must yield to the car that is coming on. This is trying to eliminate a situation of conflicting subsections.
Assemblyman Collins:
So you are referring to an exit ramp and not a left turn, for example.
Senator Wiener:
No, this is with the highway situation.
Assemblyman Collins
Isn’t this mirroring California law, and you do have to yield to them once they enter?
Senator Wiener:
This does not address the traveling lanes in southern Nevada, because a lane is already provided for a car that is merging. That is not part of this either, because that is a lane that is already provided for the merge.
Assemblyman Collins:
As long as those people get on the highway going fast enough, nobody gets in the way.
Senator Wiener:
It says they have to yield, and that requires judgment.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
As I read this bill, I see a small conflict in Section 1, and that is when you exit. If someone were to rear-end you, does that mean you did not yield the right of way? You would have to slow down to 45 miles per hour to exit, and you are making a right turn off the freeway.
Senator Wiener:
I would have to ask the experts on that one. We had notified Nevada Highway Patrol to be here. I needed a specialist, and we drafted this bill together, so he can certainly help you better than I.
Captain Larry Whitson, Department of Public Safety, Nevada Highway Patrol:
[Introduced himself] I am a captain with the Nevada Highway Patrol.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
As I read Section 1, let’s say that you are exiting, and you slow down to 45 miles per hour, and somebody rear-ends you. If you take the second section out, you are failing to yield to the traffic.
Captain Larry Whitson:
Are you referring to the vehicle that got struck in the rear end, or to the vehicle that is striking the other one in the rear end?
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
As I read this the way it is drafted now, it would be the fault of the one that is exiting.
Captain Larry Whitson:
I am sorry, I do not see it there.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
It says, “The driver of the vehicle about to enter or exit a controlled access highway shall yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching on the highway.” If you slow down to 45 miles per hour, and this guy is going 95, he has got you.
Captain Larry Whitson:
What we have in our highway system is what we call transition lanes. You have a lane for vehicles that are entering from the on-ramp that continues on to the next off-ramp. That is considered a lane. If you were exiting the freeway, you would have to make a lane change. What they are saying here is that you have to make that lane change safely, because you are going from one lane to another lane. If you cut off another vehicle and slow down immediately, and you are in that transition lane, and move from the right lane to the transition lane, and you slow down abruptly, it most certainly would be your fault. I think that is what this is addressing. In other areas of the interstates, the on-ramp goes right into the right lane of the interstate, or the controlled-access highway. The off-ramp would then exit from the right lane of that freeway. Did I explain it?
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Yes, thank you, and the bill is only six lines long.
Assemblyman Collins:
Part of this was added in 1993, and I do not know which part was added in 1993, but we did it. Was this to address the California style of traffic where you have to let a merging car in?
Captain Larry Whitson:
It very well could be, but I am not familiar with what you guys did when you did that. According to the way the law is written, if you are entering a controlled-access highway or freeway, the people who are already on that freeway have to yield to you. That means the person coming on the on-ramp has the right‑of‑way. That does not make sense. All of our other laws are written so that the person who is already in that lane has the right-of-way, as long as they stay in that lane.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Are there any other questions? Senator Wiener, thank you for bringing that piece of legislation. It goes along with your desire to eliminate parts of statutes that are not needed anymore. Does anyone else wish to speak for or against S.B. 77?
Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office:
[Introduced himself] Just a “me too,” Madam Chairman.
Lisa Foster, American Automotive Association:
[Introduced herself] I am here in support.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Is there anyone here in opposition? [There were none.] We could hear a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 77.
ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Is there any discussion?
Assemblyman Collins:
Can we find out why we enacted this in 1993? We can go ahead and vote on it, but I would like to ask the Research Division why we voted that way in 1993.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I would feel very comfortable asking, and we will get that research completed. It seems like a very important measure to pass in order to eliminate the confusion. It would not only help the people taking their driving test at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), but it would also help the people who teach at the traffic schools, so the law can be clear. We will have the Research Division do that for us, and hopefully we will have a report by our next Committee meeting. Any other discussion?
Assemblyman Claborn:
The way the law is now, according to some of the off-ramps, as a matter of fact, when you leave the off-ramp from Tropicana entering the freeway, you have the right-of-way. Is this what we are trying to change?
Senator Wiener:
I have not been home for a while, but many of those major on-ramps have a traveling lane. That is not addressing what the major concern here is, because some of those have a traveling lane as you find in the Spaghetti Bowl as well down south. You can move over into traffic. This addresses those places where you go directly into traffic. This is to avoid the confusion about who has the right of way in those areas. You are talking about where you would already be in traffic and then make a lane change. That is a little bit different situation.
Assemblyman Claborn:
That might be true, but there is a sign when entering the freeway that says you have the right-of-way. Most other places in town that don’t have a traveling lane have a sign that says you must yield before entering from Tropicana to the Salt Lake Highway to Highway 10 or wherever it is.
Senator Wiener:
Pardon me, but many of them do say “yield.”
Assemblyman Claborn:
No, it says you have the right-of-way. The freeway has to yield to you.
Senator Wiener:
Many of them do say “yield.” Sometimes you do yield, and sometimes you do have the right-of-way. Again, if it is a traveling lane, that is your lane, and you just make lane changes. That is how the highway patrol explained it to me. That is what this is to make consistent in the law. Those two subsections do conflict.
Chairwoman Chowning:
This would make it very clear, and I can cite several instances where I’ve been on the freeway and someone’s trying to come in. It is dangerous, when you realize that you need to slow down to let this person come in, and yet, there is all this traffic around you. Without the merging lane, it is a difficult situation. Trying to get onto the freeway where there has not been a merging lane is when common sense tells you to slow down and go in when you can. This bill clears up the confusion. It says if a person is entering or exiting the controlled-access highway, that person must yield.
Assemblyman Claborn:
Thank you very much. It is cleared up now.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Any other discussion? [Called for a vote on S.B. 77.]
THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS VOTED NAY.
Assembly Bill 128: Provides for issuance of driver’s license with designation "Defensive Driver." (BDR 43-749)
Chairwoman Chowning:
We open the hearing now on Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons’ bill, A.B. 128; Assemblywoman Gibbons is not here.
Heather Thompson, Legislative Assistant to Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons:
[Introduces herself] We are here presenting A.B. 128, the defensive driver’s license bill, on behalf of Assemblywoman Gibbons’ constituent, Ken Kruger. Mr. Kruger is here to offer a testimony and some amendments for you to consider (Exhibit C).
Kenneth S. Kruger, President, All American Driving School:
I’m with the Nevada Professional Driving School Association, and All American Driving School. I started teaching driving in 1970 with International School of Driving in San Francisco, California. I have also been an airline director of operations with an airline that was flying DC-9 aircraft.
There are two theories to teaching safe driving. One is by education, and the other is by training. The 1980 to 1990 United States Department of Transportation study, took 9,000 driver’s education students and compared them to 9,000 nondriver’s education students in DeKalb County, Georgia, and showed statistically that there was no difference in the driving records of both groups after 10 years. Therefore the education method does not seem to work that well, even when the students were given six hours of in-car training, with three or four students in the car at a time practicing maneuvers.
I am a believer in the training method of teaching safe driving. I think safe driving habits, which are something a person does not have to think about but just does, is the best method creating safe drivers. For 22 years, I have been looking for a way to get people to want to improve their driving by developing defensive driving habits.
The handout I have given you (Exhibit D), shows just one of the differences between driver’s education and driver’s training in a high quality simulator. Most people think that their driving is excellent and that they do not need to improve, even if they have been involved in one or more car crashes in the last year, stating, “After all, it has just been bad luck.”
Though I think I have found the best way in the world to teach a person to drive, there is no motivation for a person to improve if they believe their driving is almost perfect. This is the reason I would like this state to establish a defensive driver’s license. This would be the ‘gold card’ of driver’s licenses. It would be the motivation for a person to improve their driving by taking training and passing a defensive driver’s test. There would be no distasteful or mandatory requirements for a person to take this course, but the license would give a person a reason to improve their driving skills, without shoving it down their throats.
[Ken Kruger] The defensive driving test not only shows the students what they do not know, but also shows them that they need improvement. The value of the simulator when teaching driving does not replace actually driving a car. It is my belief that one hour in this simulator is worth at least five hours of driving a car.
A student will gain valuable experience in a simulator that he would not necessarily receive in a car. You may or may not have been a passenger on a plane of a Boeing 747, where the pilot in the right seat of the aircraft is going to fly a whole load of passengers for the first time in that aircraft; that is because he has learned how to fly that airplane in a simulator.
The simulator we are proposing in this course is that well built. The simulator will create defensive driving habits. For every mistake of defensive driving that a student makes, the simulator creates a consequence. One can make defensive driving lapses in a car all day long, and be so lucky to have no consequences, and will not have learned any reason to know the defensive driving rules.
Section 4 of this bill is asking the department to do a study of using licensed driving schools to administer a Class C license. When giving the drive test in a car, a person could go through hundreds of tests and never have a pedestrian enter a crosswalk. In the simulator, there will be a pedestrian in the crosswalk in every test. In most actual driving tests, one does not enter the freeway, and most examiners do not want to be in the car with someone entering the freeway. With the simulator, every test would have a freeway entrance. In some locations during a drive test the person doing lane changes does not have to encounter any traffic. In the simulator, a person will be tested making lane changes with traffic he must adjust to.
The simulator could give 12 drive tests in an hour, and it would be a more comprehensive test than the examiners can offer when they are giving 3 in an hour. Examiners use parallel parking just to find out if a person is safe enough to go out onto the road with. Parallel parking is not a requisite for safe driving, and it only proves that a person can maneuver a car. Driving schools have to waste hours teaching parallel parking in Las Vegas, and not in Reno, because it is on the driving test in Las Vegas. This is to the detriment of teaching what is important, like dealing with traffic conflicts. These are the reasons the department should do a study to have the driving schools give a test in simulators for a Class C license. The proposed amendment in front of you pretty well explains itself throughout. That is the conclusion of my testimony.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Tell us in Section 1, what this bill will do.
Kenneth Kruger:
The department shall issue a driver’s license with a specifically colored background to any person who otherwise qualifies for a regular driver’s license, pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
Chairwoman Chowning:
You are amending that.
Kenneth Kruger:
Yes, I want to amend that.
Chairwoman Chowning:
You have approved that through Assemblywoman Gibbons?
Kenneth Kruger:
Yes.
Chairwoman Chowning:
What exactly is the amendment?
Kenneth Kruger:
The request is to have the Department of Motor Vehicles make regulations for this license. They need to decide for how long the license will be good, and how it can be taken away and things like that.
Chairwoman Chowning:
That substantially changes that portion.
Kenneth Kruger:
It still requires the establishment of the license, but rather than putting it all in statute, it allows the department to establish its own regulations for the license.
Chairwoman Chowning:
That is a clear difference, so I want that to be made clear. What you are proposing here is that the department shall issue this particular driver’s license with this special colored background. Before they do that, they will have to establish regulations regarding this.
Kenneth Kruger:
That is correct.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Continue on page two.
Kenneth Kruger:
The department shall not approve a course in defensive driving unless the course is offered by a licensed school for training drivers and includes a simulated driving examination which is given in a computer-synthesized interactive simulator. When I explain this to most people, they picture a person sitting at a computer with a joystick, and learning to fly an airplane; this simulator is nothing like that. It is nothing like the ones they put in high schools where they put 30 kids in little cars and they watch a movie.
This simulator is totally active. You can drive anywhere in town that you want, but there is a consequence for every mistake that a person makes. For example, as far as going through green lights, a person will go through about three green lights, and I won’t have to tell him to check, but at about the third green light, somebody will run through the red light and hit him, and that is his consequence. Eventually he is going to start checking at the intersections to try to find the guy that is going to hit him. That will start to develop the habit to make the driver always want to check at the intersections.
Chairwoman Chowning:
This particular section, subsection 2, page 2, requires the department shall not approve a course in defensive driving for the purpose of this section, unless it is offered by a licensed school that is going to have this type of training in their teaching. Is this being done presently? Does the Department of Motor Vehicles regulate simulators?
Kenneth Kruger:
No, they do not. The only places that simulators are being used right now are in police departments and fire departments across the country. They are very expensive, so in places like the Bay Area of California, where they have about eight simulators, they are being controlled by driving them around in a big truck to different areas, but keeping them in the Bay Area. They are established simulators, but they have never been used for this type of licensing.
Chairwoman Chowning:
This bill would state that the department has to recognize a method of teaching that is currently not regulated.
Kenneth Kruger:
Right, but as they would establish regulations for this license, they would have to accept or approve whatever test I came up with.
Chairwoman Chowning:
It does not say that in the bill. That would have to be added to the bill. Let’s get finished with the presentation and then we will take questions. In subsection 3 you state, “the simulator used, and it must be equipped with . . .” and everybody can read that part. This type of machine is not regulated currently by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).
Kenneth Kruger:
This is correct.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Tell us what the intent is in subsection 4.
Kenneth Kruger:
The department shall conduct feasibility as to contracting with outside sources, such as driving schools to do the driving tests for Class C licenses. In some states now, there are third party classes, and they have examiners through the driving schools that are doing this. In this case, it would only be through a school that would have this qualified simulator. It wouldn’t be a subjective test like the one given through the DMV. You either pass it or you don’t pass it, by the way the machine is set up.
Chairwoman Chowning:
You just said ‘shall,” but in subsection 4 of your amendments you wrote “may.”
Kenneth Kruger:
The “shall” that I wanted to put in there was for the insurance requirement. The DMV is trying to get insurance companies to lower the discounts, and I was informed that the Committee probably would not like that. Instead of making a requirement that the DMV do it, I put in there that they may do it.
Chairwoman Chowning:
It is difficult as legislators to tell another department of government to do something. It is better to urge something than to mandate something.
Kenneth Kruger:
Yes.
Chairwoman Chowning:
So that is why you changed that to “may.”
Kenneth Kruger:
Yes.
Chairwoman Chowning:
On page 3, please explain Section 3, and what you are trying to accomplish.
Kenneth Kruger:
Right now in driver’s education, we are authorized to use the car as part of the driver’s education training. Every hour in the car counts as three hours in the class. We would like to have a similar provision for the simulator. Every hour in the simulator would count as an hour in the car.
Chairwoman Chowning:
So currently three hours behind the wheel counts as …
Kenneth Kruger:
Three hours of classroom.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Counts as three hours of classroom. You are trying to substitute behind-the-wheel training for a simulator?
Kenneth Kruger:
That is correct.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Does that mean that a young person learning to drive could take their driving test without ever having to prove that they had been behind the wheel?
Kenneth Kruger:
For instance, you have a person that drives from Beatty to Tonopah every day and gets his 50 hours of driving experience. That is not training; it is experience. You have another person who gets his 50 hours in by driving in downtown Las Vegas. Who would have the most experience in actually driving? I contend that it would be the person in Las Vegas. I also say that the person driving in the simulator would be getting more experience than a person would in a car, because of the consequence always being there. He is still getting actual driving experience. You have to see the simulator to understand what I am talking about. This is actual driving experience. The only thing it does not have is the movement of a car, but it has everything else.
Chairwoman Chowning:
The way the bill is written, it reads that each hour completed in a simulator must be the equivalent of one hour of training in a motor vehicle. So, if there were 50 hours of training from a simulator, that would be the equivalent of the 50-hour requirement behind the wheel. Is that not correct?
Kenneth Kruger:
That is correct.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Could you tell me the cost of one of these simulators?
Kenneth Kruger:
They are approximately $100,000 apiece.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
What is the cost to drive per hour?
Kenneth Kruger:
The proposal right now is, if we could run it around the clock, we could give a fairly decent price. It is appearing to be somewhere around $90 per hour right at the moment.
Assemblyman Sherer:
What is the fiscal impact?
Kenneth Kruger:
The fiscal impact is the DMV’s [Department of Motor Vehicles] impact of printing new blanks for the licenses.
Chairwoman Chowning:
As soon as Mr. Kruger is finished, we will have the DMV folks up here, and we will get the answer.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
I like the concept of this bill, although I believe it needs a little work on it. One thing that has not been brought up is that a person like myself who has been a professional driver for many years, and I have over 1 million miles under my belt, and have taken defensive driving courses over the years, and I have had driver’s education in high school, and I am not going to say how long ago that was, how would we be able to qualify for a defensive driver’s license in my particular case, and for many others out there who would like to have a break on insurance?
Kenneth Kruger:
The way I have amended it, or have requested the amendment to Assemblywoman Gibbons, is that all you would be required to do is take the test. There is no course you would have to take. If your abilities are there, you would pass the test.
Assemblyman Sherer:
Is this also going to move toward getting points removed from your driver’s license?
Kenneth Kruger:
There is nothing in statute now that would allow for that. That could be changed in the next session.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Are there any other questions? I think it is clear what the intent is. I do have an important question. Because Assemblywoman Gibbons is not here, I will ask her representative, Heather Thompson. Is Assemblywoman Gibbons in agreement with these amendments?
Heather Thompson:
Yes, she is.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you. There are no other questions at this time, so could we have a representative from Department of Motor Vehicles come forward. Thank you, Mr. Kruger; you can stay there or go, but it would probably be better if you stayed there in case there are other questions.
Ginny Lewis, Director, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles:
[Introduced herself] The Department [of Motor Vehicles] sees some real benefits of defensive driving. Any additional training for new drivers, or any driver, will only promote safer drivers on our roads. Perhaps such a course in defensive driving should be in addition to the current requirements that new drivers have 30 hours of classroom and 50 hours behind the wheel, before they are licensed.
A.B. 128 requires the Department to issue a driver’s license with the designation “defensive driver” to an individual who has successfully completed a course in defensive driving as described in the bill. It should be noted that the Department has submitted a fiscal note for this bill in the amount of $1,383 for the adoption of regulations. While this is not a significant amount, the department is requesting that this bill be referred to the Ways and Means Committee for funding consideration. We have prepared five other fiscal notes under the $2,000 threshold for regulation development. The amount of this fiscal note may be minimal in costs to the Department, but when taken in the aggregate with the other bills, it creates a significant cost to the department. As written, the bill allows the Department of Motor Vehicles to establish regulations to allow us to properly administer this program.
[Ginny Lewis] Some of our concerns will be addressed through regulation. We do not support a defensive driver designation for any driver under the age of 21. What makes this driver any better than another new driver, both with few years of driving experience? How will we handle a license with this designation when the driver is convicted of a DUI [driving under the influence] or reckless driving? Such a moving violation, in our minds, constitutes grounds for the defensive driver designation to be removed from the license. A defensive driver designation cannot be issued on a commercial driver’s license, due to the limited space on the license.
In the absence of an effective date of the bill, the Department will request that the date be, at the very earliest, January 1, 2004. The department will need time for regulation development and a significant amount of time for the computer program changes. The Department has identified approximately 550 hours of programming hours to incorporate this license into the application. Section 1, subsection 4, states that the department may, in conjunction with the commissioner of insurance, encourage insurers that provide automobile insurance in this state to provide discounts or incentives to drivers who hold a driver’s license with the designation “defensive driver.” For the record, the Department does not have the resources nor do they believe it is appropriate to provide an insurance discount. The Department also has strong concerns with Section 3.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I’m sorry to interrupt. Are you in opposition to this even with the way it is amended with the “may” language?
Ginny Lewis:
My only concern is that if the language says “may,” I do not want there to be an assumption by the Legislature, if this bill passes, that we will try to promote or work with the insurance companies to promote a discount. We do not have the resources, and I do not think it is appropriate.
The Department also has strong concerns with Section 3. As written, each hour completed by a student in a simulator used in a defensive driving course shall be equivalent to one hour in a motor vehicle. Such a concept is in direct conflict with the graduated driver’s license program. With the provision in this bill, a young driver could take 50 hours in a simulator and never operate a vehicle in a real traffic environment. While we appreciate that the simulator provides another training alternative, nothing can replace the judgment, decision-making, and other intangibles that occur when you are behind the wheel of a vehicle.
[Ginny Lewis] Finally, the Department of Motor Vehicles is tasked with conducting a study of the feasibility and desirability of contracting with licensed schools for training drivers to administer driving tests in a simulator, for applicants of a Class C driver’s license. We would be prepared to submit a report of the results of this study to the 73rd Legislative Session.
We did some research with some other states to find out if they are using simulators; 26 state jurisdictions responded to our survey, and of the 26, only 2 jurisdictions, Wisconsin and Minnesota, allow the use of simulators. They are used in conjunction with the actual behind-the-wheel training, and not a substitute for it. I just wanted to share what some of the other states are doing.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Could you answer also the question about the fiscal note? The $1,383 is for adopting regulations? I would assume that is regarding Section 1, subsection 1, but if regulations also need to be adopted regarding simulators themselves, then that is an additional set of regulations. Would the amount that you stated need to be increased or would it be the same?
Ginny Lewis:
That fiscal note would address all the regulations for this specific program change for us.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you. Committee members, are there any questions? Seeing none, I have a question on Section 1, subsection 1. Would the specially colored background not be an increased cost?
Ginny Lewis:
Our idea when we conferred with Mr. Kruger was that there is a bar on the license where it currently says “driver’s license,” or “instruction permit,” or “seasonal resident ID.” We have the place for it, and that is where it would say “defensive driver.” [She showed a sample of the new digital license.] I mentioned that we would not be able to do it on a commercial driver’s license; there is just no space. It has to be taken into consideration that it cannot be done for all drivers.
Chairwoman Chowning:
This language would need to be changed as well, because you would adopt regulations regarding the whole idea. The specially colored background would have to be amended out of this bill.
Ginny Lewis:
Through regulation, we would somehow have to clean that up.
Chairwoman Chowning:
There are no other questions. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for or against A.B.128?
Benjamin Blinn, Private Citizen, Carson City:
[Introduced himself] I learned to drive at Elko High School. We did our travel time in the car between Elko and the East-West game. The coaches were our driving instructors. I think the Commercial Hotel bought us the tickets for the game, and we got our experience on the road, driving. What I worry about in this bill is the money. If I had $100,000, I would hire some good coaches who can teach driver’s training on a practical basis that would help the system. I think the money would be better spent that way.
The second thing is that I don’t like the idea that trust [is] implied where it says, “courses offered by licensed school for training drivers.” We had certified coaches who were qualified to teach us to drive, and the licensed school looks to me like they are giving somebody the blue chip, and taking away the school’s responsibility for the teaching. This simulated driver’s examination, while I don’t know who wrote the test, has no mention of the 5-second rule, or when to use 4-wheel drive, or how to turn into a skid when you hit snow on the road.
Chairwoman Chowning:
If you will look at page 2, subsection 3, line 22, it does simulate various types of obstacles and road conditions.
Benjamin Blinn:
I think that when you license a school and give them the trust of getting special recognition on your driver’s license, it needs to be considered that our certified school teachers are doing this on a day-to-day basis. Can we spend $100,000 on Winnemucca or Elko County or one of these far out places? We cannot afford to put a simulator out there unless maybe the mine decides to buy it. It is not practical to spend $100,000 when we want a driver’s training card.
[Benjamin Blinn] We need a qualified teacher. Give me a teacher with a piece of chalk, and give him a car with the gas, and pick a responsible person, and I will trust my kid to that type of teaching. I don’t know if I trust the program that is not outlined and defined more than this one, and when you say that is the only guy who is going to be able to do it, because he is a licensed school, and he has one of these simulators. I think that we have 17 counties, and I do not think it is applicable as far as money. The bill needs a lot of work before I could pass it with the school boards that I have worked for.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Are there any questions of Mr. Blinn? [There were none.] Before you leave, and I am not speaking for the sponsor of the bill because I did not put this bill together, but I do not think this is designed to take the place of any driving schools in our public schools. It is only provided for someone who wishes to get this extra designation of defensive driver.
Benjamin Blinn:
I do not think that the use of a computer is the only way to make a defensive driver.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Does anyone else wish to speak for or against A.B.128? There are none. We will not take any action on it today. We will close the hearing on A.B. 128 and open A.B. 197.
Assembly Bill 197: Makes various changes concerning certain applications submitted to Department of Transportation by governmental entities for easements or licenses or permits for encroachments on certain highway rights-of way. (BDR 35-342)
Mary Henderson, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities:
[Introduced herself] A.B. 197 is a League of Cities bill that was brought forward to our membership by the City of Mesquite. It was adopted by our membership in total. This has been an issue for many of our members of the League of Cities.
Basically, the bill deals with easements, licensing, or permitting on encroachments concerning portions of highway rights-of-way under control of the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). This came out of a lot of serious frustration on the part of local governments. They try to go through their day-to-day life and complete projects, and help with business and growth and development in our local communities. It seems that many times when we try to get involved in these types of projects with the state, that we head down a path, and there seems to be no answer coming back from the agency or answer coming back in terms of where we are in the process.
We put a bill together that we modeled after several other states. It basically puts together a 60-day time limit for the department to either deny or approve one of these applications. As you know, many of our streets, and we are not focused on what would be federal properties, but streets such as Mesquite Boulevard, have driveways that enter into state rights-of-way.
[Mary Henderson] At the local level, we are geared toward getting the state to do their job and either approve or deny so that we can move forward. The bill puts in place a 60-day time limit in which the department would either approve or deny those projects. The way the bill is written right now, if we get nothing back from the state, then it is automatically approved. It does provide, under Section 6 of the bill, a time extension that both parties can agree to. I know that has been an issue with NDOT [Nevada Department of Transportation] that this is a 60-day “line in the sand,” and they have concerns for staffing and those things. There is actually a provision in place that will allow a time extension with a written agreement between us.
I want to thank NDOT. They did spend considerable time with us discussing the bill, and I think we have heard their side and their issues, and hopefully they have heard ours as well. One of the things that it seems we are experiencing is a serious breakdown in communication. This can have a dramatic effect on a project that we are doing at the local level. It can have a serious effect on a project a developer is doing, or on a businessman who is trying to widen a driveway, for example.
