 You're welcome to the Vermont House Transportation Committee. It is Friday, April 9th, and we're starting to see, we'll get an update on what we call the tulips soon today. And we are here after floor, which was short. We have testimony starting at 1030 on H-262, a bill that Representative Brian Smith is interested in. We have guests coming in for 262. And they're in. They are in. Lori, you're the best. So we're going to do this bill and then we're going to call it a lunch and a day. And I've got to do one errand before I can come back to this desk. And I know Representative Shaw has an appointment at 2.30. So we're going to work later, but we're going to, we're going to let the class go. All right. Join me on House Rules at noon. Oh, well, I can listen. I get, we can listen in at House Rules is a good thing. At noon, is it a training representative? No, no, it's just us talking. Oh, oh, that house, not a, okay, it's House Rules, the committee. Correct. Okay. All right. We have our guests are here. Get my agenda out and welcome to our room. And this bill was introduced by Representative Smith. And so I'm going to ask him if that's okay with you, Representative Smith, would you like to set it up? And we have four witnesses with us. And I think the order would be first is Jennifer and Erin, then Michael, then Heather, if I have that right. And Erin is not here. He's not coming. Who's not here? Erin. Erin. Okay. All right. Thank you, Lori. Representative Smith, would you like to set us up please? You're muted. Well, I'll start by thanking everyone for coming into committee again. House Bill 262 is a bill, it's an aggressive move to save lives and stay avant. I've been trying for a couple of years to put this together correctly. And part of this bill got accomplished last year with the Senate approving workplaces and school zones. So with all of the information that's going on about texting and driving, about how many people are actually not paying much attention, I think this is a good time for this bill to happen. The move is to increase the points and increase the fines. And having spoken with the chief police in Hardwick, he had suggested to me that the fines during this COVID time probably should wait until perhaps July, 2022. I wouldn't mind seeing this move ahead the way it is, but that could be change as well. If everybody gets their registrations back, I mentioned this last week when he started talking about 262, in the little envelope that you have to tear apart and swear at before you can actually get to your registration to sign, it goes on to say that texting and driving is one of the most dangerous forms of distracted driving. Any given moment across America, 660,000 drivers are using or manipulating electronic devices while driving. And it goes on to explain that distracted drivers aren't just a threat to themselves, they're a danger to everyone else on the road. The Newport paper last week, there was an article from the National Highway Safety Association that says here that nationwide, between 2012 and 2017, nearly 20,000 people died in crashes involving a distracted driver. In fact, there were 3166 people killed in motor vehicle crashes involving distracted drivers in 2017. In Vermont, from 2013 to 2017, 957 motor vehicle crashes were caused by a distracted driver. That being said, should be enough information to realize that people are ignoring the law and they're texting on their telephones, talking on handheld telephones, and it needs to stop. And it apparently isn't working. And I sent Lori some side-by-side charts that we've gotten from Sheriff Harlow, Orleans County information and state of Vermont information. If she's got those, she could bring those up at some point, but I'd like to hear some testimony from our witnesses and I can be quiet for a minute or two and let them go ahead and speak. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Smith for setting that up. I think our first witness on this is Jennifer. Where, there she is. Morning, everybody. So did you just want me to speak about how I feel about what's going on? Okay, thank you, Representative. The bill, so you typically, if we were coming in, you would state for the record your name and where you're from so that it would be captured. So people who are listening or later on, we know who you are. Absolutely, ma'am. Thank you. My name is Jennifer Harlow. I'm Sheriff of Orleans County. Representative Smith had come to me a few times in regards to this bill and I agree completely that texting and talking on your phone is extremely dangerous. We are, our department as well as other area law enforcement agencies throughout the state participate in governor highway safety programs. And that allows us to have extra people out on the road paying special attention to distracted driving. Just the other day I stopped six people within two hours for talking on their phones in our area. So when I do that, when I stop them, I, if it's their first time, well, no matter whether it's their first time or not, I try to have a little bit of a conversation with them, educate them. People don't feel that it is, if they're talking on their phone, they don't feel it's the same as texting and driving. I feel is definitely much more dangerous because you're actually, you're not, you're taking your eyes off of the road. That is also much harder for us to prove. Unless somebody admits it to us, it is extremely difficult on roadside to prove that somebody is doing that. But again, it's not impossible. So, our officers write these site tickets and then they go to traffic court. And I meant to ask you representative Smith, if you had ever had a conversation with any of the judges to see what their thoughts were on this as well, just because they're the ones who are gonna be, when we go to traffic court, we're gonna have to give our testimony as to what happened during the traffic stop. And then that individual, if they can test it, have the right to say why they can't afford it or why they don't think it was true and all this other stuff. So it is a very difficult, my officers do have a difficult time in traffic court with these tickets. But again, I appreciate that representative Smith was willing to the fines during this timeframe, I think, because it's very difficult. Officers do not wanna put people into the point where they're gonna be suspended and just continue on that trajectory of keeping people down and out, so to speak. The points, they're very aggressive, but again, this is a very, so I, sorry, I don't mean to babble. I did have a sheriff's meeting yesterday and the association overall agreed that this is extremely dangerous behavior when you're behind the wheel. We did feel that it was a little bit aggressive and I did speak with them about the fines possibly not happening during the COVID time. The points again, they felt were, we just wanted to make sure that the judges were maybe being spoken to, how they were gonna react to this. And again, because when you get to go at that level of points, and I agree with Rep. Smith, the reason he wants the points raised is to wake people up so that they're paying closer attention and that they're not doing this behavior because they're very close to losing their license and their insurance is gonna take a really hard hit. And that's what people are most afraid of, usually when we go to like speeding or anything like that, they'll pay the fine, whatever the fine is for speeding, but they want their points dropped so that that doesn't affect their insurance. So that's just something for you all to think about. Can I ask a question from your professional standpoint? I mean, we've all been sitting in our houses forever and we rely on the people who are out there on the ground that this is continuing to be an issue. And we've made the steps that we've made in law with this and making it more difficult, there's a higher level of ramifications. It took us forever to get the texting piece out of the Senate for like a decade. But so when you're a profession, you're still seeing this occurring at the same level as it was before, or are we seeing any improvement? We definitely see an improvement when we're doing details because people know that we're out and about and we're sharing that education. Even during the COVID, when we were asked to kind of step back and not be more mindful of not, sorry, it's Friday, holy cow, that we weren't stopping people for minor motor vehicle infractions. I considered this a egregious offense. So I told my deputies, if you saw this happening, then you were more than well, obviously use precaution and things like that to make sure that we're all safe. But if you saw this happening, that you could stop somebody for being on their cell phone. So that's how I feel about that. So I can't really tell you, I can't really answer your question if we've seen more or less, I'd have to really go back and check the stats and things, go back a few years. Also, oh, sorry, man, go ahead and present it. It makes me wonder then if our goal is the safety piece and the goal is to stop this behavior or more, what then the question is, and is this the right remedy or is there a different remedy? What are the differences out there in order to get to that goal that actually changes the behavior? That's a question we'll have to, I don't expect you to answer, but that's one that we as a committee and others, as legislators need to ask that question and figure out where would we get that answer from, yeah. It is a tough question. And there was also something brought up in my meeting because some of this, because especially the texting is so, it's very easy if somebody clearly has a phone in their hand. That's a lot easier for us to uphold in court and things of that nature, but if somebody's got their phone down or you see it and they're doing this and you know, we all know what they're doing, but to prove that in court is very difficult. So maybe, and there's also, if you cross the yellow line or cause you're distracted by something. So I don't know if you folks have ever thought or represented Smith have you talked about maybe just coming up with a distracted driving period and including all of these different things into that law. I don't want to put more stuff on your plate, but that was just ideas and things that we would, that we were kind of toggling around with yesterday, but it was very difficult. In schools, we talked, kids are talked to about it. We put the national highway safety puts out stuff, but it's the same thing, people see it. And I've had people who have texted and they've driven right by me and they literally don't see a cruiser because they're, you know, that's, those are easy to give away, you know, those are easy tickets to write because it's just so blatantly. You saw it. Yeah, and it's, but the more education you give, it's just like, you know, drinking and driving, you know, things like that we educate and we educate and we lecture and we lecture and things of that nature. And it's just, it's very, it's a, it's a hard task. Yes. It's very difficult. And life tests first before, and it's tough lessons. I'll, I see some hands up, but I'll end with, Sorry. I made an observation of my own, Madam, when I'm out of the road that I should never have Led Zeppelin playing in my car. Pull over twice. And I went, I've obviously have a, I am impacted by the music. It's a turn the radio off or the, that was my own behavior observation and how that's not working for me very well. All right. I have representative white and then representative Bartholomew. Thank you, Madam chair. And if you want us to hold questions, I'm also happy to wait. If you're, well, sometimes we forget them. So I'm, I think people are comfortable. So go right ahead. Okay, great. I really appreciate the sheriff being with us today and look forward to hearing from the other witnesses. But my question would be directly to you. So I have concerns about this bill. And one of my concerns is that in my experience, I've seen that our public safety officers self-correct when they feel that a law is too strict or that they think that they're going to be giving too grave a penalty for an activity that they, and I don't want to frame it up in a negative light, but they kind of, kind of give someone the benefit of the doubt. So they will be less likely to put forward anything above a warning if they're concerned that this person is going to lose their license or have long-term consequences for their behavior. I'm wondering if the fines are higher, if the points are higher, do you think your staff will continue at the same rate of putting forward, you know, when they pull over a driver giving a citation or will that decrease? Will we see a reaction to that where people are less likely to put forward a citation? I did share that concern that is definitely speaking with the area of law enforcement in our immediate county. That was definitely a concern that, like you just said, I don't have to repeat it. It