Once, at 2:30 AM in Arizona, I executed a legal right-on-red via a rolling stop. The streets were empty, and I endangered no one. This is not a contested fact.

Once, at 2:30 AM in Arizona, I executed a legal right-on-red via a rolling stop. The streets were empty, and I endangered no one. This is not a contested fact. But an officer, unidentifiable in the dark some hundred feet behind me, cited me for "not stopping at a red light" due to the fact my vehicle did not come to a complete stop. Arizona has a state law, named after an unfortunate little girl killed by an asshole who blew through a red light, which makes any "red light violation" an automatic 3 points on your license and applies some certain minimum fine. (8 points triggers a suspension.) Now despite the fact that there is an entire world of difference between (A) running a red light into cross traffic and (B) performing a California stop at an empty intersection, when I showed up to contest the ticket, the judge mocked me for my suggestion that, as I had endangered no one and not been reckless, I had not violated the spirit of the law and that the ticket should be dismissed. I had to pay the fine and accept the points. State law. "Irrational" may well be the word I should have used, but it changes nothing. What purpose, indeed, was served by such a strict interpretation of the law?