What we wanted to try to do is to remedy that and place in statute a mechanism in which that communication would, in essence be forced. With me today are David Anderson, Mayor Pro-Tem, City of Mesquite; Kurt Sawyer, Director of Building, City of Mesquite; Randy Robison, who is the lobbyist for the City of Mesquite; and Senator Hardy, who was the lobbyist for the City of Mesquite.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Senator Hardy, would you like to begin?
Senator Warren B. Hardy II, Clark County District No.12:
I am very proud of my past duties as the lobbyist for the City of Mesquite, as well as their Assemblyman ten or so years ago, and they now are in my district again, as well as Senator McGinness’ [district]. This is an issue that has been on my plate, at one level or another, in whatever capacity I have served the City of Mesquite. This is a continuing, ongoing problem. What is before you in A.B. 197 is a solution. Whether it is the correct solution, the whole solution, or a partial solution, I do not know the answer to that. I think it is a good solution.
[Senator Hardy] I understand there are some concerns with the 60-day requirement. Certainly we are willing to consider that, and look at that, but this is an issue that needs to be addressed. This will be the number one issue that I deal with during the interim. I think it is obvious that because this is done through the League of Cities and Municipalities, that this is a problem in areas other than the City of Mesquite. Whether it is a breakdown in communication, I do not know, but my constituents do not care. This is an issue they want addressed. A.B. 197 represents an attempt to address that, and I would appreciate this Committee’s consideration.
Chairwoman Chowning:
You stated, as did Ms. Henderson, that this is primarily a problem that exists with the City of Mesquite, but the bill would make this a process for all cities, large or small. Is that the intention?
Senator Hardy:
If that was the impression I gave, I apologize. It is not just a problem primarily for the City of Mesquite. This is a problem anywhere there is a state highway or road that our constituencies need to apply to for encroachments and those sorts of things. It is not just a problem in Mesquite. I think that is reflected in that this is a League of Cities bill, and not a Mesquite bill. Mesquite brought this to the League of Cities, and the League of Cities concurred that this was a problem everywhere in this state. We need a policy and a procedure for dealing with this statewide.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you for that clarification. Are there any questions of Senator Hardy?
Assemblyman Collins:
Directly to the Senator, have you ever approached the state on a “pay-for-play basis,” as in pay an extra dollar to get prioritized on their work schedule?
Senator Hardy:
I should probably let Mr. Sawyer answer that question, since he is the expert on the historical background and all that information.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Are there any other questions for Senator Hardy? [There were none.]
Mary Henderson:
I would like to go back to your previous question. Senator Hardy is absolutely correct, this is an issue that is a problem statewide. As our process works, members bring issues to us, we have a committee review those, we whittle down the BDRs [bill draft requests], and then that goes to the League membership. We have a legislative committee in place. Without question, every city, whether large or small, has experienced issues with this problem. Many of them were saying that 60 days is too long, let’s make it 30. We want to be reasonable about it and make sure that we have a good partnership in working with the state.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Our committee member from Elko is always reminding us to consider all areas of the state, and we do craft exceptions or carve out specific areas of our state in pieces of legislation, so that is why I wanted that clear.
Kurt Sawyer, Director of Building, City of Mesquite:
[Introduced himself] I have been in this position as a building official for the City of Mesquite for about 12 years. I have been the Capital Projects Director now for about two years. I would like to give you a few examples of where there has been communication breakdown.
The first one is with the Virgin Valley Water District. They applied for a permit on Mesquite Boulevard to do a water line. They applied for the permit on August 15, 2002. The permit was actually signed, but they did not receive the permit until January 17, 2003. We had a Burger King that came into Mesquite. They applied for their permit on June 28, 1996, and they didn’t receive their permit until June 22, 1999. The Falcon Ridge entryway on Interstate 15 was applied for on July 11, 2000, and it was finally approved June 6, 2001. We had a boring for a sewer line underneath Interstate 15, and it was submitted on September 6, 2000, and we finally received the permit on September 11, 2001.
Here’s a quick example of something that happened to me. We have an overpass that NDOT [Nevada Department of Transportation] is designing, and we have meetings with NDOT every month. I also had some encroachment permits, and NDOT required us to do some work on them. I took the work on the encroachment permits back to NDOT in Las Vegas. Three weeks later, I had this meeting with NDOT in Las Vegas, and Chris Peterson came down to talk about the overpass. I asked what had happened to the plans I had resubmitted to them, and Chris Peterson said NDOT [Nevada Department of Transportation] had not received them yet. He went back and picked them up at the District 1 office in Las Vegas and took them back with him 3 weeks later. That is just a few of the instances where we have had problems.
Chairwoman Chowning:
The notes I took said 5 months, 1 year, 3 years. There is quite a variety there. None of them were in as short a period of time as 2 months.
Kurt Sawyer:
I would like to say that they have provided a shorter period of time for us.
Assemblyman Collins:
I had only asked if the highway department has a program in place where you “pay-for-play”. In other words, you move up the priority list by paying extra for such things as overtime for their designers, engineers, et cetera.
Kurt Sawyer:
I do not believe they do have that. I think they just take them in the order that they get them. I know NDOT has brought up that it is going to cost $1 million per year or something to that effect. We do have large commercial projects come into the City of Mesquite. We have a small staff of only three inspectors. We try to do our own plans-checking for housing. We have to go out and hire a contractor, which is usually an engineering firm, to review our plans and do our plans-checking on our large commercial projects.
David J. Anderson, Mayor Pro-Tem, City of Mesquite:
I am a resident of the City of Mesquite, and currently serving as a City Councilman in that city. The reason that I am here is because over the years of being a city councilman and meeting with other elected officials from communities throughout the state of Nevada, when frustrations and conversations seem to get to a head, NDOT seems to be somewhere in that conversation.
I had the opportunity a couple years ago to go to a smart-growth conference. One of the classes that I went to was entitled “When Main Street is a State Highway.” That had been an issue with us, in trying to encourage development and growth and revitalize our old “Main Street.” We had seen that a lot of the growth was going outside of the main street. We were worried that we were going to have some blighted areas and that growth would not go down “Main Street.”
I went to that meeting and as we went into the meeting for a few minutes, I asked a question of the director of CalTrans. I asked what a reasonable expectation is for us to look towards having an encroachment or easement granted. He said, “60 days,” and I said “60?” This was when I had been working on some other longer projects that had driven me to distraction. He said, “Yes, that is mandated by law, and that is part of our process, and we have to do it in 60 days.”
Chairwoman Chowning:
What state was that in? [Mr. Anderson replied that it was California, CalTrans.]
David Anderson:
I thought with a department that big and cumbersome, and with as many highways and freeways as they had, that if they had turned it around in 60 days, it seemed reasonable that it could happen in Nevada.
I, too, have looked at the fiscal impact. I do not think it should cost a penny more. We have been informed by NDOT [Nevada Department of Transportation] that as it is right now, they believe they turn 80 plus percent of those permits around in under 60 days. Up to 90 percent of their people are already in the 90 day period. I am not really sure it is going to cost $1 million to do those extra 10 percent or 20 percent. As Mr. Sawyer indicated, you can privatize that, or farm that out, or have that brought in, and the party seeking that easement encroachment bears the burden of that. I looked at the paper and was a little stunned that the staff said they would need money in order to accomplish this. I will have to talk to them a little bit later about that; I just barely saw it before we came into this meeting.
That has been my frustration. As a city councilman, I like to deal with issues that I can solve. Right now, the majority of the conversations that I have had with my constituents has been, “When are you going to fix Exit 122?” and “How come it takes so long for my business to get a permit on this project by the Riverside Road?” I always have to say, “I am sorry, I have no control over it. That is an NDOT issue, and they are the ones that have to solve that.” They come to me and say, ”You’re not very responsive. You do not listen to me, and you do not hear me when I am complaining about things.” I have to say, “Seriously, I cannot help you on that. That is an NDOT issue, you have to deal with them.”
We have two major commercial corridors in the City of Mesquite that are state highways. NDOT has graciously offered to give those to us and take them out of their inventory. We would probably be interested in that if they were willing to bring them up to our standards at this time, as far as drainage and other things. It would be a burden on us right now to take over those major roads. It is just becoming too much. We’re trying to come up with something that might allow us to do that, but at the current time, we are just here because in the Nevada League, we had brought this forward and found a tremendous support by the cities and municipalities of the state of Nevada.
[David Anderson] A lot of the northern Nevada communities that I visited with talked about “Main Street” dying because people would rather pull teeth than try to get permits. People are finding themselves going with the commercial and some other developments off “Main Street,” because the city is easier to work with, or the county is easier to work with, than the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT).
Chairwoman Chowning:
We have had this conversation in this Committee several times. We always want to know what the two-way communications stream has been. We have been told that the local entities may express their concerns to NDOT, and that they do, and NDOT does hear their concerns often.
David Anderson:
If I might, in fairness to NDOT, they have been quite responsive to me, but I believe that is probably because of my position in the city government. I have not been able to get firm answers though, on what the status of a project is, or where something is going. We are currently working on and have the technical ability in the City of Mesquite for a contractor to be able to look at his permit and to be able to track it like you would a UPS package [United Parcel Service]. We would like to have that ability with NDOT, to be able to talk to a person to give us the status of the project. We are looking for some help to be able to say, “This is the status of your project, and this is where it is, and this is what you need in order to further it along.”
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you. Are there any other remarks?
Mary Henderson:
Again we want to thank NDOT for sitting with us yesterday, and we understand that they are going to be opening a regional office in southern Nevada, which we hope will help. I think Senator Hardy was very eloquent when he said, “We need a fix.” We want to work with the agency to develop what the local governments really want, which is some surety and a process that is in place that they can depend upon, so that they can get the information that they need, and that they have that two-way flow of communication going back and forth.
Chairwoman Chowning:
One thing that I take pride in is that all of us can be in the legislative process. Sometimes solutions are required simply because a bill has come to the Legislature. This can be a catalyst for a solution. Will someone from the Department of Transportation please come to the table?
Susan Martinovich, P.E., Assistant Director of Engineering, Nevada Department of Transportation:
[Introduced herself] NDOT (Nevada Department of Transportation) is opposed to this legislation as written. The Department of Transportation has been given the responsibility to plan, develop, operate, maintain, and protect the highways and roads of this state for safety and economics. As such, NDOT reviews and approves applications for encroachments, such as driveways and interchanges, into the highway system rights-of-way. When an encroachment permit is submitted, NDOT staff reviews it for the impacts to the existing system:
All these questions, among others, are some of the things we review in our encroachment permits. When an encroachment permit is submitted, it is through the district office, where the request is located. Most of the time, as Mr. Anderson indicated, that application is reviewed through the district office. NDOT receives over 1,000 permit applications a year, and on average, 90 percent of those permits are processed within 60 days. Half of the remaining 10 percent are processed within 80 days. The permits that are remaining are complex permits. They usually contain a hydraulics report, a geotechnical report, or a structural design.
[Susan Martinovich] Typically, the information provided is not complete and has errors, so NDOT [Nevada Department of Transportation] staff will spend time reviewing the reports and plans, will make comments, will send the package back to the applicant for changes. NDOT has no control on when the plans and permits will be resubmitted, and this is where we have concern regarding the 60-day limit of the bill.
The bill, under subsection 6, allows for more time, but only under the agreement of the department and the applicant. If the applicant does not agree, we are held to the 60-day requirement and forced to deny the permit even though it may have merit. Because of subsection 2, if NDOT fails to approve or disapprove the encroachment permit, the applicant can go ahead and build the feature as identified in the permit without any comments from NDOT on quality of design, quality of construction, impacts to the traffic, or the long-term maintenance.
Additionally, the bill does not address property not owned by NDOT where we may only have an easement for highway purposes. So if an interchange, a roadway, or any type of permanent type of fixture is built, this is a taking of someone else’s property. In addition, the easement that NDOT holds is paid for with taxpayer’s funds.
The bill does not address interstate and high volume highways, where approval from the federal highway administration is required. There are some instances where federal funds were used to acquire property and there may be instances where additional federal moneys could be in jeopardy. With regard to the federal highways under NDOT control, especially controlled access highways, the proposed bill may be in violation of the federal law.
Some examples of the permit have taken longer, and I appreciate the examples given by the City of Mesquite; there are always two sides to every story. There may have been conditions in those examples that required a lot of working back and forth to get design features in place that we needed to look at. Some of the other permits that we know of that have taken longer than 60 days are the modification to I-15 in Las Vegas for the resort corridor frontage road, the encroachment onto I-95 for the tropical grade separation in Las Vegas, the US 395 project we are working on with RTC (Regional Transportation Commission), and Autoshow Mall that the City of Henderson is constructing on US 95.
