California 2017-2018 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB390

Introduced
2/9/17  
Introduced
2/9/17  
Refer
2/21/17  
Refer
2/21/17  
Report Pass
5/9/17  
Engrossed
5/11/17  
Refer
5/11/17  
Refer
5/11/17  
Refer
5/24/17  
Report Pass
6/12/17  
Refer
6/12/17  
Refer
6/12/17  
Report Pass
7/12/17  
Report Pass
7/12/17  
Refer
7/13/17  
Refer
7/13/17  
Refer
8/28/17  
Refer
8/28/17  
Report Pass
9/1/17  
Enrolled
9/11/17  
Enrolled
9/11/17  
Chaptered
10/2/17  

Caption

Pedestrian crossing signals.

Impact

The enactment of AB 390 potentially alters existing state laws by redefining certain infractions related to pedestrian crossings. As the bill creates a new definition of crime concerning pedestrian signal violations, it necessitates the development of a state-mandated local program. However, the bill stipulates that no reimbursement is required to local agencies or school districts for any costs associated with this change. This could lead to inconsistencies in how the law is implemented across various jurisdictions if local agencies choose not to adopt identical procedures.

Summary

Assembly Bill 390, introduced by Santiago, aims to amend Section 21456 of the Vehicle Code to enhance pedestrian safety at intersections with pedestrian control signals. The primary modification allows pedestrians facing a flashing 'DONT WALK' or 'WAIT' signal with a countdown timer to initiate their crossing, given they complete it before the signal shifts to a steady 'DONT WALK' or 'WAIT' indication. This change is designed to clarify pedestrian rights and improve traffic flow by making the crossing experience less ambiguous for both pedestrians and motorists.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding AB 390 is supportive, particularly from advocacy groups focused on pedestrian rights and safety. Proponents believe the bill will significantly reduce pedestrian accidents by providing clear guidance on crossing behaviors when faced with conflicting signals. Critics of the bill may express concerns regarding the potential for confusion among pedestrians and drivers, particularly in how the signal changes might be interpreted across different intersections.

Contention

Notable points of contention regarding AB 390 revolve around the changes to existing traffic laws and the responsibilities imposed on local jurisdictions. Opponents may raise issues about the adequacy of public education campaigns to inform both drivers and pedestrians of these new crossing rules. Additionally, concerns about enforcement and compliance with the new regulations could lead to debates over local agency capabilities and funding.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB1909

Vehicles: bicycle omnibus bill.

CA SB671

Pedestrian crossing signals.

CA AB2264

Pedestrian crossing signals.

CA AB2147

Pedestrians.

CA AB1139

Development permits: commercial shopping centers: pedestrian accessibility.