Single occupant in a Hybrid can no longer use the HOV lane

There's a couple of others, but I like that one

California DMV Announces New 2011 Laws

 

Oh goodie
Fresh meat for my morning commute.

 

This thread would be a good place to mention that, if your registration renewal comes up in July, you are not going to get your usual bill in the mail until later. You also will have an extra grace period to pay the bill, and cops won't be writing tickets from old tags.

All has to do with the uncertainty of the expiration of the temporary tax hikes.

 

Funny you mention that Bill, I am in that group. The reg on my wife's Durango is up next Thursday and no one will either let me pay for it, or tell me what to pay.

 

New Laws Starting on July 1 and Beyond

* Organ Donation (SB 1395/Alquist) Starting July 1, the language on the DMV's application offers the driver license applicant the option to register as a prospective organ donor in the organ donor program or to defer that decision to a later time. This change will now include in the organ donor registration field of the application check boxes indicating (A) Yes, add my name to the donor registry or (B) I do not wish to register at this time, thus ensuring that the applicant’s failure to check the box is not simply an oversight.

* Local Traffic Ordinances (SB 949/Oropeza) On July 1, in an effort of ensuring that traffic convictions are recorded by the Department of Motor Vehicles, local authorities may not enact or enforce a local ordinance on any matter covered by the California Vehicle Code.

* Driving Under the Influence (AB 1601/Hill) Effective in January 1, 2012, this bill authorizes a court to order a 10-year revocation of the driver license of a person convicted of a third or subsequent DUI violation, with possible reinstatement after five years if specified conditions are met

Can someone explain the 2nd one to me?

 

ftp://leginfo.public.ca.gov/pub/09-1...sen_floor.html

 

That's what you call preemptive authority. In other words, if the CVC regulates a certain thing, a city cannot create their own regulations concerning that particular thing.

For example, if the CVC says you can make a U-turn at an intersection, a city cannot make their own regulation that says no U-turns allowed within city limits.

That's just an example not based in fact, and don't forget that the CVC usually says "unless otherwise posted or regulated" or something to that effect. Which leaves an opening for cities to post something different. But if the state chooses to remove the exceptive language, the cities could not contradict.

It appears to me that the main intent of this bill was to make sure all violations were reported to the state DMV, and that all fines levied were paid to the state. In other words, they want the money.

 

Gee, that's different.