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."
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."
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 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
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.
(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.
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....
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.
Its a sad day in this world when we try to defend illegal actions that put another persons property at risk. Furthermore its sad when we attempt to take away ways that the person has to protect thier own property.
The rental company should only have to put in thier contract the exact terms and if you want to rent that car you should be required to agree to those terms.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Sure, it's the responsible thing to do, but not likely the impetus of the rental company. More than likely, they saw it as a chance to lower their insurance rates or make some extra money. Most people in the US exceed the speed limit by at least a little.
The thing I'd be worried about are those situations where you're actually SAFER driving faster than the posted limit. This mostly happens on interstates, where other drivers are exceeding the limit by a considerable amount. Granted, what they are doing is illegal and dangerous. But if everybody else is doing 85 in a 65 mph zone, you had better speed up to at least 72 or so. The difference in speed between vehicles actually adds significantly to the danger. They even TEACH this now in defensive driving courses. It would hardly be fair to have to pay a fine for doing what I thought was a safer speed under the conditions. That's why it's better for the police to be involved. While they can legally pull the car driving 72, they're more likely to go after one of the faster cars ... unless of course the faster car is blue. :)
GreyPoopon
--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
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
I live in California (across the Atlantic from Texas), and we also use MPH.
> What happens if you've got the rental car on the German autobahn where there's no speed limit?
Well, that Connecticut company will probably report the car stolen.
Funny you should mention that...
...after all, a motorist was booked for doing 773kph....
http://www.themeparks.ie