Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.375 (2026)

Unlawful or unsignaled change of lane; penalty

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      811.375 Unlawful or unsignaled change of lane; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of unlawful or unsignaled change of lanes if the person is operating a vehicle upon a highway and the person changes lanes by moving to the right or left upon the highway when:

      (a) The movement cannot be made with reasonable safety; or

      (b) The driver fails to give an appropriate signal continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before changing lanes.

      (2) Appropriate signals for use while changing lanes are as designated under ORS 811.395 and 811.400.

      (3) The offense described in this section, unlawful or unsignaled change of lane, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §631; 1995 c.383 §64]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2023 · leading case: State v. Redding, 528 P.3d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Redding, 528 P.3d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 20× “The state’s view is that, because the pavement was wide enough to accommodate more than one vehicle, it was two lanes, and defendant “changed” lanes when she moved rightward to enter the newly formed right lane.”
State v. Farrar, 287 P.3d 1124 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “Shortly after midnight, Trooper Ledbetter and Detective Assmus were on patrol on Interstate 5 when they observed a car change lanes without signaling at least 100 feet before making the change, in violation of ORS 811.375, and Ledbetter initiated a traffic stop.”
State v. Hicks, 749 P.2d 1221 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “405(1) (b) is now ORS 811.375(1)(b). 2 Former ORS 484.353(2)(b) is now ORS 810.”
State v. Thomas, 799 P.2d 208 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “4 The state also argues that the stop was valid under ORS 811.375(1), which provides, in part, that “a person commits the offense of unlawful or unsignaled change of lanes if the person is operating a vehicle upon a highway and the person changes lanes by moving to the right or…”
State v. Redding (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 19× “The state’s view is that, because the pavement was wide enough to accommodate more than one vehicle, it was two lanes, and defendant “changed” lanes when she moved rightward to enter the newly formed right lane.”
State v. Bailey, 308 P.3d 368 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “After the car’s driver failed to signal for the legally required 100 feet before making a turn, ORS 811.375(l)(b), the police stopped the car.”
Greist v. Phillips, 875 P.2d 1199 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “” ORS 811.375 provides: “(1) A person commits the offense of unlawful or unsignaled change of lanes if the person is operating a vehicle upon a highway and the person changes lanes by moving to the right or left upon the highway when: “(a) The movement cannot be made with…”
State v. Hewitt, 138 P.3d 873 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Defendant was also cited, and later convicted, for the traffic violation of unlawful or unsignaled change of lane under ORS 811.375. Defendant urges that Warner was wrongly decided and urges us to overrule it.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.375(1) — 2 cases
State v. Thomas, 799 P.2d 208 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “4 The state also argues that the stop was valid under ORS 811.375(1), which provides, in part, that “a person commits the offense of unlawful or unsignaled change of lanes if the person is operating a vehicle upon a highway and the person changes lanes by moving to the right or…”
Greist v. Phillips, 875 P.2d 1199 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “” ORS 811.375 provides: “(1) A person commits the offense of unlawful or unsignaled change of lanes if the person is operating a vehicle upon a highway and the person changes lanes by moving to the right or left upon the highway when: “(a) The movement cannot be made with…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.375(1)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Redding, 528 P.3d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “The state’s view is that, because the pavement was wide enough to accommodate more than one vehicle, it was two lanes, and defendant “changed” lanes when she moved rightward to enter the newly formed right lane.”
State v. Hicks, 749 P.2d 1221 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “405(1) (b) is now ORS 811.375(1)(b). 2 Former ORS 484.353(2)(b) is now ORS 810.”
State v. Redding (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “The state’s view is that, because the pavement was wide enough to accommodate more than one vehicle, it was two lanes, and defendant “changed” lanes when she moved rightward to enter the newly formed right lane.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.375(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. Bailey, 308 P.3d 368 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “After the car’s driver failed to signal for the legally required 100 feet before making a turn, ORS 811.375(l)(b), the police stopped the car.”
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.