I guess I'm a little confused. Someone has 3 moving violations within 36 months and the car rental company doesn;t want to rent them a car and we're compaining. I'm overjoyed. Why is someone with that many violations on the road at all? Shouldn;t their license be suspended?

I know its possible for anyone to be involved in an accident given the number of incompetents there are driving around. (I was hit by a drunk a couple of years ago while stopped at a light.) But IMHO its very difficult to actually get a ticket for a moving violation - at least in this area. Traffic routinely moves at 15 to 20 miles an hour above the limit with no stops - except for egregious speeding (90+) - or really bizarre driving that seems to indicated drink or drugs. So it seems to me anybody with several accidents or multiple violations just shouldn;t be driving - they need either remedial lessons or an attitude adjustment.

I am very curious to know where you drive on a daily basis. I have to travel on the Palisades Parkway which runs from Fort Lee, New Jersey to Bear Mountain in Rockland County, New York. There's 2 lanes in each direction and there's no shoulder on either side. The majority of people using this road ignore the 50 - 55 mph posted speed limit and are going an average of 65 mph, if not more. This leaves absolutely no room or time to stop in the event a deer decides to leap across the lanes(which happens often on this road). I found out I have 2 strikes against me on my driving record. As I posted earlier in one event I had just turned the car off in a parking lot when a young woman on her cell phone pulled out extremely wide from the aisle across from my car and smashed into my back passenger door. The other incident involved a sudden stop to turn left by a driver 2 cars ahead of me. Why should I be penalized for this?

I forgot to address my last post to nytraveler.

It's pretty easy to get tickets around here. There are some places where the cops basically sit around waiting to give out tickets.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here. Didn't the insurance companies lose a TON of money the last couple of years in the stock market? Are they then trying to make up their losses?
I also loss but I had no way to make mine up other than swallow and hope for the best.

wendy -

Any accident in which you rear end another car is your fault - you were following too close or you would have been able to stop without hitting the car in front - either that or your breaks were bad. It should count against you. The other accident sounds like it is not your fault and should not count against you.

But the agencies in general are not turning people down for a single incident - only for multiple incidents - or egregious ones - like leaving the scene or DUI.

Sorry Wendy - I do most of my driving on Long Island, in Westchester and In Jersey (route 80 a lot) and everyone does about 70 on the 55 parkways and 80 on the 65 highways. And the cops routinely drive right by without even glancing at those speeds.

The deer are another issue - I don;t know what to do about that except be careful at dusk - when most of the accidents occur - especially when going around blind curves.

The main point here HAS to be that the car rental agencies should inform people about their policy at the time of reservation. Period. If there is a chance that someone will be left without a service they had been promised and fully expected, the companies should be obligated to let them know. There is no reason not to, and it's stunning that they would set up a situation that will inevitably cause a big scene at the counter and will lose them a customer when the 36 months are up.

Issues about which kinds of incidents should count or not count and whether blame is an issue are secondary to the inexcusable practice of not warning people from the outset that there are circumstances under which they won't be given a car. If there's any question, at least there is time to investigate the details of the rental company's guidelines, etc.

Also, if they can ask if you're over 21 or over 25, they can ask about involvement in accidents. If you lie and say you haven't been, it then (and only then) becomes your problem if you are denied when you show up and they run your license number.

John,

I don't know about the stock market, but several insurance companies licensed to sell in Florida have tried to file for bankruptcy since 9/11 to avoid unrelated pending litigation. It's extremely complicated but in simple terms they're claiming the catastrophic nature of 9/11 has depleted them. However, they had nothing related to 9/11 insured.

As in most states you have to be licensed to sell insurance in FL--sometimes an agency already licensed in FL will allow another agency to "borrow" their license so that they can sell policies until their license is approved. In a recent case, the insurance agency borrowed a license so that they could sell nursing home policies--those premiums are astronomical. After 9/11 the agency that loaned them their license claimed a legitimate bankruptcy because of the payout they owed on some part of the twin towers' physical plant. The agency using the borrowed license has filed for bankruptcy in FL based based on the same claim as the legitimate bankruptcy, but they had nothing insured in the twin towers. So far two courts in FL have declared it an illegal bankruptcy. This company has millions in pending litigation (and has made many MANY more millions collecting premiums in this state). They are trying to use the bankruptcy courts as a shield. Naturally, the costs are passed along to all of us.

Agree that the car rental agencies should absolutely inform people who are reserving of their policies - this is only fair to everyone.

But it doesn;t look as if they are broadscale refusing rental to people who have one or two regular violations or a simple accident. And if someone knows their license/insurance record is a mess they should be smart enough to enquire if that is a problem when they're trying to rent a car.

Sorry - hit post too soon.

I worked with someone who had trouble renting a car for this reason a couple of years ago - and to fix it he stopped reporting incidents to his insurance company and just kept paying for repairs out of his own pocket.

He didn;t have any vioaltions - didn;t speed or drink - but was just a really bad driver who frankly should not have had a license. (He was constantly bumping into objects - trees, dumpsters, other cars - while trying to park, and everytime there was snow he would come in with new scrapes and bumps on this car - again bumping into stationary objects because he made no allowance for conditions. Also, he frequently rearended other cars/trucks because he didn;t notice they were stopping. I honestly think he had ADD or something.)

After reading all this confusion I have to ask the question. Shouldn't Hertz disclose that they used a person charged with double murder and also sited for wife beating, to promote their company? I don't think a traffic violation comes anywhere near this stuff. Who wants a wife beater in their car?