-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The American Auto-Insurance System Sucks
- Thread starter reilo
- Start date
- Status
SnakeswithLasers
Member
shintoki said:
Add to that the OPs claim to have "avoided many accidents in his time" and it's kind of obvious where the problem is.
Wtf no I haven't.SnakeswithLasers said:
Where did this "I'm an unsafe driver because I have one ticket" shit come from? I have one ticket in SEVEN (7 for the illiterate) years. How does that constitute me being an "unsafe" and "I speed all the time" driver?
My record shows that I am marginally at best a one ticket in a decade type of driver. If that constitutes as me being "unsafe" and "risky" for the insurance companies, then that goes back to my original point:
The American Auto-Insurance System Sucks
I don't get why some of you are so eager to defend the insurance companies for ripping off people like this. And this is not anecdotal evidence; this is MY record. I have years and over seventy-five thousand miles of driving experience. To say that because "statistically speaking" some jackass with my age and gender is going to get a ticket or two every year and cause a couple of accidents makes me an unsafe driver is absolutely absurd. I am not a statistic.
And for the record, I bought a used 2007 car in 2009. That's not a new car. There is nothing "fair" about this system.
I avoided many accidents because the people around me at the time were driving like shit and they would have either hit me or caused me to be in danger if I had not avoided them.SnakeswithLasers said:
The hell are you blaming me for the accidents, speeding tickets, and other illegal shit other people are doing?
Wow. They really love putting words in your mouth reilo. :lol
How can you guys blame him for accidents he didn't cause? Seriously, how do you guys rationalize that shit?
That was his reply to someone calling him out on not driving defensively to avoid accidents.
How can you guys blame him for accidents he didn't cause? Seriously, how do you guys rationalize that shit?
SnakeswithLasers said:
That was his reply to someone calling him out on not driving defensively to avoid accidents.
I did and Progressive online showed a marginal improvement. I'm waiting back to hear from my agent to see how much lower I can get with good grades.suffah said:
The Amica website rejected me the minute I selected "I have one speeding ticket". Apparently you need to have a completely clean record - not a single ticket, no matter what kind of ticket - for them to insure you.
From my years and years of experience of being driven by both men and women, I'd have to agree, men in general are better and more skilled drivers. When younger they can be more reckless, but that's about it. Also, do you respond "damn" when insurance companies say men are worse drivers than women under 25?OuterWorldVoice said:
And the statistics may say you're more likely under 25 as a man to get into an accident than as a woman, but it's still in a sense discrimination that doesn't take your own abilities into account. I mean yeah they break it down between men and women and legitimately come up with that statistic, but I'm sure they could break it down even further and find that certain men are more likely to get into an accident, and certain men are less likely. But they arbitrarily stop at men vs women. How is that any different than breaking it down by race? It's just like arbitrarily charging more for a certain color of car or number of doors, even though they could break it down further to a point where they're not charging more for people who actually aren't at more of a risk. They just stop at red, two-door, and male because that makes them the most money and what the fuck are you gonna do about it?
SnakeswithLasers
Member
reilo said:
Ya, I read the wrong post. Sorry. But I'll still assume that you speed regularly, because you probably do--especially considering you've been caught once. And even if you don't, I don't blame the insurance company for thinking that a male under 25 with a speeding ticket is a habitual speeder and thus a high risk.
I just don't get why it's so hard to understand that insurance rates are based on statistics. Seven years aint all that long, and you're still relatively inexperienced. If you think you're so much better than every other statistical liability 20 year old guy out there, well, I don't know what to tell you except: Welcome to the real world where nobody cares about you.
Seven years isn't a long time? :lolSnakeswithLasers said:
So, let me ask you this:
28 year old male, married. He's been driving since he was 24. He has one speeding ticket. He pays $100/mo for his insurance.
22 year old male, single. He's been driving since he was 15. He has one speeding ticket. He pays $250/mo for his insurance.
Who's the more experienced driver?
Fun Factor
Formerly FTWer
reilo said:
Don't they not count your speeding ticket towards your insurance after a certain period of time? Like in a year it won't be on your record when getting insurance renewed?
Also aren't there good driver courses that you can take & they give you a discount for it. Discounts for 4wd, alarm systems, anti-thief tracking systems etc..?
Also can't you just get the absolute minimum needed for insurance?
If I had to pay the insurance the same amount what I was paying every month to own the car, well fuck that.
StopMakingSense
Member
reilo said:
Statistically the 22 year old is the higher risk.
thesoapster
Member
Well, Snakes is just saying that it's based on statistics. Statistics would not take something like that into consideration, OP.
