MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE
Act 300 of 1949
257.634 Driving on right half of roadway; exceptions; driving on roadway having 2 or more lanes for travel in 1 direction; traveling on freeway having 3 or more lanes for travel in same direction; ordinance regulating same subject matter prohibited; violation as civil infraction.
Sec. 634.
(1) Upon each roadway of sufficient width, the driver of a vehicle shall drive the vehicle upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows:
(a) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing that movement.
(b) When the right half of a roadway is closed to traffic while under construction or repair or when an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the highway. A driver who is driving on the left half of a roadway under this subdivision shall yield the right-of-way to an oncoming vehicle traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the roadway.
(c) When a vehicle operated by a state agency or a local authority or an agent of a state agency or local authority is engaged in work on the roadway.
(d) Upon a roadway divided into 3 marked lanes for traffic under the rules applicable on the roadway.
(2) Upon a roadway having 2 or more lanes for travel in 1 direction, the driver of a vehicle shall drive the vehicle in the extreme right-hand lane available for travel except as otherwise provided in this section. However, the driver of a vehicle may drive the vehicle in any lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the same direction of travel when the lanes are occupied by a streetcar or vehicles moving in substantially continuous lanes of traffic and in any left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the same direction of travel for a reasonable distance before making a left turn or to avoid blocking, delaying, or otherwise interfering with the movement of a streetcar on a streetcar track.
(3) This section must not be construed to prohibit a vehicle traveling in the appropriate direction from traveling in any lane of a freeway having 3 or more lanes for travel in the same direction. However, a city, village, township, or county may not enact an ordinance that regulates the same subject matter as any provision of this subsection. The driver of a truck with a gross weight of more than 10,000 pounds, a truck tractor, or a combination of a vehicle and trailer or semitrailer shall drive the vehicle or combination of vehicles only in either of the 2 lanes farthest to the right, except for a reasonable distance when making a left turn or where a special hazard exists that requires the use of an alternative lane for safety reasons.
(4) A person who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction.
History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1968, Act 260, Eff. Nov. 15, 1968 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 170, Imd. Eff. June 25, 1976 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 510, Eff. Aug. 1, 1979 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 346, Eff. Jan. 1, 1989 ;-- Am. 2021, Act 43, Imd. Eff. July 1, 2021
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
27
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1955–2023 · leading case:
United States v. Hartwell, 67 F. Supp. 2d 784 (E.D. Mich. 1999).
Zeni v. Anderson, 243 N.W.2d 270 (Mich. 1976).
· cites it 2× “) [10] This is still the approach under the successor statute, MCLA 257.634; MSA 9.2334, with the only question being not whether an excuse would be acceptable, but what an acceptable excuse would be.”
Martiniano v. Booth, 103 N.W.2d 502 (Mich. 1960).
· cites it 5× “Defendant admitted violation of section 634 of the Michigan vehicle code, PA 1949, No 300 (CLS 1956, § 257.634, Stat Ann 1952 Rev § 9.2334) by having driven his vehicle on the wrong side of the highway when it collided with the vehicle in which plaintiff was riding.”
Gregg v. State High. Dep't, 458 N.W.2d 619 (Mich. 1990).
· cites it 2× “For "safety and convenience" sake, of course, snowplowing is required during winter periods to make the shoulder available for the "temporary accommodation of disabled or stopped vehicles.”
Derbeck v. Ward, 443 N.W.2d 812 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
“as a reasonable and prudent person would have done if he had made proper observations, contrary to the common law; c) Operating said motor vehicle upon a public highway in a careless and negligent manner likely to endanger persons or property; d) Failing to obey the instructions…”
Young v. Flood, 452 N.W.2d 869 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “The trial court instructed the jury on the relevant portions of MCL 257.634; MSA 9.2334 and MCL 257.635; MSA 9.”
Poplawski v. Huron Clinton Metro. Auth., 260 N.W.2d 890 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 3× “As noted above, the precise statute alleged to have been violated in this case is MCLA 257.634; MSA 9.2334. In its discussion of the violation of a *649 statute as a rebuttable presumption, the Supreme Court in Zeni had occasion to examine that statutory provision.”
Huss v. United States, 738 F. Supp. 1098 (W.D. Mich. 1990).
· cites it 2× “section 257.634, which requires the driver of a vehicle to drive on the right half of the roadway.”
Daniel O'Keefe v. Audrey Landgraff (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 8× “The O’Keefes offer a similarly meritless argument that Landgraff was required under MCL 257.634 to yield to O’Keefe before proceeding around the utility trucks.”
Houck v. Snyder, 134 N.W.2d 689 (Mich. 1965).
· cites it 2× “[4] CLS 1961, § 257.634 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 9.2334). [5] CLS 1961, § 257.”
Morton v. Wibright, 187 N.W.2d 254 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 2× “2 MCLA § 257.634 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 9.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.634(1) — 6 cases
Daniel O'Keefe v. Audrey Landgraff (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“The O’Keefes offer a similarly meritless argument that Landgraff was required under MCL 257.634 to yield to O’Keefe before proceeding around the utility trucks.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.634(1)(b) — 1 case
Daniel O'Keefe v. Audrey Landgraff (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“The O’Keefes offer a similarly meritless argument that Landgraff was required under MCL 257.634 to yield to O’Keefe before proceeding around the utility trucks.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.634(1)(c) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.634(1)(d) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.634(2) — 5 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.634(2)(b) — 1 case
Daniel O'Keefe v. Audrey Landgraff (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“The O’Keefes offer a similarly meritless argument that Landgraff was required under MCL 257.634 to yield to O’Keefe before proceeding around the utility trucks.”
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.