Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AOL)   Next time someone tells you that governmental regulation of corporations isn't needed, show them this article. Of course the right will argue that the market would have self corrected after all their customers were dead   (autos.aol.com) divider line 80
    More: Sad, PT Cruiser, Enterprise Holdings, lame duck, David Strickland, car rentals  
•       •       •

13799 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Sep 2012 at 9:53 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-09-29 10:02:53 AM  
8 votes:
Anyone who argues that the market self-corrects is forgetting one very important factor.

In order for that to happen, you need an informed consumer base and such a thing only exists in theory.
2012-09-29 09:31:28 AM  
6 votes:

Krymson Tyde: FTA: It's taken two years for Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Chuck Schumer to get the majority of the rental car industry on board.

Can someone more learned in the ways of government than I explain why there is a need to get companies "on board" before they can pass common sence legislation?


To make sure they don't spend millions of dollars in campaign contributions lobbying against the common sense legislation.
2012-09-29 08:06:24 AM  
6 votes:
FTA: It's taken two years for Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Chuck Schumer to get the majority of the rental car industry on board.

Can someone more learned in the ways of government than I explain why there is a need to get companies "on board" before they can pass common sence legislation?
2012-09-29 12:59:28 PM  
5 votes:
Heres how the market should work

Rental company: Hello consumer, we have cars to rent, but they might not be safe because we don't have to fix recalled vehicles.
Consumer: Gosh, thanks for letting us know. I think I will rent from someone elss.
Rental company: Really? huh, well, I guess we will fix all the cars then.

Heres how it really works;

Rental company: Rent this car, its safe
consumer: U sure
Rental company: OK
Consumer: *Dies because of rental company greed*
Gov't: this is bullshiat, we need a law
Rental company: Consumers have spoken and don't want to die, we'll fix the cars. The system works!
Conservatives: Damn gubbermint
2012-09-29 11:00:49 AM  
5 votes:
Here's something no one else in this thread has noticed: As long as there are no regulations forcing ALL rental companies to have the same policy regarding recalled vehicles, any one company that voluntarily adopts a policy to not use recalled cars puts itself at an economic disadvantage to all the companies that do not. In other words, the market rewards those who put lives at risk and punishes those that do not. Even if they lose a lawsuit, the punishment will not cause them to change their behavior, because their insurance carrier will pay the bill for the lawsuit. That is why we need Federal regulations in a case like this.
2012-09-29 12:29:45 PM  
4 votes:
The difference beween what Ron Paul wants and what liberals want is that Ron paul wants the lawsuits from all the deaths to get companies to change. Liberals want to skip the deaths part and just make it illegal to kill your customers to begin with.
2012-09-29 10:50:06 AM  
4 votes:

cabbyman: Whiskey Pete: cabbyman: His statement explained his understanding of the policy: If a priority recall appears on the computer screen in the rental office, the employee is required to write the word "recall" on a Post-it note and place it on the key in an area designated for non-rentals, but nothing prevents an employee from renting that vehicle."

Well that system certainly sounds fool-proof and should rightfully overturn the lawsuit. No regulation needed here.

The point was that if she worked there and that sticker existed then she would have known that the car was due for a recall when she rented it to herself. That was not outside the realm of possibility.

Regardless the company admitted fault and paid $15 million so I'm guessing that either didn't happen or if it did happen it didn't absolve them of the responsibility.


AFTER FIVE YEARS.

And only because a government system was in place to allow the lawsuit and that a system was in place to look into the cause of the crash. The initial recall, of course, only being there because of government laws.

My peanut butter just got recalled for salmonella a few days ago so I'm getting a kick at people thinking the government shouldn't be involved in safety. I am glad they are.
2012-09-29 10:35:51 AM  
4 votes:

cabbyman: outlaw


See, this is why you fail. You had to jump from "regulate" to "outlaw" in order to proceed.

The industries for all those things are regulated, as is personal driving.
2012-09-29 10:06:54 AM  
4 votes:

MFAWG: I honestly cannot figure out why rental car companies would ignore recalls?


i47.tinypic.com
2012-09-29 02:22:41 PM  
3 votes:

grimlock1972: it sad we even need a law to get the rental car companies to do this,


Corporations will engage in dangerous practices as long as a cost benefit analysis shows that the dangerous practices are profitable. The lack of personal responsibility inherent in this arrangement leads to immoral and dangerous practices being deemed acceptable. When profit is the only motive, and is in fact the imperative by law, there must be regulation to protect consumers and citizens from corporate activity. Saying that the market will 'self-correct' does nothing to alleviate the damage that is done in the mean time. Without regulation there is no limit to the perfidity of free market capitalists.
2012-09-29 02:20:34 PM  
3 votes:

Amos Quito: FTA: "Consumer pressure "made us reconsider our position," said Laura Bryant, communications director for Enterprise. "We thought federal regulation and oversight was not needed ... The consumers told us they would be more comfortable with greater oversight."


I don't understand. Why do the companies fight against oversight and laws, if, as you say, the laws do nothing now, will do nothing in the future, and the companies will police themselves anyway? If the laws mean nothing to the company, then why wouldn't the companies just agree to begin with and not fight them? Why would they spend money to fight the law and lobby legislators? The answer is: they wouldn't. They fought the law for two years because they know the law will force them to put lives over money. Now, they've lost.

