 Welcome to Vermont House Transportation Committee. It is Tuesday, Wednesday, April 6th, 2022. It's a little bit after one. We just had lunch. We're coming back. We're going to hear right now from our Ledge Council, who's going to walk us through the proposed language from Representative Smith on the Distractive Driving. We're having a few with us for about an hour and a half. Then we have a moment, then we go to the floor at three. It takes another turn. We don't come back after that today. Tomorrow at nine, we have, I forget, I worry about that. Yeah, we changed it, I think. Okay. Perhaps Commissioner Mellon might submit at nine. Yeah, on the Distractive Driving. Mark, how there's going to turn the bell, I know. Please give me a smaller 10-15. Okay, 10-15. 10-15. So tomorrow morning, looks like it'll be all in response to, which is why I'm really grateful that we could have Anthea come and do the walkthrough of the bill first in the proposed language, before we hear all the other testimony. And then tomorrow afternoon, we will have Anthea back at one o'clock to take a look at new language, which I think is in your inbox, which I haven't seen yet, like ed. And then we go to the floor. Okay, and then we have testimony coming in Friday after the floor, which I hope is not too long. They can't, now they can't come. Oh, they can't come. All right, so, wait a minute. Prasa. All right, we'll worry about that one in a minute. But right now, Anthea, why don't you join us? And while you're getting ready, I went over before we went to lunch with our assistant here. We have left to hear from testimony by 280 as proposed in front of us. We've gotten an e-mail back from the city's attorney in Burlington. The Commerce Committee is going to be taking testimony from DMV Burlington and the representative that's representing Uber and he will get back to us next week. So the other areas I think we are done with except for towing and we can start to send those on to the committees of jurisdiction, which, and then in the towing, we're in the process of scheduling DMV to come in to talk about that funding situation that was funny and the rental companies representative to talk about abandoned rental cars. And that is all I have for the current bill. Yes ma'am. And House Commerce is hearing about the TNC sunset provision on Friday. Excellent. And so they'll get back to us next week, sometime they said, okay. So what I'd love to start with before we get into destructive driving them because you're with us and I appreciate it. Okay. Now the Senate has great need for you as well. There's a couple of places where I think that we're done with what we want to take for testimony have made a decision, but I think we're ready to send it off to the other committees. So if I could ask you to take section two and three, which is the total abstinence program and send that to judiciary say, thank you very much. We hope you would take this into consideration and let us know within the next week or two if it's possible. And then section four, which is the overweight permits or we're thinking ag and commerce might want to see. And House Ways and Means heard about sections four, six and seven. Okay. And Chris and I were. And Ways and Means. So section four to commerce and ag. Yeah. And then section five is the bonding, the title bonding. I don't think anybody else is interested unless somebody hears something, I think we're gonna, we don't need to send that one off. The purchasing use section six and seven, they have, right? Yeah. So the means had. I did a walkthrough of four, six and seven. And then I talked about sections two and three just cause they wanted to know about anything else that was interesting in the bill. And I think we actually talked about the total abstinence program for as long as we talked about the milk collar permit. Wow. And then the towing. I don't think it needs to go to anybody else after we hear. Okay. So then we're wrapping that into its corners for the sake of representative Schauss here. And maybe if somebody else was, I just want to, I had a conversation unplanned conversation around possibly planning something fun on April 26th or 27th, depending on what AOT can put together around a field trip to possibly, if it works, the Middlebury up the Western corridor. So stay tuned. Okay, sir. That's why I invited Bob. You didn't. We have to. We have to. Yes, ma'am. We have to approve the rail work that was done. Yes. I'll be close, but don't walk on the tracks. A article about that walk in the tracks today. Yeah. Maybe we'll just go right behind one another. Can somebody get in here? Can somebody get in here? No, no, but just these really close. That's all right. Apparently you don't hear these. Oh, really? The train's coming. Yeah. All right, but we'll work on that. Jesus. For the people in the train, didn't know if the person had been there. Oh, they didn't drive? They won't let me drive. They won't let me. All right. Okay, so let me just get, if you've got your language out. And I think Amthea posted two. Two items, right? That are on today's web page. There are three things posted under my name. There is age 262 as modified because Representative Smith has requested a number of modifications to it. And the differences from age 262 are highlighted. So if anyone had printed out age 262 or something like that, it's sort of outdated at this point. Then there is the chart that I prepared a few years ago and then updated the last time you made changes to the Distracted Driving Laws. That's what summarizes all of them in one place. And then there is what was originally the comparison between age 262 was introduced and current law in terms of what changes it would make. And I updated that to reflect the modified iteration of 262. So I don't know if it makes sense to come around and read the documents or to start with any of the charts. I will take my direction from the chart. Well, I'm thinking, I'm thinking, unless I didn't do an incredibly good job of blending just enough of this to bring us to a chart. But I guess we could start with the actual language. Okay, and are you working from 262 or are you working? I'm working from the Distracted Driving Repsmith Draft 1.1, yeah, it's 735, that's... That is what you should be working from. And that is what I will put on the screen. Which of these three is that? That's the top one, I think. The draft one. Yes. So if you go to our committee page... I went to the committee page, but make sure it's the... Oh, I'm not sharing. I'm like, it's on the screen, you should be able to see it. Now it'll be on the screen. Now it's on the screen, top, top, top, top. And say right there, April 6th, yeah, that one. Okay, so it is on the screen too. Okay, so to set the stage a little bit before we go through the language, there are four, a collection of four statutes in Title 23 that are sort of considered to be like the Distracted Driving Statutes. There's 1095A, which is the junior operator use of a portable electronic device. There's 23VSA section 1095B, that's the handheld use of portable electronic devices because non-junior operators are allowed to use a device in non-enhance-free mode, whereas a junior operator is not allowed to use a device even in enhanced-free mode. 1099, 23VSA section 1099, is texting, and then 23VSA section 4125 is texting or handheld mobile telephone use by someone with a CDL. So that's why there are four Distracted Driving Laws and why you'll see some changes made in multiple places. So, Representative Smith's language that was introduced as 262 really just focused on making changes to the civil penalty and the point assessment structure for all four of those Distracted Driving Laws. What the modified version does is it maintains all of that. It gave me the opportunity to update it to get rid of some gendered language. And it adds a concept of a diversion program and the ability to go to the diversion program for a first violation. And if you complete the diversion program and we'll get to that at the end, then it's zero points and a civil penalty of $1. So it preserves all of 262, adds some updates, non-substantive just technical ones, and then creates a different route to dealing with your Distracted Driving Violation for a first violation. It does not distinguish the language for that first violation between whether it was a violation of the statute in a school zone or a work zone. And the entire penalty structure that we'll look at as we go through the language and we get to the charts, which I think is an easier way to see it all in one page, there is, for everything except for the commercial one, a tiered structure where a first violation in a work zone is higher than a first violation outside of a work zone or a school zone. Any questions before we get to the language? No. I'm behind you. Thank you very much. I just didn't catch it. You said 1095A is junior, 1095B is handheld, non-junior. What's the next one that's just testing? That's testing. What is the? 1099. 1099. And the 10VSA 41 is testing with CDF. 23VSA 4125 is CDL violations. Okay. And then so the third one you mentioned is 1099. 23VSA section 1099. They're all entitled 23. And if you look at the chart, the comparison one, they're all listed here. And if you look at the double pager that's like the summary of the current disaster driving laws, they're all listed. They're all listed here. They're all listed here. So I think there's one pro for each of them. Thank you. It has a little. Nice. Thank you. This is, and you can tell because like the formatting is a little different at the top. This is a Helena document that I have updated a couple times. So I do not get to take origination credit for that one. Okay. So going to the language. I have this drafted. So I'm going to go back to the, I'm going to go back to the, I'm going to go back to the miscellaneous motor vehicle bill as section nine a. So at the very end, obviously, if you're going to be making substantial changes to the miscellaneous motor vehicle bill, I think you're going to be dealing with the strike all amendment. In which case we can deal with all the numbering, or it'll be a striking out the effective dates and inserting the little thereof. And we could make it be sections like 10, 11, 12, et cetera. The reason I did it as nine a, I'm not sure how many of you know, I don't know if this scheme is a little weird here, but if this is language or if a portion of this is language that ends up in the miscellaneous motor vehicle bill, we'll make sure that it is numbered in a less obscure way. So 1095. These are your junior operators use of portable electronic devices. And I can put up the statute so you can see all that, like what it's saying is actually prohibited. But all that this would change is the civil penalties. the points. So under current law, and this is the language that you're going to see struck out, if you have a first violation in a outside a school zone or a work zone, and this is the language that we're getting in the beginning, it's an $100 minimum and a $200 maximum for that civil penalty rep Smith's proposing to reduce that. So for a first violation outside a school zone or a work zone, instead of being a minimum of 100 and a maximum of 200, it's a minimum of 25 and a maximum of 50. This is the only one where representative Smith is proposing to lower it except for the CDL, which is a little different because that has a maximum and he's proposing a minimum. So this is your junior operators, first violation outside work zone or school zone, reducing it from a range between 100 to 200 to a range between 25 and 50. Any questions? Yep, representative. If you're using outside a school zone, do you mean outside of the school or outside not within a work zone or a school zone? Representative Barthelman, Representative Smith? Why do we want to reduce this? So rationale? Rational as a kid doesn't have any money. The parent's going to be responsible to pay the fine. And it probably I don't I don't I didn't feel that it was fair for the parent to have to pay $100 or $200 fine. I think with a junior operator, they're going to be a lot more concerned about losing a license than the amount of money. So I didn't want to find the parent for a child problem. That was the reason for that. And I think that's a very good just something that representative Smith mentioned, which I'm going to refer back to the bottom part, the suspensions portion of this chart. An adult operator who accumulates 10 points or more from traffic violations within a two year period is subject to a 10 day suspension with increasing suspension times for each additional five points. Learner's permits and operators licenses are subject to a 90 day recall after six points are accumulated. So the consequence for a point accumulation for someone who is driving with a learner's permit or a junior operator's license is more severe than that same point for a operator rather just a regular driver's license. What are the points coming next? Yeah, we'll we'll deal with the points in the next subject. I just I'd like to think about this, but I don't know if I like these numbers changes. Representative Smith, if you're done, representative Bellamy. I'm done. Yes. Okay, so next line lines nine and 10 for a second or subsequent violation. Again, this is going to be for a violation that is not within a work zone or a school zone. Current law has a minimum of 250 and a maximum of 500 under representative proposal. That would be a minimum of 50 and a maximum of 75. So you are preserving the lower threshold, but it is a little bit more dramatic in its reduction. Subdivision two, an individual convicted of violating the section shall have five points assessed against the individual's driving record under current law. It is two points for that first violation inside or outside. Sorry, it's a two points for that first violation, not within a work zone or a school zone or two points for a second violation, not within a school zone or a work zone. And you're going to say to me, Anthea, I don't see two points anywhere here. Well, that's because it doesn't say. So the default, and you'll see this in the footnote one of the summary chart is a lot of statutes will say within the statute itself, that this is the number of points that's assessed like this would be doing with the five points. But then there's also this schedule of points and 23 BSA section 2502. And that is also a place you need to look for points. And we'll see in the language that is the update to H 262 where we're making changes to that schedule of points. 23 BSA section 2502 a one triple F provides that the default assessment is two points for a moving violation where nothing is included in statute. So there's nothing included in statute for 1095 a for those violations that are outside a work zone, not within a work zone or not within a school zone. So those go to the default of two points. So that is why the chart is more helpful here, because you don't need to think and look in multiple places to see as the subject of the default. So under Representative Smith's proposal, it would be going from a first violation, not within school zone work zone 100 to 200 range with two points to a 25 to 50 with five points range. And then for the second violation again, not within the work zone or the school zone from a 250 to 500 range with two points to a 50 to $75 range with five points. And that five points gets the junior operator awfully close to that six point threshold for a 90 day suspension. You will see in the chart that I have and we'll get to this language later in the text that I put a footnote at the end of the first violation explanation, because it is this first violation, not within a school zone or work zone, and it would be applicable for the first violation within the school zone or the work zone that would then be able to go to diversion. This is still first violation. Yeah, well, we're talking about first violation and second violation, not within a work zone or school zone. You get to the language where you'll see that diversion is only available for the first violations without regard to the location of the violation. So right now, I'm going to assume is to look at look at the this chart or the more current, right? So if you're looking at this chart, what we've just talked about is outside school zone, work zone, first violation, current law, second violation, outside school zone, work zone, current law, and then in modified agencies outside work zone, schools on first violation and second violation and my footnote only applies to this little box right here so far. This one. Yeah. Okay. You're like, I need a bingo blotter or something. Nice job. Current law, modified, outside, inside, four squares, right? Study it for a second. Anybody questions on the outside and I don't know if there's a fiscal note on this yet. I was just wondering if anybody or representative Smith, if I went minor and give the impact on your like your, your auto insurance and looking at looking at the, the, the amount of money that, you know, the fine is one thing, but it's the auto insurance that having this amount of points, what I'm you know, we'll have to take a look at what that, that impact just so we, you know, you're going to need to know what, what that is, especially on this junior, junior one, right? I know that you had mentioned about parents. I'm sure the auto insurance. That's often, yeah. Regardless of who gets the ticket or who gets the fine. Right. But that means like you were saying, parents are paying their, they're going to be paying for themselves now and for, you know, big deal. Okay. Okay. So before we finish off section nine. The other thing that you're getting with a lot of this language struck out on lines 16 to 21 is representative Smith's proposal is stripping away the concept of the tiered approach just for the junior operators and just for the use of a handheld device for the deviation between outside school zone, inside school zone, outside work zone, inside work zone. And that's where you're getting this striping of all the language that says that it shall be this, it shall be this increased amount for these different zones. So going back to our chart, you'll see under the current law, when we're looking at our inside school work zones, that it's doubled for everything. So and it has higher points. So for a first violation inside a school zone or work zone within a school zone or work zone, the range is 200 men to 400 max. That's a doubling of the 100 men 200 max. And the points is four points for the first one. For a second violation within a school zone or work zone under current law, it's a 500 men doubling of the $250 men for the not within and a maximum of 1000. And that has five points. Representative Smith's proposal maintains the structure that he has for the outside school or work zone to the within school zone work zone. So without regard to where the violation is, it's going to be for a first violation, minimum 25 maximum 55 points, second violation without regard to location, minimum 50 maximum 75 five points. And that takes us through 1095 a and representative Smith's I was sorry, a different approach. Representative Bartholomew, do you have your hand up? Yes. You probably already said what, what is