►
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
Chair
harris
here,
please
mark
senator
spearman
and
pickard
present
as
they
arrive.
I
believe
they
are
in
the
building
all
right,
let's
just
jump
right
into
it,
guys,
hopefully
you're
pretty
familiar
with
how
this
committee
works
at
this
point
in
the
session.
So
we'll
just
jump
straight
to
testimony
we'll
open
up
the
hearing
on
ab403
and
I'll
welcome.
Assemblywoman
brown
may
welcome.
A
C
C
My
co-presenter
today
is
miss
kandra
birchie
with
the
public
defender's
office
and
she'll
come
up
and
present
some
bill
specifics
so
that
we
can
walk
through
the
language.
I
am
a
mom,
a
dog
walker,
a
reformed
runner
and
a
current
cyclist,
and
as
such
I
spend
a
significant
amount
of
time
on
our
city
streets
as
a
pedestrian.
C
I
have
recently
become
aware
of
laws
that
really
affect
criminal
prosecution
opportunities
for
folks
that
choose
to
cross
the
street
safely,
albeit
not
in
a
marked
crosswalk,
which
was
very
interesting
for
me
to
learn
about
now.
Miss
ida
lives
in
my
neighborhood
and
miss
ida
likes
to
cross
the
street,
to
say
hello
to
her
neighbors
and
she
always
does
it
safely.
C
C
Certain
violations
by
pedestrians,
most
commonly
referred
to
as
jaywalking
while
crossing
a
street
outside
of
a
marked
crosswalk,
is
and
can
be
a
safety
hazard
if
there
are
cars
present
or
other
road
hazards,
and
it
should
be
a
deterred
behavior
when
safety
is
at
risk.
A
criminal
charge
for
violating
the
statute
is
unnecessary
and
can
be
excessive.
C
So
this
bill
before
you
would
decriminalize
jaywalking.
It's
important
to
note
that
this
bill
does
not
eliminate
penalties
or
citations
for
jaywalking.
It
does
instead
direct
the
courts
to
consider
this
citation
as
a
civil,
infraction
not
a
criminal,
infraction
share.
With
your
permission,
I'd
like
to
introduce
my
co-presenter
kendra
burchie,
who
is
the
deputy
public
defender
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office,
and
she
will
walk
us
through
the
bill.
D
D
As
indicated
this
section,
what
it
really
just
does
in
subsection
two
is
create
that
civil
infraction,
so
it's
not
a
misdemeanor
that
is
punishable
a
civil
penalty
of
not
more
than
100.
So
that
means
that
the
judge
can
still
sentence
them
and
punish
them.
Accordingly,
within
that
range,
there
could
be
other
punishments
that
are
allowable.
There
could
be
programs
if
the
court
has
them,
so
those
are
all
at
the
judge's
discretion
and
their
disposal,
what's
important
to
know
is
that
misdemeanors
have
significant
consequences,
for
example,
individuals
who
are
applying
for
medical
school
or
nursing
school.
D
D
I
came
across
an
individual
named
mr
farr,
who
has
a
web
scraping
tool
to
look
at
who's
currently
in
custody
on
jaywalking
for
the
court.
For
the
hearing
for
your
information
as
of
this
morning,
there
are
currently
five
people
in
the
city
of
las
vegas
jail
with
just
jaywalking
charges,
so
we
don't
have
any
information
from
the
washoe
county
jail
and
it's
our
understanding
that
no
one
in
the
other
detention
facilities,
but
today
alone
those
individuals,
cost
taxpayers
190
dollars
per
day
in
the
clark
county
detention
facility.
D
If
those
individuals
were
arrested
today,
again
just
warrants
for
las
vegas
municipal
court,
it
would
cost
taxpayers
898,
000
and
485
for
just
one
day
for
each
of
those
for
those
individuals
in
total.
So
we
urge
your
support,
because
this
is
smart,
criminal,
justice
policy,
wise
and
fiscally
responsible,
and
with
that
we're
open
for
questions.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
so
much
miss
burchie.
I
have
a
question
for
you
before
you
flee
the
the
table.
What
would
happen
to
those
5,
000,
or
so
many
folks
who
currently
have
warrants
in
place?
If
this
law
were
to
pass,
would
those
warrants
still
be
outstanding
and
they
could
be
picked
up
at
any
moment?
If
so,
how
would
they
possibly
be
sentenced?
D
Thank
you,
chair
harris
for
the
record
kendra
burchie
with
the
washington
county
public
defender's
office
in
section
2.5,
section,
subsection,
2,
that's
where
it
discusses
how
the
outstanding
bench
warrants
would
be
cancelled
or
vacated,
so
it
would
automatically
be
done
where
each
jurisdiction
is
required
to
do
that
for
all
bench
warrants
that
occurred
prior
to
july,
1,
2021.
D
So
on
the
effective
date
of
july
1st
2021.
If
this
becomes
law,
then
the
courts
would
be
required
to
vacate
those
warrants
so
that
those
warrants
would
no
longer
exist.
They
would
still
have
to.
They
still
have
those
tickets.
So
then,
when
they
come
to
court,
the
court
would
then,
if
this
does
become
law,
it's
retroactive,
and
so
there
there
would
be
the
appropriate
penalty
based
on
that
basis.
But
the
main
part
is
that
they
wouldn't
have
that
warrant,
so
they
would
not
be
arrested
if
they
didn't
have
a
court
hearing
before
july.
1St.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Miss
burchie
thanks
a
lot,
and
I
really
do
like
the
bill,
and
I
understand
you
know
I
think,
the
genesis
of
it
and
and
kind
of
well,
we
weren't
back.
We
did
not
participate
in
the
conversations
back
when
this
bill
was,
you
know,
put
into
place
and
the
act
of
jaywalking
was
criminalized
and
it
must
have
been
a
robust
discussion.
I
don't
know
why.
I
you
know
it.
Basically,
it
boils
down
to
to
me
at
least
as
a
deterrent.
E
We
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
were
discouraging
people
from
doing
something
that
might
actually
jeopardize
their
life
or
the
lives
of
others
who
you
know
may
have
you
know
swerved
and
missed
them
or
whatever.
So
I
I
can't
imagine
exactly
what
happened,
but
something
like
that.
So
now
what
you
want
to
do
is
you
want
to
get
rid
of
it
decriminalize.
It
only
have
a
penalty.
The
only
thing
I
worry
about
is
you
know.
E
What
is
going
to
dissuade
somebody
from
doing
it
other
than
the
fact
that
they're
going
to
lose
every
time
when
a
car
is
coming
down
the
path
right
I
mean
that's
to
me
the
biggest
deterrent
I
mean
if
you're,
smart
enough
and
you've
got
common
sense.
You
don't
cross
somewhere
where
it's
not
safe,
and
I
think
that
was
your
point.
Assemblywoman
is
that
they
do
it
safely
because
they
look
around
and
it
shouldn't
be
criminalized.
E
But
I
guess
the
only
I'm
gonna
go
right
back
to
the
question
that
I
have,
and
that
is:
is
that
hundred
dollars
enough
of
a
discouragement?
Are
we
gonna
make
sure
that
or
it's
up
to
a
hundred
dollars?
I'm
sorry,
I
shouldn't
say
a
hundred
dollars,
but
up
two
hundred
dollars.
Is
it
enough
of
a
discouragement?
Do
you
feel
like
they're
going
to
stay
on
top
of
that?
D
Thank
you
to
your
hairs
through
you
to
chair
artists,
senator
hammond,
kendrick
burchie.
For
the
record,
I
think
that's
a
great
question,
and
that
is
something
that
we
are
debating
for
a
lot
of
of
the
infractions
for
traffic
infractions.
D
There
are
several
bills
that
are
passing
through
the
legislative
body
right
now
to
decriminalize
those
because
of
the
studies
that
have
shown
that
there
is
no
deterrent
impact
by
having
it
as
a
misdemeanor
for
these
traffic
offenses
the
deterrent
of
the
fact
that
they're
going
to
have
to
come
to
court
and
to
have
to
pay
a
fine
is
more
of
a
deterrent,
and
I
would
just
note
that
during
the
during
covid,
it's
my
understanding
that
other
some
court
systems
have
stopped
issuing
warrants
for
some
misdemeanor
in
misdemeanor.
D
Charges
for
traffic
charges
and
they've
seen
an
increase
in
revenue
because
people
are
paying
more.
This
would
allow
for
individuals
to
still
use
the
other
resources
of
having
to
do
community
service,
which
are
also
deterrent
factors,
and
I
would
just
note
that
from
the
studies
there's
nothing
saying
that,
because
somebody
would
be
looking
at
jail
time
that
that's
more
of
a
deterrent,
rather
they're
more
likely
to
come
to
court.
D
I
would
say,
because
they're
not
looking
at
the
idea
of
there's
potentially
they're,
going
to
be
arrested
and
taken
into
custody
for
up
to
six
months
where
they
could
lose
their
jobs,
lose
their
housing
lose
their
children.
So
this
provides
them
with
an
ability
to
accept
responsibility
and
know
that
the
punishment
is
going
to
be
more
reflective
to
the
crime
or
what
had
occurred.
E
A
F
F
F
G
Hello
and
thank
you
chair,
harrison
committee
members.
This
is
nick
chipak,
n-I-c-k-s-h-e-p-a-c-k
policy
and
program
associate
with
the
aclu
of
nevada.
We
want
to
thank
assemblywoman
brown
may
for
bringing
this
piece
of
legislation
much
like
assembly
brown
maine.
We
do
not
believe
that
the
average
citizen
is
aware
that
jay
walking
is
currently
a
misdemeanor
deterrents,
don't
work
when
people
are
unaware
that
they
exist.
G
We
believe
that
decriminalizing
jaywalking
is
a
logical
move
as
a
state.
We
are
starting
to
move
away
from
the
criminalization
of
minor
infractions,
such
as
minor
traffic
violations,
and
this
bill
is
one
more
step
in
that
direction.
Minor
tickets
such
as
jaywalking
tickets,
have
disproportionate
impacts
on
people
with
lower
economic
status
in
those
in
rural
areas
where
pedestrian
pedestrian
infrastructure
may
not
be
as
robust.
G
G
These
people
are
also
the
least
likely
to
be
able
to
pay
that
ticket
or
have
reliable
transportation
to
the
courthouse
to
get
the
ticket
reduced
right
now,
an
inability
or
failure
to
pay
a
j
walking
ticket
results
in
a
bench
warrant
which
can
turn
into
an
arrest.
As
you
have
heard
in
the
presentation,
depending
on
the
jurisdiction,
the
arrest
could
translate
into
multiple
days
in
jail
and
cost
a
taxpayer
more
than
the
original
ticket.
G
A
civil
penalty
provides
the
same
level
of
deterrent
as
a
criminal
penalty,
while
alleviating
many
of
the
issues
that
arise
from
the
current
criminal
penalty
structure.
Additionally,
the
vacation,
the
vacation
of
bench
warrants
will
reduce
unnecessary
contact
between
police,
which
is
good
for
both
the
police
and
the
citizenry.
We
urge
the
committee
to
support
this
common
sense
change
to
the
penalty
structure
for
jaywalking
laws.
Thank
you
for
your.
G
F
H
A
F
F
F
I
Thank
you,
chair
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
chuck
callaway,
a
c-a-l-l-a-w-a-y
representing
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
I
signed
in
neutral
on
the
bill.
We
are
neutral
on
whether
or
not
the
penalty
for
jaywalking
is
a
civil,
fine
or
a
criminal.
Fine.
We
don't
really
care
as
far
as
the
penalty
goes,
if
it's
the
the
appetite
of
of
this
body
to
make
it
a
civil
penalty
rather
than
a
criminal
penalty.
We're
fine
with
that.
I
I
do
want
to
maybe
dispel
a
few
myths
that
have
been
floating
around
and
just
state
some
basic
facts
that
I
think
pertain
to
this
bill.
However,
number
one
we've
had
38
fatalities
on
our
roadway
as
of
this
morning
in
our
jurisdiction
in
clark,
county
13
of
those
fatalities
involved,
pedestrians,
many
of
which
were
in
the
roadway
or
not
abiding
by
the
crosswalks
at
the
time
of
the
accident.
I
Not
all
of
those
that
was
the
case,
but
in
some
of
those
it
was
40
percent
are
excuse
me,
roughly
47
of
our
fatalities
involve
pedestrians
and
law
enforcement
needs
to
have
the
ability
to
enforce
these
laws.
We
have
people
that
routinely
walk
out
into
the
middle
of
traffic
on
busy
streets
if
you
go
to
d.I
and
maryland
parkway
and
look
at
the
bus
stop.
For
example,
when
the
bus
stops
and
everyone
jumps
off,
and
they
run
across
six
lanes
of
busy
traffic
to
try
to
catch
the
bus.
That's
going
the
opposite
direction.
I
It
is
a
recipe
for
disaster
and
it's
not
uncommon
for
us
to
have
pedestrian
accidents
there
and
another
myth.
That's
floating
around
there
out
there
is
officers,
are
not
driving
through
neighborhoods
arresting
neighbors
who
cross
the
street
to
chat.
I
would
encourage
you
to
look
at
those
five
people
that
are
in
the
city
jail.
I
I
don't
know
who
those
folks
are,
as
was
stated,
I
checked
with
the
clark
county
detention
center
this
morning
and
there
were
zero
people
in
the
clark
county
detention
center
for
jaywalking
but
check
into
those
cases
and
see
why
they
were
arrested.
Typically,
if
someone
is
arrested,
it's
because
the
behavior
will
continue
they're
in
the
roadway
and
just
writing.
I
A
ticket
is
not
going
to
make
a
move
they're
back
out
in
the
roadway
again,
for
whatever
reason,
sometimes
they're
soliciting-
sometimes
maybe
there's
mental
health
issues
involved,
but
there's
usually
underlining
reasons
as
to
why
someone
would
be
arrested.
We
actually
have
a
policy
on
metro
that
we
don't
make
those
arrests
unless
approved
by
a
supervisor
and
it's
needed
which
reflects
that
zero
number
in
the
clark
county
detention
center.
I
I
So
whether
someone
gets
arrested
or
doesn't
get
arrested,
the
only
cost
savings
there
would
be
their
food
and
their
clothing
for
the
day,
which
would
be
20.
25
bucks
not
190
dollars
a
day
that
money
is
still
being
paid
in
the
budget
to
keep
that
bed
open
there.
The
deterrence
here
in
this
big
thing
it
was
discussed
is
deterrent,
is
police
officers.
I
Police
officers
studies
have
shown
are
the
deterrent
you're
right,
the
crim,
the
person
that
commits
the
offense
does
not
know
what
the
penalty
is
usually,
but
they
do
know
that
if
police
officers
are
enforcing
it,
that
does
sometimes
curb
behavior
and
prevent
someone
from
getting
hit
in
the
roadway
mr
calloway
assembly
side.
Mr
callaway,
I
asked
that
my
testimony
was
actually
opposition.
So
I
just
in
chair
by
saying
that
we
are
neutral
on
the
penalty.
I
If
you
feel
my
testimony
is
opposition
rather
than
neutral
neutral,
feel
free
to
classify
it
as
you
desire.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Thank
you,
mr
callaway.
I
will
allow
you
to
to
characterize
your
testimony
as
you
see
fit
and
we'll
leave
it
in
the
neutral
position.
Bps
will
you
let
us
know
if
there's
anyone
else
on
the
line
who'd
like
to
testify
in
the
neutral
position.
A
C
Thank
you
very
much.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
close
out,
as
you
heard
from
mr
callaway.
We've
had
robust
conversations
with
regard
to
policing
on
this
issue
and
he
had
stated
on
record
that
the
police
often
have
alternative
means
or
reasons
to
arrest,
and
so
for
that
reason
alone
we
believe
that
decriminalizing
jaywalking
as
the
reason
to
arrest
somebody
would
be
a
very
appropriate
measure
and
having
the
fines
become
in
alignment
with
what
the
penalty
is
now
at
no
time
would
we
ever
encourage
anyone
to
cross
the
street
unsafely.
C
We
simply
feel
as
though
this
is
not
a
criminal
act
that
should
be
prosecuted
as
such.
I
would
also
like
to
draw
your
attention
to,
I
believe,
a
letter
of
support
from
the
attorney
general's
office,
which
should
be
uploaded
to
nellis.
Unfortunately,
the
attorney
general
was
not
able
to
join
us
here
in
person
today,
but
he
did
testify
on
the
assembly
side
and
is
in
support
of
this
bill
as
well.
We're
happy
to
take
whatever
questions
you'd
like
if
there's
follow-up.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
all
encourage
members
to
follow
up
offline
if
they
have
any
other
additional
questions.
We'll
close
the
hearing
on
ab403
and
open
the
hearing
on
ab118
good
afternoon
assemblywoman,
I've
been
informed
that
one
of
your
presenters
is
available
on
zoom,
but
not
all
three.
We,
it
should
be
two
okay,
it's
my
understanding.
We
have
dr
cools
if
I'm
saying
that
correctly,
but
we
do
not
have
dr
chestovich.
A
B
J
Afternoon,
oh,
I'm
actually
gonna.
Sorry,
I'm
out
of
trouble.
Oh
you
are
here:
it's
okay,
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
start,
and
then
I
will
turn
it
over
to
you
doctor
if
that
is
okay.
Okay,
thank
you
so
exciting
to
be
here
in
person.
This
is
my
first
testimony
in
person.
