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

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.205 (2026)

✓ 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 a vehicle about to enter or cross a highway from a private road or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles lawfully approaching on said highway.
(2)(a) When right-of-way has not been yielded in accordance with this section to a vehicle that is a vulnerable user of a public way, a driver of a motor vehicle found to be in violation of this section must be assessed an additional fine equal to the base penalty assessed under RCW 46.63.110(3). This fine may not be waived, reduced, or suspended, unless the court finds the offender to be indigent, and is not subject to the additional fees and assessments that the base penalty for this violation is subject to under RCW 2.68.040, 3.62.090, and 46.63.110.
(b) For the purposes of this section, "vulnerable user of a public way" has the same meaning as provided in RCW 46.61.5259.
(3) The additional fine imposed under subsection (2) of this section must be deposited into the vulnerable roadway user education account created in RCW 46.61.145.
[ 2023 c 471 s 9; 2019 c 403 s 8; 1990 c 250 s 88; 1965 ex.s. c 155 s 31.]

Notes:

Rules of court: Monetary penalty schedule—IRLJ 6.2.
Effective date—2023 c 471: See note following RCW 46.61.5259.
Finding—Intent—Effective date—2019 c 403: See notes following RCW 46.04.071.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1967–2022 · leading case: State v. Lutman, 614 P.2d 224 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Lutman, 614 P.2d 224 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “Compare RCW 46.61.205 with RCW 46.61.525. Lutman went to court charged with "hit-and-run," which is not a moving traffic violation, and failure to yield the right-of-way, which is a minor moving traffic violation.”
Petersavage v. Bock, 431 P.2d 603 (Wash. 1967). “The evidence conclusively established that he failed to see what was there to be seen on a straight, level, arterial street, or, if he saw it, failed as a matter of law to provide a fair margin of safety in entering, crossing and proceeding along the arterial.”
Richardson v. United States, 835 F. Supp. 1236 (E.D. Wash. 1993). · cites it 2× “Blasko violated RCW 46.61.205, which provides: The driver of a vehicle about to enter or cross a highway from a private road or driveway shall yield the right of way to all vehicles lawfully approaching on said highway.”
Anthony Stogin, V. Kathleen Prausa, Et Ano (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “365 and RCW 46.61.205. RCW 46.61.365 states that “[t]he driver of a vehicle .”
Johnson v. United States (W.D. Wash. 2021). · cites it 2× “RCW 46.61.205 provides as follows: “The driver of a vehicle about to enter or 20 cross a highway from a private road or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles 21 lawfully approaching on said highway.”
Johnson v. United States (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 2× “RCW 46.61.205 provides as follows: “The driver of a vehicle about to enter or 4 cross a highway from a private road or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles 5 lawfully approaching on said highway.”
Bingisser v. English, 462 P.2d 945 (Wash. Ct. App. 1969). “Later enactment, see RCW 46.61.205 and 46.61.365.]”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.205(1) — 1 case
Anthony Stogin, V. Kathleen Prausa, Et Ano (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “365 and RCW 46.61.205. RCW 46.61.365 states that “[t]he driver of a vehicle .”
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.