§ 3309. Driving on roadways laned for traffic.
Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic
the following rules in addition to all others not inconsistent therewith shall apply:
(1) Driving within single lane.--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.
(2) Three lane roadways.--Upon a roadway which is divided into three lanes and provides for two-way movement
of traffic, a vehicle shall not be driven in the center lane except when overtaking
and passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction when the center lane is
clear of traffic within a safe distance, or in preparation for making a left turn,
or where the center lane is allocated exclusively to traffic moving in the same direction
that the vehicle is proceeding and the allocation is designated by official traffic-control
devices.
(3) Lanes limited to specific use.--Official traffic-control devices may be erected to restrict the use of specified lanes
to specified classes or types of traffic or vehicles, including multioccupant vehicles
or car pools, and drivers of vehicles shall obey the directions of every such device.
(4) Prohibitions against changing lanes.--Official traffic-control devices may be installed prohibiting the changing of lanes
on a section of roadway and drivers of vehicles shall obey the directions of every
such device.
Cross References. Section 3309 is referred to in sections 1603, 3326 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
119
cases (
33 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case:
Commonwealth v. Landis, 89 A.3d 694 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).
Commonwealth v. Landis, 89 A.3d 694 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).
· cites it 4× “Instantly, Trooper Shaffer testified “[he] pulled [Appellant] over that evening due to observation made of him operating a motor vehicle travelling north on State Route 35, the violation being Driving Roadways Laned for Trafficf, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3309].” 9 N.T. Suppression, 3/9/11,…”
Commonwealth v. Chase, 960 A.2d 108 (Pa. 2008).
· cites it 2× “He was also charged with driving on roadways laned for traffic, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3309(1) ("Driving within single lane.”
Commonwealth v. Feczko, 10 A.3d 1285 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 2× “See 75 Pa.C.S. § 3309(1). 5 *1292 Based on the record of the suppression hearing, we conclude Trooper Miller was able to articulate specific facts possessed by her, at the time of the questioned stop, which provided probable cause to believe that Appellant was in violation of…”
Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).
“Rather, on remand, we provided counsel with the following instructions: "[W]e direct [Orellana’s] counsel either to file a responsive advocate’s brief or to re-file his Anders/Santiago brief, along with a proper petition to withdraw.”
Commonwealth v. Fulton, 921 A.2d 1239 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 3× “conviction, and a concurrent 90 days’ imprisonment for the driving with *1242 a suspended license-D.U.I. related conviction.”
Commonwealth v. Cook, 865 A.2d 869 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 2× “¶ 6 In the instant case, the trial court found that the police possessed probable cause to believe that Appellant had violated 75 Pa.C.S. § 3309(1) which states: § 3309.”
Commonwealth v. Chernosky, 874 A.2d 123 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 2× “In that case, the Commonwealth argued the occurrence of a violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3309(1), driving on roadways laned for traffic, which provides in relevant part, Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic the following rules in…”
Commonwealth v. Freeman, 150 A.3d 32 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
“75 Pa.C.S. § 3309(1) provides 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.”
Commonwealth v. Griffith, 32 A.3d 1231 (Pa. 2011).
“§ 3714(a); Driving on Roadways Laned for Traffic, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3309(1); and Driving while Operating Privilege is Suspended or Revoked, 75 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Bozeman, 205 A.3d 1264 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).
“" 75 Pa.C.S. § 3309(a). The defendant in Garcia , who briefly crossed the right berm line as cars approached in the opposite lane, may have ascertained she could do so with safety.”
Com. v. Ochoa, C., 304 A.3d 390 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).
· cites it 2× “§§ 780-113(a)(32), (33); 75 Pa.C.S. § 3309(1), respectively. The court found Appellant guilty at Docket No.”
Drabic v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 906 A.2d 1153 (Pa. 2006).
· cites it 2× “§ 1543(b)); (11) driving on roadways laned for traffic (75 Pa.C.S. § 3309); (12) driving vehicle at safe speed (75 Pa.”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3309(1) — 81 cases
Commonwealth v. Chase, 960 A.2d 108 (Pa. 2008).
“He was also charged with driving on roadways laned for traffic, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3309(1) ("Driving within single lane.”
Commonwealth v. Feczko, 10 A.3d 1285 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010).
“See 75 Pa.C.S. § 3309(1). 5 *1292 Based on the record of the suppression hearing, we conclude Trooper Miller was able to articulate specific facts possessed by her, at the time of the questioned stop, which provided probable cause to believe that Appellant was in violation of…”
Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).
“Rather, on remand, we provided counsel with the following instructions: "[W]e direct [Orellana’s] counsel either to file a responsive advocate’s brief or to re-file his Anders/Santiago brief, along with a proper petition to withdraw.”
Commonwealth v. Fulton, 921 A.2d 1239 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007).
“conviction, and a concurrent 90 days’ imprisonment for the driving with *1242 a suspended license-D.U.I. related conviction.”
Commonwealth v. Cook, 865 A.2d 869 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004).
“¶ 6 In the instant case, the trial court found that the police possessed probable cause to believe that Appellant had violated 75 Pa.C.S. § 3309(1) which states: § 3309.”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3309(1)(a) — 1 case
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3309(2) — 1 case
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3309(3) — 1 case
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3309(a) — 5 cases
Commonwealth v. Bozeman, 205 A.3d 1264 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).
“" 75 Pa.C.S. § 3309(a). The defendant in Garcia , who briefly crossed the right berm line as cars approached in the opposite lane, may have ascertained she could do so with safety.”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3309(l) — 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.