BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: SB 194
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: GAlgiani
VERSION: 2/7/13
Analysis by: Erin Riches FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: April 2, 2013
SUBJECT:
Teen drivers: electronic wireless devices
DESCRIPTION:
This bill prohibits drivers under 18 years of age from operating
an electronic wireless communications device, even if it is
equipped with a hands-free device.
ANALYSIS:
As the use of cell phones has proliferated in recent years, the
Legislature has considered many bills related to usage of these
devices by drivers, including the following which were signed
into law:
SB 1613 (Simitian), Chapter 290, Statutes of 2006, makes
it an infraction for any person to drive a motor vehicle
while using a wireless phone, unless it is designed and
configured to allow hands-free listening and talking and is
used in that manner while driving.
SB 28 (Simitian), Chapter 270, Statutes of 2007,
prohibits a person from writing, sending, or reading
text-based communications while operating a motor vehicle,
even if the device is equipped with a hands-free device.
SB 33 (Simitian), Chapter 214, Statutes of 2007,
prohibits a person under 18 years from using a wireless
telephone or other electronic device equipped with a
hands-free device while driving a motor vehicle.
AB 1536 (Miller), Chapter 92, Statutes of 2012, allows
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.
SB 194 (GALGIANI) Page 2
This bill expands the prohibition on individuals under 18 years
old from using a wireless telephone while driving, even if it is
equipped with a hands-free device, to include use of an
electronic wireless device, even if it is hands-free.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose . The author notes that teen driver distraction is a
major concern of traffic safety advocates. Driving a motor
vehicle involves manual, visual and cognitive tasks. A
hazardous situation occurs when teen drivers perform
non-driving activities that divert their attention from the
primary task of driving. The Driving School Association of
California argues that the use of touch screen or
voice-command technologies causes cognitive blindness for
novice young drivers that can result in fatal or serious
injury crashes to the young driver or other motorists or
pedestrians. This bill, therefore, clarifies that teen
drivers may not use any electronic wireless communications
device - even if it is hands free - while driving.
2.Can teen drivers use hands-free phones now ? Existing law (SB
33 of 2007) prohibits teenagers from using a wireless
telephone while driving, even if it is equipped with a
hands-free device. Existing law (AB 1536 of 2012) also allows
individuals to use voice-operated and hands-free technology to
dictate, send, or listen to text-based communications while
driving. The California Association of Highway Patrolmen,
sponsor of this bill, states that because AB 1536 did not
specifically exempt teen drivers, "some interpret this to mean
that those under the age of 18 are included and can now text
while driving, as long as it's hands-free." SB 194 aims to
clarify and expand the prohibition established by SB 33.
3.Catching up state law with technology . In addition to
voice-activated cell phones (such as the iPhone "Siri"), new
technologies have emerged for driver use. Touch-operated
and/or voice-activated devices such as GPS navigators,
instrument screens, and television screens are becoming more
and more common in automobiles. SB 194 seeks to address these
new devices by clarifying the existing prohibition against
teens from texting while driving to include such new
technologies, even if equipped with a voice-operated device.
4.Distracted driving . A variety of constituencies have
SB 194 (GALGIANI) Page 3
conducted numerous distracted driving studies, focused on a
number of potential distractions. Nearly all studies conclude
that, in most instances, it is very difficult to identify a
single factor that led to an adverse incident such as an
automobile accident. Research tends to show that accidents
arise from an accumulation of factors, including distractions
within and outside the vehicle, weather conditions, and even
the driver's own distracted thoughts. Adding distractions,
such as dictating or listening to text messages, can only
increase the risk of negative outcomes. The question is not
whether the use of voice-activated, hands-free communication
causes accidents and other negative consequences, but how many
distractions are enough to create an environment potentially
too risky and dangerous for people travelling from one place
to another.
5.Attitudes toward distracted driving . The 2012 Traffic Safety
Culture Index, published in January 2013 by the AAA Foundation
for Traffic Safety, finds that although nearly three in five
US drivers, consider drivers talking on cell phones to be a
very serious threat to their personal safety, only 42 percent
consider it unacceptable for a driver to talk on a hands-free
cell phone. And while 95.7 percent of drivers say that
drivers text messaging or emailing are a very serious public
safety threat, more than one in three admit to reading a text
message or email while driving within the past 30 days, and
more than one in 10 admit to doing so regularly. Nearly 87
percent of drivers support having a law against reading,
typing, or sending a text message or email while driving, but
only about half of drivers (52.6 percent) would support a
federal regulation relating to other potentially distracting
in-vehicle technologies.
RELATED LEGISLATION
AB 313 (Frazier) prohibits drivers from using an electronic
wireless communications device to dictate, send, or listen to a
text-based communication, even if the device is specifically
designed and configured to allow voice-operated and hands-free
operation. Pending in the Assembly Transportation Committee.
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday, March 27,
2013.)
SB 194 (GALGIANI) Page 4
SUPPORT: California Association of Highway Patrolmen
(sponsor)
Advanced Drivers Education Products and Training,
Inc.
California Association for Safety Education
Driving School Association of California
OPPOSED: None received.