Letters to the Editors
Send a letter to the editors

Subject: TMV
From: Don
I offered the TMV to a North Carolina Lexus dealer for a 2006 GS 300 AWD. They said they would consider the TMV number plus North Carolina tax, tag ($69) and documentary fee ($399).

Please explain the components for the generation of TMV so I can decide if I'm being raked over the coals or being treated fairly.

Your valuable input is appreciated.

New-car buyers pay for the car itself (represented as our TMV price) plus state and local sales tax, registration fees and a document fee. In some areas the "doc fee" is capped by the state at a certain amount, usually $100 or less. In areas where there is no regulation of the doc fee, some dealers use this as a way to make extra profit. This allows them to quote a low price on the car knowing they will make money on the doc fee. That's why, when you are quoted a price that sounds good, you should ask what your "out the door" price is before you agree to anything. This will reveal hidden fees such as inflated doc fees, other bogus charges or the cost of alarms that are basically unnecessary. If you are getting a screamin' deal on the car, you can swallow a high doc fee. But if you are at TMV already, a $399 doc fee is unacceptable. After all, a doc fee is literally to cover their cost of preparing the contract. Is this worth $399? Go to another dealership or tell them you will only pay TMV plus a reasonable doc fee — about $100. — Ed.

Subject: "Beat Your Ticket"
From: Anonymous
It's a sad commentary on our motoring society when we have publications like Edmunds offering advice on beating speeding tickets. Any advice on how to treat the victims of someone's reckless driving behavior? I live in the Northeast area and in the past two weeks we have lost the lives of nine young people under the age of 19 all occurring in one county and all due to excessive speed. Maybe they were keeping up with the law-breaking experts when they lost control.

Have you ever thought about doing an article on just how little time you gain on the average drive, the difference in time gain between going 60 or 80 mph? It isn't much and certainly not worth the time reward. Do the math and publish something beneficial to society.

Subject: "Beat Your Ticket"
From: Ron
My only comment is, you the writer, are a SCOFFLAW. You knew you were speeding, you knew the speed limit, you knew the penalty for speeding. Accept your penalty like a man/woman. Yes, you saved $77, but did you also consider this: You tied up the courts, you caused a police officer to work either overtime or have him/her attend to your sniveling in court when they could have been out on the road protecting and assisting others. YOUR selfishness could have prevented the police from attending to an accident or helping someone in distress. To top it off, you have the gall to suggest your lack of ownership of your own mistakes should be undertaken by other persons. SHAME!!!!!

In passing. STOP does not mean slow down to 5 or even 3 mph, it means STOP. The sign YIELD means to slow down. If you don't like the laws, the United States has a process to permit you to get the law changed. Not to ignore it just because YOU don't like it.

Subject: "Beat Your Ticket"
From: Anonymous
Nice article. Rather than promote safe driving habits and conforming with the laws, you advocate ways to get around the laws you are caught breaking. Perhaps if you are not satisfied with the laws that are in effect to keep the majority of the motoring public safe, you should write an article on how to contact your local or state representatives to change the laws that you feel are so unfair. Maybe you could write a series of articles on how to conceal items in your clothing from a store that you don't feel like paying for?

There is no harm in being prepared for your day in court but sometimes the responsibility actually lies with the person breaking the law, not with the officer who you say changes his story to make it sound better for the judge or the judge himself.

Subject: "Beat Your Ticket"
From: Anonymous
I just read the article "Beat Your Ticket," and I must say I was not impressed. I was angry that the author never regretted his violation of the law except when it might cost him a few dollars. While crossing the street (in a crosswalk, I might add) I was run over by a car that was not only speeding but did not stop for a stop sign. I would hope that the person who nearly killed me would at least regret his negligence enough to think twice about doing it a second time. Your advice to readers is: "If you can get away with it, who cares if it's against the law?" How irresponsible.

Your author's experience is fodder for sleazy water cooler conversation, not for responsible journalism. Grow up.

Subject: "Beat Your Ticket"
From: Sheridan
Just what we need! People speeding AND getting out of their tickets. You have no clue as to ethics for-all-the-others. And it is what is taking American culture right down the toilet. No, I am not a fundamentalist anything. Just sick of this kind of media-think, which is no thinking at all. And STILL in rehab from an arrogant driver who is probably printing out all your "advice."

Subject: "Beat Your Ticket"
From: Anonymous
Hello, Edmunds. I'm sending this e-mail after reading your story on BEAT YOUR TICKET. I am a deputy sheriff in a county of about 95,000 people in Upstate N.Y. You should let your readers know that in smaller communities the chances of the officers not showing up are decreased. The average officer in this area writes about 25 or 30 tickets a month. So very rarely are there trials. If there are trials, you better show up. If the officer's boss finds out he or she missed a trial, there could be trouble.

Subject: "Beat Your Ticket"
From: John
I read with interest your article on how to beat a traffic ticket, and felt I should weigh in with my opinion. To begin with, I am a police sergeant in a small college town in Washington State. My department writes about 600 tickets a year on the average. Here were some thoughts I had while reading your article.

I would never discourage anyone from having their day in court. That is one of our country's most fiercely protected rights. However, your article talks about California law, and while I can't speak for other states, Washington does not require the officer to be in traffic court unless subpoenaed there by the motorist cited. Officers fill out an affidavit, and that is read in their place.

However, someone reading your article may feel that by merely showing up to court, they stand a chance of having their ticket thrown out merely because the officer didn't show up. In our state, that wouldn't be enough. They still will need to give compelling evidence that shows that they were not speeding.

Don't misunderstand, I would encourage anyone who feels that they did not deserve the ticket to ask for their day in court. I would merely suggest that those who know they have committed the violation to seek other alternatives to asking for their day in court.

Unfortunately, I realize that there still are a few police officers out there who may write an undeserving motorist a ticket merely to make a few bucks for their municipality, and others who may write someone who doesn't deserve a ticket in hopes that the motorist will just pay without contesting the infraction. Those few bad apples can taint the reputation of hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers who would never consider risking the trust of their communities. Those bad apples are the exception, and not the rule, and we fight daily to remove them from our profession when we can identify them.

Finally, your article suggests that the person fighting the ticket needed to find some way to "get out of the ticket" when really, by their own admission, they were speeding. The speed limits were established to protect motorists. I realize that there are many jurisdictions where the speed limit signs are totally ignored, and law enforcement has to pick and choose when to enforce them.

It would be nice to see a respectable organization such as Edmunds encourage people to drive safer, drive slower, and help reduce the number of accidents and fatalities related to traffic. This article, while it may be informative in some jurisdictions, would merely tax an already overburdened system unnecessarily in others.

I read this article from the front pages of AOL when I signed on tonight — how many others have done the same? Please consider that the way this article is written seems to encourage the reader to fight their speeding ticket, not because they didn't deserve it, but rather because they can win if they just challenge the system a little.

Stay safe, and thanks for letting me share my thoughts.

We don't say this very often: we made a mistake in presenting this article this way. It was written four years ago and only attracted this outcry after it was posted on AOL. We have revised the article, changed the headline and written a new introduction as follows:

"At Edmunds.com we do not in any way condone breaking traffic laws. However, there are times we feel we have unfairly received a ticket because of extenuating circumstances or because of a speed trap on a lonely downhill stretch of road. These articles were written for the driver who feels unjustly accused and who wants to argue their case in traffic court." — Ed.

Subject: Dodge Charger Review
From: Shakeel
Your review of Dodge Charger was lively and right on the mark. I am now a proud owner of the new 2006 Charger, and thanks to you for pointing me in the right direction. Charger looks great inside out, I have two teenage sons and they are really exited about the car. The interior is amazing, 19-inch tires give a much better look. The trunk is huge, the car is huge. It has more space than you could ever need. The power is great and the mileage is amazing for a 350-hp Hemi beast. All I can say is "Wow!" Great car to drive and well built. The RT suspension really settles the car down and eliminates float without being too harsh on bumps. So far it's a hoot and I can't go anywhere without getting thumbs-up or drawing crowds. The car handles great, stops well, and is better than most products I have owned. Thanks to you again for such a lively review, I enjoyed reading every bit of what you had to say about the Charger.

Subject: Smart Car Shopping
From: Anonymous
I read and saved your "Confessions of a Car Salesman" when it first came out and it was very helpful when I recently purchased a new van. Today, AOL again has a picture story and a link to your "Confessions" article on their WELCOME screen and that is what reminded me that car buyers need help in another arena.

What car buyers also need is an article about "Confessions of Car Dealer Finance/Business Manager." Do you know of any currently published articles that reveal the tactics and comparative costs of all the tricks and add-ons that take place after you leave the car salesman and walk into the finance dept. If not, then you should write one.

Excellent suggestion. After all, you can negotiate like a pro, but if the wrong numbers are in the contract you will pay for your mistake for the life of the loan. Here is one story we wrote on this subject called "Invoice Scams and Sudden Extras — The Game is Changing."— Ed.

Subject: "First Drive — 2006 Porsche Cayman S"
From: Mark
I have long been a fan of Edmunds.com and I enjoyed the AOL article today about the new Porsche Cayman. It sounds like a terrific car.

I understand the author's point of view regarding the Cayman versus the Boxster. I do, however, own a 2000 Boxster, and the author of the article seems to miss the most important feature of the Boxster.

Namely, the Boxster is a CONVERTIBLE, to be driven with the top down. Unless they remove the roof of the Cayman, how can it ever be as desirable overall as a Boxster?

Today's article reminds me of criticism of the Boxster's plastic rear window. To this Boxster owner, the rear window is a very minor issue because it is almost always tucked away with the top down.

Yes, the buttons on the radio are very small, but the rest of the Boxster is great.

Keep up the good work. Your Web site is fabulous!

Subject: "First Drive — 2006 Ford Fusion"
From: Anonymous
You've got to be kidding? "The Perfect Formula?…rivals the best Japan has to offer?" LOL. "Ford's killshot aimed directly at the heart of the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry."

Have you guys been drinking before you made this evaluation? The looks and styling for this car is yet again, BORING, ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Typical Ford styling. You can show me a dozen of car dashboards, be it American or foreign and I will probably spot that Ford Fusion dashboard out of all of them. It's typical Ford look, boring and cheap. This clearly does not "rival the best of Japan has to offer." It might rival the "worst Japan has to offer." Have you seen Acura's, Honda, Toyota and Nissan's interiors at all?

The only car Ford has made with any thought was the redesigned Mustang. They struck gold with that one. Problem with Ford is, the company still thinks it's 1988.

Don't get me wrong, I love Edmunds.com, but somebody has to let Ford know it's 2005.

C'mon, guys.

Subject: "Comparison Test: 2006 Pontiac Solstice vs. 2006 Mazda MX-5 Miata"
From: Andrea
I really enjoyed reading your article because I have been wanting to get one or the other. After reading your article I decided on the Solstice. I think your comment that it drove like you'd want your mother's car to drive did it. I'm 57 and have always had very practical cars since I've had children. I now want something that fits my lifestyle NOW. I'm single, feel younger than 57, and think either one of those two cars looks like a lot of fun.

I think you are going to be surprised at the demographic that buys these "sports" cars.

Subject: "Diesel, Gas or Hybrid?"
From: Leigh
I was reading Mike Hudson's article "Diesel, Gas or Hybrid?" and he states, "Alternative fuel: These are cars that run on fuels like natural gas and hydrogen. For the time being, they are prohibitively expensive for normal passenger car use."

I find it very surprising that he would state this because the cost of a Honda Civic GX (compressed natural gas Civic) is only $4,500 more than the equivalent Civic. But that cost is lessened by the state offering $3,000 cash for buying an NGV car and the federal government offered a $2,000 tax deduction. Yet the savings don't stop there. The maintenance of a CNG is much less as you don't have to change the oil but every 10,000 miles because the fuel does not pollute the oil in the engine. Fuel costs are much less; currently the price for natural gas is at least $0.70 per gallon less than the cheapest gasoline in the market and can be pushed even cheaper by using PHILL the home refilling unit (cost of CNG at home can be as little as $1.50 per gasoline gallon equivalent), and using that you don't ever have to visit a gas station again. These cars often run 300,000 without significant engine problems as well. States also offer single-occupant drivers the ability to use HOV lanes, saving time and increasing fuel economy because you are not sitting in traffic.

Then there is another issue…national security, and reliance on foreign oil. Both gasoline and diesel are made from crude oil as you know, but natural gas in the U.S. is some 80 percent from domestic sources further lowering our dependence on foreign oil. Also, many experts say that natural gas is the most abundant energy resource currently available with many saying we have well over 500 years of NG at several times our current consumption.

What about the fact that the Honda Civic GX was rated as the cleanest burning internal combustion engine EVER made? Doesn't this have to be considered as well? When that hybrid owner fills up his car and spills just a tablespoon's worth of gas at fill-up, he has added more pollutants to the air than a GX driving from Los Angeles to Washington D.C. As for gas mileage the Civic GX gets 30/34 mpg city/highway and with a difference in gas costs it is just as cheap to drive as the Toyota Prius.

When are you at Edmunds, the media of America and the government going to realize that natural gas is probably one of the best ways that we can head to solve many of our problems in energy in this country? It is arties like Mr. Hudson's that don't give the complete story to the American consumer who goes to your site for good quality advice. When is Edmunds going to put all offerings from automakers (including the Civic GX) on its site for true-cost comparisons?

Consumer Advice Editor Mike Hudson responds: You make some good points. But what you aren't considering is the fact that these vehicles are only affordable to the manufacturer because of their willingness to lose money on the sale of the vehicle — even with government subsidies to both the buyer and the maker. This is why only Honda has come to the market so far, because it wants to win this market as it emerges.

We have driven the Civic GX extensively and enjoyed it. Your anger at this article is unwarranted. The article has almost nothing to do with natural gas cars. The sentence you refer to is simply a means of explaining why natural gas and hydrogen/fuel cells have not made a major impression on the market.

We have an entire road test of the GX on Inside Line now. If you are a fan of natural gas vehicles, that is wonderful and we support it. But we are hardly a part of any conspiracy to keep people from driving them — although there are obvious drawbacks that you seem unwilling to accept (lack of range, lack of fill-up availability outside of major cities, lack of horsepower, not to mention — a few extra thousand dollars on the sticker IS a big deal to most people).