Existing law requires, until January 1, 2026, a person who has been convicted on or after January 1, 2019, of driving a motor vehicle under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, as specified, to install for a period of time, as ordered by the court, an ignition interlock device (IID) on the vehicle they operate. Installation of an IID is discretionary for a first offender, as specified. Existing law also requires persons convicted of driving under the influence of a drug to install an IID. Existing law specifies periods for which a person convicted of one or more prior driving-under-the-influence violations is required to install an IID, as specified. A violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime punishable as an infraction, unless otherwise specified.

This bill would impose require the Department of Motor Vehicles to establish, until January 1, 2033, a pilot program in the Counties of Los Angeles, San Diego, Fresno, Sacramento, and Kern that would impose a similar requirement for persons convicted of specified driving offenses relating to excessive speed, reckless driving, and exhibitions of speed to install for a period of time, as ordered by the court, a certified active intelligent speed assist device (ISA) on any vehicle the person operates. The bill would similarly make the installation of an ISA discretionary for a first offender, as specified. The bill would establish periods for which a person convicted of one or more prior driving-under-the-influence violations specified driving offenses is required to install an ISA, as specified. The bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to create a verification installation form to be submitted by persons subject to these provisions. The bill would impose a fee schedule to be adopted by certified ISA manufacturers and their agents for the ISA and other related costs. By creating new crimes related to the installation and maintenance of an ISA, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require, by July 1, 2030, the department to report data to the Transportation Agency regarding the implementation and efficacy of the pilot program, as specified, and require the Transportation Agency to report to the Legislature on the outcomes of the pilot program by July 1, 2031.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law requires, until January 1, 2026, a person who has been convicted on or after January 1, 2019, of driving a motor vehicle under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, as specified, to install for a period of time, as ordered by the court, an ignition interlock device (IID) on the vehicle they operate. Installation of an IID is discretionary for a first offender, as specified. Existing law also requires persons convicted of driving under the influence of a drug to install an IID. Existing law specifies periods for which a person convicted of one or more prior driving-under-the-influence violations is required to install an IID, as specified. A violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime punishable as an infraction, unless otherwise specified.

This bill would impose a similar requirement for persons convicted of specified driving offenses relating to excessive speed, reckless driving, and exhibitions of speed to install for a period of time, as ordered by the court, a certified active intelligent speed assist device (ISA) on any vehicle the person operates. The bill would similarly make the installation of an ISA discretionary for a first offender, as specified. The bill would establish periods for which a person convicted of one or more prior driving-under-the-influence violations is required to install an ISA, as specified. The bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to create a verification installation form to be submitted by persons subject to these provisions. The bill would impose a fee schedule to be adopted by certified ISA manufacturers and their agents for the ISA and other related costs. By creating new crimes related to the installation and maintenance of an ISA, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Date of Hearing: May 7, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 981

Author:(Gipson) – As Amended Ver:April 28, 2025

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: >

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to establish a five-county pilot program in which a person convicted of one or more reckless driving offenses must install an intelligent speed assist (ISA) device in their vehicle.

Specifically, among other provisions, this bill:

1. Requires the DMV to establish and operate the pilot program in Los Angeles, San Diego, Fresno, Sacramento, and Kern counties until January 1, 2033.
2. Requires a person convicted of reckless driving, engaging in a speed contest, or excessive speed to install an ISA device as follows:
   1. Upon a conviction with no prior similar convictions, the court may order the person to install an ISA device for up to six months from the date of conviction.
   2. Upon a conviction with one prior similar conviction, the court must order the person to install an ISA device in their vehicle for 12 months.
   3. Upon a conviction with two prior similar convictions, the court must order the person to install an ISA device in their vehicle for 24 months.
   4. Upon a conviction with three or more similar priors, the court must order the person to install an ISA device in their vehicle for 36 months.
3. Requires a person convicted of reckless driving that causes bodily injury, convicted of engaging in a speed contest that causes bodily injury, or subject to a specified DUI, speed, and recklessness sentencing enhancement to install an ISA device, as follows:
   1. Upon a conviction with no similar prior convictions, the court must order the person to install an ISA device in their vehicle for 12 months.
   2. Upon a conviction with one similar prior conviction, the court must order the person to install an ISA device in their vehicle for 24 months.
   3. Upon a conviction with two similar prior convictions, the court must order the person to install an ISA device in their vehicle for 36 months.
   4. Upon a conviction with three or more similar prior convictions, the court must order the person to install an ISA device in their vehicle for 48 months.
4. Requires a court to notify a person convicted of a qualifying driving offense (“qualifying person”) that they are required to install an ISA device on any vehicle that the person operates and that they are prohibited from operating a motor vehicle unless that vehicle is equipped with an ISA device.
5. Requires a qualifying person to arrange for installation of an ISA device in each vehicle the person operates, provide the DMV with proof of installation, and pay a fee to the DMV. Permits the DMV to set a fee that is sufficient to covers its administration costs.
6. Specifies circumstances in which a qualifying person is exempt from the pilot program’s requirements, including if the person does not own or have access to a vehicle.
7. Requires a qualifying person to arrange for each vehicle with an ISA device to be serviced by the installer at least once every 60 days in order for the installer to recalibrate and monitor the operation of the device.
8. Requires the DMV to monitor the installation and maintenance of the ISA device.
9. Requires every manufacturer and manufacturer’s agent certified by the DMV to provide ISA devices to adopt a specified fee schedule that provides for the payment commensurate with a qualifying person’s income relative to the federal poverty level, and requires specified notifications to a qualifying person of the fee schedule.
10. Requires the DMV to report specified data to California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) regarding the implementation and efficacy of the pilot program, and requires CalSTA to conduct an assessment of the program and report to the Legislature on the outcomes of the program by July 1, 2031.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Ongoing costs (Motor Vehicle Account (MVA)) to the DMV to operate the pilot program, possibly in millions of dollars annually. The department will also incur significant one-time startup costs, including costs to integrate this pilot program into the department’s ongoing IT modernization project and to issue regulations to set fees. Given the magnitude and novelty of this program, the department may require delayed implementation. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the MVA—the main funding source for the DMV—is expected to fully exhaust its reserves and become insolvent in fiscal year 2025‑26.  The LAO further warns that the MVA, absent corrective action like revenue increases or spending reductions, will experience a negative fund balance of $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2028‑29.
2. One-time costs (special funds) to CalSTA to complete the required assessment and report, possibly in the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Regardless of cost, consistent with Appropriations Committee rules and practice, this bill is eligible for placement on the suspense file because it has the primary purpose of creating a pilot program.

