MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE
Act 300 of 1949
257.642 Roadway divided into 2 or more marked lanes; applicable rules; designation as HOV lane; restrictions; exceptions; designation as automated vehicle roadway or lane; violation as civil infraction.
Sec. 642.
(1) If a roadway is divided into 2 or more clearly marked lanes for traffic, the following rules in addition to all other rules that are consistent with this act apply:
(a) A vehicle must be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and must not be moved from the lane until the operator has first ascertained that the movement can be safely made.
(b) On a roadway that is divided into 4 or more lanes and provides for 2-way movement of traffic, a vehicle must be operated within the extreme right-hand lane except if overtaking and passing, and must not cross the center line of the roadway except if making a left turn.
(c) On a roadway that is divided into 3 lanes and provides for 2-way movement of traffic, a vehicle must not be operated in the center lane except under any of the following circumstances:
(i) If overtaking and passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction, and the center lane is clear of traffic within a safe distance.
(ii) In preparation for a left turn.
(iii) If the center lane is allocated exclusively to traffic moving in the same direction the vehicle is proceeding and the allocation is designated by official traffic control devices.
(d) 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 operators of vehicles shall obey the directions of the traffic control device.
(e) Official traffic control devices may be installed prohibiting the changing of lanes on sections of roadway, and operators of vehicles shall obey the directions of the traffic control devices.
(2) If a lane is designated as an HOV lane by an agency with jurisdiction over the roadway, and is appropriately marked with traffic control devices, the lane must be reserved during the periods indicated for the exclusive use of buses and HOVs. The restrictions imposed on an HOV lane do not apply to any of the following:
(a) An authorized emergency vehicle.
(b) A law enforcement vehicle.
(c) A bus.
(d) A motorcycle.
(3) If a segment of roadway is designated as an automated vehicle roadway or a lane or ramp of an automated vehicle roadway as an automated vehicle roadway lane under section 665c, both of the following must apply:
(a) If a user fee is required under section 665c(1)(c), the user fee is paid.
(b) The motor vehicle or automated motor vehicle complies with any applicable requirements of section 665c(2).
(4) The requirements of subsection (3) apply in addition to other existing rules or regulations governing the use of an automated vehicle roadway or automated vehicle roadway lane that are not inconsistent with subsection (3).
(5) An individual who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction and may be fined as provided in section 907.
History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1974, Act 289, Imd. Eff. Oct. 15, 1974 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 510, Eff. Aug. 1, 1979 ;-- Am. 2008, Act 304, Imd. Eff. Dec. 9, 2008 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 498, Eff. Mar. 28, 2013 ;-- Am. 2022, Act 179, Imd. Eff. July 25, 2022 ;-- Am. 2023, Act 148, Imd. Eff. Oct. 10, 2023
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
26
cases (
11 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case:
People v. Davis, 649 N.W.2d 94 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
People v. Davis, 649 N.W.2d 94 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 3× “3 Officer Hopkins began to follow defendant because of this violation and observed defendant’s vehicle weaving in its lane and speeding, in vio *360 lation of MCL 257.642(l)(a) 4 and MCL 257.628(4). 5 Officer Hopkins executed a traffic stop, informed defendant that he was…”
Birkhill v. Todd, 174 N.W.2d 56 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).
· cites it 2× “MCLA § 257.642 (Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 9.2342), states in pertinent part: “Whenever any roadway has been divided into 2 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…”
Crane v. Woodbury, 199 N.W.2d 577 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).
“2 MCLA 257.642; MSA 9.2342. 3 See 3 Michigan Law & Practice, Automobiles, § 180, p 552.”
Mazen Sayegh v. Citizens Ins. Co. of the Midwest (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 7× “642,2 which addresses the rules for the operation of vehicles on roadways within Michigan, and as relevant to this appeal, required that a vehicle travel in the extreme right- hand lane of travel except when “overtaking and passing” other vehicles and that motorists, including…”
Beauchamp v. Olsen, 201 N.W.2d 677 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).
“MCLA 257.642; MSA 9.2342. On the facts of this case Mrs.”
People of Michigan v. Beverly Ann Kocevar (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 6× “” Judge Thompson acknowledged that his predecessor on the circuit court, Judge James Batzer, had ruled in a different case that driving “partially over the fog line” did not constitute a violation of MCL 257.642. Judge Thompson disagreed with Judge Batzer, invoking an…”
People of Michigan v. Beverly Ann Kocevar (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 6× “” Judge Thompson acknowledged that his predecessor on the circuit court, Judge James Batzer, had ruled in a different case that driving “partially over the fog line” did not constitute a violation of MCL 257.642. Judge Thompson disagreed with Judge Batzer, invoking an…”
People of Michigan v. Beverly Ann Kocevar (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 5× “The single issue presented on appeal is whether driving on or crossing a fog line violates MCL 257.642(1)(a). Because I conclude that it does, I would affirm.”
People of Michigan v. Beverly Ann Kocevar (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 5× “The single issue presented on appeal is whether driving on or crossing a fog line violates MCL 257.642(1)(a). Because I conclude that it does, I would affirm.”
Pennell (E.D. Mich. 2026).
· cites it 5× “-16- Plaintiff argues that the traffic stop lacked probable cause because she did not cross the center line in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.642 and § 257.648.”
People of Michigan v. Daniel Jay Weaver (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 3× “The officer therefore stopped defendant for improper lane use in violation of MCL 257.642. When Officer Dornbos approached defendant’s open driver’s-side window, he immediately noticed “a strong odor of intoxicants.”
People of Michigan v. Daniel Jay Weaver (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 3× “The officer therefore stopped defendant for improper lane use in violation of MCL 257.642. When Officer Dornbos approached defendant’s open driver’s-side window, he immediately noticed “a strong odor of intoxicants.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.642(1) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.642(1)(a) — 13 cases
People of Michigan v. Beverly Ann Kocevar (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“The single issue presented on appeal is whether driving on or crossing a fog line violates MCL 257.642(1)(a). Because I conclude that it does, I would affirm.”
People of Michigan v. Beverly Ann Kocevar (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“The single issue presented on appeal is whether driving on or crossing a fog line violates MCL 257.642(1)(a). Because I conclude that it does, I would affirm.”
People of Michigan v. Beverly Ann Kocevar (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“” Judge Thompson acknowledged that his predecessor on the circuit court, Judge James Batzer, had ruled in a different case that driving “partially over the fog line” did not constitute a violation of MCL 257.642. Judge Thompson disagreed with Judge Batzer, invoking an…”
People of Michigan v. Beverly Ann Kocevar (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“” Judge Thompson acknowledged that his predecessor on the circuit court, Judge James Batzer, had ruled in a different case that driving “partially over the fog line” did not constitute a violation of MCL 257.642. Judge Thompson disagreed with Judge Batzer, invoking an…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.642(3) — 2 cases
People of Michigan v. Beverly Ann Kocevar (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“” Judge Thompson acknowledged that his predecessor on the circuit court, Judge James Batzer, had ruled in a different case that driving “partially over the fog line” did not constitute a violation of MCL 257.642. Judge Thompson disagreed with Judge Batzer, invoking an…”
People of Michigan v. Beverly Ann Kocevar (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“” Judge Thompson acknowledged that his predecessor on the circuit court, Judge James Batzer, had ruled in a different case that driving “partially over the fog line” did not constitute a violation of MCL 257.642. Judge Thompson disagreed with Judge Batzer, invoking an…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.642(a)(1) — 2 cases
People of Michigan v. Beverly Ann Kocevar (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“The single issue presented on appeal is whether driving on or crossing a fog line violates MCL 257.642(1)(a). Because I conclude that it does, I would affirm.”
People of Michigan v. Beverly Ann Kocevar (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“The single issue presented on appeal is whether driving on or crossing a fog line violates MCL 257.642(1)(a). Because I conclude that it does, I would affirm.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.642(b) — 2 cases
People of Michigan v. Daniel Jay Weaver (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“The officer therefore stopped defendant for improper lane use in violation of MCL 257.642. When Officer Dornbos approached defendant’s open driver’s-side window, he immediately noticed “a strong odor of intoxicants.”
People of Michigan v. Daniel Jay Weaver (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“The officer therefore stopped defendant for improper lane use in violation of MCL 257.642. When Officer Dornbos approached defendant’s open driver’s-side window, he immediately noticed “a strong odor of intoxicants.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.642(l)(a) — 2 cases
People v. Davis, 649 N.W.2d 94 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
“3 Officer Hopkins began to follow defendant because of this violation and observed defendant’s vehicle weaving in its lane and speeding, in vio *360 lation of MCL 257.642(l)(a) 4 and MCL 257.628(4). 5 Officer Hopkins executed a traffic stop, informed defendant that he was…”
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.