Greater percentage of wrecked cars being scrapped rather than repaired

I would never drive someone else's car if I wasn't shown on that person's
driver list (unless it was insured for any driver) unless that owner
accepted that I would not pay for any damage to his car, as my insurance
would not pay for that car's damage (only third-party liability).

It's a good thing I am not in a position to drive my own car in the USA as I
would not, it seems from what I have read in this thread, want to drive in
those states where not even third-party liability insurance is mandatory.
Any joy rider could crash into me and not have to pay and not be liable for
an offence.
The damage would be paid out of my insurance and my premium loaded
accordingly.
In practice much the same happens in the UK, but at least the perpretator is
committing an offence by driving uninsured. (May be committing another one
by driving a stolen car, of course.)

Just in case not clear, I as driver am insured to drive other cars on
third-party liability only. Additional cover is car-specific.

You CANNOT lend the car to someone else with the same level of cover unless
you are paying to permit any driver. To mitigate premiums insurers allow
linited lists of drivers.

I have never inquired what it would cost to insure myself to drive ANY car.
It's obviously done by businesses such as garages, hotels, car park
operators etc.

Clearly fully comprehensive cover costs are a function of car type/cost and
drivers, as all of these contribute to the risk.

The fact that drivers with insured cars have NO cover for other vehicles may
be a drag, but doesn't seem to me to be a big deal as it's just another way
of allocating insurance costs. I doubt many people are seriously affected
by this.

In general I agree with your comments about uninsured motorists. After all,
the legitimately insured motorists pay for the reserve fund. I have seen
the estimated UK figures; can't recall the amounts exactly, but it's several
percent (5%?) of the premium.

I think you have two issues:

- Compulsory insurance. Personally I strongly support compulsion for basic
cover.

- Reluctance to pay out. I am sympathetic to this, as insurance companies
tend to try to hang on to their money. It must be said, tough, that there
are quite a few fraudulent and/or inflated claims also. In the UK the
market has come to be dominated by one company which has grown by
acquisition, but they seem to be quite good at paying out.


DAS

 

Then why are you giving me such a hard time, when I'm spending *thousands*

You're not helping him, me or anyone else by advocating to make insurance
non-mandatory. You would be enabling creeps like the one who crashed into
my wife two years ago, a three-time loser ex-convict, driving on a revoked
license and lapsed insurance (naturally), stoned out of his mind on pain
meds who attempted to frighten her into not calling the police by beating
his fists on her driver's side window after rear-ending her at 15MPH. So
I had to go down there and effect a rescue with my two little kids along
with me (nobody to watch 'em, couldn't leave them alone), one of whom was an
infant, the other who still talks about the day Mommy was in a car accident
even now. For our trouble, my wife was down for a week in bed with back
pain, we had to pay the collision deductible to fix the car, plus we had to
deal with the police to get the court system to give him the absolutely
minimal slap on the wrist the law says he had coming.

Yeah, you're really helping me out. I can see that.

--Geoff

 

..

Here in Michigan, with its no-fault insurance, you can literally trade cars
with someone else, crash both, and still have the coverage apply. It's the
car that's insured, not the driver. Makes a lot of sense, if you ask me.
(and yes, that came straight from the mouth of my insurance agent, not own
my interpretation of the law)

--Geoff

 

This will come as a tremendous surprise to the many people who have
saved money doing it. I know it will come as a surprise to Ford
Credit; during my tenure with Ford they quite optimistically put the
24-month residual for the 1996 Taurus GL at 70% of MSRP before package
discounts. That year they leased more than 100,000 GLs with a final
residual value between $14,000 and $16,500 - only to find out that the
cars fetched $8-9K apiece at auction after 24 months.

That being said, since this is a *Chrysler* newsgroup I will note
for the record that leasing a Chrysler is probably not going to save
anybody any money. The bank values the cars so little that short-term
leases are usually only somewhat cheaper than mid-term purchases.

