Existing law authorizes, until January 1, 2032, the City of Malibu to establish a speed safety system pilot program for speed enforcement on the Pacific Coast Highway if the system meets specified requirements. Existing law requires the city to administer a public information campaign at least 30 days before implementation of the program, including information relating to when the systems would begin detecting violations. Existing law requires the city to issue warning notices rather than notices of violations for violations detected within the first 60 calendar days of the program. Existing law also requires the city to develop guidelines for, among other things, the processing and storage of confidential information. Existing law requires photographic or administrative records made by a system to be confidential, except as specified, and would only authorize public agencies to use and allow access to these records for specified purposes. This bill would authorize, until January 1, 2032, the Department of Transportation to establish a similar program for speed enforcement that utilizes up to 35 speed safety systems on state highway construction or maintenance areas, as specified. The bill would require the department to adopt written guidelines for the use of speed safety systems before entering into an agreement regarding a speed safety system, purchasing or leasing equipment for a program, or implementing a program, and would require the department, in developing the guidelines, to consult with relevant state agencies and other relevant stakeholder organizations. The bill would only authorize the Department of Transportation to use and allow access to the photograph or administrative records for specified purposes. Existing law requires a violation of a speed law recorded by a speed safety system to be subject only to civil penalties, as specified. Existing law requires, among other things, the issuance of a notice of violation, an initial review, an administrative hearing, and an appeals process, as specified, for a violation under the speed safety pilot program. This bill would require the department to also implement similar provisions if it establishes the state highway work zone speed safety program on state highway construction or maintenance areas. Existing law requires the city to submit a report to evaluate the speed safety system to determine the system's impact on street safety and the economic impact on the communities where the system is utilized. Existing law requires revenues derived from a program to first be used to cover program costs, such as the installation of speed safety systems, the adjudication of violations, and reporting requirements. This bill would require the department to submit a report to the Legislature evaluating the state highway work zone speed safety program and its impact on state highway work zone safety no later than 2 years after the commencement of the program, and annually thereafter. The bill would require moneys generated from the issuance of citations to be deposited in the Safe Highway Work Zone Account, which the bill would create in the State Transportation Fund. The bill would require moneys in the account to be continuously appropriated to the department for administration of the program, and would require any remaining funds to be used by the department for the Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program and the Maintenance Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program. By authorizing moneys to be continuously appropriated to the department for these purposes, the bill would make an appropriation. Existing law establishes a $25 filing fee for specified appeals and petitions. This bill would require a $25 filing fee for an appeal challenging a notice of violation issued as a result of the department's speed safety program until January 1, 2032. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 70615 of the Government Code proposed by SB 720 to be operative only if this bill and SB 720 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law establishes a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour when approaching or passing a school building or grounds contiguous to a highway or when the school grounds are not separated from the highway, as specified. Existing law authorizes a local authority, by ordinance or resolution, to reduce the prima facie speed limit based on an engineering and traffic survey, as specified. This bill would, notwithstanding the above provision and until January 1, 2031, authorize a local authority, by ordinance or resolution, to determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 20 miles per hour in a school zone. The bill would, beginning on January 1, 2031, establish a prima facie speed limit of 20 miles per hour in a school zone, as defined, subject to specified conditions, including, among others, when a school speed limit sign states "children are present" and children are present, as defined, and when a school speed limit sign states specific hours, as specified. By establishing new prima facie speed limits in school zones that would require changes to local speed limit signs, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. Existing law authorizes a local authority, by ordinance or resolution, to modify the prima facie speed limit based on distance from a school if the highways have a maximum of 2 traffic lanes and a maximum posted prima facie speed limit of 30 miles per hour immediately before and after the school zone, as specified. The bill would instead authorize a local authority, by ordinance or resolution, to determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 15 miles per hour in a residence district on a highway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour or slower in a school zone, or 25 miles per hour when approaching from a school zone at a distance of 500 to 1,000 feet, without the above-mentioned conditions, as specified. The bill would, for purposes of the above provisions, define "school zone" as an area of a highway within 500 feet of school grounds in any direction, unless otherwise posted, marked with appropriate signs giving notice of the area. Existing law defines a "speed trap," under certain circumstances, to mean, among other things, a particular section of a highway or state highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by law, as specified, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within a certain specified time period, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or another specified electronic device. Existing law exempts application of that definition to a local street, road, or school zone, senior zone, business activity district, or speed limit adopted by a local authority under certain conditions. This bill would change the definition of school zone for purposes of these provisions to conform with the definition of school zone described above. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to improve and maintain the state's highways, and establishes various programs to fund the development, construction, and repair of local roads, bridges, and other critical transportation infrastructure in the state. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation to improve safety on the roads in the state.
Existing law authorizes, until January 1, 2032, the Cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, and Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco to establish a speed safety system pilot program if the system meets specified requirements. Existing law requires a participating city or city and county to adopt a Speed Safety System Use Policy and a Speed Safety System Impact Report before implementing the program, and requires the participating city or city and county to engage in a public information campaign at least 30 days before implementation of the program, including information relating to when the systems would begin detecting violations and where the systems would be utilized. This bill would expand the list of cities authorized to establish a speed safety system pilot program as described above to include the City of Sacramento. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Sacramento.
Existing law requires the Public Utilities Commission to annually report to the Legislature on sites on railroad lines in the state that the commission finds to be hazardous, including a list of all railroad sites in the state that it determines pose a local safety hazard. Existing law authorizes the commission to submit in the annual report the list of railroad sites submitted in the immediate prior year annual report, and to amend or revise that list from the immediate prior year as necessary. In determining which railroad sites pose a local safety hazard, existing law requires the commission to consider, among other things, whether any local safety hazards at railroad sites have been eliminated or sufficiently remediated to warrant removal of the site from the list. This bill would require the commission, on or before July 1, 2029, to review the list of railroad sites and, in the annual report, to include an evaluation of each site on the list and determine whether changes in conditions, operations, or safety data warrant the removal, modification, or addition of any site.
Existing law, the Basic Inspection of Terminals (BIT) program, makes it unlawful for a motor carrier to operate specified vehicles, such as motortrucks of 3 or more axles that are more than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating, truck tractors, or other motortrucks regulated by the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Public Utilities Commission, or the United States Secretary of Transportation, without identifying to the Department of Motor Vehicles all terminals, as defined, where the vehicle may be inspected by the department and where vehicle inspection and maintenance records and driver records will be made available for inspection. Existing law, until January 1, 2026, excludes an agricultural vehicle, as defined, from being subject to the BIT program. This bill would extend the exemption of agricultural vehicles from the BIT program until January 1, 2031. Under existing law, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, in consultation with the Department of Motor Vehicles, on or before January 1, 2022, shall report to the Governor and the Legislature about the impact of excluding an agricultural vehicle, as defined, from being subject to the BIT program. The report shall include, but is not limited to, information about collisions involving excluded vehicles and any traffic safety issues associated with excluded vehicles. The report shall be submitted pursuant to Section 9795 of the Government Code. This bill would delete this obsolete provision.
Existing law authorizes the limit line, intersection, or other places where a driver is required to stop to be equipped with an automated traffic enforcement system if the governmental agency utilizing the system meets certain requirements, including identifying the system with signs and ensuring that the system meets specified criteria on minimum yellow light change intervals. Existing law authorizes, until January 1, 2032, the Cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, and Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco to establish a speed safety system pilot program for speed enforcement that utilizes a speed safety system in specified areas, if the system meets specified requirements. Existing law prescribes specified requirements for a notice of violation issued pursuant to these provisions, and requires a violation of a speed law that is recorded by a speed safety system to be subject only to a specified civil penalty. This bill would additionally authorize a city, county, or city and county to establish an automated traffic enforcement system program to use those systems to detect a violation of a traffic control signal, if the system meets specified requirements. The bill would require a violation of a traffic control signal that is recorded by an automated traffic enforcement system to be subject to escalating civil penalties, as specified. The bill would, among other things, provide for the issuance of a notice of violation, an initial review, an administrative hearing, and an appeals process, as specified, for a violation under this program. The bill would clarify that a local jurisdiction may utilize an automated traffic enforcement system pursuant to these provisions or the above-described provisions authorizing the utilization of an automated traffic enforcement system. The bill would require a local jurisdiction utilizing the above-described provisions to take into account the relative risk to traffic and pedestrian safety posed by prohibited right turns on red compared to proceeding through the intersection against a red signal. Existing law establishes a $25 filing fee for specified appeals and petitions. This bill would require a $25 filing fee for an appeal challenging a notice of violation issued as a result of an automated traffic enforcement system. Existing provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 70615 of the Government Code proposed by AB 289 to be operative only if this bill and AB 289 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law establishes various default speed limits for vehicles upon highways, as specified. Existing law requires the Department of Transportation, by regulation, to require speed limits to be rounded up or down to the nearest 5 miles per hour of the 85th percentile of free-flowing traffic. Existing law authorizes a local authority to additionally lower the speed limit in specified circumstances, or retain the currently adopted speed limit in certain circumstances. This bill would authorize the department to additionally lower or retain the speed limit in those specified circumstances. Existing law authorizes a local authority, if it finds the speed limit derived from the 85th percentile to be higher than reasonable or safe, to reduce the speed limit an additional 5 miles per hour for specified reasons, including, but not limited to, that the portion of highway is designated as a safety corridor, as defined by the department. Existing law also authorizes a local authority to retain or restore the immediately prior adopted speed limit under specified circumstances. This bill would similarly authorize the department to set, on a highway that is not a freeway, a speed limit, or retain or restore the immediately prior adopted speed limit under those specified circumstances. Under certain circumstances, existing law authorizes a local authority to set, by ordinance, a 25- or 20-mile-per-hour facie speed limit on specified highways. This bill would similarly authorize the department to set, by regulation, for a highway that is not a freeway, a 25- or 20-mile-per-hour prima facie speed limit. Existing law requires a local authority to issue only warning citations for specified speed limit violations for the first 30 days that a lower speed limit is in effect. This bill would instead impose this requirement on any peace officer.
