Oversized brakes

"John David Galt" > wrote in message
...
>
> I agree, but that system could only go so far. If something happens to
> your car while it is parked & the driver who hit you got away (or it was
> something else, like a tree limb fell on your car) nobody was driving,
> so Comprehensive & Collision would have to remain attached to the car.
> And even for liability, if the parking brake wasn't set and your car
> rolls down the hill & hits somebody, who pays? Legally it would be the
> last person who drove the car, but finding out who it was is non-trivial.
>
> This is the insurance industry's explanation for why insurance is
> attached to the car. Still, I agree, it would make more sense for
> drivers to carry their own liability coverage, but car owners would need
> their own coverage anyway.

Good points. Yes, comprehensive would have to remain with the vehicle, since
it would be the vehicle itself that is being insured. A SMALL liability
rider
on the vehicle for freak accidents such as you describe should be relatively
inexpensive. Statisticly (sp?) how often do things like that happen?

I actually carry extra liability coverage, in amounts of five to ten times
the minimums...but that extra coverage only costs less than five
dollars per year per vehicle.

Taking your points into account, my suggestion is still do-able and far
more equitable than the current system in those areas where coverage
is mandatory.

A nationwide mandatory liability policy on licenses would be a good thing.
I think there are still some states where it is possible to carry no
coverage at all
on the vehicle.

Brad and Mia wrote:
> "Ulf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > wrote:
> >> It's a BMW and so it will by default cost big bucks to purchase
used.
> >> It will also cost an arm and a leg to insure and to repair once
> >> anything goes awry.
> >
> > Everything is relative. A '92 BMW should last longer than your
average
> > Ford/GM/Chrysler product, and on a 13 y/o car you don't really need
more
> > than liability insurance and the deprivation is not more than a few

> > hundred a year.
>
>
> What? Please. Don't ever buy into this myth.
>
> Brad

Properly maintained, he's absolutely right, at least for the vintage of
car to which he's referring. Now my opinion of *new* BMW products is
not that high as they seem to have traded basic mechanical excellence
for gimmicks and gadgets (IDrive anyone?)

n

I would love a new BMW some day. I'll wait a decade or two. The
quality issue will be a none-issue.

Or else I can buy an older model between '90 and '95 and fix it up like
new. That's a good 5 years for BMW right?

wrote:
> I would love a new BMW some day. I'll wait a decade or two. The
> quality issue will be a none-issue.
>
> Or else I can buy an older model between '90 and '95 and fix it up
like
> new. That's a good 5 years for BMW right?

IMHO as far as BMWs go, the 1600/2002/3.0 era was the best and it was
all downhill from there. But maybe I'm just a retro-grouch.

nate

On 20 May 2005 08:57:39 -0700, wrote:

>I would love a new BMW some day. I'll wait a decade or two. The
>quality issue will be a none-issue.
>
>Or else I can buy an older model between '90 and '95 and fix it up like
>new. That's a good 5 years for BMW right?

Neighbour leased a new Bimmer a few years back - never had the car out
of the shop for longer than 2 months at a time for the duration of the
3 year lease. Had posession for just over 2 of those 3 years. He
cursed that car for 5 years after he got rid of it. Leased a new Supra
to take it's place. At the end of the 3 year lease he bought it and
kept it another 5. Lost one DAY of use due to unscheduled repair
(tranny leak) in 8 years.
Then he got a MB Eclass. Within 2 months it was in the shop for a new
engine - and was tied up for 6 weeks. That was just the beginning - so
he got a Camry and hasn't looked back.

A Bimmer or a Benz is fine as a status symbol, or as a second car. If
you've got loads of spare cash.

Arthur Dent wrote:
> Taking your points into account, my suggestion is still do-able and far
> more equitable than the current system in those areas where coverage
> is mandatory.

I like it.

> A nationwide mandatory liability policy on licenses would be a good thing.
> I think there are still some states where it is possible to carry no
> coverage at all
> on the vehicle.

According to California's DMV, 40% of drivers in some areas (example:
Rancho Cordova, a fairly well-off suburb of Sacramento) have no
insurance, and another 40% have only the minimum (15/30/5, the lowest
in the country). I take two lessons from this:

1) Carry the highest uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage you can
afford, because there's a good chance you'll need it if you get hit.

2) Carry enough liability coverage to protect your assets. You
wouldn't believe how many people I talk to who own houses worth $300k
or even 500k, but carry the minimum coverage. If you make the 11:00
news -- and somebody does, at least once a week just in the Sacramento
area -- who's going to wind up owning that house?

But back to your proposal. I like the idea of having the DMV enforce
coverage, but you don't need to attach the insurance to the license
to accomplish that. Many states -- NV, for one -- attach it to the
car registration. If you let your insurance lapse, the DMV wants your
plates back -- and any cop who runs the plate number will find it
flagged as expired. They have a much higher compliance rate than we.

N8N wrote:
>
> IMHO as far as BMWs go, the 1600/2002/3.0 era was the best and it was
> all downhill from there. But maybe I'm just a retro-grouch.

Yeah; you are. Either that or you're in a parallel 'rust-free'
universe. Those things rusted if you exhaled wrong at 'em. Lotta fun
to drive - for as long as they still had an intact body structure.
Now, Big Sixes from the late '80s - *those* are great BMWs.
--
C.R. Krieger
'88 535is

Motorhead Lawyer wrote:
> N8N wrote:
>
>>IMHO as far as BMWs go, the 1600/2002/3.0 era was the best and it was
>>all downhill from there. But maybe I'm just a retro-grouch.
>
>
> Yeah; you are. Either that or you're in a parallel 'rust-free'
> universe. Those things rusted if you exhaled wrong at 'em. Lotta fun
> to drive - for as long as they still had an intact body structure.
> Now, Big Sixes from the late '80s - *those* are great BMWs.
> --
> C.R. Krieger
> '88 535is
>

I had one, if you remember... loved it. But the basic mechanics
descended straight from the lovely 3.0CSi (I did get that right didn't
I? BMW nomenclature is so confusing) which was simpler, purer, and WAY
better looking than even the 635 that was its direct spiritual successor.

If I cared about rust, would I have just bought a '55 Stude coupe? Talk
about a lovely car that rusts if you don't wipe your sneeze off the
windshield instantly... C.R. you need to discover that there really is
a parallel rust-free universe, and it exists only south of the
Mason-Dixon line (or so far north that it never thaws...) anymore I
"import" my "toy" cars from AZ, TX etc... I hate rust just as much as
the next guy, so I don't deal with it

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

"John David Galt" > wrote in message
...
>
> According to California's DMV, 40% of drivers in some areas (example:
> Rancho Cordova, a fairly well-off suburb of Sacramento) have no
> insurance, and another 40% have only the minimum (15/30/5, the lowest
> in the country). I take two lessons from this:
>
> 1) Carry the highest uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage you can
> afford, because there's a good chance you'll need it if you get hit.
>
> 2) Carry enough liability coverage to protect your assets. You
> wouldn't believe how many people I talk to who own houses worth $300k
> or even 500k, but carry the minimum coverage. If you make the 11:00
> news -- and somebody does, at least once a week just in the Sacramento
> area -- who's going to wind up owning that house?
>

Absolutely. I was going to cut back my coverage from $500k...but it turned
out that the extra cost was only a few dollars per year (less than $5)-
definitely worth it. I don't worry about a lawsuit taking my property, I set
up a trust to hold the real estate so it provides a level of insulation from
that sort of thing (among other advantages).

> But back to your proposal. I like the idea of having the DMV enforce
> coverage, but you don't need to attach the insurance to the license
> to accomplish that. Many states -- NV, for one -- attach it to the
> car registration. If you let your insurance lapse, the DMV wants your
> plates back -- and any cop who runs the plate number will find it
> flagged as expired. They have a much higher compliance rate than we.

That is precisely the thing I'd like to change. I live in such a state and
must pay full premiums on every single vehicle for that reason. It is unfair
and inequitable to be required to carry seperate policies on each vehicle
when a single policy on the license would provide the necessary protection.

There are people with poor driving records who register their vehicle(s) in
the names of others with better records in order NOT to pay the high
premiums they ought to be paying as a consequence of their propensity to
cause damage. (In some areas rates are calculated, at least in part, based
on the address of the place of garaging, and it is not uncommon for people
to fudge the system by reporting an address of a friend or relative who
lives in an area where the rates are cheaper.) These are flaws in the system
that could be rectified by my proposal. By attaching the major portion of
coverage to the license, high-risk drivers would be forced to pay their own
freight, and if they could not find (or afford to pay for) coverage
appropriate to their risk level then they would not be allowed to drive.
This would be beneficial in either reducing the number of high-risk drivers
on the road and/or putting the cost of the damage they cause on the persons
responsible.

In the vast majority of cases it is the driver and not the vehicle which is
responsible for damages, it is a rare thing indeed for a vehicle to start
itself up and drive off to cause an accident. (All humor-impared people can
see me later for an explanation and complementary dope-slap.) At current
count I own eleven vehicles (I think), but I can drive only one at a time.
Why should I be required to carry full liability policies on vehicles that
are not being driven? (Obviously, fleet owners who have many employees
driving their vehicles would not be eligible for this type of program,
though I should think that their costs could also be reduced by putting the
majority of responsibility on the drivers themselves.) Why should you or I
or anyone else have to shoulder the costs of the damages caused by Joe
Reckless?

The more I think about this the more irate I become. It's time for a change.