BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1785 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 1785 (Quirk) As Amended April 5, 2016 Majority vote ------------------------------------------------------------------ |Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------| |Transportation |11-1 |Frazier, Bloom, |Melendez | | | |Brown, Chu, Daly, | | | | |Dodd, Eduardo Garcia, | | | | |Gomez, Medina, | | | | |Nazarian, O'Donnell | | | | | | | |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------| |Appropriations |14-6 |Gonzalez, Bloom, |Bigelow, Chang, | | | |Bonilla, Bonta, |Gallagher, Jones, | | | |Calderon, McCarty, |Obernolte, Wagner | | | |Eggman, Eduardo | | | | |Garcia, Chau, Holden, | | | | |Quirk, Santiago, | | | | |Weber, Wood | | | | | | | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUMMARY: Repeals and recasts the prohibition on the use of an AB 1785 Page 2 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. EXISTING LAW: 1)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. 2)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 AB 1785 Page 3 electronic wireless communications device. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, any costs to the California Highway Patrol to update training regarding the modified prohibition on use of electronic wireless communication devices would be minor and absorbable. 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 2008]. 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. The current statutory ban on using a wireless telephone and AB 1785 Page 4 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. 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 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, the 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. 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. By including functions of wireless telephones and electronic wireless communications devices beyond just telephone calls, AB 1785 Page 5 under the prohibition on their use while driving, the author intends to give law enforcement additional tools to promote driver safety. Please see the policy committee analysis for full discussion of this bill. Analysis Prepared by: Justin Behrens / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0002962