Governor Newsom Vetoes Speeding Alert Law for California Cars

Governor Newsom Vetoes Speeding Alert Law for California Cars \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have mandated new cars sold in California to alert drivers exceeding speed limits. Newsom cited federal regulations and ongoing federal evaluations as reasons for rejecting the bill. The proposal aimed to reduce traffic fatalities but faced opposition over concerns about cost and federal consistency.

California Speed Alert Law Quick Looks

• Newsom Vetoes Speed Alert Bill: Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that aimed to introduce a speed alert system in all new vehicles in California starting from 2030.
• Bill’s Objective: The proposed law sought to reduce traffic deaths by making cars emit a beep when exceeding speed limits by at least 10 mph (16 kph).
• Federal vs State Regulations: Newsom explained that state-specific vehicle regulations could clash with federal standards, leading to a complex regulatory environment.
• Opposition from Automotive Groups: Critics argued the bill could raise car costs and disrupt ongoing federal efforts. Automotive groups preferred a unified federal approach.
• Technological Proposal: The system, known as intelligent speed assistance, would use GPS to compare a vehicle’s speed against posted speed limits.
• International Context: Similar measures have been adopted by the European Union, which has required new cars to feature speed limit alert systems since July.

Deep Look

Governor Gavin Newsom has decided to veto a proposed bill that would have required all new cars, trucks, and buses sold in California to be equipped with technology that alerts drivers when they exceed the speed limit by at least 10 mph (16 kph). The legislation, set to take effect starting in 2030, aimed to make California the first state in the United States to mandate speed limit alerts in an effort to curb traffic fatalities.

The bill’s purpose was to help mitigate speeding-related crashes, which have been a growing problem, particularly in California where a significant portion of traffic deaths are attributed to speeding. However, Newsom rejected the bill, citing the need for consistency with existing federal vehicle safety regulations. He pointed out that introducing state-specific standards could lead to a “patchwork of regulations” that would complicate matters for automakers and consumers.

In his explanation, Newsom emphasized that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is actively evaluating intelligent speed assistance systems. He argued that state-level mandates could disrupt these federal assessments. According to Newsom, it is more effective to allow these initiatives to progress at the federal level rather than impose a separate layer of regulation specific to California.

Opposition to the bill was strong, especially among automotive industry groups and the California Chamber of Commerce. Critics maintained that speed alert regulations should be handled federally rather than at the state level. They also expressed concerns about potential cost increases for vehicles. Additionally, Republican lawmakers warned that adding these systems might distract drivers and contribute to rising car prices, making vehicles less affordable for average consumers.

Democratic state Senator Scott Wiener, the bill’s sponsor, viewed the veto as a setback for traffic safety in California. In a statement, Wiener lamented that California missed an opportunity to lead on this crucial safety issue, likening it to Wisconsin’s pioneering adoption of mandatory seatbelt laws in 1961. Wiener argued that without such proactive legislation, Californians are being left exposed to unnecessary risks of fatalities resulting from speeding.

The intelligent speed assistance (ISA) technology proposed in the bill is designed to use GPS to compare a vehicle’s speed with a digital database of speed limits. If a driver exceeds the limit by at least 10 mph, the system would emit a brief visual and audio alert to notify the driver. While the intention is to make roads safer, the practical implementation of such a system poses challenges. The bill also included provisions for maintaining an accurate and updated list of posted speed limits across the state. Critics pointed out that this would be a complex task, especially considering local road speed limits and frequent changes, which could lead to inconsistencies in the alerts.

While California’s bill was ambitious, it was not without precedent. The European Union has already taken similar measures, requiring that all new cars feature speed limit alerts starting from July of this year. Importantly, the EU’s legislation allows drivers to switch off the alerts, maintaining an element of flexibility. In the United States, a number of manufacturers, including Ford, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Nissan, have already integrated some form of speed limiting technology in select models sold domestically, as noted by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

Speeding remains a significant cause of accidents and fatalities. According to NHTSA estimates, speeding was a factor in 10% of all car crashes reported to police in 2021. The issue is particularly acute in California, which recorded that 35% of its traffic fatalities were linked to speeding, the second-highest percentage in the country. This highlights the severity of the problem and the potential impact a speeding alert system could have had.

The impetus for the bill was partly influenced by tragic incidents such as a high-profile crash in January 2022, where a driver with a history of speeding violations ran a red light at over 100 mph (161 kph), resulting in a devastating collision that killed nine people, including the driver himself. Following this tragedy, the NTSB recommended that federal regulators require speed alert systems in all new vehicles.

Despite the widespread use of speed limiting technologies both in the U.S. and Europe, and the documented risks associated with speeding, the California proposal faced significant hurdles. One major concern was the challenge of implementing and maintaining an up-to-date system for speed limits across the state, especially on roads where limits change frequently. Without reliable data, such systems could be inconsistent and potentially frustrating for drivers.

The California legislation, if signed into law, would have had a profound effect beyond state borders. Given California’s massive automotive market, many car manufacturers would likely opt to implement the technology across all vehicles sold in the U.S. rather than create a separate product line just for California. This is not the first time California has leveraged its market influence; the state has been a leader in setting vehicle emissions standards, which other states have subsequently adopted. California’s push towards banning new gas-powered cars also spurred automakers to commit to phasing out fossil fuel vehicles.

In rejecting this bill, Governor Newsom maintained that he supports efforts to enhance road safety, but emphasized that such initiatives should be aligned with national standards to avoid regulatory confusion. For now, California’s ambitious attempt to lead the charge on intelligent speed assistance has been stalled, leaving road safety advocates and lawmakers to consider their next steps.

More on US News