María Rivas Cruz looks through a scrapbook of memories from her more than a decade-long relationship with Raymond Olivares, who died last year after being struck by a speeding car. The photo she holds shows them celebrating buying a house together.
(
Lauren Justice
/
KFF Health News
)
Topline:
New York and Michigan recently passed laws allowing local jurisdictions to lower speed limits, and Los Angeles voters backed safer road designs, but enforcement often meets political resistance. The number of pedestrians killed or injured on the road remains high.
Political roadblocks: There’s plenty of political resistance to speed enforcement. In California’s Statehouse, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) proposed requiring GPS-equipped smart devices in new cars and trucks to prevent excessive speeding. But after pushback, the state lawmaker watered down his bill to require all vehicles sold in the state starting in 2032 to have only warning systems that alert drivers when they exceed the speed limit by more than 10 mph.
Although the Biden administration is championing Vision Zero — its commitment to zero traffic deaths — and injecting more than $20 billion in funding for transportation safety programs through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, road safety advocates and some lawmakers argue that the country is still far from making streets and vehicles safe, or slowing drivers down.
Read more ... for some personal perspectives from people calling for the needs for safer roads.
The party was winding down. Its young hosts, María Rivas Cruz and her fiancé, Raymond Olivares, had accompanied friends to their car to bid them farewell. As the couple crossed a four-lane main road back to the home they had just bought, Rivas Cruz and Olivares were struck by a car fleeing an illegal street race. The driver was going 70 in a 40-mph zone.
Despite years of pleading for a two-lane road, lower speed limits, safety islands, and more marked crosswalks, residents say the county had done little to address speeding in this unincorporated pocket of southeastern Los Angeles. Since 2012, this half-mile stretch of Avalon Boulevard had logged 396 crashes, injuring 170 and killing three.
Olivares, 27, a civil engineer for the city of Los Angeles, became the fourth fatality when he was hurled across the street, hit by a second car, and instantly killed. Rivas Cruz was transported to a hospital, where she remained in a coma for two weeks. Once awake, the elementary school teacher underwent a series of reconstructive surgeries to repair her arm, jaw, and legs.
María Rivas Cruz survived being struck by a car in southeastern Los Angeles while crossing the street in 2023 with her fiancé, Raymond Olivares, who died at the scene.
(
Lauren Justice
/
KFF Health News
)
A memorial for Raymond Olivares outside his Los Angeles home. Olivares was fatally struck by a car while crossing the street in front of his home last year.
(
Lauren Justice
/
KFF Health News
)
In the aftermath of the February 2023 crash, the county installed protective steel posts midway across the street. But residents, who had sought a platformed center divider and speed cameras, said that wasn’t enough.
“It’s just a band-aid on a cut. This is supposed to solve it, but it doesn’t, and that is what hurts,” said Rivas Cruz, who now at age 28 walks with a cane and lives with chronic pain. “I go to sleep, and I’m like, ‘It’s just a dream, it’s just a dream.’ And it’s not.”
The nation’s road system covers 4 million miles and is governed by a patchwork of federal, state, and local jurisdictions that often operate in silos, making systemic change difficult and expensive. But amid the highest number of pedestrians killed in decades, localities are pushing to control how speed limits are set and for more accountability on road design. This spring, New York and Michigan passed laws allowing local jurisdictions to lower speed limits. In Los Angeles, voters approved a measure that forces the city to act on its own safety improvement plan, mandating that the car-loving metropolis redesign streets, add bike lanes, and protect cyclists, transit riders, and pedestrians.
Still, there’s plenty of political resistance to speed enforcement. In California’s Statehouse, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) proposed requiring GPS-equipped smart devices in new cars and trucks to prevent excessive speeding. But after pushback, the state lawmaker watered down his bill to require all vehicles sold in the state starting in 2032 to have only warning systems that alert drivers when they exceed the speed limit by more than 10 mph.
Although the Biden administration is championing Vision Zero — its commitment to zero traffic deaths — and injecting more than $20 billion in funding for transportation safety programs through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, road safety advocates and some lawmakers argue that the country is still far from making streets and vehicles safe, or slowing drivers down.
“We are not showing the political will to use the proven safety tools that exist,” said Leah Shahum, founder of Vision Zero Network, a nonprofit organization advancing Vision Zero in communities across the country.
Still a crisis
The need for safer roads took on urgency during the covid pandemic. Fatalities rose even as lockdown mandates emptied streets. In 2022, more than 42,500 people died on American roads, and at least 7,522 pedestrians were fatally struck — the highest tally of pedestrian deaths in more than four decades.
Experts cite several reasons for the decline in road safety. During the lockdowns, reckless driving increased while traffic enforcement declined. SUVs and trucks have become larger and heavier, thus deadlier when they hit a pedestrian. Other factors persist as streets remain wide to accommodate vehicles, and in some states speed limits have gradually increased.
Residents want more than the yellow protective posts erected since Raymond Olivares, a pedestrian, was fatally struck by a car fleeing an illegal street race. They want reduced lanes, lower speed limits, and safety islands.
(
Lauren Justice
/
KFF Health News
)
Safety barriers added to a crosswalk in Los Angeles have been damaged and hit by passing cars.
(
Lauren Justice
/
KFF Health News
)
Early estimates of motor vehicle fatalities show a slight decrease from 2022 to 2023, but pedestrian fatalities are still notably above pre-pandemic numbers. “It’s an encouraging start, but the numbers still constitute a crisis,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg wrote in February of roadway deaths.
The Biden administration has directed $15.6 billion to road safety until 2026 and $5 billion in local grants to prevent roadway deaths and injuries. Under the U.S. Department of Transportation’s new “vulnerable road user” rule, states with 15% or more deaths involving pedestrians, bicyclists, or motorcyclists compared with all road deaths must match federal dollars in their safety improvement spending.
Road safety advocates argue the federal government missed an opportunity to eliminate outdated standards for setting speed limits when it revised traffic guidelines last year. The agency could have eliminated guidance recommending setting speed limits at or below how fast 85% of drivers travel on uncongested roads. Critics contend that what’s known as the 85th percentile rule encourages traffic engineers to set speed limits at levels unsafe for pedestrians.
But the Federal Highway Administration wrote in a statement that while the 85th percentile is the typical method, engineers rarely rely solely on this rule. It also noted that states and some local agencies have their own criteria for setting speed limits.
In response, grassroots efforts to curtail speeding have sprouted across communities. In April, Michigan passed legislation granting local governments authority to round down when setting speed limits.
And after four years of lobbying, New York state passed Sammy’s Law, named after 12-year-old Sammy Cohen Eckstein, who was killed by a driver in Brooklyn in 2013. The law, which will take effect in June, allows New York City to lower its speed limits to 20 mph in designated areas.
“With this legislation, I hope we can learn more children’s names because of their accomplishments, their personalities, and their spirit — not their final moments,” said Sammy’s mother, Amy Cohen.
Cindi Enamorado stands beside a memorial for her brother, Raymond Olivares, outside his Los Angeles home. Olivares died after being hit by a speeding car while crossing the street to the home he had just bought.
(
Lauren Justice
/
KFF Health News
)
Push for pedestrian safety
Advocates would also like the federal government to factor in pedestrian safety on the five-star vehicle safety rating scale. However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proposed a separate pass/fail test that would be posted only on the agency’s website, not on labels consumers would see at the dealership.
Automakers like BMW questioned the effectiveness of a program testing pedestrian protections in vehicles arguing that in European countries that adopted such a regulation, it’s not been clear whether it led to fewer deaths and injuries. According to the campaign finance site Open Secrets, automakers spent about $49 million lobbying in 2023 compared with $2.2 million spent by advocates for highway and auto safety.
“The federal government has the biggest punch when it comes to requiring improved vehicle safety design,” said Wiener, the California state lawmaker.
Although Wiener modified his proposal to restrict excessive speeding, he has advanced companion legislation that would require Caltrans, the state transportation agency, to make improvements such as adding crosswalks and curb extensions on state-owned surface streets to better serve pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users.
When that bill was heard in a committee, opponents, including engineering firms and contractors, cautioned it would remove flexibility and hamper the state’s ability to deliver a safe and efficient transportation system. Lawmakers have until Aug. 31 to act on his bills.
María Rivas Cruz looks through a scrapbook of memories from her more than a decade-long relationship with Raymond Olivares, who died last year after the two were struck by a speeding car outside their home in southeastern Los Angeles. Rivas Cruz survived but now lives with chronic pain and walks with a cane.
(
Lauren Justice
/
KFF Health News
)
In Los Angeles, hope for change arrived in March when voters passed Measure HLA, which requires the city to invest $3.1 billion in road safety over the next decade. Rivas Cruz’s house, however, sits eight blocks outside the jurisdiction of the city initiative.
It’s been more than a year since the crash, but Rivas Cruz finds reminders everywhere: in the mirror, when she looks at the scars left on her face after several surgeries. When she walks on the street that still lacks the infrastructure that would have protected her and Raymond.
Stories of pedestrians killed in this Latino working-class neighborhood are too common, said Rivas Cruz. In September, she attended a memorial of a 14-year-old who was killed by a reckless driver.
“There’s so much death going on,” the Los Angeles Unified School District teacher said from her mother’s living room on a spring afternoon. “The representatives have failed us. Raymond and I were giving back to the community. He was a civil engineer working for the city, and I’m a LAUSD teacher. Where is our help?”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Southern California quarterback Jayden Maiava, right, jumps away from Oregon linebacker Teitum Tuioti during the first half of an NCAA college football game, Saturday, Sept. 26, 2026, in Los Angeles.
(
Mark J. Terrill
/
Associated Press
)
Topline:
The Senate is poised to pass a sweeping bipartisan bill on Monday that would regulate college sports, an attempt to end “chaos” in an industry that has been upended by skyrocketing athlete payments and near-unrestricted transfers between schools.
Why it matters: Passage of the legislation would be the strongest effort yet by Congress to set national regulations governing payments to college athletes for their name, image and likeness and how often they can transfer. It would give the NCAA new authority over those rules and limited antitrust protections to enforce them.
Why now: The bill is the product of years of Senate negotiations that intensified as some in the industry pleaded with Congress to step in after a 2025 lawsuit settlement uprooted the college sports landscape by allowing colleges to pay their players. The legislation, which would still have to pass the House, would codify the settlement into law but also establish new guardrails around the system in an attempt to rein in the runaway costs for colleges.
The Senate is poised to pass a sweeping bipartisan bill on Monday that would regulate college sports, an attempt to end “chaos” in an industry that has been upended by skyrocketing athlete payments and near-unrestricted transfers between schools.
Passage of the legislation would be the strongest effort yet by Congress to set national regulations governing payments to college athletes for their name, image and likeness and how often they can transfer. It would give the NCAA new authority over those rules and limited antitrust protections to enforce them.
The bill is the product of years of Senate negotiations that intensified as some in the industry pleaded with Congress to step in after a 2025 lawsuit settlement uprooted the college sports landscape by allowing colleges to pay their players. The legislation, which would still have to pass the House, would codify the settlement into law but also establish new guardrails around the system in an attempt to rein in the runaway costs for colleges.
“It would be nice if college sports could somehow magically fix itself, but this is a matter of law, federal law, and only Congress can fix it,” said Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who negotiated the bill with the top Democrat on the panel, Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell.
The bill’s backers — more than 70 senators from both parties — say it aims to curtail constant litigation and uncertainty across college sports for athletes, schools and fans. It would also give hundreds of thousands of student athletes new health and labor protections.
“This is a bill that essentially ensconces a system of exploitation, and it doesn’t fix the broader problems,” said Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat who has worked with labor and civil rights groups to rally opposition to the bill.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed an interest in the legislation, and the White House formally endorsed the bill last month. But it could face an uphill battle in the House, which failed repeatedly over the last year to get a different version to the floor and is in recess until after the November elections.
Lawmakers will have to start over in the next Congress if the bill doesn’t pass both chambers by the end of the year.
Bill addresses skyrocketing spending, unlimited transfers
College sports have been reeling in the wake of the 2025 court settlement allowing colleges to directly pay players for their name, image and likeness. The fallout has reshaped the industry and led to football roster payrolls that can exceed $40 million.
The bill codifies the court settlement, including a revenue cap that allows schools to share up to $21.5 million in revenue with their players. The legislation would more than double that amount for some schools, allowing up to an additional $27.5 million in payments through a retention fund, and would give schools and conferences the option of pooling their TV media rights to potentially raise more revenue.
The legislation also aims to stabilize the NCAA transfer portal that has led to players constantly switching teams. It would restrict player transfers to one “free” move over five years without sitting out a year, with some exceptions, and also restricts players to five years of total eligibility.
The proposed eligibility limit comes amid backlash to schools that have increasingly pushed boundaries, including LSU’s now-canceled plans to place players on the roster who had participated in NFL training camps.
“That was probably like a big lamp for some people who saw it and said, ‘Oh my God, this is so out of control,’” Cantwell said in a recent interview with The Associated Press. “You can see how out-of-hand the situation was getting.”
The bill also would restrict coaches from leaving their schools during the season and prevent conferences from growing larger than 19 programs, an effort to prevent so-called “superleagues” from taking over sports. It would force schools that want to switch conferences to spend three years as an independent — down from five years in the original bill. That change brought new supporters on board, including Florida State and Clemson of the Atlantic Coast Conference.
Critics say it wouldn’t do enough to help athletes
The legislation includes new protections for athletes, including caps on agent fees and guarantees for health insurance and certain scholarships. It would also require schools to maintain a minimum number of sports and roster spots — an effort to ensure that women’s and Olympic sports are not cut in favor of football, basketball and other sports that generate more revenue.
Still, some Democrats say it wouldn’t do enough to limit the big money in college sports.
The legislation “places a cap on the students’ cut of the revenues, but there are no caps on coaches’ salaries or on the size of donations to athletic programs,” Murphy said last week.
Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine said that the new antitrust protections would make it harder for athletes to sue universities, and “taking away their legal rights strikes me as a bridge too far.”
Groups like the NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus and AFL-CIO have also opposed the bill, in part, because it leaves unresolved whether athletes should be considered employees with the ability to collectively bargain.
All four Black Democrats in the Senate — Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Raphael Warnock of Georgia, Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware and Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland — have opposed the bill.
Booker, who played football at Stanford in the late 1980s on a scholarship, said in a Senate floor speech earlier this month that he was “afforded opportunities I never would have had if it wasn’t for college athletics” but that he also “saw how unjust the NCAA is.”
He said it wasn’t until college athletes were able to begin to win cases in court that the power started to shift, “and now the NCAA is coming here to the United States Senate, asking for sweeping powers” to exempt antitrust laws.
Some Republicans also said it is overreach.
The legislation “goes way too far inserting the federal government into collegiate athletics,” said Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, who is opposing it.
House passage is uncertain
Despite strong bipartisan support in the Senate, the bill faces a murky path in the House.
House lawmakers won’t return to Washington until mid-November, after the elections. And it’s unclear what will be on Republican leaders’ agenda in the chaotic last few weeks of the session.
Pressure from Trump could help push the bill to passage. But some House Republicans have insisted on language explicitly stating that athletes are not employees, which the Senate bill does not have — a key concession to Cantwell to win enough Democratic support.
House Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg, R-Mich., and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., said in a statement in May that “any lasting framework must confront the central issue that continues to cast uncertainty over the future of college sports: whether student-athletes will ultimately be treated as employees.”
“Congress cannot deliver real stability, consistency, or certainty to schools, conferences, and student-athletes while leaving that question unresolved,” the two Republicans said.
Each year, Congress passes laws which allocate money to the federal government's various programs and agencies. Trump, for the second year in a row, is refusing to send some of that money to the places that Congress says it has to go, setting off a fresh battle with lawmakers over who controls federal spending. The canceled funds are fueling anger from Democrats who say OMB director Russell Vought is violating the separation of powers and undermining Congressional authority.
The backstory: A pocket rescission happens when the president decides to cancel funds without ample time for Congress to weigh in or reallocate the money. With the end of the fiscal year less than a week away, the announcement means the funds will go unspent and Congress can't respond.
The reaction: "This is the most recent attempt by this Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to undermine Congress's Constitutional power of the purse," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who chairs the Senate Appropriations committee, wrote in a statement posted to X. "OMB is an agency of the executive branch. It does not get to decide which programs are worth funding."
Of the $810 million being withheld, $567 million comes from programs that "provided services to refugees, asylees, and other non-citizens," according to a memo from the White House.
The move, called a pocket rescission, is illegal, according to the Government Accountability Office, an independent, non-partisan watchdog agency charged with providing federal agencies fact-based information.
A pocket rescission happens when the president decides to cancel funds without ample time for Congress to weigh in or reallocate the money. With the end of the fiscal year less than a week away, the announcement means the funds will go unspent and Congress can't respond.
"This is the most recent attempt by this Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to undermine Congress's Constitutional power of the purse," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who chairs the Senate Appropriations committee, wrote in a statement posted to X. "OMB is an agency of the executive branch. It does not get to decide which programs are worth funding."
The canceled funds are fueling anger from Democrats who say OMB director Russell Vought is violating the separation of powers and undermining Congressional authority.
"This is theft from the American people, plain and simple," wrote Washington Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee on X. "Every Republican who voted for these bills should be furious, because Vought is saying their votes don't count."
"Donald Trump knows he can't get these cuts through Congress, so he is illegally making them through the back door," Rep. Brendan Boyle, the top Democrat on the House Budget committee, said in a statement. "Trump's actions are a blatant attack on Congress's constitutional power of the purse."
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
The administration also says it withheld $15 million to a Justice Department team tasked with "preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions, incidents, and civil disorders, and in restoring racial stability and harmony," $70 million to "programs provide grants and fellowships to support institutions bringing foreign students and faculty to the United States to study or teach language," and tens of millions to various research and non-profit grant programs that target climate change or racial and gender minority work.
A detailed accounting provided by the administration can be found here.
Copyright 2026 NPR
Keep up with LAist.
If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday signed two pieces of legislation aimed at increasing accountability and protections for communities in the aftermath of the Lineage warehouse fire.
(
Brian Feinzimer
/
The LA Local
)
Topline:
One bill by Assemblymember Mark González, AB 817, prevents the city and county of Los Angeles from issuing new building permits to cold storage facilities like Lineage unless the company maintains a contingency fund, or insurance, that can support residents in states of emergency.
What the legislation does: One bill by Assemblymember Mark González, AB 817, prevents the city and county of Los Angeles from issuing new building permits to cold storage facilities like Lineage unless the company maintains a contingency fund, or insurance, that can support residents in states of emergency. The other bill by state Sen. María Elena Durazo, SB 716, increases fines for violations of local ordinances when companies pose a risk to health and safety. If the violation results from a state or federal disaster declaration, fines can reach up to $50,000 per violation.
The backstory: The fire on June 17 blanketed the LA region with thick smoke for days and led to a monthslong cleanup of 88 million pounds of rotting food. Residents dealt with putrid odors, toxins in the air, an infestation of flies and rats.
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday signed two pieces of legislation aimed at increasing accountability and protections for communities in the aftermath of the Lineage warehouse fire.
One bill by Assemblymember Mark González, AB 817, prevents the city and county of Los Angeles from issuing new building permits to cold storage facilities like Lineage unless the company maintains a contingency fund, or insurance, that can support residents in states of emergency.
The other bill by state Sen. María Elena Durazo, SB 716, increases fines for violations of local ordinances when companies pose a risk to health and safety. If the violation results from a state or federal disaster declaration, fines can reach up to $50,000 per violation.
The fire on June 17 blanketed the LA region with thick smoke for days and led to a monthslong cleanup of 88 million pounds of rotting food. Residents dealt with putrid odors, toxins in the air, an infestation of flies and rats.
“Boyle Heights showed us the lasting impact a major facility emergency can have on a community. These laws strengthen the tools, resources and accountability needed to protect residents and help communities respond when emergencies happen,” Newsom said in a statement.
The laws will be in effect locally and will expand statewide until July 1, 2028.
Earlier this month, Lineage Chief Executive Officer Greg Lehmkuhl told Boyle Heights Beat and The LA Local that the company has not decided whether to rebuild its Boyle Heights warehouse.
“We haven’t even come close to making a decision or determination there,” Lehmkuhl said. “We’re still focused on holding the right people accountable here and making sure that we’re continuing to support the community.”
The CEO’s comments about the uncertainty surrounding a rebuild come after permit applications were filed in late July to restore the warehouse in Boyle Heights. Lineage described it as a repair permit that’s typical when a building is significantly damaged, adding it was filed by the building’s owner via a contractor.
Elly Yu
reports on early childhood. From housing to health, she covers issues facing the youngest Angelenos and their families.
Published September 28, 2026 1:20 PM
California officials say the Supreme Court ruling will have no effect on the elections that are just five weeks away.
(
Trevor Stamp
/
for LAist
)
Topline:
California officials say they will not use a federal database pushed by the Trump administration to check voter eligibility. That’s after the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way last week for states to use it.
The backstory: The Trump administration wants states to use its controversial data system, Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements — or SAVE — to check citizenship status on voter rolls. The system has faced criticism for mistakenly flagging some eligible voters as noncitizens.
What’s new: California says nothing is changing despite the SCOTUS ruling. California Secretary of State Shirley Weber told LAist’s AirTalk that the system has had “a number of errors.”
“We did not find the list valid for us and as a result decided some while ago we would not use it,” Weber said. “And as a result, Californians can feel secure that they're not going to be run through some other list in terms of trying to determine who will vote and who will not.”
California officials say they will not use a federal database pushed by the Trump administration to check voter eligibility. That’s after the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way last week for states to use it.
The Trump administration wants states to use its controversial data system, Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements — or SAVE — to check citizenship status on voter rolls.
California says nothing is changing despite the SCOTUS ruling. California Secretary of State Shirley Weber told LAist’s AirTalk that the system has had “a number of errors.”
“We did not find the list valid for us and as a result decided some while ago we would not use it,” Weber said. “And as a result, Californians can feel secure that they're not going to be run through some other list in terms of trying to determine who will vote and who will not.”
