Arizona 2025 Regular Session

Arizona House Bill HB2235

Introduced
1/21/25  
Report Pass
1/29/25  
Report Pass
2/3/25  
Engrossed
2/17/25  

Caption

Signs; lane use; civil penalty

Impact

The enactment of HB2235 has implications for lane usage regulations statewide, as it modifies existing laws surrounding driving on the right side of the roadway. It presents a civil penalty of $200 for violations, aligning with section 28-721 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. By establishing clear expectations for lane usage through signage, the bill seeks to enhance traffic safety and encourage compliance among drivers, which may lead to a reduction in accidents caused by lane blocking.

Summary

House Bill 2235 introduces modifications to existing traffic regulations in Arizona by adding section 28-654 to the Arizona Revised Statutes. This bill mandates the placement of signs on Interstates 8, 10, and 40, instructing slower traffic to keep right and allowing only passing in the left lane. These signs will serve to regulate lane usage and aim to improve traffic flow across major highways in the state. The proposed signage must specify that slower traffic should avoid the farthest left lane, thereby promoting safe driving practices on these busy routes.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding HB2235 appears to lean towards a proactive approach to traffic management. Proponents of the bill likely view it as a necessary reform to address increasing traffic congestion and accidents on major highways. The emphasis on educational information in defensive driving courses highlights a commitment to public safety and responsible driving. However, as with any legislation affecting drivers, there may be opposing views regarding the imposition of civil penalties, with some arguing that fines may disproportionately impact low-income drivers.

Contention

Notable points of contention may arise around the practical enforcement of the new lane usage regulations. Questions could be raised regarding the effectiveness of signage and whether drivers will comply with the directives without consistent enforcement from law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, discussions may center around whether the penalties are adequately deterrent or punitive. The implementation of these regulations could also invoke debates about local control versus state mandates in traffic regulation, impacting how local authorities manage their road safety initiatives.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

NJ S1911

Establishes "Internet Predator Investigation and Prosecution Fund" with $200 assessment on persons convicted of certain offenses.

MO SB817

Authorizes a tax credit for certain charitable donations

CA SB834

Criminal records: relief.

NJ S1913

Requires additional fines for certain crimes against minors to fund Amber Alert system.

MO SB190

Establishes tax credits for certain engineering degrees

NV AB34

Revises provisions relating to certain crimes. (BDR 15-443)

NJ S2788

Appropriates $128.241 million from constitutionally dedicated CBT revenues to State Agriculture Development Committee for farmland preservation purposes.

CA AB1308

Residential building permits: fees: inspections.