Fixed Raises $650K More and Heads to Oakland(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Fixed Raises $650K More and Heads to Oakland
http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/03/fixed-the-app-that-fights-parking-tickets-raises-650k-more-and-heads-to-oakland/
30 comments
[deleted](1)
This makes me sad. If you make a mistake, own it. If you get a fair parking ticket, pay it. Don't be a leech. Cities have scarce resources that are not designed to fight people looking for loopholes.
> If you make a mistake, own it.
But if the city makes the mistake, they shouldn't own it? It's their own rules, on their terms, designed to confuse newcomers. I can't fathom how you would think this is fair.
But if the city makes the mistake, they shouldn't own it? It's their own rules, on their terms, designed to confuse newcomers. I can't fathom how you would think this is fair.
Sure, if that's the case. In my experience, though, these services simply contest everything in the hope that the officer in charge or the ticket will not have time to follow up, and the case will get thrown out even if it's a perfectly reasonable fine. It works, but that doesn't make it right.
> these services simply contest everything in the hope that the officer in charge or the ticket will not have time to follow up
No. If you actually read the article, they generally contest things on the grounds that there was a mistake or error in issuing the parking ticket that makes it invalid.
No. If you actually read the article, they generally contest things on the grounds that there was a mistake or error in issuing the parking ticket that makes it invalid.
Generally? That doesn't sound like an argument against the basic idea. If they only contest when they fins a specific error, I would agree. If they contest everything hoping the police won't show...it's a short term hack. If a service makes every ticket contested, cities will change the process.
Being a minute late to a meter shouldn't constitute a $60+ fine. If being a "leech" means recuperating exorbitant fines that are primarily in place to increase revenue (so more money can be wasted), then count me in. I'm not trying to spend money allocated for my water and gas bills to pay a ticket that was issued for parking at a meter one minute after it had expired. I understand that yes, an honest mistake was made, but it didn't cause $60+ worth of inconveniences to the city.
The fines aren't there to increase revenue, though that's a perk. They are there to encourage you to make do without a car in SF.
This isn't S.F. but check out the reason Oakland decided to hike fines (http://www.oaklandnet.com/government/fwawebsite/parking/park...). I wouldn't be surprised if S.F. and most other cities view revenue from parking fines the same way Oakland does. Here it is:
Q: Why did the City of Oakland raise parking meter fees, increase fines and extend and parking meter enforcement hours?
A: The City of Oakland’s recent decision to raise parking meter fees and increase some fines was made in response to the most serious financial crisis ever faced by the City, and it accompanied significant cuts to vital public services, including police, libraries, parks and maintenance. Although City leaders recognize that this decision is unpopular and difficult for many residents, it was an unfortunate necessity given the magnitude of Oakland’s budget deficit.
Q: Why did the City of Oakland raise parking meter fees, increase fines and extend and parking meter enforcement hours?
A: The City of Oakland’s recent decision to raise parking meter fees and increase some fines was made in response to the most serious financial crisis ever faced by the City, and it accompanied significant cuts to vital public services, including police, libraries, parks and maintenance. Although City leaders recognize that this decision is unpopular and difficult for many residents, it was an unfortunate necessity given the magnitude of Oakland’s budget deficit.
I just don't get how mismanaged California, it's counties and cities really are. The SF Bay Area is the richest, most booming part of the whole country. Oakland even is getting more sought after (as spillover from completely unaffordable SF). Yet:
" in response to the most serious financial crisis ever faced by the City"
So WHEN if EVER are those cities not in a financial crisis?
So WHEN if EVER are those cities not in a financial crisis?
Using this app wastes less time than the official ways to pay the ticket. That alone is valuable. Automated contesting is also good too.
Also if you've read the article you can see cities are not angels either. If you have seen what happens in traffic court when judges don't even want to hear 3 sentences of your evidence and just declare you guilty anyway. The appeal process after that is expensive. You waste a ton of time and money going to that court, while you have a job. And maybe needing to hire lawyers just so you can get heard.
It's an exploitive system that takes advantage of asymmetries and it deserves to be challenged.
Also if you've read the article you can see cities are not angels either. If you have seen what happens in traffic court when judges don't even want to hear 3 sentences of your evidence and just declare you guilty anyway. The appeal process after that is expensive. You waste a ton of time and money going to that court, while you have a job. And maybe needing to hire lawyers just so you can get heard.
It's an exploitive system that takes advantage of asymmetries and it deserves to be challenged.
Some people have scarce resources and are not "designed" to fight a bureaucratic machine that was designed to not process their potentially-valid complaints.
I've certainly gotten erroneous tickets in the past.
Secondarily, I'd support ending the practice of generating revenue by statistically extracting a large amount from a few people - people whose demographic doesn't overlap much with those who can pay for permanent garages or parking lots....This makes me happy.
I've certainly gotten erroneous tickets in the past.
Secondarily, I'd support ending the practice of generating revenue by statistically extracting a large amount from a few people - people whose demographic doesn't overlap much with those who can pay for permanent garages or parking lots....This makes me happy.
I tend to agree, but there is still a place for this app. SF's parking enforcement and the appeals process is thoroughly broken. I know several people who have lost appeals when they parked at a broken meter despite having taken photos or videos showing that meter wasn't working (and in SF, signs on parking meters indicate that parking at broken meters is legal as long as you stay within posted time limits).
My issue is that I'll happily own up to my mistake if the amount I have to pay is fair. A $60 parking ticket obtained during the $.25 an hour rate seems unfair when the street is half empty.
The idea is that the fine is high because they can't catch every parking violation.
Likewise, the fine for fare-beating on mass transit is much higher than a transit fare, because it's very unlikely you've been caught on your first offense.
Parking is hard in the big city because it requires a lot of a very expensive resource (urban land)— maybe you shouldn't drive if you're unable to handle the responsibility.
(I personally am not very sympathetic to the many entitled drivers who feel free to park on the sidewalk, or in a bicycle lane, or a crosswalk, or by committing some other antisocial act, and am especially unsympathetic to those drivers who feel their ease of parking outweighs the need to build the necessary infrastructure for high-quality mass transit and safe walking and biking.)
Likewise, the fine for fare-beating on mass transit is much higher than a transit fare, because it's very unlikely you've been caught on your first offense.
Parking is hard in the big city because it requires a lot of a very expensive resource (urban land)— maybe you shouldn't drive if you're unable to handle the responsibility.
(I personally am not very sympathetic to the many entitled drivers who feel free to park on the sidewalk, or in a bicycle lane, or a crosswalk, or by committing some other antisocial act, and am especially unsympathetic to those drivers who feel their ease of parking outweighs the need to build the necessary infrastructure for high-quality mass transit and safe walking and biking.)
I agree, and would go farther by saying I'm against people who believe in selective enforcement of the law, for themselves or others. We live in a democracy, if you really feel strongly that a law is unjust or wrong, it's on you to get it changed.
> The idea is that the fine is high because they can't catch every parking violation.
I'm sorry, have you ever parked in SF? As someone who has paid more than his fair share of parking tickets, I can tell you that the cost of the ticket has next to zero relation to the ability to 'catch every parking violation'. SFMTA is very, very efficient at catching people whose meters have expired or who have parked more than 2 hours in a residential area.
I'm sorry, have you ever parked in SF? As someone who has paid more than his fair share of parking tickets, I can tell you that the cost of the ticket has next to zero relation to the ability to 'catch every parking violation'. SFMTA is very, very efficient at catching people whose meters have expired or who have parked more than 2 hours in a residential area.
For L.A. residents, this is pretty wild. Drives me nuts. This is what happens when bureaucratic agencies run wild, with no one but helpless citizens to hold them accountable [emphasis added]. This is why this is such a great idea!
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/11/12/city-leaders-react...
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/11/12/city-leaders-react...
You (and they) should write the state after Oakland - there are many Oaklands.
But only one that is a "neighboring city" to San Francisco (CA).
It doesn't say San Francisco in the title.
I suppose if reading literally the first sentence of the article is too much trouble, then yes, that is a problem.
That exactly what I read: the first sentence, than I closed it as regional news. (There are tons of startups in the San Francisco area, it's only interesting when it's not in that area, and that's what I thought this was at first.)
Is it really that much trouble to put the state in the title? Or do people living there forget there are other places in the world?
Is it really that much trouble to put the state in the title? Or do people living there forget there are other places in the world?
Well I do think Oakland California is the most populous and well-known city of that name so it's a resonable assumption that's what the article is about. I dont disagree that it's a good idea to be as clear as possible in titles. But if I saw an article about Madrid, I'd probably assume it's the one in Spain even if I happened to live in Madrid, Iowa.
I guess the question is whether Oakland, CA has enough prominence to be known widely outside the region. And I do think it's a major city in its own right, not just in its relation to San Francisco.
I guess the question is whether Oakland, CA has enough prominence to be known widely outside the region. And I do think it's a major city in its own right, not just in its relation to San Francisco.
San Francisco and Madrid, yes. Oakland? No, it's not that widely known, to that level.