Turn signal laws

[GWguy]

If you think about it, if you are merging into a left turn only lane; to use your example; all you need to do is what I call "blip" the turn signal. 'sides that.....most of the newer cars now have that feature. Tap the turn signal lever; without fully engaging it; ie; 'when you hear the 'click;' and the signal blinks 2-4 times, give or take a blink.

I never use that feature. It blinks and is off so quickly that if someone has their attention focused at something else for that split second, they never see it, take off your fender and claim you never signaled. Can't prove you did.

 

[GWguy]

Here is the text of the law -
Now, what the underlined, bold text means seems pretty subjective to me as to what "might" affect another vehicle.

That's what it was.... the definition was so nebulous as to be worthless.
Thanx Ken.

 

[Gilligan]

If you think about it, if you are merging into a left turn only lane;.

That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to when I'm firmly planted in a turn-only lane. The only direction I can go is through the turn that the lane goes through.

Any time I'm actually changing lanes, or making a turn off of or on to another road where I actually do have choices, the turn signal is on.

 

[Goldenhawk]

(c) Required signals. -- A person may not, if any other vehicle might be affected by the movement, turn a vehicle until he gives an appropriate signal in the manner required by this subtitle.
...
(f) Use of signal lamps. -- The signals provided for in § 21-605 (b) and (c) of this subtitle:

(1) May be used to indicate an intention to turn, change lanes, or start from a stopped, standing, or parked position; and

Thanks, Ken, for saving me the trouble of looking it up - which I usually do in these kinds of threads.

1) Note that the text regards TURNING, not changing lanes.
2) The word "may" is a term of art in legalese, that means "is not required". "Shall" means "is required".

If the perp's lawyer is any good, he would quote the law to the judge, and argue that the traffic stop was inappropriate and the evidence therefore inadmissible. After watching dozens of episodes of Cops, however, I must agree that an officer can almost always find something to stop someone for any reason he wishes. The only reason our system is usually fair is that the officers are mostly good people.

Similar discussion:
https://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=179033

 

[Goldenhawk]

That's what it was.... the definition was so nebulous as to be worthless.

Probably by design. Apparently in 2009 an attempt to clarify the turn signal intent was rejected by the MD legislature.