BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1613|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1613
Author: Simitian (D)
Amended: 8/29/06
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE : 7-6, 4/25/06
AYES: Lowenthal, Cedillo, Dutton, Kehoe, Simitian, Soto,
Torlakson
NOES: McClintock, Ashburn, Ducheny, Machado, Margett,
Runner
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SENATE FLOOR : 21-14, 5/25/06
AYES: Aanestad, Alquist, Bowen, Cedillo, Chesbro, Denham,
Dunn, Figueroa, Kehoe, Lowenthal, Margett, Migden, Ortiz,
Perata, Romero, Scott, Simitian, Soto, Speier, Torlakson,
Vincent
NOES: Ackerman, Alarcon, Ashburn, Battin, Cox, Ducheny,
Dutton, Hollingsworth, Machado, McClintock, Morrow,
Murray, Poochigian, Runner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Escutia, Florez, Kuehl, Maldonado,
Vacancy
\
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 50-28, 8/29/06 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Vehicles: wireless telephones
SOURCE : Author
CONTINUED
SB 1613
Page
2
DIGEST : This bill prohibits, beginning July 1, 2008, 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 and prohibits the use of a wireless phone while
driving a schoolbus or transit vehicle, except as
specified.
Assembly Amendments : (1) prohibit a point from be assessed
on a person's driving record for a violation of this bill;
(2) exempt a person when using a digital two-way radio that
utilizes a wireless telephone that operates by depressing a
push-to-talk feature and does not require immediate
proximity to the ear of the user and the person is driving
a commercial truck requiring a commercial class A or class
B driver's license as specified, vehicles and implements of
husbandry, commercial vehicles that are engaged in
agriculture and are registered to a farmer, and tow trucks,
and (3) sunset the entire "push to talk" exemptions on July
1, 2011.
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.Makes numerous findings and declarations relative to the
use of telephones while operating motor vehicles.
2.Creates an infraction 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.
3.Imposes a base fine of $20 for a first offense and $50
for subsequent offenses.
4.Prohibits a point to be assessed on a person's driving
record for a violation of this section.
5.Exempts calls to emergency service providers.
6.Exempts emergency service professionals when operating
SB 1613
Page
3
authorized emergency vehicles in the course and scope of
their duties.
7.Exempts commercial truck drivers requiring a commercial
class A or class B driver's license, as specified.
8.Exempts drivers of farm vehicles and implements of
husbandry.
9.Exempts drivers of commercial vehicles that are engaged
in agriculture and are registered to a farmer.
10.Exempts drivers of tow trucks.
11.Sunsets the entire "push to talk" exemptions on July 1,
2011; thereby allowing the exemption to be effective for
three years from when the bill is enacted.
12.Specifies that its provisions do not impact existing law
that prohibits drivers of schoolbuses and public transit
vehicles from using cell phones while driving.
13.Clarifies that its provisions do not apply to persons
driving on private property.
14.Establishes the operative date of its provisions on July
1, 2008. Also, cost pressures, in the range of $500,000
annually starting in 2007-08, to CHP to educate the
driving public about the cell phone ban.
Other states . Growing statistical and anecdotal evidence
linking cell phones to hazardous driving has resulted in a
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
SB 1613
Page
4
$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 prohibits younger drives
ages 16-18 from using any cell phone while driving. Other
states are considering similar bans.
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.
The California Highway Patrol (CHP) reports that of 441,334
total collisions in 2004, the investigating officer cited
the driver's cellular phone as a factor contributing to the
collision in 931 of the collisions.
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
SB 1613
Page
5
the conversation.
A Harvard study released in December 2002 estimates that
about one in 20 (five percent) 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
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.
Previous legislation . The author has carried nearly
identical bills several times in the past.
SB 681 (Simitian), of 2005 , was identical to this bill.
The bill was introduced but not taken up in this form.
SB 1613
Page
6
AB 1828 (Simitian), of 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.
AB 45 (Simitian), of 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), of 2001 , would have imposed the
prohibition on driving while using a wireless phone. The
bill failed passage in the Assembly Transportation
Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this
bill has minor one-time costs, probably less than $50,000
in 2010-11, to CHP to prepare report to the Legislature
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/29/06)
21st Century Insurance
California Bicycle Coalition
California Organization of Police and Sheriffs (COPS)
California Professional Firefighters Association
California Retailers Association
California State Firefighters Association
California Trucking Association
City of Los Angeles
City of Santa Monica
Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety
Driving Schools Association of California
Health Net
Insurance Brokers and Agents of the West
SB 1613
Page
7
Kaiser Permanente
Nationwide Insurance Company
Palm
Regenate
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office
Verizon Wireless
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/29/06)
Sprint Nextel
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author's office 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 either,
picking up the phone, punching the number keypad, holding
the phone up to his/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's office 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.
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,
SB 1613
Page
8
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 cell phones were 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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Baca, Bass, Berg, Bermudez, Calderon, Canciamilla,
Chan, Chu, Cohn, Coto, Daucher, De La Torre, Dymally,
Emmerson, Evans, Frommer, Garcia, Goldberg, Hancock,
Jerome Horton, Shirley Horton, Jones, Karnette, Klehs,
Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Lieu, Liu, Matthews,
Montanez, Mullin, Nation, Nava, Negrete McLeod, Oropeza,
Parra, Pavley, Richman, Ridley-Thomas, Ruskin, Saldana,
Salinas, Torrico, Umberg, Vargas, Wolk, Yee, Nunez
NOES: Aghazarian, Arambula, Benoit, Blakeslee, Bogh,
Chavez, Cogdill, DeVore, Haynes, Houston, Huff, Keene, La
Malfa, La Suer, Leslie, Maze, McCarthy, Mountjoy,
Nakanishi, Niello, Plescia, Sharon Runner, Spitzer,
Strickland, Tran, Villines, Walters, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Koretz, Vacancy
JJA:do 8/30/06 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****