801.020
Statements of policy and purpose; applicability of vehicle code. This section contains statements
of purpose or intent that are applicable to portions of the vehicle code as
described in the following:
(1) The
provisions of the vehicle code and other statutory provisions described in this
subsection are an exercise of the police powers of this state, and the purpose,
object and intent of the sections is to provide a comprehensive system for the
regulation of all motor and other vehicles in this state. This subsection is
applicable to the following:
(a) Those
provisions of the vehicle code relating to the administration of the Department
of Transportation.
(b) Those
provisions of the vehicle code relating to the registration and titling of
vehicles.
(c) Those
provisions of the vehicle code relating to the regulation of the businesses of
vehicle dealers, dismantlers, vehicle transporters, driver training schools and
instructors and the towing and recovery of vehicles.
(d) Those
provisions relating to the transfer and alteration of vehicles.
(2) It is the
policy of this state to promote and encourage the fullest possible use of its
highway system by authorizing the making and execution of motor vehicle
reciprocal or proportional registration agreements, arrangements and
declarations with other states, provinces, territories and countries with
respect to vehicles registered in this and such other states, provinces,
territories and countries, thus contributing to the economic and social
development and growth of this state.
(3) The
provisions described in this subsection shall be applicable and uniform
throughout this state and in all political subdivisions and municipalities
therein and on the ocean shore which has been or may hereafter be declared a
state recreation area. This subsection applies to provisions of the vehicle
code relating to abandoned vehicles, vehicle equipment, regulation of vehicle
size, weight and load, the manner of operation of vehicles and use of roads by
persons, animals and vehicles.
(4) The
provisions of the vehicle code applicable to drivers of vehicles upon the
highways shall apply to the drivers of all vehicles owned or operated by the
United States, this state or any county, city, district or any other political
subdivision of this state, subject to such specific exceptions as are set forth
in the vehicle code.
(5) Except as
provided otherwise by federal law, the provisions of the vehicle code shall be
applicable and uniform on federal lands within this state.
(6) Except as
provided otherwise by federal law, traffic rules and regulations which are
promulgated by a federal authority having jurisdiction over federal lands
within this state and which vary from the provisions of the vehicle code shall
be the law of the local authority within whose boundaries the federal land is
located, and enforceable as such, if:
(a) Local
authorities are authorized to vary in the same manner under the provisions of
the vehicle code; and
(b) Prior
approval for the variance has been obtained by the federal authority from the
governing body of the local authority within whose boundaries the federal land
is located.
(7) The vehicle
code shall govern the construction of and punishment for any vehicle code
offense committed after June 27, 1975, the construction and application of any
defense to a prosecution for such an offense and any administrative proceedings
authorized or affected by the vehicle code.
(8) When all or
part of a vehicle code statute is amended or repealed, the statute or part
thereof so amended or repealed remains in force for the purpose of authorizing
the accusation, prosecution, conviction and punishment of a person who violated
the statute or part thereof before the effective date of the amending or
repealing Act.
(9) The
provisions of the vehicle code described in this subsection relating to the
operation of vehicles refer exclusively to operation of vehicles upon highways
and the ocean shore which has been or may hereafter be declared to be a state
recreation area, except where the vehicle code specifically provides otherwise.
This subsection applies to the provisions of the vehicle code relating to
abandoned vehicles, vehicle equipment, regulation of vehicle size, weight and
load, the manner of operation of vehicles and use of roads by persons, animals
and vehicles.
(10) All
reciprocity and proportional registration agreements, arrangements and
declarations relating to vehicles, in force and effect on August 22, 1969,
shall continue in force and effect until specifically amended or revoked as
provided by law or by such arrangements or agreements.
(11) It is hereby
declared to be the policy of this state:
(a) To provide
maximum safety for all persons who travel or otherwise use the public highways
of this state;
(b) To deny the
privilege of operating motor vehicles on the public highways to persons who by
their conduct and record have demonstrated their indifference for the safety
and welfare of others and their disrespect for the laws of the state, the
orders of its courts and the statutorily required acts of its administrative
agencies; and
(c) To discourage
repetition of criminal acts by individuals against the peace and dignity of the
state and its political subdivisions and to impose increased and added
deprivation of the privilege to operate motor vehicles upon habitual offenders
who have been convicted repeatedly of violations of traffic laws.
(12) If any of
the provisions under ORS 818.200 relating to variance permits are found to
contravene section 127 of title 23, United States Code, it shall not serve to
render inoperative any remaining of such provisions that may be held not to
conflict with that federal law. [1983 c.338 §4; 1985 c.16 §4; 2003 c.655 §84b;
2005 c.654 §36]
801.025 [1983 c.338 §5; 1985 c.16 §5; 1987
c.447 §139; repealed by 1989 c.400 §1 (801.026 enacted in lieu of 801.025)]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
22
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case:
State v. Newman, 302 P.3d 435 (Or. 2013).
State v. Newman, 302 P.3d 435 (Or. 2013).
· cites it 8× “The state specifically points to ORS 801.020(7) as expressing the legislature’s intent in that regard.”
State v. Baty, 259 P.3d 98 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 9× “465 and ORS 801.020(7). The former provides, “In all cases, the defendant may be found guilty of any crime the commission of which is necessarily included in that with which the defendant is charged in the accusatory instrument or of an attempt to commit such crime.”
State v. McBroom, 39 P.3d 226 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “” ORS 801.020(11)(a); see DLCD v. Jackson County, 151 Or App 210, 218 , 948 P2d 731 (1997), rev den 327 Or 620 (1998) (statements of general policy in statutes and rules provide instructive context); State v.”
State v. Vazquez-Escobar, 153 P.3d 168 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “However, ORS 801.020(11), which states the general purposes of the Oregon Vehicle Code, including ORS 809.”
Mannelin v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Branch, 31 P.3d 438 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “ORS 801.020(ll)(a) declares that the overriding policy of the state is “[t]o provide maximum safety for all persons who travel or otherwise use the public highways of this state.”
Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Crutchfield, 113 P.3d 972 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “020(l)(c), was “to provide a comprehensive system for the regulation of all motor and other vehicles in this state,” ORS 801.020(1). Moreover, the definitions in the vehicle code, including the code’s definition of “owner,” ORS 801.”
Higgins v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Branch, 13 P.3d 531 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “" ORS 801.020(11)(a). To that end, the state has developed rules of the road that prohibit, for example, the operation of a vehicle by a person while that person is under the influence of intoxicants.”
State v. Little, 533 P.3d 1107 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Had the legislature wanted to prohibit any lane deviations in the absence of circumstances making compli- ance impracticable, the legislature could have done so by, for example, using the phrase “whenever practicable.”
State v. Redding, 528 P.3d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “The widened area in which defendant drove— before lane markers indicated the presence of an additional lane—was “an area of a highway designated for a particu- lar use by a single line of vehicles.”
Stokes v. Lundeen, 7 P.3d 586 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “” ORS 801.020(ll)(a). The basic speed rule pronounced in ORS 811.”
State v. Uroza-Zuniga, 402 P.3d 772 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “See ORS 801.020(1) (stating that the “purpose, object and intent of the [vehicle code] is to provide a comprehensive system for the regulation of all motor and other vehicles in this state”).”
State v. Phillips, 909 P.2d 882 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“wise use the public highways of this state; “(b) To deny the privilege of operating motor vehicles on the public highways to persons who by their conduct and record have demonstrated their indifference for the safety and welfare of others and their disrespect for the laws of the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 801.020(1) — 3 cases
Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Crutchfield, 113 P.3d 972 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“020(l)(c), was “to provide a comprehensive system for the regulation of all motor and other vehicles in this state,” ORS 801.020(1). Moreover, the definitions in the vehicle code, including the code’s definition of “owner,” ORS 801.”
State v. Uroza-Zuniga, 402 P.3d 772 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“See ORS 801.020(1) (stating that the “purpose, object and intent of the [vehicle code] is to provide a comprehensive system for the regulation of all motor and other vehicles in this state”).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 801.020(11) — 4 cases
State v. Vazquez-Escobar, 153 P.3d 168 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“However, ORS 801.020(11), which states the general purposes of the Oregon Vehicle Code, including ORS 809.”
State v. Phillips, 909 P.2d 882 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“wise use the public highways of this state; “(b) To deny the privilege of operating motor vehicles on the public highways to persons who by their conduct and record have demonstrated their indifference for the safety and welfare of others and their disrespect for the laws of the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 801.020(11)(a) — 9 cases
State v. McBroom, 39 P.3d 226 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“” ORS 801.020(11)(a); see DLCD v. Jackson County, 151 Or App 210, 218 , 948 P2d 731 (1997), rev den 327 Or 620 (1998) (statements of general policy in statutes and rules provide instructive context); State v.”
State v. Little, 533 P.3d 1107 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Had the legislature wanted to prohibit any lane deviations in the absence of circumstances making compli- ance impracticable, the legislature could have done so by, for example, using the phrase “whenever practicable.”
State v. Redding, 528 P.3d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“The widened area in which defendant drove— before lane markers indicated the presence of an additional lane—was “an area of a highway designated for a particu- lar use by a single line of vehicles.”
Higgins v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Branch, 13 P.3d 531 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“" ORS 801.020(11)(a). To that end, the state has developed rules of the road that prohibit, for example, the operation of a vehicle by a person while that person is under the influence of intoxicants.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 801.020(3) — 1 case
State v. Uroza-Zuniga, 402 P.3d 772 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“See ORS 801.020(1) (stating that the “purpose, object and intent of the [vehicle code] is to provide a comprehensive system for the regulation of all motor and other vehicles in this state”).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 801.020(5) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 801.020(7) — 2 cases
State v. Newman, 302 P.3d 435 (Or. 2013).
“The state specifically points to ORS 801.020(7) as expressing the legislature’s intent in that regard.”
State v. Baty, 259 P.3d 98 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“465 and ORS 801.020(7). The former provides, “In all cases, the defendant may be found guilty of any crime the commission of which is necessarily included in that with which the defendant is charged in the accusatory instrument or of an attempt to commit such crime.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 801.020(l)(c) — 2 cases
Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Crutchfield, 113 P.3d 972 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“020(l)(c), was “to provide a comprehensive system for the regulation of all motor and other vehicles in this state,” ORS 801.020(1). Moreover, the definitions in the vehicle code, including the code’s definition of “owner,” ORS 801.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 801.020(ll)(a) — 4 cases
Mannelin v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Branch, 31 P.3d 438 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“ORS 801.020(ll)(a) declares that the overriding policy of the state is “[t]o provide maximum safety for all persons who travel or otherwise use the public highways of this state.”
Stokes v. Lundeen, 7 P.3d 586 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“” ORS 801.020(ll)(a). The basic speed rule pronounced in ORS 811.”
Higgins v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Branch, 13 P.3d 531 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“" ORS 801.020(11)(a). To that end, the state has developed rules of the road that prohibit, for example, the operation of a vehicle by a person while that person is under the influence of intoxicants.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 801.020(ll)(b) — 1 case
Mannelin v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Branch, 31 P.3d 438 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“ORS 801.020(ll)(a) declares that the overriding policy of the state is “[t]o provide maximum safety for all persons who travel or otherwise use the public highways of this state.”
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.