HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PWC 239 03/29/1988 1984-1988 OFFICE INFORMATION ONLY
Meeting: June 15, 1988
Action: Bill 451, Draft 5, approved by PWC Report 255, regarding
Comm. 1367. 7 and 1367. 8, was approved on second and final
reading.
Re:
REPORT OF THE
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS -
DATE: March 29 , 1988
PLACE : Kamakahonu Ballroom, King ,Kamehameha Hotel , Kailua-Kona
TIME: 11 :00 a.m.
Chairman and Members
Hawaii County Council
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Your Committee on Public Works to which was referred Communication
No . 136.7.6 and its attached Bill No . 451 Draft 2, Bill 451 and
Communications No. 1367 through 1367 .5, reports as follows :
Bill 451 Draft 2 proposes to amend Chapter 24 , Article 1 ,
Section 24-3 and Chapter 24 , Article 7 of the Hawaii County Code 1983
by adding a new paragraph to Section 24-3, Definitions and a new
division entitled Mopeds to Chapter 24 , Article 7 . The purpose of
the bill is to add a definition of moped to the Vehicle Code and to
require the use of safety glasses , goggles or a face shield for any
person operating a moped .
Your Committee on Public Works reviewed Bill 451 on December 8 , 1987 ;
recommended passage on first reading by the Council; and sent the
bill out to Kona Hospital , the County Safety Coordinator and
motorcycle and moped dealers islandwide for review and comment .
Your Committee again reviewed Bill No. 451 as well as community input
in Communications No. 1367 through 1367 .5 on February 23 , 1988 and is
aware of the following :
1 . Kona Hospital supports the bill .
2 . The Safety Coordinator feels that Bill 451 is
appropriate but asks if the bill might be found
unconstitutional by the courts as was the mandated use of
safety helmets .
3 . The Big Island Motorcycle Association supports the
bill and believes that it will be beneficial , especially for
moped renters, as they are usually inexperienced riders and
that infringement upon individual rights doesn ' t apply to
eye protection as clear vision is needed for safe operation
of any vehicle and affects safety of others on the roadway .
4 . Kanoa Motorcycles , Inc . and Suzuki of Hilo both raised
concerns about windshields or windscreens, recommending a
specific definition and noting that some windshields are so
low and modified that they don 't provide protection .
5 . Kanoa Motorcycles also suggests that Bill 451 might
cause a conflict between state and county requirements .
PWC REPORT :';O . 239
ADOPTED :
4.
PWC- 239 Page 2 March 29 , 1988
Deputy Corporation Counsel Fred Giannini testified that Bill No . 451
was written the same as the Hawaii Revised Statutes, but he wants to
narrow the bill to mopeds and respond to the concern on windshield
size by eliminating the exemptions [ from using eye protection] for [ a
moped with] windshield or windscreen . He explained that in 1973 the
Hawaii Supreme Court upheld the helmet requirement and that removal
of the requirement was by legislative act , rather than overruling by
court . He also testified that mopeds are exempted from the State
definitions of motor vehicles in Section 286-2 , HRS and vehicles .
Your Committee deferred action on Bill 451 so that Corporation
Counsel could address the concerns and rewrite the bill .
Your Committee reviewed Communication No . 1376 .6 and its attached
Bill No . 451 Draft 2 on March 29 , 1988 and is aware of the following
changes in Bill 451 Draft 2 :
1 . While Bill No . 451 applies to motorcycles , motor scooters
and mopeds, Draft 2 applies only to mopeds . This avoids any
possible conflict with State law.
2. While Bill 451 requires that safety glasses, goggles, a face
shield or any other protective device be worn by an operator
of a motorcycle, motor scooter or moped not equipped with
windscreens or windshields, Draft 2 requires the operator of
any moped to properly wear safety glasses, goggles or a face
shield designed to protect the eyes of the wearer without
regard to the moped having a windscreen or windshield .
Bill 451 Draft 2 is in Ramsayer format for the convenience of the
Committee.
Your Committee Chairwoman noted that Bill 451 Draft 2 did not make
clear who is responsible for furnishing eye protective devices in the
case of moped rental, that is, the lessee or lessor . To correct
this, Bill 451 Draft 2, paragraph 2 was amended to show that the
person who offers a moped for lease or rent will provide eye
protective devices for the lessee or rentee . This amended bill is
called Draft 3 .
Your Committee on Public Works is in accord with the intent of
Bill No . 451 Draft 3 and recommends passage of1Bill 451 Draft 3 on
final reading by the County Council . /
,,-------,, 144 gi . Ilb
v RLE K . LAI, C : IRWOMAN
r t
, ' c1 . , If�-� . (Absent and Excused)
RUSS LL S . SKUBUN, VICE CHR. FRANK DE LUZ III, MEMBER
TA ASHI DO INGO, EMBER SHERWOOD R. H. irWELL, M ER
LA/TW