www.kisslinglaw.com
In most cases it is difficult to fight a red light camera ticket. Here is a great article on the issue here in Raleigh.
If you received the citation from Wilmington, there is no fast way out of paying a ticket. See "Ignoring Your Citation".
If you received the citation from Knightdale, then
it must be for a violation prior to October 2013. At that time
Knightdale let its contract with Redflex expire. Knightdale turned off
the cameras and the cameras have been off ever since.
The conditions which make red light cameras blossom
like weeds come from the practices of NCDOT traffic engineers, not from
driving behavior as most assume. Raleigh and Wilmington simply exploit
the conditions for profit. Fighting the problem on a front other than
engineering/physics is really vanity. You may use the easy-way out as
described below for your own personal ticket, but your problem won't go
away. You will most likely get another red light camera ticket. The
NCDOT has stacked the deck, the City deals the cards, and the house
always wins. For a permanent solution, see "Fighting the Engineers"
below.
Know that the lion's share of your money is not
going to education but to the red light camera company. Raleigh pays a
fixed cost per camera per month ($2250/mo) + other fees resulting in
about 65% going to ACS. Knightdale gave $45 out of every $50 fine
Redflex. Cary gave 90% to Redflex. Wilmington is far worse. In order
to keep its red light cameras, Wilmington runs about a million dollar
deficit each year. Under a different State law, Wilmington must pay the
school district 90% of gross penal fines. In order to do that and still
pay American Traffic Solutions (ATS), Wilmington has to money launder.
Without operating the cameras, Wilmington could give the school
district the same amount of money.
Owner But Not Driver
This option works in Raleigh.
If you are the owner of the vehicle
but were not driving at the time and location on the ticket, do not pay.
Do not divulge the driver's name either. You have another choice which
the citation does not mention. You can say, "I was not driving at the
time and location on the citation." Sign the appropriate affidavit below
and mail it first-class to the mayor. It is legal to do this and the
city must accept it. The instructions are in the download.
If you are angry enough and you want
to take action beyond just mailing in the affidavit, then you can do
something fruitful. Sign up for an Administrative Hearing. See below.
Raleigh |
Affidavit |
Wilmington |
Sorry. Wilmington operates under a different statute. |
Red light camera citations from
Raleigh have been fraudulent since the beginning of its red light camera
program. Every citation is intentionally worded to omit your legal
rights.
With willful intent and prior knowledge,
John Sandor of Raleigh commits felony fraud by omitting the accused'
legal rights on the Raleigh citations to secure payment. The
Cary News
published Sandor's confession on August 22, 2012. In his statement,
Sandor lies to vehicle owners to prevent vehicle owners from possibly
lying. At this time there are some 160,000 counts of fraud against
Sandor. The mayor of Raleigh, Nancy McFarlane, also confesses in this
ABC TV news report.
If you choose to settle the
owner-not-driver issue personally with Safelight Raleigh, then you can
walk into the Safelight Raleigh office and ask for the owner-not-driver
affidavit.
Safelight has prepared an affidavit for this purpose. The problem of
course remains. With just a citation in hand, no one knows the
possibility exists.
Finally your obedience to Raleigh's
city ordinances while the government of Raleigh willfully disobeys the
ordinances is your decision. Past and current acts of making statements
omitting an owner's legal rights in order to secure payment have always
been felonies. If Raleigh was a person, Raleigh would have been ordered
to make 8 million dollars in restitution and would have been thrown in
jail for 20 years. The wording of the law has been clear since 2001,
yet Raleigh chose and still chooses to disobey the law in order to
secure money. The combined cities of Raleigh, Knightdale and Cary have
illegally collected over 17 million dollars.
Ignoring Your Citation
In all of North Carolina you are not
responsible for paying a red light camera citation if you do not receive
the citation within 90 days of the violation.
Raleigh and Knightdale: Session Law 2003-380 Section 3(2)
Wilmington: NCGS 160A-300.1(c)(1a)
Because Safelight does not hand-deliver
the citation but rather sends the citation by mail, Safelight really
does not know whether you received the citation. State law hinges on
you receiving notification, not on Safelight's word that it mailed you
notification. If you are going to ignore your citation, you must truly
ignore it. Do not respond to the original citation. Do not respond to
the penalty notice. Wait until the Safelight makes the next move (see
below for what that is) and make sure that when you respond, you respond
90 days after the alleged violation.
Know that many people never receive
their citations. Know that you do not have to give an excuse to Raleigh
or Wilmington for why you did not receive notification. In civil
cases, it is the plaintiff's responsibility (Raleigh or Wilmington) to
produce a preponderance of evidence that you received notification.
It is not your responsibility to prove that you did not receive notification.
Here are common reasons why one never receives notification:
1. Many people are on vacation and never receive the mail until it is too late.
2. Many people are in the process of moving, and the mail does not get forwarded to them.
3. Spouses separate for an impending
divorce. The spouse remaining in the house does not forward the mail to
the spouse who fled.
3. Many people find that these citations look like junk mail or a scam letters and throw them out.
4. Many people have family members opening the mail. Your spouse may have simply thrown away the citation. It happens.
If Safelight real wants its money
legitimately, Safelight can serve you civil notice the old fashioned
way--by dispatching a person who hands you the citation. That option
is explicitly written into the North Carolina red light camera laws.
Safelight opts not to use this method because it costs too much.
Instead Safelight relies on the US mail and intimidation tactics, the
latter in order to get you to turn yourself in.
The following is what to expect when you ignore the citation. Different cities do different things:
Raleigh
As of July 2013 we know that "ACS
Raleigh" will hit your credit score if you ignore your citation. A
credit report from TransUnion (a credit reporting agency) will reveal a
line saying, "ACS Raleigh" at "212 Wolfe Street Raleigh, NC 27601." ACS
is the private company who owns Raleigh's red light cameras.
You can call TransUnion and dispute the item.
The nature of the dispute is that the civil fine which ACS wants to collect is by federal definition not
a debt. Because it is not a debt, it is not subject to collection.
TransUnion is violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by taking ACS's
word for it that the ACS reported a valid debt. TransUnion's legal
obligation is to ignore ACS-Raleigh, and could even file criminal
charges of fraud against ACS Raleigh.
The legal definition of debt is:
While the
North Carolina State Session Law 2001-286 allows ACS to regard the fine as a
debt,
the US Code does not. The wording in the NC State Law contradicts
the higher law. (Red light camera companies routinely introduce these
change-of-definition deceptions.) A red light camera fine is not "an
obligation to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money,
property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the
transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes."
The fine is not a
judgment: No court or other tribunal has resolved a controversy and determined the rights and obligations of the parties.
There also remains the matter that you were never
served
a notice. ACS mailing you a fine without requiring your own signature
to indicate you received the notice, then assuming that you have
received the notice, violates civil procedure and section 1 of the
14th Amendment of the United States.
The NC Session Law requires that you receive notification before the
fine becomes legal and ACS does not provide the instrument by which it
can verify your notification.
In the end there are no grounds for ACS
to collect. As it has been reported to us, a call to TransUnion and
filling out their
on-line dispute form will remove the blemish from your record. Here is a
letter
you can attach to the dispute form. One person had the issue resolved
within minutes. Another person called John Sandor, the director of the
Safelight Raleigh, and Sandor called TransUnion and had the blemish
removed.
Legally TransUnion has 30 days to respond.
If Safelight Raleigh tries to get you to
pay the citation by revising the due date on your citation, that is
illegal. Safelight Raleigh has overstepped in the enabling statute. If
you receive the citation 90 days after the violation, by enabling
statute Session Law 2003-380, the citation is void. Period.
Wilmington
If you ignore a Wilmington citation, we
know that the City of Wilmington will eventually try to garnish your
North Carolina State Tax Refund $100.00; that is, if you have a refund
coming. The City of Wilmington uses a little known law to do this:
NCGS 105-A.
To prevent the City of Wilmington from collecting either do what's in
the following paragraph, or do your personal accounting in such a way
that you do not get a State Tax Refund.
Wilmington invented a number of
contingencies in order to collect from people who claimed never to have
received the citation. For example Wilmington has an prepared
affidavit saying you were on an extended vacation and did not receive
the citation in time. If you sign the affidavit, Wilmington cancels
the penalties and resets the clock and makes you pay the original $50.
These contingencies are illegal. Wilmington is overstepping
North Carolina's enabling statute. Statute Session Law 2003-380 calls
a violation not received after 90 days void. The law stops there. The
law does not authorize any contingency procedure. Do not sign such an
affidavit. If Wilmington insists that you pay, you might have to call
the police and have the police force the City of Wilmington to honor the
law. (Such a thing happened in a parallel circumstance in the Town of
Cary.)
Knightdale, Cary
As of July 2013 we know that
Knightdale's and Cary's Redflex citations will not hit your credit
record. Absolutely nothing happens in the end if you do not pay a
Redflex ticket. In October 2013, Knightdale shut down its red light
camera program. Cary shut down its program in August 2012.
Who is your Advocate?
The media is your best advocate. These
cases of fraud are clear-cut and of public interest. The media generally
does not hesitate to expose the fraud.
It is possible to go to the police but
there is no long term success in this. The police may take your one
isolated citation and force its City's Safelight program to cancel it,
but the City will continue defrauding the public. The City will
continue to screw everyone else without blinking an eye. For example
even after two legal confrontations with Cary over the owner-not-driver
issue, Cary choose continue to defraud the public for two additional
years. It was only after a Wake County Superior Court judge chastised
Cary in court when Cary changed its mind. After hearing Cary's outcome,
the Town of Knightdale decided to comply with this law too. Cary and
Knightdale both have shutdown their programs.
The NC State of Bureau of Investigation
is not your advocate. The Attorney General is not your advocate. They do
not get involved in local police matters. The SBI's suggestion is to
contact the media.
Fighting the Engineer
The real fight is here. The NCDOT traffic engineer is the problem. The best thing you can do is file a
complaint with the North Carolina Board of Engineers
(NCBELS) against the traffic engineer who signed and sealed the traffic
signal plan for your intersection. Ask the City Clerk for the
"current traffic signal plan" for your intersection. The name of the
engineer is on the plan. The complaint form requires a witness. We
will sign as a witness.
North Carolina laws for legal red light camera operation require the yellow light durations to be in full compliance with the
MUTCD and that the traffic engineer must conform to
NCGS 89C.
The yellow light durations do not comply with the MUTCD and the engineer does not comply with NCGS 89C.
MUTCD
Violation 1: Steady Yellow Duration Shorter Than Traffic Signal Plan
All yellow light durations in North Carolina fail the MUTCD. MUTCD Sec. 4D.26-01 requires yellow change interval to be a
steady
yellow light. "Steady" is the key word. The law requires the steady
yellow change interval to be at least as long as that written on the
signal plan. But NC traffic engineers never account for bulb
illumination time. The signal plan may say 4.5 seconds, but the steady
part of that yellow time is about 4.3 seconds. North Carolina traffic
engineers always short the yellow light by about 0.2 seconds. That mere
0.2 second accounts for about 30% of the red light camera revenue.
This
video illustrates the problem.
Violation 2: Yellow Not Same Duration Following Protected and Permissive Greens
North Carolina traffic engineers fail
the MUTCD when setting the duration of left-turn yellow arrows on those
left turn approaches which have both a protected and a permissive green
phase. When traveling down a left turn lane, sometimes you get a green
arrow. That green arrow is called a protected green: you
have the right-of-way. Other times you get either a solid green ball or
a flashing yellow arrow. The solid green ball or the flashing yellow
is called a permissive green. You can go if you can but you do
not have the right-of-way. The NCDOT traffic engineers fail the MUTCD
for left turn approaches that have both a protected and permissive
phase. The yellow following these phases must be the same duration
(MUTCD 4D.17-07, 4D.26-09, 4D.04-3B, 1A.13-258). They do not. NCDOT
typically sets the yellow duration after a protected green to 3.0
seconds and the one after the permissive green to 3.8 seconds (35 mph
road) or 4.5 seconds (45 mph road). The yellows durations differ
during the light cycle for the same yellow light--a direct violation of a
MUTCD standard.
Violations of a MUTCD standard are
winnable in court. We did not file complaints on these MUTCD
violations in Court because we did not know about them at the time of
the trial. For our trial, we complained about violations of NCGS 89C.
NCGS 89C
Every US State and Canadian Province has
a clause like "the engineer must know the special knowledge of the
physical sciences to do his engineering work." It is the engineers'
failure to understand physics which is the root of the red light camera
problem--which explains why the entire red light camera sector exists.
We explain this problem in the papers on the
home page of this web site. A good summary of the problem is in the
Oct/Nov 2013 issue of Traffic Technology International.
Though it should be just a matter of
fixing a physics mistake, traffic engineers will not even take the time
to check their own assumptions and therefore never get to the point
where they see their mistake, let alone correct it. When confronted
with the mistake, they are instantly dismissive. "We are correct because
we have been doing it this way for 50 years."
Yet at the same
time neither a single traffic engineer knows the math and physics
behind their formula nor could name Newton's Laws of Motion. Their
depositions testify to these facts.
We took the physics issues to court. The
NCDOT basically plugs in the wrong numbers into the wrong formula.
Unfortunately we found out the hard way that Wake County Superior Court
is not the venue to discuss physics. It is too much to ask a
non-scientific though-well-meaning judge to understand physics when the
opposition is doing every thing it can to strike the laws of physics.
We found that a simple truth gets overshadowed with poker-playing over
culpability issues. In the end the judge was too uncomfortable to
decide a matter of physics with such far-reaching consequences. He
instead used the Town of Cary's culpability argument. That combined with
a disparate local ordinance, the judge essentially trumped the laws of
physics. So to this day, the problem remains unsolved. The NCDOT
continues to harm people and continues to enable cities to capitalize on
engineering malpractice.
To make it easier for a judge to come to
the right decision, but moreover to solve the engineering problem, we
are going to submit one complaint against each traffic engineer to the
Board of Engineering. These complaints are not law suits submitted to
the Court. These complaints are physics, math, engineering and ethics
violations submitted to the North Carolina Board of Engineers. Under
NCGS 89C, it is the Board's mandate to discipline engineers over these
violations.
NCBELS is the government's empowered
final authority on issues of NCGS 89C. Our hope is that NCBELS
understands physics. If NCBELS rules that the traffic engineers do not
comply with NCGS 89C, then all the red light camera operations in the
State become illegal. North Carolina's red light camera law hinges
on compliance with NCGS 89C. With such a ruling, we can go back to
Court. The heat is now off a Wake County Superior Court judge. The
judge can blame NCBELS for his far-reaching decision.
Sign up for an Administrative Hearing
It is possible to fight City Hall?
If you are the owner of the car but
were not driving at the time and location of the citation, yes. You
can fight City Hall and win. This is how you do it: Without claiming in
any fashion that you were the driver of the car, sign up for a hearing.
When you go to the hearing, say that you are the owner of the car but
were not driving at the time and location on the citation. Do not say
anything more than that. Let your lips be sealed. If the Hearing Panel
convicts you, then pay the $50 fine and you are now in the legal
position to bring a class action lawsuit against the City. Call us. With
your involvement we can sue Raleigh or Knightdale for millions of
dollars. This "owner not driver" issue can be won. The State statutes
and city ordinances are very clear what Raleigh and Knightdale are
supposed to do.
If you claim that "I just could not
stop or the yellow did not last long enough", or "it was raining" then
you are taking the punishment for physics errors made by the NCDOT when
it sets yellow light durations. But this claim will get you nowhere. In
the case of Ceccarelli vs Town of Cary, Wake County Superior Court
Judge Paul Ridgeway used a local ordinance to trump the laws of physics,
making it irrelevant whether the NCDOT practiced engineering correctly.
If you pay $50 without appealing
your citation, you are guilty in the eyes of the law. You have
confessed. You forfeit all legal rights. You can neither appeal your
case in Superior Court nor be a representative in a class action.
Raleigh Intersection Problems
There are many engineering problems
at all intersections with red light cameras. That is why the red light
cameras are there--to exploit the engineering problems. Raleigh
has made many mistakes setting yellow light times at all
intersections. There exists problems common to every intersection. There
exists problems specific to an intersection. We have analyzed only
three intersections so far in Raleigh: Here are their specific
engineering failures which Raleigh financially exploits at your expense:
|
Capital Blvd. (NB) at New Hope Church Rd. |
|
New Hope Church Rd. (EB) at Brentwood |
|
Peace St. (EB) at West |
We know that NCDOT engineers never
measure approach speeds as required by their own spec. Engineers are
supposed to set yellow light durations according to the speed of 85th
percentile of freely-flowing car speeds, not the posted speed limit. We
have not seen a single traffic signal plan where the NCDOT does this.
We have measured approach speeds and they have always been greater than
the posted speed limit.
We know that for some intersections ACS
posts yellow times shorter than that of the signal. On Peace at West
street, ACS says the time is 3.79 seconds. The signal plan says the
time must be 3.8 seconds. This shortfall violates SL2004-141, and the
operation of the red light camera is illegal.
We also know that at some intersections,
Raleigh's ACS red light camera software prints false yellow times. The
printed times are significantly longer than the signal gives, giving
the impression that Raleigh gives you more time than they really do.
For instance at Dawson @ Morgan, the printed yellow time is 4.1 seconds
but the actual yellow time is 3.8 seconds. 0.3 seconds is the difference
between 50 tickets per month and 150 tickets per month.
Safety
Raleigh advocates death for its motorists. On
Raleigh's web site,
there is a section called "Red Light Cameras is Other Cities." Raleigh
uses the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS) to justify its
red light camera program. But IIHS studied Raleigh specifically and
reported (p. 14) that the presence of red light cameras increased fatalities in Raleigh by 180%.
Wilmington has the same problems as Raleigh.
For a hearing, call:
Raleigh Safelight (owned by Xerox) |
919-833-2549 |
Wilmington Safelight (owned by ATS) |
910-343-4762 |
What is Your Defense?
If you sign up for a hearing in
Raleigh you have to write down the reason why you feel you are innocent.
Either say, "I am not the driver at the time and location on the
citation" or write the following. It is true.
"[City] has created a dilemma zone at
this intersection. I was in it when the light turned yellow. [City]
forced me to run a red light."
When you go to the hearing, face the hearing panel and defend yourself with:
"All intersections have a dilemma
zone because the NCDOT formula for yellow light durations sets yellow
light durations which oppose the laws of physics. In order for me to
obey the law, I have to break laws, unbreakable laws--the laws of
physics. I cannot do that. Adjust your yellow light durations so
that they are consistent with the physical laws of motions. Then judge
me."
Additionally if you are a commercial
truck driver, say "I need 2.5 second perception/reaction time for my rig
and 0.5 seconds air-brake lag time. That is what the
NCDOT CDL Manual
requires for truck drivers. Your 3 second left turn yellow leaves me
absolutely no time to brake." If you did not turn left, say, "You
shorted me 1.5 seconds on the yellow. I am innocent. And you better
increase your yellow light duration else I am going to kill someone and
charge the City with wrongful death."