http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/021208/met_246022373.shtml (http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/021208/met_246022373.shtml)
Opinions?
Study after study has shown that these cameras do absolutely nothing to improve roadway safety, so the decision has to be strictly financial. Is the tradeoff of turning Big Brother's eyes onto Jacksonville's roads worth the 100 extra police officers city officials claim citation penalties will be able to pay for?
Personally, I'm fairly indifferent to them - if they can accomplish the same thing as an officer sitting at an intersection (an officer we can then put in a rough neighborhood or Downtown), then let's do it.
And if the savings were to pay for 100 (I'd be curious if the same guy who did that math predicted Skyway ridership), then I'd definitely be for it.
QuoteFlorida DOT Confirms Use of Red Light Cameras Illegal
A Florida Department of Transportation letter confirms that cities using red light cameras to issue tickets are violating the law.
Several Florida jurisdictions, including Escambia County and Hallandale Beach, are considering the installation of red light cameras, even though the state legislature has refused to authorize the devices. Furious lobbying by the insurance and red light camera industries along with local governments interested in sharing in the revenue has put increased pressure on lawmakers to concede. Cities such as Apopka and Gulf Breeze could not resist the temptation to wait and have for the past few months have been issuing automated photo tickets at intersections. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) suggested in a letter last month that this may be illegal.
"The decision to allow or not allow the use of Red Light Running Cameras is determined by the Florida Legislature and Governor Crist," wrote Deputy State Traffic Operations Engineer Mark C. Wilson. "Current Florida Law does not allow the use of Red Light Running Cameras for the enforcement of a traffic violation. The Florida Department of Transportation does not allow the use of Red Light Running Cameras on any of our intersections on the State Highway System. We do know that some Florida cities are using Red Light Running Cameras for enforcement of a violation of a local city ordinance."
Dade City resident Stephen R Donaldson had written to his state representative, Tom Anderson, to suggest that longer yellow signal time was a superior alternative to the use of automated ticketing. Anderson forwarded Donaldson's concerns to FDOT.
"Tickets-by-mail is not law enforcement, it is revenue collecting," Donaldson said.
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that a jurisdiction which had claimed red light cameras were not actually tickets but violations of a city ordinance had run afoul of a provision, also part of Florida's code, requiring uniformity in traffic laws (view ruling). A full copy of the FDOT letter is available in a 318k PDF file at the source link below.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1994.asp
This means that the tickets issued are equivalent to parking tickets instead of traffic violations. The ticket is associated with the car and not the driver. Also, the cameras can not be on FDOT land, so they will either need to be on city land near the road, or a lease with a private land owner will need to be made.
If the cameras only paid for 10 officers dedicated to the worst areas - I say do it.
when i break the law i'm not for them.
when i don't break the law and something is happening to me that requires the law then i'm for them.
funny how it always seems to work out that way
Although I'm in favor of the cameras, (and they have made some positive impacts in other cities) I'm not in favor of them using any money collected from fines, to fund police officers...it's just not a guaranteed source of funding.
More cameras = fewer police officers on the road. The less police presence, the greater the likelihood of people breaking laws and rules. There is also the embarassment factor that plays into being pulled over in the middle of traffic, while a police officer walks up to you and hands you a ticket. If you're free to go on your merry way and then you get a ticket in the mail, what do you think the odds are that you'll speed again? Pretty good I'd say, after all no person actually saw you do anything. And what exactly is a police officer's job if not to be out on the streets enforcing the laws? Does this mean our police force will become even more obese sitting behind a desk eating Krispy Kremes? Does this mean that the use of tasers will INCREASE with the move torwards passive law enforcement? That's a big Y.E.S. as far as I'm concerned.
It's easy to say, put the cameras up and put the officers out in the 'hood where the "real" crimes are committed, but that solution is the equivalent of solving a rat problem by installing feral cats to run wild; pretty soon you have a CAT problem.
I've just never liked the idea, and I think it's a real slippery slope to start moving in that direction. The problem with something like these cameras is that they aren't experimental. If they go up, they stay up. Sure, it sounds fine and well now to justify the cameras by saying they'll pay for 100 police officers or whatever the number is, but for how long? One year. Two years. What happens in ten years? Twenty years? Will that money be going to better the residents of Jacksonville, or will it be used to install more cameras that potentially eliminate jobs with the police? My opinion is that 66 cameras will inevitably lead to 660 cameras will inevitably lead to 6,600 cameras, etc. Look at what has happened in England. A few traffic cameras have turned into 4.2 million CCTV cameras throughout the country - one for every 14 citizens. Citizens in England are captured on camera over 300 times per day. Some of the newer CCTV cameras over there have speakers mounted to them allowing the police officers/officials/workers monitoring them to bark at them for looking suspicious or not putting their trash in the proper recepticle. Who wants that?
I genuinely hate the "if you're not doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about" rhetoric. It's overly simplistic, fundamentally unAmerican, and such wide-open transparency CERTAINLY doesn't translate over to the government and police side of the fence. Americans, and Jacksonville citizens, deserve better living conditions than a Gotcha~! society where robotic cameras watch their every move on the road waiting to catch them doing something wrong. It's enough to make even the most law-abiding, honest, tax-paying citizens nervous, uncomfortable and paranoid. Again, who wants to live like that?
There's got to be a balance of power to these things between the authority figures and the citizens. In my opinion, if you want to put cameras up along the roads to monitor how I drive, then let's go ahead and put publicly accessable cameras up in every police station, squad car, prison, and local government officials office so that the citizens of Jacksonville can watch how these people go about their daily lives. Maybe we can catch them doing something they're not supposed to. I've got nothing but respect for the police department, always have, but unless it's a two sided thing, we creep further away from the police working for us (something people forget too easily) and closer towards the police working against us.
What is it that Ben Franklin said? A [city] willing to give up a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security deserves neither.
Didn't those cameras in England lead to catching the terrorist who were blowing things up over there? Did the Japanese catch the subway terrorist with the help of the cameras? And did Atlanta use the cameras to catch the guy who blew up Centennial Park during the Olympic Games? I’m for a safer Jacksonville. Would those cameras benefit all and thus make Jacksonville a better place to live?
Quote from: gatorback on February 13, 2008, 10:18:42 AM
Didn't those cameras in England lead to catching the terrorist who were blowing things up over there? Did the Japanese catch the subway terrorist with the help of the cameras? And did Atlanta use the cameras to catch the guy who blew up Centennial Park during the Olympic Games? I’m for a safer Jacksonville. Would those cameras benefit all and thus make Jacksonville a better place to live?
