Manufacturers could do a lot more tho, to reduce collision repair costs, add sacrificial rub strips that are low cost bolt-on's, for example. Same for the crumple zones: apply some thought and engineering to making the repair more efficient, low cost, bolt-on.
Crumple zones... that's just planning for failure. I'm not saying modern cars are bad, I'm just stating why repair costs have gone up. I still don't know why the manufacturers charge so much for replacement plastic parts though. Another interesting thing is that crashes have increased in frequency and at higher speeds as safety has improved. Humans have the ability to adapt their risk taking behavior in response to improved safety.
Redpoint5: Using your own policy when the other driver is at fault will not result in policy increase. A 20k loss should a car be totaled is too great for most people .. so is 10k. The idea that it can't happen to you is ... well foolish. And ... insurance costs are dependent on coverage .. many people don't carry enough. I carry 1m of medical and 3m of liability through Chubb on my cars. When something happens, I make a phone call and get a rental car ... and let them worry about it. I had a major house fire a few years ago -- bad stuff happens. Best to be prepared. My use of the word "proactive" -- Insurance companies gather all the information ... with all the fraud ... they have policies in place to avoid as much as possible. It's shocking how accurate the systems are today.
Why would my insurance company cover an accident caused by someone else if they are in the business of avoiding paying out claims? I'm not saying insurance is worthless, just giving my reason for not electing to carry Comprehensive and Collision. It's a significant amount over liability, I'm not likely to be the at fault person, the damage isn't likely to total my car, I have multiple vehicles, and I can afford to replace all of my cars if needed. Insurance exists to protect people from financial catastrophe, not to cover relatively common and affordable things (I'm thinking dental cleanings here). In my situation, I will never face hardship due to lack of transportation. I'm now free to invest the savings, further improving my financial security.
Strongly disagree. When flying, I am absolutely constantly planning for catasrptrophic engine failure (continually select emergency landing sites en route), navigation systems failure (visually confirm list of checkpoints on map en route to maintain positional awareness), and weather failures (likelihood of clear air turbulence , visibility/ceilings deteriorating to IMC, etc). Those habits carry over into driving a car, so I have a full-sized spare mounted in the trunk of the Prius, various repair kits, and emergency survival gear. Fortunately the consequences of car failures is usually less then airplane failures, but to not plan for failure in my view would be irresponsible , particularly if you are also risking an innocent person's life. If you are out completely on your own, however, then I would agree with you on just planning for success as long as you recognize that a failure could then well be fatal.
Keep in mind that in most cases, if the vehicle is financed or leased, full coverage is required to protect the finance companies interest. Also if involved in an accident in such a case, any payout will be via a check payable to both the finance company and to the owner. This insures that the the vehicle is repaired to a state comparable to its previous condition.
As a motorcycle rider, my mindset not only plans for my failure, but the failure of others. This habit carries over when I'm driving a cage. Most intersection crashes from red-light runners could be avoided if people simply observed cross-traffic when their light turns green, before entering the intersection. Why this isn't second nature for everyone, I'll never know.
Redpoint5: Your insurance company covers you because they have been paid to do so. I did not say they were in the business of "not paying" You are correct ....insurance is to cover one for catastrophic losses. That's why high deductibles -- high limits with the best company gets you the most bang. The idea that you will never make a mistake and be "at fault" .. well ... you just made one. Most people finance a car .. and finance companies require comp/collision. I lost 3 cars in my house fire -- all insured at "agreed value" .. I would have been 100k+ poorer without proper auto insurance.
Again, I ask why they would pay a claim that they aren't liable for? If the other person was at fault, they would require the at fault insurance company to cover the claim. I know you didn't say that insurance was in the business of not paying; I did. How many board meetings do you think have been held where the topic was "how can we pay out more claims", compared to "how can we minimize expenditure on claims". I would be surprised if there has even been 1 meeting in all of insurance history where the objective was to invent ways to pay out more of the premium on claims. We're in agreement. Whose idea was that I would never make a mistake? What mistake did I make? I'm not following... Agree about your statement, but it doesn't have much to do with the other party being at fault in a multi-vehicle collision. Agreed; the appropriate reason to have insurance. My homeowners insurance would pay for the property lost in the structure fire. Even if it didn't, the likelihood of me loosing 2 cars in a home fire is low, and I have the means to easily replace both with my rainy day fund. While comprehensive and collision makes sense for many people, it doesn't for me, because I'm not at risk of financial ruin or loosing all of my transportation. Many people get enjoyment out of owning newer, more expensive vehicles. I'm of a different mindset and consider a vehicle to be a tool, so I buy what I consider to be the cheapest, yet best tool for the job.
Redpoint5: When you have comp and collision -- your company pays regardless of who is at fault. Your insurance company goes after the other party to recover what they paid out -- they also pay based on your company guidelines. Chubb is much more forgiving vs Allstate. It's over and done with -- no wasting time fighting some other company. Same if many cars are in the accident -- you call your own when you have collision. That's what you are paying for -- if it's not your fault .. it is not chargeable. Your the one saying "your not likely to be at fault" .. that's what I'm talking about when I say mistake. The idea that you are infallible -- not very reasonable. How about hitting a deer -- car lost in a hurricane ? Both happened to members of my family. Homeowners does not cover cars -- even if they are in a garage. You need comp in order for them to pay. With many cars and a good record my Comp/ Coll is not very much.
Up here, unless it's 100% the fault of the other guy, both parties are on the hook for the deductible, with Insurance Corporation of BC (the Big Brother quasi-government auto insurance).
Doesn't look that bad to me. Like you say, it was clipped. I doubt the insurance company would total it. I slid out out ice and busted my front bumper and driver door this past winter. I decided to pay $2,600 out of pocket to repair, versus risk my insurance premium going up which could be more costly in the long run. I was only going about 15mph so I doubt I did any frame damage. Good luck!
In the USA we have various laws -- but comp/collision is a primary coverage. The "no fault" laws are designed for liability/ BI. I'm to going to rest a 70k vehicle for 280 per year.
No fault government insurance does solve the problem of adverse selection; the tendency of bad / at risk drivers to opt for higher amounts of coverage. It also fails to penalize bad / risky drivers for their poor driving. Perfect coverage is difficult to achieve.
Redpoint5: No Fault is for BI (Bodily Injury) -- It guarantees medical coverage regardless of fault. It eliminates the problem years ago of other people not having insurance and/or legal delays. The payment of damage claims is different. We don't have government insurance ------ and the premiums are still based on history? No fault rates are experience rated. When I worked in Canada .. my rates used experience.
I thought Canada had public health care? Wouldn't that eliminate the need for any bodily injury insurance?
I will just say that I think it's fairly ignorant to not have comp/collision with the notion that the "at fault party" will pay with their insurance. I say this, because I live in a place where a large portion of drivers illegally drive without insurance. We've also been hit-and-run on the freeway. Twice. One time the damage was extensive (over 8k). We had to claim it on our insurance, or else have a wrecked pile of scrap for a car.
Also old motorcycndriver, so strongly agre on planning for failure of others, but only after being run off the road by car driver crossing the median line, I found little old ladies in Buicks and elderly drivers in Florida retirement communities to be the most unpredictable. You? Becoming inevitably elderly, I have been thinking about moving to a Florida retirement community so I could dress all in white, play golf, and drive any which way but loose. Also hit a deer, the last of a herd of 4 jumping across a suburban highway at midnight , but missed the black bear and the kangaroo, and so far have avoided the highway Kamikaze pilots. We buy separate "uninsured motorist" protection on our policies specifically for the uninsured or illegal drivers. You?
Yeah, we do have uninsured motorist, but I was always under the impression that it requires collision coverage on the vehicle. The main advantage is that uninsured motorist negates having to pay a deductible. Unfortunately, when we were hit-and-run (8k damage), we didn't have uninsured motorist on our policy and had to pay the $500 deductible. I think an overzealous insurance agent dropped our coverage to get our price down, but didn't fully explain what he was doing.
