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