COMMENTS:

This bill seeks to address repeat offenders who commit speeding, reckless driving, and other dangerous driving offenses. The bill is modeled on the DMV’s current statewide pilot program that requires installation of ignition interlock devices (IIDs) by people convicted of specified driving under the influence (DUI) offenses. Under that pilot, the length of required IID installation depends on how many prior DUI convictions a person has and how serious the offenses are.

This bill implements a similar program for certain reckless driving and speeding offenses. In the five pilot counties, a court must (or may, in the case of certain first-time offenders) order a person convicted of a specified speeding and reckless driving offense to install a certified ISA device in any car they operate or have access to. The length of time the ISA must be installed depends on how many prior similar convictions the qualifying person has and how serious the offenses are, with longer required ISA installation for repeat offenders.

“ISA device” is not defined in the bill. Generally speaking, ISA technologies use sensors to monitor a vehicle’s speed and provide real-time feedback or intervention to ensure a driver is adhering to the speed limit. An ISA device can be passive (meaning the device provides the driver with an alert or other feedback when the driver exceeds the speed limit) or active (meaning the device reduces the speed of the car through a physical mechanism not controlled by the driver).

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: Ilan Zur

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Nick Schultz, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 981

Author:(Gipson) – As Introduced Ver:February 20, 2025

As Proposed to be Amended in Committee

SUMMARY:

Creates a five county pilot program that requires an individual convicted of specified reckless driving and speed offenses to install a functioning, certified, active intelligent speed assist (ISA) device on their vehicle, and requires the California Transportation Agency (CalSTA) to submit a report to the Legislature analyzing the effectiveness of this pilot program. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to establish a pilot program in the Counties of Los Angeles, San Diego, Fresno, Sacramento, and Kern, to reduce the number of reckless driving, speeding, and driving under the influence (DUI) offenses in those counties, as specified.
2. Requires a court to notify a person convicted of specified driving offenses that they are required to install an ISA device on any vehicle that the person operates and that they are prohibited from operating a motor vehicle unless that vehicle is equipped with an ISA device.
3. Requires the DMV upon receipt of the court’s abstract of a conviction to inform the convicted person of the requirements of this bill, including the term for which the person is required to have a device installed. The records of the DMV shall reflect the mandatory use of the device for the term required and the time when the device is required to be installed by this code.
4. Requires the DMV to advise the person that installation of an ISA device on a vehicle does not allow the person to drive without a valid driver’s license.
5. Requires a person who is notified by the DMV pursuant to the above to do all of the following:
   1. Arrange for each vehicle operated by the person to be equipped with an ISA device by a certified active intelligent speed assist device provider;
   2. Provide to the DMV proof of installation by submitting a verification installation form to be developed by the DMV;and,
   3. Pay a fee, determined by the DMV, that is sufficient to cover the costs of administration of this section.
6. Provides that a person who is notified by the DMV pursuant to this bill is exempt from the requirements to install an ISA device until the time they purchase or have access to a vehicle if, within 30 days of the notification, the person certifies to the DMV all of the following:
   1. The person does not own a vehicle;
   2. The person does not have access to a vehicle at their residence;
   3. The person no longer has access to the vehicle they were driving at the time they were arrested for the underlying violation;
   4. The person acknowledges that they are only allowed to drive a vehicle that is equipped with an ISA device;
   5. The person acknowledges that they are required to have a valid driver’s license before they can drive; and,
   6. The person acknowledges that they are subject to an ISA device installation requirement when they purchase or have access to a vehicle.
7. Provides that addition to any other restrictions the DMV places on the driver’s license record of the convicted person when the person is issued a restricted driver’s license, the DMV shall place a restriction on the driver’s license record of the person that states the driver is restricted to driving only vehicles equipped with an ISA device for the applicable term.
8. Requires a person who is notified by the department that they are required to install an ISA device shall arrange for each vehicle with an ISA device to be serviced by the installer at least once every 60 days in order for the installer to recalibrate and monitor the operation of the device.
9. Requires the installer to notify the department if the device is removed or indicates that the person has attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with the device, or if the person fails three or more times to comply with any requirement for the maintenance or calibration of the ISA device.
10. Requires the DMV to monitor the installation and maintenance of the ISA device.
11. Requires a person convicted of: 1) driving a vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property (hereafter, “reckless driving”); 2) engaging in a motor vehicle speed contest on a highway or off-street parking facility (hereafter, “speed contest”); or 3) driving a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than 100 miles per hour (hereafter, “excessive speed”), to install an ISA device for the below terms, as follows:
    1. Upon a conviction with no priors,^[1] the court may order installation of an ISA device on any vehicle that the person operates and prohibit that person from operating a motor vehicle unless that vehicle is equipped with an ISA device for a period not to exceed six months from the date of conviction, subject to the following:
       1. The court shall notify the DMV of the conviction and shall specify the terms of the ISA device restriction.
       2. The DMV shall place the restriction on the driver’s license record of the person that states the driver is restricted to driving only vehicles equipped with an ISA device for the applicable term.
    2. Upon a conviction with one prior the person shall install an ISA device in the vehicle, as ordered by the court that is operated by that person for a mandatory term of 12 months.
    3. Upon a conviction with two priors the person shall install an ISA device in the vehicle, as ordered by the court that is operated by that person for a mandatory term of 24 months.
    4. Upon a conviction with three or more priors the person shall install an ISA device in the vehicle, as ordered by the court that is operated by that person for a mandatory term of 36 months.
12. Requires a person convicted of: 1) reckless driving that causes bodily injury to another person; 2) engaging in a speed contest that causes bodily injury to another person; or 3) is subject to a penalty enhancement for reckless driving while driving under the influence and while driving at least 20 mph over the speed limit (hereafter “DUI, speed, and recklessness enhancement”), to install an ISA device, as follows:
    1. Upon a conviction with no priors^[2], the person shall install an ISA device in the vehicle, as ordered by the court that is operated by that person for a mandatory term of 12 months.
    2. Upon a conviction with one prior, the person shall install an ISA device in the vehicle, as ordered by the court that is operated by that person for a mandatory term of 24 months.
    3. Upon a conviction with two priors, the person shall install an ISA device in the vehicle, as ordered by the court that is operated by that person for a mandatory term of 36 months.
    4. Upon a conviction with three or more priors, the person shall install an ISA device in the vehicle, as ordered by the court that is operated by that person for a mandatory term of 48 months.
13. Provides that if a person fails to comply with any of the requirements regarding ISA devices, the period in which the person was not in compliance shall not be credited toward the mandatory term for which the active intelligent speed assist device is required to be installed.
14. Requires every manufacturer and manufacturer’s agent certified by the DMV to provide ISA devices to adopt the following fee schedule that provides for the payment of the costs of the ISA device, the administration of the program, installation of the device, service, recalibration and monitoring of the device, and any other costs associated with the device by persons subject to this bill in amounts commensurate with that person’s income relative to the federal poverty level, as defined:
    1. A person with an income at 125 percent of the federal poverty level or below and who provides income verification is responsible for 5 percent of all of the costs associated with the ISA device.
    2. A person with an income at 126 to 225 percent of the federal poverty level and who provides income verification is responsible for 20 percent of all of the costs associated with the ISA device.
    3. A person with an income at 226 to 325 percent of the federal poverty level and who provides income verification is responsible for 40 percent of all of the costs associated with the ISA device.
    4. A person who is receiving CalFresh benefits and who provides proof of these benefits to the manufacturer or manufacturer’s agent or authorized installer is responsible for 40 percent of all of the costs associated with the ISA device.
