California Assembly Bill AB1014

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/20/25
• Refer: 3/10/25
• Report Pass: 4/8/25
• Refer: 4/9/25
• Report Pass: 4/22/25
• Refer: 4/22/25
• Report Pass: 5/14/25
• Engrossed: 5/23/25
• Refer: 5/23/25
• Refer: 6/4/25
• Report Pass: 6/25/25
• Refer: 6/25/25
• Enrolled: 9/3/25
• Chaptered: 10/3/25
• Passed: 10/3/25

Caption

An act to amend Sections 22358.6, 22358.7, 22358.8, and 22358.9 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.

Summary

AB 1014 expands the California Department of Transportation’s authority to set and adjust speed limits on state highways that are not freeways. Under existing law, local authorities could lower or retain speed limits in certain circumstances based on engineering and traffic surveys and the 85th-percentile speed standard; this bill gives Caltrans similar authority in those same situations. It also allows Caltrans to establish 25- or 20-mile-per-hour prima facie speed limits on qualifying non-freeway highways, including in business activity districts, and to retain or restore prior adopted speed limits where safety conditions warrant. The bill is framed as a traffic safety measure aimed especially at highways that intersect recreation areas and other places with high pedestrian activity. It adds findings emphasizing pedestrian risk, vulnerable road users, and the need for greater flexibility to respond to local conditions, particularly in rural areas and along routes like Route 199 in Del Norte County. It also changes enforcement rules so that, for the first 30 days after a lower speed limit takes effect, any peace officer—not just a local authority—must issue warning citations only for certain low-level speeding violations.

Impact

AB 1014 amends Vehicle Code Sections 22358.6, 22358.7, 22358.8, and 22358.9. The practical effect is to place Caltrans on similar footing with local governments for setting reduced speed limits, retaining existing limits, or restoring prior limits on non-freeway state highways after engineering and traffic review. It also directs Caltrans to define and apply concepts such as “safety corridor” and high pedestrian/bicycle concentration areas through the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The bill affects state highway speed-setting authority, local traffic enforcement practices, and drivers traveling through designated safety-sensitive corridors and business districts.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have had broadly favorable support. It advanced through committee and floor votes with strong margins, including unanimous or near-unanimous votes in several stages and only one or a few dissenting votes at each recorded step. The chaptering of the bill indicates it ultimately became law. The available record suggests the measure was generally viewed as a public-safety expansion of existing speed-limit tools rather than a controversial overhaul.

Contention

The main policy tension is between traffic safety flexibility and the traditional reliance on the 85th-percentile speed standard. Supporters argue Caltrans needs authority to lower or preserve speed limits in areas with heavy pedestrian activity, recreation traffic, or safety corridor conditions, especially where local conditions are not well captured by existing rules. Any opposition likely centered on concerns about reduced speed limits being set too aggressively, potential inconsistency with statewide speed-setting standards, or the impact on motorists and enforcement, but the voting record shows limited visible resistance. The bill also narrows some discretion by limiting where business-district prima facie limits can be used and by capping reductions relative to the 85th-percentile speed.