Committee carries over bill on medium‑speed vehicles after safety, definition and implementation questions

Senators at a Transportation subcommittee hearing heard detailed testimony about Senate Bill S387, which would create a new classification for medium‑speed vehicles (MSVs) and allow on‑road operation on highways posted 45 miles per hour or less under specified safety and titling conditions. Committee members carried the bill over to allow staff to draft cleanup language.

Senator Kimbrell's bill defines an MSV as a vehicle that must meet certain design and safety standards and be titled and insured like a conventional vehicle. David Owens summarized the proposal: "Essentially, an MSV may be operated only on a highway posted 45 miles an hour or less and an MSV must meet the federal safety standards for low speed vehicles." The bill would disallow homemade conversions and allow local governments and the Department of Transportation to adopt more restrictive rules.

Vehicle industry witnesses described MSVs as battery‑propelled, fully enclosed vehicles that in some global markets are built to higher speed and safety standards (examples given as L7E quadricycles in Europe). Jason Bullock with Carolina Bridal (testifying on industry behalf) explained that many LSVs can be software‑tuned to higher top speeds and that MSV classification would enable practical on‑road use in communities connected by 45 mph roads: "What a medium speed vehicle is is basically a low speed vehicle that has been increased through its software." Bullock and other witnesses emphasized requirements such as DOT‑rated windshields, seat belts, lights and DOT‑approved tires.

Public safety officials flagged data and enforcement gaps. Major Stankus of the Highway Patrol said agency reporting historically lumps UTVs, ATVs and other off‑road vehicles into an "other" category, hampering clear safety trend analysis. "The reporting systems that we use ... they're not recognized as legal street vehicles at this point," he said, adding that new reporting tools scheduled later this year will better identify vehicle types. A DMV representative cautioned that the manufacturer's certificate of origin is a key safeguard: allowing broad reclassification or homemade conversions could let unsuitable vehicles be titled for on‑road use and increase risk.

Committee members debated technical fixes and the 55‑inch width / in‑state manufacturing carveout in the bill. Supporters said the language aims to exclude cheaply imported, underspecified vehicles; some senators worried it could create protection for specific manufacturers. Participants also discussed whether MSV standards would create safety features superior to typical low‑speed vehicles and whether existing federal standards (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard references and 12 design criteria) are adequate.

Because staff needs to clean up drafting language and address several points raised in testimony — including the 55‑inch/manufacturer threshold and the reference to federal standards — the committee voted to carry the bill over for further work.

Discussion highlights: testimony stressed MSVs must be electric, meet design criteria similar to higher‑rated European quadricycles, and be titled with a manufacturer certificate of origin; law enforcement said data on MSV/UTV crashes is currently limited; DMV urged careful limits to prevent unsafe vehicle types from being registered for on‑road use.

Next steps: staff will draft cleanup language for the next meeting; the committee did not advance S387 at this session.