Auto insurance ripoff by GEICO

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. 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.

EDIT: Just saw the poster, so I guess the inane comment is par for the
course.

Chris

Alan Baker > wrote in message
...
> Rod Speed > wrote
>> Alan Baker > wrote
>>> 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.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >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.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > >I always put my car in park when stopped at the traffic lights.
>> >> >> This
>> >> >> > >is because if I make any seat adjustments or reach for something my
>> >> >> > >foot need not be on the brake pedal. Its a habit so that I never
>> >> >> have
>> >> >> > >to worry about the car moving when it should be stopped whether it
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> > >at a traffic light or in the car park.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Had you been hit with your foot off the brake, you would have gone
>> >> >> > even farther forward (and with more KE) than the OP did.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> > When are you people going to wake up to the fact that rebates are a
>> >> >> SCAM?
>> >> >> -----------------------
>> >> >> > Having the car in park and hit from behind isn't going to do anyone
>> >> >> > much good. The parking pawl is probably going to sheer off.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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.
>> >
>> > 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.

> I never said it was as easy to move a car
> with the brakes on as with the brakes off.

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

Obviously not.

> 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.

And what matters is whether it moves
enough to hit the car in front of it, stupid.

Alan Baker > wrote in message
...
> Bob Ward > wrote
>> 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?

> Well, the least it will move is going to be in the case where
> both cars are moving at the same speed after collision.

Pity that when the stationary car has the brakes on when hit,
that same speed may well be considerably lower than it would
be if the stationary car did not have the brakes on, stupid.

Reams of completely irrelevant desperate wanking with
numbers plucked out of your arse flushed where they belong.

"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.

> 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.

--
Cheers,
Bev
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
SAVE GAS, FART IN A JAR

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.

Around here you are entitled to proving to your insurance company, that a
car in the same condition is not available for their price. A friend did
this for a totalled Nissan and got $2000 more than the insurance
originally offered. The problem for most people is, that they either don't
know or don't dare to challenge the mighty dragon.

Chris

<Alan > wrote in message
...
> Rod Speed > wrote
>> doubter > wrote
>>> Rod Speed > wrote
>>>> Alan Baker > wrote
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>Crap, you are.

>>> Are you suggesting pushing a car is the same
>>> as it being hit by another car doing 20 mph?

>> Corse not. JUST that there is a clear difference in the
>> force required to move a STATIONARY CAR forward
>> when its got the brakes on and when it hasnt.

> Correct.

>> You'll find that even if you do manage to push the car forward with
>> the brakes on, you dont get much in the way of skid marks, ****wit.

> But, if a moving mass of 3,000 to 5,000 lbs hits your car at
> 20mph, even with the brakes locked, you can damn sure bet
> that the car will skid forward, and probably hit the car in front.

And when the moving car isnt as heavy or as fast, having your
brakes on may well avoid getting shove into the car in front of
the stationary car in many situations where the would happen if
you didnt have the brakes on. THAT was what was being discussed.

> Yes, it takes more force with the brakes on.

And that was ALL that was being discussed, whether its BETTER to
have the brakes on. That fool claimed it wouldnt make any difference.

He is clearly just plain wrong.

> Yes the mass and speed of the car behind you will bang your car forward.

Depends on the speed and the weight of the moving car.

> And, you have to realize most people don't have their foot down
> hard on the brakes when they're stopped like that, anyway.

They may do if they see the moving car obviously
not likely to stop in time in the rear view mirror.

> I bet the car would roll forward unless they were standing
> on the brakes. In that case, it would skid forward.

Not necessarily, depends on the weight and speed of the moving car.

It those factors arent too high, it may not move forward with the brakes on.

<Alan > wrote in message
news
> Bob Ward > wrote
>> 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.

He has actually. That 'anything above a very slow walking pace'
is just plain wrong if the stationary car has the brakes on.

AND what actually matters and what was actually being
discussed was the stationary car being moved forward
enough to HIT THE CAR IN FRONT OF IT AND DAMAGE IT.

Its completely academic if it moves and doesnt hit the car in front of it.

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

Dont need to.

> That might show you have some sense,
> instead of just calling people names.

He didnt even do that.

> Or, are you (gasp) a Troll!?!?!?!

No need to ask if you can manage better than
that pathetically hoary old line. Obviously not.

<Alan > wrote in message
...
> Rod Speed > wrote
>> Alan Baker > wrote
>>> 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.
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > >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.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > >I always put my car in park when stopped at the traffic lights.
>>>> >> This
>>>> >> > >is because if I make any seat adjustments or reach for something my
>>>> >> > >foot need not be on the brake pedal. Its a habit so that I never
>>>> >> have
>>>> >> > >to worry about the car moving when it should be stopped whether it
>>>> >> is
>>>> >> > >at a traffic light or in the car park.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Had you been hit with your foot off the brake, you would have gone
>>>> >> > even farther forward (and with more KE) than the OP did.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > --
>>>> >> > When are you people going to wake up to the fact that rebates are a
>>>> >> SCAM?
>>>> >> -----------------------
>>>> >> > Having the car in park and hit from behind isn't going to do anyone
>>>> >> > much good. The parking pawl is probably going to sheer off.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.

> Of course!

Pity that fool claimed otherwise!!

>> Try pushing the car in both situations and then find
>> a VERY large towel to use on your silly little face.

> Physics sez that a blow from behind will probably
> skid the car forward even with the brakes locked.

Nope, 'physics sez' nothing of the kind with
lower speeds and weights of the moving car.

The energy available may well not be enough to skid the car.

<Alan > 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.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >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.
>>>> >
>>>> > >I always put my car in park when stopped at the traffic lights.
>>>> This
>>>> > >is because if I make any seat adjustments or reach for something my
>>>> > >foot need not be on the brake pedal. Its a habit so that I never
>>>> have
>>>> > >to worry about the car moving when it should be stopped whether it
>>>> is
>>>> > >at a traffic light or in the car park.
>>>> >
>>>> > Had you been hit with your foot off the brake, you would have gone
>>>> > even farther forward (and with more KE) than the OP did.
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > When are you people going to wake up to the fact that rebates are a
>>>> SCAM?
>>>> -----------------------
>>>> > Having the car in park and hit from behind isn't going to do anyone
>>>> > much good. The parking pawl is probably going to sheer off.
>>>>
>>>> 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.

> which happens all the time.

And doesnt happen all the time too.

> Don't over-estimate the traction of the wheels!

Never did !!!

<Alan > wrote in message
...
> Rod Speed > wrote
>> DTJ > wrote
>>> Rod Speed > wrote

>>>>>>> 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,

>>>> 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.

> Do you have any idea about mass, and inertia, and the like?

Sure do. Not relevant to a foot being applied to the brakes.

> Of course, if someone hits your rear hard enough to move your car,

You aint established that that will always happen.

> your body will move AFTER the car starts moving,

Wrong when its moved forward by the seat which is part of the car.

> which means that, relative to the car,
> your body parts move to the rear, briefly.
> That includes your foot on the brake pedal.

No it doesnt when that foot is applying force to the brake pedal.

> Wake up!

Go back to sleep !!!