DRIVE Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 8, 2025
Bottom line
The bill prevents the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration from mandating speed limiting devices on commercial motor vehicles.
What it actually does
This bill explicitly prohibits the Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) from issuing any rule or regulation that would require commercial motor vehicles to be equipped with speed limiting devices set to a maximum speed. It prevents the federal government from mandating speed governors on large trucks.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that prohibiting speed limiter mandates enhances driver autonomy, allows for safer passing maneuvers by preventing dangerous speed differentials with other traffic, and reduces regulatory burdens on the trucking industry. They contend that drivers need the flexibility to adjust speed for safety and traffic flow, and that artificial limits can create hazards.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that speed limiting devices are a critical safety measure that reduces the frequency and severity of accidents involving large trucks, particularly by preventing excessive speeds. They argue that higher speeds increase stopping distances and reduce reaction time, leading to more fatalities and injuries on highways.
The bill is exceptionally short and written in clear, direct language, making it very accessible for any reader to understand its core purpose and implications quickly.
Section 2
Prohibition on Requiring Speed Limiting Devices
This section explicitly forbids the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) from creating or enforcing any rule or regulation that would require commercial motor vehicles (as defined by existing federal regulations) to be equipped with devices that limit their maximum speed. This means the agency cannot mandate speed governors on large trucks, ensuring that such devices are not a federally imposed requirement for the industry.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this prohibition maintains driver control, allows for safer passing maneuvers, and prevents 'speed differentials' that can lead to dangerous situations when trucks are artificially limited to speeds below the flow of traffic. They also contend it reduces regulatory burden on the trucking industry, fostering efficiency.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that speed limiting devices are a crucial safety measure that reduces the severity and frequency of accidents involving large trucks, particularly by preventing excessive speeds. They argue that higher speeds increase stopping distances and reduce reaction time, leading to more fatalities and injuries on public roads.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between promoting operational flexibility and efficiency within the trucking industry and addressing public safety concerns related to commercial vehicle speeds. It highlights a debate over whether driver discretion or regulatory mandates are more effective for road safety.