California could limit how fast vehicles sold in the state can go by requiring the installation of speed governors if a bill authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, becomes law.
Wiener introduced a pair of bills Wednesday that would spur roadway improvements and require automakers to install intelligent speed assistance, or ISA technology, that limits a vehicle to going no more than 10 mph over the posted speed limit. The technology can adjust to different speed limits on different roads.
The ISA bill was introduced as Senate Bill 961. It would also require big-rigs over 5 tons to install safety devices called underride guards. The guards block the space under a trailer that cars can get trapped under.
A companion bill, SB 960, calls on Caltrans to make physical safety changes like installing curb extensions and more crosswalks on state-owned streets. Together, the bills were dubbed the Speeding and Fatality Emergency Reduction on California Streets, or SAFER California Streets package.
Wiener said the bills were spurred by an increase in traffic fatalities in recent years.
“The alarming surge in road deaths is unbearable and demands an urgent response,” Wiener said in a statement. “There is no reason for anyone to be going over 100 miles per hour on a public road, yet in 2020, California Highway Patrol issued over 3,000 tickets for just that offense. Preventing reckless speeding is a commonsense approach to prevent these utterly needless and heartbreaking crashes.”
Wiener pointed to a study from the nonprofit organization TRIP, which conducts transportation research, that said that traffic deaths increased in the U.S. by 19 percent in 2022 compared to 2019, and by 22 percent over that time in California.
The trucking industry has opposed past efforts to require the guardrails at the national level, arguing they would be too costly to install on every truck and were unnecessary.
A spokesperson for the California Trucking Association said the organization is reviewing SB 961 and has not yet taken a position on it.
The bill would require larger trucks manufactured, sold or registered in the state to include guards on both lateral sides of a trailer that are able to withstand a collision at 40 mph.
Speed governors, also known as speed limiters or intelligent speed assistance, limit how fast a vehicle can drive by using GPS or onboard cameras to determine the area speed limit. The National Transportation Safety Board has recommended requiring speed governors in all new vehicles and has recommended the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration create requirements that vehicles have devices that can, at a minimum, alert a driver when they are speeding.
ISA systems use a combination of sounds or performance methods to alert a driver, such as beeping and creating slight resistance on the accelerator. The bill would allow a driver to override the system.
32 comments
Weiner really lives up to his name. Biggest authoritarian leftist in the state. Probably the future governor, since that seems to be what voters love here.
Can’t wait to get out of this commie dump.
Another technology that is probably not ready for prime time. I can think of all kinds of things that might fail with it. And what about an override for emergency situations? OTOH I don’t like the nut cases that I’ve seen go buzzing by me at 100 mph when I was driving down Hwy 4 and probably just doing it for kicks.
All for safety.
Sometimes you can’t slow, but you need to step on it to get out of a hazardous situation.
Gotta give this one some thought……………….
That’s going to solve problems.Its going to be an unsafe law lots of accidents trying to pass other vehicles.A wiener from a Wiener.Do these people get high or drunk to think of all this?A normal person couldn’t even think this up.
Another standout suggestion from Weiner.
Another idea that makes things more expensive for everyday citizens. Stop with you dumb ideas.
I wonder how much more expensive a car is today because of all the safety features needed to protect the inattentive drivers?
Scott the “weenie” is all about control as a die-hard Marxist. If he wants something, run!
Only for new cars sold here? Not going to happen. Old cars will just rush right past them. There there is the question of how many cars a year drive themselves under the back of a big rig?
Limiting the top speed of a vehicle to 90 mph should be easy to accomplish. Limiting gasoline powered engines to a max of 360 cubic inches would stop the idiots driving at 150 mph.
You do realize that the little 2 liter out of the new Civic Type R can reach 150mph? Or that many sport bikes can do 150mph …
Your suggestion of limiting to 360 ci is ridiculous.
As for the top speed of 90mph, yeah, not going to fly like Weiner suggestion of 10mph above speed limit. Cars are computers, and they can and will be modified to do more than what the manufacturer says. Our roads can handle the speed, cars are safer .. so why not utilize the technology that we have today to our advantage.
Speed CAN kill but if we enforced some basic laws, like the wearing of seatbelts, registration to keep the unsafe cars off the road, how much better of a position would we be in? I would be curious to know how many of those 3000 tickets for excess of 100mph were on unregistered cars, unlicensed drivers or motorcycles. But then again, in California, we do not punish the criminal by restricting their movements, only the law abiding citizes.
A 2.9 liter (177 cubic inch) Alfa Romeo Quadrifoglio (a compact 4 door sedan) will go 191 MPH. It’s also safer at 150 than a pickup at 90 because it handles so much better.
You need to do your homework.
.
