Showing posts with label Failure to Comply. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Failure to Comply. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 9, 2016

Failure to Yield to Pedestrian


www.kisslinglaw.com

Kisslinglaw treats these cases like any other accident and has been able to get them dismissed. According to Fox News,
Pedestrian deaths surged by an estimated 10 percent last year as the economy improved, the price of gas plunged and motorists put more miles behind the wheel than ever before, according to an analysis of preliminary state traffic fatality data.
The growing use of cellphones distracting drivers and walkers may also be partially to blame, states a report released by the Governors Highway Safety Association, which represents governors' highway safety offices. Warmer weather and shorter winters along with a greater awareness of health benefits may also be encouraging people to walk more.
"This is really sobering news," said Richard Retting, co-author of the report. "Pedestrian safety is clearly a growing problem across the country."
The data analyzed were from the first half of 2015. If the trend holds true for the full year, it would be the largest year-to-year increase in pedestrian deaths since 1975 when the current federal system for recording traffic deaths was created.
The report is based on state traffic fatality figures, extrapolated for the full year by researchers at Sam Schwartz Consulting, which specializes in transportation matters.
There were 2,368 pedestrians killed in the first six months of 2015, compared to 2,232 during the same period in 2014 — a six percent increase. Researchers arrived at a 10 percent increase for the entire year by factoring in that fatalities for the first half of the year are typically underreported, and that for at least the last five years an average of 25 percent more pedestrian deaths were recorded in the second half of the year, which includes warmer summer months, Retting said.
Total traffic deaths, which had been trending downward for the past decade, were also up an estimated 8 percent last year. But pedestrian fatalities have been rising since 2005, and now account for 15 percent of total traffic deaths. The last time pedestrian deaths accounted for that large a share of traffic deaths was 25 years ago.
Nearly three-quarters of pedestrian deaths occur after dark, and a third of those killed had been drinking alcohol, according to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data. By comparison, about 15 percent of motorists involved in those crashes had a blood alcohol content at the legal limit or higher.
Four large population states — California, Florida, Texas and New York — accounted for 42 percent of the pedestrian deaths in the first six months of 2015. States with the highest rate of pedestrian fatalities per 100,000 residents were scattered across the country — Florida, 1.35; Arizona, 1.27; Delaware, 1.27; South Carolina, 1.12; Mississippi, 1.07; Oregon, 1.04, and New Mexico, 1.01. The District of Columbia also tied Oregon for the sixth highest rate, 1.04.
In a related issue, the Amalgamated Transit Union, which represents city bus drivers, estimates that roughly one pedestrian is killed every 10 days by a city bus because of blind spots in poorly designed buses. Wide "A pillars," which connect the windshield to the driver's side window, and poorly placed side mirrors frequently obstruct drivers' view of intersections, according to the union.
"Until the industry demands a change in the design of buses to remove the unnecessary blind spots like European buses, people will continue to die in these preventable accidents," said Larry Hanley, the union's president.

Friday, February 13, 2015

Failure to Comply

Image result for old traffic tickets
www.kisslinglaw.com

There is talk in the legislature about raising the Failure to Comply fee from $50 to $200.  This will have a dramatic impact on poorer people who want to be responsible but simply cannot afford to pay their speeding tickets.  Below is a great article  by Shea Denning of the NC School of Government.

The Link Between License Revocations and Failures to Appear

In 1985, the General Assembly reclassified certain minor traffic violations as a new type of non-criminal violation, termed an infraction. S.L. 1985-764. Though the legislation provided that infractions were to be processed in much the same manner as misdemeanor criminal charges (they were to be calendared and prosecuted by the district attorney, proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and persons found responsible for infractions in district court were afforded the right to a de novo jury trial in superior court), their non-criminal nature distinguished them from criminal offenses in a few critical ways. A law enforcement officer could not arrest a person for an infraction. A court could not issue an order for arrest if a person served with a citation for an infraction failed to appear in court. Infractions were punishable by a fine and costs only; no active or probationary sentence could be imposed.
Because persons charged with infractions could not be arrested, and persons found responsible for infractions could not be placed on probation or ordered to jail, the legislature recognized the need for other measures commensurate with the petty nature of such offenses to ensure that persons charged with infractions appeared in court and that those found responsible complied with court-ordered sanctions.  See Report of the Courts Commission to the North Carolina General Assembly 15, 16 (1985). Appearances for infractions and compliance with court-ordered sanctions were thus tied to a person’s ability to remain licensed to drive. Failure to appear in court or comply with sanctions triggered an administrative license revocation. As the Courts Commission pointed out, the new “revocation procedure basically treats residents the same for in-state violations as they are treated when they are ticketed outside the state.” Id.; see also G.S. 20-4.20(b) (requiring DMV to suspend a person’s North Carolina driver’s license when the licensing authority of a reciprocating state reports that the person has failed to comply with a citation issued in that state). Today, the administrative license revocation provisions enacted in 1985 are codified, as amended, at G.S. 20-24.1 and G.S. 20-24.2. Here is what they currently provide:
If a person charged with a motor vehicle offense (be it a felony, misdemeanor or infraction) fails to appear on his or her court date and does not appear or “pay off” a citation for a waivable offense within 20 days thereafter, the clerk of court must report this failure to appear to DMV. G.S. 20-24.2. (The failure to appear also triggers imposition of a $200 court cost pursuant to G.S. 7A-304(a)(6).) The clerk must likewise report the failure of a person “charged with a motor vehicle offense” to pay a fine, penalty or costs within 20 days of the date specified in the court’s judgment. G.S. 20-24.2. Though this provision does not so specify, presumably it applies only when the conviction or adjudication of responsibility—in addition to the charge—is for a Chapter 20 motor vehicle offense. (A related provision of G.S. 7A-304(a)(6)—not limited to motor vehicle offenses—imposes court costs of $50 upon a defendant who fails to pay a fine, penalty, or costs within 20 days of the date specified in the court’s judgment.)
When it receives notice from the clerk pursuant to G.S. 20-24.2, DMV must mail or personally deliver to the person an order revoking his or her driver’s license, effective on the sixtieth day after the order is mailed or delivered. G.S. 20-24.1(b). If the person resolves the matter before the effective date of the revocation, the revocation never becomes effective and any entries on the person’s driving record related to the revocation are deleted. To resolve the matter, the person must do one of four things, depending upon the circumstances giving rise to the court’s report to DMV: (1) dispose of the charge in the trial division in which he or she failed to appear when the case was last called for trial or hearing; (2) demonstrate to the court that he or she is not the person charged with the offense; (3) pay the penalty, fine, or costs ordered by the court; or (4) demonstrate that his or her failure to pay the penalty, fine, or costs was not willful and that he or she is making a good faith effort to pay or that the penalty, fine or costs should be remitted.
Once the person has resolved the matter in court, the court so notifies DMV. G.S. 20-24.2. The clerk must provide the person upon request with a copy of the notice sent to DMV.  If the person resolves the matter before the effective date of the revocation, the notice must indicate that the person is eligible to drive if he or she is otherwise validly licensed. If the revocation order becomes effective before the charge is resolved, the person’s license remains revoked until he or she resolves the matter by completing the necessary act of the four listed above and pays a $50 license restoration fee. G.S. 20-24.2.
If a clerk sends an order to DMV “through clerical mistake or other inadvertence,” the clerk’s office that sent the report of noncompliance must withdraw the report and send notice to DMV, which corrects its records. G.S. 20-24.2(b). When this occurs, the person is able to have his or her driver’s license reinstated without paying the restoration fee. In contrast, if the failure to appear is stricken but no notice is sent to DMV withdrawing the G.S. 20-24.2 report, the person must pay the $50 restoration fee to regain his or her driver’s license. A related provision in G.S. 7A-304(a)(6) requires the court to waive the $200 fee for failing to appear if the person demonstrates that he or she failed to appear because of an error or omission of a judicial official, a prosecutor or a law enforcement officer. (Courts also have discretionary authority to waive such costs upon upon a written finding of just cause. See G.S. 7A-304(a).)