Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation

The Assembly Transportation Committee is called to order. Good afternoon and welcome, everyone. We do not yet have a quorum, so we will likely begin as a Subcommitee unless we get a quorum by the time I get to that part in my speech.

So the hearing room is open for attendance of this hearing and it can be watched from a live stream on the Assembly's website.

We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective deliberation and decisions on the critical issues facing California. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time.

We will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. We encourage the public to provide written testimony by visiting the committee website.

Please note that any written testimony submitted to the committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted. We will allow two minutes for each of the witnesses, two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition of all bills presented today. Additional witness comments will be limited to name, organization, and position.

Please note that Assemblymember Hadwick will sit in for Assemblymember Hoover, and Assemblymember Tangipa will replace Assemblymember Machado. With that, we will begin our hearing. We do not yet have a quorum, so we'll wait for that. As noted, we're beginning as a Subcommittee.

Once it's appropriate we have a quorum, we will be adopting the Committee rules. Those rules have been provided to all the members in advance of our hearing and are also posted on the Committee's website.

We have a consent calendar of seven bills, and we'll note those later at the appropriate time when we have a quorum, which leaves two bills to discuss today. File items 5 AB 612 by Rogers and item 9 AB 435 by Wilson.

With that, we're going to move, and although we're a Subcommittee, we will hear the bills and vote on them when we have a quorum. So that way, we'll move to Assemblymember Rogers for him to present his bill. And you can begin at your convenience.

Well, good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. I'm very proud to present AB612 to you today. 612 is actually a really simple Bill. It just requires the California Department of Transportation to update its highway design manual to instruct local jurisdictions to consult with their fire departments when making major road improvements.

This is to better facilitate the equipment that is coming into these jurisdictions, hopefully that are adding housing and other amenities to make sure that it doesn't impact response times or to better understand what the impacts will be on its community. With us today, we have Doug Suber with the California Professional Firefighters.

I do also want to acknowledge we have heard some concerns from some folks with our bicycle community about the way that this Bill would impact the complete street programs. This Bill does not impact those programs. It simply requires local jurisdictions to gather more information on the impacts of road projects.

But we are certainly happy to work with the bike community to make sure that that is very clear.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Doug Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, CPF represents 35,000 professional firefighters and emergency medical services personnel statewide. We are pleased to be the sponsor of AB612 and like to thank the author for bringing it forward and the Committee for working with us on this measure.

California's professional firefighters are all risk responding to all types of emergencies, from fires to earthquakes to floods to emergency medical services calls. Effective and efficient response to these incidents is critical to protect Members of the public.

In recent years, some local jurisdictions have introduced road design elements without coordination with their fire agencies, and that has created confusion or issues as it relates to response. For example, in a jurisdiction, a roundabout was introduced without coordination with the fire agency.

So the first time our Members identified the roundabout on the road was when they were driving the truck to a call. They had difficulty getting around that roundabout.

And we think that type of situation could have been avoided or designed in a manner that would have allowed for efficient response by the truck or engine without impeding or impacting, you know, considerations as it relates to road design.

When a response is delayed, it can have negative impacts on the person who called for help, particularly if it's a critical call, a patient suffering from a heart attack or a stroke or a trauma.

Ensuring that agencies participate, fire agencies can participate in the discussion, will help facilitate the protection of those needing emergency services and improving road design to enhance safety.

AB612, as the author mentioned, would just really enhance that collaboration by updating the highway Design manual so that fire agencies and emergency Response agencies can get to emergencies effectively and efficiently while having safer streets.

The proposal in our view, is not a choice between road design elements or emergency response, but rather how we can guide effective collaboration between road planners and fire agencies. For those reasons, we would respectfully request your. I vote.

Thank you. Moving on to Members of the public who would like to provide an additional testimony in support of this Bill. Name, organization and position.

Cameron.

Hello. zero, good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Yvonne Fernandez with the California. Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you.

All right, seeing no others, moving on to opposition testimony. Thank you. So we'll hear from two and then you each have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Mark Newburger of the California State Association of Counties. I want to clarify we are not in opposition on this Bill.

My, my apologies. I missed so out of pract because we haven't. This is our first Committee. So yes, there were two witnesses in support and I should have invited you both to be with the author. So yes, Mr.

Nuremberg, no problem, no problem. Thank you, Chair. Also I want to thank the author and sponsors for kind of working with us on this Bill as well as the Committee staff to kind of working through. As, as I said, CSAC has kind of a support and concept.

We do have a couple concerns on which are elaborated on very appropriately in the analysis that I'll kind of provide some expansion on now in my comments. The first is, the first concern we have is making it a mandatory requirement for counties to consult with their local fire districts, especially in a county in a very rural setting.

There are many situations when there is either not a local fire district or not a local fire district that would be kind of anybody to consult with on that project.

So we're kind of model this as currently counties and county road folks and road commissioners, it is a best practice for them to reach out to their local fire departments, especially in unincorporated areas where there is population. So again our kind of focus is kind of turning away from requirement into best practice.

The second is that we are kind of working on language to identify those major projects where the aim of the Bill is to have the requirement for consultation for the aims of the Bill that is kind of early reach outreach on projects that could have a significant impact on emergency, that EMS response essentially.

And the final kind of part is kind of work out the issue on that. There are a variety of road maintenance projects where it would not be appropriate for consultation with fire departments, chip sealing, kind of resurfacing the roadway other than of course the actual disturbance that the fire would have to go around for doing the process.

There actually is not anything that we're physically doing to the roadway that would change the response time after that project's done.

I do think there's some way to kind of work this, to work the concerns out where you don't have to go through project by project and kind of just neatly identify some sort of language that kind of deals with projects that don't neatly fit into the bucket of major projects that do need consultation and minor ones that should need consultation.

Again, with the number of projects that counties engage in and other local governments responsible for roads, that would be a large amount of consultation with fire departments and. And many times them on projects that they wouldn't have any concerns with overall. That's it for my comments.

Thank you so much. We will pause before we go to opposition testimony to take the time to establish a quorum. I believe we do have one now with that secretary, please call the roll. Wilson.

[Roll call]

[Roll call]

Here.

All right, we are confirmed for a quorum. The bill's been moved and it's seconded. Moved by Lowenthal, seconded by Harabedian. With that, we're going to move to opposition testimony. As a reminder, you each have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee, My name is George Spies with Traffic Violence Rapid Response, a group of Oaklanders working to end the epidemic of traffic violence. And I speak for the group in opposing this well meaning Bill. AB 612. Everyone in this room today knows someone who died in a car crash.

I know this because every year thousands of people are killed and hundreds of thousands are seriously injured on California streets and roads everywhere across the state. Just ask our first responders, who face a growing proportion of calls to often horrifying but entirely preventable crashes.

In any city, most collisions occur on a tiny fraction of streets, what traffic engineers call the high injury network. If the problem of traffic collisions is bad driving, then why are 70% of them clustered in only 7% of the streets? Because bad driving is largely engendered by bad street design rather than by bad drivers per se.

If you make the lanes wider, everybody will end up driving faster. If you make the street two lanes each way, drivers get the signal that it's okay to pass, which encourages faster driving, leading to more crashes, more injuries and more deaths. But our streets can also facilitate safer driving.

If we change the street, we can change the driving and reduce loss of life. Traffic engineers are now learning how to change the streets to make them safer. Reducing conflicts at intersections and controlling vehicle speeds. Prevention first is a key strategy for our fire officials, public health experts and many other government efforts.

AB612 misses an opportunity to support prevention first here as well. Looking only at response times pushes us back towards those wider multi lane streets that encourages higher speeds for all vehicles, again increasing the rate of dangerous collisions that could be prevented. We need good emergency response, but we cannot afford to go backward.

Please shelve this Bill and allow a more nuanced approach to be taken. Thank you.

All right, next witness.

Good afternoon. Mark Fuksovich, Director of state Policy for Streets for All. I'm here in respectful opposition to the Assembly Member. In 1973, President Richard Nixon commissioned the America Burning report, which ultimately was the seminal work that shifted the firefighting world from a reactive model of putting fires out to to a prevention first model.

The three big takeaways were fire deaths were not going down, most of them were preventable. And an emphasis on fire prevention through public education, fire safe construction and better building codes. And the result of these changes has led to a 50% reduction in fire related mortality. Imagine if we did that for our roadway design.

Unfortunately, this Bill does the opposite. It mandates a one dimensional conversation about a single metric, right response time to be held above all else. The effect of this Bill would be to take away authority from local elected city councils to decide what the community wants and what are the trade offs.

It is ultimately a policy decision, not an engineering decision to decide whether the road should prioritize a safe walk to school or outdoor dining or emergency response or vehicle throughput. That's a policy question that the City Council deserves to answer.

And this Bill would lead to a pocket vetoing of safety projects that are aimed at saving people's lives. And I say pocket veto because you end up in a situation where local governments are incredibly deferential to local fire departments.

And all the while fire prevention engineers who are very well versed in reviewing building codes and fire hydrant locations are often quick to issue blanket negative responses for areas where they don't have as much training, like traffic engineering.

Lastly, this response time metric requires complex and expensive transportation network modeling and and isn't even done by the fire Department itself. It's done by The Transportation Department.

So this Bill will impose an expensive mandate for every single roadway project in the State of California that the fire Department gets to then interpret to City Council without understanding the oftentimes subjective inputs of the modeling that were decided. Thank you for your time and consideration. Our position is opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Now moving to Members of the public who would like to provide additional testimony, now would be appropriate. Time to stand. Come to the mic. State your name, organization and position. Seeing no movement, I will bring it back to my Committee Members. Vice Chair Davies.

Thank you. Madam Chair, I want to say thank you for this Bill. I sat on Traffic and Transportation when I was serving on City Council and every second counts, every just realizing that speed bumps alone can stop, take away five seconds when you're trying to get to someone, especially life and death.

And I think obviously it's important to work together so that we can make sure that it's safe. And I know that's a priority to begin with, but I also look at our fires that we had and every second did count and trying to make sure that they could get in there.

So I think it's just common sense and I'd like to be a co author on your Bill. Thank you.

Assembly Member Papan.

Yeah, I concur. It's a very common sense Bill. Keeping the lines of communication open cannot be underscored. I'd like to be a co author as well.

Thank you, Assembly Member Aaron.

I second that. I'd like to be a co author as well. Thank you.

All right. I see no others. There is a motion by Lowenthal and a second by Harbinian. I would just like to thank the author for authoring this Bill and for bringing this Bill forward to my Committee. I. I believe this is a good governance Bill.

It really forces a dialogue that should happen to ensure that people are safe, safe to operate on the roads as well as safety if they're on the back of an emergency vehicle or desiring emergency services.

We've seen with the recent wildfires in Los Angeles, it is ever more important to consider the impacts of road design can have on emergency response times. For example, the Palisades fire evacuation plan led to congestion issues that left people stranded and firefighters from accessing critical areas to mitigate the spread of those fires.

Safety is of the utmost importance, whether it be for a pedestrian, a cyclist, a driver, a passenger, or even a first responder. Concerns have been raised, rightfully so, surrounding this bill's potential negative impacts on complete streets projects. Additional concerns requiring consultation on all road improvements impose potential issues surrounding road maintenance, including resurfacing, restoration and rehabilitation.

I understand these concerns and as the author noted in his testimony, he is open to collaboration to help address them and ensuring that we address any unintended consequences of this common sense legislation. Collaboration between local government and fire departments provide a political. Sorry, not political.

A potential opportunity to consider both bicycle and pedestrian safety while ensuring that emergency response capabilities are maintained. Maintained. And that is why I'm supporting this Bill today. There's been a motion and second, I give the author a moment to close.

Absolutely. I want to thank the Committee and I want to thank everybody for their testimony. As I mentioned, there seems to be a misconception. This Bill does not require local governments to change their road planning. It requires an additional data point as they're making those decisions.

Just as when I was on the City Council for eight years, if we had a new project coming in, I would talk with the neighbors, I would talk with the businesses, I talk with our public works Department. Local jurisdictions have many different sources for as they gather information to make an informed decision.

This Bill just requires that one of those informed decision points comes from your local fire departments to make sure that you don't have planning processes that aren't coordinating with one another. With that I respect. Respectfully ask for an aye vote. I want to thank those who joined as co authors.

All right. Before we actually vote on this, we do need to adopt our Committee rules. So as was noted earlier, our Committee rules were provided in advance of the hearing and are posted on our website. Is there a motion for our Committee rules? So it's been moved by Lackey and second by Hart.

With that, secretary, could you please call the roll?

[Roll call]

Aye.

[Roll call]

That has 13 will hold the roll open for additional Members to add on. Moving back to item number five. AB612. Rogers. That has a first and a second. Secretary, could you call the roll? AB612. Did I? Yeah, I did. No one came. Sorry.

Thank you to Assemblymember Papin, who asked to clarify that we heard from the public in case there were additional comments in opposition. We did do that part and no one came forward. So now we'll move on to voting.

[Roll call]

All right, that has 15 votes. We'll hold the roll open for other members to add on. We'll move now to consent calendar. There are seven bills on our proposed consent calendar. They are file items 1, AB 32 Soria. 2, AB 334 Petrie-Norris. Item 3, AB 377 Tongipa. Item 4, AB 272 Aguiar-Curry. Item 6, AB 620 Jackson.

Item 7, AB 266 Davies. Item 8, AB 390 Wilson. Is there a motion on consent? Aguiar-Curry and Rogers. Aguiar-Curry for a first and Rogers for a second. With that secretary, please call the roll.

The consent calendar. [Roll Call]

There are 15 bills. 15 bills, 15 aye votes. We'll hold the roll open for other members to add on. With that, we're going to move to item nine, AB 435. This is my bill, so I'll pass the gavel over to our Vice Chair, Davies.

Alright, Assemblymember Wilson, come on down.

All right, thank you. Good afternoon members. I'm pleased to present AB 435, a Bill that will implement the five-step test standard to our child passenger safety laws, otherwise known as CPS laws here in California. While effective, the current California CPS law contains elements that must be better aligned with research-based best practices.

These practices, recognized internationally and nationally, are not just theoretical, but have proved to minimize injuries and fatalities in vehicular incidents involving children. As the second leading cause of unintended injury-related deaths among children, motor vehicle crashes present a critical focus for safety improvements.

Extending the required age for booster use and implementing straightforward testing can significantly enhance child safety. Research findings support these proposed changes, indicating that they can increase understanding among both parents and children about the benefits of the updated law.

Extensive collaboration and discussion with child passenger safety technicians and instructors as well as advocates from law enforcement, health care, social services and education have led to support for these changes.

Endorsed by the Strategic Highway Safety Plan Occupant Protection Committee, the five step test was designed to consider the varied internal dimensions of vehicles which the previous height criterion cannot address adequately. Many children from 8 to 10 fail this test, highlighting the need for a simpler version of the description of belt fit in the law.

That is why we want to join the states of Louisiana and Minnesota to specifically implement the following here in California.

First, to require children under the age of 10 to be properly secured in the backseat in an appropriate child passenger restraint seat, to require that children from the ages of 10 to 13 continue to sit in the rear seat in a child passenger restraint seat unless they meet the five-step test, and then lastly to require that children must meet the five-step test before being allowed to sit in the front seat.

And I get that that can be a concern for many of you. I remember being a child calling shotgun.

Now I would like to also thank our Republican colleagues for flagging a couple of potential gaps in our bill regarding children who exceed the maximum of most child safety seat products and for children who are 10 to 13 riding in a pickup truck.

We are happy to work with your consultants and our safety experts to address a solution that balances safety with the situation where children are unable to comply with the five-step test while exceeding the 120-pound weight maximum of child safety seats without adding unnecessary excessive costs.

Since this law has been incorporated in other states, I'm positive that we can find a solution. While currently our bill only allows children 10 and under and 13 and over to ride in a cab-only pickup truck, we are happy to address the missing gap for children 10 to 13, riding in a pickup truck.

Now, with me today is Jennifer Rubin with Safe Kids Greater Sacramento, and Stephanie Tumbrelo, the founder of Safety Belt Safe USA, to speak to the importance of AB 435 and to help answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Ladies, you each have two minutes. Thank you.

Good afternoon. All righty. Thank you. My name is Jennifer Rubin, and I am representing Safe Kids Greater Sacramento. And our coalition nembers include more than 100 carseat educators that serve children and families all over the Sacramento region. And I currently serve as an injury prevention specialist at UC Davis Medical Center.

But please note that I'm here representing Safe Kids and not UC Davis Health. This spring, I will celebrate 20 years as a car seat technician. And during my time in this field, we periodically come to a point where California law no longer matches national recommendations.

And in practice, this means that when I train new technicians or educate families, I have to explain to them that the current California law is outdated and does not reflect the best way to keep their kids safe.

And all of our educational materials already reflect the national recommendations of keeping kids in the backseat until age 13 and advising that kids continue using their booster seats until they pass the five step test for seatbelt fit. What is this test? I'm so glad you asked.

So that asks that kids stay in car seat or booster seat and are not ready for a safety belt until they can sit with their back on all the way against the vehicle seat. Their knees can bend comfortably over the edge of the vehicle seat.

The lap portion of that seatbelt stays low across their strong hip bones and doesn't ride up on their soft belly. And that that shoulder belt stays here in the middle of their chest and doesn't ride up on their neck. And last but not least, they can stay that way for the entire ride.

So these recommendations are reflected in the bill before you and I understand we have some things to work out, but it's what we're already teaching. So it would be really helpful if our law could match our lessons.

But if a family is not fortunate enough to work with a car seat technician, they'll need to look up the car seat law on their own. And right now, a quick Internet search would be a very confusing mix of the California law and the national recommendations. Not sure what to follow.

So we'd like to make sure that our law matches those recommendations. So why are we not matching the American Academy of Pediatrics or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration? Because we fell behind. So it's time to catch up. So we encourage your strong support for AB 435.

Thank you. Thank you very much and good afternoon Members. I'm Stephanie Tombrello, social worker, child passenger safety technician, Instructor. And since 1972, I've pursued child passenger safety. I was a 1980 founder of Safety Belt Safe USA and Executive Director from 1982 to 2021.

And in 2017, I was an inaugural member of the Manufacturers alliance for Child Passenger Safety hall of Fame. For decades I've worked for California child passenger safety laws to reflect research-based best practices. AB 435 will protect children on our roads.

Giving a tool, the five-step test to parents and kids to recognize when kids fit in belts and ensure backseat travel for those under 13 away from frontal airbags. Children ages 8 to 12 have the highest fatality rates in cat crashes among the birth to 14 age group. Current law leads many to use belts only too soon.

Clearer booster seat laws include improve compliance and safety. The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute found that most children under 12 still need booster seats. Important, as a Washington state study showed booster seats reduce crash injuries by 19%.

Our study found that 27% of children at 4 foot 9 failed the five-step test while 5% of shorter children passed. You can't use height only when you have so many diverse vehicle seats. Research at Safety Belt Safe USA shows that at age 10, only half passed the five-step test for safety belt fit.

And proper fit depends on a child's proportions and vehicle seat design making a height-based standard unreliable. Belts need to fit to prevent injury. Like AB 435, Louisiana and Minnesota have incorporated the five-step test. Thank you.

Excuse me, Ms.Tombrello, if you could just finish up. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Do we have anybody speaking opposition for this bill? Any witnesses?

Madam Chair, members, here in support. Cesar Diaz with Capital Advocacy on behalf of the California Hospital Association.

Okay, just want to make sure though we don't have anyone in opposition. Correct, witnesses? Okay, Very good. All right then we will go ahead and have public testimony. Me too. Thank you. And support.

Madam Chair, Mike Knudson here on behalf of the Automobile Club of Southern California in strong support.

Nicette Short on behalf of Rady Children's Health in support.

Mark Foxovich on behalf of Streets for All in support.

Beverly Yu on behalf of AAA Mountain West Group in support.

Hello. Edwin Bourbon on behalf of the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association in support. Thank you.

All right. Do we have any me too, public testimony in opposition. Seeing none. All right, members, I do have a few that have questions. If we could start out with Assemblymember Lackey.

Mine's not necessarily a question, but it is something that I believe I have an obligation to share. Having spent 28 years and enforcing traffic circumstances, I'd like to begin by thanking the author for having such a strong traffic safety focus. I greatly appreciate that but I have a number of concerns.

There is a difference between a mandate versus a recommendation and there needs to obviously be a conditioning period so people can understand first of all what these recommendations are before you start to enforce these kind of statutes. And I have a couple concerns in the enforceability of this thing having enforced traffic laws.

Determining the age of children is very difficult to do when you have no verifying identification at that age level. So you're going to have to trust the parents and that makes it very difficult to enforce. The other is in your five-step test.

Number four is a very it's going to be an awkward situation for them to to make sure when I say them the law enforcement officer to determine that the belt is touching the child's thighs. You don't want them reaching in to making sure that the belt is touching the thigh.

That would not be optimum and for obvious reasons I find that to be difficult. So although this is well intended, I think the enforceability and the nonconditioning period will not put me in a position that I could support at this point.

Thank you for your feedback. I'll note one thing and I and I'll go through the Chair to see if she allow the witnesses to comment. I think the non the conditioning period is something that can be pursued and looked at to see if there needs to be a length of time.

We do that on a number of our laws where we have a it goes into effect but it's not yet enforceable or you can be ticketed for something till a later date. I do think that it challenges, though, the change in behavior on the person.

A number of our laws do that where the person then takes on the obligation to meet that requirement because they're now aware of it being a requirement. And I think that you know, I know you've served in law enforcement for a number of period and I'm talking about your colleagues.

I think that they know how to use discretion when doing a stop. I've done a day with my police officers and I found that sometimes they used the opportunity to educate and didn't cite but versus actually citing every time. I found more often than not they use the opportunity to educate versus cite.

And so I think that if we just made it strict about enforceability. We might not put any of our loss into practice. But I appreciate your comment and I'm wondering if the technician could be allowed to comment.

Absolutely. If we can just do a brief comment, that'd be great.

I believe the draft currently does have an implementation date, I think of January 1st of 2027. So there is some education time built in there. I'd also add that our current law also depends on children not saying their age or saying their age. Right now it's eight years old. So currently we have to ask age.

And sometimes kids are too honest. Right. But yeah, so currently we have to ask age. And then after that, just for assessing belt fit, you know what they're looking for, is it riding up on that belly where we would see those internal injuries in a crash, or is it down low on their strong hip bones?

And I agree with you that we don't want any officers reaching in the car. But that's like the Assemblymember said, a great opportunity to educate whether or not they fit their belt.

And I will say many counties, including Sacramento, have a diversion program where if families do get a ticket, they're welcome to come through our class to have their fines waived.

Thank you. Assemblymember Ward.

Thank you. Want to thank the author for bringing this forward. It's always a good time to review our safety requirements when it comes to our children, especially for those of us that have children. And we're thinking about best practices that are emerging. And I love reaching into some of that national data.

I was really curious, though, in thinking through this about maybe some of the implementation details, and I hear that you're willing to work on a lot of ideas and amendments to try to make sure that our intentions here are well reflected in that. And I want to commend you for that.

And I want to thank also those that, you know, a wide range of supporters here, too, that are behind this, this concept, to the issue of the five step test requirements on enforceability. So how. How should an officer stop somebody or want to approach this issue there?

How can they judge whether the five step test tests have been met? I do see this as very good guidance, and this is if this is emerging.

Best practice to be able to inform parents about things that you should be looking for when you're fitting your child or deciding whether or not to move them to the front seat or to be able to use a booster anymore.

As my kids, my two kids have started to go through those age ranges, it's, you know, okay, are you hitting 8 years old? Are you 4 foot 9? Is the shoulder, is the belt coming cleanly over your shoulder and adequately holding you back? Right.

Those are very tangible and direct sort of measurements that have been easy for me to assess if a child is ready. And I think also it'd be easy for an officer to be able to assess whether or not somebody is or is not meeting the law.

Is an officer going to say, hey parent, have you met the five step test?

I would guess it to be just only from my experience as a local leader and doing ride-alongs. Is that from an officer driving by they would only notice a child in the front seat if that child was short enough basically that they would stop somebody for that? Right.

Most often you're stopping somebody for something else and then you're assessing all the things that could be wrong with the way they're driving, who's in the vehicle, where people are positioned and so there wouldn't be.

I just don't imagine our law enforcement now taking the time to, you know, stop people in cars with their kids because only one of those is visual and it's the height. Right. You can tell a kid in the front seat.

If they're just doing one of those tests and if you saw a kid standing in the front seat because remember one of them is a child award can stay seated for the whole trip, you'd have other problems on your hands. Right. Like if not even the five-step test.

And so I think for from that point of view it's really going to be used as if they're pulled over for something else. Assessing. If you do see a child that doesn't match the five steps, then they could be cited for that.

Or if they are dangerous, maybe operating their vehicle in a speeding way or something and they notice a child in the front seat that looks like they might not, they might get them for speeding. Once again, it's dependent on probably something else. I just don't see them getting stopped for the cars.

But I do see parents then saying I don't want to be cited, I don't want to take it. So I'm going to, you know, do the five-point test for my kids.

Right. And then on in, in the analysis as it talks about the increase in child restraint violation data, you know, this is under today's existing law structure and that's increased over the last couple of years.

But I guess I would be curious if we change the criteria to something that was, you know, going to take some education, a little bit more understanding, are we setting ourselves up then that we are potentially going to have a lot more?

Yes. And like I said on those ones, it's not about them stopping a child, stopping a car for that. They're usually this, the secondary offense.

But I would say that's where I'm definitely open we do have a delayed implementation but where I'm definitely open to adding in that not just enforcement but the citation part where the bill could be in law, where you won't be cited for a certain amount of period and that we don't have currently in the bill and open to, to ensure that it really is trying to drive behavior that keeps our children safe.

I note that Ms. Tombrelo's comments. One in four kids. One in four kids, 4.9. I mean four feet nine inches don't satisfy the five-point test. That means if they were injured, I mean if they were to get an accident, they would be injured. Yeah.

More likely to be injured in a way that doesn't lead to a successful outcome. So die or some type of, you know, really terrible injury. And then, and then the second point that she noted is 50% under the age of 10.

So that's half of our 10-year-olds riding in a vehicle are, are not likely to pass this test and in greater, at greater risk of injury or harm or even death. So I think it's one of those things that, where we need to push this issue and, and not have confusion. As was noted by Ms. Rubin.

She noted that people go online right now so you don't go to the technician. I know my, my grandbaby, before they did their put the car seat in, they went to the CHP. We host one in our district where you go test out the vehicle. Not everybody does that.

But if you were to just go look up what are the rules right now you're going to get mixed rules. And the rules that we have as a state are not the emerging way to keep children safe. And so it's about like she noted, catching up.

Well, I appreciate that too and I think that they can further the conversation and we can catch up there. I'm also curious as this if this is to advance as well to try to get more California-specific data. I know that we are much safer on California roads compared to several other states.

And so when we're using NHTSA data to sort of evaluate the number of injuries that are out there and I was also shocked to learn that, you know, the age range of 8 to 12 has a higher fatality rate.

I'd love to hear a little bit more about, you know, some of those, the origin of some of those numbers. But I'd also like to understand California data, whether or not that is something that we're witnessing here as well too, to maybe, you know, further evaluate the context of this bill.

Absolutely. We'll get that to you and to the members of the committee.

Yeah. The last thing that I would kind of note too is again, just kind of the practical implementation of a change.

As somebody who has both an 11-year-old and a 6-year-old is going to run into some of those difficult conversations and heartaches to tell an 11-year-old who has had the graduation to be able to sometimes ride in that front seat.

That's a lot to tell them the law has changed and now for another two years they're going to have to be back to the back seat. Not that, you know, safety isn't, you know, the rationale behind that. I can support that.

But it's also a sense of pride and maturing that, you know, is something that we, an idea like this might take away.

And then, you know, even my six-year-old, who I am keeping in that booster seat until he is eight years old because I'm trying to follow that law or and evaluate, you know, the height of that shoulder strap, has just started asking, well, some of my friends are starting to get out of the booster seat, when can I.

We're holding the line pretty good. I will add for the record too, you know, our 11-year-old does not ride in the front seat on the highway. So on local streets like, you know, I'm a little bit more comfortable with that.

Law permits it and I know it's a little bit safe and I have to let her know why when we're going 65, I would much prefer her being in the backseat. Also acknowledged too is I'm starting to have to shuttle other kids to practices.

That's an extra seat of capacity that I have to work with when parents are sort of taking turns on activities like that. So just things to think about, I think in the real world is this might actually become a different standard and the impacts that we're going to have to sort of, our way of life right now.

But I'd love to see how it develops as you're continuing to work on some of this data and refining some of the recommendations. We'd want it to work in practice.

Absolutely. You have my commitment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Ransom.

Thank you. First of all, I want to bring the author, thank the author for bringing this and thank you for your commitment to child safety. I think, you know, that's very commendable. And I, but I too have some questions in regards to the bill and the implementation of the bill.

Given that part of the bill, part of the 5.0 test requires, you know, your legs to be over the seat. Having a 23-year-old height-challenged child whose legs often don't go over chairs, I'm wondering, and I do understand that this is for, you know, that specific age.

I'm wondering what are our concerns for how that is going to be assessed.

So if you are law enforcement and you see someone who, you know their seatbelt looks like it's hitting at the right point, how what would trigger them, you know, then being okay to pull a person over to make sure that their legs are over the seat. You know, are we concerned with profiling?

We've been dealing with those challenges over the years. Are we looking at that as being a concern for, you know, a reason for someone to be pulled over, as example?

I would note that from a external point of view, the only thing they could assess outside of the vehicle is height. Right. And so if someone looked like they were tall enough, I can't imagine that they would pull them over to do a 5.0 test. If you saw a car full of kids, yes.

A police officer could profile them and use other, some other profile and say I'm going to use the 5.0 test. Hopefully that is rare. But as a member of the Black Caucus, I've seen some interesting things in our communities. Right.

And so I understand that that point, I would say for someone over the age of 13, that and this particular point where your feet don't go over and the, the seat belt is sitting properly, they are just as much in danger. Right. And they should do what they need to.

I have, you know, someone, I call them vertically challenged because I'm vertically challenged. And they use a seat, a pull it back to be able to make sure that they have, that they're forward enough in their seat so they can. And usually they're the driver, not the passenger.

But that same thing could hold true to make sure that they're safe, that if they were in an accident they could be safe as well. And I think that's the point of the bill is saying that we know that every car is designed differently, every seat is designed differently.

And it's extremely important to not just use height and weight to determine safety. We know what determines safety is, where does that seat belt situation, where are you in, in relation to that seat?

And so this bill is about applying that standard for every age under, I mean for every single person under the age of 13 to ensure that they're absolutely safe. And so someone who's 15 who might, who might should be in some type of booster or have some kind of modification to their vehicle. We're not speaking to that.

It doesn't mean that their risk goes away. They still are at risk, but we're trying to be focused on those who don't have autonomy, who has, you know, really at the behalf of their parents, that their parents are charged with keeping them safe and so making sure that they're safe.

Thank you. I also want to get clarification if I am reading this correctly. Are we going to require booster seats if there's a 13-year-old that does not fit meet the five-step requirement? Is there a booster seat requirement? Can you clarify how the booster seat.

So if you're sitting in a front seat. So, so let me. Hold on, I'll, I'll get to the technician as I look it up to make sure I'm giving the right words. Do you recall the direct language on what's required for in the back seat if they're not fitting?

If you're not, I guess if you're not meeting the weight requirements, height requirements, you're in that booster seat up until. But if you are, well, here, go ahead. I said I was going to let you speak and didn't, go ahead.

Let's separate the two. So first in the backseat until we turn 13. That's because of the airbags and everything that goes on with safety there. So in the backseat till we turn 13. Over here we're in our booster seat until we turn 13. Unless they pass the five step test before that.

So right now this bill is saying once they turn 13, they no longer have to be in their booster seat. If the seatbelt was still up here, I'd still recommend it. But right now, as the bill stands, if they turn 13, they're no longer required to in their booster seat.

So effectively that would be until the age of 14 you would be in a booster seat.

Apologies, no. Until they, until their 13th birthday.

Until their 13th birthday. And with that in mind, is there data that says that a booster seat. So I, I read some of the, the information where there was data that implicated, you know, some of the rate, rates of incidents, et cetera, et cetera.

But where do we decide, where did we get the information that said that a booster seat for a 13-year-old would be helpful, was that part? Because I didn't see that in the data.

Okay, well, we can send that specific data, but that's AAP recommendations is that kids ages 8 to 12, the booster seat is rising them up so the seatbelt fits correctly. And so that's where the five-step test comes in. It's that it's spelled fit. Right.

If it's still up on their belly and it's still up on their neck, it doesn't fit. It doesn't matter how old they are. But again, still, this law says on their 13th birthday, they can stop using it even if we would still recommend it.

Okay.

Okay. I mean, in Europe, 12 is used all the time. They don't even talk about 10. But the other thing is physical development of our bones. It's a very similar in all human beings. And you don't even begin to get good hip bones until you're 10.

The other thing about the five step test is that it actually empowers children. They can learn it very easily and they are proud. They can tell you that it fits and they can then get into anybody's car and they can see whether they need a booster.

Also, a booster raises you up so you can get the adult equipment in the car. That safety equipment. You're up where that can be effective for you as well. So there are a number of reasons. And the California Department of Public Health is using the five-step test in its materials.

And just to note one, follow up, do you want to recognize the moves and secondeds?

Yes, we have a move. Who's the first one? Assemblymember Jackson. And a second by Chris Rogers, Assembly.

Assemblymember Ransom, thank you for your comments and questions. And I think they're definitely appropriate to make sure that we flesh out that we have no unintended consequences for the bill. But I would also note that some vehicles, especially minivans in nature have adjustments for their seatbelts.

And so it's not about the child's age so much as is about where is that seatbelt fitting. And so if they found an opportunity where their adjustment came down and it fit where it was supposed to fit, that kid wouldn't need a booster seat. Right. And so it just depends. Not all vehicles have that.

My vehicle has it in the front seat, not the back seat. Right. And so it just down because, you know, I'm, I'm, I'm not under the age of 13, but the difference between my husband and I sitting in a vehicle, I have to move it down so it sits perfectly.

So it really is about safety and sitting perfectly.

Okay, so with the bill being moved, that means I can't ask the rest of my questions?

No, it does not. I'm sorry. Through the chair.

Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. That was a great way to distract me though, whoever did that to me.

So the data that's being used as I'm looking at this information, when we're saying 3%, so it looks like kids are 3% more likely to be in an accident or to be more hurt or maybe potentially a fatal accident if it's 3% more. How are we isolating California?

Is there a way for us to isolate California from, you know, the rest of the.

As was noted from Assemblymember Ward that he was interested in seeing California data. So we're going to get that data to you just as it relates to California, as the data we're using is national. So we'll provide that to not only Assemblymember Ward, as I noted, to the members of the Committee.

Okay, just bear with me. Okay. And then there's also this, the data, it says, in 2021 there was a rise, you know, as opposed, you know, from 2020 to 2021. Can we potentially get the information as to what caused that rise?

Was it because of COVID more people are driving or was there some other information? I would love to be able to like, understand what that was about. The rise from 2020 to 2021, although.

There are more vehicles, of course, on the road from 2020 to 2021, if you note, there's been a steady increase every year after that. So of course, we saw with data across the board, not just as it relates to child industries, but traffic accidents, everything.

In comparison of the number of cars that we had on the road in 2020 compared to the number of cars on the road in 2021, you were definitely going to see a rise.

And that's why within the analysis, the Transportation Committee did note all the way up till 2024 to see that there was a rising trend year after year after year. There continues to be a rising trend in fatalities for children. I'm sorry, in violations, not fatalities for child safety violations.

Thank you. And then since it sounds like you're going to be bringing some information back, if we can, for the, where it references the 12-year-olds. If we can determine if there is.

Where are you looking?

I'm sorry, there was a reference to more.

Looks like more teenagers are, you know, 12 and 12, 12 to 16 is it? Hold on one second.

Are you thinking of the 8 to 12 age group?

Are you noticing something in the analysis?

Yeah, it was in the analysis and it spoke about the. I'm sorry, I got all kind of notes. It spoke about 12-year-olds, 12 to 16-year-olds.

It requires a passenger in the front seat, 13 to 16 year old to pass the five step test. Is that what you're saying?

I'm referring to more injuries based on an age. And my question was going to be is your data shows anything about whether these are teen drivers because of the age. I'm just wondering if these are just accidents in general or if they're.

It's focusing on passengers.

Right, but if they're the passengers in accidents that are involving teen drivers. And the reason I'm asking is because it specifically talked about the elevated rate of incidents for that age where mostly, you know, your young people are driving with other young people. So I was wondering if there was any.

I would say it would not matter in the sense that if I am a passenger in a vehicle and I have on a seatbelt, whether it's a teen driver or adult driver, there is an incident. And the data proves that if my seatbelt doesn't work for me, I will have a greater chance of injury.

So we want. So we would say that we want our children to be safe. The purpose of this bill is to allow children to be safe no matter who's driving the vehicle.

Okay, thank you. I do appreciate that and I don't disagree with that. And so I just want to go on record saying that I definitely appreciate the bill and that I do support the bill.

And after our conversation, just for awareness, I do trust the Committee to continue to work on some of the concerns that we have as this progresses. And I do also have the concern regarding what we do with young people who will be in pickup trucks where there is no opportunity to be in the back seat.

So it sounds like you've already made the commitment to work through those issues.

And so I look forward to being able to work through those issues because it is important that we keep our young people safe and we want to make sure that we're doing it in the way that makes, you know, the most sense for the state. So thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblyman Ransom, Assemblymember Hadwick.

A lot of mine got answered, but I am most concerned about the pickup trucks. I come from a very rural district and very poor district, so not being able to transport their children could literally be life or death for them, I mean they're not going to school, which is also. We have chronic absenteeism there too.

So that I'm most concerned about that. I also wondered why this wasn't considered to be a secondary violation for. Or did you guys.

It wasn't something we discussed. So it's something to consider. Yeah. As we work through, as we try to navigate around the bill. And maybe they discussed it, but I hadn't discussed it. I saw a mic move. So I'm gonna see if. Did you want to make a comment on secondary versus primary. Okay.

But as was noted, I appreciate bringing up the issue with a two-passenger vehicle and definitely going to take that into consideration and how we navigate around that. Should there be an adjustment or accommodate. You know, we'll figure it out. You have my commitment.

Thank you. Assemblymember Curry.

Thank you. I appreciate the questions and your time and commitment to this. I do have a wild question. Right down the street where I live, there's little league going on right now and they all pile in the vans.

And it makes me wonder how that would be implemented if you're going to try to make sure those kids are all belted. And granted it's a parent's prerogative, I guess to make sure they're belted in or whatever. But I just worry about the fact that how are we going to implement this if we're going to have a whole van full of children with their own little booster seats?

Basically. So it happens as a note, the law currently exists for 8-year-olds. And so when my kids were younger, and it's been around for a minute, as one of the parents who literally was in charge of driving and doing the pooling to getting kids. Kids carried their booster seats is what happened.

And we threw them all in the car with the booster seats and they had their own booster seat. And so it was just common practice. It wasn't even if that parent did it, we dropped them off with their booster seat and they got in a booster seat with the other parent.

So I think it's just a matter of behavior is that God forbid something happens, we want our children to be safe.

I totally agree with you. But I see what happens in my little rural community. Yeah. And people don't. And they don't have their booster seats. And they don't have that extra money for a booster seat. They're just, so anyway.

I'm just saying the one. And for, in our particular household, it was our, you know, took it out of my car. Here you go. There's your booster seat. Right. It's just calm. It starts to be common practice where, and it's intentional that if there was an accident, less, less, you know, less harm, less chance of death if that child's in a booster seat.

You know how it is. I'm just being devil's advocate. I'm just trying to. Is that, you know, they get out, out of school and they go right from the school room to the softball field right there. And they're coming from a school with a booster seat and all that.

They're not getting into mom and dad's because they're all working. So.

And I get it and I can't tell you how many times I've seen people open up the truck and kids pop out of the trunk. Right. Like, you know, like people are doing unsafe things. The goal is to get people to do more safe things.

We're not asking them to buy a new one. We're just asking to keep the one they have longer.

Yeah. All right. Thank you. Assemblymember Tangapa.

Thank you. And so what worries me about this bill is when I was about 12 years old, I was 6 foot and 210 pounds. I'm the smallest out of my siblings. And what would we take into account where there are multiple siblings coming from a big, very large Polynesian family.

I feel like it really puts us at a disadvantage, especially when my younger brother at that same time was 8 years old and he was about 250 pounds. And.

And would it not apply to you, but I'll let the technician.

Those kids are going to pass the five step test a lot earlier. Right. Because you're tall.

So even underneath the, the age requirements, still just passing the five step test is where.

At this, yeah. At this point, you need to remain in your booster seat until you turn age 10. And then 10, 11, 12 is when we would look at that five-step test. And so looking at kids under 10, we need to maybe have that conversation.

But again, because you're tall, you would pass that step a lot earlier. So the way I always explain it in Sacramento, at least pick your own NBA team. But I always say in the back seat, in your car seat or booster seat until you pass the five-step test.

And if your dad is one of the Sacramento Kings, you're going to pass it a lot earlier.

And I think the current law is age 8. And so we just increased the law. But that's where as you work through the legislative process, you can make adjustments and if you find that if somebody can pass that, I mean the whole point is, you know, not to make the booster car seats money. Right.

The whole point is to keep people safe in the, in the event of an accident. And so I, I, it was already noted. You likely would have passed that test earlier so wouldn't need it.

But we can keep in mind the ability to pass this earlier if it, if it's in conflict with an age group. And also remember item number five is that they can stay seated like that for the whole trip.

And so sometimes someone in that early, in that age group of like eight where the law exists now, maybe they can fit it, but without that extra restraint they wouldn't stay seated.

They're more apt to have the judgment of let me go grab that thing and get out of my seat because I'm going to go grab this, my toy that fell. Whereas someone older would have the maturity to know that while the car is moving they can't do that. You get what I mean?

The other question I had too is I have a friend who owns a. Like they sell the electrical golf carts neighborhood 35 mile an hour carts. How would that affect, does this apply. To those same neighborhood golf carts?

It does not apply. It's only in, I guess that is a vehicle. But no, it wouldn't apply to a golf cart or an ATV.

Golf cart, I don't mean it in the sense, I mean it more of their. You can get them license. A license plate vehicle. Yeah. Yes. So how would it apply to those. Because their neighborhood and community meeting are. They sell specifically to like those 15-minute communities where you have, where a lot of people drive on their.

I keep wanting to call it a golf cart. It's not a golf cart. They even tell me not to call it a golf cart.

Yes, it would not apply.

It does not. Unfortunately. Although I tell you a lot of lawmakers and folks have come to me very concerned about those kiddos. Unfortunately it would not apply to those low-speed vehicles.

And I think there's only one restraint that can be used in them as well. I mean most of the safety seat manufacturers do not want them used in those vehicles because they don't have the equipment to do that.

They're not crash tested to be used on.

Is there a section in here that makes it to where it exempts those low speed vehicles?

They're not discussed at all.

Because it's in the current, because this is building on the current law and that current law doesn't apply to them.

Interesting. It just.

I hear somebody saying, not true. I might have been staff versus not. But if. If we can figure that out. Because the point is for it not to apply to them. And as I understand it, the current law doesn't apply to them for the eight or under. So if that's not true, we're happy to clarify.

Because like I said, the vehicle, the booster seats, the child protective seats are not crash tested for that. They're not intended for that. You can cause some. You know, just because something is safe in one product and safe in one vehicle putting in another vehicle to make it unsafe. So that is not our intention at all.

So you have my commitment to address that if it. If. If we find that it does. And I would ask that, if you see that, that you give us great clarity and highlighting that within the language so that we can address it.

So so far we don't see it, but if you do, we want to know about it.

I'd love to work together on that. And you know, when we just. Whatever language we can amend to show that we have that specifically in language. So that way we can protect that community.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Thank you. Any other questions from committee? All right. Hearing none. I'd like to invite the author to close on the bill.

I appreciate the robust discussion that we have. As Transportation Chair, I focus this year on putting together a safety package. This is part of that safety package. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Assemblymember Jackson and a second by Assemblymember Rogers. Secretary, could you call the roll, please?

AB 435 by Wilson. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, that's 12 votes. And do we have any more open the roll. Do we still. So we'll keep the roll open.

All right. We will reset from the beginning to give an opportunity for members of our committee to add on bills that have already been heard or voted on. First, we have our committee rules. Madam Secretary.

Aguiar-Curry. Aguiar-Curry. Aye. Tangipa. Tangipa. Aye. Ward.

We'll try to see if we can get Ward. So I'll leave it open just that we've gotten to 15, and we'll check to see if Ward is returning. Our proposed consent calendar, we had seven bills, Madam Secretary.

Aguiar-Curry. Aguiar-Curry. I Tangipa. Tangipa. I. Ransom, Ward.

We have 14. We'll confirm if other members are returning. Moving on to item number five. AB612, Rogers.

AB612, Rogers. Tangipa aye.

Curry on that one.

That was. Okay, so that bill has 16 votes. It is out. All present, ain't accounting for. All right, we will do a quick confirmation of other members, and if they're not, we'll- we'll begin to call out and close the roll. Just to confirm on- on consent calendar, we did get 16, so all those bills are out of our committee.

All right. We were able to confirm that we did have on item number 15. I'm sorry, item number five, AB612, Rogers. We did have 16 votes. Or is every- is it. Was it 16 ayes? 16 ayes. So everyone accounted for.

With that, the rules of the committee is we do not need everyone to vote on rules. It had 15 votes, so we will- or 14. 15 votes, so we will close that out. And with that, we thank everybody for their time. Transportation Committee is adjourned.