Senate Bill 526, titled the Hands Free NC Act, would create a new statewide prohibition on using a wireless communication device while operating a motor vehicle on a public street, highway, or public vehicular area. It repeals several existing distracted-driving statutes and replaces them with a single new section that broadly bans holding a device, watching video or video communication, and texting while driving. The bill defines key terms such as “wireless communication device,” “texting,” and “operate a motor vehicle,” and it includes specific exceptions for emergencies, certain public safety and utility workers, amateur radio operators in emergencies, commercial drivers using two-way radios, and built-in or integrated vehicle systems.
The bill also creates a graduated penalty structure. A first violation would be an infraction with a $100 fine and no insurance points; repeat violations within 36 months would carry higher fines and insurance points, and a third or subsequent violation would be fined at $200 with two insurance points. A violation committed while operating a school bus would be treated more seriously as a Class 2 misdemeanor. The bill further directs the North Carolina Rate Bureau to assess insurance points for repeat violations, and it updates related driver licensing and commercial driving statutes so that the new hands-free rule applies to learner’s permits, provisional licenses, and commercial motor vehicle safety rules.
In addition to changing enforcement and penalties, the bill would bar local governments from adopting their own ordinances regulating wireless device use while driving, making the rule exclusively state-controlled. It also instructs the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles and the Superintendent of Public Instruction to incorporate the new requirements into driver education and licensing programs. The act would take effect December 1, 2025, and for the first six months after that date law enforcement would issue warning tickets only, rather than full enforcement penalties.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s structure is strongly supportive of distracted-driving prevention and roadway safety. Although there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided context, the bill’s title, broad prohibitions, and educational directives suggest a public-safety-oriented approach aimed at reducing crashes and encouraging compliance. The inclusion of a warning period also indicates an effort to ease the transition for drivers and enforcement agencies.
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the ban, the preemption of local regulation, and the penalties tied to repeat offenses and insurance points. The bill covers a wide range of devices, including smartwatches, laptops, and portable computing devices, which could raise questions about scope and enforcement. It also treats school bus violations more harshly and imposes insurance consequences for repeat offenders, which may be viewed as necessary deterrence by supporters but as overly punitive by critics. The restriction on local ordinances may also be controversial for local governments seeking to adopt stricter distracted-driving rules.
The bill would repeal existing distracted-driving statutes in Chapter 20 and replace them with a new statewide prohibition on handheld and certain interactive wireless device use while driving. It would amend related driver licensing, commercial vehicle, and insurance statutes to align with the new offense, create new infraction and misdemeanor penalties, authorize insurance points for repeat violations, and preempt local governments from regulating the subject. It would also require driver education and licensing programs to teach the new law.
The overall sentiment appears favorable toward stronger distracted-driving enforcement and roadway safety, with the bill framed as a hands-free driving measure rather than a punitive traffic bill. No committee debate or votes are provided, so there is no recorded opposition in the supplied materials, but the bill’s design suggests an intent to balance enforcement with a warning-only grace period at implementation. Support is implied by the sponsors and the public-safety framing of the act.
Likely areas of contention include the scope of the device ban, especially its application to a broad range of electronics and to younger drivers; the escalation of penalties and insurance points for repeat violations; and the decision to prohibit local governments from enacting their own ordinances. School bus drivers face a misdemeanor penalty rather than an infraction, which could also be debated. Supporters would likely emphasize crash reduction and uniform statewide rules, while critics may focus on enforcement burden, overbreadth, and limits on local control.