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

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.400 (2026)

Basic rule and maximum limits

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. In every event speed shall be so controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care.
(2) Except when a special hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with subsection (1) of this section, the limits specified in this section or established as hereinafter authorized shall be maximum lawful speeds, and no person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed in excess of such maximum limits.
(a) Twenty-five miles per hour on city and town streets;
(b) Fifty miles per hour on county roads;
(c) Sixty miles per hour on state highways.
The maximum speed limits set forth in this section may be altered as authorized in RCW 46.61.405, 46.61.410, and 46.61.415.
(3) The driver of every vehicle shall, consistent with the requirements of subsection (1) of this section, drive at an appropriate reduced speed when approaching and crossing an intersection or railway grade crossing, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, and when special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions.
[ 1965 ex.s. c 155 s 54; 1963 c 16 s 1. Formerly RCW 46.48.011.]

Notes:

Rules of court: Monetary penalty schedule—IRLJ 6.2.
Saving of existing orders, etc., establishing speed limits—1963 c 16: "This act shall not repeal or invalidate existing orders and resolutions of the state highway commission or existing resolutions and ordinances of local authorities establishing speed limits within their respective jurisdictions." [ 1963 c 16 s 7. Formerly RCW 46.48.016.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case: Hough v. Ballard, 31 P.3d 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hough v. Ballard, 31 P.3d 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 7× “) Subsection (1) of RCW 46.61.400 provides: No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing.”
Hough v. Ballard, 108 Wash. App. 272 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 7× “) Subsection (1) of RCW 46.61.400 provides: No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing.”
Woodward v. Taylor, 366 P.3d 432 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 3× “RCW 46.61.400; Idaho Code § 49.654 . Under these statutes, the result of Woodward’s claim would *921 not be different because (1) Woodward does not allege speeding above the statutory maximum as the basis for Taylor’s negligence and (2) both states require the same response from…”
Grobe v. Valley Garbage Serv., Inc., 551 P.2d 748 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 5× “Defendants first contend the court erred in refusing their instruction, submitting to the jury the issue of reasonable speed (RCW 46.61.400; WPI 70.05). Defendants claim, notwithstanding the oral testimony as to speed, the jury should have been permitted to determine on the…”
State v. Moreno, 58 P.3d 265 (Wash. 2002). “FACTS On October 23, 1999, Washington State Patrol Trooper Tina McManus stopped and cited Alma Moreno for speeding under RCW 46.61.400. The notice of infraction indicated that a $90 fine would be assessed.”
State v. Moreno, 147 Wash. 2d 500 (Wash. 2002). “FACTS On October 23, 1999, Washington State Patrol Trooper Tina McManus stopped and cited Alma Moreno for speeding under RCW 46.61.400. The notice of infraction indicated that a $90 fine would be assessed.”
State v. Vasquez, 34 P.3d 1255 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 46.61.400(2); RCW 46.63.020. Sergeant Jones then had probable cause to stop Mr.”
State v. Vasquez, 109 Wash. App. 310 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 46.61.400(2); RCW 46.63.020. Sergeant Jones then had probable cause to stop Mr.”
Yong Tao v. Heng Bin Li, 140 Wash. App. 825 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “All caravan drivers sped and passed cars on dangerous snowy and icy roads in violation of RCW 46.61.400. 1 ¶17 Drag racing, an example used by one commentator, can be compared to what happened here.”
Yong Tao v. Heng Bin Li, 166 P.3d 1263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “All caravan drivers sped and passed cars on dangerous snowy and icy roads in violation of RCW 46.61.400. [1] ¶ 17 Drag racing, an example used by one commentator, can be compared to what happened here.”
City of Seattle v. Williams, 128 Wash. 2d 341 (Wash. 1995). “415 specifically provides that local authorities may establish a maximum speed limit different from the speed permitted by RCW 46.61.400 or RCW 46.61.440. In addition, RCW 46.”
City of Seattle v. Williams, 908 P.2d 359 (Wash. 1995). “415 specifically provides that local authorities may establish a maximum speed limit different from the speed permitted by RCW 46.61.400 or RCW 46.61.440. In addition, RCW 46.”
Show all 33 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.400(1) — 10 cases
Woodward v. Taylor, 366 P.3d 432 (Wash. 2016). “RCW 46.61.400; Idaho Code § 49.654 . Under these statutes, the result of Woodward’s claim would *921 not be different because (1) Woodward does not allege speeding above the statutory maximum as the basis for Taylor’s negligence and (2) both states require the same response from…”
Hough v. Ballard, 31 P.3d 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “) Subsection (1) of RCW 46.61.400 provides: No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing.”
Hough v. Ballard, 108 Wash. App. 272 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “) Subsection (1) of RCW 46.61.400 provides: No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing.”
Chhuth v. George, 719 P.2d 562 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986).
Bordynoski v. Bergner, 644 P.2d 1173 (Wash. 1982).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.400(2) — 5 cases
State v. Vasquez, 34 P.3d 1255 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 46.61.400(2); RCW 46.63.020. Sergeant Jones then had probable cause to stop Mr.”
State v. Vasquez, 109 Wash. App. 310 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 46.61.400(2); RCW 46.63.020. Sergeant Jones then had probable cause to stop Mr.”
Hough v. Ballard, 31 P.3d 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “) Subsection (1) of RCW 46.61.400 provides: No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing.”
Hough v. Ballard, 108 Wash. App. 272 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “) Subsection (1) of RCW 46.61.400 provides: No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing.”
State v. Hendricks, 420 P.3d 726 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.400(2)(c) — 2 cases
Woodward v. Taylor, 366 P.3d 432 (Wash. 2016). “RCW 46.61.400; Idaho Code § 49.654 . Under these statutes, the result of Woodward’s claim would *921 not be different because (1) Woodward does not allege speeding above the statutory maximum as the basis for Taylor’s negligence and (2) both states require the same response from…”
Woodward v. Taylor (Wash. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.400(3) — 5 cases
Hough v. Ballard, 31 P.3d 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “) Subsection (1) of RCW 46.61.400 provides: No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing.”
Hough v. Ballard, 108 Wash. App. 272 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “) Subsection (1) of RCW 46.61.400 provides: No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing.”
Eichler v. Yakima Valley Transp. Co., 514 P.2d 1387 (Wash. 1973).
Robin Stanley v. Sierra Pac. Land & Timber (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
Madelynn M. Tapken v. Spokane Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
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.