What "DEI Bike lanes" really means

 
The Trump administration's DOT Director Sean Duffy recently stripped some 1.78 billion dollars away from what he calls "DEI Bike Lanes". This was covered by Diane Jenks in The Outspoken Cyclist in a recent blog post.

In a grimly humorous but on point reply to the question "what is a DEI bike lane", Facebook commenter Doug Davis posted a long discussion on Facebook explaining it. I'm linking it here and reposting it, assuming Facebook is not copyright protected. If it is, I'll delete the text and tell you to just go to the original, here: 
https://www.facebook.com/doug.davis.338739/posts/pfbid0KMQb6MqAUBagJCTCQCzmkKgLRy57EnqrTv2jqKBnmtsrHxqYHrd5fb29UqzsdjqLl?rdid=GvZIfcBiaf18K4gh

Doug Davis

AI content · 9h

𝐖𝐚𝐢𝐭. 𝐁𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝐀𝐫𝐞 𝐃𝐄𝐈 𝐍𝐨𝐰?
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑎 𝑛𝑒𝑤 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑟 𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠. 𝐶𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑠..
On July 7, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced $1.73 billion in BUILD grants for roads, bridges, ports, transit, rail, and other transportation projects. On X, he described the previous administration’s priorities somewhat less delicately, saying it had spent taxpayer money on “DEI bike lanes and climate change” and declaring, “THAT’S OVER.”
This came as a surprise to many cyclists, who had assumed a bike lane was a narrow strip of pavement rather than a graduate seminar.
Apparently we were wrong.
Soon afterward, references to bicycle lanes and several speed-management measures began disappearing from Federal Highway Administration webpages. NPR reported that five items were removed from the agency’s Proven Safety Countermeasures list, including bicycle lanes, road diets, speed-safety cameras, variable speed limits, and speed limits intended to protect vulnerable road users. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool also became unavailable through its former federal webpage. Internal emails obtained by NPR reportedly directed staff to remove or revise references to bicycles, bike lanes, and certain speed measures.
The underlying laws of physics were not consulted.
Neither, as far as anyone knows, was the pavement.
The federal government is free to reconsider its grant priorities. Elections have consequences, and one of those consequences is apparently that the word bicycle may now require review by several attorneys and a person carrying a red pen.
But removing information from a government website does not make the research beneath it disappear. It merely makes the research harder to find, which is an unusual approach for an agency whose name contains both Federal and Administration.
It also raises an important question.
What exactly does DEI mean after examining this question I came to the following conclusions

𝐃𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐥𝐲 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞: bureaucratic neglect with blood on its hands.
𝗣𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗥𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗨𝗻𝗮𝗺𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱
The administration’s decision does not mean every bicycle project rejected by federal officials was a masterpiece. In fact, it appears most of them were not. And lets face it we all know paint isn’t a solution even if it is expensive paint. That said -
Some bike lanes are excellent.
Most though are paint applied to leftover pavement by a committee that believes bicycles are approximately nine inches wide.
The term bike lane covers facilities so different that treating them as one safety category is nearly meaningless. A lane separated from high-speed traffic by curbs, parked cars, or a substantial buffer is not the same thing as a white stripe painted beside vehicles traveling 50 miles per hour.
One separates traffic.
The other informs the EMTs where the ambulance should begin looking.
A 2026 naturalistic study published in Traffic Injury Prevention examined 8,753 vehicle-passing events recorded over nearly 9,900 kilometers of bicycle travel. After adjusting for other roadway factors, researchers found that painted bicycle lanes were associated with motorists passing about 0.31 meters closer, roughly one foot, and approximately 1.36 meters per second faster, about three miles per hour, than on roads without bicycle infrastructure. Road shoulders were also associated with high passing speeds without a meaningful increase in clearance.
It also does not prove that every painted lane is dangerous.
What it does suggest is that paint changes driver behavior, and the change is not always favorable.
There is a corollary to this that we do need to surface at this point though , and that is "some people feel that they need to have a bike lane and that any bike like is better than none" - (Paraphrased from John Schubert)
A motorist sees the stripe and thinks:
“The cyclist has a lane.”
What the motorist sometimes means is:
“Therefore I may remain in my lane and pass at the speed of commerce.”
The cyclist, meanwhile, gets to enjoy a close-up view of a door handle.
Paint can organize traffic on low-speed streets. It can mark continuity through an intersection. It can help establish where different road users should travel.
What paint cannot do is physically stop a vehicle.
This is not an ideological flaw. It is one of paint’s traditional characteristics.
Federal guidance issued before the recent webpage changes already recognized that bicycle-facility selection should depend on vehicle speed, traffic volume, road geometry, and expected users. Federal research has also evaluated separated lanes as a distinct treatment rather than assuming every bicycle symbol on asphalt offers identical protection.
On a calm residential street, paint combined with traffic calming may be perfectly reasonable.
On a 50-mile-per-hour arterial, paint remains stubbornly unable to negotiate with kinetic energy.

𝗗𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵 𝗘𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲: what happens when a lane ends at the exact place where a rider most needs it.
A protected lane that disappears at the busiest intersection is still the transportation equivalent of a handrail that ends halfway down the staircase It was helpful until the precise moment it became most necessary.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗜𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝗕𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗲 𝗕𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗦𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗗𝗿𝗲𝘄 𝗮 𝗕𝗶𝗰𝘆𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗜𝘁
A great deal of what officials call bicycle infrastructure is actually residual pavement.
It is the asphalt left over after engineers finish allocating space for through lanes, turn lanes, medians, drainage, utility poles, decorative landscaping, and the municipal sign thanking the council member who approved everything.
Then someone notices a four-foot strip near the curb and says, “Could a bicycle go there?”
A bicycle can go almost anywhere briefly.
This does not make the location infrastructure.
Road shoulders collect broken glass, gravel, screws, muffler fragments, pieces of landscaping trailers, and the dead bodies (yes, I’ve found one) are available almost nowhere except the side of a highway.

𝐃𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝: a design flaw that survives three planning meetings, two consultants, and a ribbon-cutting.
That one fits on a sign.
A shoulder that begins at six feet may narrow to eighteen inches beside a bridge, disappear near an intersection, and reappear two miles later as though nothing happened.
A useful bicycle route needs continuous width, reasonable pavement, drainage, safe transitions, and intersection treatments. It must serve actual destinations. It must accommodate handcycles, cargo bikes, trailers, children, older riders, and people who do not consider hopping a curb an ordinary transportation maneuver.
A route that sends riders through a series of gates, tight turns, bollards, and abrupt crossings is not automatically protected.
Sometimes it is simply an obstacle course designed by someone who has never attempted it with panniers
.
𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐄𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐬: harsh wording, but sometimes the curb cut really does deposit you directly beneath a turning truck
Federal intersection guidance recognizes that the places where bicycle facilities meet crossings, turn lanes, roundabouts, and pedestrian areas require deliberate design. Conflict points do not vanish when the stripe reaches the corner.
This seems obvious.
So does putting the television remote in the same place every night, yet civilization continues to struggle
.
𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗲 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗕𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗿
When there is no usable bicycle facility, riders still need somewhere to travel.
That somewhere is frequently the road.

𝐃𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐭 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: a little dramatic, although anyone who has followed a painted lane into a six-lane junction knows the feeling.
Under Texas law, a person riding slower than other traffic generally must stay as near as practicable to the right edge of the roadway. The law also contains exceptions, including when the rider is avoiding unsafe conditions, preparing for a left turn, passing another vehicle, or traveling in a lane too narrow for a bicycle and motor vehicle to safely proceed side by side.
The key word is 𝑝𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒.
It does not mean:
“As far right as physically possible, including through glass, storm drains, potholes, parked-car doors, and the remains of somebody’s washing machine.”
It means reasonably capable of being done safely.
When a lane is too narrow to share, riding near its center can prevent a driver from attempting the classic Texas squeeze pass, in which the motorist tries to fit a truck, a bicycle, and three feet of legally desirable clearance into a space originally designed for one Chevrolet.
The cyclist is not “taking” the lane in the sense of stealing it and carrying it home.
The cyclist is controlling the lane temporarily because the geometry does not allow safe side-by-side travel.
That distinction matters.
So does evidence.

𝐃𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐄𝐧𝐣𝐨𝐲 𝐈𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲: the version favored by people who have watched fatal investigations disappear behind the phrase “still ongoing.”
.
A test-track study involving 18 drivers examined how motorists passed a robot cyclist positioned at different locations in the lane while oncoming traffic approached. When the cyclist was farther left, passing safety margins decreased, particularly when oncoming traffic limited the driver’s room. Researchers concluded that both cyclist position and the timing of oncoming traffic influenced the risks of side-swipe, rear-end, and head-on conflicts.
That does not prove cyclists should hug the gutter.
It proves there is no single lane position that makes every bad situation safe.
Moving left may discourage an immediate squeeze and make the rider more prominent, but it cannot prevent an impatient driver from attempting a bad pass when oncoming traffic leaves inadequate room. Positioning must therefore be deliberate, predictable, and responsive to conditions.
The purpose of controlling a narrow lane is not to increase passing clearance while the motorist remains in that same lane.
The purpose is to communicate that the motorist must wait and make a proper lane change.
This concept can be difficult for drivers who believe the arrival of a bicycle suspends all rules concerning centerlines, sight distance, and oncoming vehicles.
Cyclists also have obligations.
Use the lane when safety requires it. Hold a predictable line. Avoid weaving in and out of parked cars. When a safe opportunity appears, move right where practicable and let waiting traffic pass.
Experienced touring cyclists and randonneurs often use a cooperative version of this approach. Its been called a lot of things but I prefer to call it 𝒄𝒂𝒕𝒄𝒉 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒓𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒆
You control the lane through the blind curve, narrow bridge, debris field, or pinch point. Once the road opens and passing becomes safe, you facilitate the pass and give a wave.
The wave is important.
It says, “Thank you for waiting.”
It also says, “See? I was not attempting to overthrow the automobile.”
Taking the lane should be a safety technique, not performance art.
Lets face it, the reality is the cyclist doesn’t want to block cars any more than the cars want to be behind the cyclist, or for that matter have a visit from any 3 lettered government agency.

𝗗𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗘𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝗜𝗻𝗷𝘂𝗿𝗲
The goal is neither passive gutter-hugging nor recreational obstruction. It is predictable positioning combined with ordinary courtesy, a concept once known simply as sharing the road before it became necessary to print it on thousands of signs.

𝗩𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗜𝘀 𝗛𝗲𝗹𝗽𝗳𝘂𝗹, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗟𝗼𝗼𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗥𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗘𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹
Supporters of aggressive lane positioning often emphasize visibility, and they have a point.
The National Transportation Safety Board found that roughly one-third of motorists involved in fatal overtaking crashes reported that they did not detect the cyclist before the collision.
Being farther into a driver’s natural field of view may make a cyclist easier to notice than riding inches from the curb.
But this should not become another excuse to place the entire burden on the rider.
Cyclists already use headlights, taillights, reflective ankle bands, fluorescent jerseys, reflective vests, reflective helmets, and enough blinking electronics to qualify as a small airport.
At some point, the problem is not that the cyclist has failed to glow.
The problem is that the driver has failed to look.
No lane position guarantees detection. No vest can penetrate a phone screen. No flashing light can overcome a driver who is staring into the center console trying to locate a podcast about mindfulness.
Visibility helps.
Attention is still required.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗗𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝗠𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗺
The FHWA webpage changes deserve criticism not because every item on the old list was perfect, but because technical information should be examined openly rather than quietly removed in response to political branding.
A safety measure can be overgeneralized.
A design can be misapplied.
A federal recommendation can deserve revision.
That revision should occur through evidence, updated criteria, and public explanation.
Deleting links is not peer review.
The former bicycle-lane fact sheet remains accessible as a PDF and states that bicycle facilities can reduce conflicts between motor vehicles and cyclists, particularly where physical or spatial separation is appropriate. The agency’s own research materials on separated lanes, intersection design, and crash-modification factors also remain available in various locations, although the public pathway to finding them has become less straightforward. The National Transportation Safety Board, which is independent of the Department of Transportation, continues to publish its bicyclist-safety research and recommendations.
States and local governments also retain substantial control over formula transportation funding. Federal budget materials for fiscal year 2026 continue to describe roughly $1.5 billion for Transportation Alternatives, including projects intended to provide safe routes for people who do not drive.
So the situation is not:
“The federal government has outlawed bike lanes.”
The situation is closer to:
“The federal government has changed its discretionary priorities and begun hiding some of its own bicycle-safety homework.”
That is less cinematic, but more accurate.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝗠𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗗𝗘𝗜
We do not need to defend every bicycle project ever built merely because the secretary mocked bicycle lanes.
Some projects deserve defending.
Some deserve rebuilding.
Some deserve the quiet removal of a congratulatory plaque followed by several apologies.
The correct standard is not whether a project contains paint, planters, plastic posts, or the word equity in a grant application.
The standard is whether it works.
Does it reduce dangerous conflicts?
Does it slow turning vehicles?
Does it continue through intersections?
Does it connect people to places they need to reach?
Can an older rider use it?
Can a child use it?
Can someone on a handcycle fit through the barriers?
Does it prevent motorists from passing inches away at high speed?
Or does it begin abruptly, end mysteriously, and leave the cyclist beside six lanes of traffic with a sign reading “BIKE ROUTE” and the hopeful expression of a golden retriever?
This is where the alternate definitions of DEI become useful.
A lane that directs riders into a turning conflict is 𝗗𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱.
A facility that stops at every major crossing is 𝗗𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝘁 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.
A shoulder full of broken glass marketed as a bicycle network is 𝗗𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗘𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘀.
A fatal crash followed by months of silence is 𝗗𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗘𝗻𝗷𝗼𝘆 𝗜𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆, or at least the appearance of it.
And a design failure known for years but left unfixed because every agency claims it belongs to another agency is 𝗗𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗹𝘆 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲.
Satire works because the real explanation is often even more absurd.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗡𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗛𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻
The federal website controversy does not change the reforms Texas needs.
Texas should establish a measurable statewide safe-passing distance. “Safe” cannot remain a matter of individual interpretation by a motorist whose passenger-side mirror just brushed someone’s elbow.
Texas should revive stop-as-yield legislation. House Bill 4868 and Senate Bill 864, introduced during the 2025 legislative session, would have allowed cyclists to treat certain stop signs as yield signs under specified conditions.
Texas should require independent prosecutorial review of fatal crashes involving cyclists, pedestrians, wheelchair users, road workers, and other vulnerable road users. Families should receive timely public status reports and an explanation when a case is closed without charges.
Driver education should address safe passing, turning across bicycle traffic, dooring, distraction, and the actual meaning of as near as practicable.
Infrastructure funding should prioritize complete routes appropriate to the road’s speed and volume. Separation belongs where speed differences are high. Low-speed shared streets should actually be low speed. Intersections should be designed as part of the route rather than treated as brief interruptions in the architect’s rendering.
Crash data and investigative outcomes should be publicly searchable.
Most of this is not ideological.
It is geometry, speed, visibility, law, and institutional follow-through.
A bicycle does not become safer because a government webpage calls its lane proven.
It does not become less safe because someone deletes the webpage.
The pavement remains where it was.
The traffic remains where it was.
The cyclist still has to get home.

𝗖𝘆𝗰𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗕𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗧𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝘁
There is one final historical joke in calling bike lanes an alien ideological project.
American cyclists were major supporters of the late-nineteenth-century Good Roads movement. They organized and campaigned for smoother, more reliable roads before automobiles dominated transportation.
Motorists inherited those improvements and eventually behaved like the family member who moves into the house, changes the locks, and tells everyone else they are blocking the driveway.
Cyclists are not visitors to the road system.
They were arguing for better roads before drivers had cupholders.
So call bicycle facilities DEI if that helps the press release.
Just use the correct definition.

𝗗𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗘𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝗜𝗻𝗷𝘂𝗿𝗲.
Sometimes they kill.
The answer is not to defend every stripe of paint, nor is it to erase decades of research because a bicycle lane has become politically unfashionable.
The answer is to build facilities that work, write rules people can measure, investigate deaths transparently, and acknowledge that controlling a narrow lane may sometimes be the safest available choice when the government has provided no better one.
The cyclist today is trying to survive the design.
[Note: if you appreciate this article or at least are generally amused by it please like and share!]
Articles Cited or otherwise referenced in the creation of this posting are below

Federal Highway Administration. (2022). Bicycle lanes: Proven safety countermeasures (FHWA-SA-21-051). U.S. Department of Transportation. https://highways.fhwa.dot.gov/.../Bicycle%20Lanes_508.pdf
 

Federal Highway Administration. (2022). Improving intersections for pedestrians and bicyclists (FHWA-SA-22-041). U.S. Department of Transportation. https://highways.fhwa.dot.gov/.../2022-06/fhwasa22041.pdf
 

Federal Highway Administration. (2024, March–April). Separated bike lanes: Making roads safer for bicyclists. Innovator, 17(101). https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/.../innovator/issue101/page_02.html
 

Hamm, L., & Miller, M. (2026). Bicyclist overtaking in naturalistic riding data: Speed, clearance, and implications for injury risk. Traffic Injury Prevention, 1–10. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2026.2686799
 

National Transportation Safety Board. (2019a, November 5). Bicyclist safety on U.S. roadways: Crash risks and countermeasures (Safety Research Report SS-19-01). https://www.ntsb.gov/.../safety.../Pages/DCA18SS002.aspx
 

National Transportation Safety Board. (2019b, November 5). NTSB says changes to roadway design, collision avoidance systems, more helmet use needed to address increase in bicyclist fatalities. https://www.ntsb.gov/.../press.../Pages/NR20191105.aspx
 

Rasch, A., Boda, C.-N. Å., Thalya, P., Aderum, T., Knauss, A., & Dozza, M. (2020). How do oncoming traffic and cyclist lane position influence cyclist overtaking by drivers? Accident Analysis & Prevention, 142, 105569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105569
 

Rose, J. (2026, July 23). DOT cranks up its campaign to strip bike lane references from federal websites. 

NPR. https://www.wvxu.org/.../dot-cranks-up-its-campaign-to...
 

Texas Legislature. (2025a). House Bill 4868: Relating to allowing a bicyclist to treat certain traffic-control devices as a yield sign. https://capitol.texas.gov/.../89R/billtext/html/HB04868I.htm
 

Texas Legislature. (2025b). Texas Transportation Code, Chapter 551: Operation of bicycles and mopeds, golf carts, and other low-powered vehicles. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/tn/htm/tn.551.htm
 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (2025). Budget estimates: Fiscal year 2026. https://www.transportation.gov/.../FHWA_FY_2026_Budget...