Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Traffic Definitions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears cleanup bill to consolidate motor vehicle and roadway definitions
Summary
House Bill 43 would reorganize motor vehicle and traffic statutes by moving and harmonizing definitions (including how ‘roadway’ and the paved shoulder are defined); committee members and witnesses discussed restoring a definition in‑chapter for law enforcement clarity and a posted amendment was described by the drafter.
Representative Denise Baum opened the hearing on House Bill 43, calling it another Transportation Interim Committee housekeeping bill to revise motor vehicle and traffic regulation laws for consistency and clarity. The sponsor said the bill primarily moves definitions into Title 61 so statutes use the same language across chapters.
Joe Carroll, Legislative Services Division attorney and drafter of the bill, described the posted amendment and explained the practical issue that prompted it: Title 61’s definition of “roadway” (which excludes the paved shoulder) differs from a chapter‑8 definition that includes the paved shoulder. Carroll said the bill removes the chapter‑8 definition and lets the Title 61 definition apply, and then inserts the phrase “paved shoulder” into statutes drafted after 2015 where that inclusion is required for intended operation (for example, bicycle statutes and school bus stop rules).
Law enforcement members had asked for the roadway definition to appear locally in the chapter for ease of reference when investigating crashes; Representative Baum said she would present an amendment restoring a cross‑reference so the chapter reads that “roadway” means the same as 61‑1‑101. Committee members asked whether replacing the definition would change current operational rules for bicyclists; Carroll explained the bill preserves existing bicycle rules, including the preexisting provision that “persons operating bicycles on a paved shoulder may ride two abreast.”
Dustin Rouse of the Montana Department of Transportation appeared as an informational witness and Joe Carroll provided a handout explaining changes by page and line. No opponents testified online or in person. Representative Baum closed by urging a do‑pass recommendation; the committee took no final vote during the hearing.
The hearing focused on statutory consistency and on balancing the clarity needs of law enforcement with preserving bicycle‑ and shoulder‑related rules already in statute.