So
thank
you,
chair
harris
vice
chair
books
and
members
of
the
senate
committee
on
growth
and
infrastructure.
J
J
It
was
passed
out
of
the
senate
and
came
to
the
assembly
committee
committee
when
it
was
called
transportation
committee
and
although
it
did
make
it
out
of
the
committee,
it
never
made
it
to
the
floor
for
a
vote.
That
was
the
bill
that
I
brought
initially.
That
is
not
the
bill
that
I
am
presenting
today.
J
The
bill
I
bring
to
you
today,
ab118
in
its
second
reprint,
does
two
things:
it
adds
into
statute
that
baby
shall
remain
rear-facing
in
a
child
safety
seat
until
two
years
of
age.
This
is
the
recommended
age
from
the
national
highway
traffic
safety
administration,
known
as
a
and
a
nhtsa
additionally
assembly
bill.
118
changes
the
weight
requirement
to
safely
transition
out
of
a
booster
that
is
currently
60
pounds
to
a
height
requirement
of
57
inches.
Once
again,
that
is
the
recommended
measurement
of
the
nhtsa.
J
My
original
bill
included
not
allowing
children
under
the
age
of
13
to
sit
in
the
front
seat.
J
This
bill
no
longer
has
that
requirement,
but
I
did
want
to
get
on
the
record
that
that
is
the
recommended
age.
While
this
bill
is
not
the
bill,
I
envision.
I
do
believe
that
it
will
save
lives
if
passed,
and
I
thank
you
for
your
consideration.
I
will
now
turn
it
over
to
dr
debra
cools,
who
is
chief
of
surgery
for
umc
trauma,
professor
of
surgery
for
unlv
and
president
of
the
nevada
medical
society,
and
before
I
do
that
really
quickly.
J
If
you'll
indulge
me,
I
think
everyone
should
have
this
on
their
desk
and
just
by
passing
these
two
provisions.
That
would
turn
us
get
us
out
of
that
red.
So,
although
it
doesn't
do
it
like,
I
said
everything,
it
does
do
a
lot
for
the
safety
of
our
children.
With
that
doctor,
please.
B
B
Okay-
and
I
assume
everyone
can
hear
me,
okay,
so
so
I'm
a
trauma
surgeon
at
university
medical
center,
which
is
nevada's
only
level
one
trauma
center
and
nevada's
only
pediatric
trauma
center
and
also
faculty
at
the
unlv
school
of
medicine.
A
And
doctor,
if
you
could
just
identify
yourself
for
the
record,
that'd
be
great.
B
Yes,
deborah
coogles
kuhls
is
that
sufficient.
B
Yes,
and
for
some
reason,
my
slide
is
not
it's
not
advancing,
okay,
good,
I
I
also
wanted
to
just
disclose
that
our
office
does
get
funding
from
the
nevada
department
of
public
safety,
the
office
of
traffic
safety
and
some
of
the
data
that
I'm
going
to
present
here
is
nevada
data,
which
is
funded
by
this
research.
B
So
we've
already
heard
about
best
practices,
and
these
are
really
corroborated
by
the
american
academy
of
pediatrics,
and
they
advocate
the
same
best
practices.
Essentially,
infants
and
toddlers
should
remain
in
rear-facing
child
restraint
systems
in
their
rear
seat
from
birth
through
age
two
or
longer,
when
children
get
older,
it's
just
difficult
to
keep
them
restrained
in
this
position.
B
When
we
look
at
booster
seats,
the
current
recommendation
is
that
booster
seats
should
be
used
until
the
child
can
properly
be
restrained
in
a
regular
seat
belt
and
ages.
8
and
57
inches
in
height
are
the
standard
of
care,
and
if
they
are
used
properly,
it
really
reduces
the
risk
of
serious
injuries.
B
I
think
you've
already
seen
this
map
and
and
the
the
red
state
is,
that
is
for
states
that
have
neither
the
the
the
two-year
restriction
on
rear-facing
or
the
the
booster
seat.
Provision
and
currently
nevada
is,
is
red
states
that
are
yellow
have
one
of
the
two
pieces
of
legislation.
B
So
I'm
going
to
take
you
through
some
of
our
nevada
data,
and
this
is
years
2
2013
through
2017,
and
we
look
by
race
and
ethnicity,
on
appropriateness
of
restraint
and
green.
The
green
bar
is
children
that
were
thought
to
be
appropriately
restrained.
B
Yellow
is
inappropriately
restrained
and
again.
This
is
by
race
and
ethnicity,
which
is
at
the
bottom
of
the
graph.
The
red
bar
indicates
children
that
are
not
restrained
at
all
and
what
we
see
is
when
we
look
at
the
green
bars.
The
highest
number
is
in
our
asian
population,
followed
by
our
white
population,
and
if
we
look
at
hispanic
children
for,
for
instance,
we
see
that
they
are
less
likely
to
be
restrained
as
well
as
as
black
children,
and
in
addition,
we
see
that
black
children
are
more
more
frequently
inappropriately
restrained.
B
So
there's
clearly
opportunity
for
improvement.
I
want
to
tie
this
into
what
happens
to
children
when
they,
when
they
get
injured
they
they
will
come
to
our
trauma
center
and
we've
done
an
analysis
in
the
red
bar.
Those
are
not
restrained
the
yellow
bar
those
that
are
improperly
restrained
and
the
green
bar,
those
that
are
appropriately
restrained
and
we
can
see
if
we
first
look
at
hospital
days.
I
don't
know
if
you
can
see
my
precursor
or
not,
but
hospital
days,
you
can
see
dramatic
increase
in
hospital
days
and
it's
very
statistically
significant.
B
B
So
if
we
also
look
at
just
the
data
on
properly
restrained
and
and
so
forth,
it's
the
graph
over
to
to
the
right
we
see
at
the
top
that
age,
appropriate
restraint
use,
is,
is
reasonably
high
in
the
early
ages
of
life
and
dramatically
decreases
during
ages.
