over the “fog line” on the shoulder once, this movement does not constitute a violation of Missouri law. While the parties did not raise this issue, the section of Route 44 on which the incident occurred was a two-lane highway, which would appear to fall outside the scope of the statute. Furthermore, the phrase “as nearly as practicable” indicates that the statute was not intended to comprehend minor swerv ing. See United States v. Freeman, 209 F.3d 464, 466 (6th Cir.2000) (“[w]e cannot ... agree that one isolated incident of a large motor home partially weaving into the emergency lane for a few feet and an instant in time constitutes a failure to keep the vehicle within a single lane 'as nearly as practicable”’) (citing United States v. Gregory, 79 F.3d 973, 978 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>)). Because I find Sugar credible when he says
holding that when a statute is patterned after a similar provision in another states statute it is proper to resort to judicial constructions placed on the statute by the courts of the state whose statute provided the model in determining the proper construction   holding that an isolated incident of a vehicle crossing into the emergency lane of a roadway does not violate state statutes requirement that vehicles remain entirely in a single lane as nearly as practical holding that similar jurisdictional bar precluded review only of administration of statute not of challenge to statute itself holding that one isolated incident of partially weaving into emergency lane does not constitute a traffic violation in tennessee holding that a uhaul trucks similar one time entry into the emergency lane failed to constitute a violation of a statute nearly identical to the statute at issue