# Legal advice on traffic matter **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 17, 2015, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-advice-on-traffic-matter/720260 "2015-05-17T19:48:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-advice-on-traffic-matter/720260/81 "2015-05-19T16:12:42Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Red light running is not a victimless crime. One such person almost killed my wife. So I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the OP. I have none for the OP nor other red light runners, despite agreeing that the cameras are primarily a revenue generator. Perhaps I’m slightly bitter from constantly seeing (if not participating in) near-collisions with “red = three more cars can go through” assholes every day. Yeah, I hate having to stop and wait five minutes too. Grit your teeth and get through it, special snowflakes. But hey, best of luck with the crusade. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-advice-on-traffic-matter/720260/82 "2015-05-19T17:45:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I find only one North Carolina appellate case to raise a due process challenge to red light cameras, and in that case the issue was raised via a suit for declaratory judgement as opposed to an appeal of the actual citation. The trial court 12(b)(6)'d it and the appeals court agreed. > > So while I think the chances are small, I agree they’re not zero. > > But I’d be curious to hear of the specifics of what he, or you, feel constitute due process deprivations here. I feel compelled to point out that the Florida Supreme Court [recently invalidated](http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2014/sc12-644.pdf) a number of municipal red light programs on the grounds that the legislature had preempted them. It’s not clear from that decision, but the upshot is that municipalities can’t issue infraction notices based solely on camera data. That said, I don’t have the time or inclination to see if North Carolina’s statutory scheme includes similar preemption provisions. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-advice-on-traffic-matter/720260/83 "2015-05-19T18:45:55Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I feel compelled to point out that the Florida Supreme Court [recently invalidated](http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2014/sc12-644.pdf) a number of municipal red light programs on the grounds that the legislature had preempted them. It’s not clear from that decision, but the upshot is that municipalities can’t issue infraction notices based solely on camera data. > > That said, I don’t have the time or inclination to see if North Carolina’s statutory scheme includes similar preemption provisions. I THINK the answer is that to the contrary, the NC state law authorizing cameras specifically allows municipalities to create and enforce camera ordinances. I don’t want to look up the case again, though, to confirm. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-advice-on-traffic-matter/720260/84 "2015-05-19T19:17:09Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > It sounds to me, then, like it’s a problem with the way the law is written. If the law improperly penalizes someone who engages in a safe behavior (like coming to an almost-complete stop, ensuring there’s no oncoming traffic, then turning right), shouldn’t the law itself be changed? Nope. The law as written allows for discretion. The cameras and the pressure to approve tickets for the revenue take away that discretion. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-advice-on-traffic-matter/720260/85 "2015-05-19T21:10:46Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Well for one thing it isn’t a crime it’s a motor vehicle violation. In the case of camera tickets it’s not even that, it’s a civil offense. And if there is no accident there is no victim. > > I have stood behind someone and watched them go through video after video approving tickets. I would have no problem if it were only people who blow through red lights. That is dangerous and the should be caught. However, the vast majority of the tickets given were right turn on red tickets where the person clearly ensured that it was safe to proceed although technically their tires never quite stopped turning. Around 90% were right on red tickets. Any discretion the approving officer had was gone because they kept track of your approval rate and you got in trouble if it went below a certain percentage. The camera company would rat on you if you were costing them money. The intersection in question has a turn lane that is covered by a yield sign, so there are no right turn on red tickets here. If the OP had said that he was caught doing this, I’d be a lot more sympathetic. There are plenty of assholes who think yield means go as long as it is possible for someone in the main traffic land to stop to not hit you, but that is a different story. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-advice-on-traffic-matter/720260/86 "2015-05-19T21:16:47Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > I have none for the OP nor other red light runners, despite agreeing that the cameras are primarily a revenue generator. Perhaps I’m slightly bitter from constantly seeing (if not participating in) near-collisions with “red = three more cars can go through” assholes every day. Yeah, I hate having to stop and wait five minutes too. Grit your teeth and get through it, special snowflakes. > > But hey, best of luck with the crusade. Everyone around here knows that actually proceeding on a green light is tantamount to suicide, if just because of the drivers who enter the intersection a nanosecond before the yellow turn red. Legal, and nothing we can do about that. The ones who enter seconds after the light turns red, because damn they are not going to have to wait for the next left turn arrow, are the dangers. Drunk drivers don’t hurt anyone either, until they do that is. That okay with you? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-advice-on-traffic-matter/720260.md?page=4)