A bill introduced in North Carolina's legislature that would protect drivers who collide with protesters from civil lawsuits will likely be scuttled after a man was accused of plowing his vehicle through a crowd of demonstrators in Charlottesville, Virginia.

"As far as I can recall, none of the House sponsors have asked for this bill to be heard in the Senate, and there are no plans to move it forward," state Sen. Bill Rabon, a Republican and the chairman of the Rules and Operations of the Senate Committee, said in a statement Monday.

The measure was drafted in response to protests in Charlotte last fall after the fatal police shooting of an African-American man, Keith Lamont Scott . It was meant to target a protest tactic that has emerged in recent years of blocking traffic or holding slow-moving marches that spill into roadways. North Carolina was one of several states to consider bills that would exempt drivers from crash liability in such cases. Similar legislation was unsuccessfully introduced this year in North Dakota , Tennessee , Florida and Rhode Island .



Not good enough. Senate can kill the bill with a vote for an unfavorable report. Actions speak louder than words. #ncpol #ncga https://t.co/aqaz3yYXV9 — Rep. Graig Meyer (@GraigMeyer) August 14, 2017



Republican proponents said the North Carolina bill was simply a common-sense measure to promote public safety, but critics questioned the message and motive of legislation that they say targets "vulnerable Americans."

The bill would exempt drivers from liability if they exercised "due care" yet accidentally hit protesters – but not if the driver intentionally crashed into them, as appears to have been the case in Charlottesville, where one woman was killed and 19 others injured. But critics still fear that some drivers would get the false impression that they can maliciously run over protesters.

"These bills are dangerous and incentivize violent conduct like what we saw in Charlottesville," says Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. "These bills would legitimize the act of using a vehicle as a weapon to harm people engaged in peaceful demonstrations and protest."

Opponents say these bills send an anti-protest message and infringe on protesters' First Amendment rights. North Carolina Rep. Henry Michaux, a Democrat, says the combination of national rhetoric and legislation emboldens hate groups.

"If you don't have leadership coming out against these things, they're going to look at legislation like that and say, 'Well we've got the authority to do it because these folks passed legislation that says we can do it and get away it,'" Michaux says.

In North Carolina, House Bill 330 was approved in a 67-48 vote in April but was not pushed forward to the Senate. The News & Observer reported Monday that the legislation was unlikely to be brought to the Senate floor.

Michaux and Clarke agree that the events in Charlottesville will likely deter lawmakers elsewhere from proposing anything resembling the North Carolina bill.

"We are bracing for the possibility," Clarke says, "but, if anything, Charlottesville stands as a powerful reminder of the dangers of laws that essentially give those who would perpetrate racial violence a green light for their conduct."

Supporters of the bill and those like it have said the measures protect drivers from being sued when they find themselves surrounded by protesters who flood the streets and make it difficult to safely navigate a car.

“These people are nuts to run in front of cars like they do … and say, ‘Me and my buddy here are going to stop this 2 1/2-ton vehicle,’” North Carolina state Rep. Michael Speciale, a Republican, said in support of the bill, The News & Observer reported in April. “If somebody does bump somebody, why should they be held liable?”

In Tennessee, one lawmaker called the Volunteer State’s version of the bill “common-sense legislation” and “a public safety bill that is meant to protect everyone’s right to peacefully protest.”