BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 564|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 564
Author: Cannella (R)
Introduced:2/26/15
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/14/15
AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Bates, Gaines, Galgiani, Leyva,
McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/27/15
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen
SUBJECT: Vehicles: school zone fines
SOURCE: Safe Routes to Schools National Partnership
DIGEST: This bill imposes an additional $35 fine for specified
violations occurring in school zones and directs revenue from
the fine to the state's Active Transportation Program (ATP).
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Establishes a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph when
approaching or passing a school building or school grounds.
This speed limit applies while children are entering or
exiting during school hours or the noon recess period; in
cases of school grounds that are not separated from the
highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barriers, while
SB 564
Page 2
the grounds are in use by children; and where the highway is
posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign. This sign may
be posted at any distance up to 500 feet away from school
grounds.
2)Governs speed limits and imposes fines for speeding
violations.
3)Authorizes a local authority, upon determining via an
engineering and traffic survey that the speed limit of 25 mph
in a particular school zone is too high to be reasonable or
safe, to establish a prima facie speed limit of either 20 or
15 mph, as deemed appropriate by the survey.
4)Authorizes doubling of fines for speed limit violations in
highway construction or maintenance zones, under certain
circumstances.
5)Provides that the state Judicial Council annually adopts a
uniform traffic penalty schedule for all non-parking
infractions outlined in the Vehicle Code.
6)Establishes the base fine for speeding in a school zone as $35
for traveling 1 mph to 15 mph over the speed limit ($289 total
fine with fees and court costs), $70 for traveling 16 mph to
25 mph over the speed limit ($418 total fine with fees and
court costs), and $100 for traveling 26 mph or more over the
speed limit ($541 total fine with fees and court costs).
This bill:
1)Imposes a $35 fine, in addition to the amount otherwise
prescribed and in addition to any other penalty assessments of
fees, for most major offenses committed by the driver of a
vehicle under either of the following conditions:
When passing a school building or school grounds when
children are entering or exiting during school hours or the
noon recess period; the building or grounds are contiguous
to a highway; and the highway is posted with both a
standard "SCHOOL" warning sign and an accompanying sign
notifying motorists that increased penalties apply for
traffic violations committed within that school zone.
SB 564
Page 3
When passing school grounds that are in use by children;
are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or
other physical barrier; and the highway is posted with both
a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign and an accompanying sign
notifying motorists that increased penalties apply for
traffic violations committed within that school zone.
1)Requires the additional fines authorized by this bill to be
deposited in the State Transportation Fund for purposes of
funding school zone safety projects within ATP.
Comments
Purpose. The author states that while Highway Safety Corridors,
"Slow for the Cone Zones," and doubled fines in construction
zones all promote safe driving and protect individuals in
sensitive areas, existing law does not afford schoolchildren the
same level of protection. Many school zones lack infrastructure
for children to safely commute to school, exacerbating the risk
of pedestrian injury or fatality. The author states that this
bill will help support infrastructure projects, traffic calming
measures, and non-capital projects such as education. This bill
will also help contribute to obesity prevention, which is
especially prevalent in communities of color and low-income
areas.
Active Transportation Program. ATP, established by the 2013-14
budget agreement, consolidates several existing federal and
state transportation programs, including Safe Routes to Schools
(SRTS), the Bicycle Transportation Account, and others, to
encourage increased use of active modes of transportation. The
Governor's proposed budget allocates $120 million in state and
federal monies to ATP. Of these funds, the California
Transportation Commission distributes 40% to metropolitan
planning organizations, 10% to rural and small urban areas, and
50% on a statewide competitive basis. For each of these
portions, 25% must be targeted for disadvantaged communities.
The administration's original ATP proposal aimed to streamline
the application and review process by establishing a single
program within which all eligible projects would compete. The
2013-14 budget agreement, however, established a minimum funding
level of $24 million for SRTS, of which $7 million was targeted
for non-infrastructure projects such as education. The budget
SB 564
Page 4
agreement also included intent language to honor the SRTS
agreement for fiscal years 2014-15 and 2015-16. While this bill
does not specifically cite SRTS, it directs funds to "school
zone safety projects" within ATP.
Double-fine zones. AB 1886 (Jackson, Chapter 590, Statutes of
2002) authorized several counties and cities to established
double-fine zones near schools. AB 1886 required those revenues
to fund school pedestrian and bicyclist safety programs. A May
2006 report to the Legislature by the California Highway Patrol
found that sign installation was costly; very little money was
generated from the additional fine and therefore no school
pedestrian-bicyclist safety programs were created; and some
police departments did not have adequate staff to patrol the
schools. The report also noted that due to insufficient
resources of participating schools and police departments, local
agencies collected very little data. The report concluded that
"the findings do not support continuation of the program," and
it ended in 2007.
Trying again. SB 1151 (Cannella, 2014), which was almost
identical to this bill, passed the Senate Transportation and
Housing Committee on a 10-0 vote but was subsequently vetoed.
The Governor's veto message stated that "Increasing traffic
fines as a method to pay for transportation fund activities is a
regressive increase that affects poor people disproportionately.
Making safety improvements in school zones is obviously
important, but not by increasing traffic fines." The author
states that this bill will complement the Governor's renewed
commitment to address both the infrastructure and environmental
needs of the state.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified4/27/15)
Safe Routes to School National Partnership (source)
Alliance for Community Research and Development
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
California State Association of Counties
SB 564
Page 5
California Walks
Central California Regional Obesity Prevention Program
OPPOSITION: (Verified4/27/15)
Safer Streets L.A.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The sponsor of this bill, Safe Routes
to School National Partnership, states that the fine increase in
this bill puts a greater burden on drivers to obey existing laws
in school zones. The sponsor further states that increased
fines apply in construction zones to protect highway workers;
schoolchildren deserve the same safety considerations.
Dedicating the increased fine revenues to school zone safety
projects and programs will ensure that revenue generated through
effective enforcement in school zones is invested back into
safety improvements around schools throughout the state.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Writing in opposition to this bill,
Safer Streets L.A. states that this bill, however
well-intentioned, will not enhance safety for children in school
zones and will increase confusion for motorists, subjecting them
to increased penalties without proper warning. Safer Streets
L.A. states that rather than increasing penalties, which has not
been shown to result in a decrease in collisions, the
Legislature should consider enhanced education and engineering
countermeasures as a means to improve roadway safety for
children traveling to and from school.
Prepared by:Erin Riches / T. & H. / (916) 651-4121
4/28/15 15:31:24
**** END ****
SB 564
Page 6