#dwlr

[packdontendwithblood]

[cavedwlr]

cave dwlr #louisvillemusic #louisvillehiphop #dwlr

[trafficticketskissling]

Pedestrians and Cross Walks

www.kisslinglaw.com

According to North Carolina General Statutes, pedestrians always have the right of way at crosswalks.  However, when crossing not at a crosswalk, pedestrians must yield to motor vehicles.  See below for applicable statutes.

§ 20-173.  Pedestrians' right-of-way at crosswalks.

(a)        Where traffic-control signals are not in place or in operation the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at or near an intersection, except as otherwise provided in Part 11 of this Article.

(b)        Whenever any vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass such stopped vehicle.

(c)        The driver of a vehicle emerging from or entering an alley, building entrance, private road, or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian, or person riding a bicycle, approaching on any sidewalk or walkway extending across such alley, building entrance, road, or driveway. (1937, c. 407, s. 134; 1973, c. 1330, s. 32.)

  § 20-174.  Crossing at other than crosswalks; walking along highway.

(a)        Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

(b)        Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

(c)        Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.

(d)       Where sidewalks are provided, it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway. Where sidewalks are not provided, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall, when practicable, walk only on the extreme left of the roadway or its shoulder facing traffic which may approach from the opposite direction. Such pedestrian shall yield the right-of-way to approaching traffic.

(e)        Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway, and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary, and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway. (1937, c. 407, s. 135; 1973, c. 1330, s. 33.)

  § 20-155.  Right-of-way.

(a)        When two vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right.

(b)        The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left within an intersection or into an alley, private road, or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.

(c)        The driver of any vehicle upon a highway within a business or  residence district shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing such highway within any clearly marked crosswalk, or any regular pedestrian crossing included in the prolongation of the lateral boundary lines of the adjacent sidewalk at the end of a block, except at intersections where the movement of traffic is being regulated by traffic officers or traffic direction devices.

(d)       The driver of any vehicle approaching but not having entered a traffic circle shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle already within such traffic circle. (1937, c. 407, s. 117; 1949, c. 1016, s. 2; 1955, c. 913, ss. 6, 7; 1967, c. 1053; 1973, c. 1330, s. 20.)

  § 20-158.  Vehicle control signs and signals.

(a)        The Department of Transportation, with reference to State highways, and local authorities, with reference to highways under their jurisdiction, are hereby authorized to control vehicles:

(1)        At intersections, by erecting or installing stop signs requiring vehicles to come to a complete stop at the entrance to that portion of the intersection designated as the main traveled or through highway. Stop signs may also be erected at three or more entrances to an intersection.

(2)        At appropriate places other than intersections, by erecting or installing stop signs requiring vehicles to come to a complete stop.

(3)        At intersections and other appropriate places, by erecting or installing steady-beam traffic signals and other traffic control devices, signs, or signals. All steady-beam traffic signals emitting alternate red and green lights shall be arranged so that the red light in vertical-arranged signal faces shall appear above, and in horizontal-arranged signal faces shall appear to the left of all yellow and green lights.

(4)        At intersections and other appropriate places, by erecting or installing flashing red or yellow lights.

(b)        Control of Vehicles at Intersections. -

(1)        When a stop sign has been erected or installed at an intersection, it shall be unlawful for the driver of any vehicle to fail to stop in obedience thereto and yield the right-of-way to vehicles operating on the designated main-traveled or through highway. When stop signs have been erected at three or more entrances to an intersection, the driver, after stopping in obedience thereto, may proceed with caution.

(2)       a.         When a traffic signal is emitting a steady red circular light controlling traffic approaching an intersection, an approaching vehicle facing the red light shall come to a stop and shall not enter the intersection. After coming to a complete stop and unless prohibited by an appropriate sign, that approaching vehicle may make a right turn.

b.         Any vehicle that turns right under this subdivision shall yield the right-of-way to:

1.         Other traffic and pedestrians using the intersection; and

2.         Pedestrians who are moving towards the intersection, who are in reasonably close proximity to the intersection, and who are preparing to cross in front of the traffic that is required to stop at the red light.

c.         Failure to yield to a pedestrian under this subdivision shall be an infraction, and the court may assess a penalty of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) and not less than one hundred dollars ($100.00).

d.         Repealed by Session Laws 2014-58, s. 4, effective July 7, 2014.

(2a)      When a traffic signal is emitting a steady yellow circular light on a traffic signal controlling traffic approaching an intersection or a steady yellow arrow light on a traffic signal controlling traffic turning at an intersection, vehicles facing the yellow light are warned that the related green light is being terminated or a red light will be immediately forthcoming. When the traffic signal is emitting a steady green light, vehicles may proceed with due care through the intersection subject to the rights of pedestrians and other vehicles as may otherwise be provided by law.

