MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Transportation
Seventy-First Session
May 1, 2001
The Senate Committee on Transportationwas called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 1:33 p.m., on Tuesday, May 1, 2001, 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 William R. O'Donnell, Chairman
Senator Mark Amodei, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator Maurice Washington
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator Terry Care
Senator Maggie Carlton
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman John W. Marvel, Humboldt, Pershing, parts of Elko, Eureka and Lander Counties, Assembly District No. 34
Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick, Douglas County and part of Carson City County Assembly District No. 39
Assemblyman Douglas (Doug) A. Bache, Clark County Assembly District No. 11
Assemblywoman Ellen Marie Koivisto, Clark County Assembly District No. 14
Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Clark County Assembly District No. 8
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Donald O. Williams, Committee Policy Analyst
Joan Moseid, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dean A. Hartwig, Owner, Hartwig School of Trucking
Bryan Gresh, Lobbyist, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada
Robert L. Crowell, Lobbyist, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada
Lee Gibson, Assistant General Manager, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada
Michael Lawson, Chief, Traffic Information Division, Nevada Department of Transportation
Michael E. Hood, Chief, Highway Patrol Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Stan R. Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association
Lisa A. Foster, Lobbyist, AAA Nevada Insurance Agency, California State Automobile Association, dba AAA Nevada
Benjamin J. Blinn, Lobbyist
Crystal Peron, Concerned Citizen
Dana Mathiesen, Administrator, Central Services and Records Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Chairman O’Donnell:
We will open the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 242.
ASSEMBLY BILL 242: Provides that certain instructors for schools for training drivers are not required to complete requirements for continuing education. (BDR 43-1173)
Assemblyman John W. Marvel, Humboldt, Pershing, parts of Elko, Eureka and Lander Counties Assembly District No. 34:
This bill has been studied in the Assembly Transportation committee and Chairwoman Chowning (Assemblywoman Vonne S. Chowning, Clark County Assembly District No. 28) said if you have any questions, she would be more than happy to address them. I would like to introduce Dean Hartwig, Owner, Hartwig School of Trucking, so he could give testimony.
Mr. Hartwig:
The reason we asked for some help is between the time instructors get licensed and must renew every five years; they are required to obtain six credit hours of continuing education. There is no place in the state for commercial instructors to obtain these credits. There were some revisions last session (A.B. 492 of the Seventieth Session) awarding credits if an instructor went to certain conventions, but they would have to be pre-approved, and by the time approval is received, it is too late to go. It becomes very difficult to receive six credit hours of related college work when there is not a class in the state offering these credits.
ASSEMBLY BILL 492 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION: Revises provisions regulating schools that train drivers of motor vehicles. (BDR 43-1332)
Senator Care:
Do you know how long the law has been in effect and why it was created?
Mr. Hartwig:
There should be a small amount of credit hours and this statute (Nevada Revised Statutes [NRS] 483.730) was changed in the last legislative session to require six credit hours. However, when this revision takes effect in October, it will make it hard for us to keep up to date with the required credits.
Chairman O’Donnell:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 242 and open the hearing on A.B. 6.
ASSEMBLY BILL 6: Revises provisions governing driving of certain combinations of vehicles. (BDR 43-292)
Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick, Douglas County and part of Carson City County Assembly District No. 39:
This bill actually came as a request from a constituent whose wife is a paraplegic and cannot walk. He has fifth-wheel trailer he pulls behind his pickup truck and behind that, he tows a golf cart; when they arrive at their destination, he transports her in the golf cart. He received a ticket in Oregon and asked me to see if the law could be changed so he would not get a ticket for towing the second trailer behind his fifth-wheel trailer. It turns out in Oregon you cannot pull double and we cannot change the issue in Oregon. In Nevada, in reviewing this with Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS), it turns out DMV/PS was being very good to our Nevada citizens because there are many citizens who will hook a trailer onto a pickup, towing a boat behind it, and drive to Lake Mead or Lake Topaz or Lake Tahoe, and there was no way for them to be properly licensed. So, DMV/PS has worked with me to change the language and I believe it could solve the problem.