I hate it, too. I don't like it because it starts off with them making assumptions about drivers based on their sex (or is it gender...), rather than treating each case individually.
edit: I know statistically I'm more of a risk, but lumping everyone into statistics and using that as a reason to treat either sex unfairly is wrong in my mind.
I hate it, too. I don't like it because it starts off with them making assumptions about drivers based on their sex (or is it gender...), rather than treating each case individually.
edit: I know statistically I'm more of a risk, but lumping everyone into statistics and using that as a reason to treat either sex unfairly is wrong in my mind.
StopMakingSense
Member
reilo said:
How do you propose the auto insurance industry take into account your awesomeness then?
Rigorous testing comprised of personality diagnosis from Psychologists and several hours of simulator testing culminating in a real world test of his abilities at the Daytona 500. Only then would they truly know his driving abilities and what mistakes he may or may not make and I'm sure it wouldn't add too much to a premium, also shopping around for insurance would be fun.StopMakingSense said:
I didn't say to completely ignore statistic.Narag said:
It just doesn't make much sense that my best friend, at age 25 with ten times the worse driving record while driving a premium car (Mercedes), living in a much worse area (St Louis), pays $100 less a month than I do.
WickedAngel
Banned
StopMakingSense said:
This statistical nonsense wouldn't fly anywhere else. What other industry is allowed to so openly discriminate against people based on statistics alone?
Can I discriminate against potential employees because they're statistically more likely to steal, exhibit absenteeism, or embezzle? How about their gender? I'm sure a great deal of companies would love to just cut women out of the mix altogether to avoid paying for maternity leave.
Plus there is the issue that it is required by law to own auto insurance if you own a vehicle. The government steps in when it comes to consumer rights in the lending industry. Why there hasn't been more outrage/consumer rights advocating for auto insurance costs baffles me.
The thing is, insurance companies also pull this shit for medical insurance, too, except in reverse. If you are a 45 year old male, you are "statistically more at risk" than a 35 year old male, and thus your cost goes up with your age. Let's forget the fact that the 45 year old male could be Arnold Schwarzenegger and the 35 year old is the dude that owns AICN.
The thing is, insurance companies also pull this shit for medical insurance, too, except in reverse. If you are a 45 year old male, you are "statistically more at risk" than a 35 year old male, and thus your cost goes up with your age. Let's forget the fact that the 45 year old male could be Arnold Schwarzenegger and the 35 year old is the dude that owns AICN.
I both agree and disagree about the BS of insurance, it's just that outside of statistics I don't see a better way of doing it.
As far as auto insurance goes I've found that the different companies are wildly different in price ranges, there's a local place that I could have got full coverage on my vehicle for like 70 bucks a month I just didn't think I could ever count on them actually paying if that event ever came to pass, I've found other places that'd want like 300 a month for the same car.
I think the market's actually working about as well as it can, being that nothing is perfect, and if you shop around you'll find a deal you think is fair.
As far as auto insurance goes I've found that the different companies are wildly different in price ranges, there's a local place that I could have got full coverage on my vehicle for like 70 bucks a month I just didn't think I could ever count on them actually paying if that event ever came to pass, I've found other places that'd want like 300 a month for the same car.
I think the market's actually working about as well as it can, being that nothing is perfect, and if you shop around you'll find a deal you think is fair.
Uh, no.reilo said:
If all the companies were charging the same why even have different companies? Why not just have one single company if we're to mandate the costs in that fashion? It's easy to get 100 dollar differences in a premium when shopping for basic liability on my 88 Bronco let alone any kind of serious coverage and that's how it should be.
You're basically saying you shouldn't have to shop around and I think that's lazy.
yankeeforever2
Member
Amica is what my dad uses, decent rates for NY and never had a claim problem with them.sonarrat said:
Please, I didn't put any words into your mouth, you said: "But $100/mo is quite a large difference, despite the provider."reilo said:
Only logical conclusion any reasonable person could come up with from that quote is that you think all policies for the same coverage should not be able to vary by a hundred dollars.
What places have you checked? Looked into any discounts that may also be available via work, consolidation of plans, and stuff like that?
You're mad because you think your friend is getting a better deal, and I'm sure that him being 25 IS part of it, I do think that part is BS, but what else? Has he been using them for a long time and had his premium reduced? Does he get a discount for where he works, or maybe a credit union he's a member of? Does he have renters or home owners insurance with the same company and maybe get a discount there? Have you tried the provider he uses, maybe it's a cheaper local one? Does he pay it all it once instead of monthly getting a discount?
You can always call Amica anyways, I think their website sucks for quotes, they didn't even list my car but I switched to them from Progressive. I've liked them so far but going from Geico and Progressive to Amica was a bit weird having to actually deal with a person again when Geico and Progressive were so automated I hadn't spoken to an insurance agent in a decade.
jakonovski
Member
In Reilo's defence, it is smart to buy a newer car. It's much safer when you've got stuff like airbags, ABS and ESP/ESC/whatever it's called.
The insurance company is basically saying, "it's ok if you get maimed as long as the car's a cheaply replaced banger".
The insurance company is basically saying, "it's ok if you get maimed as long as the car's a cheaply replaced banger".
jakonovski said:
Eh, definitely from a reliability standpoint, but most cars in the last 20 years have airbags/anti lock breaks
His complaint was with the price, and his car does have a fair bit to do with it. I don't really agree with the way the insurance industry sets rates, but you can play within the rules for a few things, this being one of them.
jakonovski
Member
ATF487 said:
New cars are also much, much more crash safe. What might get you an amputated leg in a 10 year old car, you'll walk away from if your car is new.
reilo said:
Hmmm seems like your paying out the ass. Couple of things matter.....
Whats your limit/deductable/perils?
Im assuming you have both liability and collision.
How much is your car worth currently? What car is it (Car characteristics)?
3.0-3.5 GPA might not matter (3.5+ is what they look at)
Are you "paying" for good service if there is an accident?
Ticket hurts
2 non-fault accidents hurt (they think your a magnet)
Your loan might matter
being unmarried hurts also
Also shopping around might help a lot more than you think. My parents switched insurance companies because they were paying out the ass for my sister and there paying 100 less a month now.
I looked into the actuary side of casualty but didnt end up doing it but Im pretty sure a lot of states regulate what factors insurance companies can look at for your insurance (specifically liability since its required).
I believe some states might have requirements
No, you said:mAcOdIn said:
Nowhere did I say that.
And I have shopped around - I've looked at Progressive, Geico, State Farm, and Amica as the big agencies out there. Progressive and Geico offer similar deals but still quite expensive, and State Farm is in the same figure as my current provider.
I'll call my agent tomorrow and see if he got me that student discount and whether or not that dropped it far enough to be comparable to these other agencies.
What else can one imply? Also keep in mind, when I say "too lazy to shop around" I kinda mean that you feel you shouldn't have to shop around as all the rates should just be super competitive, I don't think that was an incorrect impression of what you said. Anyways though.reilo said:
Insurance is kind of a personal thing, when I switched from Progressive to Amica all of a sudden they wanted to lower my rate, go figure, I wouldn't say it's really a flat rate for and what you see is what you get. The way I see it using a website for a quote on insurance is like getting a starting price and if you really wanna deal give the company a call. Thing is, in my experience it's usually the company you've been with not looking to move to that's usually willing to deal. Way I look at it is the website is not going to try and lose them money in a matter of speaking if they can get people to buy it for 100 a month why bother hooking them up with a discount?
There's also lots of things you can ask about that many times won't get brought up, like defensive driving courses, maybe installing a cheap security system on the car, employer or school discounts(seems you're already on this one).
In my experience Progressive and Amica are going to be pretty damn close, in many areas I think Amica actually uses Progressive but they're still worth a try. My guess is to give Progressive and Geico a call and see if there's any personal discounts you can get or if there's something you can do to lower your rates.
Mohonky
Member
El Papa said:
It's not a requirement for a car to be insured no.
You do pay compulsary insurance with your registration; basically it's to cover peoples medical expenses in the event of an accident, but it does not cover any property (car damage) to your car or any other involved in the accident.
A lot of people think the compulsory insurance they pay also covers property in the evident of an accident. It's fucking annoying to be hit by one of these dipshits as it means they have to pay you out of their pocket for repairs. Of course the kind of dumbshit who is stupid enough to believe compulsory registration insurance covers property rarely have the money to pay for repairs and it becomes a long drawn out process of taking them to court to recuperate the costs involved in repair.
So yeh you don't need property insurance to drive a car, but write off some one elses car and essentially, you've bought it because you'll be the one paying it off.
Having said all this, I'm a 26 yr old male, no claims, no loss of license and only 1 speeding ticket, I pay $280 a year for third party.
El Papa said:
edit: dammit beaten should have scrolled down further. Yeah that ^^^^
Kind of. In my state at least Compulsory third party bodily insurance is included with car registration. You have to pay registration obviously to get that.
If you want Third party property damage and Full insurance you pay extra.
For the reasons above I'd go with full comprehensive insurance. I've had my car wiped off the road while it was parked and my insurance company went after the moron to get the money. I didn't have to do anything.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll