BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: SB 1613
SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: simitian
VERSION: 2/24/06
Analysis by: Jennifer Gress FISCAL: yes
SUBJECT:
Vehicles: wireless telephones
DESCRIPTION:
This bill prohibits a driver from using a wireless phone while
operating a vehicle, unless the phone is specifically designed
and configured to allow hands-free operation and is used in that
manner.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law prohibits renting a vehicle with cellular radio
telephone equipment unless instructions are provided regarding
the safe use of the equipment.
This bill :
1.Creates an infraction, beginning on July 1, 2008, for driving
a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone, unless it is
specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free
operation and is used in that manner.
2.Prescribes that a conviction is punishable by a fine that
shall not exceed $20 for a first offense and $50 for
subsequent offenses, including penalty assessments and court
costs.
3.Exempts calls to emergency service providers from this
prohibition.
4.Exempts emergency service professionals when operating
authorized emergency vehicles in the course and scope of their
duties from this prohibition.
SB 1613 (SIMITIAN) Page 2
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose of the bill . The author argues that although
hands-free devices do not eliminate the distraction a driver
may face when talking on a cell phone, it is crucial to
improve reaction time in the event of an emergency by allowing
both hands to be on the wheel. This bill focuses on one aspect
of motorist cell phone use, that of hands-on operation, in an
attempt to reduce motor vehicle accidents in California.
Two aspects of cell phone use while driving result in
significant distraction and collisions. The first is the
physical distraction a motorist encounters when picking up the
phone, punching the number keypad, holding the phone up to his
or her ear to converse, or pushing a button to end a call. It
is this type of distraction that is addressed by this bill.
The second is the mental distraction which results from the
ongoing conversation carried on between the motorist and the
person on the other end of the line.
The author believes that the hands-free requirement in this
bill is a minimal restriction on the use of cellular
telephones in automobiles and that it is a substantial step
forward in dealing with a significant driving hazard.
Hands-free cellular telephone equipment, or kits, are either
given away with telephones or can be acquired as an
after-market purchase for under $20.
2.Arguments in opposition . The opposition notes that this bill
singles out one type of behavior - holding a phone - that
could lead to inattentive driving. According to opponents,
studies have demonstrated that in our multi-tasking world,
behaviors such as eating, managing electronic vehicle
accessories, and attending to children are more prevalent
distractions to drivers than hand-held wireless phone use. For
example, a 2003 study by the AAA's Foundation for Traffic
Safety and the University of North Carolina found that the use
of cell phones was only the eighth most common distraction.
(Reaching and leaning was the most prevalent distracted
activity.) The opposition further argues that unfairly
penalizes drivers who are using a hand-held cell phone
regardless of whether or not those drivers are operating their
vehicle in a safe and responsible manner.
3.Other states . Growing statistical and anecdotal evidence
linking cell phones to hazardous driving has resulted in a
SB 1613 (SIMITIAN) Page 3
call for action by several countries, numerous municipalities,
and many state legislatures. At least 25 state legislatures
are considering some kind of restriction on cell phone use
while driving.
The State of New York was the first to ban the use of
hand-held cell phones while driving, when it passed similar
legislation in June of 2001. It requires drivers to use
hands-free devices when using mobile phones unless the phone
is being used to communicate with police, fire, medical or
emergency personnel. Drivers there face fines of $100 for the
first violation, $200 for the second and $500 thereafter. New
Jersey and Washington, D.C. adopted similar laws that took
effect on July 1, 2004.
According to the Washington Post, police issued 6018 tickets
in 2005. The Post also reported that D.C. police believe that
drivers largely ignore the ban and that a perception exists
that hands-free does not address the underlying safety issue
posed by distracted driving generally. Washington, D.C.
Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey concluded: "The real issue is
driving while distracted. The cell phone has just been the
poster child."
Maryland passed a law in 2005 that would prohibit younger
drives ages 16-18 from using any cell phone while driving.
Other states are considering similar bans.
4.Studies of driving and wireless phone use . Several studies and
data indicate that drivers can lose substantial cognitive
awareness with the situation on the road when they are
concentrating on a cell phone conversation. This is true
whether or not the motorist is holding the phone up to his or
her ear or is using a hands-free system.
In 2004, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) reports that of
538,295 total collisions in 2004, the investigating officer
cited the driver's cellular phone as a factor contributing to
the collision in 1176 of the collisions. Handheld cell phones
were a factor in .15% of these collisions, whereas hands-free
phones were a factor in .006%. Through October 31 of 2005,
there were a total of 439,794 collisions. Of these, handheld
phones were cited as a factor in .2% collisions and hands-free
.02%, indicating an overall increase in the percentage of
collisions in which hands-free cell phones were a contributing
factor. While the increase in the number of people using
SB 1613 (SIMITIAN) Page 4
hands-free cell phones was not accounted for, these data
nevertheless suggest that hands-free cell phones do not
prevent collisions from occurring when motorists use their
cell phone while driving.
A study in the February/March 2003 issue of the National
Safety Council's Injury Insights by the same University of
Utah researchers entitled "Cell Phone Use Can Lead to
Inattention Blindness Behind the Wheel," shows that conversing
on cell phones while driving disrupts the driver's attention
to the visual environment, including sign, pedestrians, and
other roadside features. The data in this study also suggests
that legislative initiatives that restrict hand-held devices,
but permit hands-free devices, are not likely to eliminate the
problems associated with using cell phones while driving.
Because these problems are attributed in large part to the
distracting affects of the phone conversations themselves,
rather than the being on the phone. It is the conversation
that directs attention away from the external environment and
towards an internal, cognitive activity associated with the
conversation.
A Harvard study released in December 2002 estimates that about
one in 20 (5%) of U.S. traffic accidents are caused by a
driver talking on a cell phone, resulting in 2,600 deaths and
330,000 injuries each year.
A study by David Strayer and others at the University of Utah
published in the winter 2004/2005 issue of Human Factors, the
quarterly journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,
found that motorists who talked on hands-free cell phones were
18 percent slower in braking and took 17 percent longer to
regain the speed they lost when they braked.
A University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center
study released in 2001, determined that driver distraction is
a major factor in motor vehicles crashes, and using or dialing
a cellular telephone ranked eighth as a source of driver
distraction. More common sources of distraction, "included
objects or events outside a vehicle, adjusting the radio,
other occupants in the vehicle, moving objects in the vehicle,
use of other devices or objects, climate controls, and eating
and drinking."
A CHP study, required by AB 770 (Nakano), Chapter 710,
Statutes of 2001, released in February 2003, concluded that
SB 1613 (SIMITIAN) Page 5
cell phone use causes driver distraction, however the report
is short on statistical data. The CHP report recommended: a)
continuing the collection and reporting of collision data
related to driver distraction; b) giving serious consideration
to requiring use of hands-free cell phones in motor vehicles;
c) improving cell phone consumer information and adding a
general "inattentive driving" violation to the Vehicle Code;
and e) continuing law enforcement training on the proper
documentation of inattention factors.
5.Bill does not address the underlying problem . The majority of
evidence concerning distractedness and the use of cell phones
indicates that the mental activity of holding a conversation,
rather than the type of phone used for the conversation, leads
to distractedness. The author contends that requiring
motorists to use a hands-free phone while driving allows them
to have two hands on the steering wheel, however, this bill
does not require that two hands actually be placed on the
wheel at any time while the driver is operating the car.
6.Suggested amendment . The bill specifies that the fine imposed
for the infraction created by this bill shall include "all
penalty assessments and court costs imposes on the convicted
person, of not more than twenty dollars ($20) for a first
offense and not more than fifty dollars ($50) for each
subsequent offense." Generally fines are base fines, and
penalty assessments and court costs are calculated as a
percentage of the base fine. The author will need to clarify
how the money collected from these fines will be distributed
to cover the penalty assessments and court costs. One
alternative is to make the fine amounts of $20 and $50 the
base fine amounts.
7.Previous legislation . The author has carried nearly identical
bills several times in the past.
SB 681 (Simitian, 2005) was identical to this
bill, but was never heard in a form relating to cell
phones.
AB 1828 (Simitian, 2004) was introduced but
never taken up for hearing in the Assembly
Transportation Committee. In addition to the
provisions in this bill, AB 1828 provided that a
conviction would not impose a violation point on the
driver's record.
SB 1613 (SIMITIAN) Page 6
AB 45 (Simitian, 2003) was identical to this
bill. It passed the Assembly, but failed in the
Senate Transportation Committee on a 4 to 7 vote.
AB 1911 (Simitian, 2002) imposed the same
prohibition on driving while using a wireless phone,
but the fine imposed would have been of not more than
$40 for a first offense, and not more than $50 for
each subsequent offense. The bill failed passage in
the Assembly Transportation Committee.
AB 911 (Simitian, 2001) would have imposed the
prohibition on driving while using a wireless phone.
The bill failed passage in the Assembly Transportation
Committee.
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
Wednesday,
April 19, 2006)
SUPPORT: Insurance Brokers & Agents of the West
Nationwide Insurance Company
OPPOSED: Sprint Nextel