A BILL to amend and reenact § 46.2-1094 of the Code of Virginia, relating to motor vehicles; use of safety belt systems; certain emergency medical services personnel.
HB233 amends Virginia’s seat belt law, § 46.2-1094, to add an explicit exemption for emergency medical services personnel who are performing patient care while transporting a person inside the patient compartment of an emergency medical services vehicle, where wearing a safety belt is impractical. The bill keeps the existing requirement that drivers and adult occupants wear safety belts in vehicles equipped with them, and it leaves in place the current list of exemptions for certain occupations and circumstances, such as law enforcement, rural mail carriers, taxicab occupants, utility meter readers, and certain commercial or municipal vehicle personnel.
The bill also preserves the current enforcement structure: a violation remains a civil penalty of $25, with no demerit points and no court costs, and it cannot be used as evidence of negligence or fault in a civil case. It also continues the rule that police may not stop a vehicle solely for a seat belt violation, and evidence obtained from such a stop is inadmissible. The bill does not change the special local authority for the City of Lynchburg to adopt a compatible seat belt ordinance with the same maximum penalty.
If enacted, HB233 would modify § 46.2-1094 of the Code of Virginia by adding EMS personnel in the patient compartment of an emergency medical services vehicle to the list of statutory seat belt exemptions. The practical effect would be to recognize that patient care duties in an ambulance or similar EMS vehicle can make seat belt use impractical, while leaving the broader seat belt mandate and enforcement limits unchanged for other drivers and passengers.
Based on the available record, the bill appears to have been a narrow, occupational exemption bill with no recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments suggests the measure was likely viewed as a targeted operational adjustment for EMS providers rather than a broader policy change. However, its last action—left in the House Committee on Transportation—indicates it did not advance in the committee process.
The main policy issue is whether EMS personnel should be exempted from seat belt requirements while actively providing patient care in the patient compartment of an emergency vehicle. Support for the bill would likely come from EMS stakeholders who argue that patient treatment, movement within the compartment, and emergency response conditions make seat belt use impractical. Any concern would likely center on roadway safety and whether expanding exemptions could weaken seat belt enforcement, though the bill is limited to a specific occupational setting and does not alter the general rule for most motorists.