According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 2017 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state of Texas. The legislation would create a new Class C misdemeanor for vehicle operation that causes tires to spin, lose traction, or leave the highway surface under certain circumstances. While it introduces a new offense category within the Texas Transportation Code, the LBB assumes that any resulting costs associated with enforcement, adjudication, or administration would be minimal and absorbed within existing resources.

The fiscal implications for local governments are also projected to be negligible. Class C misdemeanors are typically processed at the municipal or justice of the peace level, often resulting in fines rather than incarceration. As such, the LBB anticipates no substantial increase in court dockets, law enforcement duties, or correctional facility usage. Furthermore, any fine revenue generated from citations would likely be small and inconsistent, limiting its financial impact on local jurisdictions.

Overall, the bill’s fiscal footprint is minimal, suggesting that its primary effects would be regulatory and symbolic rather than budgetary. The LBB's analysis reinforces that SB 2017 is a low-cost policy initiative with minimal administrative burden for both state and local entities.

SB 2017 deserves support in principle for its effort to deter specific vehicular behaviors, such as burnouts and wheelies, that have become associated with dangerous “street takeover” events and reckless driving exhibitions. These displays can pose real safety risks to the public and law enforcement, especially when conducted in high-traffic areas or used to obstruct intersections. By creating a new Class C misdemeanor targeting the intentional operation of a vehicle in a way that causes tires to spin, lose traction, or leave the surface of a highway, the bill seeks to address a gap in current traffic law enforcement tools.

However, the bill’s language, as introduced, is overly broad and lacks contextual limitations or intent requirements. It criminalizes conduct without considering whether the action posed an actual danger or occurred in a controlled or private environment. For instance, momentary tire spin during normal acceleration or low-speed vehicle exhibitions could fall under the law’s scope. This could inadvertently penalize benign behavior and enable inconsistent enforcement practices, particularly in communities where car culture is a significant part of social and recreational life.

Amendments are necessary to refine the bill’s focus. Specifically, the language should be revised to require a showing of reckless intent or danger to the public, such as by incorporating language similar to existing reckless driving statutes (e.g., “willful or wanton disregard for safety”). Additional clarity could also be provided to exclude private property or closed-course events from the statute’s application.

With these changes, SB 2017 would strike a better balance between public safety and the preservation of individual liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government. It would give law enforcement appropriate tools to address real threats while minimizing the risk of overcriminalization. Therefore,  Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 2017 while also considering amendments as described above for clarity.

• Individual Liberty: The bill criminalizes certain types of vehicle operation, such as spinning tires or momentarily losing traction, without tying those actions to a requirement of public endangerment. This broad framing may infringe upon individual liberty by penalizing behavior that is not inherently harmful. For example, someone could be cited for a Class C misdemeanor during a harmless car maneuver in an isolated or low-risk context. Without additional guardrails, such as requiring intent to endanger or obstruction of traffic, the statute opens the door to over-policing of otherwise lawful or expressive vehicle use.
• Personal Responsibility: On one hand, the bill encourages drivers to consider how their actions affect public safety and promotes accountability behind the wheel. On the other hand, it does not clearly distinguish between deliberate, dangerous conduct and incidental or unintended actions (e.g., a tire chirp from a sudden acceleration). This lack of nuance may undermine the principle that individuals should be held accountable for truly harmful behavior rather than broadly defined technical violations.
• Free Enterprise: The bill could unintentionally impact local automotive businesses and cultural events, such as car shows or exhibitions, especially if law enforcement applies the statute at or near events involving performance vehicles. If interpreted too broadly, it may suppress lawful automotive gatherings that contribute to the local economy and rely on expressive vehicle behavior that, while flashy, is not inherently dangerous.
• Private Property Rights: Although the bill is limited to conduct occurring on highways, indirect consequences may emerge where enforcement overlaps with adjacent private activities or events near public roads. However, as written, it does not criminalize similar actions conducted on private property, maintaining a neutral effect on property rights.
• Limited Government: The addition of a new criminal offense for behavior already partly addressed under existing reckless driving laws runs counter to the principle of limited government. It expands the reach of the criminal code without a compelling demonstration that current tools are insufficient. The lack of an intent or harm requirement means the state could penalize conduct that falls far short of endangering others, resulting in unnecessary government intrusion.