 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / February 2007Great new revenue scam
A guy I know got a ticket in the mail for violating a HOT lane in Denver recently. A HOT lane is a High Occupancy or Toll lane - you either have to have at least 2 people in your vehicle or a toll-tag. He had a passenger in his car qualifying him to use it for free as an HOV lane. He did not have the toll-tag. So, he gets the ticket - just a photograph of his rear license plate - accusing him of failing to pay the toll. The fine is $80. He calls up the number, explains what happened and that he had a passenger. They said that since this was his first "offense" they could waive the fine, but he still had to pay the toll (~$3), plus "administrative fees" (~$7). Nice, huh? > A guy I know got a ticket in the mail for violating a HOT lane in Denver > recently. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Nice, huh? That's how they all work these days. Even when they admit they are wrong, there is always some sort of charge they stick you with. > A guy I know got a ticket in the mail for violating a HOT lane in Denver > recently. > > So, he gets the ticket - just a photograph of his rear license plate - > accusing him of failing to pay the toll. The fine is $80. Sooo... which was it; was he cited for an HOV violation, or for blowing the toll?! > He calls up the number, explains what happened and that he had a > passenger. They said that since this was his first "offense" they could > waive the fine, but he still had to pay the toll (~$3), plus > "administrative fees" (~$7). Not much of a scam, is it? Your buddy blew off the I-470 toll and ended up saving $70 with a phone call. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. I'll bet he can't do it twice. ----- - gpsman >>A guy I know got a ticket in the mail for violating a HOT lane in Denver >>recently. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Sooo... which was it; was he cited for an HOV violation, or for > blowing the toll?! The toll, which was not applicable to him. Did you miss the part about this being a HOT lane? >>He calls up the number, explains what happened and that he had a >>passenger. They said that since this was his first "offense" they could [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not much of a scam, is it? Your buddy blew off the I-470 toll and > ended up saving $70 with a phone call. No, the toll did not apply since he had a passenger and thus qualified to use the lane he was in. > Sounds like a pretty good deal > to me. For the state, sure. > I'll bet he can't do it twice. Probably not, but the fact that they charged him $10 makes it a small enough fine that he likely will just shut up and pay it even though it is wrong. Multiply this by hundreds of innocent victims per day multiplied by 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. It is quite the revenue enhancer. > ----- > > - gpsman > >>A guy I know got a ticket in the mail for violating a HOT lane in Denver > >>recently. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The toll, which was not applicable to him. Did you miss the part about > this being a HOT lane? The tolls apply to all vehicles, regardless of the number of passengers. > No, the toll did not apply since he had a passenger and thus qualified > to use the lane he was in. Until he reached the toll point. Without a transponder he blew through the transponder lane, so his vehicle was rightfully ID'd as a toll violator. https://www.expresstoll.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1 ----- - gpsman >>>>A guy I know got a ticket in the mail for violating a HOT lane in Denver >>>>recently. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The tolls apply to all vehicles, regardless of the number of > passengers. As I understand it, this is a HOT lane. IOW, it is an HOV lane which passenger-less vehicles can use if they pay a toll. I think you just simply haven't heard of such a concept and are stubbornly insisting it was a toll road. Do a google search on HOT lanes. I don't know which road he was on specifically, nor have I found anything which authoritatively (meaning from the DOT) states that such a road exists, but there are plenty of articles (some dating back to 1999) about such roads that are easily found on google. >>No, the toll did not apply since he had a passenger and thus qualified >>to use the lane he was in. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > - gpsman > >>>>A guy I know got a ticket in the mail for violating a HOT lane in Denver > >>>>recently. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > articles (some dating back to 1999) about such roads that are easily > found on google. Why don't you just read the link I provided on the -only- toll roads in Denver? If you find an exemption based on occupancy, I will stand corrected. > >>No, the toll did not apply since he had a passenger and thus qualified > >>to use the lane he was in. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > >https://www.expresstoll.