42-4-1007. Driving on roadways laned for traffic.

Statute text

(1) Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic, the following rules in addition to all others consistent with this section shall apply:

(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.

(b) Upon a roadway which is divided into three lanes and provides for two-way movement of traffic, a vehicle shall not be driven in the center lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction where the roadway is clearly visible and such center lane is clear of traffic within a safe distance, or in preparation for a left turn, or where such center lane is at the time allocated exclusively to the traffic moving in the direction the vehicle is proceeding and is designated by official traffic control devices to give notice of such allocation. Under no condition shall an attempt be made to pass upon the shoulder or any portion of the roadway remaining to the right of the indicated right-hand traffic lane.

(c) Official traffic control devices may be erected directing specified traffic to use a designated lane or designating those lanes to be used by traffic moving in a particular direction regardless of the center of the roadway, and drivers of vehicles shall obey the directions of every such device.

(d) Official traffic control devices may be installed prohibiting the changing of lanes on sections of roadway, and drivers of vehicles shall obey the directions of every such device.

(2) (a) The department of transportation may designate with signage an area on a roadway not otherwise laned for traffic for use by commercial vehicles, as defined in section 42-4-235 (1)(a), that are designed to transport sixteen or more passengers, including the driver, and that are operated by a governmental entity or government-owned business that transports the general public or by a contractor on behalf of such an entity or government-owned business. Use of such an area is limited to vehicles authorized by the department operating under conditions of use established by the department but, subject to the conditions of use, the driver of an authorized vehicle has sole discretion to decide whether or not to drive on such an area based on the driver's assessment of the safety of doing so. The department shall consult with the Colorado state patrol before granting authorization for use of the area and establishing conditions of use. The department shall impose and each authorized user shall acknowledge the conditions of use by written agreement, and the department need not note the conditions of use in roadway signage. An authorized user does not violate this section or section 42-4-1004 when operating in accordance with the conditions of use for an area imposed by the department and acknowledged by the user in a written agreement.

(b) The department of transportation shall work with local governmental agencies in implementing the provisions of this subsection (2).

(3) A person who violates any provision of this section commits a class A traffic infraction.

History

Source: L. 94: Entire title amended with relocations, p. 2360, 1, effective January 1, 1995. L. 2016: (2) amended and (3) added, (HB 16-1008), ch. 8, p. 15, 1, effective March 9.

Annotations

Editor's note: This section is similar to former 42-4-907 as it existed prior to 1994.

Annotations

 

ANNOTATION

Annotations

Annotator's note. Since 42-4-1007 is similar to 42-4-907 as it existed prior to the 1994 amending of title 42 as enacted by SB 94-1, a relevant case construing that provision have been included with the annotations to this section.

In order to determine whether a driver complied with subsection (1)(a), it is essential to consider the totality of the circumstances. People v. Chavez-Barragan, 2016 CO 16, 365 P.3d 981.

Officer had reasonable suspicion that a violation of this statute occurred, thus justifying officer to stop vehicle, where vehicle moved three to four feet into another lane of traffic, essentially straddling the lane divider for several seconds. United States v. Valenzuela, 494 F.3d 886 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1032 (2007).

Officer did not have reasonable suspicion that a violation of this statute occurred when a driver changed lanes in front of patrol car which gave less than three seconds of space between vehicles because driver determined the lane change was safe given the specific circumstances on the road. People v. Deaner, 2022 CO 43, 517 P.3d 66.

Two trips across the fog line gave rise to a reasonable, articulable suspicion of a violation of subsection (1)(a). People v. Chavez-Barragan, 2016 CO 16, 365 P.3d 981.

Applied in Brutcher v. District Court, 195 Colo. 579, 580 P.2d 396 (1978); People v. Mascarenas, 632 P.2d 1028 (Colo. 1981).