MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Transportation
Seventy-second Session
April 10, 2003
The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Raymond C. Shaffer, at 1:51 p.m., on Thursday, April 10, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
Senator Dennis Nolan, Vice Chairman
Senator Mark Amodei
Senator Warren B. Hardy II
Senator Michael Schneider
Senator Terry Care
Senator Maggie Carlton
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Donald (Don) G. Gustavson, Assembly District No. 30
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst
Sherry Rodriguez, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Gary L. Horrocks, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Concerned Motorcyclists
Jacqueline Suthers, State Director, Bikers of Lesser Tolerance of Nevada
Richard Quigley, Lobbyist, Bikers of Lesser Tolerance of California
Dave Hosmer, Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol, Department of Public Safety
Benjamin J. Blinn, Lobbyist
Ex-Senator Lawrence Jacobsen, Lobbyist, City of Carson City, Douglas County and Lyon County
Charles Abbott, Chief and Highway Safety Coordinator, Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Public Safety
Paul Snodgrass, Manager, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Laurel A. Stadler, Lobbyist, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Lyon County Chapter
Erin Breen, Coordinator, Traffic Safety Coalition, Transportation Research Center, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Patrick McGill, Public Affairs Officer and Training Coordinator, Nevada Highway Patrol, Department of Public Safety
Maureen Brower, Lobbyist, Nevada Hospital Association
Traci Filippi, Highway Safety Representative, Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Public Safety
Phil Robertson, Law Enforcement Liaison, Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Public Safety
Lisa A. Foster, Lobbyist, California State Automobile Association (dba AAA Nevada)
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum
James Vilt, Nevada Disability Advocacy and Law
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County
Kami Dempsey, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, and Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities
James Bell, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas
Richard Wilkie, Lobbyist, City of Henderson, and Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities
Chairman Shaffer:
We are going to open the hearing beginning with Senate Bill (S.B.) No. 274.
SENATE BILL 274: Eliminates requirement that driver and passenger of motorcycle being driven on highway wear protective headgear. (BDR 43‑993)
Gary L. Horrocks, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Concerned Motorcyclists:
Motorcycle accidents represent less than one-tenth of 1 percent of all vehicle accidents in the United States. I have a handout for this committee’s review (Exhibit C). Helmets do provide a small window of protection, but the misconception remains that if you wear a helmet you will survive. This could not be further from the truth. Helmets can and do cause injuries.
In 1998, faced with an increasing death rate of women and children caused by air bag deployment, the public asked for and received permission from the federal government to deactivate air bags. In 1995 this Legislature, contrary to objections warning of increased deaths and injuries, repealed the mandatory 55‑mile-per-hour speed limit. Senator O’Donnell stated, “I guess we will have to decide the price of freedom.” You must travel at 55 miles per hour or at the posted 70-miles-per-hour signage. You gave yourselves the ability to make your own decisions regarding safety. Nevada Motorcyclists are asking for the same. Please support S.B. 274.
Jacqueline Suthers, State Director, Bikers of Lesser Tolerance (BOLT) OF Nevada:
The current helmet law is unenforceable as written. Colonel Hosmer and the Nevada attorney general have agreed with this point. The statute is a problem for law enforcement and motorcycle riders. We have been asked in a roundabout way to help fix this statute. Senator Shaffer has offered a solution to this problem by introducing S.B. 274 for full repeal of the statute. Richard Quigley is also here today and will better explain the problem.
In 2001, Assemblywoman Vonne Stout Chowning, Assembly District No. 28, asked us to give her something new, meaning no repetition of statistics or old information. The enforceability of the current law is new. The problem is the language of the statute is constitutionally unenforceable.
I have also provided you with a handout titled, “Informative Packet in Support of Senate Bill No. 274” (Exhibit D. Original is on file in the Research Library.). It contains a long e-mail chain and additional correspondence.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions from the committee?
Senator Nolan:
Where is the attorney general’s opinion?
Mrs. Suthers:
The attorney general’s opinion is under tab AG Opinion 2002-41 (Exhibit D).
Richard Quigley, Lobbyist, Bikers of Lesser Tolerance of California:
I came to Nevada in May 2001 on a motorcycle ride with some friends. I was pulled over by an officer of the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP). The officer stated it was his understanding, in order to ride a motorcycle in the State of Nevada, I was required to wear a Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) approved helmet. The officer said I was violating Nevada’s helmet law. The outcome of that traffic stop was an absolute violation of my constitutional rights relative to due process. It also limited my ability to travel.
The officer was so sure of this that I asked him to write it on the ticket, which he did. The officer wrote, “Not wearing an NDOT-approved helmet.” Two other people were also cited. We were all wearing headgear; but they were not NDOT‑approved helmets. Those citations were ultimately dropped. The problem came after the traffic stop was made. When we got ready to continue on our trip, I asked the officer, “What happens now? This is my only helmet, and I am headed into town. The town is 1 mile from this point, and I am 500 miles away from home. How do I get back to town?” He told me I could not ride my motorcycle unless I had an NDOT-approved helmet. I am fairly certain there is no such thing as an NDOT-approved helmet. The officer put me in an impossible situation. I asked him to call his sergeant out to where we were. The sergeant came and told me the same thing. I could not ride my motorcycle to town without an NDOT-approved helmet. My interstate travel is shut down.
My story is told in this document (Exhibit D) under tab “E-mail Chain” on page 4. I went back to Battle Mountain to address this in court. The district attorney chose not to prosecute the case. The problem is in the statute.
The statute does not tell a motorcyclist how to comply with exactly what type helmet is required. I contacted the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). They directed me to Richard Kirkland, Director of the Nevada Department of Safety. Mr. Kirkland referred me back to Colonel Hosmer of the NHP. Colonel Hosmer could not give me a definitive answer as to how I could comply with your statute. Colonel Hosmer then directed the question to the attorney general. The attorney general’s opinion is in our exhibit (Exhibit D). The attorney general did not have an answer to the question either. If there is no way to comply with the statute, I believe it falls under the unconstitutional category?
I am not certain why the attorney general did not order enforcement stopped, unless it was out of respect for the Legislature. He only wrote an opinion in which he made several recommendations to the Legislature. We need clear guidelines for enforcement. He pointed out that it is a misdemeanor to ride a motorcycle without wearing an NDOT-approved helmet. I was subject to a penalty that could have landed me a year in jail. I do not believe I will come back to Nevada on my motorcycle until we get this one fixed.
There are those who are for and those who are against the helmet law. The statute is simply not enforceable as written. I am surprised there are no amendments to fix the statute to comply with enforceable requirements from the people that want the helmet law.
Speaking for people who do not want a helmet law, Senator Shaffer, this bill is absolutely right on. If we repeal the requirement to comply with something you cannot prove, you take away the violation of the constitutional right. Colonel Hosmer suggested that I get together with the rights organization here in Nevada and bring it to the Legislature.
Other than repeal, I have no suggestions or recommendations as to how to fix it. I am trying to get the Legislature to acknowledge these problems exist. If you want to fix it for the people who believe in helmet laws, then fix it. If you do not want to fix it for the people who do not believe in helmet laws, then take it out.
Chairman Shaffer:
I want to let you know you came to the right place to get an answer. When you leave here today, you will know if we are going to change the law or get rid of it.
Senator Care:
I think everyone would agree when you get into a car or get on a motorcycle, you are assuming a risk. Usually, the faster you go with a car or motorcycle, the greater the risk of injury if an accident occurs. It may be true in some instances that a helmet would not make a difference. I doubt it would make any difference at all if you had an accident while traveling at 70 or 100 miles per hour. It might if you were only traveling at 5 or 10 miles per hour.
How would you feel if we were to repeal this statute, but substitute additional language? Do you believe a motorcyclist who chooses to drive without a helmet would be entitled to damages resulting from an accident, if it can be demonstrated that his injuries are a result of not wearing a helmet?
Mr. Quigley:
Is it my opinion the insurance companies have an arguable defense to damages because someone was not wearing a helmet. Whether or not they have a legitimate claim would be something for a court or jury to decide.
Senator Care:
It seems we are dealing with one’s definition of freedom. We do have a statute in the State that says failure to wear a seat belt is not an act of negligence, per se. There is a civil fine associated with it. I was wondering if you might come up with something similar for a motorcycle helmet, simply because basically the motorcyclist is unprotected on a motorcycle while traveling on a highway.
Mr. Quigley:
My argument, Senator Care, is that I make a smaller target. It is tougher to hit me on a little motorcycle than it is when I am in a great big Hummer. If you are going to have a statute that requires us to do something specific, regardless of what it is, it needs to be specific enough so that Colonel Hosmer and I are equally able to ascertain how to comply with the law and how it is enforced. Neither of us can do that today.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there any one else wishing to testify at this time?
Dave Hosmer, Chief, Department of Public Safety, Nevada Highway Patrol:
I am neither for nor against this bill. My troopers and I are public servants; we will enforce whatever you want. We have serious problems with the way the law is currently written. The commanders of the highway patrol, captains, majors, and I have discussed this for an extensive period of time. We determined that we would put out a directive to our troopers stating if they stop a biker and issue a helmet citation, they must be prepared to articulate to the court how the they knew it was an improper helmet. This is quite a challenge for most troopers. Since we put out that directive, there probably have not been any citations issued, unless the person was not wearing any type of helmet.
Chairman Shaffer:
What suggestions do you have to better the statute? What do you find to be a major problem as it is now written? Is it just the helmet that you cannot identify with? Is there a certified lab that tests these helmets for their durability or strength?
Mr. Hosmer:
There are a series of problems with it. Yes, there are testing facilities that do testing for helmet manufacturers. They are supposed to affix certain identifiable stickers. I can tell you when I was working as an undercover narcotics officer riding a Harley, I was able to buy a novelty type helmet that outlaw motorcycle riders preferred when they needed to wear one. I was also able to buy an NDOT sticker to slap on the back of that helmet. For the average street officer to tell from a glance whether someone is wearing an illegal helmet is almost impossible. This is the reason we left it up to the individual officer with the stipulation they must be able to articulate to the court why they knew the helmet was illegal.
Chairman Shaffer:
It seems pretty fair, too. Are there any questions from the committee?
Senator Care:
In your experience, does wearing a helmet make a difference one way or another regarding injuries?
Mr. Hosmer:
We have had this conversation with all of my commanders who collectively have over 250 years of highway patrol experience. I think Senator Care was right on the mark. It does not make a difference when traveling at a higher speed; at a lower speed it may. I have read studies indicating possible neck injuries caused by the weight of a helmet. I am sure other studies would argue with those studies.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there any one else wishing to testify on S.B. 274?
Benjamin J. Blinn, Lobbyist:
This bill is better than the current law as written. It is a good bill. I believe I should have the freedom of choice as an adult and a Nevada citizen to wear a helmet or not wear a helmet. I will support however you vote this bill, but I would rather err on the side of generosity for preserving our freedom and our right of choice.
Chairman Shaffer:
Thank you for your testimony. Is there any one else in favor of S.B. 274?
Assemblyman Donald (Don) G. Gustavson, Assembly District No. 30:
My recommendation to the committee is to proceed and do pass this bill. This would eliminate the problem of the law being unenforceable.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there anyone in opposition to S.B. 274?
Ex-Senator Lawrence Jacobsen, Lobbyist, City of Carson City, Douglas County and Lyon County:
I firmly believe in the helmet law. I have recently completed 50 years of service as a volunteer ambulance driver for Douglas County. I have had a few young people die in my arms because of not wearing a helmet. I became convinced because if I could have saved them, I would have. This is a reasonable approach. I do not believe there is a problem with wearing a helmet. I am also one of those who believes in being your own master. I think this is important and whatever consideration you give the bill, I will abide by it.
Charles Abbott, Chief and Highway Safety Coordinator, Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Public Safety:
As a federally funded department of the Department of Public Safety, we are precluded from taking a position on this issue. However, at the committee’s request, Paul Snodgrass from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Region No. 9 in San Francisco, is here to provide you with some information.
Paul Snodgrass, Manager, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
Our agency was created in 1968. It is very clear that the use of seat belts, wearing motorcycle helmets, and bicycle helmets are the simplest, most effective things you can do to reduce deaths and injuries. California is the most populous state in the country for motorcycles. They enacted a motorcycle helmet law in 1992, and the death toll went down 32 percent. Texas, the second most populous state in the country for motorcycles, repealed its helmet law and deaths increased by 32 percent the following year. We believe motorcycle helmets are 30 percent effective in reducing death and injury in crashes. They are only 30 percent effective because they do not protect the entire body. I have submitted written testimony for the committee’s review (Exhibit E).
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions from the committee?
Senator Nolan:
Mr. Snodgrass, are you familiar enough with the various types of helmets to be able to answer some expert-type questions?
Mr. Snodgrass:
I am not an engineer. I am not the one who enforces the vehicle safety standard on the manufacturers, but I can give you some information.
Senator Nolan:
Are there enough physical characteristics between helmets that are tested and approved and helmets that are not, to allow a trained police officer to make a visual inspection and determine whether the helmet was or was not approved?
Mr. Snodgrass:
Generally yes, but not to an absolute legal certainty. Police officers cannot perform the required laboratory tests to know if it is truly a federally approved helmet. The manufacturer self-certifies. There is a label inside the helmet. You can look at the label inside the helmet, which certifies it meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The helmet should have the address of the manufacturer and date of manufacture. You are required to have a visible marking on the outside that says “NDOT.” Some helmets will have that written inside. They are only novelty helmets.
Senator Nolan:
Do you know of any other states that have attempted to address this in statute?
Mr. Snodgrass:
Yes, but not successfully. The federal standard applies to manufacturers and not to owners of the helmets. The federal government regulates the manufacturers, and the State regulates the drivers. There is a gray area between those two sets of laws.
Senator Nolan:
This is an important issue. If this has been an identified issue, why have we not taken this up with the Nevada Department of Transportation? Currently you can put an NDOT sticker on the back of a helmet. Apparently, this sticker can be easily replicated, and from a distance you cannot tell the difference. Why have they not addressed possibly using some type of hologram sticker that could not be easily replicated? Has there been any thought on a federal level in dealing with this issue?
Mr. Snodgrass:
I have heard they are doing testing on molding so that it is a three-dimensional sticker. There is a concern the molding will weaken the shell of the helmet at a critical point in the rear. They are also looking at holograms. It is not an easy problem to solve. You could try banning the sale of helmets in the State that do not meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
Senator Nolan:
Has a study been done showing the percentage of motorcycle riders who wear certified helmets versus those who do not?
Mr. Snodgrass:
It has been measured in California, I believe it is somewhere around 15 percent who do not wear certified helmets. That is only based on observations.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any other questions from the committee?
Senator Care:
Are you aware of any states that have found some sort of middle ground? For example, a state might say helmets are not required on their interstate highways. Have you heard of anything like that?
Mr. Snodgrass:
No, the partial approach has been age-limited. Some states have said only minors under 21 years of age must wear helmets. In those states, the use of helmets has dropped way down because police officers have a hard time determining the exact age of the rider. Age limits do not work very well.
In another approach, Florida repealed its law so that helmets do not have to be worn if you have $100,000 in personal injury coverage. We have been told the Florida Highway Patrol no longer stops people who are not wearing helmets because trying to prove whether or not they are covered at that time is very difficult. Most do not have it noted on their motorcycle insurance information. The cost for public liability you are required to have on a motorcycle is pretty inexpensive. Personal medical coverage on a motorcyclist policy is very expensive. The proof-of-insurance approach has been tried; however, it is hard to prove and very hard to enforce.
Mr. Abbott:
I would like to add a point of information. Last year in Nevada there were 32 motorcycle fatalities of which 21 were in Clark County. In 2001, there were 21 fatalities Statewide. Motorcycle fatalities are our fastest growing area of traffic fatalities.
Chairman Shaffer:
Thank you for that information. Is there any one else wishing to testify in opposition of S.B. 274?
Laurel A. Stadler, Lobbyist, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Lyon County Chapter:
I am in opposition to the total repeal of the helmet law. The seat belt is anyone’s best defense against a drunk driver. For a motorcyclist, we see the helmet as the best defense.
Erin Breen, Coordinator, Traffic Safety Coalition, Transportation Research Center, University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
The University Medical Center (UMC) Trauma Center asked me to represent its interest in S.B. 274. Last year in Clark County, UMC treated 319 victims of motorcycle crashes, 9 of the victims became fatalities. The UMC realizes not every motorcycle fatality is due to not wearing a helmet. However, of the 9 fatalities last year, half of them were head traumas. More importantly, UMC sent 40 people with life-altering injuries to rehab centers. Again, 25 percent of those people were not wearing motorcycle helmets. Since the state of Arizona repealed the motorcycle helmet law, it has helped the organ donation program in Clark County. University Medical Center Trauma Center treats many of the motorcycle injuries that occur just over the border inside Arizona.
Since Arizona repealed its helmet law, there have been motorcycle riders donating organs from Arizona. Our State has benefited from those organ donors. Our goal is to reduce fatalities and serious injuries due to all motor vehicle crashes. We would urge you to oppose S.B. 274.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any comments from the committee before we take a vote?
Senator Nolan:
One of our responsibilities in government is to provide for the safety of the citizens of this State. We provide for safety the best we know how, even if the citizens do not agree. After serving 15 years as a paramedic and coroner investigator, I am convinced helmets do save lives. I would not do anything to repeal our mandatory helmet law.
There are two potential options. We have a broken law that is unenforceable. If we change the law, we could go to a higher standard and make it mandatory for motorcyclist to wear helmets certified by NDOT, and which is easily identifiable by people enforcing the law. If we do so, we are eliminating skullcaps and similar helmets, and going with full-faced, big helmets. I do not think we will make any friends there.
The other alternative is something Senator Carlton mentioned. We can maintain the mandatory helmet law, but make the offense a secondary citation. So if motorcyclists were being cited for a helmet violation, it would have to be secondary to a primary offense. Could the committee discuss that?
Senator Carlton:
This is in no way to say that you would not pull someone over for not wearing a helmet at all. The problem is that only people the highway patrol or law enforcement are pulling over and citing right now are the ones not wearing helmets. That is blatant.
The controversy seems to be when you cannot identify the type of helmet. A possible solution in making this workable for our law enforcement agencies is if someone is pulled over for a traffic violation, the officer has the opportunity to ask if their helmet is within standards. If it is not, then the violator could be cited with a secondary offense. This does not mean a motorcycle rider cannot be pulled over for only not wearing a helmet; there must be some other violation involved. It would be like the existing seat belt law. This is just a suggestion.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are we making a motion?
Senator Nolan:
I would like to have some more discussion on this. Here is the potential problem. If an officer stops a rider for a primary offense, then he is back in the same situation of looking at the helmet and trying to determine if it is within safety standards. I think we need some clarification from Mr. Hosmer.
Chairman Shaffer:
Mr. Hosmer you indicated that you needed to stay neutral on this issue. I do not know whether you have something constructive to add to the safety issue, nor are we asking you to give an opinion.
Senator Nolan:
Chairman Shaffer, I would just like to ask Mr. Hosmer a specific question on the motion. If an officer stops someone for a possible traffic violation, is that officer obligated to question the individual about his or her helmet, unless it is an obvious violation?
Mr. Hosmer:
The officer would still have the same problem. How does the officer know, unless there is an obvious NDOT sticker on the helmet, that it was a fake sticker? How can the officer determine that is an approved helmet?
Senator Nolan:
If this becomes a secondary offense, officers at that point are no longer obligated to stop someone solely based upon the suspicion of a helmet. Would that be accurate?
Mr. Hosmer:
That is correct.
Senator Hardy:
I am against this; not that I think it is a bad idea. I have always considered the helmet law to be the poster child for government overstepping its bounds in terms of protecting us from ourselves. I think government has a legitimate obligation to protect those who cannot protect themselves. I would support a helmet law with regard to minors and children. I think we have to trust reasonable people to make decisions about what level of protection they want to provide for themselves. I would support the bill as it is written.
Chairman Shaffer:
Do we now have a motion?
SENATOR CARLTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 274.
SENATOR NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATORS SHAFFER, AMODEI, HARDY AND SCHNEIDER VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman Shaffer:
Would you like to make a different motion?
SENATOR HARDY MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 274 WITH NO AMENDMENTS.
SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATORS NOLAN, CARE, CARLTON AND SCHNEIDER VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman Shaffer:
The bill dies. We will close the hearing on S.B. 274 and open the hearing on S.B. 480.
SENATE BILL 480: Deletes provision limiting issuance of citation for failure to wear safety belt in motor vehicle to vehicles halted for other offenses. (BDR 43-1039)
Patrick McGill, Public Affairs Officer and Training Coordinator, Nevada Highway Patrol, Department of Public Safety:
I have personally witnessed several hundred fatal traffic crashes, thousands of other crashes. It is my experience and belief that having a primary seat belt law in Nevada will not only save lives, it will also save thousands if not millions of dollars to the citizens and the State in unpaid costs due to Medicare and similar costs. We know this is the right thing to do, and now is the time to do it.
I am asking you to help us save lives. We are asking that you remove what is in section 1, subsection 3, lines 12, 13, and 14, removing that section which currently makes this a secondary offense. Currently we have to have probable cause. We want to be able so stop anyone we see who is not wearing a seat belt. Statistics show the rate of seat belt usage would increase as much as 15 percent. Statistics also show that traffic fatalities could be reduced by 45 percent. Our goal is to save lives. Our mission is to reduce injury.
I have spoken with our fatal-and serious-injury reconstruction teams. A fatal crash takes approximately 60 man-hours per officer for investigation; an injury crash, depending upon the severity of the injury, reduces the man-hours of investigation, depending upon the severity.
Maureen Brower, Lobbyist, Nevada Hospital Association (NHA):
I am here on behalf of Doreen Begley, Nurse Executive for NHA. She has requested I submit her prepared testimony (Exhibit F). The NHA urges you to support S.B. 480.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions or comments from the committee?
Senator Care:
I want to ask about enforceability. If we make this a primary offense, are the officers going to be inclined to enforce this every time they see someone not wearing a seat belt? Would it preclude them from concentrating on other matters if they were obligated to pull over someone not wearing a harness seat belt?
Mr. McGill:
The NHP are traffic officers. There is a difference between patrol officers and traffic officers. We are traffic-enforcement officers. Our primary goal and mission are to maintain the safe and effective flow on the roadways. Part of that is to reduce injuries and fatalities in motor vehicle crashes, which is our primary duty. Police departments and sheriffs’ offices have patrol and traffic divisions. Their primary responsibility is the same as the NHP. The troopers I have spoken with believe if this Legislature were to enact a primary seat belt law, you would see the seat belt usage numbers increase.
Regarding enforcement, no, it would not take officers away from any of their duties because that is our duty. Even if there was another violation involved, it is not taking any more or any less time for us to do our job. Our job is to save lives.
Senator Carlton:
I want to make sure I understand you correctly; you represent the Nevada Highway Patrol Association?
Mr. McGill:
Yes, I am on the board of directors.
Senator Carlton:
I am curious. We had a huge debate a few minutes ago about another bill, and we put Colonel Hosmer in an awkward position. I understand the position State employees and agencies have to take when they appear before the Legislature. I am curious about why you did not come forward earlier in response to S.B. 274, and give us some of your expertise on that, since you are out on the roads?
Mr. McGill:
I was not prepared. I did not know that bill was coming up for discussion today.
Senator Carlton:
The Nevada Highway Patrol Association did not consider S.B. 274 a bill that they were tracking or looking at?
Mr. McGill:
I do not know if they were looking at it. I can tell you my personal feelings on it if that is what you are looking for.
Senator Carlton:
No, that is fine. I was only curious. Can I ask how the association came about choosing this bill, S.B. 480?
Mr. McGill:
This is one of the bills I had asked to be drafted.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there any more testimony in favor of S.B. 480?
Mr. Abbott:
The mission of our office is to reduce the number of fatalities and serious injuries on Nevada’s roadways. As I mentioned earlier, we are federally funded and that precludes us from taking a position on this bill. We are here at the request of Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 4, to provide you with some research we have done.
In our analysis of fatalities and serious injuries in our State, we have found that one-third of these fatalities could have been prevented, or seriously reduced, if people would wear seat belts. Another one-third could be prevented, or seriously reduced, if we could get drunk drivers off the roads. The remaining one-third of fatalities in the State is the result of engineering, maintenance, driver fatigue, roadway injury, and other issues. It is estimated that almost one‑half of unrestrained fatalities in motor vehicle crashes would have survived if they had been wearing seat belts.
Our experience tells us effective enforcement of seat belt laws is the key to educating the public and increasing seat belt use. In May 2002, we had special funding to conduct a high intensity seat belt enforcement campaign. It was called “No Exceptions, No Excuses.” Results from that exercise showed, with high enforcement, we were able to increase seat belt usage by 6 percent over a 2‑week period.
We have also found states that have enforceable primary seat belt laws average about 80 percent compliance; while states with laws similar to Nevada’s average about 69 percent. Another noteworthy item from our research, there were $3,690,000 in non-reimbursable medical costs for unbelted drivers in Nevada in 2001. These costs, of course, will be charged back to the State and county indigent funds.
Mr. Snodgrass:
I have submitted written testimony showing the official position of the federal government on this issue for the record (Exhibit G).
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions or comments from the committee?
Senator Care:
Stepping aside from the safety issue, if this becomes a primary offense it becomes another reason for an officer to pull over a vehicle. It might lead to additional discourses between drivers and officers, which might also lead to additional apprehensions of drunk drivers, possession of a stolen vehicle, etcetera.
Do you have any data to demonstrate that a state in which this is a primary offense has had additional citations issued for arrests that have nothing to do with the initial reason for the vehicle being stopped? Do you understand what I am asking?
Mr. Snodgrass:
Our agency gives grant funds to each state. We fund police agencies to do seat belt and drunk-driving assessments. They observe the use of seat belts in the daytime. They find the drunk drivers at night. Basically, seat belt enforcement is done by the day shift. Drunk-driving enforcement is handled by the night shift. You do not stop many people in the daytime for not wearing a seat belt and find they are drunk. It is not a high number. It is more likely that when drunk drivers are stopped, they are not wearing seat belts. When someone is stopped for suspected drunk driving at night, police officers might occasionally write a seat belt ticket under the secondary-offense section. It very hard to determine in the dark if someone was actually wearing a seat belt while the car was in motion.
Good traffic enforcement can result in a lot of apprehensions of criminals. The famous one is the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh. Mr. McVeigh was stopped for speeding and had an expired registration. We try to advocate this to law enforcement all the time. If you are doing a good job of enforcing traffic laws you can also apprehend a lot of other criminals. The most famous bank robber in the world, John Dillinger always used a getaway car. Criminals use cars.
Mr. Abbott:
When we did our mobilization in May 2002, we had roughly 11,000 total citations. About 6000 of those citations were issued for seat belt violations. Approximately 1 out of 50 of the citations resulted in arrests for drunk driving.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are the any questions from the committee?
Senator Carlton:
When you were doing your “No Exceptions, No Excuses,” you indicated that 6000 of the 11,000 citations issued had the secondary offense attached for the nonuse of a seat belt or did I misunderstand?
Mr. Abbott:
Because the seat belt law is a secondary offense in this State, seat belt citations can only be given if there was another citation involved.
Senator Carlton:
Under the pilot program for which you receive federal monies, I was under the impression that you went out and stopped people, as if it were a primary offense for the nonuse of a seat belt and gave them a warning but did not issue a citation. Maybe I am misunderstanding the program.
Mr. Abbott:
No, we complied with the laws of Nevada. It was a secondary offense during our enforcement phase. If someone was pulled over and they were not wearing a seat belt, then they were given a citation for that as well. There were approximately 11,000 citations given and about 6000 people received an additional citation for the secondary offense of nonuse of a seat belt.
Senator Carlton:
If we make this a primary offense, how much is the fine?
Mr. Abbott:
I am not certain of that amount.
Senator Carlton:
Would it be considered a moving violation?
Mr. Abbott:
I am not certain what the statute would be on that either.
Senator Carlton:
That is one of the things I would like to know.
Traci Filippi, Highway Safety Representative, Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Public Safety:
I would like to answer Senator Carlton’s question. As I understand it, the only change that is being requested in S.B. 480 is moving this from a secondary to a primary offense. The current fine is $25. Everything else would stay the same. This would enable an officer to pull over someone strictly because of a possible seat belt violation, without the necessity of any other infraction being present.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any other questions from the committee?
Senator Amodei:
I have listened to the statistics and what this will do for life and safety. Accepting the statistics are true, without question it would seem to significantly reduce the exposure of people who drive in a state where seat belt use is mandatory and a primary offense. I was wondering if we take that mountain of statistics as fact, why no one has testified there would be a corresponding positive effect, in the car insurance premiums of people in the State when you are making such a significant reduction in their exposure to personal injury or death.
Ms. Filippi:
We do have a handout with data regarding the seat belt law (Exhibit H. Original is on file in the Research Library.). I believe everyone realizes that wearing a seat belt is a significant factor in saving lives and reducing the chances of a fatal injury. We did extensive research with the assistance of Marsheilah Lyons, the Nevada Hospital Association, and the Nevada Bureau of Health Statistics on the different economic social costs between unrestrained and restrained drivers. This is a snowball effect. As Mr. Abbott pointed out, the $3.6 million of un‑reimbursed hospital charges go back to the State or county to pay. Nationally, about 75 percent of costs associated with motor vehicle crashes are paid by people who are not involved in those crashes by way of higher insurance rates, travel delays, lost income, and so forth.
We have spoken with insurance agencies. They say if the bill is passed, and after 1 or 2 years, they would look at any decrease in fatalities and injuries. A decrease in fatalities and injuries could ultimately lead to a reduction in insurance rates. However, the insurance companies need the proof first then they can go before the State insurance commissioner to seek a reduction in insurance rates.
Senator Amodei:
I appreciate your view of that aspect. This is a leap of faith in terms of law enforcement, and hope there will be a follow-up, depending upon the experience in 2 years. When I listen to your testimony, I believe it. What makes us think Nevada would be any different? Why can we not expect something for the motoring public regarding insurance rates right now if those are accurate statistics and are that compelling? Having visited insurance issues in other areas unrelated to driving, an adjustment in insurance rates, if these statistics are in fact accurate, which I believe them to be, is not real enthusiastic.
Mr. Abbott:
This is out of our scope. We are just here to provide you with information and data on this particular issue.
Senator Amodei:
The problem is, we are presented with compelling evidence, which you have delineated. If we find it creditable, which I do, it is not unreasonable to expect a response such as a decrease of insurance rates. The expectation is not only by this committee, but also by people who know about what the numbers relate. The dichotomy I find myself in is that I am faced with evidence I believe. How you can answer someone who says, “Why did you vote for this if my rates would not change?” I am a little sensitive to saying, “Well, the rates might go down if things work out the way we anticipate.” If I am still in office in 2 years, I will ask that question and see how it goes. That is a non‑answer to most people. It is not to criticize you here today. I believe everything you have said. If I believe that, then I would assume people in the industry, who work in terms of safety, statistics, and accidents, would also believe it.
Mr. Snodgrass:
We do not represent the insurance industry. I have heard that question asked of the insurance industry. For many years the response has always been insurance rates are based on actual losses or payouts. I think you will see a reduction in deaths and injuries of motor vehicle occupants. That is certainly not the only variable. Nevada is the fastest growing state in the Union with Arizona second and California third. The number of drivers is increasing. We have the fastest growing region in the country. I am sure the insurance companies will talk about other variables, but we do not speak for them.
Senator Amodei:
Chairman Shaffer, all I would add is if we process this bill, maybe we could ask Ms. Lyons if it is appropriate or even legal, to include an amendment requiring the insurance commissioner to convene a rate hearing for the purpose of evaluating all insurance rates in Nevada based on the statistics available. The insurance companies that are writing auto insurance policies would be required to testify. If the insurance companies agree with these statistics, a rollback ought to be appropriate. If they do not, maybe we should make the passage and approval of this bill contingent upon the findings of the insurance commissioner if a rollback of rates is appropriate based upon this measure.
Mr. Abbott:
I have one other comment. When California passed this as a primary law, they put in a “Sunset clause” with it. After a 2-year period the Legislature could go back and rescind the law but they did not do that.
Ms. Filippi:
This is addressing Senator Amodei’s concern of what is the bottom dollar. Nevada is now losing federal highway funding because we do not have a primary seat belt law. Congress is currently reevaluating the Transportation Equity Act, and how the federal highway funds will be divided. Now there are various grant programs. Congress is considering consolidating all federal highway funds into one grant program. We are hearing from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that states with primary seat belt laws will receive an additional $100 million in federal highway funds. This fiscal year we have lost $440,000. The explanation for that is in your packet (Exhibit H).
Beyond saving lives, reducing injuries, saving medical costs, and State budget costs for county pay and Medicaid, we have already lost federal funds that directly affected our internal programs. Local traffic agencies that have lost, or were denied grants because of the loss of those funds are listed in your packet.
Phil Robertson, Law Enforcement Liaison, Nevada Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Public Safety:
My opinions do not represent the Nevada Office of Traffic Safety. I am speaking on behalf of the police officers and Nevada’s Sheriffs and Chiefs Association who endorse S.B. 480. Money is the issue, but we are not here for that. Last year if we had a seat belt law in force, we could have saved over $323 million in costs to the State. Money is a concern; saving people’s lives is the real concern.
You came here to help people and that is what this is all about. The Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association could not be here today. They endorse this bill. Those people are your constituents and they voted for this 100 percent. You have a chance today to help your constituents.
I agree with Senator Amodei. The insurance industry must respond to this. We are here to help people; now we have the time and opportunity to do that. We have had some high-profile cases this year in which people have died because they did not wear seat belts, especially the accident in Washoe County that involved the deaths of children. Those deaths could have been prevented.
We are here to ask you to consider S.B. 480. While we have been sitting here today and when you go home tonight, one person will have died, one will die tomorrow, and one will die the next day. If the seat belt law is passed, we can help save lives.
Ms. Stadler:
The primary seat belt law is on MADD’s national list of priority legislative measures. The need for it is based on scientific research as to its effectiveness. We have heard a lot of those statistics. Mothers Against Drunk Driving has long advocated that proper seat belt and child-safety restraints are the best defenses against a drunk driver. I am here today in support of this legislation. As a constituent of Senator Amodei, I hope the merit of this bill goes beyond the insurance dollars. I ask the committee to support this legislation.
Lisa A. Foster, Lobbyist, California State Automobile Association (dba AAA Nevada):
We are both a motor club and an insurance company. We have supported primary seat belt laws for all ages, nationwide. We are in support of this bill. I would like to address Senator Amodei. The question of insurance rates comes up in most traffic-safety bills. Our typical answer is it usually takes a couple of years to see the impact of a law, whether it is graduated licensing or primary seat belts. Then insurance rate changes may follow.
Mr. Werbeckes from Farmers Insurance, who is currently in another hearing, has said that if section 1, subsection 4, paragraph (b), was eliminated, he could see a rollback occurring a little more easily.
Ms. Breen:
We are in support of this bill. As an education source, I would like to point out what this could do for our programs throughout the State to be able to say, “You must wear your seat belt, or you can get a ticket.” Probably the biggest savings of a primary seat belt law would be to the youngest drivers we have in the State. Traditionally, teenagers have the lowest seat belt usage rates. They are the highest cost of a fatality because of the years of productive life lost. In 2000, there were 11 fatalities and 18 life-altering injuries involving youths. Of 29 youths, only 3 were wearing seat belts. You have supported the graduated-licensing bill. We are hopeful that we will get that through the Assembly and enact a fully graduated-licensing program. Under that program we could actually say to teenage drivers, “If you are ticketed for not wearing a seat belt, you go back to square one.” That is why, especially this year, it is so important that we pass the primary seat belt law. Our partners at the trauma center have asked me to pass on to you the fact that 70 percent of the patients they treat at the trauma center were not wearing seat belts. It is not that 70 percent of the drivers were unbelted; it is 70 percent of those who are unbelted meet trauma criteria. Seat belts represent a tremendous cost savings to the entire State. We urge your support of the primary seat belt law.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there anyone here to testify in opposition to S.B. 480?
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum:
I am opposed to this bill. When it was first passed, we were promised this would never become a primary offense. Of course, government always seeks to amass more and more power to it. Every session more and more laws are passed so that we have less and less liberties. This is a dangerous law because it endangers individual liberties of law-abiding citizens, who can be stopped at any time for any reason under the pretense they do not have on a seat belt.
We have been told today we might lose federal money. This is just another federal blackmail to get us to comply with them. You should just eliminate the Legislature and have the federal government decide all of our laws. This law flies in the face of the spirit of our constitutional rights. I will read to you from The Constitution Of The State Of Nevada, Article 1, section 1, which is our declaration of rights: “All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; … .” Section 20 says “… This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.”
Several times this session I have spoken with concern about antiterrorist legislation because it gives a grant of great power to the government and jeopardizes our individual rights. It essentially turns this into a police State. Any law-abiding citizen can be stopped at any time. I think that is a dangerous line to cross. It is not only important for us to protect safety. I am more concerned about the long-range effects of destroying liberty. It is your responsibility first and foremost to be the defenders of our individual liberty in balance with the concerns you have of protecting life and safety.
We heard the current seat belt law is uniquely weak. That is on purpose because we do not want the police power granted to stop anyone at any time for any reason. Often, many of these traffic laws are nothing more than revenue resources. This could also have the potential to become that. I encourage you to move forth with great caution realizing each of us is responsible for our own lives. You cannot be responsible for us in every circumstance and every instance. We need to have responsibility for our own lives. I put on my seat belt because I am responsible. Those who are irresponsible cannot be used to destroy the individual liberty of those of us who are responsible. The vast majority of people in the State are law-abiding citizens and there is no reason for this law. This will simply endanger their liberties further and give more power to government. I encourage you to take this into consideration.
Chairman Shaffer:
If there is no further testimony, I would accept a motion for S.B. 480.
SENATOR NOLAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 480 USING SENATOR AMODEI’S AMENDMENT FOLLOWING THE PASSAGE OF THIS BILL, REQUESTS INSURANCE COMMISSIONER TO CONDUCT HEARING WITH RESPECT TO INSURANCE RATES AND TAKING OUT THE PART OF CONTINGENCY.
THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
*****
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there another motion to be made?
Senator Hardy:
I think we need to draw the line for people protecting themselves. Having said that I do not want my comments or philosophy on this to be mingled with that of Ms. Hansen. I do not believe that law enforcement has or will abuse this authority. I think our law enforcement is professional and applies the law in an appropriate manner. I do not want to identify myself with Ms. Hansen’s remarks. I do want to identify myself with the remarks in terms this is probably overstepping our boundary. At some point we need to draw the line and if I were going to step across that line, I would step across that line for this issue. It is meritorious. I think we need to do all we can to encourage people to wear seat belts.
Senator Carlton:
I have some concerns now about voting for the booster-seat law in conjunction with making this a primary offense, and having booster seats be educational. I would be very apprehensive about the booster-seat law ending up being a primary offense.
Senator Nolan:
When the booster-seat law becomes effective, it will move that age up to 9. Now we are talking about moving up to the age of 16 with this seat belt bill.
Chairman Shaffer:
Do we have a motion?
SENATOR HARDY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 480 WITH THE AMENDMENT THIS BECOMES A PRIMARY OFFENSE IF A MINOR UNDER THE AGE OF 16 IS INVOLVED.
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
*****
Chairman Shaffer:
Are we going to try for a third motion?
Senator Amodei:
Over the years we have had several health safety issues come before us. We have been responsive to those issues. This measure, with the information put together by Ms. Filippi and the others, is as compelling a set of facts as I have seen in the last four sessions on any issue. I think we ought to take a 360‑degree view. If we pass this, and have the statistics to support it, we ought to expect something back from those individuals who rate the potential for loss and risk for the driving public in this State. With that said, I would like to make a motion.
The testimony here today did not say, and has never said, Nevada is a test case and this might be the result. The testimony was that they know from experience in other jurisdictions this will happen. These are the statistics. You have been provided with specific numbers. I think it is appropriate to say we are going to take you at your word. The individuals who deal with numbers on a full-time basis in terms of risk and loss ought to do the same.