Yes, however, the cameras should not REPLACE existing officer presence. Just think of what could happen if the analyst reviewing the camera activity were able to notify the officer sitting within 5 miles of that camera, and he were able to call for back-up and make an immediate stop and arrest. Waiting days, weeks, and or months to have someone seek out a known fugitive based on recordings from a camera is not the way to protect citizens.
Quote from: second_pancake on February 13, 2008, 10:37:14 AM
Quote from: gatorback on February 13, 2008, 10:18:42 AM
Didn't those cameras in England lead to catching the terrorist who were blowing things up over there? Did the Japanese catch the subway terrorist with the help of the cameras? And did Atlanta use the cameras to catch the guy who blew up Centennial Park during the Olympic Games? I’m for a safer Jacksonville. Would those cameras benefit all and thus make Jacksonville a better place to live?
Yes, however, the cameras should not REPLACE existing officer presence. Just think of what could happen if the analyst reviewing the camera activity were able to notify the officer sitting within 5 miles of that camera, and he were able to call for back-up and make an immediate stop and arrest. Waiting days, weeks, and or months to have someone seek out a known fugitive based on recordings from a camera is not the way to protect citizens.
What ever happened to the concept of a The best offense...is a good defense? The In Your Face of the cameras will protect citizens. When crime goes down you can get rid of the officers all together! ha wouldn't that be nice. Truth is, wouldn't you rather spend the money on other aspects of society like housing the homeless or, dog parks, maybe even bike trails?
QuoteTruth is, wouldn't you rather spend the money on other aspects of society like housing the homeless or, dog parks, maybe even bike trails?
In lieu of cameras, sure. In lieu of real, live police officers, no....ok, maybe of few of them...one inparticular. I'd sacrifice his salary to build a nice, new, off-road trail on some wooded land closer to town ;D
Quote from: gatorback on February 13, 2008, 10:18:42 AM
Didn't those cameras in England lead to catching the terrorist who were blowing things up over there? Did the Japanese catch the subway terrorist with the help of the cameras? And did Atlanta use the cameras to catch the guy who blew up Centennial Park during the Olympic Games?
Nope, the London bombings were suicide attacks, very strange suicide attacks at that, and no official inquiry into the attacks was ever conducted. There was no one to "catch," as the men who carried those backpacks onto the trains were killed in the blasts.
Nope, The sarin attacks in the Tokyo Subway were solved just fine without the presence of CC cameras.
And absolutely not. No surveillance cameras caught the Centennial Park attack, that's why Richard Jewel was originally implicated. The case was eventually solved through good old-fashioned police work.
Quote from: KenFSU on February 13, 2008, 11:11:49 AM
Quote from: gatorback on February 13, 2008, 10:18:42 AM
Didn't those cameras in England lead to catching the terrorist who were blowing things up over there? Did the Japanese catch the subway terrorist with the help of the cameras? And did Atlanta use the cameras to catch the guy who blew up Centennial Park during the Olympic Games?
Nope, the London bombings were suicide attacks, very strange suicide attacks at that, and no official inquiry into the attacks was ever conducted. There was no one to "catch," as the men who carried those backpacks onto the trains were killed in the blasts.
Nope, The sarin attacks in the Tokyo Subway were solved just fine without the presence of CC cameras.
And absolutely not. No surveillance cameras caught the Centennial Park attack, that's why Richard Jewel was originally implicated. The case was eventually solved through good old-fashioned police work.
It would be interesting to learn how much the cameras weeded out in the investigation leading the detectives to focus their efforts.
Is their any info about whether cameras make intersections safer. I will support cameras if they do. I won't support speed traps for the sake of revenue.
This is pretty interesting:
QuoteOthers worry about safety. Red-light cameras are supposed to make us safer by discouraging people from running red lights. The trouble is that they work too well. Numerous studies have found that when these cameras are put in place, rear-end collisions increase dramatically. Drivers who once might have stretched the light a bit now slam on their brakes for fear of getting a ticket, with predictable results. A study of red-light cameras in Washington, D.C., by The Washington Post found that despite producing more than 500,000 tickets (and generating over $32 million in revenues), red-light cameras didn't reduce injuries or collisions. In fact, the number of accidents increased at the camera-equipped intersections.
Likewise, red-light cameras in Portland, Ore., produced a 140 percent increase in rear-end collisions at monitored intersections, and a study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council found that although red-light cameras decreased collisions resulting from people running traffic lights, they significantly increased accidents overall.
This problem can be aggravated by jurisdictions that shorten the duration of yellow lights, apparently to generate more ticket revenue. Last year, CBS News reported on an especially egregious case in Maryland: A traffic-camera intersection had a 2.7-second yellow light, while nearby intersections had 4-second times. Shorter yellow lights are more dangerous--but shorter yellow lights plus traffic cameras generate revenue.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/upgrade/2420766.html
To combat the problem of overzealous municipalities turning speed traps into an endless revenue source, the Florida Legislature passed a law capping the amounts that municipalities can collect from traffic law violations.
Also, there is an organized group in the UK that has dedicated themselves to destroying all traffic cameras.
http://www.speedcam.co.uk/index2.htm
I wonder how many times Jacksonville would be willing to replace them if that started happening here?
i think we should have a "camera intersection map" like they have here, if they install them...
http://www.speedcam.co.uk/speedmap.htm
I imagine the city council hasn't looked into it, but there are a lot of studies on these camera. The only people that claim a reduction in accidents seems to be the camera manufacturers and city officials looking for a new revenue source.
QuoteRed Light Camera Studies Roundup
A collection of red light camera studies over the last decade shows red light cameras have serious side-effects.
Over the past decade, a number of studies have examined the use of red light cameras. The most relevant studies examined the devices in light of changes in traffic and engineering conditions made at intersections during the study period and pulled actual police reports to examine the particular causes of each collision. The following studies are the most comprehensive available:
A 2007 Virginia Department of Transportation study found:
"The cameras were associated with an increase in total crashes... The aggregate EB results suggested that this increase was 29%... The cameras were associated with an increase in the frequency of injury crashes... The aggregate EB results suggested an 18% increase, although the point estimates for individual jurisdictions were substantially higher (59%, 79%, or 89% increases) or lower (6% increase or a 5% decrease)."
A 2006 Winnipeg, Canada city audit found:
"The graph shows an increase of 58% in the number of traffic collisions from 2003 to 2004.... Contrary to long-term expectations, the chart shows an increase in claims at each level of damage with the largest percentage increase appearing at the highest dollar value."
A 2005 Virginia DOT study found:
"The cameras are correlated with an increase in total crashes of 8% to 17%."
In 2005, The Washington Post found:
"The analysis shows that the number of crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled, from 365 collisions in 1998 to 755 last year. Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent, from 144 such wrecks to 262. Broadside crashes, also known as right-angle or T-bone collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106 during that time frame."
A 2004 North Carolina A&T University study found:
"Our findings are more pessimistic, finding no change in angle accidents and large increases in rear-end crashes and many other types of crashes relative to other intersections."
A 2003 Ontario Ministry of Transportation study found:
"Compared to the average number of reported collisions occurring in the before period, the average yearly number of reported collisions increased 15.1 per cent in the after period."
A 1995 Australian Road Research Board study found:
"The results of this study suggest that the installation of the RLC at these sites did not provide any reduction in accidents, rather there has been increases in rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a before and after basis and also by comparison with the changes in accidents at intersection signals."
A 1995 Monash University (Australia) study found:
"a simple correlation analysis was undertaken for red light running data in the current study and revealed no significant relationship between the frequency of crashes at RLC and non-RLC sites and differences in red light running behaviour."
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp
any more recent data?
Isn't this pretty much a done deal? That the city's going to install them? As long as you're not one of those people who skate through the red lights, then there's nothing to worry about.
Personally, if it helps stop some of these jerks that run the lights, then it's worth having them.
I know they've installed them in Philly and it has helped at many of the bad intersections where there were always cars blowing the lights and had deadly wrecks...so, IMO, they're a good additive.
Folks, this is a revenue grab pure and simple. In Chicago, they are adding cameras like wild-fire, as it's a politically pain-free way of garnering extra revenue. I am not a big fan of these sneaky ways of getting extra revenue. Again, Chicago is the master - lots of teeny tiny indirect taxes that add up to a big bite. If we need the officers, add to the ad valorem tax base. And if we want traffic safety, add the cameras and take any "excess" revenues and credit it back to taypayers via lower ad valorem or fees.
When you have to depend on law enforcement as a revenue source, that's a slippery slope. "Hey you, Mr. Jaywalker, come grab your ticket for $250..."
So what will the cost be to install and maintain this system?
QuoteThe vote to place 10 cameras on top of stop lights at some of Jacksonville’s busiest intersection passed through the city council unanimously Tuesday night. (12/11) The cameras are not scheduled to be installed until June or July of 2008.
City leaders tell us the cameras will not cost the city of Jacksonville anything. They say the camera’s manufacturer will install and maintain the cameras for free, as long as the city gives them a percentage of the red light citations.
Beach at Atlantic
Beach at San Pablo
Beach at Kernan
Beach at Southside
Beach at University
Beach at Saint Johns Bluff
Butler Blvd. at 9-A
Southside at Baymeadows
Blanding at Youngerman Circle
Atlantic at Kernan
http://www.cbs47.com/content/topstor...3-dde610d76666 (http://www.cbs47.com/content/topstor...3-dde610d76666)
Interesting list, two of these are currently under construction:
Butler at 9A, and
Beach at Kernan
and, in a few more months, Atlantic/Kernan will be under construction (according to the JTA)
within a few months (OK a year) there won't be any traffic signals at Butler/9A
If it were my list, I'd scratch those three, and find others. I'm sure there's a lot of candidates out there.
And, yes I go thru 'reds' sometimes, but then I look in my rearview and see one ... two ... three or more cars behind me coming thru, too. What would happen if I stopped like I should have?
Common sense and logic rears its gorgeous head once again with this insane fury by governments to capture more revenue while claiming it is for the good the people. Lunican, thanks for posting those studies and quotes.
What I find amazing is the apparent lack of ingenuity with technology for cities in their neverending quest to obtain more power and money. Why hasn't anybody suggested to create a red-light-ticket delay activation time to prevent these accidents? Basically, when the light turns red, the opposing intersection green light is delayed by 2-3 seconds in order to prevent accidents from motorists clearly running the light. The same delay could be added to the camera/ticket technology. The result: only motorists that clearly violate the intersection after the red light is on would be ticketed. Motorists that cross the intersection when the light is "orange" would not be ticketed.
That said, I actually oppose these cameras. If any bureaucracy wants to take my money for violating the law, I want a uniformed law enforcement officer to do it. Work for it, dude! ;) Seriously though, stuff like this could open the door for government agencies requesting GPS speed chips in all cars to ticket motorists anytime their speed went above the limit, i.e., more nanny government in your lives.
I have almost been hit several times by oversized pickup trucks running the red lights at Southside and Baymeadows. They think it is a raceway. I look forward to the installation of the Photo System and the issuance of hundreds of tickets. Maybe then caution will be observed.
Quote from: jbm32206 on February 14, 2008, 05:46:02 PM
QuoteThe vote to place 10 cameras on top of stop lights at some of Jacksonville’s busiest intersection passed through the city council unanimously Tuesday night. (12/11) The cameras are not scheduled to be installed until June or July of 2008.
City leaders tell us the cameras will not cost the city of Jacksonville anything. They say the camera’s manufacturer will install and maintain the cameras for free, as long as the city gives them a percentage of the red light citations.
Beach at Atlantic
Beach at San Pablo
Beach at Kernan
Beach at Southside
Beach at University
Beach at Saint Johns Bluff
Butler Blvd. at 9-A
Southside at Baymeadows
Blanding at Youngerman Circle
Atlantic at Kernan
http://www.cbs47.com/content/topstor...3-dde610d76666 (http://www.cbs47.com/content/topstor...3-dde610d76666)
I looked at City Council briefs/agendas from Tuesday night and found no such legislation. Additonally, the CBS47 link listed is not a live link.
http://www.cbs47.com/content/topstories/story.aspx?content_id=238f9f9f-2f75-4473-b1e9-10bb450bbb7b (http://www.cbs47.com/content/topstories/story.aspx?content_id=238f9f9f-2f75-4473-b1e9-10bb450bbb7b)
Here's a good link....
QuoteLocal drivers who speed through intersections and run red lights could be putting on the breaks very soon.
The Jacksonville City Council reportedly passed a plan Tuesday night to put cameras at ten of Jacksonville’s most dangerous intersections to catch speeders and red light runners.
Now, if you’re caught by one of these cameras running a red light, or traveling in excess of 15 miles per hour over the speed limit, you’ll receive a ticket in the mail ranging from $125 to $300. However, you won’t receive any points on your driver’s license.
City Councilman Stephen Joost proposed the idea after seeing how successful it was in other cities. The proposed legislation will be officially named after Feliscia Robbins, an 18-year-old that was killed when the driver of the car she was in ran a red light and crashed.
