Committee backs bill to allow some off-road vehicles on low-speed county roads
Loading...
Summary
Senate Bill 303 would let certain off-road vehicles operate on low-speed county roads if they meet strict safety standards, require dealer certification, a minimum operator age of 16, and liability insurance; the committee gave the bill a favorable report after questioning on helmets, windshields, insurance availability and enforcement.
A House committee gave a favorable report to Senate Bill 303, which would allow some off-road vehicles to operate on low-speed county roads in unincorporated areas if they meet a set of safety requirements and certification rules.
Senator Kelly, sponsor of SB 303, told the committee the measure aims to "bring clarity and safety and accountability" to off-road vehicle use on rural roads. He said the bill limits on-road operation to vehicles that meet safety standards (brakes, lights, seat belts, rollover protection, spark arrestor, muffler, windshield and DOT-compliant tires) and requires certification by a licensed dealer. Operators would need to be at least 16 and hold a valid driver's license, and the vehicle would be required to carry liability insurance.
Committee members raised multiple questions. Representative Jackson asked whether helmets were required; Kelly said the bill did not require helmets because a roll bar was expected to address safety. Members questioned whether insurers would underwrite liability for off-road vehicles; the sponsor said some insurers (he cited State Farm) already issue similar policies and that 26 states have comparable laws. Representatives pressed on the windshield requirement; Kelly said law enforcement requested it as an extra precaution. Representative Pettus cited crash statistics—"Last year alone, there was 315 accidents ... and 31 people was killed"—and asked whether allowing more vehicles on roads would increase wrecks; the sponsor said the bill is intended to reduce injuries by requiring safety modifications.
Members also discussed whether counties could opt in or opt out; the sponsor said the bill is mandatory statewide because marking county lines made enforcement problematic. The committee adopted a motion for a favorable report by voice vote; no roll-call tallies were recorded in the committee transcript.
Next steps: The bill was forwarded by the committee as recommended.

