BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: SB 28
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: simitian
VERSION: 3/23/11
Analysis by: Jennifer Gress FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: March 29, 2011
SUBJECT:
Driving or bicycling while using a wireless communications
device
DESCRIPTION:
This bill increases the penalties related to using a wireless
communications device while operating a vehicle, prohibits
bicyclists from using a handheld communications device while
riding a bicycle, establishes an education program regarding the
dangers of talking or texting using a wireless communications
device while driving, and adds dangers of talking or texting
while driving to the list of items that DMV must include in an
examination for a driver's license.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law prohibits, with some exceptions, a person from
using a handheld wireless phone or engaging in text-based
communication (e.g., text messages, instant messages, or email
messages) while operating a motor vehicle. The base fine is $20
for an initial offense for either violation and $50 for each
subsequent offense. After all penalty assessments, fees, and
surcharges are added to the base fine, the total bail for a base
fine of $20 is $208 and the total bail for a base fine of $50 is
$328. These two violations are primary offenses such that a law
enforcement officer may stop a driver who he or she has cause to
believe is violating these laws. No points are assigned to the
license of a driver who is convicted of either infraction.
With regard to drivers under the age of 18, existing law
prohibits, with some exceptions, a driver from using any
wireless communications device while operating a motor vehicle,
without regard to whether the device is hands-free or handheld.
The base fine for an initial offense is $20 ($208 total bail)
and $50 ($328 total bail) for each subsequent offense. While
use of a handheld cell phone for talking while driving remains a
SB 28 (SIMITIAN) Page 2
primary offense for drivers under the age of 18, using a
hands-free device or engaging in text-based communication on any
mobile service device, is a secondary offense, meaning that a
law enforcement officer may not stop a driver solely for the
purpose of determining whether or not the driver is violating
this law. No points are assigned to the license of a driver who
is convicted of this infraction.
Existing law requires the examination for a driver's license to
include specified elements, including:
A test of the applicant's knowledge of laws regarding the
operation of vehicles,
A test of the applicant's ability to read and understand
simple English used in highway traffic and directional signs,
A test of the applicant's understanding of traffic signs and
signals,
An actual demonstration of the applicant's ability to exercise
ordinary and reasonable control in operating a motor vehicle,
and
A test of the applicant's hearing and eyesight, and of other
matters that may be necessary to determine the applicant's
mental and physical fitness to operate a motor vehicle.
Existing law assigns violation point counts to convictions of
specified violations of the Vehicle Code. Most moving
violations, such as speeding, causing a traffic accident, or
failing to restrain a child properly, are considered an
infraction and subject to one violation point. More serious
offenses are given a value of two points. Two-point violations
include leaving the scene of an accident, driving under the
influence of drugs or alcohol, reckless driving, evading a
police officer, crossing the line on a divided highway,
transporting explosive material without a proper license,
engaging in speed contests, and excessive speeding, which is
defined as driving 100 mph or more.
A person whose driving record shows a violation point count of
four or more points in 12 months, six or more points in 24
months, or eight or more points in 36 months is presumed to be a
negligent operator and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
shall either suspend or revoke his or her driver's license.
SB 28 (SIMITIAN) Page 3
This bill :
Adds a test of a driver's understanding of the distractions
and dangers of handheld cellular telephone use and text
messaging while operating a motor vehicle to the list of items
that DMV must include in its examination of a person who is
applying for a driver's license.
Increases the base fine from $20 ($208 total bail) to $50
($328 total bail) for the first offense and from $50 ($328
total bail) to $100 ($528 total bail) for any subsequent
offense of driving while using a handheld wireless
communications device to talk or text, or if a person is under
the age of 18, using any wireless communications device.
Provides that a point shall be assigned to a driver's license
for a second or subsequent conviction of driving while using a
handheld wireless communications device to talk or text or, if
a driver is under the age of 18, using any wireless
communications device for any purpose. This point does not
apply to a bicyclist who is convicted of using a handheld
telephone while cycling.
Allows for primary enforcement of a violation of using any
wireless communication device while driving for drivers under
the age of 18.
Prohibits a bicyclist from riding a bike while using a
handheld wireless communication device to talk or text. In
doing so, the bill establishes a total fine of $20 for an
initial violation and $50 for any subsequent violation. This
amount will be the total amount collected and will not include
any other penalties, assessments, surcharges, or fees.
Establishes the Distracted Driving Education Fund in the State
Treasury and requires county treasurers to submit to the state
controller $10 from each fine collected for driving while
using a handheld wireless communications device to talk or
text or, if a driver is under the age of 18, using any
wireless communications device for an education program on the
dangers of cellular telephone use to talk or text while
driving.
COMMENTS:
SB 28 (SIMITIAN) Page 4
1.Purpose . The author contends that the laws regarding the use
of wireless communications devices while operating a motor
vehicle have been effective, but that compliance could be
improved if stronger penalties were established. These
efforts to reduce distracted driving would be further
strengthened by establishing an education program designed to
inform drivers of the risks of talking and text messaging
using a wireless communications device while driving.
2.Trends . The prohibition against talking using a handheld
telephone while driving went into effect on July 1, 2008 and
the probation against texting while driving went into effect
on January 1, 2009. For purposes of this comment, these two
laws will be referred to as the "cell phone laws." Table 1
below displays data that describe trends regarding the number
of fatal and injury collisions, the number of persons involved
in fatal and injury collisions, and the number of persons
involved in fatal and injury collisions were cell phone use
was a factor from 2005 to 2010. As Table 1 suggests, there is
a significant downward trend in the number of collisions and
number of persons involved in collisions, including when cell
phone use was a factor.
Table 1. Changes in the Number of Fatal and Injury Collisions
between 2005 and 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | |
| | 2005 | 2010 | Percent Change |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------|
| | | | | | | |
| | Fatal |Injury | Fatal |Injury | Fatal |Injury |
|----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------|
| | | | | | | |
|Total number of | 3,822 |198,708| 2,482 |43,517 |- 35 % |- 78 % |
|collisions | | | | | | |
|----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------|
| | | | | | | |
|Number of | 7,066 |405,914| 4,638 |88,017 | -34 % | -78 % |
|persons | | | | | | |
|involved in | | | | | | |
|collisions | | | | | | |
|----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------|
|Number of | | | | | | |
SB 28 (SIMITIAN) Page 5
|persons in | 8 | 623 | 3 | 97 |- 62 % |-84 |
|collisions, | | | | | |% |
|cell phone use | | | | | | |
|a factor | | | | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------
To gain a sense of whether the decrease in the number of
persons involved in collisions where cell phone use was a
factor was due to a natural decrease in the number of persons
involved in collisions or to some other factor, the percentage
of persons involved in fatal and injury collisions as a
percentage of the total number of persons involved in
collisions may be calculated for the two years immediately
preceding the cell phone law and the two years following it.
Table 2. Persons Involved in Collisions Where Cell Phone Use
Was a Factor as a Percentage of Persons Involved in Collisions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| | | |
| | 2006-2007 | 2009-2010 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|---------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------|
| | | | | |
| | Fatal | Injury | Fatal | Injury |
|---------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------|
|Persons involved in | | | | |
|collisions, cell | 15 | 1189 | 10 | 431 |
|phone use a factor | | | | |
|---------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------|
| | | | | |
|Persons involved in | 13,700 |1,364,055 | 9,816 | 420,040 |
|collisions | | | | |
|---------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------|
| | | | | |
|Persons involved in | | | | |
|collisions where | .11 % | .09 % | .10 % |.10 |
|cell phone a factor | | | |% |
|as a percentage of | | | | |
|total number of | | | | |
|persons in | | | | |
|collisions | | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SB 28 (SIMITIAN) Page 6
As the results in Table 2 suggest, there has not been an
appreciable decrease in the number of persons involved in
either fatal or injury collisions where cell phone use was a
factor as a percentage of the total number of persons involved
in a collisions after the cell phone laws went into effect.
It is important to note that because this analysis did not
look at the cell phone laws specifically or consider other
factors such as the growth in the number of persons using cell
phones over the same period of time or the reduction in
vehicle miles traveled during the economic recession, these
results should be interpreted with caution; they are intended
only to show trends over time of collisions rates involving
cell phones.
3.Previous legislation . With two exceptions, this bill is very
similar to SB 1475 (Simitian), which this committee passed
last year 6 to 1 and which was ultimately held in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee. The first difference between this
bill and SB 1475 is that the violation point assigned to a
driver's license for a violation of talking or texting while
driving only applies for a second or subsequent conviction,
rather than for the first as was the case in SB 1475. The
second difference is that this bill clarifies that texting is
permitted while driving provided the driver is using a
"voice-operated, hands-free device." This language was added
to the bill at the request of automobile manufacturers that
are developing vehicles with technology that enables drivers
to speak a message that is then translated into text.
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
Wednesday, March 23,
2011)
SUPPORT: California Bicycle Coalition
Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety
Driving School Association of California, Inc.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Traffic Safety Consultants, Inc.
Verizon Wireless
OPPOSED: None received.
SB 28 (SIMITIAN) Page 7