From UPI:
Washington man receives $18,000 bridge toll bill
The bill accounted for $1,360 in unpaid tolls and over $16,000 in penalties.QuoteA Washington man said he was floored when he received a bill of more than $18,000 for his son's unpaid tolls.
Tom Rose said his son neglected to get a "Good to Go" pass and had crossed the 520 bridge linking Seattle and Bellevue every day for work at his first job, saying he "thought he'd be billed later for it." Rose told King 5 News that his son had been living "hand to mouth" and "thought he was picking the lesser of two evils. He could save up and pay for them later."
FULL ARTICLE HERE (http://markholtz.info/15c)
Interesting how a $5 sticker could have prevented some of this problem. Also, hasn't Washington had tolling since 2007? Can't plead ignorance here.
This is why both my mother's car and my car have a FasTrak pass even though we are rarely in the bay area. And, for a planned road trip in August, I believe that Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah have no tolling facilities. Also, I think Colorado only has the E-470 and the Northwesat Parkway... both easy to avoid.
Because it's a variable toll bridge, let's just say it's $3 with the pass, $5 without. There were $1,360 in unpaid tolls, which is no fewer than 272 crossings. Clearly this person thought he was cheating the system after not getting a bill for a few months.
As far as not receiving a bill, the paper tried to write it up as if the DOT didn't mail it to the correct address. The only known address would be what the person wrote down to register the car, so I'm guessing the person moved and didn't update his info with the DMV.
Quote from: ZLoth on February 01, 2015, 08:11:56 AM
And, for a planned road trip in August, I believe that Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah have no tolling facilities. Also, I think Colorado only has the E-470 and the Northwest Parkway... both easy to avoid.
Utah, last I checked, had HO/T lanes in the Salt Lake City area. Also easy to avoid, just stay in the regular lanes.
Quote from: oscar on February 01, 2015, 09:44:38 AM
Quote from: ZLoth on February 01, 2015, 08:11:56 AM
And, for a planned road trip in August, I believe that Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah have no tolling facilities. Also, I think Colorado only has the E-470 and the Northwest Parkway... both easy to avoid.
Utah, last I checked, had HO/T lanes in the Salt Lake City area. Also easy to avoid, just stay in the regular lanes.
Salr Lake City? No problem.... I'm taking I-70 to US-50 which is much further south.
Quote from: ZLoth on February 01, 2015, 08:11:56 AMCan't plead ignorance here.
Back when I was in college, a lot of out of state students with out of state tags always seemed to think they could just run the tolls, and since a ticket didn't come within a month (they heard or seen friends doing it), they would just start doing it as well. For whatever reason, it took E-Pass a good 4-5 months to send the first violation notice/bill for out of state people, so they would rack up quite the penalties. I knew at least 15 people throughout my time who got bills for several thousand.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 01, 2015, 08:37:16 AM
...
As far as not receiving a bill, the paper tried to write it up as if the DOT didn't mail it to the correct address. The only known address would be what the person wrote down to register the car, so I'm guessing the person moved and didn't update his info with the DMV.
I've had that very experience. I bought my house in 2000 and lived in it ever since. I bought my car in 2007 and it has always been registered to me at my home address. Yet in 2011-2012, the Austin toll roads claim to have sent me bills which I never received on three separate occasions (TXDoT twice, CTRMA once). And, yes, I did call when I did not get the bills in a timely manner. Customers are told to wait for the bill and that they cannot pay with just the license plate and date of occurrence, they also need an account number that is supplied by the pay-by-mail bill generation process.
Why are some people so certain that bureaucracy cannot be inept? Especially if it leads to gain for the institution....
This is why all toll roads need to have cash booths. There are no surprises that way.
Interesting Fact: Did you know that you can pay cash on every single toll road / toll bridge in Mexico? If they can do it why can't we?
Quote from: US 41 on February 01, 2015, 05:16:18 PM
This is why all toll roads need to have cash booths. There are no surprises that way.
Interesting Fact: Did you know that you can pay cash on every single toll road / toll bridge in Mexico? If they can do it why can't we?
Um... cuz labor is cheaper there?
Quote from: kkt on February 01, 2015, 05:48:20 PM
Quote from: US 41 on February 01, 2015, 05:16:18 PM
This is why all toll roads need to have cash booths. There are no surprises that way.
Interesting Fact: Did you know that you can pay cash on every single toll road / toll bridge in Mexico? If they can do it why can't we?
Um... cuz labor is cheaper there?
Then raise the tolls to pay for the toll collectors.
Quote from: US 41 on February 01, 2015, 05:16:18 PM
This is why all toll roads need to have cash booths. There are no surprises that way.
Interesting Fact: Did you know that you can pay cash on every single toll road / toll bridge in Mexico? If they can do it why can't we?
We used to have that same fact here. Modern technology and evolution is the reason why we don't, it just hasn't hit Mexico yet. Dynamic tolling is a relatively new "technology" that is difficult to do without the electronic tolling, and as DOTs desire to use that more, its going to become even more necessary. I'm sure the technology will also get better... there really is no reason we shouldn't be able to go online, enter our license plate, and see and pay our tolls immediately. Or perhaps just use our smartphones to pay, perhaps Bluetooth LE or some other wireless technology can give us a receipt immediately as well.
You can't use the whole "no toll booths" as a plead of ignorance, though. As with Washington and every state with tolled facilities, with toll booths or not, they are well advertised and signed. This particular individual believed that he could just whiz on by and pay later, but that's not how a tolling system works. And considering that the individual/family didn't bother to update the address with the BMV, all of the fault on the delay of the notifications lies with the family. Thankfully, the DOT is working with the family to just pay the fines and not the interest.
There are plenty of cases of folks deliberately violating the law to evade tolls, and then cry about "government overreach"/insert whine when they are faced with a very expensive bill. Some wants to have their roads and not pay their fair share.
I've seen complaints from people who think some toll signs that comply with the current MUTCD standards for all-electronic toll facilities and priced managed lanes are confusing because the signs may not say "TOLL ROAD" or "TOLL." Virginia's high-occupancy/toll lanes are like that. It appears to me the MUTCD theory is that the ETC system's logo (E-ZPass, in our case) is supposed to notify drivers it's a toll road. Some people object that you have people who don't know what E-ZPass is, especially people not from this part of the US, and that said people won't know that means it's a toll road. While I can concede there is some level of logic to that argument, at least in principle, I still think the argument fails when there are two or three signs in advance of the tolled facility displaying dollar figures (e.g., on three separate lines, "I-66 $6.45/WESTPARK $9.25/I-495N $12.00").
I think some people want to try to play dumb or to engage in what the legal system calls "willful blindness"–deliberately trying to avoid knowledge of something in order to try to disclaim liability for the consequences of an illegal or tortious act. I agree with Sherman Cahal that in most cases, the argument doesn't work, though I can conceive of some scenarios where it might. The argument is a lot easier to accept for the person who has one or two violations than it is for someone who uses a tolled facility every day and doesn't pay.
I absolutely do not think all toll roads need to have cash booths. I'd like to see more cash facilities eliminated or reduced to a single inconvenient lane off to one side. It's a pain in the arse when some obnoxious cash-paying Luddite tries to cut the line for the cash lines by driving down the E-ZPass Only lane and then trying to shove over at the last second. I think some facilities maintain too many cash lanes for the volume of cash transactions actually conducted compared to the volume of ETC transactions.
My point is that on the US dollar it states something like "Legal tender for all debts, public and private." This isn't true if cash is not accepted on toll roads. Toll roads are directly related to the government, so you'd think they'd abide by their own printed statement.
Quote from: US 41 on February 02, 2015, 06:42:17 PM
My point is that on the US dollar it states something like "Legal tender for all debts, public and private." This isn't true if cash is not accepted on toll roads. Toll roads are directly related to the government, so you'd think they'd abide by their own printed statement.
I'm not sure about other states that have started rolling out all electronic tolling, but Florida allows you to go to any service center and some other locations and pay cash for any invoice that you have.
Also, it doesn't become a debt until after it is owed. I recently found out cash is no good as bail money, they wanted money order/bank checks ONLY, but its not a debt, so apparently that is fair game (that seemed crazy to me).
Same in Washington re: service centers. I don't think saying they must accept it as legal tender necessarily means they must set up toll booths so that you can pay cash the moment you incur the debt.
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. Reading a plate and purporting to bill someone or another after the fact for an alleged debt violates all common sense, not to mention the basic legal principle of contract consideration. I have signed no contract with this non-government agreeing to pay it anything for anything.
- My state, at least, would ignore any request to do anything to my driving rights as a result of an alleged civil debt such as this, and a civil judgment collectable against my property would only be issued by a civil court in my state, requiring the physical appearance of an actual person having actual knowledge of the facts and circumstances. I would win and they would lose.
- The lawyers suing this outfit will, hopefully, win and receive large amounts of $$.
Quote from: US 41 on February 02, 2015, 06:42:17 PM
My point is that on the US dollar it states something like "Legal tender for all debts, public and private." This isn't true if cash is not accepted on toll roads. Toll roads are directly related to the government, so you'd think they'd abide by their own printed statement.
This same pointless argument has been made by the forum conspiracy theorists many times. It's been debunked many times over. There's nothing preventing you from funding your E-ZPass account with cash if you want, although it seems like a stupid waste of time to drive to a service center every time you need to replenish your account.
It's also fair to recognize that the US government has been quite emphatic in noting that no federal statute requires any private entity to accept cash (and I can certainly think of business I've patronized that did not accept cash). If a toll road is privately operated, the operator can say "no cash" (I know of one that requires either E-ZPass or credit/debit outside of rush hours).
Quote from: SP Cook on February 02, 2015, 09:48:05 PM
- 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. Reading a plate and purporting to bill someone or another after the fact for an alleged debt violates all common sense, not to mention the basic legal principle of contract consideration. I have signed no contract with this non-government agreeing to pay it anything for anything.
- My state, at least, would ignore any request to do anything to my driving rights as a result of an alleged civil debt such as this, and a civil judgment collectable against my property would only be issued by a civil court in my state, requiring the physical appearance of an actual person having actual knowledge of the facts and circumstances. I would win and they would lose.
And, someone will cite that driving is a privilege, not a right.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 02, 2015, 09:48:05 PM
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. Reading a plate and purporting to bill someone or another after the fact for an alleged debt violates all common sense, not to mention the basic legal principle of contract consideration. I have signed no contract with this non-government agreeing to pay it anything for anything.
- My state, at least, would ignore any request to do anything to my driving rights as a result of an alleged civil debt such as this, and a civil judgment collectable against my property would only be issued by a civil court in my state, requiring the physical appearance of an actual person having actual knowledge of the facts and circumstances. I would win and they would lose.
- The lawyers suing this outfit will, hopefully, win and receive large amounts of $$.
It is well settled in the courts that having reasonable knowledge or notice of the requirements and proceeding is enough to form a contract. As long as all of the signs that cause you to enter the road are labeled "Toll", you are, in effect, by proceeding onto the road, signing a contract.
Its the same as any restaurant. If you walk in and order food, regardless if they give you a menu, once you eat the food, you owe the money for that food. If they give you a bill at the end that shocks you (some restaurants, especially expensive ones, do not print the prices on the menu), you've already formed your contract and you're obligated to pay. If you walk out on the bill, you are commiting a crime. And as smartphones and electronic payments continue to take off in popularity, we may lose some of the "pay stations" in restaurants too.
What a toll road cannot do is not tell you cash is not accepted, give you no way to turn around when you reach the cashless toll booth, and then charge exorbitant penalties. At the point you reach the toll booth, you're incurred a debt that you cannot discharge without paying it off. If you go to a fast food place and order, then they give you your food and say "we don't accept cash", you have the option of giving them back the food. On the other hand, if you go to a sit-down place and eat, then they can't refuse to accept cash unless they've clearly informed you ahead of time.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 02, 2015, 09:48:05 PM
.... Reading a plate and purporting to bill someone or another after the fact for an alleged debt violates all common sense, not to mention the basic legal principle of contract consideration. I have signed no contract with this non-government agreeing to pay it anything for anything.
....
Surely you don't seriously think the legal system will require a "written contract" for these sorts of things. No "written contract" would ever be required for driving on a toll road because there's no situation where simply driving on a toll road would fall within any state's Statute of Frauds. As you well know, there are plenty of situations where you can enter an oral contract or an implied contract. To the extent contract law is relevant at all, driving on a toll road is an example of a situation where oral and implied contracts would govern.
The toll road has a sign before you enter stipulating what form(s) of payment are accepted. If you don't like the conditions, you're free to refrain from using the road, but by driving on the road, you are deemed to have accepted the conditions imposed for using it. Nothing difficult or sinister about it.
Quote from: NE2 on February 02, 2015, 10:32:21 PM
What a toll road cannot do is not tell you cash is not accepted, give you no way to turn around when you reach the cashless toll booth, and then charge exorbitant penalties. At the point you reach the toll booth, you're incurred a debt that you cannot discharge without paying it off. If you go to a fast food place and order, then they give you your food and say "we don't accept cash", you have the option of giving them back the food. On the other hand, if you go to a sit-down place and eat, then they can't refuse to accept cash unless they've clearly informed you ahead of time.
What they can do is charge you a fee for your causing them to incur the expense of billing you because you refused to pay properly. Then, if you fail to pay the bill, they can usually charge you a penalty if state law allows it.
For example, if it costs them something to pay an employee to figure out your toll, something more to get access to the plate-number database (mtantillo says a number of states charge other states for this, and I have no reason to dispute his comment), and something more to print and mail you a bill, most states quite reasonably allow the toll road operator to impose a fee to help recover the cost. As you know, the Florida's Turnpike "toll-by-plate" system does just that.
Note that in this situation you can still pay cash if you're stupid or stubborn enough to insist on driving somewhere to pay your bill in cash (or, more inexplicably, if you're willing to risk sending cash through the mail).
Incidentally, Virginia has a new option for cash holdouts to replenish their E-ZPasses–apparently now you can get a special card that you link to your account and you then present it at participating grocery stores when you need to add money to your account. The cashier scans the bar code and punches in the amount of money, you pay it, and it gets added to your E-ZPass account. I don't know anyone who has this card, but it's advertised on their website. So there is even less of an excuse for cash lovers to fail to get an E-ZPass!
If they haven't told you ahead of time what types of payment are accepted, having cash ready to hand over is not "refusing to pay properly".
Quote from: NE2 on February 02, 2015, 10:43:27 PM
If they haven't told you ahead of time what types of payment are accepted, having cash ready to hand over is not "refusing to pay properly".
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.
I do think it wouldn't be a bad idea for there to be some kind of symbol denoting non-acceptance of cash for people who don't speak English.
Quote from: NE2 on February 02, 2015, 10:43:27 PM
If they haven't told you ahead of time what types of payment are accepted, having cash ready to hand over is not "refusing to pay properly".
Is there any toll roads that are not signed NO CASH and then are not willing to accept cash without large fines (although some, perhaps wanting the payment afterwards at some service center)?
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 02, 2015, 10:46:38 PM
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.
"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.
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.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 02, 2015, 09:48:05 PM
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.
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
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 03, 2015, 10:18:29 AM
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.
Quote from: NE2 on February 03, 2015, 10:26:16 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 03, 2015, 10:18:29 AM
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.
QuotePrivate businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law which says otherwise.
Quoteall 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
Quoteone to whom a debt is owed
Once you consume a service, you owe a debt.
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
Quote from: NE2 on February 03, 2015, 10:26:16 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 03, 2015, 10:18:29 AM
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.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 03, 2015, 10:39:16 AM
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.
Quote from: NE2 on February 03, 2015, 10:44:56 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 03, 2015, 10:39:16 AM
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.
(https://www.expresslanes.com/images/driving-express-lanes/signage/panel-495-2-a.jpg)
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!
I already mentioned that sign, which is off to the side in small print and easy to miss...
Quote from: NE2 on February 03, 2015, 11:16:21 AM
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. (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.795435,-77.186968,3a,75y,282.85h,85.32t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sNkUfgwN9Y4qsBi6fC-qjpQ!2e0) 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"?
Ignorance of the law is totally an excuse. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=14093) 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.
Quote from: NE2 on February 03, 2015, 11:25:35 AM
Ignorance of the law is totally an excuse. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=14093) 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.
You know, it's interesting, from looking at the current MUTCD (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/part2g.htm) 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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 03, 2015, 11:37:04 AM
Quote from: NE2 on February 03, 2015, 11:25:35 AM
Ignorance of the law is totally an excuse. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=14093) 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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 03, 2015, 11:37:04 AM
Quote from: NE2 on February 03, 2015, 11:25:35 AM
Ignorance of the law is totally an excuse. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=14093) 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.
Quote from: NE2 on February 03, 2015, 11:47:32 AM
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).
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].
There's certainly no question some people get confused and do some very dumb things:
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.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 03, 2015, 11:40:59 AM
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.
QuoteBTW, 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.
Quote from: NE2 on February 03, 2015, 11:47:32 AM
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.
Quote from: kkt on February 03, 2015, 12:00:31 PM
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 03, 2015, 12:02:05 PM
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 03, 2015, 12:06:02 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 03, 2015, 12:00:31 PM
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. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67
I'm glad I'm having a very slow day work-wise!
Quote from: NE2 on February 03, 2015, 12:10:10 PM
....
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.
Better you do that than rely on an outdated sat-nav database and then panic and come to a stop to throw it in reverse on the Beltway!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 03, 2015, 12:02:05 PM
....
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 03, 2015, 11:40:59 AMBTW, 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.
Quote from: NE2 on February 03, 2015, 11:47:32 AM
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.
....
I posted the following comment in the "Northern Virginia HOT Lanes" thread about a month ago and I think it's relevant here as well from a practical standpoint. I believe there may be additional escalation beyond the $25 per trip I mentioned, though I'm not certain.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2015, 11:08:04 PM
Channel 5 aired what Ms1995hoo and I thought was a very slanted anti-Transurban report on the 10:00 News tonight; it ended with the anchorman (I don't know his name) calling the HO/T lanes a scam and saying he refuses to use them. See link below.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/27766961/defense-attorney-unveils-strategy-to-challenge-huge-e-zpass-express-lane-fines
No doubt there are some people who just screw up, but you have to screw up really severely to wind up in this situation. Assume, for discussion purposes, you don't know your E-ZPass battery is dead and you run up six trips in three days. Since you don't know your battery is dead, you don't pay online within five days when the service charge is only $1.50.
That means you get a bill in the mail for the tolls plus $12.50 per trip (in this example, that means tolls plus $75). Seems to me that would get the average person's attention very quickly.
If you fail to pay the initial invoice, the fees increase to $25 per trip (in this example, that means $150 on top of the tolls). Again, I don't see how anyone could be so foolish as to ignore the invoice.
If you still don't pay, they refer it to a debt collection agency. That, of course, means additional fees on top of the ones already imposed. Understandably, state law lets Transurban pass on those fees to the person whose nonpayment caused them to incur the fees in the first place.
If debt collection goes nowhere in six months, they take you to court.
The attorney Channel 5 quoted talks a lot about criminal law and constitutional issues. I'm not sure his argument will work because under state law, the fees are deemed civil penalties, not criminal fines, and the summons shown on TV was a civil pleading (a warrant in debt, which is a standard form used in general district court). Of course, he can try to convince a judge the matter is actually criminal, but it's unclear whether he'd succeed.
There IS certainly a valid question as to why Transurban proceeds this way instead of querying the E-ZPass database. I have all three of our plate numbers registered on my E-ZPass account, for example, so if my battery were dead, it'd be simple enough for them to get the correct account number and simply bill that account. I don't know why they don't do it that way, but I assume it has something to do with the idea of requiring E-ZPass and not allowing a "toll-by-plate" option like on Florida's Turnpike in the Miami are.
Regarding the "civil versus criminal" point, note it's not the Commonwealth prosecuting the person for unpaid tolls. It's the company that runs the lanes suing, which just underscores it's not a criminal matter. This sort of thing may well vary from state to state. In a civil proceeding, pleading the Fifth Amendment doesn't help you. The trier of fact is entitled to make an adverse inference from your refusal to testify.
Now, I see in the original news article the people claim they never received the toll invoices. That's a pretty common claim that's usually completely untrue, but I can't help but wonder, if multiple invoices were sent and not delivered, is that a sign they failed to update their address with the DMV? If so, then it seems to me the car's owner is at fault if state law requires you to do so within a certain amount of time (when my wife and I got married and she moved to my house, we did all that online, very quick process). The story does not address this beyond saying the invoices were "returned unopened." There are some people out there who think they can avoid mailed service in that manner. Under just about every state's rules of procedure, they're wrong (certain documents require formal service, but most others can be validly served by mail).
I will add this: It seems to me that if you are running a transponder-based tolling system, and if the agency that issues the transponder requests that users include their license-plate numbers in their account profiles, there is little reason why a toll operator within the issuing agency's bailiwick should not query that state's transponder database before sending out a bill. If you get a situation where the transponder battery is dead and the person has no way of knowing it, smacking the person with a $12.50 administrative fee doesn't seem right. I recognize this matter becomes more complicated if you're dealing with out-of-state vehicles and I don't know what the right solution is there. This sort of thing DOES need to be addressed if there is to be any sort of compliance with that MAP-21 mandate for interoperability, though. If toll-by-plate is to be the default method for interoperability, then it's not reasonable to stick, say, a SunPass user on an E-ZPass road with a $12.50 fee because he didn't have an E-ZPass.
Quote from: Bickendan on February 03, 2015, 12:21:47 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 03, 2015, 12:06:02 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 03, 2015, 12:00:31 PM
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.
(Corrected for you)
Nah. I think what's worse is that it's clearly a theft of services. If he was tracked down, it would probably be via the police, and he'll be taken in via handcuffs and arrested. Since the DMV didn't have his correct address and it's determined he never updated his information with the DMV, then most likely that's another charge against him.
How someone could get a $18,000 bill in the mail is beyond me!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 03, 2015, 12:06:02 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 03, 2015, 12:00:31 PM
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.
Okay, Washington's fault is that they didn't track down someone who owed them some money before it became a ridiculous amount.
Quote from: kkt on February 03, 2015, 02:16:39 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 03, 2015, 12:06:02 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 03, 2015, 12:00:31 PM
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.
Okay, Washington's fault is that they didn't track down someone who owed them some money before it became a ridiculous amount.
And how do they do that? The address on file isn't correct.
The only other way is to put the license plate on file as a stop and hold type situation, which again will lead to the detainment and/or arrest of the driver. And in that case, they could be arresting or detaining the wrong person, who just happened to be driving the vehicle.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 03, 2015, 02:19:32 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 03, 2015, 02:16:39 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 03, 2015, 12:06:02 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 03, 2015, 12:00:31 PM
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.
Okay, Washington's fault is that they didn't track down someone who owed them some money before it became a ridiculous amount.
And how do they do that? The address on file isn't correct.
The only other way is to put the license plate on file as a stop and hold type situation, which again will lead to the detainment and/or arrest of the driver. And in that case, they could be arresting or detaining the wrong person, who just happened to be driving the vehicle.
Automatic mail forwarding when someone moves and changes their address with USPS? I know that's only a six week or so window, but if the toll running started within that window...
Quote from: Bickendan on February 03, 2015, 04:40:22 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 03, 2015, 02:19:32 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 03, 2015, 02:16:39 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 03, 2015, 12:06:02 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 03, 2015, 12:00:31 PM
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.
Okay, Washington's fault is that they didn't track down someone who owed them some money before it became a ridiculous amount.
And how do they do that? The address on file isn't correct.
The only other way is to put the license plate on file as a stop and hold type situation, which again will lead to the detainment and/or arrest of the driver. And in that case, they could be arresting or detaining the wrong person, who just happened to be driving the vehicle.
Automatic mail forwarding when someone moves and changes their address with USPS? I know that's only a six week or so window, but if the toll running started within that window...
No, 1st class mail gets forwarded for a year. The only way they wouldn't get it is if they "forgot" to have their mail forwarded.
There are other ways, too. For $18K I might try googling or hire a detective.
Mail forwarding is optional. It needs to be initiated by the individual. Some mail says "Do not forward. Return to sender if undeliverable".
In the grand scheme of things, $18k really isn't all that much to the toll operator. We're dealing with people that oversee multi-millions of dollars, if not billions. And especially in EZ Pass land, there's stories of trucking companies that owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in tolls & fines.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 03, 2015, 05:29:40 PM
Mail forwarding is optional. It needs to be initiated by the individual. Some mail says "Do not forward. Return to sender if undeliverable".
In the grand scheme of things, $18k really isn't all that much to the toll operator. We're dealing with people that oversee multi-millions of dollars, if not billions. And especially in EZ Pass land, there's stories of trucking companies that owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in tolls & fines.
If $18K isn't all that much, a few hundred for a couple of hours of a detective's time should be even less.
Perhaps that's why the project is so expensive.
It will be interesting to see what, if anything, comes of the class action lawsuit.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 03, 2015, 12:31:23 PM
. In a civil proceeding, pleading the Fifth Amendment doesn't help you. The trier of fact is entitled to make an adverse inference from your refusal to testify.
Oh, that is correct. For both sides. First, as you should know, state judgments are only valid within a particular state. And even then only after process within the bounds of due process. So is some outfit purports to "bill" someone by plate number out-of-state, good luck getting service, and then good luck domesticating the judgment into a different state, which is a minimum $2000 proceeding for even the most lowlife of lawyers.
And then there is that "testify" deal. Exactly whom, is going to testify for the outfit? Need a HUMAN with ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE. See FRE 901.
People win, companies lose.
Quote from: kkt on February 03, 2015, 05:00:23 PM
No, 1st class mail gets forwarded for a year. The only way they wouldn't get it is if they "forgot" to have their mail forwarded.
Or if USPS forgot to forward the mail. I've had that happen before, both to myself and people who previously had a mailing address I had.
My general sense of these things is that toll agencies will work with people who are first-time violators; you probably have to be persistent about it, in the same way that pleading ignorance with a NYC or Quebec cop about the right-turn-on-red law or a bored country cop pulling you over for rolling a stop sign at 1 mph will often get you off with a warning. If you go fight a ticket in court you may get it dismissed for court costs. At the same time, though, if I roll a stop sign and get a real ticket for it, or I fight the ticket and the judge makes me pay up and pay court costs, I can't really complain in any legal sense.
As for the legal tender issue, leaving aside the statement on Federal Reserve Notes (designed so creditors couldn't demand payment in United States Notes or gold rather than Federal Reserve Notes, and thus insist on being repaid with "harder" currency than greenbacks, even if they originally lent the money in gold-backed currency), it really doesn't fly except to the extent that you could mail or hand-deliver a bunch of paper currency to the toll authority to pay the bill after the fact; the fact you're toting around the cash at the time and could have paid is immaterial. It doesn't exempt you from paying late fees any more than being delinquent on your car payment for a month and then hand-delivering cash to the bank later to pay the outstanding payments would forgive any penalties and interest on the loan for not making timely payments, even if you had the cash in your wallet when the payment was due and could have paid it then.
Quote from: vdeane on February 03, 2015, 08:21:44 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 03, 2015, 05:00:23 PM
No, 1st class mail gets forwarded for a year. The only way they wouldn't get it is if they "forgot" to have their mail forwarded.
Or if USPS forgot to forward the mail. I've had that happen before, both to myself and people who previously had a mailing address I had.
When you don't pay a bill, you get a second and third notice, and a threat to send your account to collection. This may take six months. In that time, you will have amassed some kind of paper trail at your new place. The collection agency will find you based off of that.
At that point, you will then get a lot of attention from them, after which they may give up and put something on your credit, but might just sue you.
$18,000 would probably have generated a fair amount of mail between six months and a year. If not, the state should reexamine its contract.
To me, the points "Pete from Boston" makes underscore some of the reasons why I find it baffling that any of these unpaid-toll cases make it far enough to go to court. If I receive some kind of invoice, you bet I would investigate it unless it is amply clear it's some sort of attempt at a scam (and the scams usually come by e-mail nowadays). I simply find it
inconceivable that people ignore these things. There was a report on TV about a woman in Virginia who ignored them "because I don't want to pay it." Case went to court and she lost and did not appeal. The court allowed a payment plan and she failed to comply with that because "I don't think I should have to pay that." The court then ordered the DMV to suspend her driver's license. "I don't want to pay" and "I don't think I should have to comply with a court judgment" are pretty stupid arguments!
Out of curiosity based on some of the points raised in this thread, I looked up the Virginia statute relating to HO/T lanes. I know the original post in this thread is about Washington State, but I pulled up this particular Virginia statute for the following reasons:
(a) I'm familiar with and have immediate free access to Virginia sources. The same is not necessarily true for Washington.
(b) I strongly suspect many states have similarly-framed statutes, at least in concept.
(c) Our HO/T lanes were the primary all-electronic toll facilities we have. There is now a tunnel in Norfolk that has gone AET as well. I have not looked up the statute applicable there, but I suspect the General Assembly used the HO/T lane statute as a model.
Regarding the "legal tender" point, the statute says this:
QuoteAny person operating a motor vehicle on designated HOT lanes shall make arrangements with the HOT lanes operator for payment of the required toll prior to entering such HOT lanes. ....
That's how they require E-ZPass. As has been noted elsewhere in the thread, there is nothing prohibiting you from funding your E-ZPass with cash if you so desire.
SP Cook tried to come up with a nonsensical argument based on the Federal Rules of Evidence (which do not apply in state court anyway!) to say there can be no proof of a toll violation, but the General Assembly anticipated that. Bear in mind court rules of that sort are trumped by statute requiring the courts to accept certain forms of evidence. The Virginia statute says this:
Quote2. a. A HOT lanes operator shall install and operate, or cause to be installed or operated, a photo-enforcement system at locations where tolls are collected for the use of such HOT lanes.
b. A summons for civil violation of this section may be executed pursuant to this subdivision, when such violation is evidenced by information obtained from a photo-enforcement system as defined in this chapter. A certificate, sworn to or affirmed by a technician employed or authorized by the HOT lanes operator, or a facsimile of such a certificate, based on inspection of photographs, microphotographs, videotapes, or other recorded images produced by a photo-enforcement system, shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. Any photographs, microphotographs, videotape, or other recorded images evidencing such a violation shall be available for inspection in any proceeding to adjudicate the liability for such violation under this subdivision. Any vehicle rental or vehicle leasing company, if named in a summons, shall be released as a party to the action if it provides to the HOT lanes operator a copy of the vehicle rental agreement or lease or an affidavit identifying the renter or lessee prior to the date of hearing set forth in the summons. Upon receipt of such rental agreement, lease, or affidavit, a summons shall be issued for the renter or lessee identified therein. Release of this information shall not be deemed a violation of any provision of the Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act (§ 2.2-3800 et seq.) or the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act (§ 38.2-600 et seq.).
This does two things. It overcomes the hearsay issue of relying on photos and videotape, although arguably they might fall within the "business records" exception anyway (that's a matter for the individual states to decide). It also creates a rebuttable presumption that the vehicle in question was operated on the lanes in violation of the statute. (For those unfamiliar, a "rebuttable presumption" essentially means the alleged facts are taken as true but the opposing party has the opportunity to disprove them, as well as the burden of producing satisfactory evidence to do so). Creating an irrebuttable presumption would be a constitutional problem, so they don't do that.
The statute goes on to provide various other things regarding the amount of the civil penalty and the like. You can find it here:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+33.2-503
As far as domesticating a judgment in another state goes, that's not a particularly onerous procedure, though the exact mechanics vary by state. There are plenty of smaller law firms that will do that sort of thing for a flat fee or the like as an easy source of business. Service of process is much easier. Every state has some sort of long-arm statute that makes serving process relatively trivial (important, sure, but not difficult).
According to the Washington DOT page at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/GoodToGo/nocp.htm ... :
QuoteIf you fail to pay your toll bill within 80 days after crossing the SR 520 or Tacoma Narrows bridges, a notice of civil penalty will be assessed in the amount of $40 for each unpaid toll transaction, plus all accumulated tolls and fees. Registered vehicle owners have up to 20 days to pay or to dispute a civil penalty.
At $40 per infraction, you would think they would attempt to send the third "pay up" notification via certified mail so that they have proof that A. They mailed out a notice, and B. You refused to receive said mail.
Quote from: ZLoth on February 04, 2015, 09:39:06 AM
According to the Washington DOT page at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/GoodToGo/nocp.htm ... :QuoteIf you fail to pay your toll bill within 80 days after crossing the SR 520 or Tacoma Narrows bridges, a notice of civil penalty will be assessed in the amount of $40 for each unpaid toll transaction, plus all accumulated tolls and fees. Registered vehicle owners have up to 20 days to pay or to dispute a civil penalty.
At $40 per infraction, you would think they would attempt to send the third "pay up" notification via certified mail so that they have proof that A. They mailed out a notice, and B. You refused to receive said mail.
Agreed. I think it's just good practice. I assume whatever employee they send to court to testify is trained to describe their routine practice for sending these things.
Quote from: vdeane on February 03, 2015, 08:21:44 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 03, 2015, 05:00:23 PM
No, 1st class mail gets forwarded for a year. The only way they wouldn't get it is if they "forgot" to have their mail forwarded.
Or if USPS forgot to forward the mail. I've had that happen before, both to myself and people who previously had a mailing address I had.
Sure, sometimes. But we're talking about thousands of pieces of mail.
Quote from: kkt on February 04, 2015, 10:30:07 AM
Quote from: vdeane on February 03, 2015, 08:21:44 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 03, 2015, 05:00:23 PM
No, 1st class mail gets forwarded for a year. The only way they wouldn't get it is if they "forgot" to have their mail forwarded.
Or if USPS forgot to forward the mail. I've had that happen before, both to myself and people who previously had a mailing address I had.
Sure, sometimes. But we're talking about thousands of pieces of mail.
As mentioned, the mail may have never been set to be forwarded anyway.
At some point they probably forward the matter to a collection agency. Those people are very good at tracking down debtors. Very persistent, too, from what I understand.
Quote from: ZLoth on February 04, 2015, 09:39:06 AM
...
At $40 per infraction, you would think they would attempt to send the third "pay up" notification via certified mail so that they have proof that A. They mailed out a notice, and B. You refused to receive said mail.
One would think. The text of the article about the class action lawsuit does not, to my read, seem to support this. I don't quite know how people know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the kid didn't update his address with the DMV (or whatever the WA equivalent is) because I do know I personally have had issues with the TX DMV, despite saving copies of everything to prove my personal correct and complete registration with them. There are a lot of people in north and central Texas who claim not to have received any notices until they went to renew their car tags. I know don't how someone can prove "failure to receive" to some of the posters upthread or to anyone else for that matter, but if it's really true that you've always received all the mail that's been sent to you and never ever received anything not intended for you, congratulations. It happens to me on about a weekly basis that something is in my box not intended for me. I of course have no way of quantifying how much mail intended for me that I do not receive.
I'm not defending the kid - he was stupid - oops, I meant 'he made poor choices' - and shouldn't have crossed the bridge without finding out how it works, or at worst he should've stopped after the first crossing. However, as referenced in the class action lawsuit article, there do seem to be questionable billing practices.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 04, 2015, 10:47:31 AM
Quote from: kkt on February 04, 2015, 10:30:07 AM
Quote from: vdeane on February 03, 2015, 08:21:44 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 03, 2015, 05:00:23 PM
No, 1st class mail gets forwarded for a year. The only way they wouldn't get it is if they "forgot" to have their mail forwarded.
Or if USPS forgot to forward the mail. I've had that happen before, both to myself and people who previously had a mailing address I had.
Sure, sometimes. But we're talking about thousands of pieces of mail.
As mentioned, the mail may have never been set to be forwarded anyway.
Collection agencies don't rely on the post office. They'll find you on their own.
Quote from: ZLoth on February 04, 2015, 09:39:06 AM
According to the Washington DOT page at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/GoodToGo/nocp.htm ... :QuoteIf you fail to pay your toll bill within 80 days after crossing the SR 520 or Tacoma Narrows bridges, a notice of civil penalty will be assessed in the amount of $40 for each unpaid toll transaction, plus all accumulated tolls and fees. Registered vehicle owners have up to 20 days to pay or to dispute a civil penalty.
At $40 per infraction, you would think they would attempt to send the third "pay up" notification via certified mail so that they have proof that A. They mailed out a notice, and B. You refused to receive said mail.
No one sends out Certified for $40. It doesn't justify the labor and fees.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 04, 2015, 12:46:24 PM
Quote from: ZLoth on February 04, 2015, 09:39:06 AM
According to the Washington DOT page at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/GoodToGo/nocp.htm ... :QuoteIf you fail to pay your toll bill within 80 days after crossing the SR 520 or Tacoma Narrows bridges, a notice of civil penalty will be assessed in the amount of $40 for each unpaid toll transaction, plus all accumulated tolls and fees. Registered vehicle owners have up to 20 days to pay or to dispute a civil penalty.
At $40 per infraction, you would think they would attempt to send the third "pay up" notification via certified mail so that they have proof that A. They mailed out a notice, and B. You refused to receive said mail.
No one sends out Certified for $40. It doesn't justify the labor and fees.
I thought he was referring to the aggregated amount: $40 per transaction multiplied by some umpteen transactions.
After seeing this thread run on for three pages and delve deeply into the legal aspects of debt collection, I have a question: why do we still believe in the fairy tale that tolls--however paid--will finance the infrastructure we need?
None of these issues surface if the money is just collected at the gas pump, without all the faff and bother of contracts--express or implied--between the motorist and the highway provider.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 04, 2015, 01:04:20 PM
After seeing this thread run on for three pages and delve deeply into the legal aspects of debt collection, I have a question: why do we still believe in the fairy tale that tolls--however paid--will finance the infrastructure we need?
None of these issues surface if the money is just collected at the gas pump, without all the faff and bother of contracts--express or implied--between the motorist and the highway provider.
Gas tax is becoming increasingly inequitable way of charging users. Currently, Tesla drivers use untolled roads for free.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 04, 2015, 01:38:30 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 04, 2015, 01:04:20 PM
After seeing this thread run on for three pages and delve deeply into the legal aspects of debt collection, I have a question: why do we still believe in the fairy tale that tolls--however paid--will finance the infrastructure we need?
None of these issues surface if the money is just collected at the gas pump, without all the faff and bother of contracts--express or implied--between the motorist and the highway provider.
Gas tax is becoming increasingly inequitable way of charging users. Currently, Tesla drivers use untolled roads for free.
So what could we do about that? Annual fee for electric grid powered vehicles as part of the annual registration? Charge electric utilities a fee according to the estimated number of electric vehicles in their service area?
I hope the answer is NOT "spend billions of $ to track every vehicle everywhere it goes every minute of every day like Stasi's wet dream".
Quote from: kkt on February 04, 2015, 01:49:19 PMSo what could we do about that? Annual fee for electric grid powered vehicles as part of the annual registration? Charge electric utilities a fee according to the estimated number of electric vehicles in their service area?
I hope the answer is NOT "spend billions of $ to track every vehicle everywhere it goes every minute of every day like Stasi's wet dream".
Those are two possible solutions, and personally I like the idea of charging the electric utilities because that is the closer analogue to off-the-rack taxation of motor vehicle fuels, which is how the gas tax is collected these days.
The larger concern, as I see it, is that political polarization is so bad these days that we are likely to end up backing into Stasiland solutions like GPS tracking. However, I think we have at least another 20 years to go before it becomes urgent to replace a tax on liquid motor fuels as the mainstay of our highway funding system.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 04, 2015, 01:38:30 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 04, 2015, 01:04:20 PM
After seeing this thread run on for three pages and delve deeply into the legal aspects of debt collection, I have a question: why do we still believe in the fairy tale that tolls--however paid--will finance the infrastructure we need?
None of these issues surface if the money is just collected at the gas pump, without all the faff and bother of contracts--express or implied--between the motorist and the highway provider.
Gas tax is becoming increasingly inequitable way of charging users. Currently, Tesla drivers use untolled roads for free.
So do bicyclists, and they are increasingly demanding more and more of the road and their ability to use it, and have priority over everyone else as well.
Quote from: kkt on February 04, 2015, 01:49:19 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 04, 2015, 01:38:30 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 04, 2015, 01:04:20 PM
After seeing this thread run on for three pages and delve deeply into the legal aspects of debt collection, I have a question: why do we still believe in the fairy tale that tolls--however paid--will finance the infrastructure we need?
None of these issues surface if the money is just collected at the gas pump, without all the faff and bother of contracts--express or implied--between the motorist and the highway provider.
Gas tax is becoming increasingly inequitable way of charging users. Currently, Tesla drivers use untolled roads for free.
So what could we do about that? Annual fee for electric grid powered vehicles as part of the annual registration? Charge electric utilities a fee according to the estimated number of electric vehicles in their service area?
....
Virginia tried the suggestion in boldface a year or two ago for alternative-fueled vehicles, including hybrids, and wound up repealing it because people bitched so much. There was a bunch of bleating about "I bought this car because it saves money on gas and I'm doing the right thing. Why should I be penalized?" Not surprisingly, the politicians did a lousy job explaining it. They needed to stand up and say, for example, "Your Civic hybrid puts the same amount of wear and tear on the road as a standard gasoline-powered Civic, yet you're paying less in gas tax to maintain the roads. There needs to be a more equitable way of paying for wear and tear and this is the solution we've developed because this tax makes up for the difference." They also needed to do a better job of explaining that it wasn't aimed just at hybrids. As Pete from Boston notes, you have electric cars. There are other alternative fuels as well–CNG and propane are two good examples–that likewise aren't subject to the gas tax. The politicians needed to stand up and explain that those vehicles' owners need to contribute to road maintenance as well. There are more alternative-fuel vehicles on the roads than you might expect, especially in areas where they are eligible for an HOV-lane exemption.
Of course people would still complain, but if they'd said something along the lines of what I just said it would at least make sense.
Georgia is planning a $200 annual fee ($300 for commercially-registered vehicles) for vehicles that don't pay gas tax, which is about the equivalent of the proposed 29.2¢/gallon state gas tax on around 700 gallons of gasoline per year. Assuming that someone who buys a Leaf or Tesla would instead buy an efficient compact or hybrid (say 40 mpg average), you're looking at the equivalent of the tax on driving 28,000 miles within Georgia in an efficient gasoline-fueled car–an average of 77 miles per day of driving.
Maybe people who commute from Macon to Atlanta each day and back would come out ahead (which you could barely do with a Leaf, if you could get a full charge at home and work each day), but I'm guessing most anyone else would get soaked at this tax rate. Then again, in Georgia there's also a massive state income tax credit for buying an all-electric car (up to $7500, non-refundable but spreadable over three years) in addition to the federal incentives, so this fee is basically just clawing back some of that over the life of the car.
Apropos the legal tender discussion, don't try this at home: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2015/02/03/texas-man-arrested-after-attempt-to-pay-taxes-with-dollar-bills/
For the question about fixing electric cars driving for free:
How about requiring a vehicle inspection that includes an odometer reading when you renew the license plate each year? And from the odometer reading assess a flat tax based on miles driven?
If California (38 Million people) were to charge a $0.01 tax per mile, and everyone drove an average of 15,000 miles per year, the state would earn nearly $6 Billion dollars annually.
Quote from: lordsutch on February 04, 2015, 03:03:21 PM
Apropos the legal tender discussion, don't try this at home: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2015/02/03/texas-man-arrested-after-attempt-to-pay-taxes-with-dollar-bills/
QuoteNorris had allegedly folded each bill so tightly that it "required tax office personnel approximately six minutes to unfold each bill."
If you're doing the math, that means that it would take 3,600 minutes — or 60 hours, longer than a work week — to unfold the bills.
In other words, it has nothing to do with legal tender. Neither does the guy who emptied a bag of pennies on the floor.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 04, 2015, 02:10:00 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 04, 2015, 01:38:30 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 04, 2015, 01:04:20 PM
After seeing this thread run on for three pages and delve deeply into the legal aspects of debt collection, I have a question: why do we still believe in the fairy tale that tolls--however paid--will finance the infrastructure we need?
None of these issues surface if the money is just collected at the gas pump, without all the faff and bother of contracts--express or implied--between the motorist and the highway provider.
Gas tax is becoming increasingly inequitable way of charging users. Currently, Tesla drivers use untolled roads for free.
So do bicyclists, and they are increasingly demanding more and more of the road and their ability to use it, and have priority over everyone else as well.
Your other points aside, bicyclists don't have priority over anybody at all here. They have the same rights of way that automobile drivers have.
Quote from: lordsutch on February 04, 2015, 03:03:21 PM
Georgia is planning a $200 annual fee ($300 for commercially-registered vehicles) for vehicles that don't pay gas tax, which is about the equivalent of the proposed 29.2¢/gallon state gas tax on around 700 gallons of gasoline per year. Assuming that someone who buys a Leaf or Tesla would instead buy an efficient compact or hybrid (say 40 mpg average), you're looking at the equivalent of the tax on driving 28,000 miles within Georgia in an efficient gasoline-fueled car–an average of 77 miles per day of driving.
Maybe people who commute from Macon to Atlanta each day and back would come out ahead (which you could barely do with a Leaf, if you could get a full charge at home and work each day), but I'm guessing most anyone else would get soaked at this tax rate. Then again, in Georgia there's also a massive state income tax credit for buying an all-electric car (up to $7500, non-refundable but spreadable over three years) in addition to the federal incentives, so this fee is basically just clawing back some of that over the life of the car.
Apropos the legal tender discussion, don't try this at home: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2015/02/03/texas-man-arrested-after-attempt-to-pay-taxes-with-dollar-bills/
The government has decided that they wanted to push us to cleaner cars with less environmental impact, so they give us a subsidy. Then they decide that its unfair that we get a subsidy on the road usage, so we get a penalty.
It really makes no sense at all. To me, it seems we should simply remove the tax credits for the efficient cars, and redirect that money into the DOT. That will pay for the wear and tear the vehicle causes, and leaving the gas tax in place allows us to have an incentive for people to buy more efficient cars. Infact, a more fair incentive, as the "subsidy" you get is based on how much greenhouse emissions you avoid.
I'd also argue that the gas tax is more fair then a mileage based tax as well. As mentioned, all electric vehicles generally cannot travel very far, and generally tend to be much lighter, causing much less wear and tear on the roadways.
Likewise, the less efficient vehicles tend to cause much more wear and tear on our roadways, in addition to the environmental damage they cause, as they are usually heavier, meaning more weight to damage to roadways, or older, meaning its much more likely to have problems that damage the roadways (and more severely pollute the environment). They're also more likely to need emergency services (accidents tend to be more severe, breakdowns are more likely, etc)
And I'm not being biased for personal reasons, I have an old sedan currently, and am looking at getting an F350 for my work, so a milage based tax would likely benefit me more then a gas based one, but I know that 350 will do a lot more damage then any Tesla, which in reality, causes very little wear and tear.
So the gas tax actually puts the incentives right where we generally seem to want them while being relatively fair. Of course, if we do get to a point where an alternative fuel becomes a majority (and not just increases in efficiency, that should just be met with a higher gas tax), then an alternative method needs to be explored, but I think we all know we're quite a ways off from that.
Quote from: NE2 on February 04, 2015, 03:34:33 PM
In other words, it has nothing to do with legal tender. Neither does the guy who emptied a bag of pennies on the floor.
Hey, the bills (unlike pennies) say they're "legal tender," even if you have to spend six minutes unfolding the things to read the text.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on February 04, 2015, 03:09:53 PM
How about requiring a vehicle inspection that includes an odometer reading when you renew the license plate each year? And from the odometer reading assess a flat tax based on miles driven?
How would you account for driving out of state? If you're from a cheap state like NJ, it would work out great, but people from states like CA and NY would really get screwed under that system.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 04, 2015, 03:38:50 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 04, 2015, 02:10:00 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 04, 2015, 01:38:30 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 04, 2015, 01:04:20 PM
After seeing this thread run on for three pages and delve deeply into the legal aspects of debt collection, I have a question: why do we still believe in the fairy tale that tolls--however paid--will finance the infrastructure we need?
None of these issues surface if the money is just collected at the gas pump, without all the faff and bother of contracts--express or implied--between the motorist and the highway provider.
Gas tax is becoming increasingly inequitable way of charging users. Currently, Tesla drivers use untolled roads for free.
So do bicyclists, and they are increasingly demanding more and more of the road and their ability to use it, and have priority over everyone else as well.
Your other points aside, bicyclists don't have priority over anybody at all here. They have the same rights of way that automobile drivers have.
A 40 pound bike also weighs 1.3% what a 3000 lb car does, and the weight is where road damage/maintenance needs really come in.
Quote from: vdeane on February 04, 2015, 06:39:48 PM
Quote from: PColumbus73 on February 04, 2015, 03:09:53 PM
How about requiring a vehicle inspection that includes an odometer reading when you renew the license plate each year? And from the odometer reading assess a flat tax based on miles driven?
How would you account for driving out of state? If you're from a cheap state like NJ, it would work out great, but people from states like CA and NY would really get screwed under that system.
It could work if a percentage of the tax collected in each state went to the Federal Government.
Comparing Wyoming and California let's assume the following:
The mileage tax rate set in both states is $0.01/mile
The average miles driven for vehicles registered in both states is 15,000 miles
The Federal Government gets 10% of the tax from both states
Wyoming- Pop. 580,000~
Tax owed from each driver = $150
Tax collected = $87 Million - $8.7 Million (To Feds) = $78,300,000 to Wyoming
------------------------------------------
California- 38 Million~
Tax owed from each driver = $150
Tax collected = $5.7 Billion - $570 Million (to Feds) = $5.13 Billion to CA
If this were the case in all 50 states, the Feds would get $4.74 Billion.
This is only for personal vehicles. The states could tax vehicles in four tiers:
Personal Cars/Trucks- $0.01/mile, 10% to Feds
Livery Vehicles (Taxis, Limos, Buses)- $0.015/mile, 10% to Feds
Medium Duty Commercial (Vehicles 14,001-19,500lbs.)- $0.02/mile, 25% to Feds
Heavy Duty Commercial (Vehicles 19,501+)- $0.03/mile, 50% to Feds
These are just idea figures.
How do "apportioned" vehicles do it now?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 04, 2015, 09:18:27 PM
How do "apportioned" vehicles do it now?
I would say, group them with either the Medium or Heavy Duty Tier. I say that because under this tax plan, the tax would be owed to the state the vehicle it is registered in, whether it's Florida, or Montana. And considering that these 'apportioned' vehicles would be doing a large amount of business outside the vehicle's registered state, it would make since that more of the mileage tax would be paid to the Federal Government.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on February 04, 2015, 09:53:35 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 04, 2015, 09:18:27 PM
How do "apportioned" vehicles do it now?
I would say, group them with either the Medium or Heavy Duty Tier. I say that because under this tax plan, the tax would be owed to the state the vehicle it is registered in, whether it's Florida, or Montana. And considering that these 'apportioned' vehicles would be doing a large amount of business outside the vehicle's registered state, it would make since that more of the mileage tax would be paid to the Federal Government.
No, I mean, how do they do it right now, and could this inform a broader solution?
Doing a quick search, it looks like Apportioned Vehicles are charged a tax based on their weight and not their mileage.
I thought it would be easier to ask than research, but I seemed to recall that there was a formula that apportioned the vehicle's taxes among the jurisdictions it traveled.
Weight is part of a fair measure, since it correlates to road wear, but it is usually accounted for in fuel consumption.
I think we may have left the toll-fine discussion behind at this point, but I want to discuss my experience with WSDOT.
A couple years ago, I crossed the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. I wasn't supposed to be in Gig Harbor that day, and unfortunately when I crossed the bridge, I wasn't paying attention to the lanes splitting off to the right to the tollbooths (so I could pay off-the-grid), and I crossed through the Good-to-Go/Pay by Mail section instead. The issue wasn't the increased cost, but now my mother was going to get a letter in the mail from WSDOT in a couple weeks telling her that one of her cars crossed the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, despite the fact that she works nowhere near the bridge and I was supposed to be in school. Long story short, she got the letter, told me I should stop being so fucking lazy and stop at the tollbooths, and I paid the toll online. Phew. I'm glad this letter was not part of the group of people who don't seem to receive their tolls in a timely manner (instead receiving a letter with the toll + a late fee), as I'm sure that would have got her attention and increased her likeliness to question me about my whereabouts on that day.
Anyways, fast forward a couple of years to October of 2014. During a roadmeet with Alps and Kacie Jane, I crossed the SR 520 bridge (this thread's original bridge in question) in my Grandpa's beautiful burgundy Toyota Sienna, with my "family's" Good to Go Pass on the windshield (I just taped it on). I thought all was well until early December, when my grandpa received a toll violation in the mail. The toll violation was for A) failure to pay original toll + violation of using Good-to-Go Pass on a car not on the Good-to-Go pass account, and B) a late a fee for not paying the original toll + violation when they originally sent it out.
My Grandpa tells me they never once sent anything in the mail until the letter in December with the three bills on it (toll + unregistered vehicle + late fee). I'm tempted to believe him, (not just because he has nearly a perfect credit score), but given the things I've heard about WSDOT, he's probably not bullshitting me about never receiving the first letter. But with that said, I'm sort of at fault for not reading the rules beforehand and not adding his van to the account (which would have avoided the whole mess).
So, in summary, for everything the state does wrong, the citizen does something wrong as well. Thus far, things seem to be balancing out. But, I'm not sure how long this "we both fucked up, oh well" attitude can last if WSDOT plans on adding more toll facilities (as they currently plan on doing):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsdot.wa.gov%2FNR%2Frdonlyres%2FDDF34B13-3830-4261-8D51-BBC56DB05DC6%2F0%2FTollProgram_Map_wCallouts_0.gif&hash=06a320c5626fe1211f5aa96b107fe271c192c3a7)
Quote from: NE2 on February 04, 2015, 03:34:33 PM
Quote from: lordsutch on February 04, 2015, 03:03:21 PM
Apropos the legal tender discussion, don't try this at home: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2015/02/03/texas-man-arrested-after-attempt-to-pay-taxes-with-dollar-bills/
QuoteNorris had allegedly folded each bill so tightly that it "required tax office personnel approximately six minutes to unfold each bill."
If you're doing the math, that means that it would take 3,600 minutes — or 60 hours, longer than a work week — to unfold the bills.
In other words, it has nothing to do with legal tender. Neither does the guy who emptied a bag of pennies on the floor.
Yes, the quoted offense was criminal trespass, not tax delinquency. The reporter alludes to possible delinquency, if the deadline for payment elapses while your remission is being counted, but that's just journalistic speculation; it isn't reported to have actually occurred.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 05, 2015, 12:29:21 AMMy Grandpa tells me they never once sent anything in the mail until the letter in December with the three bills on it (toll + unregistered vehicle + late fee). I'm tempted to believe him (not just because he has nearly a perfect credit score), but given the things I've heard about WSDOT, he's probably not bullshitting me about never receiving the first letter. But with that said, I'm sort of at fault for not reading the rules beforehand and not adding his van to the account (which would have avoided the whole mess).
I wonder if he would have been able to see the violation by logging in to his G2G account (I assume it is possible to log in) before a notice plus late fee was generated. Frankly, if I were living in the Seattle area and had a G2G transponder, I would probably have a script set to run every day to log in to my account and take a snapshot of recent charges so that if WSDOT (or, rather, its G2G contractor) tried to slap on late fees before giving me an opportunity to pay, I would be able to prove bad faith.
QuoteSo, in summary, for everything the state does wrong, the citizen does something wrong as well. Thus far, things seem to be balancing out. But, I'm not sure how long this "we both fucked up, oh well" attitude can last if WSDOT plans on adding more toll facilities . . .
I am not sure things are "balancing out" when the design of a tolling system results in a situation where a brief period of transponderless commuting results in penalties that not only are more than ten times the cost of the unpaid tolls, but are also equal to the MSRP of many brand-new cars. This is a system so lacking in elementary failsafes that it is almost besides the point whether the charges are fair or just in terms of contract law. This situation also highlights how tolling is even more regressive than the gas tax, not just because of double-charging and the higher mileage increment, but also because the theoretical possibility of payment in arrears encourages hard-up motorists to think of the tolling authority as a payday lender.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 05, 2015, 01:18:19 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 05, 2015, 12:29:21 AMMy Grandpa tells me they never once sent anything in the mail until the letter in December with the three bills on it (toll + unregistered vehicle + late fee). I'm tempted to believe him (not just because he has nearly a perfect credit score), but given the things I've heard about WSDOT, he's probably not bullshitting me about never receiving the first letter. But with that said, I'm sort of at fault for not reading the rules beforehand and not adding his van to the account (which would have avoided the whole mess).
I wonder if he would have been able to see the violation by logging in to his G2G account (I assume it is possible to log in) before a notice plus late fee was generated.
The toll cameras scanned the tag and the plate, and the system returned an error along the lines of "this vehicle does not exist on the scanned tag's account". I reckon the state is assuming the actual owner of the vehicle is more likely to pay up than the account admin, who may or may not have authorized the use of the tag.
FWIW, he does not use G2G. The only toll he pays is the Tacoma Narrow Bridge, and he just uses the tollbooth. Typical old person. :-D
First, of course, the current gasoline tax is more than sufficient to pay for all the roads we will ever need. If we would just spend 100% of it on roads, an 0% of it on urban transit schemes. Roads are infrastructure. All benefit everyone, event if you never actually use a particular one, as it is a part of the national economic system. Communal transit schemes, however, only benefit people who use these. Which is fine. If you want to ride the subway, ride the subway. And pay for it.
But alternatives just won't work. First, as this thread outlines, "toll by plate" and such is unenforceable. A mandatory nationwide transponder system has too many bad implications. Big Brother for one, but more importantly and likely are the self-appointed do-gooders who decide, being your betters, that you really don't need to live, go, work, where they think you shouldn't and the transponder doesn't let you. As far as higher registration fees, the issue there is you cannot trust government. They will hike your fees, and keep the gas tax too, and spend it elsewhere.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 05, 2015, 06:53:11 AM
First, of course, the current gasoline tax is more than sufficient to pay for all the roads we will ever need. If we would just spend 100% of it on roads, an 0% of it on urban transit schemes. Roads are infrastructure. All benefit everyone, event if you never actually use a particular one, as it is a part of the national economic system. Communal transit schemes, however, only benefit people who use these. Which is fine. If you want to ride the subway, ride the subway. And pay for it.
I would be happy to pay for it as long as road users pay for the benefit they get from transit users not being on roads that are politically infeasible to expand to accommodate the million or so extra vehicles daily.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 05, 2015, 06:53:11 AM
First, of course, the current gasoline tax is more than sufficient to pay for all the roads we will ever need. If we would just spend 100% of it on roads, an 0% of it on urban transit schemes. Roads are infrastructure. All benefit everyone, event if you never actually use a particular one, as it is a part of the national economic system. Communal transit schemes, however, only benefit people who use these. Which is fine. If you want to ride the subway, ride the subway. And pay for it.
In urban areas there are really very few places where new freeways could or should be built. Rail transit via elevated or subway lines are the only option that will fit into existing urban areas, in most cases. The riders of mass transit benefit car drivers too, by getting more cars off the roads.
81% of the population is in urban areas and they generate 81% of the gas taxes. They ought to get something for their taxes, not just subsidizing rural area roads.
I doubt that the gas taxes alone would pay for road maintenance and construction even if there was no subsidy of mass transit options. New construction throughout the country seems to come with tolls.
Quote from: kkt on February 05, 2015, 10:39:53 AMI doubt that the gas taxes alone would pay for road maintenance and construction even if there was no subsidy of mass transit options. New construction throughout the country seems to come with tolls.
We are already at the point where the federal gas tax won't pay for upkeep of the highways we have now, absent massive transfers to the HTF from other revenue sources. And there is still a sizable share of new capacity being built that is not tolled, but is paid for partly from revenue sources that are not road-related, such as sales tax increments. (The Loop freeways in Phoenix are one case in point.)
The diversions to the Mass Transit Account of the HTF are quite low on a percentage basis. The set-aside amount is 2.86c/gallon of the 18.4c/gallon gasoline tax and the 24.4c/gallon diesel tax. Because of this, the percentage amount varies according to the diesel/gasoline consumption mix, but cannot be lower than 11.7% or higher than 15.6%. From the standpoint of total fuel taxes which expert consensus says have to be tripled (a 200% increase) to meet identified needs for renewal and expansion, this is a pittance.
Don't feed the kook.
Quote from: NE2 on February 05, 2015, 11:50:59 AMDon't feed the kook.
I am only too familiar with his history of drive-by commentary, but I did a search and realized that I hadn't converted the Mass Transit Account set-asides to percentages, so I went ahead and did that.
It's not the 'Mass Transit Fund' that is to blame for the lack of construction funds. It is the states who decide that it's okay to use more of Highway Trust money for non-transportation related projects, such as schools. I support mass transit, I like the idea of high-speed rail that is in use in Europe and Japan. But the states are sucking funds from the gas tax to pay for miscellaneous stuff because they think they can.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 04, 2015, 03:38:50 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 04, 2015, 02:10:00 PM
So do bicyclists, and they are increasingly demanding more and more of the road and their ability to use it, and have priority over everyone else as well.
Your other points aside, bicyclists don't have priority over anybody at all here. They have the same rights of way that automobile drivers have.
What about the Massachusetts law that mandates that new construction projects automatically include special accommodations for bicyclists - even if there's no demopnstrated need for said special facilities? What about the Massachusetts law that states that a driver is automatically at fault if they hit a cyclist while they are making a right turn (and that the fact the cyclist was passing the vehicle on the right is NOT considered a valid defense)? How about the fact that converting two lanes of general-purpose traffic to one travel lane and one bike lane basically reduces capacity for everyone? How about the fact that, at least in Massachusetts, drivers cannot leagally encroach on bike lanes, but cyclists have no legal requirement to actually use or stay within those same lanes?
I could give even more examples, but I hope you get the point.
What about your carsplaining?
Quote from: roadman on February 05, 2015, 04:09:49 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 04, 2015, 03:38:50 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 04, 2015, 02:10:00 PM
So do bicyclists, and they are increasingly demanding more and more of the road and their ability to use it, and have priority over everyone else as well.
Your other points aside, bicyclists don't have priority over anybody at all here. They have the same rights of way that automobile drivers have.
What about the Massachusetts law that mandates that new construction projects automatically include special accommodations for bicyclists - even if there's no demopnstrated need for said special facilities? What about the Massachusetts law that states that a driver is automatically at fault if they hit a cyclist while they are making a right turn (and that the fact the cyclist was passing the vehicle on the right is NOT considered a valid defense)? How about the fact that converting two lanes of general-purpose traffic to one travel lane and one bike lane basically reduces capacity for everyone? How about the fact that, at least in Massachusetts, drivers cannot leagally encroach on bike lanes, but cyclists have no legal requirement to actually use or stay within those same lanes?
I could give even more examples, but I hope you get the point.
It doesn't mandate it - it requires that cycling and other modes of transportation be taken into account when designing projects if there is a demonstrated need. It does not mean that every project, such as an interstate widening, requires the inclusion of a bike path.
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on February 05, 2015, 04:36:11 PM
Quote from: roadman on February 05, 2015, 04:09:49 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 04, 2015, 03:38:50 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 04, 2015, 02:10:00 PM
So do bicyclists, and they are increasingly demanding more and more of the road and their ability to use it, and have priority over everyone else as well.
Your other points aside, bicyclists don't have priority over anybody at all here. They have the same rights of way that automobile drivers have.
What about the Massachusetts law that mandates that new construction projects automatically include special accommodations for bicyclists - even if there's no demopnstrated need for said special facilities? What about the Massachusetts law that states that a driver is automatically at fault if they hit a cyclist while they are making a right turn (and that the fact the cyclist was passing the vehicle on the right is NOT considered a valid defense)? How about the fact that converting two lanes of general-purpose traffic to one travel lane and one bike lane basically reduces capacity for everyone? How about the fact that, at least in Massachusetts, drivers cannot leagally encroach on bike lanes, but cyclists have no legal requirement to actually use or stay within those same lanes?
I could give even more examples, but I hope you get the point.
It doesn't mandate it - it requires that cycling and other modes of transportation be taken into account when designing projects if there is a demonstrated need. It does not mean that every project, such as an interstate widening, requires the inclusion of a bike path.
While you are correct about obvious exceptions, like Interstate highway work, my experience has been that the general interpertation of the law is actually "thou shalt make accommodations for bicycles and pedestrians unless one can prove that said accommodations are not feasible to attain". That is the definition of a mandate. And I have yet to see a project in Massachusetts, since this law was passed, where inclusion of bicycle facilities was shown to be justified by actual bike counts.
Quote from: roadman on February 05, 2015, 04:09:49 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 04, 2015, 03:38:50 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 04, 2015, 02:10:00 PM
So do bicyclists, and they are increasingly demanding more and more of the road and their ability to use it, and have priority over everyone else as well.
Your other points aside, bicyclists don't have priority over anybody at all here. They have the same rights of way that automobile drivers have.
What about the Massachusetts law that mandates that new construction projects automatically include special accommodations for bicyclists - even if there's no demopnstrated need for said special facilities? What about the Massachusetts law that states that a driver is automatically at fault if they hit a cyclist while they are making a right turn (and that the fact the cyclist was passing the vehicle on the right is NOT considered a valid defense)? How about the fact that converting two lanes of general-purpose traffic to one travel lane and one bike lane basically reduces capacity for everyone? How about the fact that, at least in Massachusetts, drivers cannot leagally encroach on bike lanes, but cyclists have no legal requirement to actually use or stay within those same lanes?
I could give even more examples, but I hope you get the point.
Point taken. However, to play devil's advocate for a minute, what would you say to people who make the point that motorists have decades of infrastructure designed primarily around their needs, with a comparatively recent and small investment in the same for cyclists? Granted, there are more people driving than riding as their primary means of transportation, but this can also be attributed in part to a lack of good facilities and conditions for the latter.