Lawmakers propose tougher traffic laws, critics prefer smarter infrastructure

Yahoo

26-02-2025

(Photo: Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department)
In a response to rising traffic fatalities throughout Nevada, state lawmakers are proposing to increase traffic penalties and authorize harsher enforcement.
But laws already exist to punish reckless driving, and legislative efforts being considered this session won't address the underlying conditions that make roads hazardous, argue critics of the proposals.
Nick Shepack, the Nevada state Director of the Fines and Fees Justice Center, urged lawmakers to consider ways to make roadway infrastructure better to increase safety and reduce speeds.
'If legislators take the data seriously and use best practices, I think we can do a lot to make our roads safer,' Shepack said. 'If we default to criminalizing behavior that we've previously decriminalized, or criminalizing new behaviors, I don't have a lot of hope that we're going to see much impact on traffic safety.'
Road safety proposals come as the number of fatalities in the state from 2019 to 2022 has increased 36%, lawmakers were told by the Nevada Office of Traffic Safety within the Department of Public Safety during the interim legislative session.
Lawmakers last week heard two of several bills being proposed this session that seek to either stiffen traffic penalties or increase enforcement.
Assembly Bill 54, sponsored by the Assembly Growth and Infrastructure Committee, would make it a felony for motorists to fail to move over for emergency services providers and their failing to do so results in the death or injury of a first responder.
Assembly Bill 111, sponsored and presented by Republican Assemblymember Brian Hibbetts, makes driving the wrong way a misdemeanor crime.
Supporters for both bills, which were heard during an Assembly Judiciary Committee meeting earlier this month, said recent, high-profile traffic fatalities prompted the measures.
The family of Jaya Brooks, a three year old who was killed by a driver going the wrong way, testified in support of AB 111.
Nevada Highway Patrol troopers who testified for AB 54 said the legislation was prompted by the deaths of Highway Patrol Sergeant Michael Abbate and Trooper Alberto Felix, who were killed in 2023. The driver pled guilty to two counts of driving under the influence and was sentenced to 16 years.
Proponents for both bills argued existing laws don't do enough to prevent traffic fatalities
'I think all the tools are there and exist,' Shepack said in an interview.
What doesn't exist, he added, is greater efforts to change the infrastructure of streets to make them more safe.
Shepack said the stories from families reflecting on the loss were devastating and the legislation is well-intentioned.
'I do fear that if we continue to move in this direction where we piecemeal legislation, make one thing criminal again because of tragedy, we will end up in a position where we have an extreme hodgepodge of traffic laws and really haven't done anything to address the underlying issues that lead to traffic fatalities,' he said.
State lawmakers in recent legislative sessions have worked to decriminalize low-level traffic offenses in an effort to address disparities and stricter enforcement among communities of color and low income communities.
Legislation passed in 2021 converted minor traffic infractions, like driving with a broken taillight and failure to yield to a full stop at a stop sign, from a criminal infraction to a civil one. The legislation passed easily with bipartisan support, only Assemblymember Gregory Hafen and state Sen. Ira Hansen, both Republicans, opposed.
Making the case to lawmakers for the proposal to increase the criminality of wrong-way driving, Hibbetts, the measure's sponsor, singled out the provision of AB 116 that removed criminal penalties for driving the wrong way.
'Even if driving the wrong way results in an accident, it remains a civil matter unless there is substantial bodily harm or death,' Hibbetts said. 'I think this is one we got wrong.'
He said it wasn't enough to prosecute reckless driving, which he said is difficult to prove in court.
Lawmakers didn't ask any questions during the hearing, and no one spoke in opposition to the measure.
In an interview following the hearing, Shepack questioned how the bill would deter wrong-way driving and prevent accidents.
'We know that infrastructure changes to on-ramps and off-ramps is what reduces these types of incidents,' he said.
The bill cracking down on drivers who don't pull over for emergency vehicles would help deter such negligence, Nevada Highway Patrol Captain Nathan Peterson told lawmakers.
'Drivers today continue to ignore the law and the consequences are often deadly,' he said. 'When a driver fails to move over and that violation results in the death or serious injury of a responder, the outcome is catastrophic. However, current penalties fail to reflect the behavior and the severity of the harm caused.'
He noted that first responders 'face extreme risk' when responding to traffic accidents.
Reno Democratic Assemblymember Erica Roth questioned why the state needed an additional penalty outside what already exists in law to punish drivers who neglect laws and harm others.
Roth noted that last session that state increased penalties for a driver going more than 50 miles per hour over the posted speed limit and then causing the death of another. The bill, known as Rex's Law, was named after a 13-year-old boy killed by a driver going more than 90 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour zone.
'My concern with this bill is that this conduct is already covered, because what you have explained, the situation you've explained to me, is covered under the reckless driving statute,' Roth said.
Peterson said the provisions in AB 54 were specific to people who violated Nevada's 'move over' law.
'It holds drivers accountable when their negligence causes catastrophic harm,' he said.
Paloma Guerrero, a deputy public defender with the Clark County Public Defender's Office, warned the bill doesn't take into account the context of the situation and worried that a driver could incidentally violate the law and still be subjected to a felony. The example she gave is if a driver had a medical incident while driving.
'This bill as written would criminalize accidental behavior,' she said. 'We cannot create accidental conduct as a felony.'
The committee took no action on the bills.
Legislation to criminalize road rage has already been introduced.
Senate Bill 37, which hasn't been heard yet, is designed for a motorist who 'knowingly operates a vehicle in a manner intended to intimidate, harass, frighten, alarm or distress the driver.'
A bill authorizing the use of automated traffic enforcement, such as speeding cameras and red light cameras, is also expected to be heard this session. The language for the bill hasn't been released yet.
The Fines and Fees Justice Center opposed the idea of traffic cameras when it was discussed during the interim legislative session.
Shepack worried that depending on the language of the bill, it could create a situation where 'you will see cameras on roads that clearly have infrastructure needs long before you see public works projects beginning.'
'I think we are moving to address an infrastructure problem with criminalization via robot,' Shepack said. 'You are very likely to see cameras go up before these basic infrastructure needs are met. And it's simply because one costs money while it's the right thing to do and the other one generates revenue, so it's a much easier thing to do.'
The bill is still being drafted, and Shepack said his group has submitted recommendations to the Senate Committee on Growth and Infrastructure.
Those recommendations include starting with a pilot program and data-driven justification for implementation. If the state is going to use cameras, the legislation should require ample data to show it is meeting its goals, Shepack said.
He also hopes to see provisions that prevent counties and cities from prioritizing the revenue model feature of automated enforcement over public safety.
'Even if the program is not effective, if it's profitable, it makes it really difficult to come back and reform it,' Shepack said. 'We would like to see that revenue go directly to infrastructure needs on the roads with the goal of removing the cameras.'