 

I bet Ford won't make that mistake again for a long time. But even though
they made a wrong guess on residual value that is no guarantee that the
people leasing the cars did well. Leasing transactions become so
complicated that people don't know what the deal is that they are signing on
to.... some pay over list and some lose track of the value of their trade
in the transaction. There are tons of horror stories out there. I believe
in keeping things simple. If you need a lawyer to understand your
transaction, you probably should not be getting involved.

 

Unfortunately, that SOB would probably be driving out there on drugs no
matter what the law was. Unbelievable that he got only a slap on the wrist.
Guess the court system won't be satisfied till he kills someone.

 

Yeah, we have a problem. We have compulsory insurance, rammed down our
throats by the insurance companies. Its unleashed the insurance company
monsters. This has raised insurance rates, raised REPAIR rates (because
repair providers convince the public that "you don't pay for it, its
COVERED!"), and since "uninsured drivers" are now considered the
exception (when in practice there are tons of them out there) the
insurance companies get all pissy about covering their paying customers
in that case.

And it would NOT be a problem were it not for the fact that the
insurance cartel rammed "compulsory" insurance down our throats.

My approach to insurance is simple: blow off the insurance company as
much as I can within the law. I keep adequate liability coverage, and
ditch "comprehensive" coverage as soon as I no longer have payments on a
car (and when we bought our last new car, we paid 60% up front and only
financed the remainder for a couple of years.) My collector cars get
collector car comprehensive insurance with a decent annual mileage
guideline and, being over 40, my total insurance cost for 5 vehicles is
under $500 annually for me and my wife. I know some people that pay more
than that per MONTH.

The collector car insurance companies are a great example of how ALL
insurance really should work. They COMPETE for subscribers, and gain
subscribers through competitve rates and superior service in the event
of a claim, and retain subscribers by not raising rates when a claim is
made.

 

But Geoff, a creep like that isn't going to obey the law NO MATTER WHAT
THE LAW IS. You've really just made the point that mandatory coverage
isn't working.

The answer is to incarcerate that kind of criminal, and not let them see
the light of day again for a long time, not hand control over to the
insurance companies.

 

That is a better system indeed. It is absurd to pay by the car instead
of by the driver (since you can't drive two at once), except in the case
where you want a particular car covered differently as I do with my '69
Coronet R/T, which has full collector car coverage when all the others
only have liability. But those collector car rates are already excellent
anyway.

 

Not if they stop and think about what they're doing. Oh, yeah, it looks
good if you compare leasing for 2 years to buying a new car and trading
it in after two years. But that's just comparing dumb to dumber. The
best way to save money is either to buy a new car and keep it a MINIMUM
of 10 years, or buy used cars. Leasing is throwing money away. So is
trading in early.

 

No, because they haven't *actually* saved anything. Not if all factors are
accounted for. Those who advocate leasing invariably pay not attention to
the ugly little factors hidden under the table...

 

I do learn from these NGs, about other customs at the very least.

This is interesting, but I am intrigued that (at least in Michigan) the
insurance cos don't take the driver into account when calculating premiums,
since the driver contributes to risk (as does annual mileage).

Maybe premiums would be lower for less accident prone drivers if they
did...?... (or higher for accident-prone ones of course).

Regarding specialist insurance for collectible/antique cars I am not very
certain but my impression is that the in principle the deal is the same.
Specialist insurers might just give a lower premium on specific cars because
they are very familiar with them and/or have different pay-out profiles
(levels of risk) because of a different profile of driver. On top of that
certain restrictions are imposed, such as low annual mileage.

DAS

 

I'm quite sure the driving record of the person listed as the 'primary
driver' *does* impact the premium. It's just that the insurance follows the
car, not the driver.

--Geoff

 

I guess I can see your point about how guys like that just will not obey the
law. I really, truly don't understand why anyone would advocate against
mandatory insurance, though. Is it the freedom to choose to either carry
insurance or not the thing you feel has been denied?

I'm against the nanny government ideals of the left. On the other hand,
there are some liberties that we choose to forego by living in a society
that rewards us with a disproportionately larger set of benefits. I happen
to think mandatory insurance on all vehicles should be one of the tradeoffs
we're willing to put up with.

My wife's accident happened in Troy, MI, one of the upper-echelon suburbs in
the fifth-wealthiest county in the nation (Oakland). The police could
barely be *bothered* to prosecute this guy, let alone incarcerate him. We
had to play ball with the prosecutor to get him to do his job, despite the
fact that the officers at the scene saw a.) two wrecked cars and b.) a creep
high on something with a suspended license. (We did end up getting enough
in restitution to cover our deductible and some of the rental car costs.)

In some of the more crime-infested areas of greater Detroit, they don't like
to even show up at an accident scene if people aren't hurt. If they do show
up, it's frequently one of the police auxiliary volunteers, and it takes
hours for them to arrive.

We've got a lot of creeps here. Maybe more so than on average compared to
the rest of the nation. The jails are *full* and we're giving prison
furloughs to "non-violent offenders." The state managed to come up nearly
$1B over budget for this year, and they had to raise the price of a pack of
smokes to nearly $5 (thank goodness I quit years ago) to help overcome the
shortfall, since we've got a balanced budget amendment in the state
constitution.. This is not a system that is ready to handle any additional
welfare claims due to losses suffered by the uninsured, inflicted *by* the
uninsured, and it's not a system that can incarcerate everyone who deserves
it. Other than mandatory insurance laws, how do we manage the risk? My
taxes are high enough as it is!

That being said, we in my family will always have insurance, even if we have
to do without other things to be able to afford it. It's just common sense
to be responsible and to manage your risks. Maybe there's enough people
like me out there who feel the same way that removing compulsory insurance
laws wouldn't be a catastrophe. Who knows?

--Geoff

 

But Geoff, a creep like that isn't going to obey the law NO MATTER WHAT
THE LAW IS. You've really just made the point that mandatory coverage
isn't working.

the light of day again for a long time, not hand control over to the
insurance companies.
************
THANK YOU Steve! You restore my faith that there are at least *some*
inteligent people out there.
Geoff: please tell me how the mandatory law helped in your case!
It's just like gun control. If you don't put the CRMINALS in JAIL, then no
law whasoever is going to make any difference!
~ Paul
aka "Tha Driver"

 

I guess I can see your point about how guys like that just will not obey
the law. I really, truly don't understand why anyone would advocate
against mandatory insurance, though. Is it the freedom to choose to
either carry
insurance or not the thing you feel has been denied?
*********
Well mandatory insurance wouldn't be so bad if the corrupt politicians
didn't take payoffs & allow the insurance cartel to set the prices *and*
the rules. But even at that it puts a burden on the very poor, or folks
that have fallen on hard times (as I have at the moment). Right now I'm
out of groceries, & my knees are in too bad a shape to walk the 12 miles
to get them. I'm going to *have* to break the law just to eat - what am I
supposed to do? If I get caught, I go to jail, & my car will be impounded.
I won't have the money to get out of jail *or* get my car back. The
mandatory law will have turned me into a criminal.
And what about the insurance cartel *not* paying on *legitimate* claims???
If *we* are REQUIRED BY LAW to pay THEM, shouldn't they be REQUIRED BY LAW
to pay on legitimate claims??? The policy is *supposed* to be a *contract*
they they're *required* to honor, but they *don't*!

there are some liberties that we choose to forego by living in a society
that rewards us with a disproportionately larger set of benefits. I
happen to think mandatory insurance on all vehicles should be one of the
tradeoffs we're willing to put up with.
**********
There should be NO tradeoffs on LIBERTY & FREEDOM!!!

in the fifth-wealthiest county in the nation (Oakland). The police could
barely be *bothered* to prosecute this guy, let alone incarcerate him.
We
had to play ball with the prosecutor to get him to do his job, despite the
fact that the officers at the scene saw a.) two wrecked cars and b.) a
creep high on something with a suspended license. (We did end up getting
enough
in restitution to cover our deductible and some of the rental car costs.)
*********
Then your beef should be with the *police* & the *prosecutor* - not with
me. The creep should have been made to pay back EVERY CENT of the damage
he caused!

like to even show up at an accident scene if people aren't hurt. If they
do show up, it's frequently one of the police auxiliary volunteers, and it
takes hours for them to arrive.
***********
Ploice apathy is one of the *major* problems in this country!

to the rest of the nation. The jails are *full* and we're giving prison
furloughs to "non-violent offenders." The state managed to come up
nearly
$1B over budget for this year, and they had to raise the price of a pack
of smokes to nearly $5 (thank goodness I quit years ago) to help overcome
the shortfall, since we've got a balanced budget amendment in the state
constitution.. This is not a system that is ready to handle any
additional welfare claims due to losses suffered by the uninsured,
inflicted *by* the uninsured, and it's not a system that can incarcerate
everyone who deserves
it. Other than mandatory insurance laws, how do we manage the risk? My
taxes are high enough as it is!
***********
Show me where mandatory insurance has reduced welfare claims/costs. In my
case, it would have *caused* me to go on welfare if I qualified - which I
don't 'cause I don't have a family (I'm completely alone so I get
nothing).
How would going back to the old system where the *driver* was insured &
you had the right to *choose* increase your TAXES?

have to do without other things to be able to afford it.
*********
Are you willing to do without FOOD or skip your RENT? I know folks (&
there are hundreds of thousands of similar families) that have to make
that decision from time to time. Take a chance & drive to work without
insurance, or let their kids go hungry. Which would *you* choose? Then of
course the cartel charges them EVEN MORE because they let their insurance
lapse. IT HAS GOT TO STOP. The GREEDY BASTARDS in the insrance cartel
cannot go on STEALING from the poor!!!

there's enough people like me out there who feel the same way that
removing compulsory insurance laws wouldn't be a catastrophe. Who knows?
*********
I know. After running Screwed By insurance (.com) for 4 years (currently
down due to lack of hosting funds & complete apathy by people that have
any money) I can tell you there isn't *anyone* that's happy with the
insurance cartel being able to #1 FORCE you to buy insurance by
threatening you with JAIL; #2 SET THEIR OWN PRICES, & #3 Get away with not
paying LEGITIMATE claims!!!
Do you have uninsured motorists? Seems to me that covers your risk if a
poor person that cannot afford insurance hits you.
It would be different if it was priced reasonably, or if we could
implement a sliding scale where your insurance costs were determined by
your income, or something (like risk?). But with the cartel setting both
the prices *and* the rules, there's NO WAY to win.
~ Paul
aka "Tha Driver"

 

The best way to save money for many people would be to not have a car
at all, to join a carpool scheme, or to use a motorcycle or scooter,
after acquiring the proper weather protection, of course.

So once we have established that owning a car is rarely the cheapest
way to go, it is really a matter of what you are willing to pay for.

Some people are not willing to pay for more than a dismal trip from
the proverbial A to the equally proverbial B. Those people are well-
satisfied by owning an old banger. Other people value the quality of
their time spent in a vehicle more than the money involved. This is
good news for us, otherwise we'd all be driving a one-litre Civic or
something similar.

It's often cheaper to lease a car than it is to purchase it over time
and trade it in when one's desires or needs change. Having done the
paperwork on thousands of leases and purchases and compared the
numbers many a time, I gradually came to notice that a lot of lessors
were saving money. No, they were not saving money over buying a used
Accord and driving it for a quarter-million penalty-box miles, but
they were saving money over purchasing the same car and trading it
in after a period of time similar to the lease term, whether that
term was 18 or 60 months.

Sometimes it makes more sense to buy. Our SRT-4 already has quite a
few not easily reversible modifications to it, and it's already seen
more than its fair share of track time - it's a rare lease return
official who looks at the results of a 125mph Nelson Ledges
gravel-blasting of the nose and hood and lets it pass, you know.
But when you look at the costs involved in owning many new cars
over the long term, the tables turn. I wouldn't want to own an S500
or 745Li a day out of warranty and anybody who has seen what the
COMAND and iDrive modules cost won't want to either.

I wouldn't want to countenance a family doing a 60 month lease on a
Grand Caravan they can't really afford - but saying that leasing is
always wrong is one of those little know-nothing chestnuts that
usually get stricken down pretty quickly in this NG, and I was
troubled to see it pass uncriticized. Leasing is like any other car
transaction; the people who know what they are doing will have
positive results, and the sheep will be shorn.

 

Wait a minute. Earlier in this thread it was "one mile to the country
store". Which is it?

a.) You *choose* to be a criminal by doing the crime. Nobody *turns* you
into a criminal, especially not the "law". You, and only you, are
responsible for your own actions. Period.
b.) You've said elsewhere in this thread you own multiple vehicles. Hmm.
That means you have assets, and therefore you have choices. What's keeping
you from selling off some of the vehicles you *can't drive anyway* and using
the proceeds to pay for insurance on one or more of the remaining ones, eh,
Driver? Or is it part of your "pursuit of happiness" to have a bunch of
undriveable vehicles around, or are you just regularly driving without
insurance and this is all BS anyway?

My insurance company has paid on every claim I've ever made, and there have
been several over the years. All of the claims were legitimate, too.

It is, they are and they do.

Then you think you should be able to just do whatever the f*ck you want to,
and to hell with everyone else, eh? Because that's what you're saying.

Who said I had a material problem involving you? I disagree with you.
That's life, this is Usenet. Get over it.

Using what funds? He *had no funds*. He was an unemployed three-time loser
with a pickup truck and a suspended driver's license and enough money for
gas, booze and pain meds. You mean to tell me that I should wait around for
this creep to come up with the $4 or $5K this ultimately cost to get
resolved? I got a life to live, bud. That's why he *should have had
insurance*!!!

If you're getting state assistance for medical, food stamps, WIC, subsidized
housing *you're on welfare*. Destroy people's lives by ruining their health
in an accident and causing them to run up large medical bills and lose their
ability to work...where do you think they're going to turn? Uncle Sam,
that's where.

This is starting to sound like an opera. Wait, there's a violin playing in
the background.

Which would *you* choose? Then of

Then I guess all the greedy bastard owners of the insurance companys ought
to take it in the shorts, eh?

In State Farm's case, the owners are the policy holders. In GEICO's case,
the shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway are the owners.

So you think people who own stock or who have State Farm policies are
greedy, eh?

Haven't heard of angelfire.com, eh?

Were any of those three things true, I wouldn't be happy with them either.

Aha! Another sock-it-to-the-rich liberal. I guess by now I'm not
surprised.

--Geoff

 

Did it prevent the accident? No.
Did it help me to get some restitution? Yes.

You see, not having insurance in MI is a chargeable offense. If convicted,
you can be sentenced to a variety of things. In this case, the sentence
from the judge forced the other driver to pay us restitution to cover *some*
of our expenses. It was a total slap on the wrist for the guy -- he should
have been put into jail for a long, long time and had his vehicle
confiscated (assuming it was his, and only his, of course) but it was better
than nothing for us, which is what we would have gotten otherwise. It
didn't come close to making everything alright, but it helped.

--Geoff

 

Then I guess all the greedy bastard owners of the insurance companys ought

It strikes me on second thought that I'm being less than fair here by
putting words in his mouth. I withdraw the above.

--Geoff