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  ****