Vehicles: commercial vehicles: length restrictions: State Route 33.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when AB 538 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on AB 538.
You're tracking AB 538
We'll email you the moment it moves.
AB 538 — Vehicles: commercial vehicles: length restrictions: State Route 33.
Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed Assembly
-
4Passed Senate
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Summary
(1) Existing law prohibits any combination of vehicles coupled together, including any attachments, from exceeding a total length of 65 feet, with certain, specified exceptions. Existing law authorizes a city or county, by ordinance, to prohibit a combination of vehicles of a total length in excess of 60 feet upon highways under its respective jurisdiction, as specified. Existing law allows a combination of vehicles to be operated with a kingpin-to-rearmost-axle measurement of greater than 38 feet but not more than 40 feet on those highways under the jurisdiction of local authorities only where it is deemed to be safe by the owner of the vehicle or the person operating the vehicle and where its operation is not specifically prohibited by local ordinance. A violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime. This bill would prohibit a person from driving a commercial vehicle with a kingpin-to-rearmost-axle length in excess of 30 feet on the segment of State Route 33 (SR-33) that is located between the county boundary delineating the Counties of Santa Barbara and Ventura and the Camino Cielo Road near the City of Ojai. The bill would also make legislative findings and declarations. The bill would require a person who violates this provision to be punished, upon conviction, by a specified fine based on the weight of the vehicle or $1,000, whichever is greater. Because the bill would create a new crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also require the Department of Transportation to erect suitable signs at each end of the portion of SR-33, as specified above, and any other points that the department deems necessary to give adequate notice of the prohibition. (2) 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.
Bill Text
- Amended 01/04/12 - Amended Assembly Current pdf January 04, 2012
- Introduced 02/16/11 - Introduced pdf February 16, 2011
- AB538 View text html
Action History
-
From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
-
Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.
-
In committee: Set, first hearing. Failed passage.
-
Re-referred to Com. on TRANS.
-
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on TRANS. Read second time and amended.
-
Referred to Com. on TRANS.
-
From printer. May be heard in committee March 19.
-
Read first time. To print.
Sponsors
- Williams · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Williams
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (121)
121 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 121 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 4 | 7 | 0 | 3 |
| Total | 4 | 7 | 0 | 3 |
| % of votes cast | 29% | 50% | 0% | 21% |
How each member voted (14)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Bonilla | — | Yea |
| Mitchell | — | Yea |
| Portantino | — | Yea |
| Galgiani | — | Nay |
| Miller | — | Nay |
| Norby | — | Nay |
| Solorio | — | Nay |
| Achadjian | — | Nay |
| Blumenfield | — | Yea |
| Buchanan | — | Nay |
| Jeffries | — | Not Voting |
| Logue | — | Nay |
| Eng | — | Not Voting |
| Bonnie Lowenthal | — | Not Voting |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does AB 538 do?
- (1) Existing law prohibits any combination of vehicles coupled together, including any attachments, from exceeding a total length of 65 feet, with certain, specified exceptions. Existing law authorizes a city or county, by ordinance, to prohibit a combination of vehicles of a total length in excess of 60 feet upon highways under its respective jurisdiction, as specified. Existing law allows a combination of vehicles to be operated with a kingpin-to-rearmost-axle measurement of greater than 38 feet but not more than 40 feet on those highways under the jurisdiction of local authorities only where it is deemed to be safe by the owner of the vehicle or the person operating the vehicle and where its operation is not specifically prohibited by local ordinance. A violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime. This bill would prohibit a person from driving a commercial vehicle with a kingpin-to-rearmost-axle length in excess of 30 feet on the segment of State Route 33 (SR-33) that is located between the county boundary delineating the Counties of Santa Barbara and Ventura and the Camino Cielo Road near the City of Ojai. The bill would also make legislative findings and declarations. The bill would require a person who violates this provision to be punished, upon conviction, by a specified fine based on the weight of the vehicle or $1,000, whichever is greater. Because the bill would create a new crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also require the Department of Transportation to erect suitable signs at each end of the portion of SR-33, as specified above, and any other points that the department deems necessary to give adequate notice of the prohibition. (2) 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.
- Who sponsors AB 538?
- AB 538 is sponsored by Williams.
- What is the current status of AB 538?
- This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track AB 538?
- Track AB 538 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on AB 538
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of AB 538
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →