Author Topic: Rental Car? Read the fine print! (Read 3654 times)

Sandman · « **on:** June 20, 2001, 08:06:00 PM »

Check it out: http://www.newmassmedia.com/nac.phtml?code=new&db=nac_fea&ref=16435

The company fined the customer $450 for exceeding the speed limit in their vehicle. They obtained the speed data via GPS and a device called AirIQ.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #1 on:** June 21, 2001, 09:35:00 AM »

Quote

When Turner signed Acme's rental agreement last October, he didn't notice the warning at the top of the contract that read: "Vehicles in excess of posted speed limit will be charged $150 fee per occurrence. All our vehicles are GPS equipped."

All I can say is, he's too stupid to read?

Its a private business, private ownership of vehicles. If the owner says "We can track your speed, don't go fast or we charge you due to the excessive wear on the automobile"..then by golly, its his business, his cars. Pay up. Too bad GPS can watch the guys speed, its RIGHT on top of the friggin' contract!

Sancho · « **Reply #2 on:** June 21, 2001, 09:45:00 AM »

Don't take into Tijuana either!!

-sudz- · « **Reply #3 on:** June 21, 2001, 09:46:00 AM »

I don't know Rip, it seems to me that there can be legitimate reasons to speed (medical emergency one of them), and it is often completely unsafe to drive the posted limit. I would get run down and maybe shot if I stayed 60 on a Dallas highway.

It seems to me that the rental company just found a way to make extra bucks which I don't think is legal. Private interests can point out crimes to the authorities but don't have the power to punish the offenses ($150 fine). It's called "due process".

The rental company's board of directors probably just saw how lucrative speeding is for the DMV and wanted to cut in on their market. In any event I hope they get sued or go out of business. I've got enough people trying to run my life without Hertz getting in on the action.

-Sudz

Eagler · « **Reply #4 on:** June 21, 2001, 09:50:00 AM »

1984

Right up there with camera's issuing tickets for running red lights. Heard they are shortening yellow lights to catch more as this is such a profitable venture for most large cities. Darn law breakers

Eagler

[ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: Eagler ]

Ripsnort · « **Reply #5 on:** June 21, 2001, 09:57:00 AM »

Well, if its a medical emergency, they have this neat thing in America for such emergencies, 911, then a medical car is dispatched, and also contains a driver who is schooled in driving in excessive speeds.

I don't think an rental car owner sees this as a lucrative business venture, after all, they want customers to come back, and tell other customers about them...I think it has more to do with wear and tear on the automobile. I doubt nailing guys for speeding with vehicles would net more cash for the business owner than the rental of the automobile itself.

Not only did the driver cause excessive wear and tear on the vehicle, but he possibly endangered John and Jane Doe on the freeways.

It used to be that a cop had to drive right behind you to monitor your speeding, then Radar guns came along...lots made a whine about that technology too, but its now part of our lives, same goes with this new 'radar' called GPS.

Ripsnort (Who's had 0 accidents and 1 speeding ticket since he turned 18)

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #6 on:** June 21, 2001, 10:32:00 AM »

The speeding issue is really just a trigger for the main issue...

The tracking of your movements.

Sure its their car, but does that mean they can put a hidden camera in the car to make sure people treat it right? Its just a matter of when invasion of privacy takes over.

I'm very curious to see how this goes. What happens if telemetry devices become standard issue in vehicles... can the authorities then use that for auto ticket issuing? Will this case set precident for future decisions on the subject?

I respect the car rental's right to ensure their cars don't go over certain speeds... but that can be done without tracking the physical location of the car at all times.

AKDejaVu

miko2d · « **Reply #7 on:** June 21, 2001, 10:54:00 AM »

The only wrong thing about that is that a customer was charged automatically without a chance to determine if the charge is correct.
Unless automatic charge was is the contract he signed. I would not be surprised if it were - GPS systems are long tested and extremely reliable.

Techically, GPS has nothing to do with the legality of the charge - "Vehicles in excess of posted speed limit will be charged $150 fee per occurrence" was all he needed to know. They might have used undercover agents or surveilance aircraft - the method does not matter.

The charge is clearly not a punishment for a presumed crime. It is a penalty for violating the signed contract through a misuse of a vehicle.

That technology is a great idea. I wish it was installed in all rental vehicles and was optional in all vehicles to be monitred by insurance companies.
Then good drivers like me will be known and not have to share the insurance burden with bad drivers.
Right now a person under 25 years old cannot even rent a vehicle in most places because he/she is considered high risk. If such person with good record buys a car in New York, he can expect to pay around $3000/year just for liability.

Quite a few rent cars (usually less then 1-year old) that they do not care to treat well and do things in them that they would never do in their own vehicles. That does not make it safer for other motorists and costs rental companies a lot - which the rest of us ultimately have to pay through higher rental and insurance fees.

AKDejaVu: Sure its their car, but does that mean they can put a hidden camera in the car to make sure people treat it right? Its just a matter of when invasion of privacy takes over.
Sure they can. Ever saw signs "premises monitored by closed-circuit television"? As long as they inform you of it, it is quite legal. Don't sign a contract if you do not agree.
If you think people will not like it, open your own rental company that would not monitor the customers and take away their business. Of course you will have to charge huge amount to be profitable because most of your customers would be unsafe drivers the other company are happy to get rid of...

miko

NATEDOG · « **Reply #8 on:** June 21, 2001, 10:56:00 AM »

I can't agree with that RIP.... let me put you in the situation..... you are on the highway, going 55 in a 55. there is a car right next to you...and no shoulder... you see an ambulance coming up behind you. with no where else to go, you speed up to pass the car next to you, switch lanes, and let the ambulance pass........ that will be $150 please. I don't think so. besides, they said Posted speed limit..... that means if you go 56 in a 55 they can fine you.... did you know that leading cause of accidents in the US are people going too slow... you can't go the speed limit any more, you have to go with the flow of traffic.

SOB · « **Reply #9 on:** June 21, 2001, 11:10:00 AM »

Sure they've got the right to do this. It's their car, and it was in the contract that he signed to rent the car. Since the warning was at the top of the rental contract, he should have payed attention to it, and asked about it. Then, when they explained to it what it was, he should have done the sensible thing...

Tell them to take their rental car and shove it, because he'd be taking his repeat business to one of their several competitors.

SOB

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #10 on:** June 21, 2001, 11:10:00 AM »

Miko2D,

Was there a sign that said "speed tracked by GPS"? Would you rent a car from a company that said "actions inside of car monitored by closed circuit TV". How about use a dressing room that said "Closed circuit TV used to protect against theft"? How about a hotel room that said the same thing.

The speeding is not the issue. Its the method used to track it... and the ramifications of any court decision based on right to privacy regarding this issue.

As for your "I wish it could see how good of a driver I was" statement... I'll take that for what it is. Everyone thinks they are a good driver. Everyone else disagrees with them. Also, the assumption that keeping under the speed limit means you are a good driver is flawed to the bone. Most of the dangerous driving I see on a regular basis occurs in stop and go traffic and is done by people that <I'm sure> swear they are good safe drivers.

The whole thing has a "Big brother is watching you" feel to it. Satelite tracking of your movements legally used against you in a court of law.

AKDejaVu

Ripsnort · « **Reply #11 on:** June 21, 2001, 11:22:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by NATEDOG:
.. did you know that leading cause of accidents in the US are people going too slow... you can't go the speed limit any more, you have to go with the flow of traffic.

I'd like to see your source for that..and while we're on the subject, the leading cause of death in automobile accidents is excessive speed. Sure, you're always going to have exceptions to the rule, as your scenario shows, but in most cases, they're breaking the law, with a vehicle that is not theirs. Best situation here is what SOB said.

-sudz- · « **Reply #12 on:** June 21, 2001, 11:51:00 AM »

Not to get too far off the main theme here but the argument that this type of monitoring will help reduce rates by the rental company (and consequently turns into savings by good people using this service) strikes me as a justification lure.

I've seen the same argument applied to the helmets for motorcycle laws (we don't want the taxpayer to pay for your funeral, these people increase the rates for everyone driving, etc) and yet we bikers saw NO decrease in rates after it was implemented.

We saw the same arguments applied to security cameras in stores (preventing shoplifting and employee theft will help the normal consumer on the cost of goods) yet even after implementation my consumer prices are the same, if not higher.

The bottom line is that companies know that the market will bear the current pricing so any profit that comes from these measures are NOT passed on to the consumer. If anyone has a different experience I'm certainly open to being corrected. However, I do think that all this talk of the "risky" people driving up the cost for "safe" consumers is just a tactic to drum up popular support for an essentially intrusive policy.

My take on it, anyway . . . <S> on a good topic.

-Sudz

NATEDOG · « **Reply #13 on:** June 21, 2001, 12:56:00 PM »

actually the very next sentence from my source said exactly that....... excessive speed is the leading cause of death.
I'm not talking about driving like a bat out of hell, but just keep up with the flow.

Acme Rent-A-Car

[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: NATEDOG ]

miko2d · « **Reply #14 on:** June 21, 2001, 01:20:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
Miko2D,
Was there a sign that said "speed tracked by GPS"?

The speeding is not the issue. Its the method used to track it...
I do not agree. If a mothod is not reliable, the court will overturn the charge. As long as it is reliable and legal, any method is as good as another.
I fail to see in the first place why they had to rely on GPS for that if they could just plug into the on-board computer or speedometer. Police cars in many areas are equiped with speed-recordeing devices for years. Would the case be different if the violations were detected by recording the speedometer?
What about the EZPass system that many renta cars are equipped with? It records the exact transaction times and can be easily ised to calculate your average speed between toll collection points.

Would you rent a car from a company that said "actions inside of car monitored by closed circuit TV".

If I intended to engage in sex or do something I would want to hide, definitely not. Otherwise - most likely not too - who knows what I am going to be doing and who can watch the tapes. And many people would not either, so the company would not install such cameras because it would hurt their business.

How about use a dressing room that said "Closed circuit TV used to protect against theft"? How about a hotel room that said the same thing.
The same - the violation of privacy is not reasonable in those cases so people would not go along with that. I bet not many people would object against a camera in their operating rooms - the cause is much better justified and the tapes are controlled better.

and the ramifications of any court decision based on right to privacy regarding this issue.
Once that guy signed a contract, he waved his rights to privacy in that respect (monitoring the position/speed of his car).

As for your "I wish it could see how good of a driver I was" statement... I'll take that for what it is. Everyone thinks they are a good driver.
I am as good a driver as any guy my age in New Jersey who has no violations and no accidents and pays $400 a year liability insurance. Since I live in New York, I have to pay around $2000.

Also, the assumption that keeping under the speed limit means you are a good driver is flawed to the bone.
How about the statistics?

Most of the dangerous driving I see on a regular basis occurs in stop and go traffic and is done by people that <I'm sure> swear they are good safe drivers.
That I believe. Most of them also believe that since they are so good, there is no danger in them greatly exeeding the speed limit.

Satelite tracking of your movements legally used against you in a court of law.
Same as your phone record, if the judge issues an order for a company to surrender such a record. Of course he need a good excuse for that.
Since no one forces you to rent a car or use a phone, it's your personal choice.
Speed limits are also a choice - not personal but collective, through the elective governments, but a choice nonetheless.

miko

[ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: miko2d ]