Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 42
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-102 (2026)

Legislative declaration

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The general assembly recognizes the many conflicts which presently exist between the state's traffic laws and many of the municipal traffic codes, which conflicts lead to uncertainty in the movement of traffic on the state's highways and streets. These conflicts are compounded by the fact that today's Americans are extremely mobile and that while this state enjoys a large influx of traffic from many areas, there is some lack of uniformity existing between the "rules of the road" of this state and those of other states of the nation. The general assembly, therefore, declares it the purpose of this article to alleviate these conflicts and lack of uniformity by conforming, as nearly as possible, certain of the traffic laws of this state with the recommendations of the national committee of uniform traffic laws and ordinances as set forth in the committee's "Uniform Vehicle Code".

Source: L. 94: Entire title amended with relocations, p. 2227, § 1, effective January 1, 1995.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: 20SC717- McBride v. People, 511 P.3d 613 (Colo. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
20SC717- McBride v. People, 511 P.3d 613 (Colo. 2022). · cites it 2× “See § 42-4-102, C.R.S. (2021); People v. Wright, 742 P.”
v McBride, 2020 COA 111 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “” (citing § 42-4-102, C.R.S. 2019)). ¶ 15 Second, another subsection of section 42-4-206 requires “a tail lamp or a separate lamp” to illuminate the rear registration plate “with a white light.”
People v. Tow, 992 P.2d 665 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “’ Section 42-4-102, C.R.S.1998 (emphasis added).”
People v. Wright, 742 P.2d 316 (Colo. 1987). · cites it 2× “Section 42-4-102, 8B C.R.S. (1986) provides: Legislative declaration.”
Sisneros v. City of Grand Junction, 940 P.2d 984 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “See § 42-4-102, C.R.S. (1996 Cum.Supp.). The Code provides that a violation of the regulations adopted may constitute either a “traffic offense” or a “class 2 misdemeanor traffic offense,” punishable by various penalties.”
Farm v. Steul, 2020 COA 146 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). “” § 42-4-102(2)(b)(II). It therefore mandates that motor vehicle insurance policies are written to “require policyholders .”
Bernard E. Sandoval v. City of Colorado Springs, 2026 CO 34 (Colo. 2026). · cites it 2× “" § 42-4-102, C.R.S. (2025). The traffic code also provides solutions when, for example, a traffic light is out.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-102(2)(b)(II): 1 case
Farm v. Steul, 2020 COA 146 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). “” § 42-4-102(2)(b)(II). It therefore mandates that motor vehicle insurance policies are written to “require policyholders .”
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.