RayTheFirefly
Well-Known Member
I see your point, but I really don't think 25-30 means reckless driving/accidents. When you're moving a ton of cars through a road, 5-10 mph makes a huge difference.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
FYI - OCSO Running Radar in Parking Lots
- Thread starter PhotoDave219
- Start date
boufa
Well-Known Member
IF (and I'll admit I don't know) IF the parking lots and roads are owned by Reedy Creek and NOT officially by Disney, then they are NOT private property, and are public property.
We have several parking lots in my area that are owned by the city, and leased to private companies. The police enforce quite a bit on those lots, and the tickets so far as I know stick.
We have several parking lots in my area that are owned by the city, and leased to private companies. The police enforce quite a bit on those lots, and the tickets so far as I know stick.
It doesn't matter whether it's private property or public property. The governmental agency that administers the area, contracts with orange county sheriffs offices.
Either way, if you drive like an idiot on property, you're going to get a ticket just like everyone else.
Thankfully we haven't had any incidents like the dragracing Fatality we had on Hotel Plaza Boulevard back in 2004…
DisUniversal
Well-Known Member
Does Disney get a cut of revenues from tickets issued? If so, maybe they're just testing a new way to get more money out of their customers.
s8film40
Well-Known Member
The parking lots are owned by Disney. OCSO would need the written agreement with Disney not Reedy Creek as Reedy Creek would not have the authority to make that decision for the landowner (Disney). Alternatively OCSO does not need a written agreement from RCID since all roads owned by RCID are considered public roads.
I do not believe so but I do not know 100% either way.
RayTheFirefly
Well-Known Member
I would be surprised if they didn't at least get a small cut that goes to Reedy Creek.
DisUniversal
Well-Known Member
If that's true, I wouldn't be surprised to see OCSO running radar on Test Track.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Actually it does...
While your last statement is true - that isn't really what matters.
Just because your local city contracts to the county or state for police enforcement - it does not change the laws the police can enforce or where the laws apply. What you highlight is simply an issue of jurisdiction. The real question is.. what laws apply.
The legality that matters is "can speed limits posted on private property be enforced under state traffic laws"
This is answered by the state law under 0316.640 (2)(a) State Uniform Traffic Control
(2) COUNTIES.—
(a) The sheriff’s office of each of the several counties of this state shall enforce all of the traffic laws of this state on all the streets and highways thereof and elsewhere throughout the county wherever the public has the right to travel by motor vehicle. In addition, the sheriff’s office may be required by the county to enforce the traffic laws of this state on any private or limited access road or roads over which the county has jurisdiction pursuant to a written agreement entered into under s. 316.006(3)(b).
The bolded part is the part of debate and where things are arguable about where the police can enforce the traffic laws by statute. It does not make the case black and white when it comes to a parking lot vs an access road in a lot, etc. Why? Those lots at Disney are behind access controlled gates. How can you argue the public has a right to travel on it, if it's restricted access?
But the last part, '...pursuant to a written agreement entered...' is probably what applies to most roads that would be Disney owned vs county. The agreement can not be just any 'please enforce the law for us' agreement, but an agreement that includes financial terms to offset the public's burden.
From 316.006(3)(b)
(b) A municipality may exercise jurisdiction over any private road or roads, or over any limited access road or roads owned or controlled by a special district, located within its boundaries if the municipality and party or parties owning or controlling such road or roads provide, by written agreement approved by the governing body of the municipality, for municipal traffic control jurisdiction over the road or roads encompassed by such agreement. Pursuant thereto:
1. Provision for reimbursement for actual costs of traffic control and enforcement and for liability insurance and indemnification by the party or parties, and such other terms as are mutually agreeable, may be included in such an agreement.
2. The exercise of jurisdiction provided for herein shall be in addition to jurisdictional authority presently exercised by municipalities under law, and nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit or remove any such jurisdictional authority. Such jurisdiction includes regulation of access to such road or roads by security devices or personnel.
3. Any such agreement may provide for the installation of multiparty stop signs by the parties controlling the roads covered by the agreement if a determination is made by such parties that the signage will enhance traffic safety. Multiparty stop signs must conform to the manual and specifications of the Department of Transportation; however, minimum traffic volumes may not be required for the installation of such signage. Enforcement for the signs shall be as provided in s.316.123.
4. The board of directors of a homeowners’ association as defined in chapter 720 may, by majority vote, elect to have state traffic laws enforced by local law enforcement agencies on private roads that are controlled by the association.
It is more than likely this type of arrangement that exists between DISNEY and the Counties when it comes to roads owned and maintained by Disney. (wouldn't be with Reedy Creek as they don't have any police to contract with)
Any county owned roads would already be covered by the county and county police would have the right to enforce traffic laws given the 0316.640 (2)(a) '...right to travel..'. Any roads owned by Reedy Creek would be public access anyway.. so again, already covered by the county.
If I were ticketed behind the toll plazas - I'd fight to ensure there was a legal agreement pursuant to the requirements above between Disney and the County that covered the parking lots because those are not open to public access.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Or you could just follow the posted speed limit and then you won't have to fight it.
flynnibus
Premium Member
or you could have just skipped the obvious and saved us all from having to click past your post. But thanks Captain Obvious... my safe driving skills, will continue to be, safe driving skills.
Polydweller
Well-Known Member
No they don't. It's a fine under the relevant traffic acts. Fines are paid to the county/courts not Reedy Creek and not Disney.
Here is a sample agreement I found between the city of Orlando and a private home owners association:
http://edocs.ci.orlando.fl.us/asv/paperlessagenda.nsf/6acecff5f30ecb0d85256bd0005abae0/56d6014c9caf50ff85257a2100576f40/$FILE/Cypress Fairway Condo Traffic Control Agr.0001.pdf
Here is the relevant section:
From 316.183(2):
This would seem to me to indicate that even though a private property owner may set a speed limit below 30mph (or 55mph if not considered a business or residence district), the enforcement would only apply to the state speed limit and not the limit set by the property owner.
Can one of our resident lawyers comment on this?
http://edocs.ci.orlando.fl.us/asv/paperlessagenda.nsf/6acecff5f30ecb0d85256bd0005abae0/56d6014c9caf50ff85257a2100576f40/$FILE/Cypress Fairway Condo Traffic Control Agr.0001.pdf
Here is the relevant section:
From 316.183(2):
This would seem to me to indicate that even though a private property owner may set a speed limit below 30mph (or 55mph if not considered a business or residence district), the enforcement would only apply to the state speed limit and not the limit set by the property owner.
Can one of our resident lawyers comment on this?
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Nothing was obvious. Pointing out how you are going to fight a speeding ticket should you get one certainly doesn't imply intent to avoid said speeding ticket.
I'm glad you practice safe driving however not everyone does. My comment was not specifically directed at you but rather everyone. People need to understand that the easiest and safest method to avoid getting ticketed is to practice safe driving and follow the rules of the road. Not just hoping to avoid getting caught and thinking you have a loophole to aid you when you do.
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
You colonials drive like fannies, in vehicles with no cornering abilities.
Your ability to patronise remains surpassed only by your condescension toward fellow citizens. Well done.
Your ability to patronise remains surpassed only by your condescension toward fellow citizens. Well done.
RayTheFirefly
Well-Known Member
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
Exactly, no wonder your such bad drivers , wheels on the wrong side and you go the wrong way. By the way that clip shows something called cornering.
Flynn.... you know I like ya.
But why dont you blow past those boys doing about 80 and see how that legalese works for ya
Long and the short of it, OCSO is doing this.