In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

>>But it can only detect ONE offense at ONE intersection. If the
>>intersection has no underlying defects, it's a money loser.
>
> One could say the same for stop signs and traffic lights.

Which is why stop signs are mis used as speed control devices after great
complaint of neighborhood busybodies and stoplights installed after great
complaint and fatalities. Ever notice the kind of effort required to get
traffic control devices that COST money installed?

> Where did I say that my observations were limited to CA?

I simply do not see great numbers of MFFY red-light runners.

>>> 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.

> Actually, people are much better behaved when they know that Big
> Brother is watching. Think about the way you drive when there is a cop
> car behind you. And when people are better behaved, they don't pull as
> many stupid, dangerous moves. Kinda like the way my son drove my car
> when the tracking device was installed.

Sounds like an arguement for a viewscreen in every home. That aside, I
haven't seen anything that indicates a massive change in people's
behavior because of RLCs. Just as parking tickets haven't put an end to
illegal parking.