lanesplitting on the books again

[MNellis]

Can someone help me understand this statemtent?

(1) notwithstanding Section 661.003(c), the operator
and any passenger wear protective headgear that meets the safety
standards adopted by the department; and

Does this change the Texas helmet law or is it just saying that, to take advantage of this "lane splitting", you have to be wearing a helmet?

[JoshuaTree]

Originally Posted by MNellis

Can someone help me understand this statemtent?

(1) notwithstanding Section 661.003(c), the operator
and any passenger wear protective headgear that meets the safety
standards adopted by the department; and

Does this change the Texas helmet law or is it just saying that, to take advantage of this "lane splitting", you have to be wearing a helmet?

It means EXACTLY that - if you want to lane split, you MUST wear a helmet, even if you satisfy the requirements of fiscal responsibility for not wearing a helmet at all other times for operating a motorcycle.

That is THE point on which the opposition will try and kill this bill. It is a "nose of the camel under the tent" issue for them - especially since one of the bill's sponsors has repeatedly tried to mandate helmet usage at all times and repeal the cited section of the Transportation Code.

[RACER X]

Originally Posted by MNellis

Can someone help me understand this statemtent?

(1) notwithstanding Section 661.003(c), the operator
and any passenger wear protective headgear that meets the safety
standards adopted by the department; and

Does this change the Texas helmet law or is it just saying that, to take advantage of this "lane splitting", you have to be wearing a helmet?

just fyi, passengers have to follow the same guidlines as the primary rider as far as a helmet is concerned.

in short:

have taken MSF and can prove it
or have $10k med ins. and can prove it
be over 21