Auto insurance ripoff by GEICO

In >, 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.

My driving instructor told me to stop far enough behind the vehicle in
front be able to get around it without backing up, and in most cars that
is far enough back to see the rear tires of the vehicle in front. This
seems to me to be about half a car length or maybe slightly more.

One other thing: stopping with a car stopped in front of you when you
are going uphill. You should be far enough behind for the car in front to
not hit you if its driver screws up - but I think half a car length is
plenty for that one enough of the time. Maybe more for an especially
steep hill with unfamiliar drivers, such as maybe a few tourist-driven
hills in San Francisco and one really bad one on one approach to downtown
Allentown PA.

On streets with lighter traffic, give more room. One reason is that you
may run into or get run into by people practicing learning to drive.

- Don Klipstein )

In article >,
"Rod Speed" > wrote:

> 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.

The speed of the two vehicles after collision is determined by the
momentum and the degree of elasticity in the collision.

The minimum that the speed of the stopped vehicle will be is in the case
of a completely inelastic collision (where both vehicles move together
after the collide) and in the case of equal mass, it will be exactly
half the speed of the rear vehicle..

--
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?

That would be extremely rare. You would be
entitled to claim the cost of finding one tho.

> 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.

True.

In article >, DTJ wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 02:31:53 GMT, Bob Ward >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 10:59:30 -0700, 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.
>>
>>Perhaps they are better acquiainted with the acceleration
>>characteristics of their car than you are. Would you prefer that one
>>of them pull out in front of you and then have the engine stall?
>
>Even a moron like you should understand that cars which are that
>poorly maintained should not be on the road.

Ever see roads free of cars (as well as drivers) who should not be on
the road?

How about people, wisely or not, driving to a mechanic in a car that is
a candidate for a tow truck? How about some people having a car that
should not be on the road and no other transportation unless they buy a
bicycle?

- Don Klipstein )

In article >, Magnulus wrote:
>
>"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
>> They're essentially claiming that you can buy another car
>> for $2K which would be as good as the wreck pre accident.
>
> Which is often bull****. It doesn't factor in the non-market value of the
>car to the individual. Say you had a car in good condition, and all the
>other cars out there were badly worn, for instance.

"Blue Book" value is for cars in well-maintained or good condition,
sometimes with various different prices for various levels of mileage.

> Or the car had some performance mods installed?

That is an additional claim to make with the insurance company. You
will need proof that this was done, probably along with proof of the value
of the mods at time of the crash or maybe even market value of the modded
car just before crash time.
Especially expensive mods may be something to purchase insurance riders
for.

- Don Klipstein )

In article >, Magnulus wrote:
>
>"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
>> Don't ever mention performance mods to an insurance company, they will
>> figure out a way to raise your rates. Just get the carcass back somehow
>> so you don't lose the good parts
>
> Good point, though some mods you could do to a car would be for reasons
>other than flying down the road at 100 mph and sliding through hairpins.

Most cars without mods can do more than 100 mph. However, performance
mods are statistically all-too-often done by or for people who drive in
ways imprudent one way or another or in more than one way. Cars with
higher performance in terms of top speed, acceleration to 60 MPH or
whatever or horsepower/weight tend to cost more when the factory makes
them that way - why not if made that way after getting into the hands of
the end user?

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein wrote:
>
> In article >, The Real Bev wrote:
> >keith wrote:
>
> >> 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.
> <SNIP>
>
> >> 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.
>
> Insurance companies, and even most courts in most places where "things
> tend to work" do not quite make victims whole on an average.

I believe that. I do not believe it's correct.

> If the average victim is "made whole", then one who works more than
> average at being "made whole" comes out ahead by being victimized.
> Insurance costs more when some find a profit motive to be a victim.

That assumes that the victim somehow contributes to the accident. What if
that's not applicable?

> Insurance costs much less where potential victims have financial
> motivation to do what is reasonably necessary to avoid being victims or
> victimized worse than they could be if they used some prudence.
>
> As in insurance costing less where jaywalkers are not quite made whole
> if they get hit while jaywalking, and where you have a financial incentive
> to keep at least 1/4 of one eye out for bad drivers and keep a bit of
> extra distance from them, and to stop far enough behind a vehicle stopped
> ahead of you to not hit it or get hit by it if something goes somewhat
> wrong.

I think the concept of comparative negligence covers that. In my case, not
applicable.

> I find it perfectly acceptable for the owner of a car totalled in a
> non-at-fault accident to be paid only what it costs to buy a comparable
> car (and not more merely if the market lacks anything quite like the car
> that got totalled), and not for value of time spent shopping for one.

Imagine you are driving along legally, within the speed limit, doing
everything right, and suddenly this loon pulls out from a side street on the
right, aiming straight at you as she makes a left turn. You honk, you make
evasive maneuvers, but the loon hits you square in the passenger door anyway,
knocking your car sideways in addition to caving in the side of the car. The
bitch CHASED ME DOWN, even if she did it while she was looking the other way
-- she claimed.

There is NOTHING my fault here and there was NOTHING I could do to avoid it.
To suggest that I should settle for less than what I had the moment before the
bitch hit me and that I should have to go to any effort at all to regain that
status is to suggest that we all become victims of the insurance companies and
the incompetent loons they represent. Not that we aren't, of course, but I've
never heard anybody say that that was a good and proper thing.

--
Cheers,
Bev
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing in the universe can withstand the relentless application
of brute force and ignorance." -- Frd, via Dennis (evil)

> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 17:31:07 +0000, PaPaPeng wrote:

[switching the transmission to park when stopped at an intersection]
>>I develop habits so that I don't have to think about mundane tasks.

C.H. wrote:
> Weird, I don't have to think about mundane tasks either but I never felt
> the need to put my truck in park at an intersection, least of all for the
> reason of not crashing into the person in front of me.

I got into the habit of using the parking brake while stopped at an
intersection. When I get ready to go, I press the clutch in, shift into
first and release the parking brake just as I start moving.

When I end up having to drive an automatic, I have a strong urge to
place it in neutral and set the parking brake when stopped at an
intersection ...

In article >, Lurker at Large wrote:
>In article >, "Magnulus" > writes:
>> 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.
>
> I had the opposite experience with Farmers some years ago. I slammed
>into a car that turned left in front of me (I had a green light. Turned out
>she got a solid green (instead of a green arrow) and failed to yield. I
>couldn't avoid her without hitting oncoming traffic.)

Accident was the fault of the oncoming driver who failed to yield to
traffic oncoming to that driver when turning left - a moving violation in
my USA state and at least most of the other 49.

> As I got out of my truck and walked over to the sidewalk, I noticed
>that the front tires were pointing opposite directions. Now, I know squat
>about car repairs, but I know the front wheels are supposed to aim together.
>So I knew this was pretty bad damage. Farmers had the truck towed to a body
>shop, estimated that it was repairable for some trivial amount of money and
>told the shop to order replacement parts. After only two days, the body shop
>discovered the serious damage underneath, informed Farmers, who then decided to
>total it. I got a fair deal on the settlement, but I felt really bad for the
>body shop. They got stiffed on the parts cost because the insurance
>underwriters/estimaters didn't bother to look underneath.

I suspect the body shop did not lose out too badly if the insurance
company decided to total the car. If the body shop puts a large amount of
money into a car and afterwards the car is declared totalled - it's then
between the insurance co and the body shop. Competent body shops should
generally be able to put not too much money into cars that end up being
declared totalled unless they get some sort of at least almost adequate
compensation for fixing them.

- Don Klipstein )

In >, Mark Anderson wrote:

>Word to the wise: Never buy collision insurance on a $2000 car. I stop
>collision once my car goes below $8000. It's basically not worth it if
>you determine the odds of you totalling the car multiplied by your yearly
>premiums. There is a reason insurance is such a profitable industry,
>it's legalized gambling and the insurance companies are the house. If
>you get in an accident without collision you're much better off using
>your saved premiums to pay off whatever damage there is. If the accident
>is totally not your fault, you can deal with the other person's insurance
>and if it's a reputable company, they will cut you a check.

I live in an area with a significant number of uninsured drivers,
adjacent to a city where it is widely reputed that some awfully
significant percentage of the drivers are uninsured.

A couple years ago my car got totalled by an uninsured driver, in an
accident that was ruled completely the uninsured driver's fault.

If you sue the offending driver for damage/loss of your car, all legwork
is up to you if you lack collision coverage. If you have collision
coverage, then your insurance company pays you for what they determine to
be the value of your totalled car, and they sue the offending driver if
they see fit to do so.

Collision coverage is possibly worthwhile if your car is worth as little
as $2,000 and you drive through neighborhoods that have a lot of uninsured
drivers.

- Don Klipstein )