Citizen Portal
Sign In

Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows

Motorcyclist groups urge removal from 'vulnerable user' definition; sponsors cite consistency concerns

Environment and Transportation Committee · March 13, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

ABATE of Maryland and allied witnesses asked the committee to exclude motorcyclists from the statutory 'vulnerable individual' category, arguing that motorcyclists are motorists and the current classification creates inconsistent legal outcomes; sponsor Delegate Chris Adams said the bill promotes equity without reducing accountability.

Delegate Chris Adams presented HB 1496, which would remove motorcyclists from the statutory definition of 'vulnerable individuals' and thereby change how enhanced penalties apply in collisions that cause serious injury or death.

"This bill ensures fair and consistent application of penalties," Delegate Chris Adams said, explaining that including motorcyclists in the vulnerable-user category can produce unequal treatment compared with other vehicle operators.

Ken Eaton, executive director of ABATE of Maryland, testified in support, asking lawmakers to exclude motorcyclists because current definitions typically target non-motorists and mixing motorists with non-motorists can 'muddle' statistics and policy clarity. He cited administrative court data noting only 20 violations in 2025 for causing injury or death of a vulnerable individual, with five guilty dispositions, and said it was unclear if motorcycles were involved in those cases.

Robert Spandberg, ABATE legislative representative, added that motorcyclists accept inherent roadway dangers and that recent passage of the Sergeant Kep Act (must-appear requirements) improves procedural consistency for negligent driving cases. Committee members asked clarifying questions about likely opposition; the sponsor and witnesses said they had seen little organized opposition in the Senate cross-file and expected support in committee.

The hearing closed without a vote; members voiced appreciation for the panel’s perspective and indicated they would consider the bill on the committee calendar.