Fixed – The easiest way to fix a parking ticket | Hacker News Reader

Fixed – The easiest way to fix a parking ticket

getfixed.me

51 pointslbr61 comments

"Up to 50% of tickets are dismissed when challenged."

There is probably a high number (half according to them) of tickets that get dismissed because of selection bias. Tickets [that have been] challenged are probably challenged because they have a good chance of being dismissed due to reasonable issue. Challenging more [random] tickets will probably cause this number to fall.

I'm confused. Why? Are we talking "I didn't do anything wrong" tickets, stuff that is unfair but hard to fight?

Or is this about "I park wherever I want and try to avoid the consequences"?

So far it seems that most of the customers are of the latter variety. While I understand the motivation to act like an asshole, this service empowers .. assholes?

We're regularly discussing if free apps (downward spiral) or free content (adblockers) are okay. But free parking is fine, right?

The reasons they show in the screenshot seem more like the former. "Meter broken", "Curb paint faded", "Missing signs". But I don't see how they can contest those things without proof, and getting proof seems like it would be rather expensive. Pay one person to go out and take a photo and your profits are gone.

Quite frankly, the first one is the only one I believe in, but then again I'm from a country far, far away and all that.

Meter broken? Happens. Curb paint faded? Doesn't apply here (That's something that works a little different), but I have a hard time seeing that being a _common_ reason. Really. Common sense and remains of paint would probably be enough. Missing signs: Seems to be too big of a deal. In my world there's no way you can hand out tickets without having signs in place. You'd be contested again and again even without this service and would stop that behavior - or put up signs. This is not a temporary failure or a result of decay.

And then there's the 'meter times unclear' or 'other' part. Again, if this is trying to fight unfair tickets I'm a huge fan. It just doesn't look like that and the comments here seem to be mostly 'Yeah, where do I sign up to get that ticket removed'.

I .. park where I'm allowed to park, search a parking spot if I'm not sure OR (last time: 2 weeks back) risk a ticket and pay it if I get one. I guess I lack the empathy for people that have a different way here..

For San Francisco (the city in the screenshot and the only city that ever seems to matter when getting app-based startups), the rule is that parking at a broken meter is still very much valid. Same goes for where I live and everywhere I've lived and tried to park in multiple places in the U.S. I suspect this is half an enforcement problem (doesn't look good in the papers, "City Tows People Parked at Busted Meters") and part not denying use of a parking spot just because the one pay box is busted. Broken meters are one reason why cities in the U.S. are going to parking time window stickers and fewer pay boxes.

As for things like faded curb paint and missing signs and so on, that's not an excuse the operator of the vehicle can use. Even if there's no red curb paint here, you're still not allowed to park within 30 feet of an intersection (on the direction-of-travel side) or 10 feet of a fireplug or 5 feet of a driveway. Those are all things you're expected to know by virtue of having a driver license. Now, being ticketed for being over-time on a free parking stretch that's limited to 2 hours when the sign has gone missing might be one thing, but the folks around here put up so many signs in so many places, I think a person would have a hard time making that stand up.

Ultimately: if someone isn't sure and wants to not risk incurring the fine, he or she shouldn't leave a hunk of metal and plastic sitting on the public right-of-way.

The standard of proof in minor civil infraction cases is weak. If they find they don't need to get proof, I'm sure they won't. I recently read of a town trying to get their parking situation in order and they found that 30% of their meters were broken.

Indeed. I once had a small claims lawyer brag to me that while defending an expire-meter ticket, he was able to prove that the township had failed to conduct state-mandated Bureau of Weights and Measures calibrations for years. Tickets issued in that time were retroactively canceled.

In the United States, presumption of innocence implies that if the defendant pleads innocent, it is upon the parking authority to prove that the violation described in the ticket actually happened. Parking authorities tend to overtax their resources for such niceties (on the assumption that most people who are fined will plead guilty and pay the fine rather than burn personal time showing up in court); when an innocent plea happens, it may not even be worth the resource investiture for the officer who issued the ticket to show up to plea.

You are technically right but you're missing one thing: The parking authority here has an easy time to prove that you've ostensibly parked against the rules. Say, if the curb paint was faded, all they have to show is a map showing where you parked and how that's a special area. Done.

Suddenly it's up to you as the defendant to prove that that wasn't the case.

Outside of completely bogus tickets, proving that they were technically allowed to write the ticket is a trivial affair for the authorities.

I get this impression too, have since the first services of this type appeared around 2 years ago.

Yes, it can be used to easily dispute bad parking tickets. But the reason it works is that an office somewhere is pumping out boilerplate with your name on it at a faster rate than the courts have time to deal with it — this is the reason so many tickets get dismissed, because our court system is already so overtaxed that it must decide rather peremptorily on minor topics like this.

In other words they're basically doing a paper denial-of-service attack on the courts, which as they do not have the capacity to do all these hearings, simply default to halving or nixing the ticket. Personally, I think it is vile.

> In other words they're basically doing a paper denial-of-service attack on the courts, which as they do not have the capacity to do all these hearings, simply default to halving or nixing the ticket. Personally, I think it is vile.

As someone who has had to deal with both illegitimately issued traffic and parking citations, I think its brilliant.

Traffic tickets and parking tickets, for the most part, are for revenue and not safety. If they were for safety or actual enforcement, the punishments wouldn't be so heavily weighted towards fines.

Anytime technology can stick a wrench in poor government, be it incompetent civil servants, or poor policy, I'm all for it. If you don't have the capacity to provide hearings that are allowed by law, don't issue the citations.

> If they were for safety or actual enforcement, the punishments wouldn't be so heavily weighted towards fines.

I don't disagree with your conclusion, but I disagree with your argument.

Any punishment other than a fine for parking or speeding violations would be draconian, except for repeat offenders.

It's not OK to throw someone in jail or suspend their license (potentially removing their ability to get to work) for a minor speeding violation.

> It's not OK to throw someone in jail or suspend their license (potentially removing their ability to get to work) for a minor speeding violation.

Agreed. At the same time, this would entail correcting law enforcement of speed limits to be more realistic, with other traffic citations directing you to remedial training/driving school that is affordable and not profit driven.

Self-driving cars make all this moot though. The sooner they get here, the better.

I would argue that having laws against things that are easily deterred simply by money is evil. Anything that is worth outlawing should carry a significant penalty with it. Otherwise, we encourage legislation outlawing things for revenue instead of because they are actually wrong.

You've identified two classes of customer for this app but speculated, without evidence, that most of them fall into only one of those classes.

Ironically my objection to this service is essentially the opposite of yours. I see this app as imposing a middleman's fee on something that, in a perfect world, citizens would be able to perform themselves with the same probability of success. Contesting an illegitimate parking or speeding ticket is a fairly straightforward matter, but in my (personal) experience, unless you bring a lawyer to the courtroom your arguments will simply be ignored. In my area, the courts do not even keep records, so you can't use the judge's blatant dismissal of your concerns* as grounds for a mistrial on appeal.

Maybe I'm not understanding how the service works, but I see this service as simply a specialized and cheaper lawyer replacement. Maybe that's progress since you can actually save some money if you win, but you're still paying a more powerful entity in order to get respect in a court of law.

*I've literally been told by a judge, "stop speaking now, your turn is over" seconds after showing that the officer didn't use a LIDAR gun correctly per the manual, and upon cross examination didn't even know the type of device he was using (Me: "Were you using a radar or a laser based device on <date> at <time>?" Officer: "I was using the device the department issued me." Right afterwards: "Me: If you don't know what kind of device you were using, how can you know the effective range of the device?" Officer: "I believe it was effective and accurate when I used it."). The judge repeatedly referred to it as a "LASAR" device...

You're right. And I'm the first to admit that I cannot even begin to understand the full potential of the application. I'm not from the US and these things are decidedly local and special.

But from where I'm standing, you either park correctly or risk a ticket. In fact, this country here just raised the minimum amount for parking offenses because people did the math and found out that in some cases a ticket was cheaper than paying (parking ground, whatever).

So in my (certainly subjective, shaped, hardly applicable to the service at hand) world view you're just not fighting tickets. You either don't get them or you risked to get them. Exceptions exist, but are a teeny, tiny fraction and wouldn't be enough to keep a service like this afloat.

Could I be totally wrong: Sure.

I like the system we have in Philadelphia. To contest a minor traffic ticket, you don't have to show up in court or anything like that. There's a website where you can type in your ticket number, write why the ticket was incorrect, and upload evidence to support the claim. It's quite straightforward.

I'm with you because I had the same experience with a judge while lawyerless. I showed him a manufacturer tech spec on my car to make the point that based on its 0-60 acceleration, it was physically impossible that I was going 67 mph by the time I reached the intersection where I was clocked from where I started accelerating. His response upon seeing the specs was, "What are you, trying to sell me on a car?! This officer (witness) has been with the department 15 years. Guilty."

If that judge had been on HN he would have been cited for 1 count of 'appeal to authority'.

I'd love to see something this like for helping combat bullshit moving violations. You're right, in a perfect world it would be something I could care take of myself, but I often don't have the time- so I just pay the ticket and move on (legit or not).

For example- this summer I was living in Brooklyn. I filled up my motorcycle and pulled out of a gas station. Within maybe 500-600 feet I got pulled over. I had no idea at all why, as I certainly wasn't speeding or doing anything even moderately questionable.

I got a $100 'equipment violation' ticket for having the visor on my helmet opened by 2 inches so I could get some air flow in slow traffic. I wasn't wearing my glasses that day, and had contacts in instead. I've quite literally never had a moving violation before, and I'm a relatively careful driver especially in city traffic.

I was told that this ticket was for my safety. Keep in mind I was wearing armored boot, pants, jacket, gloves that covered me past my wrists and an excellent helmet.

I comparison, the NYPD often wear almost no protection (see this photo: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/NYPD-Moto...). As you can see, they don't have full-face helmets, those jackets and pants certainly aren't armored and their gloves don't go very far down. Oh, and no eye protection.

I simply paid the ticket, as the ticket had stiff language on it saying that if I contested it that they could increase the fines/fees significantly, and frankly I didn't have the time to go through NYC bureaucracy.

The cop admitted to me that he wouldn't have normally pulled me over, but they were doing 'motorcycle enforcement' (aka. quota) and they had to pull over anyone for anything.

What state are you in? In the jurisdictions I am familiar with, if there is no trial record (recording/transcript), the superior court will automatically grant a trial de novo on any appeals.

Is it permitted to make an audio recording in a situation like this?

I'm not sure, but if so I have doubts it would be admissible in a higher court. "Not an official record" and such.

I doubt there are many people in the latter category. It is simply too expensive to live like that, unless you're very, very wealthy, which is a very small number of people, and probably only a very small number of those who are assholes at all times.

Even at 50% probability of successfully contesting a ticket, it's still much cheaper to find a parking meter and pay for parking. Or pay for two taxi rides. Or, if you're one of the above mentioned wealthy people, hire a full time driver.

On the other hand, there are plenty of instances where people are unfairly penalized for badly signposted regulations, faded paint (especially red in the dark lit by low-pressure sodium), regulations only a local would reasonably know about, or even broken meters. There is a high cost in personal time to contesting these. I think this is a problem which may be solved quite well by this app.

My favorite: in Wilmington, DE, parking meters are not enforced on holidays. The punchline is that it's state holidays, and they celebrate Veteran's Day in late October, instead of mid-November.

Driving is bullshit. Just everything about it: expensive, inconvenient, and a backdoor to reduced rights (search * seizure, etc) and run-ins with the legal system.

Think about it: if you're a typical middle class person, when is the only time you ever have a run in with the law? I lived three years without driving in Chicago. I don't think I ever even talked to a cop in that time, and if I did it must've been pleasant and forgettable (I think beat cops with patrols of nice neighborhoods tend to be chill). I move to PA/DE and have to commute to work, and boom: in the space of a few months I've got three parking tickets, and stress to update my {registration, insurance, license plate} to avoid further run ins with the law.

I can't wait to move back to somewhere I can commute by train and leave this bullshit behind me.

I can't find anything on their site that lists what cities are supported, but I'm pretty sure it's Bay Area only.

I totally understand that, it'd just be nice to see it in a FAQ or something.

Even if you download the app, it's not clear. It has an "Availability Check" and you enter your ZIP Code, then it puts you the waiting list. Which is the same whether you put in a Bay Area ZIP or a Bumfuck USA ZIP.

If you contest a ticket and the officer does not show up you win a default judgement. Perhaps they are playing on the fact that unless they are on duty on the scheduled date, they are probably not showing up at court.

Many jurisdictions will pay officers to appear and many don't factor appearing into their budgets/schedules, so the officers are paid at overtime rates (time and a half). Many officer's don't mind having to appear... they make bank and many pensions are based on the three years of highest revenue (this is a method officers abuse in Wisconsin... they will work as much OT as they can for three years especially near retirement, since the legislature hasn't bothered fixing/forcing pensions to be based on 40 hours / week.)

Mirroring what jrs235 said, I've also heard officers schedule court appearances all together so it's more convenient for them to show up.

I doubt it makes financial sense for them to do anything at all past an initial letter contesting the ticket. If they get it dismissed, they make 25%. Otherwise they walk away and say "sorry, we tried."

The title and page seem to imply that parking tickets inherently are something which need fixing. As if their very existence was a blight upon the world.

If you agree, might I suggest you go into politics or perhaps traffic planning?

most people agree that tickets are something which need fixing[0], but you make 'going into politics' sound so easy. Maybe we all think that local politics are institutions rife with internal corruption and are essentially a club of elites? Why not try to push change on them a different way?

[0]http://laist.com/2014/02/26/local_heroes_are_taking_la_to_co...

When I said “go into politics”, I did not necessarily mean to become a politician. I meant to make political change – to go after the problem on the political level, however that may be. There are many kinds of “politicians”, just as war is merely a continuation of politics by other means.

How about a refund for my taxes that supported an asphalt wasteland while I spent years living in a suburban hellhole? Parking tickets are issued because you don't have a right to unlimited free automobile storage. Hell, why can't I park a hot tub in front of my house in the same spot? Would be a lot more fun.

Taxes don't really work that way, but I generally agree with you. Vote at the ballot box.

Won't cities adapt to fight this the more tickets are challenged? They'll say something like: "Oh, this same attorney is fighting hundreds of tickets? We're going to require more evidence to reverse these tickets".

They'll put up walls and/or make something about this service illegal.

And yes agree that many people will abuse this and fight every ticket regardless of the validity which will cause cities to push back like I mentioned above.

Seems like a tenuous business model.

Businesses that make lots of deliveries already use services that dispute tickets. This is just aggregating retail customers for those services.

>No fee to contest: We charge 25% of the fine if you win. You have nothing to lose.

Except that you are assuming they are better at contesting tickets than you.

Most people don't know anything in particular about contesting a parking fine. But it's literally these people's job. Also, note the incentives are the right way round: they get paid only if they win.

They're pretty much just taking the data you enter in the app, printing it on the SF MTA protest form, giving it a quick read, and mailing it in.

For German residents there's http://geblitzt.com - though it doesn't have an app. And it's not just for parking tickets but also for speeding tickets and such.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/20/tech/mobile/fixed-app-parking-...

"If the motorist thinks they have a case, the app will prompt them to capture any additional photographic evidence with their phone and then digitally sign a letter. Fixed has contracted with a team of legal researchers fluent in local traffic laws who will review each case before printing out the letter and submitting it via snail mail to the city."

Here's the form, now you don't need the app: http://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/2013%20AR%20PR...

The legal researchers job is probably just to sanity check that people aren't submitting complete junk, like penis photos.

Excellent Idea.

- Pros :

* This might lead to more people challenging their parking tickets. * Those who give tickets will be forced to think twice before giving a ticket. * Since enforcement people need to complete a fixed quota of revenue through parking tickets they will have to issue more tickets per day than before purely because more of them will get contested. This will mean people will have to take extra precautions while parking their car because probability of ticket has gone up.

- Cons:

* If too many people start contesting then the authorities(court) may simply take a hard stand and the ratio of cancelled tickets/challenged tickets may go down. This may hurt many genuine "I did not do anything wrong" people.

A broken meter is a valid reason in other cities?

Huh. Every parking meter around here specifically says if it is broken you can't use it. People are ticketed accordingly if they park there.

So in the region you're describing, the government would rather deprive people entirely of a shared resource than risk the resource be shared without regulation (and money to the government coffers).

Unless they had some kind of rash of people breaking meters that they're reacting to, I'm calling shenanigans on that law. In fact, if they haven't had a _recent_ rash... I'm still calling shenanigans.

A few years ago there was an exposé on valets in LA intentionally breaking meters to control parking. I wouldn't be surprised if it still happens. A few months ago tighter regulations on valets went into effect (not sure how well those have been enforced, though).

http://consumerist.com/2009/10/01/hidden-cameras-catch-la-va...

>If a meter is broken you are allowed to park at that meter for the posted time limit, but please report it!

http://sfmta.com/ru/services/streets-sidewalks/maintenance-r...

Although apparently that's not quite true, since there's another rule that says it is two hours max.

It's legal to park at a broken meter in DC, but I think you have to call in and report it as broken first and I wouldn't be surprised if you get a ticket anyway (especially if the meter isn't obviously broken).

I would imagine this leads to a lot of intentionally broken meters.

Really? Seems a bit unnecessary to take the spot completely out of action because the meter is broken.

Here (Melbourne), if a meter is faulty but the council doesn't know, you can SMS your numberplate and the meter ID to their faults number. The automated response tells you that the time limits still apply and gives you the number to call if you still get a ticket.

If the council knows the meter is faulty and they haven't fixed it, they generally put a locked bag over it so no one can use it with instructions that the time limits still apply.

"Seems a bit unnecessary to take the spot completely out of action because the meter is broken."

Yes it seems a bit stupid but governments often don't operate with efficiency or common sense as a primary goal or concern.

>Really? Seems a bit unnecessary to take the spot completely out of action because the meter is broken.

Yes, it does. Seems a bit unnecessary for the US to spend more than the next 20 countries combined in military, but the government doesn't always do the necessary part well.

For those interested in reading about this, there were some good comments in the previous HN thread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7066079

emanating from LA is a court challenge that may decide that parking penalties are excessive. This would be a statewide ruling (it's in the state courts IIRC). If, say, parking tickets were curbed at "treble damages", wouldn't this hurt this business' model?

http://laist.com/2014/02/26/local_heroes_are_taking_la_to_co...

Can I get an invite? me@robbiet.us. Need to invite my roommates, who both have a few tickets they need to get fixed.

If this gets popular, the courts will just change how they handle challenges.

In what way can they change the process?

They can charge to fight a ticket.

Boston does that:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011...

In Boston parking tickets are not about doing something wrong, or trying to curb behavior. They are basically a backdoor tax on the residents.

Seems unconstitutional/illegal to me.

While a layperson might not be able to fight it, a company who's business model is based on it might definitely be in a better position.

They can also lean towards rejecting almost any challenge entered by a system like this one. Conveniently, where I live, if you enter your argument by mail you are waiving your right to a trial, and they won't even reply to you unless you win (in which case you get some money back and it's obvious you won).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com