In any event, this is a win. If you believe the rental companies would voluntarily continue to not rent recalled vehicles absent the legislation as soon as the consumers got distracted, you are a fool. The legislation forces all rental companies going forward to compete on an equal basis, everyone is equally forbidden to rent out recalled vehicles. This is a win. That it took two years is an indication about how much the companies want to rent out recalled vehicles.
2012-09-29 01:22:43 PM  
3 votes:
"According to the Office of the Federal Register, in 1998, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the official listing of all regulations in effect, contained a total of 134,723 pages in 201 volumes that claimed 19 feet of shelf space. In 1970, the CFR totaled only 54,834 pages."


Wow you mean regulations for every different entity in a country with 300 million people and a 14 trillion dollar economy developed over two hundred years is complex?

That is farking amazing. Let's just write this shiat down on the back of a napkin because reading is scary.


Conservatives can never give specific examples. You always speak in generalized terms and when you are confronted with specific examples you say "Oh no I didn't mean that! I like that one!" The same goes for pretty much any other part of government.
2012-09-29 11:55:45 AM  
3 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: Just as much as the left believes the right wants to get rid of all regulations.


Explain then why the GOP members of the House are trying to get rid of the EPA, gut the clean water act, oppose any sort of labor regulation. Don't worry, we'll wait.
2012-09-29 11:27:27 AM  
3 votes:

Urbn: RyogaM: Cataholic: I'm not sure what an extra piece of legislation in this situation is going to do for us (other than allow its sponsors to pander to an unknowing public that they somehow made the world a safer place). Somebody died, so we overreact, name a bill after them, and pretend it's going to keep that from ever happening again. As it stands today, if you rent an unsafe vehicle to someone, you are going to get your ass sued off. The proposed bill doesn't add any criminal penalties, so I'm not sure where the extra deterrence is supposed to come from.

It puts all the companies on equal footing, so that the ones that allow renting recalled vehicles do not get an economic advantage over those that do not. It levels the playing field. Getting sued does not hurt nearly as much as you think. The companies are probably insured. If the insurance company gets pissy about paying off the claims and tries to raise rates, you can always go to another insurer. If you are self-insured, you've already taken these type of things into account. Enterprise has annual revenues of $14 Billion. I don't know what it's profits are. However, this ruling probably wouldn't even cause a blip in the account books.

Not to mention that the burden of proof is on the prosecution's side to prove that the recalled part or system in the car is what caused the accident/death. That's not always that easy and I'll bet the car companies' and their insurance companies' ample legal resources would result in most of these cases getting thrown out or jurors deciding they just can't say that the accident could have only been caused by the recalled component. There is very little downside to keeping potentially dangerous cars on the road for the car rental companies right now.


There is another aspect to this as well: The Non-Disclosure Agreement.

If you expect lawsuits and bad publicity to cause corporate bad actors to behave properly, the use of NDA's almost completely nullifies the good effects of bad publicity. If a company gets sued, and decides to settle, there will be a NDA that forbids all parties from discussing the suit, and it's outcome. NDAs make publicity of bad acts impossible because it is like those bad acts never happened at all.
2012-09-29 10:36:59 AM  
3 votes:

geek_mars: I'm no expert on commerce, the free market, capitalism, business, right wing ideology or government oversight, but wouldn't this:

Consumer pressure "made us reconsider our position," said Laura Bryant, communications director for Enterprise. "We thought federal regulation and oversight was not needed ... The consumers told us they would be more comfortable with greater oversight."

be a perfect example of the market self-correcting? The company made a decision, consumers responded and based on that response the company changed their policy.



Except the rental companies have the full freedom to reverse that ruling at any time (like when they cut back in a slow economy) and they probably won't tell anyone when they do change the policy. Big blockbuster headlines like two girls dying in a car crash will make a corporation say anything people want to hear. What they won't do is keep that promise 5 years later if they think they can get away with it. With a law in place if it happens again they're legally on the hook and they'll know it if they break the law the family of the next victim will have a much easier time in court.

Laws keep people honest after the headlines have died down.
2012-09-29 10:36:49 AM  
3 votes:

cabbyman: sprawl15: cabbyman: sprawl15: cabbyman: I'm not one who thinks wanton government regulation just for the sake of regulation is good.

I don't think that we should consider potentially lethal shenanigans nobody's business until after people are dying.

Well I'm sure that sentiment can't possibly lead anywhere bad, can it?

Nope.

OK so lets start the list of potentially lethal activities that the government should outlaw in order to protect us:

Bungee jumping
Skydiving
rock climbing
hot air balloning
football
driving

Any others?


Who's talking about outlawing? All we're saying is that they shouldn't be allowed to knowingly use defective equipment.
2012-09-29 10:17:10 AM  
3 votes:

geek_mars: Consumer pressure "made us reconsider our position," said Laura Bryant, communications director for Enterprise. "We thought federal regulation and oversight was not needed ... The consumers told us they would be more comfortable with greater oversight."

be a perfect example of the market self-correcting? The company made a decision, consumers responded and based on that response the company changed their policy.


yeah, except for the whole people being dead part.

Safety shouldn't be voluntary for these companies. If they could be trusted, it wouldn't have happened to begin with.
2012-09-29 10:15:51 AM  
3 votes:
2012-09-29 10:08:59 AM  
3 votes:
Take the number of vehicles in the field, (A), and multiply it by the probable rate of failure, (B), then multiply the result by the average out-of-court settlement, (C). A times B times C equals X.

3.bp.blogspot.com

Now, figure out the odds someone will experience this disaster while driving a U-Haul. The odds a poorly maintained, uninspected vehicle will result in blame coming to us is miniscuie, while maintaining the illusion that the vehicles are safe because "government will protect us". Yeah, government will step in the minute you start to mean something to them. Until then you are just a collection of numbers to be regulated and delegated.
2012-09-29 10:05:38 AM  
3 votes:
A corporation has one primary function: to increase shareholder value.
If the board and CEO lose focus they can be sued by the shareholders.
Any moral otherwise charitable action taken by a corporation is only allowable to the extent that building "good will" increases value.
The consumer advocates are effective by demonstrating that the profitable behavior creates "bad will" that reduces shareholder value.
2012-09-29 10:05:04 AM  
3 votes:
[edward-norton-fight-club-quote-about-calculus-of-death.txt]
2012-09-29 10:04:32 AM  
3 votes:

Whiskey Pete: cabbyman: So did the hose actually leak and cause the accident?

According to the article the steering wheel ran out of fluid.



No the article just says that the hose could leak. It doesn't say that it did or if that's what caused them to lose control. Unless I'm missing something...
2012-09-29 09:59:35 AM  
3 votes:
I honestly cannot figure out why rental car companies would ignore recalls?
2012-09-29 09:19:47 AM  
3 votes:
Chances of this getting through the Teabaggers in the House? I'll let you know after my date with Jessica Alba.
2012-09-29 12:10:34 PM  
2 votes:

advex101: "Consumer pressure "made us reconsider our position" is the same as a politician quitting to "spend more time with their family". Both show that the speaker knows which way the wind is blowing. Your PR department will always write the press release to say that your actions are to serve the customer better. That is, truthfully, what you are doing. Why you are doing it is because legislation is going forward that will make it look like the only reason you complied was because you feared enforcement actions. Spin is never a lie. It's your carefully crafted version of the truth


Also, without regulation, the policy remains in place just as long as the public is paying attention. Then, once the next season of Nanny Boo Boo comes out, the company quietly reverses itself, and chugs along like nothing ever happened, settling any new claims quietly, with a NDA, and more people end up dead.
2012-09-29 11:49:27 AM  
2 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: coco ebert: Do conservatives honestly believe that liberals LOVE regulation for its own sake? They don't see the whole, "we don't want people to die unnecessarily" aspect to it?

Just as much as the left believes the right wants to get rid of all regulations.


Oh, of course the right doesn't want to get rid of all regulations. Case in point: reproductive rights.
2012-09-29 11:05:44 AM  
2 votes:

MFAWG: cabbyman: WhoIsNotInMyKitchen: MFAWG: I honestly cannot figure out why rental car companies would ignore recalls?

Because being safe costs money and lowers the profit that goes to the noble job creators. (obvious)

Those girls that died probably weren't rich, so it's ok. there is nothing Romney could have done to help them anyways.

Recalls like that don't cost you money. I suppose it costs you time to take the car in but the company pays for the fix.

This. And they shuttle cars in and out of repair shops on a daily basis, so it makes absolutely no sense. Hell, get your in house techs certified and sign the repairs off that way.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.


Seriously. This is just laziness and lack of common sense, and ever more proof that companies can't be trusted to self-regulate. This is something a consumer never would have considered being a likely possibility because it's so stupid and negligent. It should not be up to the consumer to have to investigate every single company or service they use; we'd never get anything done. That's why we need regulation; so that we know where the baseline is and if there is something beyond that that is important to us, we only need to look into that issue.
2012-09-29 10:47:15 AM  
2 votes:

cabbyman: OK so lets start the list of potentially lethal activities that the government should outlaw in order to protect us:


war
2012-09-29 10:31:49 AM  
2 votes:

cabbyman: OK so lets start the list of potentially lethal activities that the government should outlaw in order to protect us:


So renting out vehicles with uncorrected recall problems that could cause an accident is the same as bungee jumping and skydiving?
2012-09-29 10:22:13 AM  
2 votes:

LarryDan43: Krymson Tyde: FTA: It's taken two years for Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Chuck Schumer to get the majority of the rental car industry on board.

Can someone more learned in the ways of government than I explain why there is a need to get companies "on board" before they can pass common sence legislation?

Need to get those board positions ready for the politicians that write the legislation.


Yup. The legislation will be some kind of toothless wonder, probably giving rental companies a time frame to get recalled vehicles fixed/out of production that is longer than the average useful lifespan of said car in the fleet. And then of course the rental companies will have to hire a bunch of "recall experts" who just so happen to be fresh off dealing with such issues in Washington.
2012-09-29 10:14:28 AM  
2 votes:

Snapper Carr: Anyone who argues that the market self-corrects is forgetting one very important factor.

