WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

H 3729

Watercraft

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Case Brittain and 1 co-sponsor

Expands enforcement to include the lane adjacent to the right lane when signs allow its use, applying construction-area speeding penalties to that lane.

Scrivener's error corrected
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · H 3729

Summary — H 3729

Note on source documents: The materials provided for H 3729 appear to contain text from two distinct proposals in different jurisdictions. One is a Massachusetts House filing titled “An Act protecting motorists and emergency personnel” (filed by Rep. David P. Linsky) that amends Chapter 90, Section 17 (related to speeding in lanes used during construction/emergency). The other is a South Carolina draft adding Section 50-21-107 to the S.C. Code (a standalone watercraft insurance requirement). The summary below presents both items, highlights key provisions, affected parties, and procedural notes. Verify the intended jurisdiction/version before taking action.

A. Massachusetts language (House No. 3729 — “An Act protecting motorists and emergency personnel”)

  • Purpose: Increase protections for motorists and emergency personnel by expanding the locations where enhanced speed/enforcement provisions apply.
  • Key change: Amends Chapter 90, Section 17 by inserting, after the phrase “construction area”, the clause: “, or in the lane adjacent to the right lane if signs have been erected by the department of highways permitting the use of such lane,”
  • Effect: Where the Department of Highways has posted signs permitting use of the lane adjacent to the right lane (commonly used as a breakdown or temporary travel lane), the same statutory treatment that applies to “construction area” speeding would apply to that adjacent lane.
  • Who is affected: Motorists using lanes designated by signage adjacent to the right lane, law enforcement (enforcement of enhanced penalties), and workers/emergency personnel operating near roadways where such signage is posted.
  • Procedural notes: Filed 01/15/2025 by Rep. David Paul Linsky; scrivener’s error corrected 01/29/2025; referred to relevant committee(s). Related docket: HD 1643 (replaces).

B. South Carolina language (proposed addition — Section 50-21-107)

  • Purpose: Require liability insurance for certain watercraft and establish enforcement, penalties, and use of collected fines for boater safety programs.
  • Key provisions:
    • Coverage requirement: Owners of watercraft at least 16 feet in length (titled in SC or documented with a SC hailing port) must carry liability insurance of at least $50,000 combined per occurrence for bodily injury and/or property damage.
    • Proof of insurance: Acceptable in electronic format (e.g., image on a cellphone). Presenting electronic proof does not authorize searching other device content without warrant/probable cause.
    • Registration/renewal: Applicants for title/registration or renewal must certify the craft meets the insurance requirement.
    • Homeowner’s policy: Insurers are not required to provide portable proof if coverage is part of a homeowner’s policy; insurers are not required to notify the department of lapses/cancellations.
    • Accident presumption: Failure to show required proof after an accident creates a rebuttable presumption the craft is uninsured; upon proof that coverage existed, charges may be dismissed.
    • Penalties:
    • 1st offense: $50–$250
    • 2nd offense: $250–$500
    • 3rd+ offense: $500–$1,000 and/or up to 1 year imprisonment
    • Use of fines: All fines go to the general fund and are credited to the department to establish/operate boater training and safety programs.
    • Effective date: Upon Governor’s approval (per text).
  • Who is affected: Owners/operators of watercraft ≥16 ft, insurers, state registration agencies, law enforcement, and boaters who may benefit from training funded by fines.
  • Procedural notes: Drafts dated 01/29/2025 (and variants) show identical substantive language; hearings and committee actions listed in the record through 10/2025. Verify current committee/committee schedule and final disposition.

Observations / Next steps

  • The package appears to combine two unrelated proposals; confirm which text corresponds to H 3729 in the relevant legislature (Massachusetts vs. South Carolina).
  • If you need a jurisdiction-specific brief (e.g., full analysis of the South Carolina watercraft insurance bill including fiscal impacts, stakeholder implications, or legislative status tracking), tell me which version and I will expand.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.