If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:47:36 GMT, Arif Khokar > > wrote: >>Most drivers do not run red lights intentionally. > Agreed - and that's why I don't really mind RLCs as long as they are > functioning properly. If RLCs citations actually resulted in points on one's license, they would be a lot more effective. By effective, I mean that they substantially reduce the incidence of red light running (not that they bring in a lot of revenue). |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
> > Most drivers do not run red lights. > > If very few drivers ran red lights, then there would be very little > money coming in from RLCs. That is absolutely true, if traffic signals are timed correctly. Oh by the way, very few drivers run red lights. -Dave |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Brent P" > wrote in message ... > In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote: > > I've come to the realization that RLCs, if implemented correctly,(*) > > are ultimately a Good Thing. > > What is the motivation of government to correctly implement RLCs? What > do they get in return for the expenditure? A net loss, if they correctly implement them. -Dave |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
> >>
> >> What is the motivation of government to correctly implement RLCs? What > >> do they get in return for the expenditure? > > > >A net loss, if they correctly implement them. > > What is the government's motivation for installing a stop sign or a > traffic light? After all, those things cost money and generate no > revenue. > They certainly do generate revenue, if the cops get off their fat asses and (gasp) do their jobs. After all, you can't nail somene for disobeying a traffic sign/signal that doesn't exist. -Dave |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 06:07:18 GMT, Arif Khokar >
>Mike Z. Helm wrote: > >> Arif Khokar wrote: > >>>Most drivers do not run red lights intentionally. > >> Most drivers do not run red lights. > >If very few drivers ran red lights, I didn't say "very few" - I just said most drivers. > then there would be very little >money coming in from RLCs. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Scott en Aztlán > wrote in
news > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:07:51 -0600, > (Brent P) wrote: > >>In article >, Scott en >>Aztlán wrote: >>> I've come to the realization that RLCs, if implemented correctly,(*) >>> are ultimately a Good Thing. >> >>What is the motivation of government to correctly implement RLCs? >>What do they get in return for the expenditure? > > A RLC is like a 24/7/365 policeman who watches over the intersection - > only it costs a hell of a lot less, and frees the human cops for more > important duties. What's more important than drivers stopping for red lights? (traffic enforcement,not other police duties) RL-running kills people. > > Based on what I've seen, most red light runners COULD stop, they > simply choose not to because they thought they could get away with it. > Knowing the RLC is there would stop these people, as well as all the > collisions they cause. > > Fewer collisions means the government can save money on fire, > paramedic, and other emergency personnel. Plus, RLC-equipped > intersections will ALWAYS generate revenue, because there will always > be the clueless soccermom on her cell phone who doesn't realize she > just drove her SUV right through the red light until the ticket comes > in the mail. > Weeks later.By then she could have killed someone at another RL. OTOH,if she was pulled over and ticketed by a real police officer,she'd know it right away,her driving behavior would likely change for the better,OTHER drivers would see her pulled over and ticketed,and THEIR behavior would likely change for the better,at least for a short while. If that became common,then the change would be longer lasting. She would also get points on her license,and if she did it too much,lose her license,as would be proper. Her insurance would also rise. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 06:59:45 GMT, "Dave C." > wrote: > >>> > I've come to the realization that RLCs, if implemented correctly,(*) >>> > are ultimately a Good Thing. >>> >>> What is the motivation of government to correctly implement RLCs? What >>> do they get in return for the expenditure? >> >>A net loss, if they correctly implement them. > > What is the government's motivation for installing a stop sign or a > traffic light? After all, those things cost money and generate no > revenue. You've never seen officers stake out nonsensical stop signs late at night? Government also doesn't install traffic lights until forced to after a few fatalities it seems. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Z. Helm wrote:
>>If very few drivers ran red lights, > I didn't say "very few" - I just said most drivers. Note that the sentence I wrote above does not include the word not. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:07:51 -0600, > (Brent P) wrote: > >>In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote: >>> I've come to the realization that RLCs, if implemented correctly,(*) >>> are ultimately a Good Thing. >> >>What is the motivation of government to correctly implement RLCs? What >>do they get in return for the expenditure? > > A RLC is like a 24/7/365 policeman who watches over the intersection - > only it costs a hell of a lot less, and frees the human cops for more > important duties. But it can only detect ONE offense at ONE intersection. If the intersection has no underlying defects, it's a money loser. > Based on what I've seen, most red light runners COULD stop, they > simply choose not to because they thought they could get away with it. > Knowing the RLC is there would stop these people, as well as all the > collisions they cause. Like I tell the bicycle NG people, CA isn't the world. > Fewer collisions means the government can save money on fire, > paramedic, and other emergency personnel. Plus, RLC-equipped > intersections will ALWAYS generate revenue, because there will always > be the clueless soccermom on her cell phone who doesn't realize she > just drove her SUV right through the red light until the ticket comes > in the mail. RLCs don't reduce collisions. They simply record them. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:56:31 GMT, Arif Khokar >
>Mike Z. Helm wrote: > >>>If very few drivers ran red lights, > >> I didn't say "very few" - I just said most drivers. > >Note that the sentence I wrote above does not include the word not. I didn't say "very few drivers ran red lights", I said "most drivers do not". HTH |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HAVE YOU HEARD THE GOOD NEWS! | [email protected] | VW water cooled | 1 | January 27th 05 12:42 PM |
HAVE YOU HEARD THE GOOD NEWS! | [email protected] | VW water cooled | 0 | January 26th 05 03:37 AM |
Selespeed - a Good Thing? Opinions Please | Jake | Alfa Romeo | 6 | August 9th 04 09:12 PM |
Chrysler 300 C - How much of a Mercedes is it, and is that good or bad? | REInvestments | Dodge | 14 | May 11th 04 01:10 PM |