[Retric]

Obviously it’s not 100% meaningless, but the kind of people losing their licenses here correlate with the kinds of people who will take these risks.

Thus for many it’s a symbolic gesture until the next time something happens which is little different than simply doing nothing until the next incident like say 3 strike laws.

[throwaway0123_5]

I think that is probably true now (in the US), but the hypothetical is that it is made easier to lose your license.

DC recently banned "right on red" but it is routinely ignored and the penalty is apparently a $100 fine. If the penalty was loss of license (maybe not on first offense) I think there's a lot of people ignoring the current rule that would not be willing to ignore the possibility of losing their license.

[spauldo]

Any US jurisdiction that bans right on red is going to see a lot of violations - mostly from people who are unaware of the law or people who know the law but accidentally do it out of habit. If DC wanted to stop people from turning right on red, signs would be the only effective solution.

At least with Arizona, it's the whole state so most drivers won't have the habit.

Of course, if DC just wants to take in a lot of easy $100 tickets, this is exactly the way to do it.

[bruckie]

Right turn on red being prohibited in Arizona is an internet myth, according to https://www.kgun9.com/news/local-news/misinformation-online-..., which links to the statute at https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00645.htm (paragraph A.3(b)).

[spauldo]

It might be a myth, but it's certainly not an Internet myth. I first read about it in a Rand MacNally atlas in the 80s.