Mobile Video Cameras    

Click here to edit subtitle

Blog

HD Mobile video camera technology for Trucking fleets, school buses and security vehicles

view:  full / summary

Why fleet insurance companies should be looking at mobile video cameras

Posted on June 29, 2015 at 2:10 PM

What are the benefits of mobile video cameras for Insurance companies and what should they be looking for?


75% of all trucking accidents are the fault of the car driver. Yet without any evidence most litigation is targeted at the trucking companies themselves.

Mobile video cameras can go beyond just having a dashcamera in the cab pointing at the road. There are so many other benefits..if you thing over 8 billion Euros worth of merchandise is stolen every year in Europe from the back of trucks, never mind all the other accidents invloving property etc.

So what are the benefits for Insurance Companies / Brokers


1. Reduce the claims, increase your profit

2. Insurance Fraud / Staged Accidents

3. Lack of Witnesses / Distraught Drivers

4. False or Exaggerated Claims

5. Poor Driving Habits or Behaviors

6. Reduce expensive & increasing Insurance rates

7. Conflicting Reports of Actual Events


So what mobile video solutions should you be looking at:

Well the obviously one which everyone is aware of is the dash cameras, which are very popular and can be picked-up at the gas station. Many trucking drivers themselves are buying these $99 cameras to protect themselves. However, there are many types out there from high definition, 2 in 1 cameras pointing at the road and the driver etc plus built in passive GPS, G-sensors etc...

Although dash cameras can be a "quick fix" they are very limited on what they can actually capture. Mobile video surveillance can do so much more. For instance, yes have a cameras in the cab pointing at the road, but you can also have them on the side covering blind spots and at the rear..all connected to a monitor in the cab so the driver can see live. When the driver indicates to go right the camera can immediate show on the monitor so they know its safe to turn..avoiding any cars or cyclists coming up on their inside. Also when the truck goes in reverse the backup camera comes on automatically...all this information is saved on to a mobile DVR for playback if an incident happens.

The price of these multi camera systems have come down dramatically in the past year and gives a 360 degree camera view for the driver, thus reducing incidents and thus reducing claims etc


For more information please visit our website and the Buddy BX4 camera system at:

www.tt-i.info




TTI to Exhibit at OPTA - June 17th 2015

Posted on May 19, 2015 at 11:10 PM

TTI is planning on attending this years OPTA Conference which is held on the 17th June 2015 at  the River Inn, Eugene, Oregon. We hope to see you there. For more information please visit:

http://www.optaschoolbus.org/Events/Gatherings#E148

DVR Hard-drive replacement

Posted on October 8, 2013 at 1:05 PM

School Bus DVR hard-drive replacements

You have a fleet of buses that have traditional DVR systems installed and they all use hard-drives. Just like the days of VHS tapes you are starting to find that your hard-drives are now starting to fail and break down. Hard-drives by their nature and design are prone to mechanical failure as they record the video data onto a spinning disk, a bit like the old days of vinyl records. After a while due to these moving parts and vibration of the vehicle they start to fail. Depending on when and the type of DVR system you purchased you may now find that you cannot find a hard-drive replacement unless you try and make one yourself. With hard-drives costing from $250 and upwards it might be an idea to consider replacing your video camera system for a SD Card video mobile video camera solution which costs $490 per vehicle and includes High Definition video as standard.


Why does tti only offer SD cards. There is a number of reasons why we recommend SD cards for video storage.

1. The SD has no moving parts so is more reliable than a hard-drive


2. SD cards are everywhere and are the standard for most electronics we find to day. Because of this there are huge cost savings with SD cards starting from around $20-$60


3. SD cards are small and easy to carry unlike hard-drives which are heavy and bulky 


4. Storage capacity. The argument many manufacturers make is that you need large 250GB hard-drives etc for video, however in our view this is just not necessary. With a 32GB SD card (Class 10) you can get upto 10 days of video. According to our customers if an accident or incident has happened you will be retriving that video very quckly either by demand from law enforcement or complaints from parents. The video is not going to sit around for weeks and months on the bus because if it does then it really was not an important incident at all. So why pay for months and months of storage when in reality its not even needed?


So if you are facing the issue of replacing DVR hard-drives then we welcome the opportunity of sending you a complete new camera system to evaluate for yourself and to see exactly the true value of a new camera system that only costs $490 per bus (Buddy NightOwl) and that includes High Definition video as standard.


