Assembly Concurrent Resolution 74 is a ceremonial, nonbinding legislative measure that names May 2025 as Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month in California. The text collects findings about rider training, fatality trends, and safety organizations, acknowledges the need for drivers to share the road with motorcycles, and honors motorcyclists’ contributions to California communities.
The resolution does not create regulatory duties, appropriations, or new enforcement powers. Its practical effect is political and programmatic: it gives state agencies and advocacy groups a formal legislative signal they can use to justify outreach, public education, and coordination on rider training and motorist awareness campaigns.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution records a series of factual findings about motorcycle use, safety training, and fatality trends, and formally declares May 2025 as Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month. It concludes by instructing the Assembly Chief Clerk to transmit copies of the resolution for distribution.
Who It Affects
Primary audiences are the California Highway Patrol, the Office of Traffic Safety, motorcycle safety trainers, rider advocacy organizations, and motorists across California who encounter motorcycles on public roads. State and local agencies that run safety campaigns are the likely operational actors.
Why It Matters
Although ceremonial, the resolution consolidates data and endorsements from state agencies and advocacy groups into a single legislative statement—useful for securing visibility for outreach, prioritizing freeway message board content, and encouraging voluntary training uptake without altering legal duties or budgets.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This concurrent resolution is not a statute; it is a formal expression of the Legislature’s view. The document opens with ‘‘whereas’’ clauses that summarize the Legislature’s reasons: motorcycle riding is common and resource-efficient, California has substantial rider-training activity through the California Highway Patrol’s program, and certain safety organizations actively promote training and awareness.
The preamble cites concrete numbers—the CHP program has trained about 1.2 million riders out of 1.4 million licensed since the 1980s—and notes recent trends in motorcycle and nonmotorcycle fatalities.
After setting out those facts, the core text contains two short ‘‘resolved’’ clauses. The first declares May 2025 as Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month, calls for heightened awareness among all drivers and recognition of motorcyclists’ community contributions.
The second clause instructs the Chief Clerk of the Assembly to transmit copies of the resolution to the author for distribution. There is no language creating obligations for agencies, no authorization of spending, and no regulatory changes.Practically, this resolution is a tool for advocacy and coordination.
The CHP, Office of Traffic Safety, and nonprofit rider groups can cite the Legislature’s designation when organizing events, pushing public-service messaging, or seeking partnerships with local governments and private stakeholders (for example, training providers or motorcycle dealers). Because the resolution highlights lane splitting as a California-first policy and names specific advocacy groups and training providers, it also signals which organizations the Legislature views as partners in promoting rider safety.Finally, because the measure carries a fiscal committee notation of “NO,” it confirms the Legislature treated the resolution as having no direct fiscal impact.
That limits the document to symbolic and convening power; any concrete programs or expanded campaigns would need separate administrative or budgetary action to fund and implement.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Legislature adopted a concurrent resolution (ACR 74) that designates May 2025 as Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month in California.
The resolution is purely ceremonial and nonbinding: it contains no regulatory mandates, no funding authorizations, and imposes no new legal obligations on state agencies or the public.
The text cites CHP training figures: the California Motorcyclist Safety Program has trained about 1,200,000 riders out of roughly 1,400,000 total riders licensed since the program began in the 1980s.
The bill’s findings report a 2.66% decrease in motorcycle fatalities in California over the last decade while noting a roughly 10% nationwide increase in motorcycle fatalities, and it references California’s unique history with lane splitting.
The resolution directs the Chief Clerk of the Assembly to transmit copies of the resolution to the author for distribution and was filed with the Secretary of State on June 25, 2025.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Factual findings and stakeholder recognition
The preamble aggregates background facts the Legislature relied on: motorcycle miles traveled, resource-efficiency arguments, CHP training totals, decade-long fatality trends, and the role of specific associations (ABATE, American Motorcyclist Association, Bay Area Riders Forum, Modified Motorcycle Association of California, California Motorcycle Dealers Association). For practitioners, these clauses identify the data and organizations the Legislature thinks are relevant to motorcycle safety and therefore likely to be referenced in subsequent outreach or legislative discussions.
Designation and statement of purpose
This clause formally designates a month for awareness and states three aims: acknowledge the need for mutual awareness among drivers, encourage sharing the road, and honor motorcyclists’ contributions. Legally, it creates no duties; operationally, it gives state and local actors a legislative imprimatur for awareness activities and public events tied to that month.
Administrative transmittal
A single administrative instruction requires the Chief Clerk of the Assembly to transmit copies of the resolution to the author for distribution. This is a standard closing provision on ceremonial measures and ensures interested parties can receive the resolution text for promotional or archival uses.
Non-fiscal, ceremonial measure
The resolution carries a fiscal committee designation of “NO,” and it is an Assembly Concurrent Resolution rather than a statute. That classification matters: it signals that the Legislature did not intend to authorize spending or regulatory action, and any follow-on programs would need separate statutory or budgetary steps.
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
- Motorcyclists and rider communities — gain formal legislative recognition that advocacy groups can use in publicity, recruitment for training courses, and event organizing, increasing visibility for safety messages.
- Rider-training providers (e.g., CHP-certified and private Total Control Training) — receive a policy signal that can boost marketing and enrollment efforts without new regulatory competition or procurement hurdles.
- State safety agencies (California Highway Patrol, Office of Traffic Safety) — obtain a legislative endorsement they can cite when scheduling outreach, leveraging freeway message boards, or coordinating with local partners.
- Motorcycle advocacy and dealer associations named in the resolution — enjoy elevated legitimacy and a clearer platform for partnering with public agencies on awareness campaigns.
Who Bears the Cost
- State agencies that choose to participate (CHP, Office of Traffic Safety) — may need to reallocate existing communications or staff time to coordinate events and messaging during the designated month, since the resolution does not include new funding.
- Local governments and community organizations — if they opt into observances, they may incur modest event and publicity costs without additional state support.
- Legislative and administrative offices — bear routine administrative time and printing/transmittal costs associated with processing and distributing the resolution, though the fiscal committee found no material impact.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The resolution balances symbolic recognition and convening power against the need for concrete action and funding: it elevates motorcycle safety on the legislative calendar and gives agencies and advocates a platform, but it does not—and cannot, by its form—deliver the resources or enforceable changes that many stakeholders say are required to materially reduce crashes and fatalities.
The resolution’s biggest practical limitation is its lack of funding or statutory authority. It can raise attention and justify voluntary action, but it cannot require agencies to expand training, change enforcement practices, or allocate new budgetary resources.
That gap creates an expectation-management problem: stakeholders may interpret the designation as a commitment to concrete programs even though any expansion of services would require separate administrative or budgetary steps.
The resolution also selects and frames data in ways that merit scrutiny. Citing CHP training totals and a 2.66% decline in California motorcycle fatalities over a decade is useful for a positive narrative, but the juxtaposition with a 10% nationwide increase raises questions about timeframe, base rates, and causation that the resolution does not resolve.
Mentioning lane splitting as a California-first policy highlights a distinctive state approach but also inserts a politically charged issue into the awareness messaging—potentially complicating outreach to audiences in jurisdictions where lane splitting is controversial or misunderstood.
Finally, measuring the effectiveness of an awareness month is nontrivial. The resolution offers no metrics, reporting requirements, or coordination mechanism.
That leaves evaluation to the discretion of agencies and nonprofits, which may produce uneven results and make it hard to attribute any safety outcomes to the designation itself.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.