Red Light Robber

Please email us a photo of your citation.

If you decide to pay your citation, send them an old-fashioned check and write "paid in protest" on the back. Do not use their web-site to pay.

To bring Connecticut's photo-enforcement money-making programs to an end, email us a copy of every page of your citation, front and back. These programs are fraud. They exist solely to take advantage of engineering mistakes. Engineering mistakes violate CGS Title 20 Chapter 371. Instead of fixing the mistakes, police chiefs and traffic engineers create mistakes then punish drivers for them for money.

Email us your citations. Do not redact your citation's PIN number. Do not redact your license plate number. We need these to watch your video. We keep personal identifiable information (PII) secret. The videos usually contain information that condemns your photo-enforcement program.

Another purpose of seeing your citation is to discern whether the information on the citations fulfill Connecticut laws. Citations often demand more from you than the law requires, or omit information that is critical to your decision on what action to take. Such demands or omissions are called "overstepping the enabling statutes" and overstepping the enabling statutes is unlawful.

Some facts:

• 1 person in 12,000 citation recipients will email me their citation.
• 1 in 1,000 people challenge their citation at an admin hearing.
• 1 in 150,000 people will actually engage a lawyer.
• 112 out of 100,000 red-light camera citations end in a crash. 17 of those 112 are the fault of drivers, the rest the fault of engineers.
• The safe motion of traffic is a different than the legal motion of traffic. While engineers care about safety, they do not care about the legal motion of traffic. Engineers deliberately make every driver safely run red lights so that traffic flows more efficiently.
  

Be a Class Action Representative. Most of the time, a city will only take down its cameras if you sue them in a class action.

We are working on a mass tort case against all the Connecticut red-light camera programs. To make this happen, we need two things 1) citation recipients must challenge their citations in an administrative hearing. The instructions of how to challenge your citation is on your ticket. 2) When paying, send a check and write "paid in protest" on the back.

Sign up for a hearing. Go to the hearing. Your defense is,

Red-Light Camera Citation:

The engineering is screwed up. CTDOT uses the "ITE" formula to set yellow light durations. This formula is not an engineering practice. Because it not an engineering practice, the CTDOT using it violates CGS Sec. 14-298-900--MUTCD 4F.17(03). Because the math is wrong, the formula makes everyone unintentionally run red lights.

ITE admitted that it is wrong in 2020. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) rejected it in 2023 and removed it from the MUTCD and its web site. The ITE formula is no longer a federal guideline.

Even without ITE's and FHWA's condemnation, CGS 20-299(1) condemns the formula as well. CTDOT's particular use of the formula misapplies the mathematical and physical sciences.

Speed Camera Citation:

The engineering is screwed up. The speed limit on this road is far below the 85th percentile speed. The speed limit violates CGS Sec. 14-298. Raise the speed to the 85th as required by MUTCD 2B.21(06, 08).

Your administrative hearing panelists will not understand a word you say. That is OK. Your duty is only to tell them the truth. You are not responsible for whether they understand it.

Your panelists are usually employees of the city, like parks-and-rec workers or garbage men. (I am not kidding.) The hearings are kangaroo courts. The panelists do not know the rules of evidence. They do not know engineering. Because they are paid by your accuser (the city), they are literally paid to convict you. Also, once the city catches on to the fact that its photo-enforcement program violates the Connecticut's engineering practice statute, the city's lawyers then command the panelists to refuse hearing engineering arguments. Engineering malpractice is the source of the city's revenue and the city's lawyers work for the city, not for you.

Be convicted! That is what you want. The moment they say, "You are guilty", smile. You now have legal standing to sue. You now have "exhausted your administrative remedies". You now qualify to be a class action representative.

When you pay the ticket, pay with a check.

Connecticut Engineering Practice Law Title 20 Chapter 391

20-299(1) "Engineer means a person . . . who has the special knowledge of the mathematical and the physical sciences"

20-306a(2) A corporation must be issued a certificate of registration by the board of engineers.

Connecticut Engineers Code of Conduct 20-300

(a)3--Engineer must not do work outside their education. Traffic engineers do not know the math and science of their own "ITE Yellow Change Interval Formula". They misapply the formula and substitute incorrect values for its "constants", thus shorting the yellow light duration which in turn forces drivers to unintentionally and systematically run red lights.

Connecticut Motor Vehicles Statute - Traffic Control Signals

Title 14, Chapter 249 (Section 14-299): (2) Yellow. "You cannot enter the intersection on a yellow unless you cannot safety stop." The Connecticut yellow means "stop"--sort of. This is weird and an unsafe mandate. In most states the law simply says, "You can enter the intersection on a yellow" for the following simple reason:

No vehicle can decelerate to a stop from the speed limit while the light is yellow. The yellow light is half the time it takes a driver to stop

By encouraging drivers to treat the yellow as "stop if you can", the CTDOT encourages rear-end collisions. People will slam on the brakes because they wish to obey the law. Unfortunately people believe that government knows what it is talking about. In this case, Title 14-299(2) government is doing the opposite of the engineering of the yellow.

