When a roadway has been divided into clearly marked lanes for traffic, drivers of vehicles shall obey the following regulations:
a. A vehicle shall normally be driven in the lane nearest the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway when that lane is available for travel, except when overtaking another vehicle or in preparation for a left turn.
b. A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from that lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety.
c. Upon a highway which is divided into 3 lanes, a vehicle shall not be driven in the center lane except when overtaking or passing another vehicle or in preparation for a left turn or unless the center lane is at the time allocated for traffic moving in the direction the vehicle is proceeding and is signposted to give notice of that allocation.
d. The State Highway Commissioner may by regulation or local authorities may by resolution or ordinance with respect to highways under their jurisdiction designate right-hand lanes for slow moving traffic and inside lanes for traffic moving at the speed designated for the district as provided under this chapter, and when the lanes are signposted or marked to give notice of the designation a vehicle may be driven in any lane allocated to traffic moving in the direction in which it is proceeding, but when traveling within the inside lanes the vehicle shall be driven at approximately the speed authorized in such lanes and speed shall not be decreased unnecessarily so as to block, hinder or retard traffic.
e. When such roadway had been divided in such a manner that there are three or more lanes for traffic in any one direction, no truck of 10,000 pounds registered gross weight or over shall be driven in the farthest left-hand lane, except:
(1) when and to the extent necessary to prepare for a left turn; a truck may be driven in the farthest left lane for up to one mile to prepare for a left hand turn as authorized under this paragraph;
(2) when necessary to enter or leave such roadway by entrance or exit to or from the left lane; a truck may be driven in the farthest left lane for up to one mile to prepare to enter or leave the roadway as authorized under this paragraph;
(3) when reasonably necessary in response to emergency conditions; for the purposes of this paragraph, "emergency conditions" shall include, but not be limited to: poor visibility, snow, accidents, or the presence of emergency vehicles.
Notes of Decisions
State of Tennessee v. Linzey Danielle Smith, 484 S.W.3d 393 (Tenn. 2016).
· cites it 3× “' [[Image here]] Moreover, the first clause of N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b) is not limited to circumstances in which the deviation from the lane is demonstrated to be a danger to other drivers.”
State of New Jersey v. Scott Robertson, 102 A.3d 381 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2014).
· cites it 2× “3 A-0296-13T1 well as failure to maintain a lane, N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b), and reckless driving, N.”
State of New Jersey v. Keith Drake, 132 A.3d 1270 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2016).
“39:4-88(b), "the better construction of the statute is that it consists of two separate, independent clauses, each of which addresses a distinct offense.”
State v. Regis, 32 A.3d 1109 (N.J. 2011).
“The first clause imposes a continuous requirement upon the driver: to maintain his or her vehicle in a single lane, by avoiding drifting or swerving into an adjoining lane or the shoulder, unless it is not feasible to do so.”
State of New Jersey v. Louise Frank, 136 A.3d 429 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2016).
“at 451-52 (declining to apply rule of lenity to interpretation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b) because the plain language was clear).”
New Jersey Motor Veh. Comm'n v. Steven D. Brokowsky (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2026).
· cites it 10× “[N.J.S.A. 39:4-88.] In her decision, the Acting Commissioner concluded Brokowsky violated the unsafe lane change statute as the State Police report stated that Brokowsky "'maneuvered his vehicle into the right northbound lane and failed to observe the rapidly overtaking…”
United States v. Cargill, 17 F. App'x 214 (4th Cir. 2001).
“Ragaukas ordered Faircloth out of the car and instructed him to sit on the guardrail. Ragaukas then began question- ing Cargill, who was still sitting in the passenger’s seat.”
State of Tennessee v. Linzey Danielle Smith (Tenn. 2016).
· cites it 6× “Moreover, the first clause of N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b) is not limited to circumstances in which the deviation from the lane is demonstrated to be a danger to other drivers.”
N.J. Stat. § 39:4-88(B): 1 case
N.J. Stat. § 39:4-88(a): 4 cases
N.J. Stat. § 39:4-88(b): 45 cases
State of Tennessee v. Linzey Danielle Smith, 484 S.W.3d 393 (Tenn. 2016).
“' [[Image here]] Moreover, the first clause of N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b) is not limited to circumstances in which the deviation from the lane is demonstrated to be a danger to other drivers.”
State of New Jersey v. Keith Drake, 132 A.3d 1270 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2016).
“39:4-88(b), "the better construction of the statute is that it consists of two separate, independent clauses, each of which addresses a distinct offense.”
State v. Regis, 32 A.3d 1109 (N.J. 2011).
“The first clause imposes a continuous requirement upon the driver: to maintain his or her vehicle in a single lane, by avoiding drifting or swerving into an adjoining lane or the shoulder, unless it is not feasible to do so.”
N.J. Stat. § 39:4-88(e): 1 case
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.