BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1785| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: AB 1785 Author: Quirk (D), et al. Amended: 8/3/16 in Senate Vote: 21 SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 6-3, 6/28/16 AYES: Beall, Allen, Leyva, Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski NOES: Cannella, Bates, Gaines NO VOTE RECORDED: Galgiani, McGuire SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8 ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 48-22, 5/31/16 - See last page for vote SUBJECT: Vehicles: use of wireless electronic devices SOURCE: Author DIGEST: This bill repeals and recasts the prohibition on the use of an electronic wireless communications device while driving. Senate Floor Amendments of 8/3/16 add locations where a cell phone can be mounted in a vehicle to be legally used in the manner specified in the bill, provided that the device is situated in a manner that does not hinder the driver's view of the road. ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1)Prohibits driving a vehicle while using a wireless telephone AB 1785 Page 2 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. 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 $20 for a first offense and $50 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)Prohibits, instead, driving a motor vehicle while holding and operating 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)Allows a device to be operated in a manner requiring the use of the driver's hand while he or she is driving only if both of the following conditions are satisfied: AB 1785 Page 3 a) The device is mounted on the vehicle's windshield, dashboard, or center console in a manner that does not hinder the driver's view of the road. a) The driver is using his or her hand to activate or deactivate a feature or function of the device with a single finger swipe or tap. 4)Provides that these prohibitions and conditions shall not apply to: a) Manufacturer-installed systems that are embedded in the vehicle b) Emergency services professionals in authorized emergency vehicles who are using communication devices in relation to their duties 5)Specifies that violation of this prohibition is an infraction punishable by a base fine of $20 for a first offense and $50 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 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, dashboard, or center console of the vehicle and operated by a single swipe or tap of the driver's finger. According to the author, these changes will AB 1785 Page 4 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 California Highway Patrol 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 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 AB 1785 Page 5 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 bans all handheld use 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-, dashboard-, and center console-mounted devices when the driver can activate or deactivate the feature or function he or she AB 1785 Page 6 is using with a single swipe or tap and the placement of the mounted device does not hinder the driver's view of the road. 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 mounted in particular locations and not hinder the driver's view of the road ensures that the screen of the phone will be either wholly within or not far out of 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 AB 1785 Page 7 existing law related to driving and cell phone use. It is not clear, however, 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. Prior 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. 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 313 (Frazier, 2013) would have repealed the provisions of AB 1536 (Miller, Chapter 92, Statutes of 2012) entirely. 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 AB 1785 Page 8 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. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:YesLocal: Yes SUPPORT: (Verified8/3/16) American Medical Response American Motorcyclist Association California Association of Highway Patrolmen California Casualty California Nurses Association California Peace Officers' Association California Police Chiefs Association California Professional Firefighters California State PTA California Walks Impact Teen Drivers Los Angeles Walks Paramedics Plus Safe Kids Central California Valley Children's Healthcare Walk San Francisco Walk Sacramento OPPOSITION: (Verified8/3/16) California Chamber of Commerce Computing Technology Industry Association Internet Association Safer Streets L.A. AB 1785 Page 9 TechNet ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 48-22, 5/31/16 AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bloom, Bonta, Brown, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gomez, Gordon, Gray, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Levine, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, O'Donnell, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Williams, Wood, Rendon NOES: Travis Allen, Bigelow, Brough, Chang, Chávez, Dahle, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Gatto, Grove, Harper, Jones, Linder, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Olsen, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk NO VOTE RECORDED: Bonilla, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Daly, Gonzalez, Hadley, Kim, Nazarian, Patterson Prepared by:Sarah Carvill / T. & H. / (916) 651-4121 8/5/16 10:20:13 **** END ****