BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 529
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 27, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Cameron Smyth, Chair
AB 529 (Gatto) - As Amended: March 24, 2011
SUBJECT : Vehicles: speed limits: downward speed zoning.
SUMMARY : Requires the California Department of Transportation
to revise the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices to allow local jurisdictions to round down speed limits,
as specified. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) to revise the California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (CMUTCD), as it read on January 12, 2012, to
allow local authorities to round speed limits down to within 5
miles per hour (mph) of the 85th percentile in cases where
speeds of free-flowing traffic would otherwise be rounded up.
2)Prohibits a local authority from petitioning Caltrans to
reduce the speed limit by an additional 5 mph in cases where
speed limits were rounded down to within 5 mph of the 85th
percentile when they would have otherwise been rounded up.
3)Specifies that if the CMUTCD requires a local authority to
round down the speed limit, the local authority may petition
Caltrans for an additional 5 mph decrease as is currently
provided for.
EXISTING LAW :
1)States that no person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at
a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due
regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the
surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed
which endangers the safety of persons or property.
2)Allows a local authority by ordinance to determine and declare
a prima facie speed limit as specified, which is found to
facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable
and safe, in specified circumstances.
3)Establishes prima facie speed limits for specified
circumstances and types of roadways, as follows:
AB 529
Page 2
a) 15 mph when traversing a railway grade crossing, when
crossing an intersection if the view is unclear or
obstructed, or when driving in an alley; and,
b) 25 mph on any highway, other than a state highway, that
is in any business district or residence district, as
defined, in a school zone, or in an area with facilities
primarily used by senior citizens.
1)Requires Caltrans, after consultation with local agencies and
public hearings, to adopt rules and regulations prescribing
uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic
control devices, including, but not limited to, stop signs,
yield right-of-way signs, speed restriction signs, railroad
warning approach signs, street name signs, lines and markings
on the roadway, and stock crossings signs, as specified.
2)Requires, upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey,
Caltrans to consult with and consider the recommendations of
the Department of the California Highway Patrol, prior to
increasing or decreasing the speed limit, and allows a city
council or board of supervisors to conduct a public hearing on
the proposed increase or decrease.
3)Makes it unlawful for a driver of a vehicle to fail to obey a
sign or signal defined as regulatory in the federal Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) or the
Caltrans-approved supplement to that manual (i.e., the
CMUTCD).
4)Defines "speed trap" to mean either of the following:
a) A particular section of a highway measured as to
distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or
otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle
may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle
to travel the known distance; and,
b) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie
speed limit that is provided by this code or by local
ordinance as specified, if that prima facie speed limit is
not justified by an engineering and traffic survey
conducted within five years prior to the date of the
alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit
AB 529
Page 3
involves the use of radar or any other electronic device
that measures the speed of moving objects (this does not
apply to a local street, road, or school zone).
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)The process for setting speed limits is guided by federal
standards contained in the National Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD). Caltrans is responsible for
maintaining the guidance and standards in the California MUTCD
and receives input on changes from the California Traffic
Control Devices Committee (CTCDC), an advisory body convened
by Caltrans and made up of primarily public works directors,
engineers, and traffic engineers representing local
jurisdictions. The California MUTCD must be approved by the
Federal Highway Administration as being in "substantial
conformance" with the national MUTCD.
2)As of January 21, 2010, Caltrans has revised the California
MUTCD, to include the federal Highway Administration's 2003
MUTCD Revision 2 dated December 21, 2007, to prescribe uniform
standards and specifications for all official traffic control
devices in California. This action was taken pursuant to the
provisions of the California Vehicle Code Section 21400 and
the recommendation of the CTCDC.
3)A speed limit is generally set at or near the 85th percentile
of the prevailing speed, meaning the speed that is exceeded by
15% of motorists, as measured by an engineering and traffic
survey. In cases where the 85th percentile speed is not an
increment of 5 mph, a jurisdiction rounds the speed limit to
the closest 5 mph increment. For example, if the engineering
and traffic survey shows an 85th percentile speed of 34 mph,
the speed limit will be set at 35 mph.
The 85th percentile was found by empirical studies to be a
safe and prudent speed at which 85% of motorists drive.
Studies have shown that setting speed limit levels lower than
the 85th percentile make lawbreakers out of otherwise
law-abiding citizens and can engender disrespect for the law.
The current CMUTCD specifies that a jurisdiction may lower
that speed limit by 5 mph (from 35 to 30 mph) if
AB 529
Page 4
safety-related factors suggest that a lower speed is
warranted. The jurisdiction cannot, however, lower the speed
limit by more than 5 mph, regardless of additional safety
factors. According to Caltrans, California is the only state
in the nation that allows for a 5 mph reduction in speed limit
after rounding to the nearest 5 mph increment closest to the
85th percentile.
4)In 1996, speed limits were set at the first 5 mph increment
below the 85th percentile, a process that put downward
pressure on posted speed limits. At that point, the speed
limit could then be lowered an additional 5 mph if an
engineering judgment determined that the traffic safety needs
of the community indicated a need for a further reduction. In
2004, California revised its process to conform more closely
to federal standards by providing that the speed limit should
be set at the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile.
After the 2004 change, many speed limits were being raised
after applying the "nearest
5 mph increment" criteria. In response to raising speed
limits, Caltrans found that many jurisdictions would then
apply the additional 5 mph reduction without appropriate
justification. Without justification for lowering speed
limits, speeding tickets were often not upheld in court if the
presiding official found that the speed limit was set below
the 85th percentile.
5)For the past two years, CTCDC has evaluated whether further
changes to the CMUTCD regarding the process for setting speed
limits were warranted. On May 15, 2009, Caltrans adopted two
policy changes for setting speed limits, as follow:
a) Rather than guiding local jurisdictions to set the speed
limits at the nearest 5 mph, the CMUTCD now requires it;
and,
b) If the 5 mph reduction is applied, the engineering and
traffic survey shall document in writing the conditions and
justification for the reduced speed limited and be approved
by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer.
6)Speed traps are defined in current law contained in the
Vehicle Code. The Legislature has declared a strong public
policy against the use of speed traps, to the extent that
AB 529
Page 5
citations issued where a speed trap is found to exist are
likely to be dismissed, especially if radar enforcement
methods are used. Traffic engineers and local jurisdictions
have been encouraged by the Legislature and the courts toward
setting and maintaining local speed limits in that speed
limits are very carefully set to avoid creating a speed trap.
7)This bill requires Caltrans to revise the CMUTCD, as it read
on January 1, 2012, to allow a local authority to round speed
limits down to within 10 kilometers per hour or 5 mph of the
85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic in cases in
which the speed would otherwise be rounded up, except that in
those cases the local authority may not petition Caltrans to
reduce the speed limit by an additional 10 km/5 mph. The bill
additionally specifies that if the manual requires the local
authority to round down the speed limit, the local authority
may petition the department for an additional 10 km/5 mph
decrease.
The distinction here is the difference between the CMUTCD's
adopted policy change of requiring a local jurisdiction to set
the speed limit at the nearest 5 mph increment versus the
provisions of this bill, which allows for a local authority to
round speed limits down to the
5 mph increment. This bill additionally allows jurisdictions
to round down without justification, which is currently
required by the provisions of the CMUTCD.
8)According to the author, these recent changes to the CMUTCD
will likely require speed limit increases on 44% of local
streets and roads in the City of Glendale, prompting the need
for the bill.
According to the City of Glendale, many of their major streets
are residential in character, with a high level of pedestrian
and bicycle activity. Driving at unsafe speeds has been a
longstanding concern in Glendale. Between 2005 and 2010, 17
to 20 % of all collisions were caused by vehicles traveling at
an unsafe speed, and as the speed of a vehicle involved in a
collision increases, so does the potential for serious injury.
Glendale believes that AB 529 takes an important step toward
improving traffic safety by returning speed survey methodology
to what was used in 2004, and will go a long way in promoting
traffic safety by balancing the needs of drivers with those of
the community.
AB 529
Page 6
9)Support arguments: According to the League of California
Cities, cities can currently round down Ýspeed limits] only
when there are safety needs as identified by an engineering
judgment, a policy that does not allow a city to decide what
is actually in the best interest of its community. This bill
would return some decision-making authority to cities to
address their unique local conditions.
Opposition arguments: This bill allows local governments to
round down to the nearest
5 mph increment without justification to be provided for the
rounding down of the speed limit as is currently required. As
well, there is already a process in place to update the CMUTCD
with the input of local officials who sit on the CTCDC. The
Committee may wish to consider whether legislation trumping
the existing process is necessary.
10)This bill was heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee
on April 11, 2011, and passed with a 13-0 vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support Opposition
City of Glendale Police Department None on file
City of Santa Rosa
League of CA Cities
Peace Officers Research Association of CA (PORAC)
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958