►
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
A
And
I
am
here:
will
you
please
mark
assemblyman
ellison
present
when
he
arrives
I'd
like
to
welcome
everyone
to
today's
meeting
for
the
assembly
committee
on
growth
and
infrastructure?
Today
we
will
be
hearing
three
bills.
All
testimony
will
be
limited
to
two
minutes
and
everyone
is
encouraged
to
submit
their
testimony
in
writing
to
be
included
with
the
record
of
today's
meeting,
which
will
be
uploaded
on
nella's.
A
A
A
Asm.State.Nv.Us
we
have
three
people
in
the
audience
today.
Thank
you
so
much
for
joining
us
here
in
person.
The
committee
is
eager
to
hear
from
you
and
we
will
start
with
a
senate
bill
285
and
welcome
senator
harris
to
assembly
growth
and
infrastructure.
You
were
here
last
week,
but
I
happened
to
be
on
the
other
side
of
the
house
testifying.
So
I
missed
you.
So
it's
good
to
see
you
here
in
person.
C
All
right!
Good
afternoon,
chairman
ro,
moreno
and
committee
members.
I
am
dallas
harris
representing
senate
district
11
in
clark
county.
I
am
presenting
senate
bill
285
in
its
first
reprint,
which
deals
with
bike
safety.
Also,
here
to
present
with
me,
is
former
nevada
state,
senator
justin
jones,
currently
clark
county
commissioner
jones.
C
This
is
great
news
for
the
environment
and
for
public
health,
but
the
question
is:
how
do
we
keep
this
momentum
going?
What
can
we
do
to
keep
people
using
bikes
for
commuting
and
recreation
and
do
it
safely?
Surveys
and
common
sense
tell
us.
People
are
more
likely
to
use
bikes
if
they
feel
safe
and
they
feel
safe
when
there
is
a
dedicated
bike
lane
or
bike
path
separated
from
the
road.
C
Now
let
me
just
walk
you
quickly
through
the
bill's
provision
section,
one
expands
the
curriculum
and
driver
training
courses
to
include
the
rules
of
the
road
and
laws
relating
to
bikes
and
pedestrians.
Too
many
drivers
are
not
familiar
with
the
rights
of
bicyclists
and
pedestrians
and
informed
drivers
make
the
roads
safer.
C
Section
3
clarifies
that
bicyclists
and
e-scooters
do
not
have
to
ride
to
the
far
right
of
the
road
if
there
are
surface
hazards
or
objects
in
the
way
or
if
the
travel
lane
is
too
narrow
to
safely
fit
both
a
bike
and
a
vehicle.
These
proposed
changes
to
our
bike.
Laws
were
based
in
part
on
model
legislation
from
the
league
of
american
bicyclists
and
have
been
used
in
other
states.
C
C
The
bill
also
makes
a
subtle
update
to
the
list
of
users
to
be
more
inclusive.
Please
note
that
I
use
the
words
continue
to
work
toward,
because
complete
streets
policies
are
currently
in
use
all
over
nevada.
We
just
need
to
do
more.
Madam
chair.
That
concludes
my
remarks
and
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions,
but
before
I
do
so,
I'd
like
to
turn
over
the
remainder
of
the
presentation
to
commissioner
jones
who'll
speak
to
the
importance
of
the
bill
at
the
local
level
and
to
the
biking
community.
A
D
D
I
want
to
thank
senator
harris
for
allowing
me
the
opportunity
to
work
with
her
on
sb
285,
something
that
I
hold
near
and
dear
to
my
heart.
Sb285
was
drafted
in
consultation
with
cycling
and
pedestrian
safety
advocates
and
reflects
model
language
from
the
league
of
american
bicyclists.
The
national
complete
streets
coalition,
as
senator
harris
described
sb285,
accomplishes
three
important
objectives
to
improve
safety
for
cyclists,
pedestrians
and
other
roadway
users.
D
First,
the
bill
adds
a
requirement
for
driver
schools
to
include
instruction
on
the
rules
of
the
road
relating
to
pedestrians
and
cyclists.
It
clarifies
the
rules
of
the
road
when
it
comes
to
cyclists
and
motorists
in
the
roadway
specifying
circumstances
when
a
cyclist
may
ride
in
the
roadway
for
safety
reasons.
And
finally,
the
bill
updates
provisions
related
to
complete
streets
to
ensure
that
all
users
of
the
roadway
and
of
all
ages,
including
pedestrians
and
cyclists,
are
considered
in
the
design
of
roadways.
D
The
rtc
serves
as
the
metropolitan
planning
organization
for
southern
nevada,
as
mpo
rtc
has
also
prioritized
multimodal
transportation,
complete
streets,
design,
elements,
funding
for
multi-use
paths
and
infrastructure
and
cycling
and
pedestrian
safety.
Sb285
aligns
with
the
rtc's
priorities,
also
the
southern
nevada,
regional
planning
coalition,
oversees
the
regional,
open
space
and
trails
program
which
plans
connected
bike
and
pedestrian
trails
throughout
the
south
valley.
Sb
285
would
advance
the
goals
of
the
regional,
open
space
and
trails
program.
D
D
Sp
285
won't
solve
all
these
issues
we
face
when
it
comes
to
safety
for
cyclists,
pedestrians
and
other
vulnerable,
your
road
users,
but
it
is
an
important
step
forward,
and
I
again
I'm
just
grateful
that
senator
harris
was
was
able
to
put
this
bill
forward
and
grateful
for
your
time
and
would
ask
for
your
support.
Thank
you.
A
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank
you
senator
harris.
First,
I
really
sincerely
have
to
say
thank
you
for
bringing
this
bill
forward
and
for
working
with
commissioner
jones
on
this.
As
an
avid
cyclist
in
my
community,
the
roadway
is
something
that
I
share,
often
over
a
thousand
miles.
Last
year
alone,
my
question
is
relative
to
the
complete
streets
program
and
I
have
long
been
an
advocate
and
proponent
of
complete
streets
and
often
asked
questions
when
we
do
our
planning
relative
to
where
were
complete
streets
in
the
planning
process
of
many
of
our
roadway
construction
items.
C
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Assemblywoman
you
through
chair
monroe,
moreno
I've
had
discussions
with
the
department
of
transportation,
as
well
as
the
southern
nevada
regional
transportation
center.
Is
that
what
the
c
stands
for
in
rtc,
commission,
regional
taxation,
commission
and
and
have
assured
them
that
this
bill
would
not
substantially
change
the
complete
streets
program
as
it
stands
today.
C
C
I
think
you
bring
up
a
great
point
and
at
some
point,
if
I
have
another
bill,
maybe
next
session,
to
reform
the
program
completely
I'd
be
more
than
willing
to
look
into
that,
but
thus
far,
this
program
has
been
mainly
local,
driven,
as
you
can
see
in
in
the
statute.
Our
our
reference
is
fairly
sparse
here
in
state
statute.
C
E
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so,
if
what
I'm,
if
I'm
reading
this
correctly,
this
is
a
this-
is
a
mechanism
to
to
utilize
a
complete
street
in
a
more
effective
way.
Is
that
what
we're
looking
at
here,
I
I'm
trying
to
I'm
trying
to
make
the
connection
if
you
could
help
me
out
there,
and
I
have
a
question
if
you,
if
you
can
help
me
with
that
real
quick.
C
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
So
much
so
as
far
as
the
complete
streets
program
just
keep
in
mind,
that's
one
out
of
a
couple
of
pieces
in
this
bill
right,
but
in
relation
to
that,
you
can
see
in
section
four.
What
we're
doing
is
we're
just
trying
to
make
it
a
bit
more
explicit,
a
bit
more
clear
right
to
the
extent
practicable.
C
It
is
my
understanding
that
in
most
parts
of
the
state
they're
doing
this
fairly
well,
but
that
may
not
be
the
case
uniformly
across
the
state
and
so
we're
making
that
a
bit
more
explicit,
and
it
is
my
hope
that
this,
along
with
the
additional
education
and
driving
classes
and
along
with
the
additional
guidance
on
when
it's
okay
to
cross
lanes
and
when
it's
okay
to
ride
in
one
lane,
will
all
together
lead
to
safer
roads
for
for
everyone
who
uses
them
not
just
bicyclists.
F
Thank
you
for
that
clarification.
So,
just
just
for
transparency.
I've
I've
worked
for
the
rtc
for
13
years
and
have
touched
complete
streets
in
every.
You
know,
in
every
manner
that
you
could
probably
from
outreach
to
to
to
to
being
boulder
city
parkway,
which
was
you
previously
u.s
95,
is
the
largest
complete
street
in
this
in
the
state
and
it
just
completed
a
year
or
two
ago.
F
But
my
concern
is:
is
that
that
complete
street
boulder
city
parkway.
F
Is
not
utilized
very
effectively
for
cycling
traffic,
they
they
don't
tend
to
use
it
all
that
much,
and
so,
although
I'm,
I
have
a
very
a
very
soft
heart
to
the
complete
streets
project,
having
dedicated
a
lot
of
my
life
to
it,
forcing
or
or
mandating
that
that
that
we
do
that
sometimes
like
unless
you
can,
unless
you
can,
unless
we
can
narrow
down
what,
if
applicable,
means
or
to
the
extent
possible
means
because
you
know
having
having
you
know,
a
contractor
have
to
do
a
certain
thing
on
a
certain
street
where
it's
in
their
mind
may
not
be
applicable
or
may
not
be
possible
or
to
the
extent
possible,
but
is
there
somewhere
in
the
here
that
we
can
kind
of
narrow
that
down?
C
Thank
you
for
the
question
assembleman-levitt.
I
would
be
more
than
happy
to
put
on
the
record
that
there
is
no
intention
for
this
bill
to
require
anyone
to
go
back
and
dig
up
any
streets
that
are
already
built
so
to
the
extent
practicable
does
not
include
having
to
start
a
new
project
that
you
were
not
already
planning
on
doing.
I'd
also
like
to
to
note
that
really
this
is
about
design
and
planning
and
keeping
these
folks
in
mind
when
you
are
designing
and
planning
and
then
eventually
constructing
the
projects.
C
There
is
no
requirement
that
you
ultimately
decide.
It
makes
sense
to
put
a
bike
lane
here.
If
it
doesn't
make
sense,
it
doesn't
make
sense
right
whether
that
be
because
there's
not
enough
biking,
traffic
or
because
you
maybe
you'd
have,
to
you
know,
take
someone's
property
and
create
a
whole
new
right
of
way.
C
I
I
think
that
you
know,
as
as
you
mentioned,
the
rtc
and
other
entities
are
are
well
versed
in
in
the
ability
to
decide
when
it
makes
sense
to
add
in
a
little
bit
of
extra
roadway
for
bicycling
and
when
it
may
not.
And
I
I
will
leave
that
to
continue
to
be
in
their
hands.
A
Thank
you
and
thank
you
for
the
answer
to
that
question.
We
can't
always
put
into
legislation
every
specific
part
of
everything
that
might
happen,
but
putting
it
on
the
record
what
the
actual
legislative
intent
matters
for
future
legislators
that
come
through
this
building
when
we're
not
in
these
seats.
I
appreciate
you're
doing
that.
Next,
we'll
have
assemblyman
miller.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank
you
senator
for
the
bill
protecting
our
streets
and
our
bicyclists
quick
question
regarding
the
language
in
here,
and
I
know
I
see
that
it's
existing
language
as
far
as,
what's
electric
bicycles,
I'm
just
kind
of
curious
as
we
move,
you
know
vehicles
to
more
electric
things.
I
I
realize
that
there's
probably
a
very
distinct
difference
between
a
motorcycle
and
a
bicycle,
but
now
with
motorcycles,
potentially
not
having
motors
and
not
having
electric
or
battery
power.
C
Thank
you
for
the
question
assemblyman
miller.
I've
got
good
news
for
you.
If
you
just
hang
on,
we've
got
a
bill
on
electric
bicycles,
miss
fisher
in
the
back.
There
is
going
to
run
through
what
we're
proposing
on
regulating
electric
bicycles
in
a
sense
right,
creating
separate
classes,
and
that
would
allow
them
to
fit
into
existing
roadway
laws,
and
so
what
you
would
see
is
the
bill.
C
383
would
work
in
conjunction
here
and
where
electric
bicycles,
based
upon
how
fast
they
go,
where
they're
allowed
to
be
used,
whether
it
be
the
sidewalk
or
the
road,
would
continue
to
to
be
true.
Once
we
pass
this
legislation.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
senator
I
apologize
for
being
late.
I
got
stuck
on
a
conference
call,
but
I
do
have
a
few
questions
and,
and
I'm
kind
of
glad
you
you
did
address
under
section
four
population
or
a
hundred
thousand
above,
and
I
do
have
a
couple
of
questions
that
it
right
at
the
moment.
It
won't
have
a
physical
note,
but
eventually
you
know
as
they're
building
roads
they
expanded.
H
H
I
wouldn't
ride
a
bicycle
or
my
motorcycle
in
las
vegas,
so
I
mean
I
just
don't
do
it,
but
but
could
you
address
some
of
the
concerns
that
I
did
have
and
and
but
I
I
I
think
this
was
very
informational.
C
Thank
you
for
the
question
of
simon
ellison
for
the
record.
I
did
ride
my
motorcycle
in
las
vegas.
I
I
did
for
quite
some
time.
It
is
quite
dangerous,
but
that's
a
whole
nother
discussion.
I
think
that
we,
we
probably
need
to
have
I'm
hoping
that,
with
this
bill,
we
can
get
more
folks
riding
their
bicycles
on
the
road
in
las
vegas
and
doing
so
safely.
C
It
is
my
understanding
that
ndot
is
one
of
the
leaders
in
the
state
already
working
in
the
complete
streets
framework
and
taking
this
into
consideration
and
in
my
discussions
with
them,
they
did
not
see
any
fiscal
impact,
as
this
bill
does
not
require
them
to,
let's
say,
put
a
bike
lane
on
every
road.
Moving
forward
really
is
just
about
taking
these
things
into
consideration,
planning
a
bit
more
deliberately
to
take
all
of
the
different
modes
of
transportation,
into
consideration.
H
C
You're
welcome.
Thank
you
so
much
assemblyman
ellison,
I
think
you
know
the
driver
safety
portion
of
this
bill
is,
is
a
key
piece
to
address
that.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
more
of
a
comment
than
a
question,
and
I
just
want
to
say
first
senator
thank
you
for
bringing
this
forward
with
my
time
at
metro.
You
know
we're
we
suffer
from
great
roads
and
you
know
nice.
Six,
eight
lane
roads
in
las
vegas,
with
45
mile
an
hour,
speed
limits
that
sometimes
people
go
much
further
than
that.
Crosswalks
are
you
know
at
each
intersection
and
and
we
lose
a
lot
of
people
to
pedestrian
accidents
in
vegas
and
we've.
B
B
You
know
he
is
okay,
but
it's
unfortunate
that
we
we
lose
lives
on
our
roadways
every
year.
I'll
go
back
to
our
officer,
don
alberts
that
lost
his
life
at
red
rock
loop.
We've
made
some
improvements
since
then.
We
finally
put
in
a
a
a
bike,
a
bike
path
out
there,
so
this
is
really
forward
thinking
legislation.
I
really
appreciate
you
bringing
forward
and
I'll
fully
support
it.
C
Thank
you
sibling.
I
got
a
couple
other
bills
that
you
might
want
to
support
too.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
just
had
a
quick
question
in
some
of
the
sections
where
you're
updating
the
definition
of
the
complete
streets
program,
just
as
one
example
section,
four
subsection,
four
included
in
the
bill,
movers
of
commercial
goods-
and
I
was
wondering
if
you
could
just
provide
a
little
bit
detail
on
why
that
was
added
along
with
some
of
the
the
other
clarifications
that
were
contemplated.
A
J
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
susan
fisher
with
mcdonald,
carano,
testifying
today
on
behalf
of
people
for
bikes
and
that's
an
international
organization,
a
trade
organization
that
is
that
represents
bicycle
manufacturers,
bicycle
vendors,
the
parts
and
pieces
that
there
are
the
oem
products
that
go
onto
bikes
afterwards.
We
do
support
sb
285,
and
we
appreciate
senator
harris
bringing
forth
this
bill
and
also
accepting
a
couple
of
amendments
that
we
made
over
on
the
senate
side.
Some
suggested
amendments
that
are
now
incorporated
into
what
you
have
in
the
revised
bill.
J
We
are
very
pleased
that
she
included
e-bikes
in
the
bill.
The
proposed
changes
are
very
positive
and
they
would
align
nevada
with
what
most
organizations
consider
the
best
practices
in
where
to
ride
statutes.
