O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 40-6-50 (2019)

Driving on divided highway, controlled-access roadways, and emergency lanes

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) As used in this Code section, the term ‘‘gore’’ means the area of convergence between two lanes of traffic. (b) Every vehicle driven on a divided highway shall be driven only upon the right-hand roadway unless directed or permitted to use another roadway by official traffic-control devices or police officers. No vehicle shall be driven over, across, or within any dividing space, barrier, gore, paved shoulder, or section separating the roadways of a divided highway; except that a vehicle may be driven through an opening in such physical barrier or dividing space or at an established crossover or intersection unless specifically prohibited by an official sign, signal, or control device. No person shall drive a vehicle onto or from any controlled-access roadway except at such entrances and exits as are established by public authority. Except as provided for in

subsection (c) of this Code section, no vehicle shall be driven in an emergency lane except in the event of an actual emergency. (c) For purposes of this subsection, ‘‘transit bus’’ means a bus used for the transportation of passengers within a system which is operated by or under contract to the state, a public agency or authority, or a county or municipality of this state. If the commissioner of transportation permits the use of emergency lanes of a controlled-access roadway by transit buses in the metropolitan Atlanta nonattainment area, the commissioner shall designate on which controlled-access roadways the use of emergency lanes by transit buses may be allowed and upon such designation the commissioner shall only permit the use on that emergency lane of a transit bus with a seating capacity of 33 passengers or more. Transit buses authorized to use the emergency lanes under this subsection may be operated on the emergency lane only when main lane traffic speeds are less than 35 miles per hour. Drivers of transit buses being operated on the emergency lanes may not exceed the speed of the main lane traffic by more than 15 miles per hour and may never exceed 35 miles per hour. Drivers of transit buses being operated on the emergency lanes must yield to merging, entering, and exiting traffic and must yield to other vehicles on the emergency lanes. Transit buses operating on the emergency lanes must be registered with the Department of Transportation. (d) Nothing in this Code section shall prohibit the use of a FlexAuto lane in the manner permitted under Code Section 32-9-4.1.

History

(Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 556, § 64; Ga. L. 1963, p. 254, § 4; Code 1933, §§ 68A-311, 68A-312, enacted by Ga. L. 1974, p. 633, § 1; Code 1981, §§ 40-6-50, 40-6-51; Ga. L. 1990, p. 2048, § 5; Ga. L. 2003, p. 329, § 1; Ga. L. 2005, p. 684, § 3/HB 273.)

Annotations

Cross references. - Construction and regulation of limited-access roads generally, § 32-6-110 et seq. Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 2005, p. 684, § 1/HB 273, not codified by the General Assembly, provides; ‘‘The General Assembly finds and determines and recommends as follows: ‘‘(1) The Georgia Department of Transportation has a job of overwhelming proportions and addresses the ever-increasing transportation needs of the state through the hard work and dedication of outstanding leaders and staff; ‘‘(2) There is a need in this state to reduce emissions and improve air quality by increasing traffic flow and reducing traffic congestion and decreasing drive times; ‘‘(3) The Department of Transportation

is urged to use creative and innovative methods to deal with gridlock and traffic congestion in Georgia and especially in the metropolitan areas; ‘‘(4) Upon passage of this enabling legislation, the department is urged to implement FlexAuto lanes where applicable and to commence the implementation of such lanes in as timely a manner as is practicable; ‘‘(5) The Department of Transportation is requested specifically to identify 20 major areas with a history of traffic congestion in and around our state that will derive the most benefit from the use of FlexAuto lanes and, after identifying these areas, to create and rapidly implement a plan for use of such lanes in such areas; ‘‘(6) Studies and construction models

used successfully in other areas within this country and others should be used as models where traffic flow was improved and emissions reduced by using creative and innovative methods to deal with gridlock and traffic congestion; and

‘‘(7) The model used in Virginia is being studied by Israel, France, Japan, Germany, and England.’’

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Emergency lanes. - Because ‘‘emergency lane’’ has a meaning commonly understood by drivers following the rules of the road in Georgia, the term ‘‘emergency lane’’ as used in statutes is sufficiently definite to meet constitutional standards. Payne v. State, 275 Ga. 181, 563 S.E.2d 844 (2002). Because a truck driver witnessed an accident on a highway in which two vehicles veered off the road into a ravine presented an emergency, the truck driver’s act of stopping in an emergency lane to run into the ravine to provide assistance was in compliance with O.C.G.A. § 40-6-50(b), and not in violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-203. Reid v. Midwest

Transp., 270 Ga. App. 557, 607 S.E.2d 170 (2004). Tractor trailer illegally parked in emergency lane. - Trial court erred by granting summary judgment to the defendants in a wrongful death action upon concluding that the plaintiffs’ decedent was 50 percent or more responsible for the decedent’s own death because there was an issue of fact as to whether the decedent would have died but for the presence of the tractor-trailer illegally parked in the emergency lane. Reed v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co., 327 Ga. App. 130, 755 S.E.2d 356 (2014). Cited in Merritt v. State, 288 Ga. App. 89, 653 S.E.2d 368 (2007).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 7A Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 247. C.J.S. - 60A C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, §§ 652, 654. ALR. - Automobile accidents on street or highway divided by parkway or other neutral strip, 165 A.L.R. 1418.

Automobiles: accidents arising from merger of traffic on limited-access highway with that from service road or ramp, 40 A.L.R.3d 1429.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1989–2022 · leading case: Payne v. State, 563 S.E.2d 844 (Ga. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Payne v. State, 563 S.E.2d 844 (Ga. 2002). · cites it 14× “A jury convicted Tony Carroll Payne of driving in an emergency lane in violation of OCGA § 40-6-50 (b), as well as vehicular homi *182 tide, serious injury by vehicle, and reckless driving.”
Reid v. Midwest Transp., 607 S.E.2d 170 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “Reid argues that Yingst’s parking in the emergency lane was in violation of OCGA § 40-6-203; that Yingst was not confronted with an “emergency” as defined by OCGA § 40-6-50 (b); and that the court’s conclusion that this emergency, if any, constituted a defense for Yingst and the…”
State v. O'QUINN, 384 S.E.2d 888 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “, DUI, OCGA § 40-6-391; or OCGA §§ 40-6-50; 40-6-51; 40-6-52), or a violation of a statute coming under D.”
Reed v. Carolina Cas. Ins., 755 S.E.2d 356 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “See also OCGA § 40-6-50 (b) (“no vehicle shall be driven in an emergency lane except in the event of an actual emergency” except for transit buses under specified circumstances).”
Monk v. Dial, 441 S.E.2d 857 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “The ninth enumeration of error complains of the trial court’s refusal to give a requested jury charge predicated on OCGA § 40-6-50 (b). However, the requested charge was argumentative, not adjusted to the evidence in the case, contained an inadequate statement of law, and…”
Swanson v. Hall, 620 S.E.2d 576 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “4 The gore area is “the area of convergence between two lanes of traffic,” OCGA § 40-6-50 (a), often “a space marked with cross-hatched yellow lines that divides lanes of travel.”
Haynes v. the State, 780 S.E.2d 397 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “4 OCGA § 40-6-50 (b). 5 See Short v. State, 234 Ga.”
Garth Cooper v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “A jury convicted Garth Cooper, who represented himself at trial, of improper driving on a divided highway in violation of OCGA § 40-6-50 (b) based on Cooper’s action of driving his vehicle in an emergency lane in the absence of an actual emergency.”
Humphrey Semo v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “10 As Semo posits, Driving on a divided highway is defined under OCGA § 40-6-50[11] as “[e]very vehicle driven on a divided highway shall be driven only upon the right-hand roadway” and “[n]o person shall drive a vehicle onto or 10 See O’Shields, 351 Ga.”
Jaquan Marquell Keys v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “…a license (OCGA §§ 40-5-20 (a)), a turn signal violation (OCGA § 40-6-123(b)), improper driving on a divided highway (OCGA § 40-6-50), reckless driving (OCGA § 40-6-390), and speeding (OCGA § 40-6-181). These are all misdemeanor traffic offenses. See OCGA §§ 40-5-121 (a)…”
Thomas M. Reed, Sr. v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “See also OCGA § 40-6-50 (b) (“no vehicle shall be driven in an emergency lane except in the event of an actual emergency” except for transit buses under specified circumstances).”
Kelley v. Horn, 383 S.E.2d 638 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “Nor did the court err in charging the jury that Rives could be considered guilty of negligence per se if it were determined that he had been driving on the wrong side of a divided highway, in violation of OCGA § 40-6-50. Contrary to the appellant’s contention on appeal, 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.