Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic,
the following rules shall apply in addition to all others consistent therewith:
(1) A vehicle shall only be driven, as nearly as practicable, entirely within a single
lane and shall not be moved from that lane until the driver has first ascertained
that the movement can be made with safety.
(2) Upon a roadway that is divided into three lanes and provides for two-way movement
of traffic, a vehicle may be driven in the center lane only 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 at the time 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) Official traffic-control devices may be erected directing specified 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 the signs.
(4) Official traffic-control devices may be installed prohibiting the changing of lanes
on sections of roadway, and drivers of vehicles shall obey the directions of these
devices. (Added 1971, No. 258 (Adj. Sess.), § 3, eff. March 1, 1973.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2011–2025 · leading case: State v. Karen Norton, 2025 VT 56 (Vt. 2025).
State v. Karen Norton, 2025 VT 56 (Vt. 2025). · cites it 2ד2 On appeal, the parties disagree whether the court held that defendant’s driving was a traffic violation under 23 V.S.A. § 1038(1) (“Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic[,] .”
State v. Michael Sinquell-Gainey & David Vaz, 2022 VT 19 (Vt. 2022). “§ 1031, and failure to maintain the lane of travel during the wide left turn under 23 V.S.A. § 1038. Defendants counter that the trial court correctly determined that the factors Officer LeClair observed did not support a reasonable suspicion that defendants were driving under…”
Michael Sinquell-Gainey & David Vaz, 2022 VT 19 (Vt. 2022). “§ 1031, and failure to maintain the lane of travel during the wide left turn under 23 V.S.A. § 1038. Defendants counter that the trial court correctly determined that the factors Officer LeClair observed did not support a reasonable suspicion that defendants were driving under…”
State v. Raphael Colucci (Vt. 2015). · cites it 5דThe affidavit stated that the officer observed defendant’s vehicle “cross the center line and then the fog line,” in violation of 23 V.S.A. § 1038. For the purposes of the civil suspension, the parties stipulated to admission of the video from the trooper’s cruiser camera.”
State v. Milo Surdam (Vt. 2016). · cites it 2דThe court acknowledged that the video demonstrated that defendant had not actually crossed the double-yellow center line, but concluded nonetheless that the stop was justified because the officer had an objectively reasonable basis for believing that defendant violated 23 V.S.A.…”
State v. Douglas Bedell (Vt. 2011). · cites it 2דThe officer testified that while he was following the vehicle, he observed the vehicle’s tires cross the centerline of the roadway, which he considered a violation of 23 V.S.A. § 1038. The officer stopped defendant, and defendant was subsequently processed for DUI.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, § 1038(1) — 3 cases
State v. Karen Norton, 2025 VT 56 (Vt. 2025). “2 On appeal, the parties disagree whether the court held that defendant’s driving was a traffic violation under 23 V.S.A. § 1038(1) (“Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic[,] .”
State v. Milo Surdam (Vt. 2016). “The court acknowledged that the video demonstrated that defendant had not actually crossed the double-yellow center line, but concluded nonetheless that the stop was justified because the officer had an objectively reasonable basis for believing that defendant violated 23 V.S.A.…”
State v. Raphael Colucci (Vt. 2015). “The affidavit stated that the officer observed defendant’s vehicle “cross the center line and then the fog line,” in violation of 23 V.S.A. § 1038. For the purposes of the civil suspension, the parties stipulated to admission of the video from the trooper’s cruiser camera.”
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.