A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

RLCs Can Be a Good Thing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 28th 05, 07:09 AM
Arif Khokar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 28th 05, 07:58 AM
Dave C.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> > 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  
Old February 28th 05, 07:59 AM
Dave C.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old February 28th 05, 05:07 PM
Dave C.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> >>
> >> 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  
Old February 28th 05, 05:12 PM
Mike Z. Helm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 28th 05, 05:23 PM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 28th 05, 05:55 PM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 28th 05, 05:56 PM
Arif Khokar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #20  
Old February 28th 05, 08:36 PM
Mike Z. Helm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HAVE YOU HEARD THE GOOD NEWS! [email protected] VW water cooled 1 January 27th 05 01:42 PM
HAVE YOU HEARD THE GOOD NEWS! [email protected] VW water cooled 0 January 26th 05 04:37 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.