Safer Streets, Steeper Penalties, Scam Stoppers – What California drivers need to know about new laws in 2026

January 26, 2026

The New Year has brought some key changes to California traffic and car laws – legislation aimed at improving safety on our roads, increasing accountability for motorists, and adding protections for consumers.

Here’s an overview of some of the most crucial vehicle-related legislation going into effect this year.

Stone cold sober

A recent CalMatters investigation revealed that the Golden State is far from the gold standard when it comes to dealing with drunk drivers. As Calmatters reported, the state’s DUI laws have ranked among the flimsiest in the nation, and those that exist are not effectively enforced. Every year in California, more than 1300 people are killed in intoxication-related crashes.

New legislation aims to address this tragic problem. Two new laws are increasing crackdowns on driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

• AB 366. Since 2019, California law has required an individual convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol to install an ignition interlock device (IID) – a small electronic breathalyzer that prevents the car from starting if the driver is intoxicated – on the vehicle they operate, with certain specifications, including discretionary application for first-time offenders.

 The new law extends the requirement to ALL DUI offenders – including first-time offenders – through January 1, 2033.

•  AB 1087 deals directly with intoxicated drivers who cause fatalities. for individuals convicted of vehicular manslaughter or gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated.

The new law increases the probation term from up to two years for a felony (up to just one year for a misdemeanor) to a standard three-to-five years.

 Smile – you’re on camera.

Two new laws, SB 720 (Safer Streets Act) and AB 289, both expand authorization for California cities and counties to use automated traffic enforcement systems (meeting specific requirements) to detect traffic light, speed, and lane violations and issue notices.

• Under SB 720, automated traffic enforcement systems that detect a driver failing to obey traffic signals can issue civil, but not criminal, penalties. The new law also provides for “an initial review, an administrative hearing, and an appeals process, as specified, for a violation under this program.”
• AB 289 implements a Work Zone Speed Safety System. As SacBee reported, this pilot program puts speed detectors in highway work zones, using “fixed or mobile radar or laser technology to spot speeding vehicles,” as well as to photograph the vehicle’s license plate. CHP explained to SacBee, “Citations will be issued to the vehicle’s registered owner with specified requirements and procedures for program implementation, citation issuance, review, and appeal.” Fines begin at $35, but with additional penalties and court fees, can reach almost $500.

Slow down for Students!

A School Zone is defined as a roadway within 500 feet, in any direction, of school grounds (unless otherwise posted).

This year, Assembly Bill 382 allows cities and counties to reduce the speed limit in school zones from 25 mph (existing law) to 20 mph. It’s important to know that on January 1, 2031, the 20 mph school zone speed limit will go into effect statewide.

AB 382 also authorizes local governments to lower the speed limit to 15 mph on roads where the posted limit is 30 mph or lower, and to reduce the speed limit to 25 mph in the area just outside the school zone (500 to 1000 feet away).

Zones must be clearly marked with proper signage.

“Slow Down, Move Over”

State law already required drivers approaching stationary vehicles of several types (eg, Caltrans vehicles displaying flashing lights) to slow down to a prudent speed, and if possible/safe, to change lanes, giving such vehicles a wide berth. Violation of this law is an infraction punishable by a fine of up to $50. AB 390 expands this requirement: drivers must now “slow down and move over” for all stationary vehicles, including marked highway maintenance vehicles and any vehicle displaying hazard signals or other warning devices such as cones or flares.

Show your plates

AB 1085 makes it illegal to manufacture or sell any product or device that obstructs or interferes (or is intended to impede) the visual or electronic reading of a license plate in California. Infractions now carry a fine of $1000. According to the DMV, the law addresses “the use of illegal license plate covers that enable toll evasion and other criminal activity.”

Keeping up with E-bikes

E-Bike use is surging statewide, and with it, accidents and injuries – especially among young riders. In addition, e-bike collisions often result in more severe injury than conventional bike crashes.

• This year, a new law, AB 544, aims to make e-bike riding safer and riders more visible, by requiring that all e-bikes have a red rear-facing reflector or solid/flashing red light with a built-in reflector at all times of day, not just during dark hours as under prior law.

The same new law also provides that youth who receive helmet violations while riding electric bicycles can complete the CHP-developed online electric bicycle safety and training program to fulfill their safety course requirement.

• Several counties, including Marin and San Diego are launching pilot programs that impose age restrictions on e-bike operation.
• Until now, various types of small, two-wheeled, electric vehicles were not officially classified – and therefore, not properly regulated for safety or legal compliance.

Senate Bill 586 provides clarification, defining an “eMoto” or “off-highway electric motorcycle” as a vehicle:

1. Designed mainly for off-highway use
2. Powered by an electric motor not requiring a motor number
3. With two wheels and a straddle seat; steered with handlebars
4. Not equipped with pedals by its manufacturer.

It further defines an off-highway electric motorcycle or eMoto as an “off-highway motor vehicle” (OHV), subject to all OHV rules and regulations, including that the rider wears a safety helmet. If the OHV is not registered under the vehicle code, it must display DMV-issued identification plate or placard.

 Protecting Car Buyers from Deceptive Sales Practices

With SB 766, California is leading the charge to implement new consumer protections for car buyers. Combating Auto Retail Scams, known as the CARS Act, prohibits dealers from making any material misrepresentation about the vehicle sale (eg: hidden costs, misleading financing or lease terms) and requires full transparency in price and terms. It also makes it a violation for a dealer to charge “junk fees,” such as upselling with bogus add-on services (ex. free oil changes for an electric vehicle).

This new law is also the first in the nation to provide consumers a 3-day return window after purchase or lease of a used car.

Motor vehicle litigation covers a wide range of accidents involving cars, trucks, motorcycles, buses, and bicycles, and often extends beyond basic collisions to include claims against vehicle manufacturers, suppliers, or government entities responsible for unsafe roadway design or maintenance. These cases can be complex, involving multiple parties and legal challenges that go far beyond filing an insurance claim. The experienced car accident attorneys at Aitken * Aitken * Cohn handle even the most complicated motor vehicle cases and are committed to helping injured victims and their families recover full and fair compensation.

Most recently, our litigation team recovered a $19.5 million settlement for a client after a hard-fought, six-year legal battle. The case involved a recent high school graduate and community college student who miraculously survived a head-on collision—considered statistically unsurvivable—while driving home late at night from her warehouse job in the Inland Empire.

And our attorneys achieved a successful outcome in a complex case involving a client with a pre-existing medical condition. The case involved an auto accident captured on video, resulting in the client requiring back surgery and a recommendation for future fusion. Despite the pre-existing condition and medical causation being points of contention, AAC secured a $1.1 million settlement on behalf of his client after State Farm agreed to pay the full policy limits in a recent mediation just before trial.

Written on behalf of Aitken Aitken Cohn