Why “Crackdowns” on Teens Won’t End Street Racing. But Tech and Industry Rules Could

By Truth Behind the Bars

We hear it after every tragic crash: “We’re getting tough to stop street racing.” But the playbook is always the same—steeper charges, bigger fines, longer suspensions—aimed primarily at young drivers. Meanwhile, the car market glorifies speed, and ALL new vehicles are engineered to blow past any legal limit you’ll see on U.S. roads.

The reality on the road

• Speed kills; consistently. In 2023, 29% of U.S. traffic deaths were speeding-related; 11,775 people died. That’s not a niche problem; it’s a national one. (CrashStats)

• The fastest posted speed limit in the U.S. is 85 mph (TX SH-130, Segments 5 & 6). Almost everywhere else tops out at 70–80 mph. So no, there aren’t legal roads for 120 mph joyrides. Yet cars routinely ship with top speeds far beyond that. (SH 130)

• Enforcement only policies haven’t solved it. Even with post-pandemic attention, the U.S. still records tens of thousands of deaths per year; 2024 deaths dipped but remain elevated vs. pre-2020. (Reuters)

How states respond today (example: Florida)

Florida’s “racing on highways” statute makes first-offense racing a first-degree misdemeanor, with license revocation and escalating penalties for repeat offenses. Serious consequences that fall squarely on (often young) drivers. (The Florida Senate)

What would move the needle: design + policy

If the goal is fewer funerals, not just more arrests, pair enforcement with tech and market rules:

1. Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA) or speed limiters for young drivers.

   • The EU now mandates ISA in all new cars (new models since 2022; all new sales since 2024). ISA can warn or even gently limit speed relative to posted limits. The U.S. has no such mandate. (road-safety-charter.ec.europa.eu)

   • Major automakers already ship teen speed-limit features voluntarily (proof it’s feasible). GM Teen Driver can cap speed at 85 mph and restrict acceleration; Ford MyKey can cap top speed at 65/70/75/80 mph. These are optional toggles today. Why not require them for licensed drivers under 21 (or 25)? (Chevrolet)

2. Insurance alignment, not just punishment.
   If a family declines speed-limiting for a minor’s car, insurers could price that risk explicitly—premium multipliers—just like telematics discounts in reverse. (Insurers already surcharge for high-risk behaviors; aligning with speed-governing choices is a logical extension.)

3. Ad accountability.
   U.S. law already bans deceptive or unfair ads (FTC Act §5). The FTC has cracked down on car sales deception (junk fees, misrepresentations), and the federal CARS Rule tightens the screws. While those actions focus on pricing and claims, the authority exists to curb marketing that materially misleads about performance/safety. (Federal Reserve)

4. Fix municipal incentives.
   Cities that rely on fines for revenue can drift toward extractive enforcement. Research shows municipal dependence on fines/fees correlates with aggressive ticketing practices—without clear safety gains. That’s a policy red flag we should address alongside safety reforms. (Fines and Fees Justice Center)

“Why not just cap every car at 75 mph?”

Two truths can coexist:

• We do have a tiny handful of higher-limit roads (up to 85 mph in Texas), and manufacturers cite needs like passing power and gradients. (SH 130)

  • Passing power → Carmakers argue cars need extra top speed and horsepower so drivers can safely pass slower vehicles on highways (for example, accelerating quickly to overtake a truck).

  • Gradients → They also justify extra engine power for steep hills or mountain driving, where a car might need more speed/torque to climb or merge safely.

  Basically, the auto industry defends building cars that can go 120–160 mph by saying, “It’s not about racing—it’s about giving drivers enough performance for special situations like passing and hills.” In reality, though, cars don’t need anywhere near 160 mph for those situations. It’s more about marketing speed as excitement and status.

• But in the real world, most driving happens on roads posted 55–75 mph. Graduated speed caps tied to driver age or license class already implemented by GM/Ford at the consumer level—are a pragmatic compromise (and unlike full governors, they can be smart/temporary). (Chevrolet)

Could you sue the auto industry for building (or hyping) fast cars?

Short answer: It’s hard—but not impossible in narrow scenarios.

• Product liability (design defect): Courts generally don’t deem a car “defective” merely because it can exceed legal limits. You’d need to show an unreasonable design risk versus utility, and that a safer feasible alternative (e.g., mandated limiters) should have been adopted and would have prevented the harm. That’s an uphill battle, especially given lawful high-speed roads and the availability of consumer-activated limiters.

• Unfair/Deceptive Advertising (UDAP/FTC Act §5):
  If an ad materially misleads about safety or encourages illegal behavior, regulators (FTC/AGs) can act, and private plaintiffs can sometimes sue under state UDAP laws. The FTC has active enforcement history against deceptive auto marketing (though mostly pricing/claims). Extending that framework to performance/speed claims that imply safe illegal use would be novel but not inconceivable, especially with expert evidence on foreseeable misuse. (Federal Trade Commission)

• Negligent marketing theories: These cases exist in other product contexts but face causation and First Amendment hurdles when applied to high-performance car ads. You’d need a tight factual chain from the ad to the specific illegal racing event and harm—rare but not impossible.

Bottom line: A broad, nationwide class action against automakers for “selling fast cars” is unlikely to succeed under current U.S. law. Policy changes (NHTSA rulemaking, state laws requiring ISA for novice drivers, FTC guidance on performance advertising) are the faster lever.

A better blueprint (what we should ask lawmakers for)

1. Require teen/novice-driver speed-limit modes on all new vehicles sold in the U.S., with default activation for drivers under 21/25 and admin override controlled by a parent/guardian. (This mirrors existing GM/Ford tech and the EU’s move toward ISA.) (road-safety-charter.ec.europa.eu)

2. Tie insurance pricing to limiter adoption (opt-out is allowed, but it costs more).

3. Direct FTC and state AGs to scrutinize performance ads that reasonably foresee illegal use or minimize risk, using FTC Act §5 authority. (Federal Trade Commission)

4. De-incentivize fine farming: cap municipal reliance on traffic fine revenue and invest in engineering fixes (traffic calming, street design) proven to cut speeds. (Fines and Fees Justice Center)

If officials truly want fewer crashes…

Stop pretending we can ticket our way to safety while selling and celebrating 0–60 culture. The technology to protect kids already exists in the cars we sell. Make it standard. Make it smart. And make the incentives line up with saving lives—not padding budgets.

Sources & quick reads

• NHTSA: 2023 speeding fatalities & 2024 trend update. (CrashStats)

• Texas SH-130: Highest posted U.S. speed (85 mph). (SH 130)

• EU ISA mandate: New models (2022) → all new sales (2024). (road-safety-charter.ec.europa.eu)

• Florida street-racing penalties: §316.191, license revocation & escalating fines. (The Florida Senate)

• Teen speed-limiting tech: GM Teen Driver (85-mph cap), Ford MyKey (65–80 mph). (Chevrolet)

• Fines & fees dependence research: municipal revenue reliance concerns. (Fines and Fees Justice Center)

• FTC authority on auto advertising & CARS Rule: deceptive/unfair practice enforcement. (Federal Trade Commission)