California Assembly Bill AB708

California 2019-2020 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/19/19
• Refer: 2/28/19
• Report Pass: 3/25/19
• Refer: 3/26/19
• Report Pass: 4/2/19
• Refer: 4/2/19
• Refer: 5/8/19
• Report Pass: 5/16/19
• Engrossed: 5/22/19
• Refer: 5/23/19
• Refer: 5/29/19
• Report Pass: 7/2/19
• Refer: 7/2/19
• Report Pass: 7/9/19
• Refer: 7/10/19
• Refer: 8/12/19
• Report Pass: 8/30/19
• Enrolled: 9/9/19
• Chaptered: 9/20/19
• Passed: 9/20/19

Caption

Traffic violator schools.

Impact

The enactment of AB 708 is intended to enhance the integrity and effectiveness of traffic violator schools by ensuring they meet specific quality standards. The requirement for schools to not only maintain a physical business location but also to adhere to operational guidelines, such as having a lesson plan approved by the Department of Motor Vehicles, is aimed at improving the educational services offered to those attending these schools for driving violations. This legislation reflects an effort to standardize traffic education and promote compliance with driving laws.

Summary

Assembly Bill 708 focuses on the requirements and regulations governing traffic violator schools in California. The bill amends, repeals, and adds provisions to Section 11202 of the Vehicle Code. It aims to establish clearer operational criteria for such schools, which includes securing a bond before they can be licensed to operate. The bond amounts are stipulated based on instructional modalities: $15,000 for home study schools and $2,000 for classroom-based schools. Additionally, these schools must maintain specific business practices, equipment, and presence within defined operational standards.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding AB 708 appears to be supportive, as it seeks to establish a framework that fosters better educational outcomes for individuals required to attend traffic school due to violations. Proponents of the bill argue that these stricter regulations will lead to improved safety on the roads by ensuring that learners receive adequate instruction. However, there may be concerns regarding the increased burden on small traffic schools that may find it difficult to comply with these new regulations.

Contention

While the bill is designed with good intentions to standardize and improve the quality of traffic violator schools, some stakeholders may contend that the financial requirements, such as filing bonds, can be disproportionately high for smaller operators. The stipulation of not being within 500 feet of a court further limits where these schools can operate, potentially leading to complications for existing institutions that do not meet the new criteria. Such regulations create a contentious landscape where the balance between regulation and operational viability for traffic schools must be carefully managed.