In order for that to happen, you need an informed consumer base and such a thing only exists in theory.


It also assumes total transparency. If a company is lying or withholding information, it doesn't matter how informed a consumer is.
2012-09-29 10:06:41 AM  
2 votes:

MFAWG: I honestly cannot figure out why rental car companies would ignore recalls?


Having a recalled item fixed on a personal car means taking your car to the dealership and picking it up a couple of days later: minor inconvenience. I have no idea what the logistics of getting 1000 Corollas in a rental fleet recalled would mean. I'm sure it's a huge nightmare that involves losing lots of money which is exactly why they don't do unless forced to.
2012-10-01 09:36:28 AM  
1 votes:

Trance750: Not only is regulation needed, I'll go as far as to say CEOs should have to have White House Approval, before being named CEO


It actually works the opposite way.
2012-10-01 02:21:59 AM  
1 votes:

rewind2846: This is what the right needs to learn about those evil evil regulations:
1. Regulations are put in place because someone fu(ked up.
2. Stop fu(king up, and there is no need for regulations.
3. Profit

It's really really REALLY simple guys... if your corporation didn't pollute, there'd be no need for pollution regulations. If they didn't purposely expose their employees to hazardous working conditions, there'd be no need for OSHA regulations. If places that serve the public (like restaurants) made their facilities handicap accessible on their own, there'd be no need for the ADA. If car rental places didn't knowingly rent unsafe cars to people (post-it notes? really?), there'd be no need for regulations for renting cars.

Think of all the government agencies that would simply disappear for lack of purpose if there was less fu(king up by corporations, companies, businesses of all types.

If you're not fu(king up, regulations don't mean a thing to you. Regulations are for those who put profit ahead of the environment, profit ahead of safety, profit ahead of common sense, profit ahead of everything. Think about what's right, not just what's profitable... that's why Enterprise ended up shelling out $15 mil, and now has a bad rep that will take years to fix.


____________________________________

While you make good points - it isn't entirely true. There are lots of stupid regulations out there. Case in point - I manage a CVS. Here are some small examples.

Health inspector comes in and sees on our back wall of the sales floor some paper towel and/or toilet paper packages stacked up on the floor. They cannot touch the floor. Why? Doesn't matter why. Its a health code violation. Putting a 2 litter crate under them brings them a few inches off the ground thus solving the issue and everyone feels of so much safer.

On a subsequent visit, he finds we have some overstock toilet paper packages stored in the hallway leading to the bathroom. They ARE on 2 litter crates. VIOLATION. Why? Its not for ADA - this is the health department and our hallways is wide enough even with those packages in place(I measured).

Apparently you cannot have the toilet paper stored there at all. It "contributes to a less healthy environment for customers and employees" apparently. Keep in mind the other location I discussed is literally on the other side of a wall aka a few inches away. That is OK but this is not.

Seems to me that having it there means an emergency supply of toilet paper being available if it ran out within the bathroom. Running out of tp seems like an actual concern regarding health and cleanliness...

Something that is more recent - in Illinois now we must card people buying acetone. Yes you must be 18 to buy nail polish remover. Why? Its used in meth production. Good thing that all the people making meth are under the age of 18... this should FINALLY stop meth for good. LOL. The meth heads are probably stealing it anyhow rather than buying it. In the chance they could not buy it because of the ID issue - they definitely would take this step next.

There is lots of stuff like this. I think anyone involved in business has tales of this nature.

That said, I am pro-regulation. But more regulation is not always better. Less regulation likewise does not always help the free market function better. The key is SMART, EFFECTIVE regulations.

Another thing many people may not know - the Conservative lobbying organization knows as ALEC is responsible for a great many regulations being passed. Yeah you read that right. Turns out that large incumbent businesses LIKE burdensome regulation in certain cases. The prime case being regulations that are costly to implement initially - things the large established company can easily afford too and generally don't cost much as a matter on a matter of scale.

But those burdensome regulations make it VERY hard for new upstarts with less cash on hand and lower initial volume. In other words, they use regulations as an anti-competitive weapon... very effectively. They can't directly engage in anti-competitive practices without breaking laws... so they get politicians to do it for them via lobbying and campaign contributions(bribery is what it is). Suddenly... TADA! Its all legal that way.

As an added bonus - Conservatives can complain about more stifling regulations... that where passed thanks to Conservative efforts. Its a double win. That is the game, and more people need to know about it.
2012-09-30 06:31:57 AM  
1 votes:

rewind2846: Regulations are for those who put profit ahead of the environment, profit ahead of safety, profit ahead of common sense, profit ahead of everything.



Republicans.
2012-09-29 08:33:38 PM  
1 votes:
When someone on the right starts frothing at the mouth about free markets remind them that they ignore these same supposedly sacred beliefs when it's convenient. The war on drugs is nothing more than a bloated government agency built around an invasive and government empowering regulation that directly impedes a market transaction.
It of course seems t have their full support.

Hypnozombie
2012-09-29 07:53:11 PM  
1 votes:

cabbyman: So did the hose actually leak and cause the accident?


Hey, if they had bought the car, they don't have to obey the recall. I'm betting these two would be dead anyway. Renting a PT Cruiser? What? Idiots.

And losing power steering fluid doesn't cause loss of control, it just makes steering force harder. Brakes and steering always have a mechanical link even if there is hydraulic assist. This should be required knowledge to drive.
2012-09-29 03:32:38 PM  
1 votes:
Don't forget that deregulation is paired with tort reform in most cases, thus allowing corporations to kill you and get away with it scott free.
2012-09-29 03:28:52 PM  
1 votes:

cabbyman: sprawl15: cabbyman: sprawl15: cabbyman: I'm not one who thinks wanton government regulation just for the sake of regulation is good.

I don't think that we should consider potentially lethal shenanigans nobody's business until after people are dying.

Well I'm sure that sentiment can't possibly lead anywhere bad, can it?

Nope.

OK so lets start the list of potentially lethal activities that the government should outlaw in order to protect us:

Bungee jumping
Skydiving
rock climbing
hot air balloning
football
driving

Any others?


There's no need to outlaw any of them. What's needed is proper regulations so that when you, a consumer, choose to partake in those activities, you have some sense or reasonable regulations protecting you from frayed bungee cords, or cords that at far too long for the drop; or that the sky diving assistant is certified in knowing how to pack a parachute and how to properly harness it onto the body. Similarly, when you play football, you have some reasonable assumptions that the helmets are truthfully well crafted to actually protect the head to the degree it could (i.e., it shouldn't shatter upon first contact with another helmet).

We as citizens of a country can accept a level of risk. We can say, "yes, I like to drive from point A to point B on government engineered and paved roads, and I am willing to accept certain risks to do so." But we would expect that if such dangers don't manifest themselves, we shouldn't expect to die because the car was ill-designed to make the trip.
2012-09-29 03:08:56 PM  
1 votes:

Invisible Pedestrian: spongeboob: FuturePastNow: Not having a recalled car repaired was a dick move by the rental company.

However... she lost control of the car because the power steering failed? Someone should have gotten that chick a gym membership.

The car caught fire asshat.
The defect caused the car to catch fire and crash head-on into a tractor-trailer, killing both sisters.

That the fire was from a power steering hose leak seems to have little to do with it.

The thing is, at speed power steering doesn't do a hell of a whole lot. When you really need power steering is during low speed turns, you won't even notice it missing at highway speeds.

I've seen no evidence that the physical steering (minus the power assist) actually failed on the car. Maybe it filled with smoke and the driver crashed trying to pull over or simply freaked.

If this law were in place before this happened, would the outcome for Enterprise have been any different? This is more along the lines of a smart corporate policy to follow. The only thing the law adds is the ability for someone who is aware of a rental company renting out recalled cars to blow the whistle.

/have owned cars with manual steering


Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Here is a man who doesn't know the mechanics about which he speaks and, going solely off of the article's technical information, is willing to make a diagnosis contrary to that of the experts involved and even the company itself who admitted fault after five years of legal fighting.
2012-09-29 02:31:35 PM  
1 votes:

Amos Quito: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Fart_Machine: It's hillarious you're taking what the PR hack at a company says at face value.

I'm noticing a lot of that going around in this thread. Apparently a libertarian will believe you under any circumstances, as long as you say something Ayn Rand would agree with (before she became strung-out on pills and lived on welfare). Even the PR person for a corporation gets a pass.


What you're not getting is that they have been trying like hell to get this law passed for years with no luck, and the only reason it has a chance of passing now is because the rental industry has agreed to go along.

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/safety-advocates-rental-car-recalls-regu l ated/story?id=15754301#.UGcu11GQlMQ

If they had not gone along, they would have lobbied the whores you call congress to prevent the legislation, and they would have succeeded.

Money controls the controllers.


And, if the consumers stop paying attention, they will pay the legislators to get the law repealed. That is why you must have in place people who are willing to fight two years to get the law passed, and who will remain in office to make sure the law is not repealed when no one is looking. That is why you cannot elect people who's first instinct is always, "Deregulate, let the market decide!" That is why you need Democrats, because, even though they suck, the suck much less than the alternative.
2012-09-29 02:24:18 PM  
1 votes:

Krymson Tyde: FTA: It's taken two years for Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Chuck Schumer to get the majority of the rental car industry on board.

Can someone more learned in the ways of government than I explain why there is a need to get companies "on board" before they can pass common sence legislation?


Because they can't get anything past the House or the Senate filibuster.

Hell, those GOP assholes wouldn't pass legislation that was paid for to help veterans get jobs. You think they'd vote for something like this?
2012-09-29 02:17:24 PM  
1 votes:
I'm just laughing because "tenpoundsofcrap" is suddenly upset people are taking extreme positions and using straw man arguments.

Guess he takes his gimmick seriously and doesn't like to see other people try and steal it from him.....
2012-09-29 02:14:48 PM  
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: It's hillarious you're taking what the PR hack at a company says at face value.


I'm noticing a lot of that going around in this thread. Apparently a libertarian will believe you under any circumstances, as long as you say something Ayn Rand would agree with (before she became strung-out on pills and lived on welfare). Even the PR person for a corporation gets a pass.
2012-09-29 01:46:49 PM  
1 votes:

MyRandomName: shotglasss: How about a law that in situations like this, everyone on the Board of Directors is held personally liable?

The company was held responsible to the tune of 15 million dollars. The system worked. The company received a huge penalty and then the customers forced them to change policy. What do you want, indictment for murder? Do you realize that the head doesn't check every car that Enterprise owns? What a stupid idea.


Yes, the system worked perfectly except for everyone but the TWO DEAD PEOPLE.

/An indictment for voluntary manslaughter would be in order.
2012-09-29 01:46:39 PM  
1 votes:

max_pooper: MFAWG: I honestly cannot figure out why rental car companies would ignore recalls?

Having a recalled item fixed on a personal car means taking your car to the dealership and picking it up a couple of days later: minor inconvenience. I have no idea what the logistics of getting 1000 Corollas in a rental fleet recalled would mean. I'm sure it's a huge nightmare that involves losing lots of money which is exactly why they don't do unless forced to.


Charge the loss of usage to the manufacturer. That would also keep the manufacturers on their toes to minimize defects. If they can document the number of hours per week that the car is rented, then charge that amount to the car manufacturer.
2012-09-29 01:43:05 PM  
1 votes:
Enterprise rent a car kills two through negligence. $15 million paid to parents of dead girls. Nobody goes to jail.
Corporations are NOT people.
2012-09-29 01:29:12 PM  
1 votes:
If only we had one more regulation, nobody would ever die again...

Ah yes. The "we can't stop it all so we should do nothing." argument.

One of my favorites.
2012-09-29 01:26:31 PM  
1 votes:

Mettr: Recalls are performed for NO COST to the customer at the dealer


I think you're ignoring the cost of taking them out of service, even for a day. I schedule a rental for a mid-size sedan weeks in advance when I travel. When I get there, they give me one of the 20 Malibus they have in stock. If Chevy recalls the Malibus on the day of the flight, me and up to 19 other people with reservations for mid-size sedans have to get bumped into a different car. Hopefully they've got 20 extra cars, but their maintenance cost just went up to keep those on hand.

So, I'm not backing them up, just saying I understand why they would be reluctant.

I think it's funny that the rental cars themselves are pushing for the new laws in this case. They could just elect to do the right thing, but they're electing to ask the government to make them do the right thing instead. Probably because if there's a law that requires them to recall the cars, they get an insurance payout or other considerations when the situation I mentioned above happens. If they voluntarily do the right thing, they eat all the loss.
2012-09-29 01:23:01 PM  
1 votes:

MyRandomName: More people die from swimming pools every year than die from car companies not fixing recalls. Maybe the regulators should go after pool installers instead, they are a way greater threat to the America!!!!


If the pools that are killing people are defective and it is known that they are defective, yes, we absolutely should go after pool installers and/or pool manufacturers.

Seriously, is your point here that if a pool is known to be defective, a guy installs it anyway without warning you that it is defective, and it collapses and kills your children that the courts shouldn't be able to do anything?
2012-09-29 01:03:58 PM  
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: So renting out vehicles with uncorrected recall problems that could cause an accident is the same as bungee jumping and skydiving?


trusting your safety to a corporation is far more dangerous than bungee jumping or skydiving
2012-09-29 11:57:39 AM  
1 votes:

Invisible Pedestrian: spongeboob: FuturePastNow: Not having a recalled car repaired was a dick move by the rental company.

However... she lost control of the car because the power steering failed? Someone should have gotten that chick a gym membership.

The car caught fire asshat.
The defect caused the car to catch fire and crash head-on into a tractor-trailer, killing both sisters.

That the fire was from a power steering hose leak seems to have little to do with it.

The thing is, at speed power steering doesn't do a hell of a whole lot. When you really need power steering is during low speed turns, you won't even notice it missing at highway speeds.

I've seen no evidence that the physical steering (minus the power assist) actually failed on the car. Maybe it filled with smoke and the driver crashed trying to pull over or simply freaked.

If this law were in place before this happened, would the outcome for Enterprise have been any different? This is more along the lines of a smart corporate policy to follow. The only thing the law adds is the ability for someone who is aware of a rental company renting out recalled cars to blow the whistle.

/have owned cars with manual steering


Know how I know you don't know much about rack and pinion steering?
2012-09-29 11:53:21 AM  
1 votes:
"Consumer pressure "made us reconsider our position" is the same as a politician quitting to "spend more time with their family". Both show that the speaker knows which way the wind is blowing. Your PR department will always write the press release to say that your actions are to serve the customer better. That is, truthfully, what you are doing. Why you are doing it is because legislation is going forward that will make it look like the only reason you complied was because you feared enforcement actions. Spin is never a lie. It's your carefully crafted version of the truth
2012-09-29 11:44:07 AM  
1 votes:

Johnny Swank: Snapper Carr: Anyone who argues that the market self-corrects is forgetting one very important factor.

In order for that to happen, you need an informed consumer base and such a thing only exists in theory.

^ Motherfarking THIS ^ Libertarians are farking retarded to believe otherwise.


Yes, it is fairy-tale, crazy-town thinking to believe there are enough hours in anyone's day to spend working, maintaining a home and family, and then researching every single vendor, company, and service and comparing them to their competitors for every possible danger they may pose to you, your family, and your community.
2012-09-29 11:43:08 AM  
1 votes:
Meh, Capitalism is a great idea on paper but...
2012-09-29 11:32:13 AM  
1 votes:

coco ebert: Do conservatives honestly believe that liberals LOVE regulation for its own sake? They don't see the whole, "we don't want people to die unnecessarily" aspect to it?


As a liberal, I don't care to much about the people I don't know dying. I'm looking out for myself, my friends, my family. It is purely for selfish reasons that I don't want companies to rent recalled cars to the public. It might be someone I like that does the renting. Unfortunately, Republicans seem to not care enough about the people they like to even be that selfish.
2012-09-29 11:26:22 AM  
1 votes:
Do conservatives honestly believe that liberals LOVE regulation for its own sake? They don't see the whole, "we don't want people to die unnecessarily" aspect to it?
2012-09-29 11:21:29 AM  
1 votes:

RyogaM: Cataholic: I'm not sure what an extra piece of legislation in this situation is going to do for us (other than allow its sponsors to pander to an unknowing public that they somehow made the world a safer place). Somebody died, so we overreact, name a bill after them, and pretend it's going to keep that from ever happening again. As it stands today, if you rent an unsafe vehicle to someone, you are going to get your ass sued off. The proposed bill doesn't add any criminal penalties, so I'm not sure where the extra deterrence is supposed to come from.

It puts all the companies on equal footing, so that the ones that allow renting recalled vehicles do not get an economic advantage over those that do not. It levels the playing field. Getting sued does not hurt nearly as much as you think. The companies are probably insured. If the insurance company gets pissy about paying off the claims and tries to raise rates, you can always go to another insurer. If you are self-insured, you've already taken these type of things into account. Enterprise has annual revenues of $14 Billion. I don't know what it's profits are. However, this ruling probably wouldn't even cause a blip in the account books.


Not to mention that the burden of proof is on the prosecution's side to prove that the recalled part or system in the car is what caused the accident/death. That's not always that easy and I'll bet the car companies' and their insurance companies' ample legal resources would result in most of these cases getting thrown out or jurors deciding they just can't say that the accident could have only been caused by the recalled component. There is very little downside to keeping potentially dangerous cars on the road for the car rental companies right now.
2012-09-29 11:20:18 AM  
1 votes:
Also, if you think lawsuits are the way we should regulate the behavior of businesses, yet you also support laws limiting the amount juries can award in lawsuits, you are an asshat.
2012-09-29 11:16:08 AM  
1 votes:

Cataholic: I'm not sure what an extra piece of legislation in this situation is going to do for us (other than allow its sponsors to pander to an unknowing public that they somehow made the world a safer place). Somebody died, so we overreact, name a bill after them, and pretend it's going to keep that from ever happening again. As it stands today, if you rent an unsafe vehicle to someone, you are going to get your ass sued off. The proposed bill doesn't add any criminal penalties, so I'm not sure where the extra deterrence is supposed to come from.


It puts all the companies on equal footing, so that the ones that allow renting recalled vehicles do not get an economic advantage over those that do not. It levels the playing field. Getting sued does not hurt nearly as much as you think. The companies are probably insured. If the insurance company gets pissy about paying off the claims and tries to raise rates, you can always go to another insurer. If you are self-insured, you've already taken these type of things into account. Enterprise has annual revenues of $14 Billion. I don't know what it's profits are. However, this ruling probably wouldn't even cause a blip in the account books.
2012-09-29 11:12:52 AM  
1 votes:

Curious: cabbyman: So did the hose actually leak and cause the accident?

odd that wasn't cleared up in the article.

MFAWG: I honestly cannot figure out why rental car companies would ignore recalls?

because a lot of them are for petty shiat that have little effect on safety. NTSB website doesn't support or disprove that statement. in my limited experience some recalls would put drivable cars in the garage thus losing revenue.


No, recalls (an actual NTSB recall) are never for 'Petty shiat'. My experience isn't limitied either: 10 years in the aftermarket repair business and 5 as a dealership service writer.
2012-09-29 11:12:33 AM  
1 votes:

dfenstrate: I love how leftists argue for regulation in the abstract, as if there wasn't good regulation, bad regulation, destructive regulation, and frequent purchase of the regulators by the regulated- something the D's have all had hands in.
The strawman that Right-wingers want anarchy as the alternative to their suffocating, all-encompassing state is equally amusing.

Anyway, too bad about the girls. If only someone had taught them to leave Chrysler products on the lot, they'd still be alive today.

Oh hey, KrimsonTyde, those democrats have to get the rental car companies 'on board' first because they want to look like they're fighting for the consumer, while still raking in those campaign contributions and ensuring they get sinecures for their friends, family, and themselves after they retire from the senate.


What the fark is wrong with you?
2012-09-29 11:12:17 AM  
1 votes:

Curious: in my limited experience some recalls would put drivable cars in the garage thus losing revenue.


All cars are "drivable" until the steering fails and the engine bursts into flames. The whole purpose of a recall is to prevent a car from being undrivable before that happens.
2012-09-29 11:11:54 AM  
1 votes:

AnonAmbientLight: Ron Paul doesn't believe in government legislation.


No Republican does. If they had their way, we'd go back to the 1800s, where your boss/foreman could beat you up, if you asked for a raise or complained
Ant
2012-09-29 11:08:10 AM  
1 votes:

Whiskey Pete: I don't know about you but every twenty-something year old female I've ever met was capable of interpreting automotive service bulletins that describe potential mechanical failures.


Yeah! Stupid females. They're all so farking dumb. Am I right?

/I've met lots of twenty-something women who could interpret TSBs.
2012-09-29 11:05:50 AM  
1 votes:

Semi-Sane: The free market works just fine. If enough people got killed or injured in car accidents using certain rental companies it would ruin the companies' reputation(s) and people would go elsewhere.


If all the rental companies have the same policy, they will all have the same amount of death and injuries. No one company will raise the issue of the other companies having a bad safety record for fear that their own record on safety will be used against them. They will have a stale mate.
2012-09-29 11:03:35 AM  
1 votes:

Semi-Sane: The free market works just fine. If enough people got killed or injured in car accidents using certain rental companies it would ruin the companies' reputation(s) and people would go elsewhere.


The blood of the innocent lubricating the wheels of progress.
2012-09-29 10:53:41 AM  
1 votes:

FuturePastNow: However... she lost control of the car because the power steering failed?


Because all steering failed and the car burst into flames.
2012-09-29 10:51:43 AM  
1 votes:
Not having a recalled car repaired was a dick move by the rental company.

However... she lost control of the car because the power steering failed? Someone should have gotten that chick a gym membership.
2012-09-29 10:47:39 AM  
1 votes:

geek_mars: I'm no expert on commerce, the free market, capitalism, business, right wing ideology or government oversight, but wouldn't this:

Consumer pressure "made us reconsider our position," said Laura Bryant, communications director for Enterprise. "We thought federal regulation and oversight was not needed ... The consumers told us they would be more comfortable with greater oversight."

be a perfect example of the market self-correcting? The company made a decision, consumers responded and based on that response the company changed their policy.


Err, if you read the entire quote you selected, the company changed policy, and the consumers still told them they wanted more government oversight...so the market didn't self correct enough, and the government was asked to step in by customers. Seems like a perfect example of when the government should step in, and when the market fails to do enough.
2012-09-29 10:45:55 AM  
1 votes:

cabbyman: By outlawing it?


Hint: The only quote saying they want to outlaw something is yours.
2012-09-29 10:43:46 AM  
1 votes:

dfenstrate: The strawman that Right-wingers want anarchy as the alternative to their suffocating, all-encompassing state is equally amusing.


Conservative economists have argued that markets are fundamentally self regulating and require no government oversight. Of course, the instant they (TARP) do self harm (TARP) they drop all pretense (TARP) and those industries (TARP) demand taxpayer bailouts (TARP TOOBIGTOFAIL TARP).
It's a cheap, ridiculously embarrassing grift by individuals with extremely high financial self-interest hiding behind the flag of industry. Romney is their perfect figurehead.
2012-09-29 10:35:55 AM  
1 votes:

cabbyman: OK so lets start the list of potentially lethal activities that the government should outlaw in order to protect us:


All activities with known risk to which the participants consent. A risk that your car bursts into flames and kills everyone because the company doesn't want to repair recalled vehicles is not a consented risk.
2012-09-29 10:13:27 AM  
1 votes:
Best government money can buy.
2012-09-29 10:10:15 AM  
1 votes:
I'm no expert on commerce, the free market, capitalism, business, right wing ideology or government oversight, but wouldn't this:

Consumer pressure "made us reconsider our position," said Laura Bryant, communications director for Enterprise. "We thought federal regulation and oversight was not needed ... The consumers told us they would be more comfortable with greater oversight."

be a perfect example of the market self-correcting? The company made a decision, consumers responded and based on that response the company changed their policy.
2012-09-29 10:06:10 AM  
1 votes:

MFAWG: I honestly cannot figure out why rental car companies would ignore recalls?


Because being safe costs money and lowers the profit that goes to the noble job creators. (obvious)

Those girls that died probably weren't rich, so it's ok. there is nothing Romney could have done to help them anyways.
2012-09-29 10:02:28 AM  
1 votes:
"At some point, you realize that if this is what your customers want if your customers are dying, you need to deliver," she said.

FTFTFA
2012-09-29 10:00:38 AM  
1 votes:

Krymson Tyde: FTA: It's taken two years for Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Chuck Schumer to get the majority of the rental car industry on board.

Can someone more learned in the ways of government than I explain why there is a need to get companies "on board" before they can pass common sence legislation?


Need to get those board positions ready for the politicians that write the legislation.
2012-09-29 09:59:04 AM  
1 votes:
So did the hose actually leak and cause the accident?
2012-09-29 08:51:05 AM  
1 votes:
Show them that AOL News still exists?
 
Displayed 80 of 80 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report