Surveillance Vehicles?

[OKCRT]

So this seems very strange to me. A private company is essentially blackmailing you to pay them a fine or else they turn it over to the DA’s office. You are guilty until you prove yourself innocent to the private company. If you don’t pay them, they forward your information to the state. Seems very invasive to me and a bastardization of our laws. Very lazy police work by our justice system.

Don't like where this is heading. Next thing you know they will be sending out speeding tickets for going 5 mph over and if you don't pay you go to jail and they get more money.

[stile99]

So before we start getting too ridiculous here, there's no blackmail going on. It's against the law in Oklahoma to drive without insurance. Oklahoma finally enforcing this law (assuming they even are, there's a big difference between identifying the people doing it and actually doing something about it) falls under no definition of blackmail anywhere.

[hoya]

So before we start getting too ridiculous here, there's no blackmail going on. It's against the law in Oklahoma to drive without insurance. Oklahoma finally enforcing this law (assuming they even are, there's a big difference between identifying the people doing it and actually doing something about it) falls under no definition of blackmail anywhere.

How do the people scanning the car tags know who is driving the car? How do they know who to send the ticket to?

[jerrywall]

How do the people scanning the car tags know who is driving the car? How do they know who to send the ticket to?

It goes to the car owner.

[jerrywall]

So before we start getting too ridiculous here, there's no blackmail going on. It's against the law in Oklahoma to drive without insurance. Oklahoma finally enforcing this law (assuming they even are, there's a big difference between identifying the people doing it and actually doing something about it) falls under no definition of blackmail anywhere.

Exactly. I can see someone being philosophically opposed to private/public collaborations like this (although it's naive of them, since this happens all the time) but there's nothing nefarious going on here, and I can't even see a way this could be abused by the companies. Either you're following the law or you're not. There's no judgement call being made by the company.

[jerrywall]

So this seems very strange to me. A private company is essentially blackmailing you to pay them a fine or else they turn it over to the DA’s office. You are guilty until you prove yourself innocent to the private company. If you don’t pay them, they forward your information to the state. Seems very invasive to me and a bastardization of our laws. Very lazy police work by our justice system.

That's not what the article says at all.

Officials say the cameras scan all license plates, then the tags are compared to a database that lists vehicles with liability insurance. The images of any vehicles not on the list are then forwarded to the state Uninsured Vehicle Enforcement Diversion office for further review.

[OKCRT]

It goes to the car owner.

Then you have to go to court to fight it. Just more BS IMO. I'm all for getting the uninsured off the roads but don't like this tag scanning scam. Uninsured motorists are just the start. They will see that they can make tons of money in other areas and they wont be able to control themselves. This private co. gains to make a lot of money right along with law enforcement. Hopefully they will have some strict rules that will restrict them to uninsured motorist only.

[hoya]

It goes to the car owner.

Yes, I know that. But how do they know who committed the violation?

[jerrywall]

Yes, I know that. But how do they know who committed the violation?

The car owner. It's illegal to own a car without insurance on it in Oklahoma, unless it's black tagged or in storage.

[jerrywall]

Then you have to go to court to fight it. Just more BS IMO.

What's to fight. Either the car you own is insured or it isn't. Doesn't matter who's driving it. The one exception is if you sold a car and they never tag it. But that's resolved pretty easily, without going to court.

[stile99]

Yes, I know that. But how do they know who committed the violation?

Legally, you are responsible for your car. You are, as a car owner in the State of Oklahoma, required to insure that car. If you do not, it doesn't matter who was driving, you are the one who failed to carry insurance. Therefore, there is no question who committed the violation.

Now before we throw the red herring of "a person who is not me borrowed the car, stole it, whatever" out there, I invite you to again review the law regarding who is responsible for insuring the car in the State of Oklahoma. Any beef you have with this other person who is not you is between you and that person, the beef Oklahoma has is with you.

[catch22]

That's not what the article says at all.

"Citations will come from the company, not district attorneys. If vehicle owners don’t pay the citations, the information gets forwarded to district attorneys for potential prosecution... Vehicle owners who receive inaccurate citations can avoid payment by showing that they were insured at the time they were scanned."

http://oklahomawatch.org/2017/11/16/...matic-tickets/

[OKCRT]

What's to fight. Either the car you own is insured or it isn't. Doesn't matter who's driving it. The one exception is if you sold a car and they never tag it. But that's resolved pretty easily, without going to court.

If they were to issue you a ticket and you actually have insurance you will have to go through the motions and fight it and prove to them you have insurance. I can promise you they will mistakenly issue citations on vehicles that have insurance. Hopefully they will set something up to where you don't have to go to court and prove it. It will happen.

[d-usa]

If it’s like any other “got a ticket for no insurance, but I had insurance” scenario that always existed in the state it will be something like this:

Take your proof of insurance and citation to the court clerk, and they will cancel out the ticket.

[d-usa]

If it’s like any other “got a ticket for no insurance, but I had insurance” scenario that always existed in the state it will be something like this:

Take your proof of insurance and citation to the court clerk, and they will cancel out the ticket.

[OKCRT]

If it’s like any other “got a ticket for no insurance, but I had insurance” scenario that always existed in the state it will be something like this:

Take your proof of insurance and citation to the court clerk, and they will cancel out the ticket.

That actually happened to me years ago in Yukon. I had insurance but didn't have the new verification card in the vehicle. I went to court figuring they would throw it out and the judge cut it in half saying the law is to carry valid card in your vehicle at all times.

[Stew]

Well naturally the company doing this wants more uninsured drivers on the road not less so makes you wonder what legislation they’ll lobby for to make that happen.

[CloudDeckMedia]

Stop trying to make this what it isn’t because part of the process involves a private company. Law enforcement agencies outsource to private companies all the time. Checks & balances exist throughout the process, including - as I recall - two sworn officers who check every violation before a citation is issued to the owner.

[TheTravellers]

Stop trying to make this what it isn’t because part of the process involves a private company. Law enforcement agencies outsource to private companies all the time. Checks & balances exist throughout the process, including - as I recall - two sworn officers who check every violation before a citation is issued to the owner.

^^^ If you're talking about the current process, it's apparently not working very well yet, those two officers need to step up their game. Only two identified in the story, but who knows how many more haven't been reported.

https://kfor.com/2019/01/02/new-lice...-some-drivers/

[jerrywall]

One off those 2 examples was the system working as it should. The biggest change needed is that Oklahoma should allow owners to remove tags when they sell a car.

[CloudDeckMedia]

One off those 2 examples was the system working as it should. The biggest change needed is that Oklahoma should allow owners to remove tags when they sell a car.

Then the vehicle would have NO tag until re-registered, and that opens a new array of problems for the police.

BTW, if you sell a car to a third party, ALWAYS use a notarized bill of sale. If the vehicle is involved in an accident, crime or a violation such as this, you have proof that it was sold, when and to whom.

[SoonerDave]

Then the vehicle would have NO tag until re-registered, and that opens a new array of problems for the police.

BTW, if you sell a car to a third party, ALWAYS use a notarized bill of sale. If the vehicle is involved in an accident, crime or a violation such as this, you have proof that it was sold, when and to whom.

Better still is to transfer title to the new owner at your handy dandy tag agent at the time of sale. I sold a car some time ago without doing that, and while I had no later problem, realizing the potential problem to which I was leaving myself exposed scares the crap out of me now.

There is a "next best" thing (sorta) you can do - there's a DMV form you can fill out and file attesting to the sale of a vehicle. I don't remember the form number or name, but it was precisely for issues relating to sale transfers wherein the new owner was slow to register the vehicle.

[jerrywall]

I wonder how it works in states that allow or in some cases require you to remove the tags when selling a vehicle.

[Jersey Boss]

In NJ commercial dealers are authorized to do the initial registration and issue the plates. Got to have that proof of insurance to get the car.
If a private sale, you can drive the car from the sellers place to your place w/o a plate. That is the only authorized plateless journey.Very small window there as the title has a date on it. You have 3 days to get to a local DMV office to get plates if you don't have any from a previous car you sold at the same time. If you have previous plates you must reregister those plates with the new purchase.

[rezman]

Better still is to transfer title to the new owner at your handy dandy tag agent at the time of sale. I sold a car some time ago without doing that, and while I had no later problem, realizing the potential problem to which I was leaving myself exposed scares the crap out of me now.

There is a "next best" thing (sorta) you can do - there's a DMV form you can fill out and file attesting to the sale of a vehicle. I don't remember the form number or name, but it was precisely for issues relating to sale transfers wherein the new owner was slow to register the vehicle.

You may also be able to use your bank. I once sold a pickup to a guy, and we both went to the tag agent together. The tag agent refused to notorized the title because she didn’t like the shade of blue that was in the background in my driver license photo. .......
Not kidding!.

So we drove over to his bank, and we completed the deal there and they notorized it.