Lane Departure Avoidance vs. Emergency Lane Departure Avoidance?

[CMoZ]

When there is literally no one else around it's usually safe to assume it's not going to affect anyone else.

Again Hubris. There's literally no one else around that you see, Doesn't mean there's no-one around that's the very definition of "Not seeing someone" again I've been on the receiving end of that line of thinking A LOT. Just drive right and stop committing misdemeanours. Don't really want to die via carelessness so this is a soapbox I'll never get off of

 

[Dan203]

Again Hubris. There's literally no one else around that you see, Doesn't mean there's no-one around that's the very definition of "Not seeing someone" again I've been on the receiving end of that line of thinking A LOT. Just drive right and stop committing misdemeanours. Don't really want to die via carelessness so this is a soapbox I'll never get off of

It's not a misdemeanour in my state! The law clearly says you're only required to signal if your actions are going to affect the actions of another driver. Stop being so sanctimonious. You don't know me, and you obviously don't know what it's like to drive where I live. Things are different in different places and require different skills/actions.

 

[SSonnentag]

Ok. Nevada state law says you only have to signal if it’s going to affect the actions of another driver. We don’t really have traffic so signaling is optional.

And as my experiment showed signaling doesn’t disengage it anyway.

Signaling is not optional.


NRS 484B.413 Requirements for turning on highway; signal for stopping or decreasing speed.

1. A driver shall not turn a vehicle from a direct course upon a highway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety, and then only after giving a clearly audible signal by sounding the horn if any pedestrian may be affected by such movement and after giving an appropriate signal if any other vehicle may be affected by such movement.

2. A signal of intention to turn right or left, or otherwise turn a vehicle from a direct course, shall be given continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled in a business or residential district and not less than the last 300 feet traveled in any other area prior to changing the course of a vehicle. This rule shall be observed, regardless of the weather.

3. A driver shall not stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the rear.

 

[SSonnentag]

"You are still required to use your turn signals prior to changing lanes or turning, even if no one else is around. However, you do not have to signal if you are slowing down or coming to a stop quickly when no other motorists are behind you on the road. Likewise, you do not have to honk your horn when no pedestrians are around that could be affected by your changing lanes or turning."

 

[Knightshade]

Signaling is not optional.

it is though.

As is reading comprehension I guess?

NRS 484B.413 Requirements for turning on highway; signal for stopping or decreasing speed.

1. A driver shall not turn a vehicle from a direct course upon a highway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety, and then only after giving a clearly audible signal by sounding the horn if any pedestrian may be affected by such movement and after giving an appropriate signal if any other vehicle may be affected by such movement.

If such movement will not affect another vehicle (ie you're the only one around) then signaling isn't required.

That's his point.

 

[SSonnentag]

it is though.

As is reading comprehension I guess?





If such movement will not affect another vehicle (ie you're the only one around) then signaling isn't required.

That's his point.

No, his point is that changing lanes without signaling is permitted when no vehicles are around to be affected. This is wrong.

Case law says the "no vehicles or pedestrians affected" only applies to slowing or rapid stopping without signaling.

 

[mswlogo]

What happens when you don't realize that it's going to affect another road user? Just always signal it's literals half an inch away. Just lazy not to do it. Sorry but this is a pet peeve of mine, The amount of times I've been on my motorcycle and some idiot neglected to signal and almost killed me and pulled the "Sorry I didn't see you". It's hubris to assume you know when it's going to affect another road user 100% of the time. Signaling isn't hard just do it I can't understand why this is a thing. I'd literally have to try to not signal at this point it's a simple action that become muscle memory pretty damn quickly if you just do it. Also you're completely misinformed on that NRS 484B.413 | fighting "Failure to Signal" tickets in Las Vegas, Nevada

You want signaling to be unconditional muscle memory. Not a judgement call on each use. The car knows the purpose of proper use of signaling. It’s actually less work to train yourself to always signal.

 

[Dan203]

No, his point is that changing lanes without signaling is permitted when no vehicles are around to be affected. This is wrong.

Case law says the "no vehicles or pedestrians affected" only applies to slowing or rapid stopping without signaling.

The law you specifically quoted says that it's only required if "any other vehicle may be affected by such movement". Where are you getting this "case law" you're citing?

 

[OCR1]

When I was younger I switched lanes with a car in my blind spot and caused them to have to abruptly stop short. It shook me and I made the decision from that day forward to always use my turn signal, period. It builds muscle memory and it requires no thought, whereas signaling only when it affects others requires you to know exactly who is around you. Often times I'm a pedestrian that drivers don't see so they don't signal even though I'm watching them to determine if it's safe to cross the street. Or someone is trying to pull out of a parking lot on to the street and they see the right lane is clear, only to have someone switch into the right lane from the center lane right in front of them without signaling.

Whether it's legal or not, it's just not a good habit to drive this way. Sorry, don't mean to pile up on the person who posted this, or distract from the original purpose of the post, but I can't tell you how many people in California think they don't have to signal because it won't affect anyone. They rarely get it right. If this is really the law in Nevada, it needs to change.

 

[SSonnentag]

The law you specifically quoted says that it's only required if "any other vehicle may be affected by such movement". Where are you getting this "case law" you're citing?

Here's one sample Nevada legal website I found this info on:
NRS 484B.413 | fighting "Failure to Signal" tickets in Las Vegas, Nevada

2.1. When there are no other drivers on the road
It is still against the law not to signal in advance of a turn or lane change even if there are no other vehicles in the vicinity. In practice, however, drivers on empty roads are very unlikely to pick up "failure to signal" citations precisely because there is no one around to witness the lack of signaling.

However, drivers are not required to signal prior to slowing down or stopping suddenly if there are no cars behind them. So if a driver is cited for not signaling prior to a sudden stop or speed decrease, the charge should be dismissed if the prosecutor cannot prove that there was another vehicle to the driver's rear.

Additionally, drivers do not have to give any "audible signals" before turning or changing lanes if there are no pedestrians who would be affected by the driver's change of course. So if a driver is cited for not using a horn, the charge should be dismissed if the prosecutor cannot prove that there were pedestrians who could have gotten in the driver's way.2

 

[Piblokto]

When there is literally no one else around it's usually safe to assume it's not going to affect anyone else.

Except for that time that you weren’t paying attention and there’s literally someone in your blind spot. I get this is not directly on point, and that you live a less congested area, and so will go away now, but always turn-signaling is not just safer but almost as important it is courteous to other drivers (including that one in your blind spot). And as pointed out, easy when done reflexively.

 

[mswlogo]

Except for that time that you weren’t paying attention and there’s literally someone in your blind spot. I get this is not directly on point, and that you live a less congested area, and so will go away now, but always turn-signaling is not just safer but almost as important it is courteous to other drivers (including that one in your blind spot). And as pointed out, easy when done reflexively.

Right, It is courteous to always use your signal even when you don’t believe it’s needed. The point is what you believe isn’t always correct.

Map of states that don’t encourage drivers to be courteous.

Do I Have to Signal to Change Lanes? – Bighorn Law – Personal Injury & Accident Lawyers

 

[CMoZ]

The law you specifically quoted says that it's only required if "any other vehicle may be affected by such movement". Where are you getting this "case law" you're citing?

You're interpreting that as if it's written in plan english not legal wording. The legal meaning on that is if you're moving from one lane to another your action "could" affect another vehicle, if you're turning your action "could" affect another vehicle. It's not dependant on if they'er there or not. The presumption again is you're human and humans miss things and don't see things.

As well there's part 2 of that which is the most recently updated section of 484B.413 "2.  A signal of intention to turn right or left, or otherwise turn a vehicle from a direct course, shall be given continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled in a business or residential district and not less than the last 300 feet traveled in any other area prior to changing the course of a vehicle. This rule shall be observed, regardless of the weather."

Again it's not hard to signal, it's literally less movement than steering why do people fight this so hard?

Also the map in the previous post is out of date. That's from 2015 much has changes since that was likely created.

 

[Knightshade]

Here's one sample Nevada legal website I found this info on:
NRS 484B.413 | fighting "Failure to Signal" tickets in Las Vegas, Nevada

2.1. When there are no other drivers on the road
It is still against the law not to signal in advance of a turn or lane change even if there are no other vehicles in the vicinity. In practice, however, drivers on empty roads are very unlikely to pick up "failure to signal" citations precisely because there is no one around to witness the lack of signaling.

However, drivers are not required to signal prior to slowing down or stopping suddenly if there are no cars behind them. So if a driver is cited for not signaling prior to a sudden stop or speed decrease, the charge should be dismissed if the prosecutor cannot prove that there was another vehicle to the driver's rear.

Additionally, drivers do not have to give any "audible signals" before turning or changing lanes if there are no pedestrians who would be affected by the driver's change of course. So if a driver is cited for not using a horn, the charge should be dismissed if the prosecutor cannot prove that there were pedestrians who could have gotten in the driver's way.2

Uh, that isn't case law.

It's what a lawyer trying to get you to hire him to fight traffic tickets posted on a website (and given it's contradicted by the actual text of the law, I wouldn't hire him).

You claimed there's case law. As in law derived from actual, decided, court cases.

Support your claim please.

As well there's part 2 of that which is the most recently updated section of 484B.413 "2.  A signal of intention to turn right or left, or otherwise turn a vehicle from a direct course, shall be given continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled in a business or residential district and not less than the last 300 feet traveled in any other area prior to changing the course of a vehicle. This rule shall be observed, regardless of the weather."

All that's doing is explaining what proper signalling is for cases where you actually need to signal. (ie IF clause 1 requires you to signal, clause 2 explains the requirements for HOW to do so)

If you always had to signal than the entire clause about possibly impacting others has no reason to exist at all and wouldn't be included in part 1 in the first place.

1. A driver shall not turn a vehicle from a direct course upon a highway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety, and then only after giving a clearly audible signal by sounding the horn if any pedestrian may be affected by such movement and after giving an appropriate signal if any other vehicle may be affected by such movement.

The bolded part shouldn't be there at all if you always had to signal. The only reason it's there is to point out cases where you do NOT have to. Otherwise why does it exist?

In fact- using the "logic" you are trying to apply would say you ALSO have to honk your horn every time even if there's no pedestrians- which is clearly wrong too.


I agree you should always signal- if nothing else to develop muscle memory to do it so you don't have to care if it impacts anyone or not- or care if you happen to be in a state that cares about that or not.

But the law as written in Nevada is pretty clear you don't have to if nobody else is around.

 

[Dan203]

Here's one sample Nevada legal website I found this info on:
NRS 484B.413 | fighting "Failure to Signal" tickets in Las Vegas, Nevada

2.1. When there are no other drivers on the road
It is still against the law not to signal in advance of a turn or lane change even if there are no other vehicles in the vicinity. In practice, however, drivers on empty roads are very unlikely to pick up "failure to signal" citations precisely because there is no one around to witness the lack of signaling.

However, drivers are not required to signal prior to slowing down or stopping suddenly if there are no cars behind them. So if a driver is cited for not signaling prior to a sudden stop or speed decrease, the charge should be dismissed if the prosecutor cannot prove that there was another vehicle to the driver's rear.

Additionally, drivers do not have to give any "audible signals" before turning or changing lanes if there are no pedestrians who would be affected by the driver's change of course. So if a driver is cited for not using a horn, the charge should be dismissed if the prosecutor cannot prove that there were pedestrians who could have gotten in the driver's way.2

That website is wrong. The law is exactly what you quoted in your first post, which clearly says "if any other vehicle may be affected by such movement". That lawyer is trying to drum up business with false information.

 

[CMoZ]

That website is wrong. The law is exactly what you quoted in your first post, which clearly says "if any other vehicle may be affected by such movement". That lawyer is trying to drum up business with false information.

How would that drum up business that would actually work against "getting" business. If the lawyer is trying to get you to hire them to get out of a failure to indicate ticket they wouldn't say no you absolutely can't do this it's illegal and indefensible. They'd say something more along the lines of "if you got a ticket and there were no cars around we can get you out of it because it's actually legal".


Further examples with no mention of a nobody around loophole

Failure to Signal Traffic Violation Nevada | Traffic Ticket Lawyer Las Vegas
https://dmvnv.com/pdfforms/dlbook.pdf ["Signaling, Turning, Lane Changes and Passing" section page 41 ]

The DMV handbook specifically says in this all encompassing language "Using signals to tell others that you are going to change lanes, turn, slow down, stop or park is not just common courtesy, it is also the law" Note that when something is specifically allowed and has exceptions they do call it out as evidenced in the section closely following about U-Turns "In Nevada, U-turns are generally allowed on any road when they can be made safely. They are specifically not allowed:

• When prohibited by a traffic sign or signal
  
  
• In a business district, except at an intersection or an appropriate opening on
  
  a divided highway
  
  
• On curves
  
  
• Near a grade where there is less than 500 feet of visibility in both directions"

FFS just signal. It's literally the laziest thing to be stubborn about who the hell cares if it's the law or not. Just do it This is where the indicator is on almost every modern vehicle you literally don't even have to remove your hands from the wheel.

 

[SSonnentag]

Signaling is to show INTENTION, not what you're already doing or did. I see so many people, usually in SoCal, who never signal and when they do it's one blink while they're already half way between lanes. What good is that?

 

[Dan203]

Signaling is to show INTENTION, not what you're already doing or did. I see so many people, usually in SoCal, who never signal and when they do it's one blink while they're already half way between lanes. What good is that?

That's because people are a$$holes! If you actually signal before you start to get over they'll speed up and block you. I grew up down there, and still have family there, so I have to drive down there every few years. I hate it!

 

[rhaekar]

I can't believe we're having an argument whether you need to use your damn turn signals or not.

 

[MrFusion]

I can't believe we're having an argument whether you need to use your damn turn signals or not.

Right... and I still just want to know about LDA vs ELDA....