Slashdot Mirror
Miss a Payment? Your Car Stops Running
HughPickens.com writes Auto loans to borrowers considered subprime, those with credit scores at or below 640, have spiked in the last five years with roughly 25 percent of all new auto loans made last year subprime, a volume of $145 billion in the first three months of this year. Now the NYT reports that before they can drive off the lot, many subprime borrowers must have their car outfitted with a so-called starter interrupt device, which allows lenders to remotely disable the ignition. By simply clicking a mouse or tapping a smartphone, lenders retain the ultimate control. Borrowers must stay current with their payments, or lose access to their vehicle and a leading device maker, PassTime of Littleton, Colo., says its technology has reduced late payments to roughly 7 percent from nearly 29 percent. "The devices are reshaping the dynamics of auto lending by making timely payments as vital to driving a car as gasoline."
Mary Bolender, who lives in Las Vegas, needed to get her daughter to an emergency room, but her 2005 Chrysler van would not start. Bolender was three days behind on her monthly car payment. Her lender remotely activated a device in her car's dashboard that prevented her car from starting. Before she could get back on the road, she had to pay more than $389, money she did not have that morning in March. "I felt absolutely helpless," said Bolender, a single mother who stopped working to care for her daughter. Some borrowers say their cars were disabled when they were only a few days behind on their payments, leaving them stranded in dangerous neighborhoods. Others said their cars were shut down while idling at stoplights. Some described how they could not take their children to school or to doctor's appointments. One woman in Nevada said her car was shut down while she was driving on the freeway. Attorney Robert Swearingen says there's an old common law principle that a lender can't "breach the peace" in a repossession. That means they can't put a person in harm's way. To Swearingen, that would mean "turning off a car in a bad neighborhood, or for a single female at night."
Mary Bolender, who lives in Las Vegas, needed to get her daughter to an emergency room, but her 2005 Chrysler van would not start. Bolender was three days behind on her monthly car payment. Her lender remotely activated a device in her car's dashboard that prevented her car from starting. Before she could get back on the road, she had to pay more than $389, money she did not have that morning in March. "I felt absolutely helpless," said Bolender, a single mother who stopped working to care for her daughter. Some borrowers say their cars were disabled when they were only a few days behind on their payments, leaving them stranded in dangerous neighborhoods. Others said their cars were shut down while idling at stoplights. Some described how they could not take their children to school or to doctor's appointments. One woman in Nevada said her car was shut down while she was driving on the freeway. Attorney Robert Swearingen says there's an old common law principle that a lender can't "breach the peace" in a repossession. That means they can't put a person in harm's way. To Swearingen, that would mean "turning off a car in a bad neighborhood, or for a single female at night."
I'm glad the finance companies found a way to make "be late on your payment, while you scrounge up money" a worse option for the poor than "let your family starve while you scrounge up money". :-/
>> turning off a car in a bad neighborhood
In other words, where they live?
There should be a visible counter. "Vehicle payment overdue. Ignition will be disabled in 72 hours 00 minutes..." That would solve most of these problems and make it fair.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
It's not your car until you pay for it. Until then, it's the bank's car.
I question why a single mom with no job has a $389 monthly payment instead of buying a 8 year old used car she could actually afford.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What makes a single male any safer in a dangerous neighborhood?
not really a solution. that $999 car will work, kinda, probably, maybe. or it could fail to start at any time because it is a car that you paid $999 for and it is almost certainly not what most people would consider 'reliable transportation.'
Bump the price up to around $4 or $5k, then you might have something reliable enough to count on for work, school, medical emergencies etc. But that is a much more difficult amount of money to scrape up for someone living paycheck to paycheck.
No it isn't. We made a relatively early decision in this country that debt slavery isn't acceptable, nor are debtors' prisons. We also decided you don't necessarily have full rights to your own money when you have an outstanding financial obligation, and that your wages can be legally garnished.
But we also have legal protections to insure that punitive and fiduciary measures don't create undue hardship. We have a pretty good system that does alright at balancing the risk-mitigating concerns of the creditor with the basic needs of the debtor, but in no way is failure to pay a debt actually illegal.
That fact doesn't even remotely justification the mindless advocation for it that the GP has. We don't need to have any Shylocks(and no, I'm not trying invoke the fact that he's Jewish) coming along for their pounds of flesh.
It is.
As is the use of debtor prisons.
the car doesn't belong to the driver, it belongs to whoever holds title.
THL phish sticks
How about we make it that much harder to be poor in the United States? What a place. If you think the banks don't run things in this country, just look at the way debtors and lenders are treated. Lenders must be made whole, even though they are charging a higher rate on these loans due to the added risk they are supposedly taking on. Debtors, well they better find a way to pay.
Reminds me of one of my favorite movies. "But now the guy's gotta come up with Paulie's money every week, no matter what. Business bad? "Fuck you, pay me." Oh, you had a fire? "Fuck you, pay me." Place got hit by lightning, huh? "Fuck you, pay me."
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
And if you're really in medical need, ambulances will come pick you up.
And if you can't afford the $390 car payment, you can afford the $750 ambulance fee?
"And if you're really in medical need, ambulances will come pick you up."
Costing you more of what you don't have.
That said, I think there's a place for something like this -- but it's being used in an over-bearing way. Set it so that when activated, it will not prevent the car from being started if the car has been not running for more than 8 hours. That will prevent freeway/stop sign activations.
Further, there should be some notice (not saying it wasn't in their loan agreement that they would have SIGNED). But there should be some mailing saying you are x days late -- on date y, you car will no longer start until you make your back-payments.
It would be interesting to see what the net effect of these devices is.
Did it just move a bunch of people from the category of "You can have a car loan and if you don't pay we will go through a long process to repossess your car." to "You can have a car loan but we can shut it off as soon as you miss a payment."
Or did it move people from the category of "You don't get a car loan at all." to "You can have a car loan but we can shut it off as soon as you miss a payment."
I suspect it's both but it would be interesting to know what happens in aggregate.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Far more cars have a dashboard indicator for fuel than for payment status.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This technology isn't new. An Austin car dealer a few years back had something similar where the buyer would pay weekly and punch a code on the receipt on a PINpad or else their car wouldn't start.
IIRC, A disgruntled ex-employee had a valid employee's password, logged on through that, and disabled all cars in the system out of malice, paid customers or not, having all their vehicle horns honk as well until the batteries died.
Not impressed with a system like this. Even after it is removed, the fact that it likely was installed by someone who just hacked and twisted wires at almost random may mean electrical issues down the line.
Yeah poor people, suck it up and call an ambulance. It's only a couple extra grand tacked on to your hospital bill anyway.
Wait, you mean this whole situation BEGAN with financial problems, and this would only compound the issue? Oh, I guess it isn't so easy as "call an ambulance" and "don't be a stereotype."
Typical capitalist stunt. I have a better idea. Don't lend to people with crap credit to begin with. People who got NINJA loans were a prime reason for the mortgage crisis. Have we learned nothing? People with crap or no credit need to be buying older, used cars until they can either build credit or make better income. Nowhere is it written people deserve nice, new, shiny cars. Everytime I see someone hurtling down the street in a brand new shiny car or truck I think they are likely up to their eyeballs in debt. My wife and I have said we will never, ever again buy a new car. It's not worh the aggro.
I am envious, thought, of those with the rock-solid Volvo 240D I see often in my area. I would love one of those. They run literally forever.
Just opt out from the credit system; it only exists to keep people on the hook, enriching others on the backs of the poor and ignorant.
Get rid, and stay rid of all debt. Destroy the credit cards; you don't need them and they will only screw you over. Use cash or debit, even checks, for all transactions. Start a habit of saving. After a year or two, you can buy a car using YOUR MONEY and be done with it. Live within your means; stop buying useless crap.
Opt out; they need you, but you DO NOT NEED THEM.
Right. They should simply not make loans to people who don't have good credit.
Actually, they should not make loans for *new cars* to people who do not have good credit. Somebody whose credit is bad does not have the financial competence to buy a new car unless they can come up with the money up front or otherwise show that their credit score doesn't reflect their ability to handle money.
There is no reason for someone with bad credit to pay for a new car. You pay such a premium on a new car that you are basically throwing money away--or trading gabs of money for time spent looking for a decent used car, which doesn't usually take that long. You cannot afford to throw money away if you have bad credit.
Financing a new car for someone who has bad credit is taking advantage of their financial problem in a way which can make their children starve.
I question why a single mom with no job has a $389 monthly payment instead of buying a 8 year old used car she could actually afford.
A 2006 Toyota Camry costs about $7,500 to $11,000 according to Kelley Blue Book via MSN. Buying an 8-year-old car on a 24-month payment plan would result in a payment amount of $9,336.
It would only be fair that if the bank doesn't process my deposit in a timely manner that I disable something of theirs.
I called it a mighty Sperm Whale, she called it Finding Nemo.
And even then there will be times when something breaks on that $5K car. Then you have to choose between making the payment to keep a broken car from not being shut down or missing the payment to fix the car so that it runs while risking it being shut down.
You're fucked either way.
And if you're late/miss your low end job too often then you're fired.
If it was supermarkets refusing to give food to poor people unless the poor people provided the supermarkets with money, you would not see articles implying that the supermarkets are somehow exploiting the poor in doing so. And we certainly wouldn't see complaints that the supermarkets are keeping them from feeding their children, like the complaints that the car companies are keeping them from taking their children to school.
In our world, that's what money is for. Someone who refuses to let you have something if you don't pay is not out of line, even if you are poor and don't have the money. We might believe that the poor should get assistance, but that assistance comes from society in general; it is not done by demanding that supermarkets/car companies give away their products for free. and implying that they are exploiting the poor if they don't.
There's probably a cheaper car out there somewhere that maybe they should have bought instead. People should not live outside their means.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
No it isn't. We made a relatively early decision in this country that debt slavery isn't acceptable, nor are debtors' prisons. We also decided you don't necessarily have full rights to your own money when you have an outstanding financial obligation, and that your wages can be legally garnished.
But we also have legal protections to insure that punitive and fiduciary measures don't create undue hardship. We have a pretty good system that does alright at balancing the risk-mitigating concerns of the creditor with the basic needs of the debtor, but in no way is failure to pay a debt actually illegal.
That fact doesn't even remotely justification the mindless advocation for it that the GP has. We don't need to have any Shylocks(and no, I'm not trying invoke the fact that he's Jewish) coming along for their pounds of flesh.
I understand your point and was mainly reacting to the poster's dickish opinion. But I do believe there are laws on the books requiring the payment of debt. You may not be arrested or go to jail, but there are legal consequences for not paying a debt.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
There's a difference between holding the title, and holding a lien on that title. The driver owns the car, but at the same time, the car is security for the lienholder, who can repossess it (take title) if the buyer defaults on the loan.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
In the absence of a government-protected monopoly, if all sellers' costs decrease, competition will drive the price down over time. Ideally this is as true of automobile finance as it is of any other good or service. Or to which monopoly are you referring?
earn money before spending it
But It takes money to make money. How should someone go about making his first money after a major life change?
No, this is what they tell you, but it's not the case. For example, in most US jurisdictions a tenant has privacy rights against a landlord, so "surprise inspections" aren't kosher.
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
It seems most of these issues with people being in dangerous or emergency situations because their car won't start could be easily solved thanks to 911. For the specific case of being in a bad neighborhood, if there isn't an immediate threat, call a taxi instead.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Ever been to a Turkish prison, Bobby?"
Because earning money without having a car to get to work is an option for 100% of the population.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Defaulting on a loan certainly is illegal - it is a breach of contract, something which is illegal under civil law. You seem to be conflating criminal and civil law.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Not, Attorney Robert Swearingen What a dream come true for the Ambulance Chasers...
This is very true. My mortgage is technically due on the first, but not considered late until after the fifth. For some reason my auto-draft occurs on the fifth, or prior business day.
Strange. I've owned a car (several of them, actually) for a couple of decades and I never made a payment other than the first one I used to buy the car. I've also never paid over $3000 for a car. Something about learning to maintain it yourself and not having much money. Also something about how true ownership beats the pants off someone else having control of my stuff.
Guess as you get paid more, you gather this strange belief that everyone does the same crazy dumb shit that you're doing.
Cars are cash items due to severe depreciation and high maintenance costs. Can't afford to buy it cash? Don't. If you have under $1000 cash (the minimum I find drivable cars selling for) the last thing you need are payments! And if you need it for a job, make sure you pay the car off within a month or two (there's plenty of $2000 jalopies you can pick up at the various fleece-me-blind no-credit car lots that should be priced at $1000 cash).
If you buy a used car, it will run into problems. If you go to a mechanic with even the smallest of problems, they will quote you $500. If you ignore the problem, it will get worse and worse until it is unsafe to drive or the car simply doesn't start at all.
Learning to maintain a car isn't that hard but you can't do it on your apartment parking lot.
I was 19 when I got my first car loan. I thought I was buying a modest car, but I was a punk kid just out of college and I had no clue that "modest" and "new" are mutually exclusive. Had no credit, payments were high, and I signed up for an open lease. The car dealership assured me that my internship was more than sufficient for cover the payments. Two-and-a-half years later I was much, much wiser, but still saddled with that money drain until they finally repo'd it. I swear, I think I made like 2 on-time payments the entire time I had it. Took me a while to get my credit back, so it was a harsh lesson learned.
This isn't 25 years ago. I just got rid of my 12 year old car that had a blue book value of ~$1000. It wasn't the prettiest thing, the trunk latch needed a bit of fiddling to get to open as the spring in the external latch handle was worn out, it leaked oil (slowly, about a liter per month) and it had a few other minor issues with it, and someone had backed into the driver's side door in a parking lot, leaving a dent about the size of a dinner plate. I traded it in, but if I sold it privately I realistically would have gotten about $700-$800 for it on the open market based on comparables for sale in the paper and on Craigslist at the time.
The reason I got rid of it wasn't that it was unsafe or it wouldn't start or run, it was that to bring it back to 100% would cost a couple of thousand dollars that I figured would be better spent getting something newer and fancier that I can afford to do. It was still mechanically sound aside from the small oil leak and pretty much the most dependable car I've ever owned. If selling it privately wasn't such a hassle, I would have been happy to see it go to some college student or other person who needed good basic transportation for not too much money.
There are lots of cars in the $1000-$2000 range these days that are sound and dependable, their only sins are that they are old and cosmetically challenged.
It's not that far fetched.
Many of the cases in this article were people borrowing money on very old vehicles. Having a high-interest car loan on a 10+ year old car is very foolish. Lenders need the protection of this device because the asset being secured is worth so little.
No, lenders need to make responsible loans.
This falls in the "I want to make high interest loans to people who can't afford them because I'm a greedy prick, but I want thumb screws on those schmucks to make them pay."
How about jiust turning away those customers who can't afford the loans?
To improve safety, insurers should jump on the self-driving car movement and instead of shutting the car down, simply re-program it to drive to the nearest used car dealer. Instant cash for the lucky (previous) owner! Savvy used car dealers will have a used bike section to equip the newly carless pedestrian.
Twenda Learning: Educational Apps that Engage.
This indignity is a symptom of a larger issue - hardships that have to be endured by poor. We should be asking how we can make sure they can afford transportation instead of getting outraged at sausage-making that is going on at the "no credit" used car lots. Perhaps we could invest into better public transportation and affordable housing in proximity to transportation hubs?
With that said, the choices here are likely a) much more expensive cars for at-risk debtors due to significant risk premium b) this indignity of being subjected to such devices and much lower costs. I am sure both options are available at the same time.
The dealer will buy a car at auction for $2000, then offer it for sale for $5000 but you HAVE to finance it through them. They will NOT let you pay cash.
They take advantage of the fact that there are a large group of people out there that are employed at low wage jobs who need a car to get to and from work.
They take $500 or $1000 down, or more if possible. Once you make a few payments, the dealer's initial cost for the vehicle is paid and if you don't make the payment, they repo the car and sell it to someone else for the same amount, financing the deal again.
These dealers can sell the same car over and over again without having to buy new inventory.
I like microcars
Yeah, a person who can't afford $200 for a car payment is going to call for an ambulance ride to the tune of $4,000 or more.
Do you advise them to eat cake too?
"Being days past the "due date" does not make you late."
Well, paying before the due date makes you "on time," so for the common definition of late, they'd be late.
"Being 1 billing cycle past the due date makes you late, in most states, and under Federal lending laws."
citation? I suspect there's a different term
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Debt slavery is perfectly legal in the US as long as you call it 'alimony'.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
You are wrong. You may know whether you have paid or not, but the little computer telling your car not to start doesn't. There is a used car dealership in the Houston area well known for having these installed on their cars. They apparently have a high frequency of false positives. They always attribute it to problems with their database, but I suspect they just have lazy people doing their accounting.
We made a relatively early decision in this country that debt slavery isn't acceptable, nor are debtors' prisons.
That is made up for with default judgements and imprisonment for "Contempt of Court" in debt hearings.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Auto loans to borrowers considered subprime, those with credit scores at or below 640, have spiked in the last five years with roughly 25 percent of all new auto loans made last year subprime,
the rise of --and lets call it what it is, predatory lending -- in the auto industry is due to a number of factors. Auto purchases from first time buyers, millennials, are down by 30% and a number of millenials by age 18 simply never applied for a drivers license. The bump from cash-for-klunkers, while nice, hasnt been able to produce sustained profit increases for dealers in light of more efficient, less failure prone cars that see service less often. congressional calls for austerity and government shutdowns have reduced consumer confidence after a crushing economic recession. And finally, with american wages at an alltime low and the wealth gap ever expanding, its hard to imagine many dealers can resist the allure of a sales model that results in a more expensive vehicle that nets a longer period of recurring revenue for lending agencies that are basically wings of the automotive brand (Honda Financial Services for example)
The problem is systemic. industry practices like this dont emerge until the dregs have been drained and the market is contracting due to uncontrollable economic greed. outlaw these business practices and reform business related legislation in general to include more acceptance of a post-consumer capitalism that no longer expands inexorably
Good people go to bed earlier.
Ambulances don't make you pay up front. All medical fees are negotiable on the back side. Otherwise they'd require a deposit, retainer, or bond before a doctor looked at you.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Just opt out from the credit system
Without credit, how do you buy a roof to keep over your head? Cities tend to arrest people living in tents, and renting a house or apartment is borrowing.
After a year or two, you can buy a car using YOUR MONEY
So how do you commute to and from work without a car?
Learning anything is hard. If it was trivial to fix your cars, only rich would pay others to do it for them. Just like cutting grass or doing your laundry. Unfortunately, modern automobile is much more complex device than ether your laptop or smartphone, with mechanic, pneumatic, hydraulic, electrical systems interfacing in whichever way.
Is it possible to maintain your own car? Well, yes, but you have to be intelligent and motivated, something that highly correlates with high income and status that generally enables you to pay others to work on your car.
How about people making the choice not to take out a high interest loan ? Same effect, but it doesn't involve waiting for the schmuck in the suit to get honest.
cars are luxuries for 99.9% of drivers
In a city that regularly has 36- to 60-hour scheduled public transit outages (source: fwcitilink.com), how else are people supposed to get to work and back or to the grocery and back?
I'm surprised these things haven't been hacked. My impression is that low income communities are often better than average at car repairs out of pure necessity and I would think a whole shadow industry would spring up, either outright disabling the devices or hacking them to the point where the "controller" couldn't tell that it wasn't working correctly (ie, installed and gathering data but unable to stop the car).
Even though I'd bet that the devices themselves are essentially bought outright by the people taking on these loans (and assumed to be obsolete or just unwanted once the loan had been satisfied), there seems to be a limit as to how complex they could be or how complex their installation could be, especially considering how complex modern cars are these days. It's almost impossible to replace your damn stereo on a lot of modern cars due to its integration.
I also wonder how many could be beat, even if it was only short term, by parking in underground or lower-level parking ramps where there is no cellular or GPS signal. I'm guessing they may auto-disable if they lose GPS or comms for some period of time.
No, they disable disabling of the disabler. You'd need to disable the disabler disabler disabler.
I didn't read the actual article though because I don't feel like filling out a dang survey to unlock it, but in regards to the summary..
Not sure if it could be classified as terrorism, but disabling someones car remotely without warning as it is driving down the freeway sounds like attempted gross vehicular manslaughter.
but you HAVE to finance it through them. They will NOT let you pay cash.
I thought the legal tender law required a creditor to accept cash as a repayment of debt. So take the loan and pay it off before any interest accrues.
Yes it is - it's just not criminal. That's why there's no debtor's prison, but you can still be sued in civil court for breech of contract, etc.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Ok, make them optional. As a consumer needing a car to get to work, would you choose the car with the
"$200 payment and 30% interest" or "$100 payment, 10% interest, and remote shutoff"
Unless you were blatantly planning on not paying your bill, you are going to choose the later.
In theory, a device like this would allow a company to sell cars with lower interest and lower payments than their competitors
therefore benefiting the people who have ruined their credits.
The only thing I might add is that they should get a 24 hour warning of the shutoff and the shutoff should happen at a specific time like 2am
but I think a device like this isn't necessarily a bad idea for people with zero credit and needs a car for work.
My last ambulance ride was completely involuntary, since my car was struck and rolled over. I even tried to turn them down but the EMTs and cops would not let me. It turns out I had absolutely no injuries what so ever past some small scrapes on my arm.
The bill was over $1,600 for the ambulance ride alone for something I did not want or require. What a fucking scam ambulance services are.
...but in no way is failure to pay a debt actually illegal.
I understand your point and was mainly reacting to the poster's dickish opinion. But I do believe there are laws on the books requiring the payment of debt. You may not be arrested or go to jail, but there are legal consequences for not paying a debt.
If you enter into a "legally binding contract" and don't fulfill your obligations under the terms of the contract, you're liable for civil action (but not criminal). The legal system will enforce private contracts, and all auto loans (the ones you get from a dealer that involve signing paper anyway) are accompanied by such a contract; so yes, there are legal consequences for not paying a debt, but indirectly and not because of some law that requires payment of debts.
Notably, there are ways out of the contract that may not require paying the debt: for instance, if you don't pay your car loan and the bank repossesses the car, you haven't broken a law even though you didn't pay the debt - the bank exercised its rights under the contract to take the car back if you don't pay. Normally, the bank won't sue you, unless you make repossession impossible.
(IANAL or creditor or loan-writer so I could be completely wrong)
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
The less money you pay for a car the more of a gamble you're taking.
You might find the car goes for years or the engine might explode off the lot.
Sure you get at least a bit of a warranty, but it ends quickly
Sounds like a Philip K. Dick story...
While I'm not saying we should take the word of the lenders without verification, neither should we take the word of the people who are on the receiving end. They may very well not be telling the whole story. Some people who have financial troubles have them because of their own choices, but they rarely admit it.
I had a roommate like that. He was an alcoholic who wouldn't admit it or deal with it. He continually made bad choices in his life, but would never admit anything was his fault. In terms of finance he never paid things when they came due, he didn't pay until he was forced to. It was "due" according to him when they were about to shut off his service, or the like. So he'd get mad about his cellphone getting shut down when he was "a day late" by which he really mean "45 days past the due date, over 30 days late, and had 2 threatening letters to disconnect."
So before you go jumping to the defense of the people in the article, you might want to see what the terms of something like this is. I don't know, and I'm not saying it isn't a "you have to pay by the second it is due or we shut it off," but it also might well be a normal "It is due on day X, late on day X+15, and we shut it off on day X+20," and the people involved have just decided that "X+20" is the day it is "due".
With regards to #2, where in the US if you call 911 do you not get an ambulance? They are not taxpayer funded, but they are required to take ALL calls. If there's a medical emergency, you'll get transport and treatment, even if you lack the means to pay. That is part of the problem with high healthcare costs (the costs of people who don't pay get rolled in to the people who do) and an excellent argument for universal healthcare at least for emergency treatment.
If you're making payments, it's not
car.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Maybe.
Part of the reason that many of us advocate against designing things to be deliberately insecure or deliberately unreliable, is that historically, computer people have had a staggeringly awful time trying to reliably get the conditions right, for exactly when things should be insecure and unreliable. By that I mean, if the lender can disable the car, then there are probably other parties (or dumb conditions) which might disable the car too.
Someone else in one of these threads mentioned an anecdote where just having the car out of range of a radio signal, was enough to trigger its deliberate unreliability.
And then this is also "bank security" which happens to have an appalling track record, so you'd expect that most common thieves and vandals should have access to the controls too. That's on top of typical Buttle/Tuttle screwups.
So.. if you're right that paying the bills causes the driver to have control of the car, then it makes sense. But most people are going to be sceptical about that. It's not normal for deliberately-unreliable things to work right (e.g. Blu-Ray players, HDCP, Cinavia, etc), and it's not normal for banks to secure computers well. The expectation is that control probably isn't solely in the borrower's hands.
Well, paying before the due date makes you "on time,"
Actually, paying before the due date makes you "early".
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Forced competition between even a handful of carriers - long considered oligopolistic - is driving down cell phone pricing plans considerably.
The USA has some of the highest cell phone costs in the developed world.
Let me rephrase: The cellular market in the United States is not yet at equilibrium. Competition is causing prices to become less "highest" over time and to gradually approach the more efficient price seen in other countries.
Many people (numbers vary) stop paying because the car does not run and it is too expensive or not worth repairing. The problem is that many poor are taken advantage by paying $6,000 for a car that is not worth $2,000. The poor that need a car to get to their job do not often have the cash or knowledge to take the car to an independent mechanic to have it checked out before purchase. I have seen "low cost" dealerships try to sell cars with cracked blocks and bad transmissions. This device is a waste of money. What dealers need is device to find the car when it needs to be repossessed which has its own safety issues.
Price changes due to competition are not immediate. A bidding war for buyers may take months or years to play out. But if budget airlines like Spirit start eating the lunch of Delta and United, the big airlines will eventually end up with no choice but to reverse this price hike.
They are civil consequences not criminal.
A bit of electrical talent you could in fact circumvent their little device.
I own a 1500$ car for seven years now and the only time it's failed to start is after I've left the headlights on.
PassTime, the manufacturer of the ignition disabling device released a statement today stating, "Our new video linkages allow you to watch the driver as you disable their car. Now with 50% more Schedenfreude!"
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
So what you're saying is you don't understand the law, you're just speaking out of your behind. Ohh and I suspect that you suspect incorrectly.
2. It's quaint that you think there is universal ambulance service in the United States. There isn't.
Since the person in question lived in Las Vegas, not Smalltown USA, I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that an ambulance was a viable option in terms of availability. Since she had to get a predatory loan to get a car, it's also reasonable to assume that she has money problems and either didn't have insurance that would cover the cost of using it or covered very little of that cost. Saying she didn't want to pay the cost of an ambulance, and for those who don't know, this can easily be $1000 in the USA, is really a different argument than suggesting that she had no other choice because ambulance service didn't exist where she lived.
It's not an ownership issue. It's a safety and consumer protection issue. In general, this model of selling crippled products needs to be regulated. If it isn't, we'll be putting dimes in our toasters just to have breakfast.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
For safety reasons I don't think they should be able to disable a car while it's running. Worst case, it'll be delayed several hours (they have to stop for gas sooner or later).
Disabling a car without warning when the payment is three days late doesn't seem right. They should be required to give notice and wait a few days for the driver to arrange payment, work out glitches with their bank, etc.
Why not just pay cash for the car? I'll generalize and say that if you're paying car loans, you're doing it wrong.
There are edge cases, but pretty much anyone who can afford to qualify for a $250/month car loan can afford to find $500 to buy some junker that will probably last 3 months. After 3 months they'll be ahead $250. Again i'm generalizing, but my point remains.
For most people, most of the time, sucking it up and buying a cheap old car for cash will be cheaper for them than buying a car they can't afford. I define affording a car by "have the cash to pay for it", rather than by the seemingly more common definition of "could get a loan for it".
www.clarke.ca
I don't know how I feel abou this. If you don't put gass in your car it will also stop. Not putting gass in your car could result in you being stuck in traffic or stalled in a bad neighborhood. These people know their cars are going to stop. They are just trying to push the system and see how long they can drive before they lose the car. As long as it is 100% predictable that the car will stop starting after a given period then I am fine with this.
you actually think they will lower their rates.
I paid $1000 for my Jeep and while it looks like crap runs great and has been rock solid reliable, even when it is -35F outside. You can find reliable cheap vehicles but you have to sacrifice some things like looks. This does require knowing what you are looking at and being responsible which a lot of people don't want to do. You can also find a lot of $3k-$5k lemons as well. The 2 cheapest vehicles I purchased were $150 and $350 and the $150 one was reliable for 6 until it developed a fuel leak and the $350 one ran great for 4 years until one of the fuel pumps went out. In both cases I knew what I was getting and got far more use out of them than I thought I would. So even on the really cheap side of things there are reliable vehicles but you do need to know what you are getting your self into.
Time to offend someone
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...of these goddamn scumbag banks getting away with this kind of garbage...
When the debt collector comes a knockin', just keep the car running. If it works by preventing the car from starting, just don't turn it off. I'd imagine the extra cost in fuel you'd incur by constantly idling while parked is preferable to the hassle of having your car disabled and subsequently having to pay a fee to have it 're-enabled). Once you've made the (late) payment resume normal vehicle operation.
We are heading toward that good old English system of tipstaffs and sponging houses.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
To show the "Poor" that this impacts, visit youtube and look up some of the Repo Nut videos. Disclaimer, not associated with repo in any way. Found the videos enteratining and informative in the light of the repo industry.
What I found common to most repo's. Homes are upscale suburbs. Cars are NEW purchases, Homes are typically multi garage multi story homes. Hardly Poor that can't afford a used car.
Only a few of the repo's are in poor neighborhoods and at apartment complexes. I do understand some bias is due to the limited market sample size by the few repo people who post videos, so poor neighborhoods and lower repo rates will have repo men without video as a sideline so the sample and demographic may not paint the true picture.
The truth shall set you free!
I had to replace my junker daily driver a few years back, in the middle of the market crash when cash was tight all over, and gas was expensive as hell. I managed to buy a $2500 1990 Toyota Corolla that was in excellent shape inside and out with working A/C, from a regular Toyota dealership no less. I drove it for a year with no issues until I sold it for the same price to a young enlisted guy that needed some wheels. I would bet that it is still out there somewhere today provided it hasn't been wrecked in an accident. I only sold it because we had to buy a larger family vehicle and I then got the wifes newer Corolla.
I disagree with this line of thinking. People are not poor by choice. Almost always there is some underlying condition, sometimes outside the control of the individual. This underlying condition will also impact ability to help themselves.
Just consider how feasible would it be for a single mom juggling two minimum wage jobs to also find time, motivation, and capacity to learn how to fix the car. I am sure there are super-humans out there that could pull this off, but such people never stay poor for very long.
If only there was some sort of vehicle designed specifically for medical emergencies. Oh well.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
I really hate this thinking that there is something special about modern automobiles. The biggest differences between "old" and modern vehicles is modern ones have computers that either work or don't and have emission systems. When it comes to emission systems just replace them, and computers drastically simplify things since you aren't having to play around with a distributor and carburetor. Oil changes, spark plugs, most suspension work, belts (easier with the modern serpentine belt over the old multiple v-belts), hoses, filters, etc. are the same on modern vehicles as they are on old ones. Another benefit is modern vehicles with computers don't have tons of vacuum lines running all over the place that get dried out, leak, and make your car run like shit. From a maintenance and repair perspective even high end vehicles aren't special, the knowledge I gained repairing and maintaining my first vehicle ('85 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme) is still mostly applicable to my current one ('02 BMW 325i) with the only real differences being I don't have to fuck around with that shitty electronic carburetor the Olds had when it gets cold. I still have to do brakes, suspension work, plugs, oil, filters, etc but they are basically the same just in slightly different spots with different sized bolts and torque specs.
Time to offend someone
If you buy a used car, it will run into problems. If you go to a mechanic with even the smallest of problems, they will quote you $500
I think that you perhaps have a lot to learn about cars.
EVERY car has problems. They're mechanical things. Mechanical things break and wear out. If you're smart, and buy reliable things like Toyota Corollas, etc, they have very very few problems. If you're insistent on buying notoriously unreliable cars, then you're likely to have more problems. The idea that new cars are problem-free is absurd, and it's not likely that paying the huge new car price just to avoid paying potential mechanic's fees is a financially smart move, ever.
I don't know what kind of "mechanics" you go to, but I haven't had a +$500 repair in well over a decade. It sounds like you're A. buying bad cars and B. don't know enough about cars to know if a mechanic is ripping you off or not.
I don't respond to AC's.
Uh, no, those are caused by not showing up, and showing up and being an ass, respectively. Both of which are illegal because flouting the court system undermines the ability of the government to enforce the law.
Somebody will suffer harm and a law suit will be a block buster. One problem that it is not a repossession at all. It is a disabling or tampering. They are trying to skirt the repo laws and it will cost them big time. I doubt that even a contract that spells out the right to disable the vehicle would meet the law as too many third parties would be adversely effected.
$5000 ambulance ride, stellar solution for someone who already can't afford car payments!
No court has the right to compel me to come and prove my innocence. One that does deserves nothing but contempt. They are reversing the burden of proof. Granted they can do that, because they say they can, and they have guns to back it up. That is nothing but *might makes right*, the rule of man. My contempt for them knows no bounds.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
And this is what is wrong with the US medical system - in my country I can call an ambulance every day of the week for as long as I want and one would attend me each and every time at no charge to me at all. Of course the NHS would take legal action after a few weeks if the calls aren't justified, but they can't charge me or refuse to attend...
In no way has any person ever been thrown in jail for nonpayment of alimony Mr. MRA McLieYourAssOff.
A quick search says otherwise
http://www.weinsteinlawoffice....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
http://www.cobbcountydivorcela...
And in case you think those are all biased propaganda, here's a blurb from the wikipedia entry on alimony, parts bolded for your convenience:
"One who allows his or her alimony obligations to go into arrears, where there is an ability to pay, may be found in contempt of court and be sent to jail. Alimony obligations are not discharged as a result of the obligee filing bankruptcy. Ex-spouses who allow child-support obligations to go into arrears may have certain licenses seized, be found in contempt of court, and/or be sent to jail. Like alimony, child-support obligations are not discharged as a result of the obligee filing bankruptcy."
And on a related note, you could even be jailed and pay child support for a kid that isn't yours!
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/0...
Blaming capitalism is stupid. US govmint is so far in debt, below inflation returns it has to create thin air money (QE electronic counterfeit) to buy its own debt in the ruse of solvency. No legitimate lenders is lending Obama the trillion+ per year.
Capitalism is doing just what your bankrupt govmint wants, bad credit, cannot pay, no job, can't save, no problem, we have a loan for you in the modern debt fraud economy of corruption.
And dumb founded people wonder why the economy is lousy. Yet media, politicians and so called experts do not disclose the devaluation of US money to the rest of the world. Pull up a 10 year chart, compare the Chinese Yuan to USD, as USA, your being devalued for debt corruption, govmint fraud on currency, and losing value.
But mass denial of reality is nothign new.
Mary Bolender, who lives in Las Vegas, needed to get her daughter to an emergency room, but her 2005 Chrysler van would not start. Bolender was three days behind on her monthly car payment. Her lender remotely activated a device in her car's dashboard that prevented her car from starting. Before she could get back on the road, she had to pay more than $389, money she did not have that morning in March.
Okay, let me get this straight, she had a $389 monthly payment (though that probably included late charges) on a 9 year old vehicle? (Maybe it didn't happen this year, but if so, then why did it take over a year for this to become a story?) I'm sure she didn't get it new (when would have they installed the device?), but that's a pretty big chunk of dough for a 9 year old vehicle.
But we all know there's a reason for most people who have bad credit scores, and that's because for whatever reason, they can't resist spending all the money they get and then some, buying stuff on credit that they can't afford, the big TV, the big car, saving nothing, then it's all panic when they get behind on payments.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
But we also have legal protections to insure that punitive and fiduciary measures don't create undue hardship. We have a pretty good system that does alright at balancing the risk-mitigating concerns of the creditor with the basic needs of the debtor
Normally, I would agree with you, with the exception of Medical bills. A garnishment that takes1/3 of your net income for medical bills pretty damn close to an "undue hardship". I don't care who you are, when someone takes 1/3 of your income as the result of an incident you have no control over (unforeseen medical problem) there is something wrong with the system.
Yes, this is a personal experience. Yes, we had medical insurance ($3,500 individual deductible) and a company sponsored "Flex Spending" account ($1,000) and a steady job (Been there for 17 years). Too bad it's a 17 year job at Walmart, and pulling $2500 out of your ass for unforeseen medical issues isn't a trivial problem to solve. And contrary to popular belief, if you don't pay your medical bills they don't just magically become the hospital or insurance company's problem. They will come after you, and they will get their money.
And if you're really in medical need, ambulances will come pick you up.
Hmm, should I pay $300 to take my daughter to the hospital and subsequently have my car work for another month, or $600 for one ambulance ride? Hmmm....
They can't repossess the ride.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
I just would not do that. I've used public transportation and I've moved in order to be within walking distance of a crappy job because it was all I could get. I understand that isn't going to work for everyone. I'm just saying I would not do this.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
It ain't no joke... if you don't pay that note!!
Miss a payment and that fancy application code I built for your website that you run for a huge corporation stops working.... hmmmm.... if only I wasn't so damn ethical...
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
You don't need to "prove your innocence", dummy. There's a reason the plea is "not guilty." And a reason the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" is part of legal proceedings.
What's wrong here is that instead of "innocent until proven guilty" you want us to treat you as "innocent no matter what". I see no compelling reason to do that, and neither does the rest society. Which is why your contempt is punished.
There's an Instructable for that:
http://www.instructables.com/i...
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Why not? Some people have bad credit because of a divorce or some other one-time event. Why shouldn't they be able to get a car loan? What if they need a presentable car for work -- because they're a real estate agent or a delivery driver?
Despite the whining in the article, these devices give both the car buyer and the lender exactly what each of them wants. The car buyer wants to buy a car that she would otherwise not be able to buy. The lender wants to make a loan that would otherwise be too risky. Add the device, and both problems are solved.
Why did the people in the news story expect their cars to continue working when they weren't making their loan payments? Isn't there somewhere on the continuum of repeatedly making bad choices where we take a short break from endless sympathy and just tell people to grow up and do what an adult might do?
They'll be able to lower loan costs? Good luck with that. Trickle-down economics, much?
Smart buyers read the Notice to Borrowers Required by Federal Law (or foreign counterparts) before signing and tell the dealer in no uncertain terms, "I'll make you a deal: You can drop this prepayment penalty and sell me the car for $xxxx. Or you can keep it and the car." In any case, I don't see the point of a prepayment penalty because if the debtor prepays, the creditor has the money back to lend to someone else.
Just opt out from the credit system [...] Get rid, and stay rid of all debt [...] Use cash or debit, even checks, for all transactions
Without credit, how do you buy a roof to keep over your head?
Who the fuck buys a house with a credit card?
Where did I say "card"? I was replying to Rob_Bryerton's recommendation to live without credit at all, card or otherwise.
...from having your car repoed? Don't incur the debt if you can't afford the payments. Or talk to your lender if you need a few days extension. The real issue here is that too many people ignore the payment request instead of using communication to come to an equitable agreement.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Absolutely nothing's wrong with that. Except in some cases an old car can incur huge expenses - particularly in areas that have air quality inspections.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
if the payment is late the car should just lock the doors with the people inside and deliver them to the nearest debtors prison.
Did that help?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Far too many times this will be the claim. No matter what color the borrower and lender might be.
You sound like a flaming asshole, and finance companies that pull shit like this are likewise flaming assholes and should be prosecuted for any harm that comes to any person because of this practice. Do you work for these finance companies? You sure sound like it to me. Oh and by the way I'm not one of those people who run out on their debts, I pay all mine, so don't you even dare come at me with that. Get correct, mister.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
The GP is referring to the common provision in many rental agreements that specifically states you won't do vehicle repair on the property. They usually exempt changing flat tires. I ignored it and did all the work I wanted on my motorcycles, usually on summer weekends with a beer (literally a shadetree mechanic, did it underneath the shade of a tree). But I suspect they would have objected to serious work on a car.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Indeed. I live in Houston myself. I received a notice to vacate from my apartment leasing company for not paying rent. This was because while they took my check, deposited my check, and gave me a receipt for the check, they credited my check (with my name and address printed on the check, my apartment number also on the memo line, and my signature on the check) to someone else's ledger.
My girlfriend took the receipt (including a photocopy of the front of the check and the signature of their employee), the printout from my bank account showing the draft (including scans of the front and back of the check with their endorsement), a copy of the eviction notice, and a copy of the notice of amount due (because water is billed monthly besides the fixed rent) to the leasing office. They corrected my rent ledger, printed it out, and signed it. They also wrote an apology letter saying I was up to date and they were sorry for their mistake, and signed that.
Still, it took time out of my workday to get the paperwork together and emailed to my girlfriend. It took time out of her day, too. She was very upset until it was resolved. If an apartment complex can carelessly give a 3.5 year resident a notice to vacate in ten days posted on the door, I have no doubt a car dealership in the same town can push a button carelessly.
In Virginia, I forget if it was state or county law, but my local Autozone or Advance has a sign in their parking lot citing an ordnance prohibiting you from doing work on your vehicle.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Isn't that the entire point of Software As A Service?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Ok I get that the loan company perhaps shouldn't turn off the car randomly for a missed payment if it puts the driver at risk (for whatever reason). But I have to ask, how is this different from a car shutting down randomly when the driver missed a gas fillup? How is it different from a burner phone shutting down when the user misses adding minutes to the phone? If the user agreed to a high risk loan (or whatever they're calling it these days) they've agreed to what is essentially a "pay as you go" arrangement. You have to make a payment in order to continue driving, just as you have to continue to pay to put gas in the car, and you have to continue to buy minutes for your phone, or put more money in the account from which your debit card draws, or any other pay as you go scheme.
On the one hand, an argument could be made that turning off a car for nonpayment could be dangerous. (I happen to agree.) But on the other hand, it's essentially pay-as-go and works the same as any other pay-as-go scheme. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
They will be pilloried for not helping the poor, at best, or be brought up on charges of racism (equal opportunity lending) at worst (no matter how unfounded or what race the borrowers might actually be).
" Because fuck banks, we can get more votes from people who don't like paying bills and want free cars."
Well, this is Slashdot, so this is about right for lots of people here.
Big stink on that one.
It depends on the situation. In commercial agreements he sounds right. With a credit card for instance, the due date is when payment is due. If you pay after that, you are late and pay late fees and usually get hit with a new, higher interest rate (the default rate). No doubt about it.
There are other cases where you don't have to pay by the due date. I know property taxes are one.. there's a due date, then there's a date where interest begins accruing. When I look at my mortgage statement which shows when money is taken from escrow to pay property taxes, it's always by the interest-begins date, well past the due date. Health care bills are also often structured like this. The due date seems to be a mere suggestion, the other dates they list are the important ones.
Yeah, because to responsible people everything in life always happens as planned. Almost sounds like magical thinking to me.
Ezekiel 23:20
Part of TFS says it's a starter interlock and another says it interrupts the ignition system. Contrary to what some people think, these are two related and interconnected but very different things.
The starter system primes the ignition system with a solenoid and starter motor to bring the engine up from a non-running state and is not needed again until the engine has stopped and needs to be started again. The engine needs the ignition system for more than the initial startup. It's used to ignite the fuel/air mixture. The ignition system is needed the whole time the engine is running.
The NYT has this terrible sentence in TFA: "But before they can drive off the lot, many subprime borrowers like Ms. Bolender must have their car outfitted with a so-called starter interrupt device, which allows lenders to remotely disable the ignition." If they disable just the starter, that's different from disabling the ignition system. This is reporting of the sloppiest sort.
One of the device companies clearly states on their web site it is a starter interrupt device only [passtimeusa.com] and also that there is a 24-hour emergency driving feature in case there is an emergency.
What another company may be selling that's not listed in TFA beats me.
Did that help?
No. Too late.
OK, then
...Whoosh!!!
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Because we all know that if you can't afford your car payment, the ambulance fee ($900+) is going to be real fuckin easy to pay back.
Good, chivalry is as outdated as the time from which it sprang. These bizarre, gender-based rules of conduct have been long superseded by "don't be a fucking dick, jesus."
It's not a matter of females needing a male's protection. It's more a matter of females needing protection *from* males. It's not the woman's fault that men are a lot more likely to be violent dickbags, nor that men, specifically the violent dickbag ones, are a lot more likely to do awful things to a lone woman in a bad neighborhood than a lone man, given the choice.
I'm as much for the concept of gender-based chivalry dying as anyone, but he has a point with that one (to be fair, it's not fun being a single male at night in a bad neighborhood either, but I imagine it would be even less fun to be a woman.)
No but they will garnish your check.
Because it's not the easy, and with a little practice people can be very manipulative.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Or you don't like having a remote shut off.
These car lots are only interested in getting some initial money, repossessing, and then reselling. Some cars get sold 3-4 times a year.
It's in there BEST INTEREST to set people up for failure.
That is a big market failure people don't like to talk about.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Let's put this on private aircraft too. What could possibly go wrong?
Yeah, except that I get hired to write the code that other people sell as software as a service. I need to invent software as a service as a service services.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
No it isn't. We made a relatively early decision in this country that debt slavery isn't acceptable, nor are debtors' prisons. We also decided you don't necessarily have full rights to your own money when you have an outstanding financial obligation, and that your wages can be legally garnished.
But we also have legal protections to insure that punitive and fiduciary measures don't create undue hardship. We have a pretty good system that does alright at balancing the risk-mitigating concerns of the creditor with the basic needs of the debtor, but in no way is failure to pay a debt actually illegal.
That fact doesn't even remotely justification the mindless advocation for it that the GP has. We don't need to have any Shylocks(and no, I'm not trying invoke the fact that he's Jewish) coming along for their pounds of flesh.
I understand your point and was mainly reacting to the poster's dickish opinion. But I do believe there are laws on the books requiring the payment of debt. You may not be arrested or go to jail, but there are legal consequences for not paying a debt.
You absolutely will be arrested and go to jail when the debt is to the state.
Owe (or be told you owe) money to the IRS, to a court for child support, whatever.
Fail to pay.
Be ordered by a judge to pay up.
Fail to pay.
Be sent to jail by a judge for failing ti comply with the previous court order.
If you buy a used car, it will run into problems. If you go to a mechanic with even the smallest of problems, they will quote you $500. If you ignore the problem, it will get worse and worse until it is unsafe to drive or the car simply doesn't start at all.
You need to learn how to talk to mechanics.
It's easy to get simple problems fixed cheaply (in Australia, the land of high prices I might add) if you're polite, likeable even if you dont know what you're on about. A few months back I got a power steering belt replaced for $50 ($20 for the belt, $30 for 1/2 hours labour).
The key is to give the mechanic the information of what exactly went wrong. Symptoms, time, place, what you did and so forth. Like the rest of us, mechanics are magical beings that instantly know what went on from your vauge description of "car dont run right" so details people. Also give the mechanic a modicum of respect, after all you came to them for help. So shake his hand and dont look down on him just because he works with his hands.
That being said, I can do a lot of things myself such as replace brakes (pads, rotors and callipers) but still pay someone else to do it because 1. they're faster at it; 2. they're better at it and 3. It saves me some time. Back when I had more time (and a much cheaper 10 yr old Honda Civic) I would. Things like checking oil and fluid levels is a must for any car owner though, but sadly too many people rely on roadside assistance rather than checking the oil and coolant once a month.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
And still posters on /. try to justify these abominations. When will you people get it into your thick heads?
Remote kill switches are a BAD THING.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
The Scottsman Prodigy commercial ice machine has built in functionality to disable the ice machine if the leasing company isn't paid.
People move away from parents because there are no jobs in the industry for which they have trained in their parents' home town. For example, someone raised in Fort Wayne, Indiana, would probably have to move to Austin, Seattle, or Boston in order to enter the video game industry. Besides, the stereotype among Slashdot users is that continuing to live in one's parents' basement after graduation is shameful.
You don't need to "prove your innocence", dummy.
If I have to show up, that means I do. So, fuck that. But then again, I know that resisting will get me tagged as a terrorist. But if we're going to talk about "rights", then I have mine to ignore anybody, without consequence. Unjust regulations are completely contemptible. The fascist public disagrees, I can do nothing about that without the ability to neutralize their weapons. So, I accept we live in a *might makes right* world. That's the end of it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Yes, sweetheart, that's if you have the ability to pay. Which is contempt of court.
Non-payment due to lack of funds is very different than non payment because you're just some asshole.
#3 - "ignition interrupter" - that's what every device manufacturer says it does. I don't know how horribly it has to be mis-installed to get it to do something like kill the engine (or worse.)
#5 - it's not "repossession" as the purchaser still has possession of the vehicle. It's simply been rendered inoperable -- as per your contract -- as a not-so-subtle reminder to pay your bill. And the GPS in the gadget tells the repo man exactly where it is when you have legally defaulted. (instead of needing a dozen spotters running all over looking for it.)
Yes, there will always be some cases that might be a shame, but in most cases it's a great tool..
Personally I really don't believe the story of the system switching off the engine while driving.
But 3 days late on a payment is a bit soon IMHO for such a measure. But then again, it IS in the contract the person signed with the company..
And well, car not starting when she needed to go to the emergency room, what would she have done if it wasn't the system, but a real malfunction.. And wouldn't it have been cheaper to just call a cab if it really was an emergency (or an ambulance)..
Ofcourse people to which something like this happens always have a story.. Just pay the damn loan, you're in exactly the same position as when you wouldn't have a car at all..
So I don't have any sympathy for people like this, they knew what would happen if they didn't pay on time (but as I said, I think 3 days is a bit too soon, IMHO it should give a warning (from the first day) that within a week the car won't start if payment hasn't been received)..
There's a reason they have an 800+ credit score... they pay their debts. If missed payments become a chronic issue, then they won't have such a stellar score anymore. But they still won't have one of these gadgets in their car. (they'd have to fully default and execute a new loan contract to have it penciled in.)
I for one would like to thank this service with my life.
Due to this woman not being able to start her car there was one less highly emotionally compromised driver on the road. Because we all know when there's a medical emergency we will do whatever we can to follow all laws including speeding, overtaking, stopping at lights etc.
It's almost like there needs to be a service for getting people to an emergency centre quickly which can legally do the above things....
Indeed. Don't call an ambulance. Instead take your emotionally compromised self and jump in the drivers seat of 2T of metal, and make sure you get to the emergency room as quickly as possible.
Actually it is as easy as calling an ambulance. Or do you actually not care about the life of the person you are trying to get to the emergency room, or for that matter the lives of other people on the road?
Or...
Just let this possibility simmer, you can't actually be taken to court without a body of evidence in the first place, and you're dodging your real culpability by pretending that's the same as prosecuting poor-little-criminal-you for no reason.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They had the evidence. He refused to refute it. Judge determined there was no reason to conclude he wasn't guilty.
The end.
"evidence" is too easy to falsify. Eye witnesses are provably unreliable. You use statistics to determine guilt or innocence. You construct guilt out of suspicion, often politically, usually economically motivated. All this is might makes right, not by defect, but by design.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I was under the impression that substitution effects caused prices to be more elastic for a single firm than for the industry as a whole. If you have two firms selling something for $100 and a third selling substantially the same thing for $90, the third is going to draw customers away from the first two. I'm aware that Spirit's service is more "a la carte", so to speak, but that's like two firms selling a package for $100 and the third selling components for $60, $20, and $10.
While my ex-wife has the responsibilities of a child, the payment I make to her is 'alimony', not 'child support'. Nice reading comprehension, SJW.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
People do go to jail for missing payments on child support. Even if they lost their job and cannot make said payments.
Just to clarify, I was referring to alimony rather than child support.
But yes, I've seen men carted off for jail when unemployment was at its peak a few years ago and they couldn't pay.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
You might 'kan reed', but there's no evidence that you 'kan komprehend'.
Read the links the other poster provided, then toddle on off to your drum circle.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
I've changed out a turbo in an apartment parking lot. Granting it's not a motor swap, it's not a radiator ether.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Yea, it's going to be tough, fuel economy will go down considerably once late-payers leave their car running 24x7.
I think this now the level of argument called for:
u r dum.
Seriously, if not showing up in court was reason to dismiss charges, there would literally be no reason to go to court, ever, you stupid, dumb, moronic idiot.
In related news, Dante's "Inferno" placed the money lenders closer to the Devil Himself than murders. Ah, how the times have changed. Money, money, money!
The first link:
"a person commits a crime of the fourth degree if he willfully fails to provide support which he can provide and which he knows he is legally obliged to provide to a spouse, child or other dependent." (emphasis mine) - This doesn't describe any particular case or instance of this happening, just a review of the law.
Second link:
Again, "noting that Schochet could have filed a request for a separate hearing to analyze his ability to pay." For whatever reason, he did not - my guess is that he still had the ability to pay, with a bunch of money in his bank account, stocks held, etc. Portfolio managers tend to be the kind of person to have a bunch of assets.
Third link:
This is the same guy as in the second link, adding that his salary was $1M a year.
So yeah, you've cited one guy who decided not to get his ability to pay re-evaluated, and then went to jail because, on the books, he had the ability to pay. If he really couldn't pay, wouldn't he rather pursue that option than spend time in jail?
No, might makes right means, you don't fucking get a trial, off with your dipshitty head for impudence. You somehow have the audacity to claim that you turning down your carefully protected right to defend yourself from charges is some kind of infringement on your nutty libertarian douchebag fictional rights.
Good job on figuring out that reality means might makes right, but you suck at discerning the extent to which people are already looking out for injustices against you, and you're too damn lazy to even consider addressing it.
Worst citizen award for you. Can't even manage more than whiny slacktivism for your own interests.
Someone could freeze to death this winter.
Infants could bake in the sun....
Head out stop to put snow chains on try and restart the car...
The liability of this is murky. The local police just arrested a mailbox thief.
One payment missed by three days clearly lacks due diligence in communicating
with the driver.
Not all cars are driven by the person making the payments so this sort
of action does present some serious risk.... to people not in the loop
as it were.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
You win the gold star :-)
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Pay up deadbeats!
Comment removed based on user account deletion