SB 1013, as originally filed, sought to expand the definition of “crosswalk” in Texas law to include areas where sidewalks are interrupted by driveways. That version raised significant concerns related to driver liability, legal clarity, and potential overreach. Texas Policy Research initially recommended a NO vote based on the belief that the bill would redefine spaces drivers do not intuitively recognize as crosswalks, increasing the risk of criminal prosecution for behavior in areas traditionally understood as shared or vehicle-priority zones. Additionally, the original bill risked undermining private property expectations and conflicted with core liberty principles, including limited government and individual liberty.
However, a subsequent floor amendment fundamentally changed the bill’s structure as it was being considered in the Texas Senate. The revised version no longer redefines “crosswalk” or alters statutory infrastructure definitions. Instead, it modifies Section 545.256 of the Transportation Code to clarify that drivers must yield to pedestrians and sidewalk users (including cyclists, scooter users, and others using mobility devices) when entering or exiting a driveway, alley, or building in a business or residential district. This approach centers on driver behavior and reinforces an already existing duty to yield, extending it to cover both entry and exit scenarios and a broader set of sidewalk users.
This amendment addresses many of our initial objections. It avoids expanding the reach of the Lisa Torry Smith Act, maintains public understanding of what a crosswalk is, preserves private property boundaries, and limits the risk of unintended criminal liability for drivers. The bill now clarifies expectations at sidewalk crossings without inviting reinterpretation of physical spaces or altering prosecutorial thresholds. In doing so, it restores alignment with key liberty principles such as limited government and due process.
The bill does not include language reinforcing pedestrian or sidewalk user responsibilities, which may lead to uneven accountability in some enforcement scenarios. Additionally, while the amendment is restrained in scope, it may set a precedent for future expansions of duty or liability in vehicle-pedestrian interactions—something liberty-minded stakeholders continue to monitor with caution.
In recognition of the substantial improvements made through the amendment, and the fact that our primary objections have been meaningfully addressed, Texas Policy Research has shifted our position from OPPOSE to NEUTRAL. We acknowledge the bill’s refined intent and balanced language while remaining attentive to how it may be interpreted or expanded upon in future sessions.
- Individual Liberty: The amended bill supports the liberty of pedestrians and sidewalk users (including cyclists, scooter users, and other lawful sidewalk travelers) to move freely and safely across driveways, reinforcing their right to safe passage. At the same time, it avoids infringing on the liberty of drivers by not redefining familiar roadway classifications (e.g., “crosswalk”) or imposing new criminal penalties. The duties imposed are behavioral and already partially established in law. However, because the bill does clarify and slightly expand drivers’ duties in certain settings, its effect on individual liberty is best characterized as neutral to modestly positive, enhancing safety without imposing new or unreasonable legal burdens.
- Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces the principle of personal responsibility by clearly outlining the driver’s duty to yield to pedestrians and sidewalk users when entering or exiting driveways in business or residential districts. This clarification helps prevent avoidable harm while maintaining expectations of caution and attentiveness in mixed-use areas. Although the bill does not explicitly articulate corresponding responsibilities for pedestrians or sidewalk users, it assumes mutual awareness and safe conduct. On balance, the bill strengthens legal clarity regarding responsible roadway behavior.
- Free Enterprise: The bill imposes no direct regulatory or financial burdens on businesses or economic activity. While there could be indirect liability concerns for property owners with high-traffic driveways (such as retail establishments), the bill does not create new causes of action or expose businesses to increased oversight. The clarified yielding duty applies to individual drivers and not to commercial operators in their capacity as business owners, so the impact on enterprise remains neutral.
- Private Property Rights: By avoiding any reclassification of driveways as crosswalks or public right-of-way zones, the amended the bill respects private property boundaries. The bill merely governs driver behavior at the point where a vehicle crosses a sidewalk, which already lies within areas subject to public pedestrian easements in most urban and suburban environments. Therefore, it avoids infringing on property owners’ control over their land or expanding government claims to private access points. The result is neutral impact on private property rights.
- Limited Government: Crucially, the amended bill does not expand the scope of government enforcement powers by redefining legal terms or creating new prosecutorial pathways. Instead, it operates within an existing statutory framework (Transportation Code 545.256) and reinforces a behavioral expectation that aligns with common roadway norms. It limits the role of the state to clarifying expectations—not expanding jurisdiction or enforcement authority—thus respecting the principle of limited government. This shift from redefinitional change to behavioral guidance marks a positive step away from overreach.
