California 2021-2022 Regular Session Status: In Committee 3 D cosponsors

AB 550 — Vehicles: Speed Safety System Pilot Program.

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

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  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 2021-2022 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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, 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.

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: Held under submission.

  4. Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. (Page 1460.)

  5. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  6. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  7. Measure version as amended on April 29 corrected.

  8. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  9. Read second time and amended.

  10. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (April 26).

  11. Re-referred to Com. on TRANS.

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

  13. Re-referred to Com. on TRANS.

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

  15. Referred to Com. on TRANS.

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

  17. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 5 co-sponsors · 116 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Chiu

Co-sponsors (5)

Not signed on (116)

116 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 116 →

"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

Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 13 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6000
Democratic 6002
Republican 1000
Total 13002
% of votes cast 87%0%0%13%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Friedman — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Daly — Yea
Medina — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Not Voting
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Not Voting
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea

Official roll call →

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 550 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, 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.
Who sponsors AB 550?
AB 550 is sponsored by Chiu, Friedman, Wiener, Scott D. (Democratic), Lee, Alex (Democratic), Ting, and Wicks, Buffy (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 550?
This bill died with 2021-2022 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 550?
Track AB 550 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 550

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 550

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →