Good question.
What is YOUR interpretation of "at"? Is this interpretation 'settled law'?
But failure to comply with the markings on the lane is a 21461 (failure to obey a regulatory sign)...once the driver leaves the lane (albiet possibly 'illegally leaving the lane') his obligations to obey his 'old lane' end, no?
("if you say so" is not a real response, BTW. )
Really? Thanks.
Again, once he leaves the lane, he is no longer bound by the 'rules' of the old lane. Or could he have turned left from the new lane he moved into? He'd be following the rules of the lane he originally entered (but disobeying his new lane)
Not sure what you are saying or asking.
The turning movement can only be made IN the intersection. (By definition an intersection is one roadway to another.)
look, you wanna get preachy, go somewhere else. If your objective is to crap all over the OP and have him give up and pay the ticket, you're doing a fine job...
Well, we disagree. 'committing to make a left turn' is a lay concept, but you've failed to provide a legal definition.
Well, what do YOU say? Yes or no? Can you change lanes over a solid line?
Yes?
Well this really is the crux. You cannot leave this lane, ever? So if it has dashed lines, I cannot change lanes once I pass a sign that says 'left turn lane' or I pass over a left turn arror?
Given the stated circumstances, what would you SUGGEST for the OP?
Not 'what isnt going to work' and not 'how you are guilty'.
The objective, again I thought, was to assist the OP.
I agree. I had one suggestion.
WHAT IS YOUR SUGGESTION?

If for some reason you don't like my posts simply because you disagreed with my opinion(s), you're free to scroll past them... 
