SB 1013 seeks to amend the definition of “crosswalk” under Texas law to include portions of driveways where sidewalks are interrupted. The intent is to ensure that pedestrians and vulnerable road users, such as cyclists or mobility device users, are legally protected under the Lisa Torry Smith Act when they are struck in these spaces. Supporters argue that this change simply closes a loophole in existing law and allows prosecutors to bring charges in tragic cases where a pedestrian is harmed in a driveway that intersects a sidewalk. However, despite its good intentions, SB 1013 presents significant policy concerns that justify a vote of NO.
The core issue lies in the bill’s redefinition of what constitutes a crosswalk. Most Texas drivers do not view driveways—especially those leading to private parking lots or homes—as crosswalks. These are vehicular access points, not areas designed or marked for pedestrian right-of-way in the traditional sense. While sidewalks often visually continue across driveways, the general public expectation is that drivers and pedestrians will navigate those shared spaces with mutual caution. By legally transforming these transitional zones into crosswalks, SB 1013 alters a long-standing and culturally understood norm, potentially exposing drivers to criminal prosecution in areas where they had no reason to believe heightened legal standards applied.
Importantly, this bill does not create a new offense, but it enables charges under the existing Lisa Torry Smith Act if a driver causes bodily injury with criminal negligence. The threshold for prosecution remains high, but the risk is that the definition shift itself changes the legal terrain. Law enforcement and prosecutors have stated that this bill is necessary to enable more cases to be brought, which suggests a strategic use of redefinition to expand prosecutorial reach. That’s a red flag for liberty-minded observers who are wary of expanding criminal liability in everyday scenarios, especially when the newly designated area doesn't match public understanding of the term “crosswalk.”
From a liberty principles standpoint, SB 1013 also raises broader concerns. It may inadvertently infringe on private property rights, as it treats portions of private driveways as quasi-public pedestrian zones. While supporters note that most such spaces are subject to public easements, the legal implications remain murky. Additionally, the bill contributes to a trend of incremental regulatory expansion, where statutes evolve in subtle ways that shift liability toward drivers without clearly stated legislative intent to do so.
While SB 1013 is not a Vision Zero directive or climate policy per se, its conceptual alignment with those goals, especially given that Vision Zero advocates have supported the bill, raises valid concerns that it may be part of a broader pattern of policy-driven cultural shifts away from automobile-centered infrastructure.
Finally, the strongest argument for opposing SB 1013 lies in its disconnect between legal definitions and public perception. A law that designates driveways as crosswalks may be technically accurate under a refined statutory lens, but it violates the principle of fair notice when it imposes criminal liability in places where the average driver would not reasonably anticipate it. In criminal law, clarity and predictability are paramount. Laws that surprise the public or impose obligations not clearly understood by reasonable people risk eroding confidence in the justice system.
In conclusion, while SB 1013 responds to genuine concerns about pedestrian safety, it represents a substantive expansion of legal obligations for drivers under the guise of definitional clarity. It reclassifies shared-use spaces into legally protected zones without fully accounting for how that shift will be perceived—or enforced—on the ground. For those who prioritize liberty, limited government, driver rights, and legal clarity, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 1013 as a prudent and principled course of action.
- Individual Liberty: The bill's impact on individual liberty is mixed. On one hand, it seeks to protect the liberty of pedestrians and vulnerable road users to move freely and safely across sidewalks, including where those sidewalks intersect driveways. It ensures that individuals using a public walkway are not left unprotected by a statutory loophole. However, for drivers, the bill may compromise liberty by introducing a new layer of legal risk in spaces traditionally understood as vehicular zones. The reclassification of driveways as “crosswalks” could increase the likelihood of criminal prosecution—even under a high standard of criminal negligence—for actions taken in good faith where a driver did not perceive heightened legal responsibility. This shift may burden drivers with unexpected obligations and chill the liberty to navigate otherwise lawful vehicle movements without fear of legal reprisal.
- Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces personal responsibility, but unevenly. It strengthens the duty of drivers to yield in situations that previously may have been ambiguous. In doing so, it places greater legal accountability on motorists, which is appropriate when considering vulnerable users’ safety. However, it does not equally emphasize pedestrian responsibility, even though current law still expects pedestrians not to dart into paths suddenly. By classifying driveways as crosswalks, the law subtly signals that drivers bear primary legal responsibility in these interactions, even in shared-use spaces. This could erode a more balanced view of mutual personal responsibility between all road users.
- Free Enterprise: There is minimal direct impact on business regulation or economic freedom, but indirect consequences are worth considering. Businesses with frequent foot traffic and multiple driveways, such as shopping centers, fast food locations, and convenience stores, may face greater liability risk if a pedestrian is harmed while crossing a driveway, even if no criminal negligence exists. While not a regulatory burden in the traditional sense, this added exposure could lead to increased insurance costs or legal disputes, particularly in civil cases.
- Private Property Rights: This is where the bill potentially raises a red flag. While the bill only applies to areas where a sidewalk continues across a driveway, those driveways often lie within or adjacent to private property. The bill’s FAQ asserts that public easements apply, which may be true in many cases, but it still blurs the line between public right-of-way and private access. By transforming these gray areas into legally defined “crosswalks,” the bill subjects property-adjacent zones to public pedestrian protections, which could increase the liability exposure for property owners or businesses with high-volume access points. This represents a modest but meaningful encroachment on traditional private property rights.
- Limited Government: This is arguably the principle most at stake. While the bill does not create new enforcement bodies or bureaucracies, it expands the reach of existing criminal statutes by redefining the scope of where those statutes can apply. Law enforcement and prosecutors have supported the bill specifically because it enables broader criminal liability under the Lisa Torry Smith Act in cases previously shielded by definitional ambiguity. While this may help deliver justice in tragic cases, it also represents a creeping expansion of government authority into routine, everyday spaces. When that expansion is driven by definitional changes rather than overt legislative debate over new penalties, it raises concerns about legal clarity, predictability, and restraint—cornerstones of limited government.
