Car rental GPS speeding fines illegal.

July 3, 2001 5:10 AM

Car rental GPS speeding fines illegal. As discussed earlier on MeFi. The state of Connecticut's Department of Consumer Protection has determined that "There is no legal ability for them to charge a penalty when there has been no damage." Win one for the little people.
posted by da5id (36 comments total)

I haven't commented on the previous thread but I'm with the car rental company, the guy sounds like an asshole, it's because of him people die every day. There is a reason why there are speed limits you know. What if they were to put them into all the cars? No need for basic traffic police would save billions, safer driving would save thousands and thousands of child and adult lives and would generally reduce stress in already erratic work days.
posted by tiaka at 5:57 AM on July 3, 2001

The issue was whether a large corporation could pocket fees from consumers, not just this one a*hole, but everybody.
posted by brucec at 6:00 AM on July 3, 2001

Tiaka...ever heard of an emergency, something as simple as really having to pee.

Of course I'm an asshole who can't stand going the speed limit, way too freakin slow; 75-80's about right.
posted by Mick at 6:09 AM on July 3, 2001

(in finest Nelson Muntz voice:) Hah-Ha!
posted by dong_resin at 6:25 AM on July 3, 2001

Speed doesn't kill. Bad driving does.

When you're driving at a higher speed, your reaction time is curtailed. A good number of people can handle this, and a number of people can not. Thus, we have speed limits. Speed limits are not, in my opinion, designed wholly for safety; they are also designed to make money for the police departments.

And make money it does. I think that the car rental company wanted a piece of the action. The ruling simply says that only government-sanctioned industries can make money off of people who drive quickly.

What if they were to put them into all the cars?

Maybe people would either stop driving cars, or reevaluate their transportation choices... and that might not be a bad thing, after all!
posted by hijinx at 6:31 AM on July 3, 2001

What if they were to put them into all the cars?

For starters, there's the minor issue that the government would be tracking your every move!!!
posted by jpoulos at 6:37 AM on July 3, 2001

I personally believe that there should be speed limits in 3 places: neighborhoods, school zones, and parking lots. Everything else should be fair game.
posted by fusinski at 6:46 AM on July 3, 2001

"in finest Nelson Muntz voice:) Hah-Ha!"

if you wanted to do nelson, dont mention his name, and put some phonetic throat into it.
(eHAh-haah) is the correct way, dong.

wiggam would have been more apporpriate.
posted by clavdivs at 7:12 AM on July 3, 2001

Mr. F, a reasonable zone for gun ranges, i hate speeding near gun ranges. and old folk homes, and hospitals, aw hell, lets just all get drunk.
posted by clavdivs at 7:15 AM on July 3, 2001

tiaka, get out of the left lane and I promise we'll stop bothering you.
posted by whuppy at 7:16 AM on July 3, 2001

how hard could it be disable to gps unit?
posted by panopticon at 7:31 AM on July 3, 2001

actually, probably not very hard... if you could find the antennae that is connected to it and somehow block or jam the transmission.

But if you can find the receiver (antenna) of the GPS and wrap a piece of tin foil around it, that would really mess up the reception and transmission of its signal.
posted by da5id at 7:58 AM on July 3, 2001

its a little black box, shouldn't be that difficult :-)

you'd need one of two things if you ever wanted to get it out ...

1. hammer
2. more hammer
posted by a11an at 8:00 AM on July 3, 2001

the department's commissioner, James T. Fleming, said. "There is no legal ability for them to charge a penalty when there has been no damage."

He means legal damage, right? I've never really understood speeding tickets. You're driving along on a desert road at 80 miles per hour, causing harm to no one, and you are breaking the law. Big Brother must really love me.
posted by drunkkeith at 8:13 AM on July 3, 2001

I think we've moved way too far towards "get 'um", philosophically, when it comes to speeding. To echo drunkkeith, I was once given a speeding ticket in the sticks of eastern Ohio, smack in the middle of nowhere. The only one at risk was myself. But what really kills me about it even now, it was 5 years ago, is that I was caught by airplane... yes AIRPLANE!. To me, that seems a little overboard. charging fines for speeding based on GPS systems seems even worse.
posted by srw12 at 8:31 AM on July 3, 2001

i still think it's really silly that people get angry at speeders (i'm talking about the max speed limit) b/c what do you expect??? you sell someone a car that goes 140mph and then fine them for using it. that's like selling someone a fully automatic rifle and arresting them for holding down the trigger. if the govn't/acme rent-a-car really and truly had any concern for our safety... they wouldn't sell us cars that go that fast and ultimately harm us.

hijinx/whuppy - i agree with you that "bad drivers" are the real problem, them and those f@#king people that drive slow in the left lane!!! --slower traffic keep right--
posted by ggggarret at 8:38 AM on July 3, 2001

> there should be speed limits in 3 places: neighborhoods,
> school zones, and parking lots. Everything else should
> be fair game.

All highways full of cars carrying families are going-to-school zones and coming-home-from-school zones and mothers-going-home-to-feed-the-kids zones and so on.

> When you're driving at a higher speed, your reaction
> time is curtailed. A good number of people can handle
> this, and a number of people can not.

You are, of course, one of those who can handle it. Everybody is. Just ask them.
posted by pracowity at 8:40 AM on July 3, 2001

You are, of course, one of those who can handle it. Everybody is. Just ask them.

The proof is in the pudding. Look at accident records, look at violations, look at (the current joke that is) driver education. Have I had speeding tickets? Yep. Have I been in accidents? Never due to speed, rather due to stupidity at low speeds (either on my part or the other person's). (You know what that means? Not speeding causes accidents!)

Really, in this instance, I am taking a very American approach to this argument and I'm not entirely sure why. If I can drive fast, and do it well, I should be able to. If I can't, I shouldn't. If I've proven that I can, it should be moot.
posted by hijinx at 9:03 AM on July 3, 2001

(in finest Wiggum voice)

"That's some nice reckless driving Mr. B!"
posted by o2b at 9:06 AM on July 3, 2001

If I've proven that I can, it should be moot.

The only trouble with that line of thinking, hijinx, is that the negative proof could cost someone their life. And just because you can handle speed on some occasions does not mean that you can handle it in all. Conditions change, your physicality changes, there are too many variables to say that anyone can definitively prove that they can manage unrestricted high speed driving.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind speed in and of itself, but there are enough problems and fatalities on the roads as it is. We don't need to add unfettered speed to the mix. People do it because they think that they're good enough, but the one time that they're not up to snuff can come at the cost of multiple human lives, and that's a price that's simply too high to pay. Leave earlier and drive slower -- it can't hurt anybody.
posted by Dreama at 9:20 AM on July 3, 2001

For that matter, why shouldn't we be allowed to drive on the left side of the road when we damned well feel like it?
posted by harmful at 9:35 AM on July 3, 2001

Dreama: The only trouble with that line of thinking, hijinx, is that the negative proof could cost someone their life.

Very good point. I think that's what was unsettling to me about my own stance on the issue.

For that matter, why shouldn't we be allowed to drive on the left side of the road when we damned well feel like it?

What's funny is that I was about to jump all over this and say, "Well, those are the rules of the road!" but... alas, that'd be kettle/black. The rules of the road can't be pick and choose.

Now then, does the car rental company have the right to collect cash for moving violations? I still say no.
posted by hijinx at 9:40 AM on July 3, 2001

hijink said: Have I had speeding tickets? Yep. Have I been in accidents? Never due to speed, rather due to stupidity at low speeds (either on my part or the other person's).

It's true. A majority of accidents are at lower speeds. Indeed, my three near-misses were all at below 15mph.. and were caused by people misreading my intentions. I have right of way, and I'm going straight ahead.. just because I'm going slow doesn't mean you can pull out into my right of way.

However, speed is a concern, even if less accidents happen at 80mph than at 10mph. An accident at high speed is far more likely to cause injury (or even death) than one at a lower speed.
posted by wackybrit at 9:47 AM on July 3, 2001

When the 55 mph speed limit was enacted, cars couldn't handle collisions. They weren't built to crumple; they were built like tanks and if you hit someone head on at 55, you were turned into jelly on the front windshield; all of the shock of the collision went directly into your body.

Today, with airbags and crumple zones and whatnot, it's not that big of an issue. Traffic regularly moves at 75 on freeways through downtown Portland; I can't remember the last time there was a traffic fatality on the Banfield Expressway - which is effectively a concrete canyon cut through the center of the city, with few stopping/shoulder zones and only two lanes in each direction in some areas.

If we want to make traffic laws, we should make enforceable traffic laws. I didn't notice the cop following me when I was going 10 over the limit on the way to work this AM; I pulled over into the center lane and he sped by me, with no lights on and obviously not in any official hurry. I should've pulled him over... [Dukes of Hazzard voice] "Citizen's Arrest! Citizen's Arrest!" 75 is a fine speed limit; a speed limit's supposed to be an upper range, not a 'suggested speed'.

The 'american attitude' that we're all mentioning here seems to me to be the way I often feel when I run up against the law... "Stop protecting me from myself, goddamnit!"

Now, how do we handle the people who can't drive 75? I think improved driver screening is the answer. In many metropolitan areas, there are 80 year old grandmas who can't drive their 1970 Chevelle any faster than 55, because they can't process information fast enough. That kind of driver should be screened out. They aren't now, because it's so easy to get a license. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a problem - not my attentive, reactive 75 miles per hour in the left lane.

As a side note, isn't there no speed limit on Germany's Autobahn? What's their collision/fatality rate?
posted by SpecialK at 11:45 AM on July 3, 2001

I have always thought that it should be significantly more difficult to get a driver's license than it currently is. Potential drivers should have to take a driving test that requires some driving skill to pass and not just the ability to make a 3 point turn in under three minutes. More training should be required, so there are fewer Rookie Drivers running around scared to even switch lanes on the highway. And people should be retested every few years. This way we could quantitatively determine who can "handle it." There would be fewer drivers (good for the environment) and all of the drivers would be reasonably skilled (good for insurance) and there would be less traffic (good for everyone). Who woud be against this plan? Mainly car manufacturers and highway contractors, and people who think that driving is a fundamental right. Also it means the DMV would have to get their shit together and be able to do something in less than three weeks, and that is unlikely to happen.
posted by donkeymon at 12:04 PM on July 3, 2001

Today, with airbags and crumple zones and whatnot, it's not that big of an issue.

You've never seen one of those special reports on Dateline NBC where they show the impact tests conducted by the national insurance coalition (or whatever the group is called) where everyday vehicles are broken in completely horrifying ways at 45 mph? Airbags and crumple zones and whatnot work nicely when the accident involves the entire front end of the vehicle connecting with another object. When the accident is offset at an angle, (which most accidents are, especially when the driver tries to avoid the collision by steering away from it) there are an awful lot of cars in which the result would be serious injury and/or death.
posted by Dreama at 1:28 PM on July 3, 2001

"Stop protecting me from myself, goddamnit!"

true, true. i think there's way the hell too much coddling going on in today's society (bring back the BigToy(tm) to our children's schools! all playgrounds need industrial strength medieval torture equipment!)

but then, the issue becomes: when is the law intended to protect others from you?
posted by fuzzygeek at 2:00 PM on July 3, 2001

I agree with Dreama. Even vehicles designed to withstand high speed impacts, such as NASCAR vehicles, still injure or kill people on a fairly regular basis. They are still not completely safe, although almost no expense is spared to make them safe. While making cars more crashproof is obviously an admirable goal, it cannot be counted on to make driving 100% safe.
posted by donkeymon at 2:01 PM on July 3, 2001

I think I should be able to go as fast as I can peddle. Damn the laws that say otherwise!

Oh, and I wouldn't mind it much if the price of gas reflected its actual cost (factoring in societal & ecological costs . . .)
posted by BoyWithFez at 3:57 PM on July 3, 2001

BoyWithFez, I agree... And there should also be a huge luxury tax on SUV's. That would definately make our highways more safe. I'm moving to a place where I can use public transportation as soon as I can. Won't be soon enough, though, it seems.

Dreama - NASCARs are travelling at 200mph. Your point? NASCARs are also designed with just a simple shock cage. They don't have crumple zones, they don't have stiffening points, and they don't have breakaway components, the way that most unibody cars on the road* have. Look to Indy CART racing for a better comparison - they regularly wreck cars while travelling at higher speeds, and the driver typically walks away.

* - This does not include light trucks and larger sport utility vehicles. These vehicles are built with body-on-a-frame method, and they do not crumple as well. Also, they're more likely to kill or severly damage whatevery they hit. With these vehicles, the occupents also have a higher chance of 'shock' injuries such as whiplash and internal injuries caused by seatbelt shock. You are worse off in a high speed collision with a large SUV, -not- safer.

The NBC sensationalist reporting shows tests where they crashed cars at certain angles where things do fail. Yes, if you ram into something at 45 miles per hour, it's going to be horrific as far as the way your car looks. However, they didn't show much of the interior of the car, did they? That's because cars are designed to break up horrifically. The cage around the passengers typically stays intact, with the exception of some cars that are poorly engineered (SUVs come to mind). Those just flip over and kill everyone.

Sorry to diss on SUVs, but I was cut off five times this morning on the 26 mile journey to work by SUVs that merged into my lane without looking. Yes, I do keep track. It's pitiful.

-----------------

Back on topic:

I think that they should have classes of drivers licenses. Class A would be able to drive whenever, however, and wherever they wanted. Class B would be able to drive with current laws. Clacc C would be restricted to daytime hours, right lane on freeways, and there would be stiff penalties for going over 55.
The obstacles and hoops you would have to go through to get a class A license would be... strenuous, to say the least. Class B would have requirements that are more stringent to today's, but similar. Class C would be for new drivers and old drivers who fail the class B test.
posted by SpecialK at 6:40 PM on July 3, 2001

NASCAR vehicles are built from production automobiles. The safety considerations available to NASCAR team engineers are necessarily limited somewhat by the cars' original design and constraints on how much the car may be altered. Formula racers are handbuilt piece by piece from scratch. Anyway, my point was that even the best drivers in the world in the most protected cars in the world cannot acheive 100% survivability during high-risk behavior.
posted by donkeymon at 8:12 PM on July 3, 2001

Nascar vehicles are about as close to production animals as a moustache is to my ass hair. They're both cars. That's about it.

They only look like production vehicles; the frames are completely disassembled and rebuilt from the ground up with aluminum tubing, etc.

Also, I can't acheive 100% survivability getting out of bed in the morning, so that's moot, too.
posted by SpecialK at 8:42 PM on July 3, 2001

I can't acheive 100% survivability getting out of bed in the morning

That's mighty pessimistic of you. You've done it flawlessly so far; why assume you won't be able to continue?
posted by kindall at 9:16 PM on July 3, 2001

> If I can drive fast, and do it well, I should be able to.
> If I can't, I shouldn't. If I've proven that I can, it should
> be moot.

I shoot at targets with a high-powered rifle from my Manhattan apartment to my buddy's apartment a few blocks away. We each put a solid target in one of our windows and we compete by shooting at each other's target. The targets catch all bullets safely. And because we're both experts, we never miss the targets, and we have never hurt anyone. We never will, either.

Well, I mean, that's what we used to do. The police told us that "playing with deadly weapons in a public place" is somehow wrong. When I get out, I'm going to fight that crazy law, damn it.

Or maybe I'll just move. Do you think I'd like living in your neighborhood?
posted by pracowity at 10:50 PM on July 3, 2001

I hate speeding laws. I have had 33 traffic citations in 12 years of driving. I have never been injured or caused anyone else's injury in an accident (except for two cows that I killed one night with a rented mazda 626). I drive fast, but I drive safe.

I have had three minor accidents in my life, and all three occurred when I was driving slower (under 10 mph) and was paying less attention.

Special K said: I should've pulled him over... [Dukes of Hazzard voice] "Citizen's Arrest! Citizen's Arrest!" 75 is a fine speed limit; a speed limit's supposed to be an upper range, not a 'suggested speed'.

I have pulled several police over (no joke) in Texas, and have complained about others. I was almost T-Boned by a police car running a red light through a blind intersection at night with no emergency lights or sirens.
posted by syzygy at 8:56 AM on July 4, 2001

No one will ever read this, but I just had to add Tom Tomorrow's two cents on this topic.

Classic!
posted by BoyWithFez at 10:41 PM on July 9, 2001