The NTSB Wants More Speed-Limiting Tech in New Vehicles

by Chris Teague

Published: November 15th, 2023

the ntsb wants more speed limiting tech in new vehicles

New cars have all sorts of driver monitoring tech on board that can tell when a person is paying attention or has their hands on the wheel, but the National Transportation Safety Board feels there’s a need for more. The NTSB asked 17 automakers to add anti-speeding tech to new vehicles going forward, following an extremely deadly crash in Las Vegas last year that left nine people dead.

The crash was caused by a driver traveling 103 mph in a 2018 Dodge Challenger. Five other vehicles were involved, including a minivan with seven people inside. Besides the drugs in the driver’s system, the car’s extreme speed turned it into a deadly battering ram.

Following its investigation into the crash, the NTSB asked 17 automakers, including BMW, Ford, GM, Honda, and VW, to equip new vehicles with speed-assistance features. The NTSB recommended that the vehicles have a speed warning system at a minimum, but some automakers offer more aggressive systems that make it harder and more annoying to speed.

The NTSB also asked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to require speed-limiting tech in new vehicles and recommended the group add testing criteria for the functions in its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). The NHTSA is reviewing public comments on the topic of speed-assist tech, but the NTSB has continued pushing forward with its efforts, asking the IIHS to assess the impact of risky behaviors portrayed in vehicle marketing campaigns.

While many of us would probably rather not have more monitoring equipment in our cars, there’s no doubt that driver aids save lives. On top of that, the number of advanced safety features is set to increase as vehicles become more connected, not the other way around.

[Image: Railway FX via Shutterstock]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

#NTSB #NHTSA #IIHS

Chris Teague

Chris grew up in, under, and around cars, but took the long way around to becoming an automotive writer. After a career in technology consulting and a trip through business school, Chris began writing about the automotive industry as a way to reconnect with his passion and get behind the wheel of a new car every week. He focuses on taking complex industry stories and making them digestible by any reader. Just don’t expect him to stay away from high-mileage Porsches.

More by Chris Teague

Comments

Join the conversation

7 of 81 comments

Watersketch on Nov 16, 2023

I would happily program my vehicle to never go above 80mph, and same for the car my teenage daughter drives. Doesn't need to be some high-tech solution.
And my employer would gladly do the same on all our fleet vehicles.

You want unlimited speed? Take it the track.

1 Reply
- See 2 previous
- Fie on Fiasler on Nov 16, 2023
  
  I can't count the number of times the ability to quickly accelerate to 'illegal' speeds got me out of potentially life-threatening situations. But hey, you do you... like a good little obedient government toady.
  
  2
- MaintenanceCosts on Nov 17, 2023
  
  Horse feathers.
  I've been driving for 32 years, 6 of those professionally. I've probably driven over half a million miles. I can remember two situations in my entire driving career where acceleration saved me from a potential crash. In both cases the top speed I reached was legal or close to it.
  
  1
- Fie on Fiasler on Nov 17, 2023
  
  All right, Col. Potter. Take your pills and settle down for your nap.
  
  2
- Stuki Moi on Nov 17, 2023
  
  The new 'Busa has such a speed limiter, on top of a normal cruise control. It's a brilliant piece of license saving tech, for a 100mph-in-first-gear bike. Problem is, though, that speed limits are almost invariable entirely arbitrarily set and imposed. "Safe and prudent", as Montana used to say, is the (only) correct way of policing speed: Cops obtain enough evidence to make it likely to a grand jury they can PROVE "NOT safe and prudent" to a jury of the driver's peers. Then trial, then conviction.
  
  Like
Johnny ringo on Nov 16, 2023

LIke it or not driving a vehicle of any kind is inherently dangerous, add drugs, road rage, distracted driving and you have the makings of of a potentially dangerous happening. And you don't have to be driving at 103 mph to have a tragedy, that can occur at 35, 40 mph. If someone gets repeatedly pulled over for impaired driving, take their license away take away their license until they complete some type of treatment program and can demonstrate they can properly operate a vehicle.

1 Reply
- See 1 previous
- Fie on Fiasler on Nov 17, 2023
  
  "If someone gets repeatedly pulled over for impaired driving, take their license away take away their license until they complete some type of treatment program and can demonstrate they can properly operate a vehicle."
  I have a simpler and far more effective solution. It involves a bullet to the head after the third offense, at most.
  Anyone who can't get themselves together by then really doesn't need to be wasting oxygen that could be used far more productively by Better examples of the species.
  
  Like
- MaintenanceCosts on Nov 17, 2023
  
  You sure love your social Darwinism. If you are that confident in your evolutionary superiority, you should move somewhere where the social system is more Darwinist, and you'll rise to the top. Somewhere like, maybe, southern Somalia or the Western Sahara. Then you can have your freedom without all these nagging people insisting that society should protect your inferiors.
  
  1
- Fie on Fiasler on Nov 17, 2023
  
  Nah. I prefer to stay here and do my part to bring about a Better, Stronger America for Better, Stronger Americans.
  And you don't rate as "people" at all to me.
  
  Like
- Ken on Dec 05, 2023
  
  Why give them multiple chances to kill minivans full of children?
  
  Like

Recent Comments

Varezhka I have still yet to see a Malibu on the road that didn't have a rental sticker. So yeah, GM probably lost money on every one they sold but kept it to boost their CAFE numbers.I'm personally happy that I no longer have to dread being "upgraded" to a Maxima or a Malibu anymore. And thankfully Altima is also on its way out.
Tassos Under incompetent, affirmative action hire Mary Barra, GM has been shooting itself in the foot on a daily basis.Whether the Malibu cancellation has been one of these shootings is NOT obvious at all.GM should be run as a PROFITABLE BUSINESS and NOT as an outfit that satisfies everybody and his mother in law's pet preferences.IF the Malibu was UNPROFITABLE, it SHOULD be canceled.More generally, if its SEGMENT is Unprofitable, and HALF the makers cancel their midsize sedans, not only will it lead to the SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST ones, but the survivors will obviously be more profitable if the LOSERS were kept being produced and the SMALL PIE of midsize sedans would yield slim pickings for every participant.SO NO, I APPROVE of the demise of the unprofitable Malibu, and hope Nissan does the same to the Altima, Hyundai with the SOnata, Mazda with the Mazda 6, and as many others as it takes to make the REMAINING players, like the Excellent, sporty Accord and the Bulletproof Reliable, cheap to maintain CAMRY, more profitable and affordable.
GregLocock Car companies can only really sell cars that people who are new car buyers will pay a profitable price for. As it turns out fewer and fewer new car buyers want sedans. Large sedans can be nice to drive, certainly, but the number of new car buyers (the only ones that matter in this discussion) are prepared to sacrifice steering and handling for more obvious things like passenger and cargo space, or even some attempt at off roading. We know US new car buyers don't really care about handling because they fell for FWD in large cars.
Slavuta Why is everybody sweating? Like sedans? - go buy one. Better - 2. Let CRV/RAV rust on the dealer lot. I have 3 sedans on the driveway. My neighbor - 2. Neighbors on each of our other side - 8 SUVs.
Theflyersfan With sedans, especially, I wonder how many of those sales are to rental fleets. With the exception of the Civic and Accord, there are still rows of sedans mixed in with the RAV4s at every airport rental lot. I doubt the breakdown in sales is publicly published, so who knows... GM isn't out of the sedan business - Cadillac exists and I can't believe I'm typing this but they are actually decent - and I think they are making a huge mistake, especially if there's an extended oil price hike (cough...Iran...cough) and people want smaller and hybrids. But if one is only tied to the quarterly shareholder reports and not trends and the big picture, bad decisions like this get made.