a junior rock junior operator. I didn't. And we can go to a junior operators license may be issued initially only to persons who are 16 and 17 years of age have passed the driver examination required in sub chapter two of this chapter in a driver education and training course approved by the commissioner motor vehicles and the secretary of education and have possessed a learner's permit for not less than one year and they have submitted a form. They've maintained a driving record without a learner's permit suspension revocation or repo for six consecutive months prior to licensure. And it requires the parent or guardian, our person standing in local front desk to file a written consent. And it can be renewed. So 16 and 17 year olds. So it's someone who has the driver's license, but beyond learners for me. Okay. Yeah. The penalties here, how we, you know, we've lowered them, but my recollection, even though we have a number in there, they're the courts set like the waiver. Mine is actually going to be. So what's, but we're lowering these sort of like. What does it actually do into these because it's going to be different from what we think is kind of. So to scale things. I'm just going to go back to the summary. There is for your current structure. And if you look to the, the summary one, you'll get this. And I know this says updated to 2321, but I did check in the waiver penalties are consistent. And I know you haven't made any changes to the, the rest of it since then. So for that. First offense. Not within a school zone work zone where it's got the range of a hundred minimum, 200 maximum. And the waiver penalty does reflect that. And the waiver penalty for that 100 to $200 range. The judicial bureau has put that at $162. For that first offense. Within a work zone or school zone where you have the range under current law being between 200 and 400. They have set the waiver penalty at $277. So it seems like in those instances, it's slightly above the minimum. For the subsequent offenses where the, not within a school zone or work zone range is 250 to 500. They put that one at 335. And the $500, a thousand dollar range for a second or subsequent in two years within a school zone or work zone. That is. That's in lieu up. So you can instead of. Challenging it, you can just pay your waiver penalty and be done with the whole time. Yeah. So they're different on there. So that 25 will be more like what 35 or. I don't know what that means. I mean, so think, when you think about the $25 that also has $47 tapped on to it. You could end up having what you're actually paying. Yeah. So your waiver penalty might even look like it's larger than your maximum because it's factoring in. The fees and surcharges that are not reflected in what you see on the page. So in addition to thinking about, well, what is someone actually going to have to pay for it? I mean, so think when you think about the $25 that also has $47 tapped on to it. Yeah. So you're thinking about, well, what is someone actually going to have to pay as the waiver penalty? Also think, even if that person. Like. Takes this to fruition and they get the maximum. It also has a little bit more on top of it. And for those of you who are on the committee. Last biennium in like your first year, when you change the inspection sticker language, like if you're pulled over thousands, you're going to have to pay for it. So that's what you specifically said. And the surcharges and everything don't apply. Because I think you reduced it to like $5. So the surcharges in 15% we're going to be like so much larger. Then what you wanted it to, to actually pay. Brian, you don't know how many years I took to get that done. Let's jump. So just the waiver penalties. I don't think I'm understanding what exactly. I'm sorry. I think it all makes more sense if we go to the. Fine. You got a fine see $25 and then you've got. Waiver penalties. No waiver penalties. I do any of the others. Okay. Tell me. So if you go to the Vermont judiciary website and you go to the judicial bureau. All the way to the bottom, there's this waiver penalty schedule. For every statute that goes to the judicial bureau, it's got the points that are assessed, which we're not in the motor vehicle ones, which is why you're not seeing points. The code, the minimum, the maximum and the waiver. So let's go to. 95. So, so they're right there in the middle. We got highlighted. So 1095 a junior use a portable electronic device. In a work zone. First offense. You've got that it's four points. It's code is wz44 WZ for the minimum is $277. And you're like, but wait a minute. You told me that the minimum was $250. That is $277 because it has added onto it. It seems off for the 277. It seems like it seems high. No, not that it seems high. It's that the. The percentage and the. The extra seems different. It should be currently the current law is in, is that inside? Well, works. I think there's a. Inside works on first offense is $200 minimum. Oh, no, yeah, this is totally right. It's $200 plus $47 plus 15% of $200. That's how you get your $277 and your $507 for the maximum. That's $400 plus 15% of $400 plus $47. And that's the total is considered the waiver penalty. No, the waiver penalty is what you would pay instead of. So you instead of having a minimum instead of having a maximum instead of leaving it to the judicial bureau to give you a civil penalty in a range, you can just take your ticket. $392. Okay. So you've got your thinking yourself. I'm either going to get to $277. Or if I'm lucky, if I'm not lucky, I'm going to get the, the full piece, which is five something. And actually I do need to update this chart. I've found some errors with this. I will give you an updated version. Okay. But that's where it comes in. Then you can say, you know what, I don't want to, I don't feel lucky today. I think I'll take, I'll take my chances at the waiver. Which is in the middle. Okay. All right. When licenses are suspended at how many points for a junior operator? So it's recalled. For 90 days after six points. Six. And it's recalled for 30 days after one texting conviction. And for a senior non junior operator and adult operator. It's 10 days, 10 days after the suspension for 10 points. Within a two year period. It's under the suspension. And the points. I'm sorry. Just 15% for you $7. What are those? So those are, do I have the sites here? That goes to. It's 13. I know how we can find it because we can go look at that inspection statute. She's looking, I'm wondering how long does the point stay in your license? It's kind of just roll. So the, it's for a two year period. But I don't know like for purposes of insurance. I'm just telling you for statute and for the suspension. So you've got to be careful for two years. You get five points. You gotta be good. Yeah. No longer. We're texting. Yeah. 13 BSA section seven to eight. 23. 13 BSA. So you weren't. I was, but I'm trying to get the answer for a representative about this. I wanted to read all of title 23. So, I'm going to go back to page one. Okay. So, this is our charges and everything for any offense. Our violation committed after June 30th, 2013, $47 of which 2975. She'll be deposited in the victims compensation special fund. End of which $10 should be deposited into the domestic and sexual violence special fund. So $47. 2975 goes to the victims compensation special fund. $10 goes to the domestic and special sexual violence special fund. And I'm not sure where the bounce goes. It doesn't say here. And then also in addition to that, so that's the $47 and then in addition to that, the 15% is for any offense or violation committed after June 30th, 2003. So a different date. An amount equal to 15% of the fine imposed for the offense and the crimes. And then the offense grounded upward to the nearest full dollar, which will be deposited into the crime victims, restitution special fund. Established by a second type. Minimum and maximum fine amounts and increases it by 47 plus 15. Yeah. So let's pretend that you had something that had a minimum of zero. And the judicial Bureau waiver penalty chart. It's going to give you a minimum of $47. That's where you see so many that say minimum $47. And why you see so many that are $1,197. Because that's a minimum of a maximum of $1,000 plus 15% of $1,150 plus $47. And if you're wondering why there are so many that are 47 and 1,197. It's because the statutory defaults. Our minimum is zero. Maximum is a thousand. We're always impressed. Thank you. Okay. Do you want to move to 1095? Are we ready? Okay. So now we're dealing with the non-general operator licenses. And then the one to remember here is that non-general operators are allowed to use. A mobile phone in and spring. So for this under current law. This is online 11 what you see struck out is again, it's got that same $100 minimum $200 maximum range. You're going to see the 100 minimum, 200 maximum, the 250 minimum, the 500 maximum. For the second violation and the doublings for the inside school zone and work zone. You're going to see that a lot. And that's because in the 2019 miscellaneous motor vehicle bill, you made it so that 1095 A, 1095 B and 1099 all have the same structure to it. So if you're looking at this box, this box and this box, you'll see that they're identical. This is not doing your operator. So under representative Smith's proposal, it's 262 modified. You would only specify a minimum, not a range and the minimum would be $250. For the first violation outside a school or work zone, and it would be $500 for inside a school or work zone. And again, those are minimums, no maximum is specified. So the default would be $1,000. For a second violation inside. Outside a, or not within a school zone or a work zone, he has a minimum of 500, no maximum specified. And for the second violation, a minimum of 750, no maximum specified. His points escalate more here as well. So the current law is two points for the first violations. So two points for the first violation outside of school zone or work zone, and two points for the second violation outside the schools on our work zone. And then it's got the four points, five points for the ones within a school zone, work zone. Under representative Smith's proposal, a first violation, not within a school zone or work zone would be four points. A violation inside a school or work zone, that first violation would be nine points. A second violation, not within a school zone or work zone would be five points. And a second violation within a school zone or work zone would be 10 points. And that hits your magic number of 10 points or more, yielding a 10 day suspension. So under representative Smith's proposal, if you were using your phone and non-handspring mode in a school zone or a work zone for a second or subsequent time, that would get you the 10 points. If you think about the escalation and the way, the way that the, the counting is done because your points would last for two years, and it's a second or subsequent within two years, really would have had 19 points at that point. So you're well beyond and probably would then be hitting a different suspension amount. Yeah, because your second violation would be within that timeframe, correct? Otherwise it would be a first violation. So on your license then at that point you'd have 19. Yeah, I think that's how, I think that is how the map would have to work out. Young zone. Little believe it. Does that have our phone? You said $750 somewhere and all of that. And I don't see that number. So that's because if you look in subdivision to C2, you'll see an individual convicted of violating this section while operating within the following areas, she'll be subject to an additional civil penalty of $250. So you'll have an additional five points. Thank you. So you're not going to see $750. Yes. And again, this chart is just way easier to see. Oh my God, because there's so much that's being struck out and, and to make what is really like just a lot of number of changes. Thank you. Well, we're, well, she's going through all of this. Keep in the back of your mind that in a school zone, if someone's driving 35 miles an hour, the typing in a number, they can travel about 350 feet. And your son or grandson or granddaughter could be walking across the road. Well, thank you right here. I just wanted to add what you said. John, John represents my family. Another question about school zones. Is this, is it, um, is it only a school zone when the school is in session, or is it always a school zone? I believe it is always a school zone. Can I get back to you on that one? Oh, not on statement 100 or 107. It's field. We go to school. It says 35 miles an hour when flash. But it might always be a school zone. It might only have to reduce. It's always a school zone, but there is. You can go up to 50. Yeah, but I think. Kids around middle of the night and going through a school zone. These. And I think you would be, if it was a school zone, I also think if there is something that used to be a school zone and is no longer a school zone, but there. There is a school zone. There is a school zone. There is a school zone. So it used to be a school zone is still a school zone, but there's no longer a school there. You would be subject to the increased civil policy. And I believe there is at least, there are at least a few of those. I think that also goes into. Not that it's what we're taking up here, but there are certain people. People who have restrictions on them from being in a school zone. And I think that also being in the proximity of the building is like within the school zone, you're not allowed to. Step foot in. Or like restraining order or something of that nature. Yeah. Yeah. I know that here we think about in the transportation and the car and the vehicle or something, but there's. There's a lot of other things that I'm sure. That reference. There's a lot of other things that are not in the school zone. There's a lot of other things that are not in the school zone for other. So this is. One of seven. It's in a school zone. I was approached and supports to get to work. Not enter a school zone. Hmm. So maybe there are offenses not within so many yards of the door with the school zone or something. You know, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. So. We have lots of lawyers. All those things. And then do you even know. And are supposed to be. Right. But I mean. Whatever it is. Like he's not stopping, but he's. Driving through. Driving. State highway. So maybe they do have a certain. I don't know. Okay. I'll stop trying to find the. Okay. Well, you're sitting here with me. And I'll get back to you. Okay. So that's going to take us through to section nine C. This is 1099 texting prohibited. Again, under current law, you've got that same structure for the first violation. Outside the, or not within the school zone works on 100, 200, two points. So that's going to be doubling 200, 400, four points and then for the second violations, within school zone works on 250 to 500 range for two points. The second violations, 500 to a thousand with the five points. For purposes of what representative Smith is proposing, it would be identical to what you just saw in 1095. So minimum specified no maximums. Starting at 250 and then doubling. So that's going to take us to the second violation. So that's going to take us inside. And then there are 250 on top of that for the. The increase. And then you've got your same point structure. Four points for. Outside school zone works on nine points for inside. And then five points, 10 points for the second violations. Go ahead. So explain what the maximum would be. A thousand dollars on all. It's just the maximum would be. So instead of the second violation of 750. The maximum, the maximum would be one thousand. Okay. Thank you. And that's because. Do I have a citation to it? I might have to go look it up, but there is something entitled 23. That basically says. No. So I know. It's. Well, no. That's fine. It's a girl. Maximum specified. It's one. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Bartholomew. About all the questions. What? How is texting defined? Do you ask how texting is defined? Yes. Well, but you can text. I'm sorry. That was using Siri, right? If you're an adult. Can't. Can's free. If your hands free, can you just talk to your phone and say, my wife a text. I will tell you what texting is. Texting. As used in this section, texting means the reading or the manual composing or sending of electronic communications, including text messages, instant messages or emails using a portable electronic device, which is defined use of a global positioning or navigation system shall be governed by section 1095 B of this type. And that's the one we just talked about, which is using your phone as a non-junior operator in non-hand spring mode. Yes. A key word is manual. Yeah. So why, why do we have a separate texting section? Why wouldn't it be just all fall under prohibited. Handheld use. So. Two reasons. One. I asked that same question when I started and I was told, I think it was by Michelle or maybe it was by commissioner earlier, someone's DMV that they did not think it made sense to consolidate them. So I'm a statutory perspective. And I'm again, going to refer to your different means of suspension. A learner's permit or junior operator's license is subject to a 30 D 30 day recall after one texting conviction. So from a policy perspective, it's saying. If you are someone who's driving with a junior operator or learner, learner's permit, we don't really care how many points you get the text wants. It's a 30 day recall. So. I think if you really truly wanted to treat using a phone to send a text message in the same way as using a phone to, for example, put in like an address that you're trying to get to on a GPS device, then you could get rid of 1099 and consolidate it into 1095 feet. This is structured to very explicitly say, and I use that as an example, but I also think that if you're using a GPS, it should be treated differently from texting and from a policy perspective in terms of recall for a junior operator, learner's permit, texting is treated differently. There could be other. Distinctions that I just need to go refresh my memory on, but that's the one that. That I remember and that is. Especially pertinent to the conversation that we're having. And if you can totally disagree with the policy sentiment behind that. So I'm reading French. So that's that language is outdated because today's cars and don't need to manually compose a text message if you can do it verbally. And I do not think that would violate the law. That would not violate the law. So you're still manual. You're still texting. Exactly. So you're still not just, just. Maybe it's your conversation, but you're just still not concentrating on driving. You're still distracted because you're texting. So if you wanted to treat texting verbally as something that you also wanted to regulate, I think that that is a policy approach that you could take. One of the things that I think would be very interesting for this committee to hear from law enforcement on is how do you figure out if someone was texting. Using there like I press the button on my steering wheel and I said some text message to someone. So I don't know how law enforcement figures it out without just sort of visually seeing like, oh, it looks like someone was holding a phone in their lap and using it. One of the bills that representative Smith introduced last biennium had to do with a report on a textualizer, which is like the breathalyzer, but for cell phones and there's technology supposedly out there at least two years ago when we were working on that. I haven't heard much about those lately. Yeah, where you put your phone in and it's just supposed to be able to determine. It's not a conversation for this particular proposal, but it could be an interesting conversation later on. Yeah, no, because then you just be banning self mean you won't be able to talk in your car. Okay. I'm just saying the same thing. You've never been able to use your hands free. I'm just saying they would think I'd see text. Yeah, so I'm saying if you're going to go down that road, you basically ban your yourself on any car. I also believe it was two years ago, there was a bill introduced by representative Milan that would have taken a broader perspective on what it meant to be driving distracted in that we're using it to say like, you can't use your phone and 1095 a has to do with like an operator looking at a video device back. You know, I mean, I mean, I mean, I think when there were lots of like screens going into cars for the first time, but. You know, are you distracted? If you're eating a really, really long sandwich. I heard just passing talking about distracted driving in the state house that someone once saw someone driving and playing the trombone at the same time. Are you distracted when you're playing the trombone? I heard someone saying Santa trombone thing. So should there be a different approach to distracted driving writ large and not, it was kind of limiting the specifics of it to using your phone. Or. It's too like. And we need a radio. You still have a radio. Yeah. Or. Eating. It would be impossible. Somebody that was doing verbal texting. So. Pretty much not started, but it's an interesting conversation. I mean, please stop people now. They're falling in their hands and they say, I'm not texting. I'm dialing. And. That's it. I'm going to check. Okay. As used in this section, hands for use means the use of a portable electronic device without use of either hand by employing an internal feature of or an attachment to the device. So under 1095 B, you're prohibited from using your phone. So under 1095 B, you're prohibited from using a portable electronic device while operating, moving vehicle. In a place that's open and temporarily or permanently to public or general circle leadership vehicles. If you are using it in the non-hands frame mode. Just to keep it. It is. Yeah. Representative McCormick was next. I just wanted to. When I was 17, 1969, driving my Volkswagen bus down. One California. Think about that. Let me get an image of that. I get like Reagan. I was pulled over. For claim the harmonica. Yeah. Yeah. We were just playing music. I remember the cop city. He didn't write me up. He just put me over and he came up to the car. He said. Cause I had New York plates. He said driving in California. It's difficult enough with both hands. No harmonica. I bet your hair was more and longer than that. She wasn't. Oh, I see how you do the trunk. Sex position. That's really. It's changing nature. So I'm going to suggest that we not try that on our right. I don't know about you because like, you know, sometimes I'm trying to change music. And I think. Is this legal? But. Okay. Keep going, ma'am. Okay. So that has taken us through 1099, which will match 1095 feet. All right. So that's through that page. So here's, I have a question. Cause I don't know if we're there yet, but I'm sure it's because representative Smith. I think that's a good way to go. Yeah. Yeah. So. A question. When in discussing this with. You were working towards a warning. You had, you'd come to a softer. You know, stop and a warning and an education piece. Is that, are we coming that's coming. Okay. Cause that, that wasn't feeling. That wasn't feeling very warning. Okay. So section 90, this would be changing the penalty structure. commercial driver's license one and 23 vsa section 4125 so represent Smith's proposed language instead of it being silent on both the civil penalty and the point assessments of defaults to the 1000 maximum 2 points he would specify a minimum which then gives you your range of 500 to 1000 5 points for outside not within a work zone school zone. 10 points for inside of school zone work zone and he has the minimums being the same for the two 500 for each. Okay, so this is when I said how there's that schedule of points and 23 vsa section 2502 this is just updating that schedule of points to reflect the changes that we just talked about earlier so i'm not going to go through that but you'll see. That like four points we've got the hands of use of portable electronic device outside worker school zone first violation and it's got the citations of the statute it's a pretty handy table. That is going to take you from the top of page six. All the way through to the top of page nine. And it's going to take you to all of the yellow language, which is new this was not included in each 262 and this is the distracted driver diversion program. And this is mostly modeled off of 18 vsa section 4230 B, which is the diversion program for the possession of cannabis if you're between 16 and 21. So 1818 vsa section 4230 B is like part of the section number so not an appointment yeah and that's for the possession of cannabis between 16 and 21, and this is one of 30 B. This is one of the many diversion programs that exists there is not currently and I heard you talking about this yesterday there's not currently a diversion program for distracted driving. There is a diversion program for driver's license. I believe that's the only. So there's directed driving diversion program that was where I had a question yesterday for the representative Smith was like, does that exist. It does not. It does not. This would be creating it all underlined all new language. Right, let's hear how we going to create something. Okay, so for a law enforcement officer who is someone over for a first violation of 1095 a B or 1099 without regard to the location will issue a notice of violation on a form approved by the court administrator. The notice of violation shall require the individual to provide the individual's name and address and shall explain procedures under this section. And that explanation needs to include that the individual needs to contact the diversion program and the county where the offense occurred within 15 days. If the individual needs to contact the diversion program within 15 days will result in the case being referred to the judicial bureau where the individual is found liable for the violation may be subject to one or more of the following a civil penalty points in position, the suspension suspension of the license or substantially increased insurance rates. No money. This is again the direction that's being given to the person with the notice of violation that no money should be submitted to pay any penalty until after adjudication. So we need to notify the diversion program if the individuals address changes. So do we have to create the diversion program first before we dare you to contact them. I think Mark Anderson will address that. We spoke briefly on it and he has I believe he has some ideas about how to go about doing this, because there is funding available in the diversion program already. I think that's one of the issues for other projects that could be wrong and what I'm saying but I'd rather have him here tomorrow, explaining that whether it's factor fiction. I think you'll also want to hear from the judiciary. Yes, I'm a part of that's what I wrote in the yeah the judicial bureau you might want to hear from the AG's office, the AG's office, I had on my list to when I saw their name coming up. So now, this would be saying on your first violation of either AB or 99 notice of violation shall require individuals provide the individuals name of a. And she'll explain the procedures under this section, including all right so that's where we're at. Representative Burke did I see your hand up I just explained to ask about the diversion program but it sounds like we'll hear about it. And I for the summons and complaint, I, we would need to hear from law enforcement to it might be that they don't complete a summons and complaint it might be a civil violation that's completed so summons and complaint might need to change. But that's something that law enforcement can, or the court administrator can help us on I just I think that maybe just now that I'm thinking about it I think the summons and complaint might not be the correct phrasing. But the premise the concept is that the law enforcement completes the document that would lead to the judicial bureau adjudicating the violation. The law enforcement might not be filed with the judicial bureau at the time of the violations. I'm page 10. Thank you. So that might subsection be probably needs to get reworked if this moves forward but the structure is that instead of the ticket or whatever document is filled out going to the judicial bureau it's completed and then held to give the individual time to go and commence the process of registering with and participating in the diversion. And these are electronic. I don't know. They might be paper, please. I died. I don't know. Yeah, so then I'd have a question this week. What triggers the 15 days or from the time that it's filed or becomes a part of. So the, the notice of violation is issued, and it's probably then sent to the diversion program. So diversion program would have to receive this trigger. Yeah, it's a bad work because it's sent to the, it is sort of a trigger. It's sent to the diversion program within 15 days. Yeah. So you have your violation, your alleged violation, you're pulled over. You've got a piece of paper that starts your 15 days within flight. And this isn't. Yeah, okay, so that starts the 15 days. I'm just because of the paperwork wise. So that person would be potentially calling diversion. Let's just say they're really want to get with it and they call within two days to say diversion I need to schedule. And they go, I haven't I don't have any paperwork on you. So it might take more than two weeks just get from the side of the street paperwork wise that was why I asked. To get to the version that you'd be calling. Maybe we need 90 days to tell me. Oh, you know what I mean, because I could just that. It's the logistics of the process. So the logistics of the process could be that this is already something that is sorted out within the diversion program. And it's not, I'm on the wrong one. That's not something that you need to reinvent the wheel on. Let's see what the. So yeah, you've got subsequent inventing any wheel at this at this point but you know, but places where it works because it already is part of the system. This language, the 15 days, the summons and complaint, the issuance of notice of violation that is almost verbatim from the cannabis diversion program. So to the extent that it could be a problem of getting the paperwork where it needs to be. It is a problem that I think has maybe been figured out an existing diversion program. Okay, I just want to make. Yeah, thank you. So the, so that cannabis diversion program is the only one right now that has that particular. I don't know. I just know that this is a. The more recently developed one so the last time that I was working on a diversion program and I asked someone on the judiciary and which one should I model it off of this one was suggested and that is why I modeled this one off of it for representatives. Thank you. So I did have on here list that was when I mentioned when I read this. I just want to make sure that I like we would need to hear from the diversion program. I think there are a lot of people you need here to figure out of the logistics. Okay. Okay, so within that 15 days I'm in subsection say the individual who received the notice of violation needs to contact the diversion program in the county where the violation occurred and register for the distracted driving diversion program it could be that maybe it doesn't make sense for it to be in the county that the violation occurred maybe it should be in the county that they live in. So I think there's something to think about. If the individual fails to do so to contact the diversion program and register, then the diversion program files the summons and complaint with the judicial bureau for adjudication under for BSA chapter 29. That's the chapter that covers the judicial bureau's jurisdiction. So the diversion program shall provide a copy of the summons and complaint to the law enforcement officer who issued the notice of violation and she'll provide two copies to the individual charged with the violation and I believe that is all taken verbatim or give or take verbatim from the cannabis diversion program. So upon receipt from the law enforcement officer of a summons and complaint completed under subsection B of the section, the diversion program shall send the individual a notice to report to the diversion program and meet with diversion program staff to assess the individual's risk for future traffic violations, identify factors that contributed to previous traffic violations so this is broader than just the one traffic violation. Detectives or device in non-hance remote or texting develop a contract, if you presented to the judicial bureau for review that may include more one or more following completion of a driving education program approved by the State Highway Safety Office, any other conditions related to the distracted driving traffic violation or a fee, not to exceed $500 in the case of a violation of section 1095A that's the junior operator one or not to exceed $100 in the case of a violation of I believe the diversion program for cannabis does not have a fee associated with it but the driver's license suspension one has a fee and I think that fee might be quite large. So this is a fairly small fee in the grand scheme of things, but it probably is larger. No, it would, it is larger than the minimums for the 1095A ones, but remember there wouldn't be points which is important there, but it's probably not large enough to cover the cost of... That's what I was just saying. We have no idea because we don't know what this would be. Us to a fee is to cover the cost of the actual program and when we don't have a program we don't know how much we should or could charge for it. Diversion program, did you say has a hefty fee? I think it might be the driver's license suspension diversion program. And that's with suspension fee or driver's license suspension. So while you're looking, when I was reading this, do I make notes on the side? So as I just come down from, okay, let's just say there's a diversion program, which we don't have one yet, but if there was one there, the person... I'm at the diversion office, single, I'm registered, so I'm going to get this violation. Person's going to call me, they're going to schedule time with me, and I have to want assess the individual's risk for future traffic violation. How do we work with the, what is, how do you assess that and is there a best practice? Sort of like if you, you know, I don't know how that would, how that person, if there's no, anyway, that would be a question. How they would assess future risk or what they would use for an assessment tool. You know, there's, there are bona fide assessment tools to determine whether or not you're, right, if you've, you know, got, if you, if you're at risk for, you know, alcohol abuse or, or other things, that there's a, there's the MAISI tests and other things that are standardized tests for that process. I don't know how, I don't, so that would be a big one, Representative Smith. What is the tool that assesses? Who's, do they have to be qualified to give that assessment? Then identifying factors that contribute it to previous traffic violations. That's, that's a biggie. Okay, go ahead. I'm sure, what is the MAISI test? Oh, that's, that's one of there's a walking the straight line or no, no, no, no, it's, no, it's like, if you, if you've been referred and you might answer, I think it's like 30, I think it's an easy, I could be wrong. It's a tool like through alcohol and drug counselors might choose is one of their variety on behavioral cognitive therapy type. Oh, so it's, you're not talking about a roadside. Oh, I'm talking about this person's coming in to get assessed a little bit. So if you're getting assessed, you might answer 15 questions like, Hey, have you driven lately with someone who's been drinking? Have you, you might get assessed a quick assessment. It says, you know what, you might have some risk factors here that you might want to go to the next deeper kind of evaluation. So there are tools for that that are scientifically the state uses, not just not just the Diane Lanford. Let me see your hand looks like you're in trouble. That's the one my kids don't like. The land for test. The land for test. Anyway, so those would be, those are going to be tough. Those, those would have to be long ago. We'll find out and then contributing to previous traffic violations. That's interesting. I was all right, and then develop a judicial bureau I'm thinking we can get those questions answered tomorrow. Yeah, yeah, you know, because that's the questions that I start just so you know, that's how I tears. I don't tear something apart because I want to tear it down. I tear it apart because we're putting in place law and we're putting in place a system that state employees have to follow based on our work. And if we're not, we can at the best of intentions, we create some gaps going on. Oh, didn't see that one. Okay, we need to fix it, you know, cool. So the most that we can do this is why I say that it takes a lot of testimony and development because we don't even have the diversion program yet. But okay, so, so like with lots of legislation, you are creating a framework and then needing to leave it to in this case, the diversion program to to flush out the details and you can be much more prescript prescriptive than there is here. For purposes of represent McCoy's question, the driver's license suspension diversion program has a down payment of $25 towards the program fee of $300. The balance of the fees included in the payment plan and may be reduced based on a person's financial situation. But a lot of people who I think use the driving license driving with license suspended DLS program, it's because of failing to pick tickets leading to. Okay, so yeah. But there is a remote court diversion website. It's got websites for a lot of them. I think talking to the diversion program or someone from it will be very, very helpful. And I will be the first to admit that with the limited guidance that I think Sheriff Anderson and Representative Smith could give me in terms of just sort of getting a skeletal structure onto a page, there is so many more details that could just held in. And then it is up to you as the legislators and the ones that are figuring out the policy behind this as to how many details you want to fill in, how much you want to just sort of leave it to the diversion program to figure it out. Well, then we would want to make sure that statewide it's being implemented in the same way and only because of past history, those diversion programs and any of the judicial pieces of our state system are very, very understaffed and very stressed for dollars as well. So I just wrote down here what's the number of staff they would need in order to fulfill this mission and to actually be able to develop it and implement it. So that would be a question I don't know, but they would have to figure that one out. So this is where Representative Smith is going to take people and dollars and instruction. All right, not that I don't like, I just want to be realistic about what this is involved. There's that, yeah, we've got, you know, the Edison County Court Diversion Program is capacity to be able to do this and the dollars, even if they even if they had dollars, the staffing capacity to do this. I do believe they have a lot of volunteers that go behind it, whether that's good or bad. Yeah, I mean, and if it's anything in this world right now, the volunteers, like, are tough to come by, very, very tough to come by. Okay, we're almost there. Okay. So that fee goes into the special fund that's created in the next section, referral to the judicial bureau. So if an individual issued a notice of violation under Subject A does not satisfactorily comply with the diversion program contract or any other conditions, then the diversion program files the summons and complaints that was previously completed with the judicial bureau, and it's adjudicated. And then it has the same language about providing copy of the summons complaints to the law enforcement officer and copies to the individual charge for violation. So section G is satisfactory compliance with the diversion programs that the individual complies with the diversion program contract that's entered into above and other conditions, then the individual is convicted of the traffic violation, but is only subject to a civil penalty of $1 and to no assessment of points. This was something that came from talking to Sheriff Anderson, where you would still want kind of the marking of the fact that there was this prior violation. So you have the escalation to the second or subsequent in some of the other diversion programs. It's basically like ripped up and thrown away as if it hadn't happened. I don't know, and this would be an interesting question from the insurance perspective, how having that violation, even though it only has a civil penalty of $1 and no assessment of points, what that would do to your insurance, and if that's balanced out by the fact that to get to that point, you would have had to as part of terms of your contract through diversion to have gone through a distracted driving course. And then you're still convicted. And you're still convicted, but in a lot of times you can have as part of either just choosing to get your insurance lowered, you can do a driving course, or I believe sometimes it would be a conviction of a plea related to violations. So again, I think that would be something that's interesting to hear from your Sheriff's Department, your district attorneys, or your state's attorneys, about how that comes into play in terms of whether or not people are given that as a requirement of a plea. And then a piece here, because we're asking people to go through the first program to change their paper. And then we're still going to find them a dollar. The people will not go through the diversion program, because they don't want to worry because of the dollar. That's not the money, it's the mark on the license. So what it is is that you complete it, you do everything you're supposed to, and you are still convicted of the traffic violation. So this was just my experience in another committee, criminals would go to jail through the time rather than they would find it. Oh, no matter what. Because it's a mark. It's a mark. That's first. So they would, so, you know, they could maybe face a fine, a reduction in reduction in sentences. They did this and this, did other things, and they would just say, no, let's do the time. And, you know, they would arrest somebody and they'd get the end, the end on bail, and they would not want to get out because they're getting credit for the time they served prior to their adjudication. So they'd rather just stay in jail. And this is a dollar, but it sparks a lot of interest in me for that same thing. You're still penalizing the person for going through the program. I guess that's my thought. And I think if it would be possible, and I think this would be a question for either law enforcement or the judiciary to have a, because otherwise you could end up in a sort of circular loop where you keep getting convicted of a first violation and then you can go through diversion. Maybe that's something that would be ferreted out with this assessment of your past. Because, like, go five times. So there's support. But Sheriff Anderson was trying to get out with this idea, and this was Sheriff Anderson's idea about the one dollar, was to kind of just create a, like, a mark that then makes it so that you can know if there was that second or subsequent violation in two years. If there would be a way to do it without the conviction, I think you could accomplish the same goal. But could it be a second or subsequent within two years if there hadn't been that prior conviction? Do you need the prior conviction to make it so that you can do a second or subsequent? Maybe you address it by saying, very much thinking out loud here, this is not something that Sheriff Anderson directed me to do on behalf of Representative Smith. You only can participate in diversion once. And you do it based on the record if there is one of having participated in diversion. So yes, maybe you get your clean record thrown away by participating, but the next first you get is not one that would be a diversion eligible. And then that would be the one that would start the clock for your second in a two year or for your second on subsequent. I think you need to think about it and hear from a lot of people who know a lot more about this than I do. All right, we've got about a week and a half, we're good. Okay, so special appeals, they would go under rule 75, which was one of the two rules of civil procedure that have governmental review. 75 is legislative. I was like, okay. And then you've got the creation of the distracted driving diversion program special fund, which I think you might have a lot of money in it because it's just those 50 or $100 fees. And then nine H to get the ball rolling the Vermont. Can I just because of when I put that to was like, okay, so what I just, you know, the the idea of more funds as you've seen is it's a tough one to get through at any at any at any point is to create a new fund. But that but when I said this fund shall be available to the attorney general to enter into memorandums of understanding with diversion programs to say for contractual and operating expenses and bubble all I can think of is all right. So the attorney general needs to be involved. He has to have he or she has to have staff and and or the authority given to them to enter into these memorandums. I don't know if they need legislative authority to actually be able to enter into and expend these funds, which would be a part of their right. They can't just go I have you have access to this without authority to use it and under what circumstances. So all of that would need to have to be spelled out right and the attorney general would have to say, I don't what's your capacity I know that they are they struggle with just like everybody else. What is their time frame or commitment workforce pressure in order to do all of that. Okay. And I would not have gotten that. And that's where I wrote that's those are the notes that I write myself on the side when I read it because I start to see the logistics of, okay, this person is going to need they can't they don't just get they have to have authority and under what circumstances and who are they contracting with and what are the the parameters for them to contract from. And that language could be duplicated from a special fund related to a diversion program and I can go and figure out if that's where it was pulled from. But that would be a ways and means. Ways and means would have to create this fund. Um, I think this would have to go to ways and means has to go to ways and means and then appropriations. I think you're going to need to appropriate money to cover the diversion program. Right. So unless there's information unless there's capacity and the diversion program already. But no authority for them to be able to use those funds in this capacity. So they would I don't know about the authority for diversion programs to exist. It could be that they are authorized to use money for the diversion program and this would be covered as part of that diversion program. I'm just saying that I don't I don't think that diversion program knowing them have been asking every year for more and more money and not getting it has capacity beyond what they actually are doing for work right now. I don't think there's anybody in state government by today that would say, Oh, not a problem. I got a couple three, four hundred thousand dollars for the next year to be able to take this on. They would they would they would need us to be able to provide them with that authority and workforce. Yeah, we got what, half an hour? Sorry, how close are we? Oh, you're almost there. Okay, so you would need to have the Vermont State Highway Safety Office consult with the Department of Public Safety and the Vermont Sheriff's Association to approve at least one driving education program that's sufficient for the diversion program requirements in each county within the state by January 1 of 2023. And then you just have the language updating the recall of the first permit or junior operator's license. Remember how I said that it was one texting violation would yield to a 30 days and 90 days for a single speeding. I didn't mention the single speeding violation because it wasn't clickable here. So this would instead be and I'm on the top of page 14. This was in each 262 as Representative Smith introduced it. If there is a total of at least three points, then it's a 30 day suspension and six points for a 90 day suspension. So getting rid of the concept of recall, getting rid of the concept of one texting violation leads to a 30 day recall. Six points leads to a 90 day recall. This would be three points, 30 days, six points, 90 days. So it's already suspension. It's the equivalent of a suspension for those licenses. And that's it. That's the end of the language. Okay. The diversion program being the really big new piece. The changing the points and the civil penalties, that is very straightforward. That's something this committee has done possibly twice since I've been here maybe just once. So that puts a lot more straightforward and within the, I think, wheelhouse of the transportation committee. I think when you're getting to diversion, you are getting to other committees, other parts of state government, and it's something new. And it is also something that I as the drafter did not really have the base knowledge to put a lot of color to and need more guidance in the drafting of that if you do want more color to go to it. And it's actually an act of. Because when you're creating something from brand new, it really takes a lot of words. It takes a lot of words. I was going to say, also the money, you don't know what the exactly. And now, but okay, sir, you know, in every county, so I start to imagine, all right, so you've got, you've got to set this up. They have to be paid. But there, I believe there already is a diversion program in every county. So that would be a question as to whether or not you're making a new diversion program in each county or just having each diversion program that already exists have a driver education program. So they would have to have within each county, a new driver education program stood up in their county in their diversion program, it could seem up in there. So they're going to need money to do that. And they're going to need authority and direction. And what is a driver education program. So it's like what would be, which maybe they can tell us what it is. So I that's a lot of dollars. And then what if they only get not be a lot of dollars, because diversion is already established in all counties. So an add to that program might not be nothing cheap. Nothing. Yeah. Yeah, so a driver education program. So let's imagine if you were tasked with come up tomorrow and tomorrow you're going to have in this room, you're going to need to have add to your array of things a driver education program on texting. Well, you're going to need to go get a program to be able to understand what you're going to implement. So the diversion program would as part of the contract say you need to go participate in this program. The diversion program wouldn't necessarily need to create the program. And what you have is scroll too fast. I would say the curriculum, they would need to create the curriculum or whatever it is when it says associate shall approve at least one driver education program. So I'm not going to say Highway Safety Office is approving it, not the diversion. Okay, so they would have to approve a program. And I just asked one was it what let's just say I live, I'm just picking on Indiana today. Indiana and I'm here for Florida. Florida may, you know, that's that's looking better and better every day. You don't have to participate in diversion. It's entirely voluntary. Okay, so I'm just going to say like if you're not a vermoner, you're not going to have access to this easily. But you would have access. You might have access. It's like I'm here, a college student is here. They may not be well, they're a resident at that point. All right, I'm just kicking things around, kicking lots of things around. We got lots to do. So the warning, where's the warning? The warning is pull over and just said there isn't a warning. There is a mis-language. There's not a warning. Should there be? No, there's not a warning. Okay, okay, I'll be I'll be good. All right, so that's a lot to chew on. It'll it'll definitely fill our calendar. Yes, sir. I don't want to kill the rest of this baby. I know. I have to be downstairs this morning and watching the Senate and seeing what they're doing and what they're talking about. I'm not sure they have the bandwidth the next two weeks to get anything done period. But this is a this is a great idea. I like it. But it's a major undertaking. And we're talking about putting it in miscellaneous D and B bill. And I don't think that they would take this off at all, just a personal reaction to the amount of testimony required. And in those type of things, I think they would be hard pressed. So I had a conversation with last night with Representative Smith about thinking about this and just maybe a little different way of how we get this at least kicked off the top of the stump. I'm sorry, that's not a transportation. But we'll have to go with that. And not a zoom and not lose the emphasis that the committee seems to seems to have for this. So I think we should continue to take testimony on it with your number one choice. The thought behind us is how can we not lose this or maybe not lose this thought and continue the conversation on a little later on. So frankly, my personal opinion is if we put this in miscellaneous D and B bill, we'll never see a miscellaneous D and B bill again. If we put this in a miscellaneous D and B bill, we'll never see it again. So either strike it or they just will bury the miscellaneous D and B bill if there's too much in it for them to grasp. I don't think it's a complicated bill if it's read. And if Mark Anderson can sit here tomorrow and say, yes, there is a diversion program and it's very simple to structure. If that's the case, great. We'll see where it goes. Well, I think you've made some modifications. I don't see my concern is just on the logistics and the timing and the size and the dollars that it would take to get it done. But the committee has this is your number one choice. So we'll do our due diligence with it. Representative White. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to say speaker. I really do think that this is because it's the committee's number one choice because Representative Smith has spent such an amount of time on this. I do hope that we have it in the D and B miscellaneous bill. If there is an opportunity to make that known to the Senate in a more public way, like to get a temperature check. I understand their conversations that are happening, but I do think it's important for especially the folks that you're working with to know who they need to advocate to to make a case for this this language. So if there are specific angles that we should be working, I would love to have those two transparent for possible so that we have people who care about this be able to speak to the correct people. Well, when Representative Sean, I met with Senator Mazza as we do at this point of the year, you know, and staying in communication with the speaker on this is to like, where are we with bills? How, you know, there's a lot of coordination between the House and the Senate at pay grades way above mine and and that's that are coming to an end point. Okay, so I think we're we're we're working towards meaning the whole House is working towards like a week and a half of having work here or being done with it somewhere in there. So I mean, we can take, I don't I just wanted to point out that this is going to take a lot of testimony and a lot of opportunity with other other committees as well to to get to get to this, get to get through this. And as we have conversations with the Senate, this is our job is to let them know and then we have had discussions with the Senate, my counterpart in the Senate around what are the this committee's top three picks for the DMV bill and have and have made that note. But that's what we do. That's our job. I think, Anthea, thank you. Okay, thank you. And if you can think of anybody else that besides that we've we've got going on here. Great. And that's perfect timing. Rarely are we this good. And I don't think I will see you tomorrow until the afternoon, right? Is that still happening? Correct. You are. I'm looking at my pencil like this whole plan out Monday was perfect. And well, almost perfect. And then and then people were like, no, we don't have opinion. We don't need to come in. So we had some holes. So we rearranged the schedule with a lot of a lot of jumping around. I do appreciate both Anthea and Lori's and the committee's patient with trying to maximize our time at the same time trying to make sure we can get the people right tomorrow. Because Anthea and others now as the Senate closes from April here. Yeah. Yeah. So today's our big day. All right. So if you've got, I know you're working with ANR, you're working, you've got things everybody's working. The main train will hear from the sunset case.