California 2017-2018 Regular Session Status: In Committee 1 D cosponsors

AB 342 — Vehicles: automated speed enforcement: five-year pilot program.

Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2017-2018 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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

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, highway conditions, and in no event at a speed that endangers the safety of persons or property. Existing law does not expressly authorize the use of automated speed enforcement in this state. This bill would authorize, no later than January 1, 2019, the City of San Jose (San Jose) and the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) to implement a 5-year pilot program utilizing an automated speed enforcement system (ASE system) for speed limit enforcement on certain streets, if the system meets specified requirements, including that the presence of a fixed or mobile ASE system is clearly identified by signs, as specified, and trained peace officers or other trained designated municipal employees are utilized to oversee the operation of the fixed and mobile ASE systems. The bill would require San Jose and San Francisco to adopt an ASE System Use Policy, as specified, and develop uniform guidelines for, among other things, the processing and storage of confidential information. The bill would provide that a speed violation that is recorded by an ASE system is subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $100. 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 enforced by an ASE system. The bill would also authorize the processing agency to assess delinquent fees, as specified, if payment of the civil penalty is not received within a specified time. The bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if, among other things, the owner has not paid the civil penalty and delinquent fees, except as specified. The bill would require the department to remit all penalties and delinquent fees collected, after deducting its own administrative fees, to the processing agency. Existing law provides that payments for specified penalties, including penalties for offenses relating to the parking of a vehicle, required to register or transfer the registration of a vehicle, constitute a lien on the vehicle on which the payments are due or that was involved in the offenses, and on any other vehicle owned by the owner of that vehicle. This bill would, until January 1, 2024, also include payments for penalties for offenses related to the ASE system operated by San Jose or San Francisco for which a notice of violation has been served on the owner or recipient of a reissued citation and any delinquent fees added to the penalty as constituting a lien on the specified vehicles. Existing law transfers the responsibility and authority for the collection of specified delinquent amounts, including penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle, from the department to the Franchise Tax Board. This bill would, until January 1, 2024, also transfer to the board the responsibility and authority to collect penalties for offenses related to the ASE system operated by San Jose or San Francisco for which a notice of violation has been served on the owner or recipient of a reissued notice of violation and any delinquent fees added to the penalty. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of 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.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.

  3. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  4. In committee: Hearing for testimony only.

  5. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on TRANS. (Ayes 6. Noes 4.) (April 18). Re-referred to Com. on TRANS.

  6. Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.

  7. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on P. & C.P. Read second time and amended.

  8. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  9. Re-referred to Coms. on P. & C.P. and TRANS. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96.

  10. Re-referred to Com. on TRANS.

  11. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on TRANS. Read second time and amended.

  12. Referred to Coms. on TRANS. and P. & C.P.

  13. From printer. May be heard in committee March 10.

  14. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Beall · Cosponsor
  • Chiu · Primary
  • Chu · Cosponsor
  • Scott D. Wiener · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 3 co-sponsors · 118 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Chiu

Co-sponsors (3)

Not signed on (118)

118 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 118 →

"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.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Subjects

public-safety transportation
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 342 do?
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, highway conditions, and in no event at a speed that endangers the safety of persons or property. Existing law does not expressly authorize the use of automated speed enforcement in this state. This bill would authorize, no later than January 1, 2019, the City of San Jose (San Jose) and the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) to implement a 5-year pilot program utilizing an automated speed enforcement system (ASE system) for speed limit enforcement on certain streets, if the system meets specified requirements, including that the presence of a fixed or mobile ASE system is clearly identified by signs, as specified, and trained peace officers or other trained designated municipal employees are utilized to oversee the operation of the fixed and mobile ASE systems. The bill would require San Jose and San Francisco to adopt an ASE System Use Policy, as specified, and develop uniform guidelines for, among other things, the processing and storage of confidential information. The bill would provide that a speed violation that is recorded by an ASE system is subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $100. 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 enforced by an ASE system. The bill would also authorize the processing agency to assess delinquent fees, as specified, if payment of the civil penalty is not received within a specified time. The bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if, among other things, the owner has not paid the civil penalty and delinquent fees, except as specified. The bill would require the department to remit all penalties and delinquent fees collected, after deducting its own administrative fees, to the processing agency. Existing law provides that payments for specified penalties, including penalties for offenses relating to the parking of a vehicle, required to register or transfer the registration of a vehicle, constitute a lien on the vehicle on which the payments are due or that was involved in the offenses, and on any other vehicle owned by the owner of that vehicle. This bill would, until January 1, 2024, also include payments for penalties for offenses related to the ASE system operated by San Jose or San Francisco for which a notice of violation has been served on the owner or recipient of a reissued citation and any delinquent fees added to the penalty as constituting a lien on the specified vehicles. Existing law transfers the responsibility and authority for the collection of specified delinquent amounts, including penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle, from the department to the Franchise Tax Board. This bill would, until January 1, 2024, also transfer to the board the responsibility and authority to collect penalties for offenses related to the ASE system operated by San Jose or San Francisco for which a notice of violation has been served on the owner or recipient of a reissued notice of violation and any delinquent fees added to the penalty. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of 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.
Who sponsors AB 342?
AB 342 is sponsored by Beall, Chiu, Chu, and Wiener, Scott D. (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 342?
This bill died with 2017-2018 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 342?
Track AB 342 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 342

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.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 342

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →