Existing law requires the driver of a vehicle, upon meeting or overtaking a schoolbus equipped with required signs that is stopped for the purpose of loading or unloading schoolchildren and displaying a flashing red light signal and stop signal arm, if equipped with a stop signal arm, to bring the vehicle to a stop immediately before passing the schoolbus and to not proceed past the schoolbus until the flashing red light signal and stop signal arm cease operation. A violation of these provisions is a crime. Existing law imposes escalating fines for violations of these provisions, including a fine of not less than $150, but not more than $250, for a first violation. This bill would authorize, until January 1, 2032, school districts to establish a stop signal arm enforcement system pilot program if the system meets specified requirements, in order to enforce the provisions above. The bill would require the school district to publish certain data regarding the system, and post routes or operational hours and camera locations on their internet website before deployment of the system. The bill would authorize the school district to contract with a private vendor or manufacturer to install a stop signal arm enforcement system on each schoolbus in its fleet. The bill would require a school district, vendor, or manufacturer to submit specified information regarding an alleged violation to a law enforcement agency authorized to enforce those violations within 30 days of the alleged violation. The bill would create a process for law enforcement to determine whether the person committed certain violations as well as a process for the alleged offender to challenge the violation. The bill would designate all photographic or administrative records, made by a system as confidential, and would only authorize public agencies to use and allow access to these records for specified purposes. The bill would require a school district operating a stop signal arm enforcement system, by July 1, 2028, and annually thereafter, to provide a summary report to the Governor, Legislature, and Department of Motor Vehicles that describes the use and operation of the system, as specified. This bill would, until January 1, 2032, repeal the authority to impose criminal fines for a violation of the schoolbus provisions and would instead recast the fines as a civil penalty schedule if a person violates those provisions. 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.
Under existing law, the Department of the California Highway Patrol is responsible for enforcement of all laws regulating the operation of vehicles and use of the highways, as specified. Existing law gives the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol full responsibility and primary jurisdiction for the administration and enforcement of the laws, and for the investigation of traffic accidents, on all toll highways and state highways constructed as freeways, except as specified. Existing law requires the department to provide to, among others, police departments, coroners, and sheriffs, forms for accident reports that include sufficient detail regarding the cause of the traffic accident, the conditions at the time of the accident, and the persons and vehicles involved in the accident. Existing law requires the driver of a vehicle, except a driver of a common carrier vehicle, to report an accident resulting in injuries or death to a person to the department or the local police department within 24 hours after the accident. Existing law requires a coroner or medical examiner to report a death of a person that was the result of a traffic accident by the 10th day of the calendar month following the accident. Existing law requires each police department, if they received a report and were responsible for investigating the accident, to forward a copy of the report to the department by the 5th day of the month that follows the month that they received the report. This bill would repeal the requirement that the department provide the above-described forms and would instead require the department, by January 1, 2030, to develop minimum requirements for electronic submission of crash investigation reports, as specified. The bill would require a coroner or medical examiner to submit the above-described report electronically. The bill would also eliminate the requirement that a law enforcement agency forward reports in compliance with the above-described timeline and would instead require the agency to electronically submit the reports to the department, as specified. The bill would make an electronic copy of a crash investigation report available to the requestor at no cost. By increasing the duties on local law enforcement, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make other conforming changes. 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 Motor Vehicles (DMV) to suspend the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle for 6 months if they are convicted of either driving under the influence (DUI) of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug or driving while having 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in the person's blood. Under existing law, if a person is convicted of DUI and the offense occurred within 10 years of a separate violation or 2, 3, or 4 or more separate violations for DUI that resulted in specified convictions, the DMV is required to suspend or revoke the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle for 2, 3, 4, or 5 years, as specified. Existing law requires the department to suspend the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle for 10 months if they are convicted of a DUI and their blood-alcohol concentration was 0.20% or more or they refused to take a chemical test, and the court refers the person to participate in a licensed program that provides alcohol or drug recovery services, as specified. This bill would require the DMV to suspend the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle for 1 year if a person is convicted of DUI. The bill would require the DMV to suspend or revoke the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle for 3, 5, or 10 years, as specified, if a person is convicted of DUI and the offense occurred within 10 years of a separate violation or 2 or 3 separate violations for DUI that resulted in specified convictions. The bill would also require the DMV to permanently revoke the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle if a person is convicted of DUI and the offense occurred within 10 years of 4 or more separate violations. The bill would require the department to suspend the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle for 16 months who is convicted of a DUI and whose blood-alcohol concentration was 0.20% or more or who refused to take a chemical test, and who is referred by the court to participate in a licensed program that provides alcohol or drug recovery services, as specified. The bill would make other conforming changes. 