    5. A person with an income at 326 to 425 percent of the federal poverty level and who provides income verification is responsible for 80 percent of all of the costs associated with the ISA device.
    6. All other offenders are responsible for 100 percent of all of the costs associated with the ISA device.
    7. The manufacturer is responsible for the percentage of costs that the offender is not responsible for as specified above.
15. Requires an ISA device provider to verify the offender’s income to determine the costs of the ISA device by verifying one of the following documents from the offender:
    1. The previous year’s federal income tax return.
    2. The previous three months of weekly or monthly income statements.
    3. Employment Development Department verification of unemployment benefits.
16. Provides that at any point during which a device is installed and in use, an individual shall be permitted to apply for reduced costs and shall be credited for any previously paid costs that were in excess of the fee schedule set forth above, and an individual shall also be permitted to apply for reduced costs based on a change of income.
17. Requires an ISA device provider to post conspicuously on its internet website and contracts, the information set forth in this subdivision, and prior to an individual’s execution of a contract for an ISA device, the provider shall also give verbal notification of the fee schedule and how to apply for reduced costs.
18. Requires installation service and repair providers to post conspicuously in their place of business and verbally inform a person of the information set forth in this subdivision prior to installation and servicing of the device.
19. Requires a copy of the fee schedule information described above to be provided to an individual together with the court order requiring the installation of an ISA device.
20. Requires the DMV to post the fee schedule information described above on its internet website, and include the information in any mailed notice of revocation or suspension that notifies an individual of the requirement to install an ISA device.
21. Requires, on or before July 1, 2030, the DMV to report data to CalSTA regarding the implementation and efficacy of this bill, covering January 1, 2026, to January 1, 2030, subject to the following:
    1. The data described below shall, at a minimum, include all of the following:
       1. The number of individuals who were required to have an ISA device installed as a result of the program who killed or injured anyone in a crash relating to violations of reckless driving, speed contests and exhibitions of speed, excessive speed, and a DUI, speed, and recklessness enhancement.
       2. The number of individuals who were required to have an ISA device installed as a result of the program who were convicted of reckless driving, speed contests and exhibitions of speed, excessive speed, and a DUI, speed, and recklessness enhancement, during the term in which the person was required to have ISA device installed.
       3. The number of injuries and deaths resulting from motor vehicle crashes relating to violations of reckless driving, speed contests and exhibitions of speed, excessive speed, and a DUI, speed, and recklessness enhancement during the reporting period and during periods of similar duration prior to the implementation of the program.
       4. The number of individuals who have been convicted more than one time for violations of reckless driving, speed contests and exhibitions of speed, excessive speed, and a DUI, speed, and recklessness enhancement during the reporting period and during periods of similar duration prior to the implementation of the program.
       5. Any other information requested by CalSTA to assess the continued effectiveness of the program in reducing recidivism for violations of reckless driving, speed contests and exhibitions of speed, excessive speed, and a DUI, speed, and recklessness enhancements.
    2. Authorizes CalSTA to contract with educational institutions to obtain and analyze the data required by this section.
    3. Requires CalSTA to conduct an assessment of the program based on the data provided by the DMV and report to the Legislature, as specified, on the outcomes of the program by no later than July 1, 2031.
    4. Provides that the assessment shall include recommendations on how to further reduce violations of reckless driving, speed contests or exhibitions of speed, speeding in excess of 100 mph, and reckless driving while driving under the influence, as specified.
22. Specifies that this bill shall only apply to persons convicted for violations under this bill that occurred on or after January 1, 2026.
23. Provides that the provisions of this bill shall sunset on January 1, 2033.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that a person who drives a vehicle on a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving, punishable in county jail for not less than five days and no more than 90 days, or a fine not less than $145 and no more than $1,000. (Veh. Code, § 23103, subd. (a).)
2. Prohibits a person from engaging in a motor vehicle speed contest or motor vehicle exhibition of speed on a highway or in an off-street parking facility, or aiding and abetting such a contest or speed exhibition. (Veh. Code, § 23109, subds. (a)-(c).)
3. Defines a “motor vehicle speed contest” as a motor vehicle race against another vehicle, a clock, or other timing device. (Veh. Code, § 23109, subd. (a).)
4. Punishes engaging in a motor vehicle speed contest by imprisonment in county jail for at least 24 hours but no more than 90 days, or a fine of at least $355 but no more than $1,000. That person shall also be required to perform 40 hours of community service, and the court may order the privilege to operate a motor vehicle suspended for 90 days. (Veh. Code, § 23109, subd. (e).)
5. Prohibits a person from driving a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 100 mph, and makes this punishable as an infraction, by a fine of up to $500. A court may also suspend a person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period up to 30 days. (Veh. Code, § 22348 (b).)
6. Provides that any person who drives a vehicle 30 or more miles per hour over the maximum, or posted speed limit on a freeway, or 20 or more miles per hour over the maximum or posted speed limit on any other street or highway, and with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property, and while driving under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or any drug, shall, in addition to the punishment prescribed for that person upon conviction for driving under the influence, be punished by an additional and consecutive term of 60 days in the county jail. (Veh. Code, § 23582 (a.)
7. Establishes an ignition interlock device (IID) pilot program until January 1, 2026, as follows:
   1. Authorizes a court to order a person convicted of their first DUI offense (involving alcohol) to install a functioning, certified IID on any vehicle that the person operates and prohibit that person from operating a motor vehicle for up to six months unless that vehicle is equipped with a functioning, certified IID. (Veh. Code, § 23575.3, subd. (h)(1)(A)(i).)
   2. Requires a court to order the installation of an IID for repeat DUI offenders and DUIs causing bodily injury to another person, as specified (Veh. Code, §§ 23575.3, subd. (h); 13352; 13352.4; 13353.3; 13353.6; & 13353.75.)
8. Requires IID manufacturers to adopt a fee schedule under which the manufacturer will absorb a varying amount of an offender's cost for the IID based on the offender's income, relative to the federal poverty level. (Veh. Code, § 23575.3, subd. (k).)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “California is experiencing a public safety crisis on our roads. Thousands of people are killed each year in traffic crashes, and speeding is a major factor. While existing law allows for driver’s license suspension for offenses like reckless driving or excessive speeding, this penalty is largely ineffective. Only about 25% of people comply with a suspended license, and many continue to drive illegally—putting everyone on the road at risk.

