Senate hears proposal to raise work‑zone fines and apply them regardless of visible workers

Senate Transportation Committee members heard testimony on Senate Bill 2183, a proposal to increase fines for speeding in construction zones and to make the enhanced penalty apply whenever a posted construction‑zone speed limit is in effect rather than only when workers are physically present.

Sponsor Senator Dean Rummel said the current $80 fine has lost deterrent effect and that harsher penalties would encourage safer driving around work zones. “This bill is all about safety,” Rummel said, presenting crash and citation data from the last two years and asking the committee to adopt a higher, behavior‑changing penalty.

The bill as introduced would increase the minimum fine for 1–10 miles per hour over the posted construction‑zone limit to $150; if a driver exceeds the limit by more than 10 mph the fine would be $150 plus $2 for each mile per hour above 10 over the limit. The bill also proposes removing statutory language that limits the enhanced penalty to times “when individuals are engaged in construction” in the zone.

Rummel cited statewide figures for 2023–24 that committee testimony repeated during the hearing: 523 crashes in work zones (13 with suspected serious injury, 71 with minor injury, 63 possible injury, and 376 with no apparent injury), and 1,313 speeding citations issued by the Highway Patrol in construction zones across the same period. The citation breakdown attendees quoted included 8 citations 1–5 over, 352 at 6–10 over, 338 at 11–15 over, 334 at 16–20 over and 281 at 21+ over the limit.

Construction and contractor groups said the change is overdue. Russ Hanson of the Associated General Contractors said the association pressed for an amount that would be meaningful but likely to pass the Legislature; he said $150 is a politically pragmatic starting point and noted neighboring states have higher penalties. “No, it’s not [high enough],” Hanson said when asked whether $150 was adequate, “but having been around here for a lot of sessions … we wanted to come up with a number that can have a meaningful impact but yet pass.”

Nate Sandberg, vice president and safety manager for Northern Improvement, described on‑the‑ground safety risks and supported removing the “workers present” condition. “Enforcement needs to begin as soon as that construction zone starts regardless of worker presence,” Sandberg said, listing reasons workers might not be visible at every moment (concrete cure time, weather delays, phasing, paint striping, supply chain delays). Sandberg and other contractors told the committee the motorist should be required to slow in a posted work zone even if workers are not visible.

Safety advocates and law‑enforcement witnesses supported higher penalties but raised questions about enforcement practice. Don Moseman of the North Dakota Safety Council and a former Colorado state trooper cited research and MUTCD guidance that increasing penalties helps deter speeding; he said Colorado saw a marked drop in work‑zone speeding after raising fines and doubling penalties in construction zones. “It is not about the fine amount. It is about the fine acting as a deterrent,” he said.

Sergeant Jenna Claussen Huberts of the North Dakota Highway Patrol testified in a neutral capacity about enforcement realities. She said troopers typically concentrate enforcement activity when workers are present; dash‑camera evidence can lead to dismissed citations if the worker presence is not visible in a recording. Huberts said the patrol currently uses overtime‑funded saturation enforcement when crews are working and that removing the “workers present” language could change how the public interprets when enhanced fines apply.

Members debated the “workers present” language. Senator Susan Paulson and others said signs that read “when workers are present” can help motorists judge whether to slow; backers of removal said signage and common travel conditions produce ambiguity and that motorists cannot be relied upon to judge worker presence consistently, especially given distracted driving. Sandberg, Moseman and DOT deputy director Matt Lineman argued that the lane configurations, narrow travel lanes and changing pavements in work zones cause safety risks for workers and the public even when workers are not visible and that enforcement should apply to posted work zones regardless.

Members also compared fines with neighboring states: Minnesota’s work‑zone minimum was cited at about $300, South Dakota doubles some fines or imposes up to $500 or jail, and Montana doubles a baseline in some cases. Some committee members asked whether $150 is high enough to deter behavior given those comparisons; supporters said $150 is an achievable increase that could be raised later if warranted.

Testimony included a firsthand account of a crew member struck on a project in Wells County earlier in the season; AGC referred to that case as a strong motivating example for the bill. Trucking representatives including the North Dakota Motor Carriers Association said they support the measure to protect drivers and workers.

The committee did not vote during the hearing. Sponsors and agency staff said they would continue to work on technical drafting and enforcement detail before further committee action.