A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 15.2-1720, 46.2-100, 46.2-600, 46.2-613, 46.2-629, 46.2-662, 46.2-694, as it is currently effective and as it may become effective, 46.2-705, 46.2-711, 46.2-714, 46.2-715, 46.2-720, 46.2-721, 46.2-904.1, 46.2-906.1, and 46.2-914 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Chapter 10 of Title 46.2 an article numbered 24, consisting of sections numbered 46.2-1193 through 46.2-1198, relating to motorized mobility vehicles; civil penalties.
HB269 creates a new regulatory framework for “Class B motorized mobility vehicles,” a category of small, three-wheeled, motorized vehicles capable of speeds over 25 mph and up to 35 mph. The bill amends Virginia’s motor vehicle code to define these vehicles, require DMV oversight of their sale and licensure, and establish rules for labeling, safety standards, rider training, insurance, helmet use, and lawful operation. It also updates related definitions and cross-references throughout Title 46.2 so that Class B motorized mobility vehicles are treated differently from mopeds, bicycles, and motorcycles in the state code.
The bill would require manufacturers and sellers to provide prominent labels, certify compliance with safety and emissions standards, obtain purchaser acknowledgments, and verify completion of an approved safety training course before sale. It also creates a database of course completers, authorizes the DMV to regulate and enforce the program, and imposes civil penalties for violations. In addition, the bill revises existing registration, titling, plate-display, and insurance provisions to expressly include or exclude Class B motorized mobility vehicles where appropriate, and it makes these vehicles subject to registration fees and licensing rules beginning July 1, 2027.
HB269 also changes local authority over certain low-speed and mobility devices. It amends a local licensing statute to include Class B motorized mobility vehicles among devices that localities may regulate by ordinance, while requiring local rules not to conflict with state requirements for those vehicles. The bill further adjusts moped and electric power-assisted bicycle provisions to clarify when those devices are or are not governed by the new article, and it adds a new civil penalty structure for unlawful operation, including penalties paid into the Literary Fund.
The overall sentiment in the available record appears neutral to mildly supportive in the sense that the bill advanced by voice vote and was continued to the next session rather than rejected outright. However, there is no committee transcript or recorded floor debate in the provided materials, so there is little direct evidence of expressed support or opposition. The continuation suggests the committee did not fully resolve the policy questions during the session.
The main points of contention likely center on whether these vehicles should be regulated more like bicycles, mopeds, or motorcycles, and whether the proposed training, insurance, helmet, and age requirements are appropriately strict. Other likely concerns include enforcement burden on DMV and law enforcement, the civil penalties for sellers and operators, and whether the bill’s new category could create confusion with existing categories such as electric bicycles, mopeds, and motorized skateboards or scooters.
HB269 would substantially amend Virginia’s motor vehicle laws by adding a new Article 24 in Title 46.2 governing Class B motorized mobility vehicles and by revising multiple existing statutes to integrate that category into registration, titling, licensing, plate display, insurance, and operating rules. It would also create new civil penalties and authorize DMV rulemaking, enforcement, and educational outreach. Localities would retain some ordinance authority, but only so long as local requirements do not conflict with the state framework for these vehicles.
The available voting history shows the bill was continued to the next session in Transportation by voice vote, which suggests the committee was not ready to advance it in its current form but also did not reject it outright. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes showing individual positions, the record does not reveal strong public debate or a clear partisan split. The overall sentiment appears cautious and unresolved rather than strongly favorable or hostile.
The likely areas of contention are the scope and intensity of regulation for Class B motorized mobility vehicles. Potentially disputed issues include the required safety course, insurance mandate, helmet requirement, age restrictions, restrictions on interstate highways, and civil penalties for noncompliance or misclassification by sellers. There may also be disagreement over whether these vehicles should be treated more like bicycles, mopeds, or motorcycles, and whether the DMV should have broad authority to regulate sales and licensure. No specific speakers are identified in the record, so these concerns are inferred from the bill’s structure rather than from stated objections.