After some discussion in another thread I came across this site by the AMA. Thought it might be useful for anyone wondering about the laws in their particular state.

State-By-State Motorcycle Laws (http://www.amadirectlink.com/legisltn/laws.asp)

That's a great site! :thumbup: Now we just need states other than California to join the rest of the world and allow lane-splitting. Whenever I'm riding in Nevada or Oregon, it always takes me a few times to remember that I can't filter to the front at lights without drivers looking at me like I'm from outer space (and deserve to be run over post-haste!).

In our great state of Maine, we have some real boneheads making the laws. Let us briefly look at the regulation concerning helmets: According to the law, you are required to wear a helmet for one year after you received your motorcycle endorsement. The intent here is for you to learn this "safe" practice. After a year wearing a helmet is optional. Anybody who even flunked Psychology 101 can see the flawed reasoning here. Nobody wants to look like a newbie--so after a year you can go helmetless--a rite of passage, so to speak. We have a strong lobby by a group of "Hardley Abelson" riders pushing this law. Their organization is called Abate, and their battle cry is. "Let those who ride decide". These Neanderthals roar around the state with their straight pipes generating a level of noise pollution defying imagination--all, supposedly in the interest of safety. It appears that they are doing their best to give motorcycling a bad name. They also seem to revel in hurling insults at those of us who choose to ride modern motorcycles instead of some antiquated lead sled. Until someone can rein in these cretins, we as motorcyclists will have an image pronlem. Sorry about the rant.

After some discussion in another thread I came across this site by the AMA. Thought it might be useful for anyone wondering about the laws in their particular state.

State-By-State Motorcycle Laws (http://www.amadirectlink.com/legisltn/laws.asp)

Thanks, Ryan. Good find! :happy110:

I cant believe that not all states require you to wear helmets. :eek:

I couldnt imagine riding without one...

You can ride without a helmet in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.

You can ride without a helmet in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.

And many other states as well. Looks like only 18 states require helmets for all riders. Details from that link above, here's the PDf file for all states:

(the AMA data shows that Vermont has passed a helmet law, fwiw)

Alex, Looks like Darwinism will no longer apply to Vermont. We are making progress.

And PA just went the other way a couple years ago.

Pa is correct! Though I have done a lot of my riding up that way, can you believe Maryland doesn't have many mountains!? Hello!.... Anyway. Yeah I see PA riders without helmets and I cringe...

Pa is correct! Though I have done a lot of my riding up that way, can you believe Maryland doesn't have many mountains!? Hello!.... Anyway. Yeah I see PA riders without helmets and I cringe...

So how are they correct? And aren't there some mountains out in western Maryland? I seem to remember some from when I went on vacation out there. Although I don't know if I would count either states "mountains" as true mountains. Maybe if I was from Kansas :D

That's a great site! :thumbup: Now we just need states other than California to join the rest of the world and allow lane-splitting. Whenever I'm riding in Nevada or Oregon, it always takes me a few times to remember that I can't filter to the front at lights without drivers looking at me like I'm from outer space (and deserve to be run over post-haste!).

Amen to that! Then again few states have the traffic problems that California has. I miss driving through Dallas during rush hour. It's bumper to bumper traffic moving at 70 mph! :eek: Then again (dare I say) California has some of the most impolite drivers without any manners or care for the 'rules of the road' so that wouldn't work out here :D

The lane splitting is kind of a can of worms though. When traffic is barely moving I'll cut cars and then I'll come up on someone with a Goldwing cutting traffic at 10 mph. Then sometimes I'll get out of the way when some squid is cutting cars at 60mph :crash: . So the danger from cars isn't the only one!

So how are they correct? And aren't there some mountains out in western Maryland? I seem to remember some from when I went on vacation out there. Although I don't know if I would count either states "mountains" as true mountains. Maybe if I was from Kansas :D

Yeah if I wasn't so far EAST I would enjoy them... Only the western part of Maryland has mountains and thats as you are getting out of MD int PA etc...

And I don't think PA is correct but rather that the poster is correct in that PA has no helemt laws.

:)

Texas tried and failed a few years back to enact legislation to allow filtering... I started filtering in low speed or stopped traffic.

One day while riding down the dashed white line I rolled by a stopped motocop on a wide cruiser. He shouted at me. I stopped and rolled back beside him. (I was only doing about 15mph at that point and there was a slow train ahead...) We had a conversation about the legislation and I agreed to wait until it passed to do it again. He was pleasant about it.

The legislation got shelved and I'm still waiting for it to come up again. It looks like the AMA chart (http://www.amadirectlink.com/legisltn/laws.asp) lists "Not referenced in Administrative Code or Statutes" for filtering and lane sharing in Texas.

It also looks like loud pipes are indeed legal here... :(

Texas Department of Public Safety - MSB - FAQs (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/search/searchresults.asp?type=cache&q=cache:http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/msb/msbfaqs.htm+lane+splitting&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&client=DPSInternet&site=ER&oe=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=DPSInternet)
#21 on the FAQ page. It says its not illegal, but other statues may come into play, and gives a code too.

21. Question: Can I ride my motorcycle between cars in traffic?

Answer: The law doesn’t specifically say one way or the other, but there are several statutes that may come to bear depending upon the circumstances, i.e. right of way, obligation to drive in a single lane, signal intention, passing with safety, etc. Motorcycles are considered equally as cars regarding traffic laws, so the single lane, signal intention and other statutes in the Transportation Code could come in to play.

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:
o shall drive as nearly practical entirely within a single lane; and
o may not move from the lane unless that movement can be made safely.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/tn.toc.htm

Everyone drives 8k# trucks here...

Yeah if I wasn't so far EAST I would enjoy them... Only the western part of Maryland has mountains and thats as you are getting out of MD int PA etc...

And I don't think PA is correct but rather that the poster is correct in that PA has no helemt laws.

:)

Got it now :)

If you are under 21 in PA you have to wear a helmet. If you are over 21 you have to wear a helmet for a year after getting your license, but that is waived if you take the MSF course. At least that is how I remember it.

PA is beginning to see the error in our ways. There has been talk about reinstating a helmet law.

Here in florida you have to wear your helmet until your 21 then its optional...only 3 months left until my head is strong enough to crush pavement!!


Gotta love stupid people who make these dumb laws :confused:


And I just looked...I dont even need my ugly turn signals that let the rest of the world know what I plan on doing and thus protecting my life!! Sweet I love having that clean look on my bike as a speeding car rear ends my bike! More :confused:

This is rednecks for ya'll. Here in SC they just passed a law allowing motorcyclists' to run red lights if they wait more than two minutes because the bike doesn't weigh enough to trip some sensors. My two minutes is actually 10 seconds.:D

:bump:

:bump:

lol... :D

Love me some California Lane Sharing = )

This is rednecks for ya'll. Here in SC they just passed a law allowing motorcyclists' to run red lights if they wait more than two minutes because the bike doesn't weigh enough to trip some sensors. My two minutes is actually 10 seconds.:D

It not that your bike doesn't weight enouh, most bike are made of alluminum alloy and traffic lights loop-sensor only detect metal like steel in our automobiles.

When I took my MSF class last year, my teacher encourage us to run red lights if the specify intersection can't detect motorcycles. Just make sure you stop, look in all directions for traffic, when safe, you can go.

In my town, you can tell if the traffic light will detect motorcycles, they have a infrared sensor on top of the lights. almost look like a video camera. But there still lot of traffic light without the infrared sensor and I usally go trought it when it is safe to do so.

MSF instructor in Rhode Island said stop at the red, when time comes that your red light should turn green and it doesn't check all directions then go. I usually pull up as far as I can on the problem ones so a car will take up the space I would have been in and triggers the sensor.

I wish lane splitting was legal here :/

The helmet law in FL is linked to the insurance law. If you wear a helmet you don't need insurance. If you don't wear a helmet you need to have a certain amount of insurance (can't remember the numbers off the top of my head).

The helmet law in FL is linked to the insurance law. If you wear a helmet you don't need insurance. If you don't wear a helmet you need to have a certain amount of insurance (can't remember the numbers off the top of my head).In Texas it is also linked to insurance. While you still need valid insurance to ride on the street, you need a certain level of personal injury insurance to get a waiver to ride without a helmet. Or, you have to successfully pass a Motorcycle Safety Course. Used to be you had to get a sticker for your license plate showing that you were exempt, but they changed that law on September 1st. Also on this day, they changed the law for obtaining your motorcycle license. Now you have to take a motorcycle safety course. In the past, this would exempt you from a road test, but it wasn't mandatory.

With the bugs down in Florida around the swamps, there is no way I wouldn't wear a helmet!

Someone mentioned running red lights 'cause the light will not change for your bike. How can you do that nowdays with all those money makin' red light cameras watching you? I think they're a perfect example of technology in the wrong hands. I have a red light changer(seems to be nothing more than a strong magnet)mounted to the bottom of both bikes. They help-probably work about 80% of the time.

In CA you can run the light after waiting two light cycles for it to change.

If you look it up or ask those in the legal field you will probably find that all states have something about motorcycles and red lights. Most places with traffic cams are so busy you won't have to wait for the light. They also use more then just the ground sensor to know if a vehicle is there usually. A lot them also take video that they can use to double-check. Not saying all of them use any or all of them, but you're less likely to have issues with lights in places using the camera systems.

In FL the law is that if you wait for 3mins and the light doesn't change for you on a motorcycle you are allowed to proceed when safe.

Seems like several poster are very much in favor of nanny state helmet laws. I think less idiots in the world is a very very good thing...

If you look it up or ask those in the legal field you will probably find that all states have something about motorcycles and red lights. Most places with traffic cams are so busy you won't have to wait for the light. They also use more then just the ground sensor to know if a vehicle is there usually. A lot them also take video that they can use to double-check. Not saying all of them use any or all of them, but you're less likely to have issues with lights in places using the camera systems.

In FL the law is that if you wait for 3mins and the light doesn't change for you on a motorcycle you are allowed to proceed when safe.

Texas does not have any provision in law for a motorcyclist to proceed through a red light when it becomes apparent that the light triggering system is not recognizing the presence of the motorcycle. I've spoken to several police officers on this subject, every one of which stated categorically that they would issue a citation to a rider doing this even when it was apparent to the officer that the light was malfunctioning.

The real irony is that effective September 1, 2007, the law requires that lights trigger on bikes in this state: Sec. 544.0075. CERTAIN TRAFFIC-ACTUATED ELECTRIC TRAFFIC-CONTROL SIGNALS. (a) This section applies only to a traffic-actuated electric traffic-control signal that consists of a traffic-control signal for which the intervals vary according to the demands of vehicular traffic as registered by a detector and that is installed and operating at an intersection.

(b) In addition to any other type of vehicle the presence of which the detector for the traffic-actuated electric traffic-control signal may register, the detector for a traffic-actuated electric traffic-control device to which this section applies must be capable of registering the presence of a motorcycle.

Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 219, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2007.

I ride through Arlington, Texas on a regular basis, and on top of their reputation for being anti-motorcycle they have many lights that violate this law. I've been calling in and reporting some of these lights for well over a year now to no avail. A few weeks ago I contacted the Texas Attorney General's office to find out about getting the law enforced. They responded that it was a civil affair and that I should contact the Arlington city attorney's office. :wtf:

Yeah, like a city with a reputation like that is going to police themselves... :lol:

I'm still trying to find out who is really responsible for enforcing this law, especially as more cities move to non-timed and optical traffic signal systems.

You might have to take to the state or Federal government Rep's and/or Senators. Especially when you have cops that are that blatantly anti-motorcycle that they would issue a citation to a biker even if they have proof that the light won't change for them. That right there is BS and they need to be educated or taken off the force for being prejudice.

Especially when you have cops that are that blatantly anti-motorcycle that they would issue a citation to a biker even if they have proof that the light won't change for them. That right there is BS and they need to be educated or taken off the force for being prejudice.


It's not really anti bike when you could easily make a right then a U-Turn. Because the officer has no way of knowing if you waited the required amount of time (assuming your state has a written law on the topic). Someone earlier said

My two minutes is actually 10 seconds

so who's to say that you waited at all?

It's not really anti bike when you could easily make a right then a U-Turn.

Got off the phone with a police officer, here's what I learned:

If you're in a left turn only lane you cannot legally make a right turn. It violates at least two statutes, one of which is that you are prohibited from making any kind of lane change within 100' of any intersection in this state. Another would be more of a reckless/dangerous driving charge.

You cannot back up from the light past the 100' no-lane-change point, that would also fall under dangerous/reckless driving, as well as driving the wrong way on the roadway.

The only turn you're allowed to make is into the correct destination lane(s) and then only when allowed to by the light (protected unprotected green).

If it takes two minutes or two hours for the light to change, then you have to sit there, no exceptions, no legal way out.

More trivia: Contacted a lawyer about enforcing Texas Transportation Code 544.0075, the law that requires traffic lights to recognize bikes, and found out that the cities are self-enforcing. In other words, if a city (such as Arlington, Texas) can't or won't obey that law, there is nobody else in the state that can make them.

I'm looking for a more motorcycle-friendly city/state, that's for sure.

It's not really anti bike when you could easily make a right then a U-Turn. Because the officer has no way of knowing if you waited the required amount of time (assuming your state has a written law on the topic).

You must not have read the post I had responded to. If you read that then mine, I think you'll see how it's anti-motorcycle and prejudice. I also suggest reading his response as well. It seems that the state/city laws there are basically saying "motorcycles can go $@!$ themselves, you're not welcome here!" At least that's the feeling I get with their attitude.

Luckily, if there's no traffic around to trigger the lights, there probably no cops around either ;-)

In CA you can run the light after waiting two light cycles for it to change.

I've seen it explicitly stated in codes for other states, like GA, but I have not seen it for CA. I'd like confirmation.

Got off the phone with a police officer, here's what I learned:

If you're in a left turn only lane you cannot legally make a right turn. It violates at least two statutes, one of which is that you are prohibited from making any kind of lane change within 100' of any intersection in this state. Another would be more of a reckless/dangerous driving charge.

You cannot back up from the light past the 100' no-lane-change point, that would also fall under dangerous/reckless driving, as well as driving the wrong way on the roadway.

The only turn you're allowed to make is into the correct destination lane(s) and then only when allowed to by the light (protected unprotected green).

If it takes two minutes or two hours for the light to change, then you have to sit there, no exceptions, no legal way out.

More trivia: Contacted a lawyer about enforcing Texas Transportation Code 544.0075, the law that requires traffic lights to recognize bikes, and found out that the cities are self-enforcing. In other words, if a city (such as Arlington, Texas) can't or won't obey that law, there is nobody else in the state that can make them.

I'm looking for a more motorcycle-friendly city/state, that's for sure.

My post was based on the assumption that the rider knows that the light is an issue, and takes appropriate action before committing to sitting in the left hand lane waiting for a light that will never change unless a car comes up behind them. There's a light like that by my work. I make it a point to not turn there unless there are already cars in the queue.


In CA you can run the light after waiting two light cycles for it to change.

I, too, would like the chapter and verse on that. I haven't found anything in the CVC that says so.

My post was based on the assumption that the rider knows that the light is an issue, and takes appropriate action before committing to sitting in the left hand lane waiting for a light that will never change unless a car comes up behind them. There's a light like that by my work. I make it a point to not turn there unless there are already cars in the queue.


The light in question works for me about 90% of the time. Unfortunately it is the main way to get on the highway from my neighborhood. The alternate routes involve driving a fair way out of the way and have more vehicular traffic including vehicles turning in from residential side streets. I'd have to add at least another 5-10 minutes to my morning commute plus take a higher risk of being hit by a driver, a tradeoff I'm not willing to make at this time. So, I'll keep calling in the malfunctioning lights in my city (reported two more of them this morning) and hope eventually they'll get off their asses and obey the law.

You'd think, with FL being one of the biggest bike places on the planet, that the city would be more amenable to making appropriate changes. Of course, I think it might be too much to expect asking that our "leaders" do the right thing....

You'd think, with FL being one of the biggest bike places on the planet, that the city would be more amenable to making appropriate changes. Of course, I think it might be too much to expect asking that our "leaders" do the right thing....

:confused:

If you were responding to my earlier post then I think you might be a little confused. FL has it in law that if a motorcyclist is at a light for 3 minutes w/o it changing you are allowed to proceed when safe.

My post about the prejudice cops was in response to frugalninja and how Texas is seemingly treating motorcycles. It seems that in his area their laws state that the light MUST respond to a motorcycle being there, but many don't. Also that the cops don't care if this is the case and will regularly bust a motorcycle who goes regardless of how long they may have waited for a light to change. He posted that he had spoken to several cops and their responses were very anti-motorcycle in nature. He also stated that the local governments are not taking care of the illegal lights.

I hope this clears things up a bit.