SHB 2174
In CommitteeHouse
Crash prevention zones
Establishing crash prevention zones.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill creates a new process for jurisdictions in Washington to temporarily designate high-crash roadways as 'accident risk zones' to allow time for safety studies and improvements. While active, these zones feature doubled fines for certain traffic violations and increased enforcement, with revenue from those fines used to fund safety efforts in the zone. Zones are meant to be temporary and must be removed once improvements are made or upon request.
- Allows counties, cities, towns, or the Washington State Department of Transportation to designate 'accident risk zones' on roads with high crash rates to allow time for safety investigations and improvements.
- Requires a public hearing before finalizing a zone, and mandates an engineering and traffic study to identify safety improvements—including possible speed limit changes—after designation.
- Requires Washington State Patrol and local law enforcement to coordinate increased enforcement of traffic laws (especially speed-related) within the zone.
- Doubles fines for speed-related or collision-related traffic infractions in zones where posted signs warn of doubled penalties; half of that extra revenue must be used for zone-related safety efforts.
- Zones must be dissolved once safety improvements are completed, or can be ended early by the creating jurisdiction, DOT recommendation, or petition by 10% of affected property owners or residents.
Who is affected
- Drivers in accident risk zones — Drivers who receive traffic infractions (e.g., speeding or collision-related violations) in designated zones face doubled fines, and must navigate areas with increased police enforcement and posted warning signs.
- Local government officials (county and city councils, traffic engineers) — Local governments (counties, cities, and towns) gain authority to identify high-crash roadways, hold public hearings, conduct safety studies, and manage associated funding and enforcement efforts.
- State law enforcement and transportation agencies — State agencies like the Washington State Patrol and Department of Transportation must coordinate enforcement and engineering reviews, and may initiate or approve accident risk zones on state highways.
- Residents and property owners in or near accident risk zones — Property owners, residents, and businesses near or within a designated zone can petition to dissolve the zone if they believe it is no longer needed or is overly burdensome.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The requirement for engineering and traffic studies, coordinated enforcement, and mandatory dissolution once safety improvements are made creates a structured, evidence-based approach to reducing crashes—potentially saving lives and reducing injuries, especially in historically underserved areas with high crash rates.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 1(3), Sec. 1(5)Directing half of doubled fine revenue to fund safety improvements (e.g., signage, engineering studies, enforcement) in the same zone creates a self-funding safety program that can be implemented without general fund appropriations—potentially accelerating infrastructure upgrades in high-risk corridors.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(b)Mandatory public hearings and a petition-based dissolution process (10% of affected residents/property owners) provide meaningful avenues for community input and accountability, empowering residents to challenge or terminate zones they view as unnecessary or harmful.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(b), Sec. 1(5)The bill explicitly authorizes counties, cities, and towns to establish accident risk zones—giving local governments flexibility to tailor safety interventions to their communities’ specific crash patterns, rather than relying on top-down state mandates.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a), Sec. 2, Sec. 3The requirement for engineering and traffic investigations—including potential speed limit adjustments—ensures that safety improvements are data-driven and evidence-based, rather than politically motivated or based on anecdotal concerns.
TransportationLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)
Potential Concerns (5)
Doubled fines for speed- and collision-related infractions in accident risk zones impose higher out-of-pocket costs on drivers who receive tickets in those zones, disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income drivers who are less able to absorb unexpected fines.
FinancialRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)Increased enforcement in accident risk zones may lead to more frequent traffic stops, raising concerns about racial or socioeconomic profiling—especially if enforcement is not accompanied by robust oversight, data collection, or de-escalation protocols.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1(4)(b)The petition process to dissolve a zone (10% of affected property owners or residents) may be administratively burdensome and inaccessible to residents without organizational support or digital literacy, potentially skewing who can effectively challenge the zone.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(5)Doubling fines for traffic infractions in designated zones creates a financial penalty tied to geographic location rather than individual culpability, potentially undermining proportionality in punishment and raising due process concerns.
Rights & LibertiesRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)The requirement that half of doubled fine revenue be used for zone-specific safety efforts may create a pernicious incentive for jurisdictions to maintain or expand zones to generate revenue, potentially conflicting with the stated goal of temporary designation and safety improvement.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(4)(b)
Who Is Most Affected
Drivers in accident risk zones face doubled fines and increased enforcement, but may benefit from long-term safety improvements if zones are effective and temporary. Low-income drivers are disproportionately impacted by the fine increases.
Local governments gain new authority and a dedicated funding stream for safety projects, but must invest staff time in hearings, studies, and enforcement coordination—and may face political backlash if zones are perceived as revenue-generating rather than safety-focused.
State agencies (WSP, DOT) gain expanded roles in enforcement coordination and zone approval, but must allocate resources to oversight and interagency coordination—potentially diverting staff from other safety priorities.
Residents and property owners gain a formal mechanism to petition for zone dissolution, but may lack resources or awareness to do so—especially in low-income or non-English-dominant communities.