a situation where it makes total sense

But if there is no financial incentive for a community to have a RLC, then why would they have one? A problem with these cameras, besides the Orwellian implications, is that they're paid for via a subscription model. The camera owner installs the camera with no upfront cost and bills the city on a monthly basis. The city pays the camera owner each month out of the revenues generated from the camera and gets to pocket the rest. Naturally, if there is no revenue coming in, the camera owner doesn't get paid. This is why when a camera's revenue drops below a certain level, the camera is removed from service.

Your idea to use the camera to record who made an illegal turn and revoke their registration is noble, but it's wildly utopian.

fine the b****** $480, revoke the reggie, and use the fees to a) pay the rlc subscription fees b) help fund the local youth hockey team's tournament in Finland.

Now, nobody can say anything one way or the other.

Still utopian. You're thinking nobly, but ignoring the fact that the vast majority of humanity is a bunch of greedy bastards looking out for number one. The city administration wouldn't be interested in the youth hockey tournament unless it somehow made them look good at an opportune moment. All they see is the dollars and a means to compensate for the budget shortfalls brought about by their greed.

I'm very familiar with corrupt city governments. Fall River, MA is where I live, and it's the first city in Massachusetts to have ever successfully booted the mayor out of office. Guaranteed, if Massachusetts didn't have a law in place banning RLCs, Fall River would have one at every intersection. After all, this is the same city that attempted to impose a per bag fee for trash collection, when by law the fee applied per cart. The replacement mayor hasn't done anything about this despite it being worded in black and white, meaning its business as usual in Fall River, MA.

The point is that while I understand where you're coming from, unless people are willing to change there will be no change.

The whole point is that these cameras are NOT installed for noble reasons, they are installed to make money. Period. Without a money stream, there are no cameras.

There is a simple, relatively low cost solution for the driver. Get a dash cam. Decent quality one's can be had for under $100 these days. The video should provide proof or at least context of the accident and may prove if someone is lying. By using one your not burdening the tax payers, city or other drivers for the installation of a red light camera. A camera which typically installed for money generating purposes not for improving motorist safety.

At some point I expect it will be like GPS--everyone will have one. I see there is a Nuvi that has one coming shortly. I don't like the fact that many good ones need hardwiring.

Cams are everywhere now and even uninteresting videos go viral. That's just the way it is today.

How about blow out spikes, then? Portable ones, it's too expensive to install permanent ones like you see in airports at the rental car return. Let's face it, just asking people to please stop and don't make illegal turns doesn't work.

I see your point of view as well. btw your area has excellent clam chowder, the kind that has clear broth, not heavy cream. Just my .02.

The only thing that makes total sense it to ban these cameras.

The only thing that makes total sense is to impose a $10,000 fine and revocation of the persons driving privileges for 5 years.

In one city in Florida most of the Red Light Camera's were removed because of drivers rebelled. The city and state were obviously more interested in revenue than safety. Properly implemented the cameras can contribute to public safety.

The right-on-red issue can be remedied with appropriate traffic light and sign control and laws along with "active" policing.

If I KNEW I'd get a 5 year revocation and have to pay a $10K fine, I would NEVER run a red light again (not that I'm running them now).

What if your from another state or county and didn't know about the law? You're advocating pulling someone's license for 5 years (which depending on their job might mean they no longer have one) and fine them 10k as well for a RLC violation?
Loose your license, possibly your job, (if so, your home or apartment) and like most with little savings you're on the street and now that you can't pay your bills your credit rating goes to crap for 3-7 years. Oh and if you're the bread winner for your family your spouse and kids are now going along for the ride.
Wow.

1. Driving is a privilege, not a right or an entitlement

2. If the pain associated with a violation is more than you can afford, then you are assuredly not going to perform the violation.

I think its North Carolina that has the law on the books, that if you are CONVICTED of driving faster than 75 MPH you CAN have your license revoked. I've not a clue if there's also a financial penalty that goes along with the revocation.

But the revocation in and of itself is pretty steep.

In Virginia you will be cited for reckless driving if you are stopped for traveling above 75 MPH. That is the state law and is an exception to the Virginia State Police's normal "8's great, 9 your mine" tolerance. To exacerbate the situation, in the past few years many Interstates have had their speed limits raised to 70 so careful attention is needed in those areas. (Oh yes, the state legislature has no plans to change the 75 MPH law according to some published reports.)

I certainly know that ignorance of the law isn't an excuse but I was never aware of that

I've always driven between 9-10 miles above the posted speed limit on Interstates and have never been pulled over for speeding in this range. It would certainly be a rude awaking being cited for reckless driving when cruising at 77 MPH in a 70 MPH zone !

Wondering if anyone from the Factory personally knows from facts/proof if the above is actually enforced

when I got caught for 155 in a 55, it was very serious. I was 19 and invincible.

Today, I see elderly driving well over 80, I believe it's a function of the way vehicles are built today.

I can't say for sure, but I think you could drive 76 with your **** in your hand in VA and it would be ok. VA has much bigger problems than people driving 76 with their **** in their hand.

I thought I read elsewhere that reckless driving was over 81 mph, and that it would often include jail time? That was why supposedly troopers would write for 79 or 80 so there'd be a big fine but no major points jail.

Or maybe over 75 is reckless and over 81 is jail time.

Not sure I even want to know where johnnatash4's last post came from.

In Virginia:

A person shall be guilty of reckless driving who drives a motor vehicle on the highways in the Commonwealth (i) at a speed of 20 miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable maximum speed limit or (ii) in excess of 80 miles per hour regardless of the applicable maximum speed limit.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=virgini...

for the correction. I had it on good report the limit was 75 from a few years ago.

It used to be 20 over or 75. But the speed limit on section of I95 is up to 70 now. The 75 limit is too slow for that stretch. However, if you exceed 80 and you are from out of state, more than likely you will lose your license for the Reckless Driving ticket. A bunch of Marylanders found that out the hard way.

I'm also astonished / surprised in the manner in which this person expresses himself/herself when knowing the following:

But that being said, I'll just keep moving along

I've always wondered

Ok to turn on red, except when the traffic coming from opposite has a green turn signal . . .

How the f.. is the driver turning right supposed to know there's a turn signal facing the opposite direction

In Aus if there is a turn signal, there is a red no-turn signal facing the other direction

Seeing as how you are REQUIRED to come to a full stop before turning right on red unless otherwise prohibited, I would look at the opposing traffic to see how it is moving.

You dont go when traffic from the opposite direction is going.

coz I'm back in Canada right now, and been diverted around two arguing drivers and cops after a fender bender between a right turn and left turn, again

In Australia, they assume everybody is dumb, all the time, common sense level zero
and put no-turn lights up, despite being required to stop, and yield,

it works
but only most of the time

Left on red is legal in PA and also in NY I believe (one-way to one-way). Imagine how confused some people get in those situations.

It's like we overthink things so much, that we cannot even function. We need to take a step back, breathe, and think about 3-4 y.o. kids crossing the blue line onsides in hockey or soccer. It can be done.

Left on red is legal in PA and also in NY I believe (one-way to one-way). Imagine how confused some people get in those situations.

It's like we overthink things so much, that we cannot even function. We need to take a step back, breathe, and think about 3-4 y.o. kids crossing the blue line onside in hockey or soccer. It can be done.