Concerning traffic safety near schools.
HB26-1318 concerns traffic safety near schools and expands the legal framework for school-related traffic controls. The bill redefines “school zone” to generally include roadways within 1,000 feet of a school property boundary, while allowing existing zones between 200 and 1,000 feet to remain in place and allowing local governments to reduce a zone below 1,000 feet only after a public hearing and only down to 200 feet. It also requires appropriate signage showing school-zone boundaries and doubled penalties, and it limits how school zones may be applied to state highways unless the Colorado Department of Transportation approves the designation.
The bill also expands the use of automated vehicle identification systems, including systems used to detect moving violations in school zones or along designated “safe routes to school.” It adds a new definition of “safe route to school” and authorizes local governments to use such systems for traffic enforcement in those areas, subject to existing legal limits. In addition, the bill creates a new “school street” designation for roadway segments immediately adjacent to school property, allowing local governments to close those streets to vehicles, set a 10 mph speed limit, require right-of-way yielding to pedestrians and bicyclists, and post signage accordingly.
The bill amends Colorado traffic statutes, primarily C.R.S. 42-4-615 and 42-4-110.5, and adds a new section, 42-4-119, governing school streets. It changes how school zones are defined and signed, gives counties and municipalities more explicit authority to adjust school-zone boundaries within limits, and clarifies state highway involvement through CDOT approval requirements. It also broadens the authorized uses of automated enforcement technology and creates new local authority to designate and regulate school streets, affecting drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, micromobility users, local governments, and school communities.
The available context suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill, as reflected by its progression through committee and eventual enactment. The bill’s stated purpose—improving traffic safety near schools—appears to have broad appeal, especially among supporters of pedestrian safety, school-zone enforcement, and safer routes for children traveling to and from school. No vote record or committee transcript was provided showing organized opposition in the available materials.
The main points of contention are likely to involve the scope of local authority, the use of automated enforcement, and the treatment of state highways. The bill gives local governments flexibility to shrink school zones after a public hearing, but it also sets a floor of 200 feet and preserves broader zones unless reduced, which may draw differing views from safety advocates and local officials concerned about enforcement burdens or roadway design. Another likely issue is the expansion of camera-based enforcement in school zones and safe routes to school, which can raise privacy, due process, and revenue-generation concerns. CDOT approval requirements for state highways and roads connecting to state highways also suggest a jurisdictional balance between state and local control.