As you may have noticed by now, I'm a person who likes research. Maybe even a little too much; you don't want to know how many rabbit holes I fall down regularly when trying to trace information. And I've pretty much been this way ever since I can remember; if there's a primary source, I want to drill down to it and wrap my mind around it as much as I possibly can. Will I ever use the information I've learned again in the future? Maybe! I'm overflowing with random facts, and that's how I like my brain, apparently.
Because that's the case, I've read a lot (A LOT) of legal documents, state laws, and similar extremely dry documents, usually in the hopes of explaining them so others with less patience and time than I have can understand them better. In some cases, it's not very difficult, because the laws (or other official documents) have been written in such a way that it seems like they're intended to be read by regular people.
As just a regular person (and not speaking as someone who reads through these types of documents regularly as part of my job), I appreciate this. I mean, if our elected representatives are drafting laws that apply to us, isn't it in everyone's best interest if they're readable and understandable by actual humans?
That leads me to the other side of the coin, wherein elected officials seem to go out of their way to make their documents as confusing as possible.
A cynical mind would suspect that some docs are constructed this way because then, far fewer people will have the persistence of will (not to mention the necessary hyperfocus) to put all the required puzzle pieces together. Or, to give you the TL;DR version: Make things as difficult to read as possible, and people will totally give up and not even read them! But then, later down the line, if anyone gets mad about what you wrote, you have the CYA in place to say, "Look, it was right there in black and white! Didn't you reeeeeeeeead it?" Stop hitting yourself!
I digress (but not really), because these are very much the thoughts I had while perusing the text of Utah House Bill 0381 (2026), which was officially signed into law by the state governor, Spencer Cox, on March 24, 2026. The summary of this bill contains four extremely anodyne words: "Electric Mobility Device Amendments," and to be honest, I read through the text of this bill to find out what changes are in store for how e-bikes and their riders will be treated in the state.
I found what I was looking for, but I also found much more.
This bill is basically 50 pages of amendments to the existing Utah Code regarding multiple powersports (and other) vehicles, not just "Electric Mobility Devices." Yes, it includes motorcycles, and I'm about to get into it.
What's more, these 50 pages of amendments to existing Utah Code don't stand as something to read on their own. Rather, to fully grasp what's happening here, you must painstakingly cross-reference each amendment listed here with the current Utah Code to which it applies.
Legislators (and their aides) probably have time for that sort of thing, but most people who have other jobs and lives to worry about probably don't. And that's why I'm about to cross-reference it all for you right here, so you don't have to. For the sake of convenience, I'm tackling this document in two parts. Below, you'll find the Motorcycle parts; I'll share the changes to E-Bike laws in a separate piece, because otherwise we'll be here all day, as there's a lot to cover.
Changing Motorcycle Laws in Utah
After the summary of what this bill of amendments sets forth, the first section is all about definitions. Here, we learn that for the purposes of Utah code, a "powersport vehicle" is an ATV (type I, II, or III), a snowmobile, a motorcycle, or a personal watercraft. Also, a "powersport vehicle" is not an electric assisted bicycle, a motor assisted scooter, or an electric personal assistive mobility device (such as a hoverboard or standing scooter, and yes, there is legislation in this document about those vehicles on their own, as well).
We also learn that an "electric assisted bicycle" is not considered to be the same thing as an electric motorcycle, and in which specific ways this is true. I'll include a more detailed breakdown about these differences in my separate piece on Changing E-Bike Laws in Utah, so be sure to look out for it.
By the state of Utah's definition, an "electric motorcycle" is powered by an electric motor of more than 750 watts, or is capable of exceeding a speed of 20 miles per hour using the power of the electric motor alone.
Additionally, the state of Utah has specific definitions of both "lane filtering" and "lane splitting," two concepts which are frequently confused by non-riders (and even some riders) due to the inconsistency with which they're defined. One jurisdiction may call it one thing, and one may call it another, and it's frustrating.
Anyway, the state of Utah says that "lane filtering means, when operating a motorcycle other than an autocycle, the act of overtaking and passing another vehicle that is stopped in the same direction of travel in the same lane." It goes on to add that "lane filtering does not include lane splitting." More on this later, because a law regarding lane filtering has just been amended in the state of Utah.
Then, below that, it explains that "lane splitting means, when operating a motorcycle other than an autocycle, the act of riding a motorcycle between clearly marked lanes for traffic traveling in the same direction of travel while traffic is in motion." It concludes with a single line that reads, "lane splitting does not include lane filtering."
Operation of motor vehicle near vulnerable user of a highway prohibited -- Endangering a vulnerable user of a highway prohibited (Utah Code 41-6a-706.5, effective May 6, 2026)
Users of both motorcycles and electric-assisted bicycles (or e-bikes) are considered "vulnerable highway users," according to the way this statute is written. What does "near" mean, since that's a fuzzy and subjective term, and not a quantifiable one? Further down in the text, we learn several details.
Under this statute, "motor vehicle operators may not knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly" operate their vehicles within three feet of a vulnerable user of a highway. They're also not allowed to distract or attempt distraction of those users, force a vulnerable highway user (or attempt to force them) off the road unless it's for a public safety reason, or "cause a motor vehicle to emit an excessive amount of exhaust in a manner that distracts or endangers a vulnerable user of a highway."
Those who violate this statute will have committed infractions, except if they result in bodily injury, in which case they're considered class C misdemeanors.
Motorcycle -- Place for operator to ride -- Passengers (Utah Code 41-6a-1501, effective May 6, 2026)
This section seems to primarily be aimed at motorcycle stunting and delivery riders operating on public roads, and clearly defines where on the bike and in what orientation (facing forward, not sideways, backward, or any other way) both riders and passengers should ride a motorcycle. Furthermore, it adds that only motorcycles designed to carry more than one rider may carry more than one rider at a time.
As for the 'delivery riders' portion, this amendment states that "an individual may not operate a motorcycle while carrying a package, bundle, or other article that prevents the operator from keeping both hands on the handlebars."
Motorcycles and all-terrain type I vehicles -- Operation on public highways (Utah Code 41-6a-1502, effective May 6, 2026)
This section states that motorcycles are entitled to the full use of a lane, but motorcycles may ride two abreast in a single lane if the riders so choose. However, motor vehicles sharing the highway with motorcyclists "may not operate ... in a manner that deprives a motorcycle of the full use of a lane."
It also states that, "the operator of a motorcycle may not overtake and pass in the same lane occupied by the vehicle being overtaken." In other words, no lane splitting (unless you're a 'peace officer,' which is a thing that is also specifically stated in this statute).
Motorcycle -- Attaching to another vehicle prohibited (Utah Code 41-6a-1503, effective May 6, 2026)
This seems to be about stunting and/or sketchy towing, but see for yourself what you glean from the text. It reads, "an individual riding on a motorcycle may not attach themselves to any other vehicle on a roadway."
Motorcycle -- Footrests for passenger -- Height of handlebars limited (Utah Code 41-6a-1504, effective May 6, 2026)
This statute is two-pronged. On one hand, it tells us that if you're not riding a motorcycle with a sidecar or a closed cab, the bike must be equipped with footrests for the passenger.
The second part seems to make ape hangers illegal. It reads, "an individual may not operate a motorcycle with handlebars above shoulder height."
Motorcycle -- Protective headgear -- Closed cab excepted -- Electric assisted bicycles, motor assisted scooters, electric personal assistive mobility devices (Utah Code 41-6a-1505, effective May 6, 2026)
Riders and passengers under the age of 21 can't legally operate motorcycles, electrically assisted bicycles, motor assisted scooters, high-powered electric devices, or any autocycles that are not fully enclosed (Slingshots, they mean Slingshots) if they are not wearing helmets.
This section goes on to spell out the waiving of certain portions of fines (a whole $8, woohoo) for moving violations if the violator is over the age of 21, and is also wearing a helmet. But later on, it adds that if all of the above traits are true in a case, that $8 may also not be waived if the operator was driving under the influence.
The statute also goes on to set fine limits for courts, advising that riders of electrically-assisted bicycles or motor assisted scooters may not receive fines exceeding $25, while motorcycle and high-powered electric device riders may not have fines exceed $110 for violations of this code.
Electric motorcycles and high power electric devices (Utah Code 41-6a-1511, effective May 6, 2026)
This statute states that "an individual operating a high power electric device, including an electric motorcycle, has all rights and is subject to all provisions of this chapter applicable to an operator of a motorcycle." It adds that a high powered electric device that isn't a motorcycle and doesn't have a VIN is not required to carry liability insurance in the state.
However, local authorities may make their own rules regarding (and possibly restricting) where such vehicles can operate, such as on pathways and soft-surface trails. The statute also adds that those under 16 years of age may not operate these devices on highways, and also that individuals may not operate a high-power electric device on a freeway.
So wait, does this mean that if you have a Zero SR/F or a LiveWire, you can't go on the freeway? If true, that's kind of a big deal, and if not, that needs to be clarified, because the way this statute is written seems to indicate otherwise.
This statute also notes that beginning on January 1, 2027, commercial sellers of new and used vehicles that have fewer than four wheels, are powered by electric motors, and are not electric assisted bicycles must include the following disclosure to prospective purchasers:
THIS VEHICLE IS NOT AN "ELECTRIC ASSISTED BICYCLE" AS DEFINED BY UTAH MOTOR VEHICLE CODE AND IS INSTEAD A TYPE OF MOTOR VEHICLE AND SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE MOTOR VEHICLE LAWS IF USED ON PUBLIC ROADS OR PUBLIC LANDS. A HELMET MAY BE REQUIRED WHILE OPERATING. YOUR INSURANCE POLICIES MAY NOT PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE USE OF THIS VEHICLE TO DETERMINE IF COVERAGE IS PROVIDED YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY OR AGENT."
It's not clear if verbatim copying and pasting of this text, including the all-caps and questionable grammar, is required.
Utah Motorcyclists, Legal Lane Filtering Is About To Get Taken Away on July 1, 2027
Remember way (way, way) back at the beginning of this post, when I talked about how some legislative documents seem designed to obfuscate important (and possibly upsetting) information? Here's the part I was specifically thinking of.
Way down on page 49 of the 50-page document filled with amendments, you'll find line 1653, which reads, "Subsection 41-6a-704(6), regarding lane filtering, is repealed July 1, 2027."
If you then open up the official Utah Code website to examine that statute, you'll see that the item in question spells out the how, where, and why motorcyclists in Utah may currently (at least, at the time of writing) perform legal lane filtering on roads in the state.
It details items like how a roadway must have two or more adjacent traffic lanes in the same direction of travel, the speed limit must be 45 miles per hour or less, surrounding traffic must be completely stopped, and the motorcycle must be moving at a speed of 15 miles per hour or less. Oh, and of course, the movement must be safe to make in the first place.
Well, scratch all that as of July 1, 2027, because that's about to be repealed and join its cousin, lane splitting, as becoming completely illegal within the state.
Once again, if you're wondering about upcoming e-bike (or electric bicycle) law changes in Utah, I'll be covering those in a separate post. Additionally, I'll come back into this post and put a link in the text here once that post is available, so you can easily move between them if you're looking for more information, because knowledge is power! (If there is no link in this text, it means that post does not yet exist, but it'll be available soon.)
