Hertz - Hertz's Easy Money - Traffic Violations

I wanted to try Hertz since they always receive good reviews. I rented a car in the UK for one day to get from LGW to central London to visit some friends. Cost was around 19.10 GPB. On the way back to the airport, I was passed on both sides from a group of cars street racing. I saw the flashes from the speed camera and knew that I would mistakenly receive a violation. Sure enough a bill comes 2 weeks later from Hertz stating I was had a speeding violation. In the letter, a charge of 35.00 GBP (which is almost 2X more than my original rental) was charged to my CC. I tried to dispute this with Hertz but Hertz stated that due to increase in violation notices, Hertz cannot absorb the high costs associated with these notices. Furthermore I cannot dispute this violation because Hertz does not have a copy of the actual violation. So from what I see it, Hertz is charging me 35.00 GBP (almost $70.00) just to mail out a notice without any proof, or a chance to dispute the violation with the authorities. Has anyone recently been able to reverse this type of fee with Hertz? I did do a search in the forum and it seems Hertz is very strict in making this extra profit. Very easy money for Hertz.

? I did do a search in the forum and it seems Hertz is very strict in making this extra profit. Very easy money for Hertz.

I'm not sure this is 'extra profit'. I think Hertz is just charging you what the cost of the Violation was.

I would call Hertz, demand a copy of the violation and the ability to contest the violation.

I wanted to try Hertz since they always receive good reviews. I rented a car in the UK for one day to get from LGW to central London to visit some friends. Cost was around 19.10 GPB. On the way back to the airport, I was passed on both sides from a group of cars street racing. I saw the flashes from the speed camera and knew that I would mistakenly receive a violation. Sure enough a bill comes 2 weeks later from Hertz stating I was had a speeding violation. In the letter, a charge of 35.00 GBP (which is almost 2X more than my original rental) was charged to my CC. I tried to dispute this with Hertz but Hertz stated that due to increase in violation notices, Hertz cannot absorb the high costs associated with these notices. Furthermore I cannot dispute this violation because Hertz does not have a copy of the actual violation. So from what I see it, Hertz is charging me 35.00 GBP (almost $70.00) just to mail out a notice without any proof, or a chance to dispute the violation with the authorities. Has anyone recently been able to reverse this type of fee with Hertz? I did do a search in the forum and it seems Hertz is very strict in making this extra profit. Very easy money for Hertz.

Hertz isn't making any money from this. If anything it's subsidising the cost as an actual speeding ticket is £60.

See here for contesting the ticket;

http://www.wanadrive.co.uk/Speedcameras2.htm

From the message, it seems that I will be billed separately by the authorities for the violation and that Hertz was just informing me of a violation.

From the email:
"The administrative fee billed by Hertz is in addition to the cost of the infringement. Local authorities are required to bill the customer direct for costs associated with the fine issued."

Thanks for the information on how to contest the violation. Suppose I dispute the violation and win, will Hertz take off the fee?

Hertz will have had to inform the local authority who was driving and where they live in order to issue a ticket after going through their records to find out who was driving the car and at what time. It seems to me the administration fee is quite high, unless of course the local authority also imposes a fee on Hertz. Maybe Hertz will give you a breakdown of what the fee composes?

FWIW, now I see you're a non-UK citizen I doubt you'll ever see the fine.

The problem with Hertz's approach is Hertz pays the fine on your behalf and then send you a notice that they have charged your credit card for the amount of the fine and a service fee for having to bother with all the paper work.

This is the same for photo radar speeding, parking violations etc.

But unlike parking, where you get a notice on your car of the violation, with photo radar you do not know about the offense ahead of time. Hertz paying the fine has plead guilty to the offense. You no longer have any way to contest the alleged offense.

I would just dispute the charge with my CC company. Let HERTZ prove you should have to pay it.

Folow-Up
I received a notice from the Metropolitan Police requiring that I furnish within 28 days the information of the driver of the vehicle (again no picture of the actual violation). The letter states that the alleged offence is EXCESS SPEED (40 MPH LIMIT) of 46 MPH. At the bottom of the letter states that failure to respond to this form will render you liable to prosecution.

I guess the 35.00 GBP charged by Hertz is indeed a admin fee to inform me of a violation and to inform the Police of the renter's information. I still think the fee from Hertz is severe especially compared with my rental fee of 19.95 GBP.

What should I do with this letter? (Funny how there is an insufficient postage due of stamp on the envelope from the USPS) I doubt that they will prosecute someone in the US for a speeding ticket that is 6 MPH over the speed limit. Thanks

The British police cited you in MPH (not KPH)?

The British police cited you in MPH (not KPH)?

Yes, MPH. They also use gallon measurements sometimes (although different from a US gallon if I recall right). I know I was surprised that they were non-metric, as I thought the US was the only dinosaur in that regard.

What should I do with this letter? (Funny how there is an insufficient postage due of stamp on the envelope from the USPS) I doubt that they will prosecute someone in the US for a speeding ticket that is 6 MPH over the speed limit. Thanks

Letter? What letter? ;)

It's not just Hertz UK which charges an Admin Fee for processing (not paying!) infringements. The fee is there to cover their expenses in advising the authorities of your details.

Hertz Australia charges $A33.

Interesting situation though. Assuming the OP is correct and wasn't speeding, why should they pay to receive a fine that is later dismissed?

If your appearl is unsuccesful, As for whether to pay the speeding fine or not, it depends on a few things. Do you see yourself heading back to the UK? An unpaid speeding fine could eventually get recorded against your passport and lead to difficulties entering the country. Probably won't happen, but there's nothing stopping countries getting tighter on these kinds of things in the future.

Same issue if you're driving in the UK and pulled over by police. A check of your Intl license may show an unpaid fine from X years ago. You may be taking a detour to the police station to resolve the issue.

You used to be able to get away with unpaid tickets. I did for years.

These days, the computers hunt you down and -- sooner or later -- you have to pay the piper.

Sucks, but better to pay it and get it behind you.

Was the fine from The Man the 60 quid like USA_flyer mentions? Or was it higher?

As some point, you just have to decide how much time/effort it'll take you to fight the charge.

The Hertz fee would just flat-out p*ss me off :mad: , so I'd probably fight that one through my CC company.

As for the payment for the ticket itself....well, I'd be annoyed that their technology isn't good enough to catch the correct speeders, but I'd probably just pay 'em and be done with it. The last thing I would want is increasingly-nasty letters from the British cops, although with the unease every time I went through immigration at Heathrow. Probably nothing would ever come of it, but I'd always wonder... The peace of mind is worth the small amount of the fine itself.

Folow-Up
I received a notice from the Metropolitan Police requiring that I furnish within 28 days the information of the driver of the vehicle (again no picture of the actual violation). The letter states that the alleged offence is EXCESS SPEED (40 MPH LIMIT) of 46 MPH. At the bottom of the letter states that failure to respond to this form will render you liable to prosecution.

I guess the 35.00 GBP charged by Hertz is indeed a admin fee to inform me of a violation and to inform the Police of the renter's information. I still think the fee from Hertz is severe especially compared with my rental fee of 19.95 GBP.

What should I do with this letter? (Funny how there is an insufficient postage due of stamp on the envelope from the USPS) I doubt that they will prosecute someone in the US for a speeding ticket that is 6 MPH over the speed limit. Thanks


Ah.. this is different. I would dispute the charge from Hertz and write a letter to the Police denying any wrongdoing and asking them to send proof. Put the ball in thier court and see what happens.

How much was the ticket for?

I am not a lawyer, and I could be mistaken about this, but my understanding of the law is that at least in the U.S., the law says that I have the right to confront my accuser. Since much of U.S. law is based on U.K. common law, I wouldn't be surprised if U.K. law also affords one that right.

That said, my argument would be that I want the opportunity to confront my accuser. Perhaps there's a lawyer on this board who might be able to explain how they can get away with issuing a ticket based on a camera, since I obviously cannot "confront my accuser" - which is a camera.

I am not a lawyer, and I could be mistaken about this, but my understanding of the law is that at least in the U.S., the law says that I have the right to confront my accuser. Since much of U.S. law is based on U.K. common law, I wouldn't be surprised if U.K. law also affords one that right.

That said, my argument would be that I want the opportunity to confront my accuser. Perhaps there's a lawyer on this board who might be able to explain how they can get away with issuing a ticket based on a camera, since I obviously cannot "confront my accuser" - which is a camera.

this comes up a lot as more and more locations get photo radar and other traffic cameras. it varies on the judge, but most don't buy the confront your accuser claim. however, in the US you do have a right to review all the evidence against you which is basically a picture of you in your car.

some courts have thrown out tickets becasue they weren't clear of who the driver of the vehicle was or becasue the wrong driver was identified - the initial ticket generally goes to the registered owner who can then use their driver's license picture to provie it wasn't them, but courts sometimes see this as a procedural mistake since a police ofice giving the ticket would have identified and issued the ticket to the right person.

i'm not a lawyer, but i play one when i get photo radar tickets

Folow-Up
I received a notice from the Metropolitan Police requiring that I furnish within 28 days the information of the driver of the vehicle (again no picture of the actual violation). The letter states that the alleged offence is EXCESS SPEED (40 MPH LIMIT) of 46 MPH. At the bottom of the letter states that failure to respond to this form will render you liable to prosecution.

