Washington man recieves $18,000 bridge toll bill

[NE2]

And just where are you encountering these toll roads that supposedly do not tell you what forms of payment are accepted? Every time I've used a cashless facility, it's been quite clear from signs prior to entering.

How does "E-ZPass EXPRESS" tell some random hick from West Virtucky that cash is not accepted? At the entrance from Gallows to the express lanes, I see a tiny sign, lost in the salad, on the side of the road that explains what it means. It's typical small print BS. And unless I'm missing it, even with my ability to stop and zoom on the Goog, there's nothing at all on SR 7 east. Oh wait, there it is, on the left side of the road, as you're looking up at the overheads that tell you to get in the right lane.

[1995hoo]

"ALL USERS E-ZPASS REQUIRED" seems pretty clear to me, though I don't think it'd hurt for the signs to say "TOLL ROAD–NO CASH ACCEPTED" above that. Apparently the MUTCD doesn't allow that for priced managed lanes, however (compare to Maryland's Intercounty Connector, which is a fully-tolled road and has signs reading"NO CASH," and to Virginia's Dulles Greenway, which is also fully-tolled and has signs saying cash isn't accepted except at certain times and you need credit/debit or E-ZPass).

The theory is apparently that if you don't know what E-ZPass is, you don't enter. It's no less clear than the toll-by-plate signs along the Homestead Extension–they say "[SunPass logo] OR TOLL-BY-PLATE."

I know you're trying to feign ignorance in order to play "devil's advocate" and just to stir things up. I'm not going to bite this time.

[seicer]

Let's just say that if there was a legitimate argument, as SP Cook claimed, all tolls roads would have ceased to exist decades ago. As we can see with the rise of new public-private projects, toll roads and all that, it pretty much hasn't happened.

[1995hoo]

IMHO,

- There is no excuse for having neither a manned or automated (accepting actual money) toll booth or a mandatory transponder system which denies entry for those w/o it. ....

I just re-read the above and I'm trying to visualize how the boldfaced suggestion would work. Are you seriously suggesting you think there should be some sort of physical barrier (say, similar to the metal pop-up barriers you see around federal buildings' vehicular entrances, or the spike strips used at airport rental-car lot entrances) that would literally prevent a vehicle without a transponder from entering the tolled facility?

I can't imagine anyplace ever trying that. You do have some toll agencies that persist in using the gate arms in converted toll plaza lanes and those are annoying enough when someone goes into the wrong lane. But imagine the traffic armageddon you'd cause if you used more robust barriers. No toll agency is ever going to do that.

I would normally find it hard to believe this was intended as a serious suggestion, rather than trolling.

[jeffandnicole]

Cash is accepted to pay a cashless toll booth.  You go to the Electronic Toll customer service center, pay cash, get tag.

There is no requirement that one doesn't need to pay until the moment the road is used. 

As far as the "cash legal tender all debts" bs... http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm

[NE2]

As far as the "cash legal tender all debts" bs... http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm

In other words, it's legal tender once there's a debt.

[jeffandnicole]

As far as the "cash legal tender all debts" bs... http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm

In other words, it's legal tender once there's a debt.

In actual words, no, it's not.

Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law which says otherwise.

[NE2]

all United States money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creditor

one to whom a debt is owed

Once you consume a service, you owe a debt.

[1995hoo]

It's interesting, I just took a look at the MUTCD chapter on toll road signs and the only reference I saw to a "NO CASH" message said such a message "may" be used (i.e., need not be). Reasonable minds can probably agree to disagree on whether an ETC system's logo coupled with the word "ONLY" is sufficient to convey the "CASH NOT ACCEPTED" message. (That sentence is NOT intended as a comment on whether I consider any given forum member to have a reasonable or unreasonable mind!)

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/part2f.htm

As far as the "cash legal tender all debts" bs... http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm

In other words, it's legal tender once there's a debt.

But that does not mean there is any requirement whatsoever that the toll operator station an employee somewhere to allow a Luddite to hand over cash upon using the road.

It appears to me you and SP Cook are trying to argue that toll road operators must accept cash on the spot when the person using the road wants to hand it over. That's not what "legal tender" means. "Legal tender" has absolutely nothing to do with what method(s) of payment the toll road operator chooses to accept on the road.

(Now, I will admit I don't know how it works on the Dulles Greenway, which generally accepts either E-ZPass or credit/debit but no cash, if someone with none of those uses the road and tries to exit at a ramp with no manned lanes. I've never used most of the tolled ramps, and on the one I have used it's been a few years and I had an E-ZPass anyway. I don't know whether they use gate arms that would interfere with someone exiting the highway.)

[NE2]

It appears to me you and Sippy Kook are trying to argue that toll road operators must accept cash on the spot when the person using the road wants to hand it over. That's not what "legal tender" means. "Legal tender" has absolutely nothing to do with what method(s) of payment the toll road operator chooses to accept on the road.

What it means is that if they quote one price and don't make it clear that's not a cash price, you're incurring that debt and can settle it in cash. Whether that payment is at a toll booth or later in response to a a bill is irrelevant, but adding fees is changing the terms of the contract after the fact.

PS: signs for the 495 express lanes don't say E-ZPass ONLY. They say E-ZPass EXPRESS.

[1995hoo]

It appears to me you and Sippy Kook are trying to argue that toll road operators must accept cash on the spot when the person using the road wants to hand it over. That's not what "legal tender" means. "Legal tender" has absolutely nothing to do with what method(s) of payment the toll road operator chooses to accept on the road.

What it means is that if they quote one price and don't make it clear that's not a cash price, you're incurring that debt and can settle it in cash. Whether that payment is at a toll booth or later in response to a a bill is irrelevant, but adding fees is changing the terms of the contract after the fact.

PS: signs for the 495 express lanes don't say E-ZPass ONLY. They say E-ZPass EXPRESS.

I don't know about you, but I think the word "REQUIRED" is equivalent to "ONLY." Don't forget the I-495 signs were approved under a prior version of the MUTCD, which is why they differ from the I-95 signs.



Complain all you want, NE2, but you're simply wrong on this one when you claim you'd be exempt from paying the administrative fee. You wouldn't be. The fee is prescribed by state law and there's no federal law preempting that. If you want to take your precious cash somewhere to submit it, I don't know what you do because I don't care. I'm not stupid enough to incur invoices with the administrative fee!

[NE2]

I already mentioned that sign, which is off to the side in small print and easy to miss...

[1995hoo]

I already mentioned that sign, which is off to the side in small print and easy to miss...

Depends on where you are. Some of them are very large. But it doesn't matter if it's "off to the side in small print and easy to miss." You ever hear the old adage "ignorance of the law is no excuse"?

[NE2]

Ignorance of the law is totally an excuse. Turn right on red in NYC because you missed or didn't pass a sign saying it was illegal citywide? You get off with a warning. Miss the sign saying cash isn't accepted? You get a fine months later.

[jeffandnicole]

Ignorance of the law is totally an excuse. Turn right on red in NYC because you missed or didn't pass a sign saying it was illegal citywide? You get off with a warning. Miss the sign saying cash isn't accepted? You get a fine months later.

You only get a warning in NYC for that?  Even if you do it 8 gazillion times?  No, you may get off with a warning, or you may get a ticket. It's up to the officer's discretion.  Heck, it's up to his discretion if you get stopped in the first place.

And size doesn't matter.  Put a big, 10x50 foot sign over the entire highway, flashing lights, beeping buzzers, and some people will still say they didn't see the sign.

[1995hoo]

You know, it's interesting, from looking at the current MUTCD it appears to me the signs to which NE2 is pretending to object provide more information than the current standards seem to require.

mtantillo knows quite a bit about the sign approval process for that sort of tolled facility, but I don't know whether he has looked at this thread.

Regarding New York City and right on red, yeah, my brother made that mistake after our cousin's wedding reception back in 1999 or so and the cop gave him a warning too. There is no sign saying it's illegal citywide, BTW, at least none that I've ever noticed (recognizing I usually enter the city via the Goethals Bridge and I-278 across Staten Island to Brooklyn because my relatives lived in Brooklyn and now live in Queens). The Island of Montreal does have a pictograph-style sign advising right on red is illegal there. Either way, though, those matters are for the cop's discretion. He's within his rights to give you a ticket if he wants (for example, if you mouth off). If there's a red-light camera you may well get a ticket a cop would not have issued.

There's no sign in the District of Columbia advising it's illegal to make a left on red from a one-way street to another one-way street, BTW. But illegal it is, and you can indeed be ticketed for it. There is no obligation that every last little trivial thing be signed just to pacify people who complain a lot.

Ignorance of the law is totally an excuse. Turn right on red in NYC because you missed or didn't pass a sign saying it was illegal citywide? You get off with a warning. Miss the sign saying cash isn't accepted? You get a fine months later.

....

And size doesn't matter.  Put a big, 10x50 foot sign over the entire highway, flashing lights, beeping buzzers, and some people will still say they didn't see the sign.

Exactly. I think some of the objections some people raise strain credibility. BTW, on the particular road about which NE2 is complaining (Gallows Road at I-495 in Northern Virginia), it's very clear which entrance is to the "free" lanes and which entrance is to the "tolled" lanes, even if you don't see the white signs about E-ZPass. For the most part, the people who complain about E-ZPass and similar systems are going to be the same people who object to paying tolls in general and make stupid arguments like "this is unconstitutional" or the like, so the "no cash" issue isn't going to matter to most of them.

BTW, going back to the story linked in the original post that started this whole discussion, nowhere did the guy faced with the bill allege that his son didn't know he was using a toll facility or that he couldn't pay cash at the toll facility. He simply thought he'd be sent a bill later.

[NE2]

Ignorance of the law is totally an excuse. Turn right on red in NYC because you missed or didn't pass a sign saying it was illegal citywide? You get off with a warning. Miss the sign saying cash isn't accepted? You get a fine months later.

You only get a warning in NYC for that?  Even if you do it 8 gazillion times?  No, you may get off with a warning, or you may get a ticket. It's up to the officer's discretion.  Heck, it's up to his discretion if you get stopped in the first place.

This whole argument about legal tender is about a first time user. If you use the road knowing it won't take cash, that's very different.

It's funny how many people complain about red light cameras, yet have no problem with cashless tolls being enforced the same way. It must be personal - they love to run red lights but have a transponder.

[1995hoo]

This whole argument about legal tender is about a first time user. If you use the road knowing it won't take cash, that's very different.

....

Maybe I'm misreading their comments, but that's not what I understood SP Cook and US 41 to be saying further back up the thread (replies #15 and 12, respectively).

[empirestate]

The question about legal tender depends on whether the business can decline cash after a debt exists, or whether it can merely decline to enter into a debt if the payment is to be cash. In other words, if you've used my product or service, can I turn down your offer of cash yet still claim you owe a debt to me? The Federal Reserve citation actually doesn't go into this much detail, but the first few definitions of "legal tender" that show up from a Google search suggest that I cannot.

What I could do, however, is claim that you have violated an agreement between us, if I had properly notified you beforehand that my rendering the service or product to you was contingent upon your using a non-cash payment. If you then offer cash anyway, you will have settled the debt as far as the value of the product or service, but you would not have satisfied your obligation to fulfill our agreement. Your penalty for doing so could be to pay any additional fees I incur as a result of the breach.

In fact, if you stole something from me outright, you could still repay me for the item in cash and its value will be deemed to have been replaced. But you'd still be on the hook for the civil and criminal transgression of the act of theft.

So, both sides in this argument are actually saying correct things as I see it, and they don't necessarily negate each other. Yes, businesses can decide what forms of payment they will accept [as an agreed-upon condition of entering into a debt], and people can settle any debts they have in cash [and they may incur an additional debt if the use of that cash violates a prior agreement].

[1995hoo]

There's certainly no question some people get confused and do some very dumb things:

[kkt]

Washington's real failure is not the signage, it's letting it go until it's built up $18K before bothering to track down the offender.

[jeffandnicole]

There's no sign in the District of Columbia advising it's illegal to make a left on red from a one-way street to another one-way street, BTW. But illegal it is, and you can indeed be ticketed for it. There is no obligation that every last little trivial thing be signed just to pacify people who complain a lot.

Technically, there is. The law is you must stop on red and can't proceed until the light is green.  Turning right or left on red is an *exception*, and a separate law is necessary to permit that.  But since so many states permit lefts on red that it's more unusual to encounter a state (or region) that doesn't permit it.  But, as stated, the law is there requiring one to stop and remain stopped.

BTW, going back to the story linked in the original post that started this whole discussion, nowhere did the guy faced with the bill allege that his son didn't know he was using a toll facility or that he couldn't pay cash at the toll facility. He simply thought he'd be sent a bill later.

And what gets muddled in the fact is that each violation is a separate and distinct violation, which is how someone could have missed $100 in tolls but owes $5,000 in fines.  If I don't pay my credit card bill all year long, I'm not going to be assessed 1 late penalty - I'll be hit with 12 penalties. 

It's funny how many people complain about red light cameras, yet have no problem with cashless tolls being enforced the same way. It must be personal - they love to run red lights but have a transponder.

If you fail to pay a toll, it's basically stealing.  Yes, you should get charged.  But there's no middle ground - you paid, or you didn't pay. 

If you get caught by a red light camera, there are numerous stories of people that have said, and have proof, that they did stop, but a judge decides that they didn't stop long enough.  Or someone is directed to go thru a red light because a cop in the road waved the driver thru...and received a ticket anyway.

The people that truly fly thru an intersection deserve a ticket.  But those instances are so few and far in-between that they need to nitpick as many possible infractions as they can to make the cameras worthwhile.

[jeffandnicole]

Washington's real failure is not the signage, it's letting it go until it's built up $18K before bothering to track down the offender.

Technically, they didn't track him down.  He tried to sell the car and in the process of the paperwork for the car sale, it popped up that he owed a lot of money.

[NE2]

If you get caught by a red light camera, there are numerous stories of people that have said, and have proof, that they did stop, but a judge decides that they didn't stop long enough.

Bullshit. They probably stopped after the line, or made a "rolling stop".

And what about speed cameras? You either go faster than the limit or you don't. But how many people here will try to get off on a technicality? Hell, how many people will argue that a radar gun wasn't properly calibrated?

PS: if I ever drive in Northern Virginia, I'll make sure to go slowly enough to read all the text on all the signs.

[Bickendan]

Washington's real failure is not the signage, it's letting it go until it's built up $18K before bothering to track down the offender.

Technically, they didn't track him down.  He tried to sell the car and in the process of the paperwork for the car sale, it popped up that he owed a lot of money.

That's arguably even worse.

Fixed quote. - rmf67