Sec. 547.501. AUDIBLE WARNING DEVICES. (a) A motor vehicle shall be equipped with a horn in good working condition that emits a sound audible under normal conditions at a distance of at least 200 feet.
(b) A vehicle may not be equipped with and a person may not use on a vehicle a siren, whistle, or bell unless the vehicle is:
(1) a commercial vehicle that is equipped with a theft alarm signal device arranged so that the device cannot be used as an ordinary warning signal; or
(2) an authorized emergency vehicle that is equipped with a siren, whistle, or bell that complies with Section 547.702.
(c) A motor vehicle operator shall use a horn to provide audible warning only when necessary to insure safe operation.
(d) A warning device, including a horn, may not emit an unreasonably loud or harsh sound or a whistle.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Notes of Decisions
Young v. The City of Irving (N.D. Tex. 2025).
· cites it 2× “Landry reasonably believed that Young had violated Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 547.501 (c) (West 2022).”
Justin G. Sandlin v. State (Tex. App. 2019).
“” Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 547.501 (c). Sandlin argues that a mere two honks of the horn could not have given McGee reasonable suspicion that he had violated section 547.”
Porter v. Gore (S.D. Cal. 2021).
“(a); Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 547.501 (c). 27 1 With respect to frequency, the record discloses that Plaintiff honked her horn 14 times 2 which would have constituted an extended and continuing distraction.”
Young v. The City of Irving (N.D. Tex. 2024).
“” Young does not dispute that he honked his horn, does not allege that he did so “to insure safe operation” of his vehicle, and does not allege that Officer Landry did not reasonably believe that Young had violated § 547.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.