Six
or
eight
we're
not
sure
all
of
the
reasons
that
may
be
a
lack
of
of
education
and
clearly
our
at
present,
our
our
law
does
not
dictate
that
they
be
restrained
properly
and
if
we
look
at
no
restraint
use.
B
So
conclusion
is
that
booster
seats
really
save
lives
and
reduce
injuries.
The
gaps
that
need
to
be
addressed
are
those
that
have
already
been
mentioned,
that
there's
a
gap
between
ages,
one
to
two
not
required
to
ride
in
in
rear
face
child
restraint
and
those
ages.
Six
to
eight
are
very
vulnerable
under
our
current
laws,
and
all
the
recommendations
are
that
they
be
restrained
up
to
proper
height
and
again,
there's
no
requirement
in
the
nevada
law
that
children
ride
in
the
back
seat
until
reaching
13
years
of
age.
B
B
A
K
I
think
madam
chair
wouldn't
want
to
disappoint.
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
with
respect
to
the
graph,
the
infograph
that
you
gave
us
and
then
specifically
to
the
bill.
K
K
Okay
and
it's
my
understanding
that
we
do
have
a
restraint
law
that
all
children
under
a
certain
size
have
to
be
in
in
some
kind
of
restraint,
as
as
is
appropriate
for
their
size.
Right.
J
Shannon
bilbray
axe
rod
for
the
record.
Yes,
currently
it
is
six
and
sixty
pounds.
K
Okay
and
then
looking
at
the
bottom
graph,
the
bar
graph,
these
aren't
comparing
the
number
of
laws
as
in
the
map,
but
this
is
whether
the
child
was
restrained
or
not
restrained
at
all,
restrained
but
inappropriately
or
restrained
appropriately,
is
that
do
I
have
those
right.
K
Okay,
so
I
wanted
to
make
sure
I
didn't
misunderstand
that
so
in
nevada,
if
we're
talking
about
somebody,
that's
following
the
law,
I
mean
we
can
exclude
those.
I
think
from
for
purposes
of
my
question
entirely,
because
if
they're
not
following
the
law,
then
they're
not
following
the
law
as
it
exists
today
so
in
in
what
we're
dealing
with
in
this
bill
is:
we've
got
a
booster
seat
requirement
based
on
size
and
age
and
a
infant
seat
or
a
car
seat,
a
rear-facing
car
seat
defined
solely
in
age.
K
I
expect
he
will
exceed
the
ordinary
size
of
a
two-year-old
by
the
time
he
reaches
the
year
of
one
at
the
rate
he's
going,
but
we've
had
kids
that
are
well
above
average
in
terms
of
height
and
size
for
their
age
and
the
and
my
experience
has
been
they
reached
two
years
of
age
and
they're
now
kicking
the
back
of
the
seat.
Their
knees
are
in
their
chins
they're.
Just
too
big
for
that
scenario,
but
this
is
tied
strictly
to
age.
K
J
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Senator
pickard,
shannon
bilbray
axe
rod
for
the
record,
and
I
I
will
have
dr
kuhn
speak
as
well,
but
I
would
just
like
to
say:
I've
been
working
on
this
bill
for
a
while
and
really
honestly,
the
recommendation
would
be
above
two
years
old,
still
rear-facing,
but
I
think
dr
coons
kind
of
touched
on
it
briefly.
J
Two-Year-Olds
are
notoriously.
I
don't
want
to
use
the
word
stubborn,
but
I
have
a
lot
of
opinions.
I
will
so.
I
think
the
the
age
was
more
not
really
based
on
the
size,
but
due
to
the
temperament
of
a
child
trying
to
continue
them
in
that
reverse,
facing
position.
That
seems
to
be
the
appropriate
time
that
a
parent
is
no
longer
able
to
physically
put
a
child
in
the
back,
not
because
of
their
age,
but
because
of
the
temperament
and
dr
cools.
If
you
would
like
to
elaborate
on
that.
B
B
So
I
I
hope
that
that
addresses
that-
and
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
the
the
interest
for
booster
seats,
so
so
anatomically
that
would
place
a
child
at
the
appropriate
level,
particularly
so
the
lower
part
of
the
seat
belt
goes
across
their
hips
and
not
across
their
abdomen,
because
it
goes
across
their
abdomen.
Then
we
see
intra-abdominal
injuries
such
as
bowel
perforations,
solid
organ
injuries
and
pelvis
fractures.
K
All
right,
I
I
guess
we're
we're
back
to
square
one,
because
I'm
thinking
that
the
the
appropriate
position
and
and
situation
for
the
child
is
going
to
be
based
on
their
size,
not
their
temperament.
I
mean
kids
at
any
age,
don't
like
to
be.
You
know
looking
backwards
when
their
parents
and
all
the
exciting
stuff
the
food
and
whatever
else
might
be
up
front,
so
they're
going
to
put
up
a
fight
at
any
age
if
they're,
not
particularly
the
youngest
children.
K
I
I
but
this
bill
doesn't
approach
the
temperament
piece
and
and
we're
far
afield
from
my
question.
My
question
was:
if
we're
looking
at
size
and
and
physical
characteristics
in
the
second
instance,
why
aren't
we
using
those
same
parameters
in
the
first
instance?
In
other
words,
we're
using
strictly
an
age.
K
Restriction
in
the
beginning
and
the
kid
may
not
fit
in
that,
whether
they're
too
small
to
be
you
know
at
age.
Three
I
one
of
my
granddaughters
is
so
small.
I
think
she
could
have
been
five
and
still
been
rear-facing
and
fit
in
the
chair,
but
this
doesn't
look
at
the
physical
characteristics
of
the
child
that
would
make
it
appropriate.
J
Shannon
bilbrayak's
read
for
the
record.
Well,
I
I
think
number
one.
We
went
off
the
national
safety
recommendations,
but
I
would
also
say,
as
a
parent,
if
my
husband
is
6'4,
so
I
did
not
have
that
issue
with
my
daughter,
but
I
did
keep
her
rear
facing
until
she
was
two.
However,
if
I
did
have
a
a
little
bitty
child
like
I
was
actually
I
think
that
I
would
as
a
parent,
even
though
I
could
turn
the
child
around
at
two.
J
B
A
Well
done,
thank
you
and
senator
pickard.
I
believe
dr
cools
did
point
to
the
fact
that
the
57
inches
has
to
do
with
when
the
seat
belt
is
around
a
child's
hips,
and
so
at
least
that
answers
why
the
height
requirement
there
and
no
height
requirement
for
the
booster
seat.
Although
I
understand
it
doesn't
cover.
K
Every
scenario
sure
no-
and
I
get
that-
and
I
take
no
exception
to
the
57
inch
standard.
That
does
make
sense,
because
that's
about
placement
of
the
seat
belt,
but
where
we're
not
talking
about
the
criteria
of
the
child
or
the
seat,
we're
just
looking
at
rear
facing
we're,
basing
that
on
what
is
really
an
arbitrary
designation,
which
is
two
years
as
opposed
to
the
critical
issues,
which
is
whether
or
not
the
child
fits
in
a
rear-facing
seat.
K
A
Okay,
if
not,
I
have
one
and
assembled
woman.
You
can
take
a
shot
at
it,
but
I
think
it
might
be
more
appropriate
for
dr
cools.
My
kid
loves
to
sit
in
the
middle
seat.
A
Is
there
any
guidance
on
whether
children
are
safer
on
the
the
edges
or,
if
it's
perfectly
safe,
to
sit
in
the
middle?
Has
there
been
any
research
done
on
that.
J
I'm
going
to
take
a
stab
at
it,
just
as
a
mother
myself,
and
I
always
had
my
daughter
in
the
middle,
especially
when
she
was
rear-facing
and
what
I
was
told
in
dr
cool's
you
can
chime
in
was
that
if
there
was
a
side
impact,
the
safest
place
would
be
for
her
to
be
in
the
middle.
But
I
am
not
a
trauma
surgeon,
as
dr
cools
is
so
please.
B
So
so
there
is
data
on
the
two
sides
versus
versus
the
middle.
I
think,
if
clearly,
if
someone
is
unrestrained,
they
have
a
clear
shot
to
the
windshield,
but
with
restraint.
My
understanding
is
that
slightly
safer.
If
there's,
if
they're
properly
restrained
it
didn't
bring
that
data
with
me
today,
I
think
the
most
important
thing
is
that
occupants
and
drivers
are
are
restrained,
and
that
is
the
area
of
the
most
robust
data
in
all
of
traffic
safety.
B
Collaborators
to
to
really
look
at
death
data-
and
it's
it's
really
important.
We
didn't-
we
didn't
present
it
here
today,
but
there
is
increased
death
as
well
with
improper
and
a
lack
of
restraints,
and
I
don't
want
us
to
lose
track
of
that.
When
we
look
at
trauma-centered
data,
you
know
we
we
get
the
people
who
arrive
alive
and
who
may
subsequently
die
those
who
die
at
the
scene.
They
don't.
They
don't
come
to
a
hospital,
and
so
they're
they're
captured
in
a
different
source
of
data,
and
this
is
deborah
kohl's
for
the
record.
A
Thank
you
so
much
dr
cools,
any
additional
questions:
senator
spearman,
no
okay,
seeing
none.
We
will
go
ahead
and
then
turn
to
testimony.
I
don't
think
we
have
anyone
here
in
person
to
testify,
and
so
I'll
turn
it
over
to
our
capable
team
at
bps
to
pull
the
line
for
those
who'd
like
to
testify
in
support
of
ab118.
F
F
L
Thank
you.
My
name
is
leanne
mcallister
l-e-a-n-n-m-c
capital,
a
l,
l,
I
s
d
e
r.
I
am
the
executive
director
of
the
nevada
chapter
of
the
american
academy
of
pediatrics.
Today
I
offer
testimony
in
support
of
bill
ab118
on
behalf
of
the
nevada.
Aap
ab-118
is
an
important
step
in
bringing
nevada
in
line
with
american
academy
pediatrics
recommendation.
L
L
The
nevada
chapter
of
the
american
academy
of
pediatrics
currently
has
more
than
260
members,
most
of
whom
are
board-certified
pediatricians.
Both
primary
and
specialty
care
members
also
include
pediatric
nurse
practitioners,
physician
assistants,
pediatric
residents
and
medical
students,
all
of
whom
live
and
work
in
nevada
and
have
dedicated
their
professional
lives
to
the
health
of
all
children.
Our
chapter
members
are
available
to
nevada
legislators.
To
answer
any
questions
you
have
about
car
safety
or
any
health
concern
that
impacts,
children,
adolescents
and
young
adults
in
the
nevada.
Thank.
F
F
M
M
Rear
facing
to
age
two
is
vitally
important,
because
if
the
reason
we
do,
that
is
because
of
the
neck
bone
strength
until
about
age,
three
or
four
neck,
bones
aren't
completely
ossified
or
hardened
and
in
fact
it's
not
until
much
later,
but
that's
about
age.
Three
or
four
is
about
when
that
happens,
and
so
that's
why
we
want
kids
rear-facing
until
a
minimum
of
age
two,
but
there's
really
no
set
time
as
to
when
that
happens,
because
each
child
is
individual
on
that
timing,
age
two
is
again
kind
of
that
minimum
milestone.
M
M
It's
important
that
we
bring
nevada
up
to
our
other
states
in
minimums,
as
far
as
not
only
rear-facing
but
also
booster
seat
usage.
As
dr
cool
said,
booster
seats
that
age
range
is
really
important
to
get
our
our
kids
back
into
our
seats.
I
think
our
parents
are
thinking
that,
after
age,
five
or
so
kids,
don't
need
to
be
in
car
seats
anymore,
so
putting
them
back
into
booster
seats
and
keeping
them
protected
is
really
important.
F
F
A
All
right,
let's
see,
if
there's
anyone
who'd
like
to
testify
in
the
neutral
position.
F
F
A
J
I
did
neglect
to
point
out
one
other
thing
that
I
entered
into
this
bill
and
is
giving
the
department
of
public
safety
the
ability
to
receive
grants
or
donations
for
donations
of
car
seats
and
boosters,
which
I
I
thought
was
important
for
folks
who
are
in
financial
need
been
and
I'll
just
leave
it
with
this
you
know
becoming
a
parent
is
one
of
the
greatest
things
you'll
ever
do,
but
one
of
the
scariest
things
you'll
ever
do,
and
you
know
you
you
just
kind
of
want
to
know,
what's
best
practices
for
keeping
your
kids
safe
and
as
as
I
say,
often
and
and
quote,
I
believe
it's
maya
angelou
when
we
know
better,
we
do
better.
A
Thank
you
so
much
and
just
quickly
before
we
close
out
the
hearing.
I
I
just
want
to
note
that
you
know
that
I
saw
those
numbers
and
the
disparities
and
and
who
are
using
these
seats,
and
I
would
absolutely
love
it
if
there
was
some
way
to
maybe
encourage
some
educational
outreach
as
part
of
this
as
well,
and
so
that
certain
communities
are
not
disproportionately
affected
by
the
fines
that
are
associated.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
So
much
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
out
the
hearing
on
ab
118.
Yes,
senator
spearman
go
ahead.
Yeah.
N
Yeah,
I'm
just
going
to
say
the
idea
that
you
just
suggested
is
a
great
idea
and
we've
been
trying
to
get
that
done.
I
guess,
since
about
2015.,
so
if
they,
if
they
could
do
some
outreach,
that
would
be
great.
A
The
assembly
woman
is
saluting
you
and
nodding
her
head
in
the
affirmative,
and
so
we
will
continue
to
work
on
that.
Thank
you.
So
much
all
right
I'll
go
ahead
and
close
out
the
hearing
on
ab118
and
open
the
hearing
on
ab320
welcome,
assemblyman
levitt
to
the
committee.
You
can
go
ahead
and
begin
when
you're
ready.
O
Nevada
is
a
beautiful
state
and,
although
it's
known
for
its
vast
desert,
it
is
also
home
to
mountains,
lakes,
rivers
and
forest
trails.
Over
80
percent
of
nevada's
land
is
federally
owned
and
it's
home
to
over
20
state
parks,
not
to
mention
two
recreational
areas:
13
designated
wildlife
areas
and
seven
national
forests.
O
Ab320
provides
a
definition
for
large
atvs
as
any
that
has
a
non-straddle
seat,
including
seating
capacity
for
at
least
two
people.
Let
me
note
that
there
we
are
we're
working
to
amend
that
language
we've.
We
found
out
that
large
atvs
that
fit
this
definition.
You
can
also
seat
one.
So
we
wanted
to
make
that
clear
that
we're
trying
we
don't
want
to
to
omit
these
large
atvs
if
they
only
see
one
person,
but
the
non-straddle
will
will
still
apply.
O
These
are
not
small.
These
are
not
small
vehicles.
Some
may
approximate
smaller
econ
may
approximate.
Smaller
economy-sized
passenger
cars
in
terms
of
dimensions
as
such
moving
large
atvs
from
one
trail
location
to
another
can
require
a
much
larger
vehicle
with
with
either
sufficient
truck
bed
or
towing
capacity
to
move
a
large
atv.
O
Let
me
note
that
this
bill
came
out
of
a
constituent
request,
saying
that
they
could
not
drive
the
they
could
not
drive
their
their
their
ohv
from
their
garage
to
the
trail,
which
is
less
than
a
mile
from
their
house,
and
so
that's
how
this
kind
of
a
pro
this.
This
came
about
quickly.
O
The
bill
summary
assembly
bill
320
as
amended,
makes
two
changes
to
the
existing
statute
in
nevada,
revised
statutes
490.10
by
allowing
the
operation
of
large
atvs
on
a
maine
county,
road
or
city
street
within
the
city
whose
population
is
less
than
2500
or
portion
of
the
highway
that
has
been
designated
as
a
maine
county
road.
In
certain
circumstances,
specifically,
large
atvs
must
conform
to
the
requirements
set
forth
in
nrs
490.120
and
be
registered
with
the
department
of
motor
vehicles
as
a
vehicle
intended
to
be
operated
on
street
highways.
O
However,
governing
the
governing
body
of
a
city
or
county
having
jury
restriction
over
the
street
or
highway
may
enact
an
ordinance
or
resolution
prohibiting
the
operation
of
large
atvs
on
any
portion
of
such
a
street
by
limiting
the
applicability
of
ab320
to
cities
with
populations
under
25
000
and
ensuring
that
the
governing
body
of
this,
the
city
or
county
is
the
final
authority
by
which
the
roadway
by
which
roadways
permit
large
atvs
to
operate.
This
measure
balances
the
need
for
outdoor
recreation
enthusiasts
with
the
need
for
public
safety.
O
That's
that's
all
I
have
in
my
opening
remarks
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
may
have.
A
A
We
don't
have
helmets
on,
but
I'm
I
don't
know
the
difference
between
a
big,
a
large
atv
and
a
smaller
one,
but
I'm
envisioning,
maybe
something
that's
open
air
that
we
might
want
people
to
have
their
helmets
on,
especially
if
they're
on
the
highways
are
these
vehicles.
People
currently
wear
helmets
on.
Are
they
opened?
O
Thank
you,
madam
chair
glenn,
levitt
for
the
record.
I
asked
that
same
question
and
was
told
that
they're
in
certain
circumstances,
they're
not
required
because
they
have
seat
belts
and
because
they're
a
fully
enclosed
cage.
So
if
they
were
to
roll
or
to
do
anything
that
that
perhaps
could
happen
to
a
car,
they're
actually
a
little
safer
because
they
have
they.
