BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: SB 28 SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: simitian VERSION: 3/23/11 Analysis by: Jennifer Gress FISCAL: yes Hearing date: March 29, 2011 SUBJECT: Driving or bicycling while using a wireless communications device DESCRIPTION: This bill increases the penalties related to using a wireless communications device while operating a vehicle, prohibits bicyclists from using a handheld communications device while riding a bicycle, establishes an education program regarding the dangers of talking or texting using a wireless communications device while driving, and adds dangers of talking or texting while driving to the list of items that DMV must include in an examination for a driver's license. ANALYSIS: Existing law prohibits, with some exceptions, a person from using a handheld wireless phone or engaging in text-based communication (e.g., text messages, instant messages, or email messages) while operating a motor vehicle. The base fine is $20 for an initial offense for either violation and $50 for each subsequent offense. After all penalty assessments, fees, and surcharges are added to the base fine, the total bail for a base fine of $20 is $208 and the total bail for a base fine of $50 is $328. These two violations are primary offenses such that a law enforcement officer may stop a driver who he or she has cause to believe is violating these laws. No points are assigned to the license of a driver who is convicted of either infraction. With regard to drivers under the age of 18, existing law prohibits, with some exceptions, a driver from using any wireless communications device while operating a motor vehicle, without regard to whether the device is hands-free or handheld. The base fine for an initial offense is $20 ($208 total bail) and $50 ($328 total bail) for each subsequent offense. While use of a handheld cell phone for talking while driving remains a SB 28 (SIMITIAN) Page 2 primary offense for drivers under the age of 18, using a hands-free device or engaging in text-based communication on any mobile service device, is a secondary offense, meaning that a law enforcement officer may not stop a driver solely for the purpose of determining whether or not the driver is violating this law. No points are assigned to the license of a driver who is convicted of this infraction. Existing law requires the examination for a driver's license to include specified elements, including: A test of the applicant's knowledge of laws regarding the operation of vehicles, A test of the applicant's ability to read and understand simple English used in highway traffic and directional signs, A test of the applicant's understanding of traffic signs and signals, An actual demonstration of the applicant's ability to exercise ordinary and reasonable control in operating a motor vehicle, and A test of the applicant's hearing and eyesight, and of other matters that may be necessary to determine the applicant's mental and physical fitness to operate a motor vehicle. Existing law assigns violation point counts to convictions of specified violations of the Vehicle Code. Most moving violations, such as speeding, causing a traffic accident, or failing to restrain a child properly, are considered an infraction and subject to one violation point. More serious offenses are given a value of two points. Two-point violations include leaving the scene of an accident, driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, reckless driving, evading a police officer, crossing the line on a divided highway, transporting explosive material without a proper license, engaging in speed contests, and excessive speeding, which is defined as driving 100 mph or more. A person whose driving record shows a violation point count of four or more points in 12 months, six or more points in 24 months, or eight or more points in 36 months is presumed to be a negligent operator and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) shall either suspend or revoke his or her driver's license. SB 28 (SIMITIAN) Page 3 This bill : Adds a test of a driver's understanding of the distractions and dangers of handheld cellular telephone use and text messaging while operating a motor vehicle to the list of items that DMV must include in its examination of a person who is applying for a driver's license. Increases the base fine from $20 ($208 total bail) to $50 ($328 total bail) for the first offense and from $50 ($328 total bail) to $100 ($528 total bail) for any subsequent offense of driving while using a handheld wireless communications device to talk or text, or if a person is under the age of 18, using any wireless communications device. Provides that a point shall be assigned to a driver's license for a second or subsequent conviction of driving while using a handheld wireless communications device to talk or text or, if a driver is under the age of 18, using any wireless communications device for any purpose. This point does not apply to a bicyclist who is convicted of using a handheld telephone while cycling. Allows for primary enforcement of a violation of using any wireless communication device while driving for drivers under the age of 18. Prohibits a bicyclist from riding a bike while using a handheld wireless communication device to talk or text. In doing so, the bill establishes a total fine of $20 for an initial violation and $50 for any subsequent violation. This amount will be the total amount collected and will not include any other penalties, assessments, surcharges, or fees. Establishes the Distracted Driving Education Fund in the State Treasury and requires county treasurers to submit to the state controller $10 from each fine collected for driving while using a handheld wireless communications device to talk or text or, if a driver is under the age of 18, using any wireless communications device for an education program on the dangers of cellular telephone use to talk or text while driving. COMMENTS: SB 28 (SIMITIAN) Page 4 1.Purpose . The author contends that the laws regarding the use of wireless communications devices while operating a motor vehicle have been effective, but that compliance could be improved if stronger penalties were established. These efforts to reduce distracted driving would be further strengthened by establishing an education program designed to inform drivers of the risks of talking and text messaging using a wireless communications device while driving. 2.Trends . The prohibition against talking using a handheld telephone while driving went into effect on July 1, 2008 and the probation against texting while driving went into effect on January 1, 2009. For purposes of this comment, these two laws will be referred to as the "cell phone laws." Table 1 below displays data that describe trends regarding the number of fatal and injury collisions, the number of persons involved in fatal and injury collisions, and the number of persons involved in fatal and injury collisions were cell phone use was a factor from 2005 to 2010. As Table 1 suggests, there is a significant downward trend in the number of collisions and number of persons involved in collisions, including when cell phone use was a factor. Table 1. Changes in the Number of Fatal and Injury Collisions between 2005 and 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | | 2005 | 2010 | Percent Change | ------------------------------------------------------------------- |----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------| | | | | | | | | | | Fatal |Injury | Fatal |Injury | Fatal |Injury | |----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------| | | | | | | | | |Total number of | 3,822 |198,708| 2,482 |43,517 |- 35 % |- 78 % | |collisions | | | | | | | |----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------| | | | | | | | | |Number of | 7,066 |405,914| 4,638 |88,017 | -34 % | -78 % | |persons | | | | | | | |involved in | | | | | | | |collisions | | | | | | | |----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------| |Number of | | | | | | | SB 28 (SIMITIAN) Page 5 |persons in | 8 | 623 | 3 | 97 |- 62 % |-84 | |collisions, | | | | | |% | |cell phone use | | | | | | | |a factor | | | | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------- To gain a sense of whether the decrease in the number of persons involved in collisions where cell phone use was a factor was due to a natural decrease in the number of persons involved in collisions or to some other factor, the percentage of persons involved in fatal and injury collisions as a percentage of the total number of persons involved in collisions may be calculated for the two years immediately preceding the cell phone law and the two years following it. Table 2. Persons Involved in Collisions Where Cell Phone Use Was a Factor as a Percentage of Persons Involved in Collisions ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | 2006-2007 | 2009-2010 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |---------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------| | | | | | | | | Fatal | Injury | Fatal | Injury | |---------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------| |Persons involved in | | | | | |collisions, cell | 15 | 1189 | 10 | 431 | |phone use a factor | | | | | |---------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------| | | | | | | |Persons involved in | 13,700 |1,364,055 | 9,816 | 420,040 | |collisions | | | | | |---------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------| | | | | | | |Persons involved in | | | | | |collisions where | .11 % | .09 % | .10 % |.10 | |cell phone a factor | | | |% | |as a percentage of | | | | | |total number of | | | | | |persons in | | | | | |collisions | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SB 28 (SIMITIAN) Page 6 As the results in Table 2 suggest, there has not been an appreciable decrease in the number of persons involved in either fatal or injury collisions where cell phone use was a factor as a percentage of the total number of persons involved in a collisions after the cell phone laws went into effect. It is important to note that because this analysis did not look at the cell phone laws specifically or consider other factors such as the growth in the number of persons using cell phones over the same period of time or the reduction in vehicle miles traveled during the economic recession, these results should be interpreted with caution; they are intended only to show trends over time of collisions rates involving cell phones. 3.Previous legislation . With two exceptions, this bill is very similar to SB 1475 (Simitian), which this committee passed last year 6 to 1 and which was ultimately held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The first difference between this bill and SB 1475 is that the violation point assigned to a driver's license for a violation of talking or texting while driving only applies for a second or subsequent conviction, rather than for the first as was the case in SB 1475. The second difference is that this bill clarifies that texting is permitted while driving provided the driver is using a "voice-operated, hands-free device." This language was added to the bill at the request of automobile manufacturers that are developing vehicles with technology that enables drivers to speak a message that is then translated into text. POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on Wednesday, March 23, 2011) SUPPORT: California Bicycle Coalition Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety Driving School Association of California, Inc. Metropolitan Transportation Commission Traffic Safety Consultants, Inc. Verizon Wireless OPPOSED: None received. SB 28 (SIMITIAN) Page 7