(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.
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.
Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 42-4-907 as it existed prior to 1994.
Notes of Decisions
People v. Chavez-Barragan, 2016 CO 16 (Colo. 2016).
· cites it 19× “Officer Ponce believed she had observed a lane violation under section 42-4-1007(1)(a), C.R.S. (2015), but she did not immediately stop the truck.”
People v. Chavez-Barragan, 2016 CO 66 (Colo. 2016).
· cites it 3× “After a task foree member asked Deputy Ponce to develop a basis for a traffic stop, she pulled the defendant over for weaving in violation of section 42-4-1007(1)(a), C.R.S. (2016). Chavez-Barragan, 11 8-6, 365 P.”
People v. Rodriguez, 945 P.2d 1351 (Colo. 1997).
· cites it 4× “[2] Section 42-4-1007(1)(a), 17 C.R.S. (1996 Supp.”
People v. Coria, 937 P.2d 386 (Colo. 1997).
· cites it 2× “(1993) (now codified as section 42-4-1007,17 C.R.S. (1996 Supp.)).”
United States v. Gastellum, 927 F. Supp. 1386 (D. Colo. 1996).
· cites it 6× “The analogous Utah provision provides: On a roadway divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic the following provisions apply: (1) A vehicle shall be operated as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and may not be moved from the lane until the…”
People v. Johnston, 2018 COA 167 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 3× “3 Given our disposition of this case, we need not reach the People’s other arguments that there existed reasonable suspicion that defendant was about to violate section 42-4-1007(1)(a), C.R.S. 2018 (weaving out of designated lanes), or section 42-4-1402(1), C.”
United States v. Valenzuela, 494 F.3d 886 (10th Cir. 2007).
“In Gregory , we interpreted a Utah statute very similar to Colo.Rev.Stat. § 42-4-1007(l)(a) and held, under the circumstances of that case, a driver’s brief drift outside his lane of traffic into an emergency lane did not amount to a violation of Utah law sufficient to…”
In re R.C., 309 P.3d 954 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 3× “2012 (a class 2 petty offense) and unsafe lane change in violation of section 42-4-1007, C.R.S.2012 (a class A traffic offense).”
People v. Shinaut, 940 P.2d 380 (Colo. 1997).
“(1993) (now codified at § 42-4-1007(l)(a), 17 C.R.S. (1996 Supp.)).”
People v. Ramos, 13 P.3d 295 (Colo. 2000).
“The order of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-1007(1): 1 case
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-1007(1)(a): 7 cases
People v. Chavez-Barragan, 2016 CO 16 (Colo. 2016).
“Officer Ponce believed she had observed a lane violation under section 42-4-1007(1)(a), C.R.S. (2015), but she did not immediately stop the truck.”
People v. Chavez-Barragan, 2016 CO 66 (Colo. 2016).
“After a task foree member asked Deputy Ponce to develop a basis for a traffic stop, she pulled the defendant over for weaving in violation of section 42-4-1007(1)(a), C.R.S. (2016). Chavez-Barragan, 11 8-6, 365 P.”
People v. Rodriguez, 945 P.2d 1351 (Colo. 1997).
“[2] Section 42-4-1007(1)(a), 17 C.R.S. (1996 Supp.”
People v. Johnston, 2018 COA 167 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
“3 Given our disposition of this case, we need not reach the People’s other arguments that there existed reasonable suspicion that defendant was about to violate section 42-4-1007(1)(a), C.R.S. 2018 (weaving out of designated lanes), or section 42-4-1402(1), C.”
United States v. Gastellum, 927 F. Supp. 1386 (D. Colo. 1996).
“The analogous Utah provision provides: On a roadway divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic the following provisions apply: (1) A vehicle shall be operated as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and may not be moved from the lane until the…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-1007(2): 3 cases
People v. Chavez-Barragan, 2016 CO 16 (Colo. 2016).
“Officer Ponce believed she had observed a lane violation under section 42-4-1007(1)(a), C.R.S. (2015), but she did not immediately stop the truck.”
People v. Ramos, 13 P.3d 295 (Colo. 2000).
“The order of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-1007(a): 1 case
United States v. Gastellum, 927 F. Supp. 1386 (D. Colo. 1996).
“The analogous Utah provision provides: On a roadway divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic the following provisions apply: (1) A vehicle shall be operated as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and may not be moved from the lane until the…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-1007(l)(a): 4 cases
People v. Rodriguez, 945 P.2d 1351 (Colo. 1997).
“[2] Section 42-4-1007(1)(a), 17 C.R.S. (1996 Supp.”
United States v. Valenzuela, 494 F.3d 886 (10th Cir. 2007).
“In Gregory , we interpreted a Utah statute very similar to Colo.Rev.Stat. § 42-4-1007(l)(a) and held, under the circumstances of that case, a driver’s brief drift outside his lane of traffic into an emergency lane did not amount to a violation of Utah law sufficient to…”
People v. Shinaut, 940 P.2d 380 (Colo. 1997).
“(1993) (now codified at § 42-4-1007(l)(a), 17 C.R.S. (1996 Supp.)).”
United States v. Gastellum, 927 F. Supp. 1386 (D. Colo. 1996).
“The analogous Utah provision provides: On a roadway divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic the following provisions apply: (1) A vehicle shall be operated as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and may not be moved from the lane until the…”
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.