Therefore,
we
support
it.
I
will
just
mention
to
for
mr
ellis's
sake
when
we're
talking
about
e-bikes
we're
not
talking
about
electric
motorcycles.
There
are
certain
wattage
capacities
that
that
e-bikes
fall
under
and
that's
what
we're
working
on
with
another
bill
that
you'll
hear
here
today.
So
they
don't
e-bikes
do
not
include
the
razors.
J
A
A
K
L
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
christy
cabrera,
c-h-r-I-s-t-I
c-a-b-r-e-r-a
and
I'm
the
policy
and
advocacy
director
for
the
nevada
conservation
league
here
in
support
of
sc
285.
Providing
funding
for
complete
streets
was
a
priority
of
the
nevada
conservation
league
during
the
2013
session.
We
strongly
believe
that
expanding
complete
streets
programs
will
have
great
benefits
to
our
communities
and
our
state
sb
285
will
allow
our
state
to
move
towards
creating
a
safer
environment
for
pedestrians,
cyclists,
motorists
and
transit
riders.
L
Expanding
bicycle
and
pedestrian
infrastructure
will
also
encourage
people
to
leave
their
cars
behind
reducing
traffic
and
pollution.
Overall,
we
believe
this
bill
will
help
make
our
communities
more
safe,
accessible
and
enjoyable
for
everyone,
we'd
like
to
thank
senator
harris
for
bringing
this
bill
forward,
and
we
urge
the
committee
support.
Thank
you.
K
M
Yes,
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
the
publisher,
testifying
for
the
record.
My
name
is
dr
deborah
cool.
That's
d-e-b-o.
M
I
would
like
to
refer
the
committee
members
to
a
handout
that
you
should
have
access
to,
that
is
entitled
complete
streets
policies,
nevada,
poland,
nevada,
the
top
half
of
that
handout
is
based
upon
national
data
and
based
upon
that
national
data,
we
see
that
complete
street
policies
decrease
the
risk
of
death
for
both
cyclists
and
pedestrians,
and
those
are
significant
in
the
state
of
florida.
They
estimate
that
over
three
decades,
3
500
live
pedestrian.
M
C
M
Part
of
the
grass
the
the
dark
portion
indicates
very
serious
injuries.
We
also
see
a
very
similar
trend
in
ped
cyclists
in
the
bottom
to
the
right.
There's,
a
graph
that
gives
the
age
distribution
what's
important
is
that
pedestrians
have
2.5
times
greater
risk
of
death
and
1.4
times
greater
risk
of
needing
skilled
or
nursing
inpatient,
rehab
other
than
compared
to
other
road
users,
and
many
of
these
never
return
to
their
priority
quality
of
life.
Ms
school,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity.
Yeah
thank.
A
You
so
much
if
there's
more
to
your
testimony,
if
you
would
send
that
to
us
email
that
to
us,
we
can
get
it
to
all
the
members
on
our
committee,
and
I
thank
you
so
much
for
joining
us
today.
With
your
with
your
comments
on
this
bill.
K
L
L
L
But
it's
still
critical
to
continue
to
build
a
multi-modal
transportation
system
statewide
in
which
biking,
walking
and
other
inexpensive
healthy
low
carbon
emitting
travel
modes
are
safe,
supported
and
encouraged.
We
understand
that
more
people
of
more
varied
ages
and
abilities
will
start
or
continue
to
walk
and
bike
when
safer
streets
are
provided
through
programs
like
complete
streets.
L
L
K
N
H-E-A-T-H-E-R-F-I-S-H-E,
I
am
the
president
of
save
redrock
and
also
owner
of
las
vegas
cyclery.
I
am
calling
to
support
sb
285
and
to
express
my
appreciation
for
the
work
that
was
done
in
putting
this
bill
together.
It's
nice,
when
a
bill,
that's
written
for
a
particular
public
which,
in
this
case
is
vulnerable
road
users
is,
is
counseled
with
those
actual
road
users.
So
we
appreciate
that
that
that
is
really
great.
N
We
like
that
it
is
about
awareness
and
education
rather
than
restrictions,
so
we're
all
for
it
and
and
there's
a
lot
more
bikers
out
on
the
road,
a
lot
more
hikers
a
lot
more
people
out
enjoying
the
great
outdoors,
especially
since
the
pandemic,
and
so
they
are
here
and
we
can't
close
our
eyes
and
pretend
they're
not
so
this
is
really
important.
I
love
how
this
bill
revises
the
driver's
education
to
include
laws
relating
to
cyclists
and
pedestrian
safety.
N
I'd
like
to
clarify
the
three
foot
move
over
law,
which
a
lot
of
people
don't
even
know
about
so
passing.
Another
bill
just
helps
to
bring
awareness
and
education
to
that
cause.
It
also
clarifies
that
the
coalition
between
a
motor
vehicle
and
necklace
is
a
violation
of
the
street
football
move
over
law
and
it
provides
provisions
for
quincy
streets.
We
are
supportive
of
all
of
these
aspects
of
this
law
and
we
appreciate
the
consultation
of
vulnerable
road
users
when
creating
a
law
for
road
users.
Thank
you.
K
A
K
L
L
I
represent
the
nevada
disability
production
coalition,
I'm
in
neutral
only
because
I
didn't
have
much
time
to
read
the
amendments,
but
I
do
support
some
of
the
points
on
the
bill,
the
multimodal
advantage
for
all
types
of
people,
every
type
of
people
as
a
person
who
is
blind
and
walk
a
lot
with
a
service
dog.
L
I
just
want
the
bike
riders
to
know
how
to
interact
when
coming
across
a
person
who
cannot
see
when
they
say
on
your
left.
You
know
they.
They
need
to
understand
that
they're
going
they're
on
my
left,
not
there
just
I
had
some
collision.
So
thank
you.
So
much
have
a
great
afternoon
bye-bye.
A
A
C
A
A
288,
I
believe
we
have
mr
walker,
who
will
be
joining
us
virtually.
Maybe
a
few
people
join
us
virtually
on
this
bill
as
soon
as
you're
ready
the
floor
is
yours.
O
Thank
you,
chair
monroe
mourinho
good
afternoon,
members
of
the
assembly
growth
infrastructure
committee.
We
thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
discuss
senate
bill
288,
I'm
sam
wimpey
for
the
record
director
of
government
relations
and
public
policy
emotional.
O
O
Emotional
has
been
fortunate
to
achieve
several
key
company
milestones
and
indeed
industry
achievements
right
here
in
nevada.
Our
history
in
the
state
began
in
2018,
with
our
las
vegas
technical
center
opening
and
followed
later
that
year,
with
a
public
autonomous
vehicle
pilot
with
lyft
in
las
vegas.
O
That
pilot
is
the
world's
longest
running
public
autonomous
vehicle
service
and
in
2020
we
service
our
100
000th
ride
on
the
pilot.
It
has
led
to
critical
insights
into
the
consumer
experience
and
has
helped
build
operational
knowledge
across
vehicles,
infrastructure
and
utilization
to
support
this
increase
in
r
d.
Our
facility
in
las
vegas
has
now
grown
to
over
250
employees.
O
O
As
I
explained,
our
vehicle
operators
need
to
remain
employees
even
as
they
monitor
vehicles
used
in
commercial
pilots
such
as
the
one
we
have
with
lyft.
This
type
of
challenge
we're
discussing
the
payment
of
a
vehicle
monitor
of
an
autonomous
vehicle
is
not
one
that
was
anticipated.
As
the
rules
were
developed,
it
was
assumed
that
there
would
be
a
step
change
once
the
technology
was
ready.
Everything
would
be
fully
autonomous.
O
O
The
proposal
we
are
discussing
here
today
resolve
some
of
those
challenges
and
helps
nevada
continue
to
be
a
leader
in
the
future
of
transportation
technology,
we're
very
proud
of
what
we've
built
in
nevada
and
when
it
is
safe
to
do
so,
hopefully
very
soon,
we'd
be
honored
to
show
all
of
you
around
our
facility
and
our
fleet
operations.
I
will
now
turn
it
over
to
matt
walker,
who
will
step
through
the
section
by
section.
Thank
you.
P
Thanks,
sam
and
good
afternoon,
chairman
moreno
and
committee
members,
my
name
is
matt
walker
for
the
record,
and
I'm
pleased
to
be
with
you
this
afternoon
on
behalf
of
emotional,
to
walk
briefly
through
a
section
by
section
of
senate
bill
288,
section
2
of
senate
bill
288
defines
a
monitored
autonomous
vehicle.
This
differentiates
an
autonomous
vehicle
service
where
a
vehicle
operator
safety
engineer
is
present
from
a
fully
autonomous
service
that
would
fall
under
the
battery
ride
statutes.
Chapter
706b,
section
3
of
the
bill,
defines
an
autonomous
vehicle
provider.
P
Motional
would
fall
under
this
definition
of
an
autonomous
vehicle
provider
as
they
own
the
technology
of
the
autonomous
taxi
service
and
hired
the
safety
engineer,
who
provides
the
in-person
monitoring
of
the
vehicle.
Section
four
defines
a
safety
engineer.
This
is
the
person
behind
the
wheel
of
an
autonomous
taxi
and
builds
the
bridge
between
the
current
definition
of
driver
in
706a
and
the
driverless
environment
of
706b.
P
Section
5
allows
tnc's
to
enter
into
partnerships
with
autonomous
vehicle
providers.
This
construct
is
important
because
it
retains
the
existing
regulatory
oversight
for
the
tnc,
while
allowing
for
the
best
practice
model
of
the
technology
partner.
Providing
the
technology
or
and
safety
engineer,
section
5
subsection
2
allows
for
the
safety
engineer
to
be
employed
by
the
autonomous
vehicle
provider.
The
current
regulatory
statutory
construct
does
not
allow
anyone
other
than
the
tnc
to
pay
drivers.
P
In
conclusion,
I
would
just
like
to
say
that
we
initially
initially
worked
with
senator
harris
on
a
much
narrower
change
to
706
a
to
ensure
that
most
emotional
paying
its
employees
did
not
violate
anti-kickback
provisions
that
require
drivers
only
be
paid
by
a
tnc
as
a
result
of
many
conversations
with
asher
killian
with
the
legislative
council
bureau,
who
has
extensive
experience
with
chapter
706,
a
and
706
b,
as
well
as
dialogue
with
the
nevada,
transportation
authority,
commissioners
and
other
tnc
stakeholders
over
the
past
several
months.
P
I
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair.
Thank
you
for
the
presentation.
I
had
a
couple
of
hopefully
quick
questions.
One
and
you
know
I
have
had
the
opportunity
to
see
some
of
the
these
technologies
being
deployed,
and
it
is
very
impressive
and
excited
to
see
these
things
continuing
to
progress.
I
So
I'd
just
like
to
start
by
saying
that,
and
hopefully
we
don't
end
up
in
these
types
of
situations,
but
if
there
were
a
collision
or
an
accident
to
occur,
how
do
the
provisions
of
this
bill
handle
responsibility
for
for
such
an
incident,
given
the
the
unique
kind
of
situation
where
there'll
be
autonomous
technology
in
effect,
but
then
also
an
engineer
or
a
trained
person
in
the
vehicle
monitoring
it
as
it's
in
use.
P
Matt
walker
for
the
record
on
behalf
of
emotional
and
thank
you,
assemblyman
watts,
for
the
great
question,
because
it's
it's
really
important
that
this
be
clear
on
the
record
for
purposes
of
insurance.
In
the
case
of
a
collision,
the
safety
engineer
is
is
functioning
as
the
driver
and
the
technology
monitored.
P
Autonomous
vehicle
technology
provider
will
be
providing
the
insurance
that
would
typically
be
associated
with
a
driver
and
a
tnc
platform
as
a
as
a
backstop
for
these
incidents,
the
tnc
itself
also
covers
a
very
it
carries
a
very
significant
insurance
policy
and
that
policy
would
supplement
any
any
coverage
of
that
primary
insurance
covered
by
the
driver.
But
sam
did
you
have
anything
else,
you'd
like
to
add
to
the
record
on
that.
O
Thank
you,
sam
wimpy,
for
the
record,
I
think
all
of
matt's
points
you
know
spoke
to
the
the
issue
at
hand
very
clearly.
This
bill
is
designed
to
promote
autonomous
vehicle
innovation
and
development
in
nevada
it
doesn't,
it
doesn't
touch
any
of
the
existing
liability
or
insurance
requirements.
It
does
clarify
them
just
to
make
sure
that
you
know
as
we're
as
we
have
autonomous
monitor
autonomous
vehicles.
They
are,
there
are
no
gaps
in
the
existing
requirements.
I
Thank
you
for
that,
so
just
following
up,
but
making
sure
that
I'm
clear
on
this,
so
essentially
the
the
same
framework
would
apply.
That
currently
applies
to
tncs
that
are
not
deploying
autonomous
technology,
and
so,
regardless
of
of
what
happened,
whether,
ultimately,
with
that
person
conducting
monitoring
the
responsibility,
would
ultimately
lie
with
them,
and
so
then
the
same
coverage
requirements
that
exist
for
tnc
drivers
and
then
the
same
backstop
coverage
required
by
tnc
companies
is
essentially
what
is
being
applied
in
the
case
of
a
monitored
autonomous
vehicle
provider.
Is
my
understanding
correct?
I
P
Matt
walker
for
the
record
on
behalf
of
motional
again
assuming
watch.
Thank
you
for
the
for
the
question
and
opportunity
to
clarify
that
that
is
correct.
I
I
wouldn't
want
the
committee
to
walk
away
with
the
assumption
that
only
those
state
minimums
are
carried
by
motional.
There
are
very
significant
insurance
requirements
in
482a,
including
a
minimum
of
five
million
dollar
policy
for
any
autonomous
vehicle
company,
that's
deployed
and
doing
testing
on
nevada's
public
streets,
and
so
there
certainly
is
additional
coverage
out
there.
P
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank
you
for
bringing
this
forward.
I
I
got
some
briefings
on
the
bill
and
it
seems
pretty
pretty
clear-cut.
I
just
had
one
one
quick
question:
you
define
in
section
four
what
a
safety
engineer
is,
and
I
don't
believe
this
is
your
intent,
but
I
just
like
to
put
it
on
the
record:
it's
not
your
intent
that
this
person
be
a
licensed
professional
engineer
that
would
be
regulated
by
the
state
board
of
professional
engineers
and
surveyors
correct.
P
Matt
walker,
on
behalf
of
emotional,
for
the
record,
assemblyman
roberts.
Thank
you
for
the
question
that
that
is
correct,
and
this
was
the
subject
of
probably
much
more
debate
than
than
necessary,
but
vehicle
operator
safety
engineer
there
there's
many
different
terminology-
and
this
is
is
ultimately
what
we
settled
on,
as
is
most
reflective
of
the
role
of
of
the
safety
engineer
in
the
vehicle
and
certainly
do
not
intend
to
conflate
it
with
any
professional
licensure
that
other
engineers
may
carry
in
the
state.
B
A
Thank
you
so
much
for,
for
that,
just
to
be
clear
if
there
was
a
an
accident,
minor,
fender,
bender
or
person
crossing
the
street
and
was
hit
by
this
vehicle,
who
would
they
go
after
for
remedy
the
the
engineer
sitting
in
the
car
or
the
tnc
company
that
owns
the
car
or
deploying
the
car
or
both.
P
Thank
you
for
the
question
chairman
mourinho
matt
walker,
for
the
record
on
behalf
of
emotional
I'll,
have
sam
olympia,
also
chime
in
on
this,
but
essentially
in
the
case
of
a
fender
bender,
and
I
believe
section
22.3
outlines
some
of
the
timelines
and
actions
here.
P
Any
lawsuit
that
results,
whether
it's
for
personal
injury
or
damage
to
another
vehicle,
would
initiate,
with
the
driver
in
this
case
insured
by
emotional
and
would
of
course,
have
the
supplemental
insurance
and
secondary
insurance
coverage
of
the
minimum
1.5
million
dollar
policy
from
the
tnc
that's
operating
in
partnership
with
motional
but
sam.
I
don't
know
if
there's
anything
else
to
add
there.
O
Thank
you
for
the
question
chair
monroe
mourinho,
sam
wenbee,
for
the
record.
The
only
additional
thing
I
would
add
here
is
that,
because
these
are
still
going
to
be
monitored,
autonomous
vehicles,
the
driver
for
all
is,
is
the
driver
once
you
get
into
the
kind
of
fully
autonomous
systems
and
the
driver
is,
is
defined
as
the
software
system
and
the
technology.
O
I
think
you
start
to
get
into
some
different
situations,
but
for
all
intents
and
purposes
the
driver,
the
individual
monitoring
autonomous
vehicle,
would
be
considered
the
driver
in
any
situation
or
there's
involving
an
accident.
Although
you
know
the
actual
facts
and
circumstances
of
a
given,
fender
bender
would
obviously
determine
you
know
the
the
flow
of
some
of
those
things,
but
that
would
be
the
the
individual
that
would
be
submitting
the
insurance
paperwork.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
for
the
answer,
and
I
just
have
one
other
question
kind
of
piggybacking
on
what
assemblyman
roberts
had
asked
in
section
4,
where
you
have
the
definition
for
safety
engineer,
could
you
tell
us
how
you
determined
that
it
should
be
engineer
and
not
operator
him
by
him
asking
that
question
to
make
the
distinct
about?
What
is
an
engineer
and,
what's
not
an
engineer,
did
you
think
of
any
other
term
that
could
have
been
used
instead
of
the
word
engineer
in
that
section.
P
Matt
walker
for
the
record
on
behalf
of
emotional,
since
I
already
gave
you
my
the
committee,
my
thoughts
I'll,
let
sam
jump
in
and
see
if
there's
anything
else,
he
can
add
from
his
experience
in
other
states
and
around
the
world.
O
Thank
you,
sam
wimpy,
for
the
record
and
thank
you
for
the
question
chair
monroe
mourinho.
It
is
it's
it's
unfortunate
there.
There
is
some
confusion
with
the
terminology
there.
I
think
this
is
such
a
new
industry
that
there
are
a
lot
of
these
definitions
are
in
flux
it
it.
It
is
a
definition
that
is
used
in
other
jurisdictions.
It's
one
we've
encountered
in
singapore
as
well,
where
we
also
have
operations,
so
we
felt
it
the
most
appropriate
to
continue
to
apply
it.
O
I
the
the
point
that
these
are
not
licensed
engineers
the
same
way
that
would
be
regulated
for
civil
engineers
and
others
in
that
field.
Make
sense.
However,
these
individuals
are
highly
trained
and
they
do
go
through.
You
know
numerous
weeks
of
training
and-
and
there
is
internal
certifications
that
we
that
they
continue
to
go
through
even
after
they've
done
their
initial
onboarding,
just
to
make
sure
that
they
are,
you
know,
stay
fresh
and
are
up
to
date
on
all
the
best
practices
when
it
comes
to
being
a
safety
engineer.
P
And
matt
walker
for
the
record,
madam
chair,
if
I
may,
I
would
just
add
that
there's
other
nomenclature
like
vehicle
operators,
but
then
you
run
into
some
confusion
about
operators
versus
operating
in
the
case
of
a
traffic
incident,
and
so
we,
we
really
did
spend
quite
a
bit
of
time
with
lcb,
and
this
is
what
we
landed
on.
But
I
certainly
think
that
there's
not
a
standard
out
there
internationally
that
we
could
point
to
in
terms
of
the
labeling
of
this
employee.
A
G
Yes,
thank
you
chair
just
a
quick
question.
When
these
vehicles
are
when
they
are
operating
with
the
tnc,
how
are
the
engineers
or
operators
paid?
Are
they
paid
per
ride?
Are
they
paid
for
the
entire
time
that
they
are
operating
the
vehicle.
P
Matt
walker
for
the
record
on
behalf
of
motional.
Thank
you
for
the
question
assemblyman
miller
sam.
Would
you
mind
taking
that
one.
O
Thank
you,
sam
wimpy,
for
the
record
assemblyman
miller.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
question.
I
think
the
what
you're
getting
at
here
is
actually
the
fundamental
challenge
that
was
kind
of
the
the.
What
got
this
bill
started
is
that,
under
the
current
regulatory
scheme,
the
the
drivers
of
a
typical
tnc,
you
know
if
you
were
to
hail
a
lift
or
an
uber.
You
know
they're
they're,
contract
workers,
they're
paid
by
by
ride,
makes
total
sense
in
that
situation.
O
For
for
our
situation,
when
these
are
monitored
autonomous
vehicles,
these
are
our
employees
and
they're
full-time
employees
of
emotionals.
Because
of
all
the
reasons
that
I
I
just
previously
outlined,
with
regards
to
the
the
in-depth
training
that
they
go
through
so
for
when
it
comes
to
monitoring
autonomous
vehicles,
emotional
pays
them.
They
are
paid
a
full-time
salary,
there's
healthcare
benefits
and
all
the
other
benefits
that
go
along
with
being
a
full-time
employee
that
when,
for
this
the
particular
pilots
we
have
been
operating,
they're
not
paid
on
a
per
ride
basis.
O
There
are.
There
is
a
transaction
between
emotional
and
lyft,
and
I
won't
get
into
that.
But
for
the
purposes
of
driver
pay,
they
are
paid
as
full-time
employees
by
emotional.
P
And
matt
walker
for
the
record
mountain
chair,
if
I
may
just
chime
in
that,
that
tips
are
also
not
an
interaction
that
these
safety
engineers
have
with
the
customer.
So
it
truly
is
just
their
salary
and
they're
not
compensated
based
on
whether
a
ride
is
more
profitable
or
or
tips
or
any
other
transactions.
You
might
typically
think
of
in
determining
driver
pay
for
a
tnc.
G
Thank
you,
so
have
you
all
seen
the
I
guess
the
cost
to
the
consumer?
Is
it
higher
or
lower,
based
on
these
operators
being
full-time
employees
versus
contracted.
P
Drivers,
thank
you
for
the
question.
Matt
walker,
for
the
record
sam.
If
you
could
take
this
one
as
well.
O
Thank
you,
assemblyman
miller,
that's
a
very
good
question.
Sam
might
be
for
the
record.
I
can't
speak
to
lyft
as
a
separate
company.
I
can't
speak
to
their
pricing,
so
I
can't
answer
in
in
specifics.
The
intent
here
is
these
the
user
experience.
O
I
should
say
when
an
individual
is
getting
a
ride
in
one
of
these
vehicles
they're
they
open
up
the
lyft
application
and
they
have
an
opportunity
to
opt
in
to
this
this
pilot,
and
should
they
choose
to
opt
in
there's
a
chance
that
they
get
matched
like
any
other
lift
ride
to
an
autonomous
vehicle,
and
it
is,
you
know,
they're
not
charged
a
premium
or
are
substantially
lower
price.
As
far
as
I
am
aware,
so
it's
it's.
O
This
is
very
much
a
as
you
can
probably
understand
right
now
with
the
fact
that
there
are
safety
engineers
behind
the
wheel
and
they're
paid
as
full-time
employees.
The
the
the
the
primary
reason
for
us
doing.
This
is
not
profit
generation,
it
is
very
much
it's.
You
know
it's
safety
and
making
sure
that
these
vehicles
are
operated
as
as
safe
as
possible
and
allowing
the
public
to
interact
with
autonomous
vehicles.
So
it
doesn't
really
factor
as
much
into
the
the
decision.
Q
Q
Mr
wembe,
for
your
presentation,
I'm
still
having
a
little
bit
of
a
hard
time
separating
the
roles.
It
still
appears
that
the
safety
engineer
in
an
emergency
situation,
they
still
will
jump
in
and
control
the
vehicle.
If
there
is
a
a
technical
problem,
if
the
software
blows-
and
you
know
computers
and
something
happens,
we
are
still
that
safety
engineer
then
becomes
the
driver
of
a
tnc
vehicle.
Q
P
P
I
think
that
when
706
b,
which
is
the
autonomous
vehicle
chapter
in
nevada,
revised
statutes
was
formulated,
it
was
assumed
that
once
a
vehicle
was
technologically
advanced
enough
to
be
autonomous,
that
there
would
be
a
hard
transition
from
706
a
service
to
706
b
service,
and
I
think
that,
as
mr
mumpy
pointed
out
in
his
previous
remarks,
we're
seeing
when,
whenever
there's
a
software
upgrade
whenever
there's
a
new
public
route
made
available
whenever
the
speed
limit
that
the
vehicle
is
allowed
to
travel
under
is
is
increased.
P
Those
are
all
trigger
points
not
just
now,
but
well
into
the
future.
Where
we're
going
to
see
a
safety
engineer,
return
to
these
vehicles
for
a
specified
amount
of
time
until
the
safety
of
the
public
can
be
insured,
and
so
I
think
that
your
your
question
kind
of
points
to
the
fact
that
this
bill
builds
a
bridge
between
706,
b
and
706.
P
A
in
terms
of
the
role
of
the
safety
engineer,
how
often
they
intervene
and
and
what
what
their
role
is
and
and
kind
of
how
the
how
their
role
overlaps
with
the
driver
I'll.
Let
sam
maybe
speak
to
that,
because
I
think
he
can
cover
that
a
little
more
efficiently
than
I
can.
O
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
summers,
armstrong
for
the
question,
sam
whitby,
for
the
record
on
behalf
of
emotional
yeah.
It's
a
it
is
a
very
it's
an
interesting
role
that
this
individual
has.
I
would
like
to
just
for
the
record
say
that
the
the
safety
engineer
they
don't
just
become
the
driver
in
the
event
of
a
takeover
they're.
They
are
the
driver,
they're
responsible
for
being
the
driver,
the
entire
time.
O
You
know
there
are
many
situations
where
our
vehicle
operators
may
take
over
the
vehicle
that
has
nothing
to
do
with
our
technology
they're
going
to
be
monitoring
the
actions
of
other
users
of
the
road
as
well,
and
if
they
start
to
see
something
that
may
be
unsafe,
perhaps
someone
veering
a
little
bit
too
close
to
the
vehicle
or
some
other
unsafe
behavior
on
the
roadway
they're
going
to
take
over
anyways
just
you
know,
and
to
be
absolutely
certain
that
everything
will
be
handled
as
safely
as
possible.
O
So
for
the
the
purposes
of
this
bill
that
the
this
individual,
the
safety
engineer,
will
continue
to
be
the
driver
at
all
points.
This
is
not
a
situation
where
there
is
a
kind
of
an
on
and
off
switch
for
when
they're
the
driver,
they're
they're
always
going
to
be
fully
attentive,
and
in
fact,
that
that
is
one
of
the
things
that
we
really
have
to
train.
All
of
our
safety
engineers
really
do
is
how
to
remain
extremely
attentive
to
the
vehicle.
Q
Thank
you,
gentlemen.
For
that
response.
I
guess
this
is
where
I'm
I'm
just
a
little
bit
flabbergasted.
So
initially
you
said
that
there
would
be
a
temporary
time
that
the
driver
would
be
here
because
now
you're
really
wanting
these
vehicles
to
be
autonomous,
but
yet
the
driver
or
the
engineer
at
this
point
per
your
testimony.
Mr
wimpy
has
to
be
attentive
at
all
times,
while
that
person
is
in
the
driver's
seat.
Q
So
when
do
you
expect
to
have
this
transition,
where
these
vehicles
are
truly
autonomous,
meaning
no
one
is
in
the
driver's
seat,
or
is
that
ever
expected
to
be?
Do
you
always
believe
that
there
will
be
this
sort
of
mash-up
relationship
between
tnc's
and
autonomous
vehicles,
where
we
will
have
this
this
difference
and
that
emotional
will
always
have
someone
in
the
driver's
seat,
but
that
the
ride
will
be
booked
and
paid
for
through
the
tnc.
O
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
summers,
armstrong
for
the
question,
sam
wimpy,
for
the
record
representing
emotional
yeah.
It's
I
think
this
challenge
we're
facing
here
with
like
the
transition.
It
is
a
particularly
it's
not
a
clean
one
and
the
way
that
emotional
thinks
about
it
is
that
there
is
going
to
be
situations
for
for
many
years.
O
I
think
where
it's
going
to
be
much
more
efficient
for
there
to
be
a
human
operator,
but
not
an
autonomous
vehicle
at
all,
there's
going
to
be
certain
roadways
where
it's
just
extremely
difficult
and
it
will
always
be
more
efficient
or
for
many
years,
be
more
efficient
for
the
vehicle
to
be
piloted
conventionally.
O
Much
sooner
and
that's
you
know,
we've
talked
publicly
about
2023
being
when
commercial
operations
for
some
of
these
fully
driverless
vehicles
will
begin
and
that's
going
to
be
in
a
very
constrained
operating
area,
and
then
that
will
slowly
grow
and
the
transition
we've
been
talking
about
with
the
monitored
autonomous
vehicles.
They
may
be
on
areas
that
are
current
fully
driverless
platform,
we're
not
there
yet
to
to
put
it
out
fully
driverless
and
with
and
be
able
to
know
that
it's
being
driven
with
the
utmost
level
of
safety.
O
And
again
I
just
want
to
come
back
to
that
emotional
and
we
really
take
safety
extremely.
It's
it's
the
number
one
priority
for
us,
and
so
we're
never
going
to
have
any
of
these
vehicles
be
on
the
road
that
we
don't
fully
stand
behind.
So
there's
going
to
be
areas
where
we'll
have
these
monitor
autonomous
vehicles,
where
perhaps
some
of
the
newer
software
is
being
used.
A
Members,
any
other
questions
all
right
see
none.
We
will
go
to
testimony.
I
thank
you
too,
for
the
presentation
and
for
the
the
conversation
on
this
belt.
K
K
R
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
justin
watkins
w-a-t-k-I-n-n.
Thank
you
to
the
members
of
the
committee
I
wanted
to
put
on
the
record.
While
I
appreciate
the
intent
that's
been
stated
on
the
record
today
from
the
bill
presenters.
R
Unfortunately,
on
behalf
of
nevada
justice
association,
we
have
to
oppose
this
bill
because
the
language
does
not
accurately
reflect
that
intent.
There
are
two
major
components
that
we
oppose
the
bill.
The
first
has
to
do
with
the
insurance
requirements.
The
current
law
requires
autonomous
vehicles
to
have
a
five
million
dollar
insurance
requirement.
R
In
this
situation,
it
appears
from
the
language
of
the
bill
that
the
insurance
requirement
would
step
down
to
1.5
million
when
there
is
a
passenger
in
the
car
and
even
lower
than
that
when
the
vehicle
is
quote
unquote
logged
off
how
an
autonomous
vehicle
can
be
logged
off
from
a
platform
is
nonsensical.
I
believe,
and
the
five
million
dollar
requirement
for
all
autonomous
vehicles
should
prevail.
The
second
issue
deals
with
proving
liability
and
fault
for
an
autonomous
vehicle
that
breaks
a
ruled
road
and
injures
somebody.
R
J
R
When
we
deal
with
liability,
is
impact
impractical
to
ask
somebody
who's
been
hurt
to
prove
whether
or
not
there
was
a
manufacturing
defect,
a
software
glitch,
whether
their
safety
engineer,
negligence
or
whether
there
was
hacking
there
should
be
joint
and
several
liability
amongst
all
the
parties
involved
in
putting
the
autonomous
vehicle
on
the
road
and
the
burden
should
not
be
on
the
injured
party
to
prove
otherwise.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
I
I
I
Thank
you,
mr
walker,
do
you
have
any
closing
comments
that
you'd
like
to
make.
P
P
I'd
like
to
quickly
just
state
that,
in
regarding
to
mr
watkins
concerns,
this
is
definitely
a
policy
that
he's
been
pursuing
since
his
time
in
the
legislature
and
some
good
conversations
in
in
2017
on
a
similar
concept.
I
would
just
say
that
upending,
you
know
the
last
40
or
50
years
of
of
how
our
automobile
insurance
works
is
not
this.
P
This
bill
probably
isn't
the
vehicle
for
that,
and
I
would
also
like
to
point
the
the
committee
to
the
nta's
report
to
the
legislature
regarding
the
adequacy
of
insurance
coverage
and
limits
under
statute
for
these
types
of
vehicles,
and
I
think
that
that
type
of
data
from
from
regulators
is
going
to
be
critical
to
driving
a
more
comprehensive
concern.
That's
maybe
a
little
more
focused
on
those
issues
and
not
the
specific
issue
of
safety.
I
Thank
you
very
much
for
that.
Mr
walker.
We've
also
appreciated
the
dialogue
and
look
forward
to
to
having
that
continue
on
some
of
these
issues.
Also,
I
do
appreciate
the
reference
to
the
bill
as
a
vehicle.
I
hope
that
was
an
intentional
pun
with
that
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
288
and
we
will
open
the
hearing
on
sb
383,
which
revises
provisions
relating
to
electric
bicycles,
welcome,
miss
fisher.
You
may
begin
your
presentation
whenever
you
are
ready.