is, yes, people, law enforcement officers, definitely if they feel the fines are too high or the points or something, and that's part of our job is allowing us to have a little bit of discretion. When we are doing these details, and when I've seen my deputies who have pulled people over who have had subsequent offenses for texting or having their cell phones in their hands, then they usually don't have any issues with issuing that ticket because of the repeated offense. You know, I stopped an individual who hadn't had a cell phone violation in over six years. So we had another conversation, and I said, you know, this is gonna be logged. And, you know, if you get stopped again, this is what the ticket's gonna be, blah, blah, you know, and did a little bit more education. So we try very hard to be reasonable and to be fair. But you're right, that is a concern for sure. Well, I appreciate your response and it sounds like there's no one answer necessarily, but it's good to know that that is something you're thinking about if this were to become law. Thank you. You're welcome, Representative Barfellamue. If an officer sees someone driving who is swerving or crossing the yellow line and whatnot, but there's no evidence, they're not intoxicated and you don't have evidence that they're on a phone or texting, is that an arrestable offense in a tent of driving or I'm guessing that it is, but I'm just curious. It is not an arrestable offense, sir. So just crossing the yellow line, risking a head-on collision, that you can't get arrested for that, really? No, that's a fine. It's a traffic ticket and a fine. So what would be the charge then? I would have to double check, but I think it's around 300 and something dollars. And it's fine. No, I mean, what would the ticket, what would be the basis of the ticket? What would be the charge? It would be either failure to keep to the, failure to stay in your lane or crossing the line. I'd have to check to be sure of exact language, but it would be to that effect. If you're seeing the behavior that suggests in a tent of driving, but you can't actually verify it, you can still issue a ticket. That, yes, that is a possibility, yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you, but it would also be, that would be the opportunity to think, well, with your investigation of the yellow line, you would determine whether or not it might be caused from something else, which would allow you to think about it. But if it didn't, if I just told you it was Led Zeppelin, you would probably tell me to turn the radio off, but it would give you an opportunity to have that conversation with me. All right, but you would be- Absolutely, madam. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Sheriff. Do you have anything else you'd like to say on the bill? If we've kind of making notes on this that you guys have met, you are part of the Sheriff's Association. You agree that it's dangerous. You think the remedies might be a little aggressive, but your concern is around licenses and you kind of hinted on the distracted driving all in one package, did I get that right? Yes, thinking about that and talking with the judges to see how they're, because again, it would be very nice to be able to know that if when these tickets are issued, if this law is passed, that they're gonna be followed through all the way down the line. Okay. All right. Well, you- Thank you very much. I really appreciate your time. You're too, ma'am, because I know you're busy. You're welcome to stay with us, or if you need to go, please feel, but we wanna welcome you, but we don't wanna keep you if you've got somewhere else to go. Madam Chair, may I add to Sheriff Harlow's testimony? Please, please, Representative Smith. Thank you. You, Jen, you had mentioned something about whether I'd spoken with a judge. I have not, but Representative McCormick and I have had talked about what would happen with tickets with the fines or points. And I believe, and I think probably Heather Gray can address this better than I can, that a judge can determine whether they wanna throw the whole fine at the offender or reduce it or whatever they want. So you guys could go ahead and write the tickets for the amounts that are necessary, and then it's up to the judge. Am I correct? Yes, Representative, that is correct. That's what I wanted you folks to also understand that we may be out there doing the work, issuing those tickets and so forth, but we have no control of what happens when we go to traffic court. And with those, I can assure you with the points being the way they are, we're going to have a lot of people that will be contesting those tickets. And so that will be putting us in traffic court a lot more, absolutely, so. All right, thanks. Okay. I think next, unless I'm wrong, is Heather Gray. And then Kellan Cloud, do I get that right, sir? Okay. So Heather, go ahead, state for the record and where are you from? Name's Heather Gray. I am one of the two traffic safety prosecutors for the state of Vermont. So I've looked over the bill and I echo a lot of what Sergeant Harlow has said, sorry, Sheriff Harlow, I'm sorry, has said, this is really dangerous and really tricky. I have seen, I used to be a deputy state's attorney in Franklin County and I can recall back then there was one cell phone ticket that had been appealed. So it went to the criminal court for a full on jury trial. It was successful, but there was that it was, she said, did the officer see it? Because the defendant was saying, no, that's not what I was doing. So that does make it tricky, but it was successful, but I completely appreciate that. And I've heard questions about, well, if we haven't seen changes yet, what will it take? I like what I heard Sheriff Harlow say about the educative piece, because I think that's huge. Has a traffic safety prosecutor. In addition to prosecuting cases, one thing that we do is community outreach. It amazes me. We do impaired driving outreach. We do it to high schools, and we do it to local like Rotary clubs. So different demographics, and it always amazes me how much education we're actually giving that people don't realize. And I will say, I've been a prosecutor since 2008 and when I was a deputy in St. Albans, and I did that for about nine years, 90% of my cases were the vehicular crimes. And I learned a lot because starting, I'd had my license for quite a bit of time. Like to think I'm a safe driver, like to think I make good decisions. But I'll tell you, before I got there, I would think the same thing. It's just a, what's the big deal? You're just looking down for a few seconds. And then, I had one of my first fatal crash cases. And now I always have in my mind, even if I had that go back to that thought, what am I gonna tell the victims family when I crash into them? Because I was looking at myself and what was mattered so much. And that keeps me, but I have a whole different perspective than other people in the road that aren't in this field. I also had learned that doing this, and one of the things we always say in our presentations is that to statistically descend or receive a text is five seconds. Five seconds, you're not looking at the road. When you're traveling 50 miles an hour at five seconds, you go 300 feet the length of a football field. So then I say to people, if I were to blindfold you and say, drive down this football field 50 miles an hour, are you gonna agree? And they kind of get that different, they realize. So I think education is a big part of it. So I think officers do do a great job. I have utmost respect for our officers. They do a great job of trying to educate and not just give the ticket. And I think that makes it, I think that makes a bigger impact ultimately. And I do think the five points here because that will trigger my understanding in SR 22. So not only you'll have to carry that for three years on your license, my understanding. So it increases your insurance plus the SR 22 is additional. And someone asked about just real quick about crossing the centerline. And if there's a other egregious driving with that, crossing the centerline and depending, and I know that we don't always like to do this and Sheriff Hollow is much better to speak about, there is the potential that that's negligent operation in and of itself that could be arrestable, but there'd have to be more than just the crossing of the centerline. But I'd heard more of like the weaving and the crossing pending on what it was. And again, the officers out there in the field, I don't envy them because they have to make split second decisions and they shouldn't be arresting everyone that crosses the center. I'm not suggesting that. I'm just, right. So I don't know if there's other, the questions or anything that other things I can address. All right, let me just see. Representative White has her hand up. Please go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. Another concern I have for this bill is that we are moving away from, I think punishments that take away someone's driver's license or have more long-term implications for their ability to work a job or kind of head down the potential for someone to head down that slippery slope of poverty or to be stuck in poverty because of a defense. I'm wondering if you can speak to, in your role, if you think that a law like this would increase the potential for someone to, maybe they've made a few mistakes, their third time, they've lost their license. This is a greater potential to happen if this law were to pass them and where we are the status quo. Do you see this having implications for kind of that general goal that we're trying to get to where fewer people are having their license taken away or have implications for their financial safety and security? So do you, do I think this will have more people getting their license taken away? Is that part of it? And do you think that is a, I guess, do you see the general goal as we seem to be moving away from that kind of punishment? Yeah. Well, I mean, with the first, I don't think it would, I don't think it's more likely or that it's gonna add to people being having, there are more people having their license taken away and here's my thought on that. I think there are certain people right now that drive the road regardless of if they have a license or not and there are certain things that I'm not sure that we're ever gonna be able to change that and it's a certain mindset. I think that the people that, there are a certain set of people that don't realize this is dangerous and I think the five points is a huge wake up call. And then if you keep my understanding is it stays on your license, the points for two or three years, I can't remember exactly, but so after that time, those go away and you'd be starting again. The 10 points, you lose it for 30 days and then you get it back. So granted, if you pick something up again, so it's more of the habitual offenders that we would be in my thought process. If you get stopped for anything, let's say chances are that's not the first time you've done it. So we're stopping someone who's already done this so many times getting a ticket. Oftentimes, again, the officers do use your discretion. It's a warning or they look at circumstances and the judges also it's baked right into the laws and this was discussed, but I think it's 2502 where the judges can say an interest of justice, I'm not gonna give these points or I'm not gonna give this fine. They certainly do have that discretion. And so I think that keeping that all being in place is a really great system that we make sure that I don't think it will add to more people getting the license taken away because the first hit is not getting your license taken away if you, unless you're in a work zone, which I mean, I think you should lose your license if you're in a work zone and you're not paying attention or a school zone, but it's 30 days. And I say that knowing that 30 days is no small thing in a rural state, but I still think that's an adequate one. And then you get it back and then I think that educated or that, you understand and go in for it. So I don't think it'll lead to more mess. Okay, that's really helpful to hear. One part of the bill is that I know Representative Smith was thinking about was like the juvenile side of things. And if I'm correct, you would lose your license as a juvenile offender quicker than you would if you were an adult offender. I'm wondering if you think that that is the right course of action for us to treat that, to have a harder offense early on, I guess. Yeah, so for the juvenile offenders is my understanding now, any three points on your license, you'll lose it for 30 days. So that would mean one of these, you would lose it right away. I actually think that is a good idea because the juvenile, well, you know, clearly, and this has come up with a lot of things and our juvenile laws are changing and talks about the brain forming and your decision-making. And I've always thought, especially my position, I'm like, well, I have someone that's basically using a lethal weapon on the road, but we're saying the brain's not formed, so we want to give them less of a hit. I'm like, I'm not sure how those two get married together. I don't know if we need to be upbringing our drivers that the age, you know, I have two nephews who are now 21 and 19, but when they were 16 on the road, smart kids, but I'm not sure they always make the best decision. So I do think, and the thought of sooner rather than later with someone who's younger to get a hit, I do think the 30 days sooner for a juvenile operator is, would be more helpful. I think that should stay, that makes sense to me. And I think they're gonna see it actually has a bigger hit than maybe some adults potentially. Thank you. I had one other question on a slightly different angle to this conversation, but I don't know representative, Madam Chair, I think I see someone with their hand up potentially. You do? I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. The Sheriff Harlow. Madam Chair, nice. Oh, Sheriff, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I just wanted to yellow hands on the screen. Go ahead. I'm sorry. I just wanted to, I think that that is a good idea with younger people, because not only is that gonna affect them, it's gonna affect their parents. So hopefully there's gonna be more repercussions, not only financially, socially, you know, all that, but having a license is a privilege. So I just wanted to make that comment that I agree with that. And I think it's gonna have more of an impact also on the entire unit, family unit as well, because that's gonna be, they're gonna have to bring their kid to school, sports, job, whatever. So it's not only just gonna affect them, but then again, this is where you're gonna see the court going to court and, you know, things of that nature, but I think that that's a good idea as well. So. Thank you. There's a reason I'm not on judiciary. It's not a good place for me, but you know, I start to think about when you were mentioning the courts, having served as long as I have on appropriations, the cost in the court and the cost of time is something that at least as legislators, we have been sort of schooled a little bit on saying you make these laws, it costs the system so much more and then we don't plan for or adequately supply the funding in response to our actions then or we're not paying attention to it. I see representative White, were you good? I had one other question, but I'm happy to wait and hold on. Well, come on back when you're ready. Representative McCoy. Yeah, I just to add on to this were junior operators. Not that my daughter got points on her license or anything, but when she first started, she got her license and we told her that no one else could drive the vehicle because we insured it. So no one else could drive the vehicle. Of course I live in a small town and I work in a town clerk and my road foreman comes in one day and says, so I see your daughter's girlfriend in the car with driving your car with the boyfriend like, what? So she was at a soccer match that night and so she drives home and she's down in Wilmington or something that she gets home at 11. I told my husband, I said, you stay up and you tell her. So he's up, she comes walking in and he goes, give me the keys. She goes, well, he goes, give me the keys. She goes, what do you mean? He goes, you had somebody drive your car? No, I didn't. He goes, yeah, she said, hands them the keys. And it is a really big inconvenience on your part that we had to drive her to school. We took the keys away for three weeks, drive her to every practice, get her to the games, get her home, but she never, ever, ever did it again. And of course, I had two other daughters after her that saw that and they never did it. So it really is a huge deterrent. So if it's points or if it's just, you know, lose the license for 30 days, you know, I absolutely agree, especially for this, that is really a safety issue. Mine really wasn't, it was more of a financial hit to us if something happened with somebody else driving, but yeah. Yeah, we all have, my daughter too was the one that after the two, you know, I've done my job, they're grown, they're out of the house, they have their own homes. So it's like, okay, yeah. We can tell stories now, right? All your current parents, take note. Yes, yes. Yeah, it is, it is. Donnie, do you think it's bad now? Wait. Yeah. Oh yeah. So I've got two, if it's okay, I've got two thoughts. I don't know if they're actually questions, but it's a, with the tech now, my goodness, my car has got more gadgets and gadgets and things that there's a button that pushes and a voice comes through. Can we help you? Because my grandson has the SOS thing and I couldn't figure out how to turn it off or I've got a new password now. But anyway, there is technology now that will shut your phone off when you get in the car. It won't let you do these things, maybe under an emergency, correct? Don't think you have to have that answer. But I think some of what's coming in the technology of cars is gonna help with this part in the safety. We should probably find out. We had manufacturers in yesterday. Too bad we had manufacturers, auto manufacturers in yesterday, we could have asked them about this part. And then my second part of it is gets to the point of do we have a crash? What we call, you know, crash for, if you get DUI, you go to crash. Do we have a sort of a crash for texting? You get picked up that education. Now, not only did you lose your license or whatever, but now you're gonna spend two or three weekends looking at like Miss Gray had said of families that have had or the impact of what it is. Sort of a little bit of your scared straight kind of thing, but we don't have a distracted driving crash course, do we? I'm not one that's mandated. I mean, I will tell you in some of the cases that I've had like excessive speed one where someone's going, that's one thing that I have done. We have like what's called a safe driving that involves, and I should go and look at it more often but that involves multiple things. There's one that I was just looking at because some other states actually have a traffic ticket diversion where they say instead of paying the fine and the points, if you go through this six hour four hour program, you don't have to do that. And there are some courses that look good and I think they can use a conjunction minus and there's nothing that's mandated in Vermont similar to crash. Something to consider. All right. Miss Gray, are you finished with your testimony? Yeah. Okay, there's anybody else? I think the sheriff needed to go. And so next we have Helen Cloud. Did I lose you? There you are. Would you like to give us some commentary on this? Oh, representative White has her hand up. Oh, she's down. Well, thanks, manager. All right. I did have a question for the prosecutor or sorry, your title escapes me. I apologize, our lovely friend in the court system, Heather Gray, if I could ask that. Sure, go ahead. So one of the concerns that, because I'm again, I am actually really interested in this bill, but I do have concerns. The ACLU, one of their concerns that they raised up and they've done, it's kind of a similar thread that they've talked about for a lot of increased fines or increased points or anything like that is the concern that this will just continue the trend of pulling over brown and black drivers at a greater rate or using this as a tool to prosecute with a heavier hand for drivers of color. I'm wondering if you could speak it all to that and if you see any implications with the bill we have in front of us. You know, and that had come up a couple of years ago when I was testifying on the oral fluids bill, it was the same thought. And I'm not really, I'm very sensitive to that. And actually my snippet of others, a person of color, he's also a police officer, but in his sense of that, because growing up, he certainly had that. I don't see that here. I just don't know how the two get married. I feel like, yes, I think there are times and there are times that people profile and they shouldn't, and that's not okay. I'm not sure how this bill does that. You'd have to have the action itself. And if you wanna pull someone over for something that's not appropriate, it's gonna happen regardless of if you have this or something else, unless you have training for that person who's doing that, unless you have implicit bias and they're fair and placing training. And if you change, and if someone continues to do that, I mean, my thought with that is, and I do think that there are, there can be issues. And we see the statistics that come out and my thought is that is drilling down deeper on those stops. And who's doing the stops? Is it the same officer? What training have they have? Have we sent them to the same training? Do we need to send them to another training? What is it that's not connecting? I don't think that it's necessarily the abilities for our bills or the, it's like that. They did laws that are enabling that. I think it's more you have to drill down deeper than that. And I do think that's a problem that needs to be looked at, but I think that's what it is. Like on the surface to say, we have stricter laws so it's going to impact people, the minority people of color. I just don't see the connection. I would more. I think you need to drill down on why those stops are happening. And then the converse happens then people get afraid to stop anyone. And because they're a person of color and that's almost the same thing, but reverse, right? We're still using what they look like or who they are. And so I started to go on because it is something that concerns me, but I feel like it's something that that's just scratching servers. We need to drill down deeper. And this is something that's dangerous. And no matter who does it, it's dangerous. And that's how we have to, I would look at it. Thank you. And I appreciate you taking my hand, Madam Chair. I knew I wanted to get that question in somewhere. You're welcome. And I think it's sparked representative Stebbins has something good. Thanks Madam Chair. One of the things I noticed with the seatbelt law that representative Till had presented was the, the tracking of who gets pulled over. And I don't know if this is an appropriate time to ask this, but I don't, as a newcomer to this committee, I don't personally know what we currently track. I remember that this committee did say we do track stuff, but I don't know what it is. And if in this, if there would be tracking of that data, so that we could actually see to representative White's question whether or not there are trends there that we should then address in a different way. Can I just add to that or just the tracking of the data around the stops for texting and distracted driving you meant? And are we collected or how was that collected? Yeah, if I, I mean, I'll pull it up really quickly. If I recall correctly, sorry, I should have pulled this up before, almost there. Representative Stevens, while you're looking, what representatives Shaw's hand is up. So what, if that's all right with you, we'll. Or maybe it could help. I did just find it. Maybe I can help represent that minister. The criminal justice council does track all that data. They have been doing it now for, gosh, I'd say at least five, maybe more years. They are required to report the legislature every year. That data, I'm not sure where it goes as much of the data. If anything, it comes to the legislature, sometimes goes into a really black hole, but that data has, it is being tracked. And it is, it is available to us at any moment. And actually we strengthened that data collection last session, and I can't remember the bill number, but it was one of the new policing bills that we did late in the session. We strengthened that data collection and the response to it. And actually I think we're, we actually, we as a state, we don't compile the data. We have a contractor that compiles and analyzes that data for us. And then reports back, trying not to get the data manipulated coming through. So yeah, we do track all that data now. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I did find it. I guess I will take a look at 23VSA section 1259 because that's where the safety belts language was. And I guess I'm just curious why all of that data would have been put into representative Till's bill and whether or not we would need to make sure if we did have this texting piece move forward, whether or not we should make sure that that's called out as also being captured in the data collection. Make any sense? I think so. I need a little more on that one, but it's in other words, you've got a point that you want to make sure it gets captured. And I think, I think working with representative Shaw on what he mentioned on the council and what they collect might be a good place to start. Okay. Or even finish or start in the middle. Okay. If we're good with Ms. Heather, we're good. Why don't we move on to our final witness this morning is Kellen Cloud. And you state for the record who you are and where you're from, sir. Yes, my name is Kellen Cloud. And I work with, I'm the director of operations for Green Mountain Flagging. Oh, okay. Yes. We are a member of the Associated General Contractors of Vermont. And first I'd like to say that we do support this bill. It seems like something that is going to help safety in the work zones, which is something we certainly focus on. Yeah. I have been in this business. I've been a flagger since 2008, so about 13 years now. And during that time, I have certainly experienced many situations that are due to distracted driving. And including, I have had to jump out of the way for folks who just didn't notice me in my bright yellow, looking like a banana out there. To having rear ends in a stop line of traffic, folks were distracted and ran into the second car in line and ran into the first, who almost hit me as it, you know, as that momentum took it, it moved everybody. We've had people run our stop signs. And, you know, the risk to that is not just us as a flagger, but also that vehicle now going either into the water, that vehicle now going either into the work zone and hitting the flag of the workers in there or driving into a hole that's in the road. But, you know, if traffic has been sent from the other direction, now there's a potential head-on collision. So, you know, for us, this is a key point to maintaining that safety and that everybody goes home at the end of the day. Yep. Yep. Thank you. Welcome. Say, we've been hearing quite a few things around the safety and work zones this year and concern as to not so much that it's not an issue. How do we address the issue is the question, right? Yes. Yeah, thank you. I see your colleague is here. I don't know if Matt, you are with us. Did you have something you wanted to add or are you here for support? Well, I don't want to put you on the spot, sir. I just want to make sure that I give you space if you need it. I am sinking down so you don't see that I'm not wearing a tie because I didn't plan to speak, but I will appreciate the opportunity to just say a couple of words because the Associated General, first of all, thank you, Kellan. Second of all, the Associated General Contractors operates a program called Project Road Safe, which is from a federal grant to help keep the traveling public educated on road safety, which includes not only commercial drivers, but also young drivers and learning drivers. And one of the programs that we administer is called the Live at 25, which is a program where young people, we have seen older people in the class, but for younger drivers or newer drivers, it's a class where they come in here and we actually talk to them about the science of an automobile accident, a collision and some ways for them to stay safe. It's a program that a judge can ask someone that has committed a traffic offense to come and take as a condition of their license. So that's all I have to say. Thank you for having me in. You're welcome. That's very helpful. I mean, we're talking like my time, you know, our driver ed class and the AV cart and the horror movies about, you know, what happens if you don't wear your seatbelt and, you know, there's better ways today, much better ways. But I don't know, I mean, that is, that was what I was thinking that punitive is one thing, but punitive without the education and the ability to restore or get to the heart of what you're trying to do is the real answer. Representative Shaw, do you have a question, sir? Just have a comment, I think, Madam Chair, if I may. So I just want to express the fact that what we're talking about is a real world situation. And for me, it goes beyond points. It goes beyond money and fines. And it's been my experience and I think it probably has been representative savage experience through our career and emergency EMS operations that texting and operating a motor vehicle has real world consequences. So is fines the right thing to do or whatever? I'm not sure. I don't think how much we charge people money or how many points we put on our license. We have a societal problem that we need to text at all times. In the recent past, in my own town, there was a crash in front of the local high school that killed two elderly people. The driver that hit them head on had just put his, he was not texting during the crash, but moments before the crash, he was texting. So he was obviously distracted. He was found guilty of other charges because they could not prove the texting piece was happening during the crash. They could prove it happened before. These things have real world consequences. We just saw recently a crash in Shalott, from the Shalott Hill just above that five, where a young lady came across the highway and ran head on into another vehicle and killed two people. That case went into juvenile court. We did not, we never did learn what really seriously happened for the cause of that crash, but there was suspicions that texting was involved. Not too far from my house, a local farmer was working on his fence and then his son were working on their fence next to the road with their pickup truck parked to protect them while they were working near the road. A person came up over a little rise in the hill, ran into the pickup, bounced off the pickup and hit both the farmers. They've since sold their herd. They can know, neither one of them can no longer farm. They still have the property, but they've sold her. The person that hit them was so addicted, and this is a, I think this is an addiction, was so addicted to texting. She was admitted at the scene in front of many of us that she was texting when she hit the truck, but she was so addicted she was texting while we were loading the victims into the back of an ambulance to tell her friends what happened. Texting while driving has real world consequences beyond points, beyond losing your license. It has it, texting while driving can ruin families, can take people from us, can take people that the victims of texting while driving. I've been in construction zones when people are texting. I think I had this when we were talking about being protected by a cone when we talked about the speeding through construction zones. So we'll come back to that. But that's just my thought on, I don't have a, I haven't formulated a full thought on the bill yet, but I'd like to be able to formulate a thought on how