BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: sb 1151
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: cannella
VERSION: 4/21/14
Analysis by: Erin Riches FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: April 22, 2014
SUBJECT:
Vehicles: school zone fines
DESCRIPTION:
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 establishes a 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 barrier, while 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.
Existing law governs speed limits and imposes fines for speeding
violations. Existing law 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.
Existing law also authorizes doubling of fines for speed limit
violations in highway construction or maintenance zones, under
certain circumstances.
The Judicial Council annually adopts a uniform traffic penalty
schedule for all non-parking infractions outlined in the Vehicle
Code. Existing law establishes the base fine for speeding in a
school zone as $35 for traveling 1 mph to 15 mph over the speed
limit ($238 total fine with fees and court costs), $70 for
traveling 16 mph to 25 mph over the speed limit ($367 total fine
SB 1151 (CANNELLA) Page 2
with fees and court costs), and $100 for traveling 26 mph or
more over the speed limit ($490 total fine with fees and court
costs).
This bill :
Imposes a $35 fine, in addition to the amount otherwise
prescribed and in addition to any other penalty assessments or
fees, for most major offenses committed by the driver of a
vehicle under either of the following conditions:
o When passing a school building or school grounds when
children are entering or exiting during school hours, the
noon recess period, or school-sponsored activities; 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 that are
committed within that school zone.
o When passing school grounds that are in use by children;
the school grounds 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 that are committed
within that school zone.
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 the ATP.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose . The author states that many school zones lack
sufficient bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, such as
adequate sidewalks, crosswalks, bicycle lanes, and traffic
signage, to enable children to travel safely to school. The
author notes that enabling children to walk or ride their
bikes to school helps combat obesity, and that both obesity
and pedestrian injury are statewide problems that are
especially prevalent in the Central Valley, communities of
color, and low-income areas. In addition, drivers who do not
observe traffic laws create dangerous environments for
children walking near schools. The author states that this
bill will create a heightened awareness of the value of
SB 1151 (CANNELLA) Page 3
children by increasing fines in school zones.
2.Active Transportation Program (ATP) . The 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 budget agreement funds the ATP with
$129.5 million ($34.2 million in state funds and $95.3 million
in federal funds). Of these funds, the CTC will distribute 40
percent to metropolitan planning organizations, 10 percent to
rural and small urban areas, and 50 percent on a statewide
competitive basis. For each of these portions, 25 percent
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 budget agreement, however, established a minimum funding
level of $72 million total for SRTS for fiscal years 2013-14
through 2015-16. While this bill does not specifically cite
SRTS, it directs funds to "school zone safety projects" within
the ATP.
3.When is a school zone in effect ? While existing law applies
the school zone speed limit while children are entering or
exiting during school hours or the noon recess period, this
bill additionally specifies "during school-sponsored
activities." It may be difficult for a passing driver to know
whether a school-sponsored activity is in progress.
Caltrans' California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC)
is an advisory body which reviews rules and regulations
relating to traffic control devices and makes recommendations
to the Caltrans director, who ultimately adopts and publishes
rules and regulations. The committee is made up of
representatives from Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol,
and local governments, and also consults with technical
advisors. At its February 2014 meeting, the CTCDC considered
a proposal submitted by Caltrans to refine the definition of
"when children are present." Caltrans noted that "Some local
judges are supporting citations issued during the entire
school day - even when the children are in the classroom and
nowhere near the roadway. In other jurisdictions, the local
police or CHP only enforce the 25-mph speed limit during
morning arrival and afternoon departure time." This item was
postponed to the CTCDC's May 14, 2014 meeting in order to give
SB 1151 (CANNELLA) Page 4
the CTCDC time to discuss the issue with pedestrian advocacy
groups
4.What about distracted driving ? This bill includes essentially
the same list of offenses outlined in existing law relating to
highway construction safety zones. Missing from the list,
however, are provisions relating to prohibited use of
electronic wireless communications devices by all drivers, by
drivers under 18 years of age, and by school bus or transit
vehicle drivers. The committee may wish to consider amending
this bill to add the distracted driving provisions to the list
of offenses covered by this bill.
5.Where does the money go ? This bill directs revenue from the
additional $35 fine to the ATP. Staff to the Judicial Council
has raised technical concerns that as currently written, this
bill may not guarantee that the revenues from the additional
fine actually go to the ATP. As the bill moves forward, the
author may wish to clarify that the additional fine revenues
go to the ATP.
6.Carrot vs. stick . Writing in opposition to this bill, the
National Motorists Association states that funding education
of drivers and school children would be a more effective way
to improve school zone safety than assigning penalties and
collecting fines. Safer Streets L.A., also writing in
opposition to this bill, states that rather than increasing
penalties, which has been not been shown to result in a
decrease in collisions, the Legislature should consider
enhanced education and engineering countermeasures to improve
roadway safety for children traveling to and from school. The
author states that this bill promotes safer driving in school
zones by both creating an additional fine to enhance driver
awareness and by directing the funds from that fine to the ATP
to help fund school zone safety projects.
7.Are double-fine zones effective ? AB 1886 (Jackson), Chapter
590, Statutes of 2002, authorized Alameda, Santa Barbara, and
Ventura counties, and the cities within those counties, until
January 1, 2007, to establish double-fine zones near schools.
AB 1886 required these revenues to fund school pedestrian and
bicyclist safety programs administered by a city, school
district, or county. A May 2006 report to the Legislature by
the California Highway Patrol found that sign installation was
quite costly; very little money was generated from the
additional fine, and therefore no school pedestrian-bicyclist
SB 1151 (CANNELLA) Page 5
safety programs were created; and some police departments did
not have adequate staff to effectively 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 the continuation of the program."
8.Double-referral . The Rules Committee has referred this bill
to both this committee and to the Public Safety Committee.
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday, April 16,
2014.)
SUPPORT: Central California Regional Obesity Prevention
Program (co-sponsor)
Safe Routes to School National Partnership
(co-sponsor)
TransForm (co-sponsor)
Alliance for Community Research and Development
California Federation of Teachers
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
California Walks
City of Goleta
Latino Coalition for a Healthy California
Merced County Office of Education
OPPOSED: National Motorists Association
Safer Streets L.A.