§ 3313. Restrictions on use of limited access highways.
(a) General rule.--The department may regulate or prohibit the use of any limited access highway by any
class or kind of traffic which is found to be incompatible with the normal and safe
movement of traffic.
(b) Traffic-control devices at entrances.--The department, when adopting any prohibition under this section, shall erect and
maintain official traffic-control devices at the entrances to the limited access highway
on which the prohibitions are applicable and when in place no person shall disobey
the restrictions stated on the devices.
(c) Motorcycles.--Except on busways in counties of the first or second class, motorcycles may be operated
upon any limited access highway in an urban district in a lane specified for multioccupant
vehicles or car pools, except where the department can demonstrate that such use will
create a safety hazard.
(d) Driving in right lane.--
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) and unless otherwise posted, upon all limited
access highways having two or more lanes for traffic moving in the same direction,
all vehicles shall be driven in the right-hand lanes when available for traffic except
when any of the following conditions exist:
(i) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
(ii) When traveling at a speed greater than the traffic flow.
(iii) When moving left to allow traffic to merge.
(iv) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection, exit or into a private road or
driveway when such left turn is legally permitted.
(2) Unless otherwise posted, no vehicle or combination over 10,000 pounds may be driven
in the left-hand lane of a limited access highway having three or more lanes for traffic
moving in the same direction except when preparing for a left turn at an intersection,
an exit or into a private road or driveway when such left turn is legally permitted.
(Apr. 29, 1994, P.L.148, No.25, eff. 60 days; June 25, 1999, P.L.164, No.23, eff.
180 days; June 26, 2001, P.L.734, No.75, eff. 60 days)
2001 Amendment. Act 75 amended subsec. (d).
1994 Amendment. Act 25 added subsec. (c).
Notes of Decisions
Commonwealth v. McBryde, 909 A.2d 835 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006).
“Since [appellant] was operating a vehicle in excess of 10,000 pounds in the left-hand lane of a limited access highway of at least three lanes in one direction, Trooper Malloy cited [appellant] for a violation of 75 Pa.”
Com. v. Richards, K. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 2× “This timely appeal followed, in which Richards raises the following issue for our review: Did the suppression court err in granting the motion to suppress when the trooper stopped the [Appellant’s] vehicle based on probable cause for a violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3313(d)?…”
Com. v. Moses, T. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 2× “See 75 Pa.C.S. § 3313(d)(1). Based on our review of the certified record, it appears that the Commonwealth never charged Appellant with having an illegal sticker on her front windshield.”
Com. v. Chouman, H. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
“He decided to stop the vehicle for violating 75 Pa.C.S. § 3313(d) due to its failure to stay in the right-hand lane on a limited access roadway.”
United States v. Zavia Johnson (3rd Cir. 2018).
“See 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3313 (d)(1). 2 48.) The driver then maneuvered his car into the right-hand lane in front of Trooper Knott’s cruiser, at which point Trooper Knott decided to pull the vehicle over.”
Com. v. Brown, J. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).
“75 Pa.C.S. § 3313(d)(1)(i). Appellant asserts that the troopers lacked the requisite probable cause to stop him based on the recorded video2 of Appellant’s driving.”
Com. v. Aina, A. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
“§§ 780-113(a)(31), (a)(32) and 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3313(d)(1), 3362(a)(1.1), respectively.”
Com. v. Walton, L. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025).
“The Commonwealth insists, however, that the trooper had probable cause to -4- J-A23034-24 believe that Appellee violated 75 Pa.C.S. § 3313(d)(1) by driving in the left lane.”
Com. v. Bennett, D. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025).
“75 Pa.C.S. § 3313(d)(1). The trial court found that the troopers observed Bennett violate Section 3313(d)(1).”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3313(d) — 2 cases
Com. v. Richards, K. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“This timely appeal followed, in which Richards raises the following issue for our review: Did the suppression court err in granting the motion to suppress when the trooper stopped the [Appellant’s] vehicle based on probable cause for a violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3313(d)?…”
Com. v. Chouman, H. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
“He decided to stop the vehicle for violating 75 Pa.C.S. § 3313(d) due to its failure to stay in the right-hand lane on a limited access roadway.”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3313(d)(1) — 4 cases
Com. v. Moses, T. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
“See 75 Pa.C.S. § 3313(d)(1). Based on our review of the certified record, it appears that the Commonwealth never charged Appellant with having an illegal sticker on her front windshield.”
Com. v. Aina, A. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
“§§ 780-113(a)(31), (a)(32) and 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3313(d)(1), 3362(a)(1.1), respectively.”
Com. v. Walton, L. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025).
“The Commonwealth insists, however, that the trooper had probable cause to -4- J-A23034-24 believe that Appellee violated 75 Pa.C.S. § 3313(d)(1) by driving in the left lane.”
Com. v. Bennett, D. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025).
“75 Pa.C.S. § 3313(d)(1). The trial court found that the troopers observed Bennett violate Section 3313(d)(1).”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3313(d)(1)(i) — 1 case
Com. v. Brown, J. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).
“75 Pa.C.S. § 3313(d)(1)(i). Appellant asserts that the troopers lacked the requisite probable cause to stop him based on the recorded video2 of Appellant’s driving.”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3313(d)(2) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. McBryde, 909 A.2d 835 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006).
“Since [appellant] was operating a vehicle in excess of 10,000 pounds in the left-hand lane of a limited access highway of at least three lanes in one direction, Trooper Malloy cited [appellant] for a violation of 75 Pa.”
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.