Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the HB 43 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews housekeeping changes to vehicle and bicycle definitions in HB 43
Summary
House Bill 43 would reorganize motor vehicle and traffic regulation language and restore select roadway wording; sponsors and staff said the measure is mainly technical, with staff explaining how 'paved shoulder' and bicycle rules are preserved while centralizing definitions.
Representative Denise Baum opened the hearing on House Bill 43, calling it another Transportation Interim Committee cleanup bill that moves and consolidates motor vehicle and traffic regulation definitions for clarity. "This is another house cleaning bill, regarding revising motor vehicle, traffic regulation laws," Baum said.
No opponents appeared; Joe Carroll, legislative attorney and drafter of the bill, provided a section-by-section handout and explained the rationale for the changes. Carroll described a longstanding drafting issue in which a 'roadway' definition that included the paved shoulder had been moved into a chapter-8 definition in 2015, producing inconsistent references across statutes drafted before and after that reorganization. To address that, HB 43 removes the chapter-8 definition so Title 61's definition applies consistently and explicitly retains 'paved shoulder' language where statutes drafted after 2015 require it—for example, bicycle rules, move-over requirements and school-bus stopping zones.
Carroll said the change aims to preserve prior legal intent while making the overall statutory structure easier to read. "So what this bill does is it gets rid of that definition in title 61, chapter 8, and let 61-1-101's definition apply," Carroll explained, adding that the bill then includes 'paved shoulder' phrasing where necessary.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about why the roadway definition was being moved and whether law enforcement preferred having the definition in the chapter most likely to be consulted; the sponsor and staff said the insertion would ease law-enforcement reference and would not change substantive meaning of the underlying rules. The sponsor closed the hearing and urged a do-pass recommendation; no vote was taken during the session.
