a situation where it makes total sense

 

I encounter this activity daily--cars that do an illegal right on red, where vehicles turning left have a green arrow.

If it were a one-on-one accident, he said she said, the left turning vehicle is going to pay for the damage based on the right turning vehicle's lying.

A rlc to prevent the illegal turn itself, and video the turn if it takes place, imho would cure the problem.

For those who believe that rlcs lead to political corruption and money-grabs etc., I say simply revoke the registration of the illegally turned vehicle. No fine, no money collected. Now we would basically stop doing it, all of us, and not lend our vehicles to those who would.

But if there is no financial

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.

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

in that case

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.

Not realistic

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.

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

...

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.

johnnatash4 wrote: I

johnnatash4 wrote:

I encounter this activity daily--cars that do an illegal right on red, where vehicles turning left have a green arrow.

If it were a one-on-one accident, he said she said, the left turning vehicle is going to pay for the damage based on the right turning vehicle's lying.

A rlc to prevent the illegal turn itself, and video the turn if it takes place, imho would cure the problem.

For those who believe that rlcs lead to political corruption and money-grabs etc., I say simply revoke the registration of the illegally turned vehicle. No fine, no money collected. Now we would basically stop doing it, all of us, and not lend our vehicles to those who would.

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.

yes

bennor3814 wrote:
johnnatash4 wrote:

I encounter this activity daily--cars that do an illegal right on red, where vehicles turning left have a green arrow.

If it were a one-on-one accident, he said she said, the left turning vehicle is going to pay for the damage based on the right turning vehicle's lying.

A rlc to prevent the illegal turn itself, and video the turn if it takes place, imho would cure the problem.

For those who believe that rlcs lead to political corruption and money-grabs etc., I say simply revoke the registration of the illegally turned vehicle. No fine, no money collected. Now we would basically stop doing it, all of us, and not lend our vehicles to those who would.

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.

agree

Strephon_Alkhalikoi wrote:

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.

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. smile

The only thing...

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

the other side of the coin

tomturtle wrote:

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.

--
Never argue with a pig. It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!

Red Light Camera's Removed

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.

--
romanviking

IF

BarneyBadass wrote:
tomturtle wrote:

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.

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).

There are no stats.

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.

my points being

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.

--
Never argue with a pig. It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!

In virginia

BarneyBadass wrote:

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.)

--
"In order to be old and wise, one first must have been young and stupid."

My goodness

Box Car wrote:

In Virginia you will be cited for reckless driving if you are stopped for traveling above 75 MPH.

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

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 rolleyes

--
Nüvi 255WT with nüMaps Lifetime North America born on 602117815 / Nüvi 3597LMTHD born on 805972514 / I love Friday’s except when I’m on holidays ~ canuk

I know that

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.

76 mph or 82 mph in VA?

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. neutral

A person shall be guilty of

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...

--
Frank Nuvi 3597LMT 37.322760, -79.511267

thank you

phranc wrote:

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=virginia+reckless+driving+law&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

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

--
"In order to be old and wise, one first must have been young and stupid."

It used to be 20 over or 75.

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.

--
Frank Nuvi 3597LMT 37.322760, -79.511267

@ ericuby

ericruby wrote:

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

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

johnnatash4 wrote:

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.

johnnatash4 wrote:

As a physician, I now go to forums and conduct polls to see which is the best drug for my patients. I can get the answer a lot faster this way, than to wait for scientists to conduct studies which takes years.

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

--
Nüvi 255WT with nüMaps Lifetime North America born on 602117815 / Nüvi 3597LMTHD born on 805972514 / I love Friday’s except when I’m on holidays ~ canuk

turn on red

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

--
If only ..

uhm

almostbob wrote:

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

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.

--
"In order to be old and wise, one first must have been young and stupid."

That would only make sense.

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

--
Nuvi 2460LMT.

I've wondered,

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

--
If only ..

left on red

almostbob wrote:

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

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

almostbob wrote:

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

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.