we stop. And I'm not in, to Representative Smith and the other witnesses, I'm not sure that increasing fines or increasing penalties is going to work, but we need to think about what will look. And I want to thank you for the time that chair. Mr. Vice chair, you are so eloquent and well said, sir. Well said. I agree. You bring it back to the real world. Thank you. Representative Savage, Savage. Thank you, Madam chair. And I, I certainly agree a hundred percent with everything that representative Shaw has mentioned. Been there, done that with. Unfortunately with oftentimes very tragic results. I, and I do agree. I think it's an addiction. And I never. Well, my, my kids were all grown and out of the house when texting really came into the spotlight. And never realized just how, how much people text until I was having dinner one night. And there were two young people at the table with us. Young teenagers, both of whom were talking to each other, but by doing so at the same table by texting. And I just, I couldn't, I just couldn't get over that. So I, I, I think it's, and I haven't taken a position yet on this bill. I, I, I. I understand where representative Smith certainly comes from. And I, I, I. It's probably another tool in the toolbox. But I'm not sure how we're going to change people's behavior. And so that's, that's all I'm going to say. And I think we certainly can have a good discussion. And this was a good start today. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Savage. I, I do appreciate representative Smith bringing, bringing back to our attention the issue and that we give it some space to hear about it. And, and I think the committee is committed to finding some answers. We don't know if this is the answer, but I think we're committed to taking, you know, we, we're, this is our first, first part of this biennium. And I don't think this is going away anytime soon. Representative Smith, do you want to finish it up? And, and certainly, certainly I would, Madam chair. Thank you. I can appreciate all of the concerns about this bill. But nothing has worked so far. You still have just, for example, a DUI today, someone will take their license for 90 days. If you had a person with a CDL that all they need is to be 0.3 and they lose their license for 90 days, I believe, even if they're sober. That's, that's a shame to take someone's driver's license away for 90 days. This bill here. You take like Miss Gray said, the length of a football field will kill someone will kill someone's wife. And this bill will kill somebody's family members, members of the committee members, kids, or one of our committee members, spouses. This remedy may be a bit aggressive. But is this bill too aggressive if it saves one life? Ask yourselves that. If it saves one life. Is this bill too aggressive? I don't have a problem. Reducing the fines. If it saves one life. If it saves one life. And points scare people more than money does nowadays. And if we could stick with the points on it. I think that would be a pretty good remedy. Whether it be the only remedy, I don't know. But I know that it's happening all the time. And if I drove from here to Newport. Five miles from here. I could probably count 10 people texting and driving. I don't want to leave this planet at 70 years old. I want to be a hundred. And that's my plan. And I sincerely hope that this committee will support this bill. Because it's pretty darn important. To every Vermona that drives on the road. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you, sir. I think you're, um, you're bringing up the continued conversation around something that's happening out there. And that's why we're, we're here today to hear about it. So with that committee, unless there's any other committee or questions, I think we can let our guests go and thank, thank you for your time. Thank you. In the state of Vermont. And, uh, we'll, we'll continue to have a conversation with you. If, if, and when we have any questions, if that's okay with you. We thank representative Smith for bringing this to our attention again, and we'll. Committed to keep the conversation going. Um, So committee, um, with that it's 1130. It's Friday. Keeping in time. Uh, We're, we're not meeting officially in the afternoon. People have work. People have other committee. Committees to work on. And, um, I'm committed to working with representative Shaw. Our committee assistant to figure out a landing schedule. Sometimes I look at the next week or so thinking. We've got a lot of time. And then within, within an hour, I feel like, oh, we, we, we just never have enough time, but we'll. But we'll try to work that together. And we'll wish representative Quirkin. You're going to. Visiting this afternoon and judiciary and at least get an essential. Uh, feedback on what, what they're thinking. Also on that note, I did send last night, the entire S 47. To commerce, at least asking the chair and the vice chair. If they'd like to take a moment to, to look at the, the bill and if they had any commentary on it. Um, Okay. We're getting an official. Uh, notice of, of, well, anyway, I'll finish reading that in a second. So I think we're, I think we're good, but I think the agency is listening and would like to. Like to recognize that of their, their, their shortcomings on not being able to notify us earlier on Amtrak. So they, they are responding as quickly as possible to us. And we'll. We'll continue that conversation next week. So, uh, committee. I think that's it. Um, if you have other thoughts or something you forget over the weekend, I'll be, I'll be here later this afternoon. I'll be here at my desk on. A definitely on Monday all day. We've got coffee chat tomorrow with constituents. And then I'm going to go play with my grandson. And I'm going outside. That's. We're going to get basketball in. Cause I want to be able to, and I'm not going to be doing it if I'm sitting in this chair. Is that a challenge? 102 for a hundred as well. No, no, 100 as well. Okay. We might want to stay off the road. If that's the plan. I thought you were challenging him. You want a hundred. I want a hundred and two. Anybody else? 104. 105. Yeah. We have, I have a great grandmother that when I was in high school, when they walked on the moon, I got to sit to watch with her when, when they, when, um, when they walked on the moon and she was born when Lincoln was president. Oh, wow. Just imagine her life and came here. From Ireland in 1890. Yep. Oh, anyway. Yeah. Yeah. Just incredible.