Wanted to add an update to this post.
I went to court and prevailed. The officer who cited me did show up in court with video that he opted not to use because due to his position didn’t show the “violation” and drew a crude sketch of intersection on the dry erase board.
I represented myself, opted not to pay the police department for copies of the video and audio of the incident, but with printouts of Google Earth image of the intersection, a pages of the Oregon Driver’s manual that indicate appropriate driver behavior at a yellow arrow and stopping distances.
I began my defense by citing the statute that permits cautious progression through a yellow arrow in the event it is not safe to stop before entering the intersection which includes the crosswalk. I established my location and estimated speed approaching the intersection. I then presented the driver’s manual evidence to indicate on the image where a vehicle must be located to successfully and safely stop before entering the intersection. I established the distances between this point and the point at which the offset lanes that the officer was in entered the highway and, using math, established the time required to completely clear the intersection, which was in excess of the timing of the yellow to which the officer stipulated. I argued that I entered the intersection on a yellow safely and legally and that the officer’s light turned green before I had cleared their path could both be true and that no laws were broken.
The judge countered my argument by stating that the exception to proceed in the statute did not apply to this incident because I created a hazard for the driver in the lane next to the officer who he testified had started to accelerate for the green and had to stop suddenly to avoid hitting me as I came past the offset intersection, ergo my maneuver was not safe. I countered that that is a result of the size of the intersection and timing of the light and that I did not create that hazard, rather I avoided the hazard of being rear-ended by suddenly stopping for a yellow light and violating the statute by ending up stopped in the intersection.
The judge then asked me whether I was past the crosswalk line or behind the line when the light turned yellow. I indicated that I could not be sure, but that I was very certain that I was already beyond the point in which I judged that I could safely stop before the intersection with a line of cars also going 20mph behind me. When she asked for specifics, I indicated that I did not want to give false testimony by attempting to remember my exact position when I had no reason at the time to take note of it as opposed to a general millisecond “Can I stop safely?” assessment.
The judge then presented a supposition that I had, like so many other drivers, sped up to make the light because I did not want to wait through another cycle. I countered that notion by stating that there was no evidence that I did that and further, as a usual cycle commuter who is currently driving because my route to work on this busy highway is under construction, and I acutely understand how hazardous and impulsive driving can put vulnerable users at high risk that I drive with additional caution than one might generally characterize in full-time drivers.
It was at this point that the judge dismissed me and ruled that it was not proven that I violated the traffic control statute and that she was swayed by my testimony as a cautious driver. The officer was not happy and indicated that the light timing is fine because he “goes through it all the time.” I will be filing a complaint with the city asking them to assess the safety of the timing citing this incident as evidence that the timing is too short.
Thanks for the input from everyone who participated.