TTI Tracking Technology Inc

www.tt-i.info

tti to exhibit at NAPT - Booth 348

Posted on August 19, 2013 at 5:05 PM

tti is pround to annouce that we will be exhibiting at this years NAPT  (National Association for Public Transport) Summit on Oct 19 - Oct 24 in Grand Rapids, Mitchigan.

For anyone interested in mobile video surveillance solutions for their School Bus fleet then please drop by and see how tti can provide HD video solutions starting from just $540 per bus.

Booth 348

Great American Trucking Show - Dallas 22-24 August

Posted on August 5, 2013 at 8:20 PM

tti is delighted to be exhibiting at this years GAT show in Dallas on the 22nd-24 August. If you have any questions or would like to see some of the latest mobile video trucking cameras on the market today please stop by our booth at 24143

School Bus accidents - Stats

Posted on July 24, 2013 at 11:05 PM

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that 96 percent of the estimated 8,500 to 12,000 children injured in school bus accidents annually are considered minor (scrapes, bumps, bruises, etc.).

 

 

NHTSA calculated that 4 percent of the school bus-related injuries to children -- about 350 to 475 annually -- are serious (i.e. broken bones or worse) based on the medical community's widely accepted AIS or Abbreviated Injury Scale.

 

 

An average of six children are fatally injured inside school buses annually.

 

 

About 16 children are fatally injured as pedestrians in the loading & unloading zone around school buses annually. That's better than 200 percent improvement from 75 school bus fatalities in 1975; it is still not good enough.

 

 

During the seven years between 1989 and 1996, 9,500 school-age children were killed during school hours while riding in all kinds of motor vehicles.

 

 

The federal government considers school buses to be about nine times safer that other passenger vehicles during the normal school commute.

 

 

According to data gathered for NHTSA's Fatal Analysis Reporting System, about 600 school age children are killed annually riding to and from school in motor vehicles other than school buses. These fatalities occur during school transport hours (7 to 9 a.m. and 3 to 5 p.m.), on school days (Monday through Friday) only, and during the typical 180 day school year, to children riding to and from school, mostly in automobiles.

School Security Bills Survive Months After Fatal Shootings in Connecticut, Alabama

Posted on July 24, 2013 at 9:25 PM

http://www.stnonline.com/home/web-exclusive/5290-various-school-security-bills-survive-months-after-shootings-in-connecticut-alabama-

As 2013 dawned, the nation continued to mourn the lives lost in the Sandy Hook school shooting, and soon after, mourned a heroic Alabama school bus driver who died protecting his students in late January. Legislators in every state rushed to draft bills designed to create new protections for American students in the wake of the murders, and in the Midland City, Ala., case, a lengthy hostage standoff.

 

Yet, as 2013 legislative sessions adjourn this month in 22 states and counting, the roster of new bills has shrunk as dozens were withdrawn or died in House and Senate chambers. In Maryland, for example, seven out of eight proposed bills died, including one to authorize school employees to bring handguns on campus with the permission of their school boards. A New Hampshire bill to arm authorized school employees similarly died in the House.

 

Six states now allow any school employee with a permit to carry concealed firearms on school grounds: Kansas, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas. Virginia allows security offers on school sites to be armed, and a dozen more states are seeking this type of protection.

 

Connecticut was alone in passing tough new gun control laws (SB 1160), including the strictest assault weapons ban in the nation as well as a ban on selling magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. And Alabama was the only state to draft proposed legislation to toughen penalties for trespassing on a school bus with malicious intent, with one bill sponsor calling for this crime to become a felony. The bill was introduced before the Jan. 29 of bus driver Chuck Poland with the impetus being the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementrary in Newtown, Conn.

 

Federal legislators took another approach to protecting students during the school day. U.S. Rep. Mark Meadows, a North Carolina Republican, introduced a bill that would revitalize the dormant Cops in Schools (CIS) grant program and fund it with $30 million annually.

 

“The recent school massacre in Newtown, Conn. sent shock waves across the country,” Meadows said in a news release announcing his proposed Protect America’s Schools Act of 2013. “As a father, I grieved with the families who lost a loved one that day. And as a legislator, I vowed that I would take action to prevent future tragedies.”

 

STN reviewed media reports, along with state Senate and House websites, to find school security bills that specifically affect student transportation professionals, and discovered many that call for more emergency training, including active-shooter drills, for all school employees as well as some bills that would permit employees to carry a firearm or keep one locked in their personal vehicle. Below is a state-by-state compilation. States that are not represented had no school-security measures pending because they had died. Please let us know if we missed anything of note related to school transportation departments.

 

Alabama: The House on April 18 passed HB 91, which would expand school safety training by requiring drills for active shooters and intruders at least once each semester. Another bill that would toughen penalties for trespassing on a school bus, HB 105, gained House support April 11. HB 105 would make this crime a class-A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. The Senate version, SB 15, would make it a crime for an unauthorized adult to board a school bus, vandalize a bus or enter a bus with an intent to cause damage.

 

Arizona: HB 2656 would establish an optional "School Safety Designee" program run by the state attorney general's office that would allow it to provide training at schools that would involve storing a loaded firearm on campus. SB 1325 would allow an authorized school employee to possess a concealed firearm on school grounds under certain conditions

 

Arkansas: SB 896 would allow a church that operates a K-12 private school to allow a person who has a license to carry a concealed handgun to do so on that school's property. Governor signed into law SB 140, which requires "active shooter" drills at schools as well as other annual training to prepare for other emergencies, while SB 93 requires a study of the readiness of schools in terms of preventing and responding to acts of violence against the students and school personnel

 

California: AB 202 would create a School Marshal Plan, which would authorize districts and county education officials to spend general fund money on training school resource officers (SROs). AB 1264 would require school safety plans to include "tactical response" plans to criminal incidents and for school officials to develop those portions of the safety plan with law enforcement officials.

 

Colorado: SB 13-138 would specify responsibilities for SROs and partnerships between schools and local police and emergency workers to develop emergency and safety plans. HJR 1021 would provide funds for the hiring of SROs and assist school districts in hiring them

 

Connecticut: HB 5390 would create a matching grant program that would reimburse municipalities 80 percent of the cost of using law enforcement personnel as SROs. HB 6306 would enable school officials and school boards to establish protocols that allows school personnel to carry weapons on school grounds.

 

Delaware: HB 34 This bill would create a state competitive grant program for funding of school safety projects, with a maximum award of $50,000 per school

 

Florida: SB 1730 would create the School Safety Marshal Program, which would allow school personnel to carry concealed firearms on school grounds. HB 1097 and SB 1418 would allow school employees designated by a school principal or superintendent to carry firearms on school campuses, along with written proof of permission to do so. SB 790 would require schools to conduct emergency lockdown drills at least as often as emergency evacuation drills.

 

Georgia: SB 101 would allow an individual authorized in writing by a school official to carry a weapon on campus and on school vehicles after training.

 

Hawaii: HB 1477 would create a task force to examine safety and security in the state’s public schools.

 

Illinois: SB 1625, which passed the Senate without opposition this spring, would require schools to conduct drills that simulate shooting incidents and incidents of suspicious persons on school property.

 

Indiana: SB 1 would specify training and other requirements for SROs, and would allow a state grant to be used by schools for these officers, as well as for threat assessments of school buildings and new safety equipment. HB 1473 would allow a teacher or other school employee, as well as employees contracted to schools, to bring firearms and ammunition onto school grounds in their personal vehicles. But the firearm and ammunition would either have to be stored in a locked vehicle's glove compartment or out of sight in a locked vehicle.

 

Iowa: Three measures would allow anyone with a permit to carry a firearm, either concealed or openly, to do so on school grounds (school employees, HF 172; others, HF 169 and its companion bill, SF 251).

 

Kansas: Kansas will allow public schools and colleges to arm employees with concealed guns and loosen restrictions on carrying concealed weapons into public buildings, starting in July. Gov. Sam Brownback signed the concealed-carry legislation (HB 2052) into law on April 16.

 

Kentucky: HB 354 would require school districts to adopt school emergency plans and emergency drills, as well as send annual reports on these issues to the state education department. It would also require each school to conduct safety and lockdown drills in the first month of a school year.

 

Louisiana: HB 6 would exempt off-duty police officers from legal penalties for carrying firearms onto school grounds or at school events, and HB 79 would require each public school principal to develop a school safety plan in conjunction with law enforcement, while also requiring classroom doors to be fitted with appropriate locks and remain locked during instructional periods.

