Not specifically OKC, but statewide, although transportation-related, so thought it would fit here, but if not, mods can move it.

Not sure how I feel about this - good intentions, but for the company setting it up to get 43% of the fine (the first year, it goes down by a little bit the next two years) is a bit much, IMO, and not sure they'll reap the benefits they think they will. At least it's not the red-light-camera scam...

New Roadside Scanner Contract Brings Uninsured Drivers Closer to Automatic Tickets (http://oklahomawatch.org/2017/11/16/district-attorneys-approve-license-plate-scanner-contract-bringing-uninsured-drivers-closer-to-automatic-tickets/)

I'm not sure if this is the best way to go about it but we have to solve the uninsured motorist problem. Our rates are so high because of no insurance. Scares the heck outta me.

Not specifically OKC, but statewide, although transportation-related, so thought it would fit here, but if not, mods can move it.

Not sure how I feel about this - good intentions, but for the company setting it up to get 43% of the fine (the first year, it goes down by a little bit the next two years) is a bit much, IMO, and not sure they'll reap the benefits they think they will. At least it's not the red-light-camera scam...

New Roadside Scanner Contract Brings Uninsured Drivers Closer to Automatic Tickets (http://oklahomawatch.org/2017/11/16/district-attorneys-approve-license-plate-scanner-contract-bringing-uninsured-drivers-closer-to-automatic-tickets/)

I feel that 57% of "something" is far better than 100% of "nothing".

I feel that 57% of "something" is far better than 100% of "nothing".

Yeah, but I wonder how many people will just mail in the $184? I'm guessing there might be a pretty low non-compliance rate, especially since it's not an actual traffic ticket (but if ignored, it will get sent to the DA for review for possible prosecution, which may end up costing more than they get back, if they can even find and bring to court the offender, and if the offender can even pay after the prosecution)?

Yeah, but I wonder how many people will just mail in the $184? I'm guessing there might be a pretty low non-compliance rate, especially since it's not an actual traffic ticket (but if ignored, it will get sent to the DA for review for possible prosecution, which may end up costing more than they get back, if they can even find and bring to court the offender, and if the offender can even pay after the prosecution)?

The fine ought to be more like $1,840.

Considering I have insurance, I really have no issue with this other than I wonder how easy it is to fight when (please note I said when, not if) 'the system' gets it wrong. I literally just got off the phone with Equifax five minutes ago because I have been unable to log in to their system to check my credit report. So I sent in a paper request, and had to dispute some minor incorrect information (one was rather obviously a typo of my address). I was relieved when I got the report, because one of the online questions for verification was insisting I may have a car loan from March 2015, but there was no sign of this on my report. So I called to initiate the disputes, and then kept getting email saying log in to check the results. I couldn't convince anyone at Equifax, their phone help, their twitter help, nobody, that I needed these results MAILED TO ME, so I found the email address of a couple execs and that got the ball rolling. I've been fighting them since the end of August, and only just now today finally spoke with a human who finally got it through her head to send it via mail...which will be the typical "5 to 10 business days".

So, long story there, but it's just one illustration on how if you put all your faith in a computer, you're going to have a bad time. So when this company decides you don't have insurance, for whatever reason, on June 17th, can you simply go in and flash your insurance verification saying you have it from March 5th through September 5th and that's that, or are you going to have to fax the proof in to a number that is busy for three solid days, then when you finally get through there's a $35 filing fee to research the matter, and so on and so on. I have plenty of other stories of times 'the computer' screwed up and the burden of proof was put on me, but I don't believe that's what this thread is for. Just suffice to say it WILL happen, and I'm curious how it will be handled.

And, to expand on the previous thought, what are they going to do about it when they catch someone, send them a ticket, and then nothing. Ruin their credit? Yeah, they've been driving without insurance, odds are they're in a temporary bind or the type that really doesn't care if you ruin their credit cause you can't more of a mess of it than they already have. Take their license away? Yeah, that's SURE to work! Now they're uninsured AND unlicensed, but if you think they're off the road, I have a bridge you might be interested in.

Yeah, but I wonder how many people will just mail in the $184? I'm guessing there might be a pretty low non-compliance rate, especially since it's not an actual traffic ticket (but if ignored, it will get sent to the DA for review for possible prosecution, which may end up costing more than they get back, if they can even find and bring to court the offender, and if the offender can even pay after the prosecution)?

