Sometimes stupid loses

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 14:18:02 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/3/2011 1:20 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 23:17:40 -0400, John A.
wrote:

On Sun, 1 May 2011 18:45:53 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
In article 2011043018143177923-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2011-04-30 17:27:40 -0700, "Bill Graham"
said:

Le Snip


I once called my automobile insurance company and said, "Look.
The most dangerous car on the road is a Corvette Sting Ray.
(this was in 1963) Imagine that I am always driving one of
these, and charge me for my liability policy accordingly. Then
whenever I am driving any other car, you will be making
money." And, of course, they said, "I'm sorry sir, but we
can't do that."

I think you might find the car you are referring to is the
"Corvair" not the "Corvette."

You have your old pal Ralph Nader to thank for that. Do you
remember a little essay of his titled, "Unsafe at Any Speed"?

Don't be too sure. Insurance companies aren't stupid and do
have a large body of data to work from--they'd base their rates
on the statistics, not on Ralp Nadir's uninformed opinion.

Dunno why a 'vette would be exceptionally dangerous--even then
they had good suspension and good brakes (by US standards
anyway)--but they could go very fast and some owners tended to
do so with regularity.

Yes. They weren't dangerous. It was the drivers who were
dangerous. That's why liability insurance should be written on
drivers and not cars.

Actuaries aren't stupid. They take all the information about a
driver they can, and correlate it with average payouts for
drivers who fit a particular driver's profile. One such piece of
information is a person's driving record. Another is the kind of
car they drive.

But it doesn't take much more than common sense to figure that
even if someone with a stellar driving record suddenly goes out
and buys a corvette, there's a fair shot his driving habits might
be about to change.

Like a mid-life crisis involving his first sports car, first
hooker, and blow job going 110mph with the top off.

I am still waiting to be convinced that liability insurance
shouldn't be written on the drivers and not the cars.

If you didn't own a car and had a drivers license, you would be
bitching the other way.

I don't think Bill understands what his auto liability insurance is.

For sure, Bill doesn't understand the way a business works. The auto
insurance companies have figured out how much in premiums they have to
charge to cover their payouts in accidents and turn a profit. At the
current time, the premiums are based on the individual automobiles
owned by the insured.

If Bill could magically change things that so they would charge the
owner for liability, regardless of the number of automobiles owned,
the premium would be the same. The insurance company still needs to
bring in amount equal to estimated payout plus profit. (A greatly
simplified formula, but basically sound)

What comfort Bill would get in having one bill for $1,000 (to make up
a number) for individual liability coverage instead of one bill for
two automobiles at $600 for one and $400 for the second is beyond me.
(Using Bill's 80% figure for the second car)

In the above scenario, if Bill sold the second car, his liability
charge would drop to $600, and in the present situation his cost would
drop to $600. Six of one...

Now Bill will come back and ask why no one can explain why the change
isn't made.

How about if you have three or four vehicles? 100% plus 3 x 80% is 340% of a
policy primium. And you are paying this 100% of the time, even though when
you are driving one vehicle, the other three are parked in your garage and
can't be driven anywhere.

On 5/3/2011 8:40 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
John A. wrote:
On Mon, 2 May 2011 22:11:12 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

John A. wrote:
On Sun, 1 May 2011 18:45:53 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
In article 2011043018143177923-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2011-04-30 17:27:40 -0700, "Bill Graham"
said:

Le Snip


I once called my automobile insurance company and said, "Look.
The most dangerous car on the road is a Corvette Sting Ray.
(this was in 1963) Imagine that I am always driving one of
these, and charge me for my liability policy accordingly. Then
whenever I am driving any other car, you will be making money."
And, of course, they said, "I'm sorry sir, but we can't do
that."

I think you might find the car you are referring to is the
"Corvair" not the "Corvette."

You have your old pal Ralph Nader to thank for that. Do you
remember a little essay of his titled, "Unsafe at Any Speed"?

Don't be too sure. Insurance companies aren't stupid and do have
a large body of data to work from--they'd base their rates on the
statistics, not on Ralp Nadir's uninformed opinion.

Dunno why a 'vette would be exceptionally dangerous--even then
they had good suspension and good brakes (by US standards
anyway)--but they could go very fast and some owners tended to do
so with regularity.

Yes. They weren't dangerous. It was the drivers who were dangerous.
That's why liability insurance should be written on drivers and not
cars.

Actuaries aren't stupid. They take all the information about a
driver they can, and correlate it with average payouts for drivers
who fit a particular driver's profile. One such piece of
information is a person's driving record. Another is the kind of
car they drive.

But it doesn't take much more than common sense to figure that even
if someone with a stellar driving record suddenly goes out and buys
a corvette, there's a fair shot his driving habits might be about to
change.

I never said that everyone's liability premium had to be the same.
Those with poor driving records would naturally have to pay more for
their liability insurance. This is the case now, and there is no
reason to change it. I am just suggesting that the liability
insurance be written on the driver, and not the vehicle. Drivers
cause accidents, not cars. (People kill people, not the guns.)

Cars aren't all alike either. Some are more expensive to repair. Some
will tend to do more damage to the other car in any given accident.
Some give better or worse visibility. Some tend to be driven by people
who live around people with more-expensive-to-repair cars.

Gee. You sond just like that lobbiest many years ago who convinced some
congressional committee to let (mandate) the insurance companies write
liability policies on cars instead of people. Sorry. I don't buy it. It
makes billions of dollars for the insurance companies every year. From
all us poor slobs who have more cars than drivers in their families.
Just another thing I bitch about that falls on deaf liberal ears........

Your knowledge of insurance company regulations is underwhelming.
Insurance company existence, reserves, rate making and underwriting
practices are set only by the states. I have no idea what this
"lobbyist" was lobbying for, I suspect you don't either, but it
certainly would have absolutely nothing to do with the subject you are
ranting about. For you to call insurance company executives liberals is
almost laughable. Indeed, if you bother to look through the forms filed
on behalf of of publicly held insurance companies you will find that the
vast majority of the upper echelon management is Irish.

--
Peter

On 5/3/2011 8:52 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
PeterN wrote:

If you didn't own a car and had a drivers license, you would be
bitching the other way.

If I didn't own a car, I would have a DMV ID card, which is not a
drivers license, and requires no test or insurance.

You do not need a drivers license to own a car. You need one to drive a
car. Driving and ownership are two completely different concepts. Both
my younger daughter and my nephew have a valid drivers licenses but do
not own cars.

--
Peter

On Tue, 3 May 2011 18:33:01 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 14:18:02 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/3/2011 1:20 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 23:17:40 -0400, John A.
wrote:

On Sun, 1 May 2011 18:45:53 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
In article 2011043018143177923-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2011-04-30 17:27:40 -0700, "Bill Graham"
said:

Le Snip


I once called my automobile insurance company and said, "Look.
The most dangerous car on the road is a Corvette Sting Ray.
(this was in 1963) Imagine that I am always driving one of
these, and charge me for my liability policy accordingly. Then
whenever I am driving any other car, you will be making
money." And, of course, they said, "I'm sorry sir, but we
can't do that."

I think you might find the car you are referring to is the
"Corvair" not the "Corvette."

You have your old pal Ralph Nader to thank for that. Do you
remember a little essay of his titled, "Unsafe at Any Speed"?

Don't be too sure. Insurance companies aren't stupid and do
have a large body of data to work from--they'd base their rates
on the statistics, not on Ralp Nadir's uninformed opinion.

Dunno why a 'vette would be exceptionally dangerous--even then
they had good suspension and good brakes (by US standards
anyway)--but they could go very fast and some owners tended to
do so with regularity.

Yes. They weren't dangerous. It was the drivers who were
dangerous. That's why liability insurance should be written on
drivers and not cars.

Actuaries aren't stupid. They take all the information about a
driver they can, and correlate it with average payouts for
drivers who fit a particular driver's profile. One such piece of
information is a person's driving record. Another is the kind of
car they drive.

But it doesn't take much more than common sense to figure that
even if someone with a stellar driving record suddenly goes out
and buys a corvette, there's a fair shot his driving habits might
be about to change.

Like a mid-life crisis involving his first sports car, first
hooker, and blow job going 110mph with the top off.

I am still waiting to be convinced that liability insurance
shouldn't be written on the drivers and not the cars.

If you didn't own a car and had a drivers license, you would be
bitching the other way.

I don't think Bill understands what his auto liability insurance is.

For sure, Bill doesn't understand the way a business works. The auto
insurance companies have figured out how much in premiums they have to
charge to cover their payouts in accidents and turn a profit. At the
current time, the premiums are based on the individual automobiles
owned by the insured.

If Bill could magically change things that so they would charge the
owner for liability, regardless of the number of automobiles owned,
the premium would be the same. The insurance company still needs to
bring in amount equal to estimated payout plus profit. (A greatly
simplified formula, but basically sound)

What comfort Bill would get in having one bill for $1,000 (to make up
a number) for individual liability coverage instead of one bill for
two automobiles at $600 for one and $400 for the second is beyond me.
(Using Bill's 80% figure for the second car)

In the above scenario, if Bill sold the second car, his liability
charge would drop to $600, and in the present situation his cost would
drop to $600. Six of one...

Now Bill will come back and ask why no one can explain why the change
isn't made.

How about if you have three or four vehicles? 100% plus 3 x 80% is 340% of a
policy primium. And you are paying this 100% of the time, even though when
you are driving one vehicle, the other three are parked in your garage and
can't be driven anywhere.

Simple, Bill. Under your scheme, your liability insurance goes up to
exactly the same rate as the combined rate of the three or four cars.
It's the same principle: expected outlay in payouts plus profit. I
would think someone trained in maths would be able to figure that out.

What you are driving, or what cars in the garage, have nothing to do
with it. It's projected outlay plus profit = cost to you in premium.

Whether you drive one car four times as often, or each of four cars
one-fourth as much, the expected cost to the insurance company is the
same.

I knew you'd ask.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

PeterN wrote:
On 5/3/2011 8:40 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
John A. wrote:
On Mon, 2 May 2011 22:11:12 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

John A. wrote:
On Sun, 1 May 2011 18:45:53 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
In article 2011043018143177923-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2011-04-30 17:27:40 -0700, "Bill Graham"
said:

Le Snip


I once called my automobile insurance company and said, "Look.
The most dangerous car on the road is a Corvette Sting Ray.
(this was in 1963) Imagine that I am always driving one of
these, and charge me for my liability policy accordingly. Then
whenever I am driving any other car, you will be making
money." And, of course, they said, "I'm sorry sir, but we
can't do that."

I think you might find the car you are referring to is the
"Corvair" not the "Corvette."

You have your old pal Ralph Nader to thank for that. Do you
remember a little essay of his titled, "Unsafe at Any Speed"?

Don't be too sure. Insurance companies aren't stupid and do have
a large body of data to work from--they'd base their rates on
the statistics, not on Ralp Nadir's uninformed opinion.

Dunno why a 'vette would be exceptionally dangerous--even then
they had good suspension and good brakes (by US standards
anyway)--but they could go very fast and some owners tended to
do so with regularity.

Yes. They weren't dangerous. It was the drivers who were
dangerous. That's why liability insurance should be written on
drivers and not cars.

Actuaries aren't stupid. They take all the information about a
driver they can, and correlate it with average payouts for drivers
who fit a particular driver's profile. One such piece of
information is a person's driving record. Another is the kind of
car they drive.

But it doesn't take much more than common sense to figure that
even if someone with a stellar driving record suddenly goes out
and buys a corvette, there's a fair shot his driving habits might
be about to change.

I never said that everyone's liability premium had to be the same.
Those with poor driving records would naturally have to pay more
for their liability insurance. This is the case now, and there is
no reason to change it. I am just suggesting that the liability
insurance be written on the driver, and not the vehicle. Drivers
cause accidents, not cars. (People kill people, not the guns.)

Cars aren't all alike either. Some are more expensive to repair.
Some will tend to do more damage to the other car in any given
accident. Some give better or worse visibility. Some tend to be
driven by people who live around people with
more-expensive-to-repair cars.

Gee. You sond just like that lobbiest many years ago who convinced
some congressional committee to let (mandate) the insurance
companies write liability policies on cars instead of people. Sorry.
I don't buy it. It makes billions of dollars for the insurance
companies every year. From all us poor slobs who have more cars than
drivers in their families. Just another thing I bitch about that
falls on deaf liberal ears........

Your knowledge of insurance company regulations is underwhelming.
Insurance company existence, reserves, rate making and underwriting
practices are set only by the states. I have no idea what this
"lobbyist" was lobbying for, I suspect you don't either, but it
certainly would have absolutely nothing to do with the subject you are
ranting about. For you to call insurance company executives liberals
is almost laughable. Indeed, if you bother to look through the forms
filed on behalf of of publicly held insurance companies you will find
that the vast majority of the upper echelon management is Irish.

