BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1785 Hearing Date: 6/28/2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Quirk |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |5/27/2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Sarah Carvill |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Vehicles: use of wireless electronic devices
DIGEST: This bill repeals and recasts the prohibition on the
use of an electronic wireless communications device while
driving.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Prohibits driving a vehicle while using a wireless telephone
unless the device is designed to allow hands-free operation
and is being used in that manner while driving.
2)Prohibits driving a motor vehicle while using an electronic
wireless communications device to write, send, or read a
text-based communication, unless the device is designed to
allow hands-free, voice-based operation and is being used in
that manner while driving.
3)Defines a text-based communication to include text messages,
instant messages, and email.
4)Specifies that the following activities are not considered
text-based communication:
a) Reading, selecting, or entering a name or telephone
number for the purpose of making a call
AB 1785 (Quirk) Page 2 of ?
b) Activating or deactivating a feature or function on an
electronic wireless communication device
1)Specifies that violation of this prohibition is an infraction
punishable by a base fine of twenty dollars for a first
offense and fifty dollars for each subsequent offence.
This bill:
1)Repeals the prohibition on driving a motor vehicle while using
an electronic wireless communications device for text-based
communication, as specified.
2)Instead, prohibits driving a motor vehicle while using a
handheld electronic wireless communications device unless the
device is designed to allow hands-free, voice-based operation
and is being used in that manner while driving.
3)Provides that this prohibition shall not apply to:
a) Factory-installed devices located in the dashboard that
require manual input from a driver or passenger and that
are inoperable when the vehicle is moving.
b) Communication devices that are mounted on the vehicle's
windshield, as specified, and that are operated only to
activate or deactivate a feature or function with a single
swipe or tap.
c) Emergency services professionals in authorized emergency
vehicles who are using communication devices in relation to
their duties.
4)Specifies that violation of this prohibition is an infraction
punishable by a base fine of twenty dollars for a first
offense and fifty dollars for each subsequent offence.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. In 2008, California banned sending text-based
communications while driving a motor vehicle. The author
states that technology has developed so rapidly since then
AB 1785 (Quirk) Page 3 of ?
that the law regarding acceptable uses of electronic devices
while driving is already unclear. Drivers have the option of
engaging with mobile devices in ways that go beyond "texting"
as defined in existing law. The author argues that this
ambiguity makes the current statute difficult for law
enforcement to uphold and difficult for citizens to follow.
This bill addresses this problem by clarifying that a driver
may not operate an electronic device that is held in his or
her hand while driving. A driver may only use a device if it
is mounted on the windshield and operated by a single swipe or
tap of the driver's finger. According to the author, these
changes will enable drivers to benefit from GPS technology
while ensuring that the driver has both hands on the wheel.
By getting the phone or device out of a driver's hand, this
bill will improve driver safety and give law enforcement a
bright line for upholding this law.
2)Phones in cars: the scope of the problem. 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. Thirteen percent of those fatalities occurred in
crashes in which at least one driver was using a cell phone at
the time of the accident. An estimated 28,000 injuries
occurred under similar circumstances. Last year in
California, handheld cell phones were found to have been a
factor in 500 injury accidents, 700 property damage
collisions, and 12 fatal crashes. The CHP issued more than
13,000 citations for violating the texting-while-driving law
and 78,000 citations for using a wireless telephone while
driving. Despite this enforcement activity, a study conducted
in the spring of 2015 by the California Office of Traffic
Safety and UC Berkeley observed 9.2% of motorists using cell
phones, up from 6.6% in 2014.
The distracting effect of cell phones is not limited to the
fact that drivers look away from the road to use them.
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 37%.
3)What's against the law right now - and what isn't. Existing
AB 1785 (Quirk) Page 4 of ?
law bans engaging in text-based communication while driving.
"Text-based communication" is defined to include text
messages, instant messages, and email. Making a cell phone
call while driving is also prohibited, unless the driver is
using the phone in hands-free mode. However, the texting
prohibition specifically exempts the act of dialing a number
or inputting a name into a directory to retrieve a phone
number, and the law related to speaking on a handheld cell
phone provides no guidance on the act of dialing.
Additionally - and arguably much more importantly - both of
these laws essentially predate smartphones. These
now-ubiquitous devices provide a far greater diversity of ways
for drivers to distract themselves than the short list of
functions that are explicitly acknowledged in existing law.
Web browsing, photography and video, navigational assistance,
and ride hailing apps are examples of the types of activities
that are now competing for driver attention that are
unaddressed by existing law.
4)More dangerous than texting? According to the author of this
bill, law enforcement officers have expressed that drivers are
just as distracted by apps as they are by texts. Supporters
stress that entering an address into mapping software while
driving may actually require more of the driver's attention
because the address must be exactly correct to return accurate
directions. Autocorrection is not helpful, since street
addresses are usually comprised of proper nouns. In contrast,
the meaning of a text message can be inferred despite
misspellings - either by the device itself or, if
autocorrection fails, by the recipient.
