Petula Dvorak Non-Sequiturs Rape, Sex, and Alcoholic Blackouts

Yes, I am using "non-sequitur" as a verb.  I think some situations call for it.

I'm as much against rape (in all of its ugly forms) as anybody, and I am disturbed to hear that the military court hearing the Naval Academy Rape Case allows lines of questioning of the alleged victim that would not be permitted in a civilian rape case.  That's one of Petula Dvorak's points in her column in today's Washington Post. But her main point comes through in her concluding words:

"It's about America still not understanding the difference between consensual sex and rape.

"The woman at the Naval Academy is not pretending to be a prude. She described for attorneys times in the past when she did want to have sex and consented to it. But the stuff those football players bragged about online — she didn’t even remember it. At that point, it’s rape.

"Consensual sex happens between two adults who both want it.

"Rape is about violence, domination and power.

"It shouldn’t be that hard."

Must be nice to get paid for writing those one-sentence paragraphs.  And must also be nice to get paid for spouting that kind of stupidity.  I bolded the problem, and put the rest there for context.  Just because she "didn't even remember it," it's rape????

That's the whole problem with alcoholic blackouts.  The person will seem perfectly normal and will be able to hold conversations, etc.  They will presumably also be able to say "yes" or "no" to sex.  But because of the alcohol, something is happening within the brain that is preventing long-term memories from forming.  The person wakes up the next morning and (e.g.) doesn't remember how they got home the previous evening.  A large percentage of people who drink have experienced that kind of blackout, usually back when they were in college.

Yes, a woman who is "in a blackout" (I hate that terminology, because one can only say there was a blackout the next day, when the person doesn't remember anything), may well seem drunk, since blackouts are linked to excessive drinking (although interestingly, the correlation is not perfect, according to a rather boring article on wikipedia about blackouts).  But Dvorak's conclusion -- essentially, because she was in a blackout, it's rape -- is just so wrong that it hurts.

Her view seems to be based on the notion that when someone is drunk, they can never have consensual sex, and no matter how willing they seem to be, sex with them is rape.  But that rule is completely unworkable, since (for one thing), it requires the man to make the judgment that the woman's "yes" is not really a "yes." And more importantly, it's not the law now, and probably never will be.

So not only has Dvorak misunderstood the science of alcoholic blackouts, but she's also misunderstood the law of rape.  Yes, rape is a horrible crime, but a false accusation of rape can have devastating consequences.  According to wikipedia, the average sentence for a rape conviction is over 11 years, and convicted rapists spend over 5 years in prison on average.  That's the reason it's not as "simple" as Dvorak seems to think it is -- society needs to be pretty darn sure ("beyond a reasonable doubt") it was rape before convicting someone.  The mere fact that the victim was in a blackout cannot be the basis for a conviction.

Update 080915:  Just saw the following piece on CNN about a book that may be worth reading if you're interested in alcoholic blackouts:  Sarah Hepola's "Blackout: Remembering the Things I Drank to Forget."  The CNN piece contains the following line, which (if true, which I'm sure it is) refutes Petula Dvorak's faulty reasoning:

"The man Hepola was having sex with most likely had no idea she was in a blackout . . . ."

The article and presumably the book confirm what I've said above -- that people in blackouts can function perfectly well, and that people encountering them have no idea that they are not forming permanent memories (how could they tell, anyway?).  To suggest that anyone who has sex with someone who is later found to have been in a blackout is a rapist (as Dvorak does) is both stupid and dangerous.

I495 Admin Fee Scam Part II

IF YOU ARE ONE OF THE MANY THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING HOUNDED BY TRANSURBAN FOR HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, OR IF THEY'VE ALREADY GOTTEN A JUDGMENT AGAINST YOU -- or if you are just mad because they are asking you to pay a $12.50 administration fee for an obvious mistaken entry --  please read through the comments below, and email Lisa Marie Comras (lmsdigiulio@gmail.com), who is organizing a class action against Transurban.  Her attorneys will contact you and then you'll be able to decide for yourself whether you want to be part of the move to hold Transurban accountable.

According to Emily Miller of Fox 5 DC, Transurban filed 26,000 lawsuits against drivers in 2014 alone.  Maybe you're one of those drivers.  If you're facing an immediate court date, you might find some good ideas here or here, courtesy of attorney David Bernhard, via Fox 5 DC's Emily Miller.  But when that's over, you should still strongly consider joining the class action.

Original Post:

This was meant to be a reply to a comment by Delilah Johnson on my I495 Admin Fee Scam post but for some reason the reply isn't working.  So for now I'll just post it here:

Wow. Mark and Delilah, sorry to hear about this.  Mark's right -- for them to sit back for three months without telling you that you're doing something wrong, and then to charge you an administrative fee for every single instance, is outrageous.  Administratively, it shouldn't cost them any more to send a letter for one offense than for 20.  And $12.50 is still too big for one lousy computer-generated letter.

The real problem is that if you end up fighting them on your own, chances are your credit rating will take a hit, because they'll turn it over to collections.  But if you're mad and are willing to take them on -- and willing to monitor your credit rating and let the reporting bureaus know that any mark against you is "in dispute," then here's something you might try:

Write a letter, via registered mail, to them at their US Headquarters (they are an Australian outfit) and enclose a check for about $45.55, made out to Transurban Group.  On the "memo" line of the check write "Payment in Full", and refer to any number that they gave you in their letter to you (I threw mine out so I don't remember what the letter looks like), or say:  "toll plus admin fee dispute" or something like that.

Your letter can say the following:

Via Registered Mail
Transurban Group
6440 General Green Way
Alexandria, Virginia 22312

[this is the address for their headquarters -- if the bill they sent you has another address, just use it]

Dear Sir or Madam:

I have received a letter from you informing me that I owe you $33.05 in missed tolls, and $725.00 in "administration fees," for a total of $758.05, for a number of short trips taken on I-495.  I dispute this charge for several reasons.  First, assuming your information is correct, I was completely unaware of the fact that I was driving on a toll lane; your lanes are poorly marked and you have done little to educate the public about your system.  Second, you provided me no notice whatsoever that you would be charging me more than $12 per trip.  Third, it is unconscionable that you charge $725 in "administration fees" for the administrative task of notifying me of $33.05 in missed tolls.  Fourth, it's particularly unconscionable for you to let the administration fees accumulate, at $12.50 a pop, without notifying me that they were accumulating.

I am enclosing herewith a check for $45.55, which reflects the $33.05 in tolls you say I owe you, plus $12.50 to cover your administrative costs in this matter.  Please consider this check to be payment in full for resolution of this dispute.

Sincerely,

_________

---

If they cash the check, then the dispute is over -- they have accepted your settlement offer, and they can't sue you (or if they do, you'll win).  If they don't cash the check and turn the matter over to collections (or if they cash the check and turn it over to collections anyway), when the collections people call tell them the matter is in dispute, and that you're waiting to hear back on your settlement offer.  If they at some point reject your offer, just invite them to sue you.  They won't, because it's just not worth an attorney's time to do that, and it's also far from clear that they are legally justified in charging such a hefty "administration fee" without having given you (or the rest of us) any notice.  It's possible that the collections agency will report you to the credit reporting agencies even though you inform them the issue is in dispute.  If that happens, and you want to protect your credit rating, you need to contact the credit reporting agencies separately (you can google how to do that).

I note that you say they charged you $725 in administrative fees for 20 trips.  It's hard for me to figure out where that number comes from -- my best guess is that they are charging you for 29 trips, and they doubled the administrative fees because you haven't paid yet (since 29 * 12.50 * 2 = 725).  So maybe they've sent you two letters; that's why I left it vague with "administrative costs in this matter" at the end of the letter (instead of saying you're paying $12.50 for one letter).

You could also try sending them less money -- e.g. just the $33.05, or even less than that.  If they cash the "payment in full" check, you are again home free.  But I think it's more likely that they'll cash it if you make a reasonable offer that is tied to the facts of your situation.  $45.55 is reasonable because it includes not only the tolls, but a big fat $12.50 administrative fee.

Good luck with this -- whatever path you choose -- and let us know what happens!

Please don't consider this legal advice.  If you want that, consult a lawyer.  But it is practical advice; it's what I'd do myself in this situation.

Why Lobster Prices Don't Fall During Lobster Gluts

Interesting article in New Yorker this week: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2013/08/26/130826ta_talk_surowiecki

We're in a lobster glut right now -- lobstermen have too many to sell; apparently it's down to $2.20 a pound in some parts of Maine (we just saw it at $3.99 a pound in Portland).  So why don't restaurants lower their prices?

- Keeping them expensive makes other menu items look like better deals

- Customers often associate higher prices with better quality; if lobsters were cheaper they'd be suspicious.

- Restaurants can capitalize on falling prices by adding lobster-themed dishes without lowering prices of lobsters.

- Danger that people will get used to lower prices (and one time, lobster meat was food for lower classes, not upper).  It was only when it became scarce for a while that rich people realized it was a delicacy.

He ends the article by noting that commodity producers -- like lobstermen -- are at the mercy of the market, whereas businesses like restaurants try to insulate themselves from the market.

For me, it's one more reason not to eat lobster.  

Walmart sanctions 400% overcharge for gutter downspout extension

Need a downspout extension?

How about this one:



This is the Amerimax Home Products Brown Flex-a-Spout Downspout Extension, Model No. 85019, and by all accounts, it works great.

You can go to www.homedepot.com and order one for $8.97 plus $5.99 shipping (or free shipping if you order over $45, and of course you can also pick it up at the store for free too). Home Depot Link (select brown as your color, and the price stays the same).

or, if you prefer, you can go to www.walmart.com and get one for $40.64 (a nice Walmart-sounding price) plus $6.97 shipping (another Walmart-sounding price).  Walmart Link

The choice is yours.  Caveat emptor, as they say.

Of course, that's Walmart's Marketplace, and the outfit that will sell you the gutter is Toolking.  Still, I wouldn't have found it if Walmart had not lent its good (*cough*) name to this shabby enterprise.

Hopefully, this won't last.  But just to create a permanent record, here are the competing screen shots:

So Toolking, with Walmart's help, will sell you this $9 piece of plastic for over $47 (including shipping).  Walmart's current slogan is “Low prices. Every day. On everything.”  Well, not quite everything, I guess.  

It just goes to show -- the minute you turn your back on Corporate America, they find a new way to try to take your money.

Patent and Trade Policy Responsible for Soaring Health Care Costs?

An article in this morning's New York Times caught my eye.  A guy had been been quoted something in excess of $65,000 for a hip replacement in the US -- excluding surgeon's fees -- and ended up going to Belgium and getting the job done for $13,000.  His insurance didn't cover the replacement because it was a pre-existing condition; came from a sports injury.  This, again, is my biggest problem with ObamaCare.  There are many instances where US consumers pay large multiples of what is paid in other countries for identical care.  The guy specifically said he was a bit leery about going to some place like India, where he could get it done even more cheaply.  But Belgium -- the Belgians are probably at least as competent as the US.  And of course, in the US, there's a good chance one would end up with an Indian doctor in any event.  There really isn't anything special about US doctors or hospitals, except their ability to make money off of the health care system.

I haven't studied ObamaCare closely, so maybe this will sound stupid.  But perhaps there is some way of literally using "medical tourism" to reduce our health care costs.  I.e. I have a sinking feeling that under ObamaCare, that hip would have been replaced in the US no matter what (right?  discrimination against people with preexisting conditions is one of the reasons for ObamaCare isn't it?), at a cost of $65,000, plus surgeon's fees.  Unless of course a panel decides it's not needed.  But shouldn't that same panel figure out how much it would cost to have the work done in Belgium, or even India?  I.e. If it's really one-fifth the cost, why not put the patients on planes?

Note that I have essentially given up on the idea of controlling costs within the US.  Those industries are just too strong and have too much of a lock on the legislative process, and, far from being reined in by ObamaCare, are going to be beneficiaries of it.  That was Obama's big chance, and he blew it.

The article focuses on the cost of an artificial hip itself.  The guy in question was offered a hip for $13,000, and was told the hospital fees (excluding surgeon fees) would bring the cost up to 65K.  Another guy was charged $37K for a hip.

It turns out that it only costs $350 to make an artificial hip in the US (in other countries, its down to $150, but there might be quality control issues).  There is a cartel consisting of 5 hip and knee manufacturers that, through patents and trade policy, manage to keep the price of hips and knees high.  They are able to charge hospitals $4500-$7500 for a hip, and of course, the hospital tacks on its own markup to that price.

The article asserts that the basic artificial hip has been around for decades, but that these manufacturers keep on patenting minor tweaks, with the result that they are able to keep prices high.  And of course, these patents, plus the huge expense of FDA approval, makes it hard/impossible for foreign products to break into our market.

At first, I didn't realize that the article went on and on, and I did an independent search for the members of the knee/hip cartel.  They are:

Stryker Orthopedics
Biomet
DePuy Orthopaedics unit of Johnson & Johnson
Zimmer Holdings
Smith & Nephew (a British company with an orthopedics subsidiary in Memphis).

And what did I find on the internet search?  Just an article about unseemly conduct by at least four of these -- providing kickbacks to surgeons who push their products on consumers (see http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/business/28devices.html?ex=1348718400&en=ab27ba64e456cd60&ei=5088)

And here's the original article, on which this post is based: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/health/for-medical-tourists-simple-math.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130804

As mentioned, the article goes on and on, and also discusses (and links to) the kickback scheme I found above.  The cartel spends $30 million per year lobbying Congress.  Etc. etc.  Almost too depressing to read.

Convict George Zimmerman of idiocy but . . . .

George Zimmerman employed extremely poor judgment.  George Zimmerman -- and people like him -- should not be permitted to carry firearms under any circumstances.  Zimmerman was the direct and proximate cause of the death of a human being -- Trayvon Martin -- a teenage boy who was simply minding his own business that night, but who attracted Zimmerman's attention by being black and wearing a hoodie.  The result of Zimmerman's stupidity -- in getting out of his car, following Martin, etc., was completely foreseeable.  He was a Pillsbury dough boy with a gun.  If the confrontation he started ended up in a fight, he would lose -- but for the gun.  And since confrontations often end up in fights, the gun came out and a boy is dead.

A jury has apparently found that Zimmerman acted in self defense.  Apparently the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was NOT self defense.  And there, the fact that Zimmerman was a wimpy, overweight, soft, wannabe cop worked very much in his favor.  The jury could well believe that the athletic black kid got the upper hand, and was winning the fight.  And apparently if they believed that, then it was ok for Zimmerman to pull out his gun and shoot Martin dead.

But I'm not here to talk about that.

I feel bad for the black community.  I admit I'm white, or white-ish, but in my defense I've spent over $100,000 trying to better the lives of black people.  I like black people a lot.  I have black friends.  I have black kids.  I have a black son who wears a hoodie sometimes.  I am worried for him.

But here's what I am sick and tired of.  I am sick and tired of seeing letters or Op-Eds from Ivy League African American males who complain that America is racist and that the result of it is that they can't go outside wearing a hoodie because (1) white people look at them with suspicion, and (2) sometimes they even get stopped and possibly even searched by the police.

Ok, I've been stopped and searched by the police, apparently because I resembled another white guy.  Unusual perhaps, but I got over it.  Just another story to tell.  So I'm not really sharing the sense of  "humiliation" that these Ivy League African Americans feel so deeply when they are stopped or suspected.  Afterwards, they can still go home and look at their diplomas.  I can't quite figure out what causes the alleged "humiliation," although I sense that my situation is somehow different.

I thought of a fable that might help us analyze the problem.

Imagine there is a place where the only two species are lions and hyenas.  Ok, let's humanize them a little -- they can talk and some of them wear hats.  Usually, lions and hyenas get along just fine -- many lions have hyena friends, and vice versa, and hey, they even intermarry. But the fact of the matter is, one out of every ten lions, if he happens to be having a bad day, and is hungry, will chase down and kill and eat a hyena.  Pretty easy to do, since lions are bigger, smarter, faster, and stronger (and better looking) than hyenas.  Interestingly though, the only lions who have ever been seen doing this are lions wearing hats.

Now hats are kind of a fashion statement with lions.  So a lot of lions wear hats, and they like to wear hats.  They feel they have almost a natural right to wear a hat.

But what happens?  Hyenas begin to grow wary around lions with hats.  They know that most such lions are harmless and friendly -- and maybe even graduates of Ivy League schools -- but they can't see past the fact that lions with hats are responsible for a disproportionate amount of the hyena killing and eating that goes on.

So what's a hyena to do?  They cross to the other side of the street.  If they happen to be the police -- and have weapons to back themselves up -- they might question lions with hats who seem to be walking in mostly-hyena neighborhoods.

And now, what's a decent, Ivy-Educated male lion supposed to do?  He has a choice.  Either stop wearing the hat -- and the hyenas will treat you as harmless and accept you as a "good" lion, or keep wearing the hat, and put up with the scared looks, and the possible police harassment.  Neither choice is perfect.  But at least you're a lion, not a hyena.  Some people are born blind, deaf, or otherwise handicapped.  Some people are born ugly or grow ugly as they age.  Some people go bald.  Life is unfair in many ways.  This is one small way in which life is admittedly unfair to lions.  But what am I (a hyena) supposed to do about it?

For the lions who truly want to make a difference:  they can work within their own community to try to stop the hungry hat-wearing lions from eating hyenas.  For the lions who'd rather simply cash in on their Ivy League degrees, they can write whiny letters to newspapers.

And the Ivy-Educated African American males have the same choices.  Don't they?  Somebody tell me what I'm missing.

Ok, I see I've written something very similar to the column that Richard Cohen wrote earlier this week in the Washington Post about Racism vs. Reality.  And yes, I read the column when it came out.  I don't think I would use the same terms that Cohen did (I'd much rather just keep talking about lions and hyenas).  In fact, it was the first-published comment (of 4000) -- by an Ivy League African American male complaining about the way he is treated when he wears a hoodie -- that caused this particular rant.  If Cohen's remarks are racist (and lots of people seem to think they are), then maybe so are mine.  But I am nothing if not educable.  Please educate me!

I-495 Express Lanes "Administration Fee" Scam

IF YOU ARE ONE OF THE MANY THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING HOUNDED BY TRANSURBAN FOR HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, OR IF THEY'VE ALREADY GOTTEN A JUDGMENT AGAINST YOU -- or if you are just mad because they are asking you to pay a $12.50 administration fee for an obvious mistaken entry --  please read through the comments below, and email Lisa Marie Comras (lmsdigiulio@gmail.com), who is organizing a class action against Transurban.  Her attorneys will contact you and then you'll be able to decide for yourself whether you want to be part of the move to hold Transurban accountable.

According to Emily Miller of Fox 5 DC, Transurban filed 26,000 lawsuits against drivers in 2014 alone.  Maybe you're one of those drivers.  If you're facing an immediate court date, you might find some good ideas here or here, courtesy of attorney David Bernhard, via Emily Miller.  But when that's over, you should still strongly consider joining the class action.

Original post:

I've posted about the I-495 Express Lanes (on the DC Beltway) before.  But now I have fallen victim. I got on the Beltway to go to work a couple of months ago.  I don't do that very often -- probably hadn't done it at all since the Express Lanes went up -- and all of a sudden found myself alone on the Beltway, in some lanes partitioned off from other traffic.

And for the record, there wasn't any other traffic to speak of -- it was all going the normal 65 mph, and I wasn't gaining anything by being in the express lane.  I don't have an EZ Pass.  I got off at the very next exit, and rejoined the normal Beltway traffic and got into work, no problem.  But a few days later, I get a letter from I-495 Express.  It tells me that I owe them thirty-five cents (35 cents) for driving on their road for that stretch.  Oh, and by the way, I also owe them a $12.50 "administration fee" for their trouble of tracking me down to ask me for the 35 cents.

In other words, rather than simply forgive obvious mistakes like mine -- i.e. one-exit trips on the express lane, at a time of day when there is no traffic in that direction -- they have turned our mistakes into a potentially huge and predatory profit center.  It's not about the 35 cents, it's about the 12 dollars.  And I'm sure it doesn't cost them anywhere near that amount to send out a letter.  They are clearly making at least $10 off of every 35-cent mistake.

I had an IM exchange with them that I would reproduce here, except that it makes me too easily identifiable.  But the gist of it was that I was screwed.  If I didn't pay the $12 within 30 days of the letter, the "fine" goes up to $25.  And if I don't pay that, they turn it over to collections, with almost certainly a mark on my credit record.  I don't know what would happen if I had let them sue me -- I think I probably would have had some decent defenses.

It turns out if you pay on-line, the price is only about $10.  Still a huge and unwarranted profit for them.

So what we need is an ambitious class action lawyer to represent us to get our money back.  The legal theory is simply that it's toll road piracy by a private entity, taking advantage of mistakes, and that it's a farce to call it an "administrative fee" because their administrative expenses are clearly just a fraction of the total amount.  Discovery would be extremely useful here -- it would be nice to know just how much money they make off of this, and to get discovery on whose bright idea it was to impose the fee in the first place.

I'd be willing to help, but for various reasons, can't participate in a meaningful way.  If you are a class action lawyer and want to have some fun with this, I'd be happy to provide you more details about my situation -- just leave an email address in the comments.

And if this has happened to you and you want to join the class, just leave a note below (can be anonymous for now), tell us your story, and keep an eye on this space.

By the way -- the one tip I can offer to those of you, like me, who knew they were in the wrong lane and got off as soon as they could.  495Express has a program where if you know that you made that mistake, and are able to pay them $1.50 plus the missing toll before they are able to send you the letter demanding $12, you are off the hook.   Of course, it's difficult to figure this out until after you've gotten the letter.  Until then, you don't necessarily even know who you are dealing with.  Details here.

UPDATE:  As you can see from the comments below, part of the problem is that Transurban -- the Australian outfit that is sweeping in all of those "administration fees" -- apparently sometimes waits with sending you the letter until you've accumulated dozens of violations.  At that point, you might owe them about twenty bucks in tolls, but hundreds of dollars in "administrative fees."  I've now drafted a letter (available here) that you might consider sending if you find yourself in that position. In short, the letter includes a "payment in full" check, which, if cashed, should get you off the hook legally.  If they decide not to cash it and turn your account over to collections, you need to be sure to tell the collections people that the case is "in dispute," and you probably need to monitor your credit record as well to make sure that you are not improperly reported.  It's unlikely that you'll ever be sued on the matter, because it's not worth a lawyer's time to go after you for a few hundred dollars.


UPDATE 10/22/14:  Emily Miller of Fox 5 DC (who also seems to be a right-wing gun nut (http://www.amazon.com/Emily-Gets-Her-Gun-Obama/dp/1621571920) has done some real good here by shining a spotlight on Transurban and its predatory practices in two news segments in the past 10 days.  And she says that she'll keep on top of this issue, which is a good thing. But so far, she has absolutely zero constructive suggestions for how this will stop -- she just suggests that if you have a problem, you should contact Transurban.  Many commenters below -- and people who talked to Emily Miller -- can tell you how that goes.  She doesn't mention the possibility of bringing a class action, which I discuss at more length in various replies to this post.  As I said somewhere else, media attention of the kind that Emily Miller is giving the issue is just the kind of motivation that a class action lawyer needs.  Now someone just needs to go out and find one!  (I've posted phone numbers for three different firms below).

Emily's most recent article contains a rather significant math error, which I hope she corrects.

Here's the direct quote:

"Well, 96 percent [of customers having problems with Transurban] sounds good -- until you do the math. There are one million drivers on Transurban's 495 Express Lanes. So that means there are 4,000 people out there with these problems. And I found over a dozen of them in just one week."

Actually, if you really do the math, you realize that 4% of one million is 40,000.  That's a lot of drivers who have had problems with this company.  And it sounds like a pretty good size for a class action!

UPDATE 10/29/14:  Two very positive developments.  First, as reported by WTOP here, Transurban is going easy on "first time offenders" -- if you're a first time offender, after you receive an invoice, you have 60 days to prove that you have "rectified the issue and pay the tolls in full."

Here's a quote from a Transurban person named Coffee:

"If you get an invoice that has more than one trip, more than 10 trips, more than 15 trips, you call us. You tell us what the issue was, that you've put funds in your account. We collect your tolls and you move on. However, the next day, you've got that clean slate and it's up to you to ensure that you've got your EZPass properly mounted, that you've got funds in your account and that your license plate is linked to your EZPass so that you avoid that in the future," 

The article goes on to say that if a first-time violator's case goes to court, Transurban will cap the fees at $2,200. According to Coffee, "With the new program in place, we will not be seeking more than $2,200 on any first-time violator no matter what." 

The article is not very clearly written -- I can't be one hundred percent sure whether a first-time violator means a single violation or not, although from the context, it looks like you can be a "first time violator" with multiple violations.  Assuming the latter is the correct interpretation, it sounds like some of the commenters below should be able to get off for only $2,200.  Still a lot of money, but not necessarily bankruptcy-worthy.  If you're in that position, it sounds like you should call Transurban and ask how their new policy applies to you.

And here's a report about an ongoing court case -- Toni Cooley against Transurban.  Toni had over $10,000 in fines, including about $2000 in "administrative fees".  The judge wiped off the administrative fees because Transurban couldn't prove that it cost them that much money just to send out a few notices.  So that's good to hear -- the administrative fees are what set me off on this whole stupid thing to begin with.

UPDATE Nov. 17, 2014.  One of our readers is organizing a class action against Transurban.  I'm reproducing her post up here just so it doesn't get lost a a reply to a comment:

Lisa-Marie ComrasNovember 17, 2014 at 7:38 AM

I am serious about a federal class action. I have an attorneys contact information and one other person that I have thus far met with that is moving forward with me. The more people, the more seriously we are going to be taken. email me - lmsdigiulio@gmail.com. Give me your total tolls (before any admin or civil penalties) and then give me your total paid/settled/etc.
For example: MINE: $14.20 total - $10,751.40 judgment