A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 46.2-490, 46.2-490.3, 46.2-501, and 46.2-505 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding sections numbered 46.2-490.12 and 46.2-490.13, relating to driver improvement clinics; motorcycle driver improvement clinics; Motorcycle Driver Improvement Clinic Fund; created.
HB545 expands Virginia’s driver improvement clinic framework to expressly include motorcycle driver improvement clinics. It directs the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles to contract for curricula covering motorcycle safety and related topics, and it gives priority to computer-based motorcycle clinic providers. The bill also updates the definition of driver improvement clinics to include motorcycle clinics and clarifies that notices to attend a clinic must specify whether the person is being directed to a standard clinic or a motorcycle clinic.
The bill creates a new Motorcycle Driver Improvement Clinic Fund. Under the proposal, $3 from each motorcycle registration fee would be deposited into the fund to support DMV administration, clinic funding, and related operational costs. HB545 also revises court-related provisions so that courts may, in their discretion, direct a person who committed a violation while operating a motorcycle to attend a motorcycle driver improvement clinic. Existing rules governing attendance deadlines, notice by certified mail, and the use of driver improvement clinics in traffic cases remain in place, with the new motorcycle-specific option added alongside them.
HB545 would amend several sections of Title 46.2 governing driver improvement clinics and court-directed traffic education. It would broaden DMV licensing and curriculum authority, add a motorcycle-specific clinic category, and establish a dedicated special fund financed by motorcycle registration fees. The bill would affect DMV operations, licensed clinic providers, motorcycle riders, and courts that order traffic offenders to attend improvement courses.
The bill appears to have been treated as a transportation policy measure with no recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials. Its structure suggests a generally constructive, safety-oriented purpose focused on motorcycle education and administrative support. Because it was left in the House Transportation Committee, there is no evidence in the record provided of floor-level support or opposition, but the absence of recorded votes or transcripts limits any stronger inference about sentiment.
The main policy questions raised by the text are how the new Motorcycle Driver Improvement Clinic Fund would be financed and whether dedicating $3 from each motorcycle registration is an appropriate use of registration revenue. Another possible point of discussion is the bill’s preference for computer-based motorcycle clinics, which may raise questions about access, quality, and implementation. The bill also gives courts discretion, rather than a mandate, to assign motorcycle offenders to the motorcycle-specific clinic, which may have been intended to preserve judicial flexibility.