Thank you Often!

Often has made a very concise and cogent argument, presented much better than I did, but making the same, or similar, points.

1) Service is not the issue, don't allow discussion of service to distract.
2) In almost every case, if you ignore a camera ticket, it will come back to bite you somewhere, somehow.
3) When it does bite, it will be a much bigger bite than you ever thought possible.

Mo, I recommend you ignore the non-citation. Nothing will come of it.

And I recomend that those who recomend ignoring these citations establish a fund to compensate those who follow the advice and suffer by doing so !:)

Often, you and I seem to be in agreement on this subject, but also seem to be in the minority. Oh well, that does not mean we are wrong!

There's a ton of advice given on FT by people who never would even consider doing what they tell others to do. Largely because they know it's wrong. The question is how many suckers there are who follow it and later wonder how things could go so wrong because they took silly advice from a website.

Just look at the threads on FT dealing with the "I ignored.... and now they want thousands from me .... and I've been offered a great job...."

Did you have some particular threads in mind? Nothing jumped out at me when I did a search.

I am in agreement with the two of you. FWIW, I generally get paid for consultations and advice concerning such matters.

They're not citations. They come from a for-profit company, not a government. The for-profit company's profit motive causes them to look like citations to confuse you.

I'd say FT is much better than most forums re that problem, but it's a reasonable point. I told Mo what I really would do, but I've never gotten any photo-enforcement-type letters.

Mo, check here.

Oops, the same website answers your interstate compact question.

I had a funny experience once where I got pulled over, presented an outta state license, and the officer went on and on about my state not being in the compact (as if I should just destroy anything he handed to me). I achieved a not guilty verdict later, instead.

Zceuxbhjutt (and everyone), you do realize that whatever someone might get is a bill based on an original citation, don't you? If you want to ignore the administrative fee from the for-profit company, the repercussions are probably much less than ignoring the underlying citation, but ignoring the citation itself has government teeth behind it, so proceed with caution. So, contact either the car rental company or the for-profit citation processing company to ask them for a copy of the underlying citation be sent to you by fax, e-mail, or snail mail, but just ignoring the situation could be quite damaging to your bank account, your driving record, and/or your insurance premiums.

Actually, that's not how it works.

Sticking with my recommendation, with even more confidence based on...
http://tpdinternet.tucsonaz.gov/FAQ/PhotoradarFAQ.pdf

Actually, that is exactly how it works.

I looked at the TPD site, and that is great, for Tucson and Arizona, but it may not be the same situation in other states. Besides, if you are counting on the car rental company not supplying the police with the name of the renter, then you are delusional.

I happen to agree that the administrative companies hired by the rental car companies to process the tickets for them are very suspect, but simply ignoring the tickets or notices would be irresponsible and stupid.

When you get a law degree, or when you get proper advice from an attorney, then maybe the readers of this thread will have faith in what you say, but just maybe. Until then, do not pass yourself off as some sort of a legal authority on traffic and parking infractions. Before you say anything about me passing off myself as a lawyer, no, I am not, and have never claimed to be. I simply said that ignoring a valid citation is not a good idea, based on common sense, and that anyone should get more information and possibly legal advice before deciding what to do. Never even mind that all states are not the same, and that you do not have to pay the piper for the legal advice you are giving, if the advice is followed, and if there are negative consequences.

Yikes. There are no guarantees, Mo acknowledged that with his first request.

I get a kick outta the whole Catch-22 of the situation. A crux of Mo's advantage is the proof of service element of wacky AZ law. As soon as he doesn't ignore it, he's proven service.

All y'all are advising him to incriminate himself LOL.

You misunderstood. Slow down and back up. If Avis didn't give em the name, was it someone on here who ratted out Mo???

Avis WILL give them the name, because of the NOTICE OF VIOLATION* part of the law.

I do not misunderstand at all. What I do understand is that your information and ridiculous position is just dumb, and I feel very similar to fmr. Congressman Barney Frank's explanation about trying to argue with a table, I just don't want to do it (anymore).


*A “Notice of Violation” is sent to the registered owner of a vehicle when the officer reviewing the incident cannot establish reasonable grounds to believe that a particular person was driving. A “Notice of Violation” is not a summons to appear. You are asked to identify the driver of the vehicle. The Police Department will attempt to verify if the person you identified was driving the vehicle. If reasonable grounds exist, a citation will be sent to that person.