Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Car Insurance
Now that my car is paid off, I'm looking more fully into New York State's car insurance laws. There's a good chance I'm dropping almost all of my coverage now that I'm legally free to do so.
I'll likely keep comprehensive coverage (with the highest possible deductible) due to the fact that I often park in somewhat dodgy parts of the Bronx (and the fact that it's about $10 a month).
The part I had to be sure about was that I would still have the ability to sue anyone who causes an accident that damages my car for compensation from their insurance. Luckily, I found the answer. So long as I call the police immediately if someone hits me and gather witnesses, I'll be all right ^_^
I'll likely keep comprehensive coverage (with the highest possible deductible) due to the fact that I often park in somewhat dodgy parts of the Bronx (and the fact that it's about $10 a month).
The part I had to be sure about was that I would still have the ability to sue anyone who causes an accident that damages my car for compensation from their insurance. Luckily, I found the answer. So long as I call the police immediately if someone hits me and gather witnesses, I'll be all right ^_^
Comments
I pay another $40 for collision with a $500 deductible. All told, it comes to about $100 a month for everything including the legally mandated no-fault coverage. It'll come down to about $60 if I drop the useless collision coverage, which only helps if -I- cause an accident.
Despite how rampantly and flagrantly I speed, I have zero speeding tickets. I'm also just beyond the age of still being considered a "punk kid" by the insurance companies. I have excellent credit, a clean driving record, and a loyalty discount for having used Geico for so long.
Remember that part of the cost of having insurance is how much hassle you have to go through to make a claim. There is the deductible which you shoulder all the time, even if you make a claim higher than the deductible - you still pay the full deductible.
I have heard bad stories about Progressive and how they handle their customers making claims. One of the best sources (free) for car insurance is to talk to a mechanic or body work person at a dealership or body shop. They will give you free advice on how much a pain in the ass the different insurance companies are when making claims.
Today on the highway I saw a guy with a truck and his tailgate was a replacement painted white. On the tailgate he had professionally printed letters in a large font spelling out (and I'm paraphrasing here since I don't recall it entirely):
"This is how Allstate handles a hit and run. After all the hassles they gave me a check for $138.57. I returned the check and told them to shove it." And I have heard similarly bad complaints about State Farm.
I guess I'm just saying that in terms of car insurance: cheapest != best
It also helps that in matters like there, a simple police report coupled with a witness or two and a citation for a traffic violation on the opposing party is generally more than enough to make a quick case.
Insurance in general is an a$$-rape for those of us that actually drive responsibly. Especially when your rates go up after ANY claim you make, fault or not.
Considering that the average expenditure for car insurance in the US approaches $2500 a year, that's quite a heady bet. If you own a car for 5 years, you're telling the world that you expect to do more than $12,500 in damages in that time. Add to that the interest (or opportunity cost) the money would otherwise have provided, as well as the average cost of deductibles in the event of claims.
Now, comprehensive auto insurance, which covers non-collision damages (stolen car, damage in car park, etc...), costs on average an order of magnitude less, and is in general a much better bet. It covers all the sorts of damage for which no one could easily be held liable. Interestingly, this sort of insurance is NOT required by law.
The worst part about insurance laws in many parts of the US is the "no-fault" requirement. So many people are such poor drivers that it was expedient to pass laws forcing everyone to have insurance that covers everyone no matter who was at fault, effectively removing much of the liability for collisions. As a result, -I- am forced to subsidize idiots who cause the accidents that delay -me- on my commute every morning...
I have in general very little sympathy for people who are involved in auto accidents. Numerous studies have shown that the vast majority are fully avoidable and are caused soley by driver error. If it weren't for the total lack of non-car transportation in the US, I'd be in favour of severely restricting the ability of poor drivers to use and operate cars on public roads, as well as imposing heady penalties on anyone who can be shown as having caused a collision through their own poor decisions or lack of skill.
(The only exceptions to my lack of sympathy arise from the rare accidents where one party truly held zero responsibility: someone runs a red light and T-bones another car, someone's drunk and driving, etc...).
The point is that I am forced to pay large sums of money that I will never make use of in order to subsidize idiots who cause car accidents.
The flaw in your logic is that you are assuming that your life will be "average." As we all know, random elements mean that few of us will experience something that is truly "average." I agree that insurance is a rip-off, but we are insuring against random bad luck. And yes... that bad luck can happen to you. In that case, insurance would be a great deal for you.
The flip-side, however, is that the insurance company will keep raising your rates if you do have a spell of bad luck. I also agree that insurance is inefficient as it pertains to you. You are subsidizing other poor drivers and the insurance company's profits. For the "average" person, insurance is a bad deal. The problem is that you may have worse luck than the average person. That's the whole point of insurance.
Simply put, you don't have a crystal ball. Maybe insurance is a "bad bet" for you, and maybe it isn't. You can't turn yourself into the "average person," which is the foundation of your whole argument. You can say that insurance is a bad-bet for the "average person" - you just can't assume that you are that person. Major logical flaw there.
(The only exceptions to my lack of sympathy arise from the rare accidents where one party truly held zero responsibility: someone runs a red light and T-bones another car, someone's drunk and driving, etc...).
That's a lot of Fucking exceptions! What's left is if you run into a parked car ^_^
- I have to pay a lot of money I desperately need for basic needs like food, clothes and computer parts.
I like mandatory car insurance because:
- It has paid for break-ins and vandalism done to my car. The police don't have resources to find the bastards and make them pay.
- Should I ever accidentally damage anyone, or cause serious damage to property, the money I have been forced to pay over the years make the insurance company pay the bill I would never be able to pay out of my own pocket.
- That applies to every idiot around me as well.
I don't like to pay for car insurance, but considering the alternative I'm not complaining.
Granted, some people look on insurance as protection. They pay a large sum of money in order to protect themselves from the possibility of having to pay a large sum of money...
People are free to purchase insurance if they want. The only real problem (aside from people not logically assessing their investments or considering that they'd be better protected and better off by putting that insurance premium money into a savings account) is that the coverage is mandatory by law. I pay so that other people can repair the damage they've done themselves.
If car insurance weren't mandatory, then many people would drop it. In order to remain profitable, premiums would rise. The industry couldn't likely sustain itself at anywhere near the scale it exists today. People who cause accidents would effectively be ruined economically, either through outrageous premiums or extensive damage bills. I'm all for helping people, but I also believe that "stupid should hurt." It's actually very few exceptions. Studies show that the majority of accidents are at-fault to some degree for all parties involved or were avoidable by either party. Statistically, I can deny my sympathy to most people who are involved in auto collisions and be justified.
I have a great deal of sympathy for people who are stuck by poor drivers. People who cause harm to others should always be forced to undo their harms as far as can be done. Unfortunately, most car accident stories I have heard where the person telling them claimed no fault have shown in fact clear fault on their behalf...
Furthermore, my hitting a parked car wouldn't have anything to do with this, as I would be the one at fault. If I were to cause an accident, I would and should be obligated to pay for any and all damages I caused. I'm confident in my ability to not cause accidents, and I'm confident in my ability to recover damages from others who may cause them.
The only way to take these people out of society is jail and at this point no one really wants that. You don't and I certainly don't. So no fault insurance is a crappy societal compromise.
The issue of how to deal with indigents who have caused monetary damage is a difficult one. Mass transit could at least mitigate this in regards to car-related damages. As for the rest, perhaps indentured servitude? Government payouts funded by wage garnishing?
Debtor's prison is by far a sub-optimal solution, but indigent people still need to be held accountable for their actions.
I vew this as yet another case for the tough shit rule. Shit happens. That's life. Deal with it. If bad things happen, we need to stop whining and complaining until the government and/or insurance companies fix it. Less than a hundred years ago people were not so protected from hardship. If your farm had a bad season, or if your house burned down, you were completely screwed. Hell, it's still that way in most of the world. Sure, sometimes there is a party to blame for damages. In just society the party at fault should be made to pay for the trouble they have caused as best they can, but most of the time it's still just tough shit.
Good things happen and bad things happen, it's the way of life. We don't undo the good things to maintain status quo, why do we expect the bad to always be undone? I think that by shielding ourselves from the harsh realities of the world we have lost some of our ability to deal with, and appreciate, the seriousness of many problems. Maybe if financial ruin was the result of being at fault in a car accident people would drive more carefully and less often? Maybe if you wouldn't automatically get a new house when yours burned down, you would think a bit more about fire safety. By removing the consequences of stupidity and randomness we have created a society which is safe for wusses and idiots.
We need to make it so that when people screw up, it hurts. We need to make it so when bad things happen, it hurts. Only then, will people learn to deal with problems. Only then will people take things more seriously. Only then will people get off their asses and do something to make sure avoidable damages are avoided. You should be free to gamble your money on insurance if you want to, but I should not be forced to do so as well. I am fully prepared to deal with anything and everything that life has to throw at me. Are you?
I am making a short business trip to Washington, DC in a couple of weeks. I really wanted to take the train, since flying is becoming a royal pain in the neck - especially since you are now pretty much forced to check your bag. The train from Vermont was 11 hours. My flight to DC is just under three hours with a connection in New York. The airport is about 1 mile from the train station. (Both the airport and train station are about 60 miles from me... welcome to rural living!) Even with the hassle of security, etc - flying was by far the better option. This should not be the case for a trip that is less than 500 miles.
The airport I'm flying from is actually quite handy. It has only three flights per day using 19 seat prop planes. You can get to the airport at the last minute, since security is quite quick. Parking is free. Your tax dollars are subsidizing the airline for providing "essential air service" to this airport. Your tax dollars are paying for my ticket - since the feds are paying for my trip. Your tax dollars are giving me a $50 rebate for flying out of the airport. (They got some federal grant that gives rebates to promote use of the airport.) Fares are usually ridiculous out of this airport, so I rarely use it when I am buying a ticket with personal funds. On the other end, Reagan National airport is one of the few airports that really is downtown. So as much as I wanted to take the train, flying still made the most sense.