(3)        When a flashing red light has been erected or installed at an intersection, approaching vehicles facing the red light shall stop and yield the right-of-way to vehicles in or approaching the intersection. The right to proceed shall be subject to the rules applicable to making a stop at a stop sign.

(4)        When a flashing yellow light has been erected or installed at an intersection, approaching vehicles facing the yellow flashing light may proceed through the intersection with caution, yielding the right-of-way to vehicles in or approaching the intersection.

(5)        When a stop sign, traffic signal, flashing light, or other traffic-control device authorized by subsection (a) of this section requires a vehicle to stop at an intersection, the driver shall stop (i) at an appropriately marked stop line, or if none, (ii) before entering a marked crosswalk, or if none, (iii) before entering the intersection at the point nearest the intersecting street where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting street.

(6)        When a traffic signal is not illuminated due to a power outage or other malfunction, vehicles shall approach the intersection and proceed through the intersection as though such intersection is controlled by a stop sign on all approaches to the intersection. This subdivision shall not apply if the movement of traffic at the intersection is being directed by a law enforcement officer, another authorized person, or another type of traffic control device.

(c)        Control of Vehicles at Places other than Intersections. -

(1)        When a stop sign has been erected or installed at a place other than an intersection, it shall be unlawful for the driver of any vehicle to fail to stop in obedience thereto and yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other vehicles.

(2)        When a traffic signal has been erected or installed at a place other than an intersection, and is emitting a steady red light, vehicles facing the red light shall come to a complete stop. When the traffic signal is emitting a steady yellow light, vehicles facing the light shall be warned that a red light will be immediately forthcoming and that vehicles may not proceed through such a red light. When the traffic signal is emitting a steady green light, vehicles may proceed subject to the rights of pedestrians and other vehicles as may otherwise be provided by law.

(3)        When a flashing red light has been erected or installed at a place other than an intersection, approaching vehicles facing the light shall stop and yield the right-of-way to pedestrians or other vehicles.

(4)        When a flashing yellow light has been erected or installed at a place other than an intersection, approaching vehicles facing the light may proceed with caution, yielding the right-of-way to pedestrians and other vehicles.

(5)        When a traffic signal, stop sign, or other traffic control device authorized by subsection (a) requires a vehicle to stop at a place other than an intersection, the driver shall stop at an appropriately marked stop line, or if none, before entering a marked crosswalk, or if none, before proceeding past the traffic control device.

(6)        When a ramp meter is displaying a circular red display, vehicles facing the red light must stop. When a ramp meter is displaying a circular green display, a vehicle may proceed for each lane of traffic facing the meter. When the display is dark or not emitting a red or green display, a vehicle may proceed without stopping. A violation of this subdivision is an infraction. No drivers license points or insurance surcharge shall be assessed as a result of a violation of this subdivision.

(d)       No failure to stop as required by the provisions of this section shall be considered negligence or contributory negligence per se in any action at law for injury to person or property, but the facts relating to such failure to stop may be considered with the other facts in the case in determining whether a party was guilty of negligence or contributory negligence.

(e)        Defense. - It shall be a defense to a violation of sub-subdivision (b)(2)a. of this section if the operator of a motorcycle, as defined in G.S. 20-4.01(27)d., shows all of the following:

(1)        The operator brought the motorcycle to a complete stop at the intersection or stop bar where a steady red light was being emitted in the direction of the operator.

(2)        The intersection is controlled by a vehicle actuated traffic signal using an inductive loop to activate the traffic signal.

(3)        No other vehicle that was entitled to have the right-of-way under applicable law was sitting at, traveling through, or approaching the intersection.

(4)        No pedestrians were attempting to cross at or near the intersection.

(5)        The motorcycle operator who received the citation waited a minimum of three minutes at the intersection or stop bar where the steady red light was being emitted in the direction of the operator before entering the intersection.  (1937, c. 407, s. 120; 1941, c. 83; 1949, c. 583, s. 2; 1955, c. 384, s. 1; c. 913, s. 7; 1957, c. 65, s. 11; 1973, c. 507, s. 5; c. 1191; c. 1330, s. 22; 1975, c. 1; 1977, c. 464, s. 34; 1979, c. 298, s. 1; 1989, c. 285; 2004-141, ss. 1, 2; 2004-172, ss. 2, 5; 2006-264, s. 6; 2007-260, s. 1; 2007-360, ss. 2, 3; 2014-58, ss. 4, 10(b).)

[trafficticketskissling]

Limited Driving Privilges

www.kisslinglaw.com

The most common type of limited driving privilege is related to Driving While Impaired.  However, there are many other instances where one might need a limited driving privilege such as a revocation for a high speeding ticket or a conviction while your licenses is revoked.  In most cases a limited driving privilege may be obtained if the driver has complied with the statutory requirements for the limited privilege.  Below is the law on limited privileges.

§ 20-179.3.  Limited driving privilege.

(a)        Definition of Limited Driving Privilege. - A limited driving privilege is a judgment issued in the discretion of a court for good cause shown authorizing a person with a revoked driver's license to drive for essential purposes related to any of the following:

(1)        His employment.

(2)        The maintenance of his household.

(3)        His education.

(4)        His court-ordered treatment or assessment.

(5)        Community service ordered as a condition of the person's probation.

(6)        Emergency medical care.

(b)        Eligibility. -

(1)        A person convicted of the offense of impaired driving under G.S. 20-138.1 is eligible for a limited driving privilege if:

a.         At the time of the offense he held either a valid driver's license or a license that had been expired for less than one year;

b.         At the time of the offense he had not within the preceding seven years been convicted of an offense involving impaired driving;

c.         Punishment Level Three, Four, or Five was imposed for the offense of impaired driving;

d.         Subsequent to the offense he has not been convicted of, or had an unresolved charge lodged against him for, an offense involving impaired driving; and

e.         The person has obtained and filed with the court a substance abuse assessment of the type required by G.S. 20-17.6 for the restoration of a drivers license.

A person whose North Carolina driver's license is revoked because of a conviction in another jurisdiction substantially similar to impaired driving under G.S. 20-138.1 is eligible for a limited driving privilege if he would be eligible for it had the conviction occurred in North Carolina. Eligibility for a limited driving privilege following a revocation under G.S. 20-16.2(d) is governed by G.S. 20-16.2(e1).

(2)        Any person whose licensing privileges are forfeited pursuant to G.S. 15A-1331.1 is eligible for a limited driving privilege if the court finds that at the time of the forfeiture, the person held either a valid drivers license or a drivers license that had been expired for less than one year and

a.         The person is supporting existing dependents or must have a drivers license to be gainfully employed; or

b.         The person has an existing dependent who requires serious medical treatment and the defendant is the only person able to provide transportation to the dependent to the health care facility where the dependent can receive the needed medical treatment.

The limited driving privilege granted under this subdivision must restrict the person to essential driving related to the purposes listed above, and any driving that is not related to those purposes is unlawful even though done at times and upon routes that may be authorized by the privilege.

(c)        Privilege Not Effective until after Compliance with Court-Ordered Revocation. - A person convicted of an impaired driving offense may apply for a limited driving privilege at the time the judgment is entered. A person whose license is revoked because of a conviction in another jurisdiction substantially similar to impaired driving under G.S. 20-138.1 may apply for a limited driving privilege only after having completed at least 60 days of a court-imposed term of nonoperation of a motor vehicle, if the court in the other jurisdiction imposed such a term of nonoperation.

(c1)      Privilege Restrictions for High-Risk Drivers. - Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any limited driving privilege issued to a person convicted of an impaired driving offense with an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more at the time of the offense shall:

(1)        Not become effective until at least 45 days after the final conviction under G.S. 20-138.1;

(2)        Require the applicant to comply with the ignition interlock requirements of subsection (g5) of this section; and

(3)        Restrict the applicant to driving only to and from the applicant's place of employment, the place the applicant is enrolled in school, any court ordered treatment or substance abuse education, and any ignition interlock service facility.

For purposes of this subsection, the results of a chemical analysis presented at trial or sentencing shall be sufficient to prove a person's alcohol concentration, shall be conclusive, and shall not be subject to modification by any party, with or without approval by the court.

(d)       Application for and Scheduling of Subsequent Hearing. - The application for a limited driving privilege made at any time after the day of sentencing must be filed with the clerk in duplicate, and no hearing scheduled may be held until a reasonable time after the clerk files a copy of the application with the district attorney's office. The hearing must be scheduled before:

(1)        The presiding judge at the applicant's trial if that judge is assigned to a court in the district court district as defined in G.S. 7A-133 or superior court district or set of districts as defined in G.S. 7A-41.1, as the case may be, in which the conviction for impaired driving was imposed.

(2)        The senior regular resident superior court judge of the superior court district or set of districts as defined in G.S. 7A-41.1 in which the conviction for impaired driving was imposed, if the presiding judge is not available within the district and the conviction was imposed in superior court.

(3)        The chief district court judge of the district court district as defined in G.S. 7A-133 in which the conviction for impaired driving was imposed, if the presiding judge is not available within the district and the conviction was imposed in district court.

If the applicant was convicted of an offense in another jurisdiction, the hearing must be scheduled before the chief district court judge of the district court district as defined in G.S. 7A-133 in which he resides. G.S. 20-16.2(e1) governs the judge before whom a hearing is scheduled if the revocation was under G.S. 20-16.2(d). The hearing may be scheduled in any county within the district court district as defined in G.S. 7A-133 or superior court district or set of districts as defined in G.S. 7A-41.1, as the case may be.

(e)        Limited Basis for and Effect of Privilege. - A limited driving privilege issued under this section authorizes a person to drive if his license is revoked solely under G.S. 20-17(a)(2) or as a result of a conviction in another jurisdiction substantially similar to impaired driving under G.S. 20-138.1; if the person's license is revoked under any other statute, the limited driving privilege is invalid.

(f)        Overall Provisions on Use of Privilege. - Every limited driving privilege must restrict the applicant to essential driving related to the purposes listed in subsection (a), and any driving that is not related to those purposes is unlawful even though done at times and upon routes that may be authorized by the privilege. If the privilege is granted, driving related to emergency medical care is authorized at any time and without restriction as to routes, but all other driving must be for a purpose and done within the restrictions specified in the privilege.

(f1)      Definition of "Standard Working Hours". - Under this section, "standard working hours" are 6:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. on Monday through Friday.

(g)        Driving for Work-Related Purposes in Standard Working Hours. - In a limited driving privilege, the court may authorize driving for work-related purposes during standard working hours without specifying the times and routes in which the driving must occur. If the applicant is not required to drive for essential work-related purposes except during standard working hours, the limited driving privilege must prohibit driving during nonstandard working hours unless the driving is for emergency medical care or is authorized by subsection (g2). The limited driving privilege must state the name and address of the applicant's place of work or employer, and may include other information and restrictions applicable to work-related driving in the discretion of the court.

(g1)      Driving for Work-Related Purposes in Nonstandard Hours. - If the applicant is required to drive during nonstandard working hours for an essential work-related purpose, he must present documentation of that fact before the judge may authorize him to drive for this purpose during those hours. If the applicant is self-employed, the documentation must be attached to or made a part of the limited driving privilege. If the judge determines that it is necessary for the applicant to drive during nonstandard hours for a work-related purpose, he may authorize the applicant to drive subject to these limitations:

(1)        If the applicant is required to drive to and from a specific place of work at regular times, the limited driving privilege must specify the general times and routes in which the applicant will be driving to and from work, and restrict driving to those times and routes.

(2)        If the applicant is required to drive to and from work at a specific place, but is unable to specify the times at which that driving will occur, the limited driving privilege must specify the general routes in which the applicant will be driving to and from work, and restrict the driving to those general routes.

(3)        If the applicant is required to drive to and from work at regular times but is unable to specify the places at which work is to be performed, the limited driving privilege must specify the general times and geographic boundaries in which the applicant will be driving, and restrict driving to those times and within those boundaries.

(4)        If the applicant can specify neither the times nor places in which he will be driving to and from work, or if he is required to drive during these nonstandard working hours as a condition of employment, the limited driving privilege must specify the geographic boundaries in which he will drive and restrict driving to that within those boundaries.

The limited driving privilege must state the name and address of the applicant's place of work or employer, and may include other information and restrictions applicable to work-related driving, in the discretion of the court.

(g2)      Driving for Other than Work-Related Purposes. - A limited driving privilege may not allow driving for maintenance of the household except during standard working hours, and the limited driving privilege may contain any additional restrictions on that driving, in the discretion of the court. The limited driving privilege must authorize driving essential to the completion of any community work assignments, course of instruction at an Alcohol and Drug Education Traffic School, or substance abuse assessment or treatment, to which the applicant is ordered by the court as a condition of probation for the impaired driving conviction. If this driving will occur during nonstandard working hours, the limited driving privilege must specify the same limitations required by subsection (g1) for work-related driving during those hours, and it must include or have attached to it the name and address of the Alcohol and Drug Education Traffic School, the community service coordinator, or mental health treatment facility to which the applicant is assigned. Driving for educational purposes other than the course of instruction at an Alcohol and Drug Education Traffic School is subject to the same limitations applicable to work related driving under subsections (g) and (g1).

(g3)      Ignition Interlock Allowed. - A judge may include all of the following in a limited driving privilege order:

(1)        A restriction that the applicant may operate only a designated motor vehicle.

(2)        A requirement that the designated motor vehicle be equipped with a functioning ignition interlock system of a type approved by the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall not unreasonably withhold approval of an ignition interlock system and shall consult with the Division of Purchase and Contract in the Department of Administration to ensure that potential vendors are not discriminated against.

