Assembly Transportation Committee, Monday, April 6, 2026
Derzeit keine Kapitel verfügbar
Legende
Markierungen im Transkript
- Text Aktuell abgespielter Satz
- Text Suchergebnis
- Text Redebeitrag, auf den der geöffnete Link verweist
Klicken Sie auf einen Satz, um das Video ab dieser Stelle abzuspielen. Markieren Sie Text, um ihn mit Redner, Zeitstempel und Link zu zitieren.
Weitere Optionen
Assembly Transportation Committee California State Assembly
Ihren Sitzungen folgenRedner 22
Thank you, Madam Chair. Ryan Spencer, on behalf of the bill sponsors, the California Orthopedic Association. I'd simply like to thank the author for taking on this important measure and the committee staff for all their work on it as well. I'd like to leave my remaining comments for Doctor. Lalonde, who is not only from Rady's Children's Hospital, but also a member of the California Orthopedic Association.
Redner 4
Good afternoon. As stated, I'm doctor Francois Alon. I'm a pediatric orthopedic surgeon at Rady Children's Hospital in Orange County, which is a busy level one trauma center. And just a few words briefly. This year, we had the unfortunate event of piggyback or dying at the scene, and the the driver was severely injured.
So we we're seeing firsthand, you know, the major trauma and life altering events that can happen. We feel that there's other factors that are beyond what's been discussed, including this could be a last minute decision for the piggyback rider to ride on the bicycle. They may not have a helmet. They may not have a bike of their own. They may not be aware of the speeds that these bikes go.
They're not in a good position on a bicycle to brace themselves. There's an impact. This was an e bike versus car accident at high speed. And they often will get launched well beyond the bicycle because they're not aware of what's going on on the road. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you, for that testimony. Moving on now to those in support of the bill, name, affiliation, and position.
Redner 5
Good afternoon, chair and members. Carlin Shelby on behalf of the cities of Irvine, Danville, Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and Saint Ramon. Very strong support. Thank you.
Redner 7
Ethan Nagler on behalf of the city of Carlsbad and the town of Hillsborough in support.
Good afternoon. Irena Rapichan on behalf of AAA Northern California in support.
Redner 8
Madam chair and members, Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the city of Huntington Beach in support.
Redner 9
Hi. Good afternoon. Angela Hill with the California Medical Association in support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Now moving on to opposition. I believe we do have opposition testimony.
Redner 10
All right. Now I'm on. Good afternoon, chair and members. I'm Jeannie Wardwaller representing People for Apologies for our late letter, and thank you for hearing the bill. People for Bikes is the national advocate and trade association for US manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors of bicycle products, including low speed electric bikes.
While we share the goal of improving safety for all PATH users, we are concerned that AB sixteen fourteen unnecessarily expands existing bicycle operation requirements to Class I trails in a way that could risk creating new barriers to safe and accessible riding. By prohibiting common low risk behaviors, the bill could criminalize everyday use, particularly among youth, families, lower income riders who rely on bicycles for transportation and recreation. We don't believe these changes will meaningfully improve safety outcomes and instead could increase the likelihood of unnecessary law enforcement interactions on shared use paths. California has been a national leader in promoting bicycling as a safe, practical, and inclusive mode of transportation, and we worry that AB sixteen fourteen runs counter to those goals. So we urge a no vote on AB sixteen fourteen.
Redner 1
Thank you for that testimony. Now moving on to members of the public who also are in opposition. Now be appropriate time to come forward noting your name, affiliation, and position? Seeing none, moving it back to committee to see if there's any comments, questions, or concerns. We are still waiting on a quorum.
Redner 11
Vice Chair Davies. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just listening to this, I live my district is South Orange County in North San Diego. And I would say this is probably the number one topic if I ask anyone in any community. And I can tell you that I've watched kids with three people three kids on a bike before and probably under the age of 10.
And I'm just a little concerned about how it would actually affect because to me, if you have one rider, that's one less injury you're having. And so to me, that would be a safer route. And again, they aren't aware. They're underage. And I can tell you that a lot of the parents don't even know how fast these bikes go.
So that's really, for me, it's education. And I know we're trying to bring parents education. But I think this is a really good start. And I would ask to I'm going to support it, and I would ask to be coauthor on it. Any
Redner 1
other comments? Alright. Well, then I'll note to thank you to the Assembly Member for bringing this bill forward. The rules of the road that apply for bicycles on streets, which also applies to them on sidewalks, should also apply for them on bicycle paths. And so we made this change in 2018, applying that you couldn't do piggybacking on streets and sidewalks, and so now this is about adding it onto the bicycle paths.
And it will make sure that our kids are not piggybacking on bicycles or e bikes when they're riding their bicycles no matter where they are, which is an important safety measure. I'm going to be supporting this bill, and when it's appropriate, we'll ask for a motion in a second, but I'll give you an opportunity to close.
Redner 1
Thank you. Alright. Moving on, I see the author present. Moving on to file item number five, AB 2,193. Assembly Member Ty, you can begin at your convenience.
Make sure you turn your mic on.
Redner 3
Hi. Good morning, madam chair and member of the committee. I first want to accept the committee amendment, and I want to thanks the committee staff for their work on on the issue. AB nine twenty one ninety three is a common sense view that that bring clarity, accountability, and fairness to California rolling autonomous vehicle industry. AB twenty one ninety three ensure that the manufacturer of autonomous vehicle technology is responsible for any traffic enforcement sedation that are issued for violation.
Redner 12
Autonomous vehicle are no longer just a thing of the future. They operate in our street to companies like Waymo and Bruce LLC. Unfortunately, our traffic law have not kept pace with this technology. AB twenty one ninety three asked for a very, very simple question. When a fully driverless vehicle commit a traffic violation, who do you sign?
AB twenty one ninety three fix a problem by establish a clear and fair rules. If no one is in the driver's seat, the manufacturer of the driverless system is responsible. AB twenty one ninety three does not intend to slow innovation. What it does, it ensure that innovation operate within an accountability framework. AB 2,193 ensure that as we move into the future of transportation, responsibility remain clear enforcement remain possible, and the public remain protected.
I'm pleased to introduce Matt Broad with the Teamster and Louis Gustaf with the Smart Transportation Division to testify.
Redner 18
Thank you, madam chair and members. Matt Broad here on behalf of Teamsters California. Just wanted to say we're in strong support of AB two thousand one ninety three. It's a common sense measure that creates and restores parity. What goes for human beings should go for autonomous vehicle.
Redner 13
A couple of years ago, there was a bill by former assembly member Ting, AB seventeen seventy seven, that dealt with the issue of how do we properly enforce against autonomous vehicles. And that bill kind of came up with a notice of noncompliance that police officers could assign to a vehicle, a navy, that made a mistake. We thought, at the time, continue to think that, that was a mistake and that, no police officer in their right mind was gonna take the time to do a notice of noncompliance if there was no financial penalty there. And so I think that bill takes us this bill takes us back to sort of restore that issue. And, going forward, the only thing I think, that can make this bill even better is just thinking about the issue of compounding, penalties.
So for example, when a Teamster member or myself or any of you, get multiple tickets, you can have points on your license, which can affect your ability to have a license in the long term. I think there's probably some wisdom in thinking about that for an autonomous vehicle manufacturer where you may not have the same driver, but you have the the software system malfunctioning, across, multiple vehicles. And with that, I think this bill's a great start, and we're happy to support it. Thank you.
Redner 14
Good afternoon, madam chair and members. Louis Costa with Smart Transportation Division. We're also here in strong support of the bill. I'm not gonna repeat what mister Broad has already said in some of the member talk because we we're in line with all of those comments. I will just say, however, we represent bus operators and and school bus operators.
Had countless accounts from our school bus operators, specifically in San Francisco, where these vehicles are not complying with the valid stop sign on the side of a bus and flashing red lights. If an autonomous vehicle goes through there and I go through there right behind them, I'm gonna get stopped and get cited for the same reasons that mister Broad said that could compound into some serious concerns for me later. But that vehicle has nothing but a slap on the hands. They don't do it again. The autonomous vehicle industry can tell you at least tells us it's safer than human operators.
Why should they not be then held accountable to the same requirements as human operators? For those reasons, we ask for your support here today. Thanks.
Redner 1
Thank you. Now moving on to members of the public who would like to add on their support, name, affiliation, and position, please. Oh, wait. Let's get the mic turned on.
Redner 12
Thank you. Good afternoon, chairmembers. Elmer Lazarda here with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Now moving on to opposition. We don't have any registered on file, but I would like to give an opportunity for members of the public who would like to note their opposition to this bill to please come forward. Now would be an appropriate time to do so with their name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving to now to members of the committee.
Are there any comments, questions, or concerns? Alright. Seeing none, just noting we are still operating as a subcommittee, so encouraging members of
Redner 1
committee to report to duty so we can establish a quorum. With that, I'd like to thank you, Assembly Member, for bringing this forward and accepting the committee amendments. I, too, was concerned when AB seventeen seventy seven was amended to only require a notice of noncompliance to be issued to an AV company and that penalties associated with such notice were unspecified. And so, I appreciate your work to clear up when an AV company should be held criminally liable under our vehicle code. Thank you once again for working with the committee to be able to get the language right.
And so I'm supporting your bill today, and at appropriate time, we'll ask for a motion and a second, but I will give you an opportunity to close.
Redner 12
I really appreciate your comment, and I want to thank all the committee staff for working with our office. And I continue to continue to work on this issue to address all the concerns that you may have in the future, and I respectfully ask your your I vote. Thank you so
Redner 1
Alright. With that, we were moving on to the next author who is present. And so we're moving on to item number eight, a b twenty six twenty nine, and that is Chin. You, assembly member, you can begin at your convenience. Okay.
Make sure you turn that mic on.
Redner 19
Will do, madam chair. Thank you so much for your time and I want to thank your staff for their extensive work on this bill. They did an incredible job. AB2629 will prohibit business partners that provide online vehicle registration services from charging excessive fees for the same services offered directly by the DMV by establishing a reasonable cap to prevent Californians from being price gouged. The Business Partner Automation Program authorizes DMV to contract private business partners to provide electronic registration and titling services to process registrations for the public, along with several other vehicle related interactions.
Redner 16
Currently, many partners impersonate the DMV website and use fine print disclosures to clarify their affiliation, With these unclear disclosures permitting throughout BPA Business Partners, registration and services website, Californians pay excessive fees for registration services that can be found on the DMV website at no additional cost. As there is no cap on what these business partners can charge, many do have exorbitant hidden fees that price gas consumers and cost Californians billions of dollars in unnecessary fees. Our bill would prohibit business partners that handle online vehicle registration services from charging more than 5% above the fees that DMV charges for the same service. Our bill is narrow in scope and helps protect consumers from being tricked into paying more than is necessary. I'm very happy to have with us today people who testify Mr.
Robert Harrell, here on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California, Nalian Pearson, also a consumer.
Redner 4
Chairperson and committee members, my name is Alan Peterson. In 2024, I was not aware that the DMV authorized third parties to process card registration renewals for an additional fee, essentially tax farming. Unaware of this, I mistakenly renewed my registration through a company called Need Tags, whose website is designed to mimic the DMV. The result was I paid an additional $73, 33% above the DMV fees. I contacted seven on your side, which resulted in my speaking to this committee in 2025 in support of a b eleven ninety.
Redner 17
That bill died in the senate suspense file without even a vote. It's now 2026. And, again, I'm speaking to this committee, this time on behalf of a b twenty six twenty nine, capping the service charge at 5%. If this bill had been enacted prior to 2024, I would have only paid $11 extra and said, fine. I was tricked by need tags, but I've learned my lesson.
How many of your constituents have been hurt by the DMV need tags? How many have paid for an average renewal an additional $106 to need tags instead of the $16 allowed by this bill. How many cannot afford that extra $90? Pass the bill. Work with your colleagues in the senate to pass this bill.
I have spent more money coming to speak to this committee than the $73 I lost to need tags. I don't wanna have to come back in 2027, but I will keep coming back until Californians are protected from the DMV need tags collusion. Thank you.
Redner 19
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. My name is Robert Herrell. I'm the Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California. We're proud to be the sponsor of this measure. As the other witness indicated, this is a narrower version of a bill last year that you heard by Assemblymember Haney, AB eleven ninety, which passed this committee on bipartisan vote.
This bill is a bit narrower because it's just focused on registration services. So we think this should be pretty straightforward for the members of the committee. Second of three points I'd like to make is that, as you heard from the witness, some sites are spoofing, as we say, the look and feel of the California DMV site. Others are not. But what the others do is even if they don't have the look and feel of the California DMV site, they sort of hide behind the imprimatur of this partner program.
So the reasonable consumer expectation is that, Oh, if you're a DMV partner, then I'm going to pay the same amount as if I was on the DMV website. But as you all know now, that's not the case. In fact, there is no cap whatsoever on the amount of upcharge that can be charged by these partners to consumers. And therein lies the problem. And the third and final point I'll make is that one of the challenges here is that the Partner Program was created decades ago when we were in a different place.
Redner 20
And I understand the rationale at the time for the creation of the program. You wanted people out of the DMV offices to handle as much as they could with the partners or now online. But the times have changed enough where I actually think that beyond just this bill, it's probably ripe for a refresh and a relook at the whole partner program to begin with. Because what's happening far too frequently is that people are being ripped off into thinking that they're getting something for the same price of the DMV, but they're not. And I would just note, the DMV is more than a little complicit in this because they get a piece of the action for every transaction.
Redner 19
And so it's a sort of confluence of factors that have led to the need for Assemblymember Haney's bill last year and Assemblymember Chen's bill this year. We urge an I vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. I'm now looking for any members of the public who would like to also lend their support to this bill. Now would be an appropriate time to come forward with name, affiliation, and position? Seeing none, we'll move on to opposition testimony. As I understand it, we do have registered opposition.
Redner 20
Thank you, madam chair members. John Winger here on behalf of Samba Safety. We're a first line business partner with the DMV and have hundreds of second line business partner clients that would be impacted by this bill. Obviously, we would disagree with the characterization of this program. We believe this has been a pretty successful public private partnership between us and the DMV.
The program helps modernize how essential transactions are processed. It shifts routine workloads away from the government offices so that staff can focus on more complex needs. It's reduced administrative burdens, improved data accuracy by minimizing manual entry, and made service access faster and more convenient for the public. I think I would agree that the DMV website has gotten better. It's been improved, but there's still a lot of services that the DMV cannot provide online.
And when that happens, if you do not use a business partner, then you do have to go to a field office, which we're trying to move away from. Some of those examples would be somebody that needs language services, somebody that's scared to go to the field office because of immigration enforcement. There's a lot of other complex transactions that can be handled through a business partner that cannot be handled through the DMV online database. So, obviously, our biggest concern with the bill is that the 5% cap is well below the cost of doing business and would essentially cause major disruptions with the business model. We have fixed or our our second line folks have fixed and unavoidable expenses such as licensing fees, staff salaries, equipment, customer support, all of which cannot be covered by the proposed fee structure in this bill.
Redner 13
The result would be massive reductions or closures from the business partnership program and an increase in field office visits. I I would like to, in closing, just say thank you to the author and staff for the productive conversations that we've had. We look forward to continuing to have those those conversations. But as the bill's proposed right now, it's untenable for our clients, and so we are opposed. Thank you.
Redner 21
Good afternoon, madam chair and committee members. My name is Brandon Burnt. I'm the CEO of carregistration.com, a family owned business in Elk Grove, California with dozens of employees. We respectfully oppose a b twenty six twenty nine. At its core, the bill imposes a strict 5% cap on additional fees that licensed registration service providers can charge for services also offered by the DMV.
While that may sound reasonable on paper, in practice it would fundamentally undermine the business partner automation program. Private partners like us do far more process than process simple DMV transactions. We help Californians navigate complex, time consuming, and often confusing situations every day. That includes out of state transfers with missing documentation, registration holds tied to compliance issues, title corrections, and other transactions that often require multiple steps and significant guidance. In many cases, our customers are not just looking for a transaction, they're looking for help.
They want to speak with someone, walk through the issue, and get it resolved correctly. That is especially true for elderly Californians and others who cannot easily spend hours waiting in line or making repeated trips to the field offices. This is important this is an important point. The problem that this bill is trying to address is exactly the kind of gap our services help solve. But at these rates, it's simply not economically workable to operate a California business that provides that level of support, staffing, compliance oversight, customer care, regardless of whether the transaction begins online.
Redner 8
Our company alone averages over 3,000 calls per month. Over time, we have served millions of Californians and completed millions of transactions with only a very small number of complaints. That record reflects the value of service we provide and the trust customers place in us. We have also generated more than $16,000,000 in revenue for the DMV, and a portion of those funds support DMV system improvements. So this is not a system we are taking from, it is a system we are helping sustain.
Redner 21
The policy issue here is straightforward. This bill reduces service capacity without reducing demand. It weakens a proven public partner private partnership with replacing the value that partnerships provide. The real world impact will be fewer service options for Californians, more pressure on DMV field offices, longer waiter times, and greater frustration in the public. It also puts California jobs and small businesses at risk.
This is not just about convenience. It's about access, efficiency, and preserving a working system that millions that serves millions of Californians. And for this reason, we respectfully urge a no vote on AB 2,629.
Redner 1
Okay. Thank you. You gave a little extra time because I did give the gentleman sixteen seconds. You got eighteen seconds beyond two minutes, so we were trying to be fair. With that, I'm going to look to members of the audience who would like to register their opposition as well.
Name, affiliation, and position.
Redner 22
Hi, good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm Meg Snyder with Acxiom Advisors here on behalf of eTags. Align our comments with Sampa in opposition. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Before I come to committee for questions, comments, and concerns, we now have an accord. Thank you, Assemblymember Bappen. All right. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 23
Davies here. Aguirre. Aguirre. Present. Arons.
Carrillo. Carrillo present. Arabidian. Hart. Hoover, Jackson, Jackson here, Lackey, Moseto, Happen, Happen here, Ransom, Ransom here, Rogers here, Sharp Collins, Sharp Collins here, Ward.
Redner 1
Alright. We have a quorum. With that, I'm bringing it back to committee for any questions, comments, or concerns on this bill. Assembly member Ransom.
Redner 18
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just curious as to how we landed at 5%. That was a question because we know that I think I appreciate that the bill does handle concerns with spoofs and the fact that some people could think that they're going to a DMV site, but there are also folks who just want to avoid the DMV and who want convenience and having been one of those people. You know, I just want to know, like, how do we land at 5%? Do we find that to be a workable number as far as leaving an appropriate level of profit and then also covering what it takes to do that job?
Redner 1
And I can answer that for you, Assembly Member Chen. Excuse me. As was noted, this was in our committee last year, was 1%, and we amended it to five.
Redner 18
I know. I understand that. But I want to know, like, I understand that we amended it to five, but how do we decide that five was a number that was appropriate to charge folks to do this particular service?
Redner 18
I understand that. I understand what the committee is saying, but I would like to hear from the folks who are supporting the bill how it just was that just a negotiation, or do we feel that that is a sufficient amount?
Redner 16
Assemblymember, thank you so much for the question. Like Madam Chair said early on, one, as you said before, that this is a bill that we incorporated from someone in Matt Haney. So that was part of the negotiation process from 1% to 5%. I will say that discussions that we have currently opposition is clearly specifically based on the cap rate of what that percentage would be appropriate. And that right now is a discussion that is ongoing.
Truth be told, I am confident that this is something that we can resolve as we move forward in the committee process. Additionally, would also say that the bill has been amended to a point where it's specifically just for registration and loan, which means some of the concerns that the opposition had, be it issues with immigration or ICE or language, is severely diminished based on that. But also we'll defer to my witness testimony in terms of some of the percentage numbers for some more technical answering, if Mr. Robert Farrell would please answer that.
Redner 19
Thank you, Assemblymember, for the question. Look, we at the Consumer Federation of California always wanted to have a reasonable conversation. But I do think that one of the things that needs to be clear is that people know that they can go to the DMV website or what have you, let's just focus on the website and not have to pay anything above this. If you pay by credit card, for example, I think you pay, I want to say, a 2% fee. It could be off.
It's the interchange bank fee, basically. And that's it. But you're paying the same amount. So I think that's the part that really seems to The consumer complaints that we get into our offices at CFC, and that I know some other offices have received as well, are focused on this notion of, I didn't know until it was too late. And then after the fact, when they try to circle back with some of these partner companies, the customer service is atrocious.
To the point where when the DMV was asked about any issues relating to this by a media outlet, they said, Well, if there's a problem, go talk to the AG, which we don't think is a sufficient response.
Redner 18
I understand that and I don't disagree with that. I'm just curious as to the 5%. And the reason for my question is sometimes people will choose that they want to not deal with DMV. And also, I've seen, you know, if your registration is late, there's sometimes that you cannot go through the DMV website and for convenience you may want to use another service. But given that the registration amount declines from year to year as your value of your car changes, etc, so 5% when your car is brand new, it's going to be different than 5% when your car is older.
So I want to know, how did we land on 5%?
Redner 19
There was no particular magic. Were some conversations that occurred. And, know, per the author, we're certainly open to continuing those conversations.
Redner 1
So I'll note for the record, excuse me, I had a chance to be around cherry blossoms and didn't realize I was allergic to them. So I'm still recovering. No, no, no. I'm still recovering from that experience. So what I was trying to note is last year, this bill was in our committee, and the author had put it at 1%, and we negotiated it to 5%, primarily because of when you think about it, a fee to do a service is typically somewhere between 510%.
And so we landed on 5%, which was well above 1%, which we didn't think I didn't think as chair was a reasonable amount for an administrative fee charge, but also 10% seemed a bit high, especially because, as was noted through testimony, is that you can do these things online with the DMV for free. Like, there is no charge to do these things through the DMV website and so wanted to keep it more reasonable. So that's where 5% was negotiated last year. And as the author noted during testimony, this was a bill that was picked up from last year because it died in Senate suspense and then it was narrowly tailored. The amount, the fee charge, was not changed.
It kept with the original bill, and then it just what it applied to, the types of services have a cap, whereas other services in the last year's bill did not had a cap this year. You're not touching that. You're just focused on registration. So I just wanted to make sure that I was trying to get it out, I kept coughing, so I kept trying to get off mic. So my apologies, Assembly Member Ransom.
Any other questions, comments, or concerns? Okay. We will actually get to a motion and a second on this bill, but I want to thank you for bringing this back. It was disappointing to hear that it died in the Senate. I appreciate the work that you're doing to protect consumers against unreasonable charges with registration services.
Know, as DMV services have increasingly shifted online, You know, I still, like I did last year, question the need for private industry partners that provide the same service that DMV provides for free on its website. And so that is why, you know, I'm going to support your bill today like I did the other last year. And I appreciate you adjusting it to try to figure out a pathway forward on the Senate side. And so with that, I'll give you an opportunity to close. Thank
Redner 16
you, Madam Chair and committee members. I really appreciate the questions today and the robust discussion. You have my promise that moving forward as well as in previous encounters, I've been talking to the opposition. I'm very confident that we can come up with a suitable number moving forward. That is something that can bring consensus on both sides.
With that, I respectfully ask your I vote, madam chair. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. We have a motion made by Aguirre Currie and seconded by Sharp Collins. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 23
AB 2,629, the motion is due passed to appropriations. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies?
Aye. Davies I. Aguirre Curry? Aguirre Curry I. Arons?
Carrillo? Carrillo I. Harabedian? Hart? Hoover?
Jackson?
Redner 23
Jackson I. Lackey? Mosito? Happen? Happen, I.
Ransom, ransom, not voting, Rogers, I. Rogers, I. Sharp Collins, Sharp Collins, I. Ward.
Redner 1
That bill has eight votes, and so we'll hold the roll open for other members to add on. Before we move on to the rest of our bills, we have two committee members presenting. We'll start from the beginning. That way, those that came early, once those bills are done, you can make your way out. I do call on members of this committee who are not yet present to please come once we finish with the bills.
All the bills, we'll do one more roll through and then otherwise and then close it out. So with that, we noted earlier that we had at least let me see, we have five bills on consent calendar. Those are file item two, AB17.56 File item three, a b twenty fifty five. File item four, a b 1765. File item six, a B2453.
File item seven, AB2541. I'll entertain a motion. Moved by Rogers. Second. Seconded by Davies.
Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 23
Consent calendar. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies?
Aye. Davies, aye. Aguirre Curry? Aguirre Curry I. Arons.
Carrillo. Carrillo I. Harabedian. Hart. Hoover.
Jackson I. Jackson I. Lackey. Macedo. Pappin.
Pappin I. Ransom. Ransom I. Rogers Rogers, aye. Sharp Collins, aye.
Ward.
Redner 1
We have nine votes for the Consent Calendar. We'll hold the roll open for members to add on. Moving on to file items that we heard as a subcommittee. File item one, AB 16.14.
Redner 23
AB 16.14, the motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies?
Aye. Davies, aye. Aguirre? Aguirre Curry, I. Arons?
Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, I.
Redner 1
Nope. Thank you. We did not do a motion. Just jumping ahead. Is there a motion for item thank you.
That is why we have the majority leader on our committee. I know. Right? So item number one that we heard as a subcommittee, AB sixteen fourteen, I'll entertain a
Redner 1
So moved by Davies. I'll second it. Oh, well, there go Rogers. Rogers seconded it. So we have a motion by Davies seconded by Rogers.
With that, madam secretary, now officially call the roll.
Redner 23
A b sixteen fourteen do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Wilson. Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies?
Aye. Davies, aye. Aguirre Curry? Aguirre Curry, I. Arons, Carrillo?
Carrillo, I. Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Jackson?
Redner 23
Jackson, I. Lackey, Macedo, Happen, Happen. I. Ransom. Ransom.
I. Rogers. I. Sharp Collins. Sharp Collins.
I. Ward. We have nine.
Redner 1
That has nine votes. We'll hold the roll open for members to add on. Moving on to item number five, AB 29 sorry, twenty one ninety three. We heard this in subcommittee, so looking for a motion. Moved by Sharp Collins, seconded by Aguirre Curry.
Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 23
AB 2,193, the motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Communications and Conveyance. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies?
Redner 23
Davies, aye. Aguirre? Aguirre, aye. Arons? Carrillo?
Aye. Carrillo, aye. Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Jackson? Aye. Jackson, aye.
Lackey, Macedo, Happen? Happen, I. Ransom? Ransom, I. Rogers?
Rogers, I. Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins, I. Ward?
Redner 1
That bill has nine votes. We'll hold the roll open for members to add on. Now continuing on now that we have a quorum, continuing on in file item order, we have a, file item nine, a b twenty forty six ransom. We have a motion by Davies. Is there a second?
Redner 18
Alright. Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. I am here to present Assembly Bill 2,046. AB 2,046 will expand consumer choice by providing Californians with more access to cleaner, more affordable fuel options. Californians, as we know, consistently pay more at the pump than drivers in other states.
Redner 12
And families are continuing to face growing uncertainty as gas prices spike due to international conflicts and in state refinery closures. AB 2,046 allows E85, a fuel blend consisting of ethanol and gasoline, which is a less carbon intensive fuel option and typically costs less per gallon than regular gasoline to be accessed by drivers. For many Californians, especially commuters like those in my district, using this fuel is a simple practical way to save money. However, E85 is not accessible to many California drivers as California is currently the only state that prohibits the use of E85 conversion kits which is a proven technology allowing vehicles to operate on E85 gasoline. AB 2,046 would allow U.
Redner 18
S. EPA approved e85 conversion kits to operate within the state of California. In doing so, we will give families more flexibility at the pump instead of being locked into higher fuel cost options as they are today. With all of that, I respectfully ask for your I vote. And we have a couple of witnesses here to provide testimony.
We have Alessandra Mayasco, the Senior Director of Government Affairs of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance. And we have Mr. Jeff Wilkerson, the Manager of Government Policy and Regulatory Affairs at Pearson Fuels. And I'm going to turn it over to Alessandra.
Redner 24
Thank you so much, Assembly Member. Good afternoon, chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Alessandra Meniasco, on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance, proud sponsor of AB 2,046. At its core, this bill is about three things Californians care deeply about, lowering costs, reducing emissions, and strengthening our our state's fuel supply.
California drivers face some of the highest and most volatile fuel prices in the nation. Ethanol blends, particularly e 85, offer immediate and meaningful relief. E 85 is typically priced a dollar 50 to $2 per gallon lower than conventional gasoline. At a time when families and small businesses are feeling the strain of high fuel costs, that difference matters. AB 2,046 helps ensure consumers are aware of access this lower cost option.
Additionally, E85 can deliver life cycle greenhouse gas reductions approaching 80% compared to traditional gasoline. That's a significant emissions reduction available today using existing vehicles and infrastructure. Expanding the use of lower carbon fuels like ethanol is a practical and immediate way to support California's climate goals without requiring costly transitions for consumers. Finally, California's fuel supply system is uniquely constrained with limited in state refining capacity and heavy reliance on imports that are vulnerable to global disruptions. Ethanol helps diversify that system.
Redner 26
It is produced from domestic feedstocks, moves through a separate and more flexible supply chain, and is largely insulated from global oil shocks that drive sudden price spikes. Increasing the use of ethanol blends adds stability to California's fuel market and helps reduce pressure on our constrained gasoline supply. Simply put, AB 2,046 is a smart consumer focused policy. It expands access to lower cost fuel, reduces emissions, strengthens the reliability of our fuel supply, all without requiring new technology or new vehicles. We respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 21
Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Jeff Wilkerson from Pearson Fuels, California's largest E85 supplier. Our company distributes E85 through nearly 500 retail gas stations across the state, and we strongly support AB 2,046 as a tangible way to reduce fuel costs for California drivers. E85 is traditionally used in flex fuel vehicles or FFVs in which the driver has the option to choose gasoline or E85 depending on price and availability. AB 2046 would help Californians by allowing them to turn their normal internal combustion engine into an FFE.
Redner 25
Use of E85 in California has increased more than 600% over the last decade, largely driven by station expansion and high gas prices. As Alessandra mentioned, E85 is usually available for $1.5 to $2 per gallon less than gasoline. However, when gas prices spike, like what your constituents are facing now and has become more frequent in California, the savings are more drastic. As gas prices rose above $5 and then $6 per gallon in March, stations in our network on average sold E85 for $2.5 per gallon less than gasoline. We estimate the use of E85 led to savings of nearly $20,000,000 for the state's consumers over the last month.
With expanded access via AB2046, overall savings could reach hundreds of millions, thousands per household, and remove hundreds of thousands of metric tons of GHGs in the process. Absent passage of AB 2,046, this technology will be locked out of California, forcing drivers to pay whatever it costs to commute to work, school, or family engagements. We urge you to vote aye today and help bring needed relief to the pump.
Redner 1
Thank you for the testimony. Now moving to members of the public who would like to add on their support, name, affiliation, and position.
Redner 22
Good afternoon. Meg Snyder with Acxiom Advisors on behalf of Growth Energy in support. Thank you.
Redner 17
Afternoon. Chris Bollinger on behalf of the California Asian Chamber of Commerce also in support.
Redner 26
Hello, Madam Chair. Matt Robinson with the Specialty Equipment Market Association, CEMA, in support.
Redner 15
Good afternoon. John Kendrick on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in support.
Redner 16
Madam Chair and Members, Adam Kegwin on behalf of California LULAC in support.
Redner 28
Good afternoon Chair and Members. Larissa Suspidis here on behalf of the California New Car Dealers Association in support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Now moving on to those in opposition. We don't have any registered on file, but looking to the public to see if there's anybody who would like to note their opposition, now would be an appropriate time to do so. Name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving to members of the committee.
Assembly Member Jackson.
Redner 16
Thank you very much, Assembly Member, for this bill. I think my my question to your witnesses are how how close is this? I mean, this is this bill is actually timely given the rise of gas prices due to international conflict. However, I read that article about Brazil's diversification and how while the rest of us around the world are experiencing such dramatic increases in prices, Brazil is not because of the diversification and particularly with ethanol. Can you talk a little bit about that and how how does this bring us closer to that kind of diversification and how much further we may need to go?
Redner 25
Yeah. Thanks for the question. You're referring to Brazil's vehicle fleet, which is almost exclusively flex fuel vehicles. So they transition between about a 30% blend of ethanol and and a 100%, essentially. We have 1,100,000 flex fuel vehicles on the road today that are capable of using gasoline or E85 switching back and forth.
But what we're trying to do is offer more flexibility to everyday drivers who have a vehicle that will be in their household for years to come. And this will allow them to fill with fuel that's today 2 to $3 cheaper per gallon with fewer carbon emissions throughout the lifetime. We have a long ways to go to meet, where Brazil is at. But we're hopeful that with a voluntary program like this and with where gas prices are, we would see tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of consumers choose this technology as a way to give themselves more flexibility at the pump.
Redner 29
Thank you very much. Assemblymember, thank you for this bill. Obviously, very timely. And I think more work to be done on this and this helps to start that conversation. Thank you very much.
Would love to be a co author if you have me.
Redner 1
Alright. Next, have Assembly Member Arons and then, Assembly Member Carrillo.
Redner 27
Thank you, madam chair. I just wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I think it's really common sense. We don't get enough of these types of bills to address affordability and real world issues, that are affecting our constituents. And, I believe I'm already a proud co author, but I just wanna go on record thanking you for always looking at these kind of common sense solutions that we desperately need and echo the sentiments of my colleague from Southern California about how much we need to be talking more about solutions like this.
And so I wanna thank you for bringing this bill forward and happy to be a coauthor.
Redner 6
Thank you, madam chair. Is there an estimate on what the cost savings would be for per gallon? Also, what the cost is to do that conversion per vehicle? And does it have to be replaced every so often?
Redner 25
Yes. So cost savings on average, 1.5 to $2 per gallon. But now we have a station in the Chairs District that's actually selling for $3.7 below gasoline. So the savings are pretty substantial, which would mean that even on a normal year, we would assume the payback period is less than a year. The installation costs, in addition to the kit, well under $1,000 I think more competition, more kit makers in the market would help bring that cost down.
But I think you're looking at somewhere between 6 to $800 for a kit. And no, you wouldn't need to replace it every few years. It would be one kit, and that should last the life of the vehicle.
Redner 25
Yes. Some domestic and then there are international manufacturers as well. France has a very mature market. So to Assembly Member Jackson's question, France has done this to the tune of the aftermarket community, meaning they don't have as many flex fuel vehicles on the road from the manufacturers, but they have around 260,000 vehicles that have these kits on there already. They also have the price discount of E85 relative to gasoline.
So we're trying to recruit everybody into the marketplace. I think that breeds competition and gives consumers more options when they're looking at trying to buy a kit for their specific vehicle.
Redner 17
As we continue to talk about the affordability process, just wondering if there is any conversations about programs to assist people with being able to even purchase kits.
Redner 18
The first step for us was to make sure that this is a bipartisan and highly valued effort here in the state legislature. And then once this is adopted, I think we can look at I think what you're talking about is equity and how we want to make sure that folks can actually afford it. So that's actually a broader part of the affordability conversation.
Redner 1
All right. With that, thank you so much for bringing this forward. As you know, the California Air Resources Board currently has the authority to approve alternative fuel conversion systems for motor vehicles. And so this bill exempts U. S.
EPA approved E85 conversion kits from that CARB requirement and would allow federally certified E85 conversion kits to be used in California so that we can get to setting up programs and things like that to make it more affordable. We know that doing this will help to increase fuel options for California, and that's why I'm enthusiastically supporting your bill today. I'll give you an opportunity to close.
Redner 18
Thank you, members and chair. Again, it's my pleasure to bring this bill. E85 is already available in California. We already have flex fuel vehicles in California. All throughout gas stations you'll see the yellow gas pumps.
And now more than ever, need to make sure that Californians have alternatives to the high price of gasoline. So I'm really proud to bring AB2046, which champions affordability at a time when Californians are feeling it the most. This is about common sense and affordability and solving the crisis and providing immediate relief for families across California. So again, thank you for all of the wonderful questions and the support. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. We have a motion on the floor by Davies, seconded by Rogers. With that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 23
AB 2,046, the motion is due passed to appropriations. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, I. Davies?
Aye. Davies, I. Aguirre Curry? Aguirre Curry, I. Arons?
Aye. Arons, I. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, I.
Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Jackson I, Lackey, Moseto, Pappin, Pappin I, Ransom? Aye. Ransom I, Rogers, Sharp Collins Sharp Collins I, Ward.
Redner 1
Alright. That bill has nine votes, so we'll hold the roll open for members to call on. Doing a call for members of this committee and staff who are listening. From members of this committee, this is our final bill. File item number 10, AB two thousand three and forty six.
So, I ask that you come this way so that we can then have other members add to members add on to the other bills. Thank you.
Redner 2
Alright. Chair Wilson, we're going to invite you on down. Cheryl Wilson, when you're ready. This again is AB2346.
Redner 1
Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Good afternoon, members. Alongside joint author, Assembly Member Berman, I am proud to introduce AB two thousand three and forty six, a measure aimed to modernize California's e bike safety laws and protect our communities while ensuring we preserve access to this growing mode of accessible transportation. As e bike technology continues to rapidly grow, our laws must keep up the pace to ensure that safety on our roads, bike paths and sidewalks are for the communities that utilize them. California is currently experiencing sharp increase in serious e bike related injuries.
Physicians across California are also raising alarms about the growing number of preventable injuries tied to high speed and lack of safeguards, particularly among children and teenagers. These devices are often marketed like toys but can operate at high speeds and are legally available for young children to use. Utilizing the internet and other social media apps, e bikes can also be easily modified to exceed legal limits excuse me, legal speed limits, putting riders and the public at risk with some modifications ramping up to higher speeds such as 30 or 40 miles per hour. AB2346 implements targeted and practical solutions such as but not limited to: one. Requiring speedometers on Class one and two e bikes and integrated lights on all e bikes two.
Establishing clear speed limits, including 15 miles per hour for miners and limits on sidewalks three, providing local governments authority to set speed limits where needed and four, requiring clear consumer education at the point of sale so riders understand the law. These changes focus on behavior to reduce dangerous speeds and improve awareness, not to restrict user access. AB 2,346 is a balanced approach that improves public safety, empowers local communities, and supports the continued growth of sustainable transportation. With me today is Rustin Banks, Chief of Rockland PD and CPCA, which is the California Police Chiefs Association Board Member. And Doctor.
Francois going to say it wrong. How do you say it? Okay, Francois Lalonde, pediatric and orthopedic surgeon.
Redner 31
Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Rustin Banks, Police Chief for the City Of Rockland and board member of the California Police Chiefs Association representing municipal police chiefs and public safety leaders across California. We are here in strong support of Assembly Bill 2,346, which takes a thoughtful and evidence based approach to addressing the growing safety risks associated with electric bicycles, particularly amongst our youth.
Across California, we are seeing a rapid increase in e bike use. And with that, a corresponding rise in serious injuries. For Rockland, we first noticed an uptick in our e bike related collisions and calls for service in 2023. In response, we focused on education and enforcement. We produced informational videos and created a trifold flyer distributed through the school district, launched e bike safety page on our website.
We actually had eight school assemblies on e bike safety and conducted multiple enforcement patrols as well, where we would give citations when we saw irresponsible behavior and then positive tickets that could be redeemed for a free donut yes, a donut to our safe riders. Despite these efforts, collision numbers continue to rise in both 2024 and then again in 2025. A key concern of CPCA is youth access to faster, higher powered e bikes that function more like motor vehicles than traditional bicycles. Younger riders often lack the experience, judgment, and understanding of traffic laws needed to safely operate these devices. We're also seeing risk taking behavior combined with speeds that exceed what their coordination and reaction time can safely handle.
Redner 11
At those speeds, even small mistakes can result in serious or life threatening injuries. These concerns are not theoretical. Officers across California are responding to more collisions involving young riders, high speed devices, and modified e bikes being used beyond their intended design. We're also seeing confusion amongst riders and parents about e bike classifications and legal requirements, which creates enforcement challenges and risk. California already experiences over four thousand traffic fatalities annually, and we must ensure emerging technologies do not add to that toll.
Redner 31
AB two thousand three and forty six addresses these issues in a balanced and practical way by establishing clear safety standards, including reasonable speed limitations for youth and in pedestrian heavy areas. It also requires basic safety equipment like speedometers and lighting and ensures consumers receive clear
Redner 31
I'm sorry. The the I'll just say for these reasons, the California Police Chiefs Association respectfully urges your I vote. Thank you.
Redner 4
Good afternoon, chair members. My name is doctor Francois Hollande. I'm a pediatric orthopedic surgeon from Rady Children's Hospital in Orange County, a level one trauma center, speaking on in support of AB 2,046 on behalf of the cosponsors, the California Orthopedic Association and California Medical Association. From a clinical perspective, we're seeing a sharp rise in serious, life threatening e bike injuries among children. At our Level one Trauma Center, this is no longer occasional.
We are treating more high energy trauma than ever before in this population. In fact, e bike injuries are now the number one cause of major trauma injuries presenting to our busy emergency department. These are not simple falls. These are high energy traumas, open fractures, multiple concurrent upper and lower extremity fractures per patient, concussions, brain bleeds, severe facial trauma, and multisystem injuries that can permanently alter a child's life. The key issue is the speed of the devices combined with inexperience and lack of clear safety standards.
Redner 24
We're also seeing particularly dangerous behavior where children are riding these e bikes at high speed without helmets, without securing a chin strap, which significantly increases the risk of loss of control and severe injury to all riders. Furthermore, during the past few months, we have treated children with multiple injuries resulting from e bike to e bike collisions on paths and from e bikes colliding with pedestrians at crosswalks. The data confirms what we are seeing in the operating room. At our recent annual National American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons meeting in March 2026 in New Orleans, it was reported there was a greater than 3300% increase in e bike accidents among kids between twenty nineteen and twenty twenty three with injuries often much more severe than traditional bicycle accidents. The trend of increasing numbers of pediatric e bike accident continues to grow year to year.
Redner 4
AB two thousand three hundred and forty six is a targeted common sense response. It establishes clear safety expectations around speed for our young children, equipment, and consumer awareness while allowing local communities to adopt additional protections where needed. From a physician standpoint, these are practical, preventive measures that directly address the root cause of these injuries we are treating every day. I respectfully urge your a vote. Thank you.
Redner 11
Thank you. All right. We're gonna have a public testimony. Me too. Name, organization, and position.
Redner 3
Brian Spencer, behalf of the California Orthopedic Association, proud cosponsors of the measure. Thank you.
Redner 9
Angela Hill, California Medical Association, proud cosponsors. Thank you.
Redner 5
Carlin Shelby on behalf of the cities of Irvine and Santa Barbara in strong support. Thank you.
Redner 26
Matt Robinson on behalf of the City County Association of Governments of San Mateo in support. Thank you.
Redner 23
Good afternoon. Kelly McMillan on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, California, and the Children's Specialty Care Coalition in support.
Redner 8
Good afternoon, chair. Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the city of Huntington Beach in support.
Redner 11
Alright. We're now gonna have opposition witnesses come forth, please. And, again, two minutes each, please. Thank you.
Redner 10
Good afternoon again, vice chair and members. I'm Jeannie Wardwaller representing People for Bikes. People for Bikes is the national advocate and trade association for US manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors of bicycle Products, including Low Speed Electric Bikes. Many of the three thirty members of People for Bikes are California based small and large businesses. You're going to hear from us on several bills to address e bike safety this year, since there are many.
Redner 1
People for Bikes has been working as a national leader, working with 45 other states, including the federal government, to create consistent standards based on California's three class e bike definition for the regulation of e bikes across the country. I want to stress the importance of consistency to the responsible manufacturers and retailers of e bikes. That will be a theme in my comments. With deep respect to the author, as well as the sponsors who we've had good conversations with, we are opposed to this bill unless amended. We appreciate the engagement and believe we are generally aligned in our shared goal of improving safety for e bike riders, particularly for children.
Redner 10
However, we believe this bill should address illegally operated e motors, which were referenced quite a bit in the comments of the sponsors, rather than low speed legal electric bikes that are already well regulated in California. Some eMotos have motors with thousands of watts of power and can reach highway speeds of 65 miles per hour, definitely not something that we want 10 and 12 year olds riding. Recent research tallied that 90% of devices ridden by children were actually eMotos. That was taken at schools. And reports from the medical community about increasing crashes do not distinguish between what's a legal e bike and an eMoto.
We have three concerns. I'll just maybe focus on the biggest one. In this bill. Our biggest concern is regarding the penalty provision, which risks exposing bicycle retailers to $15,000 or up to $50,000 fines for violating a notification requirement to consumers about California law. This presents potentially a devastating fee structure at a time when the bicycle industry is facing rising costs due to Trump tariffs and other pressures.
Other states like New Jersey have passed laws that have effectively stopped the sale of e bikes in their state because they're so restrictive.
Redner 28
Good afternoon, members of the committee. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. My name is Kendra Ramsey. I'm the executive director of the California Bicycle Coalition. We are the voice of the everyday bicyclist in the state capital.
I will also say that I'm a proud owner of a class one legal e bike, I ride with my three year old almost every day. I wanna echo Jeannie's comments on the difference between legal e bikes and illegal e motos and that being a big issue that's been discussed here today. I do appreciate the issue being safety with this bill. However, we do also have the position of oppose unless amended. The issue that CALBIKE chiefly has with the bill at the moment is that establishing a speed limit for people riding bicycles based on age can be highly problematic.
Redner 27
Establishing a speed limit for people riding bicycles firstly is unnecessary because people riding bicycles do have to follow posted speed limits. And establishing a speed limit based on age can create problematic conditions for children who could be subject to interactions with police that are unnecessary and potentially unwarranted based on their physical appearance. We all know that it can be very difficult to tell how old a child or an adult is based on how they look. And our children may be having interactions with police based on how they are potentially riding their bicycle based on how they look. And in some communities, this may cause interactions with police that could be detrimental.
Redner 28
So that is a big concern that we have. We do appreciate some previous amendments to the bill that alleviated our other concerns, so really appreciate that work. We also, you know, do want to state that while these crashes involving children are tragic and we would like to see them prevented, we do know that the recently released, legislatively requested study on safety for e bikes did not find that there's evidence that there are there is a higher likelihood of children to be involved in e bike collisions. It is actually more likely for adults to be involved. That we we would really like
Redner 28
see this component of Thank speed limits to be you very much for your time.
Redner 11
Alright. Thank you. We're gonna move it to public testimony. Me too. In opposition.
Redner 25
Vice Chair, a bit of a tweener position. Mark Fuksovich on behalf of Streets For All. We have some concerns that persist on the ability of the rider to comply with some provisions of the bill and some concerns about the effects of small businesses with the fine penalty, but are really supportive of the light and speedometer requirements. And I think the amendments have moved the direction of the bill in a really supportive and positive direction. So thank you.
Redner 11
We're gonna close public testimony and move this over to comments from our members, Assembly Member Aaron's.
Redner 30
I wanted to see if the author would be able to respond to the comments about how speed limits based on age can be a problem for children, but then also now going into the racial profiling conversation. So I just wanted to hear from from the from from the sponsor and from the Assemblymember in regards to what opposition is bringing forth.
Redner 1
Okay, thank you for that question, and I appreciate the concern brought up from opposition in regard to that. You know, I'm chair emeritus for the Black Caucus, and one of the things that we've talked about quite a bit in the Black Caucus is criminal justice reform and recognizing that there's a lot to do in this space and recognizing our interactions, especially for people of color, with police have not been positive, and that whether it's riding a bicycle, walking down the street, being in a car, you can be pulled over for all kind of random reasons, whether related to breaking the law or not. And so that's always top of mind and concern to me. At the same time, we have to balance safety. And at the same time, we have to balance accountability, where if you're doing something wrong, then the police should be interacting with you.
Redner 23
And then we have to do a better job of training our police to be sure that they can be effective in all situations and treat people fairly in all situations, no matter what they look like, how they're dressed, the color of their skin, that they could say this person is doing something they shouldn't be doing just because they're should be doing that, not something that's some outside characteristics. And so we've been really mindful of that the Black Caucus doing that in a balanced and fair way. And so, as I look through this bill, I consider us doing the same thing of being fair and balanced and recognizing that children of a certain age should not be driving or riding in legal motorcyclesI mean motorcycleslegal electric vehicles or electric bicycles beyond 15 miles per hour. They couldn't do it in a regular bicycle, and if they get to those speeds, it's very dangerous. And you remind her, these children don't know the rules of the roads.
Redner 1
They're not required to, right? And so we want to make sure they're doing it in a safe way. I'll look to our police chief to talk about those types of interactions and the work that I know the Police Chiefs Association has done to try to reduce racial profiling.
Redner 31
Yeah, and thank you for the question. I think I would acknowledge that enforcement related to this bill might not be absolutely perfect, but I do believe that based restrictions are common in traffic safety. We see them in home at laws and in other areas. And they can serve an important deterrent and educational function. And the intent is not to constantly go out and issue citations here.
It's to establish safer operating norms for younger riders who may like the experience in that judgment. And we support kind of pairing this provision with some of the other elements of the bill, the speedometer and the lighting and the public education, which would hopefully direct and point towards compliance and improve clarity.
Redner 1
And I'll note through the vice chair, there are a number, as was noted from the testimony, are a number of e bike bills or legislation this year, and I would look at this bill as in the concert of all of those, as a comprehensive package. There was another note from opposition that I just want to clarify, and it was that it was more likely for adults to be involved in an incident than children. And I don't believe that to be true, and so I want to give an opportunity, if the vice chair will allow, for Doctor. Lalone to address that.
Redner 4
Thank you. For those on the front lines, that there's a disconnect with that comment as well. I think we have presented the statistics from the AOS, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, 300% increase from 2019 to 2023. And it's our number one cause of trauma, major trauma at our level one trauma center around Orange County. If you talk policemen, EMT, those of us that are on the front lines, this is there's a disconnect with that comment.
And I I would challenge that comment because we're seeing the opposite. We're seeing it's the kids that are coming in, and they're just increasing month after month, year after year.
Redner 7
Hi. Okay. Well, thank you all so much for your testimony and the efforts here. My question I have a question and comment. So the question relates to the disclosure requirements.
What is the medium by which those have to occur? Is it in writing? And if it's in writing, is it through something that's on a sheet of paper, or does it come electronically? What are you envisioning?
Redner 1
So I believe that I believe it's in writing when the at the purchase of the bill, along I mean, purchase of the bill purchase of the bike, along with
Redner 1
Yes, I believe so. And I think it's it can reference a place to look at it electronically, like how you currently can see when you get your warranty, you can see that, but there might be a reference to an electronic place where it's more detail and additional information. I believe we allow that.
Redner 7
And when do you anticipate that to take effect, the requiring of the disclosures?
Redner 1
I believe at the time that the bill I don't think there's a delay, if I remember. There's not a delay on this, and so at the time, 01/01/2027.
Redner 7
Okay. Yeah, I didn't see one. Yeah. And that'll be those will be law specific at that moment in time. Fair to say?
In other words, they could be peculiar to California and no other state.
Redner 7
Alright. So that's fine. I don't have an issue with it. I just I needed some clarification. So as you know, have an ebike bill.
And I thank the doctor for his testimony. I would add, you know, it certainly amplifies or illustrates the urgency. I would add that children are dying in my community. Okay? I happen to come from a community where there's lots of tech, lots of tech money.
Redner 6
Orange County is probably not a whole lot different. And they're early adopters of electric devices. And their kids are riding in ways that would blow your mind. So it is amplified in my community. The bill is timely.
Redner 7
Yes, we have a lot of bills in the legislature, and I just cannot emphasize enough the urgency that is out there. And I recognize that the opposition may want some consistency. My community cannot wait. Cannot wait. End of story.
Redner 32
Thank you. So a few questions. I'm gonna start with the opposition, if I could. Just a couple, I guess, technical questions. Are there traditional bikes that can go over 20 miles an hour at this point, or is that some speeds that we do see on on on roads?
Redner 10
have motors? Yeah. Certainly. Yeah. Especially, think of going downhill or
Redner 32
Sure. And then just according to your understanding of the bill, do these speed limits that are proposed in the bill that could be imposed at the 20 mile per hour limit apply to all bikes or just e bikes under the current language? And I guess I could ask you or the author of that, but
Redner 1
Can you can you repeat the question? I was referencing something that was noted earlier.
Redner 32
So so the speed limit provisions, not the sidewalk, but the the the local government limits that could be imposed, do they are they let's see what's
Redner 1
It's it's it applies to all bikes. It's on a bicycle path, and so it applies to all bikes. It says a local authority may set a speed limit on a bicycle path of 15 or 20 miles per hour, subject to subdivision C, and then it talks about some restrictions around certain zones and things of that nature. And then for a multiuse trail, ten, fifteen, or 20 miles per hour.
Redner 32
Okay. And under current law, how does this differ from current law? So current law, they can go the speed limit of the road. Is that obviously, trail, multiuse trail would be If different,
Redner 1
I correct recall correctly, current law, there's no speed limit at all on a bicycle path. So can go as fast as you your legs can take you or your motor can take you.
Redner 1
And that's, to the opposition's point, that's an a legal bike or a eMoto. Right. Which is not a legal bike.
Redner 9
So, yeah, so just looking here, I mean, I will say I have some concerns. There's a lot in this bill that I like, that I think, you know, I think over time, you might be able to get me there on the speedometers and the, you know, bike manufacturer requirements. I I do think that some of that's a little broad, but I do understand I do understand the the purpose behind that. And I do think in some ways, retailers and manufacturers need to have a little more responsibility when it comes to e bike usage in California. A 100% agree with you on the 10 mile per hour on sidewalks and the prohibiting kids 16 from riding certain levels of e bikes.
Redner 32
I think where I'm really struggling is this 20 mile per hour speed limit on a on a bike path, which potentially could be on a road. Right? The the I mean, the slowest speed limit on most roads in California are 25 miles per hour. I imagine there's a lot of bicyclists that are going above 20 miles per hour without an e bike. And so I guess my question is, why 20 miles per hour?
Is Can there any you clarify?
Redner 1
Did you say that because you can go 20 miles per hour on a road? You concerned about a limit on a road?
Redner 1
Only on a bicycle path or a multiuse path that they are allowed to set this limit. And remember, you're giving the authority for the locals to set the limit. Otherwise, there's no limit.
Redner 32
Right. Correct. But I'm saying, when we're saying a bicycle path, right, we're talking about a bicycle path connected to a roadway. Am I am I
Redner 32
Oh, okay. So that that that is where the the challenge is then. Okay. So you're saying, so these would all be non road bike? Think versions of sidewalks.
Okay. So so with that in mind, so you're saying, so bike lanes would continue to be operated by the road the road rules of the road? Yes. Is that is that the correct interpretation of your bill?
Redner 1
on the road so the a biking lane is a part of the road, so we are not touching the road. So if you go off the road and you're on a version of a sidewalk, and when I say sidewalk, it could be concrete or gravel, so a designated bicycle path or a multiuse
Redner 1
Yes, a multiuse trail. Those separate, distinct things from a road, then that's what we're talking about.
Redner 32
So essentially, under your bill, and sorry, apologies, because I do want this is helping clarify things for me. Essentially, local government could set a speed limit for any bike at as low as 10 miles per hour on a multi use trail. Is that am I reading that correctly?
Redner 1
Yes. A bike path, but if it's a bike path, it's 15 or 20, so not the low 10 miles. So I live in Suisun City. Along Highway 12, we have a trail that's pretty wide enough. I'm trying to remember the class now that it is.
But it's a Marsh Creek Trail. So that is considered a multiuse trail. So that could go down in 10. And you see regularly seniors on it, mothers and fathers, but families pushing strollers, you know, people walking their dogs. And so in theory, Sezoon City could say on that trail that's regularly used by all those people that you could only go 10 miles per hour.
Redner 32
Correct. What is what is the fastest legal e bike at this point? Do I mean, I don't know if there is a limit, but I know there's a distinction between illegal and legal, but
Redner 4
So a level three bike is, 28 miles per hour. Okay? Okay. And then you'll be riding on this you can do the exercise yourself. You can be in your car at 40 miles per hour, and there's a e bike passing you or traveling in the same that e motor.
I like that terminology. So
Redner 4
Correct. But right now, it's muddied. You know, like, you don't know as physicians, surgeons, we don't know which families are allowing their kids to be on e bikes in the classes, which we respect, or e motos. We're seeing a lot of e motos injuries.
Redner 1
Correct. Which are not legal, yeah. But they've done audits, and I wish I could remember which school it was that we were just talking about recently, but they've done audits at bikes at schools, and the majority of the bikes were illegal bikes, not even allowed in California.
Redner 1
A bunch of schools, middle school. Simply River Pappens district. Why she's talking about the urgency of this and other bills, including hers.
Redner 32
Yeah, so I and I and I actually agree with the urgency. We're having similar challenges in my district. I think my challenge is sort of this distinction, right, between legal and illegal. Because to me, 28 miles per hour is not very fast, especially on a bike. You go ahead.
Redner 4
Sorry. I just want to echo what we've seen recently because the further you go along this, you know, ebike history, reminding you that we've seen ebikes hit ebikes on trails and and the ebike taking off like a hit and run. We've seen ebike hitting pedestrians at crosswalks. So that's why I think this is important because I think, like, the strollers and the elderly people, they're starting to get hit by these emotors.
Redner 32
Yeah. Well, and that's why I say I do fully support the provision relating to sidewalk specifically. I think that's an important provision. I think my challenge is typically on these trails that are more designed for you know, bicycles, for example, right? Where and then and then again, you know, requiring 16 year olds and younger from using these 28 mile per hour bikes, absolutely.
But to me, when you're on a bicycle, you're going 28 miles per hour at the max. You know, that's that's not that's not really much faster than you can go on a traditional bike if you're going downhill. So I think that's where I'm struggling with. It's particularly these provisions relating to the bike pass and the multi use trails. I'll try to keep an open mind as the bill moves forward.
Not sure where I'm going to be at today, but I do think that there's a lot in here that needs to happen. And so I am hopeful that we're able to, you know, come to some sort of agreement on that, and I'll keep an eye
Redner 18
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, for bringing this bill. I'll try not to be redundant to things that have already been said. I think what stands out to me is the importance that we have to share the sidewalk and share. And folks that are on these bicycles or, you know, whether they're e bikes or regular bikes have to share.
And we need to make sure that it's safe. So that's what I appreciate most about this bill, especially since we could not have known years ago that technology would get us here today. But now we're starting to see just, you know, these bikes are everywhere. The e bikes, the kids get together and they kind of do street takeovers in my community where they like literally won't even let the cars go by. And they're going really fast, but and I appreciate that.
So we do need to figure out a way that we can all coexist together. I also want to just point out, I guess, the difference versus the distinction when we're talking about the eMoto versus the e bikes. I really feel like this gives us an opportunity to catch the folks who are on the illegal bikes because we do have the opportunity to put a safety regulation as far as the speed limit on there. And if it happens to be a person on an eModal versus an eBike, well now we've caught that person. We now have a better opportunity because we now have a standard for what we expect to see on our sidewalks, on our bike pathways in any way that would endanger others.
So I just want to say that I think this makes a lot of sense based on what we are experiencing, how we are experiencing e bikes right now. This makes a lot of sense for the safety of everyone. So thank you for bringing the bill.
Redner 1
Thank you. I appreciate those comments and noting, you know, just want to pinpoint something you said about it being a shared pathway. Whether it's a bicycle path or a multiuse path, it is a shared pathway. And so these are, we're giving the authority to the locals to be able to determine speed limits, and that has to go through a public process. So if a speed limit is not needed for that particular pathway, you would see an objection rise up from the people who live in that community that we don't need a speed limit there.
But then where there is needed for a speed limit, the community would rise up and say there needs to be a speed limit. Because whether you're on a multiuse, where there's children and seniors and you know, dogs and things like that, or a bicycle path, there are other bicycles that maybe aren't e bikes, right? And we know that e bikes can go faster, they're heavier, and so when they're involved in a collision, it could be pretty devastating, as the doctor has noted. Doctor. Lalonde?
Redner 4
Just briefly, something was alluded by Chairperson Wilson, is how heavy these bikes are. I just want the committee members to understand how heavy these bikes are. We're seeing injuries in three year olds where the bike is just parked at the beach and falls on the child or falls on your foot instead of having one fracture. They hit there's, like, multiple. So these bikes are very heavy, let alone when they fall on you than when they hit you at high speeds.
Redner 29
This is a very interesting time being in the legislature due to technology and how fast things are moving. Because we're in unchartered territory. And so it's kind of like we're trying to experiment with public policy as we're trying to keep up with technology and all the variations. Probably many of these parents have no clue whether these things are legal or illegal sometimes. All they know is my kid says I want this one.
But I also think that one of our biggest problems that I've noticed as a legislature is that we continue to make the perfect the enemy of the good. And that we are seeing people dying. We're seeing children dying. Particularly with whether they're legal or illegal, I would assume that they're a little bit of both. But not to do anything, I'm not sure if we can really say we're doing our job by doing nothing because it wasn't perfect enough.
And I assume that we might need to make some changes. I was on my local traffic safety commission when I was just a, you know, volunteer in the community and we had these type of local discussions. But what's good about this bill is that it gives locals, localities, those type of discussions to have because it may not be appropriate for us to try to make all of those because we don't know the particular trail, we don't know the particular park, we don't know the particular street, right? And so those are more localized. We're just giving local people the authority to make these decisions as they see fit to protect their children and their community.
And so I would just want to make sure that we're setting the context a little bit more and making sure that we're not drifting off into different places but at the end of the day is when we see people being hurt, we have a job to try to find ways to do it. And for us to continue to try to find ways why we shouldn't do something when people are dying, I think we need to make sure that we're having a little bit more reflection on that.
Redner 15
Thank you for bringing the bill forward. I've had quite a few people from the police and sheriffs come by and talk to me about this bill. I remember when I was running for a campaign, I had young kids asking me, what's my job? It was really easy. It's about safety.
I have to take care of my community. I have to make sure it's safe. And it really worries me because I've seen these bikes. I pull out of my car out of the driveway. I've got all those little things to say, a car's coming by.
Redner 10
It doesn't tell me that I've got a young person on an e bike flying by me. When people are on bicycles, think they're more cautious because most people are at least in my neighborhood, a lot of them are older. But nevertheless is that what I have seen in the past couple months, I feel sorry for the police officers because they don't have a really clear direction on what is correct motorbike or whatever. I really feel bad that it's this is all about education. You know, why people cannot follow the rules and know what it says, it drives me nuts.
Redner 15
And when I have a young man right in my intersection and without a blink of an eye, he ran it and I missed him by inches. Because he's young, he doesn't know the rules. Oh, I'm invincible. So I really like the bill. I'm obviously gonna support it.
And I don't know. I wish that you could put urgency on it because we cannot wait much longer.
Redner 11
Members, any more comments? Great. I'd just like to finish up, obviously, dealing with the e bikes. When COVID came up, that's basically when the bikes came up, which was, you know, great. The ebikes, great family activity and so forth, but like we said is rules of the road.
And I can tell you on Saturday in one of the cities that I represent, they had 200 kids basically took over the streets, and these are streets where it's 50 miles an hour, zigzagging back and forth. And the danger, half of them not wearing helmets. And so, at least, it is you have technology. And unfortunately, with technology, we have to find out what it does, the good and the bad. And then we are we're always behind in trying to figure out how do we deal with public safety.
So, I mean, I I support this. And something I just want to bring up is with law enforcement, I think that's the other part we're missing is how can we help you? How are you supposed to enforce something when you don't know if a child's 16 or 13 or if that bike is going, you know, 30 miles an hour or 15 miles an hour. And you can't just pull them over. We've seen them.
They take off. And so this also is such a parental responsibility. And we've got to get parents involved where I do know that some of the cities that we have, they have certifications where if the child's 16, the parent has to be at that certification. It's not just a test where you can take online tests, would be easy enough to cheat if you're just doing this. They're also having to do kind of a mobile test like we do when we drive.
How do we help with that to be able to make you be able to actually enforce it? And we can't have separate groups coming out here. So I completely support the bill. We've got to start making parents responsible and finding the parents if their child isn't obeying the regulations. Not to mention, half these parents have never been on a bike before.
They didn't even know how fast they went, which we found out with all the injuries. So I completely support this bill, but I would just like to say is how can we help? We need to get a statewide certification and make it to that point.
Redner 31
for the question. You guys are all right, and everyone's kind of touched on it. There's a significant amount of challenges. We're dealing with oftentimes 10, 12 year olds that simply just don't have the judgment. They don't understand the rules of the road.
And what we're doing is we're being reactive, waiting for that irresponsible behavior. And then if we do do enforcement at that point, now we're hoping for compliance and it creates a few other layers. And we spend a lot of time talking about legal e bikes and e motos. And then we haven't even really touched on the fact that oftentimes these legal e bikes can be easily modified after watching a TikTok video or so. And now they're they're operating at a level that is unsafe yet again.
And so to answer your question, I would say that anytime we can really point to equipment, and this bill does that to a certain extent by working with our manufacturers and dialing back the capabilities of that technology, I think, a very safe and responsible way of trying to address this issue.
Redner 32
What penalties does this allow for like, what is the enforcement that this will change for law enforcement as a result of the bill?
Redner 1
Well, on the they can get cited for breaking the speed limit. It doesn't have a point on your record like a driver's license would, but you can be cited. And then there's a second provision related to the disclosure that Assemblywoman Pappin was asking about. There is a and I think it was also noted from opposition, the penalty provision.
Redner 1
Yes. And so they are required to have a disclosure, and then in the bill, it talks about it being at least in 12.5, and it gives you the exact language that you have to stay. And if you don't disclose, then you could be liable to up to $15,000 charge as a manufacturerretailer if you don't have that statement.
Redner 32
But for law enforcement on the ground, how does this change from the status quo in terms of
Redner 32
cite you more tools so you cannot currently cite is what you're saying under the status quo?
Redner 31
I'll just say that right now we have to treat e bikes consistent with our traditional bicycles. There's some challenges related So to this will further the needle in the right direction.
Redner 11
All right. Seeing no more comments or questions, if you'd like to close.
Redner 1
Thank you. Thank you for the lively discussion on this bill. I appreciate it. As one of our committee members noted, it is urgent. There is an issue.
As our doctor has explained, the number of children coming into the ER and having some serious injuries has to be addressed. And as our majority leader noted, it is our job to address those issues. And I will say, there's this saying that says boundaries are not respected when they're explained they're respected when they're enforced. And I would say the same thing is to our laws. Know, explaining our laws does nothing, but enforcing our laws is what gets them respected.
And so this is another tool in the toolbox, as to my colleague said, that allows us to enforce our laws related to electric bicycles. We still have to deal with the fact that we have illegal bicycles out there. EMotos, or like one of our professors said, are bicycle shaped devices. A lot of illegal bicycle shaped devices are out there. But at this point, we have to make sure that we have clear law that can be enforced.
I believe this is what gets us moving in the right needle. And so I respectfully ask for your I vote, for this committee, who will hear a lot of e bike legislation, I ask that you keep an open mind and support the other bills in this package to make our community safer. Thank you.
Redner 11
All right. We're going to go ahead and call roll. I'm sorry. Do I have a motion?
Redner 23
twenty three forty six, the motion is due passed to the judiciary committee. Wilson? Wilson, I. Davies? Aye.
Davies, I. Aguirre? Aye. Aguirre Curry, I. Arons, Carrillo, Arabedian, Heart, Heart, I.
Hoover? Hoover, I. Jackson?
Redner 23
Jackson I Lackie I Lackie I Macedo I Macedo I Pappin I Ransom Ransom I Rogers Sharp Collins Sharp Collins I Ward Ward, aye.
Redner 11
We have 12 votes. Alright. That moves the bill. We'll go back on those that haven't been able to vote on the previous bills.
Redner 1
Who are we missing? Who are we missing? Alright. We're gonna go to we're gonna do one pass through and wait a moment to do another pass through, but I wanted to make sure that members who've been here get a chance to to leave out. And so we had five bills on our consent calendar.
Madam Secretary, can you call the roll for the remaining members?
Redner 23
Consent calendar. Aaron's? Yes. Aaron's? I.
Arabedian? Hart? Heart I, Hoover, hoover I, lackey I, lackey mosquito I, ward ward I.
Redner 1
I have 15. That bill has 15 votes. We'll leave the roll open for members to add on. Going from the beginning for items heard in the committee today, file item one, AB sixteen fourteen, Dixon.
Redner 23
A b sixteen fourteen, the motion was due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Aarons?
Redner 23
Aarons, aye. Harabedian? Hart? Hart? Hart, aye.
Hoover? Hoover, I. Lackey?
Redner 1
That bill has 15 votes. We'll leave it open for members to be able to add on. File item number five, a b 29 I'm sorry, twenty one ninety three, ta.
Redner 23
A b twenty one ninety three, the motion was due passed as amended to the Committee on Communications and Conveyance. Perrons?
Redner 23
Perrabedian? Part? Heart, I. Hoover, Hoover, I. Lackey?
Aye. Lackey, I. Massito? Massito, I. Ward, I.
Redner 1
All right. That bill has 15 votes. We'll hold it open for members to add on. Moving on to file item number eight, a b twenty six twenty nine, Chin. A b twenty six twenty nine, the motion do pass to appropriations.
Aaron's?
Redner 5
Hart I, Hoover, Hoover I, Lackey Aye. Lackey I, Masito I, Ward, Ward I. Ransom, your vote. Changing from not voting to aye.
Redner 1
That bill has 16 votes and is out. Right? That's all of us. That that bill has 16 votes and is out. Moving on to file item nine, a b twenty forty six, ransom.
Redner 23
A b twenty forty six, the motion due pass to appropriations. Harabedian. Aye. Harabedian, I. Hart, Hart, I.
Hoover? Aye. Hoover, aye. Lackey?
Redner 23
Lackey, aye. Masito? Aye. Seto, aye. Rogers?
Rogers? Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. That's 15.
Redner 1
That bill has 15 votes. We'll hold it open for members to add on. Moving on to file item 10, a b twenty three forty six, Wilson.
Redner 23
A b twenty thirty twenty three forty six, do you pass to the judiciary committee? Aaron's?
Redner 1
Rogers? That bill has 14 votes. We'll hold the roll open for members to add on. Going back to the top, file item I'm sorry, the consent calendar. There's five items.
Madam Secretary?
Redner 1
That bill those bills have 16 votes. It is now out of committee. Moving on to file item one, a b sixteen fourteen. Dixon? Parabedian.
Redner 1
That bill has 16 votes, leaving it it's now out of committee. Moving on to file item number five, a b twenty one ninety three ta. Parabedian aye. Parabedian aye. That bill has now 16 votes.
I think that goes we have two members who are absent, and so we will check to see if they're returning before we close out the other bills.
Redner 23
Quiet item nine, a b two zero four six. The motion is due passed to appropriations. Rogers. Aye. Rogers, aye.
Alright.
Redner 23
The motion was due passed to the judiciary committee. Carrillo, Rogers. Rogers, aye.
Stellen Sie eine Frage zu diesem Video – ich analysiere das Transkript, um Ihnen zu antworten.