Red Light Robber

Colorado Photo-Enforcement Law

Paying a red-light camera citation in Colorado is voluntary.

Section 42-4-110.5 (on page 349) is Colorado's enabling statute for red-light and speed camera enforcement.

Section 42-4-110.5(2)(a)(II), the city has 90 days to serve the defendant. If you are not served within 90 days, the penalty notice is void. Whether you pay or not, Colorado does not assess insurance points, does not immobilize the driver's vehicle, does not enter any judgments, and does not keep record of the infraction. Credit-reporting agencies do not accept photo-enforcement citations as debts; therefore, unpaid citations never appear on your credit report. So while you may receive a nasty-gram from a debt-collection agency, there is nothing the agency can do to collect.

Section 42-4-110.5(2)(a)(II)(b) "Notwithstanding any other provision of the statutes to the contrary, the state, a county, a city and county, or a municipality may not report to the department any conviction or entry of judgment against a defendant for violation of a municipal traffic regulation or a traffic violation under state law if the violation was detected through the use of an automated vehicle identification system."

Section 42-4-110.5(2)(f)(3) "The department has no authority to assess any points against a license under section 42-2-127 upon entry of a conviction or judgment for a violation of a municipal traffic regulation or a traffic violation under state law if the violation was detected through the use of an automated vehicle identification system. The department may not keep any record of such violation in the official records maintained by the department under section 42-2-121."

Section 42-4-110(6)(b) "A state agency or a political subdivision of the state shall not adopt or enforce a policy, rule, or ordinance that sets standards for an automated driving system that are different from the standards set for a human driver." Yet, red-light camera systems punish drivers using the precision of a computer as the standard. Watch the video clip in exhibit CP3. A human cannot tell that the vehicle's front bumper crossed over the stop line before the light turned yet. This is literally outside the brain-visual perception ability of a human being. Also watch video 5 on the home page. The driver cannot even tell he ran a red light.

Professions and Occupations Act

Colorado Revised Statute 12-120-202(2) and (6)(a) requires the "practice of engineering" to conform to the "application of the mathematical and physical sciences."

Section 12-120-204 requires red-light camera installation plans to be sealed and signed by a Colorado licensed professional engineer who is in responsible charge of and directly responsible for the engineering work.

Professional Engineers' Rules and Ethics

Colorado Counties Building Permit Requirements

Colorado Revised Statute CRS 30-28-205 enables counties to grant building permits for buildings and/or structures. If the plans for these structures require engineering work, then the plans must be signed and sealed (aka, certified) by a Colorado licensed professional engineer. Red-light camera installation plans are engineering works. See exhibit CD2.

Colorado MUTCD Supplement

The federal MUTCD does not allow this sign to be used because one cannot post a photo of a traffic signal near a traffic signal. Colorado law does not allow this sign. Many States permit the sign in their MUTCD supplement--a permission written into the MUTCD after-the-fact. That is, after the State discovered that the camera firm had erected its illegal signs all over their city.

Red-Light Camera Installation Plans, Denver

This report contains the Denver's red-light camera installation plans as well as other engineering items (like yellow timings for select intersections) pertinent to the red-light camera project. The installation plans have never been certified as required by law. See exhibit C2.

Colorado Ruling Against RedFlex for Producing Uncertified Engineering Plans

In 2019, the Colorado Board of Engineers issued a cease and desist order against people who drafted red-light camera installation plans for RedFlex for Denver. Such plans are engineering works and so must be certified by a Colorado licensed professional engineer. These plans were not certified. The people who drafted the plans are not engineers. See requirement in exhibit C2.

Owner-Not-Driver No-Fink-on-Driver Denver Law

Paying a red-light camera ticket in Denver is voluntary. When you get a red-light camera citation, the citation omits a legal option. City of Denver ordinance Sec. 54-833 allows you to send an affidavit saying you were not driving at the time and location on the citation. You do not have to fink on the driver.

Pueblo's Vehicle Owner Liability Law

Section 15-1-15(c) allows an owner to declare himself not liable when he did not give permission to the person driving his car at the time of the infraction. (In hindsight, no owner allows a person to drive his car knowing that the person is going to run red lights.) The Pueblo ordinance also does not force the owner to fink on the driver. Refer to Exhibit C1--the State's enabling statute. Because Pueblo's red-light cameras take a picture of the driver, it is not so easy to say, "It wasn't me." But it could be a family member. It could be your wife. You do not have the fink on your wife.

Section 15-1-15(f)(1), (f)(2) and (f)(6) allow Pueblo's municipal court to enter a judgment against the vehicle owner. This conflicts with the State enabling statute CRS 42-4-110.5(II)(b) which forbids the court to enter a judgment. See exhibit C1.

Section 15-1-15(f)(3) explicitly exempts the city from adhering to the rules of evidence. Whether this violates the 14th Amendment is a question for an attorney. If due process is egregiously violated, then Pueblo crosses the line. Perhaps exhibit CP3 crosses the line. In the photos and video of exhibit CP3, half the evidence shows it's nighttime while the other half shows it's daylight.

Section 15-1-15(f)(6): oversteps the State enabling statute. The enabling statute forbids a municipality to transfer the citation from the Court system to a different department, not even to the Police Department.

Pueblo Red-Light Camera Notice

A Pueblo notice has a picture of the driver's face. We redacted the picture.

Pueblo Photo 1
Pueblo Photo 2
Pueblo Red Light Camera Clip

In Colorado, these photos and clip go along with the penalty notice of exhibit CP2. Some observations:

1. It looks like nighttime in the photos, but the camera clip is daylight.


2. What a human sees is not what the photo/video evidence presents.


3. Discrepancies such as the above are the reason why the Pueblo ordinance may not make the Municipal Court adhere to the rules of evidence. It is convenient for the prosecution to change the law to accept bad evidence than it is to fix the engineering error.


4. It is standard procedure for a red-light camera firm to tamper with photo and video evidence. One of things these firms do is make the red light brighter. Doing such things makes the driver look careless.


5. The video illustrates the engineering defect called the dilemma zone. See video 4 on the home page. The driver entered 0.4 seconds into the red--literally in the blink of an eye.


6. The amber time is 3.5 seconds. But 3.5 seconds is too short even for a 35 mph road. 3.5 seconds violates even the ITE standard of care. 3.5 seconds is unusually short for this roadway especially at 6 AM in the morning. The national standard of care is for traffic engineer to plug in the 85th percentile approach speed of free-flowing traffic into his yellow light equation. But 3.5 seconds is less than the 3.6 seconds required for a 35 mph approach, 35 mph which is probably the speed limit, but it is not the approach speed. The approach speed is at least 42 mph, which would produce a 4.1 second yellow time. The driver would not have been ticketed. Pueblo does not use 4.1 seconds because if it did, that would reduce its red-light camera revenue stream by about 60%.
   

Pueblo Requires Red-Light Camera Installation Plans to be Certified

In Colorado, like other States, municipalities have building permit laws separate from counties. Colorado municipalities use the International Building Code (IBC) as their base building code. In Section 4-1-11(1), Pueblo amends the IBC in order to require the seal and signature of a Colorado licensed professional engineer for engineering plans. Also, a red-light camera installation plan requires a seal and signature from a licensed surveyor: these plans contain precision maps used to locate the red-light camera structures.

Pueblo will not Disclose Red-Light Camera Installation Plans

Pueblo's city attorney will not disclose the red-light camera installation plans to the requester. It is not because the attorney does not want to, but because the city does not have the plans. Verra Mobility did not give the plans to the city because the plans are probably unlawful, and that the city did not press Verra Mobility to obtain the plans. The plans were probably not signed and sealed by a licensed professional engineer. The plans are illegal.

Because the City of Denver possessed its red-light camera installation plans, Denver disclosed them to the public. (There is nothing to hide on the plans, unless it is the omission of a seal and signature of a licensed professional engineer.) The Colorado Board condemned those plans as unsigned unsealed plans. The plans are illegal. See exhibit CD2.

The cities of Wilmington and Greenville, North Carolina also possessed their plans. These two cities disclosed its red-light camera installation plans to the public. The North Carolina Board condemned those plans.

In the case of Fayetteville, NC, Verra Mobility withheld Fayetteville's plans. Verra Mobility would not give the plans to Fayetteville, even under North Carolina's implementation of FOIA.

Verra Mobility keeps Honolulu, Hawaii's plans a secret too. Same is true for NYC. In these cases, we do not know whether it is Verra Mobility withholding the information, or the city, or both.

Colorado Board of Engineers will not Obtain Red-Light Camera Installation Plans

It surprised us that the Board of Engineers, the official State agency for lawful engineering, is not willing to be responsible to ensure that engineering is lawful in Colorado. Even under a formal complaint, the Board refuses to obtain the red-light camera installation plans for Pueblo. The Board argues that it is does not have jurisdiction. While the company Verra Mobility is in Arizona, the Board's laziness creates an enigma. This means that no local or Colorado State government is willing to verify whether the operations of a out-of-State firm are legal.

The Colorado Board already knows that Redflex practices engineering with a license.