Piloted speed governors gain traction in Annapolis as voluntary option for repeat dangerous speeders

Judicial Proceedings Committee · February 4, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senate Bill 366 would authorize a pilot program letting judges or MVA use intelligent speed-assistance devices as an alternative to license suspension for egregious speeders; advocates say the technology can prevent deaths, while committee members asked privacy and data-retention questions.

Senate Bill 366 would create a pilot program — analogous to ignition-interlock programs for impaired drivers — allowing certain drivers convicted of egregious speeding offenses to keep limited driving privileges when they install an intelligent speed-assistance (ISA) device that governs vehicle speed. Sponsor testimony compared the measure to successful interlock programs and stressed the pilot would be voluntary and targeted at the most dangerous repeat offenders.

Supporters at the Feb. 4 hearing included AAA, Families for Safe Streets and victims—s relatives who argued ISA technology is a feasible way to prevent repeat deadly speeding by physically preventing excessive speeds and thereby saving lives. Backers pointed to experience elsewhere (Virginia, Washington D.C., pilot projects in other jurisdictions) and noted that manufacturers have tested ISAs on transit and municipal fleets.

Committee members focused on privacy and operational questions: whether real-time GPS location data are retained, who can access any stored speed/location records, how the program handles alternate drivers of the same vehicle (spouses, renters), and whether the device simply limits top speed or logs long-term telemetry. Sponsors said many details would be hammered out with manufacturers and that the committee could place limits on data retention in statute if needed. A public demonstration of the devices was offered to allow members and staff to see device behavior and governing limits.

Next steps: The committee asked the sponsor and vendors to provide written specifications on data retention, privacy protections, device behavior (e.g., how much over the posted limit a driver may exceed to merge), and a proposed administrative structure mirroring existing MVA interlock administration.

Attribution: Quotations and technical descriptions are from testimony given by sponsor and safety advocates during the hearing.