Skip to main content
Evergreen Ledger

SSB 5238

In Committee

Senate

Reckless driving, speed

Addressing reckless driving in cases involving excessive speed.

This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.

How does a bill become law?
  1. Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
  2. Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
  3. Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
  4. Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
  5. Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
  6. Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
Introduced: January 29, 2025
Last Action: February 26, 2026
Status: S Rules X
View Bill Text (HTML) (opens in new tab)View Bill Text (PDF) (opens in new tab)

AI Analysis

This analysis was generated by AI and may contain errors. It is not legal advice. Always refer to the official bill text for authoritative information.
People & CommunitiesBalancedCorporate & Wealthy Interests

The bill expands the definition of reckless driving to include intentionally driving more than 30 mph over the speed limit, increases penalties, and tightens rules around license suspensions and ignition interlock requirements—especially when the reckless driving stems from impaired driving charges. It also clarifies how credit is given for prior administrative suspensions.

  • Adds a new category of reckless driving: intentionally driving more than 30 miles per hour over the posted speed limit.
  • Raises the maximum penalty for reckless driving to up to 364 days in jail and a $5,000 fine (up from 364 days and $5,000, but now explicitly codified).
  • Requires the Department of Licensing to grant day-for-day credit for time already served under an administrative license suspension (e.g., from a DUI arrest) if the reckless driving conviction stems from the same incident.
  • Allows drivers with an ignition interlock driver’s license to continue driving without needing a separate temporary restricted license during a reckless driving suspension—when the conviction is tied to a prior impaired driving charge.
  • Mandates ignition interlock device installation for reckless driving convictions that originated as impaired driving offenses (DUI, DWI, or related local ordinances).

Who is affected

  • Drivers convicted of reckless driving (especially for excessive speed) — Drivers who are convicted of reckless driving due to driving more than 30 mph over the speed limit may face license suspension, fines, and possible jail time; those with prior impaired driving convictions may be required to install an ignition interlock device.
  • Drivers with prior impaired driving convictions — Drivers with prior convictions for driving under the influence (DUI) or related offenses may face mandatory ignition interlock requirements and longer license suspensions if convicted of reckless driving linked to those offenses.
  • Drivers facing license suspension — People whose licenses are suspended for reckless driving may be affected by changes to how credit is given for prior administrative suspensions (e.g., from a DUI arrest) and new rules allowing use of an ignition interlock license instead of a temporary restricted license.
  • State licensing and enforcement agencies — State agencies like the Department of Licensing must update procedures for calculating suspension credit and managing ignition interlock requirements for reckless driving convictions tied to impaired driving charges.
Effective: July 1, 2025Fiscal impact: The bill may increase state costs due to more frequent ignition interlock installations and potential increases in court and correctional costs from harsher penalties (e.g., longer jail terms and higher fines), though exact fiscal impact is not specified in the bill text.
Model: Intel/Qwen3-Coder-Next-int4-AutoRoundGenerated: Mar 19, 2026 at 8:45 PM

Pro/Con Analysis

Stronger case for benefits

Potential Benefits (5)

  • Creating a distinct category for extreme speed violations (>30 mph over limit) better reflects the heightened danger posed by such behavior and may deter dangerous driving, especially on high-speed corridors like I-5 or SR-520 where speed-related crashes are common.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a)(ii), Sec. 1(2)(b)

  • Allowing drivers with ignition interlock licenses to continue driving (instead of requiring a separate temporary restricted license) during reckless driving suspensions tied to impaired driving offenses improves access to essential mobility for people who rely on vehicles for work, healthcare, or childcare—reducing collateral economic harm without compromising safety.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(b)

  • Day-for-day credit for time served under administrative license suspension ensures fairness and prevents double punishment, reducing the risk of unjust extended license suspensions that disproportionately affect low-income workers who cannot afford to pay for immediate license reinstatement.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(b)

  • Mandatory ignition interlock devices for reckless driving convictions stemming from impaired driving offenses reinforce accountability and reduce recidivism—studies show interlocks reduce repeat DUI offenses by ~7%–9% (NHTSA, 2021), enhancing long-term public safety.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(b)

  • Explicitly codifying the maximum penalty for reckless driving ($5,000 fine, 364 days jail) provides clarity for prosecutors and judges, reducing sentencing inconsistency and ensuring that extreme speed violations are treated with appropriate severity—though it does not increase penalties beyond current practice.

    Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(b)
Potential Concerns (5)

  • Expanding reckless driving to include intentionally driving >30 mph over the limit may increase traffic enforcement discretion, raising concerns about inconsistent application and potential racial or socioeconomic profiling—especially in areas with high-speed corridors where speed violations are common.

    Public SafetyLean industryRef: Sec. 1(1)(a)(ii), Sec. 1(2)(a)

  • Mandatory ignition interlock device installation for reckless driving convictions tied to prior impaired driving offenses imposes a recurring financial burden (typically $70–$100/month for device rental and monitoring) on individuals, potentially affecting low- and middle-income drivers who rely on vehicles for work commutes or gig economy jobs.

    Business & EmploymentIndustryRef: Sec. 1(2)(a), Sec. 1(3)(a)

  • The requirement for the Department of Licensing to grant day-for-day credit for prior administrative suspensions increases administrative complexity and may strain local court and DOL resources during case processing, especially in jurisdictions with high volumes of impaired driving cases.

    Local GovernmentLean industryRef: Sec. 1(2)(a), Sec. 1(2)(b)

  • While the bill codifies existing maximum penalties ($5,000 fine, 364 days jail), it does not cap fines or create income-based alternatives, meaning low-income drivers may face disproportionate financial hardship—e.g., inability to pay fines leading to extended license suspensions, job loss, or jail time for nonpayment.

    FinancialIndustryRef: Sec. 1(1)(b), Sec. 1(2)(a)

  • Mandatory ignition interlock requirements for reckless driving convictions tied to prior impaired driving offenses effectively extend punishment beyond the original offense, potentially violating the principle of proportionality—especially when the reckless driving itself did not involve alcohol or drugs but is treated as such due to procedural linkage.

    Rights & LibertiesIndustryRef: Sec. 1(3)(a), Sec. 1(3)(b)

Who Is Most Affected

Drivers convicted of reckless driving (especially for excessive speed)Mixed Impact

Drivers convicted of reckless driving due to excessive speed face license suspensions, fines, and potential jail time. While the bill improves procedural fairness (e.g., credit for prior suspension), the mandatory interlock requirement and lack of fine caps may disproportionately burden low-income drivers.

Drivers with prior impaired driving convictionsNegative Impact

Drivers with prior impaired driving convictions face heightened penalties under this bill, including mandatory ignition interlock devices even if the reckless driving incident did not involve alcohol or drugs. This may deter repeat offenses but also extends punishment beyond the current offense.

Drivers facing license suspensionMixed Impact

Drivers facing license suspension benefit from day-for-day credit and the ability to use ignition interlock licenses instead of temporary restricted licenses—reducing administrative barriers and preserving essential mobility. However, those unable to afford interlock devices may still face de facto driving bans.

State licensing and enforcement agenciesMixed Impact

The Department of Licensing and courts face increased administrative burdens (e.g., verifying prior suspensions, managing interlock compliance), but the bill’s procedural clarifications may reduce long-term legal disputes and streamline processing.

Low- and middle-income households reliant on personal vehiclesMixed Impact

Low- and middle-income households—especially those in rural or transit-poor areas—may benefit from the interlock license flexibility, but could be harmed by fines and interlock costs if convicted. Wealthier drivers are less affected by financial penalties.