NC Highway Safety Act of 2025
House Bill 982, the NC Highway Safety Act of 2025, creates a five-year pilot program allowing the North Carolina Department of Transportation to use electronic speed-measuring systems in highway work zones on state-maintained highways. The systems may be fixed or mobile automated cameras paired with sensors, and they must capture photographic evidence showing the vehicle, license plate, date, time, location, and recorded speed. DOT must post warning signs near each system, and the Secretary of Transportation must approve the equipment and standards for use.
The bill establishes a civil enforcement process for work-zone speeding violations detected by these systems. A registered vehicle owner receives notice by mail and is generally responsible for the penalty unless they timely identify another driver or show the vehicle was taken without permission. The bill sets a $250 civil penalty for a detected violation, adds a $125 penalty for failing to respond, and provides administrative hearings and court appeals. It also makes the camera results admissible as prima facie evidence and requires calibration and testing standards for the systems.
The bill changes state law by adding new sections to Chapters 20 and 8 of the General Statutes and by creating a new Civil Penalty Litigation Fund within the Civil Penalty and Forfeiture Fund. Seventy-five percent of collected penalties would go to that fund, with the remaining 25% going to the State Public School Fund. The new fund would be administered by the Office of State Budget and Management and used for school technology purposes under existing law. The bill also appropriates $100,000 in nonrecurring General Fund money for implementation and limits the pilot to no more than 25 work zones statewide at one time.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is safety-focused and administrative rather than punitive for its own sake: it is framed as a public safety measure aimed at reducing speeding in dangerous work zones while creating procedures for notice, contesting liability, and judicial review. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no additional evidence of support or opposition from legislative debate. Based on the structure of the bill, it appears designed as a limited pilot with reporting requirements so lawmakers can evaluate whether the program should be extended or changed.
The main points of contention likely concern automated enforcement, owner liability, and the use of civil penalties to fund education-related accounts. The bill shifts responsibility to the registered owner unless they affirmatively identify another driver or prove theft, which may raise due-process and fairness concerns. It also bars local governments from operating these systems, centralizing authority in DOT, and directs most penalty revenue to a special fund tied to school technology, which could draw scrutiny over whether the program is being used primarily for safety or revenue generation.
The bill would add a new automated-enforcement framework to North Carolina traffic law for speeding in highway work zones, creating civil penalties, notice procedures, owner-liability rules, evidentiary standards, and appeal rights. It also creates a new special fund within the Civil Penalty and Forfeiture Fund and directs most collected penalties there, with the remainder going to the State Public School Fund. In addition, it appropriates startup funding and authorizes DOT to run a statewide pilot in up to 25 work zones, with the program expiring on October 1, 2030 unless extended.
No votes or committee discussion transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate to measure directly. From the bill’s structure and findings, the measure appears generally supportive of work-zone safety and administrative enforcement, with a pilot-program approach suggesting caution and a desire to evaluate results before permanent adoption. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments means the available context does not show a formal partisan or committee split.
Likely areas of contention include the use of automated cameras to issue speeding penalties, the imposition of civil liability on the registered owner rather than the actual driver, and the additional penalty for failing to respond. Critics may also question whether the program is an appropriate use of penalty revenue, since 75% is directed to a special fund tied to school technology and litigation-related purposes. Supporters would likely emphasize the narrow work-zone focus, warning signage, administrative hearings, and the pilot’s sunset and reporting requirements as safeguards.