The October changes to the California Highways webpage are up. You can click here for the gory details. This month brings a lot of chaptered bills, including a few of interesting to the non-roadgeeks out there:
-
AB 2600 (Lieu) Vehicles: HOV lanes.
Existing law provides for the Department of Transportation to designate certain lanes for the exclusive use of high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs), which lanes may also be used by certain low-emission and hybrid vehicles not carrying the requisite number of passengers otherwise required for use of an HOV lane if the vehicles display a valid identifier issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles until January 1, 2008. Existing law requires the department to make available for issuance, no more than 75,000 distinctive decals, labels, and other identifiers for certain hybrid or alternative fuel vehicles meeting specified mileage and emission standards. Existing law authorizes, but does not require, the Bay Area Toll Authority to grant toll-free or reduced-rate passage on the state-owned Bay Area toll bridges to any vehicle. Existing law requires that if such authority is exercised the same toll-free or reduced rate passage be extended to certain low-emission vehicles and hybrid vehicles displaying the identifier issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles, until January 1, 2008, subject to various conditions. This bill would extend these provisions until January 1, 2011, or until the Director of Transportation determines that federal law does not authorize the state to allow these low-emission and hybrid vehicles to so operate in HOV lanes, whichever occurs first. This bill would increase the number of described distinctive decals, labels, and other identifiers that are required to be issued by the department to no more than 85,000, rather than no more than 75,000. Existing law prohibits, until January 1, 2008, a person from operating or owning a vehicle that displays a decal, label, or other identifier if that identifier was not issued to that vehicle. Existing law provides that a violation of this prohibition is a misdemeanor. This bill would extend this prohibition to January 1, 2011 or until the Director of Transportation makes a determination regarding federal law, as specified . Because a violation of this prohibition is a crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.
Chaptered September 29, 2006. Chapter 614. -
AB 2977 (Mullin) Swimming pool safety.
Existing law, the Swimming Pool Safety Act, generally provides that, on and after January 1, 1998, whenever a building permit is issued forconstruction of a new swimming pool at a private, single-family home, the pool shall be equipped with at least one of 5 specified safety features, including: (1) a pool enclosure; (2) a safety pool cover; (3) exit alarms on doors providing direct access to the pool; (4) self-closing, self-latching device with a release mechanism on doors providing direct access to the pool; or (5) other means of protection, if the degree of protection afforded is equal to or greater than any of the specified devices. This bill would set forth legislative findings, declarations, and intent to enact the Swimming Pool and Spa Safety Act of 2006 to better protect the children of this state. This bill would revise the above provision to provide that, on and after January 1, 2007, whenever a building permitis issued for construction of a new swimming pool or spa, or for the structural remodeling of an existing pool or spa, at a private, single-family home, the pool shall be equipped with at least 1 of the 7 drowning prevention safety features, including the 5 devices specified above, except that a device as specified by an ordinance governing child access to pools would no longer be an authorized device and a spa must also be covered with a lockable or latchable cover, plus (6) removable mesh fencing meeting standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM); and (7) swimming pool alarms meeting ASTM standards. The bill would provide that prior to the issuance of any final approval for the completion of permitted construction or remodeling work, the local building official shall inspect to ensure that the above standards are met and that the drowning prevention safety features are in good working condition.. The bill would provide that prior to the issuance of any final approval for the completion of permitted construction or remodeling work, the local building official shall certify that the above standards are met and that the drowning prevention safety features are in good working condition. Existing law provides that any person entering into an agreement to build a swimming pool shall give the consumer notice of the requirements of the Swimming Pool Safety Act. This bill would require this consumer notice to also be given when the person enters into an agreement to build a spa or to remodel an existing pool or spa. Existing law provides that whenever a construction permit is issued for the construction of a new swimming pool or spa, the pool or spa shall meet specified requirements, including that any backup safety system that an owner of a new swimming pool or spa may choose to install shall meet specified standards of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission issued in January 1998. This bill would update the citation to the backup safety system standards by referring to those issued by the commission in March 2005 and would also provide that whenever a building permit is issued for the modification of a single family home with an existing swimming pool, toddler pool, or spa, the permit shall require that the suction outlet of the existing swimming pool, toddler pool, or spa be upgraded so as to be equipped with an anti-entrapment cover meeting the current standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials or the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Chaptered September 26, 2006. Chapter 478. -
SB 1613 (Simitian) Vehicles: wireless telephones.
Under existing law, it is a crime for a person to drive a schoolbus or transit vehicle while using a wireless telephone, except for certain work-related or emergency purposes. This bill would make it an infraction, operative July 1, 2008, to drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone, unless that telephone is designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking operation, and is used in that manner while driving. This offense would be punishable by a base fine of $20 for a first offense and $50 for each subsequent offense. The bill would provide that this prohibition does not apply to a person who is using the cellular telephone to contact a law enforcement agency or public safety entity for emergency purposes, or to an emergency services professional while he or she operates an authorized emergency vehicle, as specified. The bill also would prohibit the assignment of a violation point for a violation of the above. The bill also would provide, until July 1, 2011, that this prohibition does not apply to a person when using a digital 2-way radio service that utilizes a wireless telephone that operates by depressing a push-to-talk feature and does not require immediate proximity to the ear of the user, and that person is driving a motor truck or truck tractor, as respectively defined, a listed or described implement of husbandry, a listed farm vehicle, or a tow truck, as defined. The bill would specify that these provisions do not apply to a person driving a schoolbus or transit vehicle that is subject to certain existing wireless telephone usage restrictions, and would specify that the restrictions contained in this bill do not apply to a person while driving a motor vehicle on private property.
Chaptered September 15, 2006. Chapter 290.
Now that that’s done, time to go clean the house and finish laundry…
