Currently there is a House bill in Texas that will affect all defensive driving courses in Texas .
The bill is the following:
By: Flynn | H.B. No. 1190 |
relating to statutory minimum fees for driving safety courses. | ||
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: | ||
SECTION 1. Section 1001.205, Education Code, is amended to | ||
read as follows: | ||
Sec. 1001.205. REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVING SAFETY SCHOOL | ||
LICENSE. The commissioner shall approve an application for a | ||
driving safety school license if on investigation the agency | ||
determines that the school: | ||
(1) has driving safety courses, curricula, and | ||
instruction of a quality, content, and length that reasonably and | ||
adequately achieve the stated objective for which the course, | ||
curricula, and instruction are developed by the course provider; | ||
(2) has adequate space, equipment, instructional | ||
material, and instructors to provide training of good quality; | ||
(3) has instructors and administrators who have | ||
adequate educational qualifications and experience; | ||
(4) maintains adequate records as prescribed by the | ||
commissioner to show attendance and progress or grades and enforces | ||
satisfactory standards relating to attendance, progress, and | ||
conduct; | ||
(5) complies with all county, municipal, state, and | ||
federal laws, including fire, building, and sanitation codes and | ||
assumed name registration; | ||
(6) has administrators, owners, and instructors who | ||
are of good reputation and character; | ||
(7) does not use erroneous or misleading advertising, | ||
either by actual statement, omission, or intimation, as determined | ||
by the commissioner; | ||
(8) does not use a name similar to the name of another | ||
existing school or tax-supported educational establishment in this | ||
state, unless specifically approved in writing by the commissioner; | ||
(9) maintains and uses the approved contract and | ||
policies developed by the course provider; | ||
(10) does not owe an administrative penalty under this | ||
chapter; | ||
[ | ||
(11) [ | ||
commissioner. | ||
SECTION 2. Section 1001.352, Education Code, is amended to | ||
read as follows: | ||
Sec. 1001.352. FEES FOR DRIVING SAFETY COURSE. A course | ||
provider shall charge each student[ | ||
[ | ||
[ | ||
materials and for supervising and administering the course. | ||
SECTION 3. The change in law made by this Act to Section | ||
1001.205, Education Code, applies only to an application for a | ||
driving safety school license submitted on or after the effective | ||
date of this Act. An application for a driving safety school | ||
license submitted before the effective date of this Act is governed | ||
by the law in effect immediately before the effective date of this | ||
Act, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose. | ||
SECTION 4. The change in law made by this Act to Section | ||
1001.352, Education Code, applies only to a driving safety course | ||
provided on or after the effective date of this Act. A course | ||
provided before the effective date of this Act is governed by the | ||
law in effect immediately before the effective date of this Act, and | ||
the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. | ||
SECTION 5. This Act takes effect September 1, 2013. |
We are petitioning to prevent the passing of Texas House Bill 1190.
In summary, five reasons to be opposed to HB 1190, although there are many, many more:
1. Reduces the opportunity for small businesses in the driving safety field to startup and compete on a level playing field with larger multistate operations.
2. Could create similar deceptive advertising techniques that other states have resorted to similar to Florida and California.
3. Will eventually result in a loss of jobs within the industry with lower skilled workforce of instructors due to lower pay.
4. Closing of currently operating small businesses in the driving safety field due to the inability to be price competitive with online courses with call centers in other states and abroad.
5. Reduced profitability in the industry as a whole therefore reducing the taxes collected hurting State and Federal Governments.
Small businesses within the driver safety and driver education industry in Texas, along with the families they are composed of, will hurt tremendously if the bill is passed.
In summary, five reasons to be opposed to HB 1190, although there are many, many more:
1. Reduces the opportunity for small businesses in the driving safety field to startup and compete on a level playing field with larger multistate operations.
2. Could create similar deceptive advertising techniques that other states have resorted to similar to Florida and California.
3. Will eventually result in a loss of jobs within the industry with lower skilled workforce of instructors due to lower pay.
4. Closing of currently operating small businesses in the driving safety field due to the inability to be price competitive with online courses with call centers in other states and abroad.
5. Reduced profitability in the industry as a whole therefore reducing the taxes collected hurting State and Federal Governments.
Small businesses within the driver safety and driver education industry in Texas, along with the families they are composed of, will hurt tremendously if the bill is passed.