Distractingly Serious

(Page 1 of 1)

The issue of driver distraction as it relates to mobile video has taken a backseat to cell phones for the last couple of years. But with prices for mobile entertainment products dropping -- making the category more accessible to a wider range of customers -- the category is beginning to catch the attention of lawmakers.

Recent attempts in California, Louisiana and Oregon have been made to bring outdated mobile video laws up to par with current technology. These attempts, however, could be beneficial to the mobile electronics industry, depending on how much of a role the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) plays in the development of these bills.

"A lot of our outreach efforts have come on the education side," said Doug Johnson, director of technology policy for CEA. "We're actually educating the (California) bill's sponsors on these devices."

The current law in California, which was enacted in 1951, prohibits front-seat video monitors even if the screens are utilized for navigation. The law does allow for rear-seat video.

The government affairs arm of CEA has been working with California Assemblywoman Sarah Reyes (D-Fresno), who introduced her mobile video bill on Feb. 6. The language in that bill would exempt front-seat video for the purpose of navigation, displaying vehicle information and mapping. It would also allow for monitors used to enhance a driver's view forward, behind, or to the sides for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle. In addition, the bill allows for mobile video monitors upfront if the equipment contains an interlock device that disables the ability to view a video signal when a vehicle is in motion.

"We're all in agreement that watching television or a movie while driving is distracting," said Johnson. "I think the focus here is on a product that can do more than one thing. We wanted to be able to protect the use of vehicle navigation, while at the same time taking a regulatory approach to this that allows for the development of new technology. The legislation in California is an opportunity to work with the state to improve the legislative language."

But not all language in the three bills has had the 12-volt industry's interest in mind. The language contained in the Oregon bill, which was championed by the Oregon State Police Officers Association, was written so vaguely that viewing the screen of a source unit could have become illegal. That bill, however, was sent back to the association for re-tailoring, and Johnson said CEA hopes to get involved with the Oregon State Police Officers Association in the same capacity as in California. The Louisiana bill was also met with the same reception as the Oregon bill, and has been sent back for revamping.

States Attempting To Grasp Driver Distraction
Attempts to regulate mobile video have been on hold since August 1999, which is when CEA played a pivotal role in getting Rhode Island to allow for rear-seat mobile video viewing, and use of upfront screens for navigation purposes. Most of the attention regarding driver distraction has rested on cellular phones.

"Currently, the issue most debated in state legislatures in the area of distracted driving is the use of cellular telephones while driving," said Melissa Savage, spokesperson for the National Conference of State Legislatures. "One state (New York) has passed a law prohibiting the use of cell phones while driving unless they are equipped with a hands-free device. Several other states have considered bills regarding cell phone use as well as other technology, such as mobile video, that could be distracting to drivers. But none have passed."

Since New York passed its cell phone ban, many states have taken a step back from complete prohibition of in-car devices. Instead, many states are trying to get a better understanding of what is distracting and what is not. Some states have passed legislation requiring law enforcement to track when devices like cell phones are the cause of accidents. This type of legislation has put a sense of urgency among law enforcement, especially as more and more consumer electronics devices are migrating into the mobile realm.

This situation has caused law enforcement to react quickly, as was the case with the bills in California and Oregon. In fact, in the comments section of the California bill (AB 301), Reyes quotes data collected by the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs. She states that in 2001 the association identified 6,817 collisions that were caused by driver inattention. But the data does not identify the number of accidents caused specifically by mobile video.

"A lot of this is coming from the law enforcement side. They have been the impetus behind states taking a look at existing law," said Johnson. "They do have a legitimate gripe."

Police or be Policed
There are currently 12 states that do not have laws regarding televisions in motor vehicles. Twenty-two states say a TV must not be visible to the driver; nine of those exempt video monitors upfront for navigation purposes. Seventeen states say that a TV must not be visible to the driver or located forward of the back of the driver's seat. Of those, four states allow TV monitors in the front for the use of navigation.

There are no laws that penalize 12-volt installers for allowing consumers to view video screens upfront while the vehicle is in motion. Twelve-volt manufacturers, however, have regulated that type of practice. Companies such as Alpine have policies in place that allow them to void a retailer agreement if the company finds a shop disabling interlocking devices that prevent consumers from viewing video signals upfront while driving.

The Consumer Electronics Association has also attempted to regulate front-seat mobile video and published a statement approximately two years ago on the correct installation of mobile entertainment products. The association representing 12-volt retailers is also attempting to regulate mobile video installations.

At a February board meeting, held during the 2003 Knowledgefest in Nashville, Tenn., the Mobile Enhancement Retailers Association (MERA) endorsed CEA's statement. The statement says that video monitors may be visible to the driver if the video monitor is used for vehicle information, system control, rear or side observation or navigation. All other uses, such as viewing television programming or DVD videos, must be disengaged until the vehicle is in park. The only time a video monitor may be used for entertainment purposes while the vehicle is in operation is when the LCD panel or monitor is installed for rear-seat viewing.

Rick Mathies, executive director of MERA, said the timing of the group's endorsement had nothing to do with current legislation being considered in California, Oregon and Louisiana. Instead, he said, the endorsement came after months of debate on what stance the association should take. Mathies said the the association didn't want the statement to increase the liability of its members.

"Anytime something such as noise problems become visible to state lawmakers, the more likely they will create legislation to police us," said Mathies. "The more we can standardize ourselves, the better we look. We know that mobile video installed in the front could lead the industry into some problems."

Mathies admits, however, that policing retailers on the installation of mobile video would be all but impossible. The problem has been that consumers will ask retail shops to disable the interlocking devices of upfront video, sometimes basing the sale upon whether their request is met.

"I think what retailers need to remember is that you're helping that consumer break the law when you put mobile video upfront," Mathies said. "And retailers can lose their store if they are found liable for creating an atmosphere that killed a family."

Mathies said MERA has not heard of any cases of a retailer being sued for improperly installing mobile video, but he said that could change overnight. "There are good retailers out there that don't need to do that," he said. "It's just absolutely crazy that retailers who have invested 20 to 30 years of their life into their business would sacrifice all of that for a few bucks."

Retailer Takes Uncompromising Stance
Freemans Car Stereo, a 12-volt chain with 10 stores peppered throughout North and South Carolina, is one shop that will not install mobile video improperly. The chain implemented its policy approximately four years ago and has fired one employee for violating the rule.

After each mobile video sale, the chain has the customer sign a statement -- which was prepared by an attorney -- that says the store did not allow for upfront viewing of mobile video. The policy is so strict that salespeople and installers can lose their jobs for allowing a customer to leave the store without signing the waiver.

"For us it's about doing the right thing. And we do take a hit from the shops that are hooking up mobile video improperly," said Dave Richardson, vice president and chief operating officer for the chain. "But I don't want to be on the other end of a '60 Minutes' interview with the family of the guy that got killed, being on the driver's side or the guy that got hit.

"Mobile video is distracting, even navigation to a degree," Richardson added. "I'm not one for government intervention, and I would oppose such a law governing mobile video. That's why I think MERA got in front of it. I think they did the right thing by endorsing CEA's statement, because we do need to police our own organization."

Page 1 of 1