Please! Read the proposed legislation from the Dept of Transportation, bill #1503.
They are removing the authority for the DMV to conduct safety classes and will require each instructor to pay an annual fee of $100. to teach in the state.
They are removing the authority for the DMV to conduct safety classes and will require each instructor to pay an annual fee of $100. to teach in the state.
http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/507400
HomeBill Text: NH House Bill 1503 - 2012 Regular Session
New Hampshire HB1503 inShare.0
NH Legislature Page for HB1503 - PermaLink --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SummarySponsorsTextsVotesResearchPrioriComments (0). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Bill Drafts: Introduced
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HB 1503-FN – AS INTRODUCED
2012 SESSION
12-2063
03/01
HOUSE BILL 1503-FN
AN ACT relative to motorcycle rider education.
SPONSORS: Rep. DeLemus, Straf 1; Rep. D. McGuire, Merr 8
COMMITTEE: Transportation
ANALYSIS
This bill makes a variety of changes to motorcycle rider education laws.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
12-2063
03/01
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twelve
AN ACT relative to motorcycle rider education.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Special Motorcycle Licenses; Waiver of Driving Examination. Amend RSA 263:31 to read as follows:
263:31 Special Motorcycle Licenses; Waiver of Driving Examination. The department shall cause to be issued a special license for persons without a driver’s license or an endorsement on the driver’s license for persons who have a driver’s license, for all applicants who successfully complete the requirements for a motorcycle license. The department shall cause to be issued a 3-wheeled motorcycle endorsement on the driver’s license for persons who have a driver’s license, for all applicants who successfully complete the requirements for a 3-wheeled motorcycle endorsement. Applicants for such license or endorsement shall furnish proof of their fitness to drive a motorcycle as the director shall in his or her discretion determine. Such proof shall include the applicant’s passing a driver examination conducted on a motorcycle. The examination for a special motorcycle endorsement and the examination for a 3-wheeled motorcycle endorsement shall be separate and distinct examinations emphasizing the skills and maneuvers necessary to operate safely the specific type of motorcycle for which the endorsement is issued. The director [may] shall waive the requirement for such a driving examination upon receipt of [adequate evidence of experience in driving a motorcycle by an applicant under such rules as the director may deem necessary, or] proof that the applicant has successfully completed a state-approved motorcycle rider education course. No person may take the motorcycle driver examination more than twice; any person who fails to pass the examination twice shall be required to successfully complete [the] a motorcycle rider education [program] course under RSA 263:34-b. No person shall drive a motorcycle on a way of this state, unless such person is duly licensed to drive a motorcycle by a special motorcycle license or endorsement issued under this section, or holds a permit under RSA 263:32. No person shall knowingly authorize or allow the driving of a motorcycle owned by him or her or in his or her charge on a way of this state by any person who does not hold a special motorcycle license or endorsement or motorcycle learner’s permit.
2 Motorcycle Learner’s Permit. Amend RSA 263:32 to read as follows:
263:32 Motorcycle Learner’s Permit.
I. Upon application, the department shall issue a motorcycle learner’s permit to a person 18 years of age or older or a person who is 16 years of age or older and under 18 years of age who has successfully completed an approved driver education course. Applicants for such permit shall furnish proof of their fitness to drive a motorcycle as the director in his or her discretion shall determine. Such proof of fitness shall include either passage of a written basic motorcycle knowledge test approved by the commissioner [and the motorcycle rider education program advisory committee] or successful completion of [the] a motorcycle rider education [program] course under RSA 263:34-b, but shall not include a driver examination.
II. A motorcycle learner’s permit shall permit the holder of such a permit to drive a motorcycle on any way after sunrise and before sunset. The holder of a motorcycle learner’s permit shall not carry any passengers when he or she drives on any way.
III. The permit shall be valid for [30] 45 days from the date of issuance or until the holder of the permit obtains a special license to drive motorcycles, whichever is sooner. No more than one permit shall be issued to the same person in any calendar year.
3 Motorcycle Rider Education Courses; Rules. RSA 263:34-b and RSA 263:34-c are repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
263:34-b Motorcycle Rider Education Courses.
I. The director shall establish standards for a motorcycle rider education course. A motorcycle rider education course shall consist of between 15 and 20 hours of instruction directly related to the actual operation of motorcycles, emphasizing safety measures designed to ensure greater awareness of careful and skillful operation of motorcycles. The director’s authority under this subdivision does not include providing or operating any motorcycle rider education course.
II. The director may appoint a training specialist who shall provide quality control for motorcycle rider education courses.
III. Motorcycle rider training courses shall be open to persons who either hold a current valid driver’s license for any classification or who are eligible for a motorcycle learner’s permit.
IV. Motorcycle rider training courses shall issue certificates of completion in the manner and form prescribed by the director to persons who satisfactorily complete the requirements of the course.
263:34-c Rulemaking. The director shall adopt rules pursuant to RSA 541-A relative to:
I. Minimum standards for rider training courses as required under RSA 263:34-b, I.
II. Issuance and form of certificates of completion for rider training courses under RSA�263:34-b, IV.
III. Standards for an approved motorcycle rider education instructor preparation course under RSA 263:34-d, I.
IV. Minimum requirements for the qualification of a rider education instructor as required under RSA 263:34-d, II.
4 New Paragraph; Instructor Requirements and Training; Fees. Amend RSA 263:34-d by inserting after paragraph IV the following new paragraph:
V.(a) Rider education instructors shall pay an annual instructor certification fee of $100 to the division.
(b) The division shall annually inspect each motorcycle education classroom. The fee for the inspection shall be $100.
(c) The division shall annually inspect each motorcycle driving range. The fee for the inspection shall be $100.
5 Repeal. The following are repealed:
I. RSA 6:12, I(b)(26), relative to motorcycle rider safety fund.
II. RSA 6:12-g, II, relative to motorcycle rider safety fund.
III. RSA 263:34-a, relative to definitions.
IV. RSA 263:34-e through RSA 263:34-i, relative to motorcycle fees, insurance discount, and test exemption.
6 Effective Date. This act shall take effect July 1, 2012.
LBAO
12-2063 Revised 12/22/11
HB 1503 FISCAL NOTE
AN ACT relative to motorcycle rider education.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Department of Safety states this bill will decrease state restricted revenue and expenditures by $578,622 in FY 2013 and each year thereafter, increase state general fund revenue by $35,728 in FY 2013, and increase state general fund expenditures by $78,354 in FY 2013, $71,943 in FY 2014, $75,888 in FY 2015, and $80,117 in FY 2016. There will be no fiscal impact on county or local revenue or expenditures.
METHODOLOGY:
The Department of Safety states this bill makes several changes to the motorcycle rider education laws, with the most significant being the elimination of the motorcycle rider safety dedicated fund and clarification within the bill that the director of motor vehicles does not have the authority to provide or operate any motorcycle rider education course. The Department states the current balance in the motorcycle rider safety dedicated fund is $35,728 and it assumes this balance will lapse to general fund, increasing revenue in FY 2013. As a result of this bill, the Department states its oversight of motorcycle rider education in the state remains in place but it can no longer provide or operate such an education program itself. Currently, the Department offers multiple motorcycle rider training programs (MRT) in various locations throughout the state for an average of 2,578 students annually. The Department estimates that both the revenue and expenses associated with offering these classes to be $585,222, so passage of this bill would lead to an annual decline in state restricted revenue and expenditures of that amount. The Department also states there currently are 3 privately-run schools that provide education to roughly 895 students annually. If the proposed bill were to go into effect, the Department assumes these 3 schools would hire the instructors previously employed in state-run programs in order to meet the projected need for MRT. The Department states this bill would also institute annual state inspections of the MRT program classrooms and driving ranges for a fee of $100 each and annual certification for all MRT instructors also for a fee of $100 each. The Department estimates each of the 3 MRT schools would be required to have their classrooms and driving ranges inspected annually for an increase in state restricted revenue of $600 (($100 fee x 3 classrooms) + ($100 fee x 3 driving ranges). The Department also estimates approximately 60 instructors would require certification each year for an increase in state restricted revenue of $6,000 ($100 fee x 60 instructors). The total revenue increase from the inspections and certifications required in this bill is estimated to be $6,600 ($600 + $6,000) per year, which, when combined with the projected decrease in revenue of $585,222 annually from the elimination the current structure, is an estimated net decrease of $578,622 ($6,600 increase combined with $585,222 decrease). The Department also states if additional schools or instructors are required, revenues would increase further.
The Department estimates oversight of the state’s MRT program will entail the salary and benefits associated with one program specialist II position (LG 21), some consultant programming changes in the first year, and some miscellaneous supplies and materials. Because the MRT revenue expected to be generated under the proposed bill ($6,600 annually) is insufficient to cover the associated oversight costs, the Department assumes funding from the general fund will be necessary. The Department’s estimate of this bill’s impact on state expenditures is as follows:
FY 2013 FY 2014 FY2015 FY2016
Decrease – Elimination of MRT operation ($585,222) ($585,222) ($585,222) ($585,222)
Increase – Oversight position salary $41,087 $42,744 $44,538 $46,410
Increase – Oversight position benefits $23,867 $25,799 $27,950 $30,307
Increase – Oversight consultant programming $10,000 $0 $0 $0
Increase – Oversight supplies/materials $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Increase – Oversight Subtotal $84,954 $78,543 $82,488 $86,717
Projected MRT revenue under this bill ($6,600) ($6,600) ($6,600) ($6,600)
Oversight costs to be covered by General Fund $78,354 $71,943 $75,888 $80,117
While the Department predicts state restricted expenditures to decrease by $585,222 each year to reflect the elimination of MRT operation, it also assumes restricted expenditures will increase by $6,600 (the amount of restricted revenue each year), for a net restricted expenditure decrease of $578,622 ($585,222 decrease combined with $6,600 increase).
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/01/19/who_taught_you_to_drive_breaking_a_few_of_new_hampshires_rules/
Who taught YOU to drive? Breaking a few of New Hampshire’s rules
By Peter DeMarco Globe Correspondent / January 19, 2012
It’s sort of amazing that New Hampshire doesn’t require adults to wear seat belts, given the overwhelming data on how they reduce injuries and fatalities. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, seat belts reduce the risk of death in a car accident by 45 percent, and the risk of serious injury by 50 percent, for those sitting up front.
Want to know what else is amazing? Even without a seat belt law, New Hampshire drivers are buckling up at a higher rate than Massachusetts residents.
New Hampshire had ranked last in the country in seat belt use in 2010, with 72.2 percent of people buckling up, according to federal statistics. But Massachusetts wasn’t much better, with just 73.7 percent of people wearing belts.
When the federal agency releases its figures for last year, however, New Hampshire’s new rate will be 75 percent, said Peter Thomson, longtime coordinator of the New Hampshire Highway Safety Agency. With the Bay State’s figure dropping slightly last year to 73.2 percent, according to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, it means New Hampshire has leapfrogged past us.
Nearly everybody’s car makes those persistent beeping reminders to buckle up, so it must be more than that.
How did this happen?
“We’re doing it even without the law,’’ Thomson said. “We at the agency, and a lot of other groups tied in with us, do a lot of educational work. We start with programs way back in the first grade. It’s really caught on.’’
Our northern neighbors certainly take great pride in their state motto, “Live Free or Die.’’ It’s printed on every automobile registration plate, and permeates the state’s driving rules: Motorcycle riders don’t need helmets; auto insurance is optional; no one pays a motor vehicle excise tax bill.
But upon closer inspection, Massachusetts and New Hampshire drivers are a lot more alike than you’d think. Seat belt use is Exhibit A, but did you also know that at least 90 percent of New Hampshire drivers carry car insurance, just like we do? Or that New Hampshire drivers pay almost as much to register their cars as we pay in excise taxes? Or that New Hampshire’s no-texting-while-driving law is more than five years older than ours?
It’s true that New Hampshire motorcyclists fiercely defend their right to ride without wearing a helmet. But even on that front, statistics show motorcycle-related fatalities dropped by 50 percent last year, from 28 to 14, a sign that more bikers may be choosing to don headgear.
“What I’ve seen over the last 10 years of living here is that you have a lot of Massachusetts transplants, so you now have this mixed culture,’’ said Brett Bogart, a former Massachusetts driving instructor and West Newbury native who moved to New Hampshire a decade ago.
“You have people trying to transition to this ‘Live Free or Die’ mentality, along with old-timers who are seeing their communities change to a more mandated feel. I think it carries over into driving. I wouldn’t be surprised if the seat belt law was overturned in five or 10 years.’’
So let’s put to rest some of New Hampshire’s biggest driving myths.
Seat belts
While it’s true that New Hampshire is the only state where adults don’t need to wear seat belts, since 2000 everyone under age 18 has been required to buckle up, Thomson said. The habit appears to be carrying into adulthood, with last year’s 75 percent mark representing a record high, he said.
“When I started my job in 1992, the usage rate was 49.7 percent. It just kind of continues upward,’’ Thomson said.
With usage up, the number of accident fatalities statewide hit a 51-year low last year, he added.
Insurance
I know how much I spend on car insurance, so the option of going without it sounds tempting. But most New Hampshire drivers actually have no choice in the matter.
Some residents voluntarily buy coverage to protect themselves and their families, said retired insurance agent David Mason, who owned agencies in each state, Mason & Mason Insurance in Whitman, Mass., and M & M Insurance in North Conway, N.H. But by far, that’s not the only reason.
For starters, without insurance, New Hampshire motorists can’t drive out of state.
“New Hampshire is the only state in New England that doesn’t have compulsory auto insurance,’’ he said. “Every other state requires it, so without it, you could be stopped at the border. You don’t have to have car insurance in New Hampshire, but from a practical standpoint you can’t go anywhere.’’
Anyone who’s been convicted of drunken driving in New Hampshire must get insurance before they can drive again, as does any driver found at fault in a car accident, Mason said.
If you take out a loan to pay for your car, your bank will require you to have insurance.
“They’re not going to loan you the money if it’s uninsured,‘ Mason said. “If the car gets wrecked, how are they going to get paid?
“Even if the car owner wants to ‘Live Free or Die,’ the bank’s not going to let them do that.’’
Both the New Hampshire Insurance Department and the Insurance Research Council, a nonprofit group supported by the industry, say approximately 90 percent of New Hampshire motorists carry coverage.
Mason thinks the figure is even higher - perhaps 99 percent. “I’ve lived here in excess of 20 years,’’ he said, “and I’ve never met anyone who doesn’t have it.’’
Excise tax
We all know you can buy a car in New Hampshire without paying a sales tax. But the state’s tax-free attitude applies to motor vehicle excise fees as well: There aren’t any.
So it’s a lot cheaper for New Hampshire residents to put a car on the road, right?
Once again, looks can be deceiving. While New Hampshire drivers get out of paying excise taxes, they often pay substantially higher registration fees, both to the state and their local municipality.
I asked Nancy Naples, vehicle registration supervisor for Nashua (New Hampshire residents register their cars through their local city or town halls), what it would cost me to register my car if I lived in her community. According to her calculations, I would have paid $420 for the first 12 months of ownership.
I paid $50 to the state to register my car in Massachusetts, plus another $515 in local excise taxes, so it’s definitely cheaper to operate in New Hampshire, though the margin isn’t as wide as you might have expected.
And it begins to narrow after the first year, because of changes in fee structures. As my vehicle gets older, my costs would become virtually equal regardless of where I lived. After five years, I’d be paying $115 to register my vehicle in New Hampshire, compared with a combined $114 in registration fees and excise taxes in Massachusetts.
Sounds like a wash to me.
