Slow Down Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Foushee, Valerie P. [D-NC-4]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 22, 2026
Bottom line
The Slow Down Act mandates states to implement programs requiring speed-limiting technology for repeat or severe speeders, aiming to enhance highway safety by preventing dangerous driving.
What it actually does
This bill amends federal highway safety law to require states to establish "Stop Super Speeders" programs. These programs would mandate the installation and use of active intelligent speed assistance technology in vehicles for individuals with records of repeated or severe speeding violations, automatically limiting their vehicles from exceeding the applicable speed limit. States would also be required to implement penalties for non-compliance.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is a critical step towards improving highway safety and reducing traffic fatalities and injuries. By directly targeting the most dangerous drivers—those with a history of repeated or severe speeding—it leverages modern technology to prevent reckless behavior, thereby making roads safer for everyone. They contend that the societal benefits of preventing accidents outweigh concerns about individual vehicle control.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that this bill represents an unprecedented federal overreach into state traffic enforcement and individual liberty. They raise significant concerns about privacy, as the mandated technology could track vehicle movements, and question the reliability and potential for unintended consequences of such systems. Critics also argue it could impose substantial unfunded mandates on states and financial burdens on affected individuals.
The bill is exceptionally short and clearly written, making it very accessible for any reader to understand its core provisions and implications quickly.
Section 2, amending 23 U.S.C. 402(a)(2)(A)
Mandatory 'Stop Super Speeders' Programs for States
This provision requires states, as a condition of their federal highway safety programs, to establish and implement "Stop Super Speeders" programs. These programs must mandate that individuals with a history of repeated or severe speeding violations install and use active intelligent speed assistance technology in their vehicles. This technology is designed to automatically prevent the vehicle from exceeding the posted speed limit. The provision also requires states to include penalties for individuals who fail to comply with these requirements.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision directly addresses a significant cause of traffic accidents and fatalities by targeting the most reckless drivers. They believe that active speed limiting technology is a proven method to enforce speed limits, thereby making roads safer and saving lives. This proactive approach is seen as more effective than traditional enforcement methods alone.
Critics contend
Critics contend that this provision represents an unwarranted federal intrusion into state and individual affairs. They argue that mandating specific technology for private vehicles raises serious concerns about privacy, data security, and the potential for technological malfunctions. Opponents also highlight the potential for disproportionate financial burdens on affected individuals and the administrative complexities for states.
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between enhancing public safety through technological intervention and concerns over individual liberty, privacy, and state autonomy. It trades a degree of personal vehicle control for a potentially safer driving environment, while also shifting the balance of power between federal and state governments in highway safety regulation.
This phrase requires states to establish penalties for individuals who do not comply with the mandate to install and use active intelligent speed assistance technology in their vehicles.
Section 2, clause (xiii) "...including penalties for failure to comply with such requirements in their motor vehicle;"
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice where federal law sets a broad requirement, leaving the specifics of implementation and enforcement, such as penalty structures, to the discretion of individual states or future regulatory action. It avoids over-prescribing state-level legal frameworks.
Case for: Proponents would argue that including the requirement for penalties is essential for the effectiveness and enforceability of the "Stop Super Speeders" program. Without clear consequences for non-compliance, the mandate to install speed-limiting technology would lack teeth and could be easily circumvented, undermining the bill's safety objectives.
Case against: Critics might argue that the lack of specificity regarding penalties could lead to inconsistent or potentially overly harsh enforcement across different states. Without federal guidance on proportionality or due process, states could implement a wide range of penalties, some of which might be seen as excessive or discriminatory, raising concerns about fairness and equity.
Estimated impact: The impact of these penalties could be significant for individuals who fail to comply, potentially including fines, license suspension, or other legal consequences, though the exact scale is left to state determination.