Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic, the following requirements in addition to all others consistent herewith shall apply: 1. A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane; 2. A vehicle shall not be moved from the lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety and then given a signal, not less than the last one hundred (100) feet traveled by the vehicle, of his or her intention to change lanes; 3. A two-way left-turn lane is a lane near the center of the highway set aside for use by vehicles making left turns in both directions from or into the roadway. Two-way left-turn lanes shall be designated by distinctive roadway markings consisting of parallel double yellow lines, interior line dashed and exterior line solid, on each side of the lane. A vehicle shall not be driven in a designated two-way left-turn lane except when preparing for or making a left turn from or into a roadway. Vehicles turning left from the roadway shall not be driven in the two-way left-turn lane for more than two hundred (200) feet while preparing for and making the turn. A vehicle turning left onto the roadway may utilize the two-way left-turn lane as a staging area by stopping and waiting for traffic proceeding in the same direction to clear before merging into the adjacent lanes of travel. A left turn shall not be made from any other lane where a two-way left-turn lane has been designated. Provided, however, this section shall not prohibit driving across a two-way left-turn lane when moving from a service drive onto such marked roadway; 4. A vehicle shall not be driven in the left lane of a roadway except when overtaking and passing another vehicle; provided, however, this paragraph shall not prohibit driving in the left lane when traffic conditions, flow or road configuration, such as the potential of merging traffic, requires the use of the left lane to maintain safe traffic conditions; provided further, this paragraph shall not prohibit driving in the left lane of a roadway within the city limits of a municipality or upon a county road as long as such roadway is not part of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways or a turnpike; and 5. 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. Any person convicted of violating any provision of this section shall be punished as provided for in Section 17-101 of this title. Added by Laws 1961, p. 377, § 11-309, eff. Sept. 1, 1961. Amended by Laws 1984, c. 47, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1984; Laws 2002, c. 397, § 22, eff. Nov. 1, 2002; Laws 2005, c. 394, § 11, emerg. eff. June 6,
2005; Laws 2006, c. 104, § 4, eff. Nov. 1, 2006; Laws 2009, c. 125, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2009; Laws 2010, c. 76, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2010; Laws 2017, c. 211, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2017; Laws 2018, c. 184, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2018; Laws 2021, c. 115, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2021; Laws 2024, c. 35, § 4, eff. Nov. 1, 2024.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case:
United States v. Kitchell, 653 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2011).
United States v. Kitchell, 653 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2011).
“*1217 Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 11-309 . In an effort to get around this statute, Mr.”
State v. Morgan, 2019 OK CR 26, 452 P.3d 434.
· cites it 2× “2011, § 2-405, and Unsafe Lane Change (Count 3), in violation of 47 O.S.Supp.2017, § 11-309. Morgan filed a motion to suppress all evidence seized from the warrantless search of his vehicle by the arresting officers during the traffic stop.”
United States v. Harmon, 785 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (D.N.M. 2011).
“2000) (finding that trooper had reasonable articulable suspicion that the driver was impaired and to stop the vehicle for violating Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 11-309 , requiring that a vehicle be driven “as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved…”
United States v. Bassols, 775 F. Supp. 2d 1293 (D.N.M. 2011).
“§ 8-1522 (2009); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 47, § 11-309 (2010); Utah Code.”
United States v. Bravo, 306 F. App'x 436 (10th Cir. 2009).
“Bravo’s failure to comply with Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 47 § 11-309(2) (2007).”
United States v. Herrell, 41 F. App'x 224 (10th Cir. 2002).
“99-6146 (trooper had reasonable articulable suspicion that the driver was impaired and to stop the vehicle for violating Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 11-309 , requiring that a vehicle be driven “as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the…”
Hutchinson v. State, 562 P.2d 867 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977).
“The officer could have charged the driver with changing lanes unsafely in violation of 47 O.S.1971, § 11-309(1) or possibly reckless driving in violation of 47 O.”
United States v. Turrentine, 542 F. App'x 714 (10th Cir. 2013).
“See Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 11-309 (2). Trooper Painter activated his patrol car’s emergency lights 1 and stopped Turrentine on the east side of the toll plaza.”
State v. Breznai, 2022 OK CR 17, 516 P.3d 686.
· cites it 2× “47 O.S.Supp.2018, § 11-309 ¶12 It is uncontested that Breznai was traveling in the left lane and that he was not overtaking and passing the semi-truck in the right lane over the distance Officer Hickman observed.”
Tripp v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 2005 OK CIV APP 47, 117 P.3d 266.
· cites it 2× “In this appeal, DPS asserts the trial court erred as a matter of law when it: construed 47 O.S. §§ 11-309 and 11-604 in conflict; held the arresting officer did not have reasonable grounds to stop Plaintiff; and, for lack of a valid stop and arrest, set aside the order revoking…”
United States v. Dunn, 96 F. App'x 600 (10th Cir. 2004).
“Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 11-309 (1) requires that "a vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety and then given a signal, not…”
United States v. Jeffers, No. 21-6017 (10th Cir. Feb. 3, 2022).
“” Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 11-309. Jeffers argues that he didn’t violate Oklahoma law when he straddled the roadway’s dividing line.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 11-309(1): 1 case
Hutchinson v. State, 562 P.2d 867 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977).
“The officer could have charged the driver with changing lanes unsafely in violation of 47 O.S.1971, § 11-309(1) or possibly reckless driving in violation of 47 O.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 11-309(2): 1 case
United States v. Bravo, 306 F. App'x 436 (10th Cir. 2009).
“Bravo’s failure to comply with Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 47 § 11-309(2) (2007).”
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.