The costs are dramatically increased when hauled into court. 184 will seem like chump change after all the extras are rolled in. If unable to pay, there is always a spot at the gray bar hotel. They keep the lights on. As far as finding the offender, the authorities just need to find the vehicle and do an impound. In addition add a bunch of late fees so that when the guilty go to renew the tag the following year, there is no renewal until all fines are paid.

Whatever happened to the law about if the officer asks for proof of insurance and they can't produce it, then the vehicle was immediately impounded. Did I dream that up? I swear it existed a few years ago. Anyway, I agree this is good and better than nothing. And hopefully, just bc they pay it once doesn't mean it is forgiven? Repeat offenses should lead to impound.

The fine ought to be more like $1,840.
Exactly! I work in an insurance office...and the figure is correct that 1 in 4 vehicles in Oklahoma don't have insurance. We all pay for that. Someone mentioned the red-light cameras....that should be next. If each ticket for running a red light was $200.00----just in the three or four intersections I am in every day..the state/city could reduce the budget problems very quickly.....save insurance companies against needless accident claims for red light runners...and save lives and injuries for everyone.

Exactly! I work in an insurance office...and the figure is correct that 1 in 4 vehicles in Oklahoma don't have insurance. We all pay for that. Someone mentioned the red-light cameras....that should be next. If each ticket for running a red light was $200.00----just in the three or four intersections I am in every day..the state/city could reduce the budget problems very quickly.....save insurance companies against needless accident claims for red light runners...and save lives and injuries for everyone.

If (and that's a HUGE if) red-light-cameras are installed and operated properly, they can probably work, but I'm not sure if they've ever been implemented properly in the USA (maybe now, but when they were first in vogue, it was almost criminal what the municipalities and RLC companies did to make money off of them).

That's the key right there, operated properly. In many cases, they're put in intersections where the injury crash rate is low. Ironically, even the insurance industry has expressed doubts regarding their usefulness at anything other than generating money.

http://blog.esurance.com/are-red-light-cameras-actually-causing-accidents/

https://www.motorists.org/issues/red-light-cameras/studies/

https://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/27/red-light-camera-accidents/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/ct-red-light-camera-intersections-met-20141222-story.html

What has proven to be effective, however, is being intelligent about lights, but that doesn't rake in the cash. Instead of reducing the length of time the light is yellow, slightly extending and standardizing the time lights are yellow, in conjunction with a slight delay in turning the other lights green, simply works. Whowouldathunkit.

When I moved from California to Oklahoma, I assumed my car insurance was going to be cheaper. When I switched insurance over to Oklahoma, car insurance was higher than California. I called the insurance company and the rep said it was because of uninsured motorists. This was five years ago, so it has not changed.

Red light cameras are more dangerous than red light runners. The majority of red light runners are on the brink of yellow/red and not blatantly storming through an intersection where cars are crossing.

The result: as soon as a light turns yellow, theres an idiot up towards the front of the line who has the speed and distance to clear before the light even comes close to turning red SLAMMING on their brakes. Everyone behind also slams on their brakes. I have witnessed several crashes in Portland and Denver where this occurs. By automating a fine for a potentially dangerous condition, they create a very dangerous condition. They are revenue machines and don't increase safety one bit.

^^^^ this, in Houston they didn't last long due to the accident rate. At least in some intersections.

While I realize this is a generational thing that won't happen in my lifetime, the broader issue/fix there is to convert many of the busier four-way stops into roundabouts. No panacea, of course, but you have something that's proven and workable. I'd love to see a few candidate intersections here in OKC given that treatment.



That's the key right there, operated properly. In many cases, they're put in intersections where the injury crash rate is low. Ironically, even the insurance industry has expressed doubts regarding their usefulness at anything other than generating money.

http://blog.esurance.com/are-red-light-cameras-actually-causing-accidents/

https://www.motorists.org/issues/red-light-cameras/studies/

https://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/27/red-light-camera-accidents/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/ct-red-light-camera-intersections-met-20141222-story.html

What has proven to be effective, however, is being intelligent about lights, but that doesn't rake in the cash. Instead of reducing the length of time the light is yellow, slightly extending and standardizing the time lights are yellow, in conjunction with a slight delay in turning the other lights green, simply works. Whowouldathunkit.

When I moved from California to Oklahoma, I assumed my car insurance was going to be cheaper. When I switched insurance over to Oklahoma, car insurance was higher than California. I called the insurance company and the rep said it was because of uninsured motorists. This was five years ago, so it has not changed.

I had a similar experience when moving from California but part of that has to do with hail storms here, at least on the comprehensive side.

Home insurance is absolutely more due to the extreme weather.

I haven't read everything on this and personally I think it starts us down a path I don't really care for. But, as someone who has been hit by an uninsured motorist, I feel the outrage and desire to have them made accountable.

That said, have any details been released as to what happens to the data collected? Who gets to keep it and does this 3rd party get to monetize it?

I ask because, as a PI I have access to databases where I can type in a vehicle's tag number and I am provided with a comprehensive list of each time that tag was scanned by a tag reader. The list comes complete with a photo and map coordinates with a time/date stamp. In some areas where these cameras have been used for years I can literally tell an individual's pattern (like where they work, places there frequent, routes they prefer, etc.) simply because their tag has been scanned routinely by stationary and mobile scanners.

Couple of examples: Several months ago a high dollar SUV was featured on the local news as connected to the disappearance of a young woman who authorities felt was being forced into prostitution. The local news here showed the vehicle's tag number. I ran the number and saw where it had been scanned in California at an apartment complex within the last 24 hours. I contacted OKC police, who requested a copy of the information I had because they didn't have access to this particular database.

In another case I was doing a skip trace on an individual who was doing their best to keep their name and identifying information off of things like utilities, rental agreements, etc. so they couldn't be found. However, I knew their car tag number and it was scanned numerous times. From the scans we could tell within a few blocks where the person lived and a bit of driving around confirmed the location of their residence.

This technology is widely used right now by vehicle finance companies. So much so, you can actually get paid to attach these scanner to your car and drive high density routes. There is some talk about outfitting taxis and ubers with the same scanners.

In my opinion this is not the intent for this technology as sold to the public for approval - but is indeed how it is often used.

I have no idea if that's what is happening in this case, but I do know it happens in other states.

As long as this enforcement occurs on PUBLIC TAX PAYER FUNDED roads then I see no problem with it.

I will be starting a company soon that sells devices to make it difficult for cameras to read license plates. Anyone want to buy some equity? I guarantee a return! :)

I haven't read everything on this and personally I think it starts us down a path I don't really care for. But, as someone who has been hit by an uninsured motorist, I feel the outrage and desire to have them made accountable.

That said, have any details been released as to what happens to the data collected? Who gets to keep it and does this 3rd party get to monetize it?

I ask because, as a PI I have access to databases where I can type in a vehicle's tag number and I am provided with a comprehensive list of each time that tag was scanned by a tag reader. The list comes complete with a photo and map coordinates with a time/date stamp. In some areas where these cameras have been used for years I can literally tell an individual's pattern (like where they work, places there frequent, routes they prefer, etc.) simply because their tag has been scanned routinely by stationary and mobile scanners.

Couple of examples: Several months ago a high dollar SUV was featured on the local news as connected to the disappearance of a young woman who authorities felt was being forced into prostitution. The local news here showed the vehicle's tag number. I ran the number and saw where it had been scanned in California at an apartment complex within the last 24 hours. I contacted OKC police, who requested a copy of the information I had because they didn't have access to this particular database.

In another case I was doing a skip trace on an individual who was doing their best to keep their name and identifying information off of things like utilities, rental agreements, etc. so they couldn't be found. However, I knew their car tag number and it was scanned numerous times. From the scans we could tell within a few blocks where the person lived and a bit of driving around confirmed the location of their residence.

This technology is widely used right now by vehicle finance companies. So much so, you can actually get paid to attach these scanner to your car and drive high density routes. There is some talk about outfitting taxis and ubers with the same scanners.

In my opinion this is not the intent for this technology as sold to the public for approval - but is indeed how it is often used.

I have no idea if that's what is happening in this case, but I do know it happens in other states.

I think it's really cool that you have access to such resources and help behind the scenes

Paying an insane amount to insure our vehicles, I am all for this. My first thought is, if the violators don't have the $ to pay for their insurance, they what are the odds that they pony up the $ to pay the ticket??? When we first see the news story about the amount that has racked up in unpaid fines for this deal, I put the over/under of percentage collected to be about 14%. Just a guess.

I think if your involved in a collision with an uninsured motorist, and they are at fault, even if it's just a fender bender, .... and assuming that the offending party stays on the scene and doesn't run, .... that they should have to turn over their car keys to the victim on the spot, and their car becomes the property of said victim and offender is sent walking until they pay for the damage, and is properly repaired before offender gets their car back. This of course should happen in a prescribed amount of time. If damage is not corrected in that time frame, the victim can use proceeds from the sale of offenders car to help make them whole again.

I know this idea has holes all in it, and major claims would be a different story, but it's an idea.

How long until my auto insurance premiums go down and how much of a savings can I expect to realize from this new enforcement technique?

lol. never and none.

Two thoughts on this;

1. I hate big brother watching and possibly tracking even though it's in our (insured folks) best interest.
2. We had an insurance agency for years, so whats to stop someone from getting a policy on monthly payments once they get the ticket and then stop paying once their ticket is settled. They pay a month of insurance, the ticket and then quit paying...

Two thoughts on this;

1. I hate big brother watching and possibly tracking even though it's in our (insured folks) best interest.
2. We had an insurance agency for years, so whats to stop someone from getting a policy on monthly payments once they get the ticket and then stop paying once their ticket is settled. They pay a month of insurance, the ticket and then quit paying...

A1: Just remember, this is being sold to us solely as a tool for insurance compliance, but in reality has a much further reach.

A2: If these are stationary cameras, then the person would have to continually alter their driving route to try and avoid getting routine tickets every time their monthly insurance lapsed. Would probably be cheaper to simply carry minimum coverage.

The continuing question with these systems is the legality of outsourcing police functions to private companies. This is currently being worked out in court I think.

Two thoughts on this;

1. I hate big brother watching and possibly tracking even though it's in our (insured folks) best interest....

I'm certainly not one of those tin foil hat guys, but we're already being tracked. Anyone with a cell phone, especially a smart phone. Anyone with an OnStar or similar service on their vehicle. Anyone who uses turnpike pre-passes, or even pays cash on a turnpike for that matter. Anyone with a credit card or bank card or who makes electronic purchases, etc. ... just as only a couple examples..... our movements and patterns can all be laid out. Much of this is already being used for marketing and tracking criminal activity, but it is all being stored in databases and it is only a matter of time before it is used for more sinister purposes.

I'm certainly not one of those tin foil hat guys, but we're already being tracked. Anyone with a cell phone, especially a smart phone. Anyone with an OnStar or similar service on their vehicle. Anyone who uses turnpike pre-passes, or even pays cash on a turnpike for that matter. Anyone with a credit card or bank card or who makes electronic purchases, etc. ... just as only a couple examples..... our movements and patterns can all be laid out. Much of this is already being used for marketing and tracking criminal activity, but it is all being stored in databases and it is only a matter of time before it is used for more sinister purposes.

The thing is, with so many of the traditional ways for the government to track citizens, you at least had the requirement of obtaining a warrant/subpoena; cell phones, bank records, and often there is a requirement that the gov't inform the person whose information was obtained (after the fact).

These tag scanners and the fact law enforcement isn't even the primary user of these tools and their monetized public accessibility should be concerning to everyone (tinfoil and sans-tinfoil hat alike).

I am in favor of this. We have to try something different to get people to carry insurance. I have had 2 cars totaled in the last seven years by people without insurance. My insurance had to fit the bill for my car. This is why our rates are so high.

Yep, had one car totalled and another badly damaged by uninsured motorists.

There are tons of them out there and they are usually irresponsible drivers as well.

A1: Just remember, this is being sold to us solely as a tool for insurance compliance, but in reality has a much further reach.

A2: If these are stationary cameras, then the person would have to continually alter their driving route to try and avoid getting routine tickets every time their monthly insurance lapsed. Would probably be cheaper to simply carry minimum coverage.

According to the article, the cameras are mobile.

According to the article, the cameras are mobile.

The article I read says mobile and fixed.

I'm in a slightly cynical mood, and I want to get it out of my system before tomorrow, so you guys get to have this.

So allegedly, the reason behind this is not a blatant cashgrab, but to reduce the number of uninsured drivers on the road.

Yeah. The same story was given for the sudden license plate change.

So...what happens when this works (hahahahahahahahahahaha! (sorry, that was the cynical part getting out of my system)) and the number of uninsured drivers is drastically reduced? Does this company have a minimum per year written into their contract? What will the district attorneys do when the "millions of dollars in citation revenue a year" they are expecting from this never materializes? And of course, I still want to know what the plan is when this subsidiary of a foreign company is wrong. The article says when the company is wrong, all you have to do is show proof you were insured at the time. That's pretty easy to obtain, but how difficult will it be to submit, and how much will the filing fee for submission cost?

OK, most of it is out, but I have just a little bit left, so I'll close on one final word. Although the article claims the database is secure, and the information is deleted once it is determined the scanned plate does indeed have insurance, that final word is...

Equifax.

I'm in a slightly cynical mood, and I want to get it out of my system before tomorrow, so you guys get to have this.

So allegedly, the reason behind this is not a blatant cashgrab, but to reduce the number of uninsured drivers on the road.

Yeah. The same story was given for the sudden license plate change.

So...what happens when this works (hahahahahahahahahahaha! (sorry, that was the cynical part getting out of my system)) and the number of uninsured drivers is drastically reduced? Does this company have a minimum per year written into their contract? What will the district attorneys do when the "millions of dollars in citation revenue a year" they are expecting from this never materializes? And of course, I still want to know what the plan is when this subsidiary of a foreign company is wrong. The article says when the company is wrong, all you have to do is show proof you were insured at the time. That's pretty easy to obtain, but how difficult will it be to submit, and how much will the filing fee for submission cost?

OK, most of it is out, but I have just a little bit left, so I'll close on one final word. Although the article claims the database is secure, and the information is deleted once it is determined the scanned plate does indeed have insurance, that final word is...

Equifax.

I understand the cynicism. But I do have to say if you think any of your information is secure anywhere you are naive. The internet already has all your information as well as foreign governments as well as our own.

Well here is why I am skeptical - the state already has mechanisms in place to match tags with insurance data provided by the insurance companies. The state dictated this to the companies several years back (this is also how the camera company will use the data from cameras). So, if that data is available today, why is the state not just running reports and sending these same letters out to the violators and eliminate the middle man? Most if not all of the roadblocks (no pun intended) such as wrong or no address, person no longer owns vehicle etc. will be there no matter who is managing this program.

I just feel this is a stepping stone to the next level of ticketing from the state...no really worried about tracking as they know where we are at almost all times.

It's not really illegal to just not have insurance. If your car just sits in the driveway taking up space, there's a checkbox on your tag renewal that says "I promise, I don't drive this car". The illegal act is driving without insurance. So just scanning a database of tags and matching that with a database of insurance and then sending a ticket to the ones who don't match won't work. The cameras are to catch them in the act of driving.

So I assume that Insurance co's will now be forced to lower our premiums since these cameras are to force people to either get insurance or stay off the road. If this will cut our premiums by at least 25% then I am for it. If not,they are not doing me a bit of good.

I'm in a slightly cynical mood, and I want to get it out of my system before tomorrow, so you guys get to have this.

So allegedly, the reason behind this is not a blatant cashgrab, but to reduce the number of uninsured drivers on the road.

Yeah. The same story was given for the sudden license plate change.

So...what happens when this works (hahahahahahahahahahaha! (sorry, that was the cynical part getting out of my system)) and the number of uninsured drivers is drastically reduced? Does this company have a minimum per year written into their contract? What will the district attorneys do when the "millions of dollars in citation revenue a year" they are expecting from this never materializes? And of course, I still want to know what the plan is when this subsidiary of a foreign company is wrong. The article says when the company is wrong, all you have to do is show proof you were insured at the time. That's pretty easy to obtain, but how difficult will it be to submit, and how much will the filing fee for submission cost?

OK, most of it is out, but I have just a little bit left, so I'll close on one final word. Although the article claims the database is secure, and the information is deleted once it is determined the scanned plate does indeed have insurance, that final word is...

Equifax.

I think we can freely say this is meant to bring in money. The state doesn't have any money and that is public info. Whether or not people who cheap out on insurance will actually open their mail and or pay random $184 fines is another story. Some people just suck at rules and procedures and payments...it's why there is an entire industry that does bill collections.

At most this plate reader system is designed to remind honest people to be honest if they had a lapse in thinking and forgot to renew the plate or the insurance.

I was at a tag agency this past year when a lady walked in to renew her registration and the clerk had to point out that she had been driving for a YEAR on expired plates. (she mixed up the month and year stickers supposedly) Anyway she got on a big rant about how she couldn't afford to pay the late fines and whatever and stormed out without renewing. She could still be out there driving on expired tags and nobody can do anything about it. Is she going to pay a $184 fine when she couldn't even pay the late fee at the tag agency? Ha.