Auto insurance ripoff by GEICO

In article >,
Bob Ward > wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:59:07 -0500,
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>Bob Ward > wrote:
>>>>
>>>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?
>>
>>It's pretty easy to see when such a system is in use -- there will be
>>an extra sensor loop (visible because of the sealant) back from the usual
>>one.
>>
>>I've seen some lights that won't give a green in a particular
>>direction if both sensor loops aren't occupied.
>
>So you are asking us to accept your description as fact. Got it.

Look for yourself, you can see the sensor loops. If traffic is light,
you can even try the experiment. What sort of evidence do you want, a
digitally-signed statement from Norman Minetta?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>In article >,
>Don Klipstein > wrote:
>>
>> Too many drivers in Philadelphia start their turn signals when they
>>start turning the wheel - if they signal turns at all!
>
>An ignorant observer of Philadelphia traffic would probably come to
>the conclusion that turn signal use is illegal and the law strictly
>enforced.
>
>> And too many Philadelphia drivers who bother to signal their turns do
>>not signal lane changes. And too many who consider to signal lane changes
>>do not do so when the lane change is entering or exiting the parking lane.
>
>> (And in the last 5 years plenty of drivers parking in Philadelphia or
>>nearby parts of some "inner suburbs" such as Upper Darby double-park even
>>when empty legal parking spaces can be found within 1 block - in some
>>cases even double-parking against a parking space!)
>
>That's nonsense. There aren't any legal parking spots in
>Philadelphia. They're either handicapped spots, loading zones, valet
>parking areas, blocked by construction or dumpsters, or marked with
>well-weathered cardboard signs that say "NO PARKING TEMPORARY
>POLICE REGULATION".

Not true. Plenty of legal parking spaces exist, not always or not
always many on some but not all commercial blocks, most legal
non-handicapped spaces are full, but most of the time I see one or more
double-parked cars I see a legal non-handicapped unoccupied space within
600 feet. In more extreme cases I see someone blocking but not not in an
empty legal space.

>I just got a ticket in Philadelphia. Well, actually, drove away from
>it while the revenuer was writing it up. Where the hell was I supposed to
>park to unload 50" x 40" artwork, when all the nearby spots fit into
>the above categories?

If there was a true lack of both empty legal spaces and loading zones
within a block or two, then double-parking is more forgiven. But most
double-parkers I see are within 600 feet of empty legal parking spaces,
and most traffic-lane-loaders/unloaders (excluding trucks larger than
light pickups) I see are within carrying distance from either an empty
legal parking space or a loading zone.

Especially in West Philadelphia and nearby parts of Upper Darby
Township, less in Center City where enforcement appears to me actually
significant enough to be effective.

- Don Klipstein )

In article >, The Real Bev wrote:
>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?

It surely becomes applicable all too often when prospective victims see
the profit motive to be victimized. This is a situation to prevent.

- Don Klipstein )

I generally agree, though the threshold for going naked on comp and
collision may differ from one person to another. I carry liability
only on my SUV. A decent car, but book value is less than $5K. If I
wreck it, it's on me. If someone else wrecks it... well, it's on them
(hopefully).

Liability is critical. And the minimums in most states are a joke.
Even if you don't own a home, you should consider triple digit coverage
for injuries to others. I carry $100K for property damage liability...
around here I am just as likely to hit a $80K Mercedes as I am to hit
Bev's $4 Datsun.

In article .com>,
Curtis CCR > wrote:
>
>Liability is critical. And the minimums in most states are a joke.
>Even if you don't own a home, you should consider triple digit coverage
>for injuries to others.

If, that is, you like enriching insurance companies.

A personal injury accident where someone is crippled for life can
easily wipe out whatever coverage you have, even million-dollar
coverage. If you have no major assets, chances are they'll settle for
your insured maximum. And if they don't, you're bankrupt either way.
The extra coverage gains you nothing and costs you extra in premiums.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote
> Curtis CCR > wrote:
>>
>>Liability is critical. And the minimums in most states are a joke.
>>Even if you don't own a home, you should consider triple digit coverage
>>for injuries to others.
>
> If, that is, you like enriching insurance companies.
>
> A personal injury accident where someone is crippled for life can
> easily wipe out whatever coverage you have, even million-dollar
> coverage. If you have no major assets, chances are they'll settle for
> your insured maximum. And if they don't, you're bankrupt either way.
> The extra coverage gains you nothing and costs you extra in premiums.

FWIW, $3 million in blanket liability (in addition to auto and home
coverages) is around $2500 per year. Cheap if you have large assets
to protect.

Floyd

fbloogyudsr wrote:

> FWIW, $3 million in blanket liability (in addition to auto and home
> coverages) is around $2500 per year. Cheap if you have large assets
> to protect.

For most people, $1MM of smooth liability coverage is about as much as
they can get. And even if you killed someone, the *actual* damages
will seldom go beyond that. You probably can't buy enough coverage to
protect you against potential sky-is-the-limit pain and
suffering/punitive damages.

In article .com>,
Curtis CCR > wrote:
>
>fbloogyudsr wrote:
>
>> FWIW, $3 million in blanket liability (in addition to auto and home
>> coverages) is around $2500 per year. Cheap if you have large assets
>> to protect.
>
>For most people, $1MM of smooth liability coverage is about as much as
>they can get. And even if you killed someone, the *actual* damages
>will seldom go beyond that.

Killing someone is relatively cheap; your insurance company settles the
wrongful-death suit and that's that. It's crippling someone which is
expensive.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article .com>,
> Curtis CCR > wrote:
> >
> >fbloogyudsr wrote:
> >
> >> FWIW, $3 million in blanket liability (in addition to auto and
home
> >> coverages) is around $2500 per year. Cheap if you have large
assets
> >> to protect.
> >
> >For most people, $1MM of smooth liability coverage is about as much
as
> >they can get. And even if you killed someone, the *actual* damages
> >will seldom go beyond that.
>
> Killing someone is relatively cheap; your insurance company settles
the
> wrongful-death suit and that's that. It's crippling someone which is
> expensive.

Even then, what are the *actual* damages in a case where someone is
crippled? Look at the Schiavo case (not to discuss the merits of
feeding tubes).. Her husband got a damage award from the doctors that
he blamed for her condition. The award was calculated to cover her
care expenses for the rest of her life. I think it was about a million
bucks and she was a gork.

I was discussing with someone recently an award to a young girl that
lost 3 fingers in an escalator accident. She got $15M. The dicussion
was that perhaps a million of that could be actual damages (the cost of
care, and other *actual* future losses that could be proved at the time
of the award).

Punitive damages and pain-and-suffering are unpredictable. When you
kill someone, the actual victim is not in court. When you cripple
someone, then the jury gets to see some pathetic victim and awards go
ballistic. Most people could not get coverage for that possibility.

In article . com>,
Curtis CCR > wrote:
>
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article .com>,
>> Curtis CCR > wrote:
>> >
>> >fbloogyudsr wrote:
>> >
>> >> FWIW, $3 million in blanket liability (in addition to auto and
>home
>> >> coverages) is around $2500 per year. Cheap if you have large
>assets
>> >> to protect.
>> >
>> >For most people, $1MM of smooth liability coverage is about as much
>as
>> >they can get. And even if you killed someone, the *actual* damages
>> >will seldom go beyond that.
>>
>> Killing someone is relatively cheap; your insurance company settles
>the
>> wrongful-death suit and that's that. It's crippling someone which is
>> expensive.
>
>Even then, what are the *actual* damages in a case where someone is
>crippled? Look at the Schiavo case (not to discuss the merits of

Depends on whether you get to figure in lost income.

>Punitive damages and pain-and-suffering are unpredictable. When you
>kill someone, the actual victim is not in court. When you cripple
>someone, then the jury gets to see some pathetic victim and awards go
>ballistic. Most people could not get coverage for that possibility.

Exactly.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.