In the OP, you mentioned a group of cars street racing. But I'd guess they weren't traveling at just 6mph over the speed limit; what kind of racing is that?! So were you actually traveling at 46mph? That is, is the ticket legitimate (other than it's goofy to get a ticket for being only 6mph over the limit)?

If the ticket is legit, is it worth spending time/effort fighting the Metropolitan Police?

As for Hertz's fee.... I wonder if that's spelled out anywhere in the terms&conditions?

At a certain point, some might just hold their nose and pay up.... :(

The letter from the Police does not give a picture of the plate, only a plate number, a location, the violation, and the time. I am required to provide my DL information and other information that does not pertain to a US driver license. My name is spelled wrong, however since Hertz has my passport information, I did fill out the paperwork as much as I could and mailed it back to the UK (with proper postage). I also wrote on the letter that I am located in the USA and there is no way I can come to the London and contest the violation. I guess I will have to wait and see what happens.

I was told by friends from the UK that "boyracers" have a spray that they can spray on their license plates to hide their numbers from being captured from the cameras. They must have been going at least 70 to 80 MPH.

From the rental agreement, it did state that any violation MAY accure extra adm fees. I still stand by the fact a charge of $70.00 for adm fees on a $40.00 rental is a rip-off. $10 to $20 seems to be a more reasonable adm fee to look up someone's rental information and send two letters to the rental and the Police.

Bottom Line: When in London or the UK, take the public transportation :) . Any of the thousands of photo cameras in the UK could malfunction more than once and you have the potiental of a large fine from the Police and from Hertz, both which cannot be challenged or disputed. UK makes $3.2 Million every week from speed cameras.......wonder how much Hertz makes???

The letter from the Police does not give a picture of the plate, only a plate number, a location, the violation, and the time. I am required to provide my DL information and other information that does not pertain to a US driver license. My name is spelled wrong, however since Hertz has my passport information, I did fill out the paperwork as much as I could and mailed it back to the UK (with proper postage). I also wrote on the letter that I am located in the USA and there is no way I can come to the London and contest the violation. I guess I will have to wait and see what happens.

I was told by friends from the UK that "boyracers" have a spray that they can spray on their license plates to hide their numbers from being captured from the cameras. They must have been going at least 70 to 80 MPH.

From the rental agreement, it did state that any violation MAY accure extra adm fees. I still stand by the fact a charge of $70.00 for adm fees on a $40.00 rental is a rip-off. $10 to $20 seems to be a more reasonable adm fee to look up someone's rental information and send two letters to the rental and the Police.

Bottom Line: When in London or the UK, take the public transportation :) . Any of the thousands of photo cameras in the UK could malfunction more than once and you have the potiental of a large fine from the Police and from Hertz, both which cannot be challenged or disputed. UK makes $3.2 Million every week from speed cameras.......wonder how much Hertz makes???

Would a solution have been to decline to provide Hertz your Passport info? I don't see 1) what it has to do with renting a car, since you already have a driver's license that you have to show them, and 2) how they can compel you to produce a passport?

Didn't we fight a war some years back to get that government to stop doing things like this against our citizens?

Okay, the same issue happened to me, but in Germany. I was there on a two week vacation, and contributed big bucks to Hertz in exchange for a car that could accomodate 5 pax and luggage. My CC bill after my trip indicated I had a second charge, in addition to the rental charge, that occurred 10 days after I left. I was additionally charged 23.20 Euros, which translated into $30.78 in US dollars. A few days later I received a Hertz statement entirely in German. When I was in Germany visiting friends, they translated when I needed it, but I no longer had that luxury. I e-mailed Hertz customer service for an explanation and was told the same thing essentially others have been told in this forum. Due to the rise in violations, Hertz can no longer absorb the administrative costs of providing the required information to the authorities, so the administrative fee is passed on to the customer. But they make it clear this is in addition to any charges incurred by the violation itself, which must be paid to the local authorities.

