Printable Format8-1522. Driving on roadways laned for traffic; driving in right lane required; exceptions. 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.
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) Upon a highway located outside the corporate limits of any city divided into two lanes of traffic proceeding in the same direction, all vehicles shall be driven in the right lane except when:
(1) Overtaking and passing another vehicle;
(2) preparing to make a proper left turn;
(3) otherwise directed by official traffic-control devices; or
(4) otherwise required by other provisions of law.
(d) Upon a highway located outside the corporate limits of any city divided into three or more lanes of traffic proceeding in the same direction, vehicles shall not be driven in the far left lane except when:
(1) Overtaking and passing another vehicle;
(2) preparing to make a proper left turn;
(3) otherwise directed by official traffic-control devices; or
(4) otherwise required by other provisions of law.
(e) The provisions of subsections (c) and (d) shall not apply to authorized emergency vehicles, law enforcement vehicles, Kansas turnpike authority vehicles or department of transportation vehicles performing construction or maintenance work.
(f) Official traffic-control devices may be erected directing 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.
(g) 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.
(h) From and after July 1, 2009, and prior to July 1, 2010, a law enforcement officer shall issue a warning citation to anyone violating the provisions of subsection (c) or (d).
History: L. 1974, ch. 33, § 8-1522; L. 2009, ch. 108, § 1; July 1.
Source or prior law:
8-542.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Criminal Procedure Survey of Recent Cases, Kansas Issue," 52 K.L.R. 771 (2004).
"Traffic Stops and Normal Incidents Thereto," John J. Knoll, 79 J.K.B.A. No. 4, 31 (2010).
Attorney General's Opinions:
Application of motor vehicle laws to all-terrain vehicles (ATV's); definitions; registration. 94-102.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Proper remedy for violating right to counsel in K.S.A. 8-1001(f)(1)(E) as suppression of breath test determined; invoking right examined. State v. Kelly, 14 K.A.2d 182, 184, 786 P.2d 623 (1990).
2. Horizontal gaze nystagmus field sobriety test for DUI (K.S.A. 8-1567) noted as scientific; admissibility requirements examined. State v. Witte, 251 K. 313, 315, 836 P.2d 1110 (1992).
3. Law enforcement officer's stop of vehicle for safety reasons alone examined. State v. Vistuba, 251 K. 821, 823, 840 P.2d 511 (1992).
4. Trooper had probable cause to stop defendant based on violation of section. U.S. v. Hernandez, 944 F.Supp. 847, 850 (1996).
5. Single crossing of car onto shoulder did not justify police stopping vehicle. U.S. v. Ochoa, 4 F.Supp. 2d 1007, 1011 (1998).
6. Probable cause under state statute to stop motor home for failure to stay within single lane; sufficient reason for Terry stop; no fourth amendment violation as trooper was invited to search. U.S. v. Ozbirn, 189 F.3d 1194, 1198 (10th Cir. 1999).
7. Trooper did not have reasonable suspicion that defendant committed traffic violation by following vehicle too closely. U.S. v. Vercher, 250 F.Supp.2d 1290, 1293 (2003).
8. No reasonable suspicion to stop vehicle that crossed the fog line only briefly, for a short distance, and only once. State v. Ross, 37 K.A.2d 126, 131, 149 P.3d 876 (2007).
9. Observation of crossing fog line and centerline sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion of K.S.A. 8-1522 violation. State v. Marx, 38 K.A.2d 598, 171 P.3d 276 (2007).
10. Standard in evaluating violation of K.S.A. 8-1522 is whether vehicle crossed the fog line when not safe. U.S. v. Lopez, 485 F.Supp.2d 1226, 1231, 1232 (2007).
11. Traffic infraction provided an objectively articulable suspicion to validate traffic stop; motion to suppress denied. U.S. v. Velazquez, 494 F.Supp.2d 1250, 1251 (2007).
12. Court discusses history of K.S.A. 8-1522 and other cases applying this statute; trooper had reasonable suspicion. U.S. v. Jones, 501 F.Supp.2d 1284, 1287 to 1296, 1298 (2007).
13. Federal court denies defendant's motion to certify questions of law to Kansas Supreme Court relating to traffic stop evidence seizure. U.S. v. Jones, 512 F.Supp.2d 1193, 1194 (2007).
14. Cited as justification for traffic stop; defendant bears burden to show justification for maintaining one lane. U.S. v. Neeley, 527 F.Supp.2d 1326, 1335 (2007).
15. Reasonable suspicion defendant violated statute where vehicle moved from lane to shoulder of road three times. U.S. v. Brown, 234 Fed. Appx. 838, 845 (2007).
16. Cited; violation of K.S.A. 8-1749a provided reasonable suspicion to stop defendant. State v. Kirk, 40 K.A.2d 817, 819, 196 P.3d 407 (2008).
17. Cited; traffic stop and search upheld; no fourth amendment violation. U.S. v. Triska, 574 F.Supp.2d 1208, 1213 (2008).
18. Section establishes two rules, one relating to maintaining a single lane and one relating to changing lanes. State v. Marx, 289 K. 657, 215 P.3d 601 (2009).
19. No reasonable suspicion to justify a traffic stop based on an alleged lane drift. U.S. v. Maldonado, 614 F.Supp.2d 1179 (D. Kan. 2009).
20. Violation of this statute created sufficient reasonable suspicion for law enforcement officer, justifying a temporary investigative stop. State v. Knight, 42 K.A.2d 893, 218 P.3d 1177 (2009).
21. Officer's observation of defendant weaving in and out of lanes without signaling and weaving within lane of travel supported a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify traffic stop. State v. Knight, 44 K.A.2d 666, 241 P.3d 120 (2010).
22. Police officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant had violated Kansas traffic law requiring a vehicle to be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane. U.S. v. Gonzalez-Garcia, 781 F.Supp.2d 1167 (D. Kan. 2011).
23. A traffic stop of vehicle driving in a passing lane was lawful. State v. Arceo-Rojas, 57 K.A.2d 741, 753, 458 P.3d 272 (2020).