AB981 tasks the California Department of Motor Vehicles with running a pilot in Los Angeles, San Diego, Fresno, Sacramento, and Kern counties that requires people convicted of specified reckless‑speed and related offenses to install a certified active intelligent speed assist (AISA) device on any vehicle they drive. Courts notify convicted individuals and may order the device for set terms depending on the offense and prior convictions; the DMV records the restriction on the license and monitors compliance.
The bill layers operational requirements — mandatory installation, frequent (every 60 days) service and recalibration by certified installers, installer notice to the DMV if a device is tampered with, and an income‑scaled fee schedule — with data collection and an assessment by the Transportation Agency. It sunsets on January 1, 2033 unless extended, and requires intermediate reporting to evaluate impacts on recidivism and crash outcomes.
At a Glance
What It Does
Establishes a county‑limited pilot requiring judges to order certified active intelligent speed assist devices for convicted offenders of specified speeding and reckless driving statutes, with the DMV recording restrictions and overseeing installation, maintenance, and compliance. It also imposes mandatory periodic servicing and requires installers to report tampering or failures to the DMV.
Who It Affects
Drivers convicted under Sections 23103, 23109, 23104, 22348, or 23582 in the five pilot counties; certified AISA manufacturers and authorized installers; courts that issue orders and the DMV that tracks and enforces restrictions; and the Transportation Agency and contracted analysts who will evaluate outcomes.
Why It Matters
The bill moves from education and traditional penalties to device‑based risk control for speeding recidivists, creates new compliance and business roles for device providers, and establishes an evidence‑gathering structure that could inform statewide device mandates or repeal decisions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB981 creates a pilot program limited to Los Angeles, San Diego, Fresno, Sacramento, and Kern counties that forces certain convicted reckless‑speed offenders to operate only vehicles equipped with a certified active intelligent speed assist (AISA) device. Courts must notify convicted persons (or may order the device in some first‑offense cases) and transmit abstracts of conviction to the DMV, which then notifies the individual of installation requirements, places a restriction on the driving record, and monitors compliance.
Once notified, an individual must have every vehicle they operate fitted by a certified provider with a functioning, certified AISA device, submit a verification installation form to the DMV, and pay an administrative fee. The bill permits an exemption for people who do not own or have access to a vehicle, provided they certify that status within 30 days; however, the exemption ends if they later acquire access to a vehicle.
The DMV also cautions that installation does not substitute for a valid license.Maintenance and oversight are operationalized: the installer must service, recalibrate, and monitor each installed device at least once every 60 days; installers must report removals, tampering attempts, or repeated maintenance noncompliance to the DMV; and periods of noncompliance do not count toward the mandatory term. Manufacturers and their agents must implement an income‑scaled fee schedule, verify income using specified documentation, post fee information publicly and provide it at contracting, and allow retroactive credits if a user later qualifies for reduced cost.The duration of required device installation varies by statute and number of priors: first‑time offenders in some categories may face court‑ordered device restrictions up to six months; more serious offenses or repeat offenders face mandatory terms ranging from 12 to 48 months depending on the offense and prior convictions.
The Transportation Agency must receive implementation data by July 1, 2030, assess program outcomes and recidivism, and report recommendations to the Legislature by July 1, 2031. The pilot and its statutory provisions automatically repeal on January 1, 2033 unless extended.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The pilot applies only in Los Angeles, San Diego, Fresno, Sacramento, and Kern counties and covers convictions on or after January 1, 2026.
Installers must recalibrate and service each device at least once every 60 days and must notify the DMV if a device is removed, tampered with, or the person misses maintenance three or more times.
Courts or statute impose mandatory AISA terms that scale with priors: from court‑discretionary up to six months for certain first offenses, to mandatory terms of 12, 24, 36, or 48 months for repeat offenders depending on the offense.
Manufacturers and their agents must implement an income‑based fee schedule, verify offender income with tax returns or recent pay statements (or unemployment/CalFresh proof), and post fee and application information publicly and to the court order packet.
The DMV must report program implementation data to the Transportation Agency by July 1, 2030; the Transportation Agency must analyze and report outcomes and recommendations to the Legislature by July 1, 2031, and the program sunsets January 1, 2033.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Pilot in five counties and court/DMV notification duties
This provision sets the geographic scope and the fundamental flow: courts notify convicted individuals subject to the covered offenses and send abstracts of conviction to the DMV; the DMV then informs the person of the device requirement and records the restriction on the driver’s license record. Practically, courts must adapt their notice language and processes, and the DMV must modify records to reflect device‑only driving restrictions and the timing for installation.
Installation obligations, proof of compliance, and license restrictions
Notified persons must arrange installation by a certified provider, submit a DMV verification form, and pay an administration fee. The DMV is required to place an explicit restriction on the license record limiting the driver to vehicles with functioning certified AISA devices. The statute also creates a narrow temporary exemption for people without vehicle access who timely certify that status, but those individuals must comply once they obtain a vehicle.
Frequent servicing requirement and installer reporting to DMV
Installers must service and recalibrate each device at least every 60 days and continuously monitor device operation. If a device is removed, shows tampering, or a person misses servicing three or more times, the installer must notify the DMV. The DMV is tasked with monitoring installations and maintenance, turning the installer into an active compliance agent rather than only an equipment vendor.
Which offenses trigger the device and how long devices must remain installed
The statute lists specific Vehicle Code sections (23103, 23109, 23104, 22348, 23582) and prescribes terms that escalate with prior convictions. The court can order the device for some first offenses (term up to six months), while one, two, or three+ priors create mandatory 12–48 month terms depending on the offense group. This creates a predictable penalty ladder tied expressly to recidivism.
Income‑scaled fees, verification documents, and disclosure duties for providers
Manufacturers and their agents must adopt a fee schedule that scales device and program costs to the offender’s income relative to the federal poverty level and cover the remainder themselves. Providers must verify income using prior year tax returns, recent pay statements, unemployment benefit verification, or CalFresh proof, post the schedule and application steps on their websites and at contracting, and supply the information with court orders and DMV notices. The bill permits retroactive credits if an offender later qualifies for reduced costs.
Data collection, assessment deadlines, and automatic repeal
The DMV must deliver implementation data to the Transportation Agency by July 1, 2030; the Transportation Agency may contract for analysis and must report outcomes and recommendations to the Legislature by July 1, 2031. The statute includes a hard sunset date of January 1, 2033, after which the pilot automatically expires unless explicitly extended by later legislation, framing this as a time‑limited experiment.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Local traffic‑safety agencies and planners — the pilot generates device‑level compliance data and crash/recidivism statistics that can inform targeted safety interventions and funding decisions.
- Victims and potential crash survivors — if AISA devices reduce speed‑related recidivism among high‑risk drivers, communities could see fewer severe crashes and fatalities from repeat offenders.
- Certified device installers and monitoring service providers — the bill creates recurring service revenue through mandatory 60‑day servicing and monitoring obligations for installed devices.
- Manufacturers with AISA technology — mandatory use for ordered offenders creates a defined market in the five counties and incentivizes product certification and scaling of support operations.
- Transportation Agency and researchers — the structured data reporting and evaluation provisions provide a clear dataset to assess the effectiveness of device‑based interventions on recidivism.
Who Bears the Cost
- Convicted individuals subject to installation — they face device costs, recurring service appointments every 60 days, administrative fees, and the mobility limitations of a device restriction tied to their license record.
- Manufacturers and authorized agents — they must absorb the portion of program costs not paid by low‑income offenders, manage income verification, post disclosures, and handle retroactive credits, creating operational and financial burdens.
- DMV and courts — both agencies must change processes: courts must include device information in orders and abstracts; the DMV must track restrictions, process verifications, collect fees, and follow up on installer reports, requiring staff time and system changes.
- Installers — beyond installation revenue, they take on monitoring and mandatory reporting duties (including notifying the DMV of tampering), exposing them to compliance liability and increased service workload.
- Low‑income offenders who obtain access to vehicles later — while the statute offers reduced cost tiers, the requirement to drive only device‑equipped vehicles could constrain employment or caregiving if installers or certified devices are not readily accessible.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether device‑based speed control protects public safety by curbing repeat dangerous drivers enough to justify imposing recurring costs, mobility limits, and intensive monitoring on individuals — particularly lower‑income people — and shifting administrative burdens and financial risk onto manufacturers, installers, and state agencies without clear technical and certification standards.
The bill combines technical device mandates, heavy administrative processes, and income‑based cost allocation without specifying key operational standards. It defines 'certified' devices and 'certified' providers but does not set out in this text who issues certification, what technical performance standards must be met (for example, how the device identifies and limits speeding in mixed urban/highway contexts), or how devices will interact with aftermarket vehicle systems.
That vagueness creates implementation risk: manufacturers and installers need clear certification criteria before they can scale, courts need concrete forms and standard phrasing for orders, and the DMV needs IT changes to record restrictions and manage incoming verification forms and installer alerts.
The fee schedule and income verification regime are operationally precise about documents but ambiguous in the bill text as provided: the statute ties the provider to cover unpaid percentages, requires retroactive credits, and mandates conspicuous disclosures — all reasonable consumer protections — yet it could shift substantial up‑front cash flow and compliance risk to manufacturers and installers, potentially narrowing the pool of willing providers or raising prices. The every‑60‑days service cadence reduces the window for undetected tampering but raises access burdens on low‑income drivers and rural offenders, and it assumes an adequate network of certified installers in the five counties.
Finally, the pilot’s limited geography and hard sunset pose evaluation challenges. Data from five counties with diverse urban/rural mixes can be informative, but small sample sizes, differential enforcement across courts, and the patchwork of device availability may produce noisy results.
The reporting deadlines (data to Transportation Agency by mid‑2030 and assessment by mid‑2031) provide time to measure recidivism but may not capture longer‑term behavioral change or substitution effects (e.g., offenders shifting to unmonitored modes).
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.