An Act to amend 347.50 (1) and 347.50 (1s); to create 110.11, 340.01 (58m), 343.347 and 347.414 of the statutes; Relating to: installation of a speed limiter for repeated reckless driving violations, granting rule-making authority, and providing a penalty. (FE)
SB659 would create a new state program requiring the Wisconsin Department of Transportation to establish rules for aftermarket speed limiters on certain vehicles. The bill is aimed at drivers convicted of repeated serious speeding-related reckless driving offenses: if a person is convicted of a second or subsequent qualifying violation within five years, a court must restrict that person’s Class D driving privilege to vehicles equipped with a speed limiter and generally require the limiter to be installed on the person’s titled or registered vehicles. The restriction would last at least one year, or at least two years for a repeat order.
The bill also sets up enforcement rules and penalties. It makes it unlawful to remove, disconnect, tamper with, or otherwise circumvent a court-ordered speed limiter, to fail to install one as ordered, or to let a known restricted driver operate a vehicle the owner, lessee, or renter controls. Violations can result in fines and possible jail time, and repeat violations carry higher penalties. The bill directs DOT to use existing ignition interlock program infrastructure where possible and to regulate providers, fees, reporting, and notice requirements.
SB659 would add new provisions to Wisconsin’s motor vehicle and traffic laws by creating a speed limiter program, defining “speed limiter,” and establishing court-ordered vehicle restrictions for certain repeat speeding offenders. It amends existing penalty provisions in s. 347.50 and creates new sections governing installation, compliance, provider oversight, and circumvention offenses. The bill would affect convicted drivers, vehicle owners/lessors/renters who knowingly allow restricted operation, speed limiter providers, courts, and the Department of Transportation, while also authorizing rulemaking to implement the program.
The bill appears to have been introduced as a public-safety measure focused on repeat reckless speeding, with a structure that mirrors existing ignition interlock enforcement. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided material, there is no detailed public debate to gauge support or opposition. The bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, indicating it did not complete the legislative process despite being formally introduced.
The main points of potential contention are the mandatory nature of the court orders, the cost burden placed on offenders, and the practical feasibility of installing speed limiters on affected vehicles. The bill allows courts to reduce the offender’s share of costs for low-income individuals, suggesting lawmakers anticipated affordability concerns. Another likely issue is enforcement: the bill relies on provider reporting, court monitoring, and penalties for tampering or knowingly allowing restricted driving, which could raise administrative and compliance questions. No specific stakeholder objections or endorsements are included in the provided record.