A proposed bill limiting new vehicle models to driving only 10 miles over the legal speed limit through the use of speed governor technology would make roads safer, advocates say — although others feel it would be an unhelpful governmental overreach.
Senate Bill 961, part of a traffic safety package introduced by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, on Jan. 24, is an attempt to combat reckless driving and traffic collision-related deaths, a press release from his office said. If passed, it would require speed governors in all new cars and trucks by 2027.
The bill is still in the proposal stages, Wiener’s Communications Director Erik Mebust said, and the office is open to hearing stakeholder perspectives on potential changes, like requiring active or passive speed governors. Active speed governors would physically stop a car from going more than 10 mph over the speed limit, whereas passive devices — already mandated by the European Union — notify drivers via noise warning to slow down.
But for one San Mateo County resident, Isabel Silveira, the bill proposal feels like an overstep in the wrong direction. Silveira would prefer governmental officials focus on keeping residents safe through police and traffic enforcement or road work, she said, rather than limiting individual choice.
“I am against them continually infringing on the rights of individuals trying to put food on the table or how fast we drive,” she said. “They need to use their time more wisely.”
Transportation experts like Kari Watkins, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at UC Davis, say speed governors could help save lives in an increasingly dangerous road environment.
“If we can bring a road that has a 30 mph speed limit down to the fact that people will actually go that speed limit, we may not prevent those crashes, but reduce the number of people who die in those crashes,” she said.
Between 2019 and 2022, traffic fatalities increased by 22% in California, according to a press release from Wiener’s office, and in 2020 California Highway Patrol issued over 3,000 tickets for driving over 100 mph on a public road.
There are a number of factors playing into increasingly dangerous crashes and fatality rates, Watkins said, including larger car models like SUVs and speed differentials — when one driver is going significantly faster than the other.
The bill proposal would also affect new truck models. California is already “kind of an island” when it comes to truck speeds, Todd Spencer, president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association — a trucking advocacy group — said.
Spencer is concerned that the new law would further isolate truck driving in California, which already maintains a truck speed of 55 for both rural and urban interstates, 15 to 20 mph lower than many other states. Furthermore, the bill would take control away from drivers, he said.
“We are generally opposed to things that take control of the vehicle away from the driver behind the wheel that actually is first on the scene, trying to act or react to what's going on around them,” he said.
That rule of thumb applies beyond just truck drivers, Spencer said, noting that most drivers occasionally encounter situations where increasing ones’ speed could be necessary.
“There are times when for anybody that drives much at all when it makes sense for you to speed up, to be able to change lanes to get out of somebody's way and to avoid a situation that looks like it might be dangerous,” he said.
Recommended for you
But for Watkins and others in the transportation safety field, the capability of speed governors to save lives — particularly in the United States, which has worse traffic safety and injury statistics than other developed nations — cannot be overstated. Individuals do not have a right to drive far above posted speed limits, she reiterated.
“You shouldn’t have the option, it’s a speed limit, it’s a law,” she said.
Watkins did point to the different varieties of speed limiter technology that exist, including passive speed governors, which is “not limiting your speed in any way … I don’t think it’s going to solve the problem,” she said.
Other types of intelligent speed assist will stop you from trying to increase your speed, but if enough pressure is applied to the pedal, the driver can override the technology in case of an emergency.
“I think that’s really the debate that needs to happen now, is how easy should that override be,” Watkins said.
SB 961 permits the vehicle operator to temporarily override the speed governor function and does not apply to emergency vehicles. The bill would also require side underride guards on trucks, to prevent bikes and cars being pulled underneath them in a crash, the press release said.
Redwood City resident Andrew Yu said that although the idea of limitations isn’t the most appealing, he sees the need for potential regulation and would not protest if the law went into effect.
“For me, I drive a sports car. I don’t like it, I understand the need for it. I’m neither for or against it. I can see it from both sides,” he said.
Although California couldn’t stop cars from outside states without speed governors from coming in, because of the size of the California auto market, its regulations have a significant impact on the industry as a whole, Mebust said. In some cases, it’s cheaper for auto manufacturers to design cars based on California standards.
Mebust re-emphasized the safety hazard that speeding causes.
“Every additional car speeding on the road increases the risk of a fatal traffic incident,” he said.
Wiener is also introducing a second bill, SB 960, as a part of the traffic package. The bill would require Caltrans to make physical improvements, like new crosswalks and curb extensions, for the benefit of transit users, pedestrians, cyclists and the disability community.
(650) 344-5200 ext. 105
(17) comments
All my vehicles are now emergency vehicles. I predict the out-of-state market for vehicles is going to increase along with the overall market for used cars. Meanwhile, are there such things as “ghost” vehicles, a la “ghost” guns? BTW, how are you going to limit bicycles to the 10 mph limit? Neural net links?
It is amazing that any bills proposed by this guy ever gets a hearing. We need to limit his tenure in the legislature.
Imagine - he is running for Pelosi's seat and will probably win. The Democrat party needs even more in denial lunatics than they already count.
Today's vehicles can go faster and be just as safe if not more safe due to better brake technology, auto detecting sensors etc... It's time to leave "the people" alone. And those people who want to control every facet of everyone else's lives should move to Washington DC, NK, China or some other dictator run country or city.
That is little truth in here. Cars are bigger, heavier, accelerate faster, but what they still can't beat physics completely. Braking has improved only a little, seat belt and/or airbag help until 50mph. Driving faster requires having a good religion and knowing many prayers. Humans can process at speeds of 10-20mph - after that everything becomes a blur - called tunnel vision. Car sensors will make things better, but that means giving the car control over the driver - and as the comments here show - people aren't giving up on that.
If these cars were "safer" today than ever before, why are death-by-car numbers in this country are going up, whereas in other countries they are going down.
easygerd – do you mean human brains can’t process speeds 20mph above the speed limit? Or just a 20mph speed limit? There’s a big difference and although the former is debatable (and likely not true), I’d like to see evidence from the latter because I’d say it’s definitely not true.
As for bigger and heavier cars, we should probably begin by banning all EVs from the road, as they’re definitely bigger and heavier than gas-powered vehicles. I wouldn’t trust self-driving cars with my life or anyone else’s. Perhaps that’s why Waymo is not likely going to be able to cruise up and down the Peninsula. Let SF or other adventurous cities put their citizens at risk.
6 million years of evolution.
We can walk most efficiently at 3 mph and run 20mph. If we run more than 20mph our body tells us don't go too fast - you overextend yourself. With the car we go way over the speed our brains are able to handle. We start to skip information. We also have 2-3 sec. reaction time. Even a better car can't improve on that unless the technology is activated by default.
It's not only the weight that matters, it's the speed and the height that kills.
Regulations made sure sedans are built so both drivers can survive. With light duty vehicles that regulation is gone. Now the bigger car supposedly beats the smaller. But then the bigger car rolls over - and that can kill the driver of the bigger car as well."
https://www.kidsandcars.org/news/post/another-study-relates-taller-vehicle-front-ends-to-more-pedestrian-deaths
For years politicians said we don't have to do anything about safety because soon these self-driving cars will fix everything because they are much safer.
And compared to humans they are (which really isn't hard in America).
But now the same politicians that didn't want to do anything before are now also prohibiting the technology, weird ....
However, I would trust Waymo way more than Tesla. As long as Tesla is only using cameras I prefer cars with the lidar systems.
easygerd, I’d debate whether you’re making a valid comparison. There’s a high level of stress (mind and body) running at 20mph for all humans, assuming one can run that fast, but not much stress driving at 20mph. At that speed most drivers’ heart rates are likely lower than those walking at 3mph. As for trusting Waymo, did you know a traffic cone will outsmart and turn them into a very heavy door stop?
And not to wind you up, but how about Chevron lobbying CA to the tune of over $11M and the Western States Petroleum Association lobbying close to $7M? But not to be outdone, there are plenty of other special interest groups spending $millions. Even Waymo, at almost $4M. It appears many of these lobbyists are having their way with politicians, if you check contributions vs. results. And the biggest loser? Taxpayers.
The point is when we walk and run we get feedback from our bodies to pay attention.
When we drive at 20mph we get bored and distracted because we don't "feel" the speed anymore. Try to count traffic cones, road signs, trees, intersections, etc when walking along a long road or when driving at 20, 30, or 50. You won't be able to process because your brain is overwhelmed by processing all the information. There are a ton of things you miss in a car, that a pedestrian or cyclists pick up on - while driving, riding, walking the same road.
E-Bikes, E-Scooters, Nissan Leafs, Prius - they are all EVs and they are all way lighter than a F-150, F-250, F-350, F-450. So you need to be more specific. If you argue to ban the Cybertruck and the F-150 and the Chevy Suburban and the Dodge Ram - then you can make that case.
It's great that Waymo stops for traffic cones - most human drivers are just running them over. So who is the superior driver?
easygerd, thanks for your clarification. I’m not sure which drivers you hang around with but if they’re trying to process “all” the information or count traffic cones, road signs, trees, intersections, etc. when driving then I’d likely agree with your argument. As it is, most drivers will not do that and will pay attention where it’s needed most, in front of their car, just like pedestrians, runners, cyclists, etc. would look (I would hope) to where they’re going. We can agree to disagree on your comparison.
Where we can’t disagree are statistics on how drivers have improved, or not, via reported values on deaths per miles driven. A quick check shows the estimated 2022 NHTSA mileage death rate was 1.35 per 100 million miles traveled. For comparison, in 1923, it was 18.65 deaths per 100 million miles. I can’t easily find a breakdown on which speeds cause which percentage of deaths but based on physics, deaths at 20mph would be much less likely than at higher speeds. Essentially, I’d say Not So Common’s comment above is accurate that today’s vehicles can go faster and are safer than ever before.
BTW, it’s not that Waymo stops for traffic cones, they’re immobilized by them. And please tell me which city you live in, because based on your comments, it sounds like you’re not surrounded by superior, or even average, drivers. In their case, Waymo may be the better driver, once someone helps Waymo out by removing the traffic cone.
You are making my point. The faster we go the more we omit information. You think it is by choice, science however calls it "tunnel vision" or "selective attention". This can be good if that attention focuses on the road, but we both know that is not true (eating, drinking, talking, texting, even listening, are regarded Distracted Driving and therefore illegal and leading to crashes).
"BTW, it’s not that Waymo stops for traffic cones, they’re immobilized by them."
That is great, we can only wish more "superior drivers" slow down for cones or are immobilized by STOP signs. Then things like this wouldn't happen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTvd8hFjy9w
How can a superior California driver hit a bus stop with students present? You think that driver focused on what is important?
easygerd, thanks for your response, although your point doesn’t appear to move the needle in regards to driving behaviors. If drivers are as bad as you think yet our mileage death rate has decreased considerably, then we’d have to conclude today’s vehicles are making us safer than ever before. Or we can conclude the effects of “tunnel vision” or “selective attention” is not having the deleterious effects on drivers you think they do because again, our mileage death rate has decreased. I’d say that vehicles are both making us safer and “tunnel vision” or “selective attention” isn’t as big an issue as you believe it to be.
And sure, you’ll always be able to cherry-pick accidents due to tunnel vision or selective attention or some other issue but imagine the millions or tens of millions or hundreds of millions of other instances where there is no issue. For example, let’s take a peek at today’s DJ, with an article on two Waymo’s striking the same pickup truck. And in the past, Waymo hitting a cyclist and Cruise vehicles stopping and blocking a SF street… Who’s the superior driver? BTW, if you have drivers immobilized by STOP signs, you’ll only create a colossal traffic jam. Kind of like what happens when a traffic cone is set upon a Waymo (maybe Waymo can install hood wipers on their cars).
Calling your hit-a-pickup-twice (that pickup had it coming) and raising you a "San Jose: A 69-year old driver runs into an outdoor Chinese restaurant, kills one and injures 7 others." They force outdoor restaurants to have concrete blocks around seats close to streets for a reason. And it's certainly not because they think California has such superior drivers.
And there is another big question out there. The same people that deny the existence of "Tunnel Vision" are always blaming pedestrians and cyclists for not "dressing like clowns". When walking through my neighborhood after dark I can still see all pedestrians, cyclists, even dogs perfectly and yet drivers never can. What is your explanation? Instead of "slow and selective attention" do you prefer "lazy eye syndrome"?
Btw. the "vehicle mileage death rate" includes the almost impeccable records of self-driving or autonomous vehicles. Also the thousands of truck drivers with lane recognition software and semi-automatic driving. Having robot cars and semi-robot cars helping out drivers is a big boost to that stat.
The way more important "Per capita road accident deaths in the US" is going up significantly since 2010.
easygerd, thanks for your response. Again, you’ll always be able to cherry-pick a few accidents due to tunnel vision or selective attention or some other issue but we still have millions, or tens of millions, or hundreds of millions of other instances where there is no issue. California may not have superior drivers but they are not by any means, indicative of a few cherry-picked events.
I don’t know of anyone denying the existence of tunnel vision. What I’m saying is that the effect is not as bad as you think it is for drivers. I’m quite sure that if you’re running at 20mph, you would not be able to see all pedestrians, cyclists, dogs, and perhaps even cars driving by. My explanation would be the same as yours.
As for your per capita road accident death rate, what happened before 2010? Was it decreasing? What is the rate since 1923? I don’t believe anyone has issues with equipment that will make a driver safer but ultimately, there should still be a responsible driver. Waymo will not act if you put a traffic cone on the hood. With a responsible driver, they’ll just remove the traffic cone and be on their way.
you seem to have a weird fascination with the cones? That seems like a minor software bug that is probably already fixed. Why would we be concerned about a robotcar being overly cautious? Isn't it better to stop and wait rather than do what Tesla does, just keep going and hit the firetruck?
https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-why-crash-radar/
Here are a few examples from the Bay Area of people that would NOT have died or be injured if the driver wasn't experiencing damaging-speed-brain-syndrome:
2021/01/23: pedestrian gets killed by a hit&run driver in a crosswalk in Redwood City
2021/07/17: former 49ers coach Greg Knapp gets killed in a bike lane in San Ramon
2021/09/21: Garrett Young strikes a female victim and then “running her over several times more” in Millbrae
2022/03/17: Construction trucks runs over child in Mountain View
2022/06/25: Samantha Mei Hartwell swerved in her Nissan and hits a 60 year old man in a bike lane
2022/09/08: https://bikesiliconvalley.org/news/2022/10/why-are-so-many-people-dying-on-sunnyvale-streetsnbsp
2022/09/14: little kid on scooter is "run over" by large SUV in a Transit-Oriented Neighborhood in San Mateo - Bay Meadow
2022/09/15: cyclist "run over" on a "Bicycle Boulevard" in Belmont
2022/09/16: 8-year-old and his nanny are "run over" on a Safe-Routes-To-School (SRTS) in San Jose
2022/09/28: Vincent Qualls, 43, of Oakland, was driving south on Highway 1 when he suddenly crossed the double yellow lines into the opposite lane for around 100 to 200 feet and hit the 60 year old bicyclist and then a tree
2022/10/09: Santa Rosa - 5736 Old Redwood Highway. "The pair of pedestrians were walking from a parking lot of an establishment across the street when they were struck.
2022/10/25, The woman hits the Flashing Beacon button and still is run over
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZkEhykKWH0
2022/11/02: RCSD student was hit around Roosevelt ES, Redwood City
2022/11/07: Greg Ammen and Grace Spiridon killed on El Camino & Finger, RWC by two street races Kyle Harrison (23) [2018 BMW M3] and Cesar Morales (17) [2005 Mercedes E55]
2022/11/17: RWC Hit-And-Run on Hopkins and Hillview. An elderly female Prius Driver
2022/11/18: RWC "A Child on a scooter was hit by a vehicle"
2022/12/15: Menlo Park: Crossing Guard got hit by a Tesla on Ringwood and Edge Rd.
2023/01/03: Daily City: "A pedestrian was fatally struck by a Peninsula hit-and-run driver
2023/02/10: Hwy 1 HMB - Unlicensed driver Miguel Jose Juarez Perez (18) in his GMC Yukon struck and killed 75-year old while riding his bicycle.
2023/03/31: RWC - "Richard" - a homeless resident - gets killed while riding a bike lane
2023/04/04: USA cycling champion Ethan Boyes killed in SF's Presidio along Arguello Boulevard by a speeding drunkard Arnold Kinman Low (81).
... I can go on and on, but probably hit a posting limit soon
(We haven't even reached 2024 and there were three more incidents just this week.)
All of these accidents were related to speed related evolutionary brain damage - these superior drivers couldn't see because of their speed or were too distracted to bother. In each and every of these instances a Waymo Car would have stopped.
I am on the side of Isabel Silveira. It is ridiculous to have the Wieners of the world invade our motor vehicles and place even more control over our daily lives. The DMV already collects more information about our cars and us than we are fully aware of. I suggest that all drivers who are caught driving dangerously, starting with over 100 miles per hour, have their vehicles impounded and sold, driver licenses suspended and prohibited from driving for 5 years. That would send a strong message without Wiener breathing down our necks. Law and order is the answer, use the tools that we already have to keep these idiots off the road.
This is just a hidden speed increase, reverse psychology. San Mateo staff did the same last year, when they proposed speed limit increases on certain streets to "improve safety".
There are two ways to think about this:
A) yes, human brains can't process speeds above 20mph - after that we have tunnel vision and information in-take becomes very selective. Throw in a phone call or podcast and we have too many distracted and overwhelmed drivers on the road. Raining them in with car technology would absolutely make sense
B) why give drivers 10mph lee-way? That is like a 10mph speed increase? Instead of 25mph on a residential street car-scofflaws (90% of population) can now go 35mph knowing neither the car nor the police will act.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.