Hacker News Reader

>From what I could tell the business model seemed to be 1) send entirely generic form letter at very little cost to dispute every single ticket, regardless of merit 2) assume that you can overwhelm the system and they'll just give up on some percentage of the tickets 3) profit.

But isn't that (claimed to be) the exact model used by the parking authority? Write tickets without a lot of care for getting it right, knowing that most people aren't going to fight it? What's good for the goose...

I'm just going to quickly jump in here. I'm David, one of the co-founders of Fixed.

Every single contest is custom written, and has an extremely thorough review which includes: 1) automated check (check for missing/incorrect information) 2) low level review (primarily done by a team in India that uses Google Street view to measure the distance to closest signs) 3) high level review (performed by an Advocate in SF who double check the previous steps, and also reviews all notes and input from the user).

The advocate in SF then finalizes the contest letter and submits.

In general, about 2/3 of the tickets issued by the SFMTA and other parking ticket authorities have some issue with them.

I'd also like to point out, that it is not in our interest to submit frivolous contests. Each submitted contest requires time and resources on our end to submit the contest AND monitor the contest and process the return letter.

Finally... if your wife had two similar contest submitted, I might suggest that the SFMTA has become fat and lazy from lack of oversight, and continues to make the same trivial mistakes in each ticket.

> I might suggest that the SFMTA has become fat and lazy from lack of oversight, and continues to make the same trivial mistakes in each ticket.

I'm having a hard time understanding how this isn't confirmation of exactly what I experienced and described. I'm sure there are lots of minor trivialities that might get filled out slightly wrong a decent percentage of the time, none of which have anything to do with the validity of the ticket. So if you know all the tiny trivial loopholes you have a decent chance of finding something done "wrong" for otherwise perfectly appropriate tickets.

So yeah, you're able to point out the tiniest unimportant mistakes on a parking citation and then take advantage of that flaw in the system to get people out of valid tickets. It's impressive I suppose, but not something I'd personally brag about.

The "validity of the ticket" is determined by rules set forth by the city and the MTA. It also establishes the grounds for invalidity of a ticket. That's not taking advantage of the system, that's applying the system. The right way for the MTA to put Fixed out of business is to issue valid tickets that are held to a higher degree of scrutiny, otherwise the system just rots over time, as we see here.

That's not how laws work. You can't have one set of rules for one stakeholder, and another set of rules for another. Particularly when one of those stakeholders gets to acts as enforcement, judiciary AND beneficiary.

1 inch over the curb... we're going to tow your car with $700 worth of fines.

No visible sign on the street and nothing within 100 ft (which there has to be by law)... it doesn't matter, you should have known we intended that street to have no parking between 4-6pm.

If you tried to come up with a system with more adverse and broken incentives, you'd be hard pushed to come up with a better one than the SFMTA. 1) Let's saddle this organization with $10Ms of losses each year. 2) Let's give them the authority to issue tickets and fine the citizens for breaking an arbitrary set of laws. 3) Let's allow them keep the fines and treat it as 'revenue'. 4) Let's allows them to regulate themselves and decided if the tickets they issued are fair.

Why not proxy all the communications with the parking authority through the Fixed app, instead of sending them directly from your servers? It seems like this (or something similar) would make it much harder to "block" Fixed. And the parking authorities have no teason not to block you, especially when it's so easy as blocking a list of known ip addresses. (Barring an injunction in your favor or something)

You're doing god's work <3

Did you just admit that you used Fixed for valid parking tickets that you received? Aren't you then the exact group of people you are describing that "fucks it up for everyone"?

From the article that we all read before commenting:

> Using its app, Fixed customers could snap a photo of their parking ticket using their phone’s camera, and then Fixed would check against a variety of common errors before writing a customized letter to the city on the user’s behalf.

The app is meant to do the ticket-checking, not the user. Additionally the website itself for Fixed mentions that they do the checking, not the end user.

I am questioning why he felt the need use the service when he knew that the parking tickets were legitimate.

Yup. a) it was my wife that used Fixed and I do remember rolling my eyes when she explained the ticket she submitted b) we're always fascinated by what seem to be too good to be true SF startups so we typically try them out, and c) they aggressively market it as a no-lose proposition and put their flyer on every car that gets ticketed in SF.

But yeah, you're entirely right.

> If Fixed was successful then by definition every ticket issued would result in a dispute. That's simply untenable for a city to deal with.

Heaven forfend the citizenry have the right to defend themselves before being punished by the state.

This is why I think cities should get out of the business of providing free street parking. Take away the street parking, remove parking requirements from residential/commercial development requirements, and let the price of land and market demand dictate how many parking lots get built and parking fees.

Otherwise entitled drivers refuse to accept that city parking space is an inherently limited resource that must be shared, and protest any regulation as if unlimited free parking is some kind of basic human right.

When you take a step back and think about it, it is really weird how many public roads are built two lanes wider than they would otherwise need to be, simply so that people can park their cars on public land.

for the most part I would have thought the idea was mostly to keep delivery and passenger services out of the traffic lanes

I'm sure this varies from one locale to another, but in my experience in various parts of the US, virtually all urban roads with extra width have it just for parking. Much of the time the parking is so full that there's no room for delivery vehicles and passenger dropoff/pickup to use anything but the travel lanes, and even when there is room they often can't be bothered.

There are places where space is carved out just for loading and not parking, but it's not the common thing, especially in residential areas.

As a property owner will tell you. That public land isnt public but is an easement on private land.

I thought it was the other way around, typically: the city owns not only the street but a fair distance beyond the curb, and the adjoining property owner is required to maintain that area even though it's not theirs.

Nobody is arguing that incorrectly issued tickets shouldn't be challenged. It depends if you think knowingly abusing the system to evade responsibility for wrongdoing is a reasonable and valid defence. This isn't just an us versus them situation. We all have an interest in parking space being appropriately regulated, to our mutual benefit. It's not inappropriately parking vehicle drivers versus 'the state' and sticking it to the man. It's inappropriately parking vehicle drivers versus other vehicle drivers, pedestrians and in fact pretty much everyone who lives in cities.

I happen to think that all accusations of crimes (or non-criminal infractions) should be challenged, not just those which are false.

I see this as a miniature version of the extremely worrying argument about plea bargaining, that it is necessary because the courts couldn't handle the huge volume of trials that would be required without it.

If you're handing out so many violations that you can't handle everyone engaging in an active defense against them, then you're doing something deeply wrong, and the solution isn't to discourage people from exercising their legal rights.

Yes, we all have an interest in parking space being appropriately regulated, but we all have a much greater interest in the state's punitive power being appropriately exercised, and I'm sure there are ways to achieve both anyway.

I've not really seen much indication that they're abusing the system. The one commenter above claims the app sent the same letter twice, someone who works for Fixed said that they don't send the same form letter every time and both tickets must have had the same error (which would generate the same letter). In light of that, I don't see why a form letter specific to what makes the ticket invalid is an issue. Why should someone have to come up with a hundred different way to say "There isn't a 'No Parking' sign within X feet, as per city ordinance YYYY".

I also just want to point out, the SFMTA has brought this on themselves. If they didn't have such an egregious erroneous ticket rate, Fixed could never be profitable. They only get paid if you don't have to pay the ticket, so if the SFMTA had an error rate of 5% rather than 33% Fixed wouldn't have enough to work with.

Excellent! The system is obviously broken. And it's not self-correcting. So we must exploit the brokenness to force it to heal.