One good thing that may come out of RLCs

Pima County encompasses the Tucson area concluded from their own study that overall accident rates had been falling over the last few years but the areas that had red light and speed cameras didn't decline as much as the areas without them. The areas with cameras had a higher accident rate than similar areas without the cameras. After that study Pima county removed all cameras. Since then this fall the citizens of Tucson voted the cameras out so now there are none in the entire County area.

For most the videos posted, the red light had been red for 7 to 10 seconds before the car blasted through. Don't think anyone can argue that the ticket wasn't fair.
Mark

plain and simple is to correct behavior.

Those who argue incessantly against technology being used with regard to enforcement, a) I wonder if they have any kids, and would allow their kids to use their lame reasoning against their parenting b) do they actually know anything at all about the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.

Kinda reminds me of that story recently where it was unconstitutional to sing God Bless America and to say Merry Christmas. The song wasn't even written until 1918.

That's not what fines are for. Fines are a way to financially recover the cost for the work involved for the citation.

the only way to correct the behaviour is to assess points to the responsible driver. Any single driver accrue enough traffic violation points and the corrective behaviour becomes loss of driving privileges. That's the corrective action, not the fine.

If the registered owner were assessed points for the infraction one of two things would occur.

The registered owner would be assessed the points and would either correct the action or loose the driving privileges

Or

The registered owner would identify who was driving the vehicle at time of offense so they can be given the points and get them off the road.

The fine in and of itself is not a deterent nor an appropriate tool to be effectively used as a means for behaviour modification.

Accruing points assessed to your license to the point they exceed some value causing suspension of the drivers license will correct the undeseriable behaviour in two ways. First you can't drive, second, it's an almost certainty the cost of the violators insurance will increase. But if these d e parents fail, then there's always license revocation.

that driving is not set it and forget it. People take a test when they are 16, yet are still on the road untested when they are old, 35, 50, 70, 80, etc.

In reality, it should be like being a CFA, CPA, actuary, MD, JD, etc. It is not simply, everyone with 75% or higher on a test, passes. Only 90% of the people can be included, so that out of everybody that is tested, only the highest 90% at a certain level can be admitted.

That's the word I am looking for, you don't get to drive just because you pass a test. Of all the licensed drivers that exist today in the USA, 10% should be eliminated, so you need to test such that you are in the top 90%. The bottom 10% shall be revoked permanently. Driving is a privilege, it is not a Constitutional right.

that driving is not set it and forget it. People take a test when they are 16, yet are still on the road untested when they are old, 35, 50, 70, 80, etc.

In reality, it should be like being a CFA, CPA, actuary, MD, JD, etc. It is not simply, everyone with 75% or higher on a test, passes. Only a %-age can be admitted. It is not simply a test score.

Of all the licensed drivers that exist today in the USA, 10% should be eliminated, so you need to test such that you are in the top 90%. The bottom 10% shall be revoked permanently. Driving is a privilege, it is not a Constitutional right.

Testing will not solve that problem.

Do you really think anyone will run a red light or speed while being tested?

And your argument fails on it's unfounded generalized statistics.

We recently moved from another state to NC where we had to take the written test on the laws and rules for NC. The examiner did waive the practical test but would have required it in a heartbeat if my bride and I hadn't had clean driving records.

*Anyone*?! I'll take that bet! I can imagine any number of people of all ages showing up obviously drunk or otherwise impaired for the driving exam, texting during the exam, rolling through stop signs, and sure, speeding or running red lights, just for starters. It's hard to underestimate the intelligence of some people. Just websearch "stupid drivers" or "stupid criminals" for ample examples.

A better question: would it reduce accidents enough to justify its cost? That I'm not at all sure about. Yeah, you could have drivers pay the cost of testing, but it's still a lot of cash crossing hands. I'd guess it would catch some but not all unqualified drivers. But it's an interesting idea.

Unless you have real data to make such a statement, you shouldn't just pull numbers out of your GPS like that. Maybe it's a lot more than 10%, or a lot less.

As for the Constitutional right, that's another debate we already had in another forum, and the conclusion was that it might be an implied right, related to the pursuit of happiness, getting to a job, etc. Like breathing is not in the the Constitution but it is implied.

Clean Driving record is a better way, your either dam lucky or a fairly safe driver!

My mother, when 93 or 94 went to get her license renewed. We just knew they would make her do a driving test so we wouldn't have all the hassle of taking her car away as she was driving in bar ditches and on curbs a lot. She even had a couple of wrecks in parking lots trying to get in and out of parking spaces.
Well she went, they took a new photo and renewed her license.
So my brother came and helped us, he talked her into selling him the car for his grand daughter.
After that she finally admitted that she was seeing two cars when there was only one and has only a few times asked for another car. She is 97 now and still wants a car but the last time I went to renew her license on line their was an option to surrender her license and get an ID card. I did that to make sure she could not talk anyone into getting her another car. Best thing for other people on the road.
Don't know how long they would have let her drive is she was still going herself to the DMV.

Doing that??

By:

Gas chamber?

Electric chair?

Lethal injection?

Firing squad?

Guillotine?

In most states today if you have a license you can simply exchange it for the new state you live in. In times past you had to at least take the written for the new state. In most states, now that is not required. Just turn in your old, get your eyes checked and off you go minus the modest fee of course.

But anyway, yes, I pulled 10% out of my a** as an example.

What I am trying to illustrate, is, right now, as long as you pass a test when you are 16, you can drive the rest of your life. It should not be that way.

It should be just like a professional trying to get in 2016, $1 mil. in compensation, like a CPA who makes partner. Not only are there the educational aspects, but there is the testing element, and then the notion and reality that many will not be admitted. Many should not be admitted to the institution of driving, and many, should have the privilege revoked.

Under 21, not mature enough to have control of a deadly vehicle, on prescription drugs, Pot card holders, the list goes on!
Very simple, tickets, accidents or court ordered eval should be the limiting guidelines! And person, persons and their Lawyers wanting a Court Eval should be held liable for Court costs, etcetera if victim/driver is found capable!!!

...but the ability to possess cash and the ability to drive well are not related in any way, shape, or form. Why should the good driver's in Hyundais have to pay for the stupidity of the Mercedes drivers? (Car makes are purely for example. No data or specifics implied here)

Sorry about that.

It's very simple, RLCs change behavior. PERIOD.

I am on another forum where a guy got two rlc tix on the same day, in Calif. The guy has a six-figure job so he claims money is not the issue. BS. There isn't a working person alive who would just throw $1,200 away on RLC tix--there is a lot that a person could get for his/her family, so the person is angry about his fines. Let's see if he can do this 24/7/365.

I used to slow to 10mph below posted, or refuse to make right on red when we had RLC's and SC's. Important people would blow their horns and I would smile and wave, lol. Guess what, I would go back to normal speed after clearing revenue trap, yup, changed my driving habits, lol!

One was on Houston St. in NYC. It was at Bowery, and for all I know today there might be a rlc--I came to a stop just as the light turned red, but as I was slowing down a box truck laid on the air horns. The car next to me proceeded and stopped, and got stuck blocking the box. The thing about it is I know the box truck knew I couldn't make it, and could care less anyway. So at the end of the day, the only way you can deal with folks who could care less, is to establish technology that causes them to care based on fines.

Another was in South Philly on 24th approaching Bainbridge. Someone was double parked (I have never understood it for the life of me, there is no reason to double-park on Phila., it's not NYC, it's out of laziness meaning there could be lots of spaces 1/2 block from where the person decides to stop--WALK), so my wife could not get by and stopped. This meth head gets out of his car and starts screaming telling my wife to move! Her instinct was to oblige, but I yell hold on. I jump out and clearly see there is no space, and am careful not to get too close to the meth head but I basically tell him to back the you know what away. He doesn't do it right away and keeps yelling at my wife. It was like 40F and the dude was sweating profusely, pupils are dilated. Moral of the story, is to never do something based on someone else's horn, make your own decision.

If you suspect the guys a meth head,

1). Don't get out of the car to confront them
2). Don't antagonize the meth head
3). Call 911
4). Run like a scalded cat

But I was being reactionary because the guy definitely rattled my wife who was about to move based on the guy's behavior. My point is never simply drive/move forward, just because somebody is honking or screaming. Could result in damage to your vehicle.