• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Congratulations California- turn signal use is now optional

What does that quoted part mean? What qualifies as "affected" ? It sounds like the signal would only be required if you were turning into another vehicles path requiring them to take some action to avoid collision or to maintain a safe space.

I can understand citing for changing lanes in front of a faster moving vehicle and they have to brake immediately. What if they are several hundred yards back and eventually need to throttle back off of 90+ to avoid catching up to you... Maybe if I complete my lane change before they need to take action clears my signal requirement.
 
Last edited:
Well, simply, as an example, you're going down the road in the right hand lane and this guy in front of you is slowing down. You are "affected" by his movement (or lack of). Since he's turning, he should be signaling what he is doing so you can take appropriate action.
 
NorCalBusa said:
What could possibly go wrong?

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea...-a-driver-for-signaling-too-late-17037295.php
Click to expand...

So, the appeals court just upheld existing case law. So, nothing changed.

berth said:
Well, simply, as an example, you're going down the road in the right hand lane and this guy in front of you is slowing down. You are "affected" by his movement (or lack of). Since he's turning, he should be signaling what he is doing so you can take appropriate action.
Click to expand...

This! I've seen that argument upheld by a judge in local traffic Court when the only other vehicle on the road was the police car driving behind the violator car, which was subsequently stopped for said violation. The police car was affected by driving behind the other which was making a turn without signaling.

If no other vehicles are around to be affected, one is not required to signal in California.
 
And lets abolish jaywalking laws while we're at it.
 
I remember a couple prior CHP mods here (both good guys) arguing this for a long time. Oh, not non-stop length- just would come up a couple times a year and re-spark the debate. I don't believe either are mods anymore and haven't seen them post in ages.
 
Last edited:
bojangle said:
So, the appeals court just upheld existing case law. So, nothing changed.



This! I've seen that argument upheld by a judge in local traffic Court when the only other vehicle on the road was the police car driving behind the violator car, which was subsequently stopped for said violation. The police car was affected by driving behind the other which was making a turn without signaling.

If no other vehicles are around to be affected, one is not required to signal in California.
Click to expand...

I will be sure to only hold you up until I am one hundred feet from the turn, where I will initiate the blinker and get off on a technicality. :party
 
Wonderful.

Only "another driver"? What about pedestrians?

So is "I didn't see anyone else around so I didn't use my signal" going to be an excuse now? Seems to me, signal use is for the benefit of the other drivers you DON'T see just as much as those you do.
 
Last edited:
Wolf said:
Wonderful.

Only "another driver"? What about pedestrians?

So is "I didn't see anyone else around so I didn't use my signal" going to be an excuse now? Seems to me, signal use is for the benefit of the other drivers you DON'T see just as much as those you do.
Click to expand...

It's been written into this code forever.

CVC 22107 No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.
Click to expand...
 
I think if you use your blinker jaywalking should be safe :p
 
Alan_Hepburn said:
I am of the opinion that if you use your turn signals consistently then you'll never need to decide if you "need" to use them "this time"...
Click to expand...

This!

People should always signal their intentions while on a public roadway. Even if there’s no one around. It’s simply a good habit.
 
My Tesla, and other newer vehicles that have auto lane centering features, get mad at you if you change lanes without signaling, as they think you're veering out of the lane or straddling, or about to. Is you signal then the car knows your intention and won't annoyingly alert your, or auto correct the steering the opposite way. I think those features encourage people to get in the habit of signaling more often.

Plus, my car shows side cameras on the screen when I signal to turn or change lanes, and that's pretty cool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top