“What’s more, individuals with a history of dangerous speeding or reckless driving are significantly more likely to be involved in future crashes, including those that cause injury or death. We know who the most dangerous drivers are, and yet our current system does little to prevent repeat harm.

“This bill offers a smarter, more targeted approach. Instead of relying solely on license suspension—which is both widely ignored and can disrupt employment or daily life for those who do comply—this legislation would require speed-limiting devices to be installed on vehicles of individuals with repeat convictions for the most dangerous driving behaviors, including reckless speeding, exhibition of speed, and enhanced DUI.

“This proposal enhances public safety by preventing the most dangerous drivers from endangering others, while also offering a more equitable alternative to license suspension. It keeps people mobile for work and essential needs, but ensures that mobility doesn’t come at the cost of others’ lives.”

1. Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA) Technology: ISA technologies use sensors such as GPS or cameras to monitor a vehicle's speed and provide real-time feedback or intervention to ensure adherence to speed limits. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), “[I]ntelligent speed assistance or intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) involves in-vehicle technologies that use GPS data interacting with accurate, digitally mapped speed limit data for the entire network or vehicle-based speed limit sign recognition. ISA systems can vary from minimal systems that provide information to active speed limit control that could be mandatory or voluntary (i.e., with on/off activation switches). Systems may:

• Provide information only (display the speed limit and changes);
• Provide visual or audible alerts when the speed limit is exceeded, but the driver can decide how to react (termed open system);
• Provide accelerator resistance to make speeding more difficult, but still possible (termed half-open). This system is like cruise control, except the speed limit (not the driver) determines when to engage speed resistance. Drivers may be able to turn off the system with a switch; and
• Automatically prevent speeding above the speed limit (mandatory speed compliance).^[3]

“Compared to speed governors, which can only limit the maximum speed of vehicles, ISA has the potential to help control speed of all motor vehicle types according to the prevailing limit at a location.”^[4]

ISA technology is typically classified as either passive or active. “Passive ISA allows drivers to override the system and drive in excess of the local speed limit, but drivers are alerted as they exceed the local speed limit by a certain amount, for example between 0 and 10 mph above. Active ISA cannot be overridden except in limited cases, such as with the press of an override button or with kickdown of the accelerator pedal, which removes the ISA limitations for a defined period.”^[5]

ISA technology has been explored in various forms for over two decades, although they have been minimally used in the United States.

ISA technology may be effective at reducing speeding, and associated speeding-related fatalities and injuries.^[6] In 1999, the Swedish National Road Administration conducted a three year trial of ISA technologies in urban areas.^[7] Thousands of vehicles were equipped with different ISA systems, some active and some passive. Participants used these devices for over a year and researchers observed reductions in speeding violations for all participants and no change in travel times in urban areas.^[8] The researchers estimated that if all drivers had ISA systems, road injuries in urban areas could be reduced by as much as 20%.^[9]

A 2010 study by the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure found that ISAs have “the potential to improve road safety by reducing the level of speeding, mean speed, as well as the standard deviation of speed.”^[10] However, the study also noted that users show little signs of learning after the systems are turned off, and serious offenders frequently used the option to override the system which may affect the efficacy of these systems.^[11]

ISA technology has its limitations. For example, GPS-based ISA systems may not include local roads or detect accurate speeds. Alternatively, camera-based systems, which detect the limit by reading posted signage, have the advantage of being able to better adapt to local conditions, e.g., road work zones, but the disadvantage of being limited by visibility and presence of signage.^[12]

1. Increased Use of ISA Technology: Use of ISA technology has expanded in recent years. Most notably, in 2019 the European Union required all new vehicles sold, beginning in 2024, to be fitted with ISA technology.^[13] Specifically, the ISA required to be adopted by the European Union will function similarly to a cruise control, by preventing vehicles from travelling in excess of posted speed limit by limiting engine power, but not utilizing automatic breaking. Such systems will include off switches, and can be overridden by the driver at any time.^[14]

In 2022, New York initiated a pilot program to equip their city fleet vehicles with ISA technology.^[15] Specifically they equipped approximately 500 vehicles with a device that prevents acceleration beyond a set parameter over the speed limit.^[16] The findings of the pilot program were as follows:

In an analysis of 270 vehicles equipped with ISA, there was a 64.18% relative decrease in the time driven [greater than] 11 mph over the posted speed limit following ISA activation compared to before activation, and a similar decrease was observed in the ISA-equipped vehicles compared to non-equipped control vehicles. Speeding drive time reduction ranged from ~50% on 25 mph local roads, which have speed safety cameras set to the same enforced speed threshold, to 82% reduction on 50 mph roads. In addition, the impact of ISA on speeding behavior of habitual speeders in 130 vehicles was similar to that on the primary cohort, indicating ISA is effective at significantly reducing severe speeding across a wide range of drivers and fleet.^[17]

The NHTSA is in the process of assessing the deployment of ISA technology at the federal level. “In 2022, [NHTSA] sought public comments on updating the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), including “‘exploring opportunities to encourage the development and deployment’ of ‘emerging vehicle technology for safe driving choices’ such as ISA.”^[18]

1. Effect of this Bill: This bill creates a five-county pilot program in Los Angeles, San Diego, Fresno, Sacramento, and Kern counties, which will sunset January 1, 2033, that would require individuals convicted of certain reckless driving, speeding, and DUI offenses, to install ISA devices. This pilot program is substantially similar to the IID pilot program currently in place in California. (Veh. Code, §§ 23575.3, subd. (h); 13352; 13352.4; 13353.3; 13353.6; & 13353.75.) The primary provisions of this bill is as follows.

First, it authorizes a court to order a person, with no priors, that is convicted of reckless driving, engaging in a speed contest, or excessive speeding, to install an ISA device for up to six months. If a person has one, two, or three or more priors, that person would be required to install an ISA device for 12 months, 24 months, or 36 months, respectively. In other words, courts would only have discretion to refrain from ordering an ISA device for first-time offenders of these crimes. Further, it requires a court, for a person convicted of a first-time offense for reckless driving or engaging in a speed contest, which results in bodily injury, or a person that is subject to a DUI, speed, and recklessness enhancement, as specified, to install an ISA device for 12 months. If a person has one, two, or three or more priors, they would be required to install an ISA device for 24 months, 36 months, and 48 months, respectively.

In terms of the procedures contemplated by this bill, it requires a court to notify a person convicted of the above crimes that they must install an ISA device, and that they are prohibited from operating a vehicle without an ISA device. An individual required to install an ISA device is required to: 1) arrange for each vehicle operated by the person to be equipped with an ISA device by a certified active ISA device provider; 2) provide to the DMV proof of installation by submitting a verification installation form to be developed by the DMV; 3) pay a fee, determined by the DMV that is sufficient to cover the costs of administration of this section; and 4) arrange for each vehicle with an ISA device to be serviced by the installer at least once every 60 days.

This bill requires an individual required to install an IID to pay for the costs of the ISA device, the administration of the program, installation of the device, service, recalibration and monitoring of the device, and any other costs associated with the device by persons subject to this bill in amounts commensurate with that person’s income relative to the federal poverty level, upon income verification. For example, an individual with an income at 125 percent of the federal poverty level or below is responsible for 5 percent of all ISA costs. The ISA device manufacturer is responsible for the rest of the costs.

To ensure the results of these pilot program may be used to inform future legislative efforts pertaining to ISA technology, this bill requires CalSTA to analyze the effectiveness of this pilot program, and submit a report to the Legislature containing their assessment, by July 1, 2031. The provisions of this bill will sunset on January 1, 2033.

1. Need for Additional Clarification: The author may wish to consider defining “functioning, certified active intelligent speed assist device.” Indeed, this term is not defined in statute, and there are numerous different types of ISA technology. The author may wish to consider reviewing the definition for ISA technology utilized in SB 961 (Wiener), of the 2023-2024 Legislative Session, which sought to require future new vehicles to be equipped with a passive intelligent speed assistance system. That bill, which was ultimately vetoed by the Governor, defined “passive intelligent speed assistance system” as an “integrated vehicle system that determines the speed limit of the roadway that the vehicle is traveling on, and utilizes a brief, one-time visual and audio signal to alert the driver each time they exceed the speed limit by more than 10 miles per hour.”

As previously noted, passive ISA technology permits drivers to drive in excess of the local speed limit, but alerts individuals when they exceed that limit. Active ISA technology on the other hand actively limits a vehicle from exceeding the speed limit, but can typically be overridden where necessary.^[19] Unlike the type of ISA technology contemplated in SB 961, this bill would mandate installation of active ISA. Given that ISA technology is not being widely in the United States, let alone California, and could contain glitches and unintended consequence as it is expanded in this state, it is necessary to define the type of devices that individuals would be required to install under this bill. Further, the bill refers to “certified” ISA devices and providers, and manufacturers to be “certified” by the DMV. The author may wish to clarify the requirements necessary to certify these devices, and to receive certification from the DMV, to ensure that the devices required to be installed under this bill are proven, safe, and subject to minimum standards.

1. Governor’s Veto Message of SB 961 (Wiener): As noted above, last year the Legislature considered expanding ISA technology in California. Specifically, the Legislature passed SB 961 (Wiener), of the 2023-2024 Legislative Session, which would have required beginning with the 2030 model year, every passenger vehicle, motor truck, and bus manufactured, sold as new, or leased as new, in the state to be equipped with a passive intelligent speed assistance system that provides a brief one-time signal to alert a drive each time they exceed the speed limit by more than ten miles per hour.

SB 961 was vetoed by the Governor, who stated the following in his veto message:

Federal law, as implemented by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA), already regulates vehicle safety standards, and adding California-specific requirements would create a patchwork of regulations that undermines this longstanding federal framework. NHTSA is also actively evaluating intelligent speed assistance systems, and imposing state-level mandates at this time risks disrupting these ongoing federal assessments.

While SB 961 is distinct from this bill, given that the applicable federal agencies are still evaluating how to effectively deploy ISA technology, the author may wish to consider delaying the effective date of this bill or otherwise monitoring future federal regulatory action, to ensure this bill is consistent with pending federal regulatory guidance on ISA technology.

1. Argument in Support: According to Streets for All, “AB 981 will reduce traffic deaths and injuries in California by allowing for the installation of speed-limiting technology on the vehicles of drivers with repeat excessive speeding (100 mph+) or reckless driving violations, as an alternative to heavy fines and license suspension. Unlike license suspensions, which are ineffective and suffer from low compliance rates, speed-limiting technology would not deny anybody the ability to drive; it simply changes the behavior of our state’s most dangerous drivers.

“Preventing traffic deaths should be a priority for California, as the state currently suffers from a traffic violence crisis. In particular, the state suffers from a speeding crisis. In 2022, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated that about 12 people were killed on California's roads every day and, according to the California Office of Traffic Safety’s 2023 Traffic Safety Report, one-third of those fatalities were speeding-related. Speeding not only increases the likelihood of a crash, but also increases the likelihood of a fatal outcome.

“In 2020, the California Highway Patrol issued 3000 tickets a month to drivers for excessive speeding, or going over 100mph on our roads. Excessive speeding is the strongest predictor of someone being involved in a future lethal traffic crash. Even one excessive speed conviction almost doubles the probability of a driver being involved in a crash relative to those without a prior conviction. That means that by physically limiting the speed of drivers with excessive speeding convictions, AB 981 will prevent thousands of fatal crashes every year.

“The speed-limiting technology enabled by AB 981 has been around for decades and is already in widespread use across the European Union, and has been deployed successfully in the United States across many private vehicle fleets and is expanding into the public sector as well. In 2022, the City of New York administered a speed-limiter pilot program on its vehicle fleet, reporting that vehicles traveled within the speed limit 99% of the time and reduced hard braking by 36%. Closer to home, Ventura County has seen similar benefits.

“Streets for All believes that every road user–pedestrians, cyclists and drivers–in California should have the freedom to travel safely and comfortably. Safe streets are a core part of our vision of a sustainable future. While we also advocate for safer infrastructure, the multi-year timelines required to rebuild our communities require us to look at additional solutions to end this current crisis.

“AB 981 offers a material opportunity to achieve a lasting victory in the fight against needless road deaths.”

1. Argument in Opposition: According to California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, “The California Attorneys for Criminal Justice (“CACJ”), a statewide association of criminal defense attorneys in private practice or working in public defender offices, writes in opposition to AB 981, requiring a person convicted of reckless driving (Vehicle Code (VC) 23103(a), VC 23104), participating in a speed contest pursuant to VC 23109(a) & (e)(2)), speeding at over 100 mph pursuant to VC 22348(b) and VC 23582(a), excessive speed while driving under the influence of a drug or alcohol in violation of VC 23152 to install what is referred to as a “certified active intelligent speed assist device (ISA)” on any vehicle they may operate for the time period set out in the bill.

“We oppose this bill for two reasons: First, nowhere in the bill is the device in question here, identified only as a “certified intelligent speed assist device”, defined. What is this device? Judges are being told they must order this device to be installed in the defendant’s vehicle, and for that matter, any vehicle the defendant may operate at any time during which this order is in place (which can be up to 4 years under the language in the bill), without knowledge of what the device itself is and the defendant has no knowledge of what this device is and how it works or is supposed to work. In legal terms, this bill is legally deficient on what is known as “void for vagueness” grounds because the defendant cannot be reasonably expected to know what it is they are agreeing to as part of their sentence if they are found guilty or plead guilty to one of the offenses listed above for which this device must be installed in any vehicle they drive.

“Our second reason for opposing AB 981 is that it requires mandatory punishment except where the defendant is a so-called “first offender” for VC 23103(a), VC 23109(a), and VC 22348(b) and thus takes away the court’s important and vital discretion to impose or not impose what it deems to be appropriate punishment after careful and deliberate consideration based on the particular facts of the case before the judge as well as the defendant’s background and other circumstances that may be present in an individual case. What may seem appropriate in the abstract may in fact not be justice in a particular case (in the courtroom). This is why judicial discretion is so important to our goal of justice in every case.

