Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debates traffic-code recodification, circles bill after insurer and tinting concerns
Summary
Lawmakers debated House Bill 24, a recodification that would require drivers to exchange insurer contact details after crashes and clarify vehicle lighting and rear-side window tinting; sponsors and critics agreed on intent but clashed over insurer consequences and visibility risks, and the House voted to 'circle' the bill for further work.
Representative James Dunnigan, sponsor of House Bill 24, told the chamber the measure is a recodification of the state’s traffic code intended to update terminology and restore several long-missing provisions.
"This just would require you to exchange that information with the other person involved in the accident," Dunnigan said, describing a provision that would require drivers to provide the name and phone number of their auto insurance company or agent after a crash.
Supporters said the change would make it easier for victims and insurers to resolve claims. Representative Ray, citing a family incident, said the provision would allow an injured person to contact an insurer directly when another driver refused to provide accurate information.
But some members raised practical concerns. Representative Hughes asked whether providing insurer contact information "could… allow the insurer to find out that there had been an accident" and potentially affect premiums; Dunnigan replied that "that is the intent" to make the exchange and that members recently addressed insurer rate abuses in prior session work. Representative Christiansen said he remained unconvinced that statutory protections exist and asked staff to verify whether a law currently prevents carriers from raising rates solely because of an inquiry.
Lawmakers also discussed non‑recodification elements that carry policy consequence: a requirement that vehicles display taillights and reflectors at night, limits on aftermarket adjustments for vehicles over 15,000 pounds, and explicit authorization that rear-side windows may bear nontransparent material. Sponsor Dunnigan insisted the tint clarification "is really not a change" but a codification of current practice.
Several members pressed for amendments to address false information and to protect small businesses and agricultural operators. Representative Lockhart moved that the House "circle" HB 24 so sponsors and staff could resolve open questions; the motion passed and the bill was circled for further work rather than advancing to immediate final action.
What happens next: HB 24 was placed on the circle list for amendment and technical follow-up; staff were asked to provide clarification on insurer-rate protections and whether a penalty for false contact information should be included.
