HR-9852-119
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Sponsored by Valerie Foushee (D-NC)
What it does
This bill would amend federal highway safety law (title 23, U.S. Code, Section 402) to allow states to use federal highway safety funds for "Stop Super Speeders" programs. Under these programs, individuals with records of repeated or severe speeding violations would be required to have active intelligent speed assistance (ISA) technology installed in their vehicles — technology that automatically prevents the vehicle from exceeding the posted speed limit. States could also impose penalties on drivers who fail to comply with the installation requirement.
Who benefits
Pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users who face elevated risk from high-speed drivers. Families of victims of speeding-related crashes. Emergency responders who deal with severe crash scenes. State highway safety agencies, which would gain a new eligible use of federal funds. ISA technology manufacturers and installers, who would gain a new market. Auto insurance companies, which may see reduced claims in states that adopt the program. Communities near high-speed corridors.
Who is hurt
Drivers with prior speeding records who would be required to install and maintain ISA devices, including associated costs. Low-income drivers with prior violations who may face financial hardship from device installation costs or penalties for non-compliance. Rural drivers who may rely on higher speeds for long-distance travel on low-traffic roads. Vehicle owners who object to government-mandated modifications to their private property. Auto dealers and manufacturers who may face compliance complexity. States that choose not to adopt the program would not be directly affected, but the federal funding incentive structure may create indirect pressure.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that speeding is a leading cause of traffic fatalities, contributing to approximately 29% of all traffic deaths in the United States according to NHTSA data, and that repeat and severe speeders represent a disproportionate share of that risk. They contend that ISA technology is already deployed in the European Union — where it became mandatory for new vehicles in 2022 — and has demonstrated measurable reductions in speeding incidents, making targeted use for high-risk drivers a proportionate, evidence-based intervention. They further argue the bill respects federalism by leaving adoption entirely to state discretion, simply adding the program as an eligible use of existing federal highway safety funds.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that mandating government-controlled technology in privately owned vehicles raises serious concerns about property rights and government overreach into personal transportation decisions, particularly given the Supreme Court's expanded takings doctrine in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021), which treated government-mandated physical access to private property as a per se taking. They contend that ISA systems can malfunction or respond incorrectly to outdated speed limit data, creating safety risks of their own, and that penalizing drivers for non-compliance with a device mandate on their own vehicles sets a troubling precedent for state surveillance and control of private property that could expand well beyond speeding.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to condition federal highway funds on state program requirements is well-established under the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) and the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), as affirmed in South Dakota v. Dole (1987). However, if states implement mandatory ISA installation on privately owned vehicles, affected drivers could raise Takings Clause (5th Amendment) challenges, particularly in light of Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021), which held that government-mandated physical access to or modification of private property may constitute a per se taking requiring just compensation.
Checks and balances
Congress expands the menu of eligible uses for federal highway safety funds; states retain full discretion over whether to adopt a program; state legislatures and courts would oversee implementation and any penalties; federal courts could review takings or due process challenges brought by affected drivers.
Historical precedent
Georgia enacted a "Super Speeder" law in 2010 imposing additional fines on drivers exceeding certain speed thresholds, though it did not include technology mandates; no prior federal legislation has required ISA device installation on privately owned vehicles as a condition of a highway safety program.