Talk:Renting a car

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

recommend a good rental company[edit]

(Moved from the article contents)

could you recommend a good rental company ? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 58.8.79.165 (talkcontribs)

From Turkey / Elazığ[edit]

If you ar at Turkey I can recommend Elazığ Oto Kiralama. They good at what they doing.

naked facts[edit]

We do we need these naked facts?

  • headquarter location (I removed it for now)
  • countries where the company operates
  • in which countries it operates via franchises?

--(WT-en) DenisYurkin 10:54, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Also, removed all links, lists of franchises and list of countries; all US-specific info (which should go to the respective article). --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 12:15, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

driving license question[edit]

and what is with the drivin licence? in what countries can i use my german one. where do i need an international one? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 134.1.254.208 (talkcontribs)

when to choose local operators[edit]

I wonder how to choose whether do deal with local rental operator vs a major international company. What factors to consider; when locals are definitely better (and when vice versa)? Are there any common rules, same for every country? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 06:26, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

Hotel delivery[edit]

Whenever I have had experience with a rental car delivery - they invariably take you back to the rental car office to complete the paperwork - I have never experienced where they just drop the car to you and get someone else to pick up the driver. Does this really happen anywhere? --(WT-en) inas 02:57, 14 May 2010 (EDT)

At least in Portugal, it's a common option--both to deviver a car to a hotel and complete all paperwork there, and to hand in the keys from car to a rental person in a hotel (while car is left at the parking lot nearest to the hotel), with no any paperwork after that at all. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 03:04, 14 May 2010 (EDT)

If you damage the car[edit]

Canadian media have been reporting a series of scams, by which a hire car company would take pre-existing damage (such as a minor chip in a windshield), falsely accuse the client of having caused the damage, then bill for inflated prices for "repairs" (the scheme operated through shell companies to conceal that the 'repair shop' that was billing $800+ for a windscreen and the hire-car franchisee were indeed the same company). [1] [2] [3] Perhaps some sort of caution would be in order? K7L (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Acceptable photos[edit]

This article could use some photos to spruce it up, but the problem is that the topic lends itself to business photos, which are forbidden by our image policy. So what kinds of photos would be appropriate? I suppose photos of vehicles on highways? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

When arriving at the airport, there is usually a set of car rental desks in the arrivals area. Would a shot of several business together in this manner be acceptable? Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe so, but let's see what others think. It seems like this is the right context for such a photo, even if it might not be acceptable in another article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat US centric[edit]

This article is okay, but in some cases I see a slight US bias. Some things are different in places that are not the US, than they are in the US. For example in most places the smart money for all but the most time critical is to not rent a car at the airport, but rather go from the airport to town and rent one there. There will always be a premium for airport rental. And it is usually more expensive even after a short time than taking transit downtown. Furthermore, this article doesn't touch on carsharing (nor do we have an article on that), but it is getting more and more common (interestingly enough, especially in the US) Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Is car sharing really of interest to the traveler? Unless you are resident then it isn't usually an option right? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Aren't there systems that are present in several cities and even across international borders? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I just know the ones in Australia (which are not suitable for tourists). If you know of car sharing systems that I can make use of when I visit the States then by all means write about them! --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Captain Obvious?[edit]

Perhaps my bar for Captain Obvious is too high in many cases, but surely if you hold a driving license then isn't all of the following just completely obvious?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You need to choose a car to meet your needs.

  • If you can't drive a manual (stick-shift) check that your car will be automatic.
  • Check there is room for all the passengers and luggage you will be carrying. The car may not be the exact model you booked, and the boot space may vary.
  • If you are travelling on unsurfaced/gravel roads you may want to consider a car with high road clearance or 4-wheel drive.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

--Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe not the first one. If you're from a country where practically all cars have automatic gearboxes (USA?) you may falsely assume that this is the case in Europe too. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Aren't there even some places where you can get a driver's license that legally requires you to take a automatic transmission car? And is it true that all electric cars are automatic transmission by default? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, in the UK you can take a driving test just for Automatic, and then you are restricted to just that type of car. There is also a significant premium in renting an Automatic car in Europe over its Manual counterpart, and for smaller cars Automatic may not even be possible.
Still this should be obvious to a driver, although if it needs to be made clear to North American drivers then I guess it is fine. Points 2 & 3 however should go in the obvious bucket... --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Are there still car rentals where you simply can't get an automatic? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Is the 3rd point obvious? A lot of drivers might not have much experience in driving on dirt or gravel roads. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


Gravel roads, like huge chunks of Trans-Labrador Highway between Goose Bay and the southeastern coast, can be hard on cars. Many hire car firms don't allow their vehicles to be taken off the paved road network, or insist that you're on your own (no roadside assistance) if you run into trouble on these roads. That might not be obvious to someone used to Toronto and twelve lanes of freeway. K7L (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I still hold that it should be obvious driving a normal car off road is ill advised, regardless of whether you rented or not. I remember renting a car in Adelaide and it being made clear that you would not be covered for driving on Kangaroo Island.
That said, if there truely are people who need this pointed out to them then I won't fight to change it. I just feel that it dilutes the important points contained within the article. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
One thing is that nobody would drive a normal car off-road. Understanding beforehand that some roads at the destination are suitable only for some cars is a totally different matter (unless you are going to Africa, Iceland's interior or other places where this is obvious or pointed out in the destination article). An example would be Finland, where road standards are reasonably high (so the rental firm would not warn you), but a cheap lakeside cottage you might want to rent can be at the end of a challenging forest road. Asking for road clearance may spare you a few kilometres of walking. --LPfi (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Spelling[edit]

Policy says that we have a "slight preference" for American spelling, except for our "legacy idiosyncrasy" regarding the word "traveller". I recently changed the spelling of this article to the American variant, to make consistent throughout. Now User:K7L has changed the spelling to British in two instances, making it inconsistent again. I do not - contrary to popular believe - care all that much if one page or other is spelled in British English even if that runs contrary to policy, but can we please have spelling consistency? I am raising this here, in order to avoid an edit war. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The spelling "city centre" is perfectly good English and has been in the article since 2010. You're the one making the arbitrary changes to the original text. K7L (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not arguing that it is bad English (it is however bad "American"), I am arguing that if the rest of the article is spelled American, this should be too. And if you want to change the spelling of the whole thing to British English you should imho give a reason why. If I am not mistaken our policy as to spelling would suggest American spellings for every travel topic that is not explicitly only or in its majority about a country or countries that according to our definition use British spellings... Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I doubt it. I think that a travel topic should just be in some consistent style of English. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Which as of now it isn't. There are both British and American spellings all over the place. Just because an inconsistent spelling has been here since 2010 doesn't mean we are bound to keep it for ever and ever until the end of days Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the spelling that's been here since 2010; repeated attempts to force some other spelling are merely disruption. I also see no use for the term "kilometer", it's not American (as US vehicles still roll very much in miles) and it's not English (which retains the original "kilometre", just stripping the French accent form "kilomètre"). Nobody measures anything in "kilometers" (sic), anywhere. I also notice that you are following behind me and changing all of my new content from one spelling to another. You were doing it to the April 1 jokes, now you're doing it here. Why??? K7L (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Our spelling policy is wobbly to begin with, as it states a "preference for American English" except and than goes on to list a very incomplete list of places. This article did not at any point have one consistent spelling, if you indeed want to make it all spelled British (which doesn't make sense to me as this article is not in fact about Britain), go ahead and do so; consistently throughout the article. And your assertion as to nobody using "kilometers" is just plain wrong, as it is the scientific standard to use the metric system even in the US and the leading nation in science are the US after all. Furthermore German spells it "Kilometer" but that's neither here nor there. Did I mention that I am in favor of consistency? If you change the spelling of the whole page to British, I won't revert it, I promise. But I don't like some half-assed "centre" here "neighbor" there and some words just all over the place. Imagine if the prime minister of Canada were to issue a statement which meanders between British and American spelling. We would question his sanity and ability to lead more than we already do... Best wishes and no harm intended Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
"City centre" was consistently English for five years, until you started changing things arbitrarily. I don't see an issue that needed "fixing". K7L (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't have any preference for one type of English over another, but wouldn't we all agree that articles should be internally consistent in spelling, absent a really good reason otherwise? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I could be "internally consistent" with the English spellings, and still come back one edit later to find someone has forced the American spellings back in... even if American versions weren't what was originally there. I was seeing that constantly with the time travel joke, for instance, where the content was heavily British Empire but spelling kept being changed. Usually, unless there's some reason to favour or favor one version (such as an article about a place which actually speaks one or the other, like London/Westminster), spelling is left well enough alone - it might get looked at if an article is being heavily revised for a Star nomination, but not before. Renting a car isn't a place, the way Washington, DC or the "London theatre district" are, and there's no reason to force it to anything other than whatever the original contributor used. When I write validly that "most of the Renting a car#Car sharing vehicles are in the city centre" and the next edit is "you're doing it wrong" (when "centre" is a valid English word), my first reaction is "fine, go write the article yourself - I was only trying to contribute". K7L (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I was not trying to imply that. But as other parts of the article were already in American English, I tried to make one the standard by default. And as I, my spellcheck and this very wiki all have varying degrees of preference for the American variety, I just thought that a good idea. And sorry for only replying just now, I did not have internet over the weekend; my old PC is slowly but surely going the way of all silicates... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Subheadings[edit]

Currently the subheadings of this article are rather long words, which makes the TOC in the banner messy. Any suggestions on how to improve that, without making the subheadings nonsensical? Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps many of what are currently second-level (==) headings should be third-level (===) in order to keep the number of ToC entries reasonable? K7L (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

AARP[edit]

I'm unsure about the edit replacing "groups like AA, AARP, AAA/CAA, ADAC..." with "automobile associations". As much as I don't speak American, the AARP is *not* an automobile association — it's the American Association of Retired Persons, a senior's organisation. AAA is the American Automobile Association. K7L (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with this replacement, since association acronyms may duplicate, and AARP means nothing by itself. If you follow South Park then the 'NAMBLA' episode might provide some context :) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore it was overly focused on the Anglosphere and - with the exception of the aforementioned AARP - on the "legacy" automotive associations that are known for their political slant (either pro car or anti everything else depending on where you stand yourself) and while they are dominant in membership over their "green" counterparts (if only for the obvious reason that many environmentally conscious people don't own a car in the first place), we should not promote one over the other, as even a membership in the "obscure" ADFC (German cyclist's association) can get you discounts at some places. It might still be a good idea to rephrase somewhat. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Translate to Turkish[edit]

Why is Turkish version of this page (oto kiralama) is empty.

Presumably because noone has yet translated it. By all means plunge forward in the Turkish WV (if it exists) Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)