There’s some big news out of Washington State that’s sure to be controversial: House Bill 1596 wants to put speed limit-linked governors in the vehicles of street racers and frequently convicted speeders. A state looking to install smart speed limiters into the cars of habitual traffic violation accumulators may sound like a reach, but if anything, it’s — in my opinion — pretty much the opposite of government overreach. Let me explain.
This bill advocating for speed limiters isn’t a remedial program to be completed after a license suspension is served, it’s a proposed replacement for license suspension. The bill aims for anyone facing license suspension due to repeated excessive speed or street racing to be eligible for a speed-limiter conditional license, and states, “By leveraging technology to enable individuals to continue driving and prevent speeding, the legislature intends to enhance road safety to promote safer driving habits and keep the public safe.”
As of now, the House bill doesn’t extensively detail the technology used in these speed limiters, only that it will be third-party and leased by the driver of the vehicle. While an OBDII-linked device makes sense for many applications, cars live a long time in Washington and it wouldn’t be surprising if some habitual speeders own vehicles made prior to the implementation of the standardized onboard diagnostics system port. In addition, whichever speed-limiting device gets approved for use needs to be better than OEM, because the speed limit warnings in new cars have some serious limitations.
[Ed Note: I suggest we use the old Swedish EPA-tractor strategy and lock the cars into gear, limit their speeds to 19mph. You do the crime, you do the time — lots and lots of time on the roads. -DT]
As part of my work, I spend a whole bunch of time in new cars equipped with speed limit alerts, and as anyone with prolonged experience with these systems knows, they aren’t always right. Sometimes they read high, failing to pick up new signs on camera or pull updated speed limits from GPS-linked data, and sometimes they read low, hanging onto ramp advisory speeds after merging. Assuming these alerts were hard limits, existing technology could contribute to a significant speed differential between habitual speeder-driven speed-limited vehicles and surrounding traffic, which is where the danger lies. Many roads are safest when all traffic is moving at about the same speed, so exchanging one form of risk for another form of potential risk doesn’t seem like the most desired outcome.
So, if we go back to the root of the problem, what tools are known to work here? Well, higher fines may be worth looking at. If we zoom in on studies around higher speeding fines, we can see mixed results. An Australian study found that when Britain increased its most serious speeding penalty costs by 50 percent back in 2017, there was no measurable reduction in fatal crashes. At the same time, a 2017 meta-analytic study found that increasing penalties by 50 to 100 percent may reduce offense rates. The effect of fines alone isn’t clear, but looking at where existing fines sit, they’re low enough that increasing them might be worth a shot.
According to the Tacoma News Tribune, the fine for speeding 21 to 25 mph over the limit in a speed limit zone under 40 mph is $268. That seems quite low considering the excess of speed relative to the limit, and it’s not the only area where Washington state could beef things up. See, the state doesn’t have a demerit point system, and license suspensions for milder road penalties like speeding require six infractions in 12 months, or seven infractions in 24 months. Compared to the demerit point systems used in other jurisdictions, it seems as if Washington is giving habitual speeders a comparatively long leash.
What’s more, this proposed intelligent speed assistance license requires a speed limiter on almost every vehicle the holder of the license drives, with the main exception being shared work vehicles. It’s well intended, but how do you be sure that applicants don’t just lie? Given that the briefing of the bill claims that “more than 70 percent of people with suspended licenses continue to drive during the suspension period,” enforcement seems like it could be tricky.
At the end of the day, this proposal to put intelligent speed limiters in habitual speeders’ cars doesn’t seem like government overreach to me, but rather the opposite. It’s a plan to let otherwise suspended motorists keep driving, and while it might temporarily reduce speeding in some instances, it’s hard to see how a speed limiter would impact other dangerous road behaviors, from red-light-running to cutting up through traffic. Before extending this leash, perhaps look at treating the causes first. A combination of increased enforcement visibility and greater consequences for repeated road violations could, in my view, be more effective at reducing dangerous driving than offering an alternative to license suspension.
Top graphic: Dani/stock.adobe.com; depositphotos.com
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
-
California’s Proposed Speed Limit Warning System Law Has One Big Problem
-
Why Europe’s Mandatory Speed Limiters Mean The End Of Driving As You Know It
-
California Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Speed Limit Warnings On New Cars, But The War’s Not Over
-
Why Cars With Speed Limit Readers Can Be Annoying: COTD
Please send tips about cool car things to tips@theautopian.com. You could even win a prize!
