Pennsylvania Senate Bill SB210

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/29/25
• Refer: 1/29/25
• Engrossed: 2/5/25
• Refer: 2/10/25

Caption

In miscellaneous provisions relating to operation of vehicles, providing for the offense of interference with operation or movement of a public transit vehicle.

Summary

SB 210 amends Pennsylvania’s Vehicle Code to create a new offense for interference with the operation or movement of a public transit vehicle. The bill defines prohibited conduct broadly to include causing or attempting to cause bodily injury or serious bodily injury to a transit operator, interfering with an operator in ways that result in injury or death to another person, and using physical menace to place an operator in fear of imminent serious bodily injury or death. The measure applies to operators of public transit vehicles such as buses, commuter rail, light rail, streetcars, subways, trolleys, trains, and similar public transportation systems. It establishes felony penalties based on severity: first-degree felony for conduct causing or attempting to cause serious bodily injury or death in specified circumstances, and third-degree felony for conduct involving bodily injury or threats by physical menace. The act takes effect 60 days after enactment and is also designated as the Bernard N. Gribbin Law.

Impact

The bill would add a new section, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3725, to Title 75 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, expanding criminal penalties related to vehicle operation and public transit safety. It would create a standalone offense focused on protecting transit operators and passengers from assaults, threats, and interference that disrupts service or causes injury, and it would expose offenders to felony prosecution under Pennsylvania law.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests strong bipartisan support for the bill. It was reported from the Senate Transportation Committee by a 13-1 vote and then passed the Senate on final passage by a 48-1 vote, indicating broad agreement that stronger protections for public transit operators are warranted. No committee transcript is available, but the near-unanimous votes suggest the bill was viewed favorably overall.

Contention

The main point of contention appears to be the scope and severity of the criminal penalties, particularly the use of first-degree and third-degree felony classifications for interference-related conduct. The bill’s broad definitions of interference, bodily injury, and physical menace could raise questions about how the offense would be applied in practice, especially in incidents involving passengers, bystanders, or less direct forms of disruption. However, the recorded votes show very limited opposition, so any concerns were not strong enough to prevent overwhelming approval.