If it is the status quo, then you are going to defend it. For the life of me
I don't understand why they call people like me, "conservatives" and people
like you, "progressives". It is just the other way around. You are a schill
for the government. anything it does and any law that is on the books has to
be the word of God in your book. government can do no wrong. Insurance
companies have been cheating me on their liability policies all of my
driving life. I know it, and you are far to ignorant of my situation and
experience to be able to convince me otherwise. My brother-in-law used to
call his insurance company every morning and tell the secretary there which
car to switch his liability policy to for that day. Do you think he did this
because the insurance company had a realistic and fair billing practice? Of
course not. and he was a brilliant engineer who owned his own firm in the
Bay Area for many years.

I think I am very tired of this discussion. I have better things to do than
argue with idiots. Right now, I am trying to find out why the Social
Security administration cheats every geezer out of a paycheck I have written
several letters about this and I get no answer. It nets SS about 2.5 Billion
dollars a year. But it takes time for me to do things like this, so I will
have to bow out of this group for a while. You guys can go back to
photography. I am sorry I disturbed you.

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2011 18:33:01 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 14:18:02 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/3/2011 1:20 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 23:17:40 -0400, John A.
wrote:

On Sun, 1 May 2011 18:45:53 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
In article 2011043018143177923-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2011-04-30 17:27:40 -0700, "Bill Graham"
said:

Le Snip


I once called my automobile insurance company and said,
"Look. The most dangerous car on the road is a Corvette
Sting Ray. (this was in 1963) Imagine that I am always
driving one of these, and charge me for my liability policy
accordingly. Then whenever I am driving any other car, you
will be making money." And, of course, they said, "I'm
sorry sir, but we can't do that."

I think you might find the car you are referring to is the
"Corvair" not the "Corvette."

You have your old pal Ralph Nader to thank for that. Do you
remember a little essay of his titled, "Unsafe at Any Speed"?

Don't be too sure. Insurance companies aren't stupid and do
have a large body of data to work from--they'd base their
rates on the statistics, not on Ralp Nadir's uninformed
opinion.

Dunno why a 'vette would be exceptionally dangerous--even then
they had good suspension and good brakes (by US standards
anyway)--but they could go very fast and some owners tended to
do so with regularity.

Yes. They weren't dangerous. It was the drivers who were
dangerous. That's why liability insurance should be written on
drivers and not cars.

Actuaries aren't stupid. They take all the information about a
driver they can, and correlate it with average payouts for
drivers who fit a particular driver's profile. One such piece of
information is a person's driving record. Another is the kind of
car they drive.

But it doesn't take much more than common sense to figure that
even if someone with a stellar driving record suddenly goes out
and buys a corvette, there's a fair shot his driving habits
might be about to change.

Like a mid-life crisis involving his first sports car, first
hooker, and blow job going 110mph with the top off.

I am still waiting to be convinced that liability insurance
shouldn't be written on the drivers and not the cars.

If you didn't own a car and had a drivers license, you would be
bitching the other way.

I don't think Bill understands what his auto liability insurance is.

For sure, Bill doesn't understand the way a business works. The
auto insurance companies have figured out how much in premiums they
have to charge to cover their payouts in accidents and turn a
profit. At the current time, the premiums are based on the
individual automobiles owned by the insured.

If Bill could magically change things that so they would charge the
owner for liability, regardless of the number of automobiles owned,
the premium would be the same. The insurance company still needs to
bring in amount equal to estimated payout plus profit. (A greatly
simplified formula, but basically sound)

What comfort Bill would get in having one bill for $1,000 (to make
up a number) for individual liability coverage instead of one bill
for two automobiles at $600 for one and $400 for the second is
beyond me. (Using Bill's 80% figure for the second car)

In the above scenario, if Bill sold the second car, his liability
charge would drop to $600, and in the present situation his cost
would drop to $600. Six of one...

Now Bill will come back and ask why no one can explain why the
change isn't made.

How about if you have three or four vehicles? 100% plus 3 x 80% is
340% of a policy primium. And you are paying this 100% of the time,
even though when you are driving one vehicle, the other three are
parked in your garage and can't be driven anywhere.

Simple, Bill. Under your scheme, your liability insurance goes up to
exactly the same rate as the combined rate of the three or four cars.
It's the same principle: expected outlay in payouts plus profit. I
would think someone trained in maths would be able to figure that out.

What you are driving, or what cars in the garage, have nothing to do
with it. It's projected outlay plus profit = cost to you in premium.

Whether you drive one car four times as often, or each of four cars
one-fourth as much, the expected cost to the insurance company is the
same.

