Slashdot Mirror
Using GPS To Catch Speeders Found Illegal
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 $150 per speeding infraction. The decision was based on the fact that Acme failed to properly word their contracts when they indicated that fines would be imposed for speeding. Dept. Commisioner Jim Fleming also stated that the practice of renters being fined is illegal. However, the practice of tracking vehicles with GPS is still a legal practice."
By your logic we should all kill each other since "if they are doing 85mph in a 65mph then you had better be doing 72mph". How about this logic. STOP BREAKING THE LAW!
Guy rents a car. Doing so he agrees to the terms of the contract he made witht the rental-company. One of those terms was that "if you break the speed-limit, we will fine you 150$ per incident".
Then the guy decides to break that agreement. He breaks the speed-limit three times.
Then the rental-company (as said in the agreement) fines the guy three times for violating the terms of the agreement
Am I right so far?
What does the guy do? He *gasp* sues the company because it dares to think that it has the right to uphold that agreement!
Am I the only one who think this is just insane? What was the rental-company supposed to do? Should the wording of the contract be changed to include the phrase "In case you still want to break the speed-limit, we have the means to find it out. We really do!". Why should the company pay just because some moron thinks that he can walk away from an agreement he had made with that company?
One more time: When he rented that car, he agreed with the terms of the contract. One of those terms was that he would be fined if he broke the speed-limit. He broke the speed-limt, he got fined. All according to the agreement, which he agreed upon when he rented the car. It was said in the agreement, maybe he was just too lazy to read it.
Saying "But I thought they wouldn't find out!" is NOT an viable excuse for stupidity!
You enter the intersection on GREEN waiting to make a left turn. Traffic makes you wait until the light changes to RED. Photo then snaps. Then you complete your turn. What crime is going on here, again?
GPS units are subject to a technical problem that happens occasionally - the unit changes which satellites it uses to generate a position solution, the new position is different than the old one, the system jumps to the new position, and then the MPH computation shows a dramatic speed. I one time recorded a maximum speed, while WALKING, of 215 miles per hour (my Garmin 12XL records maximum speed as a separately resetable item). Given that GPS systems are subject to this kind of error, that probably makes them useless in a court of law, and that would go double for the car rental company.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
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
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 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
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
They have been doing this for a long time here in Pennsylvania.
At the Breezewood interchange of the Penna. Turnpike, where Interstate 70 leaves I-76, there is a great big sign of a policeman pointing at you, saying "You! Slow Down!" From there, you then have to drive a few blocks on US 30 before getting back on I-70.
In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"
Someone mod this post up. I am really sick and tired of slashdotters who haven't had so much as an introductory law class talking about due process and grounds for a claim, etc. etc. etc...
This poster is correct in the sense that the problem with the contract in question is that the stipulation about the "fine" (which isn't really a fine...but anyway) wasn't made clear enough in the contract. It's like how you can't have something in fine print sign away your house to a rental car company...
The problem is the lack of clarity in the contract, not the concept. Slashdot, wake up, you don't know jack about the law.
Oh, and IANAL.
Surprisingly, a lot of people don't know that.
:-)
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.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Uh, riight...
Texas doesn't have the market for "clueless" cornered any more than anywhere else- seems there's a LOT of it going about lately.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
That depends entirely on the way the road is set up- if there's no seriously hilly/mountainous terrain, there's not always going to be a "right" lane to be in (Also of note is that many, don't pay attention to the "Slower traffic keep right" notices either!). It really depends on the road- many of the major highways have posted minimum speed limits of 40 MPH. If the road conditions don't cause a drop below that (i.e. going up a steep grade with a load) you're going to get a citation for driving too slow.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
They used to do this on the Woollongong-Sydney freeway. Had a big sign over each lane that said how fast the driver was going. Turned the road into the local drag strip as drivers tried to see how fast they could go! In the end they took it down because it encouraged more people to speed than to slow down...
Life is complete only for brief intervals in between toys or projects -- John Dalton
I don't think the CT ruling actually banned the practice
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.
__
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
I'm from Britain, and all the cameras aren't there because football hooliganism. The ones at the football stadiums are, but the ones miles away from the nearest football stadium are there to look after the people. I'm fine with that.
I'm not trying to say they're all there because of hooliganism. I'm just saying that's how they started. Once people got comfortable and used to the idea, it was easier to put cameras in more locations.
As for children's information being available on the net - why are you letting your children on the net unsupervised in the first place? You seem to be combining a whole load of ideas into one. First, we have laws which don't allow children to post their info on websites. Then we have the security of the server which hosts the information (which isn't there - see part 1). AND THEN you have the fact that children shouldn't use the net on their own. I think you're just being sensationalist.
Maybe I am being sensationalist on this issue. I agree that my children should be surfing the net in a supervised manner. In fact, I plan to supervise that manner myself. I don't like how parents expect companies to perform this supervising for them. I don't exactly plan to inspect all my children's library books before allowing them to read them, but if I do notice them reading something disturbing I would ask them about it. I would not ask the librarian to stop stocking books I found offensive unless it was on grounds of proven libel.
And as for not giving blood/breath samples when asked to by the police is a clear indication you have something to hide. If you're innocent, just give the bloody sample and stop being so childish.
Those are potentially two unrelated cases. If a policeman pulled me over on the road and asked for a breath sample because he suspected I was driving impaired, I would happily give it to him. He had been observing my driving, and either according to his trained observation or due to profiling, he felt he needed to check it out.
On the other hand, if I happen to fit a certain profile for a crime which is committed and am asked to give a blood sample when I haven't been questioned (or I'm encouraged to give a blood sample to smooth things over, not have to worry about the paperwork or lawyers or all that) or there isn't enough proof, I will refuse. Just as you need a warrant to search my home, you should need a warrant to perform genetic sampling on my blood.
I most especially do not want to donate my blood for a gene bank so that in the off-chance I commit a crime in the future, I'll be easily identified. From what I'm aware, in the U.S., fingerprinting is performed upon U.S. citizens when a suspect is brought into the station for questioning related to charges, or charged or so on. Also, if you wish to immigrate to the U.S., you must provide your fingerprints. They do not go door to door and ask everyone for their prints nor do they have doctors submit prints, blood, and urine samples to some official database.
Don't get me wrong. If they have already brought me in for questioning and I have my lawyer present, and I do not have an alibi, and especially if I had suspiciously corresponding cuts (assuming this was recent), I would not be surprised if I would have to give my blood. I just think they should have enough evidence to convince a judge to allow them to draw my blood first.
If I'm innocent, why should I have to prove it? I'm not being childish, here, but rather standing up for the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."
It is a tough line to tread, as I have friends who work in security and am quite aware that the mantra there is, "anybody could be a criminal." We, as a society, need to determine where to draw the line.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Straight ahead of him, nobody can go very far... -- Le P
Whether you know it or not, in the US you're being tracked. The US has the most vigorous consumer detail tracking system in the world, so all these citizens walking around, draped in the stars and stripes proclaiming their privacy from the highest hills are actually some of the citizens with the least amount of privacy in the world.
I'd have to agree with you on this, if not with your tone. The U.S. citizens who believe their privacy rights are perfectly protected are naive and have been misled. That's why privacy advocates exist, fighting to get companies out of citizens' every day details.
If it's a private camera, then I'm on private property (and the owner has every right to know you're there, whether you like it or not).
Yes, they do, but they also have an obligation to inform you that you are, in fact, under surveillance.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Straight ahead of him, nobody can go very far... -- Le P
Judging by the way you've written your reply, you're not too happy with people knowing what you do - opportunist theif? Paedophile? It sounds like you have something to hide.
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...
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Straight ahead of him, nobody can go very far... -- Le P
--
--
Okay, so when do they get into accidents?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Or 75 bucks for driving in Compton or $295 for parking in Liberty City, Miami too long and potentially getting our car stolen. From now on when you drive in those BAD neighborhoods we'll charge you extra. And even though you blew through that construction zone @54mph - 24mpn over the speed limit, weaved through the cones and almost killed someone we won't fine you because or self appointed guardian of decency technology doesn't work that way.
So would this decision imply that ISPs might not be able to fine spammers if they send spam? Seems like it's almost the same thing as fining speeders.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
--
--
Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness.
--
Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness.
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.
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I guess I'll have to take back my comments that the entire justice system is wacked off. This ruling made sense.
People who quote themselves bug the crap out of me -- Me.
If they are sooo concerned about their customers speeding around like lunatics (and that is exactly what they are accusing everyone of by doing this) then install a speed regulator on the cars instead. Make it impossible to exceed the speed-limit. but then they will have to pay millions to the families of people killed because the device slowed the vehicle in an emergency or passing situation causing a fatal crash.
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.)
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
True, the UK is swamped with cameras and other tracking devices, but their access is limited to the emergency services, and the government.
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...
I know some of the /. population will make trite remarks about how it's Acme's business to run as they see fit but I have a problem with corporations enforcing traffic laws. Even more so when Acme's fines aren't subject to any limits.
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.
I still think that it would be fun (if I had lots of money and a cargo plane) to load one of those cars onto a cargo plane and fly the plane from one coast to the other and back.
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."
:)
---
Sig Return: 204 No Content
Now we are venturing into the world of rediculous. Why would I rent a car just to place it in a trailer? Isn't that counter productive?
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.
"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."
No the article says the judge finds there is "no legal ability for them to charge a penalty when there has been no damage." Which would imply he doesn't see the practice of fining the renter acceptable.
IIRC, a past Darwin Award went to someone who crashed into such a sign when trying to get the highest readout possible on it...
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Couldn't you just jam the GPS receiver? Some tinfoil in the right spot on the car and no worries.
Basing traffic fines on a driver's income has already been done in Finland. A "dot com" millionaire, driving dangerously in his Ferrari, was fined the equivilant of $44,100US.
Check out the story.
aÍÍ©ÍÌÍ£Ì'̽ͩÌÍzÍYÌÍÌY
In Virginia, radar detectors are illegal.
I sure don't remember seeing any "little posts" that emitted RF. Besides, this scheme wouldn't make much difference as most residents of VA don't have radar detectors of any type.
Got a reference?
aÍÍ©ÍÌÍ£Ì'̽ͩÌÍzÍYÌÍÌY
If you've ever driven a car anywhere NEAR 180 MPH, you'd know damn well just how much CAN go wrong...even on open clear highway. Any car that's not built for that kinda thing is going to have ALOT of problems in that speed range...
And for that matter...even the appropropriate vehicles are VERY touchy at those speeds. Hope you don't hit a pothole.
At those speeds, the only hill that would give you enough acceleration to overcome the wind resistance you'd be trying to over come, would start with a 90 degree angle. That's almost not untrue...check a physics book. Really, when you get down to it the only thing limiting the speed of the car at all (besides internal friction and resistances of the mechanical components) is wind resistance...and it takes ALOT of power to overcome increasing resistances with increasing speeds.
Seriously...that's a really weak idea.
so?
it's a contract - you have the option of signing or not signing. it's a private business.
they can restrict you to only driving between 4 and 5 pm, if they want, and put in a clause to fine you $45,000,000, payable in Turkish Lira, if you violate it.
this isn't something applicable to the entire nation - you can always not rent from them...
in a capitalist society, the best way to show a company you don't like their practices is to not give them your money. well, that and telling them that at the same time.
0x0D 0x0A
It certainly does not warrant a fine IMHO
well-worded. your opinion does not matter with regard to the contract. simple solution: if you don't like the terms, rent from someone else.
0x0D 0x0A
Yes but the rental company has insurance and so do you, I believe when you wreck a rental both pay half or something like that. Anyways if you do wreck the loss gets paid for. Though it is possible that their insurance company is giving them a discount because they are reducing their chance of loss. But if they are making money from you and paying less insurance. How can they justify charging you more.
I guess the difference is proof, and also a matter of loss. The phone company has a loss and they are billing you for that, (the loss is the use of their phone lines which they have to pay for, anyways its complicated, thats why its regulated), they may have made a mistake in the billing and generally allow you to contest, but they just expect you to pay the bill. The car company has no real loss, and suspects you commited a finable offense, so they bill you. As just in the case with the phone company, as they are both dealing with technology to record the infraction there is a possibility of a mistake. So we are left with billing without absolute proof, with loss or without loss. Lets look at an example, I have good reason to assumed you borrowed some of my property without telling me, even though you eventually returned in, in this case I like the phone company have suffered a loss, and I could bill you for rental time of the object you borrowed. Case number two, I have a reasonable suspiction without proof that you sneeked into a second movie in a theator I own found an empty seat and watched a movie. I suffered no real loss, and I don't have absolute proof that you commited such and infraction, and even though there is a basic agreement that you would only see one movie, I can't bill you for the second. Though I can charge you with trespassing a not allow you to use my services again. As the rental car company could potentially charge the driver with some offence, and ban the driver from renting there. But they want to make money, is the only real motive in this case.
mutant racoon? now who's X-files paranoid? :)
Best part:
:-)
I am even more amazed when a police officer insisted that there was no mistake
somebody mod this one up...
Get up 120 seconds earlier and beat him there.
Of course that may have the effect of him laying a trap for you.
Somebody's gotta go back and get us a shitload of dimes.
<i> 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.</i>
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.
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.
Grow a brain. Will you? Its not against the LAW to use a phone. It IS against the law to go above the posted speed limit. It is the responsibility of law enforcement, i.e: the people of the state of CT, to enforce such laws. A private company may not do so. Due process is lacking here, because, you are guilty without a trial. Due Process is a constitutional right. If due process, the rights of the people, are subverted, where does that leave you? We govern ourselves. ALL OF US. Thats the backbone of Due Process. When there is a criminal proceeding, its always The People of (fill in your state, or nation) vs. John Q Fuckup.
Another flaw in your out of your ass argument is that there is recourse. This would be a half truth, as you were guilty until proven innocent, and because you had no benefit of a trial by your peers, you have no other choice but to file a civil suit. In this course, the burden of proof is always on you. In due process, the first burden of proof is on the accuser. Not the accused.
Imagine if Microsoft decided to track your downloads, and decided to come to your house to arrest you for downloading Child Porn with their OS? And then locked you in a cell for 10 to 15 years, without a trial, without a hearing, and without the ability to face your accuser in a fair, and impartial proceeding? Without a jury? Same thing.
Enforcing the law is a right of the PEOPLE, not a private company. Try firing a neuron or two next time you decide to let loose, you could save alot of bandwidth.
Supernaut
A lot of times the laws are written such that you can get a ticket for driving above a "reasonable speed" even if you're going lower than the posted speed limit. These exceptions are especially for weather, traffic and light conditions. It rarely happens, but if you're going the speed limit in a snowstorm, driving into the sun or in really heavy traffic, technically, you could get a ticket.
- bridgette
Yeah, they installed the GPS to locate stolen cars, only to discover the "stolen" cars squished by giant anvils, blown up by giant sticks of dynamite and cumpled at the bottom of giant ciffs.
Since all the missing cars were totalled they had to come up with some other way to justify the cost of the GPS.
- bridgette
I support the idea of making speed cameras very obvious,
Depends if the aim of them is revenue generation or encouraging people it obey the law.
I wonder if this was supposed to be in lieu of tracking you down when the police send a speeding ticket to the company. This way they would actually save themselves the hassle of tracking you down. They'd just collect this money and keep it aside to pay for the police-issued speeding tickets when they come.
Also how do they know what GPS coordinates correspond to what speed limits? I assume there is no publicly available database which matches longitude and latitude to speed limits. So are they just assuming that if you ever go over 70 MPH that you are speeding? In this case going 60 in a 25 zone would be fine??
I don't know what study you have been looking at but in the US most accidents occur under 15MPH! There is a nice paper here about the number of fatal traffic accidents in Montana and the the speed limits active at the time. Most traffic accidents also occur at intersections and parking lots. The situation defines the accident more than the speed. This makes a lot of sense when you really think about it. Rather than some bogus claims about speed vs accident rates. In fact what your claiming is accually opposite of the real truth because at these intersection accidents there was usually a pretty significant speed diffrence.
You should take a closer look at those studies your thinking about because I suspect that they only measured small diffrences in speeds around the median speed. For example they might have taken traffic at 50 mph and then checked 5 mph faster and 5mph slower. If your doing 30 in a 50 your pretty much an obstruction rather than part of the traffic flow. You can tell if you are an obstruction because cars comming up behind you will be comming up on you faster than they can merge into another lane. The result will be 1 or more cars following you waiting for a break in traffic so that they can pass.
Lets see, of the 4 accidents my mother has been in (3 rear ends while sitting at a light, and 1 related to a driver not paying attention and running a light) all were at an intersection, 3 involving my mothers vehicle while it was not moving, and one involving it while it was doing less than 5mph. In the case of the three rear ends the cars were under 15mph, in the case of the run light the other auto was doing about 20mph. In my case I have been involved in 4 accidents, two while my car was parked and someone hit it in a parking lot, 1 where where I backed into someone in a parking lot and one where I was tee boned at an intersection of two streets with stop signs.
Sure 'speed kills' but the truth is that its not really 'speed' but accidents and therefore rapid deceleration at speed. The accident rates are much higher in situations where the speeds are significantly lower. The equation is far more complicated than greater speed equals more death. Safe roads are a combination of proper design, skilled drivers and appropriate speeds. Harder driving tests which are more skill oriented than 'law' oriented would do more to save lives and lower accident rates than lowering the speed limits.
I can also recall two cases of 'near misses' which occurred on higher speed roads (50mph or so) one was due to a slow car on a limited sight road in the slow lane causing a driver to dangerously evade into my lane which caused me to have to evade into on coming traffic. The second was a recent wreck in a limited sight situation which was stopped in the slow lane causing me to have to evade quite dangerously. The moral of the story is that the slower drivers where causing massive danger for the people who were going the speed limit. It was all a choice of hitting the slower moving vehicle or possibly hitting a faster moving one. In both cases the gamble paid off, I avoided an accident. The results could have been much different. If everyone is traveling the same speed in the same direction than the danger is significantly less. HItting a guard rail at 50MPH is much safer than hitting an on coming truck doing 30MPH when you are doing 30MPH. Its the relative speeds (and crunchability of the target). 35 on an unsafe road is much more dangerous than 80 on a big wide divided highway.
There is another solution to these grocery savings cards, keychains etc. Use another grocery store! Where I live there are 4 grocery store chains and a few assorted small stores, farmers markets and co-ops. The farmers market and the co-op accually have much better prices than any of the chains to begin with. The farmers market also has much better quality food. So its cheaper and better, its just not as convenient. The savings cards don't really save you any money when you compare the 'saved' version with the competitor. They only save you money when you are shopping at that store. I don't shop at Randalls because of the 'savings card' which just appears to be a method for tracking purchases (why not just give me the better price?). 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 don't know about the how legal it is for them to track me based on my checks (I suspect there arn't any laws stopping them), but it sure isn't hard for them to do it. When I pay for things with checks they take my drivers licence, and type the licence number into the computer to check to see if i have bounced any checks there. Then they usually they run it though one of the automatic check verification services which of course can (and probably is) track all my check purchases.
Either way cash is the way to go, but it gets harder/more inconvient every day to use cash.
> 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...).
ACME didn't say "The local posted speed limit" They had a fixed speed of 79mph. They didn't mention posted speed limits. Just a fee/fine for going faster than they think their cars should go.
79...please..I do that on my 50mile commute every day....I'm more worried about the local toll authority tracking my speed using my iPass toll collector than GPS.
Terms in a contract that violate public policy (repealing due process in small print, for example), are unenforcable. He has legitimate grounds for a suit. That's why he won.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
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!"
nothing at the Connecticut Attorney General's Office (http://www.cslib.org/attygenl/), not nothing at the Connecticut Consumer Protection site (http://www.state.ct.us/dcp/) either.
but the explaination for the submitters comment, However, the practice of tracking vehicles with GPS is still a legal practice. is simple enough: the Man always leaves himself an out to fuck with you later.
"Without the government courts to enforce the contract in the first place there is no contract."
I don't think Gino (to whom you owe some illegal gambling debts) will be swayed by your insistence that no court is going to uphold your contract.
An exiled Chinese doctor says he had been forced to skin corpses of more than 100 executed prisoners and one convict who was still alive before escaping what he branded China's "evil" but lucrative organ harvesting trade.
Wang Guoqi, 38, a former army doctor and burns specialist, says in grisly testimony to a key United States congressional committee, that he was a member of teams of doctors who removed organs moments after convicts were put to death and passed them on for sale.
His testimony is the most public evidence yet presented in the United States by medical professionals and Chinese dissidents, of a practice which Chinese authorities insist is outlawed.
Full article
Want Root?
With all this tracking going on (Facial recognition in Tampa Bay, EZ-Pass for speeding, etc.) companies with these so called "new and hi tech" gadgets are going to end up making criminals look to hi tech gadgets in the future. Something law enforcement will end up dreading more than radar detectors.
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 against what's being done nowadays. There's a lot of room for abuse in tech too. (Echelon used to spy against Japan, 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
Want Root?
Should have double checked... Lesson to be learned: NEVER POST WITHOUT having your coffee.
http://cryptome.org/echelon-ep.htm#10 Ref: 10.7
Want Root?
for selling all those explosives and other roadrunner-lethal devices to Wile E. Coyote.
And when I first looked at this I thought it was another anti-opensource article.
(drum fill)
"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.
There are many rights which cannot be waived in a contract. Similarly, there are many laws which provide protections which cannot be abdicated. Consumer protection laws are normally in this category, as are rent control laws. In some states, for example, signing a year-long lease agreement has no more binding effect than signing a month-to-month lease.
If the State of Connecticut has a law that prevents a company from imposing penalties without proving damage, then signing a contract that explicitly provides the company with this option will not allow that company to collect. Period. For this reason, many contracts contain clauses stating that if any portion of the contract is found to conflict with state or federal law, the remaining portion of the contract will still remain valid and in full effect.
IANAL, but I deal with contracts often. You cannot use a contract to break the law, and not every right can be waived.
As for your phone company, one principal holds true: "service rendered, payment due". If you wish to contest your bill, you had better be prepared to prove that either 1) the service was not rendered, or 2) the payment is something other than what the provider has stated. Due process IS available in this case; it's called small claims court.
If police already fines speeders that rent a car, why Acme should fine them? If police don't, Acme just has to re-word the contract :-)
Anyway, using GPS in cars is nice. Much nicer than enforce non-speeding by remotely controlling car engine, as was proposed in the UK.
(just trying to make a fp worthy ;-)
Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes
As I understand it, the fines are to make up for the damage that will occur if accidents DO occur. Is it possible then to argue that speeding DOES in fact cause a loss? Somewhat similar to how insurance companies work? They charge people lots of money to pay for the damages of an event that may or may not happen to the individual charged, but will eventually happen and cost the insurance company money.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
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
> 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.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
It was in the contract - you speed, you pay a fine.
.au, where you are legally allowed to publish where speed cameras are, and they can't be hidden - so people will get plenty of warning and slow down before the radar (indeed, this nearly caused me an accident, when the car in front of me slammed on their brake, and I could have gone hurlding through their rear end if I was not being careful).
1) They dont want to get their car damaged.
2) They dont want to go through the hassle of looking through records, and notifying the police of who the culprit was, when the police pick up on the speeding.
The culprits here thought that they would not get caught, so ignored the warning. Lo and behold, they get caught, and then whinge. The method by which they find you speeding does not matter - you were BREAKING THE LAW, and being otherwise dangerous.
It is just like here in
So, why are we protecting the crims? I would have aplauded this company - trying to save their cars from getting stolen, and possibly saving lives at the same time!
So what if you rent a car with an onboard GPS. With massive research like this underway, it's just a matter of time before you can get a local jamming unit that would wipe out a cheap GPS receiver's ability to pick up the satellite data. (Actually this has already been done...and discussed on Slashdot!) Then, of course, the rental car companies would get into anti-jamming technology so the thing to do is just wait until NOT having a GPS onboard becomes a market differentiator (and way to charge more)... What would really be cool is locally spoofing a GPS signal set so the record showed you went to places (at speeds) that you really didn't....
The Law should not be broken, but ACME don't have a right to enforce the law. As a matter of responsibility, they should have called up the police to indicate where the offender was, had him ticketed for speeding by the police. Through this system they would have had a legal recorded recourse to fine the driver for speeding at least once. Greed took the better of them, enabling them to fine the driver for three speeding offenses recorded by the GPS. Anyone calling them a safety conscience company has to take their actions into account as not being very safety conscience, but rather, very greedy.
I am Lord Snowbeam. Heed my call!
"Due process" is not a right that can be bargained away to an employer. All it means is that a person cannot be deprived of "process" they are "due" (i.e. owed). Most employers don't owe you any process at all. The state (meaning any government) owes you process in various proceedings. But your employer doesn't owe you anything unless they promise it to you first. So if the contract or employee manual states that they can't fire you without first getting you to fall for the henway gambit, then they can't. That's as close as an employer gets to owing you "due process."
In general, of course, you're right. Most of the rights you have can be contracted away. So what? There are any number of ways to get along through life without giving up any particular right you are concerned with. They may well be less comfortable, but thems the breaks. And exercising rights has all sorts of consequences. Every choice you make has an opportunity cost. By exercising your "right" to have a glass of water first thing after your run, you've lost the "right" to do anything else first thing. This example obviously trivializes your choice of language, "human rights", but I think it is one extreme on a continuum. YMMV.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
"If they don't incur a loss, they don't have grounds to claim a customer owes them money."
There's a "free as in beer" or RMS joke to be made somewhere in here but I just can't get it together this morning.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
"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."
/.er noted that sometimes speeding is necessary to avoid an accident. But it would be a simple matter to contract around this problem. There could be a provision that speeding that exceeds the agreed upon limit but returns to it in less than a minute is not a violation of the terms of the contract. A minute is an eternity in an accident avoidance situation. At 80 MPH (Yes, yes you /.ers in parts of the world where people can count to ten; I use "standard" measures. Quit whining about it. Your lucky we got past the "rods to the hogshead" measurements of Grampa Simpson.) you will cover more than 7000 feet in one minute.
I don't understand what you are saying here. Beyond the inchoate liability issues of "conspiring to speed," what the company is trying to do (beyond the revenue generation issue, natch) is prevent speeding. They are trying to discourage unlawful behavior, not encourage it. They may make a profit off a customer's unlawful behavior but that is not inherently illegal. Would you be happier if the lease contract was for $2000 / day with a $1965 rebate if you don't speed?
As for being a "contributor to accidents", again, they are trying to discourage these by discouraging speeding. Again, they may profit off of the speeding that lead to an accident, but so does a body shop or mortician. Another
Does this address your concerns with the liability issues?
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
I think you've got some issues you need sorting out, such as who the bad people are in this world, and who are the good people.
Who is to say who's bad and who's good? If people just stopped labelling other people, I think we'd be much better off in the first place. Judging others is often a self-fulfilling prophecy, a blind-fold and a cowardly distraction from our own problems.
What if you were injured? A mutant racoon attacked you, biting off your legs. If someone knew where you were, they could come find you if you were missing/maimed by racoons.
I guess he'd accept his fate as any other. If everything you do has to have a safety-net, that shows you're morbidly afraid of risks, injury and death. Which takes away excitement in your life. What happen, happens. You don't have to justify your every action with risk-analysis, guardians and impecable logic. Actions we do out of fear has a way of materializing what we fear, therefore it's often good to have courage and not dwell on everything.
It's the business of the community you live in. Surely there are only disadvantages to it... or am I wrong?
What is a disadvantage? You have already judged the concept of privacy, which limits your vision to other conclusions than what you have reached yourself (although you're open to discussion). It's good that you don't fear being tracked and judged by others, but that doesn't mean you should judge others based on your own assumptions and feelings.
For me personally, privacy is a space that belongs to me. I don't want just anyone to invade that space without notification or admission. I don't want to be treated with a customer-# in some database judging me and my shopping habits, if I don't want to. It doesn't matter if I'm aware of it or not, on some level it affects me no matter what. Especially when getting junk mail/email and phone-calls, or my insurance premium just sky-rocketed. I want to be respected and understood as a human being, and human beings want to be left alone sometimes. Corporations obviously don't understand that concept, and thus should not have the same privileges as human beings. (Ie, it's not illegal to talk behind someone's back)
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
You don't always notice a camera is set up. Especially if they choose to hide it. Ever seen a show called "Candid camera"? I'd say a sign saying you're under surveillance should be obligatory.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
The first "you" should have been "your family."
Then why can any other business charge fines without damage? If you return the car late, I'm assuming you get charged a late fine, even though there is no damage. Why you can't charge fines for violating the terms of the contract?
Excessive speeding can cause damage to the car's engine. Also, speeding can lead to traffic accidents, so it can be seem as a prevention against damage.
The reason they should be able to fine is because it is Acme's property.
Why is it illegal for them to monitor their own cars for traffic violations? What part of vehicles driven in excess of posted speed limit will be charged a $150 fee per occurrence. All our vehicles are GPS equipped didn't these people understand? vehicles driven in excess of posted speed limit is pretty clear to me. I don't see why this is at all illegal. These people signed a contract, it is their responsibility to understand the contract.
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.
And by the way, the police have a monopoly on violence, and giving you speed tickets. Here in .nl police people get bashed because they 'just do their job', many policing people quit their job nowadays.
--
Bizar technology?
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.
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.
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.
- 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.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?
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.
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
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
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
The US has very mixed feelings about speed limits. The level of enforcement is very low compared to the number of infractions. Massive enforcment is likely to result in serious political pressure. There are tradeoffs between speed and safety made by individuals and society. A vehicle that doesn't move is nearly perfectly safe, but useless. As it is now, you don't generally get punished for speeding unless there is a secondary effect -- like an accident. Sometimes the punishment is darwinian, sometimes just another charge on the ticket. In the tragic cases, it is more often intoxication than speed as the most complicating factor.
-dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
2. GPS is not illegal
Just RTFS
All software is flawed. All hardware is flawed. If you haven't learned that yet,
If you're on Death Row, you don't get to do any work. The man is probably scared you'll kill yourself..... is suicide illegal in texas ?
Anyway, what you're dreading is already happening; prisoners are becoming slave labour for the prison system.
.
All software is flawed. All hardware is flawed. If you haven't learned that yet,
km/hor about 105 mph, my stang does that in its sleep ;)
Jeremy
Why bother? Just pull out the fuse that powers the GPS tracking system.
So if I desire privacy, or don't like the idea that I can be tracked, I must be doing something wrong? If I advocate the right to privacy, I must be a criminal, or have something to hide?
This sounds like too many of the arguments used to shove "protect the children" legislation down our throats. Measures such as the law requiring libraries to use censorware (or as they word it, internet filtering) on their internet connected computers have been passed by giving the law itself a seemly positive connotation of protecting children, while it's opponents were given the negative connotation of being against children or wanting to harm children.
Sorry, but I'm not a damn animal. I don't need to be tagged and tracked so that the government and corporations can study my migration, mating, and feeding habits. The assertion that I desire privacy because I've got something to hide at best assumes a presumption of guilt, at best presumes that government and corporations have nothing but positive, benevolent motivations. At worst, it presums that privacy alway has a negative impact upon society.
Unless they (government and/or corporations) have a valid reason to find me, they don't need to know where I am at all times. If, for some reason, they have a need to find me or talk to me, there are very simple means of contacting me that do not require tracking me as if I were a dangerous preditory animal. To say that the advocation of privacy is born of paranoia simply serves as a means to marginalize those who advocate a right to at least some privacy. It sounds too much like Thoughcrime to me.
Of course, Thoughtcrime, though some would say it already exists, will never be refered to as Thoughtcrime, as it has too negative a connotation for it to be accepted. Instead, it will be crafted to sound more positive, so that those who oppose such measures will be cast in a negative light.
--
--
Intelligence is definitely a recessive trait.
or if he fared ... fiddling with a gps computer while driving at 170 km/h verges on the entry rules for the Darwin Awards.
:wq
Because this means we can no longer go off roading in our rental Dodge Neons and Ford Escorts.
Blast.
I think the rental company might notice that the car is not on when going 125. The system they use does transmit more than the speed and position, so I think that situation is taken care of.
It was in plain writing at the top of his contract which he neglected to read! How can anyone defend someone who didn't even read what they were entering into!? Stupid courts system trying to save people from their own incompentance!
They are not monitoring speeding to prevent theft, although that is one aspect of the system, they do it to prevent unnecessary risk! And i don't see how there is any issue here since IT WAS IN THE CONTRACT!!! END OF STORY!! That guy should have to take responsibility for not reading the contract he signed!
There are also inertia measuring devices to check for things like that, so when used together the system is actually very reliable. But also, this is no vigilante law enforcement.... they are not enforcing the law by any means, they simply forbid going above the set speed limits, and state IN THE CONTRACT HE SIGNED that that was the deal, it's his own fault for not reading!
What is the loss of the phone company when you make a phone call when the ciruits are not full? Nothing. OK, maybe a tiny fraction of electricity, and the potential that the circuits fill.
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.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Sounds like the commissioner is right. If there is no cost to the seller, it is an illegal differentiation in price. If they can show damages, such as mechanical breakdown, then it's legal. It is unlikely that insurance costs will be a factor, because generally when I have rented a car I was the one responsible for the optional collision insurance, which they resold through an insurance company. Now, if the insurance company was the one who gave the "fine", they'd have a much better case.
Which, by the way, would be a great idea. Insurance companies could offer discounts for drivers who install GPS monitors in the car. Not only would this reduce the comprehensive insurance, due to greater stolen car recoveries, but also the collision and liability insurance, since they could check your speed and give you an appropriate rate accordingly. I'm not sure how accurate the GPS is, but it could probably even be used to help determine fault if it is accurate enough.
I'm all for this. I happen to be a fast driver, but I also happen to be a safe driver. I also have a $1000 deductible for my insurance, and I'd have a $10,000 deductible if they'd let me. In my perfect world, everyone would have GPSs in their cars, there would be no speeding laws, and insurance would be optional (as long as you have the money to pay for your accidents). If you truly are a safe driver, but the insurance company doesn't think so, take out a home equity loan, use the money you save on insurance payments to pay it back, and insure yourself. Actually, I wish there was a company out there that would let you do this. I don't really feel like dealing with the lawyers and hassle if I ever do get into an accident, so it would be nice to let someone else do it for me.
Technology is a good thing. It is only feared by those who are currently exploiting the loopholes in the current system, and won't be able to exploit the loopholes in the new one. Fewer loopholes are good for everyone.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Sure you're a hero? Or are you the sonofabitch who constantly takes the last cup of the coffee at the 7-11 about ninety seconds before I walk in the door? Someone's been doing that to me, and he's always wearing a sheriff's office uniform, and I'd like to have a word with him about NOT TAKING THE LAST GODDAMN CUP OF COFFEE.
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.
All right, I think we've got a project. Someone out there has to find a way to spoof a commercial GPS unit to show that the driver exceeded the speed of light (throw in gratuitous joke about being fined for breaking the laws of physics). There'll be a bonus if your speeding fine (if it is calculated to be a multiple of the amount by which you exceeded the limit, and not simply a flat rate) exceeds the GDP of a given nation-state.
In a world without walls, there is no need for Windows.
do you even live in CT? i live here and have driven on every major highway in the state through every major city in the state at all different times of day. fact is, the worst drivers in CT don't even live in CT. they are mostly from NY or NJ, at least that's what i've seen. every state has its bad drivers, but i don't think you can rightfully say that CT has the most dangerous drivers. maybe it seems more dangerous because the roads aren't the greatest, but that's still getting worked on and will probably never be finished. maybe if every joe schmoe didn't have a car and didn't buy his little kiddies cars of their own, we wouldn't have this problem. i've only been driving for 6 years and i've noticed the number of cars on the road at least double since i started driving. (i used to drive a delivery truck for a living so i've driven all over the state doing that). so before you start pointing fingers, take a look at license plates. most of the people that drive in CT on any given Friday, Saturday, Sunday, or Monday (and special holidays as well) are usually not from CT and are just travelling through so they can spend their weekend on the Cape or in RI.
please me, have no regrets.
I have to assume you are playing the devils advocate here. Much of the readership of slashdot are Americans, and they are fiercely proud of the tradition that country has towards privacy. The assumption is, wrong or right, that the only way to stop a government from becoming a police state is maintain certain rights.
And while it is true that your acts are visible when you are in public, you are not allays recognized and monitored. This is a key distinction. The best argument I have heard for this is what is legal today might be illegal tomorrow, and in state with too much power then things get ugly. The situation in China with the Falun Gong comes to mind.
So I believe the Americans have a point. It is better to err on the side of too much privacy than not enough.
I was always under the impression that signing the ticket only acknowledges receipt of the ticket. At least, that's what the one's I have received stated just above the signiature line.
As for contesting it in court, what are you going to contest? Unless the cop fails to show up, the judge has a witness that you were speeding. You can then either:
- Lie: "I was not!"
- Tell the truth: "Yes, I was, but I don't think I deserve a ticket for it."
- Plead the 5th: "I can't answer that on the grounds it may incriminate me."
Unless you truly believe the ticket was undeserved, contesting it is not worth the effort.Edward Burr
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
--What is to stop a Rental Company from feeding this information to the local authorities (local to the location of the car!) and getting a kickback on the fine?
--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.
---
This
Isn't the whole point of rent-a-cars, that you can cane the shit out of 'em. If the rental company is going to penalise you for speeding in their car, all they're going to do is kill demand for rentals.
Fair enough, but I believe the company only fined you for continued speeding (something like +30 mph for 2 minutes straight). While it is possible to have a legitimate reason for this, it is very unlikely and would probably involve police or some authority that could vouch for you.
Why are you so upset about people wanting privacy? I've seen about a dozen of your posts on the subject, and you seem to be personally offended by the concept. Maybe some people just like the idea of being alone, with no one watching them. Perhaps this idea is more prevalent in Americans (as you have noted above) because more Americans can remeber a time when they, or their forebears, lived in relative isolation. My father lived on land thirty minutes away from his closest neighbour, until my mother convinced him to move to the "city" (more like a medium sized town). He raised me to appreciate the value of independence as well as privacy. I don't want people checking up on me, not because I'm scared of getting some junk mail (I get plenty) or am scared of being caught for some crime (I don't commit them), but because I DON'T WANT THEM CHECKING UP ON ME. It's a simple as that.
I don't see any advantage to being tracking, be it by cameras or credit cards, so why allow the tracking to take place? I can control whether or not I use credit cards (only for large purchases, and for reoccuring charges like my ISP), but I can't control whether or not I am recorded on a camera. Luckily, this isn't an issue where I live, yet. My dislike of public, government or corporate-owned cameras is not enough that I'm going to go smash them, or anything of the sort, but I can definitely say it's a concept I do not like and would vote against, if I had the chance.
Josh Sisk
What is wrong with them knowing where you are?
What's right with it?
This ploy of Acme's sounds very nasty. It's tantamount to privatisation of law enforcement.
A private company should not be able to levy fines for speeding.
The real purpose of fines is to discourage an illegal action. If the laws are well made, then illegal actions are those which are harmful to either society as a whole, or to individuals unable to protect themselves. This includes pedestrians unable to protect their soft bodies from out-of-control cars.
The danger, as I see it, is that a company may start to see fines as a source of income, rather than as a tool to discourage undesirable actions.
This would in turn encourage the drafting of more and more unjust laws, since the laws would be proposed with the aim of increasing revenue, rather than with the aim of increasing the overall wellbeing of society.
Pushed to an extreme, this could result in a society where the number of executions for serious crimes is in direct proportion to the revenue that could be generated by selling the organs of the executed person.
We would have death penalties for more and more categories of crimes, with mandatory recovery of organs from healthy subjects. We might even see a situation where healthy but slightly guilty means a death sentence, whereas in bad shape and very guilty means life imprisonment...
Death row would become an organ farm.
law != justice
for very high values of justice
and for privatised law.
You forgot to add that through the miracle of the Internet they contacted your auto insurance company and had them jack up your rates. If you treat a rental car like that you'll probably do it with your own vehicle making you quite a liability.
:)
Your health and life insurance premiums will also go up because being in a bad neighborhood increases the liklihood that you were there buying drugs. The banner ad companies were also contacted so that they can fine tune their advertisements to better fit your apparent lifestyle.
Like Amtrak, this information was turned over to the authorities just on the off chance that your actions were criminal. If you're arrested the rental company will get a kick-back.
Etc.. Etc.. Could be a good movie
"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.
But the thing is:
The law was not enforced. Kindly point out where the municipalities fined the person for speeding.
And it was tossed out based on contract law. No damages / nothing offered in return, therefore not legal
because of something the said by the commissoner: "We alleged they have violated Connecticut law," the department's commissioner, James T. Fleming, said. "There is no legal ability for them to charge a penalty when there has been no damage."
I think he's refering to the ability of one party to collect a civil penalty (ie like in a lawsuit) from another in the case of material injury. Damages, then, would mean some deprivation or loss of property. Speeding is a criminal offense, not a civil offense. It's therefore up to the state to pursue criminal matters and ACME has no legal basis to act as a police entity.
Could ACME take the information and forward it to the appropriate law enforcement officials for futher action? Probably. If a crime is being committed, police do accept notification by private individuals. Will ACME actually do this? I don't think so. When the word gets out that they're turning people over to the police for speeding, I think they'll lose business.
Of course, A law COULD be passed requiring companies to notify law enforcement officials. There is a precident for this in the banking industry (All cash transactions in excess of $1000 are to be reported.) for drug enforcement purposes. That would make it a whole different ballgame.
I frequently find that car speedos are out by as much as 5-10%, usually on the fast side, but I've seen a couple which reported the car was going slower than it actually was.
If someone rents a car with a dodgy speedo, thinks they're doing X mph (Whatever the speed limit is in the USA, not sure.), and are actually doing X+n mph, isn't that a little unfair?
That's exactly my point. The speedo on the car may be slow, but the GPS will report the true speed. So if the car is actually doing 65mph, but the on-dash speedo only says 60, you're going to get fined without even realising it.
Another tactic that some of the local (Florida) agencies use is to set up a radar display on the side of the road. They aim a radar gun down the road and display the speed to the oncoming traffic. Most people slow down and I rarely see officers pulling people over on these roads. It's like the cops are saying "Don't make me come over there..." I think it is great because it keeps everyone happy. The cops don't have to pull people over (#1 danger for a patrol officer), the people don't get tickets and they can still speed when the conditions permit it.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
So, now the question is how this ruling can be applied to EZ-Pass. I have already heard from friends in New York that have been sent tickets for speeding based on EZ-Pass toll booth calculations.
------
Let me give you the lowdown
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.
Also, as anyone who has ever driven in CT knows, despite the threat of the most expensive tickets in the US, it has little effect on speeding. IMNSHO, the fines in CT are not high enough! They still have the most reckless and dangerous drivers I have ever seen. Especially after getting cut off more than once by a BMW doing 90+ who is continually weaving from the far left to far right lanes, without signalling.
The ivory tower has never had to reach so h
I would like to remind everyone here that the driver in question was breaking the law regarding how fast you can drive your automobile. I agree the methods are Orwellian but the guy execeeded 77 mph. This sort of driving seems unsafe to me.
Now, with regards to the ruling, this is probably a temporary setback to Acme. There are cameras watching people in the UK and Florida already, and talk of it elsewhere. Satellites can catch farmers defrauding the government. This sort of thing will only grow more commonplace.
Before all of you grow paranoid (and before this gets modded as Troll or worse...), let me remind you that in every instance those at the center of controversy were breaking established laws. Find me a case where an innocent man/woman was nailed by Orwellain survelliance and then I might feel for them.
No statement is true, not even this one.
I was bored... driving a semi-regular 4-hour road trip with a rental car from Hertz. It was a 4-door Chevy Malibu. Yee ha, good family fun. It had the NeverLost GPS system. Nice color LCD display on that thing. Wow. Anyways, it seems most cars nowadays have speed limiters and this Chevy's would kick in around 170km/h. I turned on the GPS's trip computer and verified it wouldn't go past 169. You can imagine... foot to the floor, VRRROOOM [silence] VRRROOOM [silence] VRRROOOM [silence], as the limiter would kick in and out. So I tried all manner of things... getting a run at it... pulsing the gas pedal... running her down a hill and as soon as the limiter kicks in, dropping to neutral (automatic). Probably could have used a longer hill. No luck. Stuck at 169. Anyways, after my trip, I tag-teamed the car with a co-worker and assigned him to beat my "high score". I'll find out tomorrow morning how he fared.
Share your cheats and strategies!
Well, I'll never rent from them. And I bet others won't either, if they hear this story.
sulli
RTFJ.
About a week ago, I was driving home on Roosevelt Boulevard (PA - it's six lanes in each direction) around midnight. At the last second, I noticed some nut on a bike, without reflectors, riding in the left lane of the boulevard in the opposite direction of the 45+ mph traffic. It's not just the drivers.
I alternate between posting +5 and -1 Comments. Karma: +53 -47 = 6
On one hand this seems like a gross invasion of privacy. But consider that you're using a $10k+ vehicle provided by this company, and that you've signed a very specific contract with them regarding the use of that vehicle. Provided that they tell you beforehand, can anyone supply a compelling reason why it's immoral or unethical for them to monitor one of their cars with GPS?
Of course customers won't like that, and they'd probably lose some business for it. But just as contract law allows us to uphold the GPL et al, a car rental company has the right to impose almost any terms it wishes on a rental contract -- and if you don't like those terms, you don't have to sign on the dotted line.
-John
"So I believe the Americans have a point. It is better to err on the side of too much privacy than not enough."
BINGO! Someone from "across the pond" finally gets it....
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
I mean, "New Ching Shit"? Good lord, sounds like an actor you'd see in a Stile Project Japscat clip...
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Having done much checking the calibration of speedometers, I check them on a measured mile at 60 MPH. That is one mile in one minute. Most often the GPS is much closer than the speedometer. It may jump up and down a couple MPH due to position errors going past overpasses, tall buildings, heavy forest etc, but the average is dead on. An SUV with the bigger tires installed always reads the speed slow unless they have the gears in the speedometer changed to match the new tire size. The average shown on a GPS is dead on. I use one all the time now, especially in a borrowed or rented vehicle. I believe the GPS first. I know it's accuracy. BTW a 10 foot position error does not caues much change in indicated speed at 55.
The truth shall set you free!
That's what I thought too. What the heck is their problem in Ireland? The U.S. is supposed to be the only backwards place left that uses miles!
There were two points in my mind that stood out from the zdnet story.
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
I thought there was a law (or somesuch) that stated that private citizens and corporations cannot enforce any existing laws. I believe the law forbids being a vigilante. The car rental company is violating this law if they issue fines, warnings, etc. to others (incl. customers). Any contract that violates law is [IMHO] void and cannot be enforced. Some examples...1) You buy a gun from a shop. Kill someone. The shop fines your estate several million dollars. 2) You own a tow truck service and see someone illegally park in a hanicap spot. You jack the car up and park nearby. When the owner returns you demand $500 to drop the car. Now, what the car rental place can do is this - report the speeding to the drivers car insurance company. The insurance co. would, naturally, jack up the premiums. With any sort of luck the driver would call the insurance co. to complain. BTW, this could also work with guns. You buy a gun and someone (shop, government, etc) would notify your home/life insurance co.'s. Rate increase time..
---
They're appearing in Sweden, too. Funny thing I drive a motorbike without a front license plate. :-)
You have obviously led a sheltered existence, never been politically active, and believe that mummy state should look after you? Your apathy is disgusting, and is directly responsible for the lack of clearly defined citizens right in the UK. I have lived both sides of the pond, and see that the Bill of Rights, which defines many of the reasons why Americans fought to free themselves from British tyrrany, are under threat even in the US.
need a free COBOL editor for Windows?
by way of contracts. Thats what this really about.
It was in the contract, you signed it, you agreed to it. You agreed to the flawed system of using GPS for speed tracking. I don't like it either.
However this comes real close to the fine line of Corporations enforcing (one day making?) laws by the perfectly legal means of contract. Don't laugh. I can see it one day...
I'm not guilty your honor. I had every right to kill this man. He clearly signed the contract that I could take his life if he didn't pay the money back.
Damn, now I'm scaring myself.
GPS receivers are plenty accurate enough to tell speed. The military uses them to track all sorts of moving vehicles and even to help land certain aircraft (unmanned). These are more expensive but if your using fines to pay for the system (which isn't absurdly expensive to begin with) then it doesn't really matter because it pays for itself in no time.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
I've always found that a pair of wire cutters and a little work will successfully disable most GPS systems! Now, the rent car agency might not like it too much, but you can always play dumb. Of course, we all gripe about being tracked by others - how many of us carry a cell phone clipped to our belt that stays on most of the time? Congratulations, you can be tracked! Ain't technology grand? :-)
A stable reference and strain gauges can offer insight into reckless driving, as well.
At turn-in time, this data is sent, via Bluetooth to a waiting Beowulf cluster, where we figure out exactly how much to pry from the renter.
A follow-on market might be fathers with expensive rides and frisky teenagers.
What can we name this company, and who'll handle the IPO?
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
...and if this car rental agency was truely acting as a concerned citizen, then they should of installed it, or another speed limiting device. Instead, they thought they found another way to create more revenue by charging another ridiculous fee. Glad to see the consumer win this one.
www.sguil.net
The Analyst Console for NSM
I happen to work for a US government agency and I can tell you that we're all just 'people' like the rest of the world. Not 'good', not 'bad', just people. In any large group, you're just as likely to find someone who would abuse the power of their position, as you are to find a self-sacrificing hero. That's just human nature.
Judging by the way you've written your reply, you're not too happy with people knowing what you do - opportunist theif? Paedophile? It sounds like you have something to hide.
Now that's just a cheap shot. If the government wanted to put cameras in your bathroom and bedroom with 24 hour monitoring to help out in case you fell and hit your head, would you be OK with that? Got something to hide :). Everyone draws the line at a different place. Steeltoe is just less comfortable with surveillance than you.
True, the idea of privacy has its advantages (such as at home) but when you're out in the community it makes sense to relinquish just a little piece of 'privacy' for safety.
It might make sense to you, but others value their privacy over the small increase in safety that constant surveillance would provide. As far as I'm concerned it also makes sense not to smoke cigarettes, which are known to shorten your life, but I'm not about to tell someone else they can't do it. It's all about personal choice.
In this day and age, privacy is an illusion. It stopped existing the moment communications spread faster than we could. Even when you think you're not being tracked, you are. I'm no conspiracy theorist (in fact, I hate anyone who says they are :)) but if the government wants to know where we are, they will find out, whether we know it or not.
I think you're right to a degree. The developing problems with privacy stem from the same combination of pervasiveness and ease of use that caused Napster to become such an issue for the RIAA. When tracking someone's movements used to require two guys in a car following you all over the city, there was little chance of this being done capriciously. When we get to the point where anyone with appropriate access can punch up a complete log of my comings and goings whenever they like, it's more likely to lead to abuse of that info. The Acme case is a good example of people with access to private info abusing it and overstepping their authority. In the end, everything worked out, but not without unnecessarily hassling a lot of people. The fact that personal privacy is being slowly eroded by technology is no reason to roll over and give it all up.
You forget that this is in the US of A, where almost all human rights (free speech, due process, whatever else comes to mind) are commodities that you can sell off to your employer, to Acme, or whoever else is interested in them.
Fact is, probably you already have sold yours unwittingly because you didn't mind to read the TOS ...
HA! we have lots of these speed traps here in good old Texas, USA
only its 30-45-65-70-30-70.... (MPH, not KmPH)
- A law is only broken if a law enforcement offical decides that one is.
This is clearly not true. A driver exceeding the speed limit is in violation of the law. If a cop decides not to pull the driver over, the violation goes untried and unpenalized.Legal statutes exist exactly for the purpose of removing as much "decision" from the responsibility of the law enforcement official. If it was a judgement call, you'd see a lot more people showing up in traffic court with the defense "officers are human; a resonable officer wouldn't have pulled me over," with a (paid) expert witness in tow.
Way back in high school they taught us that government was three pronged:
- Legislators make the laws, including setting the speed limits (not the cops, as you inadvertantly suggest)
- The executive branch (law officers) are responsible for identifying, with probable cause (like a radar gun) are breaking those laws
- and
- The Judicial System to decide whether or not those identified by the cops are actually guilty of the crime they've been accused of.
Excercise your rights. Go to traffic court.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.
They tried that exact scheme in Virginia - they had little posts along the highway that emitted low level X and Ka band RF. They had to stop, though, because their license allowed mobile use of those freqs, not fixed use. Chalk up one in the good guy column for the FCC!
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Because radar detectors are illegal in VA, those little posts made it very easy for the police to pick off the ones using them. If a car slams on the brakes all of a sudden near a little post, they get pulled over.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Ceci n'est pas un sig
Who cares if Rental car places know where you're going? It's not like that hurts you in any way whatsoever, while it gives the company extra security, so you don't go driving your car down to Tijuana to sell it for vicadin.
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.
Remember what "speed limit" actually means. It means less than or equal to. So drive at 25MPH all the way through the various speed zones.
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.
Funny thing I drive a motorbike without a front license plate.
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.
Most often the GPS is much closer than the speedometer. It may jump up and down a couple MPH due to position errors going past overpasses, tall buildings, heavy forest etc, but the average is dead on.
Too bad they aren't fining you based on your average speed.
Say "NO!" to tax money for religious groups.
MY experience with digital speedometers is that they suck.
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.
Correct me if I'm wrong here but Acme, as a car rental company are well within their rights to impose terms and conditions when they lease their property to another party.
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.
Well, you obviously have a sense of humor, so I won't be too much of a dick about this to you.:-)
;)
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.
There is another solution to these grocery savings cards, keychains etc. Use another grocery store!
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.
Either way cash is the way to go, but it gets harder/more inconvient every day to use cash.
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.
Well, why do you object to people knowing where you are? I don't care at all. I know a lot of other people don't care at all.
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.
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.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Hey, that's my name. Use yer own. ;-)
--
Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
There are a few issues I have with your comment.
1) If I am doing exactly the speed limit, then anyone going faster is breaking the law.
a) The person who is breaking the law by going faster than me should be punished first, as it is his illegal actions that make me relatively slow.
b) Complaining that my breaking the law by blocking your way is preventing you from breaking the law by speeding is inconsistent and illogical, not to mention, hypocritical.
c) It is an abuse of law to penalize someone who, but for the relative actions of lawbreakers around him, is completely within the law.
2) It depends on the state. To my knowledge, New Mexico does not have a law requiring anyone to remain in the right-hand lane. Texas has signs in some areas directing "slower" traffic to keep right. Again, "slower" traffic can only be logically and consistently referring to traffic that is below the speed limit, not traffic that is at the speed limit.
I realize that you specifically mentioned people who are traveling well below the speed limit. I agree that they are dangerous to the smooth flow of traffic. I believe that the goal of every driver should be to maintain a smooth, managable flow of traffic (road anarchy breaks that rule). Every time I hear G. Gordon Liddy mangle this subject, I want to throttle him.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
What do you think they are using to calculate your speed; specific velocity? No, they most certainly *are* taking your average speed. It looks to me that you think they have to average your speed from one end of the state to the other to get an average speed, instead of finding the average from only a few thousand feet.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
- 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.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
And since they couldn't sell banner advertising in their cars on scrolling marquees.....
Old age and treachery almost always overcome youth and skill.
Correct me if I'm wrong here but Acme, as a car rental company are well within their rights to impose terms and conditions when they lease their property to another party.
These terms and conditions will include all the standard stuff - "you, the renter, are responsible for the vehicle, it's condition, the safety of the driver and passangers, etc."
Somewhere in there will be a section about properly adhering to the law - buckling up properly, not driving while intoxicated, not overloading the vehicle, not speeding, etc.
If they want to impose fines for certain types be behaviour, it's up to them as long as they properly inform the renter beforehand and as long as they don't improperly infringe on the renter's rights.
In other words, as long as they let you know up front what you can and can't do, the possible consequences of certain actions (eg, spoiling the upholstery or speeding), and they do so properly and fairly in the eyes of the law, then there's nothing wrong with what they are doing.
Of course, you as the renter have a choice. You can either accept their terms and conditions or you can walk down the road and take your business elsewhere.
Of course, if you are caught speeding you could always argue the point, especially if there are mitigating circumstances. Being late for work probably won't rub but driving your heavily pregnant wife to the hospital so that she doesn't give birth in the car would I guess.
Basically, the judgement in this case came down against Acme because the court felt that they had properly informed people that their actions were punishable until well after the fact. It would seem that if they had given proper notice then the court would not have taken issue so strongly.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
This from the only country in the first world where the level of medical treatment that you receive is determined by the size of your wallet.
Every other civilised society has recognised that free health care for all is a good thing. The US, for whatever reason, hasn't quite grasped the concept yet.
Or are you one of those "if they want a new kidney they can pay for it themselves" people?
When I'm sick, I don't head for the US, I just go to see my doctor down the road. The only thing he's interested in is my health, not my credit card number.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Wrong. If you return the car late, there is damage insofar that the rental company loses money they could have earned by renting the car to another customer.
I think they're on the right track with not allowing the rental company to demand charges for speeding; thats the police's job. I mean just imagine if anyone and there brother could start charging you fines for speeding. The police will charge ya a ticket. The homeowners of the houses you charge you fines. The company that built the road. Greenpeace.
> Excessive speeding can cause damage to the car's engine.
Well, first thats pretty much improbable. I have heard of very few cars that had problems running on full throttle on unlimited (german) autobahns... the two cases I remember right now was a) an overheating case, which was resolved by simply letting the motor cool down, and removing the license plate from the air intakes in the front which it covered, and b) Some 3rd party tuning gear (an exhaust) broke. I think this argument is negligible, because todays cars run at high speeds for prolonged periods quite fine, and what qualifies as "speeding" in the US is nowhere near the speed the car could even run at... and I doubt even speeding folks run at 120mph over there... with a rented car, which probably isnt suited very well for racing.
> Also, speeding can lead to traffic accidents, so it can be seem as a prevention against damage
Well, yes, but if you're going to prevent damage, you might as well not let the customers rent a car at all, because, who knows, they might run over a kid at mere 15mph!!!
And again it is my opinion that law enforcement is the job of the police, and most certainly not private individuals or companies.
GPS signals are very weak and therefore, not very difficult to "jam" - hell even rain or heavy storm cloud coverage can effect some antennas. I'll sell you a $99 GPS jammer - it's made by Wham-O and it's hot pink. But does it even matter? How is this any different than putting governors on carburetors, or simply RECORDING THE FREAKING SPEEDOMETER!!! Sure it would catch you doing 50 in a 35, but anything over 65 would be speeding. "i couldn't tell i was speeding - i was too busy eating a Big Mac while talking to my girlfriend on my cell phone."
There are 01 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and me.
GIS baby, it's all G. I. S. nowadays.
There are 01 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and me.
I would disagree with you. Their business is providing you with a vehicle in exchange for payment. The customer's only obligation should be return the vehicle in an unchanged condition other than a few more miles on the clock. I think any of us who live in the U.S. know how predatory and deceitful businesses can be - it really is an economic jungle here, much more so than in any other developed country. Mind you, most of the major global car hire companies are US based and I have been screwed royally countless times in the UK by Avis, Budget and Hertz. It is to our benefit that this company has been reined in. Even though their practice was eventually deemed to be illegal, they should have felt themselves ethically obliged to verbally spell this practice out and have the customer tick and sign a specific section of the contract ( perhaps with the incentive a discount for doing so - I know I'm hallucinating ).
I have NEVER met a car that could accelerate faster than it could decelerate. Please tell me what kind of car it was. I want one.
Don't rent a car that uses GPS. Hitchhike. ;o)
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?
Then (a) don't go to "Le Sex Shoppe" in a rental car or (b) park down the street at McDonnalds and WALK the three blocks.
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).
I do. I am subsidising your low insurance rates by working in for a company that rents office space in a "good" neighborhood and offers a private garage. Why shouldn't my rates be lowered for being a lower risk client?
SR-22 insurance (not that I'm saying you are on it) is expensive for a reason. Those people that are required to have it are proven insurance risks. By the same respects, my insurance company offers pretty steep discounts for "safe drivers" that have not received traffic tickets for the past 5 years.
No, I don't think that manditory tracking is a good thing. That is not my point. My point is, if you don't want someone tracking your every move, you are responsible for making sure the rental car you hire does not use GPS. If laws are proposed that require all cars to be equiped qith GPS tracking, then I'll have a problem.
But what do you care that they know where you are? Are you that insecure that you don't want people knowing where you are? I don't give a rats ass if anyone knows where I am. Do you moan about cell phones? The government could track you through one of those...
You can take privacy too far.
Paranoid? What have you done to make you this paranoid? I don't do anything wrong (that can be detected by locaton ;)), so I don't care who knows where I am at any one time. I don't care if the government knows where I am, or the police, or the army, or your mother. ;)
I think you've got some issues you need sorting out, such as who the bad people are in this world, and who are the good people.
So if you were out on a drive in a remote part of the country and you hit a tree/fell off a cliff/blew up who would rescue you? The cops and paramedics wouldn't be able to find you, your family wouldn't know where you were.
Anyway, now that you have your privacy, what does that allow you to do that other people can't? (Please give practical answers, not X-files paranoia ;))
Cut him some slack - he's Texan :)
Please don't think me rude - I'm just trying to find out the benefits of privacy. In this world, what we do isn't just our business. It's the business of the community you live in. Surely there are only disadvantages to it... or am I wrong?
Coors light? That's a beer? I thought it was a diet lemonade or something...
I guess that if someone wants something so detrimental to their well being, they should be allowed it.
And I know about driving licenses etc. it just seemed that they were having problems with people damaging their cars all the time (which suggest that the people who drive them are muppets).
Accept my fate and die after I've lost my legs? I doubt it'd be a fatal accident (unless they took 'em off at the hips, then you're screwed), so how would you expect to be rescued if no-one knows where you are? I certainly don't want to die for the sake of not telling someone where I was, which is exactly what you would have done.
I take risks in my life. True, most times I have a safety net (but then that's just sense, not being a coward or not having courage). By your logic the Marines are cowards because they can call for extraction. Jesus.
Judging by the way you've written your reply, you're not too happy with people knowing what you do - opportunist theif? Paedophile? It sounds like you have something to hide.
True, the idea of privacy has its advantages (such as at home) but when you're out in the community it makes sense to relinquish just a little piece of 'privacy' for safety.
In this day and age, privacy is an illusion. It stopped existing the moment communications spread faster than we could. Even when you think you're not being tracked, you are. I'm no conspiracy theorist (in fact, I hate anyone who says they are :)) but if the government wants to know where we are, they will find out, whether we know it or not.
What I'm saying is (if they did it in the uk), that the car rental place is making up its own laws and subjecting people who use their cars to them, which is wholly illegal and very unethical.
Well, why do you object to people knowing where you are? I don't care at all. I know a lot of other people don't care at all. 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.
If someone demands privacy and has nothing to hide, how does everyone else know that? It's an old concept - it dates back to vikings, who would open their palms to each other, demonstrating they had no weapons. This became the hand-shake. If you have nothing to hide, then hide nothing.
I couldn't give a rats ass if someone sends me junk-mail. Doesn't cost me anything. All I have to do is put it in the bin. Once in a while their marketing machine does the right thing and actually sends me something I might be interested in, which is fine by me.
As for children's information being available on the net - why are you letting your children on the net unsupervised in the first place? You seem to be combining a whole load of ideas into one. First, we have laws which don't allow children to post their info on websites. Then we have the security of the server which hosts the information (which isn't there - see part 1). AND THEN you have the fact that children shouldn't use the net on their own. I think you're just being sensationalist.
I have no-one to fear. I'm not hiding away from anything. I don't care if my name and address is given to the police, MI5, MI6, NSA, CIA, Woolworths, anyone.
I don't get dressed standing in the middle of the road, but in my house, and yes - the curtains are closed (there is a $5 cover fee, though). The fact that the only time I close my curtains is when there is something to hide, only strengthens my point.
If you are stupid enough to put your details on the net, you deserve to get harassed. That must be one of the most stupid things to do ever. And as for not giving blood/breath samples when asked to by the police is a clear indication you have something to hide. If you're innocent, just give the bloody sample and stop being so childish.
Well, since the Russians are themselves European, that means there's a lot of people out there who really should learn to love their fellow countrymen.
Did the Japanese love the Americans in 1942? Unless your interpretation of love includes thousands of dead sailors floating around Hawaii and shitloads of battleships on fire, nope.
I had a raging case of tonsilitis the other week. I walked to my nearest walk-in centre (no appointment necessary) at 8:45PM. By 9:00PM I was out, after an examination, and a big ol' bottle of drugs to make me feel better. Not bad, considering it was free. No matter what anyone says about our NHS, it is cool.
The london underground would work a lot better if people stopped trying to point out interesting things and just got on with travelling. It's not Madame Tussauds.
Thank you for visiting please come again soon. ;)
Not meaning to sound horrible, but maybe if the parents of those children who die teach them how to cross the road properly, they wouldn't all die all the time. You can't just blame the drivers.
So what if they spam you? Don't you have better things to worry about than colourful coupons in your mailbox? Just because they sent you the coupon doesn't mean you have to use it. Use some of that decision-making prowess you talk about and decide not to use it, and go buy a coke. Unless the coupon's for coke, then go buy a pepsi. Unless that's what they want you to do, so go buy a Mr. Pibb.
If, however, you think that I've lead a sheltered existence, you're wrong. I'm politically active. I vote, I follow politics. But saying that, I don't take offence at every agency who knows where I am.
I'm not apathetic - I do care about privacy. Privacy is fine in your own home. As soon as you step out into the real world, you've just left your house and are now in THE COMMUNITY. The community is not something you own. It's something that you're a part of, and as a part you need to be accounted for. That's where your privacy has to be comprimised. Whether you know it or not, in the US you're being tracked. The US has the most vigorous consumer detail tracking system in the world, so all these citizens walking around, draped in the stars and stripes proclaiming their privacy from the highest hills are actually some of the citizens with the least amount of privacy in the world.
True, the UK is swamped with cameras and other tracking devices, but their access is limited to the emergency services, and the government. I know for a fact that the Government is not going to enter me in a mailshot for a £30 off MaxiLube 200gallon drums from CarWorld, so I don't care if they know. I don't care when I'm tracked my cameras on the street. If it's a private camera, then I'm on private property (and the owner has every right to know you're there, whether you like it or not). If it's a public camera, then the people behind it are looking out for me, which makes me feel a lot safer - they're not trying to sell me rogaine. Call that a mummy state if you want, but it's a safe state, which doesn't impose on its citizens' privacy unfairly.
And tyranny? You mean taxes? Way to go - building your country on ducking out of debts.
Pedestrians in the UK can walk wherever they want (we have no jay walking - and if you've seen London, you'll know why). Pedestrians are covered very well by our law. They are the most important things out there on the roads, and drivers take second fiddle to them.
Oh say can you see, by the dawn's early *Screeeeeech* *Smash* *MEDIIIC!!!*
In the UK, if you're captured on camera, you can ask the person who owns the camera to give you a copy of the footage you appear in, for a minimal charge (it's the law - they have to comply). That's the most sensible way to approach cameras. If someone wants to film you, you can ask to see what they filmed. The same with data held on computers - you can request the company who has data about you on its system to send you printouts of that data (again under law, and for a small charge).
What, exactly, are you trying to get away from? If the government want to track you down, chances are they've got a good excuse (not 'Sorry, sir, mind if we have a talk? How about them Lakers...'). 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. Maybe that's why you don't want the feds on your trail?
Americans are the most monitored. 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 ;)
Your paranoia that every tracking facility is open to any private business with cash to burn is slightly unfounded. Cameras on public property (over here, at least) are 100% commissioned by the government, for YOUR safety. They're not compiling a list of where you went, they're just filming everyone so that if something happened to you, they would be able to see who did it (something wrong with that?).
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).
Oh please, dear. For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint.
- Walter Sobchak
Indeed - you can say what you want, but be prepared for the backlash!
The cameras in the UK on public ground are not run by companies with an eye on collecting data, they just record what's happening on our streets, so we can see what happened when a crime is committed. I'm in favour of that, and anyone who isn't needs help. Seriously.
It seems in the US companies have access to a lot of information they really shouldn't. In the UK our information is strongly protected (Data Protection Act - only people with a legitimate use of your information can hold it, and only after you say it's ok), so we have little to fear. I get about 1 piece of junk mail through my door every week. I can live with that. I never run out of envelopes ;)
It's up to you how you choose to live your life, but not who watches.
Tikka.
Who cares if Rental car places know where you're going? It's not like that hurts you in any way whatsoever, while it gives the company extra security, so you don't go driving your car down to Tijuana to sell it for vicadin.
"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"
If you get killed by a train and are still around to sue the railroad than damn it, you *deserve* to win that lawsuit.
I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on T.V. But isn't there a Constitutional/Bill-o-Rights issue here of due justice that superscedes the rental companies policy ?
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
MY experience with digital speedometers is that they suck. I was driving a pontiac grand am with a digital dash when I was going to school at the University of Utah.. We were driving out to Wendover, Nevada. If anyone knows the route from A to B , its right across the salt flats - 80 miles of perfectly straight, perfectly flat road. Speed limit - 65.. I was going 85 (so the speedmeter said) thinking hell, 85 on this road a cop wouldnt even flinch... (did i mention there is no traffic and only 2 or 3 exits) Well next think I know there is a cop in a mustang 5.0 pulling a movie-style U-turn across the salt.. Pulls me over.. Procedes with the 'Do you know how fast you were going?' knowing that its important to be honest with the cops, I told him I was indeed going 85mph. He said.. 'Hmm.. come with me' and brings me to the cruiser to write my ticket. Shows me the radar unit... 113mph DAMN! I start shaking in my shoes, cuz here in Connecticut where I am from and live now, They just take out their gun and shoot you on site for speeds like that. The good part is that the ticket was only $55
Don't Tread on Me
Smith and Barber from WPLR 99.1FM Will be discussing this case live on air with Attorney Irv Pinskey.. you can stream the broadcast The interview is planned for 8:50am
Don't Tread on Me
Why do they bother? It would be easier and cheaper to deploy some guys accross the city wearing cop uniforms, aiming hairdryers at passing rented cars. I did it for years and saved many lives. I'm a hero.
"We kill to cure, with cures that kill" - Skinny Puppy
Didn't Acme make all of Wil E Coyote's neat gadgets? Is Roadrunner being tracked by GPS?
The problem is that you live in the land of retarded drivers. They're also way too polite. A four way stop requires a comittee meeting before somone actually figures it's his turn to go.
What has this got to do with this?
The erason why Linus is in USA is simple: his emplyer is there. That does NOT mean that he adores the american way of life and/or thinks it superior to all other ways of life. He just works there. I can think of several good reason why he would like to come back to Finland (I believe he's still finnish-citizen). Cheap hi-quality health-care, free education for his children, low crime-rate, high level of technology... But he's not coming back for now, because his workplace is in USA, it's as simple as that.
There are americans working for Nokia in Finland. Does that mean that they think finnish way of life is superior to american? I don't think so. They just work here, that's all.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
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
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
In california, (as my friends have been ticketed), and in Oregon, (as they touted it all over the news)...... It is illegal to wait in the intersection to make a left turn. You have to wait where you normally are stopped at a red light. HOWEVER the 6th ammendment to the US constitution says you have a right to face your accusor/witnesses. In a red-light/photo-radar camera situation, there is no witness, as you can't exactly subpoena the camera to testify against you, so if you plead not guilty, it almost always gets thrown out in court. Too bad many people don't know their rights :/
On some of the freeways here, they have police cars parked on the side of the freeway with an inflatable cop on the inside... You pretty much have to slow down when you pass it, because that car is there almost every day, but some days its an inflata-cop, and on other days its an actual cop.... grrr.... What that stupid thing ends up doing is: 1.) Cars slow down thinking its a real cop. 2.) They slow down too much, and make everyone behind them drive 45-50 3.) People on the otherside of the freeway start rubber-necking 4.) Traffic jam gridlocking both sides of the freeway. Speaking of traffic jams, I hate how people daze off when they drive, and forget to push the accelerator a little harder when the freeway goes up a slight incline, as they end up slowing everybody else behind them down to 35-45mph... It happens almost EVERY DAY!!! grrr.....
They have those on I-5 in california too! :) Too bad they are in Shasta though... They put em' in the middle of the twisties, with a big sign saying, "caution, curves ahead, slow to 50mph"
"Your speed is xxx"... They should put another sign below it, that flashes, "Hey idiot, look out!" One time I was driving through there at a gingerly 70mph, and a car blew by me... I saw the sign light up, saying "Your speed is 93mph".... A few moments later, I saw the guy upside down in the embankment... moron..... (Don't worry, I pulled over...)
In states where they have the "basic" rule.... If everybody is going 85 in a 65, and you are the sole driver going 65... YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW
You are an obsticle/traffic impediment. Law requires you to pull over, and let everyone pass. Besides, are you some sort of saint? I bet you never break any laws then do you?
They always post two speed signs... A minimum speed, and a maximum speed. surprisingly, the fine for violating the minimum speed is worse than violating the maximum speed. Though, usually if they deem it possible for you to drive between the two speeds. If there is a traffic jam or something, they'll go straight to the source, not the poor soles in the middle/back of the jam...
Most speedos these days ARE digital, even if they are analog. Meaning, they are no longer cable driven off the tranny. They are fed digital data from the engine PCM, and either display the data with numerical digits, or conventional methods... Also, since you have a Grand Am with digital speedo, which is not present on the current platform, or previous J-Body, you must have a pre-1992 grand am. As such, those grand ams have a fuel cut-off at 106mph, since they came with POS tires. Unless you had the HO Quad 4, but with how much racket that engine makes before it got balance shafts in 1995, the car will let you know you are going 113mph... Besides, Grand Ams didn't get magnetic coil power steering until 1995 in the GTs, so if you really were driving 113, you would've been struggling with the car.... More than likely the police cruiser's radar wasn't tuned correctly.... In my experience most of the time they aren't. Besides, he showed you the readout on his radar? That is illegal At least in Oregon, California, and Washington. It is illegal to store the readout. In fact it is illegal to even have a means to hold the readout in these states, because whats to stop the cop from nailing someone for going 90 in a 70, and then holding the readout, and pulling over some random innocent guy, and telling him he was going 90 as well? I've had the cruise control set on I-680 doing 72, and CHP gave me a ticket for going 89mph. He claims he clocked me at 85, and paced me, and saw me accelerating to 85. That liar.... I managed to get the thing thrown out tho on technicalities...
I'm not sure about your digital speedo, but I've seen some from that era, (not necessarily yours, but other makes/models), that simply flash 85 when you exceed 85. Something to do with the crazy laws the US had with speedos back in the 80s... Remember how EVERY car on the road had speedos that only go to 85, even Porsche/BMW/etc...
If there is no cop there to assess you the ticket was the law broken? (sound of a tree....) 6th ammendment guarantees your right to face your accussor/witnesses. If nobody was there to witness/accuse you of your "crime" than no "crime" took place. This is like trying to convict a murderer for which no body was discovered, and no witnesses to account for it, or accuse the murder. All they have is a picture of a dead person...
If your car is not built to go 180, I think it'll be a little difficult to get it up to 180 ;) I mean, I don't think many AMC gremlins will let you take her up to 180mph :p
And if you pull into the fast lane, and hold up traffic you are breaking the law... And if you slam on the brakes for tailgaters for no good reason then to "piss them off", you are breaking the law. Besides, what most people mean by speeding!=wrong, is this: Association != Causality. If I get drunk tonight, hop in my car, drive 70 in a 45, run a red light and kill somebody... Tomorrow everybody and their brother will be saying how speed was a factor, blah blah blah... What is really the cause of the accident? The fact that I was speeding? The fact that I was drunk? Or the fact that I ran a red light? Hey, 99.9999% of all people are clothed when they are involved in a fatal accident. Lets petition that wearing clothes should therefore be banned while operating a motor vehicle... This is the same with most cell-phone users... Just because they were on the phone doesn't mean that caused the accident... Morons will be morons, with or without a cell phone. I've seen drivers that look like they are looking at the road paying full attention, and yet they didn't know what the fsck they were doing. The real problem is that there are too many people on the roads that should've even have their licenses... Heck there are too many unlicenced drivers as well... If a moron doesn't know how to talk and drive at the same time, while still paying attention to the road, this is probably the same moron that swerves the car everytime they change radio stations, drops their cigarette in their lap and swerves, or wants to read the last page of the really good book while on the freeway, spill their cup of hot coffee all over themselves while pulling an illegal U-turn, or trying to put their lipstick on in the rearview mirrow and swerving in and out of their lane, etc etc etc....
Have you ever rented a car from Hertz? Their GPS receiver once told me I was driving 377mph for a brief instant... Shyeah, right.... If it were Acme, I'd probably be getting a second mortage on my house to pay for all the "blips"....
"This is Zombo Com, and welcome to you who have come to Zombo Com" - www.zombo.com
If you get caught speeding by a cop, you can go to court and fight it. From my experience, you won't win, because traffic court judges must get a cut of the ticket, but you can still fight it. In this case, how can you fight the Man? What if the reason you were speeding is because you were following the police escort, while taking your pregnant wife to the hospital because she is in labor? How are you supposed to fight the charge? Another point they had. "We alleged they have violated Connecticut law," the department's commissioner, James T. Fleming, said. "There is no legal ability for them to charge a penalty when there has been no damage." Isn't damage (a victim) necessary for the basis of common law? Arroooo...
I wonder how they're going to pay for this expensive GPS system now that they can't issue speeding tickets. Makes me wonder if they'll implement some other crazy scheme to get their ROI.
how many people they have employed to enter and validate the speed limits for every kilometer of each and every little (and big) road in the US?
Hmm... gotta come up with a decent
I live in California (across the Atlantic from Texas), and we also use MPH.
While we're on the subject...
Approaching a motorway exit on the north side of dublin, there are five speed limits signs. The order of them is as follows: 30-50-30-40-30. There are no other turnoffs in the interim.
These limits are enforced by speed cameras, meaning there's a dangerous speed restriction from a 50 zone down to 30... an accident waiting to happen.
Only in Ireland.
http://www.themeparks.ie
Provides valuable employment I'm sure!
Seriously though - why not do this with scarecrows? 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!
Of course that won't help with locals - but on country roads or whatever, it might do the trick. Though I fear that the cameras actually used are more effective.
http://www.themeparks.ie
Speed limits are the law, but they're silly. Let me give you a local example.
In Ireland, the national speed limit is 60MPH. This is for all zones where no speed limit is signposted - basically everywhere other than urban areas. The upshot is that it is fully legal to drive at 60MPH through twisty country roads - many of which have no lighting. It's also suicide. But it's legal.
Yet, on a motorway - a perfectly straight and wide road, it's illegal to drive faster than 70MPH. That's right folks, on a perfectly straight road, extra wide, and specially designed for higher speeds, you're only allowed drive 10MPH faster than you're allowed go on twisty country roads.
And what about weather? You're allowed drive at 60MPH through country roads that are covered in snow. What's that about? Anyone ever tried driving faster than 10MPH on snow who's lived to tell the tale?
http://www.themeparks.ie
As it happens, I don't.
But whether I do or not - my exact location at any given time is my business - nobody elses. This is the same reason I do not carry a mobile phone.
http://www.themeparks.ie
Now yes - I know that's their fault - but IMHO the key provisions of any contract, including something like this, should be very obvious.
http://www.themeparks.ie
I'm not Paranoid! I just value my privacy. There are virtues in being away from it all - being uncontactable, and having nobody know precisely where you are.
http://www.themeparks.ie
What about the situation where you're pulled over by the police for speeding in a rental car? According to this contract, you'd then be fined twice for the same offence!
http://www.themeparks.ie
I dunno... charging people extra for stopping at McDonalds wouldn't bother me :)
http://www.themeparks.ie
Hehe - now you're being extreme... I've never bothered sweeping the house for bugs, as I can't imagine anyone would bother.
:)
Besides, if I did hit a tree/fall off a cliff/blew up, it wouldn't make a great deal of difference if I had a GPS device etc, as I'd still be dead!
Privacy doesn't give you the ability to do things that others can't. It does, however, ensure that whatever you can do is your own business only.
http://www.themeparks.ie
...didn't someone just say that GPS wasn't accurate in a moving vehicle? By that account, how, precisely, can the GPS device be sure of the speed the motorist has been driving at? It could be wrong!
http://www.themeparks.ie
I'm not trying to claim there are no disadvantages to privacy. You're right, if a mutant racoon (or Slashdot reader) bit off my legs, it's entirely possible that I'd be stuck there if nobody knew where I was. Though even if I did have a GPS device, it's entirely possible that nobody would notice until I was dead anyway.
What I am saying is that if a person wants privacy (as I do), then they should be entitled to it (as near as possible anyway - being realistic, you're unlikely to get privacy in an urban area).
http://www.themeparks.ie
You can't rent a car if you don't have a full driving license - and many rental companies over here refuse to rent to anyone under the age of 25. You can't get a full driving license unless you've passed a driving test.
http://www.themeparks.ie
Though...
Is it not possible to activate tracking on a car remotely after a given time period? I remember reading something like this in a Tom Clancy novel...
I'd have no problem if the car was set up to start reporting its location beginning at the time when the car was expected to be returned to the rental agency.
http://www.themeparks.ie
http://www.themeparks.ie
Erm, I do?
Seriously - I personally value my privacy. The fact that you're parked outside an off license at 9:33am on Tuesday 3rd of July 2001 is absolutely none of their business.
http://www.themeparks.ie
Funny you should mention that...
...after all, a motorist was booked for doing 773kph....
http://www.themeparks.ie
This whole GPS/Speed Camera thing is just garbage. This is clearly just a way to generate revenue. It isn't a deterrent. It isn't protecting anyone.
So what is next? Detecting to make sure that your turn signal is on when changing lanes? How about detecting if you have your headlights on at dusk? Perhaps they can detect if you are using a wireless telephone while driving? The list is endless.
If these companies have the technology to detect 'dangerous driving' (very obscure and open-ended language) then why don't they just install a 'governor' on the throttle that won't permit you to go faster than the posted speed limit? First, its probably too costly. And second (most important), they don't get their money that way.
For many years, it has been a common tactic of most governments and law enforcement agencies to profit from the purported wrongdoing of its citizens. Most of these agencies actually BUDGET for these as necessary sources of income. Speeding tickets are probably one of the most idiotic examples of this.
If they really wanted to stop speeding, then they should make it mandatory for offenders to serve time in jail. If they really CARED that much, that is. But they don't... all they care about is the money.
I respect the rental company's wish to preserve the good condition of their cars, but it seems to me that they just want to fine people who are speeding because they can. Sure, someone who weaves in and out of traffic runs a greater risk of an accident, but how are they going to detect that?
This is similar to the NY cell-phone legislation, where they just pick on one thing that is the easiest to legislate, that if outlawed will be the silver bullet to make the roads safe for "the children."
This is not a matter of corporations making or enforcing laws. Here's the bottom line: a car company can do what they want with their property, and you can choose whether or not you want to do business with them. The rental company clearly spelled out how the gps system works and the fees associated with your speed in the rental contract. The customer must sign this contract to rent a car. The fact that speeding is against the law is immaterial; when you sign the contract you are accepting the terms of a private agreement with the rental company.
I don't know about you, but I read everything I sign before I sign it. I am aware that I am making a legal commitment when I sign my name. Personally, I am also unnerved by the notion of the rental company tracking my speed and location. My solution? Go to a different rental company. Or don't rent a car. Or buy your own car. Hell, you may even want to start your own rental place to get their unsatisfied customers. But don't try to sue the company about their policies when you already agreed to them!
The more you learn, the more you discover how ignorant you are.