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(1) Existing law makes it unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage, has 0.08 or 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in their blood, as specified, is addicted to the use of any drug, is under the influence of any drug, or is under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug to drive a vehicle. Existing law prohibits a person from driving a vehicle under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug and concurrently do an act forbidden by law, or neglect a duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to a person other than the driver. Existing law, until January 1, 2033, requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to immediately suspend or revoke the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle upon the receipt of an abstract of the record of a court showing that the person has been convicted of driving a vehicle under the circumstances above as well as for engaging in a motor vehicle speed contest for specified periods of time, depending on the statute under which the driving violation was punished, and prohibits the reinstatement of the driving privilege until the person gives proof of financial responsibility and proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a driving-under-the-influence (DUI) program, as specified. Existing law requires the department to advise the person that they may apply for a restricted driver's license if the person meets certain requirements, including, among others, satisfactorily providing proof of enrollment in a certain DUI program and the installment of a functioning, certified ignition interlock device (IID) . Existing law allows, for certain violations, a person who has had their driver's license suspended to apply to the department for a restricted license, subject to certain requirements. For specified violations, existing law requires the department to issue a restricted driver's license if the person has met certain requirements, including proof satisfactory to the department of enrollment in, or completion of, a DUI program, proof of financial responsibility, and the payment of all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees, among other fees, required by the department. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would reorganize and recast the penalties and sanctions for the alcohol- and drug-related driving offenses described above. The bill would recast violations for driving under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or having 0.08 or 0.04 percent or more, by weight of alcohol in blood (collectively "alcohol-related driving violations") from violations for driving under the influence of any drug or driving while a person is addicted to the use of any drug (collectively "drug-related driving violations") . For convictions of alcohol-related driving violations, the bill would require the department to suspend the privilege to operate a motor vehicle and would allow the suspension to be indefinite. The bill would prohibit the reinstatement of that privilege until the person satisfies certain requirements, including, among others, the person applying for and maintaining a restricted driver's license for certain periods of time depending on the statute under which the driving violation is punished, which includes installing a certified IID on each vehicle operated by the person, providing proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a DUI program, as specified, paying all applicable reinstatement and reissue fees required by the department, and providing proof of financial responsibility. For convictions of drug-related driving violations described above, this bill would require the department to suspend the privilege to operate a motor vehicle for specified periods of time, depending on the statute under which the violation was punished. The bill would also prohibit the reinstatement of the privilege until the person satisfies certain requirements described above, but the bill would not require the person to install a certified IID or apply for and maintain a restricted driver's license for a specified period of time. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would authorize a person, whose privilege to operate a motor vehicle is suspended for alcohol-related driving violations, to apply for a restricted license if certain requirements are met, including, among others, installing a certified IID on each vehicle operated by the person, as specified, providing proof of financial responsibility for 3 years, providing satisfactorily proof of enrollment in, or completion of, a DUI program, as specified, and paying a fee that is sufficient to cover the costs of administration of these requirements. The bill would require the department to terminate the restricted driver's license and suspend the privilege to drive if the person fails to comply with the DUI program requirements. The bill would also authorize a person, whose driving privilege was suspended for a conviction of a drug-related driving violation, to apply for a restricted driver's license if similar certain requirements are met, except the person would not be required to install a certified IID but would be required to complete a minimum number of months of a suspension period, as specified. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would require the department to monitor the installation and maintenance of an IID that is installed pursuant to specified provisions. The bill would require the installer of the IID to notify the department if the device is removed or indicates that a person has attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with the device, or the person fails 3 or more times to comply with these requirements. The bill would require the department to immediately suspend or revoke the privilege to operate a motor vehicle and any restricted driver's license if the person attempts to remove, bypass, or tamper with an IID, has the IID removed prior to the termination date of the restriction, or fails 3 or more times to comply with any requirement for the maintenance or calibration of the IID. The bill would require the department, and manufacturers, installers, and repairers of IIDs, to post information regarding filing complaints against manufacturers, installers, and repairers, as specified. (2) Existing law requires an order of suspension of a person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for any of specified reasons, including the person was driving a motor vehicle when the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in their blood. Existing law requires the notice to be served on the person by a peace officer under specified conditions where test results show that the person has specified percentages of alcohol in the person's blood or where a person under 21 years of age refuses to take, or fails to complete, a specified test for alcohol in the blood. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would include a person driving a motor vehicle when a passenger for hire was a passenger in the vehicle and the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in their blood as a reason to immediately suspend the privilege to operate a motor vehicle. The bill would authorize a person, whose driving privilege has been suspended pursuant to the provision above but not suspended or revoked based on the person's refusal to submit to, or failure to complete, a chemical test or tests, to apply for a restricted driver's license if certain requirements are met, including completing 30 days of the suspension period, providing proof of enrollment in a DUI program, installing a functioning, certified IID on any vehicle that they operate, being 21 years of age or older at the time of the offense, giving proof of financial responsibility, and paying all reissue and restriction fees. The bill would require the department to terminate the restricted driver's license and suspend the privilege to operate if the person has failed to comply with the DUI program requirements, or if the person attempts to remove, bypass, or tamper with the IID, removes the IID prior to the termination date of the restriction, or fails 3 or more times to comply with any requirement for the maintenance or calibration of the IID. (3) Existing law requires the department to suspend or revoke a person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle based on a peace officer's sworn statement or report, as specified. Existing law requires the department to review the record to determine whether the suspension or revocation is supported by the record, as specified. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would require the department to review these determinations and consider the sworn report and any other information and evidence, as specified. If, by a preponderance of the evidence, the department determines in the review of a determination certain facts are proven, including, among other facts, that the peace officer had reasonable cause to believe that the person had been driving a motor vehicle in violation of an alcohol- or drug-related driving provision, the bill would require the department to sustain the order of suspension or revocation. If the department determines that any of these certain facts are not proven by a preponderance of the evidence, the bill would require the department to rescind the order of suspension or revocation, as specified. (4) Existing law allows, for certain violations, a person who has had their driver's license suspended to apply to the department for a restricted license, subject to certain requirements as provided above. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would authorize a court to disallow the issuance of the restricted driver's license if the court determines that the person would present a traffic safety or public safety risk if the person were authorized to operate a motor vehicle during the period of suspension. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would make conforming changes to include the provisions above, as applicable, in statutes that generally pertain to the suspension, revocation, or restriction of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle. (5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
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 program for speed enforcement that utilizes speed safety systems if the systems meet specified requirements, including limits on the number of speed safety systems operated by a participating city or city and county at any time based on population. Existing law requires the speed safety system, to the extent feasible, to be angled and focused so as to only capture photographs of speeding violations and prohibits the speed safety system from capturing identifying images of other drivers, vehicles, or pedestrians. Existing law prohibits speed safety systems in a participating city or city and county from being operated on any California state route, including all freeways and expressways, United States highways, interstate highways, or any public road in unincorporated areas of any county where the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol has full responsibility and primary jurisdiction for the administration and enforcement of the laws, and for the investigation of traffic accidents. This bill would require speed safety systems to blur any images that are unavoidably captured of other drivers, vehicles, or pedestrians who are not the subject of a notice of violation, and would require speed safety systems to blur these images, only to the extent feasible, for cameras that were installed before January 1, 2027. The bill would authorize, until January 1, 2032, the City of Long Beach to have 2 additional speed safety systems on the Pacific Coast Highway. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Long Beach.
Existing law makes it a crime to operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and sets forth the penalties for a violation of these provisions. Under existing law, if a person is convicted of a driving under the influence violation and the offense occurs within 10 years of one or more separate driving under the influence violations that resulted in convictions, the offense is subject to escalating fines, suspensions, and other sanctions. This bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles, upon an appropriation from the Legislature, to provide, as appropriate, a summary of the penalties for specified violations involving alcohol or drugs on specified vehicle registration materials and with each driver's license, and license renewal, as specified. The bill would require the department's summary to include, among other things, the financial consequences of driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol or drugs, and annual updates to DUI-related statutes.
Under existing law, it is unlawful to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence (DUI) of alcohol or 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in one's blood. A first violation of this prohibition is punishable as a misdemeanor. Under existing law, if a person is convicted of a DUI violation and the offense occurs within 10 years of one or 2 separate DUI violations that resulted in specified convictions, the offense is also punishable as a misdemeanor, as specified, with escalating fines, suspensions, and other sanctions. Under existing law, if a person is convicted of a DUI violation and the offense occurs within 10 years of 3 or more separate DUI violations that resulted in specified convictions, the offense is punishable either as a misdemeanor or as a felony. This bill would make a conviction of a DUI violation with the offense occurring within 10 years of one or 2 separate DUI violations that resulted in specified convictions also punishable either as a misdemeanor or as a felony. By increasing the punishment for a crime, the bill imposes a state-mandated local program. 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law authorizes a public transit operator in the state, until January 1, 2027, and authorizes the City and County of San Francisco indefinitely, to enforce parking violations in specified transit-only traffic lanes and at transit stops through the use of video imaging, and to install automated forward facing parking control devices on city-owned public transit vehicles for the purpose of video imaging parking violations occurring in transit-only traffic lanes, as specified. Existing law requires a public transit operator, prior to issuing notices of parking violations, to issue warning notices for the first 60 days and to make a public announcement of the program. Existing law requires a designated employee, or a contracted law enforcement agency, to review video image recordings for the purpose of determining whether a parking violation occurred in a transit-only traffic lane or at a transit stop and to issue a notice of violation to the registered owner of a vehicle within 15 calendar days, as specified. Existing law makes these video image records confidential and provides that these records are available only to public agencies to enforce parking violations. Existing law requires a public transit operator that implements an automated enforcement system to enforce parking violations in transit-only traffic lanes and at transit stops to submit a report to specified committees of the Legislature by no later than January 1, 2025. This bill would extend the authorization for the use of video imaging to enforce parking and stopping violations until January 1, 2034. The bill would require that a public transit operator issue warnings for 60 days prior to issuing notices of violations when it uses video imaging for enforcement of a violation that it has not previously used video imaging to enforce. The bill would require a public transit operator that uses video imaging to enforce parking violations to report to the Legislature, as specified. The bill would exempt the City and County of San Francisco from this requirement. The bill would allow only local agencies to use video image records to enforce parking violations and would prohibit the use or access of these records for general law enforcement purposes or by federal authorities, as specified. 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 make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City and County of San Francisco.
Existing law regulates vehicles, including autonomous vehicles and autonomous technology in vehicles. Under existing federal statute and regulation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued the Third Amended Standing General Order 2021-01, effective June 16, 2025, that requires specified vehicle and equipment manufacturers and operators of autonomous driving systems and Level 2 advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) vehicles to report crashes to NHTSA, as specified. A violation of the Vehicle Code is an infraction. This bill would require a manufacturer of a Level 2 ADAS vehicle to report a crash involving its Level 2 ADAS vehicle to the Department of Motor Vehicles, including reporting the crash, as defined, within 5 days of the crash, as specified, if specified conditions pertaining to the crash are met. The bill would require the department to post this crash data on its internet website, as specified, and to transmit this data to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board, as specified. The bill would prohibit the department from publishing any proprietary business information, including any personally identifiable information, when posting crash data on its internet website and would make this information confidential and not subject to disclosure under certain public records provisions. The bill would impose a civil penalty of $27,874 per violation per day on a manufacturer that fails to report a crash pursuant to these provisions. The bill would be operative only if the Third Amended Standing General Order 2021-01 is repealed and not replaced with another general order, a federal statute, or a federal regulation that is consistent with the repealed General Order, as determined by the Director of Motor Vehicles. 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. By expanding the application of a crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Under existing law, a pedestrian control signal showing a "WALK" or approved "Walking Person" symbol means a pedestrian may proceed across the roadway in the direction of the signal. Under existing law, a pedestrian facing a flashing "DON'T WALK" or "WAIT" or approved "Upraised Hand" symbol with a "countdown" signal, as specified, means a pedestrian may start crossing the roadway in the direction of the signal but requires the pedestrian to finish crossing prior to the display of the steady "DON'T WALK" or "WAIT" or approved "Upraised Hand" symbol, as specified. Upon the first placement or replacement of a traffic-actuated signal, as specified, existing law requires that traffic-actuated signal to be installed and maintained to detect bicycle or motorcycle traffic on the roadway. For these purposes, existing law defines a traffic-actuated signal as an official traffic signal, as specified, that displays one or more of its indications in response to traffic detected by mechanical, visual, electrical, or other means. Upon the first placement or replacement of a state-owned or -operated traffic-actuated signal, existing law requires that the traffic-actuated signal to be installed and maintained to have a leading pedestrian interval (LPI) and include the installation, activation, and maintenance of an accessible pedestrian signal (APS) and detector that complies with certain sections of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) . At crosswalks with state-owned or -operated traffic-actuated signals and pedestrian hybrid beacons with pedestrian signal heads, this bill would require the walk indication and other visual signals to comply with CA MUTCD. The bill would require these pedestrian signal heads to have an APS pushbutton or touch-free APS that activates "WALK" or "DON'T WALK" intervals and other visual signals at signalized intersections in nonvisual formats. The bill would require touch-free APS to be installed at new signalized pedestrian crossings on capital projects on the state highway system, encroachment projects, and highway maintenance-funded projects, as specified. The bill would require, as soon as practicable, all existing state-owned or -operated traffic signals located in certain areas to be identified and recorded in the Department of Transportation management system (TMS) inventory database to assist future annual operational review requirements and coordination with local agencies for delegated signals. The bill would require LPIs to be implemented at these existing state-owned or -operated traffic signals locations at the next opportunity for regularly scheduled operational reviews. The bill would require local agencies to report the implementation of LPIs at locations where local agencies are operating state-owned traffic-actuated signals so these locations can be included in the TMS inventory database. By placing new requirements on local agencies, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. 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.