I knew you'd ask.

That's right! I can only be on the road 24 hours a day, so charging me 340%
of a premium is criminal! It is not their business how many cars I have
unless I can drive more than one of them at once. Why can't you see that?
Your stupidity grows in my mind by leaps and bounds......

On Tue, 3 May 2011 19:27:02 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2011 18:33:01 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 14:18:02 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/3/2011 1:20 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 23:17:40 -0400, John A.
wrote:

On Sun, 1 May 2011 18:45:53 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
In article 2011043018143177923-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2011-04-30 17:27:40 -0700, "Bill Graham"
said:

Le Snip


I once called my automobile insurance company and said,
"Look. The most dangerous car on the road is a Corvette
Sting Ray. (this was in 1963) Imagine that I am always
driving one of these, and charge me for my liability policy
accordingly. Then whenever I am driving any other car, you
will be making money." And, of course, they said, "I'm
sorry sir, but we can't do that."

I think you might find the car you are referring to is the
"Corvair" not the "Corvette."

You have your old pal Ralph Nader to thank for that. Do you
remember a little essay of his titled, "Unsafe at Any Speed"?

Don't be too sure. Insurance companies aren't stupid and do
have a large body of data to work from--they'd base their
rates on the statistics, not on Ralp Nadir's uninformed
opinion.

Dunno why a 'vette would be exceptionally dangerous--even then
they had good suspension and good brakes (by US standards
anyway)--but they could go very fast and some owners tended to
do so with regularity.

Yes. They weren't dangerous. It was the drivers who were
dangerous. That's why liability insurance should be written on
drivers and not cars.

Actuaries aren't stupid. They take all the information about a
driver they can, and correlate it with average payouts for
drivers who fit a particular driver's profile. One such piece of
information is a person's driving record. Another is the kind of
car they drive.

But it doesn't take much more than common sense to figure that
even if someone with a stellar driving record suddenly goes out
and buys a corvette, there's a fair shot his driving habits
might be about to change.

Like a mid-life crisis involving his first sports car, first
hooker, and blow job going 110mph with the top off.

I am still waiting to be convinced that liability insurance
shouldn't be written on the drivers and not the cars.

If you didn't own a car and had a drivers license, you would be
bitching the other way.

I don't think Bill understands what his auto liability insurance is.

For sure, Bill doesn't understand the way a business works. The
auto insurance companies have figured out how much in premiums they
have to charge to cover their payouts in accidents and turn a
profit. At the current time, the premiums are based on the
individual automobiles owned by the insured.

If Bill could magically change things that so they would charge the
owner for liability, regardless of the number of automobiles owned,
the premium would be the same. The insurance company still needs to
bring in amount equal to estimated payout plus profit. (A greatly
simplified formula, but basically sound)

What comfort Bill would get in having one bill for $1,000 (to make
up a number) for individual liability coverage instead of one bill
for two automobiles at $600 for one and $400 for the second is
beyond me. (Using Bill's 80% figure for the second car)

In the above scenario, if Bill sold the second car, his liability
charge would drop to $600, and in the present situation his cost
would drop to $600. Six of one...

Now Bill will come back and ask why no one can explain why the
change isn't made.

How about if you have three or four vehicles? 100% plus 3 x 80% is
340% of a policy primium. And you are paying this 100% of the time,
even though when you are driving one vehicle, the other three are
parked in your garage and can't be driven anywhere.

Simple, Bill. Under your scheme, your liability insurance goes up to
exactly the same rate as the combined rate of the three or four cars.
It's the same principle: expected outlay in payouts plus profit. I
would think someone trained in maths would be able to figure that out.

What you are driving, or what cars in the garage, have nothing to do
with it. It's projected outlay plus profit = cost to you in premium.

Whether you drive one car four times as often, or each of four cars
one-fourth as much, the expected cost to the insurance company is the
same.

I knew you'd ask.

That's right! I can only be on the road 24 hours a day, so charging me 340%
of a premium is criminal! It is not their business how many cars I have
unless I can drive more than one of them at once. Why can't you see that?
Your stupidity grows in my mind by leaps and bounds......

I don't know why I try, but... you wouldn't be charged 340% of a
premium. You would be charged 100% of a premium, and that premium is
based on the number of cars under the present system. Under your
proposed system, you would be charged the same premium.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 04/05/2011 01:40, Bill Graham wrote:
John A. wrote:
On Mon, 2 May 2011 22:11:12 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

John A. wrote:
On Sun, 1 May 2011 18:45:53 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

Dunno why a 'vette would be exceptionally dangerous--even then
they had good suspension and good brakes (by US standards
anyway)--but they could go very fast and some owners tended to do
so with regularity.

