Q: Using turn signals to signal a turn or lane change is required. But what if the vehicle is in a dedicated turn lane? While using a turn signal might add a small degree of safety, what is required?
A: I can see the logic here. If you’re in a lane where your only option is to make a turn, your vehicle position is as much an indication to other drivers of your intention to turn as your turn signal. I’d argue (and I will later) that you should signal because it’s helpful, but you asked what the law requires, so we’ll start there.
Washington law has two prerequisites for making a turn: It must be made with reasonable safety, and you have to give “an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided.” The law then states that “a signal . . . when required shall be given . . . before turning.”
If you thought the “when required” part of that might imply that there are some situations where you don’t need to signal while turning, you’re not alone. In the case of State v. Brown, Mr. Brown made a turn from a dedicated turn lane without signaling. He was stopped for that violation and, after an investigation, arrested for impaired driving.
A district court ruled that Brown was not required to signal, which meant that the officers had no cause to stop Mr. Brown, and dismissed the case. The State appealed to the Superior Court, which ruled that the traffic stop was indeed justified. Brown appealed to the Court of Appeals, which ruled in the favor of Brown (with dissent), concluding that (to summarize a 27 page statement) the “when required” was short for “when required for safety” and since Brown was in a dedicated turn lane and there was no other traffic, he wasn’t required to signal since it had no safety impact.
The State took the case to the Washington Supreme Court, which overturned the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court concluded that a plain reading of the law “requires drivers to ensure turns and lane changes are done safely and with an appropriate turn signal.” The Supreme Court also dedicated multiple pages of their decision to explaining why it’s a bad idea to let drivers decide if they think they can safely make a turn without signaling, saying, “Leaving the decision to use a signal to the perception of individual drivers undermines the ultimate purpose of traffic laws: preventing accidents and encouraging highway safety.”
The Supreme Court also explained the “when required” part of the law. It means that you have to signal at least 100 feet before making a turn. Essentially, “when required” doesn’t describe in which situations it’s required, but how soon it’s required.
Maybe you think “because it’s the law” isn’t a good enough reason, so how about this: Let’s think of turn signals as part of your car’s vocabulary. While driving, our language is limited to what we can communicate through our car (and for some drivers, with hand gestures, but we’re aspiring to be better than that.) Assuming that other drivers know your intention just by your lane position is kind of like walking through the tool section at Home Depot the week before your birthday and expecting your partner to figure out which tool you want. By assuming your lane position is enough to communicate your intention to turn, you give away an opportunity to communicate to other drivers. Clear driving communication minimizes surprises, which are great on your birthday, but not on your drive to your birthday party.
How about this scenario:
You are waiting for a traffic light in a left-turn lane. Another car pulls up behind you, but the driver doesn’t realize that it’s a left-turn lane, because he is intending to go straight. The light turns green, but there is no left-turn arrow, so you must wait for oncoming traffic. The driver behind you may think you are proceeding straight without your turn signal on, and may take off, and end up rear ending you.
What is the IQ of the driver behind you????
Is he a moron wrapped in an idiot???
Perhaps.
Perhaps just distracted.
In anyy event, you are screwed by the fact that you assumed what he was going to do.
Yes, I received a ticket for not using my turn signal coming off an off-ramp from the Freeway, the right turn did not required a stop and the lane went into a designated new lane for drivers exiting the freeway onto the road. That particular lane ended about 400 ft after the turn and merged into the existing roadway. I see the safety issues with these types of turns because of semi trucks and other drivers who are not paying attention can make a wide turn & go into the existing roads thru lane. Did that make sense?
But……..it’s such a simple, quick thing to just pop your turn signal on. Why risk it? Always just be a defensive driver, never assume anything. To me you’re just being a lazy driver.
“The law then states that “a signal . . . when required shall be given . . . before turning.”
Seems to me that law is very poorly worded. “When required” to me implies that something/whatever is Not always required. And the justice or justitices were really twisting things around to make it mean, as you sakd, at which point prior to the turn one must signal. If that is what the intent of the law is, then that is what it should say…explicitly.