“To our knowledge pilot programs relying on these devices have only utilized government vehicle fleets and not in the public or criminal justice sphere.”

1. Related Legislation:
   1. AB 366 (Petrie-Norris) would remove the discretion of courts to determine if a first-time DUI offender must install an ignition interlock device (IID) on every vehicle they operate, and makes permanent certain provisions of the IID pilot program currently in place. AB 366 is scheduled for hearing today in this Committee.
   2. AB 71 (Lackey) would extend the sunset for the statewide ignition interlock device (IID) pilot program currently underway and requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) to complete additional reporting to the Legislature about the pilot program. AB 71 is pending a hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
2. Prior Legislation:
   1. SB 961 (Wiener), of the 2023-2024 Legislative Session, would have required, beginning with the 2030 model year, every passenger vehicle, motor truck, and bus manufactured, sold as new, or leased as new in the state to be equipped with a passive intelligent speed assistance system that provides a brief one-time signal to alert a drive each time they exceed the speed limit by more than ten miles per hour. SB 961 was vetoed by the Governor.
   2. SB 1046 (Hill), Chapter 783, Statutes of 2016, extended the IID pilot program in certain counties and required installation of IIDs for specified DUI offenses.
   3. AB 91 (Feuer), Chapter 217, Statutes of 2009, established a pilot program in Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare Counties, administered by DMV to require the installation of IIDs on the vehicles of all persons convicted of a DUI, as specified.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

AAA Northern California, Nevada & Utah
Active San Gabriel Valley
Automobile Club of Southern California
Bike Culver City
Bike East Bay
Bike Long Beach
California Bicycle Coalition
Car-lite Long Beach
Circulate San Diego
Costa Mesa Alliance for Better Streets
East Bay for Everyone
Everybody's Long Beach
Families for Safe Streets San Diego
Glendale Yimby
Long Beach Bike Co-op
Los Angeles Walks
Move La, a Project of Community Partners
Napa County Bicycle Coalition (napa Bike)
National Transportation Safety Board
Norwalk Unides
Peopleforbikes
Remake Irvine Streets for Everyone (RISE)
San Diego County Bicycle Coalition
San Francisco Bay Area Families for Safe Streets
Spur
Streets are for Everyone (SAFE)
Streets are for Everyone (SAFE) (ORG)
Streets for All
Strong Towns Artesia
Walk San Francisco

Oppose

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Initiate Justice
Legal Services for Prisoner With Children

Analysis Prepared by:

Ilan Zur / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

1. For purposes of this requirement, “prior” means any prior convictions for reckless driving under Vehicle Code section 23103, engaging in a speed contest, exhibition of speed, or aiding and abetting such a contest or exhibition under Vehicle Code section 23109, or specified speeding offenses under Vehicle Code section 22348. ↑

2. For purposes of this requirement “prior” means any prior convictions engaging in a speed contest, exhibition of speed, or aiding and abetting such a contest or exhibition under Vehicle Code section 23109 or a DUI, speed, and recklessness enhancement under Vehicle Code section 23582. ↑

3. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Intelligent Speed Assistance (accessed April 17, 2025), available at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/speeding-and-speed-management/countermeasures/other-strategies-1#:~:text=This%20system%20is%20like%20cruise,limit%20(mandatory%20speed%20compliance). ↑

4. Ibid. ↑

5. NYC Department of Citywide Administrative Services, New York City Intelligent Speed Assistance Pilot Evaluation (Oct. 2024), at p. 7, available at: https://www.nyc.gov/assets/dcas/downloads/pdf/fleet/nyc-intelligent-speed-assistance-pilot-evaluation-2024-oct.pdf ↑

6. Ibid. ↑

7. Swedish National Road Administration, Intelligent Speed Adaption (ISA) (2002), at p. iv, available at: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1363740/FULLTEXT01.pdf ↑

8. Ibid. ↑

9. Ibid. ↑

10. van der Pas, et. al., Intelligent speed assistance for serious speeders: The results of the Dutch Speedlock trial (Nov. 2014), 72, 78-94, available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457514001742?via%3Dihub ↑

11. Ibid. ↑

12. ACEA, Intelligent Speed Assistance: why ISA cannot become mandatory today (Nov. 2018), available at: https://www.acea.auto/news/intelligent-speed-assistance-why-isa-cannot-become-mandatory-today/ ↑

13. See supra note 4. ↑

14. Ibid. ↑

15. NYC Department of Citywide Administrative Services, New York City Intelligent Speed Assistance Pilot Evaluation (Oct. 2024), available at: https://www.nyc.gov/assets/dcas/downloads/pdf/fleet/nyc-intelligent-speed-assistance-pilot-evaluation-2024-oct.pdf ↑

16. Ibid. ↑

17. Ibid. ↑

18. Ibid; See also National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, New Car Assessment Program (Mar. 9, 2022), available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2021-0002-0001 ↑

19. Supra note 5. ↑