45th District candidate Parrilli slams bill introducing devices that limit vehicle speed: ‘The bill is a government overreach’
A proposal sponsored by State Rep. Martha Deuter (D-Westmont) that would require repeat speeders to install government-mandated devices limiting how fast their vehicles can travel is drawing criticism from opponents who call it an example of government overreach.
Westmont Trustee and GOP House candidate Gina Parrilli, who is challenging Deuter in the 45th House District race on Nov. 3, said the measure would expand state control over private vehicles under the guise of improving traffic safety.
“I am against the bill for several reasons,” Parrilli told the DuPage Policy Journal. “The bill is a government overreach solution to a problem that should through our existing laws. Illinois has laws against reckless driving and excessive speeding. Seems that Springfield create a solution to a problem in which laws don't seem to be enforced.”
Parrilli's comments come as Illinois lawmakers advance House Bill 4948, which would create an “Intelligent Speed Assistance Program” for Illinois drivers.
Under the proposal, which has passed both the House and Senate, drivers who rack up two serious speeding violations in a year could soon face a choice between license suspension and installing an “active intelligent speed assistance device” that physically prevents their vehicle from exceeding the speed limit.
Under the legislation, a driver convicted twice of “driving 26 miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable speed limit or a similar conviction in another jurisdiction,” within a 12-month period would have their license suspended.
Subsequent offenses trigger longer required program participation periods of 12 or 24 months.
However, offending drivers would be given the opportunity to participate in an “Intelligent Speed Assistance Permit” program which would require them to “at his or her own expense, drive only vehicles equipped with an active intelligent speed assistance device.”
According to the legislation, it would be illegal for a driver in the program to operate a vehicle without an “intelligent speed assistance device” which is defined as “an aftermarket device that actively prevents a motor vehicle from exceeding the applicable speed limit and does not interact with the braking system,” using technologies such as GPS or camera-based sign recognition.
Service providers would collect specific data, including vehicle speed, posted speed limits, override events and location coordinates for compliance. Tampering with or driving without the required device would be illegal.
The Secretary of State would administer the program, approve service providers for installation and monitoring and maintain records. Participants would pay a monthly permit administration fee “in an amount not to exceed $30 per month,” deposited into the new Intelligent Speed Assistance Permit Fee Fund.
For indigent drivers, the bill creates the Indigent Intelligent Speed Assistance Device Fund under which service providers must install and monitor devices at no cost to qualifying participants and seek reimbursement from the fund.
The bill will take effect Jan. 1, 2028, if signed by Gov. Pritzker.
State Rep. Martha Deuter (D-Westmont), sponsor of legislation advancing in Illinois that would require repeat speeders to install devices limiting vehicle speed, a measure critics say expands state control over private vehicles. (Facebook / State Representative Marti Deuter)
“We do not need to have government overreach in every aspect of life,” Parrilli said.
Parrilli’s criticism reflects broader concerns among Americans who oppose new vehicle mandates, warning that government-required technology could expand beyond its original purpose to track, control or restrict drivers.
Critics say future technologies, including driver-monitoring cameras, speed-monitoring systems, impairment-detection systems and connected vehicle networks, could significantly increase the amount and type of data vehicles collect. They warn that safety tools could gradually expand into broader data collection, storage and potential surveillance.
A federal “kill switch” proposal was enacted during the Biden administration as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
The law, as noted by Kelley Blue Bo ok, directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to develop regulations requiring new vehicles to include passive technology capable of detecting driver impairment and preventing or limiting vehicle operation when impairment is detected.
Opponents warn the policy would require cars to monitor drivers for impairment and potentially limit or shut down vehicle operation without a warrant, police involvement, or due process protections such as appeal rights or human review.
Critics argue this creates a preemptive, algorithm-driven system that could deny mobility based on probability rather than proven legal guilt.
Privacy advocates warn that vehicle-disabling technology could eventually be expanded or linked to external systems, raising concerns about surveillance or remote control.
In a January vote Congress failed to repeal that law, according to NewsNation.
Major automakers have also developed increasingly advanced vehicle technologies that use cameras, sensors, driver-monitoring systems and connected data networks, which opponents such as auto market YouTuber Jason Samko, say could enable broader surveillance.
Ford has filed a patent for in-car communication technology designed to improve phone calls and voice commands in convertibles by using microphones, noise cancellation, and interior sensors to enhance audio clarity in loud driving conditions, according to CarBuzz. The system could also analyze driver facial expressions and lip movements to interpret speech and adjust responses
As vehicles become more connected and capable of collecting detailed information about drivers, passengers and people in public spaces, critics fear these systems could shift from safety tools to mechanisms for tracking movement, monitoring behavior and building detailed activity records.
Those concerns are reinforced by recent controversies involving automaker data practices.
In May, General Motors agreed to pay $12.75 million to settle allegations from California regulators that it collected and sold drivers’ location and driving behavior data through its OnStar system, according to CBS News 8 in San Diego.