California has launched a new enforcement program aimed at drivers accused of traveling more than 100 mph. The goal? Reducing extreme speeding and preventing deadly crashes is easy to understand. The process being used to accomplish it deserves much closer scrutiny.
The Forwarded Actions for Speeding Tickets program, better known as FAST, automatically sends every California Highway Patrol citation alleging a speed above 100 mph to the Department of Motor Vehicles’ Driver Safety Branch. The DMV may then review the driver and consider suspending or revoking driving privileges.
The most controversial part is timing: according to the state’s own announcement, the DMV administrative process can move forward independently of any court conviction. In other words, a citation, an allegation that has not yet been proven in traffic court, can trigger a second government proceeding with serious licensing consequences.
California has a legitimate interest in stopping extreme speeding. But road safety and due process are not mutually exclusive. FAST raises important questions about fairness, transparency and what should happen when an accusation reaches the DMV before a judge determines whether it is true.
What Is California’s FAST Program?
The California State Transportation Agency announced FAST on December 22, 2025, as a joint pilot involving CHP and the DMV.
Under the program:
- CHP issues a citation alleging that a driver exceeded 100 mph.
- The citation is automatically forwarded to the DMV’s Driver Safety Branch.
- The DMV reviews the case and the driver’s history.
- The DMV determines what action to take, potentially including suspension or revocation.
The referral occurs regardless of the driver’s prior record. A person with a completely clean history is routed into the same initial process as someone with multiple recent violations.
CalSTA says CHP officers issue approximately 1,600 citations every month for speeds above 100 mph. CHP issued more than 18,000 such citations in 2024. Speeding also reportedly contributes to 32% of California traffic fatalities. Those are serious numbers, and they help explain why state officials wanted a more immediate intervention.
The problem lies less with the safety objective than with the structure of the program.
A Citation Is an Accusation, Not a Conviction
A traffic citation does not establish guilt. The government must still prove the alleged violation, and the driver has the right to challenge the officer’s speed measurement, vehicle identification, observations and other evidence.
That matters in a case involving an alleged speed above 100 mph. Questions can arise concerning:
- Radar or lidar operation and identification of the targeted vehicle
- Pacing distance and the calibration of the patrol vehicle’s speedometer
- The officer’s viewing angle and line of sight
- Traffic conditions and the presence of similar vehicles
- The speed written on the citation
- Video or other evidence that conflicts with the allegation
A citation can ultimately be dismissed, reduced or found unsupported. FAST nevertheless permits DMV review to begin before the court case produces a result.
The state describes this as swift intervention. From a driver’s perspective, it can look like punishment based on an allegation that remains contested.
Two Proceedings From One Traffic Stop
Before FAST, a driver accused of violating California Vehicle Code §22348(b) already faced significant consequences in traffic court. A conviction for exceeding 100 mph can carry a substantial fine, two negligent-operator points and a possible court-ordered license suspension.
FAST adds a separate administrative track:
- The court determines whether the traffic violation occurred and imposes any judicial penalty.
- The DMV evaluates whether the driver should retain driving privileges.
These proceedings serve different legal functions, so this is not necessarily the same as being prosecuted twice for the same offense. But the practical burden is real. A driver may need to defend the underlying citation while also responding to the DMV, tracking separate deadlines and preparing for a Driver Safety hearing.
An unfavorable outcome in either forum can have serious consequences. Drivers may also need different evidence and arguments because the court and DMV are deciding different questions under different procedures.
The DMV Can Act Before the Court Does
The state’s FAST announcement expressly says the administrative process can proceed independently of any court conviction.
That creates several unresolved practical questions:
- Will the DMV pause a case when the driver contests the citation?
- What happens if the DMV acts first but the traffic court later dismisses the charge?
- Will a reduced court charge automatically cause the DMV to reconsider its decision?
- What evidence will the DMV receive beyond the citation?
- Will the driver have meaningful access to that evidence before a hearing?
- How quickly must a driver request a hearing to protect their license?
The answers may depend on the notice issued in the individual case and the DMV procedures being used. But drivers should not have to guess how the two proceedings interact when their ability to drive is at stake.
FAST Lacks Publicly Explained Decision Standards
The official announcement says the DMV will review “the case and the driver’s history to determine next steps.” It identifies suspension or revocation as possible results but provides little public detail about how those choices are made.
For example, the announcement does not clearly explain:
- What evidence is required before action is initiated
- Whether the alleged speed determines the recommended action
- How a clean driving history will be weighed
- Whether a crash or unsafe maneuver must be involved
- How long a FAST-related suspension may last
- Whether consistent guidelines apply statewide
- How dismissed and reduced citations will be handled
Administrative discretion is not inherently improper. Driver Safety officials regularly evaluate licensing risks. But a new program automatically referring thousands of people should have clear, accessible and consistently applied standards.
Without them, similarly situated drivers may face different results and have difficulty preparing an effective response.
The 100 MPH Line Is Simple—but Blunt
FAST uses an easily understood trigger: a CHP citation alleging a speed greater than 100 mph.
That creates administrative efficiency, but it does not capture every factor relevant to actual risk. A citation alleging 101 mph on a clear, empty highway automatically triggers referral, while a driver accused of 99 mph in dense traffic may not enter FAST at all.
