U-Turns: Legal Until They’re Not?

Q: Washington’s default rule (as I learned it half a century ago) is that a U-turn is unlawful except where it is marked as lawful. Contrariwise, California allows U-turns almost everywhere. Given that a lot of people move to different states…

A: Who plays the devil’s advocate to the devil’s advocate? Would that be the angel’s attorney? The reason I’m asking is that I’m going to argue against your premise that Washington’s default rule prohibits U-turns, and then argue against myself, suggesting that your position is, at least sort of, correct.

Many folks who have been driving for fifty or more years agree with your belief that U-turns are unlawful unless posted otherwise. I looked through Washington’s traffic law history to look for any clues. What I found didn’t seem to change the rules, but fifty years ago there was an addition to our U-turn law. The prior law prohibited U-turns on curves, grades, and other locations with poor visibility. In 1975 the legislators added, “The driver of any vehicle shall not turn such vehicle so as to proceed in the opposite direction unless such movement can be made in safety and without interfering with other traffic.”

That would seem to permit U-turns as long as they’re safe and don’t disrupt other drivers. The only potential counter I can find would be in the laws about turning at intersections. At an intersection controlled by traffic lights, when the signal is green the law states that drivers “may proceed straight through or turn right or left.” Similarly, the law that describes the required positions for turning at intersections doesn’t include anything about U-turns. If you compare that to California’s law, which says that a driver facing a green light can go straight, turn left or right, or make a U-turn, you might suppose that because U-turns aren’t included on the list in Washington’s law they’re not allowed.

I’d be open to that reasoning if it weren’t for two conflicting bits of evidence – One: the Washington Driver Guide, which tells drivers they can make a U-turn “when it is safe.” Two: the many cities in Washington that have local laws prohibiting U-turns. If state law already prohibited U-turns, local municipalities wouldn’t need to write their own laws.

I’ve argued that U-turns are generally legal in Washington, and now I’m going to propose the opposite. Well, not really, but let’s take a closer look at the U-turn law. The first part says, “The driver of any vehicle shall not turn such vehicle so as to proceed in the opposite direction…” The starting point in the U-turn law is don’t do it. Then it gives the exception: when it “can be made in safety and without interfering with other traffic.”

That’s different than saying they’re unlawful everywhere except where a sign permits it, but it should change our perspective on U-turns. Instead of thinking, “I’m allowed to make a U-turn unless there’s a sign telling me I can’t,” the better practice is to think, “I can’t make a U-turn unless I can clearly articulate that it would be safe and I won’t disrupt other drivers.” The traffic volume, width of the road lanes, and the size of your vehicle are some factors to consider.

One obvious test of a legal U-turn is whether it resulted in a crash. It’s going to be difficult to convince the investigating officer that you were safe and didn’t interfere with traffic while staring at the physical evidence of smashed fenders and paint transfer. With the right perspective about U-turns, you’ll hopefully avoid ever having that discussion.