The measures now move to the opposite houses of the Legislature, a point where similar efforts have struggled in past years. If approved, the bills would affect drivers statewide, including across Southern California and the Inland Empire, where DUI enforcement and roadway safety remain frequent concerns for law enforcement and families of crash victims.

Hearings this spring exposed a sharp policy divide. Families who have lost loved ones in crashes, along with lawmakers pushing for tougher penalties, argued that California has too often allowed dangerous drivers to remain on the road. Progressive organizations, including the ACLU and other advocacy groups, urged lawmakers to focus more heavily on road design, traffic calming and prevention rather than expanding criminal penalties.

At a March hearing of the Assembly Public Safety Committee, Danica Rodarmel, speaking for Debt Free Justice California, opposed broader requirements for ignition interlock devices — in-car breathalyzers used by some DUI offenders. She said the systems can be costly and difficult for some drivers to manage.

“If we’re serious about prevention, we have to design systems that people can easily comply with,” Rodarmel told lawmakers. “I also understand that these concerns sound really minuscule when we’re talking about it compared to lives.”

Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, a Southern California Democrat who is again trying to expand use of the devices, responded by focusing on the stakes.

“I could not agree more with that sentiment,” she said.

Among the bills still moving forward are two measures, AB 1662 and SB 953, aimed at closing what supporters call a diversion loophole. California’s diversion program is intended to help lower-level offenders avoid the long-term consequences of a criminal conviction. But in some cases, judges have granted diversion to drivers accused of killing someone, meaning the cases were not reported to the Department of Motor Vehicles and the drivers kept clean records. Critics say that can leave a driver facing less lasting punishment than someone cited for speeding.

AB 1830 would expand ignition interlock requirements. Most states require all people convicted of DUI to install the devices, but California currently mandates them mainly for repeat offenders or DUI crashes involving injuries. Even those requirements are not always enforced by courts, according to prior reporting on the issue.

AB 1546 would increase consequences for repeat DUI offenses. Under current law, prosecutors generally must wait until a fourth DUI within 10 years before charging the offense as a felony. The bill would make a third DUI within that period a “wobbler,” allowing prosecutors to pursue either misdemeanor or felony charges. It also would extend ignition interlock requirements or license suspensions for drivers with four or more DUIs in a decade.

SB 1198 would lengthen license suspensions and vehicle impoundment periods for drivers convicted of reckless driving.

Three other bills remain alive but have been narrowed.

SB 907 originally included five major provisions to increase DUI penalties. The remaining portions would add prison time for some repeat DUI offenders, enhance penalties for hit-and-run cases involving drivers with prior DUIs, and make it easier to charge repeat drunken drivers with murder if they kill someone. Removed provisions would have classified vehicular manslaughter as a violent felony in some cases and added prison time for fatal crashes involving multiple victims.

AB 1685 would change how vehicular manslaughter convictions count against a driver’s license. Currently, a vehicular manslaughter conviction counts as two points; a speeding ticket counts as one, and four points in 12 months can trigger a suspension. The original bill would have made all vehicular manslaughter convictions count as three points. As amended, it adds a third point only when the driver was intoxicated and acted with gross negligence.

AB 1687 would address license revocations for serious repeat offenses. State law now requires the DMV to revoke a license for three years after most felony vehicular manslaughter convictions or a third DUI. The bill initially would have required an eight-year revocation. The current version would allow, but not require, the DMV to impose the longer period.

Several other proposals have stalled or failed.

AB 1723 and AB 1874 sought to change when license revocation periods begin. Courts have sometimes failed to report manslaughter convictions to the DMV. When those cases were later flagged, the DMV has treated the revocation as if it began on the conviction date, meaning some drivers never actually lost their licenses. One proposal would have required the revocation period to begin when the DMV takes action; the other would have started the period when a driver is released from jail or prison after a manslaughter conviction.

AB 1686 would have allowed prosecutors to charge a second or third DUI as a felony, rather than generally waiting until a fourth DUI.

AB 1747 would have made all DUI vehicular manslaughter cases felonies. Under current California law, a driver who kills someone while intoxicated can still face a misdemeanor if prosecutors determine the driver did not act with gross negligence. The bill failed in the Assembly Public Safety Committee after labor and human rights groups argued that existing law gives prosecutors appropriate discretion.

AB 1748 would have doubled the license suspension for a first-time DUI from six months to one year, lengthened suspensions for repeat offenders and required permanent license revocation after five DUI convictions within 10 years. It was rejected by the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

AB 2276 proposed a pilot program for “intelligent speed assistance” technology. Similar in concept to ignition interlock devices for DUI offenders, the proposal would have tested technology intended to prevent people convicted of reckless driving from speeding.

AB 1605 and AB 1867 were modeled on a Utah law restricting alcohol sales to repeat DUI offenders. The California proposals would have required the DMV to mark licenses with language such as “No alcohol sales” or “Repeat serious DUI offender.” One version included a lifetime ban on alcohol purchases for the most serious repeat offenders. The bills did not advance.

AB 1814 would have expanded law enforcement training requirements for field sobriety testing, drug recognition or impaired-driving investigations. The proposal failed to meet a key May legislative deadline.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Eight “License to Kill” Bills Advance in State Legislature appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

After sentencing Chase Daniel Jones last month to more than 17 years in prison, the judge tacked on a novel condition should he drive again: His vehicle must be equipped with a device that prevents accelerating far beyond the speed limit.

Virginia this year became the first state to agree to give its judges such a tool to deal with the most dangerous drivers on the road. Washington, D.C., already is using it and similar measures await governors’ signatures in Washington state and Georgia. New York and California also could soon tap the GPS-based technology to help combat a recent national spike in traffic deaths.

“It’s a horror no one should have to experience,” said Amy Cohen, who founded the victims’ advocacy group Families for Safe Streets after her 12-year-old son, Sammy Cohen Eckstein, was killed by a speeding driver in front of their New York home more than a decade ago.

Turning tragedy into activism

Andrea Hudson, 38, the minivan driver who was killed when Jones ran a red light, was building a backyard greenhouse with her husband to help educate several kids who shuttle between homes during the school day, her father, Ted Smith, said.

Also killed in the March 2024 crash near Hudson’s home in Renton, Washington, were Boyd “Buster” Brown and Eloise Wilcoxson, both 12, and Matilda Wilcoxson, 13. Hudson’s two children were sitting on the passenger side and survived, but they spent weeks in a hospital.

“You always hear of these horrific accidents, and it’s always far away, you don’t know anybody. But all of a sudden, that’s my daughter,” Smith said. “This guy did not swerve or brake. And it was just a missile.”

Smith knew Washington state Rep. Mari Leavitt, who reached out to offer condolences and tell him she was sponsoring legislation to mandate intelligent speed assistance devices as a condition for habitual speeders to get back their suspended licenses.

Leavitt predicts it will have an even more powerful impact than revoking driving privileges, citing studies showing around three-quarters of people who lose their licenses get behind a wheel anyway.

Between 2019 and 2024, the state saw a 200% increase in drivers cited for going at least 50 mph (80 kph) over the speed limit, according to the Washington Traffic Safety Commission.

“I guess I don’t understand why someone is compelled to want to drive that fast,” Leavitt said. “But if they choose to drive that fast with the speed limiter, they can’t. It’s going to stop them in their tracks.”

The measure, which Washington legislators passed last month and Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson is expected to soon sign, is called the BEAM Act, using the first letters of the names of the four victims: Buster, Eloise, Andrea and Matilda.

Because Jones, 19, didn’t receive a speeding ticket in his two previous crashes, he likely wouldn’t have been required to use the speed-limiter ahead of the fatal one. And because it could be 2029 before the law takes effect, the judge’s requirement at sentencing only applies to his time on probation after being released from prison, Smith said.

Evolution of a safety tool

Competing tech companies that joined forces to lobby for ignition interlock requirements for drunken drivers have been working in unison again the last few years to pitch intelligent speed assistance.

Brandy Nannini, chief government affairs officer at one manufacturer, Grapevine, Texas-based Smart Start, said fleet vehicles including school buses in the nation’s capital have been trying it out for years.

But it took a lot of refinement before the GPS technology could instantly recognize speed limit changes and compel vehicles with the devices installed to adjust accordingly.

“We’ve got a lot more satellites in the sky now,” said Ken Denton, a retired police officer who is the chief compliance officer at Cincinnati-based LifeSafer, part of the coalition of companies.

When court-mandated, the devices would prevent cars from exceeding speed limits or whatever threshold regulators set. An override button allows speeding in emergencies, but states can decide whether to activate it and authorities would be alerted any time the button is pushed.

A more passive version, which beeps to alert drivers when they are going too fast, is required for new cars in the European Union. California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a similar proposal last year, explaining vehicle safety requirements are set by the federal government and he was concerned a patchwork of state laws could stir confusion.

Parents take up the cause

Before Del. Patrick Hope agreed to sponsor the proposal in the Virginia Legislature, he tried out the device in Nannini’s car, which was calibrated to not go more than 9 mph (14 kph) over the speed limit.

“That was my first question: Is it safe?” Hope said.

Not only did he come away convinced it is, Hope is now pondering whether to install it on the cars of his three children, all of whom are new drivers.

For those mandated by a court, the price could be hefty: $4 per day and a $100 installation fee. The fee would be less for low-income offenders.

Cohen with Families for Safe Streets, which provides support services to the loved ones of crash victims, knows firsthand the kind of impact slowing down speeders can make. A year after her son was struck and killed in front of their New York apartment, another boy was injured in the same spot.

By then, the road’s speed limit had been lowered.

“That boy lived when he was hit, and mine did not,” she said. “When you are going a few miles slower, there’s more time to stop. And when you hit somebody, it’s much less likely to be deadly.”

The post US states push for speed-limiting devices on the cars of dangerous drivers appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The crash occurred at 5:09 p.m. Sunday in the intersection of Magnolia Avenue and Myers Street, in the Arlington area, according to Riverside police Sgt. Emilio Angulo.

Arriving officers and firefighters found the motorcyclist suffering from severe injuries, Angulo said. “The motorcyclist was transported to a local hospital and later succumbed to his injuries.”

His identity was not immediately released.

The driver of the other vehicle involved in the crash remained at the scene and was cooperating with the investigation, Angulo said.

It was not known whether drugs or alcohol were contributing factors in the crash, he said.

Anyone with information was urged to contact Traffic Detective Jeff Derouin at 951-826-8722 or Jderouin@riversideca.gov.

The post Motorcyclist Killed In Riverside Crash appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

California would have become the first to require such systems for all new cars, trucks and buses sold in the state starting in 2030. The bill, aimed at reducing traffic deaths, would have mandated that vehicles beep at drivers when they exceed the speed limit by at least 10 mph (16kph).

The European Union has passed similar legislation to encourage drivers to slow down. California’s proposal would have provided exceptions for emergency vehicles, motorcycles and motorized scooters.

In explaining his veto, Newsom said federal law already dictates vehicle safety standards and adding California-specific requirements would create a patchwork of regulations.

The National Highway Traffic Safety “is also actively evaluating intelligent speed assistance systems, and imposing state-level mandates at this time risks disrupting these ongoing federal assessments,” the Democratic governor said.

Opponents, including automotive groups and the state Chamber of Commerce, said such regulations should be decided by the federal government, which earlier this year established new requirements for automatic emergency braking to curb traffic deaths. Republican lawmakers also said the proposal could make cars more expensive and distract drivers.

The legislation would have likely impacted all new car sales in the U.S., since the California market is so large that car manufacturers would likely just make all of their vehicles comply.

California often throws that weight around to influence national and even international policy. The state has set its own emission standards for cars for decades, rules that more than a dozen other states have also adopted. And when California announced it would eventually ban the sale of new gas-powered cars, major automakers soon followed with their own announcement to phase out fossil-fuel vehicles.

Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener, who sponsored the bill, called the veto a setback for street safety.

“California should have led on this crisis as Wisconsin did in passing the first seatbelt mandate in 1961,” Wiener said in a statement. “Instead, this veto resigns Californians to a completely unnecessary risk of fatality.”

The speeding alert technology, known as intelligent speed assistance, uses GPS to compare a vehicle’s pace with a dataset of posted limits. If the car is at least 10 mph (16 kph) over, the system emits a single, brief, visual and audio alert.

The proposal would have required the state to maintain a list of posted speed limits, and it’s likely that those would not include local roads or recent changes in speed limits, resulting in conflicts.

The technology has been used in the U.S. and Europe for years. Starting in July, the European Union will require all new cars to have the technology, although drivers would be able to turn it off. At least 18 manufacturers including Ford, BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Nissan, have already offered some form of speed limiters on some models sold in America, according to the National Transportation Safety Board.

The National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 10% of all car crashes reported to police in 2021 were related to speeding. This was especially a problem in California, where 35% of traffic fatalities were speeding-related — the second highest in the country, according to a legislative analysis of the proposal.

Last year the NTSB recommended federal regulators require all new cars to alert drivers when they speed. Their recommendation came after a crash in January 2022, when a man with a history of speeding violations ran a red light at more than 100 mph (161 kph) and struck a minivan, killing himself and eight other people.

The post California governor vetoes bill requiring speeding alerts in new cars appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Still, the intensity of that response caught the Democratic lawmaker from San Francisco by surprise.

“It did touch a nerve,” Weiner said in an interview. “The day that I announced the original version of the bill, one of my very best friends in the world texted me to tell me what a terrible idea it was. And then 10 minutes later, his boyfriend texted me to say, ‘thank you for getting my boyfriend to slow down.’”

Your car probably tells you when you’re running out of gas. It might alert you when you drift out of your lane. Now California lawmakers want to go a step further, requiring technology in your car to warn you when you’re speeding.

Safety advocates say speed assistance technology can reduce traffic deaths, but critics say California is moving too fast.

“What they’re trying to do is to impose their will on the rest of the country,” said Jay Beeber with the National Motorists Association, a driver advocacy group.

To understand why Wiener’s bill has been so divisive, it helps to know how speed assistance technology works. There’s an “active” version, which can physically stop drivers from exceeding the speed limit. But there’s also a “passive” version of speed assistance that only warns the driver when they’re going too fast.

After the initial pushback, Wiener changed his bill from active to passive speed assistance. And while some safety advocates might be disappointed, Wiener defends the decision.

“We listened and we heard,” Wiener said. “Once we looked at the studies, we saw that the passive speed limiter is also highly effective. And so I was comfortable making that change.”

There were political calculations involved, as well.

“The bill would not have passed with the active speed limiter,” Wiener conceded. “And it did pass with the passive speed limiter.”

The bill approved by the California legislature over the weekend would require all new cars sold in the state to warn drivers if they’re going more than 10 miles per hour over the speed limit. California would be the first state in the country to mandate speed assistance technology, starting with the 2030 model year.

The bill has some big backers, including the National Transportation Safety Board.

“Broad deployment of intelligent speed assistance would reduce the frequency of speeding and speeding-related crashes… saving lives and preventing injuries,” the NTSB wrote in support of the California bill, “and we applaud you for pursuing this policy.”

The NTSB can make recommendations, but it cannot force automakers to add speed assistance.

Critics of California’s bill say it’s too much, too soon.

“The technology is not perfect,” Beeber said in an interview. “You’re gonna have a lot of false positives.”

It’s easy for speed assistance technology to get confused, Beeber says, especially between highways and nearby surface streets with vastly different speed limits. He thinks that will annoy and potentially distract drivers.

“Unfortunately our cars right now are kind of in the business of distracting us,” Beeber said. “I think this increases distracted driving.”

The auto industry doesn’t like the speed assistance bill, either.

Speed assistance systems “rely on clear and visible speed limit signs placed at regular intervals to function properly,” wrote the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, an industry trade group, in comments opposing the bill.

“That sort of infrastructure is in place in Europe,” where passive speed assistance is already mandatory. “But it is severely lacking in the U.S. As a result, many/most intelligent speed assist systems are glitchy and unreliable in the U.S.,” the group wrote.

“It’s another example of California’s overreach,” said Karen Bailey-Chapman, with the Specialty Equipment Market Association, an industry trade group, in an interview.

California is a huge market for carmakers, and Bailey-Chapman says the state is trying to bully its way into setting policy for the whole country.

“We believe that the authority for regulations stands firmly within the federal government,” she said.

But the bill’s sponsor, Scott Wiener, says California can’t wait for federal regulators.

“I would love for the federal government to require this technology nationally,” he said. “But there is no indication – no real indication – that the federal government’s going to do that.”

Wiener compares the situation to the early 1960s, when Wisconsin moved to require seat belts more than six years before the federal government did.

“How many lives have been saved because Wisconsin stepped out ahead of the federal government in 1962 and required seatbelts, which started a domino effect nationally?,” he asked.

California’s speed assistance bill now heads to the desk of Governor Gavin Newsom, who has until the end of the month to decide whether he’ll sign it into law.

The post Should your car warn you that you’re speeding? California lawmakers vote yes appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WINCHESTER, CA—A French Valley resident is leading the charge toward improving walkability near the French Valley Public Library. The pending Skyview Bridge, which is planned to traverse the French Valley Channel, may resolve the issue.

This week, Nelson Cooper launched a Change.org petition to support the construction of a sidewalk near the French Valley Public Library off Winchester Road. According to Cooper, the library’s access is far from safe. Thus far, nearly 175 people have signed the petition that calls for safe access to a county-run library.

“Every day, children and individuals without vehicles in our community are forced to walk along Winchester Road, where cars travel at speeds of 55 miles per hour or more,” Cooper wrote on the petition. “This dangerous situation arises due to the lack of a safe sidewalk leading to the French Valley Public Library. “

Though the California Highway Patrol’s Temecula Division has reported no incidents in that section of roadway in the past several months, the four-lane road is often heavy with traffic.

Cooper says that the risk this poses for pedestrians “is alarming and unacceptable,” and in his petition, he cited statistics from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, where pedestrian fatalities accounted for 17 percent of all traffic deaths in California. “This statistic underscores the urgent need for safer pedestrian infrastructure in our neighborhoods,” he said.

The Riverside County Transportation Department plans to begin construction of a pedestrian bridge in the fall of 2024.

According to Riverside County Transportation Department officer Umer Ahmed, pedestrians will be able to traverse the gap along Skyview Road at French Valley Creek.

The footbridge will extend Skyview Road, allowing better pedestrian traffic access from the neighborhood south of the county library, including the Susan LaVorgna Elementary School.

One parent responded to the plea for signatures, saying he used to drive his daughter to the library for tutoring “because of the bad road. “She would have walked no problem if there was a directly accessible route.

Another resident claimed not to support the Skyview pedestrian walkway. “The real wrinkle in this is that the creek is environmentally protected so the street bridge that should be there never will be. The walkway is silly. I don’t think there are folks on the other side of Skyview wondering how they can get to the library.”

Meanwhile, residents who filed the petition feel that the construction of a sidewalk along Winchester Road would provide a safer route not only for library-goers but also for those who use this road daily.

“We urge local authorities in Winchester to prioritize pedestrian safety by constructing a safe sidewalk along Winchester Road leading up to the French Valley Public Library,” he said. “By doing so, we can protect our children and fellow citizens from unnecessary risks while promoting accessibility and encouraging walking as an eco-friendly mode of transportation.”

Cooper asks that you sign the petition “if you believe everyone deserves safe access to public amenities like our library.”

The post Residents Seek To Improve French Valley Library Access, Petition Filed appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

At approximately 9:17 p.m., the 44-year-old motorcyclist was riding westbound on SR-74 on a Honda CBF nearing Betty Road in unincorporated Perris. He was traveling at an undetermined speed and did not have a signal or stop sign.

A 52-year-old Hesperia woman behind the wheel of a Toyota Highlander was on Betty Road nearing SR-74. She had a stop sign at the T intersection and complied, but apparently did not see the motorcyclist and pulled in front of him, the CHP reported.

The man could not stop his bike in time and crashed into the SUV. He was ejected and died at the scene. He was wearing a helmet, according to the CHP.

The man’s identity is pending notification of next of kin.

The woman and her 53-year-old male passenger were not injured, the CHP reported.

Alcohol and/or drugs are not suspected to be crash factors, and there were no arrests, but charges “may be pending” as the investigation progresses, CHP Officer Mike Lassig said.

Anyone who witnessed the incident is asked to call the CHP, Temecula Area office at 951-466-4300.

The post Lake Elsinore Motorcyclist Killed In SR-74 Crash: CHP Report appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

File # N/A

Details:

ELK GROVE – California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Director Barbara Rooney today issued the following statement after the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released its early estimate of traffic fatalities for the first quarter of 2022, projecting an estimated 9,560 people died in vehicle crashes between January and March of this year, including 944 in California:

“There is no doubt we are experiencing a crisis on our roads. The early estimates from NHTSA show a surge in roadway deaths throughout the country during the first three months of the year – the likes of which we have not seen in two decades – and that one-in-every-10 traffic deaths happen in California.

We are addressing this crisis with the urgency it warrants and doing everything possible to deliver new approaches that will reverse this terrible trend. It will take every tool at our disposal – behavioral changes, enforcement against the most dangerous driving behaviors, safer road design with safer speeds – to provide multiple layers of protection for everyone on the road. The goal is zero deaths, and we will not stop working toward that goal until we reach a point where zero deaths are a permanent way of life.”

For media inquiries regarding this incident please contact the Media Information Bureau.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Office of Traffic Safety Director Issues Statement on 2022 Traffic Fatality Preliminary Data appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The Be Wiser Youth Traffic Safety Project funding ($170,000) will be used at 12 middle and high schools throughout Riverside County for education and training, according to Rebecca Antillon, program coordinator who oversees the grants with Riverside University Health System (RUHS) Public Health. Public Health officials will also encourage youngsters to promote safety among their peers and educate parents on the dangers of unsafe driving practices.

The College Community Against Drugged, Drunk, and Distracted Driving funding ($107,500) will be used at four college campuses in Riverside County.

“Young people are the future and it is important they are protected through education and training when they get behind the wheel,” said Kim Saruwatari, director of RUHS-PH.

Funding is administered by RUHS-PH and provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety. Administration.

To learn more about the Injury Prevention Services Program, visit www.rivcoips.org

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post RUHS Public Health receives grants to encourage young motorist to improve driving habits appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

CHP officers throughout the state will host in-person presentations and use Web-based or virtual platforms to conduct distracted driving traffic safety presentations. In addition, the CHP will conduct several distracted driving enforcement operations through September 30, 2021.

“Distracted driving continues to be a serious issue on our roadway, and it is entirely avoidable,” CHP Commissioner Warren Stanley said. “With the support of this grant, we can implement lifesaving efforts throughout California that will raise awareness and hopefully change dangerous behavior behind the wheel.”

Multitasking behind the wheel places extra demands on the driver, which can have tragic consequences.

On average, there are more than 20,000 drivers in California involved in a crash every year where inattention is a factor. “These statistics are likely much higher and are often under-reported to law enforcement since motorists do not always admit to driving distracted,” Commissioner Stanley added.

While there are many forms of inattention, cell phones continue to be the main source of diversion. Using a handheld cell phone while driving is not only a violation of the vehicle code, it is also an unsafe activity behind the wheel. Drivers should only use a phone when necessary and in a hands-free mode.

Funding for this program was provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The mission of the CHP is to provide the highest level of Safety, Service, and Security.

-chp.ca.gov

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post CHP FOCUSED ON ELIMINATING DISTRACTED DRIVING appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.