SENATOR AMODEI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 480 AND TO REQUIRE THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER TO HOLD A HEARING AS A PREDICATE TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS BILL. THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER MUST PROVIDE A SPECIFIC FINDING REGARDING WHAT THIS SHOULD PROPERLY DO REGARDING INSURANCE RATES BASED ON KNOWN EXPERIENCE IN OTHER STATES.
SENATOR CARLTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATOR CARE VOTED NO.)
*****
Senator Hardy:
The reason I supported the last motion is I think it takes us beyond just a personal issue of a decision you make for yourself. If we can accomplish that then it is a policy that will impact the rest of the State in a positive manner.
Chairman Shaffer:
We will now go to the work session part of this hearing and take a motion on S.B. 482.
SENATE BILL 482: Provides that certain leases of motor vehicles or trailers do not constitute sales or create security interests under certain circumstances. (BDR 43-1043)
SENATOR HARDY MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 482.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any comments from the committee regarding S.B. 117?
SENATE BILL 117: Provides for registration and titling of off-road vehicles. (BDR 43-187)
Senator Hardy:
There were several evolutions on S.B. 117. I appreciate that Senator Care and Senator Nolan worked so hard on the subcommittee with me on the bill. I sincerely wish we could do more on this during this session, but it is a very complex issue with regard to the impact of registering off-road vehicles. One of the options the subcommittee looked at, in lieu of registering was to possibly exempt them. We talked with the Department of Taxation about the fiscal impact. It was estimated at $1.5 million per year, which we felt in this time of fiscal crisis was probably not a good idea.
One of the things the subcommittee discovered was there is an interstate compact that several states have in order to deal with these types of issues. The compact requires dealers in other states to notify the resident state of the name of the purchaser, when a purchase occurs and of the amount of the purchase. The resident state can then bill the individual for the sales tax.
We opted out of that several years ago. As I understand from the Department of Taxation, the reason for opting out made a lot of sense. It is my recommendation that in lieu of processing S.B. 117, this committee send a letter to the Department of Taxation to ask them to revisit the issue of interstate compact, and see if circumstances have changed that might help us address this problem through our admission or entrance into the interstate compact.
I do not believe we need to indefinitely postpone the bill.
SENATOR HARDY MOVED THAT A LETTER BE SENT REGARDING S.B. 117 TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION ASKING TO REVISIT OUR MEMBERSHIP IN AN INTERSTATE COMPACT.
SENATOR CARLTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Shaffer:
We are now going to address S.B. 187.
SENATE BILL 187: Revises provisions governing erection and maintenance of signs to designate parking spaces for use by handicapped persons. (BDR 20-761)
Senator Nolan:
Originally this bill would have had local municipalities doing enforcement. The testimony was that this was beyond their scope of capabilities. Unfortunately, the only two municipalities in the room at the time were Clark County and Las Vegas. We gave them 2 weeks to develop a voluntary program where they would go out to the sites or develop an informational program. They would distribute the informational program to their enforcement people, and develop a flyer to circulate to different businesses informing them of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) law requirements, local codes, and certain Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS).
The City of Las Vegas came back with a proposed plan, which I do not feel met the intent of what we asked them to do. However, Clark County came back with a more intricate plan. The sponsor of this bill and Linda Lueck, Governors’ Committee on Employment and People with Disabilities, felt a voluntary compliance program or a campaign might be good for this year, but we will be back at this again and again.
You have a proposed amendment that essentially outlines the program Clark County has developed. It is either a no-cost or a low-cost approach. I propose the bill be amended to require municipalities to make an effort to enforce the erection of these signs in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and NRS through bullet points that are on the amendment you have (Exhibit I). It would require them to create a flyer (Exhibit J) and increase training of inspectors. The flyer would be included in all business licensing renewals as part of the mailer that already is sent. Clark County would also provide their local law enforcement agencies with the flyers, and would require them to develop a campaign to abate this problem.
Chairman Shaffer:
If Clark County has not already been doing this, what would make them do it now? If they really cared about the handicapped public they would have done something a long time ago.
Senator Nolan:
It is not currently in the statute. I believe it is a combination of people who do not really care about the handicapped, people who are simply uninformed, and those people do not know the requirements of the law. They may not know that failure to do this is a misdemeanor. The City of Las Vegas provided me with approximately 2700 citations for handicapped-parking violations issued in a 1‑year period. That is significant and it says they are making an enforcement effort. This would be an informational program. If people who do not care or do not know, get an informational flyer that indicates it is a misdemeanor with maximum penalties, maybe we will get better compliance. The reality is it is a problem for people with disabilities.
James Vilt, Nevada Disability Advocacy and Law:
We have a suggested amendment for you (Exhibit K). The comments were not necessarily directed toward Senator Nolan’s suggested amendment. Our office is the federally mandated State protection and advocacy system for individuals with disabilities. We were advised you might be considering an amendment to NRS 484.408, which is current State law and touched upon in S.B. 187.
Senator Nolan:
Chairman Shaffer, apparently our statutes are not in compliance with the ADA. With respect to putting Nevada in compliance with the ADA, the provisions the amendment (Exhibit K) has provided seem to be reasonable with the exception of the $200 minimum fine. I do not think federal law requires that and I suggest we keep the fine at $100. When we move this bill, I think we should have the motion include the rest of this amendment (Exhibit K) in the bill, but keeping the minimum fine at $100.
Chairman Shaffer:
Give us a summary of the total proposal on which you would like us to make a motion.
Mr. Vilt:
Basically these amendments are the product of efforts between representatives of our office, the Governor’s Committee on Employment and Persons with Disabilities, the Public Works Board, Nevadans For Equal Access, and other concerned citizens. Current law allows for handicapped-accessible parking spaces in parking lots with 60 spaces or more to be exclusively reserved for use of vehicles with side-loading wheelchair lifts. This means individuals who are otherwise entitled to use handicapped-parking spaces, may not, under State law, park in one of the side-loading, wheelchair-lift reserved spaces if they do not drive the requisite vehicle.
The ADA accessibility guidelines have stringent regulations mandating the minimum number of accessible parking spaces in a parking lot. This ends up serving to reduce the number of spaces that are accessible to those with the appropriate parking placards in favor of those with the appropriate placards, license plates, and a particular vehicle. The ADA guidelines mandate that certain accessible parking spaces be van accessible. It does not prohibit those with appropriate parking placards from parking in a van-accessible space if they do not drive a certain type of van.
This amendment (Exhibit K) is the product of negotiations between several different groups. We also offered a requirement that all parking lots shall have not less than two parking spaces indicated as van accessible. This goes beyond the federal guidelines. We were essentially trying to compromise with the individuals seeking this law with the van-only requirement.
I point out there is no requirement. There is nothing prohibiting State law from going above and beyond federal law to afford their citizens greater protection. This law essentially ends up hurting the very population it is meant to protect.
Chairman Shaffer:
I believe there is no local ordinance that could also supersede the law. Am I correct?
Mr. Vilt:
Yes sir, as far as I am aware, there is not.
Senator Nolan:
I just want to make sure we are okay with this. The proposed amendment, with the exception of the fees, providing we did not implement any part of the current proposed S.B. 187, would not have any substantive change on any current facility or parking spaces as we have it in statute right now, is that correct?
Mr. Vilt:
I believe you would have to change the signs. They would have to read that the handicap-parking space is not only reserved for vans with the side-loading wheelchair lifts. I do not know the costs entailed with the signage.
Senator Nolan:
It is my understanding that as long as we say van accessible, that covers what you are hoping to accomplish. There is nothing in statute requiring anyone to put up signs that reserve parking spaces for side-loading vehicles. If a private business decides to do this on its own it can, but currently there is nothing in statute requiring it.
Mr. Vilt:
Federal law does require a certain number of spaces to be designated as van accessible. It does not preclude someone without a van from parking there. State law is different. It is saying that these parking spots designated for van accessible only, mean just that. People who are handicapped and have the appropriate license plates, but do not have wheelchair-accessible vans, have parked in those spaces and have been ticketed. Quite honestly, the courts have not enforced this.
Senator Nolan:
Does anyone from the municipalities want to comment on this?
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County:
We do not have a problem with the wording Mr. Vilt has suggested. I think they are the appropriate ones to speak on this as it relates to handicapped parking. In regard to your amendment, Senator Nolan, with the utmost respect, I am not sure this is something you need to legislate. We have been put on notice. Speaking for Clark County, we have committed to following through with the existing statute. Our board of county commissioners can be easily accessed by anyone who feels we are not following through to enforce existing State statute. I think it is not appropriate to legislate us to do that. We need to do a better job and we have made a commitment on the subject.
Kami Dempsey, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, and Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities:
I agree with Mr. Musgrove. In addition, I just want to add this legislation establishes a precedent. We have been put on notice. It is something to which we need to bring more attention. However, in future sessions, if there are other items that deal with the development of private business regulations we need to inform them of the policies. We could possibly send out 20 different flyers on different information. This is something we see as internal policy, where we can do enforcement of those things.
Senator Nolan:
Ms. Dempsey, can you commit on behalf of the City of Las Vegas to adopt at least the minimum program Clark County has developed, which are the bullet points in the amendment?
Ms. Dempsey:
I could probably commit to it. However, we are looking at some different alternatives. I know in the letter Mr. Musgrove presented (Exhibit J) they referred to their Sandstone Newsletter as a way of getting information to their subscribers. Due to budget difficulties, we are looking at going to a wireless, paperless system. We are happy to put it on our Website, to inform our people, and do whatever else we can. There are things in the program we may not have, such as a newsletter we can mail out, but we are happy to exhaust all the resources that we do have available.
Senator Nolan:
Have you had a chance to look at the proposed language that came from Mr. Vilt and are you okay with that?
Ms. Dempsey:
In a quick review, it seems fine. I have not had time to compare or go into depth, but I think it looks good.
Senator Nolan:
Thank you.
James Bell, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas:
We echo the comments from the other entities about the concerns over these additional measures. We believe it is a noble effort to safeguard the rights and privileges of people especially those in wheelchairs. They need access to various areas. Those remedies exist at a federal level. We feel that businesses are accountable, and also accountable financially for those measures. Advertisements with flyers would echo good business practice and that should be pursued.
The additional duty on the City of Las Vegas to hire additional building inspectors is something we cannot do economically. It is not something for which we have the funds. An effective program should also be one that is fiscally prudent. We would request that those considerations be made in this approval.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there anyone else wishing to testify?
Senator Nolan:
I think we should get Mr. Wilkie on the record and find out how he feels about the amendments that were provided. Then maybe we can get a motion and move this bill.
Richard Wilkie, Lobbyist, City Of Henderson, and Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities:
We agree. We will take the steps to address those concerns that have been raised. As far as the amendment, I am not a public works expert but I do not believe we have any concerns with them at this time.
Chairman Shaffer:
Ed Gobel has sent a note requesting S.B. 187 be passed. This will be entered into the record (Exhibit L). Are we now ready to make a motion on this?
SENATOR NOLAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 187 WITH PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY MR. VILT, WITH RESPECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ADA GUIDELINES, WITH EXCEPTION OF THE PROVISION THAT INCREASES THE PENALTY MINIMUM FROM $100 TO $200 TO REMAIN AT $100. SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES WOULD REMAIN AT $500 AND $1000 VERSUS THE PROPOSED INCREASE TO $1000 AND $2000.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION CONTINGENT ON GETTING HIS ANSWERS.
Senator Hardy:
I want to make sure what we are doing here is simply bringing the State law into compliance with federal ADA guidelines. I do not believe this is the venue for dealing with this issue. I do believe that local governments have been put on notice and believe they will respond. We will be watching them. If it does not go further than that, I think this is fine; it is clean-up language.
Senator Carlton:
I am not sure if I can help Senator Hardy, but that is basically the same question I had. Under section 3, line 5-44 (Exhibit K), provided in accordance with ADA guidelines, with the modification that all parking lots shall have not less than two parking spaces indicated as van accessible in addition to those guidelines, am I correct?
Senator Hardy:
You appear to be correct. The other concern I have is that it is without regard to the size of the parking lot.
Mr. Vilt:
It is in addition to the minimum requirements. I thought I had pointed that out. Again, it was to try to comply with those people who initially wanted the current law with special accordance to certain-type vans. The ADA guidelines do specify a minimum number of parking spaces that must be van accessible. In a number of instances, only one van-accessible parking space is required.
Senator Hardy:
Is that the only place we are going beyond and broadening the ADA requirements in your proposed amendment?
Mr. Vilt:
Yes, I do believe it is, aside from the fines. It does appear to be the only place that would actually go above and beyond the federal minimums.
Senator Hardy:
If the maker of the motion would accept a friendly amendment to strike that, I would not have a problem.
Senator Nolan:
I think that is the only way we are going to get over this thing. So, yes, I would accept that.
Senator Carlton:
Thank you for the clarification. I support the ADA guidelines but I do not support any enhancement to those guidelines. I sit with Senator Hardy on this.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are all in favor?
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Shaffer:
We are now going to look at S.B. 291. Does the committee have any comments on this bill? I am considering asking the federal authorities to maybe do an investigation of the plane crashes that have taken place at the North Las Vegas Airport, and if extensive growth has added to the congestion at the airport. I also want to ask for some sound testing to be done by an outside entity, which would be an arm of the federal government.
SENATE BILL 291: Authorizes governmental entity that is proprietor of airport to impose certain reasonable restrictions concerning control of aircraft noise. (BDR 44-759)
Senator Hardy:
I think that is a good idea. This bill contemplates putting some restrictions in, or giving some direction from a venue that is not appropriate.
Chairman Shaffer:
We are not going to pass this bill. Thank you. You all have done an excellent job. The hearing is now adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sherry Rodriguez,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
DATE: