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."

Comments

Load car into cargo plane....

[ndege]

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."

:)
---

Radar Detectors, Laser Detectors, Now GPS Jammers

[cybrpnk]

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....

Interesting ruling...will it stick?

[COAngler]

I'd be interested to see the exact CT statute or case law that the Consumer Protection folks used to make their ruling. I'm not sure, but I know of a lot of states where Acme's actions would be perfectly legal, given adequate prior notice.

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.

Re:The clear problem

[edp]

"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.

The clear problem

[spellcheckur]

The way I see it, regardless of whether or not they "inform" renters, the problem with a rental car company charging (or any other company, for that matter) unilaterally fining consumers are twofold:

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.

...but nobody wants to shop where the merchant tries to get them in trouble using their product. I hope the publicity from this fiasco causes Acme significant losses

Oh, yeah IANAL.

Re:Social responsibility?

[GreyPoopon]

Here I was thinking that discouraging speeding was the right thing for a socially responsible company to do. Shows how much I know.

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
--

Scare 'em!

[Monkeychunks]

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.

Re:Social responsibility?

[Gaping Anus]

> 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.