They
often
have
they're
often
required
to
have
a
three-point
harness
as
a
safety
belt
and
they're
fully
enclosed
in
a
cage.
O
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair
assemblyman,
welcome
to
the
senate
and
it's
a
great
bill.
I
understand
the
genesis
of
the
bill.
You
know
one
of
the
questions
that
I
had
pop
up
that
somebody
had
texted
me
about
you
answered
quite
quite
quickly,
and
that
is
the
ability
of
counties
and
municipalities
to
still
be
able
to
pass
ordinances.
The
the
one
question
I
have
since
you're
going
to
be
allowing
people
to
be
driving
on
roads
and
streets
in
areas
with
populations
under
25
000.
I
get
it
it's
a
rural
area.
E
It's
still,
though,
would
would
this
bill
require
somebody,
as
you
mentioned
a
second
ago,
the
vehicle
itself,
in
order
to
be
able
to
go
on
these
roads
and
streets
has
to
have
the
same
legal
standards
as
a
regular
vehicle.
Would
what
about
the
driver
of
the
vehicle
would
that
person
need
to
have
a
valid
license
in
order
to
be
able
to
drive
on
the
streets
and
roads
during
that
time?
And
then
you
know
when
they
get
off
the
roads,
whatever
the
requirements
are
for
you
know
whatever
driver
at
that
point.
O
Thank
you,
senator
hammond,
for
the
record,
glenn
levitt.
I
I
got
asked
that
same
question.
Yes,
they
they
would
have
to
have
a
driver's
license.
They
would
have
to
have
everything
that
you
that
requires
you
to
drive
on
a
city
street,
so
they
would
have
to
be
licensed.
These.
These
vehicles
are
insured,
and
so
they
everything
that
that's
required
to
operate
on
a
street
they
would
have
to
they
would
have
to
they
would
have
to
have.
O
I
heard
I
heard
something
about
someone
having
a
bill
that
that
would
allow
their
14
year
old
child
to
drive
one
of
these
to
school,
but
that's
not
in
this
bill.
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
that
just
raised
an
interesting
question
in
my
mind,
senator
hammond's
question
when
we're
talking
about
the
qualifications
of
the
driver,
I'm
assuming
then
if
they
have
a
dui
or
some
other
suspended
some
other
purpose
for
a
suspended,
license
that
they
would
be
suspended
on
the
road
on
the
roadway.
But
what
about
off
the
roadway?
Would
they
that
sort
of
impediment
prevent
them
from
being
able
to
drive
these
off-road
or
or
you
know
how?
How
is
that
addressed?
You
know.
O
I
am
not
excuse
me,
madam
chair
assemblyman,
levitt,
for
the
record.
I
am
not
sure
about
that.
I
I
don't
know
what
the
what
the
qualifications
are
for
driving
the
vehicle
off-road.
The
only
research
we
did
was
is
what
what
what
would
be
required
for
these
vehicles
to
operate
on
a
city
street.
K
All
right,
so
we're
not
changing
any
of
that,
whatever
they
are,
they
are
and
and
we're
not
permitting
anything
beyond
the
existing
impediments
to
driving
on
or
off
the
road.
We're
just
making
sure
that
this
supplies
everywhere
is
that
right.
O
A
And
assemblyman
levitt,
senator
hammond's
question
also
brought
another
question
to
mine.
For
myself,
you
mentioned
that
these
cars
aren't
sure
these
vehicles
are
insured.
A
This
may
be
a
question
that
you
you
might
have
to
to
come
back
with,
but
it
seems
to
me
that
the
insurance
policy
expects
these
vehicles
to
be
used
off-road
and
may
only
cover
accidents
that
happen
in
their
use
off-road.
And
so,
if
you
have
the
answer
now,
I'd
love
to
hear.
But
if,
if
you
don't
I'd
love
for
you
to
come
back,
do
you
know
if
insurance
policies
would
hold
drivers
liable
for
accidents
on
the
road
if
they
are
at
fault.
O
I
don't
know,
and-
and
I
can
look
into-
and
I
can
get
back
to
the
committee-
and
just
let
you
know
I
mean
my
first
assumption
is-
is
that
the
insurance
level
is
pretty
high,
even
when
you're
operating
off-road,
because
the
because
of
the
the
the
possibility
of
something
negative
happening
while
you're
operating
the
vehicle.
But
I
will
I'll
definitely
look
into
that
and
see
what
the
requirements
are
they
do
have
to
they.
They
currently
have
to
register
those
vehicles
with
dmv.
A
All
right-
and
thank
you
thank
you
for
that,
and
I
just
I
want
to
let
you
know
my
concern
by
the
way
is
not
necessarily
so
much
the
cost
of
an
accident,
but
occasionally,
if
you
are
not
using
something
as
it's
intended
to,
let's
say
like
with
with
the
warranty
warranty's
not
going
to
cover
it
right.
O
And
thank
you,
madam
chair
and
glenn
someone
glen
for
the
record.
I
I
I
how
I
would
envision
it
is
that
they
have
to
have
equal
or
or
better
insurance
than
like
the
operation
of
a
golf
cart,
which
is
which
is
legal
on
some
roadways
in
in
the
state.
A
All
right,
fair
enough,
any
additional
questions
before
we
open
it
up
for
testimony
all
right,
seeing
none.
We
have
no
people
here
to
testify
in
person,
so
we'll
open
it
up
to
the
phone
lines
bps.
If
you'd
like
to
see,
if
there's
anybody
who'd
like
to
testify
and
support.
F
A
O
The
measure
preserves
the
jurisdictional
authority
of
the
cities
and
counties
to
permit
operation
of
large
atvs
on
their
roadways,
as
as,
as
they
determine
appropriate,
and
it
requires
led
registration
of
all
such
large
atvs
with
the
dmv
chair,
harrison
committee
members.
This
concludes
my
remarks
on
ab320
and
I
urge
you
to
support
this
measure.
Thank
you
for
your
time.