Heavy Duty Trucking Logo
MenuMENU
SearchSEARCH

Mandated Speed Limiters: Going Nowhere Fast [Commentary]

There’s a bumpy road ahead for any speed-limiter mandate, says HDT’s Washington Contributing Editor David Cullen.

David Cullen
David Cullen[Former] Business/Washington Contributing Editor
Read David's Posts
June 13, 2022
Mandated Speed Limiters: Going Nowhere Fast [Commentary]

There’s a bumpy road ahead for any speed-limiter mandate, says HDT’s Washington Contributing Editor David Cullen.

Graphic: HDT

3 min to read


Back in 2016, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, along with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, floated a proposal to mandate speed limiters on trucks. As is often the case when the agency is in the beginning stages of a new regulation, this initial notice of proposed rulemaking for mandatory speed limiters was rather vague.

Ad Loading...

Yes, it called for mandatory speed-limiting of new commercial vehicles. Yet despite a decade-long push by trucking and safety advocates for such a mandate, the 2016 proposal was silent on what that limit should be. The Department of Transportation said only that the NPRM “discusses the benefits of setting the maximum speed at 60, 65, and 68 mph, but the agencies will consider other speeds based on public input.”

It also placed the onus on truck makers by mandating that speed limiters be installed and set at the factory — thus NHTSA’s involvement.

Ad Loading...

Early last month, FMCSA announced that it was putting the stalled rulemaking back into gear by working up a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to gather information from fleets that use speed limiters voluntarily.

The key difference is this time it will be a separate motor carrier-based rule. The agency placing the requirement on carriers will ensure compliance with the rule and potentially avoid confusion over who is responsible for implementing it.

Alas, another critical element is the same as before: This supplemental notice also makes no mention of a defined maximum speed. Not surprisingly, given this is early days, it also does not offer a timeline to adoption.

Back to the ball being lobbed into the fleets’ court. In this new SNPRM, FMCSA proposes that interstate carriers running commercial motor vehicles with a GVWR of 26,001 pounds or more that are fitted with an electronic engine control unit “capable of governing the maximum speed” will be required to limit the CMV “to a speed to be determined by the rulemaking” and to maintain that ECU setting for the service life of the vehicle.

So, again, an actual speed limit is still up in the air. No wonder that at press time, with a few weeks remaining for public comment on the mandatory speed limiter proposal, FMCSA was already showing that over 5,400 comments had been filed. And that despite the agency stating it wanted to hear about and receive data “regarding the adjustment or reprogramming of ECUs,” not about what the speed limit should be.

Ad Loading...

A half-hour ramble through the comments yielded almost all demands that the rulemaking be entirely dropped or, at the very least, not dictate split speed limits for trucks and cars. (Major organizations such as the American Trucking Associations, which supports a speed-limiter mandate with caveats, often don’t submit comments until near the end of the comment period.)

“This rule will cause more accidents not less,” starts out one commenter, who describes himself as a “21-year veteran” of trucking. “The State of Ohio just recently increased the truck speed limit from 55 to 70 because there was zero proof after 20 years+ that the split speed limit between cars and trucks was helpful! Frankly, the FMCSA is creating a bigger problem here… Reconsider dropping this and rely on your state patrol, weigh stations, and so on to enforce the laws already on the books.”

“Limiting truck speed causes more congestion and is more of a safety hazard than anything,” commented a logistics operator. “You have someone going up a hill faster than the other; when they reach the top, you have two trucks side by side for the next 15 miles with 4 miles of traffic behind them because they cannot pass one another.”

And this from a motor carrier: “Speed limiting devices are unsafe for public roadways…Restricting [truck] speed not only clogs highways and interstates, [but] it also generates more unsafe passing practices… Causing giant rolling roadblocks does nothing more than agitate the general public. Do not restrict trucks!”

This commentary first appeared in the June 2022 issue of Heavy Duty Trucking.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

More Safety & Compliance

Man standing beside tractor-trailer in sepia tone with the words "Farewell CDL" superimposed on top
Driversby Jack RobertsJuly 1, 2026

Farewell, CDL: Why I'm Giving Up My Commercial Driver's License

After more than 20 years as a CDL holder, HDT Executive Editor Jack Roberts is letting his commercial license expire. Not because he wants to — but because trucking's nuclear verdict crisis has made the risks of public-road test drives too great for editors, manufacturers, and everyone involved.

Read More →
thermo king heavy duty trucking
SponsoredJuly 1, 2026

Enhance Fleet Performance with High-Efficiency Auxiliary Power Units

Drive sustainable cost savings while increasing driver comfort during short- and long-haul logistics operations.

Read More →
Maintenanceby Deborah LockridgeJune 23, 2026

Wabash Trailers Recalled for Improperly Installed Underride Guards

More than 900 Wabash dry van trailers may not comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard for rear impact guards.

Read More →
Ad Loading...
YouTube thumbnail with photo of K&B's Lance Evans with truck in the background and the words, Trucking's AI Wake-Up Call

Why K&B Trucking Is Embracing AI and Driver Safety Technology

Crunching data and embracing artificial intelligence are key in K&B Trucking's safety efforts, says the company's safety director.

Read More →
The Cyber Stop header showing an enforcement officer talking to a truck driver and a screen shot of the FMCSA's revoked ELDs list
Safety & Complianceby Ben WilkensJune 19, 2026

The Hidden Problem Behind FMCSA's ELD Revocations

NMFTA researchers say dozens of registered ELDs may be built on the same software platforms, allowing compliance and security concerns to persist even after individual devices are removed from the market.

Read More →
Illustration of inside truck cab with dashcam on window, definition of research, and ATRI logo

ATRI Wants Motor Carriers for Driver-Facing Camera Study

In this new study, the American Transportation Research Institute will explore how driver-facing cameras can impact safety and operational metrics in trucking fleets.

Read More →
Ad Loading...
Man seated in front of computer with inset of insights generated for a truck driver

Netradyne Intelligence Uses New AI Agents to Automate Response to In-Cab Camera Data

The company called the next-generation in-cab camera safety platform "a fundamental shift from systems that report on what happened to systems that actively drive what should happen next."

Read More →
Maintenanceby Deborah LockridgeJune 15, 2026

Mack, Volvo Issue ‘Do Not Drive’ Recall on Possible Wheel-Offs

Owners will be sent advance notice not to operate their affected vehicles until the remedy is performed.

Read More →
Fleetworth-Lytx integration.

Fleetworthy Integrates Lytx Video Snapshots into Safety+ Platform

A new Fleetworthy-Lytx integration gives fleet managers access to video context alongside safety event data, streamlining driver coaching and incident review.

Read More →
Ad Loading...
Podcast thumbnail illustration
Fleet ManagementJune 4, 2026

How Waste Connections is Using Data, Telematics, and AI

How do you manage and maintain more than 18,000 connected trucks? Data. Lots of it.

Read More →