Relative to the Move Over Law
S2547 updates Massachusetts’ “Move Over Law” by expanding the set of vehicles that trigger driver obligations when stopped on or near a roadway. The bill adds two new defined categories: “utility vehicle,” covering vehicles used to install, maintain, repair, operate, or restore communications, electric, or gas service in an emergency, and “disabled vehicle,” meaning any nonemergency vehicle stationary on the shoulder or breakdown lane. It then amends the move-over requirements so drivers must also move over for utility vehicles and disabled vehicles, not just the vehicles already covered under current law.
The bill also revises the penalty structure for violations. It sets fines at $250 for a first offense, $500 for a second offense, and $1,000 for a third or subsequent offense. If a violation causes injury to another person, the penalty increases to a $2,500 fine or up to one year in jail or a house of correction, in addition to other fines. For second and third offenses, the registrar of motor vehicles must require completion of a driver education or behavior-change program. The bill further provides that only third and later offenses are surchargeable for insurance purposes, while first and second offenses are not.
This bill would amend section 7C of chapter 89 of the Massachusetts General Laws, broadening the scope of the state’s Move Over Law and changing its enforcement provisions. It would create new statutory definitions for utility vehicles and disabled vehicles, require motorists to yield or move over for those vehicles, and adjust the associated fines, criminal penalties for injury-causing violations, mandatory education requirements, and insurance surcharge rules under chapter 175.
The available record suggests generally favorable treatment of the bill, with no recorded opposition in the provided materials. The measure appears to be a transportation-safety proposal aimed at protecting roadside workers and stranded motorists, and the committee referral indicates it was advanced by the Senate Transportation Committee. No votes or transcript excerpts are provided, so there is no documented floor debate or divided sentiment in the supplied context.
The main policy issue is the expansion of the Move Over Law to include utility vehicles and disabled vehicles, which could raise questions about how broadly roadside protection should extend and how drivers will identify covered vehicles in time to comply. A second area of potential contention is the penalty scheme: the bill increases fines, adds possible jail time when injury occurs, and requires driver retraining for repeat offenders, while also limiting insurance surcharges to later offenses. No specific objections are recorded in the provided materials, but these provisions are the most likely points for debate among motorists, insurers, enforcement officials, and roadside service providers.