Warning - Golf cart rental - Belize

On Oct 3, 11:32 am, "John Sisker" <jsis...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> I agree with you in that respect,

Who are you agreeing with? And, in what respect?


>
> Happy sailing,
> John Sisker, SHIP-TO-SHORE CRUISE AGENCY®
> (714) 536-3850 or toll free at (800) 724-6644 & (Agency No. 714.536.3850)www.shiptoshorecruise.com

"John Sisker" <jsis...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> I agree with you in that respect, but this also emphasizes the point that in
> other countries, we have to abide by their rules - right or wrong to our way
> of thinking.

You missed the point, John:


To put what happened with this golf cart into "normal rental car"
terms, it would be like Hertz claiming that you owed them $75,000 for
damaging a Ford Taurus.

Since a Taurus only costs $25K brand new, how can you seriously
consider any damage claim that was significantly higher than the car's
brand new purchase price to be even remotely legitimate?

No, there wasn't any liability claim from hitting another vehicle (or
building). As per the local police's assessment of the damage, the
damage claim by the rental agency is SIX TIMES higher, and are roughly
3x the cost of an entirely brand new vehicle.



> Why not invoke as much layer of protect as one can
> to begin with? Insurance would be one layer.

But of course. The problem is that sometimes, simply having
insurance isn't good enough to protect you from simple corruption.
This isn't the first time for Belize, as the ~20 deaths on the
infamous 2001 Wave Dancer cruise comes quickly to mind.


-hh

"John Sisker" <jsis...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> I agree with you in that respect, but this also emphasizes the point that in
> other countries, we have to abide by their rules - right or wrong to our way
> of thinking.

You missed the point, John:


To put what happened with this golf cart into "normal rental car"
terms, it would be like Hertz claiming that you owed them $75,000 for
damaging a Ford Taurus.

Since a Taurus only costs $25K brand new, how can you seriously
consider any damage claim that was significantly higher than the car's
brand new purchase price to be even remotely legitimate?

No, there wasn't any liability claim from hitting another vehicle (or
building). As per the local police's assessment of the damage, the
damage claim by the rental agency is SIX TIMES higher, and are roughly
3x the cost of an entirely brand new vehicle.



> Why not invoke as much layer of protect as one can
> to begin with? Insurance would be one layer.

But of course. The problem is that sometimes, simply having
insurance isn't good enough to protect you from simple corruption.
This isn't the first time for Belize, as the ~20 deaths on the
infamous 2001 Wave Dancer cruise comes quickly to mind.


-hh

"John Sisker" <jsis...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> I agree with you in that respect, but this also emphasizes the point that in
> other countries, we have to abide by their rules - right or wrong to our way
> of thinking.

You missed the point, John:


To put what happened with this golf cart into "normal rental car"
terms, it would be like Hertz claiming that you owed them $75,000 for
damaging a Ford Taurus.

Since a Taurus only costs $25K brand new, how can you seriously
consider any damage claim that was significantly higher than the car's
brand new purchase price to be even remotely legitimate?

No, there wasn't any liability claim from hitting another vehicle (or
building). As per the local police's assessment of the damage, the
damage claim by the rental agency is SIX TIMES higher, and are roughly
3x the cost of an entirely brand new vehicle.



> Why not invoke as much layer of protect as one can
> to begin with? Insurance would be one layer.

But of course. The problem is that sometimes, simply having
insurance isn't good enough to protect you from simple corruption.
This isn't the first time for Belize, as the ~20 deaths on the
infamous 2001 Wave Dancer cruise comes quickly to mind.


-hh

"John Sisker" <jsis...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> I agree with you in that respect, but this also emphasizes the point that in
> other countries, we have to abide by their rules - right or wrong to our way
> of thinking.

You missed the point, John:


To put what happened with this golf cart into "normal rental car"
terms, it would be like Hertz claiming that you owed them $75,000 for
damaging a Ford Taurus.

Since a Taurus only costs $25K brand new, how can you seriously
consider any damage claim that was significantly higher than the car's
brand new purchase price to be even remotely legitimate?

No, there wasn't any liability claim from hitting another vehicle (or
building). As per the local police's assessment of the damage, the
damage claim by the rental agency is SIX TIMES higher, and are roughly
3x the cost of an entirely brand new vehicle.



> Why not invoke as much layer of protect as one can
> to begin with? Insurance would be one layer.

But of course. The problem is that sometimes, simply having
insurance isn't good enough to protect you from simple corruption.
This isn't the first time for Belize, as the ~20 deaths on the
infamous 2001 Wave Dancer cruise comes quickly to mind.


-hh

John Sisker wrote:
> I agree with you in that respect, but this also emphasizes the point that in
> other countries, we have to abide by their rules - right or wrong to our way
> of thinking. That is also why, at least on cruises, if one even opts for
> information on available shore excursions, they are usually warned to stay
> way from things like this, and for this very type of reason. Of course, the
> Warrens were apparently not on an cruise, yet admittedly did not read the
> contract and/or fine print either - or possibly thinks it doesn't count to
> Americans. Now they are up Belize creek, sort-of-speak, without a paddle.
>
> Vacations can indeed be a risky business at times, with all types of things
> that can and do go wrong. Why not invoke as much layer of protect as one can
> to begin with? Insurance would be one layer. If on a cruise, sponsored shore
> excursions would be another (to a degree).

Agreed, doing something stupid is supposed to be expensive.

>
> The bottom line is, don't let an uninformed decision be an expensive
> mistake.
>

Insurance scams also pollute the tourist landscape - sometimes they're
in league with the rental agency.

Bottom line, don't do anything that would presumably be safer with
insurance. Hire a driver with their own vehicle and pay them to drive
around. Agree to a flat rate up front and let them take the dings.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

John Sisker wrote:
> I agree with you in that respect, but this also emphasizes the point that in
> other countries, we have to abide by their rules - right or wrong to our way
> of thinking. That is also why, at least on cruises, if one even opts for
> information on available shore excursions, they are usually warned to stay
> way from things like this, and for this very type of reason. Of course, the
> Warrens were apparently not on an cruise, yet admittedly did not read the
> contract and/or fine print either - or possibly thinks it doesn't count to
> Americans. Now they are up Belize creek, sort-of-speak, without a paddle.
>
> Vacations can indeed be a risky business at times, with all types of things
> that can and do go wrong. Why not invoke as much layer of protect as one can
> to begin with? Insurance would be one layer. If on a cruise, sponsored shore
> excursions would be another (to a degree).

Agreed, doing something stupid is supposed to be expensive.

>
> The bottom line is, don't let an uninformed decision be an expensive
> mistake.
>

Insurance scams also pollute the tourist landscape - sometimes they're
in league with the rental agency.

Bottom line, don't do anything that would presumably be safer with
insurance. Hire a driver with their own vehicle and pay them to drive
around. Agree to a flat rate up front and let them take the dings.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

John Sisker wrote:
> I agree with you in that respect, but this also emphasizes the point that in
> other countries, we have to abide by their rules - right or wrong to our way
> of thinking. That is also why, at least on cruises, if one even opts for
> information on available shore excursions, they are usually warned to stay
> way from things like this, and for this very type of reason. Of course, the
> Warrens were apparently not on an cruise, yet admittedly did not read the
> contract and/or fine print either - or possibly thinks it doesn't count to
> Americans. Now they are up Belize creek, sort-of-speak, without a paddle.
>
> Vacations can indeed be a risky business at times, with all types of things
> that can and do go wrong. Why not invoke as much layer of protect as one can
> to begin with? Insurance would be one layer. If on a cruise, sponsored shore
> excursions would be another (to a degree).

Agreed, doing something stupid is supposed to be expensive.

>
> The bottom line is, don't let an uninformed decision be an expensive
> mistake.
>

Insurance scams also pollute the tourist landscape - sometimes they're
in league with the rental agency.

Bottom line, don't do anything that would presumably be safer with
insurance. Hire a driver with their own vehicle and pay them to drive
around. Agree to a flat rate up front and let them take the dings.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

John Sisker wrote:
> I agree with you in that respect, but this also emphasizes the point that in
> other countries, we have to abide by their rules - right or wrong to our way
> of thinking. That is also why, at least on cruises, if one even opts for
> information on available shore excursions, they are usually warned to stay
> way from things like this, and for this very type of reason. Of course, the
> Warrens were apparently not on an cruise, yet admittedly did not read the
> contract and/or fine print either - or possibly thinks it doesn't count to
> Americans. Now they are up Belize creek, sort-of-speak, without a paddle.
>
> Vacations can indeed be a risky business at times, with all types of things
> that can and do go wrong. Why not invoke as much layer of protect as one can
> to begin with? Insurance would be one layer. If on a cruise, sponsored shore
> excursions would be another (to a degree).

Agreed, doing something stupid is supposed to be expensive.

>
> The bottom line is, don't let an uninformed decision be an expensive
> mistake.
>

Insurance scams also pollute the tourist landscape - sometimes they're
in league with the rental agency.

Bottom line, don't do anything that would presumably be safer with
insurance. Hire a driver with their own vehicle and pay them to drive
around. Agree to a flat rate up front and let them take the dings.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

John Sisker wrote:
> I agree with you in that respect, but this also emphasizes the point that in
> other countries, we have to abide by their rules - right or wrong to our way
> of thinking. That is also why, at least on cruises, if one even opts for
> information on available shore excursions, they are usually warned to stay
> way from things like this, and for this very type of reason. Of course, the
> Warrens were apparently not on an cruise, yet admittedly did not read the
> contract and/or fine print either - or possibly thinks it doesn't count to
> Americans. Now they are up Belize creek, sort-of-speak, without a paddle.
>
> Vacations can indeed be a risky business at times, with all types of things
> that can and do go wrong. Why not invoke as much layer of protect as one can
> to begin with? Insurance would be one layer. If on a cruise, sponsored shore
> excursions would be another (to a degree).

Agreed, doing something stupid is supposed to be expensive.

>
> The bottom line is, don't let an uninformed decision be an expensive
> mistake.
>

Insurance scams also pollute the tourist landscape - sometimes they're
in league with the rental agency.

Bottom line, don't do anything that would presumably be safer with
insurance. Hire a driver with their own vehicle and pay them to drive
around. Agree to a flat rate up front and let them take the dings.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'