City to install 66 Traffic Violation Cameras at City Intersections?

[Driven1]

i couldn't find any legislation on it though...can anyone else?

[gatorback]

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.

[jbm32206]

If you look up the number 1131, under the year of 2007, you'll find it...and here it is....

Type 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

[Driven1]

correction to their passage of the bill or cbs47's coverage...there is no light at 9a & jtb

[jbm32206]

I'm sure they'll figure out another location....

[Charles Hunter]

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.

[KenFSU]

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.

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?

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.

[jbm32206]

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.

[Driven1]

i am surprised that so many are willing to give up their civil liberties so quickly.

[gatorback]

Which civil liberty?  I'm trying to think which of my civil liberties I'm giving up.

[jbm32206]

I think they're referring to giving up privacy rights...which is what I got from their previous post.

[gatorback]

privacy?  while operating a motor vehical on a public right of way? hahah

[jbm32206]

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.

[KenFSU]

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.

[Charles Hunter]

The Minnesota ruling is interesting, good points.  Wonder if Minneapolis will appeal to the US Supreme Court?