Lane splitting bill introduced (House Bill 813)

Sigh. Lane splitting itself is not a cite able offense. They could cite you for failure to signal maintain lane.

People were simply saying that the lane usage law and signaling law are almost identical between the two states.

When I comes to the two states the citeable offense(s) that COULD be used are almost the same.

I'm on my phone right now or I'd pull the data and post but I'm pretty sure the relevant sources were posted earlier in the thread.

Even the DPS FAQ site admits there are no laws against splitting lanes but offers up laws you COULD be cited for. It depends on the officer. Most I personally know back home would not cite you.


Sent from my iPhone

Downs said:

Sigh. Lane splitting itself is not a cite able offense. They could cite you for failure to signal maintain lane.

People were simply saying that the lane usage law and signaling law are almost identical between the two states.

When I comes to the two states the citeable offense(s) that COULD be used are almost the same.

I'm on my phone right now or I'd pull the data and post but I'm pretty sure the relevant sources were posted earlier in the thread.

Even the DPS FAQ site admits there are no laws against splitting lanes but offers up laws you COULD be cited for. It depends on the officer. Most I personally know back home would not cite you.


Sent from my iPhone

Click to expand...

From the DPS MSU FAQ page... perhaps your reading the words in red text differently then I.

"The main statute that makes "lane splitting" illegal is Transportation Code Section 545.060, entitled "Driving on Roadway Laned for Traffic."
An operator on a roadway divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic:
shall drive as nearly practical entirely within a single lane; and may not move from the lane unless that movement can be made safely."

Click to expand...

Again, still, Im not bashing those that want to lane share (I do as well)
My point is, still, the very restrictive proposed law (HB813) places to many If's, Buts and must do's in place . IMHO.
It IMHO is NOT better then noting.. what would be better than nothing is NOTHING, or a bill that does not create a law with restrictions, like HB813 does.

E.Marquez said:

From the DPS MSU FAQ page... perhaps your reading the words in red text differently then I.



Feel free to post the like CA statute that also makes lane sharing illegal in CA.

Click to expand...

From a previous post (# 34) in this thread:
Current California Law:
21658. Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, the following rules apply:
(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.
Reference



The difference being that California goes by what is not illegal is legal, whereas Texas cops in this instance believe it must be illegal so they will find something to cite.

george-1 said:

From a previous post (# 34) in this thread:
Current California Law:
21658. Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, the following rules apply:
(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.
Reference



The difference being that California goes by what is not illegal is legal, whereas Texas cops in this instance believe it must be illegal so they will find something to cite.

Click to expand...

Yup, thanks, Im tracking that.. CA took that and directed Law enforcement (so not individual officer interpretation) that that passage does not apply to motorcycles sharing lanes.

We could have the same AG opinion and the same non enforcement.
But I see your point.. and ok, I'll submit, I think your right.. the need for something that speaks specifcally to motorcycles NOT being subject to that line in our TC might be helpful.

But please note the subtle difference in my opinion.. Not a new law that allows, but an amendment to existing traffic code that specifies it is not applicable to motorcycles lane sharing

E.Marquez said:

But they don't read the same.. at all, never have, still don't
PLEASE read the facts.
The CHP runs , staffs, administers the California Motorcycle Safety Program.
The CMSP has this to say about lane sharing... "California law does not allow or prohibit motorcycles from passing other vehicles proceeding in the same direction within the same lane, a practice often called "lane splitting," "lane sharing" or "filtering." "
http://www.chp.ca.gov/programs/lanesplitguide.html

And that is the point. in CA there is NO law reference lane sharing, and it works.
If you think you know the CA traffic code better then CA lane sharing advocates http://lanesplittingislegal.com/resources-links/ or the California Highway Patrol, then please post a cite to the CA law you think makes lane sharing illegal.

So lets recap, No CA law, No interpretation being done by LEO, no additional liability issues because of some perceived law breaking action. If you cause the accident your libel, if you do not cause the accident your not. No different then Texas.

In Texas , a few are trying to create law to ALLOW a legal action, vice working to amend a law that currently restricts.
Its a poorly written bill which if it is approved will make a poorly written law, that supporters say, well that's ok,, we will just get it changed later Is it better then noting, I suppose one can say that.... Though it's not my opinion. Because as we all well know, once a law is on the books, changing it or repealing it is very difficult.

Still I have no issue with lane sharing, I will do it from time to time if it becomes no longer illegal and a cite-able offence. And I will still do it occasionally if it is

Click to expand...

Are you not paying attention? A previous post in here already cited both laws next to each other, and they had nearly identical wording. Assuming these are the only laws on the books related to the matter in both states it _DOES_ come down to interpretation.

It's nothing new for laws to be written in such a way to be ambiguous so that its up to law enforcement and our judicial system is left to sort it out later. CA simply interprets the law differently or there is already existing case law for which a judge made a ruling on the matter.

ffejtable said:

Are you not paying attention? A previous post in here already cited both laws next to each other, and they had nearly identical wording. Assuming these are the only laws on the books related to the matter in both states it _DOES_ come down to interpretation.

It's nothing new for laws to be written in such a way to be ambiguous so that its up to law enforcement and our judicial system is left to sort it out later. CA simply interprets the law differently or there is already existing case law for which a judge made a ruling on the matter.

Click to expand...

Right.

At the core all statutes are rooted in Common Law, and, in Common Law there must be an injured party for there to be a cause to be heard by court.

Statutes are written to support this and many/most states share the same descriptions of these statutes because they are crafted to have broad application and based on principles tested in court.

In the end it is always up to the individual to act responsibly and up to the LEO to interpret whether any particular behavior they see is worth their time and trouble to act upon.

Clearly, in California riders have been filtering for long enough that it has become accepted and commonplace without the need for any particular legislation granting specific permission to do so. It is this way because the riders for the most part do the filtering in a manner that avoids negatively affecting traffic flow nor creates dangerous situations for themselves or others.

When the attorneys push to have statutes like this one voted down it isn't necessarily because they are against filtering. It is because the statute is unnecessary and only complicates interpretation and enforcement.

If road users use the marked lanes safely, effectively, and exercise courtesy, even if more than one vehicle occupies a place in the lane, it meets the description quoted above.

It is up to the road users, both those filtering and those being filtered past, to determine whether or not this is acceptable. Creating a new statute would likely complicate things.

If we know it won't be accepted, then we shouldn't attempt it. On the other hand, several have posted that they do it routinely in Texas and rarely have any issues. So, maybe it is okay with most of the drivers they share the road with.

No statute is necessary when common sense might dictate the answer more clearly.

'Do no harm and all is well' is the basis of law. So, a rider can ask themselves before filtering whether this action will in any way jeopardize another person or property, then choose accordingly.

Filtering will come to Texas when filtering comes to Texas. It likely will have little to do with legislation to allow something which isn't specifically prohibited to begin with.

MotoTex said:

... 'Do no harm and all is well' is the basis of law. ...

Click to expand...

The basis, yes. Amend that to "Do no harm, nor anything that could possibly be construed as increasing the likelihood of harm occurring to anyone, anywhere, anytime, even under circumstances totally different to those extant, and all is well; and oh, by the way, do nothing that could possibly offend anyone's sensibilities, either" and it'd be closer to what we have allowed ourselves to be saddled by these days.

Lane Splitting and filtering will be accepted, imho, when we continue to propose legislation to allow it. Eventually, bill or no bill, the LEO community will understand that it should not be construed as reckless driving. What helps in CA is that there are so many CHiPs on RTs that they kind of pave the way for the lane splitting. ...btw, it helped to have a BMW RT with auxiliary lights...I think cagers took me for a CHiP rider...nice.
Anyway, to stay on task, I believe it's in our best interest to be proactive and do something affirmatively on this matter, jmho.

In the places it is currently accepted, places that are used for reference in this thread, there was no legislation necessary for it to be accepted. This is the model to follow. This is how it was done. This worked.

What would make anyone think that passing legislation would be more effective than responsibly exercising one's right to use the public road in a reasonable and prudent manner?

Our legal system was designed this way on purpose. Agents of government are tasked with pursuing only those things that are within the realm of their clearly defined responsibilities.

"... all other rights are reserved by the people ..."

The mere concept of asking for legislation to be passed to allow this when it is not currently prohibited is the same as asking permission from one's hired hand for a matter you have absolute control over.

Doing so establishes a bad precedent, leading the hired hand to believe they have a power over the people regarding a right reserved to the people ( and "people" is inclusive of the agents themselves).

On the other hand, AMA and/or other related industries' backers could champion a campaign to encourage lane splitting, showing how it can be a benefit for auto drivers, eco-interests, etc. This could be a much quicker method to get the concept accepted by all users of the road, law enforcement, and anyone else who might otherwise misunderstand the purpose filtering serves for them.

Heck, we've already got the "Share the Road" signs up across the state. Why not work to expand the meaning to include filtering?

As opposed to asking Uncle Sugar for permission to do something that isn't within the scope of the legislator's duties in the first place.

Filtering, or Lane Splitting, is more a matter of education than it is legislation. Proven by the success of it in relieving traffic burdens so many other places in the world.

Filtering came to the stoplight at 157 and Trinity this past Tuesday as I was in my car.

Nobody burst into flames. Nobody got run over. It was rather anticlimactic.

We may serve ourselves better to quit speaking of this bill as ‘permitting’ lane splitting because that is really not what it does. This bill would amend the existing code 545.060 to except lane splitting as an offense under certain conditions. In that sense it prevents state and local law enforcement agencies from using 545.060 to ticket riders for lane splitting. Whenever a statute is passed one or more agencies is given authority to implement or enforce it. That agency then develops rules on how to address the statute. If a rule needs to changed the agency either has to create a new rule or the legislature must amend the statute. It’s not uncommon for changes in procedure and rules to be addressed by amending a statute and since the DPS has already made a statement pointing to 545.060 as why they ticket riders for lane splitting, the amendment is needed to clear up the issue. It's not granting riders anything as much as it's limiting the way the statue can be enforced.

Where was the study talking about lane splitting reducing rear end motorcycle accidents... Include that in your letter as a reference...

hizzo3 said:

Where was the study talking about lane splitting reducing rear end motorcycle accidents... Include that in your letter as a reference...

Click to expand...

The studies were done in California. Here's a link to the AMA report on the studies.

I am wondering, if someone could come up with a generic letter, somebody with far better writing skills than I., citing this safety study and maybe a few other good points, that we could copy and paste in our letter to our Rep and Sen. Maybe we could point out the benefits for Police too, improved mobility in not only emergency situations but regular everyday non-emergency situations too, if everyone is accustomed to lane-splitting. I understand this is one reason the CHiPS not only like it but go to bat for it anytime there is a proposal to make it illegal in CA.

NathanH said:

As for supporting or not supporting based on the helmet provision, I disagree with the position that it must be stripped or isn't worth supporting. That is EXACTLY what killed this bill last time. Requiring a helmet for the privelege of passing other traffic is a very reasonable requirement. It still gives riders the freedom to choose. And it is such a minimal safety requirement for engaging in something that does potentially increase risk, that the bill should be supported regardless of that clause. That's my opinion on the matter, but more importantly than just my feelings on the issue, if that's what it takes to put a "safety" spin on the bill instead of a "special privelege" spin on it (in the minds of the driving public), PLEASE don't let that be the sticking point (again).

Click to expand...

Well said!

dukey33 said:

I'm thinking something that may help is a companion law that establishes a penalty for deliberately blocking or hitting a m/c that is splitting.
Yes, it is hard to prove intent (was it deliberate?), but just the mere existence of the law and penalty might make that F-350 driver pause before enacting his road-rage.
Yes, there are already laws that can be applied (failure to yield, vehicular assault, etc), but one specific to a bike splitting/filtering would enforce the concept to cagers.

Click to expand...

It is easy to prove with a GoPro. I suggest getting one if you intend to split.

Doesn't happen very often, but the ones that have tried it on me were very obvious, and yes they were always truck drivers.

Go slow, low gear, cover your brakes, be alert, profile, and watch their mirrors, you can see their faces as they watch you and try to time their actions.

Even though I rarely do it anymore, since moving from Keller to Granbury, no more I35W for me YAY, I would still like to see it become legal, I plan on sending my Rep and Sen a letter and I appreciate rapz, George and the others here in trying to push this through.

I think it would be better to adopt the California model as some have suggested, though I do agree that most anything is better than what we have now. In either case, just being able to filter to the front of a line of traffic at a red light would be hugely beneficial for motorcycle safety in Texas.

All that said, lane-splitting bills have been introduced every session since I've been paying attention (ten or fifteen years, perhaps?), and they always, always die in committee.

The biggest hurdle we will have to overcome in Texas, should this legislation finally pass, will be in educating drivers as to courtesy and accommodation toward us. I usually ride in California once or twice a year lately, and –– say what you want about that state –– the drivers are generally very accepting and helpful to motorcyclists in lane-splitting situations. I fear the animosity that some Texas drivers might express in the beginning.

From my California trip a few months ago; lane-splitting on the 405, south of Los Angeles (the most congested freeway in America), and almost everybody moves over for us:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJqh0qSmOg0"]Tim's Motovlog #30 (California): Boats and Tacos with Suburban Delinquent - YouTube[/ame]

Pretty straight forward that. Someone needs to determine if the Texas Public Safety Commission has formally adopted a rule making lane splitting an offense under 545.060 as the DPS website implies. If there is no rule someone can petition the PSC to direct the DPS to stop enforcing, or making statements, as if a rule exists as recently happened in California. If there is a rule someone can appear before a meeting of the PSC and attempt to negotiate a rule change, which may not be as easy as it sounds.

My last comment is that amending the code removes the ambiguity regarding enforcement and provides a basis for educating the public.

As for the bill, folks are going to be for it or against it. If they feel strongly enough to act on it, they should make their opinion known to their state reps.

m

I realize it is a slow process to gain some clarity around the definition and legality of lane splitting. However; the real issue is in acceptance by the non-motorcycle public. A law will NOT protect us from the angry motorist who believes a rider has somehow received unfair advantage by "lane splitting".

