Auto insurance ripoff by GEICO

Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
>
> More bull**** numbers WITH A CAR THATS STATIONARY
> TO START WITH WITH LOCKED BRAKES.
>
> Reams of your desperate wanking with useless numbers
> plucked out of your arse flushed where they belong.
>
>

Last week at this time bowel boy was semi-coherent as he had gotten
his welfare check (it comes on the first and third Monday of each
month). With the money running out and he meds gone he has reverted to
form.
Expect it to get worse and then to improve next Monday.

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Rod Speed" > wrote:
>
>> Alan Baker > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Alan Baker > wrote
>>
>> >>>>> Pity what was actually being discussed was the effect of the
>> >>>>> stationary car HAVING THE BRAKES ON AT THE TIME OF
>> >>>>> THE COLLISION ON THE DISTANCE IT MOVES FORWARD
>> >>>>> AND WHETHER THAT CAN AVOID RUNNING INTO THE
>> >>>>> CAR IN FRONT OF THE STATIONARY CAR.
>>
>> >>>> And it *does* move forward.
>>
>> >>> Depends on the accident detail. If the speed of the moving
>> >>> car is low enough, not necessarily if its weight is similar.
>>
>> >>>> Momentum doesn't just disappear.
>>
>> >>> Doesnt need to, most obviously if when the moving car
>> >>> just bounces back off the stationary one, or the crumpling
>> >>> of one or both absorbs the momentum, stupid.
>>
>> >> Bouncing back makes it *worse* for the stopped car, not better
>>
>> >> Study "Conservation of Momentum.
>>
>> >>>> Having the brakes on doesn't magically make that speed go away.
>>
>> >>> It does however increase the likelyhood of the moving car bouncing
>> >>> back or the crumple zones crumpling with lower speed collisions, stupid.
>>
>> >> Do the math.
>>
>> > I have to apologize for asking you to do the math; it's clearly beyond
>> > you.
>>
>> Couldnt bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag even
>> if its pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it.
>>
>> > So you think that crumple zones will save the situation, do you?
>>
>> Just rubbing your silly little nose in the FACT that your mindless drivel
>> about conservation of momentum aint quite as simple as you claim.
>>
>> > Let's examine that:
>>
>> Only if we want some light entertainment:
>>
>> > Two cars, same mass, the rear travelling at 10 mph, the front
>> > one stationary and -- let's be generous -- capable of crumpling
>> > 4 feet (far more than real life is likely to grant you).
>>
>> > So if the rear car is to be stopped completely
>> > in 4 feet without the front car moving,
>>
>> I didnt even say that stationary car wouldnt move in
>> THAT situation, you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.
>>
>> > the acceleration necessary to do so must
>> > be less than the locked tires can provide.
>>
>> Must be one of those rocket scientist
>> pathetic excuses for a bull**** artist.
>>
>> > Maximum tire deceleration: -0.8g, -25.6 feet/sec/sec
>>
>> More bull**** numbers WITH A CAR THATS STATIONARY
>> TO START WITH WITH LOCKED BRAKES.

>> Reams of your desperate wanking with useless numbers
>> plucked out of your arse flushed where they belong.

> It seems I was right;

Nope, you never are.

> the math *is* beyond you.

Wrong again.

I have enough of a clue to realise that those numbers you wanked
with are completely irrelevant to the situation being discussed.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you couldnt bull**** your way
out of a wet paper bag even if your pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it.

In article >,
"Rod Speed" > wrote:

<snip>

> >> > Maximum tire deceleration: -0.8g, -25.6 feet/sec/sec
> >>
> >> More bull**** numbers WITH A CAR THATS STATIONARY
> >> TO START WITH WITH LOCKED BRAKES.
>
> >> Reams of your desperate wanking with useless numbers
> >> plucked out of your arse flushed where they belong.
>
> > It seems I was right;
>
> Nope, you never are.
>
> > the math *is* beyond you.
>
> Wrong again.
>
> I have enough of a clue to realise that those numbers you wanked
> with are completely irrelevant to the situation being discussed.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you couldnt bull**** your
> way
> out of a wet paper bag even if your pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on
> it.

So produce the *relevant* numbers, Rod. It's just physics and not even
the hard stuff.

LOL

Fact: a car hit by a car of the same mass at as little as 10 mph is
going to move even if it can crumple by as much as 4 feet. The constant
deceleration necessary to stop the moving car exceeds what is available
from rubber on asphalt.

If you want to show this is not true:

DO THE MATH.

Or just shut the hell up.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

"The Real Bev" > wrote in message
...
> JustMe wrote:
>>
>> "The Real Bev" > wrote:
>> > keith wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > What do you mean, "door service"? The insurance company (AAA) of the
>> > bitch
>> > who hit me was responsible, not my own liability-only company. I would
>> > have
>> > been happy if they'd let me hack off her little finger, but NOOOOOO! I
>> > was
>> > paid for medical stuff and pain/suffering, but what I really wanted was
>> > to
>> > not
>> > have to search the county for a 1980 Datsun 210 with low mileage, a new
>> > clutch, and total cleanliness on the bottom -- not steam-cleaning, just
>> > NO
>> > DIRT. I didn't believe such a thing was possible until I looked under
>> > that
>> > car.
>> >
>> >> >> 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?
>> >
>> > In this case, my policy was irrelevant. It was her liability policy
>> > and
>> > it
>> > should have taken care of ALL my car problems, leaving me in the same
>> > state I
>> > was before she plowed into me. If you ever want to sue an insurance
>> > company
>> > in small claims court, make sure you get a real judge.
>> >
>> Actually, It doesn't matter what her insurance policy says. Her policy
>> indemnifies her against claims to the limit of the policy. As the injured
>> party, you have a right to be made whole by the party causing your loss.
>> Your claim is against the other party, not her insurance provider. Their
>> job
>> is to defend her against your claim. To that end, they may make you an
>> offer. You don't have to accept it. If you don't like the offer, you can
>> file a civil suit against her and ask a judge and jury to decide. Her
>> insurance company will defend. A court will decide damages in terms of
>> dollars. You can ask for what ever trips your trigger but the court will
>> decide. It could be more or less than her insurance company offers as
>> settlement. That's what you sign, an agreement that the offer settles the
>> claim to some degree. Understand, your claim is against the other party,
>> not
>> their insurance company.
>
> Yes. All of that is true, and I did indeed sue The Bitch, who appeared in
> court with the AAA rep. I got more than AAA was originally willing to
> settle
> for, and they paid me right away, but I still felt screwed. Is it
> conceivable
> that a judge would order them to find me a car as good as the one the
> insured
> destroyed through such gross stupidity that true justice would have given
> her
> jail time?

No, it is not conceivable. A judge can only order, you be paid for your
loss. He can consider many things when determining "loss" but your time is
generally worthless.

Jail time???? Oh, I see. You aren't interested in being made whole. You want
retribution. You're going to be really disappointed here. This is a civil
case and there is no crime. The woman that caused the damage cannot be fined
or jailed. Unless you can convince the District Attorney, a crime has been
committed and that it rises to a level the state needs to persue, you are
out of luck.

> Apparently not, although in this case a Magistrate made the
> decision.
>
>> Now, if you have colission insurance, your insurance company will offer
>> to
>> trade your wrecked car for some cash, less deductable, depending on the
>> terms of your policy. You can still file suit for outstanding damages but
>> you won't get paid for the car twice.
>
> I've never owned a car that was worth more than a few years' collision
> premium. That doesn't mean that such good "worthless" cars are easy to
> find.

No, and it doesn't mean the state is going to assist you in your quest for
"a pound of flesh".
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Bev
> ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
> If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is.

How's that working out for you?

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 13:53:49 +1000, "Rod Speed" >
wrote:

>>> Cant see why they would, natural reaction would be to apply the brakes
>>> harder.
>
>> Depends.
>
>I doubt it with the brakes already applied.
>
>> I was hit once when I was stopped, and the force threw my head
>> back against the head rest, and my feet were lifted off the floor.
>
>I doubt that would happen with the foot on the brakes.

You seem to doubt a lot of facts.

>> I was also hit once where it drove my feet onto the pedal.
>> Of course that time I was doing 65, and the blond bimbo
>> **** who hit me was doing about 95. She hit me so hard
>> the wheels lost their grip, and the acceleration from me
>> slamming the gas to the floor revved the engine far past red line.
>
>Sure, but thats nothing like the situation being discussed,
>stopped at the lights with the foot on the brake pedal.

It is exactly like it. The issue is the driver reaction to an
unexpected rear end collision, and my experience PROVES that a driver
can react by applying more OR less pressure to the pedals.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 04:41:41 GMT, "Bernard farquart"
> wrote:

>
>"DTJ" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>> The interesting thing was her saying it was my fault. ???
>>
>>
>Well, you were in her way....

Well I would not have been had she had enough intelligence to realize
that the exit ramp was AFTER my car. ****, had she not hit me, I
would have loved to see how far her car rolled when she took the ramp
at that speed.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:59:16 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

> keith wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> What do you mean, "door service"?

You just asked for them to bring a (perhaps more than) perfect
replacement to your door so that you're not bothered looking for a
replacement.

> The insurance company (AAA) of the bitch who hit me was responsible, not
> my own liability-only company.

Sure, it is their liability. So sue the bitch. You won't get much
satisfaction, but if you want to go through the mill...

> I would
> have been happy if they'd let me hack off her little finger, but
> NOOOOOO!

Tell us how you *really* feel.

> I was paid for medical stuff and pain/suffering, but what I
> really wanted was to not have to search the county for a 1980 Datsun 210
> with low mileage, a new clutch, and total cleanliness on the bottom --
> not steam-cleaning, just NO DIRT. I didn't believe such a thing was
> possible until I looked under that car.

Ok, you *are* asking for door service. The fact is that you often cannot
replace what you had, exactly. What do you want? A _new_ one? As others
have pointed out, you're going to fall somewhat short on this end.

OTOH, you were compensated for your injury. Count yourself fortunate.
What if "the bitch" had only $10K liability, as others here have said are
their state minimums (shudder)?

>> >> 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?
>
> In this case, my policy was irrelevant.

Yes, sorry.

> It was her liability policy and
> it should have taken care of ALL my car problems, leaving me in the same
> state I was before she plowed into me. If you ever want to sue an
> insurance company in small claims court, make sure you get a real judge.

Well, you can go to a real court and demand a jury trial. It might cost a
nikel, but it _is_ your right.

--
Keith

In article >,
?hadoaeraith -id> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Alan Baker > wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>> >> Pity what was actually being discussed was the effect of the
> >>> >> stationary car HAVING THE BRAKES ON AT THE TIME OF
> >>> >> THE COLLISION ON THE DISTANCE IT MOVES FORWARD
> >>> >> AND WHETHER THAT CAN AVOID RUNNING INTO THE
> >>> >> CAR IN FRONT OF THE STATIONARY CAR.
> >>>
> >>> > And it *does* move forward.
> >>>
> >>> Depends on the accident detail. If the speed of the moving
> >>> car is low enough, not necessarily if its weight is similar.
> >>>
> >>> > Momentum doesn't just disappear.
> >>>
> >>> Doesnt need to, most obviously if when the moving car
> >>> just bounces back off the stationary one, or the crumpling
> >>> of one or both absorbs the momentum, stupid.
> >>
> >> Bouncing back makes it *worse* for the stopped car, not better
> >>
> >> Study "Conservation of Momentum.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> > Having the brakes on doesn't magically make that speed go away.
> >>>
> >>> It does however increase the likelyhood of the moving car bouncing
> >>> back or the crumple zones crumpling with lower speed collisions, stupid.
> >>
> >> Do the math.
> >
> > I have to apologize for asking you to do the math; it's clearly beyond
> > you.
> >
> > So you think that crumple zones will save the situation, do you?
> >
> > Let's examine that:
> >
> > Two cars, same mass, the rear travelling at 10 mph, the front one
> > stationary and -- let's be generous -- capable of crumpling 4 feet (far
> > more than real life is likely to grant you).
> >
> > So if the rear car is to be stopped completely in 4 feet without the
> > front car moving, the acceleration necessary to do so must be less than
> > the locked tires can provide.
> >
> > Maximum tire deceleration: -0.8g, -25.6 feet/sec/sec
> >
> > If we assume constant acceleration (unrealistic, but any other
> > assumption makes for larger peak acceleration)
> >
> > v(initial): v: 10 mph, 14.667 feet/second
> > V(final): V: 0 feet/second
> > distance: d: 4 feet
> >
> > V^2 = v^2 + 2ad
> >
> > Solving:
> >
> > 0 = (14.667)^2 + 8a
> >
> > a = -215.094/8 = -26.886 feet/sec/sec
> >
> > IOW, at best, the deceleration necessary is greater than the tires can
> > provide. Even with the unrealistic (and generous) assumptions of 4 feet
> > of crumple space and a constant decelerating force.
> >
> > The front car is going to get push along.
>
> It's conservation of energy and your unrealistic hypothetical hyperbole
> does not take into account absorption factors (which do not require "4 feet
> of crumple space"). But please do carry on. It's entertaining.

I invite you to show the the math that reaches a different conclusion.

v(f)^2 = v(i)^2 + 2ad; it tells the story.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Alan Baker > wrote in message
...
> Rod Speed > wrote

>>>>> Maximum tire deceleration: -0.8g, -25.6 feet/sec/sec

>>>> More bull**** numbers WITH A CAR THATS STATIONARY
>>>> TO START WITH WITH LOCKED BRAKES.

>>>> Reams of your desperate wanking with useless numbers
>>>> plucked out of your arse flushed where they belong.

>>> It seems I was right;

>> Nope, you never are.

>>> the math *is* beyond you.

>> Wrong again.

>> I have enough of a clue to realise that those numbers you wanked
>> with are completely irrelevant to the situation being discussed.

>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
>> couldnt bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag even
>> if your pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it.

> So produce the *relevant* numbers, Rod.

YOU made the stupid pig ignorant claim that its feasible
to 'do the math' in the particular situation being discussed.
YOU get to provide valid numbers. THATS how it works.

It just aint practical to 'do the math' to decide just what speed the
moving vehicle needs to be travelling at to move the stationary car
with locked brakes when you cant put useful numbers on the
momentum dissipated by crumpling of the two cars, fool.

It is however perfectly obvious to anyone but a pig ignorant fool
like you that at the lower speeds, the stationary car wont be
moved, and that at higher speeds it will. And it doesnt actually
matter a damn what speed it takes to move the stationary vehicle,
what matter is that ON AVERAGE YOU WILL ALWAYS BE
BETTER OFF WITH THE BRAKES APPLIED THAN NOT.

> It's just physics and not even the hard stuff.

Wrong again with what momentum is dissipated in crumpling.

> LOL

Laughing like the village eejut aint gunna save you bacon now, Baker.

> Fact: a car hit by a car of the same mass at as little as 10 mph
> is going to move even if it can crumple by as much as 4 feet.

You dont know that is a fact at all on the specific speed that happens at.

> The constant deceleration necessary to stop the moving
> car exceeds what is available from rubber on asphalt.

You dont know that either, fool.

> If you want to show this is not true:

> DO THE MATH.

Sqawking that pathetic little pig ignorant mantra like
a parrot aint gunna save you bacon either, Baker.

> Or just shut the hell up.

You get no say what so ever on that or anything else at all, ever.

Keep mindlessly squawking, parrot.

In article
>,
"Rod Speed" > wrote:

> Alan Baker > wrote in message
> ...
> > Rod Speed > wrote
>
> >>>>> Maximum tire deceleration: -0.8g, -25.6 feet/sec/sec
>
> >>>> More bull**** numbers WITH A CAR THATS STATIONARY
> >>>> TO START WITH WITH LOCKED BRAKES.
>
> >>>> Reams of your desperate wanking with useless numbers
> >>>> plucked out of your arse flushed where they belong.
>
> >>> It seems I was right;
>
> >> Nope, you never are.
>
> >>> the math *is* beyond you.
>
> >> Wrong again.
>
> >> I have enough of a clue to realise that those numbers you wanked
> >> with are completely irrelevant to the situation being discussed.
>
> >> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
> >> couldnt bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag even
> >> if your pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it.
>
> > So produce the *relevant* numbers, Rod.
>
> YOU made the stupid pig ignorant claim that its feasible
> to 'do the math' in the particular situation being discussed.
> YOU get to provide valid numbers. THATS how it works.

I've done the math, sunshine. Don't you wish you'd stayed in school long
enough to learn it?

>
> It just aint practical to 'do the math' to decide just what speed the
> moving vehicle needs to be travelling at to move the stationary car
> with locked brakes when you cant put useful numbers on the
> momentum dissipated by crumpling of the two cars, fool.

I just showed you that deceleration necessary to stop a car in 4 feet (a
number independent of mass, BTW) is more than tires can supply.

>
> It is however perfectly obvious to anyone but a pig ignorant fool
> like you that at the lower speeds, the stationary car wont be
> moved, and that at higher speeds it will. And it doesnt actually
> matter a damn what speed it takes to move the stationary vehicle,
> what matter is that ON AVERAGE YOU WILL ALWAYS BE
> BETTER OFF WITH THE BRAKES APPLIED THAN NOT.

I never said any different.

>
> > It's just physics and not even the hard stuff.
>
> Wrong again with what momentum is dissipated in crumpling.

v(f)^2 = v(i)^2 + 2ad tells you precisely what acceleration is required
to stop a vehicle in a given distance. When that acceleration is higher
than the available friction then the car is going to move. End of story.

>
> > LOL
>
> Laughing like the village eejut aint gunna save you bacon now, Baker.
>
> > Fact: a car hit by a car of the same mass at as little as 10 mph
> > is going to move even if it can crumple by as much as 4 feet.
>
> You dont know that is a fact at all on the specific speed that happens at.

An absolute fact.

>
> > The constant deceleration necessary to stop the moving
> > car exceeds what is available from rubber on asphalt.
>
> You dont know that either, fool.

Show something different. Produce some *facts* for a change.

>
> > If you want to show this is not true:
>
> > DO THE MATH.
>
> Sqawking that pathetic little pig ignorant mantra like
> a parrot aint gunna save you bacon either, Baker.
>
> > Or just shut the hell up.
>
> You get no say what so ever on that or anything else at all, ever.
>
> Keep mindlessly squawking, parrot.

LOL

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."