MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE
Act 300 of 1949
257.648 Operation of vehicle or bicycle; signals for stopping or turning; signal lamp or mechanical signal device on commercial motor vehicle; violation as civil infraction.
Sec. 648.
(1) The operator of a vehicle or bicycle upon a highway, before stopping or turning from a direct line, shall first determine that the stopping or turning can be made in safety and shall give a signal as required in this section.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (5), a signal required under this section shall be given either by means of the hand and arm in the manner specified in this section, or by a mechanical or electrical signal device that conveys an intelligible signal or warning to other highway traffic.
(3) When a person is operating a vehicle and signal is given by means of the hand and arm, the operator shall signal as follows:
(a) For a left turn, the operator shall extend his or her left hand and arm horizontally.
(b) For a right turn, the operator shall extend his or her left hand and arm upward.
(c) To stop or decrease speed, the operator shall extend his or her left hand and arm downward.
(4) When a person is operating a bicycle and signal is given by means of the hand and arm, the operator shall signal as follows:
(a) For a left turn, the operator shall extend his or her left hand and arm horizontally.
(b) For a right turn, the operator shall extend his or her left hand and arm upward or shall extend his or her right hand and arm horizontally.
(c) To stop or decrease speed, the operator shall extend his or her left hand and arm downward.
(5) A commercial motor vehicle, other than a commercial motor vehicle in transit from a manufacturer to a dealer, in use on a highway shall be equipped with, and required signal shall be given by, a signal lamp or mechanical signal device when the distance from the center of the top of the steering post to the left outside limit of the body, cab, or load of the commercial motor vehicle exceeds 24 inches, or when the distance from the center of the top of the steering post to the rear limit of the body or load of the commercial vehicle exceeds 14 feet. The measurement from steering post to rear limit applies to a single vehicle or combination of vehicles.
(6) A person who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction.
History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1954, Act 181, Eff. Aug. 13, 1954 ;-- Am. 1958, Act 166, Eff. Sept. 13, 1958 ;-- Am. 1974, Act 334, Imd. Eff. Dec. 17, 1974 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 510, Eff. Aug. 1, 1979 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 1, Imd. Eff. Jan. 28, 2014
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
46
cases (
18 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case:
People v. Hrlic, 744 N.W.2d 221 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
People v. Hrlic, 744 N.W.2d 221 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 9× “Defendant moved in the district court to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to the traffic stop, arguing that MCL 257.648 does not require a driver to use a turn signal when changing lanes and that the traffic stop was therefore invalid.”
People v. Dillon, 822 N.W.2d 611 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
“*511 In People v Hrlic, 277 Mich App 260 ; 744 NW2d 221 (2007), this Court reviewed a constitutional vagueness challenge to MCL 257.648, which requires a driver to signal when “turning from a direct line.”
Diamond v. Holstein, 127 N.W.2d 896 (Mich. 1964).
· cites it 2× “He had to "slant out" to right or left, depending on intent of turning north or south, and his duty was governed in part by another statute (CLS 1956, § 257.648, as amended by PA 1958 No 166 [Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 9.”
Hill v. Wilson, 531 N.W.2d 744 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
“Plaintiff relies on MCL 257.648(1); MSA 9.2348(1), which provides that a motorist in defendant’s position is required, "before stopping or turning from a direct line,” to "first see that the stopping or turning can be made in safety.”
Hoffman v. Burkhead, 90 N.W.2d 498 (Mich. 1958).
“” At the time of the accident one of the applicable statutes (since amended largely by adding lettered paragraph [c] pertaining to signal devices on certain commercial vehicles) provided as follows (CLS 1952, § 257.648 [Stat Ann 1952 Rev § 9.2348]): “(a) The driver of any…”
Haynes v. Seiler, 167 N.W.2d 819 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).
“CLS 1961, § 257.648 (Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 9.2348). Plaintiffs argue that the facts indicate that a failure by plaintiffs to signal properly was not a proximate cause of the accident and thus should not have been considered by the jury.”
Amick v. Baller, 301 N.W.2d 530 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
“2327, and the turn signal statute, MCL 257.648; MSA 9.2348. We disagree. We believe the assured clear distance ahead *343 statute operative on the date of the disputed accident was applicable to a driver of any motor vehicle who was operating his motor vehicle at a rate of speed…”
Cooke v. Brown, 112 N.W.2d 120 (Mich. 1961).
· cites it 2× “2350), and CLS 1956, § 257.648, as amended by PA 1954, No 181 (Stat Ann 1955 Cum Supp § 9.”
People v. Dorner, 238 N.W.2d 845 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).
“As he was turning, Trooper Boynton noticed that the defendant had pulled his vehicle off to the right side of the road, but that in making the turn, the defendant failed to use his turn signal indicator, contrary to MCLA 257.648; MSA 9.2348. Trooper Boynton proceeded to the…”
Houck v. Snyder, 134 N.W.2d 689 (Mich. 1965).
· cites it 2× “[5] CLS 1961, § 257.648 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 9.2348). [6] CLS 1961, § 257.”
Fischer v. United States (E.D. Mich. 2022).
· cites it 6× “642, MCL 257.648 Are All Applicable in Order to Determine Fault for the At-Issue Accident in This Case, ECF No.”
Chunko v. LeMaitre, 159 N.W.2d 876 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).
“While defendant’s treatment of this issue is not conclusive proof that no precedents were available to him to buttress his argument, the cases decided on this issue are markedly one-sided.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.648(1) — 19 cases
People v. Hrlic, 744 N.W.2d 221 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
“Defendant moved in the district court to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to the traffic stop, arguing that MCL 257.648 does not require a driver to use a turn signal when changing lanes and that the traffic stop was therefore invalid.”
Hill v. Wilson, 531 N.W.2d 744 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
“Plaintiff relies on MCL 257.648(1); MSA 9.2348(1), which provides that a motorist in defendant’s position is required, "before stopping or turning from a direct line,” to "first see that the stopping or turning can be made in safety.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.648(2) — 6 cases
Fischer v. United States (E.D. Mich. 2022).
“642, MCL 257.648 Are All Applicable in Order to Determine Fault for the At-Issue Accident in This Case, ECF No.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.648(6) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.