Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

A couple weeks ago I was pulled over after turning right at a "no turn on red" intersection. (The lights had cycled three times without signaling green, so I turned after making sure it was safe to do so.) I advised the young officer I was a CCW holder and was armed, to which he replied, "That's OK, thanks for telling me. It's the ones who don't tell me I worry about." He agreed he'd seen me sit through three cycles, and understood why I'd turned after waiting for a significant time. He gave a cheerful warning and bade me a good afternoon. Class act.....good for the citizens of Lebanon.

It certainly begs the question of —WHY— he elected to pull you over when he admits he watched you sit there forever.

This is actually written in to the ORC now, sitting at a light that has shown itself will not activate.

He admits that he pulled you over without cause. I am cautiously optimistic that he’ll get better with experience.

That’s interesting. Do you have that section of the ORC handy ?

I do not, but I remember this specifically because of all the traffic light sensors that I struggled with on motorcycles.

This presumably.
https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-cod ... n-4511.132" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- Operation at intersections with malfunctioning traffic control signal lights.

Aesinsp wrote:This presumably.
https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-cod ... n-4511.132" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- Operation at intersections with malfunctioning traffic control signal lights.

Unfortunately, I don't think that section applies to the OP - it might have before being amended recently, or it may have been the intent of the legislature to have it apply to situations like the OP experienced. However, the way I read it, unless you are riding a bicycle.

JustaShooter wrote:

Aesinsp wrote:This presumably.
https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-cod ... n-4511.132" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- Operation at intersections with malfunctioning traffic control signal lights.

Unfortunately, I don't think that section applies to the OP - it might have before being amended recently, or it may have been the intent of the legislature to have it apply to situations like the OP experienced. However, the way I read it, unless you are riding a bicycle.

Thanks for the clarification.

JustaShooter wrote:

Aesinsp wrote:This presumably.
https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-cod ... n-4511.132" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- Operation at intersections with malfunctioning traffic control signal lights.

Unfortunately, I don't think that section applies to the OP - it might have before being amended recently, or it may have been the intent of the legislature to have it apply to situations like the OP experienced. However, the way I read it, unless you are riding a bicycle.

No, I think it does apply. It applies to vehicles when the lights fail to operate properly and to bicycles if the lights are not operating properly due to an inability to sense the presence of the bicycle but are otherwise not malfunctioning.

schmieg wrote:

JustaShooter wrote:

Aesinsp wrote:This presumably.
https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-cod ... n-4511.132" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- Operation at intersections with malfunctioning traffic control signal lights.

Unfortunately, I don't think that section applies to the OP - it might have before being amended recently, or it may have been the intent of the legislature to have it apply to situations like the OP experienced. However, the way I read it, unless you are riding a bicycle.

No, I think it does apply. It applies to vehicles when the lights fail to operate properly and to bicycles if the lights are not operating properly due to an inability to sense the presence of the bicycle but are otherwise not malfunctioning.

You are reading it differently than I am, it appears. The statute says:

(A) The driver of a vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley who approaches an intersection where traffic is controlled by traffic control signals shall do all of the following if the signal facing the driver exhibits no colored lights or colored lighted arrows, exhibits a combination of such lights or arrows that fails to clearly indicate the assignment of right-of-way, or, if the vehicle is a bicycle or an electric bicycle, the signals are otherwise malfunctioning due to the failure of a vehicle detector to detect the presence of the bicycle or electric bicycle:

So, if the signal facing the driver:
1: Exhibits no colored lights or colored light arrow
OR
2: Exhibits a combination of such lights or arrows that fails to clearly indicate the assignment of right-of-way
OR
3: If the vehicle is a bicycle or an electric bicycle, the signals are otherwise malfunctioning due to the failure of a vehicle detector to detect the presence of the bicycle or electric bicycle:

Then the driver can proceed by following the 1 steps outlined after the quoted section.

Unless I'm misreading the OP, he had a red light facing him the entire time so #1 and #2 would not apply. And, the OP was not on a bicycle or electric bicycle so #3 would not apply.

I'm not saying it shouldn't apply, and I bet at some point in the past it may well have applied but has since been amended to read as above. Or, maybe there is a different section of Ohio law that would apply (but I can't find it if there is.)

Common sense says the OP *should* have been within his legal right to do as he did, but unfortunately, the law rarely seems to align with common sense.

JustaShooter wrote:

schmieg wrote:

JustaShooter wrote: Unfortunately, I don't think that section applies to the OP - it might have before being amended recently, or it may have been the intent of the legislature to have it apply to situations like the OP experienced. However, the way I read it, unless you are riding a bicycle.

No, I think it does apply. It applies to vehicles when the lights fail to operate properly and to bicycles if the lights are not operating properly due to an inability to sense the presence of the bicycle but are otherwise not malfunctioning.

You are reading it differently than I am, it appears. The statute says:

(A) The driver of a vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley who approaches an intersection where traffic is controlled by traffic control signals shall do all of the following if the signal facing the driver exhibits no colored lights or colored lighted arrows, exhibits a combination of such lights or arrows that fails to clearly indicate the assignment of right-of-way, or, if the vehicle is a bicycle or an electric bicycle, the signals are otherwise malfunctioning due to the failure of a vehicle detector to detect the presence of the bicycle or electric bicycle:

So, if the signal facing the driver:
1: Exhibits no colored lights or colored light arrow
OR
2: Exhibits a combination of such lights or arrows that fails to clearly indicate the assignment of right-of-way
OR
3: If the vehicle is a bicycle or an electric bicycle, the signals are otherwise malfunctioning due to the failure of a vehicle detector to detect the presence of the bicycle or electric bicycle:

Then the driver can proceed by following the 1 steps outlined after the quoted section.

Unless I'm misreading the OP, he had a red light facing him the entire time so #1 and #2 would not apply. And, the OP was not on a bicycle or electric bicycle so #3 would not apply.

I'm not saying it shouldn't apply, and I bet at some point in the past it may well have applied but has since been amended to read as above. Or, maybe there is a different section of Ohio law that would apply (but I can't find it if there is.)

Common sense says the OP *should* have been within his legal right to do as he did, but unfortunately, the law rarely seems to align with common sense.

Actually, we don't know what the lights were for the OP as he just said that the light cycled through three times. This suggests to me that the combination of lights failed to clearly indicate the right of way and was not functioning correctly. We would need more detailed information before making a final determination, but I do believe that this could be argued before a court with a fair chance of success so long as the officer confirmed that the OP had sat through several cycles.

Does anyone agree that if the officer admits he watched this three-cycle-circus AND he also elected to pull over the OP, that the officer was indeed fishing?

Or am I out in left field?

Sevens wrote:Does anyone agree that if the officer admits he watched this three-cycle-circus AND he also elected to pull over the OP, that the officer was indeed fishing?

Or am I out in left field?

Agreed, he was fishing.

I don’t have a problem with the cop “fishing.” That’s how you catch the bad guys. Personally, I don’t mind being stopped once in a blue moon just to be “reminded to follow the law.” I get what they’re doing. It’s the ones that want to play Dirty Harry and don’t just smile and wave goodbye when you show up clean that are the problems and give the good cops a bad name. Not a popular opinion, I’m sure. Just stating my two cents.

Sevens wrote:Does anyone agree that if the officer admits he watched this three-cycle-circus AND he also elected to pull over the OP, that the officer was indeed fishing?

Or am I out in left field?

I agree that it appears as though that the officer was fishing.

You could also be out in left field but I don't think that applies here.

Well I’ll admit that your quip was funny but did it REALLY take you two months to craft that gem?!