4 ms·

To be frank there's nothing in the article that seems outrageous. The AI thing is just burying the lede; the point is accesible and transparent before-and-after

To be frank there's nothing in the article that seems outrageous. The AI thing is just burying the lede; the point is accesible and transparent before-and-after images so that damage claims are more transparent.

x187463 1y ago
I agree. Regardless of what you think about Hertz or the dubious fees associated with the damage repair, the actual tech is doing something useful. I'd rather scan the vehicle as I leave the lot and have clear evidence of its state before and after the rental period, than have to argue with a random employee about the timing/source of damage.
- ryandrake 1y ago
  They’re never going to use the technology to provide the customer something that will prevent them from paying. Its purpose is to soak customers for more fees. Using it before the rental to scan for existing damage is counterproductive and will not help Hertz make more money.
bomewish 1y ago
What the story was dancing around — and should have just got to the point about — was that the damage seems like very normal wear and tear and it seems unfair to charge people for it. It also sounded like they weren’t even gonna fix it, but just charge him for the pleasure of having detected it.
eesmith 1y ago
The pricing structure is not transparent. For one, are fees "higher when renting vehicles from Hertz stores that use UVeye scanners, as opposed to those that don’t"? Can a renter get "estimates of what different kinds of damage typically cost"? (quotes from the article). I'm pretty sure that want to use automated scanners for this because if they had human agent make the same claims, and charge $440 for that scuff, then there would be a blowup right away, and keeping employees willing to deal with that anger all the time is hard. I'm pretty sure I've scuffed up a rental car like that, and didn't get dinged at all. It's a rental car, and normal wear-and-tear should be part of the regular depreciation.
Laremere 1y ago
The lack of including the before photo in the article says something. There was clearly real, albeit minor, damage done. The fees seem high for such a small blemish. Automated rule enforcing systems are very frustrating to hit. They usually enforce good rules, but overly strictly and often trend into gotchas that are intentionally exploitive. (Eg, red light cameras that have reduced yellow light times.) I doubt the savings of those fees being put into renters who do leave damage marks will be passed on to those who don't.

x187463 1y ago

I agree. Regardless of what you think about Hertz or the dubious fees associated with the damage repair, the actual tech is doing something useful. I'd rather scan the vehicle as I leave the lot and have clear evidence of its state before and after the rental period, than have to argue with a random employee about the timing/source of damage.

ryandrake 1y ago
They’re never going to use the technology to provide the customer something that will prevent them from paying. Its purpose is to soak customers for more fees. Using it before the rental to scan for existing damage is counterproductive and will not help Hertz make more money.

bomewish 1y ago

What the story was dancing around — and should have just got to the point about — was that the damage seems like very normal wear and tear and it seems unfair to charge people for it. It also sounded like they weren’t even gonna fix it, but just charge him for the pleasure of having detected it.

eesmith 1y ago

The pricing structure is not transparent. For one, are fees "higher when renting vehicles from Hertz stores that use UVeye scanners, as opposed to those that don’t"? Can a renter get "estimates of what different kinds of damage typically cost"? (quotes from the article). I'm pretty sure that want to use automated scanners for this because if they had human agent make the same claims, and charge $440 for that scuff, then there would be a blowup right away, and keeping employees willing to deal with that anger all the time is hard. I'm pretty sure I've scuffed up a rental car like that, and didn't get dinged at all. It's a rental car, and normal wear-and-tear should be part of the regular depreciation.

Laremere 1y ago

The lack of including the before photo in the article says something. There was clearly real, albeit minor, damage done. The fees seem high for such a small blemish. Automated rule enforcing systems are very frustrating to hit. They usually enforce good rules, but overly strictly and often trend into gotchas that are intentionally exploitive. (Eg, red light cameras that have reduced yellow light times.) I doubt the savings of those fees being put into renters who do leave damage marks will be passed on to those who don't.