My 3.6 liter (221 cubic inches), naturally aspirated V-8 engine backed by a 6-speed transmission tops out at 186 MPH.
.
How do I know?
.
Look up the Silver State Challenge.
@THE OBSERVER…You might “reobserve” your comment, obviously you have no automotive technology knowledge.
Scott Wiener, champion of perverts and criminals. Better read the bill carefully, it likely includes installing such devices on law enforcement vehicles in order to better protect criminals.
I find this creature dangerous and highly annoying. He needs to retire and go live out the rest of his useless life on some perv infested island far from the rest of us.
How about NO!
It’s funny how the left wants to limit all of us with restrictions, but it’s a free-for-all for criminals, drug dealers and illegals who they would never dare to try to limit their cars or movements or getaways. That would be of course unconstitutional in the liberals minds…and racist, homophobic , etc etc.
Wake up people! This is what your Democrat leaders are up to! And if you want to see a petri dish of the experiment just look at the city of Oakland. That’s going to be all of us unless we vote these Dems out! The Democrat Party of Kennedy Carter and even Clinton no longer exists. It has been kidnapped by crazies! It’s
It’s called anarchotyranny. The left has implicitly accepted the Marxist oppressor/oppressed dynamic of morality. Who falls into what category basically depends on what advances the revolution: ie- the issue is never the issue, the issue is always the revolution.
Right now, people who drive cars are oppressors, because they are killing the environment, spewing pollution that “people of color” have to breath, whatever excuse they can dream up to advance the revolution.
Criminals, illegal aliens, BLM, they are all in the oppressed category, because they are useful to the revolution. They get a pass because the revolution uses people before it discards them.
Once all these issues have served their purpose of putting the tools of a police state fully in place, everyone gets the gulag, and the useful idiots get to go against the wall.
Would be nice if we could avoid this utterly predictable outcome and start voting for patriots and decent people.
Sometime their revolutions fail.
Here’s a novel idea. Why not enforce the traffic laws that we already have in place?
I really believe some our lawmakers were dropped on their heads at birth.
Just have law enforcement seize the vehicles if they are going over 100mph. Fine the drivers of said vehicles enough to hurt. The very excessive speeding will mostly stop when people have their money and cars taken from them.
The left is collectivist. If they enforce the law equally and blindly, the outcomes are not “equitable.” If too many African Americans get arrested in proportion to white Americans, that is “white supremacy.” They litterally cannot have this outcome, politically speaking. The CRT, DEI, ESG religion forbids this at all costs.
So they clamp down and punish everyone equally instead.
Anything that comes out of Weiners mouth is suspect… how does he think up this cxxp? ….. only in SF would somebody like him keep office
Too much lost revenue unless law enforcement decides to ticket all motorists going over the posted speed.
As for trucks, too many vehicles go under either the sides or the rear and with deadly consequences.
The rear bar might look good and sound good but I don’t know if it has saved a single person.
Frontline has a documentary out regarding the deadly trucks on our roads. Unfortunately it comes down to the almighty dollar.
And California is supposed to be the state of choice. I rather drive among (smart) speeders who have two hands on the wheel and two eyes on the road than with the slow pokes who have two eyes on the cell phone.
My assumption would be that it would utilize GPS tech, where eventually your every driving movement could be followed (in addition to all the tracking done by the phones we all carry). And because it is cretin weiner, I fear what he would do with the ability to follow various individuals. I also expect jamming technology will be available soon after, so, a considerable expense added to the cost of the car for the consumer (I am sure they’ll figure a way to tax it as well), all because some strange little man continues his power trip.
This will not become law. Silly bills get introduced every single day.
There was a time, before most of you youngins existed, if you were stopped in CA going over 100 mph your car was towed and you got a free night stay in the Graybar Hotel. You were real careful whenever you were just “stretching your legs” in your car.
Why limit the speeds to 100 ? Just make it 15. See if these creatures of limited sensibilities can handle that much.
No absolutely not. F this Weiner guy this is so beyond dangerous. Sometimes we need to speed up for safety reasons. I’m running for office I’m sick of these scumbags.
The increase in traffic fatalities seems to mostly due to vehicle vs. pedestrian and also people behind the wheel with their attention on something other than driving. Limiting the speed is unlikely to help in this area. Yesterday I saw the driver of a large truck happily chatting away using a smartphone in his hand.
Something I have thought about for decades would be technology to allow for road trains. Vehicles would link up in a “train” with all of them driving at 70 MPH while separated by about a foot. If a train needs to slow down or stop then braking would be synchronized among the vehicles. Trains also also efficient from a gas mileage or battery range standpoint. Bicyclists use exactly this concept though with bicyclists there is a system for rotating the person at the front so that the lead rider is always fresh.
Comments are closed.