No judicial notice of familiarity with highway manual.

- Interpretation of signs and signals as provided by the manual of the State Highway Board (now State Transportation Board) is not a matter of which the court can take judicial cognizance, nor one which the court can presume that every motorist is familiar with, to the extent of imposing penal sanctions for disobedience thereof. Maxwell v. State, 97 Ga. App. 334, 103 S.E.2d 162 (1958) (decided under Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 556).

Purpose of zones.

- No-passing zones were established for the benefit of oncoming motorists traveling in the opposite direction, and for the benefit of one whose vehicle is being passed. Southeast Transp. Corp. v. Hogan Livestock Co., 133 Ga. App. 825, 212 S.E.2d 638 (1975).

Existence of obstruction.

- When read together, O.C.G.A. § 40-6-40(a)(2) and subsection (c) of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-46 provide that there is no violation of the no-passing zone statute when an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the highway, provided that any person so doing must yield the right of way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the highway within such distance as to constitute an immediate hazard. Smith v. State, 237 Ga. App. 77, 514 S.E.2d 710 (1999).

Whether the trash truck that the defendant passed in a no-passing zone posed an obstruction allowing the defendant to cross the double yellow centerline in order to pass the vehicle, was a question for the trier of fact to resolve; there was evidence to support the defendant's conviction under O.C.G.A. § 40-6-46. Parker v. State, 276 Ga. App. 9, 622 S.E.2d 403 (Oct. 18, 2005).

Because the defendant committed a traffic violation by crossing a solid yellow line in the roadway, and was not legitimately faced with an obstruction, despite claiming that it was undoubtedly convenient to pass the slow moving van driving ahead, a police officer had a reasonable and articulable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop of the defendant's vehicle. Przyjemski v. State, 290 Ga. App. 22, 658 S.E.2d 807 (2008).

Violation of statute clearly established.

- Juvenile's adjudication as a delinquent after being charged with delinquency for reckless driving for passing in a no-passing zone, serious injury by motor vehicle, and feticide was upheld on appeal as the testimony and evidence clearly established that although the juvenile may have begun to pass in a passing zone, the juvenile failed to consider how far the passing zone continued and the juvenile continued to pass at a high rate of speed well into the no-passing zone knowing the approach of the crest of a hill and a curve was coming, yet the juvenile never once sought to slow down and return to the right lane behind the vehicle the juvenile was attempting to pass. In the Interest of A.H., 291 Ga. App. 861, 663 S.E.2d 270 (2008).

Cited in Hanover Ins. Co. v. Rollins, 136 Ga. App. 595, 222 S.E.2d 91 (1975); Lott v. Smith, 153 Ga. App. 365, 265 S.E.2d 291 (1980); Duncan v. Deits, 185 Ga. App. 136, 363 S.E.2d 601 (1987); Worthy v. Kendall, 222 Ga. App. 324, 474 S.E.2d 627 (1996); Roberts v. Dove, 234 Ga. App. 853, 508 S.E.2d 213 (1998); Haynes-Turner v. State, 289 Ga. App. 652, 658 S.E.2d 203 (2008).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 7A Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 251.

C.J.S.

- 60A C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, §§ 652, 749, 750.