Red light camera ticket in Leaf.

[adric22]

Ok, so I posted a week ago about my wife getting a speeding ticket.. Well, at least she admits she was speeding. What I'm about to tell you is a flat out injustice.

So I got a letter in the mail a couple of days ago from Nissan. I opened it up to find out I had been ticketed by one of those automated red-light cameras. The letter explains that since the car is leased, the ticket was sent to Nissan. Nissan already paid the $75 fine and has passed that fine onto me into my next car payment, along with their own $20 administrative fee. So there is no way to fight this fine, it has already been paid.

Now, what was the offense? Well, I watched the little video they provide. I approached a busy intersection coming from the off-ramp from the highway to make a right turn. The light was yellow when I made the right turn, but turned red in the middle of the turn. So what law did I break? I guess I broke the law about not stopping for a right turn when the light is red? No cop in their right mind would have ticketed me for this offence, especially being the light had just turned red.

Anyway, I just thought I'd mention this since I know a lot of people on this forum have leased their Leafs. If you run a red light, you're paying it regardless, plus an extra $20 from Nissan.

 

[Boourns]

This fails the smell test. I am 99% certain that the law is that you have to enter the intersection AFTER the light actually turns red for it to be a violation. Give me a minute.

 

[LEAFfan]

Nissan may have violated the law. In Ohio, the lessor MUST send the ticket to the lessee and is not allowed to pay it or charge ANY admin fee. It also looks like u could win in traffic court if u turned on yellow.

 

[davewill]

A lot of jurisdictions have had problems collecting on automated traffic tickets like this. Seems that a lot of people just don't consider them to be a real ticket and simply ignore them. I guess Texas found a new way to get their money.

 

[ksnogas2112]

This fails the smell test. I am 99% certain that the law is that you have to enter the intersection AFTER the light actually turns red for it to be a violation. Give me a minute.

That is exactly what the 1996 KCMO traffic laws are. Technically it's failing to come to a complete stop behind the stop line when the light is red or some verbiage like that. Because of the way the KCMO ordinance is written technically if you cross the stop line but are still short of the intersection and come to a complete stop you are still in violation.

 

[LEAFfan]

This fails the smell test. I am 99% certain that the law is that you have to enter the intersection AFTER the light actually turns red for it to be a violation. Give me a minute.

That is exactly what the 1996 KCMO traffic laws are. Technically it's failing to come to a complete stop behind the stop line when the light is red or some verbiage like that. Because of the way the KCMO ordinance is written technically if you cross the stop line but are still short of the intersection and come to a complete stop you are still in violation.

Yes, if the light is red. Adric said the light was yellow entering the intersection after the crosswalk so there should be no violation.

 

[Boourns]

OK there are two issues here. This gets pretty interesting and a more complex than I thought. I'm not a traffic lawyer, so there may be something that I've overlooked after researching this for just a few minutes. This is going to be super long...

There are two issues here: (1) I don't think you committed a crime (or more accurately, the offense for which you are liable for a civil penalty), and (2) Depending on the technicals of your Leaf's registration, the city in which this occurred must send YOU the notice of the violation, and not Nissan.

As for (1), it's not stated in a very obvious way, but it appears that you only run the light if you go through AFTER the light as turned red, not when it's yellow and turns red when you're in the middle of the intersection, as you said you did (All sections are from transportation code).

Sec. 544.007. TRAFFIC-CONTROL SIGNALS IN GENERAL.

...

(d) An operator of a vehicle facing only a steady red signal shall stop at a clearly marked stop line.

...

(e) An operator of a vehicle facing a steady yellow signal is warned by that signal that:
(1) movement authorized by a green signal is being terminated; or
(2) a red signal is to be given.

It doesn't say anything about stopping when it's yellow. Also, the DMV website about traffic cameras has this to say (http://www.txdot.gov/driver/laws/red-light/faqs.html):

Do cameras photograph every vehicle passing through an intersection?
No. Cameras are set so that only those vehicles that enter the intersection after the light has turned red are photographed. Vehicles entering the intersection on yellow, and still in the intersection when the light turns red, are not photographed.

Now, the part of the code that gives municipalities the right to ticket you from traffic cameras is a different section entirely:

Sec. 707.002. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE FOR CIVIL PENALTY. The governing body of a local authority by ordinance may implement a photographic traffic signal enforcement system and provide that the owner of a motor vehicle is liable to the local authority for a civil penalty if, while facing only a steady red signal displayed by an electrically operated traffic-control signal located in the local authority, the vehicle is operated in violation of the instructions of that traffic-control signal, as specified by Section 544.007(d).

Notice that this is only a civil penalty, not a crime/class C misdemeanor. Interesting aside, the city can't do much if you don't pay the fine, but they can refuse to register your car next time. See http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.707.htm#707.019and http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.707.htm#707.017.

Here's the interesting part. They have to mail the owner of the vehicle, as shown on Texas DMV records, notice of the violation:

Sec. 707.011. NOTICE OF VIOLATION; CONTENTS. (a) The imposition of a civil penalty under this chapter is initiated by the mailing of a notice of violation to the owner of the motor vehicle against whom the local authority seeks to impose the civil penalty.

Here's what "owner" means:

(2) "Owner of a motor vehicle" means the owner of a motor vehicle as shown on the motor vehicle registration records of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles or the analogous department or agency of another state or country.

I don't have my registration papers with me at work, but I am pretty sure I am listed as the owner of the vehicle that I am leasing. This means, depending on who your registration papers say is the owner of the vehicle is, the city had to send you the notice, not Nissan.

It gets better. EVEN IF Nissan owns the vehicle, it appears that they have to send your information to the city, which can then send you the required notice. Notice the use of "shall," which is legalese usually means there is no choice: (Fair warning: this is a clusterfuck of a statute):

(e) If, at the time of the violation alleged in the notice of violation, the motor vehicle depicted in the photograph or digital image taken by the photographic traffic signal enforcement system was owned by a person in the business of renting or leasing motor vehicles and the vehicle was being rented or leased to an individual, the owner of the motor vehicle shall provide to the local authority or the entity with which the local authority contracts under Section 707.003(a)(1) the name and address of the individual who was renting or leasing the motor vehicle depicted in the photograph or digital image and a statement of the period during which that individual was renting or leasing the vehicle. The owner shall provide the information required by this subsection not later than the 30th day after the date the notice of violation is received. If the owner provides the required information, it is presumed that the individual renting or leasing the motor vehicle committed the violation alleged in the notice of violation and the local authority or contractor may send a notice of violation to that individual at the address provided by the owner of the motor vehicle.

I think you have two possible arguments here. One is that you didn't do anything against the law. The other is that Nissan F'ed up and can't just do what they are trying to do. The problem here is that Nissan has possibly blown your chance to fight this ticket with the city. If you care about fighting this I would start by checking with the city to make sure that you were actually issued a ticket by the camera. If you can verify that, talk to the clerk of the court and try to explain what happened. They are usually pretty helpful, especially if you explain that you aren't a lawyer and are trying to figure that out on your own. That person might have a good insight on what to do. Unfortunately every city can have a slightly different procedure for low-level stuff like this, so I can't help you there. (Plus I don't practice traffic law, so I don't have the experience).

Your other option would be to higher a traffic court lawyer who knows your area and will therefore have a good relationship with the court. He may be able to get your case "opened" back up and get it dismissed. Then of course you still have to deal with Nissan.

 

[adric22]

I wish there was some way to share the video on this site. I did grab the still photo they provide. You can see it below. In the actual video, the quality is so poor you can't actually see when the light changes colors. But this still photo (assuming it isn't doctored) shows me entering the intersection while the light is red. However, you can also see that there are plenty of other cars there in the intersection too.

Anyone who cares to watch it is welcome to login and take a look.

You have to go to http://www.photonotice.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

City code: NRCHLD
Ticket# NRR0088054
License Plate: CS7X360

 

[wsbsteven]

I'm not sure how it is in Texas but here you ran a red because you have wheels (in this case all four) behind the stop line and you didn't stop. To be considered in the intersection like all the other cars, all wheels must be ahead of the stop line when the light changes to red. Kinda stinks that Nissan does that though, would be nice if they forwarded it onto you for battle then charged you if you didn't take care of it.

 

[Rat]

Traffic laws vary a lot from state to state and change often even within a state (at least they do here). I served for a year or so as a traffic court judge in California on a volunteer basis several years ago, but I haven't kept up with the law here, much less in other states, so take that into account. In California traffic offenses are criminal offenses, known as infractions. If jail time is permitted as a penalty, then they become misdemeanors. I don't think there is any significant difference between an infraction and a civil offense for practical purposes, but it's difficult to say. For example, it may be that local officers can pull up a criminal history on a driver while cruising and see infractions but not civil offenses -- or maybe not -- and that may influence the officer's decision on whether or not to stop or ticket. That's the kind of thing that is often a matter of policy and technology. When I was on the bench I could see everything for a driver that the DMV had, including infractions and offenses for which traffic school was given and wasn't reported to the insurance companies. I did not see tickets that were dismissed for any reason, such as the officer not showing up in court at trial, or the defendant being acquitted. The offense just didn't happen for legal purposes and the DMV had no record.

In California running a red light is a very serious offense, with a big fine and a significant effect on your insurance rates. High fines are mandatory. With tacked on fees you are probably talking $300 or more. There is considerable controversy about right-turn offenses like the one described even among judges. Clearly here the defendant would not, or should not, be cited if the light was yellow when he crossed into the intersection. On the other hand, I was amazed at how often the defendant claimed to be absolutely certain they had stopped fully and then made a legal right turn on red, or that the light was yellow when they went through, then the officer produced a dashcam video showing the light turning red well before they entered and the driver blasting through at high speed before the opposing line of traffic got started. Mostly people lie in traffic court, and some, I am sure, hit the accelerator instead of the brake hoping the light will stay yellow for another two seconds, then after it doesn't, convince themselves that it was yellow. In my county there are no red-light cameras, so all the citations were given by eyewitness officers, and yes, I believed the officers, not the drivers, when in dispute, except in two cases where the officer's account seemed to have serious mistakes in it (e.g. he misdescribed the intersection). In this case, if the OP had a video that proved him right, I, and any judge or commissioner I know, would have dismissed the ticket in court. But based on the still shot above, it looks to me like he did enter on a red. The fact that there are other cars in the intersection would be considered irrelevant. They may have gotten tickets, too, or they may have crossed the line a split second before the OP, when the light was yellow.

I have no idea what the appeals process is in other states, but it does seem to me that Nissan should not have paid without the consent of the lessee, but I can see the other side of that, too. If they adopted that policy, then they would have to assign people to try to contact lessees when notified of these tickets and what happens when they don't get a prompt answer, or they get an ambiguous one, or the lessee changes his/her mind? And what happens if the lessee says not to pay it, they intend to fight it, and then at the last minute they tell Nissan to go ahead and pay, but Nissan doesn't get the fine in on time causing the fine to triple or a bench warrant to be issued, which could happen in California. There is less cost overall to everyone if the fines are paid promptly and automatically. Nissan may be subject to fines or liens if their leased cars have unpaid tickets on them. Perhaps the OP can get the admin fee back from Nissan if he shows them the video, but I doubt it.

 

[UBUYGAS]

I have a friend that does IT work for one of the largest nation-wide street camera companies and he told me years ago that the way you beat the ticket is that you keep your brake light on during the whole intersection or turn. Just apply the brakes enough to keep the brake lights on but you still fly through. Their computer system deletes the pictures with cars that have the brake lights on in all the pictures or through the entire duration of video because you can fight it in court and tell the Judge that you tried to stop but could not.

I've used this procedure in NYC and NJ for years and the camera has flashed behind me so many times and I have never received a ticket yet!

 

[Boourns]

It appears that if Nissan is the "owner" of the vehicle, it was required to notify the city, which would then have forwarded the notice back to adric.

 

[DarkStar]

Just to add my 2-cents: It appears that the camera was actually triggered by the car in the left lane. The person inspecting the violations just picked the car with the easiest plate to read.

 

[davewill]

... But this still photo (assuming it isn't doctored) shows me entering the intersection while the light is red. ...

That's all that matters. The reason for the yellow light is so that there's no excuse for running the red, even if it is only by a split second. You ran it. Just be glad the fine is so low. Here in CA it would be $300+.

Just to add my 2-cents: It appears that the camera was actually triggered by the car in the left lane. The person inspecting the violations just picked the car with the easiest plate to read.

Plus that car is all the way in the intersection and apparently didn't get caught running the light.

 

[caffeinekid]

The vast majority of the revenue collected in this legalized scam is from failing to make a complete stop during right turn on red. And yes, there is a lot of "debate" about due process and how leasing companies effectively short-circuit what little there is in this scheme. People are livid, but what are you going to do about it? Nothing. That's what. The older you get, the more you recognize how infested the waters have become with parasites and predators in the name of enterprise.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

explain to me why this is different than making payments on a car the BANK owns? why was the ticket sent to the legal owner instead of the registered owner?

if my Son gets a ticket, I would be responsible in your scenario. sorry but the laws vary by a GREAT deal here.

when camera tickets first started being issued in this state, many got off by simply saying it was not them driving the car but the camera people wised up which is the reason they now take pix of the driver along with the license plate.

Either way, most can plead the fine down which is what i did when fined for rolling a stop light in my ZENN (like i could get away with saying it was someone else in THAT situation!)

i wrote an explanation that the light should have provided a green right turn only arrow because the traffic coming from my right was in a left turn only scenario. they reduced the ticket from $135 to $80...funny part of that ticket i received for violating WA State law is the fee had to be mailed to Texas...

**edit**
i "watched" your video. did you request the better video to see? because i dont see how you can make a determination on anything here. the video (at least to my eyes) is simply way to grainy

 

[timhebb]

FWIW, my quick take on this:

1) You are probably guilty of the red light violation, but...

2) You were denied due process owing to both the Court, for bypassing you and sending the citation to Nissan, and Nissan, for paying it, thus admitting your guilt(!?)

I would fight it to the bitter end, based on having been denied due process, and win, if there is any justice in your state.

 

[TomT]

Maybe in Texas, but in California it would come to me since CA considers me to be the registered owner... They treat Nissan just as they would any other loan payee...

But due process is very willy-nilly... In Los Angeles, for example, it is virtually impossible to fight many kinds of parking tickets regardless of the circumstances - even when you are clearly and demonstrably in the right - and some of them can run in to the hundreds with the fees tacked on. They have the system rigged against you -- it is simply a profit center for the city, not about enforcement.

Anyway, I just thought I'd mention this since I know a lot of people on this forum have leased their Leafs. If you run a red light, you're paying it regardless, plus an extra $20 from Nissan.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

I'm sorry but I find all this bellyaching about due process or kicking up dirt about how this is just a money making scheme really annoying. You have photographic evidence of a driver commiting a traffic infraction. If you get one of these instead of coming up with rationalizations or looking for some technicality to weasel out of it, try owning up to your mistake, pay the consequence and move on, being more careful to follow the rules in the future.

I recognize that OP's infraction was not flagrant, but it's easy to find videos of red light runners causing serious accidents, and you see people all the time flying through red lights like the rules aren't meant for them. There aren't enough cops in all the world to police the bad behavior, so I'm glad to see some automation brought to bear on the problem. Had I lost a loved one in an accident caused by a red light runner I would feel more strongly so.

 

[acegreatone]

.

So I got a letter in the mail a couple of days ago from Nissan. I opened it up to find out I had been ticketed by one of those automated red-light cameras. The letter explains that since the car is leased, the ticket was sent to Nissan. Nissan already paid the $75 fine and has passed that fine onto me into my next car payment, along with their own $20 administrative fee. So there is no way to fight this fine, it has already been paid.

Anyway, I just thought I'd mention this since I know a lot of people on this forum have leased their Leafs. If you run a red light, you're paying it regardless, plus an extra $20 from Nissan.[/quote]

Thats strange because I got a red light camera ticket and it was sent to my home adddress. I alsio am leasing the car. I'm from long island ny.