Yes. They weren't dangerous. It was the drivers who were dangerous.
That's why liability insurance should be written on drivers and not
cars.

Actuaries aren't stupid. They take all the information about a
driver they can, and correlate it with average payouts for drivers
who fit a particular driver's profile. One such piece of
information is a person's driving record. Another is the kind of
car they drive.

But it doesn't take much more than common sense to figure that even
if someone with a stellar driving record suddenly goes out and buys
a corvette, there's a fair shot his driving habits might be about to
change.

I never said that everyone's liability premium had to be the same.
Those with poor driving records would naturally have to pay more for
their liability insurance. This is the case now, and there is no
reason to change it. I am just suggesting that the liability
insurance be written on the driver, and not the vehicle. Drivers
cause accidents, not cars. (People kill people, not the guns.)

Cars aren't all alike either. Some are more expensive to repair. Some
will tend to do more damage to the other car in any given accident.
Some give better or worse visibility. Some tend to be driven by people
who live around people with more-expensive-to-repair cars.

Gee. You sond just like that lobbiest many years ago who convinced some
congressional committee to let (mandate) the insurance companies write
liability policies on cars instead of people. Sorry. I don't buy it. It
makes billions of dollars for the insurance companies every year. From
all us poor slobs who have more cars than drivers in their families.
Just another thing I bitch about that falls on deaf liberal ears........

Viewing this debate from the UK I have to say that I am distinctly
puzzled. If you want to drive a car on the public road here it must be
taxed and insured. But an individual or business can purchase insurance
for the vehicle which covers a minimum of third party liability only all
the way up to fully comprehensive with legal fees included.

But my comprehensive policy also allows me to drive *any* vehicle I am
licensed for with the owners permission and third party cover only. You
can even buy such car insurance online by the day or week if required.

Are you saying that in the USA this is not the case?

The UK has just had a big kerfuffle after the ECJ decided that sex
discrimination on insurance is unlawful. The actuaries know that there
is a very big difference in road traffic collisions due to young male
drivers and young women drivers. The latter typically scratch the bumper
or dint bodywork whilst parking whereas the former wrap the thing round
a tree at 70+ totalling it beyond economic repair.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011...ts?INTCMP=SRCH

Car insurance for young male drivers without a no-claim discount can be
something like twice the book value of the vehicle per annum now!

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wed, 04 May 2011 09:01:17 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

Viewing this debate from the UK I have to say that I am distinctly
puzzled. If you want to drive a car on the public road here it must be
taxed and insured. But an individual or business can purchase insurance
for the vehicle which covers a minimum of third party liability only all
the way up to fully comprehensive with legal fees included.

But my comprehensive policy also allows me to drive *any* vehicle I am
licensed for with the owners permission and third party cover only. You
can even buy such car insurance online by the day or week if required.

Are you saying that in the USA this is not the case?

Without knowing much about your insurance scheme, I have to
tentatively say ours is the same. I am insured when I drive another
person's car (with their permission), and anyone driving my car (with
my permission) is insured.

It is possible for my insurance company to ban a driver. For example,
if my son has a bad driving record (which is not the case, but works
for an example), my insurance company can exclude him as a covered
driver. Unless they specifically exclude him, all coverage is in
effect.

I'm not affected if some parking lot attendant with a terrible driving
record and a suspended license damages my car. My insurance company
may sue the attendant or his employer, though.

Our "comprehensive" insurance covers our expenses in repairing our own
car, and our liability insurance covers the expenses of repair the
other person's car or the other person. Unless a finance company
requires it, we are not required to carry comprehensive insurance. If
we have an older car, the cost of comprehensive insurance may exceed
the value of the car.

If someone else drives my car (with my permission), and they are in an
accident, my liability coverage pays out to the other party but
comprehensive only pays if I have that coverage. Both of my cars are
newish, so I have comprehensive on both cars.

It's a bit different here in Florida since we are a "no fault" state.
That means that my insurance company pays for my side of the damages
no matter who is at fault. They may go after the other company
without me being involved, though. In states that are not "no fault",
the insurance company of the driver at fault pays both parties.

Do not base your concept of what goes on here using anything that
Graham writes.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida