Annoying GPS carts

[Doug Siebert]

My home course just added GPS to the carts this season.  When they announced this I didn't care, since I hardly ever ride a cart.

Now I really do care!  I played there for the first time this season with my dad a few days ago, and he rode in a cart as usual.  On the second hole he was off to the right of the green and his cart started beeping.  LOUD!  He couldn't figure out why so I went over and had a look, and the GPS unit said "restricted area".  I managed to drive it around the green to the next tee.  I thought maybe it was beeping because the GPS signal was blocked by the trees and it became confused.  Then on the 4th hole it happened again, only this time it wouldn't go forward at all once he got about 50 yards short of the green.

Turns out they are using the GPS to enforce some really big boundaries around the greens.  On some holes you can't get within 80 yards of the green if you are very far off the cartpath, on a couple of the par 3s it is essentially cart path only.  Thing is, my dad is 78 years old.  Too much walking wears him out, and he's not a particularly fast walker these days either.  It took a lot more walking on his part and of course more time due to the way the cart forces him to stay on the path starting so far from the green.

If there had been problems with people driving up right next to the greens and damaging them I could understand this, but while I have seen this once in a while from golfers who didn't know better it was pretty rare and it isn't like there were tire marks on the fringes.  They are going way too far in enforcing such huge boundaries short of the greens without regard for older or disabled golfers.  I could see this thing being useful on "cart path only" days, but why a par 3 that's all rough until 10 yards away from the green needs to be cart path only for its entire length every single day eludes me.

Anyone ever seen anything like this before?  Maybe this is common and I just don't see it since I don't ride carts often, but this is new to me.  The most annoying aspect of it is that the GPS in the carts is like something out of the 90s.  Monochrome screen, with no buttons or functions AT ALL.  Just tells you the distance to the front, middle and back of the green from where you are.  That's it.  Guess they spent all the money on this system to make my dad want to play elsewhere more often!

[Tom_Doak]

Doug:

We talked about using GPS on carts at Cape Kidnappers to keep people from getting too close to the edge of the cliff on a couple of holes.  I don't think they ever installed it, though -- the damages for negligence leading to death are much less in N.Z. than in the U.S. of A.

I thought your thread was just going to be about annoying GPS carts.  My most memorable cart ride ever was the tour around Royal New Kent in Virginia, when I left the ninth green and the GPS told me it was 843 yards from there to the tenth green!

[Michael Whitaker]

Doug:

We talked about using GPS on carts at Cape Kidnappers to keep people from getting too close to the edge of the cliff on a couple of holes.  I don't think they ever installed it, though -- the damages for negligence leading to death are much less in N.Z. than in the U.S. of A.

I thought your thread was just going to be about annoying GPS carts.  My most memorable cart ride ever was the tour around Royal New Kent in Virginia, when I left the ninth green and the GPS told me it was 843 yards from there to the tenth green!

You're not kidding about those cliffs, Tom. I got the willies walking... can't imagine getting too close in a cart!

[Joe_Tucholski]

on a couple of the par 3s it is essentially cart path only. 
...
but why a par 3 that's all rough until 10 yards away from the green needs to be cart path only for its entire length every single day eludes me.

I thought par 3's were always cart path only.

I've seen the feature once before at a course that was cart path only for a couple holes.  I'm sure you could talk to the cart barn guys or the starters to turn off the feature for your father or others in need of the cart for assisted mobility.

All that being said I think it's a great feature at a public course.  If the course wants to set their boundaries on cart traffic and can't utilize peer pressure from its membership it's certainly more effective than the signs in the fairways.  My wife makes fun of me for being a bit of rule follower but it irks me when I see people blatantly disregard the "no carts beyond this point" signs.

The real question is what is an appropriate boundary to set around the greens?  I really don't know if it would ruin the green surrounds if carts were allowed to park on the the fringe or just off the green.  It seems the only places I see turf wear from carts is right near the cart path and the regularly used entry and exit points for holes.

[Brent Carlson]

Doug,

I think fundamentally it comes down to - does the course trust its patrons enough to allow them the responsibilty of directing carts where they need to go.  If you look at Richard Choi's story in the Salish Cliffs thread, you will see that these GPS carts often have unintentional consequences.  I believe that the golfer is inherently smart enough to pilot his/her golf cart in a responsible manner.  However, if a course wants to play big brother then it needs to do so responsibly.  What I mean is - ensure that the carts allow proper driving, and not forcing someone into a bunker or water hazard, as I have experienced.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Doug - I think the idea that GPS can restrict where a cart goes is very good. Too many people drive them like idiots. The H & S benifits as Tom suggests could save lifes at some courses and at others it can keep carts on paths at some holes and free to roam on others, so it could give the club more flexbility in opening up some dry holes to buggies and shutting off others.... when the price comes down a bit we will all have them on the carts.

[Dan Herrmann]

Amen - you should see where some visitors end up driving their power carts. 

If you're at a private club, go sneak a peek during an outing.  You'll laugh, but you'll cry too.

[jeffwarne]

Amen - you should see where some visitors end up driving their power carts. 

If you're at a private club, go sneak a peek during an outing.  You'll laugh, but you'll cry too.

It's potentially a great feature.(minus the beep)
You'd be amazed where people take their carts once they're out of sight (or think they're out of sight)

The GPS feature simply needs disabling for a mobility challenged guest, no different than a red flag.
In fact it probably need a red flag to keep the Barney Fife's from calling when they see it in a restricted area

[archie_struthers]

 

One of my friends invented Cartrol, a system where the course was wired (underground) to prevent entry by carts into sensitive areas. It was built on the invisible fence system that is used for dogs. Too bad they couldn't make the offending golfers wear collars and zap them.  Lol


It didn't work for a variety of reasons but This ones a doozy.  The CARTROL system would disable a cart as it got too close to a green ,and electronically would allow only reverse to work . This would sensibly allow the golfer /operator back out of the area.  But of course once some heathens figured it put, you would see carts being driven backwards all over the place!  Ii yin yii .

[Tom_Doak]

It didn't work for a variety of reasons but This ones a doozy.  The CARTROL system would disable a cart as it got too close to a green ,and electronically would allow only reverse to work . This would sensibly allow the golfer /operator back out of the area.  But of course once some heathens figured it put, you would see carts being driven backwards all over the place!  Ii yin yii .

Only in America. 

Well, actually that sounds like something the Chinese would figure out, too.

[Tom_Doak]

I once played behind a guy who took his cart over the collar between the green and a 15-foot deep bunker on the 17th hole at Black Forest.  The worst part of it was wondering, if he did roll the cart in the bunker, whether he would sue me for putting the path in an inconvenient place.

If a course is going to trust their customers to drive the cart responsibly, as Brent suggests, then they could at least agree to assume all the liability that might come toward the golf course architect.  Personally, I wouldn't trust many people to drive a cart in the right place ... especially where alcohol is served on course.

[Ted Sturges]

Tom,

That is very intersting.  Just curious, do you own (or is it even offered for sale) liability/"malpractice" insurance for potential claims against you for your design work?

(I recall a post on this site several years ago about a couple of (unnamed) architects who the site accused of "malpractice"...perhaps this is a new business/insurance opportunity).

TS

[SL_Solow]

I knew some fellows who mesmerized by the view on the 8th at Pebble had to leap out of their cart just before it went over the cliff.  These were (still are) experienced golfers.  Why anyone who is healthy would want to ride at Pebble is incomprehensible but this adds one more reason to walk.

[Cliff Hamm]

GPS carts could be a huge asset in improving pace of play. The location of all carts can be monitored  and the culprits quickly identified.  Unfortunately I have never seen this occur.

[john_stiles]

It would be pretty simple to have the program such that someone (golf shop) could enter or switch the cart to " handicap or super senior mode"  and then you could get closer to the greens, tees, etc.

[Bill Seitz]

GPS carts could be a huge asset in improving pace of play. The location of all carts can be monitored  and the culprits quickly identified.  Unfortunately I have never seen this occur.

They still help to the extent that they show the location of the golfers directly in front of you.  If you have a tee shot to a blind landing area, it's a nice feature to see the little cart icons representing the group in front of you drive away, so you know when it's safe to hit.  There are other ways to do this, of course, but it can be a helpful feature.  I mostly walk, so I'm not usually in one, but the times I have been, there are some benefits.  What makes no sense to me are GPS carts at courses that are entirely cart path only.  What's the point of knowing the yardage from your spot on the cart path when your ball in 70 yards away?

With regard to restrictions, I recall a similar system being in place at (I think) Arroyo Trabuco in Mission Viejo.  It was mostly in place to keep carts out of native areas.  I don't recall it being an issue around the greens, but we were on paths by the greens anyway.  I don't know if the cart actually stopped, but there was definitely a warning on the screen.

[Greg Tallman]

People cannot be trusted to act/drive in a responbsible manner, sad but true and even more apparent here in Mexico where many Americans feel the need to act far different than they would at home.

Tom's driving into the bunker scenario played out here a few years back. Guy was well oiled if you will, throws the cart in reverse and backs into a relatively deep bunker. He sustained some painful yet not overly serious injuries and took a trip to the hospital. In true Gringo fashion he demanded that the resort pay for everything and then some. As Tom suggests with NZ the law system the system here has some logic as its base versus the "attack deep pockets" system that has been created in the US.

The McDonald's coffee spill suit would have been laughed out of even the least ethical lawyer's office in México, not to mention the court system.

To the orginal topic I have wilted to pressure and we will more than likely have GPS introduced on our carts this coming fall. After fighting it for some time I simply decided that those that do not like it can ignore it and those that complain to the point of requesting discounts/refunds because we do not have it will finally be happy. Oh well... 

[Cliff Hamm]

The McDonald's coffee spill suit would have been laughed out of even the least ethical lawyer's office in México, not to mention the court system.

The McDonald's lawsuit is often used as the poster child for frivolous lawsuits.  It was not, however, as frivolous as the media might  have reported.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

The issue of golf cart safety has been discussed widely in golf circles here in Sweden. At last year's Swedish Golf Federation AGM, the issue of safety was brought up as there was a concern about the legal aspects of hyring out golf carts. In Swedish transport law, the rules governing the driving a golf cart are no different to driving a motor car. In fact, golf carts must even have registration plates.

A number of arrests have been made by Police. At Halmstads GC, a man was fined 80000 kroner (€8000) and lost his licence for 1 year. He had an alcohol level of 1 promille. Another member was fined 20000 kroner (€2000) and lost his licence for 8 months. At Ystad GC, some concerned members called the police when they witnesses a 62 year old woman driving dangerously. Her case went to court as she had an alcohol level of 1.18 promille. She was given a 80 days sentence.

This year golf clubs throughout Sweden have had to treat the issue more seriously. It is illegal to drive a golf cart without a vaild drivers licence, so golf clubs will not allow you to hire a golf cart if you cannot produce one. Those hyring out golf carts must also have attended a Dept. of Transport approved course, and course rangers will now do spot checks out on the course.

Golf cart usage is still relatively low in Sweden, however, last year 13 million kroner (€1.3) was generated from cart hire, and the market is growing.

[archie_struthers]

 

Don't let our politicians see this Donal's post or we'll surely have them looking to get in the golf cart regulation business. They'll be thinking "outside the box"

[Greg Tallman]

The McDonald's coffee spill suit would have been laughed out of even the least ethical lawyer's office in México, not to mention the court system.

The McDonald's lawsuit is often used as the poster child for frivolous lawsuits.  It was not, however, as frivolous as the media might  have reported.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Interesting article but down here that would go something like this...

"Did you know the cup was styrfoam?"
Yes
"You understand styrofoam can bend, move... it is not a solid marterial like say a coffee cup?"
Of course

"Do you like your coffee hot?"
Yes, I'm not much for that Icee Mochachino stuff

"I see both of your hands do seem to be functioning well today, Was this the case on the day of the incident?"
Yes.

"The defense rests your honor and , if I may, Why are you giggling?"

[Andy Stamm]

McDonald's wasn't just serving "hot" coffee. It was undrinkably hot and they knew that it could and was causing numerous significant injuries.

Also, another perspective is this.

A person buys a coffee at McDonald's and is severly burnt. He goes to the hospital where he requires $200k of medical care, which is provided without payment as required of the hospital. After the fact, the hospital wants to recover its money. The man does not have the money and is 'judgment proof.'

Anyone who thinks these lawsuits are crazy please answer this question:

Who, between McDonald's and the hospital, should bear the loss?

McDonald's has control over the product and knew that it was capable of and in fact was causing these injuries. It could take any number of steps to avoid the harm including obviously serving hot coffee which is not so prone to causing severe injuries. It could also insure against losses. The hospital has no control over the product and is not in a position to avoid the harm.

Bigger picture, if the hospital bears the loss, that means that hospital users (or taxpayers) pay the cost through either higher fees for other services or taxes. If McDonald's bears the loss, McDonald's customers pay the cost via higher prices. Of these 2 groups, McDonald's customers are the better choice for paying extra because they are the specific class of people that are protected/compensated for this harm. If the hospital users/taxpayers pay more, you've just shifted a loss and the associated higher costs/taxes to a group that that really isn't benefiting. Sure McDonald's coffee drinkers use the hospital and pay taxes, but as a class they're getting cheaper, safer coffee at the expense of a lot of non-McDonald's coffee drinking hospital users/taxpayers.

[Greg Tallman]

McDonald's wasn't just serving "hot" coffee. It was undrinkably hot and they knew that it could and was causing numerous significant injuries.

Also, another perspective is this.

A person buys a coffee at McDonald's and is severly burnt. He goes to the hospital where he requires $200k of medical care, which is provided without payment as required of the hospital. After the fact, the hospital wants to recover its money. The man does not have the money and is 'judgment proof.'

Anyone who thinks these lawsuits are crazy please answer this question:

Who, between McDonald's and the hospital, should bear the loss?

McDonald's has control over the product and knew that it was capable of and in fact was causing these injuries. It could take any number of steps to avoid the harm including obviously serving hot coffee which is not so prone to causing severe injuries. It could also insure against losses. The hospital has no control over the product and is not in a position to avoid the harm.

Bigger picture, if the hospital bears the loss, that means that hospital users (or taxpayers) pay the cost through either higher fees for other services or taxes. If McDonald's bears the loss, McDonald's customers pay the cost via higher prices. Of these 2 groups, McDonald's customers are the better choice for paying extra because they are the specific class of people that are protected/compensated for this harm. If the hospital users/taxpayers pay more, you've just shifted a loss and the associated higher costs/taxes to a group that that really isn't benefiting. Sure McDonald's coffee drinkers use the hospital and pay taxes, but as a class they're getting cheaper, safer coffee at the expense of a lot of non-McDonald's coffee drinking hospital users/taxpayers.

Sorry Andy, my world is logic driven:

1. Coffee IS hot... anyone with any brain function knows that it could burn you - how badly is irrelevant in my opinion because...
2. Very few people enjoy being burned, period
3. Sticking a cup, even a solid cup, between one's legs/knees is not an intelligent way to handle potentially burning material... a styro cup... you get what you deserve
4. There are two people in the car and, is at a stop as claimed,  logic says the safe thing to do was have one hod the coffe whilst the other pen the creamer/sugar or whatever


An individual used lack of good judgement in handliing a substance that is obviously hot so she gets a break based on... "I knew it could burnme but geesh this is too much, my ignorance should be duly rewarded/compensated.

Who is responsible? The fool who acted stupidly.

[Andy Stamm]

Let's not get into how logic applies to these systems.

But as between the hospital where the person burned shows up for treatment and McDonald's who should bear the loss?

[Greg Tallman]

Let's not get into how logic applies to these systems.

But as between the hospital where the person burned shows up for treatment and McDonald's who should bear the loss?

Neither... back to GPS as nothing will change my opinion on the coffee issue. Then again I had to change my stance on GPS as well so...