City to install 66 Traffic Violation Cameras at City Intersections?

gatorback · February 17, 2008, 03:44:38 PM

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.

Lunican · 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.

gatorback · February 17, 2008, 05:44:40 PM

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.

jbm32206 · 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

Driven1 · February 17, 2008, 09:15:59 PM

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?

gatorback · February 17, 2008, 10:55:23 PM

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!

jbm32206 · February 18, 2008, 06:09:50 AM

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!

jbm32206 · 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

Driven1 · February 18, 2008, 09:21:24 AM

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?

jbm32206 · February 18, 2008, 09:33:25 AM

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.

Driven1 · February 18, 2008, 10:15:10 AM

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?

jbm32206 · 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?

gatorback · February 19, 2008, 12:32:05 PM

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

jbm32206 · February 19, 2008, 04:13:36 PM

I don't know if it is...it would be interesting to know...

KenFSU · February 20, 2008, 04:40:59 PM

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.