A bill that would require California trucks to carry a device to enable police or carriers to stop the vehicles while in motion is dead, but the battle to put the devices on tractor-trailers in the state is far from over.

The bill, AB575, lost a vote before the Senate Transportation Committee June 29. The vote was 4-4, but since the committee has 13 members, seven votes were required for the bill to move forward.

The bill has been unpopular among truck drivers, many of whom have voiced opposition to the bill as well as to earlier, similar proposals.

“This clearly is a bad idea whose time we hope never comes, ” said Todd Spencer, executive vice president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association.

Howard Posner, a consultant for the Assembly Transportation Committee, said that after the committee vote Tuesday, the bill was dead for this year. In addition, the current bill’s author, Assemblyman John Dutra, D-Fremont, is retiring.

“It would have to be reintroduced next year, which would start the process all over again,” Posner said.

That very likely will happen. A number of officials in California still think the devices are necessary, and are determined to continue to press for their use.

Scott Howland, who works in the Special Reps Office at the California Highway Patrol, said the truck-stopping devices are still on the patrol’s radar screen.

“As new technologies become available, we are interested in what they can do and how they can benefit the safety of hazardous materials,” Howland said.

Patrol officials supported AB575 and a previous bill that would have called for the devices. And, if asked again, the patrol would still support similar legislation.

“We will recommend that legislation be considered to require truck-stopping devices as well as any other avenues that would help provide for the safety of the transportation of hazardous materials,” Howland said. “We think obviously that any things that will enhance the security of the transportation of hazardous materials – because of the danger that they provide – would be beneficial, whether those devices prevent the taking or hijacking of a truck, whether it be in assisting in locating the truck, or helps to stop the truck to prevent a disaster.”

Posner said the California Highway Patrol is due to issue a report soon on the state’s concerns about hazmat trucks. When that report is released, he said, the governor’s office may ask another legislator to introduce a bill similar to AB575 – “depending on what the governor’s office thinks.”

“We’ve been dealing with the subject for a year and half with them (the Highway Patrol), and a lot of what had been going into the bill was coming from their office,” Posner said.

The backers of AB575 said the bill was designed to keep hazardous materials out of the hands of terrorists.

It would have required trucks carrying flammable materials to have some kind of disconnect device – an external mechanism that would either activate the brakes or cut off the fuel to the engine. The device would have to be built in a way that would allow Highway Patrol officers, the motor carrier or an agent of the motor carrier to activate it from the outside of the truck. AB575 also contained a requirement for GPS tracking devices that would allow carriers to find a truck’s location at any time.

Under the proposal, the Highway Patrol would have made the call as to what types of technologies would be acceptable. The law-enforcement agency has tested “various remote-stopping technologies,” Posner said earlier this year. Film on the Highway Patrol Web site showed a test of one such device. The device is hooked to a trailer’s back bumper. When a vehicle, such as a Highway Patrol car, hits the back bumper, it activates the device, locking the brakes.

The bill had undergone several changes – originally, it had included other types of hazmat shipments. And Posner said an amendment this year would have allowed truckers the choice of either carrying a remote truck-stopping device or an anti-hijacking device. Those devices would require some type of technology that would confirm the identity of the driver – such as a fingerprint reader – or it would stop the truck.

When the bill – and the nature of some of the truck-stopping technologies that were being considered – first came to light, it raised concerns in the trucking industry. Especially of concern was the thought that a terrorist could use the very device intended to stop them and instead take control of the truck.

“If you wanted to provide a blueprint for destruction to terrorists,” Spencer said, “this would be the way you would do it.”

by Mark H. Reddig, associate editor

Mark Reddig can be reached at mark_reddig@landlinemag.com.