BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 313
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 8, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
AB 313 (Frazier) - As Introduced: February 12, 2013
SUBJECT : Vehicles: electronic wireless communications devices:
prohibitions
SUMMARY : Prohibits the use of voice-operated, hands-free
texting devices while driving. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes findings and declarations regarding the dangers of
distracted driving.
2)Repeals provisions authorizing drivers to send and receive
text-based communications on a wireless electronic device as
long as the device is configured to allow for voice-operated
and hands-free operation while driving.
3)Repeals provisions authorizing drivers to activate or
deactivate a feature or function on an electronic wireless
communications device while driving.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Prohibits cell phone use while driving unless a hands-free
device is used.
2)Prohibits drivers from texting while driving unless the
messages are transmitted using a device with voice-operated,
hands-free texting technology.
3)Exempts the action of activating or deactivating a function or
feature on an electronic wireless communication device from
the prohibition of texting while driving.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : AB 1536 (Miller) Chapter 92, Statutes of 2012,
authorized sending and receiving text messages on wireless
communications devices while driving as long as those messages
are transmitted using voice-operated, hands-free technology.
That bill was intended to modernize the statute regarding
sending or receiving text-based communications since
AB 313
Page 2
voice-activated, hands-free technology was not available when
the original measure prohibiting texting while driving was
enacted. In addition to removing the provision that allowed for
the use of voice-activated, hands-free texting, the bill also
explicitly authorized that the act of activating or deactivating
a function or feature on an electronic wireless communication
device while driving does not fall under the texting while
driving prohibition.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance), in
sponsoring AB 1536 last year, characterized the use of
voice-operated texting while driving as a mechanism to promote
safety on California's roadways. The Alliance claimed that
authorizing voice-operated texting while driving was reasonable
given that many Californians spend a significant amount of time
in their cars and have demonstrated (by ignoring texting bans)
that they do not wish to be out of touch when behind the wheel.
The Alliance claimed that authorizing the use of newly available
voice-operated texting technology acknowledged that drivers want
to be connected, even at the risk of getting a ticket, so giving
drivers the option to use newly-developed technology that allows
them to remain connected while keeping their eyes on the road
and hands on the wheel is a significant improvement over current
bans, which are largely ignored.
According to the author, immediately after AB 1536 was signed by
the Governor, the National Safety Council (NSC) called for the
bill's repeal, citing that the risk of a crash increases
fourfold when a person is driving and talking on a cell phone
regardless of whether or not the driver is using a hand-held or
hands-free device. The NSC also cited that talking or listening
on a cell phone makes the risk of a crash or near-crash event
1.3 times higher than non-distracted driving.
Arguing in favor of repealing AB 1536, Advanced Drivers
Education Products and Training Inc. (ADEPT), cites recent
studies showing that talking or texting on a cellphone
significantly increases crash rates from what is called
"inattention blindness"-- a phenomenon that occurs when a
person's cognitive load is substantially increased causing the
working memory to decrease. When inattention blindness occurs,
drivers are more likely to miss critical events and objects such
as bicyclists, pedestrians, stop signs, or cars braking in front
of them. The sponsors note that authorizing the use of
voice-activated texting technology while driving increases
AB 313
Page 3
opportunities for inattention blindness.
ADEPT also contends that voice-operated texting technology
increases rather than decreases driver distraction because
voice-to-text devices do not always translate the spoken word to
text accurately. Problems with translation typically encourage
drivers to glance down at their device before sending a message,
to ensure that the message was translated properly. Studies
have shown that in most cases, drivers will take their eyes off
the road for between 2.5 to 4.5 seconds to check a message and
in this time, a vehicle is moving at a speed of 60 miles per
hour will have travelled the length of a football field before
the driver's eyes are focused back on the road.
The author points out that numerous studies including the those
conducted by Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the National
Transportation Safety Board provide conclusive evidence that
cellphone use (whether handheld or hands-free) has a
considerable impact on driver performance and has been
implicated in substantially increasing the risk of a crash.
Related legislation : SB 194 (Galgiani) would prohibit a person
who is under 18 years of age from using an electronic wireless
communications device, as defined, even if it is equipped with a
hands-free device. That bill is set for hearing in the Senate
Transportation and Housing Committee.
Previous legislation : AB 1536 (Miller) Chapter 92, Statutes of
2012, authorized drivers to dictate, send, or listen to
text-based communications as long as they do so using technology
specifically designed and configured to allow voice-operated and
hands-free operation and clarified that the act of activating or
deactivating a function or feature on a voice-operated,
hands-free texting device is exempt from the prohibition of
texting while driving.
SB 1310 (Simitian) of 2012, would have increased the penalties
related to using a wireless communications device while
operating a vehicle, and would have added dangers of talking or
texting while driving to the list of items that Department of
Motor Vehicles (DMV) must include in an examination for a
driver's license. That bill was vetoed by the Governor on the
grounds that current fines already serve as a powerful deterrent
and that upping the fines would likely not further reduce
AB 313
Page 4
violations.
SB 28 (Simitian) of 2011, would have increased the fine for cell
phone use and text messaging while driving and extended these
bans to bicycling. That bill was vetoed by Governor Brown who
stated he did not support ratcheting up the penalties since, for
people of ordinary means, current fines and penalty assessments
should be a sufficient deterrent.
SB 1475 (Simitian) of 2010, would have increased the penalties
for using cell phones or texting while driving a motor vehicle,
and prohibits the use of handheld cell phones for conversing or
for texting while riding a bicycle. The Governor vetoed the
bill on the grounds that current fines and penalties are already
a powerful deterrent and that upping the fines would likely not
further reduce violations.
SB 28 (Simitian), Chapter 270, Statutes of 2008, banned the use
of text messaging devices while driving.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Advanced Drivers Education Products and Training (co-sponsor)
National Safety Council (co-sponsor)
Allstate Insurance Company
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Association of California Insurance Companies
Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs
Automobile Club of Southern California
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California Association for Safety Education
California Fraternal Order of Police
California Police Chiefs Association Inc.
Driving School Association of California
Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of California
Long Beach Police Officers Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Personal Insurance Federation of California
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff's Associations
AB 313
Page 5
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
Opposition
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
Analysis Prepared by : Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-
2093