PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Van Orden, Derrick [R-WI-3] · R–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 19, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10067 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10067 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10067 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10067 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-08-06 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Ride in Freedom Act would prevent the District of Columbia Council from requiring motorcycle drivers and passengers to wear protective helmets and prevent the Mayor from enforcing such requirements. It would also repeal a specified existing regulation. The proposal covers both motorcycles and vehicles classified under D.C. regulations as motor-driven cycles.
This Act may be cited as the Ride in Freedom Act.
The Council of the District of Columbia may not enact, and the Mayor of the District of Columbia may not enforce, any act, resolution, or other requirement which prohibits a person from operating, or riding on, a motorcycle or motor-driven cycle unless wearing a protective helmet.
Section 2215.3 title 18 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations, as added by Section 7(o)(2) of the Motorized Bicycle Amendment Act of 2012 (D.C. Law 19–290), is hereby repealed.
Section 2(a) would restrict both future Council action and Mayoral enforcement of helmet requirements for people operating or riding on motorcycles or motor-driven cycles. It states no exceptions to that restriction.
(a) In general The Council of the District of Columbia may not enact, and the Mayor of the District of Columbia may not enforce, any act, resolution, or other requirement which prohibits a person from operating, or riding on, a motorcycle or motor-driven cycle unless wearing a protective helmet.
Section 2(b) would repeal section 2215.3 of title 18 of the D.C. Municipal Regulations. The bill identifies this as the existing requirement but does not reproduce the regulation's wording.
(b) Repeal of existing requirement Section 2215.3 title 18 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations, as added by Section 7(o)(2) of the Motorized Bicycle Amendment Act of 2012 (D.C. Law 19–290), is hereby repealed.
Section 2(c) would also amend the D.C. Home Rule Act to add a restriction on enacting helmet requirements for motorcycle and motor-driven-cycle operators and passengers. It would adjust the punctuation of the preceding paragraphs to accommodate that addition.
Section 602(a) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (sec. 1–206.02(a), D.C. Official Code) is amended— (1) in paragraph (9), by striking office; or and inserting office;; (2) in paragraph (10), by striking the period at the end and inserting ; or; and (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: (11) enact any act, resolution, regulation or other requirement which prohibits a person from operating, or riding on, a motorcycle or motor-driven cycle unless wearing a protective helmet (as such terms are defined in the Ride in Freedom Act).
The proposal would define a helmet by reference to the standards in section 741 of title 18 of the D.C. Municipal Regulations. It would use the definitions of motorcycle and motor-driven cycle in section 9901 of the same title; those standards and vehicle definitions are not reproduced here.
(d) Definitions In this section: (1) Helmet The term helmet means a helmet which meets the standards set forth in 741 of title 18 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations. (2) Motorcycle; motor-driven cycle The terms motorcycle and motor-driven cycle have the meanings given such terms in section 9901 of title 18 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations.
The official-actions snapshot updated August 19, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on August 6, 2026. This snapshot does not establish the bill's subsequent status.
Source snapshot updated 2026-08-19T17:28:56Z. 2026-08-06: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 2026-08-06: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-08-06. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential carve-out beyond the proposal's ordinary coverage was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Aug 19, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI