Auto insurance ripoff by GEICO

<Alan > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 10:11:43 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 09:21:43 -0700, Steve > wrote:
>>
>>>Scott en Aztlán > wrote:
>>>>>Just a matter of curiosity. Would having the shift lever in "Park"
>>>>>prevented the OP's car from hitting the car infront.
>>>>
>>>>Probably not - no doubt the OP was already standing on the brakes;
>>>>having the trans in park wouldn't have made much difference. The best
>>>>defense would have been to stop far enough behind the car in front.
>>>
>>>Good idea. Plus, it gives you room to go around the guy if his car
>>>stalls or whatever...
>>
>>BINGO.
>>
>>Of course, some people take this idea to an extreme, and stop 1, 2, 3,
>>or more carlengths behind the car in front. These idiots not only
>>waste space, but, if they are in the leftmost or rightmost lane, they
>>often needlessly block the entrances to the left or right turn
>>pockets. These assholes need to have a Dodge Ram pickup truck with a
>>Hemi engine come up behind them and push them forward a few feet until
>>they are no longer blocking traffic.

> Not to mention that many traffic light systems have sensors imbedded in the
> road,

There arent actually that many that attempt to roughly work out
how many cars are stopped at the lights to control the green time.

> and if you don't pull up to within a few feet of the car in
> front, the system may not realize how many cars are
> waiting, and may not give you a green light for a long time.

Bull****. The sensors arent that crude that they
rely on the spacing between the cars to get it right.

If they were that crude they couldnt handle the
mix of very small cars and land yachts and trucks.

> Or, may give you a short green, because
> it thinks only a couple cars are waiting.

Fantasy.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 11:49:18 GMT, Bock
> wrote:

>
>Of course it happens all the time. You, of course, have the right to
>sue your insurer
>and you also have the right to take the 2,000 offered by the insurance
>company
>and do the repairs yourself, don't you?

He might have to pay the insurance cmpany for the residual salvage
value of the car if he wants to go that route. If they are paying it
off as a total, they own the car.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 02:31:18 -0700, L Sternn > wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 02:34:09 GMT, Bob Ward >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 11:26:42 -0700, L Sternn > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 11:10:00 -0700, Steve > wrote:
>>>
>>>>L Sternn > wrote:
>>>>>Then there are the people in unprotected left turn lanes who simply
>>>>>enter the intersection and wait for the light to turn red ignoring
>>>>>gaps large enough to taxi a 747 through.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, the ones who won't move until they can't see any trace of an
>>>>oncoming car thru high-power binoculars. Or maybe a telescope.
>>>
>>>Around here, some of them like to see that cross-traffic has come to a
>>>complete and full stop for the red light before proceeding.
>>>
>>>They trust that cross-traffic will see them in the intersection and
>>>let them thru - unfortunately, they are not always right.
>>
>>
>>Sounds liker the cross-traffic driver is totally at fault for assuming
>>that the intersection was clear without actually looking to verify.
>>
>
>?
>
>Even if you wish to make that argument, it still doesn't change the
>fact that being in an accident can negatively affect you.
>
>You'd be sitting there in your hospital bed content in the knowledge
>that you were in the right, wouldn't you?

That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Keep changing the
subject long enough, and you moght find an angle that will let you win
the point, but this one isn't it.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 15:51:32 -0500, Alan wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 08:12:06 GMT, Bob Ward > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 06:55:44 GMT, Alan Baker >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>But if you hit a car at anything above a very slow walking pace, it is
>>>going to move some, even with the brakes on.
>>
>>
>>some? SOME? How far? Millimeters? Inches? Feet? Yards? You sure
>>like to start tossing out weasel words when the egg hits your face,
>>don't you?
>>
>Oh, get over it.
>
>He hasn't said anything that is incorrect.
>

No, but he said a lot that is irrelevant. The topic was avoiding
damage to the car in front, when tyours is the filling in a Ford
sandwich. His introduction of "a very slow walking pace" has no more
bearing on the subject than how he prefers his eggs cooked for
breakfast.

>If you really want to know, go Google stuff and find out the physics of it
>all.
>

I've probably provided more Google cites in this forum than you've
looked up on your own. I google when I need to prove my point, but
not to disprove someone's inane irrelevancies.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 15:57:34 -0500, Alan wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 10:11:43 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 09:21:43 -0700, Steve > wrote:
>>
>>>Scott en Aztlán > wrote:
>>>>>Just a matter of curiosity. Would having the shift lever in "Park"
>>>>>prevented the OP's car from hitting the car infront.
>>>>
>>>>Probably not - no doubt the OP was already standing on the brakes;
>>>>having the trans in park wouldn't have made much difference. The best
>>>>defense would have been to stop far enough behind the car in front.
>>>
>>>Good idea. Plus, it gives you room to go around the guy if his car
>>>stalls or whatever...
>>
>>BINGO.
>>
>>Of course, some people take this idea to an extreme, and stop 1, 2, 3,
>>or more carlengths behind the car in front. These idiots not only
>>waste space, but, if they are in the leftmost or rightmost lane, they
>>often needlessly block the entrances to the left or right turn
>>pockets. These assholes need to have a Dodge Ram pickup truck with a
>>Hemi engine come up behind them and push them forward a few feet until
>>they are no longer blocking traffic.
>
>Not to mention that many traffic light systems have sensors imbedded in the
>road, and if you don't pull up to within a few feet of the car in front,
>the system may not realize how many cars are waiting, and may not give you
>a green light for a long time. Or, may give you a short green, because it
>thinks only a couple cars are waiting.
>
Can you follow your own advice and provide a cite that indicates that
this is actually how the sensors work, or are you one of those twits
that keeps pressing the "Walk" button to try to convince the signal
that there is a large crowd waiting to cross?

<Alan > wrote in message
...
> Rod Speed > wrote
>> Arif Khokar > wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote:

>>>> And if the driver applys the brakes harder because he's just been rammed

>>> That probably won't be the case.

>> Bull****, its the natural reaction.

>>> Assuming the driver did not look in his rear view mirror and see that
>>> he was about to be rear ended, then the resulting acceleration from
>>> the impact coupled with the inertia of the driver's right lower extremity
>>> would actually force the leg back towards the driver's body.

>> Mindless stuff when the foot is applying pressure
>> to the brake pedal before he's rammed.

>>> This reduces the applied force on the brake pedal.

>> Nope, because it doesnt happen like that.

> Yes, it does.

No it doesnt.

> Simple fact.

Nothing like it.

> If the driver didn't know they were going to be rear-ended

You cant even assume that.

> they would release the brake

Nope, when you are applying force to the brake pedal, the natural
reaction is to press harder if the car gets slammed in the rear.

> because they would move after the car did,

Nope, they move with the car, because the seat ensures that.

> so the car would roll.

Nope.

>>> Only when the driver is able to react to compensate and
>>> overcome the inertia will he actually press the brake harder.

>> And that is automatic if he is already applying pressure to the brake pedal.

> No.

Yep.

> Most of the time when you ease to a stop, you don't
> have the brakes on enough to cause the car to skid.

You dont know that with the extra pressure applied
after someone slams into the back of your car.

> If hit from behind, your car would bounce forward.

Depends entirely on the speed and the weight of the car behind.

> Then, see the above comment, and
> realize that it would, actually, roll forward.

Fraid not.

And what matters is if it would move forward enough to HIT THE
CAR IN FRONT OF IT. Thats what was actually being discussed.

>>> The reaction time will not be sufficient to lock up
>>> the tires before colliding with the vehicle in front.

>> More bull**** when he's already locked the tires by applying the brake.

> No.

Yep.

> Most of the time when you ease to a stop, you don't
> have the brakes on enough to cause the car to skid.

You dont know that with the extra pressure applied
after someone slams into the back of your car.

> If hit from behind, your car would bounce forward.

Depends entirely on the speed and the weight of the car behind.

> Then, see the above comment, and
> realize that it would, actually, roll forward.

Fraid not.

And what matters is if it would move forward enough to HIT THE
CAR IN FRONT OF IT. Thats what was actually being discussed.

> Where did you learn about this stuff?
> In cooking school, or something?

> Sheesh!

Even you should be able to bull**** your way out of your
predicament better than that pathetic effort, Moorman.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 07:10:59 +1000, "Rod Speed" >
wrote:

>>> Correct, depending on how hard its hit.
>>>
>>> > Even foot on brake if you are too close to the car
>>> > in front won't save you, your car is going to move.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>
>> Absolutely correct.
>
>Complete crap.
>
>> The force of car colliding with another car even at very slow speed
>> is going to cause the front car to move despite having the breaks on.
>
>Complete crap. The front car is only going to move if its hit with
>enough force to drag all 4 tires across the road with the brakes on.

Agreed, except that if the person who is hit releases the brake as
they are hit, the car might move. I think the OP is confusing the
two. I challenge anyone to come up with evidence of skid marks in
such a case.

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 21:45:36 GMT, Alan Baker >
wrote:

>> Complete crap. The front car is only going to move if its hit with
>> enough force to drag all 4 tires across the road with the brakes on.
>
>I'm not going to bother trying to educate you about physics.

You mean the "equal and opposite reaction" part? Why are you
excluding the crushing of the vehicle from this?

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 12:37:41 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

> "C.H." wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:16:24 -0400, Magnulus wrote:
>>
>> > Why the hell do insurance companies love to total cars? They don't seem
>> > to realize that only walking away with 2k dollars to buy a 16K-20K dollar
>> > car when you have a perfectly good (albeit damaged) car for 0 dollars is
>> > bad.
>>
>> Because they give you approximately what you would pay for a used one in
>> the same condition.
>
> That would be perfectly acceptable if the insurance company did the legwork,
> found a selection of cars similar to yours and delivered them to your home or
> office for you to make a selection.

Come on, Bev! You don't pay for door service, so you're *not* going to
get it. OTOH, often you can do quite well by insurance settlements.
Shopping is the *CONSUMER's* job.

>> Why should the other insurance payers pay for you to
>> replace your old clunker with a new car? If they really did that,
>> insurance fraud by intentionally causing accidents would be through the
>> roof.
>
> They don't even pay your costs to find a replacement car -- newspapers, phone
> calls, time off from work, etc. I had to sue to get the cost of licensing
> the new car. Screw 'em.

No, they don't. Have you looked at your policy?

--
Keith

In article
>,
says...
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 08:15:41 +1000, "Rod Speed" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Alan Baker > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Rod Speed > wrote
> >>> Alan Baker > wrote
> >>>> Rod Speed > wrote
> >>>>> Harry K > wrote
> >>>>> Scott en Aztlán wrote
> >>>>>> PaPaPeng > wrote
> >>>>>>> Steven O. > wrote
> >
> >>> >> > >>Basically, after nearly 30 years of driving, I had my first real
> >>> >> > >>accident. Totally not my fault, I was stopped at a light, and the
> >>> >> guy
> >>> >> > >>behind me must have been distracted -- he simply slammed into me
> >>> >> doing
> >>> >> > >>about 20 miles an hour. That forced me into the car in front of
> >>> >> me.
> >
> >>> >> > Even foot on brake if you are too close to the car
> >>> >> > in front won't save you, your car is going to move.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Wrong.
> >>>
> >>> > Absolutely correct.
> >>>
> >>> Complete crap.
> >>>
> >>> > The force of car colliding with another car even at very slow speed
> >>> > is going to cause the front car to move despite having the breaks on.
> >>>
> >>> Complete crap. The front car is only going to move if its hit with
> >>> enough force to drag all 4 tires across the road with the brakes on.
> >>
> >> I'm not going to bother trying to educate you about physics.
> >
> >Even you should be able to bull**** your way out
> >of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
> >
> >Its VERY basic physics that if the brakes are on, it takes a lot
> >more force to move the car into the car in front of it, dragging
> >the tyres across the road than it does with the brakes off.
> >
> >Try pushing the car in both situations and then find
> >a VERY large towel to use on your silly little face.
>
>
> You are making a real ass of yourself Rod Speed.


You aren't familiar Mr. Speed yet, are you?


> Are you suggesting
> pushing a car is the same as it being hit by another car doing 20 mph?
> Your statement is dumb and has nothing to do with anything in this thread.
> Perhaps you should either visit some accident scenes or take a physics
> course. (A little hint: those black marks you see on the road are skid
> marks. They are a result of the car moving when the wheels are prevented
> from rotating by the brakes being applied.)


Mr. Speed prefers to contemplate the other kind of
"skidmarks." The ones on his underwear. They give him
a sense of accomplishment.

New idea for a "Reality" TeeVee show: Rod Speed and Bob
Ward, locked in a room together.


--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum