HB0022

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports the amendment because he believes it removes a dangerous loophole allowing drivers to bypass road closures based on subjective judgments of safety, which could endanger themselves and others due to unseen hazards like gas leaks or avalanches. He argues that locals already have a program for permission during weather events, but this bill would encourage unsafe following behavior by outsiders.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports the amendment because he agrees with DOT officials that the current bill creates an unworkable loophole where individuals might ignore closures for dangerous reasons like avalanche control, endangering workers and themselves.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports the amendment because he believes existing DOT procedures handle legitimate local needs, and keeping the loophole would give dangerous opportunities to those who have no business being on closed roads.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker opposes passing the bill without the amendment because he believes it lacks necessary discretion for rural residents facing real problems with current administrative procedures, which are cumbersome and not widely offered.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports the amendment because he believes DOT has programs in place to assist those who need to travel, and communication with authorities is sufficient without needing a legislative loophole.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports defeating the amendment because he believes DOT programs are not operating statewide and real-time signage is needed, but until then, flexibility for rural residents via the amendment is necessary.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker opposes the bill because he believes increasing fines punishes working people who need to get home or feed cattle, arguing that if someone must go somewhere they will regardless of the fine amount.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports the bill because he believes higher fines are necessary to deter tourists and others from endangering DOT workers, noting that existing case-by-case exceptions already exist for locals.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker opposes the bill because he believes passing the amendment made the legislation unworkable and punitive, arguing that common sense should allow people to use their judgment for short distances.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports the bill because he believes it serves as a necessary deterrent against individuals making bad decisions that put emergency responders and others at serious risk.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker opposes the bill because he believes it criminalizes conduct that is legally justified in practice, such as having a card or prior authorization, and increasing fines makes this discrepancy worse.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports the bill but expresses concern that raising fines might lead DOT to rely solely on signs rather than having personnel present, which could be dangerous during events like avalanche control.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker opposes the bill because he argues that deterrence already exists in current law through potential jail time, making an increase in fines unnecessary and unaddressed.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports raising the fine for failing to observe road closures because emergency management and rescue personnel requested it, noting that drivers increasingly ignore closed roads due to cell phone reliance and the outdated $100 penalty.