New Wham Baam video of Cybertruck Sightings

[CyberGus]

Sponsored

 

[Crissa]

Wham Baam, it's not illegal to cross solid white in the US. It's just 'do it super carefully if you have to.'.

It's double white, white plus yellow, four yellows, or 16" wide yellow you're not supposed to cross.

-Crissa

 

[PilotPete]

Wham Baam, it's not illegal to cross solid white in the US. It's just 'do it super carefully if you have to.'.

It's double white, white plus yellow, four yellows, or 16" wide yellow you're not supposed to cross.

-Crissa

Well, crossing the line wasn't illegal...

However, according to the CVC;

22108. Any signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given continuously during the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning.

 

[Crissa]

Well, crossing the line wasn't illegal...

However, according to the CVC;

It did use its signal when it crossed the line. It was stopped before that.

-Crissa

 

[JoeRod97]

It did use its signal when it crossed the line. It was stopped before that.

-Crissa

Saw one cruising in Sacramento. Followed it for 10 miles hoping they were dropping it off to me ! Cant wait.it got me super excited again so i hope to get mine ASAP!

 

[PilotPete]

It did use its signal when it crossed the line. It was stopped before that.

-Crissa

Reread the CVC. The signal must be used "continuously" for the "last 100 feet". That wasn't done. Therefore, an illegal lane change and a "ticketable" offense. Once you arrive at the intersection, there is no "legal" way to change your mind and get in "that" lane. I'll go one further, The left turn they made at the light was the second violation of the CVC, because they didn't signal the left turn for 100 ft. Now, are they going to get written up for something like that? not unless the traffic officer is in a REAL bad mood. But that doesn't change the legality or lack of, in their actions.

 

[Kahpernicus]

Probably ran out of gas.

 

[Crissa]

Reread the CVC. The signal must be used "continuously" for the "last 100 feet". That wasn't done. Therefore, an illegal lane change and a "ticketable" offense. Once you arrive at the intersection, there is no "legal" way to change your mind and get in "that" lane. I'll go one further, The left turn they made at the light was the second violation of the CVC, because they didn't signal the left turn for 100 ft. Now, are they going to get written up for something like that? not unless the traffic officer is in a REAL bad mood. But that doesn't change the legality or lack of, in their actions.

That wouldn't hold in a court. Otherwise you couldn't signal to leave a parking spot.

-Crissa

 

[HaulingAss]

The signal must be used "continuously" for the "last 100 feet".

That a favorite trick some cops use when they have profiled a vehicle they want to pull over, but don't have legal justification. They wait for it to make a turn and then claim the signal was not on soon enough (regardless of whether it was or not). Many dash cams don't even record the time at which the signal was activated.

Some jurisdictions require the turn signal for a whopping 250 feet before the actual turn. Which is of course ridiculous because there are probably other curb cuts before that and other drivrs could mistakenly think you are turning before your actual turn.

 

[PilotPete]

That wouldn't hold in a court. Otherwise you couldn't signal to leave a parking spot.

-Crissa

Oh, I beg to differ with your assumption it won't hold in court. It can, and does. Your parking spot comparison isn't applicable. But when the vehicle has travelled for more than 100' and did not signal, then this CVC applies. Additionally, your argument that it won't hold up in court has absolutely ZERO bearing on whether or not it is illegal. Please note the word "illegal", meaning a violation of, or contrary to standing law, or not according to or authorized by law, is NOT spelled "U-N-E-N-F-O-R-C-E-D" There are no "U"s "N"s, "F"s "O"s "R"s, "C"s or "D"s, and only one "E".

 

[PilotPete]

That a favorite trick some cops use when they have profiled a vehicle they want to pull over, but don't have legal justification. They wait for it to make a turn and then claim the signal was not on soon enough (regardless of whether it was or not). Many dash cams don't even record the time at which the signal was activated.

Some jurisdictions require the turn signal for a whopping 250 feet before the actual turn. Which is of course ridiculous because there are probably other curb cuts before that and other drivrs could mistakenly think you are turning before your actual turn.

Generally, it's what is referred to as a "pile on" charge. Say a driver makes a lane change that causes a collision. In addition to an unsafe lane change, the driver might also be cited for failure to signal. (when supported by witnesses or dash cams). Or when someone tries to evade a stop, in addition to the failure to stop, they're pile on following too close, unsafe lane change, failure to signal, maybe a tinted window violation, and a no front license plate, and everything else they can to up the penalty.

 

[Crissa]

Yeah. This is why you should bring a CD with your dashcam and a lawyer to traffic court.

In nearly all cases if you do that, they back down.

Heck, half the time the officer doesn't even show up. And about half the times they testified against me, they were lying.

Which the video would show, which would sink their pedantry.

-Crissa

Sponsored