N.M. Stat. § 66-7-317 (2026)

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 a vehicle shall not be driven in the center lane except when overtaking a [and] passing another vehicle where the roadway is clearly visible and such center lane is clear of traffic within a safe distance, or in preparation for a left turn or where such center lane is at the time allocated exclusively to traffic moving in the direction the vehicle is proceeding and is signposted to given [give] notice of such allocation; and

C. official signs may be erected directing slow-moving 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 sign.

History: 1953 Comp., § 64-7-317, enacted by Laws 1978, ch. 35, § 421.

ANNOTATIONS

Bracketed material. — The bracketed material was inserted by the compiler and is not part of the law.

Cross references. — For the penalty assessment for violation, see 66-8-116 NMSA 1978. “As nearly as practicable” interpreted. — The statute requires a driver to maintain his or her vehicle in a single lane, as closely as feasible, by utilizing good judgment and taking into account the safety considerations of a particular situation, and a determination of whether a driver has driven as nearly as practicable within a single lane requires a fact-specific inquiry into the particular circumstances present during the incident in question. State v. Siqueiros-Valenzuela, 2017-NMCA-074, cert. denied.

Defendant safely maintained her lane of travel as nearly as practicable. — Where police officer stopped defendant’s vehicle after defendant’s left tires touched the yellow shoulder line of the left passing lane while attempting to pass two semi-trucks that were in the right lane of the highway, the evidence was sufficient for the fact-finder to determine that defendant safely maintained her lane of travel as nearly as practicable, and therefore the district court did not err in finding that defendant’s single, momentary touching of the shoulder line did not constitute a violation of 66-7-317(A) NMSA 1978. State v. Siqueiros-Valenzuela, 2017-NMCA-074, cert. denied.

Reasonable suspicion to stop defendant. — Where police officer made a traffic stop of defendant's vehicle after witnessing defendant, while driving on interstate 25 in Las Cruces, New Mexico, straddle the dotted line separating the right lane of the interstate from the Doña Ana exit lane with about a quarter of the width of defendant's vehicle over the dotted line, the officer had reasonable suspicion, under the totality of the circumstances, to believe that defendant violated this section, because the video evidence demonstrated that defendant failed to maintain the traffic lane and there were no weather conditions or road obstructions that would have required defendant to straddle the dotted line between the exit and the right lane of the interstate. United States v. Cruz, 338 F.Supp.3d 1235 (D. N.M. 2018).

Provision does not apply to one-car accident. — The legislature did not explicitly state whom it sought to protect in Sections 64-18-8, 1953 Comp. (similar to Section 66- 7-307 NMSA 1978) and 64-18-16, 1953 Comp. (similar to this section); it is doubtful that the provision could have been intended by the legislature to apply to a one-car accident of unknown cause in which driver and passenger were killed (regardless of the fact that evidence showed the car crossed into the left-hand lane before its final plunge). The district court properly refused to submit a negligence per se instruction based on these provisions to the jury. Archibeque v. Homrich, 1975-NMSC-066, 88 N.M. 527, 543 P.2d 820.

Person travelling upon multi-lane roadway has right to assume, in the absence of indication to the contrary, that a fellow motorist will continue in his lane of travel. Aragon v. Speelman, 1971-NMCA-161, 83 N.M. 285, 491 P.2d 173.

Before lane change driver must ascertain safety of such move. — Before a motorist travelling on a multi-lane highway changes lanes he must first ascertain if he can do so safely without endangering following or approaching traffic. Aragon v. Speelman, 1971- NMCA-161, 83 N.M. 285, 491 P.2d 173. Actual disruption is not an element of the offense. — Actual disruption of traffic is not required to establish a violation of this section which prohibits unsafe lane changes. United States v. Vance, 893 F.3d 763 (10th Cir. 2018).

A reasonable officer could believe defendant failed to ascertain safety of lane change. — Where a law enforcement officer stopped defendant on a three-lane highway after observing defendant “dart” from the left lane to the right lane without pausing in the center lane, and where there was another vehicle in the center lane which blocked defendant’s view of the right lane, the district court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of the traffic stop, because actual disruption of traffic is not required to establish a violation of this section, and it was reasonable for the officer to believe that defendant could not have adequately determined whether his lane change could be made with safety. United States v. Vance, 893 F.3d 763 (10th Cir. 2018).

Crossing center line is not a per se traffic violation under New Mexico traffic laws. If the movement can be made with safety it is not unlawful. United States v. Borcich, 460 F.2d 1391 (10th Cir. 1972).

Lane change instruction improper if no evidence of unsafety. — Where there was no evidence that defendant automobile driver who struck child on bicycle on divided four-lane highway could not safely switch from outside to unobstructed inside lane 200 to 300 yards from decedent when driver observed decedent in outside lane, instruction of change of lane raised false issue. Aragon v. Speelman, 1971-NMCA-161, 83 N.M. 285, 491 P.2d 173.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 60A C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 274.