5)Legal history. In 2014, the California Court of Appeals for
the 5th District reviewed a case in which a driver was pulled
over and cited for using a cell phone behind the wheel. In
court, the driver argued that he was only using his phone to
check a map application. The opinion states, "[The driver]
contends that he did not violate the statute because he was
not talking on the telephone. We agree." The court concluded
that the intent of the Legislature in enacting existing
prohibitions was only to prohibit the use of a wireless
telephone for carrying on a conversation, not for any other
purpose. This decision has made it difficult for
law-enforcement agencies to enforce the prohibition.
6)Banning the handheld. This bill would ban all handheld use of
AB 1785 (Quirk) Page 5 of ?
wireless electronic communication devices by the driver of a
vehicle during its operation, without reference to the purpose
of that use. An exception is provided for windshield-mounted
devices when the driver can activate or deactivate the feature
or function he or she is using with a single swipe or tap. As
such, drivers can still engage with their phones in the
relatively simple ways that are most similar to other sources
of distraction that society has long accepted, such as
changing the channel on a car radio. Importantly, the
requirement that devices be windshield-mounted keeps the
screen of the phone within the driver's line of sight when
monitoring the road ahead. The exception also allows drivers
for transportation network companies to accept a ride without
pulling over.
7)Behavior versus technology. Opponents of this bill emphasize
that it targets specific technologies rather than the behavior
that actually endangers motorists - distracted driving.
According to statewide data provided by the author, the
distractions that have been implicated in inattention-related
accidents include, but are not limited to, eating, smoking,
children, radio and CD control, animals, and attending to
personal hygiene. Tellingly, the factors associated with the
greatest number of accidents, by a very wide margin, are the
catch-all categories, "other" and "inattention not stated."
Drawing bright lines to define "distraction" for such a broad
range of behaviors would be a formidable challenge to
policymakers, and would likely generate more confusion among
the public and law-enforcement personnel. While there may be
a need for legislation that targets driver inattention more
generally, the enforcement challenges posed by such an
approach are quite likely prohibitive. Since handheld cell
phones are consistently the most common factor in
inattention-related accidents once the catch-all categories
are excluded, targeting this technology maybe the most
practical way to prevent distraction-related accidents in the
near term.
8)Keeping up with technological change - an inevitable
challenge. Opponents have also expressed concern that, due to
the rapid rate at which wireless communications and vehicle
technology are evolving, this bill will stymie innovation or
be rendered obsolete by advances in the pipeline. This
argument indeed reflects what has occurred with respect to
existing law related to driving and cell phone use. While the
AB 1785 (Quirk) Page 6 of ?
author and committee may wish to consider amendments that
clarify the standing of certain technologies (see next
comment), it is not clear that the difficulty of anticipating
the future should stand as a reason not to make policy
addressing the problems of the present. The state will likely
have to revise the law relating to vehicle technology many
times in the years to come, regardless of whether this bill is
adopted or not.
9)Exemption for factory-installed devices: more confusion than
clarity? This bill clearly states that its provisions apply
to handheld wireless telephones, but it also covers
"electronic wireless communications devices" that may not be
phones. This comparatively vague term raises the possibility
that the bill is intended to apply to electronic devices that
now come standard in many vehicles and may have communicative
or wireless attributes. The bill addresses this ambiguity by
explicitly exempting such devices, but only if they are
designed to be inoperable by the driver when the vehicle is
moving. By specifically exempting some factory-installed
technologies, however, the bill creates ambiguity about the
status of other standard electronic systems that are
increasingly built with wireless and/or communicative
capabilities. The author and the committee may wish to
consider amendments clarifying that the bill only applies to
devices that are operated in the hands of the driver that are
not embedded in the vehicle by the manufacturer. This would
eliminate the need for the exemption that currently throws the
intent of the bill into question.
Related Legislation:
AB 1646 (Frazier, 2014) - would have imposed a violation point
for convictions related to the use of a cellular phone while
driving, and required the driver's license examination to assess
knowledge of the dangers of using handheld devices while
driving. AB 1646 was vetoed by the Governor.
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
AB 1785 (Quirk) Page 7 of ?
hands-free device.
AB 313 (Frazier, 2013) - would have repealed the provisions of
AB 1536 (Miller, Chapter 92, Statutes of 2012) entirely. AB 313
failed passage in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 1536 (Miller, Chapter 92, Statutes of 2012) - allowed 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, 2012) - would have increased the penalties
related to using a wireless communications device while
operating a vehicle, and required the driver's license
examination to assess knowledge of the dangers of texting while
driving. SB 1310 was vetoed by the Governor.
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) - made 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.
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 48-22
Appr: 14-6
Trans: 11-1
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday,
AB 1785 (Quirk) Page 8 of ?
June 22, 2016.)
SUPPORT:
American Medical Response
American Motorcyclist Association
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California Casualty
California Nurses Assocition
California Peace Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California Professional Firefighters
California State PTA
California Walks
Impact Teen Drivers
Los Angeles Walks
Safe Kids Central California
Valley Children's Healthcare
Walk San Francisco
WalkSacramento
OPPOSITION:
California Chamber of Commerce
Computing Technology Industry Association
Internet Association
Safer Streets L.A.
TechNet
-- END --