Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Safety Construction Zones topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House passes bill doubling fines for speeding in marked construction zones when workers present
Summary
Senate Bill 20 passed the House 42–26 on Feb. 12, 1998, to require courts to impose at least double the uniform bail schedule fine for speeding in clearly marked construction zones where workers are present. Sponsors said the increase is a deterrent; critics warned about enforceability and court burden.
The Utah House passed Senate Bill 20 on Feb. 12, 1998, which raises penalties for speeding in construction zones when workers are present and when signs indicate doubled fines. Under the measure, the fine imposed by the court must be at least double the amount in the Uniform Bail Schedule for qualifying construction-zone speeding violations. The House recorded the final vote as 42 yes and 26 no.
Representative Curtis, who carried the bill, said the measure is aimed at reducing serious accidents in narrow temporary lanes such as those on I-15. The bill’s elements, as discussed on the floor, require: (1) an underlying speeding offense; (2) workers be present in the construction zone; (3) the area be clearly marked; and (4) signs warning of a doubled fine. Curtis said the prosecution would bear the burden of proving the construction-zone elements at trial.
Lawmakers pressed the sponsor on multiple enforcement and evidentiary questions: how to define "workers present," whether the driver must "know" workers were present, and whether posted segments such as long stretches of I-15 would become effectively subject to doubled fines at all times if marked. Representative Saunders proposed inserting language requiring that "the operator knows that" workers are present; that amendment failed during floor consideration amid concerns it would be unworkable as an element of the offense and difficult to prove without requiring self-incrimination.
Opponents warned the measure could be difficult to enforce in practice, could create traffic and courtroom burdens, and might only be useful as a signage-and-public-awareness tool. Supporters, including representatives who said they had consulted some troopers, argued the law sends a necessary safety message and would deter some dangerous driving.
The bill ties doubled fines to the Uniform Bail Schedule; the sponsor said the doubled amount would include surcharges as they are calculated under the schedule. The floor debate featured multiple questions about prosecutorial discretion, whether the law would add points to driving records (the sponsor said it would not change point calculations), and the practicalities of enforcement on long highway stretches.
After previous question and summation, the House recorded the vote and passed SB20. The bill will return to the Senate for further action.
