SB 1213 amends Section 125 of the California Streets and Highways Code to make a set of nonsubstantive editorial changes to the state's highway-closure authority. The amendment rephrases the statute's permissive language, tidies several clauses, and replaces the gendered occupational term "flagman" with the gender-neutral "flagger."
The bill does not add or remove any powers from the Department of Transportation; it preserves the department's existing authority to erect barriers, post warnings and signs, place warning devices, and direct traffic. Its primary practical effect will be administrative: model contracts, traffic-control specifications, agency forms, training materials, and any local ordinances that cite Section 125 may need minor updates to match the revised statutory text.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill rewrites the opening permissive sentence of Section 125 and adjusts the five enumerated authorities listed there, retaining the department's ability to erect barriers, post warnings and signage, place warning devices, and assign personnel to direct traffic. It replaces the term "flagman" with "flagger" and corrects minor phrasing and punctuation.
Who It Affects
Caltrans (Department of Transportation) operations, traffic-control contractors and unions, local agencies and cities that reference Section 125, legal drafters who prepare contracts and specifications, and vendors of traffic-control devices and signage.
Why It Matters
Although the bill makes no substantive policy change, it matters for compliance and documentation: agencies and contractors will need to align templates, procurement language, and training materials. It also reflects a move toward gender-neutral statutory language and clearer drafting, which reduces ambiguity in administrative practice.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1213 focuses entirely on editing the text of Section 125 of the Streets and Highways Code. The statute currently states that the department may take actions to notify the public that a state highway is closed or its use is restricted and then lists specific actions.
The bill changes the opening line to read that the department "may do any of the following," which signals that the following enumerated items are options the department may exercise. The listed authorities themselves—erecting barriers, posting warnings and directional signage, placing warning devices, and assigning personnel to manage traffic—remain intact.
The bill also cleans up wording within the enumerated items. It substitutes the gender-neutral word "flagger" for "flagman," tightens prepositional phrases (for example, replacing "upon such the highway" with clearer phrasing), and removes or corrects duplicated words and punctuation errors present in the introduced text.
Those adjustments do not create new powers, conditions, or enforcement mechanisms; rather, they modernize and clarify existing language so it reads consistently with contemporary drafting norms.For day-to-day operations, the practical takeaway is procedural: Caltrans and other agencies that rely on Section 125 should expect to update internal policies, safety plans, standard contract clauses, and training materials to reflect the new wording. Likewise, contractors and signage vendors should check whether contract references or product labels cite the older language.
Because SB 1213 contains no implementation timetable, agencies will incorporate the edits as part of routine code-update cycles and document-revision processes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 1213 amends only Section 125 of the Streets and Highways Code; it does not add new sections or create new regulatory schemes.
The bill rephrases the statute’s permissive clause to "may do any of the following," clarifying that the subsequent list is discretionary, not mandatory.
The enumerated authorities remain the same: erect barriers, post warnings and notices, post directional signs, place warning devices, and assign personnel to control traffic.
SB 1213 replaces the term "flagman" with "flagger," updating occupational language to be gender-neutral.
There are no funding, penalty, or enforcement changes in the bill — it is presented as nonsubstantive, editorial language only.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Rewrites the opening permissive clause
The bill replaces the existing opening line of Section 125 with wording that reads "may do any of the following." That change clarifies the grammatical structure and emphasizes that the list that follows are discrete options the Department of Transportation may exercise. For practitioners, the effect is interpretive clarity rather than a change in legal authority.
Grammar and phrase cleanup for listed authorities
Subsections covering barriers, warnings, directional signage, and warning devices are retained but edited to remove awkward or redundant prepositions and to align phrasing across entries. These edits reduce ambiguity about the statute's scope (for example, clarifying whether posting is to be "upon the highway" versus "for the highway") and help ensure consistent implementation language in operations manuals and contracts.
Updates occupational term to 'flagger'
The bill replaces the gendered term "flagman" with the gender-neutral "flagger" in the subsection governing assignment of personnel to direct or detour traffic. This is a straightforward modernization that brings the term in line with current industry usage and avoids gendered statutory language that can conflict with workplace policies or bargaining agreements.
No new powers, funding, or enforcement changes
The amendment does not expand or limit the department’s powers, create new offenses, or authorize funding or regulatory programs. That makes the bill administratively light: the legal authority remains the same, but supporting documents that quote Section 125 verbatim will need to be updated to avoid textual mismatches.
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
- California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) — Gains clearer statutory wording that reduces interpretive friction when issuing traffic orders, drafting standard specifications, and training staff.
- Traffic-control contractors and unions — Benefit from the use of contemporary, industry-standard occupational terminology ("flagger"), which aligns statute with contract language and training materials.
- Legal and procurement teams at state and local agencies — Get a cleaner statutory text to cite in contracts, reducing the need for explanatory amendments or cross-references when Section 125 is invoked.
- Signage and safety-equipment vendors — Face fewer downstream inconsistencies between statutory language and product/service descriptions, which simplifies procurement and labeling updates.
Who Bears the Cost
- State and local agencies (administrative units) — Must update templates, safety plans, procurement documents, and internal references that cite Section 125; costs are minor but real and typically unfunded.
- Contractors with existing contracts referencing the old text — May need to amend contract language or issue clarifying change orders to avoid mismatch between contract terms and updated statutory wording.
- Document publishers and legal databases — Need to revise published statutory texts, annotations, and cross-references to reflect the new wording, incurring routine editorial costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between the desire to modernize and clarify statutory language (including adopting gender-neutral terminology) and the risk that even cosmetic edits create administrative friction or unintended interpretive consequences when existing contracts and local rules quote the old text.
On its face SB 1213 is an editorial cleanup, but editorial changes can create practical headaches. Where private contracts, local ordinances, permits, or memoranda of understanding quote Section 125 verbatim, the new text will create discrepancies requiring amendment or explanation.
That process imposes administrative costs on agencies and contractors, even though the underlying legal authority is unchanged.
There is also a modest interpretive risk. Rewording a permissive clause to "may do any of the following" clarifies the list’s discretionary nature, but courts or litigants could seize on wording differences if a dispute turns on whether a particular action was required or optional.
Finally, the introduced text contains minor typographical oddities (for example, duplicated words) that will need cleanup during enrollment or by the Legislative Counsel to avoid introducing new drafting errors into the code.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.