Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 8-1522 (2026)

Driving on roadways laned for traffic; driving in right lane required; exceptions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

8-1522. Driving on roadways laned for traffic; driving in right lane required; exceptions. Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic, the following rules in addition to all others consistent herewith 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 when such center lane is clear of traffic within a safe distance, or in preparation for making a left turn or where such center lane is at the time allocated exclusively to traffic moving in the same direction that the vehicle is proceeding and such allocation is designated by official traffic-control devices.

(c) Upon a highway located outside the corporate limits of any city divided into two lanes of traffic proceeding in the same direction, all vehicles shall be driven in the right lane except when:

(1) Overtaking and passing another vehicle;

(2) preparing to make a proper left turn;

(3) otherwise directed by official traffic-control devices; or

(4) otherwise required by other provisions of law.

(d) Upon a highway located outside the corporate limits of any city divided into three or more lanes of traffic proceeding in the same direction, vehicles shall not be driven in the far left lane except when:

(1) Overtaking and passing another vehicle;

(2) preparing to make a proper left turn;

(3) otherwise directed by official traffic-control devices; or

(4) otherwise required by other provisions of law.

(e) The provisions of subsections (c) and (d) shall not apply to authorized emergency vehicles, law enforcement vehicles, Kansas turnpike authority vehicles or department of transportation vehicles performing construction or maintenance work.

(f) 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.

(g) 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.

(h) From and after July 1, 2009, and prior to July 1, 2010, a law enforcement officer shall issue a warning citation to anyone violating the provisions of subsection (c) or (d).

History: L. 1974, ch. 33, § 8-1522; L. 2009, ch. 108, § 1; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 87 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: State v. Marx, 215 P.3d 601 (Kan. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Marx, 215 P.3d 601 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 95× “The reversal was based on the Court of Appeals' determination that the initial traffic stop was lawful because the detaining officer had a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle driver had violated K.S.A. 8-1522. The State cross-petitions for review of the Court of Appeals'…”

United States v. Jones, 501 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (D. Kan. 2007). · cites it 73× “First, did Trooper Nicholas have reasonable suspicion to make the initial traffic stop? The defendants contend that Trooper Nicholas did not have reasonable suspicion that the defendant Blanchard in crossing over the fog line once violated K.S.A. § 8-1522, as that statute has…”

State v. Arceo-Rojas, 458 P.3d 272 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 21× “Arceo-Rojas was staying in the left lane in violation of" K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8-1522. The trial court also concluded that Lieutenant Stopper had "reasonable and articulable" suspicion that Arceo- Rojas failed to maintain a safe distance between her car and the car behind her.”

State v. Garza, 286 P.3d 554 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 16× “But Garza argued the applicable law was K.S.A. 8-1522, which is the statute for failing to maintain a single lane.”

State v. Ross, 149 P.3d 876 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 10× “” K.S.A. 8-1522. Ross argues that because the statute only requires a driver to maintain a single lane “as nearly as practicable,” his failure to maintain a single lane does not necessarily constitute a violation of K.”

State of Tennessee v. Linzey Danielle Smith, 484 S.W.3d 393 (Tenn. 2016). · cites it 4× “Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-1522 (as quoted in Marx, 215 P.”

State v. Marx, 171 P.3d 276 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 23× “However, we disagree with the district court’s finding that the sheriff s deputy lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the Marxes’ vehicle for failure to maintain a single lane, in violation of K.S.A. 8-1522. The motions to suppress raised other issues which the district court did…”

United States v. Ozbirn, 189 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 1999). · cites it 6× “Ozbirn based on an observed violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-1522 . This statute provides that “[w]henever any roadway has been divided into two (2) or more clearly marked lanes for traffic .”

State v. Knight, 241 P.3d 120 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 12× “8-1522(a) requires that “[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.”

State v. Knight, 218 P.3d 1177 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 12× “K.S.A. 8-1522 applies “[w]henever any roadway has been divided into two (2) or more clearly marked lanes for traffic.”

United States v. Cline, Timothy, 349 F.3d 1276 (10th Cir. 2003). · cites it 3× “In this case, Cline was stopped for violating Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-1522 , which provides that “[w]henever any roadway has been divided into two (2) or more clearly marked lanes for traffic .”

United States v. Lopez, 485 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (D. Kan. 2007). · cites it 21× “Lopez first argues that the officers lacked justification to stop him for violating K.S.A. § 8-1522. In order to satisfy the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment, the traffic stop “ ‘must be based on an observed traffic violation’ or a ‘reasonable articulable…”

Show all 87 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 8-1522(a) — 43 cases

State v. Marx, 215 P.3d 601 (Kan. 2009). “The reversal was based on the Court of Appeals' determination that the initial traffic stop was lawful because the detaining officer had a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle driver had violated K.S.A. 8-1522. The State cross-petitions for review of the Court of Appeals'…”

United States v. Jones, 501 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (D. Kan. 2007). “First, did Trooper Nicholas have reasonable suspicion to make the initial traffic stop? The defendants contend that Trooper Nicholas did not have reasonable suspicion that the defendant Blanchard in crossing over the fog line once violated K.S.A. § 8-1522, as that statute has…”

State v. Ross, 149 P.3d 876 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “” K.S.A. 8-1522. Ross argues that because the statute only requires a driver to maintain a single lane “as nearly as practicable,” his failure to maintain a single lane does not necessarily constitute a violation of K.”

State of Tennessee v. Linzey Danielle Smith, 484 S.W.3d 393 (Tenn. 2016). “Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-1522 (as quoted in Marx, 215 P.”

State v. Knight, 241 P.3d 120 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “8-1522(a) requires that “[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.”

— K.S.A. § 8-1522(c) — 3 cases

State v. Arceo-Rojas, 458 P.3d 272 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). “Arceo-Rojas was staying in the left lane in violation of" K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8-1522. The trial court also concluded that Lieutenant Stopper had "reasonable and articulable" suspicion that Arceo- Rojas failed to maintain a safe distance between her car and the car behind her.”

State v. Robinson (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).

State v. Shimer (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).

— K.S.A. § 8-1522(c)(1) — 2 cases

State v. Robinson (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).

— K.S.A. § 8-1522(c)(3) — 1 case

State v. Robinson (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).

— K.S.A. § 8-1522(c)(4) — 1 case

State v. Robinson (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).

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.