This state will do everything except hire more State Patrol officers. I5 between Seattle and Tacoma is just a raceway for a lot of people. There’s always someone in a BMW racing someone in a Subaru, or a Subaru trying to race a group of motorcycles. Speed limiters aren’t going to stop them. Unless there are actual consequences, nothing is going to change.
The problem isn’t speeding. The problem is driving like an asshole.
Therefore, once again, I would like to propose StillNotATony’s One Shot Law.
In this law, every American citizen, upon turning 18, receives the right to shoot one person. Now, you can’t KILL them, just injure them.
When you decide its time to shoot your shot, you call 911, your identity is verified, and a special police unit is dispatched to you. You point out the person you want to shoot, and the police hold them down while you shoot them in, say, the butt. An ambulance that is dispatched with the officers then treats the injured.
Now you only get ONE SHOT. So make sure you really wanna shoot this person. I believe that initially, there will be a flurry of shootings, but once things settle down, people will realize the value of it. Also, since no one knows if you’ve used your shot (unless they were present when you did), everyone might get a little more polite. And maybe – just maybe – after being shot a few times, the assholes out there will realize that they were the problem all along.
Vote StillNotATony as dictator for life!!
What happens if 17million people sign up to shoot the same person?
When my company launched a new logo, they pasted it on everything, and I mean everything. Notepads, pens, pencils, jackets, umbrellas, underwear, glasses, etc. etc. etc. We joked they were going to engrave it on the rocks out front… Which gave us the idea of the Official Company Rock. Pretty much the same idea you had. Everybody gets one official company rock, and they may use it however they wish… But you only get one rock.
This is similar (but also very, very different) to my solution to jackassery on the roads:
I think that all cars should be equipped with paint guns and if you see someone driving like a jackass you shoot it, only once, with your paint. You might even color code the paint to vehicle type or government vehicles could have their own, bespoke color or something, though I haven’t fleshed out exactly how to use the color coding system.
Anyway, you get so many hits and you just get pulled over and your car gets impounded for a month and it’s cleaned off when you get the car back.
Pretty much the same idea I’ve had for a while now. I’d limit the number of paintballs each person gets to keep it from getting out of hand, and the paint would have to be something that would not easily wash off but would be removable over time (if such a thing exists).
Usually the cost of insurance increases so much that you can’t afford it, or you lose your license. Why are they not doing that here?
There’s a few problems here.
If it’s installed on a car, there’s nothing to prevent them from renting a car or borrowing another car. It also affects anyone in that household, which I can’t see holding up in court.This stuff is always a slippery slope. For example, maybe all new drivers need a governor on their car too. And if the speed limit is 75, why does any car need to be able to go above 75mph. Let’s govern them all at 75mph. (It’s similar to how I feel about Michigan just passing a law to allow speed cameras in construction zones. Sounds great, until they are everywhere in a few years).
Reason I hate going to Chicago from Indiana there are those stupid speed camera’s are all over the city and they are rarely marked well same with the speed limit next thing you know you get a ticket in the mail for going 42 in a 35
Why would you assume that losing insurance or even their license would stop a person in this situation from driving? The article even mentions that most people with a suspended license keep driving…
I don’t assume it will. I don’t assume this program will stop them either if they are that willing to drive. They will get another car and not register it in their name. Will the state even put a governor on a car in their household if they don’t have a license?
Oh I don’t think the speed limiters will work either, but you did ask why they weren’t doing the lose your insurance/lose your license stuff. Anywho, I agree, I don’t think any of these things are much of a deterrent to the habitual offenders they are theoretically meant to target.
“If it’s installed on a car, there’s nothing to prevent them from renting a car or borrowing another car. It also affects anyone in that household, which I can’t see holding up in court.”
The solution there I think is to have rental cars with this tech too. Renters with this on their record have this feature of the car activated as part of the check out process and deactivated on return.
Jail is another option. Get caught speeding in a borrowed car and you go straight to jail. Period. The person who loaned the car gets a notice from the court their car was being used by a speeder and has been impounded.
Preventing someone’s family from also breaking the law doesn’t sound like a hardship to me.
Let’s talk about crime and punishment! So, first off, socially we’ve been conditioned to believe that persons are less likely to commit crime the harsher the penalty is. Which is true, but for people who are unlikely to be committing the crime with intent. Once intent is established to violate the social contract, there’s little recourse negative punishment in diversion. For example, death penalty/ no quarter for piracy did little to nothing to stop people from raising the Jolly Roger. A large increase in driving infraction will likely primarily impact the only habits of the fringe/ unknowing (i.e. people who are slightly going above the speed limit to work type scenario).
With habitual offenders. And 6 infractions in a year seems pretty habitual. Consequences rarely effect recidivism. There, is argued a possibly that the increased punishment is likely to actually increase recidivism due to furthering damaging a person’s life and some complex personality tendencies/ illness factors. Harsh penalty tends only benefit greater society, by keeping that person excluded. Which kind of gets to the real complex problem of punishment, in that who punishment serves? What are the goals? But I digress. When a person is habitual offender, really, your only meaningful course of treatment would be to address the underlying issue fairly individually. As root cause could be varied (mental illness, substance abuse, personality etc.) though Education and meaningful community support. But that cost money and would probably actually work, so we ain’t doing that. But, I guess this might help? it seems very obvious how one would work around it though.
“Let’s talk about crime and punishment!”
Ah, Dostoyevsky. A good novel, but a bit of a difficult read. Your book club might be a better forum than Autopian since it’s not really about cars.
They’ve got a name for people like you H.I. That name is called “recidivism.”
That’s one bonehead name, but that’s not me any more.
And I’m not just telling you what you want to hear – unless you want to hear the truth.
Then I’m definitely telling you what you want to hear.
This seems like an ok idea, but I’m not sure about the effectiveness. This looks like a plan with a lot of potential holes in it. Any speed limiter would be avoidable by the well or even moderately well funded.
As just a normal guy, there are 3 vehicles in my household. If I run afoul of this law, does my wife’s car get a limiter? My daughter’s? If not, then I’m rarely held accountable, as we seldom use all 3 at the same time. If so, now there’s a penalty and invasion of privacy for non-violators.
Even if I was solo, there seems to be a lot of options to ignore this, almost as easily as ignoring speed limits!
While this is true, the wealthy being able to circumvent most laws and legal punishments is its own issue that needs to be addressed
Shit, that ain’t a bug, it’s a feature.
I think in many cases the current system imposes penalties on innocent family members. When you suspend someone’s license making them unable to get to work, the consequences for the family can be much worse than having to deal with a speed limiter. I have concerns about this proposal’s effectiveness too, but no system is perfect.
Yes. The limiter has no effect on those who don’t speed so why not?
“An Australian study found that when Britain increased its most serious speeding penalty costs by 50 percent back in 2017, there was no measurable reduction in fatal crashes.”
“At the same time, a 2017 meta-analytic study found that increasing penalties by 50 to 100 percent may reduce offense rates.”
Are there rigorous studies that actually look at speeding as a direct cause of fatalities? Or is it just that bad driving leads to fatalities?
I’m not sure why this is so controversial since it is only applied to people who are convicted of certain crimes. It sounds like the street racing equivalent of breathalyzer ignition locks for those convicted of DUIs.
I am also having a hard time understanding why this punishment is regarded as inappropriate in a country where you can be sentenced to life in a prison that is worse than hell or, in some states, killed by the government.
Anyone with 6+ speeding/moving violations in 12 months should be doing hard time in prison.
And I say this as someone who speeds a lot.
At the very least they need to go back to some sort of driving school
I think is most states if you get a certain amount of points on your license arent you required to do some sort of traffic school right? Or if that just to take points off so your license isn’t suspended?
Oh shoot, yeah I forgot. Probably why it sounded so familiar lol
Something that’s opened my eyes recently with all the discussion of crime is how much of it could be prevented by simply imprisoning many-time repeat offenders.
A large number of crimes appear to be carried out by a very small number of people for whom normal consequences do not seem to have any effect, and who simply need to be removed from society.
I would not be surprised if the same kinds of people are responsible for a large fraction of speeding, reckless driving, DWI, etc.
Driving school is an appropriate consequence for a one or two-time speeder who is chastened by the experience and is actually willing to learn and do better. I expect this applies to the vast majority of people, but not the majority of 6+ time offenders in a 12 month span.
Oh yeah, at that point it’s very anti-social behavior that they feel like societies rules don’t apply to them. Don’t want to play by societies’ rules, don’t get to play the society game
Sad thing is with the repeat offender thing you will still have people that will defend them as say it is unfair to punish them for XYZ reason. But there just has to come a point where like umm this person has caused 10 accidents for reckless driving or this person has robbed stores at gun point 6 times I don’t think they are going to learn at this point for whatever punishment they have been receiving because they keep doing the same thing.
