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

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.140 (2026)

Driving on roadways laned for traffic

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic the following rules in addition to all others consistent herewith shall apply:
(1) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.
(2) 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 such center lane is clear of traffic within a safe distance, or in preparation for making a left turn or where such center lane is at the time allocated exclusively to traffic moving in the same direction that the vehicle is proceeding and such allocation is designated by official traffic-control devices.
(3) Official traffic-control devices may be erected directing slow moving or other 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 every such device.
(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 every such device.
(5) Pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the operator of a commercial motor vehicle as defined in RCW 46.25.010 may, with due regard for all other traffic, deviate from the lane in which the operator is driving to the extent necessary to approach and drive through a circular intersection.
[ 2020 c 199 s 2; 1965 ex.s. c 155 s 23.]

Notes:

Rules of court: Monetary penalty schedule—IRLJ 6.2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case: Hadley v. Maxwell, 27 P.3d 600 (Wash. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hadley v. Maxwell, 27 P.3d 600 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 5× “After viewing the scene and talking to both drivers and Jewell Hadley, a passenger in the truck riding with her husband, Trooper Stratton issued Maxwell a traffic infraction for improper lane travel under RCW 46.61.140. Five months later, Maxwell drove to Grant County District…”
Hadley v. Maxwell, 144 Wash. 2d 306 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 5× “After viewing the scene and talking to both drivers and Jewell Hadley, a passenger in the truck riding with her husband, Trooper Stratton issued Maxwell a traffic infraction for improper lane travel under RCW 46.61.140. Five months later, Maxwell drove to Grant County District…”
State of Washington v. Erica C. Magallon Alvarez, 430 P.3d 673 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 21× “Alvarez claimed the wheels off roadway statute must be harmonized with RCW 46.61.140, which provides that a driver must operate his or her vehicle “as nearly as practicable” within a single lane of travel.”
State v. Nichols, 161 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 2× “130(2), RCW 46.61.140(1), and RCW 46.61.305(2), and that Nichols presented plausible arguments that either these statutes were not violated or they did not apply.”
State v. Nichols, 162 P.3d 1122 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 2× “130(2), RCW 46.61.140(1) and RCW 46.61.305(2) and that Nichols presented plausible arguments that either these statutes were not violated or they did not apply.”
State v. Huffman, 340 P.3d 903 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 16× “The RALJ court ruled that Huffman’s one time incursion over the center line did not violate RCW 46.61.140 but violated RCW *102 46.61.”
State Of Washington v. Christi L. Kocher, 199 Wash. App. 336 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 13× “” 1 The court concluded that this was insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion under RCW 46.61.140 and the cases cited in its written decision.”
State v. Prado, 186 P.3d 1186 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “[2] ANALYSIS ¶ 4 The pertinent statute, RCW 46.61.140(1), provides: Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic the following rules in addition to all others consistent herewith shall apply: (1) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as…”
State v. Jones, 347 P.3d 483 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “11 ¶8 The State relies on RCW 46.61.140, which describes safe lane travel: Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic the following rules in addition to all others consistent herewith shall apply: (1) A vehicle shall be driven as…”
State v. Prado, 145 Wash. App. 646 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “2 ANALYSIS ¶4 The pertinent statute, RCW 46.61.140(1), provides: Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic the following rules in addition to all others consistent herewith shall apply: (1) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as…”
State v. McLean, 313 P.3d 1181 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “3d 1186 (2008) (holding that a one-second incursion over the shoulder line did not establish a reasonable suspicion of a failure to remain “ ‘as nearly as practicable’ ” within a single lane of travel (quoting RCW 46.61.140(1))). Because we review the district court’s decision…”
Derheim v. N. Fiorito Co., 492 P.2d 1030 (Wash. 1972). · cites it 2× “In particular, the court, by appropriate instructions, advised the jury that it is unlawful to turn from a direct course of travel or to move to the right or left upon a roadway unless such movement can be made with safety (RCW 46.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.140(1) — 17 cases
State of Washington v. Erica C. Magallon Alvarez, 430 P.3d 673 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “Alvarez claimed the wheels off roadway statute must be harmonized with RCW 46.61.140, which provides that a driver must operate his or her vehicle “as nearly as practicable” within a single lane of travel.”
State v. Nichols, 161 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2007). “130(2), RCW 46.61.140(1), and RCW 46.61.305(2), and that Nichols presented plausible arguments that either these statutes were not violated or they did not apply.”
State v. Nichols, 162 P.3d 1122 (Wash. 2007). “130(2), RCW 46.61.140(1) and RCW 46.61.305(2) and that Nichols presented plausible arguments that either these statutes were not violated or they did not apply.”
Hadley v. Maxwell, 27 P.3d 600 (Wash. 2001). “After viewing the scene and talking to both drivers and Jewell Hadley, a passenger in the truck riding with her husband, Trooper Stratton issued Maxwell a traffic infraction for improper lane travel under RCW 46.61.140. Five months later, Maxwell drove to Grant County District…”
Hadley v. Maxwell, 144 Wash. 2d 306 (Wash. 2001). “After viewing the scene and talking to both drivers and Jewell Hadley, a passenger in the truck riding with her husband, Trooper Stratton issued Maxwell a traffic infraction for improper lane travel under RCW 46.61.140. Five months later, Maxwell drove to Grant County District…”
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.