AB 550

Bill Subjects

Abstract

Existing law establishes a basic speed law that prohibits a person from driving a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent given the weather, visibility, traffic, and highway conditions, and in no event at a speed that endangers the safety of persons or property. This bill would authorize, until January 1, 2027, the Cities of Los Angeles, Oakland, San Jose, one city in southern California, and the City and County of San Francisco to establish the Speed Safety System Pilot Program for speed limit enforcement in certain areas, if the system meets specified requirements, including that the presence of a fixed or mobile system is clearly identified. The bill would require the participating cities or city and county to adopt a Speed Safety System Use Policy and a Speed Safety System Impact Report before implementing the program, and would require the 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. The bill would require the participating cities or city and county to issue warning notices rather than notices of violations for violations detected within the first 30 calendar days of the program. The bill would require the participating cities or city and county to develop uniform guidelines for, among other things, the processing and storage of confidential information. The bill would designate all photographic, video, or other visual 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. This bill would specify that any violation of a speed law recorded by a speed safety system authorized by these provisions would be subject only to the provided civil penalties. 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 require any program created pursuant to these provisions to offer a diversion program for indigent speed safety system violation recipients, as specified. The bill would require a city or city and county participating in the pilot program to submit reports to the Legislature, as specified, to evaluate the speed safety system to determine the system's impact on street safety and economic impact on the communities where the system is utilized. 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 a speed safety system until January 1, 2027. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Cities of Los Angeles, Oakland, San Jose, and the City and County of San Francisco. 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.