Colorado § 42-4-103 - Scope and effect of article - exceptions to provisions.

§ 42-4-103. Scope and effect of article - exceptions to provisions.

(1) This article constitutes the uniform traffic code throughout the state and in all political subdivisions and municipalities therein.

(2) The provisions of this article relating to the operation of vehicles and the movement of pedestrians refer exclusively to the use of streets and highways except:

(a) Where a different place is specifically referred to in a given section;

(b) For provisions of sections 42-2-128, 42-4-1301 to 42-4-1303, 42-4-1401, 42-4-1402, and 42-4-1413 and part 16 of this article which shall apply upon streets and highways and elsewhere throughout the state.

Source: L. 94: Entire title amended with relocations, p. 2228, § 1, effective January 1, 1995. L. 2007: (1) amended, p. 31, § 6, effective August 3.

ANNOTATION

Statutes and rules of the road are designed to govern traffic upon highways, that are prepared for use as such, for public convenience and safety, and are applicable only to permanent lines of travel. They have no application to parts of a road under construction, where changing conditions would not permit orderly travel under established rules. Curtis v. Lawley, 140 Colo. 476, 346 P.2d 579 (1959).

This section does not determine scope of implied consent law; its provisions apply only when an operator is driving on a public highway. State, Motor Vehicle Div. v. Dayhoff, 199 Colo. 363, 609 P.2d 119 (1980).

Traffic regulation as function of local government. It is generally held that the individual regulation pertaining to the establishment of one-way streets, posting of stop signs, installation of traffic signals, establishment of varying speed limits, and all regulations governing movements of vehicles, streetcars, and of pedestrians on streets and sidewalks is the primary function of local government. Retallack v. Police Court, 142 Colo. 214, 351 P.2d 884 (1960).

Local authorities are given express power to supplement the state traffic statutes where it is apparent that local control may be necessary in addition to state control. City of Aurora v. Mitchell, 144 Colo. 526, 357 P.2d 923 (1960).

Applied in Dayhoff v. State, Motor Vehicle Div., 42 Colo. App. 91, 595 P.2d 1051 (1979).