Confirmation required on new lane splitting rules

**Ixion** · 17th October 2005, 12:35

Interestingly, this is the text of a new law revision in Texarse (Sorry Mr Waylander, but got to keep mr Hitcher under control). Seems maybe those Texarsians have some good ideas

79R517 JRJ-D

By: Griggs H.B. No. 1522

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT

relating to the operation and movement of motorcycles during
periods of traffic congestion.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 545.060, Transportation Code, is amended
by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsection (e) to read as
follows:
(a) An operator on a roadway divided into two or more
clearly marked lanes for traffic:
(1) shall drive as nearly as practical entirely within
a single lane, except as provided by Subsection (e); and
(2) may not move from the lane unless that movement can
be made safely.
(e) The operator of a motorcycle may operate the motorcycle
for a safe distance between lanes of traffic moving in the same
direction during periods of traffic congestion if the operator:
(1) is at least 21 years old;
(2) has successfully completed a motorcycle operator
training and safety course under Chapter 662;
(3) is covered by a health insurance plan providing
the operator with at least $10,000 in medical benefits for injuries
incurred as a result of an accident while operating a motorcycle;
and
(4) operates the motorcycle:
(A) at a speed not more than five miles per hour
over the speed of the other traffic;
(B) in traffic that is moving at a speed of 20
miles per hour or less; and
(C) in a location other than a school crossing
zone or other than a location where the posted speed limit is 20
miles per hour or less.
SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2005.

**Jabez** · 17th October 2005, 12:52

Umm, I was passed by 2 riders with "L" plates this morning undertaking cars in the right-hand lane. I was overtaking (middle lane), but had stopped because the gap disappeared...
These guys(?) kept going.....
I agree with sAsLEX the "Buses only" signs don't "specifically exclude" bikes!!!

**Phenoix** · 17th October 2005, 15:47

A test case would be interesting for this , under the the case the word specifically would need to be specifically defined

Since it doesnt say "NO BIKES" there maybe a loophole there.
Any lawyers on here care to comemnt ?

**froggyfrenchman** · 17th October 2005, 15:53

dont really have to lane split in HB, we dont have any traffic. great to hear the fuzz are making allowances for the bikes for a change!

**skelstar** · 17th October 2005, 16:46

It all seems to be conjecture and hear-say though. I want someone like the Talking Police Head to go on TV and lay down the law' about such matters as these!...imagine the agro-cagers out there that hear about consessions to motorcyclists!!! Actually that may not be a good thing.

**mdb** · 20th December 2005, 21:32

Originally Posted by enigma51

Got to the cop, passed him, he then drove ahead and flagged me over. Then he told me that they have a new directive where bikes are allowed to lane share if the traffic is doing less than 30km and the bike is doing no more than a 20km differential from the traffic speed.
He also told me that bikes weren't allowed to use the bus lanes on the shore."

Was he there the next day ticketing you for dangerous riding?

**Divot** · 22nd December 2005, 20:22

Originally Posted by sAsLEX

which still dont conform to their own rule that signage must "specifically exclude" bikes, which those signs dont dont use the ones on the MW anyway, far safer splitting not as likely to pick up a puncture

Is a car a bus NO
is a truck a bus NO
is a taxi a bus NO
is a van a bus NO
is a motorcycle a bus NO

What dont you understand?