Toll Roads without Toll Booths

On 2010-08-18, E. Meyer > wrote:
> which most of the states already have for the purpose of collecting on
> speeding tickets from out-of-state cars.

Of course the Constitution in Article 1, Section 10 states that
"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation,"
but like so many other governmental restrictions that has been
whittled away over the years.

Actually I believe the best solution to the problem lies in using the
toll cameras for target practice. (Using traffic signs for this purpose
has been a popular pastime in parts of the country for many years.
This would be an extension of that practice.)

--
Roger Blake
(Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled due to spam.)
"0bama snoozed while oil oozed."

Speed cameras in England have been used for target practice.I recently
read somewhere (I think it was at rense.com) that England has decided to
remove those speed cameras.
http://www.speedcam.co.uk
cuhulin

On Aug 17, 5:40*am, "C. E. White" > wrote:
> I am in North Carolina. The scum sucking politicians have finally given into
> corporate theives and decided to allow toll roads. Don't get me started on
> the unfairness of a state that has one of the highest gas taxes in the
> nation deciding they need to double charge some people for using some
> roads....
>
> Any how, the toll road they are building in my area is not going to have
> toll booths. Instead they plan to electronically monitor traffic to charge
> the tolls. They are encouraging people who will regularly use the toll road
> to get an electronic pass that will alert the system when your vehicle uses
> the road. For vehicles that do not have the electronic pass they claim they
> will be able to read your licence plate and use that to send you a bill
> (even if you are out of state). They plan to charge more for vehicles that
> are billed based on licence plate detection. The local TV station recently
> ran a segment featureing the toll road head crook and he made all sorts of
> claims about the accuracy (and "fairness") of the system. Setting aside the
> difficulty in charging out of state residents, is it possible that this
> system can actually work? North Carolina does not require front licence
> plates. It seems to me, all I have to do to avoid paying the toll when I am
> driving my pickup is to leave the rear tailgate down. The plate is partially
> covered with mud half the time and between a little mud and the tailgate
> down, I can't see how any camera can possibly read the plate. I suppose if I
> did this reguarly, the toll road authority would take notice of my truck and
> send the Highway Patrol after me, but I don't intned to ever use the toll
> road (in fact, I hope no one uses it and the corporation the crook are
> allowing to build the road goes broke). However, I do wonder about the
> hundreds of local dump trucks that cruise around the area with no rear
> licence plates........are they going be allowed to use the road for free?
> The whole thing seems wacko to me...
>
> Ed

I'll bet "We the people" didn't get to vote on whether or not they
wanted tolls, did they? I suspect it's because they know their idea
would have went down in flames. NULLIFY

On 2010-08-18, > wrote:
> Speed cameras in England have been used for target practice.I recently
> read somewhere (I think it was at rense.com) that England has decided to
> remove those speed cameras.

Sometimes it's necessary to put on the gorilla suit and push back. What
would frost my britches more than the collecting of tolls by mail
is the implied surveillance that will be going on. You can bet they
will be using the license plate and tracking info for more than just
tolls, government simply cannot resist misusing a setup like that.
Ditto with the GPS "pay by the mile" schemes that have been talked about.
(GPS jammers, anyone?)

As the saying goes, giving government information and power is like
handing whiskey and car keys to a teenager. The result is pretty much
guaranteed and it is not pretty.

--
Roger Blake
(Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled due to spam.)
"0bama snoozed while oil oozed."

C. E. White wrote:
> "Bill" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > And I have no problem paying for things I use. A new bridge, a campground,
> > highway, etc. Seems fair to me...
>
> I am OK with that, except in this case, people who live in SE Wake County
> are going to get double charged to use the new road (originally planned as
> part of I-540) - gas tax and a toll. People who live in NE Wake County have
> the non-toll portion of I-540 they can use. There was a lot of local and
> state politics involved. Until recently North Carolina politicians took a
> stong position against toll roads.

Most private toll road contracts have a provision to prohibit public
roads running next to them to be expanded or improved.

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
...

>
> I understand the theory, but does it really work? I understand that the
> transponder are likely reliable. But how about the licence plate readers?


We have that kind of system on Beltway 8 in Houston. You can stop and pay
the
toll, or your EZ pass will record it and charge it to your credit card. If
you go through
the EZ pass lane and dont have one, you are photographed (from the rear).
There
are police who make sure you dont get far, but you CAN be mailed a ticket
and you
WILL pay it.

If you obscure your license plate here in any manner, it is an infraction of
the law. You
cant even use license plate holders that obscure the plate to any degree.

The answer is that YES, they have to power to do it,and if they have the
will to enforce
it, you might as well just pay up.

One note...the EZ tag transponders have charged people who were nearby but
not on the
expressway as such. You can try to fight it and might even win...or not.

A lot of people here feel that if you have to pay, you should be able to
drive as fast as
you want. Again, not true. You may get by with it and you might not.
Fines for 90-95 mph
on the expressway are large. I am usually the slowest guy there, driving at
65.

> wrote in message
...
> Speed cameras in England have been used for target practice.I recently
> read somewhere (I think it was at rense.com) that England has decided to
> remove those speed cameras.
> http://www.speedcam.co.uk
> cuhulin

With the gun control laws in effect in much of Europe, I think that would be
a dumb thing to do.

"Roger Blake" > wrote in message
...
> On 2010-08-17, C. E. White > wrote:
>> Any how, the toll road they are building in my area is not going to have
>> toll booths. Instead they plan to electronically monitor traffic to
>> charge
>> the tolls.
>
> A possible solution:
>
> http://www.loover.com/
>
> --
> Roger Blake

In Texas, I think that this would be perceived as obstruction, and would be
illegal.

I don't remember the name of that high speed expressway in Houston, it
starts with a K, sort of a German name, I think.
Those people were passing me like I was driving backwards! I got off of
there soon as I could.The exit I took wound around by/near an old
shopping center/mall.
cuhulin

"hls" > wrote:

> wrote in message
...
>> Speed cameras in England have been used for target practice.I recently
>> read somewhere (I think it was at rense.com) that England has decided to
>> remove those speed cameras.
>> http://www.speedcam.co.uk
>> cuhulin

They tried fixed speed cameras on the *state* roads and freeways here
in Arizona but didn't renew the contract with the privately owned
camera provider after the initial 2 years was up so they're gone now.
The reason was mostly political, they being very unpopular, but the
state law was also poorly written allowing the tickets to be easily
ignored with little consequence so they also didn't bring in enough
revenue.

(Many cities make their own laws and still use the cameras.)

>With the gun control laws in effect in much of Europe, I think that would be
>a dumb thing to do.

They just sentenced guy here in Phoenix a few days ago for shooting up
a speed camera van sitting by the freeway. Trouble is he thought the
van was empty but it wasn't and he killed the guy in it. He said he
was just trying to make a political statement about the cameras...

(Just this year they passed a law allowing concealed carry with no
permit. Up to now we could carry but not concealed without a permit.
Still a bit of the wild west here.)