California Court: Turn Signal Unnecessary When Nobody is Looking

by The Newspaper

Published: June 2nd, 2011

california court turn signal unnecessary when nobody is looking

California drivers do not need to use their turn signals if no other car is nearby according to a ruling handed down Friday by the state’s second-highest court. A three-judge panel of the court of appeal found that La Habra Police Officer Nick Wilson was in the wrong when he stopped Paul David Carmona, Jr. for making a right-hand turn in his Chevy SUV without signaling. Wilson was about 55 feet away traveling in the opposite direction at the time Carmona made his turn. The road was otherwise empty.

Officer Wilson charged Carmona with violating Vehicle Code section 22107, which states a signal must be used when “any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.” The prosecutor argued that Carmona actually violated a separate law, section 22108, which states, “Any signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given continuously during the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning.” The Orange County Superior Court agreed with the prosecutor.

“Because Wilson was approaching from the opposite direction when Carmona’s vehicle made a right-hand turn away from Wilson’s vehicle, and no other vehicles were present, there was no possible violation of section 22107,” Justice Kathleen E. O’Leary wrote for the court. “The attorney general apparently agrees as there is no argument on appeal that Wilson reasonably suspected a violation of section 22107.”

The attorney general argued instead that the next statute, section 22108, was a “stand alone” provision requiring a signal within 100 feet of any turn, regardless of whether other motorists might be affected. The appellate court disagreed after making a detailed analysis of the structure of the vehicle code.

“Sections 22107 and 22108 must be read together so that when a motorist is required by section 22107 to give a turn signal, that signal must be given continuously during the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning,” O’Leary wrote. “Our conclusion is borne out by looking at the entire chapter of which sections 22107 and 22108 are part…. Were section 22108 construed as containing a stand-alone directive that a turn signal be given continuously regardless of the presence of any other vehicle that might be affected, section 22107 would be rendered meaningless.”

As a result of the decision, the court ordered evidence of drugs found in the car as a result of the stop should be suppressed. A copy of the decision is available in a 90k PDF file at the source link below.

California v. Carmona (Court of Appeal, State of California, 5/27/2011)

[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]

#California #Crime&Punishment #Law #Traffic

The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments

Join the conversation

3 of 47 comments

CRConrad on Jun 06, 2011

Two things are wrong with this: First, the headline: "Turn Signal Unnecessary When Nobody is Looking" followed by the first sentence after headline: "...do not need to use their turn signals if no other car is nearby..." So which is it -- "nobody", or "no other car"? To the writer, it seems to be the same thing... Pedestrians don't count at all, eh? Hey, I'm a car nut and everything too... But I do actually move on foot a lot of the time too, and I think this kind of writing, where people as such don't even seem to exist to the writer unless they're in their cars, is taking car-nuttery quite a bit too far. (Taking the headline and the first sentence together, BTW, it seems the writer thinks it's _the car_ that is doing the looking.) Second, as "green on top" said, "What about pedestrians at the cross walks?" It always pisses me off to no end when I hang around waiting for a car to go by before I dare cross the street -- and then it turns off at the nearby crossing and doesn't continue across my path at all. Usually, while I've been waiting, all the other cars approaching along my street have got so close that now I have to wait for all of _them, too_, where otherwise I would have been long gone across the street if I hadn't had to wait for the first one. That b*****d makes me wait double, so to speak... But I bet he never thought about me as having a legitimate interest in knowing what he's going to do, since to him it's enough that _he_ knows he's not going to cross my path. People don't consider that what they are NOT going to do is also sometimes essential information. Which is why I am also firmly in the use-your-indicators-ALL-the-time camp.

Like Reply
- Jeremyqmartin on Nov 25, 2015
  
  Wow. I just had to register to respond to this. First, you speak as if you believe no driver, EVER considers the pedestrian (based on your other comment and your example given). I'm sure you don't actually believe that. That would be fallacious. Second, as to your "which is it?" question, meaning: is it ok to NOT signal when there's "nobody" around or when there's "no other car" around...? You KNOW the answer because you can read the law. Just pointing bad writing? Ok maybe it's bad writing, but we all KNOW what the law says, namely that you only need to signal if another vehicle will be affected. So the answer is "no other car" and not "nobody". Again maybe just bad writing. Now I wouldn't simply complain about you complaining about the writer, except that you're using your complaint to again insinuate that nobody cares about the pedestrian (your words: "pedestrians don't count at all, eh?") Third, the writer DOES NOT think, nor does it SEEM the writer thinks that "it's the car that is doing the looking"; you're just nitpicking based on words. Finally; what do pedestrians have to do with this law??? Yes, drivers **should** signal for pedestrians who are "around" and who would be "affected" by a driver's turn, but that it outside the scope of this law. The law only requires a driver to signal to other DRIVERS (in vehicles) that both ARE PRESENT and would be AFFECTED by the 1st driver's turn. If those conditions exist, the driver is required to signal (hint: because the driver is paying attention so as to respond when those comditions are recognized) If your argument is over a pedestrian in a crosswalk, then the rules change entirely. The pedestrian now has right of way and the car is required to yield (notwithstanding your example, in which the driver should, as a courtesy but not required by THIS LAW, signal to the pedestrian, which, by the way, would NOT tell the pedestrian WHICH turn off the driver is about to take, the closer one or the further one which the pedestrian is crossing) And I hope you're not referring to a pedestrian standing on the corner WAITING to ENTER the crosswalk. If the pedestrian is still on the sidewalk, they DO NOT have right of way. A driver is not required to yield to any random pedestrian on the SIDEWALK. The pedestrian must ENTER the crosswalk to gain the righ of way that comes with it.
  
  Like
Bryce Chessum on Jun 06, 2011

MNo other vehicles about, What about the patrol car does it not count

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Fred I would get the Acura RDX, to replace my Honda HR-V. Both it and the CRV seats are uncomfortable on longer trips.
RHD Now that the negative Nellies have chimed in...A reasonably priced electric car would be a huge hit. There has to be an easy way to plug it in at home, in addition to the obvious relatively trickle charge via an extension cord. Price it under 30K, preferably under 25K, with a 200 mile range and you have a hit on your hands. This would be perfect for a teenager going to high school or a medium-range commuter. Imagine something like a Kia Soul, Ford Ranger, Honda CR-V, Chevy Malibu or even a Civic that costs a small fraction to fuel up compared to gasoline. Imagine not having to pay your wife's Chevron card bill every month (then try to get her off of Starbuck's and mani-pedi habits). One car is not the solution to every case imaginable. But would it be a market success? Abso-friggin-lutely. And TTAC missed today's announcement of the new Mini Aceman, which, unfortunately, will be sold only in China. It's an EV, so it's relevant to this particular article/question.
Ajla It would. Although if future EVs prove relatively indifferent to prior owner habits that makes me more likely to go used.
28-Cars-Later One of the biggest reasons not to purchase an EV that I hear is...that they just all around suck for almost every use case imaginable.
Theflyersfan A cheaper EV is likely to have a smaller battery (think Mazda MX-30 and Mitsubishi iMEV), so that makes it less useful for some buyers. Personally, my charging can only take place at work or at a four-charger station at the end of my street in a public lot, so that's a crapshoot. If a cheaper EV was able to capture what it seems like a lot of buyers want - sub-40K, 300+ mile range, up to 80% charging in 20-30 minutes (tops) - then they can possibly be added to some lists. But then the issues of depreciation and resale value come into play if someone wants to keep the car for a while. But since this question is asking person by person, if I had room for a second car to be garaged (off of the street), I would consider an EV for a second car and keep my current one as a weekend toy. But I can't do a 50K+ EV as a primary car with my uncertain charging infrastructure by me, road trips, and as a second car, the higher insurance rates and county taxes. Not yet at least. A plug in hybrid however is perfect.