Last post on Sep 20, 2013 at 8:25 AM
You are in the Smart Shopper
What is this discussion about?
#5118 of 5338 Re: Insurance [victor23]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Oct 18, 2012 (7:37 am)
I think people's memories block out the reality. Lousy cars, lousy drivers and lousy roads abounded in the 50s and 60s. Meanwhile fatality rates are the lowest they've ever been.
#5119 of 5338 Minor not-at-fault accidents?
Oct 18, 2012 (7:31 am)
Can anybody comment on this topic: How are we protected in case of minor fender-benders? Once (6 or 7 years ago) I was hit by another driver who changed lanes and didn't see me. He immediately accepted that he was at fault, we exchanged our insurance information, all like in nice kind Christmas stories. Then, real life kicked in. His insurance company refused to pay saying that he changed his story and now says that I changed lanes and hit him. My insurance company made me pay a deductible ($500), paid a meager difference (less than $200) and refused to collect from his company because there was no hard proof who was at fault. There cannot be any police report, because in PA police does not come if there is no bodily harm, as a matter of policy.
I am not sure if he really changed the story or was forced to do it by his insurance company. I suspect of that because most companies explicitly forbid their customers to discuss any responsibility with anybody (except with the police and the company). Actually, it doesn't even matter: another driver could as well just to say me that he is not at fault, there is no proof, no police report, bye-bye! The only practical advice I had so far was from my (late) insurance agent: that next time I have to fake an injury. I still miss my $500!
#5120 of 5338 Re: Insurance [steve_]
Oct 18, 2012 (7:52 am)
Meanwhile fatality rates are the lowest they've ever been.
This "fatalities" argument is invoked every time in many threads to justify bad driving, "inconsiderate" drivers, and even texting while driving. I for one is not thrilled to be just said "calm down, you are still less likely to die". With modern cars, full of safety features and basically taking away from us most of what driving used to be, it is a shame we ever have ANY fatalities. "Lowest rates" doesn't mean everything is alright. First, recently fatalities spiked. We don't know yet if it is a trend. Second, I would submit that these low numbers are because we still have quite many older male drivers on the road, who are mostly not addicted to electronic gizmos and socializing, and maybe learned some driving at some point. When we are gone, things may change. Low fatality numbers are at our expense: non-distracted drivers have to watch out for others and correct their errors. So far we manage, more or less. But when we become overwhelmed ... And no, I am pretty sure the drivers on average are lousier now.
By the way, I am not really happy to have a non-fatal accident either, even just a fender-bender, by no fault of mine.
#5121 of 5338 Re: Insurance [victor23]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Oct 18, 2012 (8:41 am)
many older male drivers on the road
I'm turning 60 in a couple of months and I love my mp3. It even has a remote control that I use since it doesn't interface with my steering wheel controls.
Back to insurance, if I do have another at-fault wreck, it seems to me that switching insurance companies at the next renewal would be the thing to do (unless I happen to get amazing service from the current carrier or they have a forgiveness clause).
My thinking is that I pay premiums to get coverage. After a wreck, I assume I'll be a higher risk and any premium anywhere would be higher, but why "reward" my current carrier for doing what I paid them to do and then have them raise my rates?
#5122 of 5338 Re: Insurance [steve_]
Oct 18, 2012 (8:49 am)
and I love my mp3
I like it too. But I have to admit that since even the basic tune info (singer, title) and music file navigation (folder browsing) became available, it became more of a distraction than I would be comfortable with.
#5123 of 5338 Re: Insurance [steve_]
Oct 18, 2012 (9:38 am)
then have them raise my rates? Previous to your being at fault, you fooled the company into believing you deserved "Preferred" rates. Now that they know what your driving ability really is, you are regarded accordingly with their Standard rate. And that is as it should be.
#5124 of 5338 Re: Insurance [euphonium]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Oct 18, 2012 (9:47 am)
Maybe I was at fault because of the bee that got in the car and that's why I rear-ended the guy in front of me. Is there an actuarial table for that?
Since I moved, I've been with the same insurance company for two years now. Almost a record.
#5125 of 5338 Re: Insurance [steve_]
Oct 18, 2012 (1:20 pm)
Having grown up with a neighbor that has been a life-long insurance actuary (several math degrees), and me being 58 now, she has told me stories that I found hard to believe, but to answer your question, according to her it wouldn't be any surprise to see actuarial tables on "bees, birds, skunks, etc." causing driving distractions/accidents.
The availability of computerized models at low costs help make a myriad of actuarial charts easier to compile and update.
#5126 of 5338 Re: Insurance [busiris]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Oct 19, 2012 (7:14 am)
The American public has become completely desensitized to the carnage occurring on public roads. If, for instance, instead of 40,000 dead Americans from highway fatalities, we demanded sacrifice of 40,000 Americans a year to the god Kali, there would be national outrage. But we seem content to give up a football stadium full of people every year as just part of life's risk,a risk that most of us are willing to take.