5 ms·

This is being framed all dystopian, but I'm not so pessimistic. The current process is ridiculous - a random teenager in a vest with 15 minutes of training ins

This is being framed all dystopian, but I'm not so pessimistic. The current process is ridiculous - a random teenager in a vest with 15 minutes of training inspects the car when you check it out, and then you get a former drill sergeant when you check it back in. The current process is no less fair and Hertz is no less evil - but in this case its at least impartial and the scans are transparently available.

woodruffw 1y ago
> The current process is no less fair and Hertz is no less evil - but in this case its at least impartial and the scans are transparently available. I don't think it's impartial: the implication here is that the same technology is not available to the renter, so Hertz can easily claim damage that was already present at checkout that an ordinary customer picture can't refute. That asymmetry seems bad to me.
- tekla 1y ago
  That's weird, because when I rent a car, I take photos and videos and I make sure to have a attendant write down the damage on the rental paper before I drive away. Is basic ass covering weird?
  - woodruffw 1y ago
    > Is basic ass covering weird? The point was that basic ass covering isn't good enough; my visual scan and phone photos aren't going to match what a machine designed to find defects can do. (I think everyone does - or at least should do - what you do. I certainly do.)
    - tekla 1y ago
      I would need examples of the defects that this machine would find that a) would matter enough to bother with and b) not be something a human could bring up arbitrarily too if they happened to not like me.
      - esseph 1y ago
        In theory if the success rate is high enough, it will find more than most humans will. Edit: And as another poster said, this means they get to double dip by depreciating the asset and charging the customer for that wear.
      - woodruffw 1y ago
        This is a lot more complicated than assuming that a machine will find things more consistently than a ~minimum wage employee, especially if the latter isn't motivated to screw you. (It's also far from the original point, which is purely about symmetry.)
  - BoorishBears 1y ago
    Unless you carry a dent repair light in a darkened room, you're not matching their level of detail fwiw If you put most people's cars under those lights you'd be shocked at how much damage you'd find.
josephg 1y ago
> in this case its at least impartial and the scans are transparently available. Whenever I rent a car, after getting the keys I walk around the car and take photos of it on my phone from every angle. If I notice any scratches or dents, I tell them. But I still keep the photos, just in case. Then I do the same when I return it. That way if - at any point - they say I damaged the car, I have timestamped photos. It feels like an obvious, easy way to cover my arse if there's a dispute. Otherwise you're basically screwed if they claim you got the car scratched up. I'm really surprised other people don't do that. Its what my family has done from before we even had digital cameras.
- pbbbt 1y ago
  I do the same, but it didn't help me - Hertz charged me for several hundred dollars while I was flying back home, the same day after dropping off the car. Turns out, you can send them all the pictures you like - all they did was send me a work order for scratches + repaint in a poorly specified location, with no comment on the pictures. No amount of emails or phone calls asking them to indicate where on the car was supposedly scratched led to anything - I just got passed around and around... If my credit card insurance didn't cover it (Chase reimbursed me in full relatively easily), I would have taken the next step and did a chargeback. Maybe it would have been helpful if I needed to press the issue. But the presence of some tens of pictures between me and my wife didn't seem to accomplish much
  - tcoff91 1y ago
    Your mistake was renting with Hertz. This is the same company that literally got their customers arrested for grand theft auto due to negligently reporting cars stolen that had in fact not been stolen.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      All rental car companies devolve into poorly-run scams. My pet theory is they're actually renting the cars at a loss to stay competitive, and then they need to con the money back to stay afloat.
analog31 1y ago
I've never had that happen. In most cases, the rental company "eats" the cost of normal wear and tear. This is what causes a car to depreciate after all. Is the rental company actually getting the repairs done? If not, then they're double dipping: Depreciating the car, and charging the customer. And I know they're not getting the repairs done, because when I rent a car, they show me a list of the dings that it's already sustained.

woodruffw 1y ago

> The current process is no less fair and Hertz is no less evil - but in this case its at least impartial and the scans are transparently available. I don't think it's impartial: the implication here is that the same technology is not available to the renter, so Hertz can easily claim damage that was already present at checkout that an ordinary customer picture can't refute. That asymmetry seems bad to me.

tekla 1y ago
That's weird, because when I rent a car, I take photos and videos and I make sure to have a attendant write down the damage on the rental paper before I drive away. Is basic ass covering weird?
- woodruffw 1y ago
  > Is basic ass covering weird? The point was that basic ass covering isn't good enough; my visual scan and phone photos aren't going to match what a machine designed to find defects can do. (I think everyone does - or at least should do - what you do. I certainly do.)
  - tekla 1y ago
    I would need examples of the defects that this machine would find that a) would matter enough to bother with and b) not be something a human could bring up arbitrarily too if they happened to not like me.
    - esseph 1y ago
      In theory if the success rate is high enough, it will find more than most humans will. Edit: And as another poster said, this means they get to double dip by depreciating the asset and charging the customer for that wear.
    - woodruffw 1y ago
      This is a lot more complicated than assuming that a machine will find things more consistently than a ~minimum wage employee, especially if the latter isn't motivated to screw you. (It's also far from the original point, which is purely about symmetry.)
- BoorishBears 1y ago
  Unless you carry a dent repair light in a darkened room, you're not matching their level of detail fwiw If you put most people's cars under those lights you'd be shocked at how much damage you'd find.

josephg 1y ago

> in this case its at least impartial and the scans are transparently available. Whenever I rent a car, after getting the keys I walk around the car and take photos of it on my phone from every angle. If I notice any scratches or dents, I tell them. But I still keep the photos, just in case. Then I do the same when I return it. That way if - at any point - they say I damaged the car, I have timestamped photos. It feels like an obvious, easy way to cover my arse if there's a dispute. Otherwise you're basically screwed if they claim you got the car scratched up. I'm really surprised other people don't do that. Its what my family has done from before we even had digital cameras.

pbbbt 1y ago
I do the same, but it didn't help me - Hertz charged me for several hundred dollars while I was flying back home, the same day after dropping off the car. Turns out, you can send them all the pictures you like - all they did was send me a work order for scratches + repaint in a poorly specified location, with no comment on the pictures. No amount of emails or phone calls asking them to indicate where on the car was supposedly scratched led to anything - I just got passed around and around... If my credit card insurance didn't cover it (Chase reimbursed me in full relatively easily), I would have taken the next step and did a chargeback. Maybe it would have been helpful if I needed to press the issue. But the presence of some tens of pictures between me and my wife didn't seem to accomplish much
- tcoff91 1y ago
  Your mistake was renting with Hertz. This is the same company that literally got their customers arrested for grand theft auto due to negligently reporting cars stolen that had in fact not been stolen.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    All rental car companies devolve into poorly-run scams. My pet theory is they're actually renting the cars at a loss to stay competitive, and then they need to con the money back to stay afloat.

analog31 1y ago

I've never had that happen. In most cases, the rental company "eats" the cost of normal wear and tear. This is what causes a car to depreciate after all. Is the rental company actually getting the repairs done? If not, then they're double dipping: Depreciating the car, and charging the customer. And I know they're not getting the repairs done, because when I rent a car, they show me a list of the dings that it's already sustained.