Will California cap car speeds?

Some, like Kari Watkins, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at UC Davis, are disappointed that Senate Bill 961 was transformed into a more moderate policy as it underwent the legislative process. Originally, the bill proposed active speed governors, which physically stop cars driving more than 10 mph over the speed limit. 

She lamented that speed warning systems won’t actually stop speeding, but only create an annoyance for drivers going over the speed limit. Additionally, on surface streets with slower speed limits — where speeding can mean the difference between injury and death for a pedestrian or bicyclist — Watkins believes an extra 10 mph is too much leeway. 

“My point of view is, if you’re going to speed on the freeway, whatever, but I don’t want you speeding on a 30 mile an hour road,” she said. “I want somebody to be warned at 35, because I don’t want them going a single mile per hour higher than the 35. I don’t even want them going a single mile per hour over the 30 that is set.” 

The change from active to passive technology was instituted so the bill could successfully pass through the Legislature. If the governor signs the bill into law, it would help prevent speeding-related deaths, according to a press release from Wiener’s office — a third of traffic fatalities in California between 2017 and 2021 were speeding-related. 

“The rise in road deaths in California is a completely preventable tragedy,” Wiener said in the press release. “The evidence is clear: Rising levels of dangerous speeding are placing all Californians in danger, and by taking prudent steps to improve safety, we can save lives. California should lead the nation with action to improve the safety of our streets.”

San Mateo County representatives state Sen. Josh Becker, D-Menlo Park, voted no on the bill in its original format, with active speed limiters, and voted yes with the update to passive speed limiting technology. Assemblymember Diane Papan, D-San Mateo, abstained from the Assembly vote. 

Some San Mateo County residents don’t like the bill entirely on grounds that it would limit their driving decision making. One Foster City resident, Derek Pen, put it simply. 

“No,” he said. “I want to go fast.” 

The annoyance of a speed limiter could actually be a detriment to safety, Jay Beeber, National Motorist Association executive director of policy, posited, especially when drivers are only speeding to meet road design. 

“We feel it will not improve safety. It will distract drivers more than it will help,” he said. “You’re going to have situations where people are constantly being nagged by their car, where all they’re doing is driving at the speed that the government built the road.”  

Data is clear that reducing speed can help prevent injuries — a speed reduction of 10% can reduce road traffic injuries and accidents by 37%, one study found — although passive speed limiters are still a fairly new technology in practice. 

But they’re gaining popularity, with the European Union mandating them in all new cars beginning July 2024. 

Beeber is also concerned that the technology could produce false positives when drivers aren’t actually speeding and believes California should wait for federal regulations on speed limiter technology, rather than advancing its own. 

Some in San Mateo County, like Abdul Rehmen, the manager of Premium Auto, simply believe the bill would have little impact on gas-powered cars because the technology can be removed. 

“It doesn’t really, honestly, affect any of the car people. Because people who want to speed, they can always speed,” he said. “If you put any speed limiter on any car, I can have it out in an hour… if I want to speed, I want to speed.” 

The same can’t be said for electric cars, he said, its software can be programmed with speed limiting built in. By 2035, all California vehicles will be required to be zero-emission vehicles, meaning that purported “easy outs” on speed limiters won’t exist, Rehmen said.

Car-related policy 15 years into the future could very easily no longer rely on drivers at all, Watkins said, alluding to the recently-expanding self-driving car phenomenon. As for illegally removed speed limiters, she believes lawmakers could deal with the issue by instituting steep fines. 

“I’m sure you will get the bad actors out there, who would be willing, for enough money, to disable these things in people’s vehicles … but then I think what happens is that individual then gets in a crash, and then you can add a very high fine,” she said. “If you get caught, then you’re going to be facing something pretty dramatic.” 

Other San Mateo County residents, like William Reyes, take a more moderate approach to the issue and would prefer if the speed limiters’ range would be extended from 10 miles over the speed limit to 20, he said. 

“That sounds annoying. I wouldn’t like that at all,” he said. “I will compromise, I would be OK with it — but I would be annoyed.”