BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: AB 107
SENATOR TOM TORLAKSON, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: Benoit
VERSION: 6/27/05
Analysis by: Randall Henry
FISCAL:yes
SUBJECT:
Traffic violator schools: lesson plans.
DESCRIPTION:
This bill would reduce the number of instructional minutes
required to meet the lesson plan requirements for traffic
violator schools.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law requires a licensed traffic violator school owner to
provide a Department of Motor Vehicle's approved lesson plan of a
minimum of 400 minutes of instruction, except that a lesson plan
for instructing persons under the age of 18 may provide a minimum
of 600 minutes of instruction.
This bill would :
Modify this requirement to require that a traffic
violator school provide not less than 240 minutes and not
more than 300 minutes of a department-approved lesson plan
of traffic safety instruction that is designed to improve
safe driving habits and reduce traffic accidents.
Require the department to develop curriculum criteria
designed to reduce subsequent traffic violations and traffic
collisions by those persons completing traffic violator
school.
Authorize a traffic violator school to continue to use an
approved lesson plan that provides a minimum of 400 minutes
of traffic safety instruction until the department approves
the school's lesson plan that meets the new requirement.
Provides that the counties currently exempt from certain
state requirements in this area shall meet or exceed the
AB 107 (BENOIT) Page 2
minimum instructional time and content standards established
by this measure.
BACKGROUND:
Existing law (Vehicle Code Sec. 626) defines a "traffic violator
school" as "a business which for compensation provides, or offers
to provide, instruction in traffic safety, including, but not
limited to, classroom defensive-driver concepts, for persons
referred by the courts pursuant to (state) law."
Under current law, the courts are authorized to order a person to
attend a license traffic violator school, a licensed driving
school, or other court-approved program of driving instruction as
the result of committing a traffic violation. In addition, a
person is entitled to have a complaint relating to the safe
operation of a vehicle dismissed (or masked) when the person
attends such a school or instructional program.
There are reportedly approximately 400 licensed traffic violator
schools (and 150 home study programs) currently operating in the
state. About 1 million persons attend at least one session of
traffic school annually, and it is estimated that perhaps
one-half of these traffic violators use the home study option.
While not presently licensed by the Department of Motor Vehicles,
home study programs offer instruction through a variety of
non-classroom means of instruction (internet, textbook, video,
and CD ROM) and are permitted to operate under authority granted
to local courts under Vehicle Code Sec. 42005, which authorizes
the courts to refer violators to department-licensed and
court-approved programs, including home study programs. The
department indicates nearly all the counties permit home study
programs to operate within their jurisdictions.
The operators of traffic violator schools (not home study
programs) are required to meet various requirements in order to
be licensed by the Department of Motor Vehicles. Some of these
requirements include:
Maintain an established place of business that is open to
the public.
File a bond of $2,000 with the department.
Maintain an approved classroom.
Execute and file with the department an instrument
designating the department director as agent of the
applicant for service of process.
AB 107 (BENOIT) Page 3
Comply with the American with Disabilities Act.
Utilize an approved lesson plan that provides a minimum
of 400 minutes of instruction, except the plan may provide a
minimum of 600 minutes instruction for persons under 18
years of age .
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose of the bill . This bill is intended to reduce the
instructional period required to be offered by traffic violator
schools, thereby streamlining the lesson plans of such schools
and possibly making the traditional classroom school more
competitive with home study programs. In addition, the bill
requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to develop curriculum
criteria for these schools which would be designed to reduce
traffic violations and traffic collisions.
2.Proponents arguments . The supporters of this measure contend
that the currently required instructional period is
unnecessarily lengthy and possible redundant, and they point to
other states, such as Florida, Texas, Arizona, and New York,
which require traffic school sessions to extend only between
four and five hours. The proponents further assert that
decreasing the instruction period for the traditional classroom
programs will "level the playing field" between classroom
providers and home study programs while not jeopardizing the
effectiveness of the instructional program. Currently, home
study programs are not subject to a minimum time requirement
and the completion of these courses are determined by the
preference and pace of the traffic violator. (Some counties,
however, do impose a minimum word requirement for the home
study programs under their purview, primarily 40,000 words. It
is generally estimated that an average person reads
approximately 100 words per minute.) The "self-paced" basis of
the home study programs and inherent convenience serves as an
attractive factor when a traffic violator is selecting an
instructional program, and it may very well serve to clearly
disadvantage the classroom programs. On that score, the
California Traffic School Association points out that one in
three classroom programs have ceased operation since 1999.
3.Effectiveness of traffic school . Some traffic violator schools
have the been the subject of criticism for the rather
unconventional and non-serious manner of the classroom
instruction. In addition, the Department of Motor Vehicles
(Gebers, 1995) and the Automobile Club of Southern California
AB 107 (BENOIT) Page 4
(Bloch, 1996) have conducted studies that examined the
knowledge and attitudinal changes and driving performance of
motorists that attended a session of traffic school, which
included a variety of instructional methods. Both studies
concluded that the traffic school experience, regardless of the
method of instruction, had only a small effect in improving the
traffic safety knowledge of the attendees. In addition,
driving attitudes remained largely unchanged for the students,
both at the time of the instruction and 6-12 months after the
traffic safety instruction session.
4.Response of traffic schools . Representatives from traffic
violator schools, however, argue that most of the schools
conduct their operation in a professional manner and serve an
important traffic safety role. And they further contend that
"(s)tate and federal agencies and the National Public Services
Research Institute have shown that traffic violator programs
that address driver attitude and motivation and are focused on
the reduction of future offences, materially reduces (traffic)
violations and (vehicular) collisions."
5.Opposition arguments. Writing in opposition to this measure,
the California Traffic Safety Institute notes that "(l)est we
forget the intended purpose of traffic school and realize that
these programs have an opportunity to educate a targeted
audience with updated legislation and safe driving issues. The
entire rationale for a defendant to be allowed to attend
traffic school is so that they may increase their knowledge of
defensive driving procedures in an effort to improve their
driving and reduce traffic collisions. A 400-minute class, as
it is, only scratches the surface of this very important
issue."
6.Other provisions. In addition to the provision on
instructional minutes for traffic violator schools, the measure
would also do the following:
Clarify that the courts "shall provide" (rather than
"make available") to traffic violators "a complete copy" of
"the current list of traffic violator schools published by
the department" for the purpose of assisting the violator to
select a licensed school.
Permit certain specified counties that operate traffic
violator programs that are presently exempt from state
regulation to continue those programs if they meet or exceed
the minimum instructional time and content standards
AB 107 (BENOIT) Page 5
established by this bill.
Include a provision that would provide that "it is the
intent of the Legislature to contribute to the goal of
improving traffic safety by allowing the department to
accommodate varying program lengths and thus provide the
department with the flexibility necessary to allow for
different forms of instruction while maintaining the
integrity of the material."
1.Policy questions .
Will the effectiveness of the instruction offered by
traffic violator schools be adversely affected by this
proposed change?
Will traffic violators be shortchanged by a reduction in
the instructional period?
Will this bill, in any way, possibly forestall the
Legislature from providing "the department with the
flexibility necessary to allow for different forms of
instruction"?
PREVIOUS LEGISLATION:
AB 2458 (Benoit, 2004) would have reduced the number of
instructional minutes required to meet the lesson plan
requirements for traffic violator schools. (Failed passage in
the Senate Transportation Committee)
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 59-8
Appr: 18-0
Trans: 11-1
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
Wednesday,
June 29, 2005.)
SUPPORT: Academia De Trafico En Espanol
ADA VIS Global Ent Inc.
American Auto Traffic Schools
Bay Area Driving School
California Alliance for
Consumer Protection
California Comedy Traffic
Schools
California Driving School
AB 107 (BENOIT) Page 6
California Traffic Classes
California Traffic School
Association
Cheap School Traffic Violator
School
Comedy Scholl Traffic
Violator School
Creative Energy Educational
Services
Driving School Association
Fun-D-Mental Traffic School
Highway Blues, Inc.
I'll Never Speed Again Comedy
Traffic School
Improv Traffic School
Interactive Safety Education,
Inc.
Live 'n' Learn with Humor
Lupita Traffic Academy
San Diego County Traffic
School Association
Traffic Safety Center, Inc.
Individual letters
OPPOSED: California Traffic Safety Institute
National Traffic Safety
Institute
San Jose-Evergreen Community
College District
California Distance Learning
Association
National Association of
Driving Safety Educators