CTDOT Traffic Signal Design Manual

CTDOT uses the pre-2020 ITE math formula. Look on page 6-4. Because the math is very wrong, ITE itself rejected this formula. Also, the formula is no longer a federal guideline. The FHWA removed all ITE formulas and references to the formula from its web site and from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices [MUTCD]. The ITE practice is officially not an engineering practice in the eyes of the federal government, and thus Connecticut law forbids the CTDOT to use it.

The CTDOT and Connecticut cities can no longer play the blame game by justifying using the formula because it is a federal guideline.

On page 6-5, the 5 second cap on a yellow change interval comes directly from the red-light camera industry. When the 5 second cap came out, the ITE journal said "this will make drivers run red lights so put a red-light camera there for enforcement." Years later, this 5 second cap was rejected. There is a 6 second cap in the MUTCD, yet that 6 second cap is just a guideline, not a mandate (a mandate comes in the form of an MUTCD standard). The 6 second cap is also the byproduct of the erroneous ITE formula.

CTDOT Evaluating Clearance Interval Timings

The advent of red-light cameras in Connecticut encourages the CT Department of Transportation to shorten the yellow light durations to the minimum. I see minimums in the Connecticut's traffic signal plans. Setting a minimum value on a yellow light duration is like setting your oven to its minimum temperature to broil a steak.

The standard of practice, even before any shortening, already causes every driver to run red lights several times a year. The underlying math of the yellow change interval equation both opposes the physics of motion and assumes the reaction times of all allowed drivers on the road are shorter than average. Shorter than average, in itself, excludes half the driving population.

Further shortening a yellow from 4.0 to 3.0 seconds, increases red-light running from 60 violations to 450 violations a month. Correct yellow light durations would be about 3 seconds longer than what they are now.

The CTDOT web page says, "If the yellow light is too long, drivers may treat it as an extended green." This is a myth. It is false. Publishing this statement to keep yellows short for money is fraud.

Before 1930, the myth was fact. The history is interesting. In the 1920s, policemen manually operated traffic lights. A policeman stood at the intersection next to a manually-controlled traffic signal. The traffic signal had a lever. The policeman would turn the lever to switch the signal to green, to yellow or to red.

Once the policeman set the light to yellow, he visually anticipated which cars approaching him would stop or go. Because cars did not move fast in those days, policeman and driver would stare at each other eye-to-eye as the distance between them decreased. They played a game of chicken. This particular game of chicken was officially called "squeezing the lemon". That is where the phrase came from. In the 1920s, approaching cars always won the game. The policeman would lengthen the duration of the yellow light until the approaching car passed.

In the 1930s, the policeman controlling a traffic signal was replaced with a timing gear. Automation. Yellows became fixed. There was no more drivers squeezing the lemon. There was no more "lengthening the yellow causing drivers to treat the yellow as an extended green". Yet memories of the old tradition became myth which continues to this very day. In 1961, the myth was debunked in the famous paper Driver Response to the Amber Phase of Traffic Signals. Since 1961, hundreds more studies have been done. Same result. Lengthening the yellow always drastically and permanently decreases red-light running. As an example, lengthening a left turn yellow from 3.0 to 4.0 seconds decreases red-light running from 450 to 60 violations per month. (CTDOT uses 3.0 seconds for all left turn lanes.)

So CTDOT's publishing this statement is false pretense. False pretense is the act of knowingly misrepresenting a fact to deceive someone into giving up money.

Connecticut Photo-Enforcement Statute 14-307c

Photo-enforcement violations are called citations. They are not the same as tickets issued by police officers. If a policeman pulls you over, he issues you a criminal infraction. Read the difference between an Infraction and Violation from the Connecticut Judicial Branch.

The first photo-enforcement notice a vehicle owner receives is called a warning. Subsequent notices are called citations. The first citation has a fine of $50. Subsequent citations have a fine of $75. A cap of $15 can be added as a fee. Any more payment than that is unlawful. If a city demands something of the accused that exceeds what the state statute allows, the city oversteps the enabling statute. Photo-enforcement programs overstep the enabling statute often, and lawyers succeed in suing cities over them.

Connecticut neither gives insurance points nor withholds car registrations for photo-enforcement citations. In order to be a criminal violation, the US 6th Amendment requires the city to identify the accused, but in photo-enforcement, the city does not know the identity of the accused. The city relies on the accused to turn himself in. Only when you acknowledge that you received the citation do you obligate yourself to the city ordinance. We are currently researching whether you can ignore a citation without fearing ramifications. (You can ignore citations in North Carolina and Tennessee.)

In 14-307c (i)(2), the citation is invalid if mailed to a Connecticut vehicle owner 30 days after the violation date. 60 days if an out-of-state vehicle owner.

It is unusual for Connecticut to mark time from the date the citation is mailed. The usual wording in other states is, "when citation is received." The Connecticut wording ignores whether the post office actually receives the letter, processes the letter and whether the vehicle owner actually receives the letter. You, Connecticut cities and camera firms have no control over the US Mail, but Connecticut is going to shift blame to the vehicle owner for any mistakes in the delivery process, even for a piece of unsolicited mail, a letter you do not expect to receive. In law-speak, the Connecticut wording is called a fallacious presupposition. Fallacious presuppositions are not enforceable.

If you do not pay the citation, will it harm your credit rating? No. It violates the US Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for a credit reporting agency to blemish your credit rating with photo-enforcement fines. Why? Because no credit was issued to you. In 2015, a team of lawyers (on the behalf of banks) confronted the credit reporting agencies for allowing the photo-enforcement industry to register debts from photo-enforcement fines. As a result, all credit reporting agencies volunteered to never hit your credit record.

Connecticut Hearing Procedures for Citations

How long do you have to pay for photo-enforcement citation?

We don't know. Title 7, Chapter 98, Sec 7-152c. Paragraph (c) refers to the end of the uncontested period. But 14-307c does not define the length of the uncontested period. Adding to the ambiguity is that the citation may be uncontested because you never received the citation. If you know what the uncontested period is, let us know.

Connecticut Automated Photo-enforcement Approval Statuses

This is a list of municipalities who have cameras or have applied for approval to get cameras.

Hartford Photo-Enforcement City Ordinance

Chapter 22, Article IV, Sec 22-127-139

New Haven Photo-Enforcement City Ordinance

Title III Chapter 29 Article VII Sec 29-137 to 29-146

New Haven Plan Permit - Speed Camera Fraud

The plan is an engineering work yet it is not signed and sealed by a licensed professional engineer. Because the plan affects public safety, the plan is unlawful under Connecticut engineering law CGS 20-304. Subsequently, every citation issued by each red-light or speed camera mentioned in this plan is unlawful.

New Haven puts speed cameras on road segments where the 85th percentile speed is at least 10 mph faster than the posted speed limit. Instead of New Haven fixing engineering errors, New Haven maliciously exploits the engineering failures for money. In the plan, the city conducts speed studies in order to discover which roadways have an 85th percentile speed which is 10 mph or greater than the speed limit. (Pages 144, 147, 151, 155.) The plan then recommends speed cameras to be installed at the engineering failures. The authors of these plans revel that the gap between the posted speed limit and the 85th percentile speed is going to be a cash cow. Usually fraud is concealed, but this one is published!

New Haven's outright disclosure of intent to frame drivers for engineering errors is stunning.

Also more fraud: the city misrepresents the speed camera ticketing at 10+ mph as grace given to drivers. (CGS Sec. 14-307c).

The 10+ mph grace should be added to the 85th percentile speed. That magnitude of grace is still required. The 85th percentile speed changes from hour to hour, day to day, from daytime to nighttime, and changes with road conditions. As it is now, New Haven will ticket a driver for going 36 mph where the speed limit is supposed to be 35 mph.

Strategy to Attack a Photo-Enforcement Program

Strategy of how to attack a photo-enforcement program.

Introduction & Beginner's Engineering in Red-Light Cameras

This is the first lesson in the way to attack a photo-enforcement program. Educate yourself on the engineering defects, go to your state rep . . . .

Notify the Board of Engineers

All photo-enforcement violates the engineering practice statute. You must notify the board. Whether the board has the encourage to act or has been silenced by corrupt state or municipal agencies is different question.

Letter to State Rep or State Senator

You must set up an appointment with your state representative or state senator. A legal solutions starts here.

FOIA for Basic Financial and Engineering Info

Your state rep must FOIA the city. The information you want is basic financial and engineering information. The FOIA information will report that ATESD programs do not need federal funding. Your State Rep should give the FOIA information to a US Congressman who influences USDOT SS4A grants. SS4A = Safer Street for All. Starting in 2022, SS4A grants include money to cities to fund photo-enforcement programs. As the financial info will show, photo-enforcement programs never need funding.

Webinar 1 - History of the Yellow Light

This is the Power Point behind a 1 hour webinar on the history of the yellow light. The webinar reveals the math mistakes in Connecticut DOT's yellow light duration practice, mistakes which makes everyone run red lights.

Red-Light Cameras are Unlawful in Connecticut - The Statutory Stepping Stones

This is for attorneys. This brief shows the substantive arguments that red-light cameras are unlawful in Connecticut.

The classic Solomon Curve defines the safest speed. The graph is the mathematical expression of common sense. The safest speed is the average speed which all the vehicles surrounding you are traveling. More precisely, the safest speed is the 85th percentile speed; that is, out of measuring the speed of 100 cars under free flow conditions, 85 travel slower than this speed, 15 travel faster.

You experience the Solomon Curve in everyday driving. Think of going down Interstate 95. Do you see a speed limit of 35 mph? No. That would cause wrecks. It is neither normal nor comfortable to drive that slow. People simply will not do it. Because engineers design for people, the CTDOT posts 70 mph. Whether you are on the interstate or a city street, the Solomon Curve should be at work.

"Speeding" is mathematically defined as traveling significantly faster than the 85th percentile speed. (Connecticut law implies that significant is 10 mph over the speed limit.) Posted speed limits are supposed to set to the 85th percentile speed, but cities always round down the 85th speed to the nearest 15, 25, 35, 45, 55 mph. Some cities may round down to 10, 20, 30, 40, 50. For example, the 85th could be 42 mph but the city rounds it down to 35 mph. There is another caveat. The 85th percentile speed changes from hour to hour, day to day, from the top of a hill to the bottom of a hill, etc. In any case, you can see how an over-zealous policeman could make a lot of money.

Generally speaking, photo-enforcement is a new technology that is incompatible with our present-day traffic control devices. Our traffic signals and speed limit signs were designed 100 years ago. They haven't changed and they were designed with enforcement by human police in mind, not by undiscerning precision computers.

A "speed trap" is a segment of road where the posted speed limit is significantly less than the 85th. At such locations on the road, a policeman will hang out behind a bush.

Here enters speed cameras. They take vigil where the posted speed limits have been set incorrectly, significantly below the 85th. There are NO exceptions.

When peddling cameras, it is a Class C Felony for the police, city council or speed cameras companies to say that slower is safer. As you can see from the graph, slower does not mean safer. The peddlers are concealing a material engineering fact for millions of dollars.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Given this knowledge, examine the ATESD (Automated Traffic Enforcement Safety Device) plans Connecticut cities have submitted to the CTDOT. These plans contain 85th percentile speed studies.

Look where the police have chosen to place their speed cameras.

You see fraud.

The cities place the cameras where the posted speed limits are significantly less than the 85th percentile. These cameras are taking advantage of engineering mistakes. The speed limits are supposed to be faster. But instead of increasing the speed limits, the cities chose to place speed cameras there. Cites want money and are willing to cause you physical injuries for the money.

Example. Look at the Town of Fairfield plan. Because Chief Paris and Selectperson Vitale could not find posted speed limits less than 10 mph from the 85th, Fairfield lowered the speed limits. The new speed limits (20 mph) are now more than 10 mph slower than the 85th. Understand that drivers drive at the 85th regardless of speed limit because it is natural and safe to do so. So why did Fairfield go out of its way to ensure a 10 mph gap? Because Fairfield wants money. The Connecticut speed camera statute states that a camera can only issue a citation if the driver travels at least 10 mph over the speed limit.

It is fraud. They are misrepresenting speed cameras as safety devices while at the same posting speed limits which are less safe, and lying that slower is safer . . . for money.

-------------------------------------------------------------

On a different engineering malpractice front, there is a cornucopia of unlicensed practice of engineering going on. Unlicensed practice of engineering is more harmful than the unlicensed practice of medicine. Whereas a quack doctor harms a few patients a day, a quack engineer harms tens of thousands of drivers a day.

Chief Paris and Selectperson Vitale of the Town of Fairfield, and all the people from other cities who have authored the ATESD plans, broke law CGS 20-300. Only licensed professional engineers can do these plans. These plans are engineering studies. They contain "engineering elements". They contain speed studies, posted speed limit evaluations, crash cause determinations, and embedded traffic signal plans. This kind of research for public safety consumption is limited to the purview of licensed professional engineers.

The CTDOT approving these plans is also committing engineering malpractice. Only a licensed professional engineer who has had responsible charge (day-to-day supervision) over the studies can approve the plans.

Except for Verra Mobility, you can discover which photo-enforcement firms are not registered to practice engineering in Connecticut. For example, lookup "Altumint"--Fairfield's speed camera company. It is not a "PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING FIRM". This is unlawful. The work camera firms do are engineering works. Red-light and speed cameras have "installation plans". These plans have important complex engineering and land surveying elements that affect the public welfare. By not being authorized to practiced engineering in Connecticut, these firms are like the old-time medicine show operator who shows up in town, sells his snake oil, takes your money, then leaves.

What you have is a RICO conspiracy between the city council, the police, the Vision Zero Council, the CTDOT, city traffic engineers and the camera vendor.