In section 1, fourth line down, of A.B. 6, “class A noncommercial drivers license,” means they do not have to take a physical to get a driver’s license, and they do not have to test for air brakes because it is noncommercial and there are no air brakes on these trailers or on the boat or golf cart. They can drive a combination of vehicles not exceeding 70 feet in length, and not exceeding 26,000 pounds. That covers 99 percent of all of the things we are talking about. But the restriction is, it cannot exceed the gross vehicle weight rating of the towing vehicle, and this assures the safety. If this works and everybody is satisfied with it, and it does what we need it to do, then we should place it into the law.
Chairman O’Donnell:
What is the weight limit?
Assemblyman Hettrick:
It is 26,000 pounds or less.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Is that for all three?
Senator Care:
Would there be someone out there who would have a boat, then have the golf cart trailer behind the boat?
Assemblyman Hettrick:
He would be able to do it only if he had a very small trailer behind his pickup. We had some questions in the Assembly transportation committee regarding a 70-foot trailer. You can purchase a 40-foot motor home and put a 25-foot boat behind it. There are people currently, with regular driver’s licenses, towing 65-and 70-foot vehicles day-in and day-out. We should remember this is not an average person driving down the highway; this is a person driving a $200,000 motor home towing a $25,000 boat, who is a little bit more sensible. This would be the same with a person who would tow a boat with a motor home and a pickup truck. I do not believe this would become a major issue. It is possible, I suppose, if you have a small fifth-wheel trailer, small boat, and a small golf cart. I strongly believe you will not see this happen.
Chairman O’Donnell:
When you talk about triple vehicles, are you talking about a truck and three trailers?
Assemblyman Hettrick:
Yes, three trailers.
Senator Carlton:
How would this apply to the rentals of motor homes and boats people utilize for a week or so, for instance, to take a family trip?
Assemblyman Hettrick:
If they would like to tow the three legally, they would have to go into the DMV/PS and get a class A noncommercial license, which is created under this bill. If they are a Nevada-registered driver, this would not change the requirements except for this specific license and you would still have the combined vehicle weight requirements of up to 26,000 pounds.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Is there a specific license for the double?
Assemblyman Hettrick:
Yes, there has been a noncommercial class A license, but it was used for almost nothing. What we did was change the weight to make it fit these peoples’ needs so they would be legal. Many states accept these statutes.
Chairman O’Donnell:
For this licensing, is the test very hard?
Assemblyman Hettrick:
They would have to do more than what is required for a standard license because they have to show they are capable of pulling the trailer; and if they have double vehicles they would have to show they could pull them in combination. The answer is yes, it is more difficult and the test would be given at the DMV/PS facility on Galletti Way in Reno. You could not test at the other DMV/PS offices in Reno.
Chairman O’Donnell:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 6 and open the hearing on A.B. 83.
ASSEMBLY BILL 83: Makes various changes concerning vehicles used to provide public mass transportation. (BDR 43-1020)
Bryan Gresh, Lobbyist, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada:
We have spent a lot of time over the past couple of months working with the Department of Transportation (NDOT). For the record, the deputy director, Jeff Fontaine, worked with us to answer the questions brought up by NDOT staff to find a solution to work for everyone.
Robert Crowell, Lobbyist, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada:
This is a small bill with a heavy subject. This bill is a compromise position developed through the Clark County regional transportation commission (RTC) and NDOT. It carves out an exception for a vehicle, which will be discussed by Lee Gibson, of the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada. It has a vehicle weight or an axle weight greater than is currently allowed by statute. Currently, the RTC statute on single-axle weights requires you not to exceed 20,000 pounds on a single tire, and for dual axles, it is 25,000 pounds on dual tires. What this bill does is carve out an exception in the allowed axle weight for a single tire for a vehicle used in a RTC demonstration project: where the tire is 20 inches or more in width, the axle weight could vary between 20,000 and 29,000 pounds. Then NDOT can issue a permit to authorize movement of the vehicle on the interstate highway system. This bill is very carefully designed to allow permitting of this vehicle, specifically, and to say such permits cannot be issued except at the sole discretion of NDOT.
Lee Gibson, Assistant General Manager, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada:
I am submitting a fact sheet entitled, “Bus Rapid Transit” (Exhibit C).
As many of you are aware, the RTC of southern Nevada, working in cooperation with its contract provider Area Transit Commission (ATC) VanCom, is responsible for the fastest growing mass transit system in the United States today. Last year’s the Citizen Area Transit system (CAT) carried over 52 million passengers using 295 vehicles. Our average annual growth rate has been somewhere on the average of 34 percent. We carry about 150,000 passengers a day when the math is worked out, which is equivalent to the traffic on Interstate 15. We are constantly looking for new technology and new ways in which we can provide cost-effective service to the riding public.
The vehicle and project I would like to talk about today is the Bus Rapid Transit project (BRT). It is an innovative project we are working on in cooperation with the City of North Las Vegas, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and NDOT in Clark County. I would like to point out with the respect to the DOT; this project is a part of the National Bus Rapid Transit program demonstration initiative. So far, we have received $3.5 million of bus discretionary funds for the acquisition of these vehicles. U.S. Senators Harry Reid and John Ensign, and U.S. Representatives Shelley Berkley and Jim Gibbons are all actively working to help bring in more money this upcoming budget year.
Mr. Gibson:
Several things about this particular vehicle and project, we believe, are especially important to our community. Number one, this vehicle uses a hybrid propulsion technology. It uses a diesel/electric engine and has emission levels equivalent to those of a compressed natural gas vehicle and, more importantly, it helps provide a smoother ride and smoother acceleration. It also comes with an optical guidance system. As well as tracing the bus route, this optical guidance system has an image-coding device to help the bus get within 2 inches or 1.5 inches of the curb. With the improvements to bus stops we would like to make in the Las Vegas Boulevard north quarter, people in wheelchairs would be able to roll on and off this vehicle within a very short period of time. This would help eliminate the use of lifts and ramps, reducing the lengthy time it takes to board a wheelchair passenger. This would help reduce the amount of time a bus is at a bus stop, which means the passengers on board would have a faster trip. With respect to passenger capacity, this bus utilizes a parameter in fold-down seating, affording more passengers an opportunity to come on board. At the times a peak capacity is needed, standing room will be maximized.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Mr. Gibson, would you talk about the axle weight and the effect it would have on the roadway? I am more interested in the pounds per square inch on the roadway and why we have to do this project.
Mr. Gibson:
In the BRT model (Exhibit C), the rear axle weighs 22,200 pounds; its laden weight is 28,600 pounds. With respect to the middle axle located immediately after the tractor, the unladen weight is 13,000 pounds and the fully laden weight is 25,000 pounds; and moving forward, the unladen weight is 11,450 pounds and the laden weight 15,600 pounds. With respect to the impact this can have on the pavement, as I understand it from our engineering department, when the vehicle brakes, the impact of the forward motion of the vehicle can cause a deformation of the pavement right before the bus stop. We have been working with NDOT, looking at ridership levels and various issues. We believe the detailed studies of the passenger flows also covers the weight of the vehicle, and we believe we will be able to design a solution such as reinforced paving in front of the bus stop to allow us to minimize that particular impact of the vehicle operations on our roadways.
This bill will allow us to sit down with NDOT and work out these engineering issues so we can deliver this project in a timely manner without an inordinate fiscal impact as it relates to either NDOT maintenance of the road or the RTC operation of the vehicles.
Mr. Crowell:
You will see there was a fiscal impact on this bill, and NDOT officials are here today to testify, but this is no longer the case. The original bill provided for a straight-out exemption of a single axle exceeding 20,000 pounds. With the change we have, it is enabling legislation for the purpose of the demonstration project; and to my understanding, there is no fiscal note attached other than the normal inspection NDOT has to do to issue a permit.
Michael Lawson, Chief, Traffic Information Division, Nevada Department Of Transportation:
I have been involved in the negotiations with RTC regarding this issue.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Do you feel comfortable with the weights promulgated here, as far as the roadway maintenance issue?
Mr. Lawson:
With respect to the pavement structural damage potential, it is an issue that can be resolved between RTC and NDOT, and this is, indeed, enabling legislation. It is the department’s position, given the specific routing that these vehicles may travel, the fiscal impact may be much too difficult to evaluate, in terms of a broader perspective, and we would like the opportunity to work with RTC, on a route-by-route basis, to evaluate what needs to be done to preserve the pavement and address it during the permit process. The answer is yes; we are comfortable with the legislation, as proposed.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Does the bill allow you to revoke the permit if you feel as though the particular vehicles are causing too much damage to the pavement?
Mr. Lawson:
Yes, sir, it does.
Senator Care:
After reviewing the fact sheet (Exhibit C), are we going to have to broaden Las Vegas Boulevard?
Mr. Lawson:
As I understand it, there are no plans to construct a dedicated bus line. Any of the potential options involved with this legislation need to be addressed at the time of the permit application and these are things we are working on.
Chairman O’Donnell:
What is the laden weight of a bus?
Mr. Gibson:
None of our buses exceed the weight limits in the state law; they are less than 25,000 pounds. However, I would like to point out, as we at the RTC look at hybrid fuel technology, particularly pressed gas, we are beginning to see the axle weights with a full load of passengers approach or exceed that level. One thing in this legislation we believe is important, and in our negotiations or discussions with NDOT, they also believe is important, is this will allow us to not only look at permits for this particular vehicle, but it will allow us to look at permits applying to other hybrid technology vehicles which could be introduced into the CAT fleet as we move toward alternative fuels.
Chairman O’Donnell:
The rear axle weight is about 28,600 pounds, fully laden. The front axle weight is only 15,000 pounds. However, you are telling me the front axle causes more damage than the rear axle.
Mr. Gibson:
Our engineers and NDOT engineers have discussed, because of the forward momentum of the vehicle, the weight is transferred forward so, at the stopping point, this is where a major point of deformation can occur in the pavement.
Senator Jacobsen:
Do all of the axles have a straightforward motion or do they have a certain degree of radius?
Mr. Gibson:
In this particular case, all of the motion would be forward because all of the stops are straight-ahead.
Senator Jacobsen:
The reason I asked is if an axle is dragging, it would cause wear on the roadbed.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Do all of the wheels have brakes on them?
Mr. Gibson:
Correct.
Senator Jacobsen:
What is the maximum speed of this unit?
Mr. Gibson:
It is approximately 55 mph.
Chairman O’Donnell:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 83 and request a motion to introduce Bill Draft Request (BDR) R-1522.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-1522: Resolution urging the Department of Transportation to take such actions as are necessary to obtain funding from the Federal Transit Administration for public transit. (Later introduced as Senate Joint Resolution 13.)
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR R-1522.
SENATOR CARLTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Donnell:
We will open the hearing on A.B. 229.
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. (BDR 43-55)
Assemblyman Douglas (Doug) A. Bache, Clark County Assembly District No. 11:
After Assemblywoman Vonne S. Chowning of the Assembly Committee on Transportation was done with this bill, everything was deleted except the one section you see before you. I have had a number of other items you have processed, similar to Senator Wiener’s bill from last session. Basically, what this does is follow up on what you had done a few session ago, when you had amended all of the license plates bills to provide for a minimum of 250 applications over a 4-year period. This would take it to the next step of 1000 applications within a 2-year period. As you may have seen in a newspaper story this weekend, the press contacted me about special license plates and my concerns. I did not want to see Nevada become like New York, where, at one time, there were well over 100 license plates. Mr. Vogel researched it further, and they have over 300 license plates, including a University of Notre Dame license plate and plates honoring various baseball teams from throughout the country; they have lost total control.
Following on your example, Mr. Chairman, from a few sessions ago, what I was trying to do was further restrict the number of new special license plates. But as yet, you see, it will be effective for next session, so anybody who currently has a plate in the process would not have it interfered with at this time. Any legitimate organization should be able to get 1000 license plates within 2 years if they are asking for a special license plate. I know that California has a minimum requirement of 7000 plates. With their much larger population, I believe they have been realistic in setting the bar to avoid the New York situation.
Senator Jacobsen:
How many applications have failed to meet the 250-plate requirement?
Assemblyman Bache:
There have been a few license plates, which failed to meet the 250 requirement. As you know, I did not support the education plate. I believe it failed or will fail by October of this year. Another license plate has 92 applications and will probably fail before the end of the year. I believe, by having the higher number, it will cause people, if they are interested, to be well organized when they come before session with a bill.
Senator Jacobsen:
I do have a question for the highway patrol. Do any of these types of plates cause an identification problem for the highway patrol?
Michael E. Hood, Chief, Highway Patrol Division, Department Of Motor Vehicles And Public Safety:
We test the plates prior to approval. The DMV/PS sends them to us and we do nighttime testing, daytime testing, and testing for different situations. If the design presents a problem, we let them know.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Does this pose a problem for your officers? As we have more license plates on the road, does it pose a problem in identifying these plates?
Mr. Hood:
We just enforce the law. It is up to this body to decide how many plates and what type of plates they are. We will enforce the law as the committee sees fit.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Most of us do not ride around in a patrol car every day and you need to tell us whether there is a problem with all of these plates.
Mr. Hood:
Some plates are good and they are needed, and, I do understand the need for specialized plates. I am against having several hundred specialized plates.
Senator Jacobsen:
Can we request DMV/PS to give us a hard copy of all of the license plates currently approved?
Chairman O’Donnell:
That is a very good request and I believe we can honor it.
Assemblyman Bache:
I would like to ask Mr. Olsen to come forth and comment on A.B. 229.
Stan R. Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; Nevada Sheriffs And Chiefs Association:
In answer to your question, for our department, it does cause a problem because of the type of community Las Vegas is; there is a lot of tourism. We are also dealing with a different type of law enforcement issue than the Nevada Highway Patrol. We deal with armed robberies, batteries, drive-by shootings, and things of this nature. There is some confusion, people would tell us they do not know what state it is because the plates are this color or that color, so this can cause some grief. As a rule of thumb, we usually do not get involved in the special license plate issue, but we never liked them. We are in support of this piece of legislation.
Chairman O’Donnell:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 229 and open the hearing on A.B. 383.
ASSEMBLY BILL 383: Prohibits driver of motor vehicle from permitting person to ride upon or within certain portions of motor vehicles under certain circumstances. (BDR 43-150)
Chairman O’Donnell:
Ms. Koivisto, you brought this bill to this committee two years ago and it went to the floor where it did not pass. What makes you think it is going to pass this time?
Assemblywoman Ellen Marie Koivisto, Clark County Assembly District No. 14:
The chairman is correct. I did present this bill in 1999 and it was amended a number of times. It was amended again this time, to take out the provisions for “camper shells and slide-in campers.”
This is a child’s safety bill. Pickup trucks are an increasingly popular form of family transportation. Occupant safety, even inside the cab, is limited by space and the number of seatbelts, and the fact pickup trucks are not required to meet the same safety standards as passenger cars. With the space limitations, drivers often allow children ride in the cargo area; children are not cargo. This is evidenced by the lack of seating, restraints and/or occupant protection. The cargo area has proven to be a source of injuries and death. In this instance, “occupant” is perhaps the wrong word, as more often than not, the occupant ceases to be an occupant at a crash scene.
We have all driven down our roadways and highways and spotted a group of high school students hanging on for dear life as the truck they are riding in speeds down the road. Unfortunately, the results of this stupidity are often seen in an emergency room or trauma center.
The majority of injuries, even from a low-speed impact, are devastating; frequently there are head and neck injuries with nervous system damage. These injuries are usually permanent. Seizure disorders, paralysis, or retardation are forever. It is hard to blame the teenagers. Pickup trucks are popular and the ride can be thrilling. Instead, we must blame ourselves for allowing this to continue. A Washington state study found a fatality risk 10.4 times greater for persons riding in the cargo areas of pickup trucks, than the risk to the general population of people involved in traffic collisions; and ejection from the cargo area was the major cause of injuries and deaths for pickup truck passengers. Most non-collision deaths were caused by falls due to swerving, braking, or rough roads. Over 200 deaths a year occur to persons riding in pickup beds, and more than half of those are children and teenagers.
Last fall there was a fatality in Las Vegas caused by a person being thrown from the cargo bed of a pickup truck, and the news coverage of the accident included a statement saying the Legislature had not seen fit to address this issue.
Chairman O’Donnell:
How does this fit in with the graduated driver’s licenses? If we amend this bill and put the graduated driver’s licenses on it and send it back to the Assembly, would you have a problem supporting it?
Assemblywoman Koivisto:
That would depend on which provisions of the graduated driver’s licenses were included. We have tried to amend some of those provisions into another bill this week.
Senator Care:
The language beginning on page 2, line15, “A violation of this section may not be considered as negligence.” I understand if we enact this bill and it is against the law to put your child into the bed of a pickup truck and you do it anyway, and your child is thrown from the vehicle and injured, then you are not negligent. Was this provision a part of the bill last session?
Assemblywoman Koivisto:
Yes, the provision was a part of the bill in the last session.
Chairman O’Donnell:
There is a reason for it to be in there and there are two schools of thought, one is it should not be causation for civil action if, in fact, someone is injured. The insurance company does not want to be sued for having someone in the bed of a pickup truck. If you take it out, and have an accident with someone in the back of the truck, the drivers are presumed negligent responsible and the insurance companies have to pay.
The question here is most people do not know it is not illegal to put a person in the bed of a truck. A child may be injured. Assembly Bill 383, section 1, subsection 5, reads, “A violation of this section is not a moving traffic violation for the purposes of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 483.473.” I believe this statute puts the points on your driver license, which is the seatbelt statute. It reads, it “May not be considered as negligence or causation of a civil action or negligent or reckless driving for the purposes of NRS 484.377.” So you cannot get a reckless driving ticket for having someone in the bed of a truck. But as far as the negligence and the causation of a civil action, two things could happen: number one, your truck can be hit by someone else and this would protect the person who had someone in the bed of the truck from being sued because they had a person in the bed of the truck, even though the other person caused the accident.
Senator Care:
I remember some discussion last session about this measure. If you do not wear you seatbelt, is it contributory negligence? I believe the argument came back as no and there was a fine imposed to address the issue, even though the $25 or $50 fine pales compared to the thousands of dollars in injuries you might suffer by failing to wear the seatbelt.
What is puzzling to me is if this becomes law, in essence, the public is unnoticed they should not do this. It is negligent to drive a car at 100 mph, and it is also against the law to drive on the wrong side of the freeway when the speed limit is 70 mph going the other way. The same thing would apply here.
Mr. Hood:
For the record, we support this bill; we supported it in the last session, and we believe it is a safety issue.
Senator Jacobsen:
Mr. Hood, could you give the committee a full report of the officer who was injured in southern Nevada?
Mr. Hood:
The officer is currently in an induced coma. He had a portion the size of an egg taken out of his brain. Doctors tried to bring him out of the coma yesterday and the pressure in his brain went up. I was told the pressure should be 15 or below, and when he comes out of the coma if it goes up to 30, this is not a good sign. He has developed pneumonia, and there are indications internal bleeding. He has gone through about 3 liters of blood a day. Outside of that, we have high hopes and his condition has improved slightly over what it was last week.
Mr. Olsen:
We are in support of this bill as written, and we have supported this bill since the 1995 Legislative Session.
Lisa A. Foster, Lobbyist, AAA Nevada Insurance Agency, California state Automobile Association doing business as AAA Nevada:
Our company supported this bill and we have a national policy supporting this issue in every state. Today 25 states have some sort of law restricting passengers in cargo areas. One study showed in an accident, the chance of being ejected from a vehicle is 26 times greater if you are riding in a cargo area. I would encourage your support.
Benjamin J. Blinn, Lobbyist:
As to the line that reads, “may not.” I think you should add the words, “may or may not,” because this would give someone with a legal mind to make a good judgment on the measure.
I have a personal interest in this because of a personal experience. My son had played football at St. Louis School, reputed to have one of the best prep school football programs in the nation. He was being recruited for the football program at the University of Nevada Reno. When he was a junior in high school, he was thrown out of the pickup truck, while his mother was driving. Unfortunately, he hurt his spleen and the doctor split his chest in the operation. Today, he is can no longer play football following that type of injury. We had a loss there and a safety belt would have helped.
Mr. Blinn:
The other situation was when we were traveling in Lincoln County, my father was in his first year of teaching school and he was also the constable of the town. It was foggy and we were following a truck. It was cold and we noticed a figure in the back of the truck in front of us. My father blinked the lights to pull off the road, as he was going to ask if the passenger could ride with us, since we all were driving in the same direction. Once my father had walked to the pickup truck, he noticed there were two dogs in the front seat of the truck, and there was a lady in the bed of the truck with a blanket around her. My father said it seems a little strange the cargo area would have the human in it. When he questioned the driver about the matter, the driver said it was very cold outside and foggy, and these were very expensive mountain lion hunting dogs with sensitive noses. My father asked, “What about your wife in the cab of the truck?” He responded the only thing could happen is she might catch a cold.
My father did not quite understand the logic of making a person cargo over an animal. I believe sometimes you have to spell out the safety rules and it would have prevented a particular tragedy in my family. I would like for you to consider this bill and I do support the highway patrol as well.
Chairman O’Donnell:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 383 and open the hearing on A.B. 320.
ASSEMBLY BILL 320: Revises certain provisions regarding motor vehicles. (BDR 43-1096)
Crystal Peron, Concerned Citizen:
Please allow me to read from my prepared testimony (Exhibit D). I am here in support of A.B. 320. What happened to me when I purchased a used car in Las Vegas shows will demonstrate why A.B. 320 is needed. In telling you what happened, I will change the names to protect the guilty. In September 1999, I purchased a car from what I would call “Used Car Lot A.” I told the salesman I was looking for a safe, reliable car as I had a 3-month old baby. I paid $4500 cash for a used Toyota.
The person who told me he was the owner, whom I would call “Fraudulent Fred,” told me he could not give me the title because it was in a safety deposit box. He prepared a contract and a sales document stating Used Car Lot A was the seller. When I was ready to register the car, I called Fraudulent Fred and he directed me to what he had said was his other car lot, which I will call “Used Car Lot B.” I went there and the person rewrote my contract and paperwork to read Used Car Lot B was selling me the car.
When I inquired again about the title, I was told it did not matter because Fraudulent Fred owned both lots. When I had not received my title despite numerous calls and letters to Fraudulent Fred for over one year, I hired an attorney. My attorney discovered I had been sold a rebuilt wreck; my car had been rebuilt in Massachusetts from two cars, one of which came from Florida and was deemed “non-rebuildable.”
Chairman O’Donnell:
Ms. Peron, would you call my office so we can further discuss this matter?
Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Clark County Assembly District No. 8:
Assembly Bill 320 is an important consumer protection measure, which will do two things. It will help ensure that victims of car sales fraud or a breach of contract will have a source of compensation; and it preserves, for a 1-year period, important original documents which would be needed if someone has to prove a case in court.
First, A.B. 320 changes the Dealer Bond Law, NRS 482.333. The Legislature, quite appropriately, has a $50,000 car dealer bond. But the statute also limits liability to the amount of the bond, shown on the bill, page 2, lines 12-14, to the retail value of any vehicle. In my mind, what this does is allow exactly what Ms. Peron outlined. It allows cases of fraud and limits liability for the fraud to a smaller value. I do not think it was ever the intent of our law and I think it needs to be changed.
Additionally, it requires DMV/PS to retain original titles and secure powers of attorney for 1 year. Odometer disclosures, required by federal law, are made on titles or powers of attorney. In an odometer fraud case, a handwriting expert may need the original document to examine as evidence. Currently, DMV/PS keeps a copy, but does not keep the originals.
When this bill was originally introduced, DMV/PS and the state records office came to me to discuss how this bill might actually work, in terms of preserving these documents. We certainly did not want any administrative hurdles for DMV/PS, but on the other hand, we wanted to ensure there was protection for odometer fraud victims. I was very impressed by what I learned about the records division and storage. They have agreed to store the records for DMV/PS and I believe DMV/PS thinks this would help them prevent records from being destroyed. So, it can be done without fiscal impact.
Assemblywoman Buckley:
The last change in the bill is the change with regard to the vehicle dealer bond. Originally in the bill draft, what we wanted to ensure would not occur was the situation Ms. Peron described. Someone would not be able to go from location to location to avoid paying out on a bond. The Dealer’s Association was concerned about the original language. They wanted to make sure, for consumer protection, the bond was not diluted in any way. What we had agreed upon with them is the first bond covers one location and any satellite; and additionally, the bonds for any business operating under a different name or in a different county, would still have to be secured. So in fact, the first bond operates as sort of umbrella, but it does not dilute the bonding required for those additional locations. The Dealer’s Association suggested this process.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Was the Dealer’s Association in favor of section 4 of A.B. 320 in terms of the bonds for each individual place of business?
Assemblywoman Buckley:
Yes, because it is an existing law. The only thing we changed was to allow the first bond to act as an umbrella now, for all activity at all locations. The bond was still required for each additional location under a different name or businesses in a different county. They felt strongly this should not be weakened.
Senator Care:
When you get into a breach of contract how would this work? I know some field contracts provide remedies or they compel arbitration. Punitive damages are not available in breach of contract, where they would be in fraudulent acts. Do contracts in this field have any type of remedy or do they compel arbitration?
Assemblywoman Buckley:
Yes, more and more larger entities are putting in a standard-form contract that the agreements must be arbitrated. The validity of the insertion of those clauses in a contract of adhesion is often litigated and the results are across the board, depending on the judge.
With regard to having the remedies available on those contracts, generally they are fairly silent. Standard-form contracts are utilized and other than the typical remedies available, which you have already identified, it does not say much more. Typically, I believe you will find mostly, that you do not make a claim on the bond unless the dealer is going out of business. First of all, this is a practical matter and you are limited to $50,000; under the existing law, you are limited to the retail value of the car. The retail value of Ms. Peron’s car is probably a negative, since it was a rebuilt wreck. You would want to litigate against the bond, if the company knew and sold her this wreck and if they are around, you will want to sue them and receive damages for what they did.
Senator Care:
In the bill, section 3, subsection 5, there is a provision for a hearing. Would this mean rather than file a complaint, you would go against the bond, or if you have judgment, can you go to the hearing officer and say, “I have a judgment and I would like to take it against the bond?”
Assemblywoman Buckley:
Typically, you would get a judgment and then you would file a claim against the bond. I have never had occasion to present a judgment to DMV/PS, so this is a practical matter and I am not sure how they would handle it. I do know after our Assembly hearing, Russ Benzler, (Administrator, Compliance Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety) asked Ms. Peron to contact them to look into her circumstances to see whether there might be relief through the bond. They were unable to issue the title because of the circumstances, but Mr. Benzler agreed to see if anything could be done.
One amendment I had agreed to on the Assembly side, which was forgotten in the rush, was section 1, paragraph 3, line 18, to remove “certificates of registration.” There is no need for those to be kept for a year because they have no original signatures and they are not evidence of odometer fraud. All that is needed is the certificate of ownership and forms for a power of attorney. We do not want to make DMV/PS keep anything absolutely not needed.
Dana Mathiesen, Administrator, Central Services And Records Division, Department Of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety:
Last year, the title section processed 514,000 titles. The secured power of attorney would be a document attached to a title document and they usually have three to five documents attached.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Do you have the space to store all of these documents?
Ms. Mathiesen:
Robert van Straten, (State Records Manager, Department of Museums, Library and Arts) has storage space and he said we could transmit the documents to him and he would store them and dispose of them at the end of a 1-year period.
Assemblywoman Buckley:
Mr. van Straten mentioned they have the space and there would not be a fiscal impact because it is what they do.
Chairman O’Donnell:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 320 and ask Ms. Lusk if she wishes to testify on any of the bills.
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens:
Yes, I would like to comment on A.B. 383. We remain concerned about the families who can only afford an old pickup truck. I also have many wonderful memories of being wrapped up in blankets and singing with my kids, while going somewhere in the back of a pickup truck. I guess I would like to ask you to keep in mind there is nothing you can do or we can do to prevent all highway injuries, so the real question is, “What is the right balance?” When is it appropriate to use the force of law to bring people into line with what we want them to do, and what level of safety do we require, or by law, force upon someone? I will have to say, in fairness, this bill is much tighter-written than the bill we saw last session. Our opinion is it continues to go a little bit too far. But we do realize this is your job and duty to find the fine-line balance, and we appreciate all the work you do to do so.
Senator Jacobsen:
Under this legislation, would children be prohibited from riding in the back of a pickup truck holding on to their animals in order to keep them under control?
Chairman O’Donnell:
In A.B. 383, it says “ . . . being used through the course farming or ranching or being driven in a parade.”
Ms. Lusk:
I wonder if section 4, paragraph (h), necessarily farming, could apply when you have an animal being taken to the veterinarian’s office which is not a farm animal, but a pet or a large dog.
Chairman O’Donnell:
There being no further business, the hearing is adjourned at 2:54 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Joan Moseid,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman
DATE: