Wash. Rev. Code » Title 46 · Chapter 46.04
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.04.500 (2026)

Roadway

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
"Roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the sidewalk or shoulder even though such sidewalk or shoulder is used by persons riding bicycles. In the event a highway includes two or more separated roadways, the term "roadway" shall refer to any such roadway separately but shall not refer to all such roadways collectively.
[ 1977 c 24 s 1; 1961 c 12 s 46.04.500. Prior: 1959 c 49 s 54; prior: (i) 1943 c 153 s 1, part; 1937 c 188 s 1, part; Rem. Supp. 1943 s 6312-1, part. (ii) 1937 c 189 s 1, part; RRS s 6360-1, part.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1966–2018 · leading case: Pudmaroff v. Allen, 977 P.2d 574 (Wash. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pudmaroff v. Allen, 977 P.2d 574 (Wash. 1999). “See RCW 46.04.500 (defining "roadway" as that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel).”
Pudmaroff v. Allen, 138 Wash. 2d 55 (Wash. 1999). “See RCW 46.04.500 (defining “roadway” as that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel).”
Pudmaroff v. Allen, 951 P.2d 335 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “” RCW 46.04.500. “Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles.”
Crawford v. Miller, 566 P.2d 1264 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). “780 and except as to those provisions of *153 this chapter which by their nature can have no application. This statute does not apply because it governs the rider of a bike in a "roadway," which is defined as "the paved, improved, or proper driving portion of a public highway…”
State of Washington v. Erica C. Magallon Alvarez, 430 P.3d 673 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “at 375 (quoting RCW 46.04.500). Based on the “roadway” definition, Brooks announced the following two-step inquiry.”
State Of Washington v. Christi L. Kocher, 199 Wash. App. 336 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “19 See RCW 46.04.500; Becker v. Tacoma Transit Co.”
Roberts v. Goerig, 413 P.2d 626 (Wash. 1966). “Respondent Goerig has argued, in response to this second issue, that, as a matter of law, the trial court should have held that he was on the roadway as defined in RCW 46.04.500, and, therefore, not negligent.”
Sulkosky v. Brisebois, 742 P.2d 193 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). “RCW 46.04.500, which was adopted by the City of Puyallup by reference 1 defines a roadway as "that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the sidewalk or shoulder .”
Borromeo v. Shea, 156 P.3d 946 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 46.04.500. Cornejo v. State, 57 Wn. App.”
State of Washington v. Jena Dale Brooks (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “In other words, is the area improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel? If not, the inquiry ends. The area is not a roadway.”
White v. Solaegui, 815 P.2d 784 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “" RCW 46.04.500. (White does not claim that Solaegui was driving on the shoulder of Casino Road.”
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.