Skip to content
Archive of posts tagged thoughts

new decade means new driving law

at the beginning of the new decade bc drivers had to do a quick update in regards to what they’re allowed to do while at the wheel of a vehicle. the use of a cellphone, mp3 or any other handheld devices if strictly prohibited while driving. however, just like any other law made by man there are just as many exceptions to the law as there are grammar exceptions in the English language. most important ones are, and this only applies to full driver license holders, you can talk on the phone if you are using a hands free device or if it is an emergency then feel free to use the handheld device.

overall, i agree that while driving one should concentrate on driving and only driving. so, in order to ensure safety on the road i will agree with stricter laws. however, hiding behind the pretext of implementing a change for safety but coming up with a half-assed law should not be allowed. talking on the cellphone is definitely a problem and has been shown to distract drivers while driving. the problem with it…the talking. being involved in a conversation while driving will distract one from being in the fullest state of alert. the conversation itself is the problem. fair enough if you argue that having one hand on the phone is also a problem, but it’s no the only one. if you focus on talking, even if it is on a hand less device, you are still not fully concentrating on the road. so while handheld device and talking are most likely worst than talking by itself; it’s still the talking that takes the huge chunk of the issue. anyhow…the idea of the law is great, the law itself is simply stupid. not sure of what they were smoking when they came up with it, but they should share with the rest of us. if in research we would conclude using the same logic we’d still be in the dark ages.

at this point, i’d like to know how they will address the other bigger problems and causes of lack of attention while driving? things like:

  • putting on make-up
  • eating
  • smoking
  • reading a book
  • having a pet in your lap while you drive
  • drinking (not alcohol) while driving
  • etc…

how and when will they truly address these issues? how is one supposed to drive properly while they hold their ‘rat’ size puddle in their lap? or is a moving animal in the front seat not considered to be a potential hazard? eating and drinking while driving, i guess that’s ok; yet if a law is developed to address this then mcdonald’s will not supply lunch at the office for them anymore. i guess someone had to increase sales profits on bluetooth devices (or bluetooth like devices) and thus…we get the cellphone law.

trust the salesman

…to make sure the profit is maximized at the cost of the buyer. i’ve been in the market to purchase a new car for the last month or so. prior to even walking into a dealership, i started looking online to see the options given my student budget. the cars that stood out were the yaris, corolla, mazda3, honda fit and nissan ventra. they were priced close to each other, and each had it’s benefits and cons. while looking at various car options, i started reading the following websites (thanks tom for the advice): http://carbuyingtips.com/, and http://carcostcanada.com/. there’s plenty of information on the websites, from scams and tricks salesmen play, to how much a car really cost. worth reading the websites, it could save you from making a bad deal and/or could save you a few hundred dollars. so essentially for some that might not know, the dealer purchases a car from the manufacturer and they ‘pay’ a price. there is a hold back (3-6% of the car price) which is given back to the dealer once the car is sold. on top of that the manufacturer has rebates and/or incentives for the dealers – which are not publicly available nor noted on the sale invoice the dealer is given. keep in mind the dealer not only makes enough money off the car to keep the people hired with a salary and pay for the location (including utilities, rent and other taxes), not to mention the dealer’s profit. essentially, for a $20,000 car the dealer actually paid more or less close to 50% of that. moreover, the more cars a dealership sells, the higher ranked they are – which translates into more $ and better rating.

after a few visits to various dealerships, i decided to purchase the mazda3 and i send several salesmen an email asking for a quote. after exchanging emails with a few salesmen i made an offer with $1000 less than the sticker price for the car. some salesmen stated they would agree to a discount, but not $1000, while two different salesmen agreed to the price. here’s how each of them made sure to not only lose a sale, but essentially push me towards purchasing a toyota corolla instead.

the first salesman that lost my business was a morrey-northshore mazda salesman (one of the first salesmen i’ve seen in person) due to his aggressive strategy coupled with poor grammar and borderline insulting tone. he was fully aware i wanted the car, i test drove it at his location and thought i would not stand by my offer. his reply to my offer was by email and phone, stating it’s simply too low. however, once i thanked him for his time and stated i will make the deal with another dealership he responded that his manager agreed to the price as well. i asked him to make me a sweeter offer in order to come back given his firm stand the day before. his frustration took over at this point, and kept pushing for me to come in but without stating a starting point for the offer. all i wanted was to decide on the price of the car, have it in writing so that it decreases the time spend at the dealership. regardless, after a few pointless emails, he emails me stating:

If you think $19690 is lot money for you,why don’t you come in to do the deal.instead back & for on Email.If you want one ,come and get it,that ‘all i have to say.Is it very difficult for you to come down. I’ll been honest with you.You got nothing to loose!

the offer on this, is $370 lower than the offer i had to him. i reply, agreeing to go in and finalize the deal and we email back and forth and settle on a time for the next day. however, about an hour later he sends me an email apologizing for his ‘typo’, he actually meant to write ‘$19960′. i thanked him for his time at this point and told him it’s in my best interest to take my business somewhere else where the salesman stands by his word. his reply was something one would expect from a recent ex-girlfriend that just found out there is no way to repair the relationship. his email was still full of grammar and spelling errors. his rant was apparently due to the fact that i wanted to negotiate by email. which is understood, because then there’s proof of what has been talked about. i guess it’s easier to ‘fix’ the intentional errors if one is on the dealership’s floor. so apparently the ‘right’ way to purchase a car is to show the commitment by being there in person and wait around for hours till a deal is finalized. anyhow, he ended the email by wishing me a “Marry Christmas”. i simply replied asking him to inform his manager as to the reasons (poor attitude, bad grammar and the fact that he is error prone) of why he lost a sure sale. just when you would think he probably would realize that it’s perhaps wise not to push it even more he tells me to go get my deal somewhere else.

the second salesman that lost my business is currently employed at freeway mazda in surrey. i emailed them asking for a quote and with the second email i offered them my price ($16,200 for the car plus the additional taxes). he accepted and asked me to come by. i drove down on saturday after visiting wolfe mazda (and i thank the salesman there for giving me advice to make sure i hold freeway mazda to the deal they accepted on paper…thank you!). after over two hours being spent at the dealership i ended up accepting an offer made by the salesman. by this time it was 4:30pm and the financial office was closing, the insurance was not going to get done and the car i wanted was not going to get prepared so that i could leave with it. so, i told the salesman i will be back the next day. the deal i accepted was essentially $400 above the email price due to some ‘technicalities’ as it seemed. i assume responsibility for not standing for the price originally agreed over email. however, the salesman did not agree to accept my trade in (my old car), and the next morning i informed him that i simply cannot come down to accept the offer from the previous day because i won’t be able to make the payments and i will be left with two cars – given i wanted to trade the old one in. after a few minutes talking over the phone, the salesman accepts the original price and confirms an acceptable amount for my trade in. he confirms (twice) the price and assures me the manager has accepted. so i drove to surrey, yet again. as expected the manager and the salesman take my car for a spin, they seem to like it and the salesman confirms again the deal. so, the next step is finalizing the deal in the financial office. at which point i ask the finance manager what is the price of the car before tax – and he informs me a price with and increase of $200. the salesman is brought in – and surprise surprise he has a case of amnesia in regards to the offer he accepted and confirmed three times (twice on the phone and once on the floor of the dealership). his reason – the manager misunderstood the deal and accepted the trade-in value at the increased price. i thanked him at that point and i walked out.

however, the story doesn’t end there. the following morning the salesman has the balls to email me and state that’s it’s too bad the deal couldn’t get done due to $200. implying i should just pay and buy his car. i don’t see why i have to suddenly accept a different price that what was originally agreed upon. anyhow, if that was all…i guess it would be ok. however, given they looked at the papers for my car, they made copies of my insurance (which includes the car information). so it seems (and this i only found out hours ago when i sold my car)  that after i left the dealership, the salesman or the manager edited the status of my car and labeled it as a ‘trade-in’. essentially making the car ‘sold’ to them even though i never signed anything. i found out about this tonight when i sold my car privately and was informed of the status of my car by the insurance broker. he asked some questions, but in the end it was clarified and the car is sold. however, what the dealer did is despicable. label a car a ‘trade-in’ after i walk out of the dealership  as revenge that i did not accept their little game.

with all that, on monday morning i emailed toyota dealers for a quote on a toyota corolla 2010. all i have to say it’s that by the end of the evening i signed for a new 2010 corolla. it was that simple. they offered the right price, the right options and did not f..k around when i walked into the financial office.

what did i learn? a salesman should be trusted to ensure his pocket is as thick as it could be. they will play games and try to pull tricks. they usually come in a pack of three. the salesman, the manager and the financial manager. they all know the price they want to sell at. they all know where the additions are. they had it when you have it written down and they hate it if it’s their word that is on paper. get in on paper and get everything they promise on paper to make sure you receive it. a salesman will sell his own skin if the price is right – that you can take to the bank. the tricks i’ve seen pulled in the last few days were all described on the websites i mentioned earlier. reading those prior to walking into the dealership was quite a good idea. the salesman will make ‘mistakes’, however the mistakes will usually cost the buyer not him. the mistakes are never on their end. if they agree to decrease the price on one side, make sure they will re-gain it in another way. negotiate by email and you have proof of a deal, but make sure you’re willing to stand by your word to ensure you keep the salesman to his word.

customer safety, it matters too

superstoremost consumer/customer safety issues usually are related to ensuring injury or health related issues do not occur due to the use or consumption of the product purchased.  however, a store is and should be responsible for the safety of its consumers while on all the premises of the respective store. some might argue that they are, and fair enough, most (if not all) stores are usually careful in regards to the safety of the customer while inside the store, the designated parking lots are part of the store as well.

last night, part of the grocery shopping took us to the real canadian superstore. while i won’t divulge which one, i will say that it is in vancouver (you’ll see why later). while approaching the car with the cart following the shopping experience, a homeless person approached us and demanded to take the cart back to its ‘parking’ spot. to put this in perspective for some of you, in order to use the carts at superstore one needs to place a loonie (a $1 coin) in the cart; which gets returned when taking the cart back. now, i’m not picking on superstore, but it’s quite clear as to why some homeless will chose superstore over other stores to ‘provide’ this service; and thus why you see these people in superstore parking lots rather than safeway, save-on-foods and walmart.

this is not the first time a homeless person has approached us in order to ask to take the cart back so that they receive the $1. however, this is the first time the person seemed demanding and very pushy. the guy, once i refused, turned around and approached the person parked next to my car. following this, he made his way into the covered parking area for the carts (an area which tends to be a bit darker). regardless, the pushiness and the fact that i spotted to of them in close proximity to each other…made me wonder.

first off, it’s not the first time it happened. it’s actually the ‘nth’ time. some might argue that they are making an effort to provide some sort of a service for the $1, in comparison to the ones on the street that simply beg. however, what will happen when they simply won’t accept a refusal by walking away? it’s not such an extreme idea. over the summer in vancouver, there have been reported incidence where beggars became aggressive once their request were refused. what will happen when the $1 is not enough and they ask for me. or better yet, what will happen starting december (given than from the 4th of december, superstore decide to combat walmart’s idea and keep some stores open 24h) if a woman is alone and walking to her car in the late hours of a day and refuses to accept the request?

so, this brings me to my point. who should be responsible for the safety of the customers in the parking lot of a store? should it be store? should it be the police of the city? or should it be a joint effort? i’d like to see the vancouver rcmp put this on their priority list. doubt it will happen. but i do wonder how superstore will respond to being put this question. i wonder how the vancouver mayor’s office will respond when questioned about this.

i do think that a store should be responsible for the safety of its shoppers from the time they enter their parking lot to the time the exit; limiting this only to safety in regards to injury or hurt but not due to consumption of the products. so this begs the question, should one continue to shop there if one does not feel 100% safe on the premises of the store? should one bring this up to with the store? the city hall? whom? well, i did provide superstore with my complaint earlier today. i am waiting to see how they will handle this.