BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1785
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 11, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Jim Frazier, Chair
AB 1785
(Quirk) - As Amended April 5, 2016
SUBJECT: Vehicles: use of wireless electronic devices
SUMMARY: Repeals and recasts the prohibition on the use of an
electronic wireless communications device while driving.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Repeals the prohibition on driving a motor vehicle while using
an electronic wireless communications device to write, send,
or read a text-based communication, unless the electronic
wireless communications device is specifically designed and
configured to allow voice-operated and hands-free operation
and is used in that manner.
2)Instead, prohibits a person from driving a motor vehicle while
using a wireless telephone or electronic wireless
communications device unless the device is specifically
designed for and used in a voice-operated and hands-free
manner.
3)Provides that this prohibition does not apply to
factory-installed electronic wireless communications devices
located in a vehicle's dashboard, as specified.
AB 1785
Page 2
EXISTING LAW:
1)Prohibits a person from driving a motor vehicle while using a
wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically
designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and
talking, and is used in that manner while driving, except in
emergency circumstances.
2)Prohibits a person from driving a motor vehicle while using an
electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or
read a text-based communication, unless the electronic
wireless communications device is specifically designed and
configured to allow voice-operated and hands-free operation
and is used in that manner.
3)Provides that a person shall not be deemed to be writing,
reading, or sending a text-based communication if the person
reads, selects, or enters a telephone number or name in an
electronic wireless communications device for the purpose of
making or receiving a telephone call or if a person otherwise
activates or deactivates a feature or function on an
electronic wireless communications device.
4)Prohibits a person under the age of 18 from driving while
using a wireless telephone or an electronic wireless
communications device, even if it is equipped with a
hands-free device.
5)Establishes a base fine of $20 for a first violation and $50
for each subsequent violation of each above prohibition.
6)Provides that an "electronic wireless communications device"
includes, but is not limited to, a broadband personal
AB 1785
Page 3
communication device, a specialized mobile radio device, a
handheld device or laptop computer with mobile data access, a
pager, or a two-way message device.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: Since 2006, California has prohibited driving a motor
vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless the device is
configured to allow for hands-free listening and talking. In
2008, this ban expanded to prohibit a person from writing,
sending or reading text-based communications while driving [SB
28, (Simitian), Chapter 270, Statutes of 2007]. In 2013, the
Legislature again expanded this ban to prohibit anyone younger
than 18 years of age from operating a wireless communications
device while driving, regardless of the device's hands-free
capability [SB 194, (Galgiani), Chapter 754, Statutes of 2013].
Despite the steady expansion of legislative prohibitions on the
use of wireless telephones and electronic wireless
communications devices while driving, and the clear dangers of
distracted driving, in 2014, the California Court of Appeals for
the 5th District ruled that the existing ban only prohibits a
driver from holding a wireless telephone while conversing on it.
In making its ruling, the court found that the legislative
intent in enacting those prohibitions was merely focused on
prohibiting a wireless telephone only while carrying on a
conversation, not while using it for any other purpose. For
that reason, law enforcement agencies find it difficult, if not
practicably impossible to enforce the prohibition, as the scope
of a mobile device's functions and its contributions to
distracted driving go far beyond simply making and receiving
telephone calls.
AB 1785
Page 4
The current statutory ban on using a wireless telephone and
writing, sending, or reading a text-based communication with an
electronic wireless communications device has been characterized
as being too narrow and not contemplating the full scope of
activities that can be carried out on a wireless telephone or
electronic wireless communications device. Furthermore, the
distinction between a wireless telephone and an electronic
wireless communications device has grown increasingly blurred
and non-substantive, as a mobile device that an everyday
Californian might colloquially refer to as a "cell phone" indeed
resembles more of a miniaturized, pocket-sized personal computer
with telephone capabilities. While a wireless telephone of 2006
might have the ability to make and receive phone calls, send
text messages, and perhaps offer limited internet access, a
smartphone of 2016 has vastly greater capabilities, ranging from
those legacy functions to global positioning, to video
streaming, to photography. The existing statutory bans may have
been sufficient to capture the full range of capabilities of
wireless telephones at the time of enactment, but the language
of the bans has been found to be limited by the courts and
insufficient to capture the capabilities of today's devices.
The effect of cell phone use on a driver's attention is
well-documented. However, the distracting effect of cell phones
is not limited to taking a driver's eyes off the road to make a
call or send a text message. Research from the University of
Utah found that using a cell phone, even in a hands-free manner,
delays a driver's reactions to the same degree as having a blood
alcohol concentration at the legal limit of .08%. Carnegie
Mellon University found that driving while using a cell phone
reduces the amount of brain activity associated with driving by
AB 1785
Page 5
37%. The distracting effect of these devices is significant and
their prevalence in motor vehicles has grown over the past few
decades.
According to CTIA - The Wireless Association, the number of cell
phone subscriber connections in the United States increased from
55 million in 1997, a wireless penetration rate of 20%, to 326
million in 2012, representing a wireless penetration rate of
102%. This growth in the number of cell phone subscriber
connections means many United States residents now have active
wireless connections to more than one device. In the context of
this increase, the National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration reported that 3,328 people were killed and
421,000 injured in distraction-affected motor vehicle crashes in
the U.S. in 2012. Of those killed, 415 (13%) were involved in
crashes in which at least one driver was using a cell phone at
the time of the crash. Such crashes were also responsible for
an estimated 28,000 injuries.
As the number of mobile devices and their range of capabilities
has grown, so too has their impact on driver safety on
California roads. The California Department of Motor Vehicles
(DMV) reported over 426,000 handheld cell phone and texting
convictions from jurisdictions statewide in 2013. In 2015,
there were 12 fatal collisions involving handheld cellphone use
as an inattention factor, over 500 injury collisions, and nearly
700 property damage collisions. That same year, California
Highway Patrol alone issued over 13,000 citations for violating
the ban on writing, sending, or reading text-based
communications while driving, and 78,000 citations for using a
wireless telephone while driving.
AB 1785
Page 6
Despite this level of enforcement, a study conducted in the
spring of 2015 by the Office of Traffic Safety and UC Berkeley
observed 9.2% of motorists using cell phones, up from 6.6% in
2014. To help combat the dangers of distracted driving, the
most recent Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), prepared by
the California Department of Transportation, recommends
strengthening laws on distracted driving.
In the context of the court's ruling and consistent with the
SHSP recommendations, this bill would clarify that using a
person is prohibited from using a wireless telephone or an
electronic wireless communications device for any purpose while
driving.
The author argues that the inconsistency of judicial
interpretation makes the law difficult to uphold by law
enforcement and difficult to follow to average citizens. The
author intends this bill to reflect how technology has evolved
with the goal of providing law enforcement clearer laws to
enforce and improving safety on California's roadways. By
including functions of wireless telephones and electronic
wireless communications devices beyond just telephone calls,
under the prohibition on their use while driving, the author
intends to give law enforcement additional tools to promote
driver safety.
AB 1785
Page 7
Committee concerns: While this bill seeks to clarify the
existing statutory prohibition by encompassing all distracting
mobile device-related behavior, it is unclear if this bill will
address one primary concern of the 5th District Court. The
court found that the phrase "using a wireless telephone" in the
original statute referred only to a driver holding a wireless
telephone while conversing on it. While previous versions of
this bill contained more specific definitions, provisions of
this bill as drafted also contain the phrase "using a wireless
telephone or an electronic wireless communications device," and
as such, the ambiguity identified by the court may still be
unresolved. While the author has clearly communicated his
intent, he may wish to continue working to specify for what
purposes a mobile device may not be used while driving.
Previous legislation: AB 1646 (Frazier) of 2014, would have
imposed a violation point for convictions related to the use of
a cellular phone or wireless communication device while driving,
and required the driver's license examination to include a test
of the applicant's understanding of the dangers related to the
use of handheld devices while driving. AB 1646 was vetoed by
the Governor. In his veto message the Governor directed DMV to
add a question to the driver's license examination of using a
communication device while driving and indicated a desire to
wait to see additional data from DMV on distracted driving
before enacting a law requiring a violation point penalty.
SB 194 (Galgiani), Chapter 754, Statutes of 2013, prohibited
drivers under 18 years of age from operating an electronic
wireless communication device, even if it is equipped with a
hands-free device.
AB 1785
Page 8
AB 313 (Frazier), of 2013, would have repealed the provisions of
AB 1536 (Miller), Chapter 92, Statutes of 2012 entirely. AB 313
was returned to the Chief Clerk by the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
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 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 the DMV must
include in an examination for a driver's license. SB 1310 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 violations.
SB 33 (Simitian), Chapter 214, Statutes of 2007, prohibited a
person under the age of 18 years from using a wireless telephone
or other electronic device equipped with a hands-free device
while driving a motor vehicle.
SB 28 (Simitian), Chapter 270, Statutes of 2007, prohibited 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 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.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
AB 1785
Page 9
Support
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California Peace Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association
Impact Teen Drivers
Safe Kids Central California
Walk San Francisco
WALKSacramento
Opposition
Safer Streets LA
Analysis Prepared by:Justin Behrens / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
AB 1785
Page 10