The NTSB Wants More Speed-Limiting Tech in New Vehicles

Chris Teague
by Chris Teague

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.

Chris Teague
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 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.


    • See 2 previous
    • Stuki Moi 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.




  • Johnny ringo 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.

    • See 1 previous
    • Ken Ken on Dec 05, 2023

      Why give them multiple chances to kill minivans full of children?


  • Peter Toyota, Subaru and Mazda are walking away from electric vehicles.Nissan telling its dealerships to sell vehicles at a loss. Then killing any new gasoline engines.Mitsubishi plans to open more dealerships. So they could sell more rebadged Nissans. With these 5 companies caught in a death spiral, can the return of Pontiac really be that far off?
  • Ted Bryant My old man raced enduro bikes in the 60s but got banged up so badly he never taught me how to ride. I’ve always wanted to but the only reason i’m alive is probably because I never leaned to ride a motorcycle.
  • MaintenanceCosts I absolutely hate the car size arms race we have on US roads, but when thinking about my own kid's safety I have to admit it exists. As much as my natural instinct would be to hand the kid a ten-year-old Civic with a stick, the death rate differences between compacts and most larger vehicle classes make me say I have to do something different.Body-on-frame SUVs and pickups have higher death rates than large unibody vehicles, probably because of a combination of more aggressive driver demographics and higher rollover risk.But with a new driver large unibody vehicles often have too much power. Even if the power isn't excessive at lower speeds, because the vehicles are heavy and need it to accelerate, it can get the vehicle to seriously high speeds faster in the regime where aerodynamics matters more than weight. Big CUVs, vans, and full-size sedans with 280 hp+ engines are in this category.I feel like the right answer is one of the big vehicles out there with a four-cylinder NA powertrain. There are a few. Avalon and ES300 Hybrid and AWD versions, the most recent Highlander Hybrid, the previous Santa Fe and Sorento, and the like.
  • Redapple2 I like so much, 80-90s Japanese cars. This is near the top. If I wanted a 3rd car........
  • Redapple2 Toyota is knows what they are doing. You d be unwise to go in any other direction.1 they are usually correct2 basic game theory.
Next