Or, they should have invested in a quality radar detector by now. A good one will pay for itself after about 2 missed tickets.
P.S If legal in your area.
P.P.S. I’ve definitely have never had 6 in 12 months! 2 in 18 months was crazy for me and required a change.
I get into our shared car.
Suddenly I can’t speed.
I call wife to see what’s up.
Yada yada yada we get divorced.
Her speeding ends up costing me $381,000. Plus lawyer fees.
And now my credit is so bad, I have to get an Altima.
And the cycle begins again.
I really don’t see how it could be “overreach,” it’s basically just the habitual speeder equivalent of a ignition-interlock breathalyzer for drunk drivers.
Though, like determining intoxication from cannabis products, it’s not nearly as straightforward as BAC.
The problem, however, with your “increase traffic enforcement visibility” is several-fold:
1) it could involve putting lots more police officers on the roads, when traffic stops are some of the most deadly types of police interactions, for both civilians and cops alike
Or
2) install more speeding cameras, which everyone hates.
Yeah I cannot recall how many times I have people cause near crashes because they slam on their brakes when they see a cop. If everyone is going 60 in a 55 I don’t think the cop is magically going to pull over everyone. Or people that don’t get over into another lane and just fly past the pulled over cop on the shoulder.
I think this would lead to government overreach but that is a different topic. What I wanted to know how would these devices know when to limit the speed? Like I understand GPS on google maps might know the speed limit in an area but what if it has changed (construction or something) would these devices know some how of the change? Would they limit you to the exact speed limit? Would they require offenders that need these have a vehicle of certain vintage and newer? As I doubt older vehicles could be equiped with these. This leads to way more questions haha
Does anyone complain about “government overreach” with IID’s?
There are probably people that do complain that ID’s are. People complain about everything haha
Absolutely. Be happy you haven’t met any of them. It’s usually the “sovereign citizen” types.
Not a terrible idea, honestly. But it still functions off the old “speed is bad” mantra (or fallacy) that doesn’t always apply.
Driving 25 mph in a 25 zone where all other cars are stopped and a kid is crossing the road is just bad judgment and doesn’t technically involve speeding.
Similarly, I’ve been a lot more terrified at what a Tesla can do within the confines of the speed limit, than what it can do above the speed limit.
Still, it’s a step I guess. Sometimes repeat offenders just need the idea that they’re being watched constantly, which at least solves one piece of the equation (enforcement frequency = infinity!) and is less concerned with the cash grab portion of it (fines). From that perspective, I like it.
It seems like the way it’s worded it’s strictly for egregious violations or repeat offenders. If every guy caught street racing got one of these instead of jail time, I consider that win
But question is what stops cops from just saying that someone that was speeding was street racing?
Same thing that stops them from installing breathalyzers on cars when someone gets pulled over for their first DUI.
Where I live in Indiana they can require a breathalyzer installed on a first time offender. So I am sure other states might have similar things.
I guess I see it more as freedom from being killed by street racer or drunk driver so I’m not too cut up about infringing on their driving privileges
Oh no I agree I think we should have ways to stop people from drunk driving or wreckless driving as best as we can but I can see letting cops have more power and control leading to consequences for average joe blow that was going 65 in a 55 and a cop pulls them over has a power trip.
Luckily you have a choice about what speed you go. Speeding tickets are entirely voluntary.
You get issued a Government owned lavender K-Car, while your car is taken away. Don’t need a speed limiter if your car isn’t able to hit the speed limit.
Or a yugo as you will just be pushing it everywhere. So hey might help with health issues in the country at the same time of cutting down speeding.
Moped.
Haha funny thing you say that because I see a few people driving around where I live on scooters that probably cannot go any faster then 20mph on roads that have speed limits of 45mph I always wonder if they do that by choice or is it due to some legal issues they may have ran into? Because they will be out on them in the freezing cold.
DUIs, usually. Many places have a special class of motorcycle registration for <50cc mopeds that still allow people with suspended licenses to get around. Those scooters are very popular in Vegas, a town where driving drunk is a citywide pastime.
VW Bus. or if that’s too precious, Renault Twizy.
I really don’t see the problem at all. This actually corrects the problem unlike jail time or license suspension.