Say Cheese! Mickey Is catching you with Red Lights.

[pumpkin7]

come to england. they're practically on every set of lights. you even get a ticket if the light is red, and say, you have to move out of the way for an emergency services vehicle. it's rediculous.

 

[SirNim]

I thought the idea of Walt Disney World was to be an American vision of utopia...not dystopia...

(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime)

 

[unkadug]

come to england. they're practically on every set of lights. you even get a ticket if the light is red, and say, you have to move out of the way for an emergency services vehicle. it's rediculous.

Surely they don't enforce the payment in such a circumstance.

 

[unkadug]

The rules of the road do not change because a person is on vacation.

Why should I fear for my life because everyone at Disney is too busy vacationing without their brain than to pay attention to the most basic of traffic rules?



BTW the new traffic enforcement cameras do NOT require bright flashes of light, so you can no longer depend upon that to know is you've been caught.

Instead of worrying about getting caught, worry about paying attention to your driving.

 

[Kellylynn322]

I wonder how many of their own busses will get caught and ticketed ?

I actually emailed Disney after my last trip. I know they contract out the Magical Express but the driver ran 2 stops signs and 3 reds on the way to the airport. They called me and said they spoke to Mears. Maybe this will slow them down a little. I'd rather arrive 10 minutes late and alive then not at all.

That wasn't the only issue that trip with MME, I was the only one at the other terminal and he told me to walk, it was only a 5-7 minute walk and I had time.

 

[flynnibus]

In Tampa it activates if you enter the intersection after the light turns red, just as you said. If you enter the intersection on a yellow light and it turns red you won't get ticketed because technically you still had the right of way.

You could still get ticketed in things like this.. the law says you must 'cautiously' enter the intersection. If you got into an accident because you were trying to beat the yellow turning red.. you probably won't get much sympathy from the cop and would get cited on another variation. The FL law does not distinquish between the light changing while you are in the intersection - but you must still enter the intersection with caution (just as you are supposed to under green ).

You also don't get tickets for rolling right turns at these intersections in Tampa as long as you don't go barreling through the intersection...I think you have to slow down to like 5-10mph which you should do anyway. I know this one was a hot item when the lights first came on line.

You must stop COMPETELY before making a right turn. Rolling right turns are a violation just like a rolling stop sign is. You are not allowed to make a right turn unless you were stopped. You are in the land of 'camera grace' there.. not what you are entitled to.

Legally, no. In reality, I am sure they were consulted. The roads I believe are actual public roads. That is why they are patrolled and enforced by the local sheriff. There is no difference between one of the main disney roads, and US 192. A public road is a public road from a legal view.

Difference between private roads and publicly owned roads. Private roads may be open to the public, but aren't publicly owned roads. Example: private toll roads, etc. These roads typically have arrangements with local police authorities to provide traffic enforcement on those private roads. Even on roads that are WDW owned, they likely have a similar relationship setup with the counties to provide enforcement.

All the road within Disney's property line are owned and maintained by WDW. They are defined as there own "city" and therefore the Orange County Sheriff's Office does not have jurisdiction over it. Disney has made a agreement to both the OCSO and the Florida Highway Patrol to assist them because they do not have their own police force

They do still have jurisdiction - county law still applies on WDW property. What things RCID are excluded from are specific - not universal. Mainly around things like zoning, licensing, etc. They aren't their own city, its it's own special type of beast.. most like a county, but with special privileges. There are actually two seperate incorporated cities within RCID.

RCID doesn't have police of their own, but contract to Disney, who contract to the counties. Convoluted...

And I don't think all roads within the Disney line are Disney owned - but that isn't really as relevant.. as Disney can contract with the counties or state for traffic enforcement, and do.

As for the red light cameras they are a scam. To begin with the municipality that has them install does not keep all of the fine the violators pay. They only keep 50% of it. The other 50% goes to the Arizona company that installs them because the municipality does not own them but technically rents them. If you were to get pulled over by a deputy for the same violation you would receive a higher fine as well as more points. It is not right at all.

Well it's a operating model.. not scam Else you'd find most things in this world a scam.. its a way of shifting accounting, capital expenses, etc. Tho yes, I agree the arrangements are pretty crappy in terms of the 'administrative fees' these companies collect. The split and make-up depends on each jurisdiction's arrangement.

And the point you make about the penalty being different for this, vs a police officer writing you up is actually the basis of some of the challenges on their legality. That with equal protection you can't be charged differently from the same crime.

Traffic cameras are NOT lazy Law Enforcement.....because they are not really law enforcement. Rarely if ever has a cop (except for political positions like chief) actually supported or called for traffic cameras. There has never been an accident that people have screamed "where was the traffic camera!" The decision on placement is strictly based on where the most violations occur, not where the greatest safety need is. The police have nothing to do with them.

