Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reckless Stunt Driving Enforcement Isa topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing held on requiring speed-limiting devices for repeat reckless-stunt drivers; judges'discretion, costs debated
Summary
A hearing on SB160 explored requiring judges to order intelligent speed-assistance (ISA) devices for second or subsequent reckless-stunt-driving convictions; sponsors said devices can limit top speed to either 70 mph or 20% above the posted limit, costs fall to offenders, and the measure would be an alternative to vehicle forfeiture.
Committee members heard testimony and extensive questioning on SB160, a bill that would allow a judge to order installation of an intelligent speed-assistance device (ISA) on a vehicle after a second or subsequent reckless-stunt-driving conviction.
Representative Kilpatrick, the bill's sponsor, said the devices'technology has been used in Europe for years and that several U.S. vendors now provide variable-speed devices. He described an ISA as similar to an ignition-interlock device in concept. "This bill very simply provides that if a person is convicted a second or subsequent time of reckless stunt driving, a court is authorized to order installation of an intelligent speed assistance device known as an ISA on the vehicle operated by the offender," he said.
Kilpatrick and committee members discussed two variant approaches: the bill text originally set a ceiling of 70 mph for an ISA; members discussed amending that to limit speed to 20% above the posted speed limit to better fit variable local speed zones. Kilpatrick said judges would retain discretion over the length of time a device must remain installed and that the device is not intended to impound the vehicle.
The sponsor cited cost estimates: installation advertised in testimony at about $100, lease/service averaging about $4 per day, and total costs across vendors between about $200 and $1,600 depending on the device and service terms. Kilpatrick said costs would be the offender's responsibility.
Members raised policy questions about whether the bill would remove existing forfeiture authority for offending vehicles and whether a minimum device period should be longer than the draft's three-month floor. Kilpatrick said the bill gives judges an option that may be preferable to impoundment because it allows drivers to continue work while preventing excessive speeds.
The committee took the bill up for initial consideration and agreed to continue discussion at a follow-up meeting; no vote to advance the bill was taken during the hearing.
Ending: Sponsors agreed to work with committee members on technical changes, including the potential 20%-over-posted-speed amendment, and to return at a future meeting for further consideration.
