The Appropriations Committee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development reported CS/CS for Senate Bill 88 favorably after adopting an amendment that clarified minimum insurance requirements for utility terrain vehicles, or UTVs.

Senate Bill 88 would create a new statutory section allowing counties and municipalities to authorize or prohibit UTV operation on designated two-lane county roads or municipal streets with posted speed limits under 55 miles per hour, allow crossing of state highways, and authorize the Florida Department of Transportation to prohibit operation on state roadways. The bill defines a UTV as a vehicle under 70 inches wide with at least two side-by-side seats, foot controls and steering wheel, headlamps, stop lamps, turn signals, tail lamps, rearview mirrors, a windshield, seat belts and a horn. It also restricts operation to licensed drivers (or permit holders seated next to a licensed driver) and permits local ordinances to be more restrictive.

Supporters, including sponsor Senator Wright, said the change would give local authorities a clear statutory pathway to license and regulate UTVs that are already being driven on Florida roads after being registered out of state. "UTVs will continue to be operated on our public roads regardless of whether this bill passes or not due to loopholes that people have," Senator Wright said, arguing the bill would allow law enforcement to cite unlicensed drivers and require insurance.

Opponents pointed to safety concerns from manufacturers and trade groups. Wynn Peoples of the Recreational Off Highway Vehicle Association told the committee that manufacturers do not design UTVs for roadway use and that allowing them on roads "sends mixed messaging" about safety. Peoples said manufacturers such as Honda explicitly oppose the bill and that UTVs do not meet federal motor-vehicle safety standards. "Safety is top priority for Honda ... these products are not intended to be operated on roads and highways," Peoples read from Honda's letter of opposition.

The Florida Justice Association also opposed the bill and its amendment, saying the required minimum financial-responsibility limits should be higher than the $10,000/$10,000 figures in the amendment. The association's representative said designers and manufacturers warn against on-road use and urged stronger insurance requirements.

An amendment (barcode 521708) offered by Senator Wright and adopted in committee corrected the insurance reference to require the same minimum coverage as automobiles: $10,000 in personal injury and $10,000 in property-damage liability, replacing an earlier mistaken $20,000 figure. The amendment was adopted on a voice vote and recorded as part of the bill as amended.

Committee members raised other safety concerns during debate, including spacing of headlights and taillights on narrow UTVs at night and how that might increase the risk of rear-end or head-on collisions. Senator Martin said smaller vehicle lighting could cause approaching drivers to misjudge distance and urged consideration of statutory standards that require taillights be spaced toward the vehicle extremes. Several members recommended lowering road-speed limits where UTVs would be permitted or allowing only 90-degree crossings of busier roadways rather than continuous operation on pavement.

Representatives of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the Florida Sheriffs Association waived in support; the FDACS witness deferred substantive questions to the sponsor. The Recreational Off Highway Vehicle Association offered to provide accident data on request and said prior studies showed higher accident rates when off-highway vehicles operate on public roadways.

Roll-call vote: CS/CS Senate Bill 88 as amended was reported favorably. Vote record captured during the committee proceeding shows recorded "yes" votes from Senators Avila, Grahl, Anglia, Leake, Martin, McLean, Sharif, Trudeau, Wright, Vice Chair Polsky and Chair Disigley; recorded "no" votes from Senators Arrington, Bernard and Smith. The amendment clarifying insurance amounts was adopted prior to the final vote.

The committee chair encouraged the sponsor to work with members on lighting and speed-limit concerns before the bill's next committee stop.