I just wish Hertz could provide some evidence to justify the need for this charge. I was extremely careful trying to stay with the posted limits, but I will say there were areas I wasn't sure what the limit was. But I know in towns I didn't drive all that fast and stayed with the general flow. In the states I've not had any kind of moving violation or accident in over 25 years (when I was a foolish teen). In this instance I have no idea what the infraction involves or details of it.

The other part of this is I believe, when you rent a vehicle for 14 straight days, Hertz probably is making enough of a margin that it could have considered a little slack in their policy. If I had a pattern (more than one) that would be a different story.

I did also tell Hertz I was frustrated that I found the extra charge billed to my CC before I received any type of notification that it was occurring, even though my gold account and rental agreement contains my e-mail address.

It is this type of corporate heavy-handedness that attracts tort lawyers and class-action lawsuits.

Okay, the same issue happened to me, but in Germany. I was there on a two week vacation, and contributed big bucks to Hertz in exchange for a car that could accomodate 5 pax and luggage. My CC bill after my trip indicated I had a second charge, in addition to the rental charge, that occurred 10 days after I left. I was additionally charged 23.20 Euros, which translated into $30.78 in US dollars. A few days later I received a Hertz statement entirely in German. When I was in Germany visiting friends, they translated when I needed it, but I no longer had that luxury. I e-mailed Hertz customer service for an explanation and was told the same thing essentially others have been told in this forum. Due to the rise in violations, Hertz can no longer absorb the administrative costs of providing the required information to the authorities, so the administrative fee is passed on to the customer. But they make it clear this is in addition to any charges incurred by the violation itself, which must be paid to the local authorities.

I just wish Hertz could provide some evidence to justify the need for this charge. I was extremely careful trying to stay with the posted limits, but I will say there were areas I wasn't sure what the limit was. But I know in towns I didn't drive all that fast and stayed with the general flow. In the states I've not had any kind of moving violation or accident in over 25 years (when I was a foolish teen). In this instance I have no idea what the infraction involves or details of it.

The other part of this is I believe, when you rent a vehicle for 14 straight days, Hertz probably is making enough of a margin that it could have considered a little slack in their policy. If I had a pattern (more than one) that would be a different story.

I did also tell Hertz I was frustrated that I found the extra charge billed to my CC before I received any type of notification that it was occurring, even though my gold account and rental agreement contains my e-mail address.

It is this type of corporate heavy-handedness that attracts tort lawyers and class-action lawsuits.

I'd insist that they provide you with a written explanation - in English - of the violation. If they don't, contest the charges with your credit card company.

The UK is actually pretty decent about the cameras. They generally will not cite you if there are multiple cars in the shot, etc., as they don't know which car was in violation (hence the 'packs').

However, if you don't pay it (assuming your letter doesn't get you off the hook) they will simply bill Herta for it. Hertz will then bill you....and charge another administrative fee.

Steve

The UK is actually pretty decent about the cameras. They generally will not cite you if there are multiple cars in the shot, etc., as they don't know which car was in violation (hence the 'packs').

However, if you don't pay it (assuming your letter doesn't get you off the hook) they will simply bill Herta for it. Hertz will then bill you....and charge another administrative fee.

SteveAlso, I believe in the UK they photograph your car against lines painted on the road and measure your speed that way (distance / time), so it can't really be mistaken with nearby cars. How many times have we driven 6 mph over the speed limit and not noticed it? I think it's very likely that you were going that fast, especially with cars going so much faster than yours right next to you.

My last trip to London, I rented through Sixt and accumulated 6 parking tickets within 4 days. Sixt never charged me administration, although mailed me letting me know the parking enforcement notified them of the violations.

I never contested the tickets, and paid them all. You break the law, you do the time. 46 mph on 40 is a very common violation. Two cars "racing" at 6 mph above the limit? Were they around 70 years old?

I'd be curious to know how much of a "grace" is built into the speed cameras. During the year I lived in Australia (which is infested with speed cameras - especially up the coast of NSW), I would occasionally go a little bit above the speed limit - mainly by accident. I never got any speed camera violations.

The one thing that almost got me in trouble in Australia was driving on unmanned toll roads (where a transponder is required, or you pay a hefty fine). I made sure to go online and pay within a day so I wouldn't get socked with a fine and an administrative fee.

I'd be curious to know how much of a "grace" is built into the speed cameras.

British speed cameras are generally set to speed limit plus 10% plus 3 mph. (Which means that with a 40 mph limit, they usually don't go off until 47 mph.) That said, there are a number of new camera installations involving a pair of cameras a significant distance (up to as much as six miles) apart, using license plate recognition to measure the time taken between two points, and mailing a violation when a car passes the two cameras in too short a time. These installations (known as SPECS) are often set to trigger much closer to the speed limit, as their accuracy can be established to a much greater degree (just put a GPS receiver or some equivalent accurate timekeeper in both cameras, and they'll have matching timestamps within milliseconds or better -- and so if you cover a mile in 88 seconds instead of the 90 it's supposed to take, it's easy to prove you were speeding.)

It's been interesting reading about these speed cameras. Having never been outside of North America, I've never encountered any. To me, an American, the whole concept is very foreign - most Americans treat speeding as a God-given right, up there with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! At least with a police officer there's something called discretion.

I wonder whether such cameras would even be legal here - as you can't cross-examine a camera at trial.

It's been interesting reading about these speed cameras. Having never been outside of North America, I've never encountered any. To me, an American, the whole concept is very foreign - most Americans treat speeding as a God-given right, up there with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! At least with a police officer there's something called discretion.

I wonder whether such cameras would even be legal here - as you can't cross-examine a camera at trial.

There are some speeding cameras in the US and a lot more (and plenty controversial in some circles, to be sure) red light cameras, both of which send tickets automatically. The real sham is that in most cases the equipment is owned and operated by the company who makes the cameras, and they take a huge cut off the top before the city (usually it's a city) sees any revenue.

They say it's about "safety", but if they want the intersections to be safe, then they would make the yellow lights longer or delay the greens. That would be safety. The cameras are just about cash, mostly for the equipment companies. I believe this equipment can usually check speed, and you might get a ticket for that as well. Washington DC has a lot of these cameras.

I am afraid you have to fight City Hall on this one! I don't think you have any option. Hertz isn't going to fight it for you! Sorry! :(

I actually think you were unlucky on this one:

Firstly, because english speed cameras work on the white lines painted on the road, they take two photos, and therefore calculate your speed, because of this i dont see any reason why 2/3 lanes cant all get caught at once if they are all within the zone.

Second: Since clearly no one 'races' at 6 miles an hour abouve a 40mph limit i would be inclined to believe that you were doing that speed, and they were doing more. Your speed didnt trigger the camera, theirs did, but unfortunately for you, you were also breaking the speed limit, and were in the catchment area.

Complete fluke, someone else's cock up caught your less serious cock up, but at the end of the day, sods law catches us all at some point.

Now, if you really really really want to try and test the limits of how far they want to push this thing (though maybe too late for this) you could reply to the request for driver information, by saying its against European Human Rights laws to force someone to incriminate themselves. Do you really want to go to the European Court of Human Rights for a ticket? probably not...

As for the name being wrong, you could always try the Justin Lee arguement, which is the funniest thing i've EVER read in my life here (http://www.trafficticketsecrets.com/best-damn-letter.html) ....

Also, I believe in the UK they photograph your car against lines painted on the road and measure your speed that way (distance / time), so it can't really be mistaken with nearby cars. How many times have we driven 6 mph over the speed limit and not noticed it? I think it's very likely that you were going that fast, especially with cars going so much faster than yours right next to you.

Yep this is exactly correct. The speed of the car is determined by the white lines painted (like a rule) along the road near a camera and therefore an exact speed measurement is acquired. So basically, the camera is triggered by the speed, the fine is determined by the white lines. The more you are over heavier the penalty can be.

You're gonna have to bite the bullet on that one because there is no defense.

Now, if you really really really want to try and test the limits of how far they want to push this thing (though maybe too late for this) you could reply to the request for driver information, by saying its against European Human Rights laws to force someone to incriminate themselves. Do you really want to go to the European Court of Human Rights for a ticket? probably not...


Fraid that that won't work. This has been tried and in 2000 it was ruled that no human rights are infringed

To the OP; if you are certain that you were not exceeding the speed limit then you can request a copy of the photo ( for which there is a fee chargeable unless it shows that you were not speeding ) to verify the claim. It is unlikely that the camera was faulty though

Dave

Perhaps there's a lawyer on this board who might be able to explain how they can get away with issuing a ticket based on a camera, since I obviously cannot "confront my accuser" - which is a camera.
I used to do a little criminal work, mostly criminal appeals. You can "confront" a piece of machinery by subpeonaing the calibration records. For the state to introduce technological evidence against you the machine must be calibrated (i.e. tuned) correctly. If not, you have a reasonable chance of getting the case thrown out.

I don't mind a reasonable adminstrative fee. I think its fair as this is not contemplated within the rental agreement. However, I do believe that you should always have the right to contest the ticket.

They say it's about "safety", but if they want the intersections to be safe, then they would make the yellow lights longer or delay the greens. That would be safety. The cameras are just about cash, mostly for the equipment companies. I believe this equipment can usually check speed, and you might get a ticket for that as well. Washington DC has a lot of these cameras.

And, IIRC, in DC they found that accidents had actually increased at intersections with photo enforcement, mostly rear-endings. Kind of ironic that the cameras are there for "safety" yet cause more accidents!

And, IIRC, in DC they found that accidents had actually increased at intersections with photo enforcement, mostly rear-endings. Kind of ironic that the cameras are there for "safety" yet cause more accidents!

The cameras don't cause the rear-endings, poor driving too close to the car in front causes them

Dave

The cameras don't cause the rear-endings, poor driving too close to the car in front causes them

This is true to an extent, but there's no denying the added effect of the cameras. The reason the amount of rear-end collisions increased at those intersections after the cameras were installed is because now people are panic stopping on yellow to be sure to avoid the camera ticket (even when they would have time to get through the intersection). The cars behind are not anticipating this.

ANY rear-end collision is a result of not anticipating a panic stop in front of you, but the amount of that is more or less constant. The INCREASE in the number rear-enders at these particular intersections can be directly attributed to the cameras.

I find it disappointing but people here believe that you for sure must've been speeding since it was only 46 mph that the radar showed. I had a very similar experience where I was driving in the far right hand lane and I was pulled over by a motorcycle cop because there was a car driving beside me passing me at a substantially higher rate of speed. He questioned me and asked why I slammed on my brakes when I saw them. At the same time I was being yelled at by my wife for not slamming on my brakes when I saw him. I saw him for before we passed round the corner and anticipated this other car passing me and imagine that it would substantially decrease my likelihood of getting a ticket. I then decided not to slow down because I was going the speed limit anyways.

I get quite annoyed when people end up slamming on their brakes and slowing down to 10 or 15 below the speed limit when ever they get around a cop.

I was able to get out of the ticket but only because I was talking to him it's probable that I would've gotten a ticket if it was a photo camera.

This is true to an extent, but there's no denying the added effect of the cameras. The reason the amount of rear-end collisions increased at those intersections after the cameras were installed is because now people are panic stopping on yellow to be sure to avoid the camera ticket (even when they would have time to get through the intersection). The cars behind are not anticipating this.

ANY rear-end collision is a result of not anticipating a panic stop in front of you, but the amount of that is more or less constant. The INCREASE in the number rear-enders at these particular intersections can be directly attributed to the cameras.

That is still unsafe driving. If the light is amber, then the driver should stop unless it is unsafe to do so and when driving a car it is the drivers responsibility to ensure that they are far enough away from the car in front so that they do not crash into them should that car stop suddenly

The drivers must be already driving unsafely regardless of the existence of the camera

Dave

I find it disappointing but people here believe that you for sure must've been speeding since it was only 46 mph that the radar showed. I had a very similar experience where I was driving in the far right hand lane and I was pulled over by a motorcycle cop because there was a car driving beside me passing me at a substantially higher rate of speed. He questioned me and asked why I slammed on my brakes when I saw them. At the same time I was being yelled at by my wife for not slamming on my brakes when I saw him. I saw him for before we passed round the corner and anticipated this other car passing me and imagine that it would substantially decrease my likelihood of getting a ticket. I then decided not to slow down because I was going the speed limit anyways.

I get quite annoyed when people end up slamming on their brakes and slowing down to 10 or 15 below the speed limit when ever they get around a cop.

I was able to get out of the ticket but only because I was talking to him it's probable that I would've gotten a ticket if it was a photo camera.


The OP got caught by a UK camera. Speed triggers the cameras to flash, but it is the measurement of the distance travelled between the 2 flashes which is used to determine whether an speeding offence was committed. If a car was overtaking you and the camera flashed, then the distance markers would show that you were not the car speeding.

Of course, there are a few even more fun cameras in UK now where they photograph all cars at point 1 and then again at some distant point and time how long it takes to reach the second camera and then determines the speed, so it is no longer based just on instants

Dave

In the case of physical evidence, such as DNA, fingerprints, or photographs, the "witness" is the person who can testify to the source and relavance of the evidence. You aren't going to win a court case by arguing that physical evidence is not an "accuser" and can never be admitted as evidence. However, if the state can't prove the accuracy of the evidience it can be thrown out (and has been in some cases regarding traffic cameras).

IMHO, the cameras only make the issue of heavy enforcement more widespread. People have complained about speed traps manned by live cops ever since there have been speed limits.

The real question is, does heavy enforcement of red light and speed laws help? If not, the laws should be relaxed not the enforcement. It's better to have a speed limit of 75 than a speed limit of 55 that you can talk the cop out of.

That is still unsafe driving. If the light is amber, then the driver should stop unless it is unsafe to do so and when driving a car it is the drivers responsibility to ensure that they are far enough away from the car in front so that they do not crash into them should that car stop suddenly

The drivers must be already driving unsafely regardless of the existence of the camera

Dave

We're getting off-topic here, but your point is what? People are bad drivers? Duh.

Apparently it doesn't matter to you that putting a camera at an intersection causes MORE accidents and thus can't by any reasonable definition be deemed an effort at increased safety?

I think in this situation it's better to have fewer accidents, and it appears there are fewer accidents WITHOUT the cameras. Right with the law or not, that's where the safety factor is. If you want it to be right with the law, extend the length of the yellow light. Throwing up a camera which creates more accidents is only a way of making cash off a bad traffic control setup.

Of course, there are a few even more fun cameras in UK now where they photograph all cars at point 1 and then again at some distant point and time how long it takes to reach the second camera and then determines the speed, so it is no longer based just on instants

... and that practice is spreading, to a limited extent at least, to the US. After the Fung Wah bus crash last week here in MA, it was reported (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/09/07/fung_wah_bus_line_faces_state_federal_scrutiny/) that the federal authority that regulates buses has been assessing fines against the company based on the time it has regularly taken for buses to get from one toll plaza to the next (as measured by their toll transponders).

Assuming Scottsdale's speed cameras on 101 regularly stand up in court, I'm sure we'll see more photographic speed enforcement here -- speed enforcement truly is a reign of fear in the UK now. (One single camera (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foi/story/0,,1868265,00.html) has brought in $2m in seven months recently, so it can be pretty lucrative.)

Okay, the same issue happened to me, but in Germany. I was there on a two week vacation, and contributed big bucks to Hertz in exchange for a car that could accomodate 5 pax and luggage. My CC bill after my trip indicated I had a second charge, in addition to the rental charge, that occurred 10 days after I left. I was additionally charged 23.20 Euros, which translated into $30.78 in US dollars. A few days later I received a Hertz statement entirely in German. When I was in Germany visiting friends, they translated when I needed it, but I no longer had that luxury. I e-mailed Hertz customer service for an explanation and was told the same thing essentially others have been told in this forum. Due to the rise in violations, Hertz can no longer absorb the administrative costs of providing the required information to the authorities, so the administrative fee is passed on to the customer. But they make it clear this is in addition to any charges incurred by the violation itself, which must be paid to the local authorities.


Okay, thought it would be time for an update. Maybe I should consider myself fortunate as it has been six months and the alleged municipality Hertz claims sought my information for speeding being photographed by a camera has never contacted me. In reality, the only justification for the phantom, after the fact, $30.78 charge to my credit card is Hertz's word that it had to supply the information. Maybe Hertz should consider sending a copy of the municipality's request and Hertz's response to the request, to the customer as verification the charge is legitimate when they send a copy of the bill detailing the extra charge.

Maybe Hertz should consider sending a copy of the municipality's request and Hertz's response to the request, to the customer as verification the charge is legitimate when they send a copy of the bill detailing the extra charge.

Maybe you should dispute the alleged violation and request from Hertz proof of the above. This is exactly what I did and about 3 weeks later Hertz credited my account the money they charged for the "administrative fee", but warned that I still might get a ticket direct from the London police. They said they did it for me because I'm such a good customer.

contest the violation and talk with someone high up at hertz

Sixt did not charge me extra for the £50 parking ticket (by 4 lousy minutes!). They had the parking people contact me directly and I tried to contest it, but they wouldn't budge, so I eventually paid. No extra charges.

Ah.. this is different. I would dispute the charge from Hertz and write a letter to the Police denying any wrongdoing and asking them to send proof. Put the ball in thier court and see what happens.

How much was the ticket for?

just don't pay if you don't plan on going back soon. let them extradite you to get the $$$.

Maybe I should consider myself fortunate as it has been six months and the alleged municipality Hertz claims sought my information for speeding being photographed by a camera has never contacted me.

I think that you should. Do you really think that the Hertz office is so dishonest that they are inventing the demand for the information in order to apply additional charges? I think it is far more likely that the setup at the municipaility in question probably figures that the effort involved in attempting to collect from someone in the USA outweighs the benefits

Dave

I did also tell Hertz I was frustrated that I found the extra charge billed to my CC before I received any type of notification that it was occurring, even though my gold account and rental agreement contains my e-mail address.

It is this type of corporate heavy-handedness that attracts tort lawyers and class-action lawsuits.

Same thing happened to me recently, I rented a car in Italy for my honeymoon for 3 days (almost 400 euro) because I had to get an automatic because my wife can't drive stick. Anyway, I got a charge on my credit card in December from Hertz for around $20...however, there is NO details of what it is for...I contested with Diners Club that I don't mind paying for something as long as I know what it is FOR. Well I got a letter this week from Hertz Italy (in Italian and English) that I was billed 15 euros plus 3 euro VAT for "Administrative Fee" for PROVIDING my license info to authorities for a violation. (I got 2 copies of the same invoice).

Now, I disputed it with Diners Club because I received this invoice a full month after the charge hit my card (which is when I made the dispute) and even in Diners Club computers there was "nothing" describing what it was. I even had to send an affadavit to Diners Club contesting the charge. Now, I don't know if I should tell Diners that now since I know what it is for (which I think is BS) or I should let it play out. I charged my entire wedding reception to my Diners which was about $40K (so maybe Diners will absorb since I am a good customer). I figure if Diners determines I did OWE them this money, they would just rebill me and I pay it.

The thing which GALLS me is that I paid over USD$600 for this rental car for 3 days, I think you can absorb this at this price).

Hertz Italy did not specify what KIND of violation it was (speeding, red light, parking). I did get a parking ticket in Cortona, but I was with an Italian friend and I gave him euros cash to pay the ticket for me. I assume he did. I also gave my contact info on the parking ticket.

Now, if this was something else...I now have to wait if I get something in the mail from Italian authorities to what it was...I hope they just don't bill hertz and I get ANOTHER Admin fee.

I also rented this car mid-September 2008 and I didn't get the charge until mid-Dec 2008 and received the invoice from Hertz mid-Jan 2009.

That's quite a long time to pass.

I really hate cameras and photo radar...it's too big brother for me.

- HF

The same thing happened to me in Italy this summer. All of a sudden a €18 debit on my credit card statement. No invoice or notice fron Hertz whatsoever. Hertz customer service in Sweden told me that they had no routine to send an invoice for these fees, which I find unacceptable. When I contested it she said that Italy is a "troublesome" country.

I waited a month and e-mail Hertz Italy. Then - all of a sudden - a few days later I got an invoice. But no reply to my e-mail. The invoice (in Italian and English) did not mention anything else than it was a fee for an alleged traffic offence. That is also unacceptable. I once again wrote an e-mail to Hertz. On new years eve (!) a Hertz representative on Ireland e-mailed me:

Thank you for contacting us.

If you received a "Verbale on line", it means that during your rental it was issued a fine for a traffic violation.

In compliance with privacy laws, we are not aware of the reason of the infraction, nor we have any record of the traffic violation which will be sent to your address. The fine will include the amount to be paid, the kind of infraction made, and also how to pay for it.

The only information given to Hertz is that the infraction was made on 13th August at 15:20.

The authorities must send the fine within 6 months from the date when the contravvention was notified to Hertz, that is on 10th November 2008.

Since Hertz Corporation was contacted by the local Authorities, in regard to the mentioned infraction, it was open a file to transmit the necessary documentation to issue the fine.

For this reason Hertz Corporation, as agreed in the contract, charges an administrative fee of Eur 18.00. This invoice has already been charged on your credit card.

Here below you will find the reference to the contract in regard of this matter:

As per the terms and conditions of the rental agreement "you are fully responsible for all road tolls and any fines or other consequencens of the violations of traffic regulations (including congestion charges), parking orders or prohibitions, or any other laws or regulation during the rental.

If we are required to pay and/or process such road tolls, fines, charges or associated costs, you agree that we may charge you with the amount we are required to pay plus a reasonable administration charge for dealing with these matters."

The amount charged by Hertz Corporation (admin fee), is not in regard to the amount of the fine, but it is just an administrative expense to work on the file.

Thereafter I have received the invoice again. This time from Hertz Sweden with a summary of the e-mail above in Swedish.

But still. It seems impossible to figure out what I am accused of or if Hertz is trying to rip me off by sneaking in a fee without sending in invoice.