“This technology gets people to slow down. It saves lives,” says the proponents. “It’s just a nanny state that we’re causing here,” says the other side. The cause of the kerfuffle? California lawmakers are moving toward bringing vehicle speed technology to a car or truck near you.
How does vehicle speed technology work?
Back in May, California’s Senate passed a bill that would require half of all passenger vehicles, big trucks, and buses sold in the state to come equipped with a “speed assistance system” by 2029. All would need them by 2032. How would this technology work?
Forward-facing vehicle cameras would watch for speed limit signs. GPS units, knowing where the vehicle was located would check for a speed limit. The information would then be compared to the vehicle speed, and if 10 miles per hour or more above the speed limit, the driver would get a one-time “nag” warning. An exception would be “emergency vehicles.” Those would be exempt from the vehicle speed technology.
Original bill had more than a nag
For many, this was an improvement over the original language of the bill. It would have required more than a “nag” for speeding. If the vehicle was 10 or more mph over the limit, the original version would have kicked in a governor, reducing the vehicle speed to the limit.
That was the bill that passed the Senate. However, the State Assembly has done some tweaking. The main idea remains the same, but the “devil in the details” would make a couple of changes.
Under the current amendments, implementation dates have been rewritten. No phase-in. Rather, all new vehicles would need the passive vehicle speed technology by 2030—with a “but.” The but? If the vehicle had neither a front-facing camera nor GPS, then no need for the new technology.
Truckers made happy
Another change removes from the requirement trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating exceeding 8,500 pounds “for which a federal motor vehicle safety standard of any kind or character exists requiring either the passive or active control of speed.”
The bill is wending its way through the streets of the Assembly. If it passes the Assembly, it will head back to the Senate for another consideration. Whether it makes it to the Governor’s desk is to be seen.
But like nearly all legislation, it’s not without rancor. California Senator Brian Dahle told ABC News he voted against the bill because it doesn’t take into account people’s need to speed for emergencies. “It’s just a nanny state that we’re causing here,” he said.
To see the text of SB-961, click here.
RELATED
- Changes to traffic camera laws. Be careful where you’re headed
- Faster freeways lead to dangerous ‘spillover speeding’ in neighborhoods
##RVT1166b
This is horribly intrusive into our lives. On its front it looks like law abiding citizens would have nothing to worry about. But that’s never the case. I can honestly see where accidents could be caused with this nanny-state stuff. Next thing you know they’ll be telling us what hours in the day we will be allowed to drive our cars – and where.
I read an article yesterday where Cali has told drivers to NOT fill their gas tanks during the day, only at night because of such hot days and Climate Change. ??? I didn’t understand the article either.
I didn’t hear of, or read that one, but it makes zero sense to me..welcome to my Ca. world 😪
We aren’t like this in Tennessee, Bill, at least not yet. Although I have heard from different people that quite a few people from California have moved to Tennessee, where, by the way, I paid $2.80/gallon for 87 octane gasoline. 🙂 Have a great day, safe travels, and safe stays! 🙂
😩😢
Who said, “Elections have consequences.” Just like banging your head against a wall and wondering why you have a headache, this is what you get in Kalifornia when you keep electing nannies, or is it ninnies, like that.
Thanks, Russ and Tina! 🙂 Hmm, … I do like the potential for reducing speeding, but it certainly is a big step down the road to elimination of self-autonomy. I guess if push came to shove that I would be against this on philosophical grounds. I don’t live in California, so for me and for now, it is a moot point. Thanks again, have a great day, safe travels, and safe stays! 🙂
If California passes this type of laws, how long do you think it will take other States to adopt it?
Plus, the size of the California market will drive manufacteurs to install this Nanny across the industry. You will pay for it, even if it is not required.
California, the “Special” state. Is anybody home?
Incorporated into Tennessee? Nah. Not in my lifetime. If California does it, then it likely is a bad idea. Not likely, CARB mandates things that vehicle manufacturers follow for Califormia, but not for sales elsewhere in the US. California is a tick on the dog and it certainly does not wag the dog. Thanks tom, have a grest weekend, safe travels, and safe stays! 🙂
Another head shaker proposal from California. Perhaps the micro-managing philosophy is why I’ve met several new Texans from California lately. As we travel, we have found this apparent in several western states. In a dog park in Idaho, with 5 people and their dogs, I was the only one from Texas, the rest were Idaho transplants from California. They all had similar stories. I hate to see a state with such resources and beauty take itself down like this.
Things like this are why we left California 19 years ago, never want to go there again.
******fornia, the “control freak state”… they want to control every action EXCEPT actual criminal activity!
Ah yes, California. Musk announced he is is moving 5,500 high paying jobs to Texas this week. Won’t be too long and Cali loses ANOTHER congressional seat. Play silly games, win silly prizes.
How can an article about California’s attempt to do something to save lives turn into a California bashing free for all. A similar attempt in Wyoming to prevent high profile vehicles from driving in high winds did not receive any accusations of creating a “nanny” state. In my opinion states, including the state of Texas, could save more lives by fixing the deplorable conditions of their road systems. That would require all state legislators and the Feds to put their money where their mouth is. As voters of the state of Texas or wherever, maybe you should spend time lobbying your legislatures for better safer, roads and less time worrying about the states you don’t pay taxes in
I really respect your comment. Much to unpack and without question, it has become a reflexive response to “trash” Cali. An automatic go to and here is why.
1. On Wyoming wind, a road sign is not a computer that monitors driving, full time.
2. On taxes, unfortunately the rest of the country does pay much for many bad California policies, llegal Immigration being the most predominant currently.
3. On saving lives, California obviously could care less about saving a single life….. see #2 above. Add in decriminalizing crime (shoplift $950.00 and get less than a parking ticket).
4. A 2 mile on the I-10 in LA is tougher to drive than 350 miles of I-10 in Texas. I just did it. ✌️
Oh I can tell you why – because folks that live in awful states love California-Bashing. They’re just jealous, poor things.
I’m no fan of this proposed bill but it may have something to do with how nowadays the majority of vehicles on CA freeways drive 10 – 15+ miles faster than the posted limit. It’s become the norm for drivers to zip by at 80-85mph on 70mph highways. Guess folks figure police can’t pull ’em all over if they all do it & police seemed to unofficially complied. Mental. It’s a recent phenomenon that conscientious drivers aren’t happy with.
Ha! You hate us ’cause you ain’t us
As California goes, so goes the nation. This is nothing more than an exercise in control; you cannot legislate morality or individual choice. I’d wager that their Gov. Gavin Newsome is a soon-to-be presidential candidate. If not this election after the current president steps down, then count on it in the next election cycle. Canada’s Trudeau has nothing on Newsome.
A visually stunning state, but with a long history of being governed by imbeciles.