California 2017-2018 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SB578

Introduced
2/17/17  
Introduced
2/17/17  
Refer
3/2/17  
Refer
3/2/17  
Refer
4/17/17  
Failed
2/1/18  

Caption

Highways: Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone.

Impact

The bill places a strong emphasis on improving public safety on highways, particularly in higher-risk areas where traffic violations can lead to serious accidents. By enacting this double fine zone, SB578 aims to deter dangerous driving behaviors, such as speeding or driving under the influence, thereby contributing to a reduction in traffic accidents and fatalities. The measure also includes obligatory assessments of the effectiveness of the double fine zone, requiring a report to be submitted that evaluates traffic volume, speed, and collision data both before and after the establishment of the zone. This reflection allows legislators to ascertain the zone's impact and decide on its future.

Summary

Senate Bill 578, introduced by Senator Glazer, is focused on establishing a Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone along a specific segment of Vasco Road in California. The bill aims to enhance traffic safety by permitting increased penalties for certain traffic violations within the designated area. This would be applicable to the stretch of county highway extending from the State Highway Route 580 junction in Alameda County to the Marsh Creek Road intersection in Contra Costa County, contingent upon local governing bodies approving the designation through a resolution. The initiative seeks not only to impose stricter penalties but also requires local authorities to undertake awareness campaigns and implement safety measures in coordination with this regulation.

Sentiment

The discussions surrounding SB578 have generally been positive, with supporters emphasizing the increased safety for all road users. Advocates believe that the double fine penalties can lead to greater adherence to traffic laws, translating into safer road conditions. However, there are concerns about the fairness of imposing higher fines, particularly for lower-income individuals who may be disproportionately affected by fines. Opponents of the bill might argue that while intentions are good, enforcement could lead to an increase in financial strain on those targeted by the penalties.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the balance between enhanced safety and the potential for overreach in fine enforcement, as well as the need to ensure adequate public education about the new changes. Critics may question whether the necessary public awareness campaigns will be effectively executed to inform the community about the implications of driving in the double fine zone. Additionally, there are discussions about how lawmakers will address any disparities in traffic fine impacts across varying demographics, ensuring equitable treatment for all drivers regardless of their socio-economic status.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB1145

State highways: safety: State Highway Route 74: report.

WV HB2871

Relating to the crime of negligent homicide

CA AB3085

Vehicles: removal and impoundment.

CA AB1760

Fish and Game Code.

CA AB2198

Vehicles: driving under the influence.

CA AB74

Vehicles: street takeovers, sideshows, and racing.

VT H0222

An act relating to reducing overdoses

CA AB186

Controlled substances: overdose prevention program.