This does not make 101 mph safe. It illustrates that a bright-line referral rule is not the same as an individualized safety assessment.
Speed, traffic density, weather, roadway design, visibility, driving behavior, collision history and prior violations may all be relevant. FAST begins with the numerical allegation and leaves the individualized evaluation for later, after the driver has already been placed into a license-review process.
FAST Applies Only to CHP Citations
The program is built around citations issued by CHP. That raises a consistency question: should the risk of immediate DMV review depend on which law-enforcement agency happened to make the stop?
A driver cited above 100 mph by CHP is automatically referred. Public materials do not establish an identical automatic process for every citation issued by a sheriff’s department or municipal police agency.
There may be practical reasons for beginning with CHP, including its statewide jurisdiction and existing data-sharing relationship with the DMV. Even so, a statewide safety policy should explain why drivers accused of comparable conduct may enter different administrative pathways.
License Suspension Can Affect Much More Than Driving
State officials correctly emphasize the danger created by extreme speeding. But a license suspension can produce consequences far beyond the road.
Many Californians depend on a license to:
- Commute to work
- Transport children or dependent relatives
- Attend medical appointments
- Operate a commercial or company vehicle
- Maintain professional employment
- Reach areas without reliable public transportation
These consequences do not mean the DMV should never suspend a dangerous driver. They do mean the process must be accurate, transparent and capable of correcting mistakes quickly.
An administrative decision based on incomplete information can cause immediate disruption even if the court later rejects the original allegation.
The State’s Safety Argument
Any fair criticism of FAST should acknowledge why the program exists.
Speeds above 100 mph dramatically reduce reaction time and increase crash forces. California reports tens of thousands of extreme-speed citations and identifies speeding as a major contributor to fatal crashes. Officials argue that waiting for repeated convictions allows a dangerous pattern to continue.
FAST is intended to create swift and certain intervention. The state will evaluate the pilot by comparing citations and outcomes with the same period from the previous year.
That evaluation is important. But measuring citations, suspensions and crashes is not enough. California should also report:
- How many FAST referrals resulted in hearings
- How many resulted in no action
- How many suspensions or revocations were imposed
- How many referred citations were later dismissed or reduced
- How often DMV decisions were changed after the court outcome
- Whether results were consistent across regions and demographic groups
- How long drivers waited for hearings and final decisions
A pilot program should test not only whether a policy is forceful, but whether it is accurate and fair.
How California Could Improve FAST
California does not need to choose between public safety and due process. The program could be improved through several safeguards.
1. Require more than the citation
Automatic referral may be appropriate, but significant licensing action should be supported by reliable evidence, not the face of a citation alone. Relevant reports, speed-measurement records and available video should be reviewed.
2. Coordinate the DMV and court cases
When the underlying charge is actively contested, the DMV should have a clear policy addressing whether to pause final action or promptly revisit it after the court’s decision.
3. Publish decision criteria
Drivers and attorneys should be able to understand what factors affect suspension, revocation or no action. Written standards would promote consistency without eliminating individualized review.
4. Provide clear hearing notices
Every notice should explain the alleged basis for action, evidence available for review, hearing deadline and consequences of failing to respond.
5. Correct records automatically
If the citation is dismissed or reduced below the FAST threshold, the information should reach the DMV promptly and trigger an automatic review of any related administrative action.
6. Publish meaningful pilot data
The state should disclose outcomes, reversals, court dispositions and geographic patterns, not merely count referrals or suspensions.
What Should a Driver Do After Receiving a FAST-Eligible Citation?
A driver cited by CHP for allegedly exceeding 100 mph should treat both the traffic case and possible DMV action seriously.
Important steps include:
- Read every document from the court and DMV immediately.
- Track court dates and DMV hearing deadlines separately.
- Do not assume contesting the ticket automatically stops DMV action.
- Preserve dashcam footage, GPS information, photographs and witness details.
- Request and review the evidence supporting the speed allegation.
- Keep copies of any dismissal, amended charge or final court disposition.
- Consult a California traffic attorney familiar with both §22348(b) cases and DMV Driver Safety proceedings.
Ignoring either proceeding can allow serious consequences to occur without the driver presenting a defense.
The Real Problem With FAST
Driving above 100 mph can create an obvious and serious danger. California is justified in looking for ways to respond to the increase in extreme speeding.
The problem with FAST is that speed has been prioritized over procedural clarity. The program automatically converts an unproven citation into a separate license review, allows the administrative process to move independently of the court and provides limited public explanation of the standards governing the outcome.
An effective road-safety program should identify genuinely dangerous drivers while protecting people from erroneous or inconsistent action. FAST may ultimately reduce high-speed driving, but California should not measure success only by how quickly it suspends licenses. It should also measure whether the process reaches accurate, consistent and reviewable decisions.
Charged With Driving Over 100 MPH in California?
A citation for allegedly exceeding 100 mph can now create consequences in both traffic court and the DMV. The Ticket Clinic helps California drivers understand the charges, review the evidence and evaluate available options.
Text a photo of your ticket to 305305 for a fast and free quote.
