WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 440

Relating to: levy increase limit for the village of Oregon and the towns of Oregon and Rutland. (FE)

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Jenna Jacobson and 1 co-sponsor

Caltrans must identify best practices for suicide countermeasures on state bridges by July 1, 2028, consulting health experts and stakeholders; no mandatory construction.

Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 offered by Representative J. Jacobson
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 440

AB 440 — Summary

Status note (documents): The materials you provided contain two different texts labeled “AB 440.” The majority of listed documents (Assembly Appropriations, Senate Health, Floor documents) and the primary bill text describe a California bill by Assemblymember Ramos that would require the Department of Transportation to identify best practices for suicide countermeasures on state bridges and overpasses. An unrelated “As Introduced” text in the file appears to be a different bill (Nevada statute amendments on industrial insurance and post‑employment disease testing). This summary focuses on the California bill text that is repeated across the legislative documents you provided. Where procedural records conflict, those inconsistencies are noted below.

Main purpose

Require the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to identify, by July 1, 2028, best practices for implementing suicide countermeasures on state bridges and overpasses — i.e., measures designed to deter suicide attempts from those structures.

Key provisions

  • Adds Section 92.8 to the Streets and Highways Code.
  • Deadline: On or before July 1, 2028, Caltrans must identify best practices for implementation of suicide countermeasures on bridges and overpasses.
  • Evaluation requirements:
    • Consider appropriate physical infrastructure, design features, and related deterrent measures.
    • Solicit and consider feedback from local jurisdictions and other stakeholders.
  • Consultation: Caltrans must consult with the State Department of Public Health, behavioral‑health experts, and other relevant stakeholders when implementing the section.
  • Discretion and liability: Any countermeasures implemented are those “as determined by the department to be appropriate.” The section explicitly states it does not create a mandatory duty under Government Code section 815.6 (limiting creation of certain government liabilities).

Who is affected

  • Primary: California Department of Transportation (responsible for identifying best practices and any implementation decisions).
  • Secondary: State Department of Public Health, behavioral‑health experts, local jurisdictions, advocacy and community stakeholders, and users of state bridges/overpasses (including people at risk of suicide).
  • Potentially affected: contractors or local agencies if Caltrans elects to implement or fund physical countermeasures (barriers, nets, screening, signage, crisis telephones, etc.).

Fiscal and procedural notes

  • Digest metadata: Majority vote; no appropriation; fiscal committee review flagged (Fiscal Committee: YES), indicating possible fiscal impacts to be evaluated.
  • Timeline in text: identification of best practices due by July 1, 2028.
  • Procedural record in your materials is inconsistent. Several entries show committee referrals and hearings in spring–summer 2025 and a status line: “(Pursuant to Joint Standing Rule No. 14.3.1, no further action allowed.)” Separate legislative action entries (dated Sept–Oct 2025) indicate passage and chaptering; those entries may reflect a different bill or later action. Confirm current enacted status with the official legislative or Secretary of State records before relying on the procedural outcome.

Practical impact

The bill is largely preparatory and planning‑focused: it requires Caltrans to assemble expert input and identify best practices rather than mandating a particular infrastructure program. It could lead to future Caltrans policy changes or projects (and attendant costs) implementing barrier systems or other suicide deterrents at specific bridges, but does not itself require construction or create an enforcement liability for failure to act.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.