California Bill for Speed Monitors in Cars Vetoed by Governor
SAN FRANCISCO – A bill aimed at improving road safety in California has been officially vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom. The legislation, introduced by state Senator Scott Wiener, sought to require new passenger vehicles and large trucks sold in the state to have technology that would alert drivers when they exceeded the speed limit by 10 miles per hour or more.
Details of the Bill
Under this proposed law, all new vehicles sold in California starting in 2030 would have been equipped with speed monitoring systems that provide audible or visual warnings to drivers when they exceeded the speed limit. Supporters of the bill believe these alerts could significantly help in reducing speeding-related accidents, particularly in areas populated with pedestrians.
Reasons for the Veto
In a veto message released on Saturday, Governor Newsom expressed his reservations about imposing vehicle safety standards beyond those currently established by the federal government. He noted that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is already evaluating intelligent speed assistance systems and that implementing state-level rules could disrupt federal assessments. Newsom stated, “Imposing state-level mandates at this time risks disrupting these ongoing federal assessments.”
Reactions from Advocates and Critics
The decision to veto the bill has drawn criticism from various advocates for road safety. Marta Lindsey, the communications director for Walk San Francisco, called the veto a failure to protect pedestrians and other road users from accidents. Lindsey expressed her disappointment by stating, “Driver assistance is helping us in all kinds of ways. Now, why would we not have it assist us on this?” She emphasized that similar technology is already being used in Europe, where speed assistance is a requirement for vehicles.
Senator Wiener shared similar sentiments, arguing that Newsom missed a crucial opportunity to save lives. He described the veto as a setback for street safety, particularly at a time when many Californians feel unsafe on the roads. “California should have led on this crisis,” Wiener claimed in a statement. He compared the situation to Wisconsin’s forward-thinking decision in 1961 to pass a seatbelt mandate.
Support from Transportation Safety Groups
The proposed legislation had garnered widespread support from numerous organizations advocating for transportation and vehicle safety. Jennifer Homendy, chair of the National Transportation Safety Board, urged the governor to sign the bill, stating that the technology could potentially save lives. Homendy also pointed out that the board had recommended to the NHTSA the requirement of passive speed monitors, which have yet to be implemented.
Concerns Among Lawmakers
Despite the support, Republican lawmakers voiced their concerns regarding the bill. They claimed that the speed monitoring systems could impose an “extreme burden” on responsible drivers. State Senator Roger Niello insisted that traffic accidents are often caused by a minority of reckless drivers, not the majority, and that focusing on enforcing traffic laws would be a better way to reduce accidents than implementing new technology in vehicles.
Previous Versions of the Bill
The original version of the bill proposed more stringent measures, including active speed governors that would prevent cars from exceeding the speed limit. After pushback, the bill was amended to only require notification to drivers exceeding the limit, which many proponents believed was a more reasonable approach.
Public Call for Change
With increasing pedestrian deaths in areas like Lombard Street, safety advocates are pressing for advanced driver assistance technology. Both Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Vision Zero heavily backed the bill, branding the proposed speed monitoring systems as common-sense safety measures.
San Francisco Mayor London Breed also voiced her support, emphasizing the need for state-level action to complement local efforts aimed at reducing traffic fatalities. As discussions about vehicle safety continue, many residents and officials remain hopeful that further measures will be taken to ensure a safer environment for all road users.