[Susan Martinovich] Those are complex permits, and we have worked very closely with the local governments on developing the permits. We support the efforts, because there are benefits of these features to the freeway and highway systems. Those I just mentioned all had federal money in there, so they have to look at the standards and designs, so that they can still comply with the federal requirements and be eligible for the federal money, but it takes time. I will admit that there are times that it does take longer than it should, and we are getting calls, and we do try to be responsive to the calls that we get. Our staff is busy and there are some things that get pushed to higher priorities at the time, but short of getting additional staff, we think that we can mitigate the frustration with better communication, coordination, and tracking. We are making efforts to do that. Sometimes the effort is only from NDOT’s end, because the information we receive from the applicant has errors that need to be addressed.
Chairwoman Chowning:
You stated twice that one of the contributing factors is error. I would like to know, for this Committee, if any of the three examples cited, one was 3 years, one was 5 months, and one was 1 year, were caused by any of the factors you stated, such as federal dollars, ownership of land, delays due to errors. If they were, then we understand; but if they were not, then it is hard to understand what took so long. I would like to ask the parties to try to craft a solution or a compromise to the bill. Is that something that both parties would agree to?
Susan Martinovich:
Madam Chair, that is exactly what we can do. We met with the League of Cities yesterday, and what we are proposing is that we work on a process review with the League of Cities and Federal Highway Administration as our partners in developing a process that we can work with. Therefore, we do not feel we need a bill to work this out. Give us the opportunity to coordinate and work this out.
Chairwoman Chowning:
One thing they said was that they were not able to get status reports.
Susan Martinovich:
Part of the process that we could look at is a better way to provide information.
Chairwoman Chowning:
That is very frustrating for those who have been waiting one year, and they were not able to get a status report until three years later. You have said yes, and they have said yes. We appreciate that cooperative spirit, and we will see if we can reschedule this bill for a week from today. Mr. Collins is suggesting a subcommittee, but I think before we do that, we want to give you the opportunity to see if a compromise can be worked out.
Assemblyman Collins:
One more question for the City of Mesquite regarding the local level. When business or homeowners come in and apply for permits at that local level, what is their time frame, and do they ever have exceptions based on incorrect or incomplete applications? That could be something they could bring back as well.
Chairwoman Chowning:
That is a request from a Committee member that is certainly a good one.
This is not the first time NDOT has been hit with a challenge. They have always risen to the challenge, and I am sure this will be no exception. Thank you.
We will close the hearing on A.B.197.
Committee, we are now going into work session, if you will open up your document. Ms. Paslov Thomas, would you proceed.
Assembly Bill 161: Revises provisions relating to use of safety belts in motor vehicles. (BDR 43-117)
Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst:
The first bill is A.B. 161. As you may recall, this revises provisions relating to the use of safety belts in motor vehicles. It requires that a passenger who is under 18 years of age and weighs 40 pounds or more be restrained by a seatbelt. The bill also provides that a driver may be cited for failure to restrain a child in a seatbelt. We did contact the Legal Division based on the questions the Committee members had at the hearing.
A primary offense is a driver failing to wear a safety belt if the driver is less than 18 years of age, and any other passenger who is less than 18 years of age failing to wear a safety belt, with the exception of children who weigh less than 40 pounds, who are covered under the child seat section. This is not covering that portion.
It will be a secondary offense for the failure of an adult, either the driver or the passenger, to not be wearing a safety belt. The situation that the Legal Division is concerned with is if there is an adult in the car who is wearing a safety belt and a child in the car who is not wearing a safety belt. The fact that the child is not wearing a safety belt allows the car to be stopped for a primary offense, regardless of what the adult is doing. There are no proposed amendments on this bill.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Please restate the example that you gave so that the Committee is clear on what the bill says.
Ms. Paslov Thomas:
It says if there is an adult in the car who is wearing a seatbelt, and a child in the car who is over 40 pounds, but under 18 years of age, who is not wearing a safety belt, the fact that the child is not wearing a safety belt allows the car to be stopped for a primary offense, regardless of what the adult is doing.
Chairwoman Chowning:
This was an attempt to close a loophole in the law that says that children 5 years and older, or more than 40 pounds, have to wear a seatbelt. Currently that is not stated in the law.
Assemblyman Knecht:
I thought I heard it said that the change would make this a primary offense, not that it is currently legal for the child not to have the seatbelt on. Am I misunderstanding the situation? By primary offense, I believe the law means it is an offense for which an officer may stop the vehicle, and not rely on having another offense to cite before noticing that one.
Ms. Paslov Thomas:
According to the Legal Division, it is the children who are not currently covered for the safety restraint law, so it is the children who weigh 40 pounds or more and are 18 years old and under, that if they are not wearing a safety belt, that car could be stopped for a primary offense regardless of what the adult is doing.
Assemblyman Knecht:
To follow up on that if I may, Madam Chairwoman, the way you rephrased it, it made it sound to me, and I may have just heard it wrong, that the change would be to make it illegal for the child not to have the safety belt as opposed to making it a primary offense. My understanding is that it is already illegal, and this change would make it a primary offense. Can we have clarification on that?
Chairwoman Chowning:
Would someone from DMV come forward, because that is not clear. It is a law for everyone to wear a seatbelt if they are an adult, and those less than 5 years and 40 pounds, to have to be in a child restraint. It is that middle range, 5 years to 18 years, that is not on the books?
Ginny Lewis, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles:
Unfortunately, we did not testify on this bill. I believe it was Highway Patrol that testified, as this is a law enforcement issue.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I know we always had DMV and Public Safety together, but now we have DMV over here and Public Safety over here. Is there anyone here from law enforcement to clarify this issue? Does Ms. Foster know?
Lisa Foster, American Automobile Association:
The way I understand it is that it is a primary law for children who are up to age 5 or under 40 pounds, and beyond, that it is a secondary enforcement law. The way I understand this bill, for everyone who is 18 and under, it would make it a primary enforcement law. If you are beyond the child-seat age, then you would have to have a seatbelt on up to age 18, and it would be primary enforcement, and beyond that, it would remain secondary enforcement.
Assemblyman Collins:
On page 2 of the existing law, if the passenger is a child, the citation must be issued to the driver for his failure to require the child to wear a safety belt under the secondary provision. What this changes is the age and the 40 pounds on that safety restraint, or child seat. Of course, the whole issue is that the law enforcement does not pack around a scale to figure out who weighs 40 pounds anyhow.
Chairwoman Chowning:
All of the instances are addressed in statute currently. On page 2, “Any person driving, and any passenger 5 years of age and older or rides in the front or back seat, shall wear a safety belt.”
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
How I look at it and why I do not like it is that it really does become a primary offense for anyone under 18, and therefore they can be stopped and pulled over, and checked to see if they have their seatbelts on. I think it becomes an issue that if we are going to put a primary seatbelt law in, maybe we need to go all the way, or don’t go that far, because technically—
Chairwoman Chowning:
Are you proposing an amendment?
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
No, I was not. I was just concerned about it, because it will, in fact, allow law enforcement to selectively pull over anyone between 16 and 18, and just stop them to check for seatbelts, and I do not know if that is appropriate.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Any other discussion or clarifications needed? Does everyone understand what the bill does? Mr. Carpenter?
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I think it is pretty hard to tell if someone is 18 or 21 or whatever. I think if it was maybe kids in grade school, that would be a reasonable stop to make. It would make more sense to take it up to 18. If they are 6 when they start the first grade, they ought to be into junior high when they can drive, I would say about 12 years old would make more sense than 18, and that would be a suggestion.
Chairwoman Chowning:
So are you speaking in support of the bill, or against the bill, or are you offering an amendment?
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I believe that I would be offering an amendment, that rather than 18, that we would make it 12 or something, which I feel is a reasonable age, and I think that will make a lot of people wear their seatbelts, because in the last year or so, Nevada has had the highest usage of seatbelts of most any state in the country. I think education is better than mandatory.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Assemblyman Carpenter has proposed an amendment. Do you want to state your amendment?
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I would try an amendment that rather than age 18, that the age be 12.
Chairwoman Chowning:
So it would be a primary offense if a child the age of 12 years or under is not wearing a seatbelt?
Assemblyman Carpenter:
It says that it is not only the driver, but the way I understand it, any passenger, so if you let a child 12 and under [ride in the vehicle], then everyone would have to be buckled up.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 161.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairwoman Chowning:
There is a motion and a second for an amendment to make it a primary offense for any child 12 years or under who is not wearing a seatbelt, the driver may be cited.
Assemblyman Collins:
I would oppose that motion because that just tells a kid when he is 13 he can take it off.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Mr. Manendo.
Assemblyman Manendo:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just concerned about the kids. I think we need to start taking steps to protect our kids. I was wondering if they were to be pulled over in a situation like this and a parent said my child is 13, not 12, and he does not have identification, does the officer then cite him anyway and say you have to prove otherwise? The same instance can happen if the child is 11 years old. Maybe someone from Highway Patrol could clarify that, but there is nobody from Highway Patrol here.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Is there any other discussion on the amendment?
Assemblyman Knecht:
I oppose the amendment because it does not solve the fundamental problems.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
The issue is not whether you can be cited; it is whether you can be stopped. If they pull you over for a broken taillight, and you do not have your child seatbelted in, you can be cited. The change is between primary and secondary. Maybe if you made it 16. [Chairwoman Chowning called for a vote.]
MOTION FAILED. ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON, ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS, ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA, ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON, ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT, ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO, ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA, ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL, AND CHAIRWOMAN CHOWNING VOTED NAY.
********
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B.161.
ASSEMBLYMAN TOM COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER, ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN, ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA, ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL, AND CHAIRWOMAN CHOWNING VOTED NAY.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We have two other bills to hear, first A.B. 177.
Assembly Bill 177: Makes various changes concerning registration of motor vehicles and special plates, placards and stickers issued to certain disabled persons. (BDR 43-1032)
Ms. Paslov Thomas:
As you may recall, this was heard on March 13, and there was no action taken by the Committee. Among the various provisions, A.B. 177 would eliminate the requirement that vehicle owners provide evidence of insurance when applying for a vehicle registration. It also provides that within 30 days, if a person changes names, he must notify the DMV. Also vehicle owners are no longer required to have a smog check and can renew their registration for a full year when they replace lost, stolen or damaged plates. Finally this measure provides that the DMV may issue disabled placards to organizations that transport people with disabilities, and the special parking placard may be issued by the DMV to a person with a permanent disability for a 10-year period, and to a person with a disability of a moderate duration for a 2-year period. There are no proposed conceptual amendments.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B.177.
ASSEMBLYMAN SHERER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairwoman Chowning:
The next bill is A.B. 178.
Assembly Bill 178: Makes various changes concerning registration and titling of motor vehicles and records of Department of Motor Vehicles. (BDR 43‑473)
Marji Paslov Thomas:
As you may recall, this was heard on March 13, and there was no action taken by the Committee. Among the provisions, A.B. 178 would require the director of the DMV to ensure that whenever a document, certificate of registration, certificate of title, driver’s license, ID cards, or an application pertaining to any such certificate, license, or card, is submitted or issued or retained by the DMV, it would contain the full legal name of that person. It also provides that a license plate for a motorcycle may include up to 6 characters, as currently these plates include only 5 characters. During testimony they said they were going to be running out of numbers by the end of the year.
It also allows the department to waive interest and penalties for failure to pay penalties assessed by the department on time. It places further restrictions on the release of photographs from driver’s license files, and defines the certificate of title of the document issued by the DMV that identifies the legal owner of the vehicle. Currently, the law defines this as the certificate of ownership. Tab A contains a copy of the federal requirement relating to the restrictions on the release of photographs from driver’s license files. A question came up during the hearing as to whether or not this was a federal requirement, and Mr. Parsons of the DMV responded that it was. There are no amendments being offered.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B.178.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
I was looking at the bill and I had a note regarding Section 2 on page 2, NRS41.015, that read, “amend to chapter 482.” I don’t know if that was something Ms. Paslov Thomas could explain if there is a question on it.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I have the same note.
Ginny Lewis:
When Mr. Parsons first testified, he asked for an amendment. As written, it is in the wrong chapter; it reflects NRS Chapter 481 and it should be NRS Chapter 482 [Nevada Revised Statutes].
Chairwoman Chowning:
Will the maker of the motion and the maker of the second accept that as an amendment? [They indicated that was acceptable. Chairwoman Chowning called for a vote as there was no further discussion.]
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Are there any other items to come before the Committee?
Assemblyman Collins:
Regarding Senate Bill 77, I was able to look at the bill passed in 1993, and it actually did not come to this Committee. Only myself and my colleague from Elko saw this, as it was through the Judiciary Committee at that time. The reason for the two sentences was one was telling you that you had to yield, and the other one was requiring traffic to merge, and it also addressed sirens and flashing lights, in NRS Chapter 484. I do not want to delete that second part of S.B. 77 that we heard earlier today, because it would take away the merging provision. I have the testimony here from that hearing back in 1993.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Is there any other business to come before the Committee? [There was none.] We are adjourned [at 3:38 p.m.].
Nancy Elder
Committee Secretary
APPROVED
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
DATE: