A BILL to amend and reenact § 46.2-915.1 of the Code of Virginia, relating to all-terrain vehicles; operation on highways in certain localities.
HB587 amends Virginia’s all-terrain vehicle law to expand and clarify where ATVs may be operated on public highways in certain localities. The bill retains the general prohibition on ATV use on public highways and public property, while preserving existing exceptions for emergency responders, limited crossings, and other narrow circumstances. It also keeps the current special authorization for Buchanan County and Tazewell County, and adds a new local-option framework for Giles County and Pulaski County to designate highways for ATV travel by ordinance after considering traffic conditions and transportation compatibility.
Under the bill, any authorized highway use would be limited to daylight hours, require approved helmets, require operators to follow the rules of the road, and cap speeds at 25 miles per hour. The bill also maintains signage requirements warning motorists, and it states that these authorized highway operations do not trigger the title’s lighting requirements. In addition, the bill requires ATV retailers to affix or verify a state-approved decal explaining the prohibition on unlawful highway operation, and it preserves the existing civil penalty of up to $500 for violations while making clear that violations do not create negligence per se or alter civil liability rules.
HB587 would amend § 46.2-915.1 of the Code of Virginia, creating a broader local authority for certain counties to permit limited ATV travel on designated highways while leaving the statewide default prohibition in place. It would directly affect ATV owners, riders, retailers, local governing bodies, and law-enforcement officials, and it would continue to regulate signage, helmet use, speed, and roadway conduct for any authorized operations. The bill also preserves exemptions for farming activities and private-property use, and it maintains city authority to seize and impound unlawfully operated ATVs under local ordinance.
The available context suggests a cautious or mixed sentiment rather than broad controversy or strong opposition. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Transportation and ultimately continued to the next session by voice vote, which indicates it did not advance in the current session and may not have had enough support or time for final action. The absence of recorded votes or transcript discussion limits the ability to identify detailed support or opposition, but the committee outcome suggests the proposal was considered without a decisive floor-level push.
The main policy tension is between expanding local ATV access for connectivity and recreation in rural areas versus preserving highway safety and traffic flow. The bill tries to address safety concerns through local approval, signage, daylight-only operation, helmet requirements, and a 25 mph speed limit, but those same highway-use permissions could still raise concerns for motorists, local officials, and transportation planners. Another possible point of contention is the shift of authority to local boards of supervisors, which may be seen as either a practical local-control approach or as an invitation to inconsistent roadway rules across counties.