That is an extreme view. Their purpose is that of deterrant. The same reason they put a police car sitting in the intersection who doesn't do anything but sit there all day long. Law enforcement is not always about catching 100% of offenders, but to deter crime as well. The traffic cameras are there to act as deterrents and to raise awareness.

Like the boards that tell you your current speed - they aren't there to replace cops - they are there to raise your awareness and provide deterrents. They put them at intersections with a lot of offenders because the more people running lights.. the greater risk of accidents.

As for causing more accidents - that's because the other drivers are driving unsafe to start with.. it just causes those guys to get 'busted' so to speak because their unsafe behavior catches up with them.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

If you got into an accident because you were trying to beat the yellow turning red.. you probably won't get much sympathy from the cop and would get cited on another variation.

I'm trying to think of how you could get into an accident entering an intersection on a yellow. All I can come up with is someone in the opposing lanes would have to outright blow their red. :shrug:

 

[majortom1981]

The rules of the road do not change because a person is on vacation.

Why should I fear for my life because everyone at Disney is too busy vacationing without their brain than to pay attention to the most basic of traffic rules?



BTW the new traffic enforcement cameras do NOT require bright flashes of light, so you can no longer depend upon that to know is you've been caught.

Instead of worrying about getting caught, worry about paying attention to your driving.

The ones here are actually high quality canon and nikon dslr cameras. Its been reported people climbing up the poles to steal the dslr cameras inside them.

 

[erasure fan1]

The rules of the road do not change because a person is on vacation.

Why should I fear for my life because everyone at Disney is too busy vacationing without their brain than to pay attention to the most basic of traffic rules?



BTW the new traffic enforcement cameras do NOT require bright flashes of light, so you can no longer depend upon that to know is you've been caught.

Instead of worrying about getting caught, worry about paying attention to your driving.

1st, do you really think the cameras will help so you wont have to fear for your life? Because the way I feel is, the people who would blow through a red that would jeopardize your life, (or seriously injure you) would do it with or without a camera.

2nd, I will concur that no flash is needed. The new camera by us has no flash or indication it went off.

 

[unkadug]

1st, do you really think the cameras will help so you wont have to fear for your life? Because the way I feel is, the people who would blow through a red that would jeopardize your life, (or seriously injure you) would do it with or without a camera.

2nd, I will concur that no flash is needed. The new camera by us has no flash or indication it went off.

It was a rhetorical question based more on people vacationing without their brain, than diving abilities. I've witnessed people doing stupid things on vacation that they would, hopefully, NEVER do in at home.

 

[erasure fan1]

It was a rhetorical question based more on people vacationing without their brain, than diving abilities. I've witnessed people doing stupid things on vacation that they would, hopefully, NEVER do in at home.

I will agree that people vacationing can be a tad bit absent minded while behind the wheel. Sorry, it just seemed like you thought the photo enforced lights might help that problem.

 

[mp2bill]

I'm surprised it took them so long.

Same here.

 

[AEfx]

Question: what about "reversing charges"?

A tourist from, say, Ohio, might find a red light ticket charge slapped on his rental car VISA the next month... and then he might call Citibank and say "that wasn't me!!" (whether he is lying, mistaken, or just unwilling to pay is beside the point).

The VISA holder kind of holds all the cards, here (metaphorically speaking), right? There's no way to force payment if they reverse the charges at the credit card level, as far as I know.

Chargebacks don't actually work that way.

A chargeback is not automatically granted. Credit Card customers have the right to dispute a transaction and request a chargeback, but that does not mean they always get them. Every credit card company has a fraud department (which is usually very resourceful), which investigates these and either grants them, or doesn't.

So if you used your credit card to rent a car, you bought a plane ticket to Orlando, and you bought Mickey Ears at the Emporium (and remember, many credit cards are actually run by the same company even if they have a different brand, and they can potentially see other accounts as well), it's very possible they wouldn't approve the dispute and not issue a chargeback.

Of course, the policy will vary by credit card company - and the amount will also factor in. If it's a small amount (say, under $100) they might just eat it themselves as good Customer Service instead of going through the expense of actually investigating and charging back the merchant. This is like the "$0 Fraud liability protection" some of them offer; by law, you are only liable for $50 in unauthorized charges on your credit card anyway, but some of them will automatically eat the $50 so they can advertise "$0 Fraud Liability".

In any case, the car rental company has FAR more information on you than a credit card number. They have your license number, address, etc. - so at the very least if one was successful in a chargeback they could go after you with a collection agency which would reflect on your credit report, or depending on the circumstances and what state you are in could possibly report this back to law enforcement which could mess with your license in your home state.

Basically, no, it wouldn't work. One way or another, they'd go after you and could severely mess with you - much more hassle than the $100 or $200 ticket was worth not paying. One surefire way to PO a merchant is to process a chargeback - they get fined, especially if it happens multiple times, and will go after you pretty hard for a valid charge (and you'd probably never be able to rent from that company again, as most merchants refuse to do business with someone who puts them through a chargeback again).

 

[flynnibus]

plus the verbage in your rental contracts now, etc.

basically you might get a grace from your CC company as they eat it.. but the rental cars have their tail covered here. They aren't going to be paying for it in large scale

You will have much less chance disputing a charge when you have signed for the charge (which you do for a rental) vs. a charge that simply is an all electronic charge which you claim you didn't make.

 

[KevinYee]

Good point about rental companies referring to collections agencies in the event of a chargeback!

This leads me to my next question. I seem to recall hearing that courts have tested the red light cameras in terms of driver vs owner (in other words, it doesn't matter if the owner says he wasn't driving. It's his car, and here's the ticket, thank you very much). Correct me if I have that wrong, BTW. But what about "temporary owner" (ie, the rental car contract holder) vs driver. Has THAT been tested in court yet? I can imagine a legal challange from that vantage point.

I intended to go take pics of the cameras yesterday, but ran out of time. Maybe today.

 

[wm49rs]

The rental car companies will know who was in what vehicle (including the license plate) at what time. Anyone can attempt to dispute a credit card charge, but once the credit card company is told that the consumer was the same person who rented the car in the photo, the dispute would be closed.

These cameras have been around long enough that many of these issues have already been discussed (and adjudicated) before their installation around WDW. Now people will just need to exercise a bit more caution when driving in the area....

 

[boufa]

Good point about rental companies referring to collections agencies in the event of a chargeback!

This leads me to my next question. I seem to recall hearing that courts have tested the red light cameras in terms of driver vs owner (in other words, it doesn't matter if the owner says he wasn't driving. It's his car, and here's the ticket, thank you very much). Correct me if I have that wrong, BTW. But what about "temporary owner" (ie, the rental car contract holder) vs driver. Has THAT been tested in court yet? I can imagine a legal challange from that vantage point.

I intended to go take pics of the cameras yesterday, but ran out of time. Maybe today.

Ultimately the ticket is the legal responsibility of the owner of the vehicle. So the rental company is obligated to pay the ticket. HOWEVER when you sign the rental contract, some of the small print transfers that liability to you. So they can recover their costs via charging your credit card. Mixing in the red light camera details doesn't change it. It would be the same for damage to the vehicle, hit skip accidents,etc.

As for the chargeback. That could get you jail time if you are not careful. Claiming fraud when no fraud existed and it could be proven that you knew that no fraud existed you were simply trying to get the charges removed from your account is theft by deception. (it varies state to state) Because you are dealing with a credit card, it could be a felony, or a high level misdemeanor. If you disagree with a charge because you feel you were not running the light, or that you already turned in the car etc, fine. But if you claim that it was outright fraudulent charges on your account, you could be in trouble. I have actually charged several people with it. In addition, many credit card companies will solidify their case by having you file a police report related to the misuse of your credit card. That way if they determine that the fraud claim is bogus, they can also charge you with filing a false police report. Again, seen it happen several times.

To the person who posted the wikipedia link to victimless crime. No. Maybe you don't hurt anyone this time, but the odds of being in a multicar accident, with injuries, are significantly higher if you run a red light vs if you stop at the line. It is far from a victimless crime.

 

[SirNim]

To the person who posted the wikipedia link to victimless crime. No. Maybe you don't hurt anyone this time, but the odds of being in a multicar accident, with injuries, are significantly higher if you run a red light vs if you stop at the line. It is far from a victimless crime.

I've been hit by someone running a red light. And when I was hit, I was the victim. The other driver got in trouble. I've seen my share of people just blow through red lights seconds after turning red. But missing the yellow by a fraction of a second and being tattled on by a revenue-driving camera is a victimless crime. Yes. By definition. The noun is still "Crime"... It's the adjective that's "victimless."

p.s. I loved the stories about municipalities shortening the yellow-light time at intersections where these cameras were installed. That was a huge fiasco a couple years ago as I recall. Pretty shady.

 

[WI DISNEY FAN]

I know yellow light came up in this thread. Here is WI statute.

346.37(1)(b)
(b) Yellow. When shown with or following the green, traffic facing a yellow signal shall stop before entering the intersection unless so close to it that a stop may not be made in safety.

Each state can be different.

 

[KevinYee]

Good news!

Those cameras on Buena Vista Drive are not red light cameras. They are traffic cams (owned by Reedy Creek, I think) - much smaller than red light cameras. All the intersections in Central Florida with red light cameras that I have seen have a posted sign announcing the cameras - and those are not present on Disney property. Lastly, those cameras have been there for some weeks or months now. Maybe even years - they aren't new.

So unless I'm missing something, I think we're dealing with a tourist who visited for a vacation, saw the traffic cams, and drew the wrong conclusion.