 

Massachusetts: S.1198 would require the creation of a state commission to examine school safety plans, including how schools presently deal with active shooters. H.360 would create a grant program for SROs that would help school boards train and pay for SROs.

 

Michigan: HB 4098 would allow school employees to carry concealed pistols onto school property if authorized by school leadership and if they successfully complete a training program. HB 4104 would attempt to close a loophole in state law that allows people to openly carry weapons in schools.

 

Mississippi: The governor approved a bill (SB 2659) and signed a new law to allow districts to arm school personnel as well as to add SROs. In early April, the state passed a bill that would establish a $5.5-million fund to help schools hire armed officers and, for those unable to meet the grant requirements, to arm teachers and faculty.

 

Missouri: New legislation (HB 152) signed into law July 11, 2013 expands the use of trained school officers, allowing them to operate on school grounds, on school buses, and at school-sponsored activities, to improve school security. They have the authority to stop, detain, and arrest for crimes committed at any of these locations. HB 70 would allow a teacher or school administrator to carry a concealed firearm into a higher education institution or elementary or secondary school if he or she has a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit.

 

Montana: H 384 would eliminate an exception in the law prohibiting firearms on school grounds, and allow firearms to be kept in a locked motor vehicle on school property.

 

Nevada: AB 143 and AB 235 would allow, respectively, people with permits to carry concealed firearms on the property of a public school or child care facility and to carry weapons, including firearms, onto the property of the Nevada System of Higher Education, a private or public school or a child care facility only if the weapon remains out of sight.

 

New Jersey: AB 3749 would allow the state education commissioner to authorize school boards to hire retired law enforcement officers to provide school security when school is in session or when schools are occupied.

 

New York: The NY SAFE Act is a new law that increases penalties for bringing a firearm onto school grounds or school buses, and creates "school safety improvement teams" to work with schools on evacuation and other emergency plans (see S.2230). Meanwhile, AB 4797 would permit retired or off-duty law enforcement officers to have firearms on school grounds and carry more than seven rounds of ammunition. AB 5014 would allow school safety agents to use electronic dart guns or electronic stun guns and allow principals or superintendents to appoint school safety officers.

 

North Carolina: Several bills are pending that would allow employees such as teachers, administrators, safety marshals and volunteer SROs at public or private schools to be armed: SB 146, SB 190, SB 27, HB 246 and HB 595.

 

North Dakota: Two new laws expand which individuals may carry concealed firearms on school grounds and at school functions, while the House bill clarifies other exemptions such as for firearms in motor vehicles: HB 1283 and SB 2145. Additionally, state Schools Superintendent Koppelman told STN that SB 2267, if passed, would provide funding to school districts to help update security in school buildings by using alarms, cameras, electronic door locks, emergency response call buttons, intercom systems, key or pass cards, metal detectors, and other similar equipment designed to minimize the potential for a life-threatening crisis.

 

Ohio: HB 8, a placeholder bill, is expected to contain language to allow off-duty police, security guards, and other individuals to carry weapons at school, and/or allow school boards to empower other school employees to carry weapons on campus.

 

Oklahoma: SB 833 would allow concealed weapons to be carried on school campuses, including in locked vehicles, as long as school authorities provide written consent, which the gun owner must carry with his or her concealed weapons permit. SB 256 was signed into law and now requires all school districts to conduct lockdown drills in addition to fire, intruder, and tornado emergency drills. SB 257, 258 and 259 were also signed into law.

 

Oregon: SB 347 would allow people with concealed handgun permits to carry their weapons on school grounds if the school board adopts a written policy authorizing those with such permits to do so.

 

Pennsylvania: HB 896 would implement a security presence with an armed, retired police officer in all publicly funded schools statewide, stipulating that officers must undergo a complete background investigation and be annually certified via training. Their main responsibility would be to screen visitors for weapons and detect threats before allowing them entrance into the school.

 

Rhode Island: HB 5068 would require all school buildings to have a guard on duty that is chosen by a school committee (it does not specify if this guard would be armed). HB 5420 would require four lockdown drills at each school every year from January through June.

 

South Carolina: HB 3237 would require every public school in South Carolina to have armed police on campus. Two other bills would allow public school employees who have concealed weapons permits to carry the weapons to school if they meet certain requirements (HB 3160) and allow people with concealed weapons permits to bring weapons onto school property only if they are locked in their vehicles (SB 242).

 

South Dakota: The governor signed into law HB 896, the "school sentinel" bill, which allows school boards to arm employees or volunteers, called school sentinels, who can help defend schools against violent attacks. The sentinels must complete a training program before carrying firearms on campus.

 

Tennessee: The governor on May 1 signed into law HB 6, the School Security Act of 2013, which allows K-12 school personnel to possess a firearm on school property if the person has a handgun carry permit, is authorized by the school superintendent, has had 40 hours of basic school policing training and uses frangible bullets.

 

Texas: SB 509 would allow voters to set up local taxing districts to pay for armed guards or other security measures. New bills would allow the school employees and board members to carry firearms to school sites and school events/meetings: HB 223, HB 1298, HB 1896, HB 2535 (security officers). HB 1009 would create a new type of law enforcement officer, school marshals, to be hired specifically to act as necessary to prevent or stop incidents that threaten serious injuries or deaths of students, faculty or school visitors.

 

Vermont: H.472 would make it a felony to threaten a school or its students and would allow those who make such threats to be taken to a local hospital for examination by law enforcement or mental health professionals.

 

Virginia: Governor McDonnell signed a half-dozen bills recommended by the School and Campus Safety Task Force, and they will take effect July 1. Key bills for K-12 public schools are HB 1582, which will allow security officers hired by schools to carry firearms on both public and private school grounds, and measures related to establishing threat assessment teams (HB 2344) and mandating specific training, such as lockdown drills (HB 2346) and critical incident response training programs (HB 2345).

 

Washington state: SB 5197 passed the Legislature and was signed by the governor in late April. The measure requires all school districts to install panic alarm systems in all of their schools and to submit a progress report on implementation by Dec. 1, 2014. HB 1788 would allow school districts to authorize certain employees to carry firearms on school grounds under certain conditions. SB 5620 would amend state law so the number of lockdown drills annually at each public school would increase from one to three, and adds another drill of each school’s choosing.

 

Wisconsin: Rep. Don Pridemore introduced a bill to allow armed guards in public schools in early April. AB 118 would allow school boards to enter into contracts with individuals or firms to provide armed security in schools. It was referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

 

Sources: STN independent research; “School Safety Legislation Since Newtown,” Education Week, May 6, 2013


tti exhibits at WAPT

Posted on June 26, 2013 at 8:15 AM

tti was delighted to be exhibiting this year at the Washington Association of Pupil Transportation in Yakima WA. It was great to see and talk with Transporation Directors and to demonstarte how our mobile video camera solutions can meet their operational needs and budget.


The true cost of School Bus Wi-fi and automatic downloading of mobile video data

Posted on June 25, 2013 at 10:40 PM

There has been a lot of talk and their are a number of mobile video camera manufactuers who offer automatic video downloading when the school bus enters the depot via a wi-fi network. I've listened to many sales presentations and actually worked for a leading manufactuer offering school Transpoartion Directors this feature. Yes it all sounds great, no need to walk in the rain to collect the video from the bus, and it is all possible but the reality is that their are many issues that have to be over come, its complex and its expensive.

Setting up a Wi-Fi network

If you have a large house you will know that your home wi-fi signal gets weaker the further away you are from the router. Its also effected by walls and rooms, metal etc. This is exactly the same issue facing your school bus yard. To over come this many routers, boosters and even towers have to be positioned around your bus yard. These routers etc can cost $500 to $1000 each...do the maths you might need 10 for an average yard.

DVR compatibility

This is the big one. Your fleet might be a mix of different manufactuers DVR's or they might even be the same but they are old models without wi-fi capability or you might want routering and scheduling capabilities but unfortunately they will all have to be replaced. So you are now faced with equiping your whole fleet out again. If you have the budget then great.

IT Department

This type of project needs your IT department to be fully engaged and supportive. When this thing is all set-up he or she will be the one left re-booting and sorting out any technical issues you have...thats the reality. They will have some major concerns.

 

  1. Security - how is this wi-fi network secure - effectively a gateway in for hacking info child video from your bus on its way over the airways to your office. Also a gateway in for trojan horses and malicious coding
  2. Where does this video go - a laptop or a RIAD server...these can be large files so a new server may need to be purchased outside the school main network so its isolated. Laptops might also need to be ungraded to run software and to handle these large video files
  3. Video download time - some of the video clips can take 20 minutes to an hour to download...can you wait that long? how much video data transfering can your wi-fi network habdle at one time i.e 5 buses come in and they all start downloading at the same time.
  4. Sharing video files - handling and sharing large video files across a School board network is not without its issues, again security and data bandwidth for the receiver, also user training
  5. Technology change: unfortunately the reality is by the time you have managed to get the OK, budget allocated and the project implemented new technology will be coming out - just look at the pace cell phone and internet technology is moving. So with a short space of time you could be left with a large bill and a dinasuaer of a network solution.

 

However, if you are a large fleet / organization and you do have spare budget and the right support team in place then I would say that it might be worth looking into and implementing. But for those with small to mid 1-50 Buses I would spend my budget on more crucial operational issues and if you do want to replace an old DVR system get one with SD cards, not big old harddrives...and buy an umbrella for those rainy days...it will save you a lot of money and hassle in the long run


www.tt-i.info





Why are School Districts paying so much for their mobile video camera systems?

Posted on June 25, 2013 at 9:50 PM

In our normal lives we see new technology prices reduce over time, so why then are School Districts still paying so much for old DVR camera technology?

 

Do you remember when the new flat screen plasma TV screens first came on the market and the cost was out of this world, something like $20,000. Today just a few years later you can walk into a shop and get one for just hundreds of dollars.

 

So why are the traditional mobile video camera manufactuers like Seon, Angetrax, 247 Security etc still able to charge school district from $1000 to $1400 for a 1 camera system that is after all old DVR technology and not HD. These DVR systems are years old and they don't even have High Definition video. All of these DVR's are manufactured in Asia so why haven't the costs come down?

 

Well most of these manufactuers have actually being reducing their manufacturing costs over the past few years by getting rid of their 1 and 2 camera systems and replacing them with the 4 camera system. This reduces their inventory costs in having to hold multiple DVR options. So they actually offer a 4 camera system even if you only want a 1 or 2 camera system. They will argue well if you need extra cameras then you can add them. The reality is School Districts are paying high premiums for a DVR that has features they will never use. Not many School Bus fleets can afford or have the budget to pay for 4 cameras on every bus, many will never use the wi-fi or dual streaming features because the cost of implement these features are just way to expensive. (Article on the true costs of Wi-Fi and automatic downloading)

 

For School Bus fleets that are just looking for a 1 or 2 camera mobile video camera solution it just does not make sense to pay over $1000 for a DVR that you are only using at best 50% of its features. So when School Districts write Bid proposals or RFP's for a 1 camera mobile video camera system why does the specification state the need for a 4 camera DVR? is it becuase the maunfactuers are righting the specifications to fit their agenda's?

 

In these economically challenging times, increased fuel costs, budget cuts etc, can School Districts really afford to pay for product features they are not going to use? and allowing the traditional mobile video manufactuers to dictate the price. Should'nt your mobile video technology partner be trying to make your budget go further by providing the latest technology and innovative approaches to fit the way your operation works?

tti's approach is to put our customer first and work with you to provide solutions to over come some of the challenges you are facing. As a result wouldn't it be good if you could have a mobile video camera system that is:

 

  • HD - High definition allows you to view the image on a large screen, zoom in, see the detail of what actually happened
  • How about a video camera system that can be moved to other buses in minutes - makes your budget go further
  • How about making installation so easy you don't have to pay installation costs 
  • How about a built in rotating screen that drops down to help in positioning the camera, and then folds out of the way
  • SD card video storage - no moving parts, and no heavy bulky harddrives to walk around the yard
  • A locking and vandleproof case
  • How about bulkhead mounting which allows the camera head to be repositioned in minutes if you require
  • IR illumination to help in poor light 
  • You need a company that will support you..tti is there to help with any software questions, set-up, training etc
  • O yes lets make the price more realistic - $390 for a whole sytem per bus, with locking mechanism $490 per bus...
  • And of cause you want to try the product before purchasing, no problem we will ship you a free no obligation Buddy NightOwl camera system to test for 2 weeks
  • Who else has bought from tti? well our school bus customers span right across North America - they have all benefited from the savings and the flexibility of our mobile video camera solutions

 


www.tt-i.info


 

 

 

 


Rss_feed