ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation

Seventy-First Session

March 22, 2001

The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Thursday, March 22, 2001. 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.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman

Mr. John Carpenter

Ms. Barbara Cegavske

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mr. John J. Lee

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Mr. John Oceguera

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mrs. Debbie Smith, excused

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Terry Care, Senate District 7

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst

Geri Mosey, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Michael Hillerby, Deputy Chief of Staff for Legislative Affairs, Governor’s Office

Colonel Michael Hood, Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol

Scott Owens, President and C.E.O., U.S. Interactive

Lisa Foster, Legislative Analyst, American Automobile Association of Nevada

Kevin Quinlan, Chief of Safety Advocacy, National Transportation Safety Board

Gary Wolff, Nevada Highway Patrol Association

Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Ryan Malkiewich, Concerned Teen

Derek Hawkins, Concerned Teen

Chelsea Correia, Galena High School Senior

Bruce Mackey, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles, Office of Traffic Safety

Mary-Ellen McMullen, Miller Brewing Company

Donna West, Administrator, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles

Dan Miller, President, Nevada Professional Driving School Association

Brendan Perez, Concerned Citizen

Steven Sampson, Concerned Citizen

Joe Guild, Union Pacific Railroad

Jan Christopherson, Administrative Services Officer, Nevada Department of Transportation

Assembly Bill 8: Makes various changes concerning drivers’ licenses issued to persons under 18 years of age. (BDR 43-6)

Assemblywoman Barbara Cegavske, representing Assembly District 5, introduced the two cosponsors of A.B. 8, Senator Terry Care, State Senatorial District 7, and Michael Hillerby of the Governor’s Office. Senator Care presented himself as a convert to graduated drivers’ licenses. Some forty states had this type of license. He asked the committee to contemplate the intent of the bill and listen to the testimony. Michel Hillerby from the Office of the Governor lent his support to A.B. 8.

Colonel Michael Hood, Chief of the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP), made a special effort to testify in support of A.B. 8. He reported Nevada had a disproportionate number of accidents involving young drivers, which unfortunately were injurious and sometimes fatal. The NHP strongly supported A.B. 8 as a method to better teach the young drivers.

Scott Owens was President and C.E.O. of U.S. Interactive, a company that provided primarily driver safety and driver education programs interactively through the Internet and through videotape. He came from Houston, Texas, to testify in support of A.B. 8. Roughly 80 percent of drivers on the road had had no formal driver education. Traffic accidents were the number one killer of young adults, costing taxpayers billions of dollars. He stated he understood the rural issue, such as the lack of classroom courses, which interactive education could resolve.

Assemblywoman Cegavske pointed out that A.B. 8 placed no additional requirements on school districts or driving schools. It did build on the success of A.B. 404 of the Sixty-Ninth Session, passed in 1997. Ms. Cegavske went through the sections and subsections of A.B. 8, explaining to the committee the rationale of each.

Assemblyman Carpenter stated that he did believe experience was required, but questioned the necessity of having the instructional permit for not less than six months. He felt, especially in the rural counties, a person could have the fifty hours in less than six months. Also, for the “emancipated” teens, he had determined that this term did not include married teens. He believed if a couple was married they should be permitted to drive together and provision should be made for them in the language of the bill. In another part of the bill, where it stated a young driver could take a sibling to school provided the parent gave permission, Mr. Carpenter felt there should be a provision for taking a neighbor’s child to school, with permission from those parents. He questioned other restrictions.

Ms. Cegavske understood Mr. Carpenter’s concern, but she felt that with the testimony presented and the statistics shown, he would appreciate the necessity of the six months for attaining a lifelong behavior. As for the married couple, she felt that the driving experience was still very essential. She emphasized, too, that there was no curfew law in A.B. 8.

There were two amendments for this bill (Exhibit C): deleting Section 3, subsection 4; and, substituting “local curfew hours” for “between the hours of 10 p.m. and 5 a.m.,” that a person could drive, under certain circumstances during the first twelve months, without an adult. One of the exceptions was “school activity” and Chairwoman Chowning asked where that was written. Ms. Cegavske referred her to Section 10, page 5, line 45 and page 6, line 3. But that, Ms. Chowning said, talked of a restricted license, so there were two definitions—a provisional license and a restricted license. This seemed conflicting. And, what if a local jurisdiction had no curfew?

Ms. Cegavske verified that each county did have curfew hours for minors. She was willing to include “(d) school hours” at Section 3, subsection 3. At this point, Ms. Cegavske submitted individual printed testimonies of people who could not attend (Exhibit D), a list of supporters (Exhibit E), statistics (Exhibit F) and news articles (Exhibit G).

Assemblyman Gustavson previously supported this legislation, but was concerned about not considering parental instruction as the equivalent of a “licensed driving instructor.” Assemblywoman Cegavske explained that section was included by request of a group of parents who had paid for instruction and wished it to count for more toward the fifty hours.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked if parents with bad driving records were qualified to teach their teens to drive. Ms. Cegavske said the fifty hours issue was passed in previous legislation, and parents could not be monitored.

Assemblyman Collins requested statistics from other states showing accidents by age brackets. He was told these would be shown in testimony.

Lisa Foster, Legislative Analyst, American Automobile Association of Nevada, testified that in 1997 they began a national initiative to enact a graduated licensing law in every state. So far, the initiative had passed in 44 states. Each had seen a real drop in teen accidents (Exhibit H) and (Exhibit I). The results of a study, recently printed in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), showed that if just one additional teen was placed in a vehicle with a teen driver, the risk of a fatal crash went up 30 percent. Every other teen added to the car increased the risk even more. The crash rate did not rise with the addition of an adult in the vehicle. While motor vehicle death rates had decreased over the past two decades, death rates had increased for teen drivers. In Nevada, 16- and 17-year olds represented less than 2 percent of the state’s drivers, but they represented more than 7 percent of the fatal crashes. Of the teen passengers killed in Nevada, 75 percent were killed by other teens. Causes included poor driving skills, poor decision-making and risk taking.

A.B. 8 would save lives and money; reducing Nevada’s teen crash rates by 15 percent would save Nevadans $6.5 million per year in damaged vehicles and property, emergency response, medical costs and funeral costs. Graduated licensing was supported by a wide range of people (Exhibit J). In a AAA survey, 80 percent of Nevadans also supported the graduated license. AAA disagreed with the concept that this should be left up to the parents because: 1) it’s the state that decides who could and could not drive on the roads; 2) crash consequences go far beyond the family; and, 3) voluntary restrictions imposed by parents were not consistently imposed or enforced.

Ms. Foster had heard some complaints that the four months of passenger restrictions may be inconvenient. Surveys revealed that 80 percent of teens and 96 percent of parents who were affected by the restrictions in other states supported it. When teens were asked specifically if the restrictions stopped them from participating in activities, they said “no.” Ms. Foster strongly urged the committee to support A.B. 8.

Chairwoman Chowning reiterated: the learner’s permit was for six months, but nowhere did the bill address how long the provisional license had to be in place. It appeared that the driver obtained the learner’s permit for six months, then obtained the provisional until age 18. Ms. Foster clarified that after the permit, the driver had a license at 16, whether it was called a provisional or restricted. But for four months there were passenger restrictions. The problem Ms. Chowning found was that the first line stated the department may issue a provisional license, but it gave no indication of the length of time of the license. Ms. Cegavske asked to hold the question for an answer later in the meeting.

Kevin Quinlan, Chief of Safety Advocacy, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), presented a written testimony (Exhibit K) with numerous statistics. He explained the NTSB investigated crashes in all modes of transportation. The NTSB did not regulate or fund, it just investigated. In 1993, the NTSB asked the states to implement graduated licensing laws as the best way to reduce teen driving fatalities. Sixteen-year-old drivers had a crash rate three times that of even 18- or 19-year old drivers. The United States had the lowest licensing age of any industrialized nation. First-year drivers had twice the number of crashes as older drivers. On a miles-driven basis, it was four times the number. About 7 percent of drivers were young, but they accounted for 14 percent of the crashes. Nighttime driving was the most dangerous time: 20 percent of teen driving was done at night but about 50 percent of teen fatalities occurred at night. Sixteen-year-old drivers were more likely to be involved in a single vehicle accident (driver error), to be liable for the crash, be cited for speeding and have more passengers than older drivers. With teens, passengers increased the likelihood of a crash.

Nationally reported data for Nevada (Exhibit K) showed that fatalities had increased since 1992. The increase might have been due to the influx of population—more population, more drivers, more crashes, more fatalities. The problem, as he put it, was that young people were not learning to drive; they were learning to pass a test. A gradual introduction to the system, with adult supervision, worked to reduce these statistics. The enactment of A.B. 8 would save between 7 and 24 fatalities per year.

Parents liked the concept; young drivers who had gone through the system supported it. The law had the effect of getting parents involved. Teens had admitted that what they faced on the roads was nothing like what their parents, as young drivers, faced. In Exhibit K, the highest priority of the NTSB was the enactment of graduated driver licensing in each state. He requested the committee enact A.B. 8 because it would work.

Assemblyman Nolan asked how this Nevada bill compared with that passed by other states where there had been a reduction in fatalities. Mr. Quinlan said it was primarily the same except that some had a 6- to 18-month fixed period for the provisional license and clear nighttime driving restrictions.

Gary Wolff, representing the Nevada Highway Patrol Association, came forward to support A.B. 8. He spent 31 years as a highway patrolman and said it was “the most heart-wrenching thing in the world to do,” to assist at an accident where teens were involved. He had imposed similar restrictions on his five children but felt that the law was needed to help parents.

Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, strongly supported A.B. 8. Teen drivers with other kids in the car did not pay attention. He had also imposed these restrictions on his teen son, who protested that his friend did not have these restrictions. Yet, within eight months of licensing, the son’s friend had three accidents and the son had none.

Gemma Waldron, Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, representing the Nevada District Attorneys Association, felt that A.B. 8 would keep the young drivers out of the courts. They supported it.

Sarah Stadler, president of the FATE (Fighting Alcohol Through Education) Club at Carson Middle School. She and 13 other FATE members unanimously supported A.B. 8.

Ryan Malkiewich and Derek Hawkins, concerned teens, spoke together in favor of A.B. 8. They discussed the reasons they felt the bill would be good for Nevada’s teens. However, they felt rather than age, the bill should focus on experience. Furthermore, they wanted the 50 hours to remain 50 hours with no reductions for classroom instructions, and the inclusion of an additional ten hours of open road experience.

Chelsea Correia, senior at Galena High School, along with six of her friends in attendance, supported A.B. 8 because they felt it would decrease the number of teen-related car crashes in the state. She said that teens got behind the wheel with an attitude that they were invincible, that they had full control over the 2000-pound weapon they were driving. The proposed extra step eased the transition and allowed teens to get a feel for the road without the distraction of friends. A.B. 8 gave parents a backup when saying “no” to their begging children.

Sara Towles, a concerned young driver, supported A.B. 8. Her parents had imposed these restrictions on her, but that did not stop her from doing what she wanted. She felt this bill would help parents and save lives.

Bruce Mackey, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles, Office of Traffic Safety, conducted a study of fatal crashes involving teens aged 15 to 17. Although this age group represented only 4.3 percent of the population, they were involved in between 5.5 to 8 percent of the fatal crashes in Nevada, and were at fault in 63 to 84 percent of them. Between 48 and 92 percent of the time other teens were riding in the car with these teen drivers.

Mary-Ellen McMullen, the McMullen Strategic Group, representing the Miller Brewing Company who wished to go on record as supporting A.B. 8. They had supported this legislation in each state.

Donna West, Administrator, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles in Las Vegas, told Chairwoman Chowning that a person of 16 or 17 years would need to have the designation of “provisional” until the driver reached the age of 18. So, Ms. Chowning reiterated, no matter when you got your permit you could not get a provisional until six months later. With the provisional license, restrictions lasted for four months and an additional eight months for a total of twelve months of provisional licensing.

Dan Miller, president of the Nevada Professional Driving School Association, indicated the association supported A.B. 8. He answered several questions previously posed by committee members. As for the teaching provided by parents or others who were not good drivers, Mr. Miller felt the DMV road test would weed out the poorly trained. The significant difference in A.B. 8 and legislation in other states was that, though Nevada had a classroom instruction requirement, it had no behind-the-wheel requirement. One incentive to teens and parents would be insurance discounts from 10 to 20 percent up to age 25.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked Ms. West if teens could obtain the restricted license to take children other than siblings to school, since that could not be accomplished under the provisional license. Ms. West said that the restricted licenses were for going to and from school when a school did not provide transportation. It allowed the transportation of other minors with the consent of their parents. It would not be issued in lieu of or in addition to a provisional license. But, Mr. Carpenter said, the legislation was still there that permitted this and it was very important in the rural areas. Ms. West agreed there was a conflict.

Chairwoman Chowning referred to page 5, Section 10, which also made the restricted license more restricted than existing language. Ms. West responded, the word “directly” was added to clarify what was already done.

Brendan Perez, spoke against A.B. 8. He felt it simplistic; it merely proved the reduction of the number of hours on the road of any age group reduced the number of accidents. He said there were many distractions while driving and more attention should be focused on dealing with distractions. He questioned why the bill only applied to beginning drivers of 16 and 17 years and not all beginners. As for the nighttime driving, the Nevada Revised Statutes already had the curfew restriction.

Steven Sampson also spoke in opposition to A.B. 8. He requested the committee not pass it.

Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 8 and opened the hearing on A.B. 86.

Assembly Bill 86: Prohibits director of department of transportation, in certain circumstances, from retaining portion of contract price of, or requiring bonds in connection with, certain contracts awarded to railroad companies. (BDR 35-762)

Joe Guild, representing the Union Pacific Railroad, urged passage of A.B. 86. He provided an amendment to the bill (Exhibit L) and a letter of support from the Nevada Department of Transportation. This bill allowed for a contractual relationship between the railroad and the state and eliminating the retention requirement. Jan Christopherson, Administrative Services Officer, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), read the letter from Jeffrey Fontaine to C. Joseph Guild, dated March 15, 2001, into record (Exhibit M). It supported the bill with the amendment. NDOT’s concern was the bonding requirements not the retention.

As there was no opposition, Chairwoman Chowning took the motion.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 86.

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Assembly Bill 229: Declares prospective increase in number of applications that must be received by department of motor vehicles and public safety before department may design, prepare or issue future special license plates.

Not heard.

Assembly Bill 246: Revises provisions regarding registration of motor vehicle by new resident of this state. (BDR 43-213)

Not heard.

Chairwoman Chowning adjourned the meeting at 3:24 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Geri Mosey

Committee Secretary

Linda Lee Nary

Transcribing Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

DATE: