Existing law makes it a crime to drive a motor vehicle while holding and operating a handheld wireless telephone or electronic wireless communications device, as specified. Existing law defines an electronic wireless communications device as including, but 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 messaging device.

This bill would remove a specialized mobile radio device and a two-way messaging device from the list of devices specifically included as an electronic wireless communications device.

Existing law makes it a crime to drive a motor vehicle while holding and operating a handheld wireless telephone or electronic wireless communications device, as specified. Existing law defines an electronic wireless communications device as including, but 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 messaging device.

This bill would remove a specialized mobile radio device and a two-way messaging device from the list of devices specifically included as an electronic wireless communications device.

Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to include within the California Drivers Handbook language regarding rail transit safety, abandonment or dumping of an animal on a highway, and the importance of respecting the right-of-way of others.

This bill would require the department to also include within the handbook language regarding distracted driving safety, and would require that language to be initially included at the earliest opportunity when the handbook is otherwise revised or reprinted.

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1222

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 12-0, 7/11/17

AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Atkins, McGuire, Mendoza, Morrell, Roth, Skinner, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Gaines

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/11/17 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill removes “specialized mobile radio device” and “two way messaging device” as examples of an “electronic wireless communications device” that is prohibited from being used while driving.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Prohibits driving a vehicle while holding and operating a handheld wireless telephone or an electronic wireless communications device unless the device is designed to allow voice-operated, hands-free operation and is used in that manner.
   
2. Defines an “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.
   
3. Allows a driver to activate or deactivate a feature on the device with a single swipe or tap of the driver’s finger if the device is mounted, as described.
   
4. Exempts manufacturer-installed systems that are embedded in the vehicle and also exempts emergency services professionals operating an emergency vehicle.
   
5. Treats violations as an infraction punishable by a base fine of $20 for a first offense and $50 for subsequent offenses.

This bill removes “specialized mobile radio device” and “two way messaging device” as examples of an “electronic wireless communications device.”

Background

1. Smarter phones. Ten years ago in 2007, SB 28 (Simitian, Chapter 270, Statutes of 2007) made it illegal to read, write, or receive a text message while driving, expanding on existing prohibitions on wireless telephone use passed the year before. That same year, the iPhone was introduced and released to the public. Since then, simple cellular phones have become GPS-equipped and broadband-enabled computers with large touch screens that fit in a pocket. The “phone” part of smartphone has become almost an afterthought, second to the slew of interactive apps and more advanced messaging available. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s National Occupant Protection Use Survey, while the percentage of drivers holding phones to their ears has declined overall since 2006, the percentage of drivers seen visibly manipulating handheld devices, including texting, mapping, emailing, etc., has been trending up. This is especially notable for drivers aged 16-24, increasing from 0.4% in 2006 to 4.9% in 2015. According to the Centers for Disease Control, drivers under 20 have the highest proportion of distraction-related fatal crashes.
   
2. 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 court concluded that the intent of the Legislature in enacting existing prohibitions at the time was only to prohibit the use of a wireless telephone for carrying on a conversation, not for any other purpose. This decision made it difficult for law-enforcement agencies to enforce the prohibition.
   
3. Updating the code. Last year, AB 1785 (Quirk, Chapter 660, Statutes of 2016) was passed with the intent of addressing the use of the ever more intelligent and distracting features of smartphones while driving, updating the telephone and texting-centric statute. To incorporate the new technology, the statute was broadened to not only include a “handheld wireless telephone” but also an “electronic wireless communication device” including mobile, broadband devices. The statute requires drivers to mount their devices to the center console, dashboard, or windshield and only permitted minimal interaction, including a single tap or swipe to initiate or deactivate a feature, such as mapping.
   
4. Installing a patch. AB 1785 defined an “electronic wireless communication 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. While the intent was to prohibit the use of smartphones while driving beyond phone calls and texting, it inadvertently created uncertainties for other radio-related devices, including specialized mobile radio devices and two-way messaging devices, often used by drivers for utilities companies. This bill clarifies the intention of the language by removing “specialized mobile radio device” and “two-way messaging device” from the listed examples of an “electronic wireless communication device.” While this bill no longer explicitly lists the two devices, it does retain the phrase “including, but not limited to,” which provides some flexibility.
   
5. Wired radios not considered wireless. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) released an enforcement letter, to be added to their Traffic Enforcement Policy Manual, clarifying their stance regarding certain radios. CHP stated that they do not consider radios with wired hand microphones, such as business band or citizen band (CB) radios, to be a wireless communication device or a specialized mobile radio device. Therefore, current statute does not apply to wired radios from an enforcement standpoint.
   

Comments

1. Purpose. According to the author, “Last year I authored a bill to update our distracted driving laws so that statute is reflective of the various activities smartphones can do. Until last year, California law was silent on whether or not a driver could hold a smartphone to scroll through a music playlist, take a selfie or play video games – even though these activities are equally, if not more, distracting than texting (which, along with holding a phone to make a call, was the only activity explicitly prohibited). AB 1222 seeks to correct a potential unintended consequence regarding two-way communication devices commonly used by trained professionals for brief, verbal communications with their dispatch offices or with other trained professionals. These devices do not possess the myriad distractions of cellular phones. These devices are essential tools operated by trained professionals in accordance with company safety policies. For example, dispatch and coordination is essential during emergencies or in hazardous or remote locations. The types of conversations facilitated by these two-way communication devices are brief and utilitarian in nature.”
   

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 1785 (Quirk, Chapter 660, Statutes of 2016) replaced prohibitions on texting while driving with broader provisions limiting the use of mobile phones and electronic wireless communications devices while driving.

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.

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 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 8/21/17)

California Bus Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Delivery Association

California Municipal Utilities Association

California Special Districts Association

California Trucking Association

City of Sacramento

Coalition of California Utility Employees

Motorola Solutions

Northern California Power Agency

Pacific Power

PG&E

SMUD

Southern California Edison

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/21/17)

BARA/California Amateur Radio Operators

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Writing in support, many utilities groups state that radio devices are essential to their employees’ jobs and emphasized that their use typically involves brief, verbal communications. They write that the radios are often used in emergency situations, communicating on dispatch to coordinate and to relay the status of the situation.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Writing in opposition, three California amateur radio operators state their concerns with several provisions implemented as part of AB 1785, including the exemption for emergency services professionals and device definitions used. They recommend broadening the exemption to emergency services “personnel” instead of professionals and suggest using the term “personal wireless communications device” in the exemption, which is the term used in the federal Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). The author notes these concerns but states that it is not the intent of this bill to modify the existing exemption for emergency services professionals and that the language in this bill was tailored to be specific, with trained professionals in mind.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/11/17

AYES: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Cervantes, Chau, Chávez, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dababneh, Daly, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gomez, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Harper, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle, O'Donnell, Patterson

Prepared by:

8/22/17 16:14:22

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING

Senator Jim Beall, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: 7/11/2017

SUBJECT:

DIGEST: This bill removes “specialized mobile radio device” and “two way messaging device” as examples of an “electronic wireless communications device” that is prohibited from being used while driving.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Prohibits driving a vehicle while holding and operating a handheld wireless telephone or an electronic wireless communications device unless the device is designed to allow voice-operated, hands-free operation and is used in that manner.
   
2. Defines an “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.
   
3. Allows a driver to activate or deactivate a feature on the device with a single swipe or tap of the driver’s finger if the device is mounted, as described.
   
4. Exempts manufacturer-installed systems that are embedded in the vehicle and also exempts emergency services professionals operating an emergency vehicle.
   
5. Treats violations as an infraction punishable by a base fine of $20 for a first offense and $50 for subsequent offenses.

This bill removes “specialized mobile radio device” and “two way messaging device” as examples of an “electronic wireless communications device.”

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, “Last year I authored a bill to update our distracted driving laws so that statute is reflective of the various activities smartphones can do. Until last year, California law was silent on whether or not a driver could hold a smartphone to scroll through a music playlist, take a selfie or play video games – even though these activities are equally, if not more, distracting than texting (which, along with holding a phone to make a call, was the only activity explicitly prohibited). AB 1222 seeks to correct a potential unintended consequence regarding two-way communication devices commonly used by trained professionals for brief, verbal communications with their dispatch offices or with other trained professionals. These devices do not possess the myriad distractions of cellular phones. These devices are essential tools operated by trained professionals in accordance with company safety policies. For example, dispatch and coordination is essential during emergencies or in hazardous or remote locations. The types of conversations facilitated by these two-way communication devices are brief and utilitarian in nature.”
   
2. Smarter phones. Ten years ago in 2007, SB 28 (Simitian, Chapter 270 of 2007) made it illegal to read, write, or receive a text message while driving, expanding on existing prohibitions on wireless telephone use passed the year before. That same year, the iPhone was introduced and released to the public. Since then, simple cellular phones have become GPS-equipped and broadband-enabled computers with large touch screens that fit in a pocket. The “phone” part of smartphone has become almost an afterthought, second to the slew of interactive apps and more advanced messaging available. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA’s) National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS), while the percentage of drivers holding phones to their ears has declined overall since 2006, the percentage of drivers seen visibly manipulating handheld devices, including texting, mapping, emailing, etc., has been trending up. This is especially notable for drivers aged 16-24, increasing from 0.4% in 2006 to 4.9% in 2015. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), drivers under 20 have the highest proportion of distraction-related fatal crashes.
   
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 court concluded that the intent of the Legislature in enacting existing prohibitions at the time was only to prohibit the use of a wireless telephone for carrying on a conversation, not for any other purpose. This decision made it difficult for law-enforcement agencies to enforce the prohibition.
   
4. Updating the code. Last year, AB 1785 (Quirk, Chapter 660 of 2016) was passed with the intent of addressing the use of the ever more intelligent and distracting features of smartphones while driving, updating the telephone and texting-centric statute. To incorporate the new technology, the statute was broadened to not only include a “handheld wireless telephone” but also an “electronic wireless communication device” including mobile, broadband devices. The statute requires drivers to mount their devices to the center console, dashboard, or windshield and only permitted minimal interaction, including a single tap or swipe to initiate or deactivate a feature, such as mapping.
   
5. Installing a patch. AB 1785 defined an “electronic wireless communication 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. While the intent was to prohibit the use of smartphones while driving beyond phone calls and texting, it inadvertently created uncertainties for other radio-related devices, including specialized mobile radio devices and two-way messaging devices, often used by drivers for utilities companies. Writing in support, many utilities groups state that radio devices are essential to their employees’ jobs and emphasized that their use typically involves brief, verbal communications. They write that the radios are often used in emergency situations, communicating on dispatch to coordinate and to relay the status of the situation. This bill clarifies the intention of the language by removing “specialized mobile radio device” and “two-way messaging device” from the listed examples of an “electronic wireless communication device.” While this bill no longer explicitly lists the two devices, it does retain the phrase “including, but not limited to,” which provides some flexibility.
   
6. Wired radios not considered wireless. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) released an enforcement letter, to be added to their Traffic Enforcement Policy Manual, clarifying their stance regarding certain radios. CHP stated that they do not consider radios with wired hand microphones, such as business band or citizen band (CB) radios, to be a wireless communication device or a specialized mobile radio device. Therefore, current statute does not apply to wired radios from an enforcement standpoint. Writing in opposition, three California amateur radio operators state their concerns with several provisions implemented as part of AB 1785, including the exemption for emergency services professionals and device definitions used. They recommend broadening the exemption to emergency services “personnel” instead of professionals and suggest using the term “personal wireless communications device” in the exemption, which is the term used in the federal Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21^st Century Act (MAP-21). The author notes these concerns but states that it is not the intent of this bill to modify the existing exemption for emergency services professionals and that the language in this bill was tailored to be specific, with trained professionals in mind.
   

Related Legislation:

AB 1785 (Quirk, Chapter 660, Statutes of 2016) — replaced prohibitions on texting while driving with broader provisions limiting the use of mobile phones and electronic wireless communications devices while driving.

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.

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 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: 77-0

Appr: 16-0

Trans: 14-0

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

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

July 5, 2017.)

SUPPORT:

California Bus Association

California Delivery Association

California Municipal Utilities Association

California Special Districts Association

California Trucking Association

City of Sacramento

Coalition of California Utility Employees

Motorola Solutions

Northern California Power Agency

Pacific Power

PG&E

SMUD

Southern California Edison

OPPOSITION:

BARA/California Amateur Radio Operators

-- END --

Date of Hearing: May 3, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1222

Author:(Quirk) – As Amended Ver:April 17, 2017

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

SUMMARY:

This bill removes “specialized mobile radio device” and “two-way messaging device” from the definition of “electronic wireless communications device” for purposes of defining the types of handheld communications devices that are prohibited while driving.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Negligible fiscal effect.

COMMENTS:

1. Background. AB 1785 (Quirk), Chapter 660, Statutes of 2016, clarified in state law that a person is prohibited from using a wireless telephone or an electronic wireless communications device for any purpose while driving, in order to encompass the scope of activities included in “using” a wireless telephone or electronic wireless communications device to address narrow judicial interpretations of the original ban on using a handheld wireless communication device that was enacted in 2006. Thus, existing law prohibits a person from driving a motor vehicle while holding and operating a wireless telephone or an electronic wireless communications device unless the wireless telephone or electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed for and used in a voice-operated and hands-free manner. Existing law also specifies that 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.
2. Purpose. The author believes AB 1785 inadvertently included devices that were not intended to be included in the wider cellphone ban. Devices such as two-way radios functioning on business band or civilian band (CB) radios which have a more limited scope of functions, and thus, a more limited potential for distracting a driver. With this bill, the author intends to provide technical cleanup to AB 1785, so that it is not construed to limit the use of two-way wireless communication devices utilized by either trained professionals or individuals that have been properly licensed for brief, verbal communications essential to the functioning of their job duties.

Analysis Prepared by: Jessica Peters / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 24, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Jim Frazier, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1222 (

Author:Quirk) – As Amended Ver:April 17, 2017

SUBJECT: Vehicles: electronic wireless communications devices

SUMMARY: Strikes “specialized mobile radio device” and “two-way messaging device” from the definition of “electronic wireless communications device”.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Prohibits a person from driving a motor vehicle while holding and operating a wireless telephone or an electronic wireless communications device unless the wireless telephone or electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed for and used in a voice-operated and hands-free manner.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Establishes a base fine of $20 for a first violation and $50 for each subsequent violation of each above prohibition.
5. 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 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].

Last year, Governor Brown signed AB 1785 (Quirk), Chapter 660, Statutes of 2016, which clarified that a person is prohibited from using a wireless telephone or an electronic wireless communications device for any purpose while driving, in order to encompass the scope of activities included in “using” a wireless telephone or electronic wireless communications device and address narrow judicial interpretations of the original ban. This wider ban was intended to address the problem of distracted driving on California roads, which resulted in 12 fatal collisions, over 500 injury collisions, and nearly 700 property damage collisions as a result of cellphone-related distraction in 2015.

The author believes AB 1785 inadvertently included devices that were not intended to be included in the wider cellphone ban. Devices such as two-way radios functioning on business band or civilian band (CB) radios which have a more limited scope of functions, and thus, a more limited potential for distracting a driver.

With this bill, the author intends to provide technical cleanup to AB 1785, so that it is not construed to limit the use of two-way wireless communication devices utilized by either trained professionals or individuals that have been properly licensed for brief, verbal communications essential to the functioning of their job duties.

According to guidance issued by the California Highway Patrol, a radio installed and mounted in a vehicle with a wired hand microphone, for example, business band or CB radio, is not considered to be wireless communication device, nor is it considered a specialized mobile radio device, and therefore not subject to enforcement under AB 1785. This bill is consistent with that guidance, and codifies that distinction.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Delivery Association (previous version of bill)

Southern California Edison

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Justin Behrens / TRANS. /