California Legislation Watch: Weekly Update

This week and the next are busy ones in Sacramento. Next Friday, May 2, is the last day policy committees (e.g. Transportation and Housing) can discuss bills that require a hearing in any fiscal committees (e.g. Appropriations).

leg watch sacto

  • A.B. 2398, Marc Levine (D-San Rafael): The “vulnerable road user law” that raises the fines for drivers convicted of causing bodily injury to a vulnerable road user, passed out of the Transportation Committee on a 13-0 vote. It now goes to the Appropriations Committee.
  • A.B. 2337, Eric Linder (R-Corona): When a driver is convicted of a hit-and-run crash that results in death or serious injury, the DMV is required to revoke the driver’s license for one year. This bill increases the license suspension from one to two years. It passed unanimously in the Assembly Transportation Committee and then the entire Assembly this week, and now proceeds to the Senate.
  • A.B. 2197, Kevin Mullin (D-South San Francisco): This bill would require the DMV to create a temporary license plate system so that new cars would be identifiable to law enforcement, toll collection agencies, crash witnesses, and hit-and-run victims. It passed the Transportation Committee on a 10-1 vote, with five Republican assembly members abstaining, and now goes to the Appropriations Committee.
  • A related bill, A.B. 1864 from Tom Daly (D-Anaheim), would merely shorten the period a new vehicle can be driven without plates from 90 days to 75 days. This one passed the same committee on a unanimous vote (16-0).
  • S.B. 1183, DeSaulnier (D-Concord): As Streetsblog reported earlier this week, the originally-proposed bicycle tax has become a motor vehicle registration fee. This amendment takes the bill out of the Governance and Finance Committee and gives it to the Transportation Committee, which is scheduled to hear it on April 30.
  • A.B. 2173, Steven Bradford (D-Gardena): this bill would allow low-speed electric bicycles in bike lanes and paths. This could be an important accommodation for would-be bicyclists who need an assist, such as seniors, bicyclists carrying cargo, parents hauling kids, and bicyclists in hilly areas or where the route choice is between a freeway or an adjacent bike path (for example, along the causeway between Sacramento and Davis). The bill was amended this week to redefine what constitutes a “low-speed electric bicycle.” The California Bicycle Coalition would prefer a lower speed than that set in the bill, but bike advocates are general supportive.
  • A.B. 1922, Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles): This bill passed out of the Assembly Committee on Local Government and now goes to Appropriations. Called the Greenway Development and Sustainment Act, it would support the development of open space along rivers, including the Los Angeles River, by defining “greenway” and allowing cities to designate land as such.

For social media coverage focused on statewide issues, follow Melanie @currymel on Twitter or like our Facebook page here.

  • Fakey McFakename

    Could you list the vote thresholds? With the Ds having lost supermajority in Senate, if it’s 2/3 vote, the bill will die unless it has R supporters.

  • Is your question in regards to the previously-named bike tax bill (all tax and fee increase legislation required 2/3 threshold in passage in legislature, I believe)?

    I see that in the new car registration fee version, “If passed, S.B. 1183 would not automatically impose any fees, but allows cities, counties, and regional parks to propose them for the ballot and seek approval from two-thirds of local voters. The new vehicle registration surcharge would be capped at $5.”
    [cited from
    I checked the leg’ analysis via

    “Ultimately, local government counsels will have to determine a vote threshold at the city, county, or district level. So while this bill is a majority vote measure in the Legislature, the local action to increase the registration surcharge may be a two-thirds vote of the local electorate. ”

    Please let your legislators know that they should support the bill if you support letting voters decide whether “to impose vehicle registration surcharges of not more than $5 for the purpose of funding local bicycle infrastructure improvements and maintenance.”

  • cherylmeril

    The Levine bill is about California stealing more money away from the victim of the accident taking advantage of another’s fault to profit from someone’s misfortune. They do nothing for the victim allowing motorists to get by with $15,000 minimum insurance plans. The greedy depraved criminal politicians in California are looking to gouge everyone and are only out to line their own pockets. Corrupt pigs! They really think they’re doing good to add fines instead of helping the victim recover.

    When the big earthquake comes, it will be good to wash these worthless hell bound politician parasites out to sea never to return to their corrupt ways.

  • cherylmeril

    As for Steven Bradford’s useless bill, I’ve been on an electric bicycle the past four years and there is no law barring me from riding in the bike lane in San Francisco. EBikes are the least of police worries here, they could care less. Laws aren’t enforced unless there is a real problem, the politician has too much time on his hands pretending to do his job.