car insurance is the most discriminatory entity ever
- Thread starter JHZR2
- Start date
- Status
Absolutely not!
Thanks, rpn453. I made that statement regardless of whether the uninsured motorist could afford to pay for car insurance. I realize that a poor person and their junker car might not be worth more than $100-200, but it would keep them from striking anyone else with THAT vehicle. They must buy another vehicle at their own expense. If that sounds mean-spirited, it's no less cruel than forcing an innocent person to pay for their accident.
Bruce T said "Insurance companies are cold, profit-making machines. They make massive profits. It's simple. They charge high premiums and award low claims. They sometimes refuse to pay until threatened with a non-frivolous lawsuit."
Depends upon the insurance company, and especially your agent. Although I haven't had one in over a decade I have over 250k miles on motorcycles, and always to have my points maxed out. The safest place to drive was in the #1 lane slowly passing traffic, but I also have made runs like San Diego to San Jose in 6 hrs, via Fresno :^) Anyway, I got dropped by my ex's insurance company, noticed a Farmers close to where I lived, walked in and said that I collected tickets like baseball cards, didn't get into accidents, and would he consider taking me on. He checked up on my record, said that on paper I was a bad risk, but still offered me a surprisingly affordable package for a Suzuki 1100 and a Yamaha 750. I accepted, thanked him, and have been with Farmers for almost 20 years now.
Insurance companies rely upon statistics to essentially make bets in their favor while still trying to be competitive with other companies doing the same thing. They work with huge databases and reliable statistical techniques. Some companies prefer to work with low risk pools exclusively, others will take on anyone for a price. Young males in most vehicles, especially sports cars and 4wd trucks, get into a lot of accidents and are a 'poor bet'. A good driving record offsets the risk a bit, but not as much as you'd think.
Depends upon the insurance company, and especially your agent. Although I haven't had one in over a decade I have over 250k miles on motorcycles, and always to have my points maxed out. The safest place to drive was in the #1 lane slowly passing traffic, but I also have made runs like San Diego to San Jose in 6 hrs, via Fresno :^) Anyway, I got dropped by my ex's insurance company, noticed a Farmers close to where I lived, walked in and said that I collected tickets like baseball cards, didn't get into accidents, and would he consider taking me on. He checked up on my record, said that on paper I was a bad risk, but still offered me a surprisingly affordable package for a Suzuki 1100 and a Yamaha 750. I accepted, thanked him, and have been with Farmers for almost 20 years now.
Insurance companies rely upon statistics to essentially make bets in their favor while still trying to be competitive with other companies doing the same thing. They work with huge databases and reliable statistical techniques. Some companies prefer to work with low risk pools exclusively, others will take on anyone for a price. Young males in most vehicles, especially sports cars and 4wd trucks, get into a lot of accidents and are a 'poor bet'. A good driving record offsets the risk a bit, but not as much as you'd think.
That's true, it's not a totally cold and impersonal experience. A good agent can make a big difference, although they're only granted so much leeway in making decisions. Yes, I understand how insurance companies work with risk groups, I just think rates are too high across the board.
1sttruck, I've been in the same situation. I've had many speeding tickets, but no accidents in over 10 years. I think the long time period eliminates the correlation between speeding and accidents, but they won't accept the risk. In all fairness, I can see how it looks from their perspective - especially if they have enough clients.
JHZR2,been there done that.If you stay single,it will go down when you reach 30.Until then,there is little if any reduction of the rates unless you get married.
A married males rate is greatly reduced when
married.
I guess the insurance company figures that a married male has most of his 'wildness' done with and will be less reckless in their driving habits.I think that in many instances that this is probably true.
Is it fair? No,not really.
This is however the way that they operate.
Single males under 30 are considered a high risk group and pay accordingly.
A married males rate is greatly reduced when
married.
I guess the insurance company figures that a married male has most of his 'wildness' done with and will be less reckless in their driving habits.I think that in many instances that this is probably true.
Is it fair? No,not really.
This is however the way that they operate.
Single males under 30 are considered a high risk group and pay accordingly.
What really use to gall me was no having accidents, lots of tickets, and considered a poor risk, while my ex-brother-in-law was involved in a couple of accidents but he was still considered a good risk as 'it wasn't his fault'. I mentioned that 'not my fault' on a bike still means that I'm dead, but it still didn't mean anything to my ex's insurance company.
Don't believe the television commercials. Insurance companies are NOT your friend or good neighbor. It's funny when they claim frivolous lawsuits are ruining their profits. They just raise their premiums to cover these costs. Insurance companies are cold, profit-making machines. They make massive profits. It's simple. They charge high premiums and award low claims. They sometimes refuse to pay until threatened with a non-frivolous lawsuit.
Just because insurance companies are legal does not make them ethical. They know that very few people can afford to self-insure, so they take advantage of this fact. Insurance companies are just as parasitic as lawyers and politicians. Unhappy about it? You can talk to the lawyers who run the US Congress. They won't help, either.
Uninsured motorists are also part of the problem. Most states are tough about requiring insurance coverage, but not tough enough on uninsured drivers. If the event of an accident, I think they should confiscate the driver's vehicle, even personal property if necessary, selling it to pay any damages. Am I being too harsh? Ask JHZR2.
[ August 13, 2004, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Bruce T ]
Just because insurance companies are legal does not make them ethical. They know that very few people can afford to self-insure, so they take advantage of this fact. Insurance companies are just as parasitic as lawyers and politicians. Unhappy about it? You can talk to the lawyers who run the US Congress. They won't help, either.
Uninsured motorists are also part of the problem. Most states are tough about requiring insurance coverage, but not tough enough on uninsured drivers. If the event of an accident, I think they should confiscate the driver's vehicle, even personal property if necessary, selling it to pay any damages. Am I being too harsh? Ask JHZR2.
[ August 13, 2004, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Bruce T ]
- Status
Similar threads
