Using GPS To Catch Speeders Found Illegal 341
jeffy124 writes: "As a followup to a previous Slashdot story, the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection has ruled against Acme Rent-A-Car in their practice of fining car renters $150 per speeding infraction. The decision was based on the fact that Acme failed to properly word their contracts when they indicated that fines would be imposed for speeding. Dept. Commisioner Jim Fleming also stated that the practice of renters being fined is illegal. However, the practice of tracking vehicles with GPS is still a legal practice."
Re:And who fines them, then? (Score:2)
...phil
Re:What kind of car? (Score:2)
It was some Mitsubishi sports sedan, I forget the model.
And, if I had slammed on the brakes, the car just behind me would have wound up in the front seat with me, along with the back seat passengers. Sorry, but at that time, acceleration was the only way out.
...phil
Re:Social responsibility? (Score:3)
Horse hockey. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to speed, in any car. Avoiding an accident is a classic example that I had to go through, in a rental car even. (The truck I was legally passing on the freeway decided to change lanes left and push me into the center divider. I couldn't slow down fast enough to get out of it, so I stomped on the gas and shot out ahead of him. Then, I looked down and discovered I was going 90. According to YOUR rules, I should have ridden the car into the divider, destroying the rental car and risking the lives of myself and my passengers. You'll pardon me if I consider you to be full of shit.)
...phil
Re:Irish Speed Limits (Score:2)
Threw my wife for a loop on our visit to the UK (Well, that and driving on the left...
She thought it was all metric in all of Europe.
Re:Irish Speed Limits (Score:2)
Texas doesn't have the market for "clueless" cornered any more than anywhere else- seems there's a LOT of it going about lately.
Re:So? Drive at 25 all the way through. No fines! (Score:2)
Slashdot rules (Score:2)
Well, I know that CmdrTaco started Slashdot and managed it to this day, but having his rulings as law is too much. He should go before through some formal election process, just for the appearance.
__
Re:Privacy (Score:2)
It is a common misconception that just because somebody wants privacy, that they have something to hide which is very likely criminal. Why do we always assume the worst of the people around us?
I believe that anybody who wants privacy should have access to it. I believe we should have the power to control what information about us is released. Do you enjoy the fact that spam pretends to be opt-out instead of being truly opt-in? Do you enjoy the fact that the personal information you fill out on a sweepstakes card is used by the company running the sweepstakes and their affiliates for marketing purposes?
Are you proud that because of genetic testing, if somebody within a broad ethnic/gender/age group of possible perps, who has't been investigated in any other fashion, against whom there is not enough evidence (often none at all) to bring them in for questioning, refuses to donate a sample, they are automatically considered guilty? This is in countries which claim an innocent until proven guilty approach to law.
Sometimes people do have things to hide. That doesn't make them criminals.
Maybe I'm applying for jobs or just testing the waters, and I don't want my employer to know since I haven't given them my two weeks notice yet. I wouldn't want my company to know that, and it is standard practice. Of course, I wouldn't try to then do this job research while at work using company resources.
Maybe several years ago I was fighting with a terrible case of depression and posted on message boards about it. Should my potential or actual employers be able to discriminate against me because of this history if it has been cleared up and does not affect my current job performance?
Maybe I (or my significant other) needed to have an abortion and some militant pro-life group had hidden cameras taking pictures of me (or us) entering the clinic, tracked us down, and murdered us.
Maybe you've been writing in your online journal or blog. Maybe somebody reading your writings decides they think you sound crazy. You could have mentioned having sympathy for all the geeks in high school who are now under heightened suspicion for commiting violent acts at school due to a few terrible but recent incidents. Heck, let's take it a little further. What if you're underage, your parents read this, and sign you into a mental home for it?
What if your children are surfing the net and participating in various chats or game sites or what have you. What if their names, ages, e-mail addresses, snail mail addresses are collected in spam databases geared at children. What if a pedophile gets his hands on that list? How would you feel about your privacy then? It doesn't have to be that bad, though. What if your child says something terribly rude or makes a social gaffe, possibly repeating some comment you made about your boss, and you lose your job because of it?
Do you have curtains over your window? Do you undress in a lit, curtainless room at night? If somebody took your picture without your knowledge while you were doing this, do you believe it would be their right? That they could do what they wished with these pictures? In Quebec we have laws against personally identifiable pictures being taken (and most especially published) without the subject's knowledge and consent. The common attitude is, "if the window is open, you don't care about your privacy, and that's okay." I think that's probably the root of the issue. I want the right to have those curtains. If I buy curtains, I don't want everybody around me asking what I'm trying to hide, or assuming I'm a pedophile, or even making jokes about it.
The way laws are being passed, currently, it is up to us to guard our own privacy. Everytime we allow ourselves to be tracked, we lose one more piece of privacy, and we can't get it back. In Britain, there are cameras everywhere. Why? The ostensible reason when they started was football hooliganism. Then they got pictures of kids beating and killing a toddler, even though these pictures did not help at all during the criminal investigation. They were found afterwards and published. Anybody speaking out against the video surveillance there is ostracized as a baby killer.
You'll notice I haven't mentioned anything that would use remote surveillance devices in your home, which is either the government at work or somebody spying illegally on you.
It's not always the government we need to protect our privacy from. It's not always people who mean you harm. Just think about it a bit.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Re:And who fines them, then? (Score:2)
Okay, so when do they get into accidents?
We charge you $100 for dirt roads (Score:2)
ISPs fining spammers (Score:2)
Social responsibility? (Score:2)
--
Re:Interesting ruling...will it stick? (Score:2)
--
Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness.
Re:And who fines them, then? (Score:2)
--
Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness.
The policy itself wasn't ruled "illegal" (Score:3)
From what the article seems to say, the ruling wasn't against actually fining people for exceeding the speed limit, it was for not adequately notifying the renters that this was the policy.
I don't see how this would stop ACME for charging the renter for say, leaving the state, driving under the minimum speed limit, driving on odd-numbered freeways, stopping at McDonalds, or basically whatever "rules" or criteria they want to set-- provided that the renter be "properly notified" that this is part of the rental agreement.
Whatever. The best way to avoid this is to not rent from them...at least until they all the rental companies collude to make it an industry-wide policy. Then we're fucked. But hey, Big Brother is already watching. [yahoo.com]
W
-------------------
A solution for the company. (Score:2)
How about just paying the cost of doing business instead of trying to weasle out of insurance premiums or steal money from customers... (Like the destination charge on a new car... sorry, but the cost of getting the car to the lot is not my problem, it 's the problem of the car dealership. and I have never paid a destination charge.)
Re:Privacy (Score:2)
It's rather naive to belive this. Information that is available to someone, is available to someone else as long as there is enough money involved.
If government cameras could track abortion doctors do you REALLY think that various religious organizations wouldn't bribe their way into this information?
If government cameras could tell what books you were looking at in a public library, do you REALLY think that insurance companies wouldnt do anything to get this information (particularly if you were looking for books on cancer or AIDS)?
If government cameras could tell how hungry you were do you REALLY think McDonalds wouldnt pay BILLIONS for this information?
Even if it were possible to restrict this information to the government, do you really think your government is not corrupt? (hint: ALL governments are corrupt)
If you voted for "the other guy" then I guess it's fine if the government drags you out of work or out of your home and question you for 24 hours? After all, they will say it was because you "match the description" of a known criminal...
Wonder what the police think? (Score:2)
It's bad enough with corporations buying laws and influence at all levels of government. At least keep them out of the kangaroo court business.
Load car into cargo plane.... (Score:4)
I can see it now, "but sir we are fining you for excess milage and speed because driving our Geo at 650mph is not safe."
:)
---
Re:And who fines them, then? (Score:2)
If you are hit from behind hard enough to end up speeding by a cop - I'm sure the cop can fill out the report to say you were not speeding because an accident report would need to be filled out.
Re:Statistical/Theoretical loss? (Score:2)
Re:The clear problem (Score:3)
Re:Driving at 650MPH... (Score:2)
I am even more amazed when a police officer insisted that there was no mistake
somebody mod this one up...
Re:The clear problem (Score:2)
This is obviously the case. There are so many other ways they could deal with speeders:
1.) Notify the police, as stated above
2.) Refuse to rent to speeders in the future
3.) Ignore them. After all, what does speeding cost the rental company? Nothing! If the car gets damaged, then the renter has to pay for the damages. Speeding doesn't damage the car, so why charge for it? The answer, of course, is revenue.
The problem is they got greedy. If they'd made the "fine" something small enough, they could have collected tons of revenue. At $25 per offense, this guy would have been charged $75 instead of $450. I don't know about you, but for $75 I probably wouldn't care enough to fight it. I just wouldn't rent from them again. For $450, though, I'd probably be angry enough to fight it.
Re:The law is wrong (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
Since all the missing cars were totalled they had to come up with some other way to justify the cost of the GPS.
Re:Contract poorly worded? (Score:2)
Depends if the aim of them is revenue generation or encouraging people it obey the law.
Re:Scarecrows maybe? (Score:2)
> Of course that won't help with locals
Here in Luxembourg, they do this near road contruction places: A cardboard "roadworker" motioning drivers to slow down. Works for people who pass there the first time. Doesn't (obviously) work for those who commute there daily (i.e. most of the traffic...).
Contracts and public policy (Score:2)
Re:Scarecrows maybe? (Score:2)
In high-traffic areas (e.g. Bay Area, CA), this might work. But traffic's so dense that nobody can speed effectively anyways.
In low-traffic, high-speed areas (e.g, Bad Ass, TX), where you can do some serious speeding, all I can say is "Hey, cool! Free solar panels! Now I can mount one on the back of my I-Opener with GPS!"
Re:Social responsibility? (Score:2)
Re:Social responsibility? (Score:2)
Enemy of the State (Score:2)
Or we'll all end up zombies who won't learn the difference between right and wrong, since tech will end up deciding for us, and law enforcement will end up becoming a large military since crime won't exist, so many will end up getting replaced by a gadget. I'm glad to see that politicians have started acting out [newsbytes.com] against what's being done nowadays. There's a lot of room for abuse in tech too. (Echelon used to spy against Japan [ananova.com], Echelong used to spy on Airbus for Boeing [10.7], etc.)
Anyone ever watch the movie Patriot Games, when Harrison Ford is watching thermal imaging of an assassination taking place, or Enemy of the State? Last Saturday I was watching "Eyes in the Sky" on Discovery Channel about Satellite Communications, and the things they stated were scary.
So what's next for government? Implants to monitor your every move, heartbeat, body temp, all connected via GPS? Spoke too soon [antioffline.com]
Boeing v. Airbus link fixed (Score:2)
http://cryptome.org/echelon-ep.htm#10 [cryptome.org] Ref: 10.7
Re:Social responsibility? (Score:2)
By the power vested in my by Godwin's Law [tuxedo.org], I hereby declare this thread ended.
fortunately (Score:2)
And when I first looked at this I thought it was another anti-opensource article.
Ow- that Hertz! (Score:3)
"I'll be here all week folks! Thank you, you're a beautiful audience... Well, as 20-something antisocial male geek-a-zoid crowds go anyway! Ba-DUM-dump!"
-Smirkleton. Karma comedian.
Deus Ex Machina considered harmful (Score:2)
1) The netlawyers here are correct. You sign a contract to pay extra based on the output of a random number generator attached to your rental car, then you have to pay. It's nothing to do with your rights to due process in criminal law.
2) I'm very surprised that no one has noted that unless the rental car company is using a very expensive aviation or military GPS unit, which includes a pressure alitude input, then the speed reading is subject to huge changes. Cheap GPS units used in ground vehicles are subject to huge errors. They will correct themselves, but momentary readings of 100mph should be expected.
Authortarian types are always touting some infailable machine that will make it easy to finger wrong doers. /. readers ought to be the first to poke technical holes in the idea machine generated punishments. The idea that indivduals in Europe or North America have "rights" is a quant holdover from a simpler time.
Jim
Of course it's still legal! (Score:2)
> the practice of tracking vehicles with GPS is
>still a legal practice
Why wouldn't it still be legal? Tracking a vehicle via GPS is not necessarily a bad thing. I just bought a new car (a Mercedes, in fact) that comes with a function called TeleAid (similar to GM's system, I imagine). The idea is that under certain conditions, the car can contact a Mercedes call center via the built-in cellular phone and forward information about the car -- GPS location, speed, last known heading, VIN, color, etc. These conditions include:
1. Airbag goes off
2. Seat belt retractor does whatever it does
3. Car alarm goes off for at a pre-defined period of time
4. Driver pushes the big, James-Bond-styled SOS button just in front of the mirror
I personally like the idea of my car being smart enough to call for help in the event of an accident. This is actually a useful function, as opposed to all the goofy things that I've seen computer makers trying to integrate into cars: I don't care about having stock quotes sent to my car or having some TTS read my email to me. Mercedes doesn't track the location of my car just for fun -- the cellular charges alone would outweigh the value of the data they collect.
I agree that this is a little different from the rental car case; Mercedes is providing me a benefit for the service, rather than trying to regulate me. But realize there are some legitimate uses for this technology.
Radar Detectors, Laser Detectors, Now GPS Jammers (Score:4)
Why? (Score:2)
Then again, I shouldn't be surprised. This is the same country that will let you sue a train company if you ignore all posted signs and warnings and illegally try to cross the tracks and as a result get killed. Not only will they let you sue, but they'll even let you win. It happened in Massachusetts a little while back.
Re:The clear problem (Score:2)
Actually, you're the one that seems confused. Companies may not initiate criminal proceedings against someone, but that doesn't mean that committing illegal acts somehow voids other obligations you might have. If you go to a hotel and steal the TV, and you had signed a contract agreeing to pay for any damage to the room with your credit card, the hotel may simply bill you for it. They may do so even if no criminal prosecution occurs. Indeed, even if a criminal prosecution does occur and you are found innoncent, they have no obligation to pay you back. Even if you sued them, you could theoretically lose, since the standards of evidence are weaker in civil suits. You certainly could not expect to simply go to the hotel and say, "Hey, stealing a TV is a crime! You can't bill me for it unless I'm convicted in a court of law." That would be particularly bizarre since, by your reasoning, they could still bill you for spilling grape juice on the bed, since that's not a crime.
However, this doesn't mean that companies can take the law into their own hands and through you in jail for committing crimes. Companies cannot impose any criminal penalties whatsoever. This is the key distinction. Acme Rent-a-car can charge you $150 because you agreed to pay them that whenever you speed. This is completely different from a government speeding ticket, which can add points to your license, and can theoretically lead to your arrest if you don't pay. Acme can do neither of those things.
Granted, it would be more proper to call it a fee rather than a fine. Fees occur all the time. Banks charge fees for writing bad checks. They do so without dragging you before a jury of your peers and without following the criminal standards for due process.
Re:US Code : Title 15, Section 13 (Score:2)
It shall be unlawful...and where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them...And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall prevent persons engaged in selling goods, wares, or merchandise in commerce from selecting their own customers in bona fide transactions and not in restraint of trade
How the hell is charging their customers for speeding going to help Acme create a monopoly or prevent competition or act in restraint of trade? Talk about out of context.
I definitely agree that letting insurance companies offer a discount for drivers who put GPSs in their car would be good.
Re:GPS still in use? (Score:2)
Easy - re-write the contract so it's clearer that they track their cars and fine for speeding. Argue their case in court, and once the judge is satisfied that they aren't obfuscating the fines then they'll start applying them again. Then if anyone's too stupid to read the contract then it's their problem.
And, of course, simply tracking their vehicles better will lower their insurance premiums and save them cash.
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
- The system merely sets off alarms at Acme Fining HQ when there's no room for doubt due the accuracy, i.e. 45 MPH in a 30 zone.
- The system tracks what stretch of road the car is currently on and the speed registered by the speedo. Plot the two by time, and any time the speedo goes over the limit for wherever the car is then BING! Another fine.
The second method is the one I'd be inclined to use, since putting the car on a train or plane wouldn't do a damn thing, and also it wouldn't rely on some complicated GPS hack to calculate speed (hell, I could probably build something like this myself) - KISS. Better yet; you'd be using the speed that the driver saw, so you'd know that they could tell they were breaking the law.Then why so complicated? (Score:2)
And if it's that simple then why do they even need include the controversial GPS system in the speeding detector? 79 MPH is 79 MPH wherever you are. Surely this would just require a simple logging device that recorded what the speedo said - if it went over 79 at any point they could fine. In fact, why not just have a simple switch that trips when the speedo tops 79 - if it's been tripped then you were speeding?
A just decision (Score:3)
I think people should be prevented from speeding, and of course it's in the rental company's interests to discourage people from driving dangerously in their cars. And tracking your fleet with GPS is fine too - if your car leaves the country you'd like to know, right? Although it's a little unnnerving, I can't really find any major fault with this practice since it's just protecting Acme's investment (the car).
I think the only major problem here is the sneaky way Acme were operating - sticking a sign on the dash saying "You're being tracked; don't speed" or something similar would have been much more fair, since it would have discouraged dangerous driving instead of just punishing the driver later. Of course, that might also have discouraged custom and prevented a lucrative fine-collection business, so they took the stealthy route.
Re:Scarecrows maybe? (Score:2)
--Fesh
Re:Interesting ruling...will it stick? (Score:2)
Not to defend Acme on this one, but NPR did an interview with their lawyer, and he said that the notice was displayed clearly across the top of the renter's agreement...
--Fesh
Re:And who fines them, then? (Score:3)
Its a sad day in this world when we try to defend illegal actions that put another persons property at risk. Furthermore its sad when we attempt to take away ways that the person has to protect thier own property.
The rental company should only have to put in thier contract the exact terms and if you want to rent that car you should be required to agree to those terms.
Re:Radar Detectors, Laser Detectors, Now GPS Jamme (Score:2)
Re:Social responsibility? (Score:2)
If they don't want their cars to be used to break the law then I think they have a right to write that into the rental contract. Indeed, if they decide that their cars should only be driven on even hours and never when a Garth Brookes track is on the closest country station, then that is fine too. If you don't like the restriction, hire someone else's car.
Of course, to the extent tht the ruling was that they didn't make the restriction clear in the contract, there is an argument they were wrong.
_O_
Re:Thank God... (Score:2)
Blast.
Re:Speeders are not criminals! (Score:2)
Re:Social responsibility? (Score:2)
I see a few issues here:
I used to be a traffic cop. I didn't have time to do a whole lot of speed enforcement, since I was usually too busy working the accidents caused by the dumbasses that thought 45MPH is a good speed for a posted 30MPH zone in the rain. A rental company that did this would have done wonders to lower my workload: do you know how much time it takes to work a fatality accident???
Also, Acme was probably doing this in order to whore karma with their insurer. Speed is a major factor in most traffic accidents, and traffic accidents result in claims having been paid out. Therefore, Acme could very likely have been on the verge of having their sacks stapled to the wall by their insurer. Without insurance, it's hard to have a car rental company, and so one may need to clamp down on one's customers in order to stay in business.
I mean, a fine from Acme isn't exactly a court summons, and it doesn't carry points against one's license. It's just a civil claim that the customer behaved unlawfully or dangerously with rented property, in violation of a rental agreement. No biggie if someone can take the three minutes to actually read the contract before signing it.
Interesting ruling...will it stick? (Score:4)
Come to think of it, I don't think the CT ruling actually banned the practice, at least not according to the ZD article:
"The difference here is that they tracked--and then they fined--people without properly notifying them." (emphasis mine)
So, I guess Fleming is saying that the practice of fining the renter would be acceptable, given proper notice? I'm pretty sure it would fly here in Colorado.
What this ruling could do... (Score:2)
--Since this is clearly a money making venture for the Rental Car Company why not do it with the blessing of local PDs? Everyone but you win.
---
Re:Social responsibility? (Score:2)
"But if everybody else is doing 85 in a 65 mph zone, you had better speed up to at least 72 or so. The difference in speed between vehicles actually adds significantly to the danger."
Scientific studies show the probability of being in an accident increases linearly up to about the speed of traffic and then increases exponentially after that. Note that the probability increases up to the speed of traffic, which means going slower than traffic decreases the probability of being involved in a collision. I believe I saw this information in New Scientist within the past year or so. There may be some change at extraordinarily low speeds when a vehicle truly becomes an obstacle, but, at general traffic speeds, going slower than traffic does not increase your probability of being in a collision.
The magnitude of the exponential increase is striking. I believe an Australian study on a road with a limit around 30 m.p.h. found the probability doubled for each 3 m.p.h. increase.
Re:Flat Out Incorrect (Score:2)
"There are many rights which cannot be waived in a contract."
Having to pay a fee is not one of them.
"If the State of Connecticut has a law that prevents a company from imposing penalties without proving damage..."
It apparently does not, as the government's complaint was merely about sufficient notice, not about the fee itself.
"'service rendered, payment due'"
Yes, and that principle applies here. The car company offered a service and set its fees -- one fee for driving under the speed limit and one fee for driving over the speed limit. Service was rendered, and payment was due.
Also, as I wrote, what the law says is not the entire issue. Also at dispute is what the law should say. The law is not an immutable thing that we are stuck with and must merely discuss what the situation is under law. By prohibiting too much (such as entirely voluntary and not unreasonable terms about a fee for endangering a company's valuable property), the law harms us by preventing us from entering into contracts that could be mutually beneficial.
For example, by imposing a fee for speeding, fewer of Acme's car renters will speed. That might mean more renters go to other companies. But renters who do not speed anyway might not care. Then, since Acme's cars are not being used to speed, they might receive less damage. Then Acme's rates do not have to be as high as other companies. Thus, renters who do not speed would benefit.
Now, you may or may not agree that these particular economic benefits will occur in this case, but it is clear that this sort of thing is a possibility, and, therefore, if the law prohibits or does not support this sort of contract, citizens could be losing good opportunities. The United States is supposed to be a free country; these choices should not be taken away from us.
Re:The clear problem (Score:4)
"If they don't incur a loss, they don't have grounds to claim a customer owes them money."
The grounds for the claim is called a contract. That is when two parties agree to do certain things for each other. In this case, the customer saw the agreement and chose to ignore what they were told and to sign the contract anyway. They should be bound by it. If our laws say otherwise, then the laws are bad, because by "protecting" consumers from "unfair" contracts, they are taking away the power of consenting adults to form their own agreements.
"... no due process. [no] drivers' recourse in civil court ..."
By this reasoning, no company would be allowed to charge anybody anything. My phone company doesn't provide me due process when they prepare my bill. I mean, they just billed me without letting me call witnesses or anything. In fact, there is due process, and there is recourse. If the parties disagree, they can take the matter to court, just like any other dispute.
Re:Social responsibility? (Score:2)
Not as much as you think though. My wife took a class so we could get lower insurance rates. The statements made in that class are that the majority of accidents happen below the speed limit. It's only the majority of fatal accidents that occur over the speed limit
Beat my high score on a Malibu... (Score:2)
Share your cheats and strategies!
Re:Jamming (Score:2)
Re:Wrong! (Score:2)
Re:The clear problem (Score:2)
First, the issue of damage or losses. I'm not an expert on insurance or the sorts of regulations that car rental companies are subjected to, but it would seem that creating a disincentive to speed would result in somewhat safer driving of vehicles and less wear and tear on rented vehicles which would result in lower costs to the company in terms of vehicle insurance and vehicle longevity. As such, it would seem to me that there are easily identifiable monetary damages associated with speeding even without any sort of 'accident'.
Secondly, the ZDNET story clearly indicated that the problem was a disassociation between the fact that all vehicles were equipped with GPS and that driving above the posted speed limit would incurr a charge of $150 per occurrance. This is obviously easily remedied by more specific language in the contract, but in my mind is actually irrelevant. If the contract states that speeding incurrs a charge, how is it relevant what mechanism was used to determine that the driver was speeding?
ffoiii
Re:CT Drivers, the most reckless in the US (Score:2)
Problem is if the fines were that high, people actually wouldn't speed, and the income for the state would dry up--which is what speeding fines are really all about.
The clear problem (Score:5)
First, a company can't arbitrarily fine a customer. If there is no damage to the automobile, the rental car company has suffered no loss. If they don't incur a loss, they don't have grounds to claim a customer owes them money.
Secondly, there is no due process. If Acme was allowed to just charge consumers under the claim that they broke the law, it would leave drivers' recourse in civil court. No longer would the burden of criminal proof be on the prosecution; it would be the drivers' responsibility, as plaintiffs to prove that they had been wronged (most speeding violators the cops get abdicate this right anyway by signing off on the ticket and paying the fine instead of excercising their right to due process and contesting the ticket in court, but that's another issue).
Acme also can't really amend the contract to charge a fee for "fast driving." That would expose them to a slew of lawsuits as a conspirator to speeding or contributor to any accidents that resulted because of it.
It's obvious this was an attempt to generate revenue. If the actual goal of this stunt was to prevent speeding, the company should have just notified police of speeding infractions while they were happening. As anyone who has ever driven in CT knows, the state itself uses speeding tickets for revenue. There are plenty of troopers, and they're more than willing to write the most expensive tickets in the US to fast drivers.
Oh, yeah IANAL.
Dynamic pricing! (Score:2)
Amazon did it, why not Acme?
So let's say that Acme's normal rates are $40/day, including a $5/day insurance fee that they require you to purchase. Now with the GPS they can see where you're going. If you drive through a bad neighborhood, they know it. If youpark it in a seedy part of town for 5 hours, they know it. If they see that you spend more time on the freeway than on city streets, they know it. If they see that you speed more often than not, they know it.
You drop the car off at Acme and pay your normal bill. The next time that you stop in to pick up a car the daily rate is $50/day. So you ask the clerk about it and he says that the daily insurance rates have increased. OK, so you take the car. But what you didn't know is that the insurance rates only went up on *you* renting the car because you tend to put the car in situations that are higher-risk than their average renter. Even though you are an excellent driver and take good care of the car and have never had a claim, they charge you more money because they can track you and your behavior. How do you like that idea?
Say "NO!" to tax money for religious groups. [thedaythatcounts.org]
Re:Contract poorly worded? (Score:2)
I don't know how it is in Australia, but here in the US if you are BREAKING THE LAW, only the LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WHO HAS JURISDICTION can cite you or arrest you for it. We do not support vigilante law enforcement.
So, why are we protecting the crims?
Criminals? You make it sound like we're trying to protect serial killers from prosecution here. This is just a simple speeding violation, it's not even a criminal act in the US. In most jurisdictions there is even a court or judicial system that exists entirely separately from the Criminal and Civil courts to handle these issues (called traffic court or mayor's court in smaller towns).
I would have aplauded this company - trying to save their cars from getting stolen, and possibly saving lives at the same time!
You also would have totally neglected to look into the technical issues involved as well.
For starters, not all speedometers are properly calibrated. Many are off by 5 MPH or more. In the days before radar guns, police cars would have to regularly have their speedometers calibrated and there would need to be records kept (since the main evidence was a cop claiming that he was driving the speed limit and the defendant was driving faster than the cop). If the speedometer reads 55 MPH and you're actually driving 60 MPH then what is your recourse to a company that has already fined you before you even return the car (as happened in the original case)?
On top of that, consider that a GPS speed monitoring system isn't 100% accurate. GPS relies on line-of-site to a satellite. If the signal is obstructed (like when passing through a tunnel) then the GPS system will register ridiculously high speeds (1000+ MPH in some cases). While these cases are obvious to spot, what happens if the GPS loses it's signal for 2 or 3 seconds at freeway speeds? Suddenly your 55 MPH might look more like 80 MPH. Once again, you would be fined before you even knew about the alleged speeding and would have no way to dispute it.
So keep in mind that the pros in this case aren't nearly as clear-cut as you would like to believe. Acme rent-a-car wasn't doing this for the public good either...it was all about the money.
Say "NO!" to tax money for religious groups. [thedaythatcounts.org]
Re:So? Drive at 25 all the way through. No fines! (Score:2)
In the US this is not the case. Most freeways have a minimum speed limit, even if it is not posted. There's also a "safe conditions" clause in most US traffic laws that stipulate that you should drive at a speed that is appropriate for the situation. For example, you shouldn't drive 55 MPH in a posted 55 MPH speed zone in a blinding rainstorm or if the roadway is covered in ice. To do so would be unsafe. In the same fashion, it would be considered unsafe to drive at 25 MPH on the freeway in a 55 or 65 MPH zone. It's basically a commonsense law, I can't imagine that most countries wouldn't have something similar.
Say "NO!" to tax money for religious groups. [thedaythatcounts.org]
Re:Irish Speed Limits (Score:2)
That's a nice out. Here in the US license plates are issued by the individual states. Some require front and rear plates while others only require front plates. So even in a state that requires both you can get off the hook quite a bit by just not putting one on the front.
Say "NO!" to tax money for religious groups. [thedaythatcounts.org]
Re:Social responsibility? (Score:2)
Because they aren't doing it to be socially responsible. If they wanted to be socially responsible, they would work out a deal with law enforcement agencies and transmit the evidence of speeding to them and then let the people who are charged with enforcing the law handle it. But they wouldn't do that because it wouldn't make them money. So instead they decide to charge $150 per violation and conveniently neglect to mention it to law enforcement. Then when they get called out on it they try to hide behnd some thin veneer of "we did it for the public good." Well...the Nazi's used that same excuse, as did Stalin, and just about every other abusive regime in the history of man. Coming from a business though, it holds even less water.
And it's not a win-win, it's a lose-huh?-win (driver, society, and company).
Say "NO!" to tax money for religious groups. [thedaythatcounts.org]
Re:Wrong! (Score:2)
Too bad they aren't fining you based on your average speed.
Say "NO!" to tax money for religious groups. [thedaythatcounts.org]
Re:Accuracy -Digital- (Score:2)
Not necessarily so. A speedometer is a speedometer is a speedometer. The ones with digital displays are just that - digital displays. They still get the data that they display in roughly the same manner as analog speedometers. The problem is, it's damn near impossible to make a speedometer that is 100% accurate. Even the best of them have some small variation in them. The faster you go, the more the variation comes into play and the more inaccurate a speedometer becomes. There is also some degree of drift in the speedometer, meaning that the longer the speedometer goes without calibration the less accurate it tends to be. Changing the diameter of the tires/wheels (total sum diameter) can also increase the inaccuracy of the speedometer.
Taking all of that into account, I'm not really suprised about your 113 MPH speeding ticket. But you're damn lucky to get off on only $55. In Ohio I've paid $85 for being only 19 MPH over the limit, but the fines are increased based on speed increments. Being +20 MPH jacks up the fine in a big way.
Say "NO!" to tax money for religious groups. [thedaythatcounts.org]
Re:The other side (Score:2)
Yes. The GPS system can be subject to signal outages (GPS is line-of-sight, remember) which sometimes register as ludicrous fluctuations in speed.
Also, the speedometer on the car isn't likely to be calibrated to match the accuracy of the GPS system. It's possible for the speedometer to read 65 MPH while the GPS reads it at 72 MPH. Which system do you trust? Which system is more accurate? Does the driver even have the GPS data available to him? From the last time that this article was posted, it seemed clear that the GPS/tracking system was hidden inside the car to prevent tampering, so I doubt that there is an LCD readout for the driver to use.
There are some occasions when it is considered appropriate to exceed a posted speed limit such as accelerating to avoid a potential accident, accelerating to merge with high-speed traffic, etc. The GPS system will record these incidents as violations while a police officer wouldn't even look twice at them.
It is unreasonable to assume that Acme has a system in place of monitoring the posted speed limits on every section of road in their part of the country. Rand McNally has a hard time trying to keep their maps accurate as new roads pop up and freeway interchanges are built and re-built. How much easier is it to change a posted speed limit than to build a new road? What Acme had on file as a 45 MPH construction zone may now be an open stretch of 65 MPH freeway. How can they guarantee that their records are 100% accurate?
The system in place at Acme does not take any of these common occurances into account. It merely logs each instance where the "speed limit" is exceeded and automatically charges your account for it, even before you've returned the car. It is judge, jury and executioner with no right of appeal. And even if there were a right of appeal, the often transient conditions that would result in the GPS system registering excess speed wouldn't be feasible to prove in any convincing way.
Say "NO!" to tax money for religious groups. [thedaythatcounts.org]
Re:The clear problem (Score:2)
Because if the device isn't able to accurately determine whether speeding actually occurred, then how can they have a basis for charging the customer? GPS isn't perfect. Neither is a car's speedometer. They often don't agree.
Also, bear in mind that just because it's been written into a contract and signed doesn't mean that it's legal or even enforceable. If the rental contract had said that speeding would result in the rental clerk getting the right to live with you rent-free for a month it probably wouldn't be enforceable.
Say "NO!" to tax money for religious groups. [thedaythatcounts.org]
Re:The clear problem (Score:2)
The phone company provides their service to you 24/7, whether you are making a call at the time or not. You're paying in some part for the availability of the service.
What is the loss of the car company when you speed? Nothing. OK, maybe a tiny fraction of a reduced mechanical lifetime, and the potential that you get into an accident and cause the company's insurance rates to go up.
With the rental car you are already paying for the availability of the car in rental and insurance fees. But what the court said is that you can't bill somebody for the "potential" of them causing you damages. Otherwise the phone company would bill you for the "potential" of you cutting down a tree in your yard because it might fall on their phone lines.
Say "NO!" to tax money for religious groups. [thedaythatcounts.org]
Re:It's their car, why can't they impose rules? (Score:2)
Assuming that the terms and conditions are legal and enforceable, probably. But apparently the T&Cs in this case are neither legal nor enforceable.
Say "NO!" to tax money for religious groups. [thedaythatcounts.org]
Re:Privacy (Score:2)
Right. Let's start with your last comment. Those cameras you see all over britain are public cameras, owned and operated either by local councils (government departments), or by the police. What is wrong with them knowing where you are? They're not going to pull you over and try and sell you stuff.
But are you being monitored by the cameras? Yes. And that was my point, that there is a lot of monitoring done by the government in Britain. It doesn't matter to me if it's for "public safety" or not, it's still monitoring and it's not the job of my government to babysit its citizens. I wonder what happens if I resemble someone who is wanted for a crime? Are the chances good that I'll actually get stopped and dragged to the police station for questioning? I seem to recall a similar case recently.
What, exactly, are you trying to get away from?
I don't have to be trying to get away from anything or anybody simply because I want privacy. I want privacy for privacy's sake, that way I don't have to worry about who is watching me or why when I'm taking care of my personal matters. It's just creepy to think that you shouldn't have that right.
If you work in a shady part of town, every time your car gets broken in to raises the premiums of the people who actually put their car where they say, which is unfair on them, and technically insurance fraud.
In the US, insurance regulations vary by state. Where I live I am only required to disclose the primary address where the car is parked (home), whether it is garaged or parked on the street, the approximate annual mileage driven, the purpose of the car (daily driver to work or just a sunny weekend getaway car), and if I drive it to and from work the approximate round-trip mileage to and from work. There is no requirement to disclose where I work or where the car is parked while at work. But if the insurance companies in the US had some legal way of finding this out they would certainly use it against us if they could.
Maybe that's why you don't want the feds on your trail?
I don't want the feds on my trail because they cannot be trusted to enforce the laws that we have in the manner that they are currently implemented. Why should I allow them to further complicate matters when I don't have to? Why should I allow my government to have new powers when they can't be trusted with what they've got?
The number of credit cards issued in your country far surpasses the number issued in the rest of the world. That alone means that every single one of those cards can be traced when used. And not to mention that ralph's savings thing on your keyring
We could swap our credit cards for your security cameras. Monitoring has degrees. I personally don't use credit cards (only cash except on purchases larger than $1000 or so, though I often write a check instead) and I certainly don't use those grocery store discount keyrings that track my purchases and send me junk-mail based on it. I pay the higher price for the food and am glad to retain what little privacy I have left. But even so, I'd much rather have someone monitor my grocery habits than to be on camera 24/7 except for when I'm in my own home.
Your paranoia that every tracking facility is open to any private business with cash to burn is slightly unfounded.
It may be now, but the future isn't that far off. In the US it is very common for most office buildings to have cameras mounted outside so that corporate security can monitor the goings-on at the property. They can use this information in any way they see fit. Acme rent-a-car tracks you for commercial purposes, as do most store discount key-ring tags. Your mobile phone company monitors your usage patterns and combines it with the usage patterns of other subscribers to create calling packages that maximize their profits (and your monthly statement). And it keeps on going from there. In the US, the overwhelming majority of the monitoring that goes on is done by business, not government.
All I can say is I'm glad I don't share insurance companies with you, and I'm watched by cameras. and that chip in my head (pesky CIA).
Har har.
Say "NO!" to tax money for religious groups. [thedaythatcounts.org]
Re:Social responsibility? (Score:2)
That's funny, I hadn't read about it before. Still, it wouldn't come about if it weren't accurate. Doing something "for the public good" implies that the public doesn't have the good sense to do what's good for them to begin with. While in some cases that's accurate, in most cases it is not.
Say "NO!" to tax money for religious groups. [thedaythatcounts.org]
Re:Privacy (Score:2)
That would be my ideal solution as well, but it is not feasible where I live. There are three large grocery stores in my area (Big Bear, Kroger, and Giant Eagle) and they are all part of large chains that have the same kind of plan. Kroger and Big Bear didn't use to have the cards, but Giant Eagle came into town with their discount card and all of the Kroger and Big Bear customers started complaining that they wanted a discount card program to, so they implemented one. So now I have to pay extra for my groceries in order to maintain my privacy.
On the other hand I do pay for a lot of my groceries using checks which allow them the same tracking ability.
While this may be possible, it sure isn't easy. With the discount card system they scan your card (your identity) with your groceries and a computer can correllate everything. With a check they would have to at least do the footwork manually, and even then they wouldn't have your consent to do it. I'm pretty sure in the T&Cs for the discount card there is something in there permitting them to collect personal information on you.
Say "NO!" to tax money for religious groups. [thedaythatcounts.org]
Re:Privacy, and writing checks (Score:2)
I agree. I sometimes wonder if businesses would accept cash at all if it didn't have the magic phrase, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public or private" printed on it.
Say "NO!" to tax money for religious groups. [thedaythatcounts.org]
Re:Privacy (Score:3)
But some of us do care, and we have a right to not have our position broadcast to every business or government agency that wants to track me. Maybe one day I feel like getting away from work and life for awhile and head off to a state park for the weekend. I don't want someone to be able to track me down.
Maybe I enjoy certain forms of entertainment that are perfectly legal, yet some people find of questionable taste. I might not want my employer to be able to tell that I'm at the strip club because his narrow-minded religious beliefs would have me labelled as a pervert. I might not want anybody to know that I stopped by an adult bookstore on the way home and picked up some sex toys for my wife and I to enjoy because if this information were freely available, who's to say that I won't be getting spammed with emails, snail mail mailings, and phone solicitation from other businesses in the sex-related industry?
Maybe I don't want my insurance company to know that I work in a shady part of town where my car is more likely to be stolen or where I am more likely to be mugged or killed (and therefore increase my rates).
The possibilities for exploitation of a tracking system are limited only by your imagination. And I assure you that if a business can find a way to use tracking technology to make more money off of you than they otherwise would be able to, then they will do it.
It seems to be mainly Americans who bring this subject up, which is quite funny, as Americans are probably the most traced people in the world. The irony.
From all indications it would seem that the Brits actually get top honors as the "most monitored people in the world." I'm not sure how you could honestly make the claim that Americans are the most monitored. What evidence have you to back that up?
Say "NO!" to tax money for religious groups. [thedaythatcounts.org]
Re:The Law is is right, but are ACME the enforcers (Score:2)
Please save us the libertarian hysterics. It is not as simple as you say. Contract law is not anything like as simple as you appear to believe, otherwise contract law lawyers would be much cheaper to hire.
The enforceability of contract terms is subject at all times to state and federal law. Don't like that liberweenie? well tough. Without the government courts to enforce the contract in the first place there is no contract.
The argument that it is all down in black and white does not move me. I do not believe that in this instance that the car rental company was honestly representing the contract terms. Nor does the dept of consumer safety. Bad faith has been an issue in contract law since the Romans invented the concept.
In the case in question the car company wrote the contract, they are thus on the hook in the case of any ambiguity. In this case there is good reason to doubt that the customer intended to agree to the specific term that he would be fined if the speed of the car went over a certain amount. The contract term in bold can be quite resonably be interpreted as meaning that there is a $150 surcharge if the police issue a speeding ticket.
Above and beyond the contract issues the idea is simply bad business. It is not uncommon to find US companies that believe that dishonest and underhand business techniques are the way to make profit. However even P.T.Barnum later observed that he made very little money when he was dishonest, he did much better when he put on a show that was worth the entry fee.
Re:Scarecrows maybe? (Score:2)
- A driver travelling at a fast enough speed is unlikely to be able to determine that the "person" by the road is in fact a scarecrow with a plastic radar gun!
Here in Luxembourg, they do this near road contruction places: A cardboard "roadworker" motioning drivers to slow downSome police forces in England were deploying cardboard police cars by the side of the road. Motorists would see them, slow down, realise they'd been tricked, accelerate away... and then get caught by the real speed trap half a mile down the road. ;)
The rationale was that the cardboard car "reminded" drivers to slow down, and only the worst offenders would accelerate again. AFAIK, they were catching too many people, and withdrew the scheme.
Re:Social responsibility? (Score:2)
How would catching people doing over the state limit anywhere stop them from doing exactly the state limit in a 30mph zone in the rain?
I do agree with you in principle though.
Re:Social responsibility? (Score:2)
The probability of BEING in an accident, or of CAUSING one? Accuracy is important here.
There may be some change at extraordinarily low speeds when a vehicle truly becomes an obstacle, but, at general traffic speeds, going slower than traffic does not increase your probability of being in a collision.
You need to define extraordinary. In my book, 20 mph difference can be pretty bad. Also, what countries did New Scientist use to do its research? In countries where passing on the right (or more correctly, passing in the "slow" lane) is prohibited, it is probably much safer to go at or below the limit. But since most roads in the US don't have such a restriction, those people driving 20 mph faster than you and zig-zagging in and out of traffic are extremely dangerous. I've seen more than my fair share of close calls and accidents as a result of this phenomenon. Sure, I'd like to see the "extreme drivers" removed from the road permanently. But until then, I'm not going to be a sitting duck.
GreyPoopon
--
Re:Social responsibility? (Score:4)
Sure, it's the responsible thing to do, but not likely the impetus of the rental company. More than likely, they saw it as a chance to lower their insurance rates or make some extra money. Most people in the US exceed the speed limit by at least a little.
The thing I'd be worried about are those situations where you're actually SAFER driving faster than the posted limit. This mostly happens on interstates, where other drivers are exceeding the limit by a considerable amount. Granted, what they are doing is illegal and dangerous. But if everybody else is doing 85 in a 65 mph zone, you had better speed up to at least 72 or so. The difference in speed between vehicles actually adds significantly to the danger. They even TEACH this now in defensive driving courses. It would hardly be fair to have to pay a fine for doing what I thought was a safer speed under the conditions. That's why it's better for the police to be involved. While they can legally pull the car driving 72, they're more likely to go after one of the faster cars ... unless of course the faster car is blue. :)
GreyPoopon
--
Re:Thank God... (Score:2)
Re:And who fines them, then? (Score:2)
Scare 'em! (Score:4)
Hmmm (Score:2)
Re:The Law is is right, but are ACME the enforcers (Score:2)
No, Acme is NOT enforcing the law! They are enforcing the agreement they made with the guy who rented the car (and who agreed to their terms)! The terms were that he must not break the speed-limit. If he did, they would fine him. He broke the speed-limit, and (according to the contract) Acme fined him for it. It's as simple as that
Thank God... (Score:2)
Big difference (Score:2)
Re:Social responsibility? (Score:2)
Besides, its not Acme's job to enforce speeding limits in the traditional sense. For example, they may say in the contract "You are forbidden from driving above eighty miles per hour, because you will be putting an excessive amount of stress on our vehicle. If you choose to violate this provision, we will fine you."
Companies don't have any social responsibility. They only serve their own profit. You should know this by now.
---
Re:And who fines them, then? (Score:2)
Re:Irish Speed Limits (Score:3)
Re:Social responsibility? (Score:5)
Well, that Connecticut company will probably report the car stolen.
Driving at 650MPH... (Score:3)