(3)        A requirement that the applicant personally activate the ignition interlock system before driving the motor vehicle.

(g4)      The restrictions set forth in subsection (g3) and (g5) of this section do not apply to a motor vehicle that meets all of the following requirements:

(1)        Is owned by the applicant's employer.

(2)        Is operated by the applicant solely for work-related purposes.

(3)        Its owner has filed with the court a written document authorizing the applicant to drive the vehicle, for work-related purposes, under the authority of a limited driving privilege.

(g5)      Ignition Interlock Required. - If a person's drivers license is revoked for a conviction of G.S. 20-138.1, and the person had an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more, a judge shall include all of the following in a limited driving privilege order:

(1)        A restriction that the applicant may operate only a designated motor vehicle.

(2)        A requirement that the designated motor vehicle be equipped with a functioning ignition interlock system of a type approved by the Commissioner, which is set to prohibit driving with an alcohol concentration of greater than 0.00. The Commissioner shall not unreasonably withhold approval of an ignition interlock system and shall consult with the Division of Purchase and Contract in the Department of Administration to ensure that potential vendors are not discriminated against.

(3)        A requirement that the applicant personally activate the ignition interlock system before driving the motor vehicle.

For purposes of this subsection, the results of a chemical analysis presented at trial or sentencing shall be sufficient to prove a person's alcohol concentration, shall be conclusive, and shall not be subject to modification by any party, with or without approval by the court.

(h)        Other Mandatory and Permissive Conditions or Restrictions. - In all limited driving privileges the judge shall also include a restriction that the applicant not consume alcohol while driving or drive at any time while he has remaining in his body any alcohol or controlled substance previously consumed, unless the controlled substance was lawfully obtained and taken in therapeutically appropriate amounts. The judge may impose any other reasonable restrictions or conditions necessary to achieve the purposes of this section.

(i)         Modification or Revocation of Privilege. - A judge who issues a limited driving privilege is authorized to modify or revoke the limited driving privilege upon a showing that the circumstances have changed sufficiently to justify modification or revocation. If the judge who issued the privilege is not presiding in the court in which the privilege was issued, a presiding judge in that court may modify or revoke a privilege in accordance with this subsection. The judge must indicate in the order of modification or revocation the reasons for the order, or he must make specific findings indicating the reason for the order and those findings must be entered in the record of the case.

(j)         Effect of Violation of Restriction. - A holder of a limited driving privilege who violates any of its restrictions commits the offense of driving while his license is revoked under G.S. 20-28(a) and is subject to punishment and license revocation as provided in that section. If a law-enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the holder of a limited driving privilege has consumed alcohol while driving or has driven while he has remaining in his body any alcohol previously consumed, the suspected offense of driving while license is revoked is an alcohol-related offense subject to the implied-consent provisions of G.S. 20-16.2. If a holder of a limited driving privilege is charged with driving while license revoked by violating a restriction contained in his limited driving privilege, and a judicial official determines that there is probable cause for the charge, the limited driving privilege is suspended pending the resolution of the case, and the judicial official must require the holder to surrender the limited driving privilege. The judicial official must also notify the holder that he is not entitled to drive until his case is resolved.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alcohol screening test may be administered to a driver suspected of violating this section, and the results of an alcohol screening test or the driver's refusal to submit may be used by a law enforcement officer, a court, or an administrative agency in determining if alcohol was present in the driver's body. No alcohol screening tests are valid under this section unless the device used is one approved by the Department of Health and Human Services, and the screening test is conducted in accordance with the applicable regulations of the Department as to the manner of its use.

(j1)       Effect of Violation of Community Service Requirement. - Section of Community Corrections of the Division of Adult Correction staff shall report significant violations of the terms of a probation judgment related to community service to the court that ordered the community service. The court shall then conduct a hearing to determine if there was a willful failure to comply. The hearing may be held in the district where the requirement was imposed, where the alleged violation occurred, or where the probationer resides. If the court determines that there was a willful failure to pay the prescribed fee or to complete the work as ordered within the applicable time limits, the court shall revoke any limited driving privilege issued in the impaired driving case until community service requirements have been met. In addition, the court may take any further action authorized by Article 82 of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes for violation of a condition of probation.

(k)        Copy of Limited Driving Privilege to Division; Action Taken if Privilege Invalid. - The clerk of court or the child support enforcement agency must send a copy of any limited driving privilege issued in the county to the Division. A limited driving privilege that is not authorized by this section, G.S. 20-16.2(e1), 20-16.1, 50-13.12, or 110-142.2, or that does not contain the limitations required by law, is invalid. If the limited driving privilege is invalid on its face, the Division must immediately notify the court and the holder of the privilege that it considers the privilege void and that the Division records will not indicate that the holder has a limited driving privilege.

(l)         Any judge granting limited driving privileges under this section shall, prior to granting such privileges, be furnished proof and be satisfied that the person being granted such privileges is financially responsible. Proof of financial responsibility shall be in one of the following forms:

(1)        A written certificate or electronically-transmitted facsimile thereof from any insurance carrier duly authorized to do business in this State certifying that there is in effect a nonfleet private passenger motor vehicle liability policy for the benefit of the person required to furnish proof of financial responsibility. The certificate or facsimile shall state the effective date and expiration date of the nonfleet private passenger motor vehicle liability policy and shall state the date that the certificate or facsimile is issued. The certificate or facsimile shall remain effective proof of financial responsibility for a period of 30 consecutive days following the date the certificate or facsimile is issued but shall not in and of itself constitute a binder or policy of insurance or

(2)        A binder for or policy of nonfleet private passenger motor vehicle liability insurance under which the applicant is insured, provided that the binder or policy states the effective date and expiration date of the nonfleet private passenger motor vehicle liability policy.

The preceding provisions of this subsection do not apply to applicants who do not own currently registered motor vehicles and who do not operate nonfleet private passenger motor vehicles that are owned by other persons and that are not insured under commercial motor vehicle liability insurance policies. In such cases, the applicant shall sign a written certificate to that effect. Such certificate shall be furnished by the Division. Any material misrepresentation made by such person on such certificate shall be grounds for suspension of that person's license for a period of 90 days.

For the purpose of this subsection "nonfleet private passenger motor vehicle" has the definition ascribed to it in Article 40 of General Statute Chapter 58.

The Commissioner may require that certificates required by this subsection be on a form approved by the Commissioner. Such granting of limited driving privileges shall be conditioned upon the maintenance of such financial responsibility during the period of the limited driving privilege. Nothing in this subsection precludes any person from showing proof of financial responsibility in any other manner authorized by Articles 9A and 13 of this Chapter.  (1983, c. 435, s. 31; 1983 (Reg. Sess., 1984), c. 1101, ss. 30-33; 1985, c. 706, s. 2; 1987, c. 869, s. 13; 1987 (Reg. Sess., 1988), c. 1037, s. 78; 1989, c. 436, s. 6; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 20, s. 3; 1995, c. 506, ss. 1, 2; c. 538, s. 2(h); 1995 (Reg. Sess., 1996), c. 756, s. 31; 1997-379, s. 5.6; 1999-406, ss. 4-6; 2000-155, ss. 7, 11-13; 2001-487, s. 55; 2007-182, s. 2; 2007-493, ss. 24, 29, 30; 2008-187, s. 36(c); 2009-372, s. 15; 2011-145, s. 19.1(k); 2012-194, s. 45(c).)

[trafficticketskissling]

Failure to Comply

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

Posted on Sep. 19, 2011, 8:53 am  by  Shea Denning   • 8 comments    

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).)

[trafficticketskissling]

Distractied Driving: Driving with Pets

www.kisslinglaw.com

I must confess, I am a Big Dog guy.  My family is on our second yellow lab.  I do not like little dogs and hate it when people: Put their little dogs in strollers; carry them into restaurants and try to convince the owner they are service dogs; and mostly, when they drive with them on their laps.

Below is a great article on how driving with pets is not only distracting, but also very dangerous.  It applies to both big and little dogs.

7 Surprising Dangers of Driving with Pets

Tue Dec 16 09:30:00 CST 2014 by Pippa Elliott

 17 1

What do your dog, your cell phone, and a hamburger have in common?

Answer: They are all potentially lethal distractions when driving.

You’re a busy mom. Ferrying kids about. Dashing off to work. Not to mention finding the time to shop and walk the dog. Mind you, it helps that the dog is a good boy. He hops in the passenger seat like an angel and sits looking out the window. Your furry copilot. Do you buckle him up? No. It's only a short trip.

And you're not alone. According to a survey by TrustedChoice.com, out of a hundred people questioned, over 80% do not buckle up and use a doggy seat belt (or other method of restraint) while traveling with their canine companions.

"So what?" you ask. Unrestrained pets are a significant cause of accidents, and they are likely to suffer serious harm themselves and cause injury to other passengers. 

Not convinced why you should buckle your pet? Here are some reasons why it may be in your best interest to invest in proper restraints:

#1: Canine Cruise Missile

Do you know that an adult Cocker Spaniel in a 35 mph crash is propelled forward with the force of one-and-a-half charging horses? That's going to hurt both him and you when he hits you on the back of the head. Not only that, he could also impact the windshield and sustain serious injuries. A small Labrador in that same collision travels forward with a force equivalent to an Angus bull – dangerous for him and for you.

#2: Driving Distraction

The statistics are frightening. Annual reports from the AAA consistently show "driver distraction" is responsible for around 6,000 fatalities each year. These are potentially preventable vehicle collisions caused by the driver being distracted for as little as two seconds. That's right – those two seconds of wandering attention actually double your chances of being in a crash. The AAA also reports that 31% of drivers admit to being distracted by a pet in the car. Indeed, 24% admitted using a hand to physically restrain their dog while they braked.

Of course, a distraction doesn't have to be major to be dangerous. It could be a cute look, the dog throwing up, or your furry friend climbing onto your lap for a cuddle. The point is that when traveling you need to know your pet is safely restrained in the back, so you can concentrate 100% on the road.

#3: Airbag Danger

Unfortunately, if you think your pet is safe because you hold him securely on your lap – think again. In the event of a collision, your pet is in a precarious position. If the vehicle's airbag deploys, the force of the inflation can kill the dog. Much like the manufacturer's advice that children should not travel in the front because airbag deployment would harm them, the same goes for pets.

#4: Runaway Dog

You crash. The dog is unharmed, but still there are problems. Why?

One scenario is that your faithful friend sees his owner is hurt and tries to protect him. This can mean guarding you and becoming aggressive when strangers approach, which is not so great when they are paramedics who are trying to rescue you.

Another unfortunate outcome is that the dog runs off in a panic, only to cross into the opposite lane and be fatally struck by an oncoming vehicle. I've treated dogs for this myself, including a Labrador who had a leg amputated as a result of injuries sustained in the secondary incident. It's safest for everyone if the dog is restrained.

#5: Legal Issues

The law varies from state to state. Hawaii was the first state to outlaw dogs sitting on laps in the front, and breaking this law invokes a fine. In many states, the police have discretionary power to fine the driver of a car containing an unrestrained pet (especially in the front) under careless driving legislation. However, the law is not necessarily a guide to best practice. Even if your state does not have such a law yet, it's still in your best interest to keep your dog out of your lap while driving.

#6: Lapdog Liability

You're in a fender bender and the dog escapes with a broken leg but is otherwise OK. You're not too worried because your auto insurance collision coverage will pay for his veterinary treatment – right? Wrong!

The majority of car insurance policies do not cover the costs of treatment should your pet be injured in a crash. A minority of companies may offer a low level of protection, but this is unlikely to meet the full bill if your pet is seriously injured. In short, if you travel with a pet, you should consider taking out a separate pet insurance policy for those unforeseen incidents.

#7: Proper Pet Protocol

Enough of the unpleasant truths. What can you do to ensure you don't become part of a canine tragedy? 

Dog Seat Belt: Fit your dog with a seat belt harness. These are comfortable to wear and won't distress your pet, but could save his life. Look for crash-test approved equipment that has been proved safe in high-speed collision situations.

Backseat is Best: Always have your dog ride in the back. That way those large brown eyes are less likely to make you look away from the road, and he's safe from airbag deployment.

Collar and Tag: Make sure your dog is easily identifiable when on a journey, just in case something happens and he runs off.

Chow Down: If going on a long journey, feed your pet three or four hours beforehand to decrease the likelihood of him getting nauseated and causing a distraction.

Your pet is well-behaved and you are rightfully proud of him. The trouble is, that isn't enough to keep you safe on the road. We all want the best for our pets and to keep them safe and well. So when traveling by car, there's no escaping the logic that this means buckling your pet up in the back on every trip.

[trafficticketskissling]

Texting While Driving in North Carolina

www.kisslinglaw.com

There is much talk about driving while texting.  The North Carolina law has many loop holes and is hard to prove.  Below is an article from WRAL about the issue.

Raleigh, N.C. — More than 3,000 people die and more than a quarter-million are injured in the U.S. each year in crashes involving texting while driving, according to the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. Despite the danger, many people still text behind the wheel, but punishing them isn’t always easy.

A recent study by Forbes Business found that 47 percent of adults admit they text while driving and that 58 percent of high school seniors text friends instead of paying attention to the road. Despite those numbers, few people are ever charged.

North Carolina is one of 40 states that have laws against texting while driving. In North Carolina, it is a primary offense, meaning drivers can get pulled over if an officer sees them texting on the road. But getting charged is one thing. Getting convicted isn't so simple.

Last year, 1,458 people were cited with texting while driving in Wake County – about 300 more than the previous year. In 2011, fewer than 900 drivers were cited. Interim Wake County District Attorney Ned Mangum and other prosecutors say they hope those numbers will act as a deterrent.

“The more people that are aware that texting while driving is dangerous is better for the public, and the less people that do it, the safer the roads will be,” Mangum said.

Law enforcement officers hope to send the same message with more crackdowns on distracted drivers. During a recent campaign in Cary, 80 drivers were pulled over, but not everyone received a ticket.

WRAL Investigates found many drivers who were cited didn’t end up paying the price.

Christopher Lynn was cited for texting while driving, but his case was thrown out. He says he was looking at a map on his phone, not texting.

“Ultimately, the law is rather toothless,” Lynn said. “What I did was trace along the road I thought I was on (on the phone) … When I looked up, there was some lights behind me, and (the officer) said I was texting while driving.”

Of the 1,367 cases that were disposed of last year in Wake County, almost half of the drivers paid the $290 in fines and court costs. In many of the remaining cases, drivers fought and won.

“In all honesty, I could have accepted the charge, but why accept something that I didn’t do?” Lynn asked.

There's plenty of gray area in the law.

“The way the statute is written, it’s very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court,” White said. “In order to show you were using your phone to text or emailing, they would have to have a search warrant.”

If an officer asks to see the phone, the driver does not have to hand it over.

“You can decline,” White said.

In North Carolina, the texting law applies only to moving vehicles. Drivers who are legally stopped at a red light can text and email. Drivers who are in a moving vehicle cannot text or email, but they are allowed to type into their phone's GPS and search for contacts.

That distinction makes it tough on prosecutors.

“It’s hard for a police officer to tell if you’re inputting numbers or are you text messaging someone when you’re looking at your phone,” Mangum said.

The law is different for children under 18 and school bus drivers. They are not allowed to use cellphones at all unless it is an emergency.

Mangum says many drivers admit to texting when they get pulled over. If drivers fight the citation, it puts the state in a tough position.

“Obviously, as the Supreme Court just told us, we’re not going to get a search warrant every time someone’s been stopped using a mobile phone. That’s not a good use of the state’s limited resources,” he said.

While the number of texting cases will likely continue to increase in traffic court, proving it will continue to be a challenge.

“The problem with it was it was circumstantial, and unless you show an officer, ‘Hey, they is all my text messages within the last hour,’ it’s pretty hard to enforce,” Lynn said.

While texting does carry a fine and court costs, much like the seat belt law, drivers won't get points on their license. A bill that would have doubled the texting fine to $200 never made it out of committee this legislative session.

NC's texting while driving law

§ 20-137.4A. Unlawful use of mobile telephone for text messaging or electronic mail.

(a) Offense. - It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a vehicle on a public street or highway or public vehicular area while using a mobile telephone to:

(1) Manually enter multiple letters or text in the device as a means of communicating with another person; or

(2) Read any electronic mail or text message transmitted to the device or stored within the device, provided that this prohibition shall not apply to any name or number stored in the device nor to any caller identification information.

(a1) Motor Carrier Offense. - It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a commercial motor vehicle subject to Part 390 or 392 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations on a public street or highway or public vehicular area while using a mobile telephone or other electronic device in violation of those Parts. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the use of hands-free technology.

(b) Exceptions. - The provisions of this section shall not apply to:

(1) The operator of a vehicle that is lawfully parked or stopped.

(2) Any of the following while in the performance of their official duties: a law enforcement officer; a member of a fire department; or the operator of a public or private ambulance.

(3) The use of factory-installed or aftermarket global positioning systems (GPS) or wireless communications devices used to transmit or receive data as part of a digital dispatch system.

(4) The use of voice operated technology.

(c) Penalty. - A violation of this section while operating a school bus, as defined in G.S. 20-137.4(a)(4), shall be a Class 2 misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100.00). Any other violation of this section shall be an infraction and shall be punishable by a fine of one hundred dollars ($100.00) and the costs of court.

No drivers license points or insurance surcharge shall be assessed as a result of a violation of this section. Failure to comply with the provisions of this section shall not constitute negligence per se or contributory negligence per se by the operator in any action for the recovery of damages arising out of the operation, ownership, or maintenance of a vehicle. (2009-135, s. 2; 2012-78, s. 9.)

Read more at http://www.wral.com/defense-attorney-texting-while-driving-very-difficult-to-prove-/13845381/#Gk0FPuueEAoYsI2z.99

[trafficticketskissling]

Red Light Camera Ticket

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 Raleigh and you are the owner of the vehicle but not the driver, you have a State-sanctioned way out of paying and not disclosing the name of the driver.

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:

15 U.S. Code Section 1692A. Black's Law Dictionary goes into more detail.

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."