Existing law prohibits a person from driving a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication, as defined, unless the electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed and configured, and is used, to allow voice-operated and hands-free operation, as specified. A violation of these provisions is an infraction.

This bill would instead prohibit a person from driving a motor vehicle while holding and operating a handheld wireless telephone or a wireless electronic communication device, as defined. The bill would authorize a driver to operate a handheld wireless telephone or a wireless electronic communications device in a manner requiring the use of the drivers hand only under specified conditions. By changing the definition of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law prohibits a person from driving a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication, as defined, unless the electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed and configured, and is used, to allow voice-operated and hands-free operation, as specified. A violation of these provisions is an infraction.

This bill would instead prohibit a person from driving a motor vehicle while holding and operating a handheld wireless telephone or a wireless electronic communication device, as defined. The bill would authorize a driver to operate a handheld wireless telephone or a wireless electronic communications device in a manner requiring the use of the drivers hand only under specified conditions. By changing the definition of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law prohibits a person from driving a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication, as defined, unless the electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed and configured, and is used, to allow voice-operated and hands-free operation, as specified. A violation of these provisions is an infraction.

This bill would instead prohibit a person from driving a motor vehicle while holding and operating a handheld wireless telephone or a wireless electronic communication device, as defined, except as specified. defined. The bill would authorize a driver to operate a handheld wireless telephone or a wireless electronic communications device in a manner requiring the use of the drivers hand only under specified conditions. By changing the definition of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law prohibits a person from driving a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication, as defined, unless the electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed and configured, and is used, to allow voice-operated and hands-free operation, as specified. A violation of these provisions is an infraction.

This bill would instead prohibit a person from driving a motor vehicle while holding and operating a handheld wireless telephone or a wireless electronic communication device, as defined, except as specified. By changing the definition of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law prohibits a person from driving a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication, as defined, unless the electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed and configured, and is used, to allow voice-operated and hands-free operation, as specified. A violation of these provisions is an infraction.

This bill would instead prohibit a person from driving a motor vehicle while using a operating a handheld wireless telephone or a wireless electronic communication device, as defined, except as specified. By changing the definition of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law prohibits a person from driving a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication, as defined, unless the electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed and configured, and is used, to allow voice-operated and hands-free operation, as specified. A violation of these provisions is an infraction.

This bill would instead prohibit a person from driving a motor vehicle while using a wireless electronic device for any purpose if it distracts the drivers attention, wireless telephone or a wireless electronic communication device, as defined, except as specified. The bill would provide that distracts the drivers attention includes, but is not limited to, manually inputting or typing information to do specified acts, including to make cellular telephone calls or obtain directions. By changing the definition of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law prohibits a person from driving a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication, as defined, unless the electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed and configured, and is used, to allow voice-operated and hands-free operation, as specified. Existing law defines write, send, or read a text-based communication as using an electronic wireless communications device to manually communicate with another person using a text-based communication, as specified. Existing law excludes from that definition circumstances in which a 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 otherwise activates or deactivates a feature or function on an electronic wireless communications device. A violation of these provisions is an infraction.

This bill would delete the exclusion described above and instead would exclude from the definition of write, send, or read a text-based communication using the electronic wireless communications device in a voice-operated and hands-free mode. instead prohibit a person from driving a motor vehicle while using a wireless electronic device for any purpose if it distracts the drivers attention, except as specified. The bill would provide that distracts the drivers attention includes, but is not limited to, manually inputting or typing information to do specified acts, including to make cellular telephone calls or obtain directions. By changing the definition of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law 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, and is used, to allow voice-operated and hands-free operation, as specified. Existing law defines write, send, or read a text-based communication as using an electronic wireless communications device to manually communicate with another person using a text-based communication, as specified. Existing law excludes from that definition circumstances in which a 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 otherwise activates or deactivates a feature or function on an electronic wireless communications device. A violation of these provisions is an infraction.

This bill would delete the exclusion described above and instead would exclude from the definition of write, send, or read a text-based communication using the electronic wireless communications device in a voice-operated and hands-free mode. By changing the definition of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1785

Author:(Quirk)

As Amended Ver:August 3, 2016

Majority vote

Original Committee Reference: TRANS.

SUMMARY: Repeals and recasts the prohibition on the use of an electronic wireless communications device while driving.

The Senate amendments:

1. Provide that a handheld wireless telephone or electronic wireless communications device may also be operated while the driver is operating a motor vehicle if the device is mounted on or affixed to the vehicle's dashboard or center console in a manner that does not hinder the driver's view of the road.
2. Make other minor, technical changes.

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 electronic wireless communications device.

AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this bill:

1. Repealed 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, prohibited a person from driving a motor vehicle while operating 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. Provided that this prohibition does not apply to factory-installed electronic wireless communications devices located in a vehicle's dashboard, as specified or to a wireless telephone or device mounted on a vehicle's windshield, as specified.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.

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 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, as a mobile device that an everyday Californian might colloquially refer to as a "cell phone" indeed resembles more of a 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 offer limited internet access, a smartphone of 2016 has vastly greater capabilities, ranging from those legacy functions to global positioning, video streaming, and photography. The existing statutory bans may have been sufficient to capture the full range of capabilities of wireless telephones at the time, but the language of the bans has been found to be 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, 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: 0003835

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1785

Author:

:

Vote:

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:

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 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:
5. Reading, selecting, or entering a name or telephone number for the purpose of making a call.
6. Activating or deactivating a feature or function on an electronic wireless communication device.
7. 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:
   1. 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.
   2. 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:
   1. Manufacturer-installed systems that are embedded in the vehicle
   2. 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 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%.

1. 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 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 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.
5. 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.
6. 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. 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 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: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/3/16)

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: (Verified 8/3/16)

California Chamber of Commerce

Computing Technology Industry Association

Internet Association

Safer Streets L.A.

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:

8/5/16 10:20:13

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING

Senator Jim Beall, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: AB 1785 Hearing Date: 6/28/2016

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:
5. Reading, selecting, or entering a name or telephone number for the purpose of making a call
6. Activating or deactivating a feature or function on an electronic wireless communication device
7. 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:
   1. 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.
   2. 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.
   3. 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 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%.

1. 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 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Banning the handheld. This bill would ban 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-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.
5. 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.
6. 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 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.
7. 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 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: Fiscal Com.: Local:

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,

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 --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1785

Author:(Quirk)

As Amended Ver:May 27, 2016

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Repeals and recasts the prohibition on the use of an 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 operating 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 or to a wireless telephone or device mounted on a vehicle's windshield, 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 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 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, as a mobile device that an everyday Californian might colloquially refer to as a "cell phone" indeed resembles more of a 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 offer limited internet access, a smartphone of 2016 has vastly greater capabilities, ranging from those legacy functions to global positioning, video streaming, and photography. The existing statutory bans may have been sufficient to capture the full range of capabilities of wireless telephones at the time, but the language of the bans has been found to be 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, 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: 0003051

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1785

Author:(Quirk)

As Amended Ver:April 5, 2016

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Repeals and recasts the prohibition on the use of an 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 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 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, 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

Date of Hearing: May 11, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1785

Author:(Quirk) – As Amended Ver:April 5, 2016

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

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 device is 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 (in any manner) 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. Defines "electronic wireless communications device" to include, but not be limited to, a broadband personal communication device, a specialized mobile radio device, a handheld device or laptop computer with mobile data access, a pager, or a two-way messaging device.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Any costs to the CHP to update training regarding the modified prohibition on use of electronic wireless communication devices would be minor and absorbable.

COMMENTS:

1. Background. 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. SB 28, (Simitian), Chapter 270, Statutes of 2007, expanded this ban to prohibit a person from writing, sending or reading text-based communications while driving. SB 194, (Galgiani), Chapter 754, Statutes of 2013, 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.

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. Law enforcement agencies thus 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 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.

As the number of mobile devices and their range of capabilities has grown, so too has their impact on driver safety. 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. The DMV reported over 426,000 handheld cell phone and texting convictions from jurisdictions statewide in 2013. To help combat the dangers of distracted driving, the most recent Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), prepared by Caltrans, recommends strengthening laws on distracted driving.

1. Purpose. In the context of the court’s ruling and consistent with the SHSP recommendations, this bill clarifies that a person is prohibited from using a wireless telephone or an electronic wireless communications device for any purpose 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. The author intends this bill to reflect how technology has evolved with the goal of providing law enforcement clearer laws to enforce and improving safety. By including functions of wireless telephones and electronic wireless communications devices beyond just telephone calls, under the prohibition on their use while driving, the author intends to give law enforcement additional tools to promote driver safety.

Analysis Prepared by: Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 11, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Jim Frazier, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1785 (

Author:Quirk) – As Amended Ver:April 5, 2016

SUBJECT: Vehicles: use of wireless electronic devices

SUMMARY: Repeals and recasts the prohibition on the use of an 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 a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving, except in emergency circumstances.
2. 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.
3. 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 electronic wireless communications device.
4. Prohibits a person under the age of 18 from driving while using a wireless telephone or an electronic wireless communications device, even if it is equipped with a hands-free device.
5. Establishes a base fine of $20 for a first violation and $50 for each subsequent violation of each above prohibition.
6. Provides that an “electronic wireless communications device” includes, but is not limited to, a broadband personal communication device, a specialized mobile radio device, a handheld device or laptop computer with mobile data access, a pager, or a two-way message device.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

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 2007]. 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 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.

The effect of cell phone use on a driver’s attention is well-documented. However, the distracting effect of cell phones is not limited to taking a driver’s eyes off the road to make a call or send a text message. 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%. The distracting effect of these devices is significant and their prevalence in motor vehicles has grown over the past few decades.

According to CTIA – The Wireless Association, the number of cell phone subscriber connections in the United States increased from 55 million in 1997, a wireless penetration rate of 20%, to 326 million in 2012, representing a wireless penetration rate of 102%. This growth in the number of cell phone subscriber connections means many United States residents now have active wireless connections to more than one device. In the context of this increase, 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. Of those killed, 415 (13%) were involved in crashes in which at least one driver was using a cell phone at the time of the crash. Such crashes were also responsible for an estimated 28,000 injuries.

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 (DMV) 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, 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.

Despite this level of enforcement, a study conducted in the spring of 2015 by the Office of Traffic Safety and UC Berkeley observed 9.2% of motorists using cell phones, up from 6.6% in 2014. To help combat the dangers of distracted driving, the most recent Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), prepared by the California Department of Transportation, recommends strengthening laws on distracted driving.

In the context of the court’s ruling and consistent with the SHSP recommendations, this bill would clarify that using a person is prohibited from using a wireless telephone or an electronic wireless communications device for any purpose 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. The author intends this bill to reflect how technology has evolved with the goal of providing law enforcement clearer laws to enforce and improving safety on California’s roadways. By including functions of wireless telephones and electronic wireless communications devices beyond just telephone calls, under the prohibition on their use while driving, the author intends to give law enforcement additional tools to promote driver safety.

Committee concerns: While this bill seeks to clarify the existing statutory prohibition by encompassing all distracting mobile device-related behavior, it is unclear if this bill will address one primary concern of the 5th District Court. The court found that the phrase “using a wireless telephone” in the original statute referred only to a driver holding a wireless telephone while conversing on it. While previous versions of this bill contained more specific definitions, provisions of this bill as drafted also contain the phrase “using a wireless telephone or an electronic wireless communications device,” and as such, the ambiguity identified by the court may still be unresolved. While the author has clearly communicated his intent, he may wish to continue working to specify for what purposes a mobile device may not be used while driving.

Previous legislation: AB 1646 (Frazier) of 2014, would have imposed a violation point for convictions related to the use of a cellular phone or wireless communication device while driving, and required the driver’s license examination to include a test of the applicant’s understanding of the dangers related to the use of handheld devices while driving. AB 1646 was vetoed by the Governor. In his veto message the Governor directed DMV to add a question to the driver’s license examination of using a communication device while driving and indicated a desire to wait to see additional data from DMV on distracted driving before enacting a law requiring a violation point penalty.

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), of 2013, would have repealed the provisions of AB 1536 (Miller), Chapter 92, Statutes of 2012 entirely. AB 313 was returned to the Chief Clerk by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

AB 1536 (Miller), Chapter 92, Statutes of 2012, allows 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) of 2012, would have increased the penalties related to using a wireless communications device while operating a vehicle, and would have added dangers of talking or texting while driving to the list of items that the DMV must include in an examination for a driver’s license. SB 1310 was vetoed by the Governor on the grounds that current fines already serve as a powerful deterrent and that upping the fines would likely not further reduce violations.

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, makes 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.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Association of Highway Patrolmen

California Peace Officers’ Association

California Police Chiefs Association

Impact Teen Drivers

Safe Kids Central California

Walk San Francisco

WALKSacramento

Opposition

Safer Streets LA

Analysis Prepared by: Justin Behrens / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093