I listened to Michael Berry go off on some rider, who may have well been outside reasonableness when passing Michael on the freeway, but Michael didn't stop there. He proceeded to group every motorcycle rider into that same category and called for eliminating motorcycle riding entirely as a means to reduce his anger.

In addition to benefiting the rider, splitting will benefit the motorist. The car space now used by a motorcycle, can be used by another car reducing congestion. But just try to explain that to an angry motorist. It used to be that motorcycles could filter to the front of the Bolivar ferry and use spots unusable by cars that would otherwise go to waste. Motorists saw this as 'unfair', became angry and began complaining. Now a motorcycle must use a vehicle space just like every other car, which causes more congestion and unoptimized ferry space. Apparently anger, in this case, has overrun reason.

Should lane splitting become common, angry motorists may simply internalize their anger. When was the last time someone was actually ticketed for violating the "left lane for passing only" law? A motorist today, traveling under the speed limit in the left lane on the freeway, is just passed on the right side without much more than a thought. Until Lane Splitting is as common and accepted (legal or not), it will be dangerous for the practitioners. Unfortunately, until then the innovators and early adopters of splitting will be penalized both with retribution by angry motorists and threat of citation.

Ultimately, I suspect we motorcycle riders are looking for that piece of paper to wave in the face of the angry motorist or an LEO to prevent ticketing. As suggested already, some of us already lane split, at least occasionally. I doubt many citations have been issued for this particular practice and only met by an occasional angry motorist.

Lane Splitting, as a law will not mean much until it is put into practice. If there is no intent by the motorcycle public on putting this into practice, then it seems like a waste of time and perhaps even dangerous to have it on the books. It would be interesting to know just how many of us would actually use Lane Splitting if it were clearly and unambiguously legal.

It absolutely drives me bonkers that those who dont lane split currently, imagine all these terrible terrible things happening to you, should you do it.

Flat out, does not happen. Let me repeat myself on purpose.....doesnt happen. a few honks here and there, and a very rare ineffective "block" are what are normally seen.

No, the sky will not fall, and their be a trail of dead moto riders forever stuck between lanes on the highway, resting in memoriam.

El Fenix said:

It absolutely drives me bonkers that those who dont lane split currently, imagine all these terrible terrible things happening to you, should you do it.

Flat out, does not happen. Let me repeat myself on purpose.....doesnt happen. a few honks here and there, and a very rare ineffective "block" are what are normally seen.

No, the sky will not fall, and their be a trail of dead moto riders forever stuck between lanes on the highway, resting in memoriam.

Click to expand...

Drives me nuts too. And nearly all of them are from folks who don't lane split and claim they wouldn't split even if it was legal. I'd take a side swipe to a rear end pancaking between two vehicles.

Luckily this guy survived and woundup in the back of that pickup truck bed.

jfink said:

Lane Splitting, as a law will not mean much until it is put into practice. If there is no intent by the motorcycle public on putting this into practice, then it seems like a waste of time and perhaps even dangerous to have it on the books. It would be interesting to know just how many of us would actually use Lane Splitting if it were clearly and unambiguously legal.

Click to expand...

Good post, to answer your last question, I would do so more than I do now. I don't have a real congested commute anymore, but I would start filtering up to traffic lights more often. The reason I don't now is fear of the law, getting a ticket. No use in taking the risk if there is no reward. Now if there is an accident and the FWY is shut down, the risk/reward ratio shifts in my favor.

I would do it just to help get everyone acclimated to it, time saved or not. I can handle the angry stares, horn honks, and yes the occasional attempted blocking maneuvers of angry motorists.

Maybe we should do a poll here, if it were made legal would you lane-split.

Yes, but probably not often. I don't usually need to at all, plus I don't exactly ride a svelte, lane-splitter kind of bike.

YoDoc said:

Yes, but probably not often. I don't usually need to at all, plus I don't exactly ride a svelte, lane-splitter kind of bike.

Click to expand...

It'll split more places than you think unless you are running massive side cases all the time like 2013 "ADV" suzuki side cases. The bars are usually the widest portion of the bike,again unless you are running some crazy wide side cases.

I've split everywhere down here loaded up like this even in town on surface streets and been A-ok

Downs said:

Drives me nuts too. And nearly all of them are from folks who don't lane split and claim they wouldn't split even if it was legal. I'd take a side swipe to a rear end pancaking between two vehicles.

Luckily this guy survived and woundup in the back of that pickup truck bed.

Click to expand...

Please note, I currently only do it on congested highways, to and from work.
Or if there is an accident on a highway. Thats it.

I honestly think that if the highway is creeping along at 5 mph, and you split like an adult.....doing it right...few few people really care.

Now if your being a negative stereotype, and riding like a jackwagon...then folks get up in arms. I refuse to ride with those guys (squids)