J
We
appreciate
senator
harris
and
your
sister
committee
on
the
senate
side
for
introducing
this
as
a
as
a
committee
bill,
the
primary
focus
of
sb
383
is
to
update
nevada
statute
to
align
the
definition
of
e-bikes
with
30
other
states,
with
the
federal
government
and,
most
importantly,
for
us
here
in
nevada,
with
an
abundance
of
public
lands
with
the
department
of
interior
electric
bikes.
Look
like
a
traditional
bicycle.
J
J
J
The
reason
the
feds
took
the
lead
nearly
20
years
ago
on
e-bikes-
I
didn't
even
know
we
had
e-bikes
20
years
ago-
was
to
determine
if
they
would
be
regulated
like
a
bicycle
or
like
a
motor
vehicle.
If
regulated
like
a
motor
vehicle,
they
would
have
been
subject
to
the
authority
of
the
national
highway
traffic
safety
administration,
which
governor,
which
governs
cars,
trucks
and
motorcycles
or
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
consumer
product
safety.
Commission,
the
cpsc,
which
is
the
agency
that
does
regulate
bicycles,
congress
determined
nearly
20
years
ago.
J
J
J
Our
organization
felt
it
would
be
helpful
to
riders
to
your
constituents
and
visitors
of
nevada
to
have
constitu
consistent
laws
because
of
the
portability
of
the
bikes.
So
here's
what
the
bill
does.
There
are
a
few
key
things
about
the
bill.
The
first
and
most
important
thing
is
that
it
defines
the
three
classes
of
bikes
in
the
market.
Today,
they're
broken
down
by
speed
and
method
of
motorized
engagement
class
one
is
a
pedal
assist.
J
You
have
to
be
actively
pedaling
for
the
motor
to
engage,
and
it
goes
up
to
20
miles
an
hour
now
when
I
say
that
the
it
goes
up
to
20
miles
an
hour.
Obviously,
bicycle
can
go
faster
than
that.
That's
just
how
fast
the
engine
can
take
it
to
class
2
has
a
throttle
and
can
go
up
to
20
miles
an
hour
as
well.
Class
3
is
a
pedal
assist
and
it
can
go
up
to
28
miles
per
hour.
J
Somebody
else
figured
out
that
math
for
me,
because
I
don't
do
kilometers,
and
this
gets
us
in
line
then
with
international
standards.
The
bill
incorporates
the
three-class
system
and
provides
additional
guidance
on
where
nevadans
may
ride.
E-Bikes.
Our
current
statute
doesn't
address
anything
other
than
the
standard
rules
of
the
road
law
which
you
heard
earlier
today
under
sb
285,
but
current
statute
causes
confusion
for
those
who
may
want
to,
but
not
know
if
it's
allowed
to
ride
an
electric
bike
on
a
traditional
bike
trail
or
in
a
designated
bike
lane
in
a
street.
J
It
includes
some
safety
provisions
for
the
higher
speed,
bikes
and
references,
the
correct
federal
standards
and,
finally,
the
bill
adopts
an
appropriate
labeling
system
for
the
three
classes
of
bicycles.
If
you
walk
into
a
bike
shop
anywhere
in
nevada
now
on
new
bikes,
you
will
already
see
that
there
are
labels
on
the
bikes.
J
The
critical
piece
in
getting
our
statute
in
harmony
is
getting
our
statute
in
harmony
with
30
other
states,
so
we
do
have
consistency,
but
also
with
the
federal
government
and
with
our
public
lands
laws
we
reached
out
early
on
to
dmv,
which
has
advised
us
that
the
department
has
no
issue
with
the
bill.
We
also
sent
language
early
in
session
to
clark
county
city
of
las
vegas,
city
of
henderson,
city
of
reno,
league
of
cities
and
the
consortium
of
cities
which
represent
cities
of
reno
sparks
north
las
vegas,
mesquite
and
las
vegas.
J
J
An
existing
law
one
as
it
stands
in
nevada
statute
right
now,
one
they.
It
exempts
electric
bicycles
from
licensing
and
registration,
we're
not
changing
that
existing
law
also
does
not
require
a
driver's
license
and
will
not
require
it
under
sb,
383
and
electric
bicycles
are
currently
subject
to
the
same
traffic
laws
and
other
requirements
as
bicycles
so
in,
but
what
we
did
in
short,
any
place
in
statute
where
the
term
bicycle
is
mentioned.
J
We
have
added
the
term
electric
bicycle
sections,
one
and
two
delete
outdated
definitions
of
electric
bicycles,
because
these
our
current
statutes
have
not
changed
in
over
15
years
on
electric
bikes,
section
5,
which
is
on
page
2
of
the
revised
version
of
the
bill,
identifies
how
electric
bikes
are
to
operate.
For
example,
anywhere
traditional
bikes
are
allowed
subsection
two
of
section
five
is
enabling
language
for
state
or
local
governmental
entities
to
prohibit
use
in
certain
areas,
for
safety
reasons
sidewalks
for
instance,
or
if
there
are
pedestrian,
only
trails
where
traditional
bicycles
are
not
allowed.
J
J
J
We
we
have
language
that
prohibits
somebody
from
a
car
sticking
a
baseball
bat
out
and
hitting
a
bicyclist.
That's
just
not
allowed
and
we're,
including
e-bikes
in
that
and
with
that
madam
chair,
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
B
Thank
you.
Thank
you
so
much,
madam
chair,
just
a
couple
of
questions,
and
I
don't
think
you
mentioned
this
in
in
your
remarks
and
if
you
did,
I
apologize
but
section
eight
that
talks
about
the
age
requirements.
B
I'm
just
wondering
why,
where
that
number
came
from
that
16
years,
would
be
the
dividing
point
for
a
class
3
electric
bike,
and
I
guess
sort
of
concurrent
with
that.
It
sounds
to
me
like
really
we're
just
talking
about
a
few
miles,
an
hour
difference
between
the
different
classes,
so
just
wanted
to
get
some
some
more
information
on
on
how
that
was
arrived
at
and
why
the
difference
among
the
three
classes.
J
J
B
Thank
you
and
then,
as
a
follow-up
to
that,
you
know
the
provision
says
that
no
person
under
the
age
of
18
or
16
years
may
operate
a
class
3
electric
bicycle.
So
my
question
would
be
what
what
is
the
penalty?
Is
it
a
criminal
sanction?
Is
it
a
civil
sanction?
What
happens
if
an
officer
encounters
a
14
year
old,
operating
a
class
3
electric
bicycle.
J
B
B
J
B
A
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
hope
it's
the
law,
because
I've
been
threatening
my
kids
that
they're
doing
something
illegal
this
whole
time.
So
I
appreciate
this
bill.
I
appreciate
the
the
intent
of
it.
I
started
an
e-bike
program
at
my
previous
employer
with
a
with
a
colleague
of
mine
and
and
and
it's
been
very
successful,
we
we
really,
we
really
enjoy
the
the
use
of
of
e-bikes
and
it's
been.
F
It's
been
used
all
over
the
valley
in
in
various
government
entities,
just
kind
of
a
follow-up
to
assemblyman
yeager's
question.
So
it
seems
like
the
16
years
of
age
would
be
a
very
arbitrary
number,
the
with
the
with
the
nature
of
a
assist
bike.
F
Your
limitation
is
due
to
your
physical
ability,
so
someone
who
could
go
28
miles
an
hour
on
a
on
a
on
a
pedal
assist
bike
has
to
have
the
physical
capability
to
do
so,
and
so
some
16
year
olds
are
not
going
to
be
able
to
do
that,
and
some
14
year
olds
may
be
able
to
do
that,
but
their
physical
ability
gives
them
the
capability
of
going
that
that
that
fast
on
a
bike
and
so
it
it.
It
seems
like
that.
F
That
number
is
arbitrary
in,
in
effect,
that
that
it's
it's
accordance
with
your
physical
ability
and
then
your
physical
ability
is
really
what's
important
when
you're
riding
one
of
those
bikes
as
far
as
how
you
can
control
that
that
bike.
So
that's
just
something
that
I
have
an
issue
with
this
bill.
The
the
other
thing
is,
is
the
helmet
the
helmet
thing?
F
I
I
think
that
if,
if
it's
good
for
one
it's
good
for
all
or
it's
good
or
we,
we
just
don't
tell
people
that
that
they
have
to
you
know
we
we
go
with
the
with
the
nature.
What's
that.
F
Or
we
yeah,
or
we
change
it
to
from
from
class
three
to
all
class
of
bicycle,
no
matter
what
so
that
I'm
not
a
liar
to
my
children,.
F
And
so
I
think
that
the
provisions
of
the
bill
you
know
defining
what
an
e-bike
is
and
putting
it
in
putting
in
statute
is
great.
I
just
have.
I
just
have
a
few
issues
with
with
limitating
limiting
limit,
limiting
the
use
of
these
bikes.
Having
me
having
children
under
the
age
of
16
and
thinking
there's
no
way,
they
could
even
touch
that
threshold
of
of
28
miles
an
hour
because
they
don't
have
the
physical
ability
to
do
so.
F
However,
a
class
down
they're
able
to
ride-
and
they
may
be
maybe
able
to
go
even
faster
on
that
bike
versus
another
bike.
So
I
just
I
just
hope
we
can.
You
know,
find
it
find
some
common
ground
there.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
just
want
to.
First
of
all,
I
appreciate
some
of
the
provisions
that
are
in
section
5
of
the
bill,
as
proposed
with
the
the
local
and
state
authority
to
enact
prohibitions
for
e-bikes
and
on
certain
trails
or
paths
if,
if
they
think
that
that
is
appropriate,
as
well
as
the
subsection
three
that
deals
with
with
trails,
although
I
see
that
it's
a
list
specifically
designated
as
non-motorized,
so
the
question
I
had
is
really
related
to
those
kind
of
single
track
trails
and
and
there's
two
pieces.
I
Looking
at
those
two
subsections,
one
is,
of
course
we
have
trails
that
exist
on
federally
managed
lands,
and
then
I
was
just
wondering
around
that
verbiage
around
specifically
designated
as
non-motorized.
So
I
I
was
just
wondering
if
there's
any
additional
clarity
that
you
could
provide
on.
J
Thank
you
for
the
question
for
the
record
susan
fisher,
as,
as
you
know,
since
you
hike
there,
you've
probably
seen
signs
where
they
on
a
trail
where
it
says
no
motorized
vehicles
e-bikes
would
not
be
allowed
on
those
trails,
even
if
bicycles
or
horses
are
allowed
on
the
trail.
J
If
you
can
use
a
regular
bicycle
and
it's
not
designated
that
there
are
no
motorized
vehicles
than
they
can
I,
I
would
suspect
that,
because
of
the
proliferation
of
e-bikes,
that
a
lot
of
that
signage
is
going
to
be
changing
over
time
to
allow
e-bikes,
because
it
will
allow
people
with
physical
limitations
to
be
able
to
get
out,
enjoy
those
trails
a
little
bit
more
as
well,
and
you
know
they're
quiet
they're
not
going
to
be
any
more
disturbing
to
to
any
wildlife
or
other
people
on
the
trails
than
a
regular
bicycle.
Would.
I
Thank
you
for
that.
I
appreciate
that
I
know
there's
a
lot
of
conversation
and
debate
around
which
trails
should
be
open
to
use
by
bicycles
in
general
as
well
as
e-bikes.
So
I
appreciate
the
approach
there
and
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
we
have
a
process
in
place
that
that's
comprehensive
and
it
sounds
like
essentially,
governments
at
all
levels
are
going
to
be
taking
this
into
consideration
and
and
as
they
do,
the
provisions
of
subsection
3
would
would
work
to
try
and
keep
them
off
of
the
places
where
it's
not
deemed
appropriate.
S
Hello,
this
is
jessica
demmer
with
the
lcb
legal
division.
The
2019
legislature
considered
a
assembly
bill
187,
which
would
have
required
parents
and
guardians
to
ensure
that
children
under
the
age
of
18
wore
a
safety
helmet
while
operating
a
bicycle
scooter
and
certain
other
vehicles
that
bill
didn't
pass.
So
I
believe
that
there
is
not
a
requirement
in
law
to
wear
a.
S
A
A
All
right
see
no
other
questions.
I
thank
you
so
much
for
the
presentation
and
we
will
go
to
testimony
and
we'll
ask
if
there's
anyone
here
in
the
room
joining
us
who
wish
to
provide
testimony
and
support
of
senate
bill
383
come
on
up
and
thank
you
so
much
you've
been
patiently
waiting
all
day
long.
We
appreciate.
A
G
G
The
league
is
in
support
of
sb
383
as
amended,
and
we
appreciate
the
work
of
the
bill
sponsors
to
bring
this
bill
forward,
and
we
appreciate
the
distinguished
members
of
the
assembly,
growth
and
infrastructure
committee
for
hearing
it.
We
agree
with
the
sentiments
expressed
by
ms
fisher.
This
builds
a
thoughtful
response
to
the
increasing
popularity,
advancing
technology
and
broadening
capabilities
of
electric
bicycles,
and
we
sincerely
ask
for
the
committee's
endorsement
again.
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair,
for
your
attention
and
for
allowing
my
statement
of
support.
A
A
A
K
N
Begin,
my
name
is
heather
fisher
h-e-a-t-h-e-r-f-I-s-h-e-r
and
for
the
record,
I'm
calling
from
as
a
bike
shop
owner
as
a
tour
company
operator
as
the
president
of
red
rock
and
finally,
as
a
mother,
I
support
this
bill
on
all
those
aspects.
As
a
bike
shop
owner,
I
can
tell
you
that
electric
bikes
are
not
only
here
to
stay,
but
they
are
expanding
faster
than
any
other
part
of
the
market
share,
as
opposed
to
other
types
of
bikes
that
are
also
expanding.
Electric
bikes
are
increasing
exponentially
because
they
are
opening
up
an
entirely
new
market.
N
This
bill
is
important
to
get
out
in
front
of
the
trend
and
create
important
safety
guidelines
that
are
easier
to
understand,
as
it
mirrors
federal
guidelines.
As
a
tour
operator,
I've
also
seen
a
rapid
increase
in
electric
fund
usage
from
a
tourism
standpoint.
Electric
bikes
are
important
because
they
reduce
the
carbon
footprint
of
recreation.
N
They
increase
opportunities
for
people
with
disabilities,
for
example.
Someone
who
previously
could
only
survive
a
a
scenic
mountain
drive
in
an
automobile
now
has
a
choice.
To
pedal
up
the
hill
without
dying
e-bikes
are
helping
to
diversify
the
economy.
The
las
vegas
economy
is
suffering
from
a
need
for
diversification,
as
the
population
is
trending
towards
less
trust
in
the
indoors
and
more
trust
in
outdoor
choices
due
to
infectious
disease
concerns.
N
This
bill,
allowing
electric
bikes
to
be
classified
as
bikes,
is
economically
advantageous
to
las
vegas
tourism
economy,
because
people
who
might
not
feel
comfortable
in
close
proximity
with
a
bunch
of
other
breathers
inside
of
a
casino
or
a
tour
bus
can
now
be
more
empowered
to
enjoy
the
healthy
outdoors
as
the
president
of
safe
redrock.
Safety
is
one
of
our
founding
principles.
N
L
N
Legacy
trail,
we
are
excited
that
the
trail
we've
been
working
on
for
15
years
with
blm
and
clark
county
is
finally
nearing
the
construction
phases.
We
know
that,
with
the
rapid
expansion
of
electric
bikes,
that's
going
to
be
a
big
part
of
it,
and
we
appreciate
that
this
bill
clarifies
that
e-bikes
would
be
allowed
on
separated
bike
paths.
N
It
increases
safety
and
actually
ensures
greater
allowances
for
pet
electric
bikes
on
bike
paths
such
as
the
redrock
legacy
trail,
because
it
classifies
that
electric
bikes
do
not
include
dirt
bike,
scooters
high-powered
throttle
engineered
by
time
and
then.
Finally,
as
a
mother,
my
daughter
loved
her.
A
A
J
A
A
Thank
you
so
much
members
that
brings
us
to
the
end
of
our
agenda.
For
today.
Our
next
meeting
will
be
on
thursday
may
6th
at
1
30..
We
did
have
our
committee
photo
scheduled
for
that
same
afternoon,
but
we
are
adjusting
that
date
and
as
soon
as
I
have
the
new
date,
I
will
let
you
know
of
that
to
our
staff
here
in
the
room
and
our
staff,
that's
helping
us
virtually.
You
are
always
amazing,
and
we
truly
appreciate
you
and
for
everyone
else
that
was
joining
us
virtually
and
in
the
room.