363, 369, 886 A.2d 643 (2005) (“[A] court should strive to avoid statutory interpretations that ‘lead to absurd or unreasonable résults.’ ” (2009) (construing Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-1522 to establish “two separate rules of the road,” first of which is “temporarily suspended when it ¡becomes impracticable to stay within the lane markers and when the driver is properly effecting a lane change”); State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406, 894 N.E.2d 1204, 1208-09 (2008) (construing Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 4511.33 to require drivers “to remain within the lane markings unless the driver cannot reasonably avoid straying”). Other jurisdictions take a different approach, interpreting the two clauses of analogous state statutes to describe a single offense. See State v. Tague, 676 N.W.2d 197, 203 (Iowa 2004) (<HOLDING>); Crooks v. State, 710 So.2d 1041, 1043
holding that when lawenforcement officers have legally stopped the driver of a vehicle they may consistent with the fourth amendment order a driver out of the ear for any reason or for no reason holding that violation of iowa code ann  321306 does not occur unless the driver changes lanes before the driver ascertains that he or she could make such movement with safety holding that during a routine traffic stop it is reasonable for an officer to search the driver for weapons before placing the driver in a patrol car if placing the driver in the patrol car during the investigation prevents officers or the driver from being subjected to a dangerous condition and placing the driver in the patrol car is the least intrusive means to avoid the dangerous condition holding that if an officer observes a driver commit a traffic violation he has probable causeand thus also the lesser included reasonable suspicionto stop that driver holding that even a driver not listed as an authorized driver for a rental car could nevertheless have an expectation of privacy if given permission to use the car by an authorized driver