California Toll Agency Wants Power to Seize Cars

California Toll Agency Wants Power to Seize Cars

www.thenewspaper.com

Toll road officials in San Francisco, California want the authority to seize any vehicle accused of "cheating" on toll payments. A Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) presentation yesterday called for new powers that would ensure that the agency collected the maximum amount of revenue each year. BATA will ask the state legislature to adopt legislation granting BATA the authority to locate and tow away any vehicle it says has not paid up. It also would like the authority to revoke the driver's license of a vehicle owner accused of not paying a notice of violation. Despite the tough talk, however, the tolling agency grudgingly admits some violations are not actually the fault of the motorist.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.blacklistednews.com

I can't wait to see if this passes. Imagine waking up and your car is gone because you blew through a fifty cent toll. LOL Then you see in your next paycheck that they took money out because you didn't pay your violation. This is going to make some people very mad and send them into a rage. You wait and see, people will be smashing toll booth equipment over this one. All to ensure that BATA collects the most possible revenue. What a scam

www.thenewspaper.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 1/10/2008 by palehorse23]

Don't laugh. Here in Ontario Canada, if you get busted by the cops for 50 km over the limit (about 30 mph) they take your car, and you walk. Just ask the 2000 people they nailed since late last year what they think about it.

They call it an extension of street racing but it too is a cash grab. The latest guy to get hit was 82 years old. Further, the fines can go to $10,000

Arnie is just borrowing from us overtaxed Canadians.

[edit on 10-1-2008 by Cynic]

reply to post by Cynic


Well, I can see there point a bit better when it comes to the speeding issue. Those are there to keep people safe. Why do you need to go thirty over the limit? You can kill somebody. What if something jumps in front of you? No chance to stop then. Or, you may loose control without any chance of recovering and in turn, hurting or even killing someone else. But for tolls? Come on, that is just plain ridiculous to me. Especially if it is a machines malfunction. hopefully they don't get money happy and start to garnsih wages until you prove that the machine was faulty. Then, good luck with that as it is your word against theirs.

How many people have put their money in the machine and the light never turned green? It would be bad to have your car taken away just because a machine made a mistake. I thought that most toll roads collect tolls just to pay for the construction of the road and maintenance. I guess they never intend to have the roads paid for.

Originally posted by palehorse23
reply to post by Cynic

 

Well, I can see there point a bit better when it comes to the speeding issue. Those are there to keep people safe. Why do you need to go thirty over the limit? You can kill somebody.


I am not justifying it, but your laws are different than oursd. Trucks are allowed to block traffic for miles, and it is an irritant to say the very least. Many of the States have two limits, as should we. One for passenger cars, one for transport trucks.

reply to post by palehorse23


There used to be these things in our country called "due process", "habeus corpus", UNREASONABLE search and SEIZURE, and all sorts of other things called INALIENABLE rights.

It seems there are so many agencies, bureaucrats, and politicians these days that either grew up in a foreign country (oh yeah, I guess he did) where they didn't have these concepts and/or didn't study the history of the US government, the declaration of independence, or the constitution and it's reason for existence. I find myself feeling more and more lately like these concepts were noble, visionary, and proven worthy, but they are being relegated to the status of a great experiment that is coming to an end.

Evidently, our rights have become alienable. So who will put the smack down on this? (Is that statement against the thought-crime law?)