Existing law establishes various default speed limits for vehicles upon highways, as specified. Existing law requires the Department of Transportation, by regulation, to require speed limits to be rounded up or down to the nearest 5 miles per hour of the 85th percentile of free-flowing traffic. Existing law authorizes a local authority to additionally lower the speed limit in specified circumstances, or retain the currently adopted speed limit in certain circumstances.

This bill would authorize the department to additionally lower or retain the speed limit in those specified circumstances.

Under certain circumstances, existing law authorizes a local authority to set, by ordinance, a 25- or 20-mile-per-hour facie speed limit on specified highways.

This bill would similarly authorize the department to set, by regulation, for a highway that is not a freeway, a 25- or 20-mile-per-hour prima facie speed limit.

Existing law requires a local authority to issue only warning citations for specified speed limit violations for the first 30 days that a lower speed limit is in effect.

This bill would instead impose this requirement on any peace officer.

Existing law establishes various default speed limits for vehicles upon highways, as specified. Existing law requires the Department of Transportation, by regulation, to require speed limits to be rounded up or down to the nearest 5 miles per hour of the 85th percentile of free-flowing traffic. Existing law authorizes a local authority to additionally lower the speed limit in specified circumstances, or retain the currently adopted speed limit in certain circumstances.

This bill would authorize the department to additionally lower or retain the speed limit in those specified circumstances.

Under certain circumstances, existing law authorizes a local authority to set, by ordinance, a 25- or 20-mile-per-hour facie speed limit on specified highways.

This bill would similarly authorize the department to set, by regulation, for a highway that is not a freeway, a 25- or 20-mile-per-hour prima facie speed limit.

Existing law requires a local authority to issue only warning citations for specified speed limit violations for the first 30 days that a lower speed limit is in effect.

This bill would instead impose this requirement on any peace officer.

Existing law establishes various default speed limits for vehicles upon highways, as specified. Existing law requires the Department of Transportation, by regulation, to require speed limits to be rounded up or down to the nearest 5 miles per hour of the 85th percentile of free-flowing traffic. Existing law authorizes a local authority to additionally lower the speed limit in specified circumstances, or retain the currently adopted speed limit in certain circumstances.

This bill would authorize the department to additionally lower or retain the speed limit. limit in those specified circumstances.

Under certain circumstances, existing law authorizes a local authority to set, by ordinance, a 25- or 20-mile-per-hour facie speed limit on specified highways.

This bill would similarly authorize the department to set, by regulation, for a highway that is not a freeway, a 25- or 20-mile-per-hour prima facie speed limit.

Existing law requires a local authority to issue only warning citations for specified speed limit violations for the first 30 days that a lower speed limit is in effect.

This bill would instead impose this requirement on any peace officer.

Existing law establishes various default speed limits for vehicles upon highways, as specified. Existing law requires the Department of Transportation, by regulation, to require speed limits to be rounded up or down to the nearest 5 miles per hour of the 85th percentile of free-flowing traffic. Existing law authorizes a local authority to additionally lower the speed limit in specified circumstances, or retain the currently adopted speed limit in certain circumstances.

This bill would authorize the department to additionally lower or retain the speed limit.

Existing law authorizes a local authority, if it finds the speed limit derived from the 85th percentile to be higher than reasonable or safe, to reduce the speed limit an additional 5 miles per hour for specified reasons, including, but not limited to, that the portion of highway is designated as a safety corridor, as defined by the department. Existing law also authorizes a local authority to retain or restore the immediately prior adopted speed limit under specified circumstances.

This bill would similarly authorize the department to set, on a highway that is not a freeway, a speed limit, or retain or restore the immediately prior adopted speed limit under specified circumstances. The bill would authorize an additional reduction of 5 miles per hour in the speed limit for the reasons in existing law or if a local jurisdiction has reasonable concerns related to the safe crossing of the section of highway, as specified. The bill would specify additional considerations for the department when defining safety corridor.

Under certain circumstances, existing law authorizes a local authority to set, by ordinance, a 25- or 20-mile-per-hour facie speed limit on specified highways.

This bill would similarly authorize the department to set, by regulation, for a highway that is not a freeway, a 25- or 20-mile-per-hour prima facie speed limit.

Existing law requires a local authority to issue warning citations for specified speed limit violations for the first 30 days that a lower speed limit is in effect.

This bill would instead impose this requirement on any peace officer.

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1014

Author: Rogers (D)

Amended: 4/8/25 in Assembly

Vote: 21

SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: 13-1, 6/24/25

AYES: Cortese, Archuleta, Arreguín, Blakespear, Cervantes, Dahle, Gonzalez, Grayson, Limón, Menjivar, Richardson, Seyarto, Umberg

NOES: Strickland

NO VOTE RECORDED: Valladares

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 67-0, 5/23/25 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Traffic safety: speed limits

SOURCE: Del Norte County

Streets are For Everyone

DIGEST:

This bill extends to the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) the authority given to local authorities to lower speed limits by five miles per hour (mph).

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Prohibits driving at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, traffic, and the surface and width of the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property. This is known as California’s Basic Speed Law. (Vehicle Code Section (VEH) § 22350).
2. Establishes a maximum speed of 65 mph under most circumstances and allows for lower speed limits under numerous specified conditions. (VEH § 22354 and VEH § 22358)
3. Defines “engineering and traffic survey” (ETS) as a survey of highway and traffic conditions in accordance with methods determined by Caltrans for use by state and local authorities. An ETS must consider prevailing speeds, accident records, and conditions not readily apparent to the driver. An ETS may consider residential density and bicycle and pedestrian safety. (VEH § 627)
4. Authorizes Caltrans and local authorities to establish a speed limit on most streets of between 15 mph to 60 mph in five mph increments on the basis of an ETS. (VEH § 22354 and VEH § 22358)
5. Authorizes a local authority to lower speed limits by an additional five mph, so long as the total speed limit is not reduced by a maximum of 12.4 mph from the 85^th percentile speed, under the following circumstances:
6. An area designated as a safety corridor (VEH § 22358.7);
7. An area with a high concentration of pedestrians and cyclists, as determined by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (VEH § 22358.7);
8. A business activity district (VEH § 22358.9); and,
9. To maintain or go back to a preexisting speed limit set by a prior ETS and if a registered engineer has evaluated the section of highway and determined that no additional general purpose lanes have been added to the roadway since completion of the traffic survey that established that speed limit. (VEH § 22358.8)
10. Provides that a “safety corridor” is defined by Caltrans in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). In making this determination, Caltrans was required to consider highways that have the highest number of serious injuries and fatalities based on collision data that may be derived from, but not limited to, the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System. No more than 1/5^th of a jurisdictions streets may be designated a safety corridor. (VEH § 22358.7)
11. Provides that a “business activity district” is that portion of a highway that includes central or neighborhood downtowns, urban villages, or zoning designations that prioritize commercial land uses at the downtown or neighborhood scale and meets at least three of the following requirements:

a)   No less than 50% of the contiguous property fronting the highway consists of retail or dining commercial uses, including outdoor dining, that open directly onto sidewalks adjacent to the highway;

1. Parking, including parallel, diagonal, or perpendicular spaces located alongside the highway;
2. Traffic control signals or stop signs regulating traffic flow on the highway, located at intervals of no more than 600 feet; and,

1. Marked crosswalks not controlled by a traffic control device. (VEH § 22358.9)

This bill:

1. Authorizes Caltrans to lower speed limits by five mph under the following circumstances:
2. In an area designated as a safety corridor, as determined by the CA MUTCD;
3. In an area with a high concentration of pedestrians and cyclists;
4. In a business activity district on a highway that is not a freeway; and,
5. To maintain or go back to a preexisting speed limit set on a highway that is not a freeway by a prior ETS and if a registered engineer has evaluated the section of highway and determined that no additional general purpose lanes have been added to the roadway since completion of the traffic survey that established that speed limit.

Comments

1. Purpose of this bill. According to the author, “The current process for setting speed limits fails to adequately address safety concerns in high-traffic rural areas, where vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, and individuals with disabilities are at significant risk. Existing speed limits, based on the 85th percentile speed, can lead to higher speed limits even in areas with heavy foot traffic or known safety issues. This bill provides CalTrans with the flexibility to adjust speed limits on state highways by up to five miles per hour based on specific safety concerns. By allowing CalTrans to respond to evolving safety needs, this bill aims to protect vulnerable populations and create safer road conditions.”
2. AB 43 allowed lower speeds on local roads. AB 43 (Friedman, Chapter 690, Statutes of 2021) made various changes to how speed limits are set to give Caltrans and local governments more flexibility to lower speed limits, based on the recommendations made by the Zero Traffic Fatalities Task Force. The Zero Traffic Fatalities Task Force was created pursuant to AB 2363 (Friedman, Chapter 650, Statutes of 2018), which directed the California State Transportation Agency to convene a statewide task force to conduct an academic research synthesis to identify findings and recommendations for policy consideration to reduce traffic fatalities to zero. Based on the task force’s recommendations, AB 43 gave local jurisdictions the ability to lower speed limits by five mph on high injury streets, referred to as "safety corridors," streets with a high concentration of bicyclists and pedestrians, and in areas deemed a business activity district. This bill expands the flexibility granted to local authorities to lower speed limits based on these safety-related conditions to Caltrans.
3. Do lower speed limits work? The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration identified lower speed limits as a highly effective and affordable speed management measure.^[1] According to the Zero Traffic Fatalities Task Force report, “research synthesis found that research studies clearly indicate speed limit changes cause changes in drivers’ speed. Moreover, ‘reducing vehicle speed limits will likely reduce vehicle speeds and improve safety across most road environments.’” The task force’s report went on to find that, “[o]ther studies support the finding that even a small change in vehicle operating speed can have large safety impacts. According to one, ‘a reduction of 3 mph in average operating speed on a road with a baseline average operating speed of 30 mph is expected to produce a reduction of 27% in injury crashes and 49% in fatal crashes.’ Furthermore, since pedestrians and bicyclists are particularly vulnerable to severe injury and death when struck by higher-speed vehicles, ‘countermeasures aimed at reducing vehicle speeds have the potential to save lives.’ National research results, as well as the results of the UC ITS research synthesis, support the notion, which is advocated by many California cities and local governments, that lowering speed limits will make streets safer.” However, lower speed limits are most effective when paired with engineering measures and enforcement efforts.
4. Slowing state highways. This bill would allow Caltrans to reduce the speed limit on state highways by five mph in certain areas after completing an engineering and traffic survey. One of the areas eligible for the reduction would be highway segments that have the highest number of serious injuries and fatalities, known as safety corridors. Another eligible area would be portions of highway adjacent to high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians, especially those from vulnerable groups such as children, seniors, persons with disabilities, and the unhoused.

Del Norte County, one of the sponsors of AB 1014, argues that lowering speed limits on state roads is particularly important in rural areas, where recreation is more likely to take place along the side of state highways. The County states, “[i]n Del Norte County, speed is a major factor in traffic collisions that result in pedestrian fatalities or injuries along state highways that intersect State and National Recreation Areas, such as U.S. Route 199 that passes portions of Jedediah Smith State Park, the Six Rivers National Forest/Smith River National

Recreation Area, and recreationally designated segments of the Wild and Scenic Smith River around the communities of Hiouchi and Gasquet. Highways that intersect State and National Recreation Areas continue to be hazardous areas, where pedestrians are at high risk of injury or death due to fast-moving vehicles and the added volume of cars and pedestrian traffic from kayakers, rafters, hikers, bicyclists, and fishermen; pedestrians may cross highways to travel between areas, or tourists may walk alongside highways to reach campsites. To complicate the matter, the unique conditions in terms of visitor-serving and recreational activities are not properly accounted for in current law, leading to speed limits in excess of what these communities generally consider to be safe.”

This bill also extends to Caltrans the authority local jurisdictions currently have to set a 25 or 20 mph speed limit in “business activity districts,” defined as neighborhood downtown areas. Nevada County Transportation Commission points out in support of the bill that, “[i]n many rural California communities like ours, Caltrans highways serve as the local main street or a general-purpose highway that connects small communities and carries local traffic, in addition to people on bikes and walking.”

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 7/7/25)

Del Norte County (co-source)

Streets are for Everyone (co-source)

Amy Foell Consulting INC
Bike LA
Bike Long Beach
Bike Slo County
California Bicycle Coalition
County of Monterey
Hopland Municipal Advisory Council
Los Angeles Walks
Marin County Bicycle Coalition
Monterey; County of
Move California
Move Santa Barbara County
Nevada County Transportation Commission
Office of Monterey County Supervisor Chris Lopez
Peopleforbikes
Rural County Representatives of California
Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates
Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance
Santa Monica Spoke
Slow Down Sacramento
So Cal Cycling
Socal Families for Safe Streets
Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition
Sonoma County Transportation Authority/regional Climate Protection Authority
Street Racing Kills
Streets for All
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
West Hollywood Bicycle Coalition

OPPOSITION: (Verified 7/7/25)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 67-0, 5/23/25

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Elhawary, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Schiavo, Schultz, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bryan, Castillo, Chen, Dixon, Ellis, Gallagher, Hoover, Nguyen, Sanchez, Sharp-Collins, Ta, Wicks

Prepared by: Isabelle LaSalle / TRANS. / (916) 651-4121

7/8/25 16:38:49

**** END ****

1. https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/speeding-and-speed-management/countermeasures ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Senator Dave Cortese, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 1014 Hearing Date: 6/24/2025

SUBJECT: Traffic safety: speed limits

DIGEST: This bill extends to the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) the authority given to local authorities to lower speed limits by five miles per hour (mph).

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Prohibits driving at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, traffic, and the surface and width of the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property. This is known as California’s Basic Speed Law. (Vehicle Code Section (VEH) 22350).
2. Establishes a maximum speed of 65 mph under most circumstances and allows for lower speed limits under numerous specified conditions. (VEH 22354 and VEH 22358)
3. Defines “engineering and traffic survey” (ETS) as a survey of highway and traffic conditions in accordance with methods determined by Caltrans for use by state and local authorities. An ETS must consider prevailing speeds, accident records, and conditions not readily apparent to the driver. An ETS may consider residential density and bicycle and pedestrian safety. (VEH 627)
4. Authorizes Caltrans and local authorities to establish a speed limit on most streets of between 15 mph to 60 mph in five mph increments on the basis of an ETS. (VEH 22354 and VEH 22358)
5. Prohibits the use of speed traps, as defined, in arresting or prosecuting any violation of the Vehicle Code including speeding. (VEH 40802)
6. Authorizes a local authority to lower speed limits by an additional five mph, so long as the total speed limit is not reduced by a maximum of 12.4 mph from the 85^th percentile speed, under the following circumstances:
7. An area designated as a safety corridor ( VEH 22358.7);
8. An area with a high concentration of pedestrians and cyclists, as determined by the MUTCD (VEH 22358.7);
9. A business activity district (VEH 22358.9); and,
10. To maintain or go back to a preexisting speed limit set by a prior ETS and if a registered engineer has evaluated the section of highway and determined that no additional general purpose lanes have been added to the roadway since completion of the traffic survey that established that speed limit. (VEH 22358.8)
11. Provides that a “safety corridor” is defined by Caltrans in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). In making this determination, Caltrans was required to consider highways that have the highest number of serious injuries and fatalities based on collision data that may be derived from, but not limited to, the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System. No more than 1/5^th of a jurisdictions streets may be designated a safety corridor. (VEH 22358.7)
12. Provides that a “business activity district” is that portion of a highway that includes central or neighborhood downtowns, urban villages, or zoning designations that prioritize commercial land uses at the downtown or neighborhood scale and meets at least three of the following requirements:

a)   No less than 50% of the contiguous property fronting the highway consists of retail or dining commercial uses, including outdoor dining, that open directly onto sidewalks adjacent to the highway;

1. Parking, including parallel, diagonal, or perpendicular spaces located alongside the highway;
2. Traffic control signals or stop signs regulating traffic flow on the highway, located at intervals of no more than 600 feet; and,

1. Marked crosswalks not controlled by a traffic control device. (VEH 22358.9)

This bill:

1. Authorizes Caltrans to lower speed limits by five mph under the following circumstances:
2. In an area designated as a safety corridor, as determined by the CA MUTCD;
3. In an area with a high concentration of pedestrians and cyclists;
4. In a business activity district on a highway that is not a freeway; and,
5. To maintain or go back to a preexisting speed limit set on a highway that is not a freeway by a prior ETS and if a registered engineer has evaluated the section of highway and determined that no additional general purpose lanes have been added to the roadway since completion of the traffic survey that established that speed limit.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “The current process for setting speed limits fails to adequately address safety concerns in high-traffic rural areas, where vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, and individuals with disabilities are at significant risk. Existing speed limits, based on the 85th percentile speed, can lead to higher speed limits even in areas with heavy foot traffic or known safety issues. This bill provides CalTrans with the flexibility to adjust speed limits on state highways by up to five miles per hour based on specific safety concerns. By allowing CalTrans to respond to evolving safety needs, this bill aims to protect vulnerable populations and create safer road conditions.”
2. How are speed limits set? Currently, the maximum speed limit on a multilane state highway is 65 mph and 55 mph on a two-lane undivided roadway. Caltrans can implement a lower speed limit by conducting an ETS that considers the 85th percentile speed, collision history, and road conditions not readily apparent to the driver. 85th percentile speed, which is the most widely used method of determining the posted speed limit, is the speed at or below which 85% of the traffic is moving. It has historically been considered to be the most influential indicator of what is a reasonable speed limit, and it is still used by Caltrans to determine speed limits by rounding to the nearest 5 mph increment and posting the speed limit at that speed. For example, if 85% of drivers on a particular road are observed to travel at 42 mph or less, the speed limit would be set at 40 mph.

The 85^th percentile rule was pioneered in the 1940s and, while it is still common practice, more recent research has raised questions about whether it is the most appropriate metric to use. In 2017 the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reported that, “[r]aising speed limits to match the 85th percentile speed can result in unintended consequences. It may lead to higher operating speeds, and thus a higher 85th percentile speed. In general, there is not strong evidence that the 85th percentile speed within a given traffic flow equates to the speed with the lowest crash involvement rate for all road types.” NTSB questioned the antiquated and limited evidence behind the 85^th percentile rule and the basic assumption that the majority of drivers are reasonable and prudent.

A UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS) report titled The Eight-Five Percent Solution: Is Crowdsourcing Speed Limits the Best Approach to Traffic Safety questioned the, “continuing wisdom of having motor vehicle drivers collectively determine appropriate travel speeds, particularly if public policy aims to reduce their share of urban street users over time. At the core of this debate is the question of whether drivers should get to decide how fast is safe, particularly since modern automobiles with crumple zones, airbags, antilock brakes, automated braking and collision avoidance systems better protect vehicle occupants moving at higher speeds relative to the pedestrians, cyclists, and other non-motor-vehicle street users with whom they interact.”

1. AB 43 allowed lower speeds on local roads. AB 43 (Friedman, Chapter 690, Statutes of 2021) made various changes to how speed limits are set to give Caltrans and local governments more flexibility to lower speed limits, based on the recommendations made by the Zero Traffic Fatalities Task Force. The Zero Traffic Fatalities Task Force was created pursuant to AB 2363 (Friedman, Chapter 650, Statutes of 2018), which directed the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) to convene a statewide task force to conduct an academic research synthesis to identify findings and recommendations for policy consideration to reduce traffic fatalities to zero. Based on the task force’s recommendations, AB 43 gave local jurisdictions the ability to lower speed limits by five mph on high injury streets, referred to as "safety corridors," streets with a high concentration of bicyclists and pedestrians, and in areas deemed a business activity district. This bill expands the flexibility granted to local authorities to lower speed limits based on these safety-related conditions to Caltrans.
2. Do lower speed limits work? The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration identified lower speed limits as a highly effective and affordable speed management measure.^[1] According to the Zero Traffic Fatalities Task Force report, “research synthesis found that research studies clearly indicate speed limit changes cause changes in drivers’ speed. Moreover, ‘reducing vehicle speed limits will likely reduce vehicle speeds and improve safety across most road environments.’” The task force’s report went on to find that, “[o]ther studies support the finding that even a small change in vehicle operating speed can have large safety impacts. According to one, ‘a reduction of 3 mph in average operating speed on a road with a baseline average operating speed of 30 mph is expected to produce a reduction of 27% in injury crashes and 49% in fatal crashes.’ Furthermore, since pedestrians and bicyclists are particularly vulnerable to severe injury and death when struck by higher-speed vehicles, ‘countermeasures aimed at reducing vehicle speeds have the potential to save lives.’ National research results, as well as the results of the UC ITS research synthesis, support the notion, which is advocated by many California cities and local governments, that lowering speed limits will make streets safer.” However, lower speed limits are most effective when paired with engineering measures and enforcement efforts.
3. Slowing state highways. The bill would allow Caltrans to reduce the speed limit on state highways by five mph in certain areas after completing an engineering and traffic survey. One of the areas eligible for the reduction would be highway segments that have the highest number of serious injuries and fatalities, known as safety corridors. Other areas would be portions of highway adjacent to high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians, especially those from vulnerable groups such as children, seniors, persons with disabilities, and the unhoused.

Del Norte County, one of the sponsors of AB 1014, argues that lowering speed limits on state roads is particularly important in rural areas, where recreation is more likely to take place along the side of state highways. The County states, “[i]n Del Norte County, speed is a major factor in traffic collisions that result in pedestrian fatalities or injuries along state highways that intersect State and National Recreation Areas, such as U.S. Route 199 that passes portions of Jedediah Smith State Park, the Six Rivers National Forest/Smith River National

Recreation Area, and recreationally designated segments of the Wild and Scenic Smith River around the communities of Hiouchi and Gasquet. Highways that intersect State and National Recreation Areas continue to be hazardous areas, where pedestrians are at high risk of injury or death due to fast-moving vehicles and the added volume of cars and pedestrian traffic from kayakers, rafters, hikers, bicyclists, and fishermen; pedestrians may cross highways to travel between areas, or tourists may walk alongside highways to reach campsites. To complicate the matter, the unique conditions in terms of visitor-serving and recreational activities are not properly accounted for in current law, leading to speed limits in excess of what these communities generally consider to be safe.”

This bill also extends to Caltrans the authority local jurisdictions currently have to set a 25 or 20 mph speed limit in “business activity districts,” defined as neighborhood downtown areas. Nevada County Transportation Commission points out in support of the bill that, “[i]n many rural California communities like ours, Caltrans highways serve as the local main street or a general-purpose highway that connects small communities and carries local traffic, in addition to people on bikes and walking.”

Related/previous Legislation:

AB 382 (Berman, 2025) – Sets the school zone speed limit from 25 mph to 20 mph. That bill is currently in this committee.

AB 1938 (Friedman Chapter 406, Statutes of 2022) – Made clarifying changes for the speed limit changes made by AB 43.

AB 43 (Friedman, Chapter 690, Statutes of 2021) – Granted Caltrans and local authorities greater flexibility in setting speed limits based on recommendations the Zero Traffic Fatality Task Force (Task Force) made in January 2020.

AB 2363 (Friedman, Chapter 650, Statutes of 2018) – Created the Zero Traffic Fatalities Task Force.

AB 529 (Gatto, Chapter 528, statutes of 2011) – Allowed, in instances where Caltrans or the local authority should round up to reach the nearest 5 mph, that Caltrans or the local authority may instead round down but then may not reduce the posted speed limit by a 5 mph increment for a safety-related factor.

AB 2767 (Jackson, Chapter 45, Statutes of 2000) – Allowed local authorities to consider residential density and bicycle and pedestrian safety as additional factors in engineering and traffic surveys conducted for purposes of setting speed limits.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday, June 18, 2025.)

SUPPORT:

Bike Long Beach

Bike Slo County

California Bicycle Coalition

County of Monterey

Del Norte County Board of Supervisors

Hopland Municipal Advisory Council

Los Angeles Walks

Marin County Bicycle Coalition

Monterey; County of

Move California

Move Santa Barbara County

Nevada County Transportation Commission

Office of Monterey County Supervisor Chris Lopez

Peopleforbikes

Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)

Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance

Santa Monica Spoke

Slow Down Sacramento

So Cal Cycling

Socal Families for Safe Streets

Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition

Sonoma County Transportation Authority/regional Climate Protection Authority

Street Racing Kills

Streets are for Everyone (SAFE) (ORG)

Streets for All

Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC)

West Hollywood Bicycle Coalition

OPPOSITION:

None received.

-- END --

1. https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/speeding-and-speed-management/countermeasures ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1014

Author:(Rogers)

As Amended Ver:April 8, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Expands to the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) the authority given to local authorities to lower speed limits by five miles per hour (mph).

Major Provisions

1. Authorizes Caltrans to lower speed limits by five mph:
2. In an area designated as a safety corridor;
3. In an area with a high concentration of pedestrians and cyclists, as determined by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD);
4. In a business activity district on a highway that is not a freeway; and,
5. To maintain or go back to a preexisting speed limit set on a highway that is not a freeway by a prior engineering and traffic survey (ETS) and if a registered engineer has evaluated the section of highway and determined that no additional general purpose lanes have been added to the roadway since completion of the traffic survey that established that speed limit.

COMMENTS

AB 43 (Friedman), Chapter 690, Statutes of 2021 made various changes to how speed limits are set to give local governments and the state more flexibility to lower speed limits, based on the recommendations made by the Zero Traffic Fatalities Task Force. Those changes included the ability to lower speed limits by five mph on high injury streets, referred to as "safety corridors," streets with a high concentration of bicyclists and pedestrians, and in areas deemed a business activity district. This bill expands the flexibility granted to local authorities to lower speed limits to Caltrans.

According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), from 2005-14, crashes in which a law enforcement officer indicated a vehicle's speed was a factor resulted in 112,580 fatalities, representing 31% of all traffic fatalities.  NTSB notes that speeding increases the risk of a crash and the severity of injuries.

In California and elsewhere, speed limits are generally set in accordance with engineering and traffic surveys, which measure prevailing vehicular speeds and establish the limit at or near the 85th percentile (i.e., the speed that 15% of motorists exceed). California uses the 85th percentile to set speed limits except in cases where the limit is set in state law, such as the 25 mph limit in residential districts and school zones, or where an engineering and traffic survey shows that other safety-related factors suggest that a lower speed limit is warranted. These safety-related factors, as prescribed by law, include accident data; highway, traffic, and roadway conditions not readily apparent to the driver; residential density; and pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

There has been a concerted effort across the country to change the way speed limits are set. NTSB, the National Association for City Transportation Officials, and more recently, the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), have all called for moving away from the 85^th percentile as the basis for setting speed limits. AB 2363 (Friedman), Chapter 650, Statutes of 2018 established the Task Force in order to develop policies to reduce traffic fatalities to zero in California. CalSTA formed the 25-member Task Force on June 5^th, 2019 and its members included representatives from the Department of the California Highway Patrol, the University of California and other academic institutions, Caltrans, the State Department of Public Health, local governments, bicycle safety organizations, statewide motorist service membership organizations, transportation advocacy organizations, and labor organizations.

In January 2020, CalSTA in conjunction with the Task Force, released the CalSTA Report of Findings: AB 2363 Zero Traffic Fatalities Task Force. The report includes 27 policy recommendations, and 16 findings recommendations that are broken into four categories: establishing speed limits, engineering, enforcement and education. This bill includes seven policy recommendations on establishing speed limits outlined in the report.

AB 43 gave additional direction for bicycle and pedestrian safety, asking traffic engineers to give increased consideration for vulnerable pedestrian groups including children, seniors, persons with disabilities, users of personal assistive mobility devices, and the unhoused. In recognition that lowering speed limits by five mph can have added safety benefits, AB 43 permitted cities to lower speed limits by an additional five mph if the street had a high concentration of bicyclist or pedestrians, or the street was determined to be one of the top 20% most dangerous streets within the cities jurisdiction (safety corridors). Cities could also lower speed limits by five mph in business activity districts on roads that already had speed limits 30 mph or lower. Finally local authorities could maintain or roll back a speed limit by five mph if a new ETS required them to increase the speed limit and no general purpose lanes were added to the roadway.

To demonstrate how AB 43 was implemented, below are two examples. For example one, if the 85th percentile speed was 42.4 mph, the speed limit would be rounded down to 40 mph. If justified by a traffic survey for the reasons stated above, it could then be lowered to 35 mph.

For example two, if the 85th percentile speed was 44 mph, the speed limit would be rounded up to 45 mph, and could be reduced to 40 mph either for no reason at all, as permitted by AB 529 (Gatto) Chapter 528, Statutes of 2011, or for the reasons listed above under VEH 627.

As a result of AB 43, a speed limit can be reduced by an additional 5 mph in a safety corridor or in an area with a high concentration of pedestrians and cyclists. This would allow a speed limit previously set at 35 mph, as explained in example one, to be lowered to 30 mph, and a speed limit previously set by example two at 40 mph to be lowered to 35 mph.

What effect do speed limits have on the speed of drivers? As part of the Task Force, the University of California Institute of Traffic Studies (UC ITS) compiled research on the dangers of speeding and the effect speed limits have on speeding. UC ITS notes that "reducing speed limits almost universally reduces speeds both on limited and mixed access roads. However, the absolutely magnitude of speed changes from speed limits alone are quite small…a five mph reduction in speed limit is likely to decrease mean speed by one to two mph. With stronger enforcement, the effect of a five mph speed limit reduction may be closer to three mph." While changing speed limits has a minor overall effect on the mean speed, it has a major effect on reducing speed-related injuries and fatalities. UC ITS notes that a five mph reduction in speed can reduce injuries by 8-15%. Other studies have reported reductions as great as 28% and 39%. The benefits may be even greater for pedestrians. UC ITS notes that research has shown that environments with five mph lower posted speed limits equate to 56-88% fewer serious pedestrian injuries and 80-96% fewer pedestrian fatalities.

A recent study shows that while speed limit reductions may not affect most drivers, it may get the most dangerous drivers to slow down. Oregon recently authorized residential speed limits to be reduced from 25 mph to 20 mph. A study of the impact of this change, found that the 85th and 50^th percentile speed remained the same both before and after the speed limit change (27 mph and 22 mph respectively). However, and notably, the number of drivers going over 30 mph decreased from 6.5% of drivers to 4.8% of drivers.

According to the Author

"The current process for setting speed limits fails to adequately address safety concerns in high-traffic rural areas, where vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, and individuals with disabilities are at significant risk. Existing speed limits, based on the 85th percentile speed, can lead to higher speed limits even in areas with heavy foot traffic or known safety issues. This bill provides Caltrans with the flexibility to adjust speed limits on state highways by up to ten miles per hour based on specific safety concerns. By allowing Caltrans to respond to evolving safety needs, this bill aims to protect vulnerable populations and create safer road conditions."

Arguments in Support

According to The Rural County Representatives of California, "State highways play an important role in the movement of people and goods throughout rural California. Ensuring the safety of our highways requires a careful balance between speed limits and usage. In many cases, highway crossings are unsafe for both the driver and the other users of the road, especially where state highways intersect with State and National Recreation Areas. Pedestrians and cyclists may need to use the road, or to cross with little or no signage in order to arrive at their destination. This has resulted in injuries and fatalities. While it is critical that traffic speed enforcement is conducted throughout California, the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has little discretion in lowering or maintaining speed limits on the state highways it controls. Furthermore, the current calculation for setting speed limits at the 85th percentile may be altered by traffic through an area, even to the detriment of other users. This considers the driver but not necessarily the other, more vulnerable, users who may or may not be familiar with the area.

AB 1014 seeks to improve public safety by giving Caltrans additional tools to adjust speed limits in response to specific conditions, such as the presence of vulnerable populations and high-risk areas."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to Assembly Appropriations Committee:

Caltrans reports it has a speed management specialist responsible for the speed limit manual, and it has an office devoted to the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Therefore, costs of this bill to Caltrans should be minor and absorbable.

VOTES

ASM TRANSPORTATION: 14-1-1

YES: Wilson, Davies, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Carrillo, Harabedian, Hart, Jackson, Lackey, Lowenthal, Macedo, Ransom, Rogers, Ward

NO: Hoover

ABS, ABST OR NV: Papan

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-1-2

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Tangipa

NO: Dixon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Ta

UPDATED

VERSION: April 8, 2025

CONSULTANT: David Sforza / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0000406

Date of Hearing: May 14, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1014

Author:(Rogers) – As Amended Ver:April 8, 2025

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill provides to the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) authority to set the speed limits on certain roadways that are five miles an hour less than Caltrans would set the speed limits on those roadways on the basis of engineering and traffic surveys alone. Current law provides such authority to local authorities only, but not to Caltrans.

The bill lists the following types of roadways as those upon which Caltrans may exercise this new authority: (1) an area designated as a safety corridor; (2) an area with a high concentration of pedestrians and cyclists, as determined by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD); and (3) a business activity district on a highway that is not a freeway.

In addition, the bill authorizes Caltrans to exercise this new authority to maintain or go back to a preexisting speed limit set on a highway that is not a freeway by a prior engineering and traffic survey and if a registered engineer has evaluated the section of highway and determined that no additional general purpose lanes have been added to the roadway since completion of the traffic survey that established that speed limit.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Caltrans reports it has a speed management specialist responsible for the speed limit manual, and it has an office devoted to the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Therefore, costs of this bill to Caltrans should be minor and absorbable.

COMMENTS:

In California and elsewhere, speed limits are generally set in accordance with an engineering and traffic survey to measure prevailing vehicle speeds and establish the limit at or near the 85th percentile (meaning the speed 15% of motorists exceed, based on road design and average conditions). California uses the 85th percentile rule to set speed limits except in cases where the limit is set in state law, such as the 25 mph limit on residential streets and in school zones, or where an engineering and traffic survey shows other safety-related factors suggest a lower speed limit is warranted. These safety-related factors, as prescribed by law, include accident data; highway, traffic, and roadway conditions not readily apparent to the driver; residential density; and pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

Safety considerations notwithstanding, the way California and many other jurisdictions sets speed limits has not resulted in roadways that are particularly safe: every year, tens of thousands of people die in vehicular accidents. This fairly dismal safety record has led to an international movement, in the United States known as the Vision Zero Network, with the goal of eliminating all traffic fatalities and serious traffic injuries.

The Legislature has approved legislation to modify the way Caltrans and local authorities set speed limits. AB 43 (Friedman), Chapter 690, Statutes of 2021, generally provided more flexibility to both Caltrans and locals by allowing them to lower speed limits by an additional five mph in designated speed safety corridors, as that term is defined in statute.

Similar to AB 43, this bill authorizes Caltrans to set the speed limits on certain roadways that are five miles an hour less than Caltrans would set the speed limits on those roadways on the basis of engineering and traffic surveys alone, as described in the summary above. According to the author, this change is meant to increase safety in high-traffic rural areas, in particular, where, the author explains, “vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, and individuals with disabilities are at significant risk.” The author further asserts, “By allowing Caltrans to respond to evolving safety needs, this bill aims to protect vulnerable populations and create safer road conditions.”

The committee is unaware of opposition to this bill.

Analysis Prepared by: Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 21, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Lori D. Wilson, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1014 (

Author:Rogers) – As Amended Ver:April 8, 2025

SUBJECT: Traffic safety: speed limits

SUMMARY: Expands the authority given to local authorities to lower speed limits by five miles per hour (mph) to the Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Specifically, this bill:

1. Authorizes Caltrans to lower speed limits by five mph:
2. In an area designated as a safety corridor;
3. In an area with a high concentration of pedestrians and cyclists, as determined by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD);
4. In a business activity district on a highway that is not a freeway; and,
5. To maintain or go back to a preexisting speed limit set on a highway that is not a freeway by a prior engineering and traffic survey (ETS) and if a registered engineer has evaluated the section of highway and determined that no additional general purpose lanes have been added to the roadway since completion of the traffic survey that established that speed limit.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Prohibits driving at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, traffic, and the surface and width of the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property. This is known as California’s Basic Speed Law. (Vehicle Code Section (VEH) 22350).
2. Establishes a maximum speed of 65 mph under most circumstances and allows for lower speed limits under numerous specified conditions. (VEH 22354 and VEH 22358)
3. Defines “engineering and traffic survey” (ETS) as a survey of highway and traffic conditions in accordance with methods determined by Caltrans for use by state and local authorities. An ETS must consider prevailing speeds, accident records, and conditions not readily apparent to the driver. An ETS may consider residential density and bicycle and pedestrian safety. (VEH 627)
4. Authorizes Caltrans and local authorities to establish a speed limit on most streets of between 15 mph to 60 mph in five mph increments on the basis of an ETS. (VEH 22354 and VEH 22358)
5. Prohibits the use of speed traps, as defined, in arresting or prosecuting any violation of the Vehicle Code including speeding. (VEH 40802)
6. Authorizes a local authority to lower speed limits by an additional five mph, so long as the total speed limit is not reduced by a maximum of 12.4 mph from the 85^th percentile speed, under the following circumstances:
7. An area designated as a safety corridor ( VEH 22358.7);
8. An area with a high concentration of pedestrians and cyclists, as determined by the MUTCD (VEH 22358.7);
9. A business activity district (VEH 22358.9); and,
10. To maintain or go back to a preexisting speed limit set by a prior ETS and if a registered engineer has evaluated the section of highway and determined that no additional general purpose lanes have been added to the roadway since completion of the traffic survey that established that speed limit. (VEH 22358.8)
11. Provides that a “safety corridor” is defined by Caltrans in the MUTCD. In making this determination, the Caltrans was required to consider highways that have the highest number of serious injuries and fatalities based on collision data that may be derived from, but not limited to, the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System. No more than 1/5^th of a jurisdictions streets may be designated a safety corridor. (VEH 22358.7)
12. Provides that a “business activity district” is that portion of a highway that includes central or neighborhood downtowns, urban villages, or zoning designations that prioritize commercial land uses at the downtown or neighborhood scale and meets at least three of the following requirements:

a)   No less than 50% of the contiguous property fronting the highway consists of retail or dining commercial uses, including outdoor dining, that open directly onto sidewalks adjacent to the highway;

1.  Parking, including parallel, diagonal, or perpendicular spaces located alongside the highway;
2. Traffic control signals or stop signs regulating traffic flow on the highway, located at intervals of no more than 600 feet; and,
3. Marked crosswalks not controlled by a traffic control device. (VEH 22358.9)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: AB 43 (Friedman), Chapter 690, Statutes of 2021 made various changes to how speed limits are set to give local governments and the state more flexibility to lower speed limits, based on the recommendations made by the Zero Traffic Fatalities Task Force. Those changes included the ability to lower speed limits by five mph on high injury streets, referred to as "safety corridors," streets with a high concentration of bicyclists and pedestrians, and in areas deemed a business activity district. This bill expands the flexibility granted to local authorities to lower speed limits to Caltrans.

According to the author, “The current process for setting speed limits fails to adequately address safety concerns in high-traffic rural areas, where vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, and individuals with disabilities are at significant risk. Existing speed limits, based on the 85th percentile speed, can lead to higher speed limits even in areas with heavy foot traffic or known safety issues. This bill provides Caltrans with the flexibility to adjust speed limits on state highways by up to ten miles per hour based on specific safety concerns. By allowing Caltrans to respond to evolving safety needs, this bill aims to protect vulnerable populations and create safer road conditions.”

According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), from 2005-14, crashes in which a law enforcement officer indicated a vehicle's speed was a factor resulted in 112,580 fatalities, representing 31% of all traffic fatalities.  NTSB notes that speeding increases the risk of a crash and the severity of injuries.

In California and elsewhere, speed limits are generally set in accordance with engineering and traffic surveys, which measure prevailing vehicular speeds and establish the limit at or near the 85th percentile (i.e., the speed that 15% of motorists exceed). California uses the 85th percentile to set speed limits except in cases where the limit is set in state law, such as the 25 mph limit in residential districts and school zones, or where an engineering and traffic survey shows that other safety-related factors suggest that a lower speed limit is warranted. These safety-related factors, as prescribed by law, include accident data; highway, traffic, and roadway conditions not readily apparent to the driver; residential density; and pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

There has been a concerted effort across the country to change the way speed limits are set. NTSB, the National Association for City Transportation Officials, and more recently, the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), have all called for moving away from the 85^th percentile as the basis for setting speed limits. AB 2363 (Friedman), Chapter 650, Statutes of 2018 established the Task Force in order to develop policies to reduce traffic fatalities to zero in California. CalSTA formed the 25-member Task Force on June 5^th, 2019 and its members included representatives from the Department of the California Highway Patrol, the University of California and other academic institutions, Caltrans, the State Department of Public Health, local governments, bicycle safety organizations, statewide motorist service membership organizations, transportation advocacy organizations, and labor organizations.

In January 2020, CalSTA in conjunction with the Task Force, released the CalSTA Report of Findings: AB 2363 Zero Traffic Fatalities Task Force. The report includes 27 policy recommendations, and 16 findings recommendations that are broken into four categories: establishing speed limits, engineering, enforcement and education. This bill includes seven policy recommendations on establishing speed limits outlined in the report.

AB 43 gave additional direction for bicycle and pedestrian safety, asking traffic engineers to give increased consideration for vulnerable pedestrian groups including children, seniors, persons with disabilities, users of personal assistive mobility devices, and the unhoused. In recognition that lowering speed limits by five mph can have added safety benefits, AB 43 permitted cities to lower speed limits by an additional five mph if the street had a high concentration of bicyclist or pedestrians, or the street was determined to be one of the top 20% most dangerous streets within the cities jurisdiction (safety corridors). Cities could also lower speed limits by five mph in business activity districts on roads that already had speed limits 30 mph or lower. Finally local authorities could maintain or roll back a speed limit by five mph if a new ETS required them to increase the speed limit and no general purpose lanes were added to the roadway.

To demonstrate how AB 43 was implemented, below are two examples. For example one, if the 85th percentile speed was 42.4 mph, the speed limit would be rounded down to 40 mph. If justified by a traffic survey for the reasons stated above, it could then be lowered to 35 mph.

For example two, if the 85th percentile speed was 44 mph, the speed limit would be rounded up to 45 mph, and could be reduced to 40 mph either for no reason at all, as permitted by AB 529 (Gatto) Chapter 528, Statutes of 2011, or for the reasons listed above under VEH 627.

As a result of AB 43, a speed limit can be reduced by an additional 5 mph in a safety corridor or in an area with a high concentration of pedestrians and cyclists. This would allow a speed limit previously set at 35 mph, as explained in example one, to be lowered to 30 mph, and a speed limit previously set by example two at 40 mph to be lowered to 35 mph.

For example:

What effect do speed limits have on the speed of drivers? As part of the Task Force, the University of California Institute of Traffic Studies (UC ITS) compiled research on the dangers of speeding and the effect speed limits have on speeding. UC ITS notes that “reducing speed limits almost universally reduces speeds both on limited and mixed access roads. However, the absolutely magnitude of speed changes from speed limits alone are quite small…a five mph reduction in speed limit is likely to decrease mean speed by one to two mph. With stronger enforcement, the effect of a five mph speed limit reduction may be closer to three mph.” While changing speed limits has a minor overall effect on the mean speed, it has a major effect on reducing speed-related injuries and fatalities. UC ITS notes that a five mph reduction in speed can reduce injuries by 8-15%. Other studies have reported reductions as great as 28% and 39%. The benefits may be even greater for pedestrians. UC ITS notes that research has shown that environments with five mph lower posted speed limits equate to 56-88% fewer serious pedestrian injuries and 80-96% fewer pedestrian fatalities.

A recent study shows that while speed limit reductions may not affect most drivers, it may get the most dangerous drivers to slow down. Oregon recently authorized residential speed limits to be reduced from 25 mph to 20 mph. A study of the impact of this change, found that the 85th and 50^th percentile speed remained the same both before and after the speed limit change (27 mph and 22 mph respectively). However, and notably, the number of drivers going over 30 mph decreased from 6.5% of drivers to 4.8% of drivers.

Streets for All, writing in support of this bill, argues “California should do everything possible to protect the safety and well-being of vulnerable pedestrian groups, and by providing greater flexibility to CalTrans to incorporate local input in setting speed limits along state highways that intersect State and National Recreation Areas, AB 1014 will enhance public safety and ensure that local jurisdictions can respond effectively to evolving safety concerns in their communities.”

Related legislation: AB 382 (Berman) sets the school zone speed limit from 25 mph to 20 mph. That bill is set to be heard in this committee.

AB 1938 (Friedman) Chapter 406, Statutes of 2022 made clarifying changes for the speed limit changes made by AB 43.

AB 43 (Friedman), Chapter 690, Statutes of 2021 Granted Caltrans and local authorities greater flexibility in setting speed limits based on recommendations the Zero Traffic Fatality Task Force (Task Force) made in January 2020.

AB 2363 (Friedman), Chapter 650, Statutes of 2018, created the Zero Traffic Fatalities Task Force.

SB 632 (Cannella) of 2015 would have established a 15 mph prima facie speed limit in school zones. That bill died in Senate Transportation Committee.

AB 529 (Gatto), Chapter 528, statutes of 2011, allowed, in instances where Caltrans or the local authority should round up to reach the nearest 5 mph, that Caltrans or the local authority may instead round down but then may not reduce the posted speed limit by a 5 mph increment for a safety-related factor.

AB 2767 (Jackson), Chapter 45, Statutes of 2000, allowed local authorities to consider residential density and bicycle and pedestrian safety as additional factors in engineering and traffic surveys conducted for purposes of setting speed limits.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Bicycle Coalition
Del Norte County Board of Supervisors
Hopland Municipal Advisory Council
Nevada County Transportation Commission
Office of Monterey County Supervisor, Chris Lopez
PeopleForbikes
Rural County Representatives of California
Sonoma County Transportation Authority
Streets Are For Everyone
Streets for All

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: David Sforza / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093