Texas Maximum Speed Law Explained

In my continuing quest to roll back the frontiers of ignorance, and bring understanding and light to the masses, I present to you Texas’s "maximum" speed law.

The Texas maximum speed law consists of three parts. An overall definition –part (a), a two part more specific definition –part (b)(1) and part (b)(2) and then five specific examples where slower speeds would be necessary.-Part (c) 1-5 We shall look at all of this in turn.

Part One

Sec.　545.351 (a)　　An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing.

When the term "operator" here is used, it is a reference to the vehicle the person is using. [1] Thus, this statute applies to drivers of automobiles, bicycles, horses, motorcycles, delivery trucks and ostriches. How fast a operator can go varies due to circumstances, and the operational capabilities of the vehicle under consideration, and even the skill of the operator himself.




A prudent speed for one type of vehicle may be far more or less than another type of vehicle. Say a 1976 Jaguar XJ6C compared to 1985 Yugo GV, for example.



A particular speed that is prudent for one driver may not be the same for a different driver in that very same vehicle. Perhaps the route is more familiar to one than the other. A prudent speed at night is different for that same trip in daylight.

Reasonable does not mean "common" or "normal" by the way. You don’t have to go very far on the public way to witness common behaviors that are anything close to reasonable, in the light of what this section of the law demands.

It is not reasonable to expect your automobile will be able to stop fast in snowy conditions just because you have four wheel drive.

Thus one is expected under the law to act in a reasonable and prudent manner.

Part Two

Sec. 545.351 (b)(1)　　An operator may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for actual and potential hazards then existing;

This part is very similar to part one, but with the addition of a qualifier for "reasonable and prudent" that goes beyond current conditions. One must also act with regard to hazards. One must drive slow enough to allow for hazards that could potentially exist.

Again, reasonableness is at play here. In the wee hours of the morning it is reasonable to find a polecat when crossing a creek bottom, but it would not be reasonable to drive with the expectation you would have to avoid a meteor.

Sec. 545.351 (b)(2)　　An operator shall control the speed of the vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle that is on or entering the highway in compliance with law and the duty of each person to use due care.

This informs those who wish to lawfully use the public road, that one may not go so fast that you would be unable to avoid crashing into slow vehicles on the roadway.

And this portion of the law introduces a new standard of conduct; That public use of the streets imposes on each of us a duty to exercise due care.

Due care refers to the effort made by an ordinarily prudent or reasonable party to avoid either causing property damage or physically harming another person, taking the circumstances into account.

When operating a vehicle on a public street, we need to be sure our vehicle is in working order. We need to be sober and alert. We need to avoid distractions so that we may properly pay attention to our driving. All of this is part of exercising due care on the public way.

Part Three

Sec. 545.351 (c)(1)　An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and (b), drive at an appropriate reduced speed if the operator is approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing.

I wonder how the phrase "appropriate reduced speed" interacts with the posted speed limit? In other words, you MUST slow down when approaching every intersection, to a speed that is appropriately less than what is posted. Traveling at the speed limit is not a reduced speed from the maximum posted speed limit. Unless one wishes to argue that reasonable and prudent speed (consistent with due care) is faster than the posted speed limit!

Sec. 545.351(c)(2)　　An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and (b), drive at an appropriate reduced speed if the operator is approaching and going around a curve

Sec. 545.351(c)(3)　　An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and (b), drive at an appropriate reduced speed if the operator is approaching a hill crest

Sec. 545.351 (c)(4) An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and (b), drive at an appropriate reduced speed if the operator is traveling on a narrow or winding roadway;

I will group these three in one section because my comment addresses them all similarly.

Together, these three clauses mean that operators must not drive so fast that they cannot stop in the distance that they are able to see ahead of them. As you drive, imagine that up ahead, just beyond the point that you can see, there is a stationary obstruction in the road (perhaps a log, or even worse, an injured child). You cannot drive so fast that you cannot stop before reaching the object. It does not matter whether the hazard is hidden due to a curve in the road or the crest of a hill, you must be able to stop. It also does not matter if the posted speed limit is higher than the prudent speed or if your autimobile is capable of handling the road at a higher speed. You simply cannot lawfully drive faster than you can see. [2]

Sec. 545.351 (c)(5)　　An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and (b), drive at an appropriate reduced speed if a special hazard exists with regard to traffic, including pedestrians, or weather or highway conditions.

Now most of us are good at recognizing inclement weather as a condition requiring reduced speed in order to be prudent, and potholes and downed trees seem self evident. In fact slow traffic being a condition that requires slowing down goes without saying. But look again at what Texas law says is included in "traffic"! Yes, pedestrians.

The maximum speed at any particular place is the speed that the slowest vehicle present is traveling. I think its important to emphasize that the posted speed limit is the maximum speed ever allowed under perfect conditions, with good sight lines, no intersections or traffic conflicts. Drivers must go slower than the posted speed limit for any conditions then existing at that time and particular place that mar that perfection. In fact, the posted speed limit under this statute is too fast if even the potential for a hazard is present!

Such conditions include but are not limited to weather, surface conditions, pedestrians, nightfall, animals and slow or stopped vehicles. If, for example, there is a stopped bus in the lane, the safe speed at that point is zero! If there is a front loader or horse drawn wagon, it sets the reasonable and prudent speed. If there is a bicyclist, he sets the reasonable and prudent speed in the lane he is using at that location. [3]

I am positive that many of you will be shocked at the implications of this plain and straightforward reading of this law. Either this standard for behavior is outlandishly high, or we as a society have fallen a very great distance indeed!

During the holiday season, I am reminded of this sad state of affairs we are in when I again watch the classic movie It’s a Wonderful Life. In one place in the film, a despondent George Bailey (James Stewart) drives through a snowstorm with the idea of suicide in his head. As he draws close to the bridge, he loses control of his automobile and crashes into a great tree. I am always struck at the scandal this causes. George Bailey stumbles away from the crash while the property owner is shouting after him; "Who’s going to pay for the damage to my tree?"

The injured tree, suffering a small gash at the most, will have little more than a scar. It is a small scene, and it goes by fast. But it is made clear that a crime has just happened. Good citizens are expected to keep control of their vehicle on the public street. George Bailey has broken yet another public trust.

This law was written in the spirit of that public trust, yet it is universally neglected. Today it would be a scandal if this law were enforced! It is not even deemed applicable when two people die when the maximum speed limit law is broken.

When civility returns to our streets, one part of that will be an awaking of this public trust, and an expectation of it’s observance by our fellow citizens again.

But the good news is, you can be a lawful operator without waiting for it to become fashionable! Yes you can -and ought to- obey this law now! You now know that it is both your moral and legal duty to drive with due care, and alas, you cannot undo the knowing of it.

You will be breaking the law if you travel at the posted speed limit in anything less than the perfect conditions. Think of the awful consequences of being a responsible motorist! You will have to leave for your various destinations earlier than before. You will experience less stress and anxiety. You will have less wear and tear on your automobile. You might even save on some gas.

On the other hand, you will annoy many of your stressed out scofflaw and irresponsible fellow citizens who routinely act without due care. They may say mean things to you. They may honk their horns. They may even try to communicate with sign language, if you get my drift. You could get your feelings hurt.

So there it is. The gauntlet has been thrown down at your feet. You can resolve to do the hard but right thing, or you can give in and continue to be part of the problem.

If you have stuck with this post so far, gentle reader, please go and read this essay too. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Now think about what you would rather have for your children to inherit. The culture of speed, or the culture of trust?

Then take a moment to dream. Dream big dreams. Dream that it can happen here.

Let the dream begin with you.
　
[1] Sec.　545.002.　 In this chapter, a reference to an operator includes a reference to the vehicle operated by the operator if the reference imposes a duty or provides a limitation on the movement or other operation of that vehicle.
The maximum speed law (Sec. 545.351) imposes both a duty to use due care, and a limitation on the movement (Speed, obviously) of vehicles. Therefore this statute applies to all things that are vehicles under Texas law.
Sec.　541.201. (23)　　"Vehicle" means a device that can be used to transport or draw persons or property on a highway.
This definition is rather inclusive, but it is narrower than the definition of "traffic";
Sec.　541.301.　　TRAFFIC.　 In this subtitle "traffic" means pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, and conveyances, including vehicles and streetcars, singly or together while using a highway for the purposes of travel.
There are some curious crossovers in the two definitions. Traffic includes herded animals, but if the herded animal is being used to carry property, it will now fit the definition of a vehicle. Put bells on your sheep, and they become vehicles!




[2] Adapted from Bicycles and the basic speed law by Bob Shanteau 12/31/2007 Concepts and phrases are his and used with permission.

[3] Wayne Pein, e-mail dated November 24, 2009 Adapted with permision.

Honk Report From Ennis

Four honks in twenty miles! And that is only counting the geese wanting to overtake, not the honks from annoyed motorists in opposing lanes.

On the route I needed to traverse today, I could have predicted two of them, because Texans think a cyclist ought not be in the travel lane if there is an improved shoulder. But the other two were extremely rare.

In chronological order:

First Goose; This fella had the bad luck to come up to me at place where he could not pass me safely in the 55 MPH signed speed limit road, shown here.



He stayed behind me and honked as if I were the one without the right of way. I guess he failed to remember the rule when he first got his driver's license that the faster traffic has a duty to overtake slower traffic in a safe manner in with due care. Perhaps he needs a refresher course!

Rather than passing me on the blind hill like many of his neighbors do, he waited until we got over the rise to pass me. He came up beside me on my left in the other lane, and slowed to set me straight about how to ride a bicycle. He had to occupy the opposing lane to do this because I was maintaining my position in the left tire track. If anyone cares, he was driving a recent model heavy duty red pick-up truck. Oh, and I spat in his direction as he began to overtake me. SOP. [1]



Middle aged red pickup driver: "You need to stay out of the road, someone’s going to run you over!" These words were not said in a angry tone, just a raised voice to be heard over the truck’s noise.

Middle aged bicycle rider: "So you admit that you are such an incompetent driver that you would run into a bicycle in the middle of your lane?" Yes, I really did ask him that.

Middle aged red pickup driver, after a pause; "It’s really dangerous to ride like that!"

I then studiously ignored him until he continued on his way.

I very rarely get honked at (Or even shot, for that matter!) on these two lane roads. That alone was unusual. But this fella, after being annoyed that I was causing him a trivial delay, adds 40 seconds or so to his delay by pacing me!

Silly goose!

Second goose;

On north Kaufman, traveling north, just after it is reduced from a four lane to a two lane, this goose honked multiple times. Then he passed me on the improved shoulder at this spot:



As he passed, I spat in his direction, SOP. As he re-entered the roadway, realizing that he had been insulted he slammed on his brakes, coming to a complete stop, and marking the road like this:



I avoided him and came to a stop beside him. This is the hardest position for a motorist to strike you with his car.

Rolling down the passenger window he communicated to me.

Angry automobile driver; "You can't ride in the middle of the road, you are in the way of cars!"

Calm and witty cyclist; [2] "You have a duty to pass slower traffic in a safe manner and with due care."

Angry automobile driver; "Your not supposed to be in the way of traffic!"

Calm and witty cyclist; "One of us here has operated in a legal manner, and the other one has not."

Angry automobile driver; "I haven't done anything wrong! Your the one breaking the law!

Calm and witty cyclist, as traffic begins to work their way around us on the shoulder; "You don't call a panic stop in the middle of the lane reckless driving?" I suppose it should be noted that his right front fender was crumpled as was his left rear fender. I suppose he could've used working anti-lock brakes. Just say'n.

This comment seems to get him worked up. The angry automobile driver then said, roughly translated; "I have a good mind to hurt you in a bad way and make sure you stay at the side of the road!"

The calm and witty cyclist said; "Four seventy-five ex eitch are."

Confused automobile driver; "What?"

Calm and witty cyclist; " Your license plate number, four seventy-five ex aitch are."

As he speeds off, I re-enter the traveled portion of the roadway and continue on my way.

After being so upset by my having delaying his trip that he broke the law by passing me on the shoulder, [3] he recklessly stops in the lane to spend over a minute "speaking" to me.

Silly goose.

Third goose; Now traveling south on north Kaufman, I ride into a construction zone where Kaufman's four lanes have been reduced to two. Another motorist honks like in a futile attempt to improve the situation. As the road expands to normal lanes I do not spit, being unsure of which driver following me had poor impulse control. I pull up to a stop behind them at the next light.

Silly goose!

Fourth goose; As I nearly complete the final part of my ride, on the 55 MPH signed speed limit two lane that connects to my driveway, while safely overtaking me in the oncoming lane, the elderly man honks as he goes by. Did he know about my SOP?

Silly goose!

It is uncommon that anyone ever honks at me on a two lane without a shoulder. Both honking and passing on the right are expected on a two lane with a shoulder. Four same direction honks and two opposite direction honks in twenty miles is considerably odd.

Two of them were sufficiently outraged by my lawful behavior to interrupt their trip to publicly chastise me. They were not satisfied with simply being ignorant of the traffic laws. In their certitude, they were determined to make sure everyone was aware of their ignorance!

[1] SOP: Standard Operating Procedure

[2] Hey it's my story, and I can tell it any way I like.

[3] He illegally passed on the right: Sec. 545.053.(a) An operator passing another vehicle shall pass to the left of the other vehicle at a safe distance.
He illegally traveled on the shoulder:
Sec. 545.057.(b) An operator may not pass to the right by leaving the main traveled portion of a roadway except as provided by Section 545.058.
Sec. 545.058.(a) An operator may drive on an improved shoulder to the right of the main traveled portion of a roadway if that operation is necessary and may be done safely, but only:
(1)　　to stop, stand, or park;
(2)　　to accelerate before entering the main traveled lane of traffic;
(3)　　to decelerate before making a right turn;
(4)　　to pass another vehicle that is slowing or stopped on the main traveled portion of the highway, disabled, or preparing to make a left turn;
(5)　　to allow another vehicle traveling faster to pass;
(6)　　as permitted or required by an official traffic-control device; or
(7)　　to avoid a collision.

He operated his vehicle in a reckless manner without due care: Sec. 545.401.(a) A person commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in wilful [sic] or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.

Curiously, this is the statute he accused me of violating. To whom does it most accurately apply to? Sec. 545.363. (a) An operator may not drive so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

Before Being Overtaken By Events...

This is the blog post that was forming in my head before all the excitement the other night. I was going to say-

Something very unusual happened on my ride today. It was really no big deal, but for the rarity of it.

I had a string of cars pile up behind me, waiting to pass! Yes, really!

Some say that as a courtesy and as a gesture of goodwill, cyclists ought to move aside from a primary lane position to facilitate faster traffic getting by them. If it is safe to do so, they often add. But how many automobiles in queue does it take to evoke the "courtesy doctrine"? There is some dispute over this.

Many cite Pennsylvania and California statutes that mandate operators of slow vehicles yield when five or more drivers of faster vehicles pile up behind them. I guess those laws are saying that one's Right-Of-Way (ROW) is equal to 20% of everyone else's Right-To-Proceed-At-Or-Above-The-Posted-Speed-Limit. (RTPAOATPSL) When enough driver's RTPAOATPSL of .2, taken together, exceeds your ROW of 1, your ROW disappears and you are now violating the ROW of overtaking motorists!

Why five? Is three slowed vehicles too burdensome because it would force too frequent pull-offs? Is five delayed drivers suffer-able while six delayed drivers is a tragedy? I think such laws are preposterous. They are the result of political compromises and then the one size fits all mandate is forced onto the public.

In places that such laws exist, it is no longer a matter of courtesy, but a matter rights under the law. It is not a courtesy to pull aside, but an obligation. Such is the effect of laws. Law, being such a blunt force, is a poor guide when seeking enlightenment on matters of courtesy, don't you think.

Perhaps a better guide as to when pulling aside is a courteous thing to do is the amount of time a vehicle must wait behind you.

I suppose, if it were a hill crest ahead causing the motorist to be unable to pass you in a safe manner, there would be no need to pull aside, as our progress to passing lanes can be clearly seen and accessed. The trauma for the motorist by such a delay would be milder than if heavy opposing traffic were keeping them from passing you.

But if opposing traffic were steady enough that it were unlikely that a motorist's RTPAOATPSL could be resumed within 30 seconds, pulling aside might be in order. Keep in mind that this arbitrary span of time is less than most signal light cycles, which is a common, acceptable, and expected delay performed at a complete stand-still!

I do not think I have ever caused any vehicle a 20 second delay, let alone a half minute. The actual necessity to pull aside may come up from time to time for a cyclist who exercises lane control, but it is a rare and unusual situation.

In April of this year, there was some discussion of being "cautious" even though the law is clear that I am not compelled to do so. The imaginary example of impeding traffic for endless miles was usually trotted forward. So I began to take a more careful observation of just how many automobile drivers queue up behind me.

From then until the other eventful day, the highest number was two. The unusually long string of cars that momentous day was three! [Gasp!] The huge traffic pile up managed to dissipate in about 20 seconds.

In my experience, cycling on narrow roads impedes other road users, but less than the impedances caused by non-bicycle traffic. The worries people have of interfering with traffic flow when cyclists take their rightful place on the public by-ways is unfounded.