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1 ----- - gpsman > Why don't you just read the link I provided on the -only- toll roads > in Denver? If you find an exemption based on occupancy, I will stand > corrected. I checked your link and the problem with that this did not happen on a toll road. It is an HOV lane which people are allowed to pay a "toll" to travel in without the requisite multiple people in the vehicle. I'll check with my "buddy" (as you termed him - not me) Monday and find out exactly what road he was on. Frankly, he's not an idiot and if he says it was a HOT lane, I believe him. > > Why don't you just read the link I provided on the -only- toll roads > > in Denver? If you find an exemption based on occupancy, I will stand [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Frankly, he's not an idiot and if he says it was a HOT lane, I believe him. I haven't found any reference to HOT lanes in Denver, butthis may be relevant: Q: What happens if I get caught using the lanes without a transponder? A: If any vehicle without a transponder - including carpool vehicles - passes beneath the electronic toll collector in the Express Lane, a photo will be automatically taken and the driver of the vehicle will be issued a citation by mail. The fine for using the Express Lane without a transponder is $70. Please note no Insufficient Funds forms (ISFs) will be used on the Express Lanes. http://www.dot.state.co.us/cte/expresslanes/fees.cfm#violations ----- - gpsman > I haven't found any reference to HOT lanes in Denver, butthis may be > relevant: No, it isn't. You've provided a lot of information that is completely irrelevant. Here ya' go: http://www.dot.state.co.us/cte/expresslanes/tollmain.cfm "What is the HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) / Tolled Express Lanes concept? HOV/tolled Express Lanes maximize the efficiency of HOV lanes. HOV/Express Lanes allow those who drive alone (also known as "single occupant vehicles") to use the HOV/Express Lanes if they pay a toll. As the HOV lanes have excess space, there is still room for additional vehicles without any travel time impacts to carpoolers to use these lanes without paying a toll. However, those who drive alone will now have the option of paying a toll." Also, check this: http://www.dot.state.co.us/cte/expresslanes/fees.cfm "Only solo drivers will be required to have a transponder. No tolls will be charged to carpools, motorcycles, or buses. Those that drive alone will be required to pay a toll each time they enter the HOV/Express Lanes. Carpool vehicles are encouraged to get a transponder so they have the option of using the Express Lane at some point when only one occupant is in the vehicle." This part of that page does seem relevant though: "What happens if I get caught using the lanes without a transponder? If any vehicle without a transponder – including carpool vehicles – passes beneath the electronic toll collector in the Express Lane, a photo will be automatically taken and the driver of the vehicle will be issued a citation by mail. The fine for using the Express Lane without a transponder is $70. Please note no Insufficient Funds forms (ISFs) will be used on the Express Lanes ." So, I'm a bit confused now. How do they determine if you are a "solo driver" or if you have occupants? Obviously not very well based upon my co-worker's experience. Notice the contradicting information - "Only solo driveres will be required to have a transponder" and "If any vehicle without a trasponder - including carpool vehicles – passes beneath the electronic toll collector in the Express Lane, a photo will be automatically taken and the driver of the vehicle will be issued a citation by mail.". They mention HOV/Express lanes and also mention just express lanes. Maybe that's the source of the confusion and perhaps it is confusion on my part and my co-workers part. It seems to me that if there is a distinction the bureaucrats should just spell it out. >> > Why don't you just read the link I provided on the -only- toll roads >> > in Denver? If you find an exemption based on occupancy, I will stand [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >(ISFs) will be used on the Express Lanes. >http://www.dot.state.co.us/cte/expresslanes/fees.cfm#violations And on this page: http://www.dot.state.co.us/cte/expresslanes/fees.cfm Do I need a transponder to access the lanes? Only solo drivers will be required to have a transponder. No tolls will be charged to carpools, motorcycles, or buses. Those that drive alone will be required to pay a toll each time they enter the HOV/Express Lanes. Carpool vehicles are encouraged to get a transponder so they have the option of using the Express Lane at some point when only one occupant is in the vehicle. So they give you conflicting information then ticket you for relying on it.  SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>>> A guy I know got a ticket in the mail for violating a HOT lane in >>>>> Denver [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I think you just simply haven't heard of such a concept and are > stubbornly insisting it was a toll road. GPStroll stubbornly insists on a lot of things that aren't true, simply because he thinks they're right and can't be bothered to actually research or learn anything. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> said in rec.autos.driving: >GPStroll stubbornly insists on a lot of things that aren't true, simply >because he thinks they're right and can't be bothered to actually >research or learn anything. On the contrary, he knows full well what the truth is. He adopts outrageous positions simply to piss people off. That's the textbook definition of USENET TROLL. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam> said in rec.autos.driving: >gpstroll wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >I think you just simply haven't heard of such a concept and are >stubbornly insisting it was a toll road. The explanation is even simpler than that: GPSman is a TROLL. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! >>>>A guy I know got a ticket in the mail for violating a HOT lane in Denver >>>>recently. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The tolls apply to all vehicles, regardless of the number of > passengers. (shakes head) you just don't get it, do you? >>No, the toll did not apply since he had a passenger and thus qualified >>to use the lane he was in. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > - gpsman Yet again, you prove that you are a complete moron. At least some things remain consistent. Have you considered enrolling in a remedial reading course? nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>>>A guy I know got a ticket in the mail for violating a HOT lane in Denver > >>>>recently. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Have you considered enrolling in a remedial reading course? Lol. That you don't understand what you read, or don't bother to read, does not indicate a lack of comprehension on my part. "If you accidentally drive through the lane designated "Toll" within a collection zone and you have a transponder in your vehicle, you will still be charged, regardless of the number of people in your vehicle. If you don't have a transponder, you will be issued a violation in the mail." http://www.dot.state.co.us/cte/expresslanes/about.cfm Stupid people often think those who know of what they write are incorrect. http://www.dot.state.co.us/cte/expresslanes/about.cfm ---- - gpsman > > >>>>A guy I know got a ticket in the mail for violating a HOT lane in Denver > > >>>>recently. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > - gpsman You appear to have ignored the post Fred made yesterday that outlines that you're wrong. Have a little class: Admit you were wrong and then shut up. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed the demo of the iPhone speakerphone. On Feb 24, 3:58 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote: <brevity snip> > You appear to have ignored the post Fred made yesterday that outlines > that you're wrong. I didn't ignore it, moron, I challenged it as incorrect. > Have a little class: > > Admit you were wrong and then shut up. So... Fred says I'm wrong, so I'm wrong?! I think the most likely scenario is that Fred's buddy used the wrong lane, at the wrong time, and was cited appropriately and in accordance with the law. There isn't any evidence to the contrary, so why don't you shut up until Fred double-checks the actual facts instead of jumping to spurious conclusions. I won't cost anything. ----- - gpsman > On Feb 24, 3:58 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote: <brevity > snip> > > You appear to have ignored the post Fred made yesterday that outlines > > that you're wrong. > > I didn't ignore it, moron, I challenged it as incorrect. Nope. You failed to reply to it as of the time I posted my reply, although you clearly had the time. > > Have a little class: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > scenario is that Fred's buddy used the wrong lane, at the wrong time, > and was cited appropriately and in accordance with the law. Fred *showed* you were wrong with cites. > There isn't any evidence to the contrary, so why don't you shut up > until Fred double-checks the actual facts instead of jumping to > spurious conclusions. > > I won't cost anything. Your position was that there were not HOT lanes in Colorado. You were wrong. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed the demo of the iPhone speakerphone. > In article <1172376224.105073.309...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > You were wrong. "I haven't found any reference to HOT lanes in Denver" does not equate to a position there are no HOT lanes in Denver. http://www.readinghorizons.com/solutions/markets/elementary.aspx ----- - gpsman >>In article <1172376224.105073.309...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > http://www.readinghorizons.com/solutions/markets/elementary.aspx > ----- It does, however, show that as usual you shoot off your mouth without doing the most elementary of research, thus often stating or implying erroneous information as fact. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>In article <1172376224.105073.309...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > doing the most elementary of research, thus often stating or implying > erroneous information as fact. Spurious conclusion. Even if you were correct, which you aren't (as usual) one example is no indication of any trend, or habit. A little research on your part would reveal I most often offer supporting links to -reliable- data to support my assertions, and do not extract some data (as in the common 85th percentile argument/s) and/or ignore the data which might be in conflict to my conclusions and opinions. You should try it. It won't make you popular here, but at least you won't look like the common r.a.d. idiot. ----- - gpsman >>>>In article <1172376224.105073.309...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Even if you were correct, which you aren't (as usual) one example is > no indication of any trend, or habit. Correct. However, your continued incessant bleats of "CITE!!11!!eleventy!" when basic, well known facts which are supported by documented research dating back several decades before I was born are presented to you DO indicate a habit. > A little research on your part would reveal I most often offer > supporting links to -reliable- data to support my assertions, No, you don't. You cherrypick without applying any discrimination regarding methodology or credibility. > and do > not extract some data (as in the common 85th percentile argument/s) > and/or ignore the data which might be in conflict to my conclusions > and opinions. Ha! That is EXACTLY what you do. > You should try it. It won't make you popular here, but at least you > won't look like the common r.a.d. idiot. I am not the one who looks like an idiot. You may be confusing me with your mirror. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel On Feb 25, 2:18 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote: <brevity snip> > Correct. However, your continued incessant bleats of > "CITE!!11!!eleventy!" when basic, well known facts which are supported > by documented research dating back several decades before I was born are > presented to you DO indicate a habit. Maybe, but you might consider how often those cites are forthcoming. Very often, an idiot misinterprets what he has read, or omits the pertinent data that indicates he has spun what he has read to fit his preconceived and/or spurious conclusion/s. The ongoing 85th percentile argument is a good example. IIRC, when citing the 85th percentile, nobody has -ever- failed to omit the additional criteria which may be applied to setting speed limits... because it doesn't fit their argument. ISTM the common erroneous perception here is that speed limits must, by law, be set according to the 85th percentile, and nothing else. Usually the poster doesn't even know that the 85th percentile consists of the 85th percentile velocity -and below-. They conclude that whatever the highest of the the 85th percentile velocity is is the 85th percentile, and it is not. This group is rife with the stupid and ignorant. Brent, who you have opined is more knowledgeable than myself, was ignorant of the circumstances in which he was required to use his turn signal. It would take a considerable effort to become more ignorant than that, a fact that seems to have completely escaped your observations. You're the guy who comes here with drivers perfectly capable of determining a safe velocity who become completely confounded and incapable of adjusting their velocities whenever a speed camera is involved. You're one of the guys who lines up to blame RLC's for collisions when there is no logic to support those events. Your logic, along with that of many other here, is very often based in emotion, and seek to absolve drivers of responsibility for the consequences of poor driving, and instead excuse the drivers and pass responsibility to inanimate objects or driving conditions. Logically, that can not be done. So you've have to excuse me for not giving a sh.t what you think. Perhaps you will take advantage of your killfile and I'll demonstrate your folly when you forward stupid premises just like I do to Brent and Scott, and forego a chance to defend your position. I couldn't care less. ----- - gpsman > On Feb 25, 2:18 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote: <brevity > snip> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > pertinent data that indicates he has spun what he has read to fit his > preconceived and/or spurious conclusion/s. LOL, usenet irony at it's finest! > The ongoing 85th percentile argument is a good example. IIRC, when > citing the 85th percentile, nobody has -ever- failed to omit the > additional criteria which may be applied to setting speed limits... > because it doesn't fit their argument. Then you'd be wrong. -Ever- is a pretty tough one to prove. Even before your other nym started posting, people spoke of mitigating factors. Most folks who discuss the 85th percentile method actually understand that the underlying research mentions those mitigating factors prominently. Not that you would have a clue - you've just spun the data to support your unlying assumptions. LOL. E.P. > ISTM the common erroneous perception here is that speed limits must, > by law, be set according to the 85th percentile, and nothing else. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > - gpsman > On Feb 25, 2:18 pm, NateNagel<njna...@roosters.net> wrote: <brevity > snip> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > pertinent data that indicates he has spun what he has read to fit his > preconceived and/or spurious conclusion/s. Most often the cites are simply alluded to, because they're part of the "required reading." Also, it's difficult to post cites to the MUTCD (which is fairly unwieldy) or the Solomon or Cirillo studies, which AFAIK are not available online. > The ongoing 85th percentile argument is a good example. IIRC, when > citing the 85th percentile, nobody has -ever- failed to omit the > additional criteria which may be applied to setting speed limits... > because it doesn't fit their argument. Not true. Most people are aware that there are "additional criteria" we just understand that in many cases they don't apply and yet speed limits are still underposted. > ISTM the common erroneous perception here is that speed limits must, > by law, be set according to the 85th percentile, and nothing else. > Usually the poster doesn't even know that the 85th percentile consists > of the 85th percentile velocity -and below-. They conclude that > whatever the highest of the the 85th percentile velocity is is the > 85th percentile, and it is not. Um, you really don't understand the concept do you? The "85th percentile" speed IS THE SPEED AT OR BELOW WHICH 85 PERCENT OF TRAFFIC IS TRAVELING. In other words, you are wrong, yet again. Now whether or not a given road should be posted at that speed or not is another issue entirely, but the 85th percentile is what it is. > This group is rife with the stupid and ignorant. Brent, who you have > opined is more knowledgeable than myself, was ignorant of the > circumstances in which he was required to use his turn signal. It > would take a considerable effort to become more ignorant than that, a > fact that seems to have completely escaped your observations. Now I'm going to have to take your role for a second and ask for a cite, because I find that difficult to believe. (that Brent doesn't know when to use a signal, that is.) > You're the guy who comes here with drivers perfectly capable of > determining a safe velocity who become completely confounded and > incapable of adjusting their velocities whenever a speed camera is > involved. Speak English, please? I don't remember having ever made that claim. > You're one of the guys who lines up to blame RLC's for collisions when > there is no logic to support those events. I don't need logic when I have statistics. However, it doesn't take a brain surgeon or even a good engineer to make an educated guess as to why incident rates might increase. > Your logic, along with that of many other here, is very often based in > emotion, and seek to absolve drivers of responsibility for the > consequences of poor driving, and instead excuse the drivers and pass > responsibility to inanimate objects or driving conditions. Absolutely not! I would like to eradicate the piss poor driving practices that I see every day, in the interest of more efficient, less stressful, and safer travel for all. How you could get anything but that from my postings I haven't a clue. > Logically, that can not be done. So you've have to excuse me for not > giving a sh.t what you think. Perhaps you will take advantage of your [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -gpsman Right. It's also obvious that you don't give a sh.t about concepts called "logic," "scientific method" or "meaningful statistics." That's never stopped you from posting, however. nate >> This group is rife with the stupid and ignorant. Brent, who you have >> opined is more knowledgeable than myself, was ignorant of the >> circumstances in which he was required to use his turn signal. It >> would take a considerable effort to become more ignorant than that, a >> fact that seems to have completely escaped your observations. > Now I'm going to have to take your role for a second and ask for a > cite, because I find that difficult to believe. (that Brent doesn't > know when to use a signal, that is.) Gpstroll is just outright lying. He has done this before and I demanded the cite and he then admitted he was in error. His doing it repeatedly just shows he's a liar. It comes from a statement I made that IL vehicle code requires that one signal when other traffic would be effected by the movement. I followed this with that one should always signal because 1) traffic a driver thinks is not going to be effected is. 2) there may be someone else around that wasn't seen. The second is key because nobody is perfect 100% of the time. Being in the habbit of always signaling makes the person that isn't seen aware of what movement is going to be made. That can be a sheet metal saver if not a life saver. This is in the realm of 'duh' to most people, but gpstroll can't comprehend that, probably doesn't signal at least half the time anyway, and needs to try and spin it into that I don't know when to signal. >> Your logic, along with that of many other here, is very often based in >> emotion, and seek to absolve drivers of responsibility for the >> consequences of poor driving, and instead excuse the drivers and pass >> responsibility to inanimate objects or driving conditions. > Absolutely not! I would like to eradicate the piss poor driving > practices that I see every day, in the interest of more efficient, > less stressful, and safer travel for all. How you could get anything > but that from my postings I haven't a clue. Consider what gpstroll considers 'poor driving' and what kind of driving he considers 'good'. >> Logically, that can not be done. So you've have to excuse me for not >> giving a sh.t what you think. Perhaps you will take advantage of your >> killfile and I'll demonstrate your folly when you forward stupid >> premises just like I do to Brent and Scott, and forego a chance to >> defend your position. > Right. It's also obvious that you don't give a sh.t about concepts > called "logic," "scientific method" or "meaningful statistics." > That's never stopped you from posting, however. If I post 'the sky is blue', gpstroll will say it's black and then I am supposed to 'defend' my position. All the basics have already been spoon fed to gpstroll but he will demand that we start again from F=ma each time the topic is brought up. Hell, he'd even demand we prove F=ma first each and every time. On Feb 26, 10:18 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > All the basics have already been spoon > fed to gpstroll but he will demand that we start again from F=ma each > time the topic is brought up. Hell, he'd even demand we prove F=ma first > each and every time. gpsman = Carl Troller? eh, it actually makes sense... nate > On Feb 25, 2:18 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote: <brevity > snip> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > whatever the highest of the the 85th percentile velocity is is the > 85th percentile, and it is not. Yes, actually, it is; by definition. "85th percentile" in that context means the speed which represents the line where 85% of the vehicles are moving at or below that speed. "At or below" makes it a highest speed for that group. > This group is rife with the stupid and ignorant. Brent, who you have > opined is more knowledgeable than myself, was ignorant of the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > - gpsman Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed the demo of the iPhone speakerphone. > > In article <1172376224.105073.309...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, > > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > to a position there are no HOT lanes in Denver. > http://www.readinghorizons.com/solutions/markets/elementary.aspx But posting as if they don't exist after having been informed of their existence equates very nicely... ...with hypocrisy. > ----- > > - gpsman Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed the demo of the iPhone speakerphone. > There isn't any evidence to the contrary, so why don't you shut up > until Fred double-checks the actual facts instead of jumping to > spurious conclusions. It would have been nice if Fred had posted the FACTS in the first place. Steve >>>A guy I know got a ticket in the mail for violating a HOT lane in Denver >>>recently. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >> >> - gpsman It sure sounds like a conspiracy to me. Mostly a way to get money out of scofflaws who think they need not stop and pay the toll, or observe the rules that apply to the rest of humanity. It's a damn conspiracy, I tell you. Against scofflaws and lawbreakers. Steve >>>>A guy I know got a ticket in the mail for violating a HOT lane in Denver >>>>recently. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Steve So who broke the law? doesn't sound like anyone did, from the OP's description, and yet there was still a fine assessed. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >> A guy I know got a ticket in the mail for violating a HOT lane in Denver >> recently. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Sooo... which was it; was he cited for an HOV violation, or for >blowing the toll?! You're a bit short in the reading comprehension department, aren't you? The lanes are high-occupancy toll (HOT). If you meet the occupancy requirements, you are exempt from the toll. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >A guy I know got a ticket in the mail for violating a HOT lane in Denver >recently. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Nice, huh? That's like when I called to canceld my verizon wireless contract, 3 days after the contract term had ended, and customer service reluctantly agreed to waive the EARLY termination fee... (bastards) -Dave "Dave" <none@never.invalid> said in rec.autos.driving: >That's like when I called to canceld my verizon wireless contract, 3 days >after the contract term had ended, and customer service reluctantly agreed >to waive the EARLY termination fee... (bastards) -Dave At least they agreed. About 6 months after my two-year contract with Verizon Wireless was up, I cancelled the service, only to find out that they had "extended" the contract for another year without my knowledge or consent (I never signed anything agreeing to such an extension). They wanted an Early Termination Fee, and refused to waive it. Unfortunately, my choices were to a) not pay the fee and let them ruin my credit, b) take them to court and make them prove that their "contract" was valid, or c) pay the $100-someodd fee. This scam is carefully calculated to get people to choose c), since the amount of the fee is smaller than the attorney's fees/court costs/lost time from work/hassle/aggravation. Now those a.sholes are flooding me with junk mail begging me to come back. NFW, VZW! SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > Unfortunately, my choices > were to a) not pay the fee and let them ruin my credit, Huh? There is no 'ruining of credit' here. I represent *bankrupts*, fergawdsake, and they manage to borrow money afterwards! A very simple tip: when you need to borrow money, tell the loan officer what will show up *before they see it*. Explain why it's there. If you're really motivated, you can even preemptively insert your own 100-word statement refuting/explaining the 'bad news'. That's assuming it shows up at all. Folks, remember it's www.annualcreditreport.com that's free, not *free*creditreport.com (which, ironically, isn't)! In your case, I'd say you could *still* file a BBB complaint over this and demand your money back. There's no way in hell I'd pay that. > Now those a.sholes are flooding me with junk mail begging me to come > back. NFW, VZW! Demand they remove you from their mailing list. At least where I live, it's a violation of law if they don't. -- C.R. Krieger (BT, DT) "Motorhead Lawyer" <88.535is@gmail.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >> Unfortunately, my choices >> were to a) not pay the fee and let them ruin my credit, > >Huh? There is no 'ruining of credit' here. I represent *bankrupts*, >fergawdsake, and they manage to borrow money afterwards! My credit score is over 800. That means it's extremely easy for me to borrow money AND I can get the most favorable rates. The reason it's that high is because I don't have a lot of stupid little sh.t like what we're talking about cluttering up my credit report. >A very simple tip: when you need to borrow money, tell the loan >officer what will show up *before they see it*. Here's an even simpler tip: *don't have anything there that requires an explanation in the first place.* >In your case, I'd say you could *still* file a BBB complaint over this >and demand your money back. There's no way in hell I'd pay that. Perhaps, but it's much more satisfying to badmouth them to anyone who will listen. I figure I've already cost VZW far more in lost business than they made by stealing that $100-something from me. I figure that just from this post another 10 people who might have signed up with Verizon have now decided it's not worth the risk and have chosen to go with AT&T instead. ;) SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > Perhaps, but it's much more satisfying to badmouth them to anyone who > will listen. I figure I've already cost VZW far more in lost business > than they made by stealing that $100-something from me. I figure that > just from this post another 10 people who might have signed up with > Verizon have now decided it's not worth the risk and have chosen to go > with AT&T instead. ;) The problem is that they're all just as bad. I have a similar story involving Cellular One/Cingular; I'd bet that you could dig up something similar on Sprint if you really tried. I don't know of any cellular provider that *doesn't* have a reputation for screwing people over. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> said in rec.autos.driving: >The problem is that they're all just as bad. I have a similar story >involving Cellular One/Cingular; I'd bet that you could dig up something >similar on Sprint if you really tried. I don't know of any cellular >provider that *doesn't* have a reputation for screwing people over. My first cell phone was with Sprint; I never had a contract, and they never tried to charge me any asinine fees. After VZW I went to Congular; again, I was month-to-month from day one. I briefly considered T-Mobile, but they refused to sign me up without a 1-year contract, even though I was providing my own phone (i.e. they did not need to recover any costs from subsidized hardware). The way I see it, a cellular phone company ought to be able to hold onto customers by providing quality service at a reasonable price. I figure any company that needs to lock customers in with contracts probably has shitty service. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Scott en Aztlán said in rec.autos.driving: > The way I see it, a cellular phone company ought to be able to hold > onto customers by providing quality service at a reasonable price. I > figure any company that needs to lock customers in with contracts > probably has shitty service. Which basically describes all of them to me. From the poor signal and dropped calls to the contract traps to the rebate fraud, about the only thing my cellphone is good for is as a high tech pocket watch. Signature"Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight?" --George Carlin > "Motorhead Lawyer" <88.53...@gmail.com> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that high is because I don't have a lot of stupid little sh.t like > what we're talking about cluttering up my credit report. I suppose mine is as well - I've never checked. Not that it matters. The last time I actually borrowed money and didn't pay it back within a month or two (credit cards; medical bills pending insurance payments; etc.) was over a decade ago - and I bought a buncha' Harley stock (and some others) with it. Who needs a credit score? That's another tip for my clients. If you already have your house and your car for the foreseeable future, you don't need to borrow money, therefore it matters not what your score is. You pay for the stuff you've already got and your score will bounce back. > >A very simple tip: when you need to borrow money, tell the loan > >officer what will show up *before they see it*. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Verizon have now decided it's not worth the risk and have chosen to go > with AT&T instead. ;) Don't flatter yourself. We don't look to you for advice on our cellphone contracts. You're just $100 poorer for not being firm enough with those a.sholes. If you threatened to badmouth them on the internet if you had to pay the money, no wonder they insisted. -- C.R. Krieger (Puttin' on my irony wadin' boots) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.