The ten intersections expected to receive cameras are:
Beach at Atlantic
Beach at San Pablo
Beach at Kernan
Beach at Southside
Beach at University
Beach at Saint Johns Bluff
Butler Blvd. at 9-A
Southside at Baymeadows
Blanding at Youngerman Circle
Atlantic at Kernan
Reported by: Denise Douglas
Email: denisedouglas@clearchannel.com
Contributor: Brandon Westerman
Last Update: 12/12/2007 10:01 am
i couldn't find any legislation on it though...can anyone else?
if you have a gps equiped cell phone don't kid yourself. Big brother knows how fast your going and in which direction. And your phone does have to be an iPhone they all do.
If you look up the number 1131, under the year of 2007, you'll find it...and here it is....
QuoteType Bill # Title Date Introduced Status Committee
O 2007-1131 ORD Amend Chapt 636 (Traffic & Parking), Ord Code by Creating new Part 4 (Red Light Signal & Speed Violations) to be Called "The Jacksonville Traffic Safety Enhancement Act"; Establishes an Enforcememt Prog including Notice, Appeals, Penalties, Admin Costs & Collection; Auth Use of Unmanned Cameras/Monitoring Devices; Amend Chapt 111 (Spec Rev & Trust Accts) by Creating New Sec 111.312, the Jacksonville Traffic Safety Safety Enhancemt Spec Rev Fund. (Rohan) (C/M Joost, Bishiop, Clark, Corrigan, Davis, Fussell, Gaffney, Graham, Holt, Hyde, Jabour, Johnson, M. Jones, W. Jones, Lee, Redman, Shad, Webb & Yarborough) Public Hearing Pursuant to Chapt 166, F.S. & CR 3.601 - 11/13/07 10/23/2007 Enacted
http://citycirc.coj.net/coj/COJBillSearchNew.asp?S=1 (http://citycirc.coj.net/coj/COJBillSearchNew.asp?S=1)
correction to their passage of the bill or cbs47's coverage...there is no light at 9a & jtb
I'm sure they'll figure out another location....
Quote from: Driven1 on February 16, 2008, 09:58:12 AM
correction to their passage of the bill or cbs47's coverage...there is no light at 9a & jtb
Well, there is a temporary light, until the new interchange is finished ... but that will be (according to another thread here) by the end of the year. So, yeah, they need to find another location. Also, Beach/Kernan is under construction - probably not a great place for cameras, either - for one thing, sight lines from the camera positions outside the state's right of way may be blocked by the construction activity.
QuoteCity leaders tell us the cameras will not cost the city of Jacksonville anything. They say the camera’s manufacturer will install and maintain the cameras for free, as long as the city gives them a percentage of the red light citations.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. So correct me if I'm wrong, but the Jacksonville Police Department will have
nothing to even do with this? From what I've read on these cameras, the city, not the police department, will issue civil infraction tickets to motorists caught by this money grab. Further, not only will the Jacksonville police department not even have a hand in issuing the tickets, but a percentage of the revenue for JACKSONVILLE CITATIONS is going to be presumably shipped out of the city to some camera manufacturer? Not only will this affect our rights at citizens, but it will also hurt our local economy.
And people think this is a GOOD idea?
Quote
Now, if you’re caught by one of these cameras running a red light, or traveling in excess of 15 miles per hour over the speed limit, you’ll receive a ticket in the mail ranging from $125 to $300. However, you won’t receive any points on your driver’s license.
City Councilman Stephen Joost proposed the idea after seeing how successful it was in other cities. The proposed legislation will be officially named after Feliscia Robbins, an 18-year-old that was killed when the driver of the car she was in ran a red light and crashed.
So it appears these cameras are going to issue tickets for speeding as well? Pardon my language, but that is just total bullshit. A cash grab, plain and simple. And forgive me for my bluntness, but for better or worse, you need to choose your friends wisely. Loss of life, especially at a young age, is always a tragedy. I feel TERRIBLE for this girl Feliscia's family. But if you choose a boyfriend who's going to recklessly barrel through red lights while you're in the passenger seat, something bad just might happen to you. I
hate the attachment of this girl's name to the bill. HATE it. It's a transparent, exploitative attempt to correlate sympathy for her death to the support of some totalitarian revenue grab. As if by not supporting to the bill, you are disrespecting her death. This type of nonsense has
zero business in policy making decisions.
This type of bill is such a slippery slope. People don't even realize it. They delude themselves into thinking it's for their own good. But these types of things have historically always led towards more and more encroachment and policing of the daily lives of citizens. It starts with 10 cameras. Then 20. Then 50. Then 100. Before you know it, the entire roadway is monitored. Before people even have a chance to stop back and say, "Maybe this wasn't such a great idea," you're getting tickets in the mail from companies in Indiana and New Mexico billing you for illegal lane changes, rolling through stop signs, not putting your trash in the proper receptacle, jaywalking, busted tail light, illegal left turns, etc.
It's crap, and it goes against the very fabric of America: freedom. Freedom to live your life without having to look over your shoulder afraid you might slip up on camera. Freedom to not have your daily life photographed, recorded, and analyzed with a GOOD damn reason and without the proper court-issued warrant. I'm not a fu**ing criminal and my taxes pay for the roadways. I deserve the right to drive them freely without being monitored like a suspect.
I found this blurb on the bill particularly fitting on the amount of research that probably went into this discussion at the city level:
"We’ve heard comments from a few disgruntled drivers who think the cameras will increase crashes, since drivers tend to slam on brakes if they think they’re being filmed as they run the light. We disagree. This is a good piece of legislation without a costly price tag. Kudos to Joost for getting this done, and to the mayor and the sheriff for working with Joost and the council."
Gotta love it.
No studies to back up their opinion.
No hard evidence.
Just a simple, baseless "we disagree."
Great.
This is commonplace now in many major cities....where the manufacturer gets a percentage for the cameras and installation. To the best of my knowledge, it's illegal in this state for the police department to issue tickets from such cameras, which is why the city would be sending of civil infractions (or whatever they're going to call them) and there cannot be points against your drivers license because of them.
As for being photographed while in public...I hate to break it to you...but there is no expectation of privacy when you're out in public....and there's no violation of the law or your rights. Technology is most certainly changing the way we live...there's cities that now have cameras in high crime areas, being manned by police departments, that can watch every move someone makes while in camera view...it's intended to help reduce crime and catch criminals.
Hell, you can't walk into a store, bank...pretty much any business these days, where you're not being watched....so watching for those who violate the law and run the red lights or are speeding...in the areas where cameras will be installed, will either have to start abiding by the law or pay a fine.
i am surprised that so many are willing to give up their civil liberties so quickly.
Which civil liberty? I'm trying to think which of my civil liberties I'm giving up.
I think they're referring to giving up privacy rights...which is what I got from their previous post.
privacy? while operating a motor vehical on a public right of way? hahah
Quote from: gatorback on February 16, 2008, 06:54:53 PM
privacy? while operating a motor vehical on a public right of way? hahah
Exactly, that's why I had said "there is no expectation of privacy when you're out in public....and there's no violation of the law or your rights." Once you step out your front door, you leave any expectation of privacy behind.
Quote from: gatorback on February 16, 2008, 06:54:53 PM
privacy? while operating a motor vehical on a public right of way? hahah
Hahahahahah.
I never thought of that ::)
Let's be respectful of each other's opinions instead of putting words in people's mouths and childishly laughing at them.
Of course I don't expect everyone to close their eyes as I drive down the street and gIvE mE mY pRiVaCy. But the United States Constitution, under the 14th Amendment, guarantees Americans what several Supreme Court Justices have termed "the right to be left alone."
The program is primarily designed to bring in revenue, city officials openly say as much, not enhance safety. Again, stricken down as Unconstitutional in the past.
Another inherently American right is the right to confront your accuser in court. That's why these citations would
never fly in a criminal court and have to be passed off as civil infractions.
Simply being born a United States citizen, by law, gives Americans the right to the presumption of innocence, rather than the burden of proving we are not guilty. A friend, family member, or thief borrows your car and gets caught by the camera, it's in your court to PROVE it wasn't you.
For this reason alone, Minnesota struck the cameras down (story below):
"The Minnesota Supreme Court today delivered the highest-level court rebuke to photo enforcement to date with a unanimous decision against the Minneapolis red light camera program. The high court upheld last September's Court of Appeals decision that found the city's program had violated state law... The city's photo ticket program offered the accused fewer due process protections than available to motorists prosecuted for the same offense in the conventional way after having been pulled over by a policeman. The court argued that Minneapolis had, in effect, created a new type of crime: "owner liability for red-light violations where the owner neither required nor knowingly permitted the violation.
The court also struck down the "rebutable presumption" doctrine that lies at the heart of every civil photo enforcement ordinance across the country.
"The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure," the court concluded. "Therefore the ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance violation than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act. Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid."
Agree or disagree, differing opinions are a wonderful thing, but I just don't get how this issue
can't be seen as one of civil liberty.
The Minnesota ruling is interesting, good points. Wonder if Minneapolis will appeal to the US Supreme Court?
the more i think about this, the more angry i get.
so...the big question is. what is the penalty for NOT paying the "civil infraction" notice i get? what is City Hall going to do to me if i don't pay their fine? i am seriously considering intentionally trying to get one of these just to fight it in court. and i would only NOT pay the fine presumably because i would not be guilty....my friend from NYC would've borrowed my vehicle and ran the red light...not me.
they gonna levee my house? what if i rent and don't own? what can the city do? speaking of that...what if someone from mississippi runs the red light?
Quote from: Driven1 on February 16, 2008, 10:59:25 PM
the more i think about this, the more angry i get.
so...the big question is. what is the penalty for NOT paying the "civil infraction" notice i get? what is City Hall going to do to me if i don't pay their fine? i am seriously considering intentionally trying to get one of these just to fight it in court. and i would only NOT pay the fine presumably because i would not be guilty....my friend from NYC would've borrowed my vehicle and ran the red light...not me.
they gonna levee my house? what if i rent and don't own? what can the city do? speaking of that...what if someone from mississippi runs the red light?
You guys are the best. At first, I was all for them... but now I am having second & thrid thoughts. This screams parking garage all over again. Do you think they will send you to collections for not paying the fine, or another penalty?
actually, upon more research tonight, it seems that the system probably operates here like in other municipalities...an officer will be required to look at the photo snapped and swear that a violation has occurred...
but then it would be a CRIMINAL, not CIVIL violation, which flies in the face of what the ordinance really says...that it would be only a civil violation. so...i'm still not sure.
but, in any case..do not fear. the average citizen has 2 practical measures to fight this...
1) purchase ($30) a polarized protective cover or spray paint that reflects back and washes out your license plate
or
2) admittedly more drastic and illegal: shoot the offending camera with a hunting rifle...
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/dec/12/police-man-shot-camera-after-it-shot-him
That certainly does raise some good points, especially given that it presumes your guilt and not innocence...I'm very interested in what comes of this...especially since so many cities are using these cameras at lights.
Quote from: Driven1 on February 16, 2008, 11:22:19 PM
actually, upon more research tonight, it seems that the system probably operates here like in other municipalities...an officer will be required to look at the photo snapped and swear that a violation has occurred...
but then it would be a CRIMINAL, not CIVIL violation, which flies in the face of what the ordinance really says...that it would be only a civil violation. so...i'm still not sure.
but, in any case..do not fear. the average citizen has 2 practical measures to fight this...
1) purchase ($30) a polarized protective cover or spray paint that reflects back and washes out your license plate
or
2) admittedly more drastic and illegal: shoot the offending camera with a hunting rifle...
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/dec/12/police-man-shot-camera-after-it-shot-him
The guys on "Mythbusters" looked at several of these devices, and found that the cameras could defeat most of them. And, once these cameras get on-line the police may be more zealous in enforcing the existing laws on obscuring your license plate. Especially if the revenue goes to the police. Get one of those "Support the Arts tags" (http://www3.hsmv.state.fl.us/Intranet/dmv/specialtytags/a.cfm?id=63) - they are almost impossible to read anyway.
from what i've read, mythbusters looked at the spray and proved it wrong...but only with a high-tech digital camera...not a 500w flash bulb traffic camera. apparently, the protective cover (more expensive) does work though.
Wouldn't it just be easier to follow the speed limit and avoid getting caught?
Quote from: jbm32206 on February 17, 2008, 10:47:51 AM
Wouldn't it just be easier to follow the speed limit and avoid getting caught?
ok...the point is not about complying with the law. if you haven't gotten the point yet (from previous posts by various posters), no amount of me or anyone else explaining it further is going to help.
Quote from: Driven1 on February 17, 2008, 11:14:06 AM
Quote from: jbm32206 on February 17, 2008, 10:47:51 AM
Wouldn't it just be easier to follow the speed limit and avoid getting caught?
ok...the point is not about complying with the law. if you haven't gotten the point yet (from previous posts by various posters), no amount of me or anyone else explaining it further is going to help.
I completely understand the intent of most posters and what they've said...most of which revolves around feeling that their rights are being violated to giving pointers on how to avoid having your tag photographed. Which is what I've gotten from your posts.
It's so much easier to have a discussion when you leave out the rude and condescending attitude.
Try this one on for size:
I haven't seen a specific camera vendor listed by the city yet, but it's safe to guess that Automated Computer Systems (ACS), a subsidiary of massive military contractor Lockheed Martin that installs and operates between 80 and 90 percent of these traffic cameras nationwide, will be the contractor chosen to do the job here in Jacksonville.
Guess what there "percentage" of the cut is in other cities?
FORTY PERCENT.
The cameras typically cost around $60,000 each. Citations range from $125 to $300. Assuming the average citation falls right in the middle of that range, the Washington-based Lockheed Martin is looking at raking in $85 per Jacksonville infraction.
Minor maintainence fees aside, this means that once these cameras dole out about 700 citations, which I'd guess wouldn't even take a year, the cameras are paid for, and it's nearly straight profit for Lockheed Martin for YEARS.
That's without a doubt...you know darn well that they wouldn't be doing any of this if they weren't going to make a pretty penny. It's a disgrace though, how much they'll end up making, isn't it?
You know how some signs are placed up to warn motorist of the speed trap, I'm sure you have seen these "RADAR" ahead, etc. Well, could we place flashing Red Lights with LED "CAMERAS AT INTERSECTION." signs on the approach to the intersection itself? That would cause people to think twice about running it, even the yellow or not completely stop before turning left or right if permitted. If you ran a yellow, red, or were speeding through all that, then you deserve a ticket. Let's see if the vendor would be willing to pay for warning signs too for even a bigger cut of the revenue.
Interesting point about the vendor ... does the ordinance name a vendor? Will the City put this out to bid? I mean, that would be the right thing to do. And after that tongue lashing by the Grand Jury, I'm sure the City is just quaking in it's [Gucci] boots about doing things the "right way"! ::)
Seriously, does this go out to bid, or did the City accept a "demonstration project" from the vendor making the presentation? How long will the contract be? How easily can we get out of the contract? Is there a minimum payment if violations don't bring in "enough" revenue? Or do they just tighten the tolerance on what constitutes running the red light?
Quote from: Driven1 on February 16, 2008, 10:59:25 PM
the more i think about this, the more angry i get.
so...the big question is. what is the penalty for NOT paying the "civil infraction" notice i get? what is City Hall going to do to me if i don't pay their fine? i am seriously considering intentionally trying to get one of these just to fight it in court. and i would only NOT pay the fine presumably because i would not be guilty....my friend from NYC would've borrowed my vehicle and ran the red light...not me.
they gonna levee my house? what if i rent and don't own? what can the city do? speaking of that...what if someone from mississippi runs the red light?
I'm scratching my head over this and perhaps I'm not for the cameras after all. Thoughts to ponder. It's that burden of proof...what if you and your friend switch drivers during the night. Let the cameras catch ya'll switching drivers...maybe 3 times...wear the same jeans, and hooded jacket...hahaha...there's no way of knowing who's driving if you both admit to driving....but were not sure when who was driving. Let them prove who's driving.
It doesn't matter who was driving. Just like a parking ticket, it goes to the owner of the car.
An off duty police officer, driving his sqad car, pulls one of those rolling stops....the coj owns the car, do they pay, or do they just look the other way on that one. Same with the trolly, that thing never stops completely.
The owner gets the bill, so it's up to the owner to try and get reimbursed by the driver.
so we have a coj vehical "run" the light and sit back and see what happens. If they don't get a ticket then the lights are not fare.
we already know that the city isn't going to send itself a fine...just not going to happen
Quote from: Lunican on February 17, 2008, 04:12:20 PM
The owner gets the bill, so it's up to the owner to try and get reimbursed by the driver.
and that is my point...this would never, ever happen in an unautomated traffic stop.
btw, to those who think this is ok, ponder this...
we know that running red lights is a problem and causes accidents - many times accidents that kill. we therefore think it is OK to put these cameras up...to supposedly decrease the number of accidents. but we also know that speeding kills many, many people. so, to decrease the number of accidents, shouldn't everyone who registers a car in duval county have to have an electronic device installed in their car that will monitor the driver's speed. and so long as you never exceed 70 mph, (the maximum speed limit in the state of Florida on any road) you have nothing to worry about. but go over 70 while in the state of FL and you will receive a speeding ticket in the mail.
we could call it the "Samantha Law" or the "Abby Law" (named after whoever died as a result of speeding) and it would save a multitude of lives.
good idea?
Quote from: jbm32206 on February 17, 2008, 07:35:48 PM
we already know that the city isn't going to send itself a fine...just not going to happen
How do you know that. An off hours po-po can run redlights? Can he/she park in a handcapped parking spot just because he/she is wearing a uniform yet is off hours? DONT THINK SO!
I'm not saying I agree with it, nor do I condone that blatant disreguard that we all witness by JSO (on or off duty) as well as other city vehicles/drivers...so you misunderstood. I just don't believe that the city will fine itself, or send anyone from JSO a fine in the mail....do you...or anyone else thinks that'll happen?
For example, just about every day, I observe JSO, JEA and others violate the speed limit on I-10 and 95...especially through the construction area, where the limit is down to 45 mph...they'll speed right past everyone that's abiding by the law...and when there's an FHP unit sitting up there catching some of these speeders...have I ever seen them nab one of the city vehilces...no!
Quote from: Driven1 on February 17, 2008, 09:15:59 PMbtw, to those who think this is ok, ponder this...
we know that running red lights is a problem and causes accidents - many times accidents that kill. we therefore think it is OK to put these cameras up...to supposedly decrease the number of accidents. but we also know that speeding kills many, many people. so, to decrease the number of accidents, shouldn't everyone who registers a car in duval county have to have an electronic device installed in their car that will monitor the driver's speed. and so long as you never exceed 70 mph, (the maximum speed limit in the state of Florida on any road) you have nothing to worry about. but go over 70 while in the state of FL and you will receive a speeding ticket in the mail.
we could call it the "Samantha Law" or the "Abby Law" (named after whoever died as a result of speeding) and it would save a multitude of lives.
good idea?
Okay, with that in mind, who would be responsible for:
1) the installation
2) the costs of installation
3) the maintenance
4) monitoring
Quote from: jbm32206 on February 18, 2008, 06:14:56 AM
Quote from: Driven1 on February 17, 2008, 09:15:59 PMbtw, to those who think this is ok, ponder this...
we know that running red lights is a problem and causes accidents - many times accidents that kill. we therefore think it is OK to put these cameras up...to supposedly decrease the number of accidents. but we also know that speeding kills many, many people. so, to decrease the number of accidents, shouldn't everyone who registers a car in duval county have to have an electronic device installed in their car that will monitor the driver's speed. and so long as you never exceed 70 mph, (the maximum speed limit in the state of Florida on any road) you have nothing to worry about. but go over 70 while in the state of FL and you will receive a speeding ticket in the mail.
we could call it the "Samantha Law" or the "Abby Law" (named after whoever died as a result of speeding) and it would save a multitude of lives.
good idea?
Okay, with that in mind, who would be responsible for:
1) the installation
2) the costs of installation
3) the maintenance
4) monitoring
the city of course!!! no cost to you...you only have to be an obedient little citizen. absolutely no cost to the citizenry to install or maintain/monitor (just like the cameras cost you nothing). a good deal, right?
If the city pays for it...then we, as taxpayers are paying for it...and no, it's not the same as the cameras, the city isn't paying for them...we share the revenue from them, that manufacturer pays for them.
good point! let's say we get the manufacturers to pay for it...everything involved (except monitoring...the city will pay for monitoring the cameras too)...then it is a good thing for the citizens, right? it's something that needs to be done to ensure the law is being followed and lives are being saved, right?
Although I would certainly want the manufacturer to pay for it, I still would not be in favor of having them. I don't feel it would be a good system to have...one of several reasons would be, if it merely tracks who exceeds 70mph, that still would not impact those who are exceeding the limits that are lower than that...see what I mean?
Would all that info be a matter of public record? I'd love to be able to "review" the "owner" of the "system" to see if the "owner" is letting the "owners" vechical violate the law. haha
I don't know if it is...it would be interesting to know...
Better yet, why not just save all the hassle, expense, maintenance, controversy, and rewriting of Florida law and instead just put the green lights at these intersections on a two or three second delay. It will serve the exact same purpose -- intersection safety -- as the needlessly complex, invasive, questionably illegal camera system. In fact, if you are one to believe the, you know, scientific studies, a simple delay would actually be exponentially more effective and safe, avoiding the multi-car pileups proven to be so prevalent at camera-monitored intersections when some paranoid driver inevitably sees the camera and slams on the brakes at a yellow light to avoid getting ticketed.
Unless of course, it really isn't about safety like our good friends at the city are implying.
Ironic isn't it that only one of these two options could have saved the life of the girl who the bill was named after, and it certainly isn't the cameras.
The fine for running a red light is around $250. Lets say 4 people per intersection break the law and get sited, that's $1000 an hour these cameras are generating. Damn right they're worth it. Not only the obvious money that can be made, but it decreases the amount of accidents. People will hopefully stop trying to race the light, which not only is illegal & unsafe, but it is also rude. People thinking that their time is more important than everyone elses. I've lived all around this country, and drivers in Jacksonville are among the rudest. Not so much on the beaches, this is one of the reasons I live at the beach. You know a townie when you see one on the beach roadways; speeding, running lights, cutting people off, etc.
Anyhoo, Its common sense, its a plus all the way around.
Quote from: none4youtoo on February 20, 2008, 05:34:24 PM
The fine for running a red light is around $250. Lets say 4 people per intersection break the law and get sited, that's $1000 an hour these cameras are generating. Damn right they're worth it. Not only the obvious money that can be made,
everything with your argument was going just fine until you said...
Quote from: none4youtoo on February 20, 2008, 05:34:24 PM
but it decreases the amount of accidents.
did you READ the studies posted above? surely you couldn't have. and who CARES about civil liberties.
btw...aren't there some very old, arcane "bedroom" laws on the books here in FL still? I know that is the case in a few other states still - like Texas. if that is the case, we better put cameras in bedrooms, cause we know how STDs get passed - and those kill or disable people sometimes - and we don't want that happening. right? PLUS - it would be an AWESOME revenue source!
Quote from: jbm32206 on February 18, 2008, 11:41:50 AM
Although I would certainly want the manufacturer to pay for it, I still would not be in favor of having them. I don't feel it would be a good system to have...one of several reasons would be, if it merely tracks who exceeds 70mph, that still would not impact those who are exceeding the limits that are lower than that...see what I mean?
Joan,
using your logic, HOW then can you be for the 11 cameras??? because those are not covering ALL of the intersections of Jacksonville???
btw, statistically-speaking, it isn't the lower speeds that kill. now let's get those speed-monitoring devices on our vehicles ASAP.
To be honest, I'm not up on the latest stats as to what the average speed is, when it comes to fatalities....so to be fair, I can't really respond to that. As for the cameras at lights, I was under the impression that they wanted to more or less test them out at the high accident intersections, right?
I would think, that if they prove to help...(although I feel that if they prove to be lucrative, is more like it) then perhaps they'd opt to install more around the city. There's just no feasible way to have them at every intersection.
Anyway, I'm for them...if they help reduce the red light runners...which create unsafe conditions for other drivers...but fully understand that it's not going to stop them all, not in the least...but IMO, if they stop one, which prevents one accident, then it's worth it. I'm more for saving lives, even if it means the manufacturers make money at it.
Quote from: stephendare on February 20, 2008, 01:29:14 PM
I HATE this idea.
Its a slippery slope, and more fascist than American.
If the video can be used to catch traffic offenders, then they can also be used to track movements of innocent people as well.
Why not a simple trap door mechanism that swallows speeders and red light runners whole into the ground and keeps them securely in place until a cop arrives?
I LOVE THAT ONE. Stephen, why stop there....why not install these traps at every public interaction. We could trap people making them prove they 0) their blood alcohol is < .08, 1) Don't have outstanding warrents, 2) that they have no drugs on them, 3) not Rx's they have no script for, and 4) current insurance and current driv. lic.
If that's not enough, 5) no unpaid parking tickets, 6) no firearms, AND if "they" don't look like "us", (ie, a city bus, JSO vehical, or any other city vehical), we can ask them for 7) proof of nationality(btw it's this one I have a problem with), and last but not least, 8) no overdue library books. What the freak does the ACLU think of this idea?
PS: Tonight, I saw a city bus run a red. I think we should bear arms, form a malitia, and go after our goverenment on this one to protect our right under the Second, Fifth, and Fourteen Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
Did Bush kill Due Process? That No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...Oh, yeah, I think he did. Bummer.
Gator, you have probably put yourself on Homeland Security's "to watch" list with that last post. :D A whole bunch of "trigger" words exposed!
Best loose that iPhone, huh...
Yet another brought to you "for your protection" kinda thing. I totally get it and why these would be great but I also know good and well the money that should be used for hiring cops, firemen and civil servants is going for social projects in the community. How about instead of cameras we spend the money on rooting out gangs in the area or solving murders. I'd rather the government spent money on things they're supposed to..like roads, civil services or operation cost. Oh wait, lets make a bike trail while we're cutting prpoerty taxes and then put up cameras instead of hiring cops.
...government...working as intended.
Other than revenue generation the only thing will really do is make sure we get in on some of those "extream car chase" shows on FOX.
Quote from: gatorback on February 20, 2008, 09:36:07 PM
Quote from: stephendare on February 20, 2008, 01:29:14 PM
I HATE this idea.
Its a slippery slope, and more fascist than American.
If the video can be used to catch traffic offenders, then they can also be used to track movements of innocent people as well.
Why not a simple trap door mechanism that swallows speeders and red light runners whole into the ground and keeps them securely in place until a cop arrives?
I LOVE THAT ONE. Stephen, why stop there....why not install these traps at every public interaction. We could trap people making them prove they 0) their blood alcohol is < .08, 1) Don't have outstanding warrents, 2) that they have no drugs on them, 3) not Rx's they have no script for, and 4) current insurance and current driv. lic.
If that's not enough, 5) no unpaid parking tickets, 6) no firearms, AND if "they" don't look like "us", (ie, a city bus, JSO vehical, or any other city vehical), we can ask them for 7) proof of nationality(btw it's this one I have a problem with), and last but not least, 8) no overdue library books. What the freak does the ACLU think of this idea?
PS: Tonight, I saw a city bus run a red. I think we should bear arms, form a malitia, and go after our goverenment on this one to protect our right under the Second, Fifth, and Fourteen Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
Did Bush kill Due Process? That No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...Oh, yeah, I think he did. Bummer.
gradco2004: Thanks for point that out. I WAS KIDDING ABOUT THE MALITIA! I'm really love the US GOV and am proud to be an american. With that said...
Clearly we have two competing systems here. The first one being "Safer Intersections" and second revenue generation. That we need both; however, these ostensibly contradictory processes can be complementary when intelligently applied. The problem here is will the coj get this right?
Did someone take the time to ask FDOT why they do not support red light cameras, or did we just move forward with this without giving it any thought?
Quote from: Lunican on February 21, 2008, 01:26:58 PM
Did someone take the time to ask FDOT why they do not support red light cameras, or did we just move forward with this without giving it any thought?
With the sub-prime mess and now commercial real-estate falling like residential, lower Property Taxes are going to hit City governments hard, hence they are scrambling for revenue, and will put whatever spin they need to as well as any opportunity to justify additional revenue.
We need to tell our Council members to direct all revenue from these cameras to go to road safety programs and reducing traffic congestion, rather then some general fund.
http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras/when-the-money-disappears-so-do-the-ticket-cameras/
Check out the National Motorist Association for more info:
http://www.motorists.org
BTW: this was a letter I sent to all council members, the Mayor, and our local media:
Unfortunately, the research and other studies have shown that Red Light Cameras (RLC's) do NOT decrease accidents (Washington Post):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301844.html
more importantly, the state of Virginia, has noted increased accidents, especially being rear-ended:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1844.asp
More information can be found here:
http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/studies/
http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/articles/
I ask that the City of Jacksonville, look at engineering solutions before deploying RLC's such as:
1) adding a longer yellow-light, possibly in conjunction with an ALL-RED Clearance Interval;
2) Make traffic lights more visible (e.g., bigger lights; sun/glare shields; remove visible obstructions; etc.);
3) Improve the intersection for motorists (e.g., repaint lines; add more signage ahead; etc.);
4) Re-Time traffic signals
More importantly, the following safeguards should be enacted:
1) 90% of revenue should go to the public school system not the City's General Fund;
2) proposed intersections for RLC's should be base-lined and their yellow-light duration over over a 24-hour period over the seven-days of the weeks, along with the last time the yellow-light duration was last modified and made a public-record;
3) an independent study, who's methodology is public and open to peer-review be conducted every 2-years to assess the effectiveness and impact of RLV's;
4)vendor selection should be open-bid with criteria including most monetary benefit to the City, with all vendors providing clear and publicly available policies and procedures.
Only after the installation of properly engineered solutions and these safeguards enacted, should the City even consider installation of Red Light Cameras.
On a similar, equally creepy note, Daytona police officers have begun taking DNA samples from people pulled over for routine traffic stops in order to help catch a serial killer. If the person is pulled over for any reason, even a burnt out tail light, and they "match a similar profile" as the man believed to be the killer, police will swab the inside of the drivers mouth with a DNA kit. The ultra specific profile? "A clean cut male who possibly has a wife or girlfriend." I mean, you can't make this stuff up. They are also taking DNA from every single person arrested in Daytona Beach. Doesn't matter if the person is proven to be innocent as can be in a court of law, their DNA will stay remain on record, presumably forever. It's enough to make me want to stay out of Daytona Beach for a long, long time.
Story: http://www.local6.com/news/15232197/detail.html?related (http://www.local6.com/news/15232197/detail.html?related)
if pulled over, i would politely suggest another place for officer friendly's q-tip. that is crazy.
I think I read something about this before... oh yeah, it was in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Quote from: KenFSU on February 21, 2008, 08:16:04 PM
On a similar, equally creepy note, Daytona police officers have begun taking DNA samples from people pulled over for routine traffic stops in order to help catch a serial killer. If the person is pulled over for any reason, even a burnt out tail light, and they "match a similar profile" as the man believed to be the killer, police will swab the inside of the drivers mouth with a DNA kit. The ultra specific profile? "A clean cut male who possibly has a wife or girlfriend." I mean, you can't make this stuff up. They are also taking DNA from every single person arrested in Daytona Beach. Doesn't matter if the person is proven to be innocent as can be in a court of law, their DNA will stay remain on record, presumably forever. It's enough to make me want to stay out of Daytona Beach for a long, long time.
Story: http://www.local6.com/news/15232197/detail.html?related (http://www.local6.com/news/15232197/detail.html?related)
Okay, that's bullshit. Rrrr., I mean Go America I love you. Please don't investigate me.
PS. I dated a PD. I was told if you just sit down, and say nothing, no matter what you can bail out without giving anybody anything. ;)
Why not allow the traffic cameras with the caveat that the state schools get 90% of the ticket price like they do in North Carolina.
That way no company or city could profit, after all, traffic tickets are not supposed to be a revenue generator.
100 % to parks. I don't have any use for public schools .
Be advised these are not traffic citations, they are civil penalites like a parking ticket. There is a law against sending someone a traffic ticket based upon a camera, see this recent article http://www.ocala.com/article/20080224/NEWS/802240350/1368/googlesitemapnews
That list does not make sense, for the reasons I listed in the linked thread. Some either are interchanges now, or are about to go under construction to become overpasses.