Wash. Rev. Code » Title 46 · Chapter 46.61
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.050 (2026)

Obedience to and required traffic control devices

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The driver of any vehicle, a person operating a bicycle, and every pedestrian shall obey, and the operation of every personal delivery device shall follow, the instructions of any official traffic control device applicable thereto, and as specified in this chapter, placed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, unless otherwise directed by a traffic or police officer, subject to the exception granted the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle in this chapter.
(2) No provision of this chapter for which official traffic control devices are required shall be enforced against an alleged violator if at the time and place of the alleged violation an official device is not in proper position and sufficiently legible or visible to be seen by an ordinarily observant person. Whenever a particular section does not state that official traffic control devices are required, such section shall be effective even though no devices are erected or in place.
(3) Whenever official traffic control devices are placed in position approximately conforming to the requirements of this chapter, such devices shall be presumed to have been so placed by the official act or direction of lawful authority, unless the contrary shall be established by competent evidence.
(4) Any official traffic control device placed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter and purporting to conform to the lawful requirements pertaining to such devices shall be presumed to comply with the requirements of this chapter, unless the contrary shall be established by competent evidence.
[ 2020 c 66 s 1; 2019 c 214 s 9; 1975 c 62 s 18; 1965 ex.s. c 155 s 7.]

Notes:

Rules of court: Monetary penalty schedule—IRLJ 6.2.
Effective date—2020 c 66: "This act takes effect October 1, 2020." [ 2020 c 66 s 6.]
Effective date—2019 c 214: See note following RCW 46.75.010.
Severability—1975 c 62: See note following RCW 36.75.010.
Bicycle awareness program: RCW 43.43.390.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2021 · leading case: State v. Rife, 943 P.2d 266 (Wash. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Rife, 943 P.2d 266 (Wash. 1997). “020 (Violations as traffic infractions —Exceptions); see RCW 46.61.050 (Obedience to and required traffic control devices); see also Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) 11.”
State v. Rife, 133 Wash. 2d 140 (Wash. 1997). “020 (Violations as traffic infractions—Exceptions); see RCW 46.61.050 (Obedience to and required traffic control devices); see also Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) 11.”
State v. Henry, 910 P.2d 1290 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “Henry’s failure to stop, RCW 46.61.050(1), and failure to signal, RCW 46.”
State v. Rife, 913 P.2d 850 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “at 10; see also RCW 46.61.050, 46.63.020 (designating jaywalking as a traffic infraction); SMC 11.”
State of Washington v. Jena Dale Brooks (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 8× “OUR GRANT OF REVIEW INCLUDES WHETHER CROSSING THE NEUTRAL AREA VIOLATES RCW 46.61.050 The majority asserts that we granted discretionary review of only two issues.”
State v. Keltner, 9 P.3d 838 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “210; and (2) failure to obey restrictive sign (high occupancy vehicle lane), in violation of RCW 46.61.050. These citations were filed in King County District Court on May 18, 1998.”
State v. Henry, 910 P.2d 1290 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “Henry's failure to stop, RCW 46.61.050(1), and failure to signal, RCW 46.”
State v. Keltner, 9 P.3d 838 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “210; and (2) failure to obey restrictive sign (high occupancy vehicle lane), in violation of RCW 46.61.050. These citations were filed in King County District Court on May 18, 1998.”
Chris Williams v. City of Spokane (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “Williams also relies on the due process clause.”
Geiger v. United States (W.D. Wash. 2021). “NW, the United States’ driver, Al Kendrick, failed to come to a complete stop at the stop sign before entering the intersection, in violation of RCW 46.61.050(1). When, as in this case, Defendant’s vehicle and Plaintiff’s vehicle were approaching (Plaintiff) or entering…”
Jeri Mainer v. City Of Spokane (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “one of the city’s red light photo enforcement cameras captured video of her car running a red light, Jeri Mainer was issued a notice of infraction for vioiation of RCW 46.61.050. She contested the citation by mail, but a district court judge determined that she committed the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.050(1) — 4 cases
State v. Henry, 910 P.2d 1290 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “Henry’s failure to stop, RCW 46.61.050(1), and failure to signal, RCW 46.”
State v. Henry, 910 P.2d 1290 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “Henry's failure to stop, RCW 46.61.050(1), and failure to signal, RCW 46.”
State of Washington v. Jena Dale Brooks (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “OUR GRANT OF REVIEW INCLUDES WHETHER CROSSING THE NEUTRAL AREA VIOLATES RCW 46.61.050 The majority asserts that we granted discretionary review of only two issues.”
Geiger v. United States (W.D. Wash. 2021). “NW, the United States’ driver, Al Kendrick, failed to come to a complete stop at the stop sign before entering the intersection, in violation of RCW 46.61.050(1). When, as in this case, Defendant’s vehicle and Plaintiff’s vehicle were approaching (Plaintiff) or entering…”
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.