 www.kisslinglaw.com
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."