Greater percentage of wrecked cars being scrapped rather than repaired

.

Here in Michigan, with its no-fault insurance, you can literally trade cars with someone else, crash both, and still have the coverage apply. It's the car that's insured, not the driver. Makes a lot of sense, if you ask me. (and yes, that came straight from the mouth of my insurance agent, not own my interpretation of the law)

--Geoff

This will come as a tremendous surprise to the many people who have saved money doing it. I know it will come as a surprise to Ford Credit; during my tenure with Ford they quite optimistically put the

24-month residual for the 1996 Taurus GL at 70% of MSRP before package discounts. That year they leased more than 100,000 GLs with a final residual value between $14,000 and $16,500 - only to find out that the cars fetched $8-9K apiece at auction after 24 months.

That being said, since this is a *Chrysler* newsgroup I will note for the record that leasing a Chrysler is probably not going to save anybody any money. The bank values the cars so little that short-term leases are usually only somewhat cheaper than mid-term purchases.

I bet Ford won't make that mistake again for a long time. But even though they made a wrong guess on residual value that is no guarantee that the people leasing the cars did well. Leasing transactions become so complicated that people don't know what the deal is that they are signing on to.... some pay over list and some lose track of the value of their trade in the transaction. There are tons of horror stories out there. I believe in keeping things simple. If you need a lawyer to understand your transaction, you probably should not be getting involved.

Unfortunately, that SOB would probably be driving out there on drugs no matter what the law was. Unbelievable that he got only a slap on the wrist. Guess the court system won't be satisfied till he kills someone.

Yeah, we have a problem. We have compulsory insurance, rammed down our throats by the insurance companies. Its unleashed the insurance company monsters. This has raised insurance rates, raised REPAIR rates (because repair providers convince the public that "you don't pay for it, its COVERED!"), and since "uninsured drivers" are now considered the exception (when in practice there are tons of them out there) the insurance companies get all pissy about covering their paying customers in that case.

And it would NOT be a problem were it not for the fact that the insurance cartel rammed "compulsory" insurance down our throats.

My approach to insurance is simple: blow off the insurance company as much as I can within the law. I keep adequate liability coverage, and ditch "comprehensive" coverage as soon as I no longer have payments on a car (and when we bought our last new car, we paid 60% up front and only financed the remainder for a couple of years.) My collector cars get collector car comprehensive insurance with a decent annual mileage guideline and, being over 40, my total insurance cost for 5 vehicles is under $500 annually for me and my wife. I know some people that pay more than that per MONTH.

The collector car insurance companies are a great example of how ALL insurance really should work. They COMPETE for subscribers, and gain subscribers through competitve rates and superior service in the event of a claim, and retain subscribers by not raising rates when a claim is made.

But Geoff, a creep like that isn't going to obey the law NO MATTER WHAT THE LAW IS. You've really just made the point that mandatory coverage isn't working.

The answer is to incarcerate that kind of criminal, and not let them see the light of day again for a long time, not hand control over to the insurance companies.

That is a better system indeed. It is absurd to pay by the car instead of by the driver (since you can't drive two at once), except in the case where you want a particular car covered differently as I do with my '69 Coronet R/T, which has full collector car coverage when all the others only have liability. But those collector car rates are already excellent anyway.

Not if they stop and think about what they're doing. Oh, yeah, it looks good if you compare leasing for 2 years to buying a new car and trading it in after two years. But that's just comparing dumb to dumber. The best way to save money is either to buy a new car and keep it a MINIMUM of 10 years, or buy used cars. Leasing is throwing money away. So is trading in early.

No, because they haven't *actually* saved anything. Not if all factors are accounted for. Those who advocate leasing invariably pay not attention to the ugly little factors hidden under the table...

I do learn from these NGs, about other customs at the very least.

This is interesting, but I am intrigued that (at least in Michigan) the insurance cos don't take the driver into account when calculating premiums, since the driver contributes to risk (as does annual mileage).

Maybe premiums would be lower for less accident prone drivers if they did...?... (or higher for accident-prone ones of course).

Regarding specialist insurance for collectible/antique cars I am not very certain but my impression is that the in principle the deal is the same. Specialist insurers might just give a lower premium on specific cars because they are very familiar with them and/or have different pay-out profiles (levels of risk) because of a different profile of driver. On top of that certain restrictions are imposed, such as low annual mileage.

DAS

I'm quite sure the driving record of the person listed as the 'primary driver' *does* impact the premium. It's just that the insurance follows the car, not the driver.

--Geoff

I guess I can see your point about how guys like that just will not obey the law. I really, truly don't understand why anyone would advocate against mandatory insurance, though. Is it the freedom to choose to either carry insurance or not the thing you feel has been denied?

I'm against the nanny government ideals of the left. On the other hand, there are some liberties that we choose to forego by living in a society that rewards us with a disproportionately larger set of benefits. I happen to think mandatory insurance on all vehicles should be one of the tradeoffs we're willing to put up with.

My wife's accident happened in Troy, MI, one of the upper-echelon suburbs in the fifth-wealthiest county in the nation (Oakland). The police could barely be *bothered* to prosecute this guy, let alone incarcerate him. We had to play ball with the prosecutor to get him to do his job, despite the fact that the officers at the scene saw a.) two wrecked cars and b.) a creep high on something with a suspended license. (We did end up getting enough in restitution to cover our deductible and some of the rental car costs.)

In some of the more crime-infested areas of greater Detroit, they don't like to even show up at an accident scene if people aren't hurt. If they do show up, it's frequently one of the police auxiliary volunteers, and it takes hours for them to arrive.

We've got a lot of creeps here. Maybe more so than on average compared to the rest of the nation. The jails are *full* and we're giving prison furloughs to "non-violent offenders." The state managed to come up nearly $1B over budget for this year, and they had to raise the price of a pack of smokes to nearly $5 (thank goodness I quit years ago) to help overcome the shortfall, since we've got a balanced budget amendment in the state constitution.. This is not a system that is ready to handle any additional welfare claims due to losses suffered by the uninsured, inflicted *by* the uninsured, and it's not a system that can incarcerate everyone who deserves it. Other than mandatory insurance laws, how do we manage the risk? My taxes are high enough as it is!

That being said, we in my family will always have insurance, even if we have to do without other things to be able to afford it. It's just common sense to be responsible and to manage your risks. Maybe there's enough people like me out there who feel the same way that removing compulsory insurance laws wouldn't be a catastrophe. Who knows?

--Geoff

THE LAW IS. You've really just made the point that mandatory coverage isn't working.

the light of day again for a long time, not hand control over to the insurance companies.

************ THANK YOU Steve! You restore my faith that there are at least *some* inteligent people out there. Geoff: please tell me how the mandatory law helped in your case! It's just like gun control. If you don't put the CRMINALS in JAIL, then no law whasoever is going to make any difference! ~ Paul aka "Tha Driver"

the law. I really, truly don't understand why anyone would advocate against mandatory insurance, though. Is it the freedom to choose to either carry insurance or not the thing you feel has been denied?

********* Well mandatory insurance wouldn't be so bad if the corrupt politicians didn't take payoffs & allow the insurance cartel to set the prices *and* the rules. But even at that it puts a burden on the very poor, or folks that have fallen on hard times (as I have at the moment). Right now I'm out of groceries, & my knees are in too bad a shape to walk the 12 miles to get them. I'm going to *have* to break the law just to eat - what am I supposed to do? If I get caught, I go to jail, & my car will be impounded. I won't have the money to get out of jail *or* get my car back. The mandatory law will have turned me into a criminal. And what about the insurance cartel *not* paying on *legitimate* claims??? If *we* are REQUIRED BY LAW to pay THEM, shouldn't they be REQUIRED BY LAW to pay on legitimate claims??? The policy is *supposed* to be a *contract* they they're *required* to honor, but they *don't*!

there are some liberties that we choose to forego by living in a society that rewards us with a disproportionately larger set of benefits. I happen to think mandatory insurance on all vehicles should be one of the tradeoffs we're willing to put up with.

********** There should be NO tradeoffs on LIBERTY & FREEDOM!!!

in the fifth-wealthiest county in the nation (Oakland). The police could barely be *bothered* to prosecute this guy, let alone incarcerate him. We had to play ball with the prosecutor to get him to do his job, despite the fact that the officers at the scene saw a.) two wrecked cars and b.) a creep high on something with a suspended license. (We did end up getting enough in restitution to cover our deductible and some of the rental car costs.)

********* Then your beef should be with the *police* & the *prosecutor* - not with me. The creep should have been made to pay back EVERY CENT of the damage he caused!

like to even show up at an accident scene if people aren't hurt. If they do show up, it's frequently one of the police auxiliary volunteers, and it takes hours for them to arrive.

*********** Ploice apathy is one of the *major* problems in this country!

to the rest of the nation. The jails are *full* and we're giving prison furloughs to "non-violent offenders." The state managed to come up nearly $1B over budget for this year, and they had to raise the price of a pack of smokes to nearly $5 (thank goodness I quit years ago) to help overcome the shortfall, since we've got a balanced budget amendment in the state constitution.. This is not a system that is ready to handle any additional welfare claims due to losses suffered by the uninsured, inflicted *by* the uninsured, and it's not a system that can incarcerate everyone who deserves it. Other than mandatory insurance laws, how do we manage the risk? My taxes are high enough as it is!

*********** Show me where mandatory insurance has reduced welfare claims/costs. In my case, it would have *caused* me to go on welfare if I qualified - which I don't 'cause I don't have a family (I'm completely alone so I get nothing). How would going back to the old system where the *driver* was insured & you had the right to *choose* increase your TAXES?

have to do without other things to be able to afford it.

********* Are you willing to do without FOOD or skip your RENT? I know folks (& there are hundreds of thousands of similar families) that have to make that decision from time to time. Take a chance & drive to work without insurance, or let their kids go hungry. Which would *you* choose? Then of course the cartel charges them EVEN MORE because they let their insurance lapse. IT HAS GOT TO STOP. The GREEDY BASTARDS in the insrance cartel cannot go on STEALING from the poor!!!

there's enough people like me out there who feel the same way that removing compulsory insurance laws wouldn't be a catastrophe. Who knows?

********* I know. After running Screwed By insurance (.com) for 4 years (currently down due to lack of hosting funds & complete apathy by people that have any money) I can tell you there isn't *anyone* that's happy with the insurance cartel being able to #1 FORCE you to buy insurance by threatening you with JAIL; #2 SET THEIR OWN PRICES, & #3 Get away with not paying LEGITIMATE claims!!! Do you have uninsured motorists? Seems to me that covers your risk if a poor person that cannot afford insurance hits you. It would be different if it was priced reasonably, or if we could implement a sliding scale where your insurance costs were determined by your income, or something (like risk?). But with the cartel setting both the prices *and* the rules, there's NO WAY to win. ~ Paul aka "Tha Driver"

The best way to save money for many people would be to not have a car at all, to join a carpool scheme, or to use a motorcycle or scooter, after acquiring the proper weather protection, of course.

So once we have established that owning a car is rarely the cheapest way to go, it is really a matter of what you are willing to pay for.

Some people are not willing to pay for more than a dismal trip from the proverbial A to the equally proverbial B. Those people are well- satisfied by owning an old banger. Other people value the quality of their time spent in a vehicle more than the money involved. This is good news for us, otherwise we'd all be driving a one-litre Civic or something similar.

It's often cheaper to lease a car than it is to purchase it over time and trade it in when one's desires or needs change. Having done the paperwork on thousands of leases and purchases and compared the numbers many a time, I gradually came to notice that a lot of lessors were saving money. No, they were not saving money over buying a used Accord and driving it for a quarter-million penalty-box miles, but they were saving money over purchasing the same car and trading it in after a period of time similar to the lease term, whether that term was 18 or 60 months.

Sometimes it makes more sense to buy. Our SRT-4 already has quite a few not easily reversible modifications to it, and it's already seen more than its fair share of track time - it's a rare lease return official who looks at the results of a 125mph Nelson Ledges gravel-blasting of the nose and hood and lets it pass, you know. But when you look at the costs involved in owning many new cars over the long term, the tables turn. I wouldn't want to own an S500 or 745Li a day out of warranty and anybody who has seen what the COMAND and iDrive modules cost won't want to either.

I wouldn't want to countenance a family doing a 60 month lease on a Grand Caravan they can't really afford - but saying that leasing is always wrong is one of those little know-nothing chestnuts that usually get stricken down pretty quickly in this NG, and I was troubled to see it pass uncriticized. Leasing is like any other car transaction; the people who know what they are doing will have positive results, and the sheep will be shorn.

Wait a minute. Earlier in this thread it was "one mile to the country store". Which is it?

a.) You *choose* to be a criminal by doing the crime. Nobody *turns* you into a criminal, especially not the "law". You, and only you, are responsible for your own actions. Period. b.) You've said elsewhere in this thread you own multiple vehicles. Hmm. That means you have assets, and therefore you have choices. What's keeping you from selling off some of the vehicles you *can't drive anyway* and using the proceeds to pay for insurance on one or more of the remaining ones, eh, Driver? Or is it part of your "pursuit of happiness" to have a bunch of undriveable vehicles around, or are you just regularly driving without insurance and this is all BS anyway?

My insurance company has paid on every claim I've ever made, and there have been several over the years. All of the claims were legitimate, too.

It is, they are and they do.

Then you think you should be able to just do whatever the f*ck you want to, and to hell with everyone else, eh? Because that's what you're saying.

Who said I had a material problem involving you? I disagree with you. That's life, this is Usenet. Get over it.

Using what funds? He *had no funds*. He was an unemployed three-time loser with a pickup truck and a suspended driver's license and enough money for gas, booze and pain meds. You mean to tell me that I should wait around for this creep to come up with the $4 or $5K this ultimately cost to get resolved? I got a life to live, bud. That's why he *should have had insurance*!!!

If you're getting state assistance for medical, food stamps, WIC, subsidized housing *you're on welfare*. Destroy people's lives by ruining their health in an accident and causing them to run up large medical bills and lose their ability to work...where do you think they're going to turn? Uncle Sam, that's where.

This is starting to sound like an opera. Wait, there's a violin playing in the background.

Which would *you* choose? Then of

Then I guess all the greedy bastard owners of the insurance companys ought to take it in the shorts, eh?

In State Farm's case, the owners are the policy holders. In GEICO's case, the shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway are the owners.

So you think people who own stock or who have State Farm policies are greedy, eh?

Haven't heard of angelfire.com, eh?

Were any of those three things true, I wouldn't be happy with them either.

Aha! Another sock-it-to-the-rich liberal. I guess by now I'm not surprised.

--Geoff

Did it prevent the accident? No. Did it help me to get some restitution? Yes.

You see, not having insurance in MI is a chargeable offense. If convicted, you can be sentenced to a variety of things. In this case, the sentence from the judge forced the other driver to pay us restitution to cover *some* of our expenses. It was a total slap on the wrist for the guy -- he should have been put into jail for a long, long time and had his vehicle confiscated (assuming it was his, and only his, of course) but it was better than nothing for us, which is what we would have gotten otherwise. It didn't come close to making everything alright, but it helped.

--Geoff

It strikes me on second thought that I'm being less than fair here by putting words in his mouth. I withdraw the above.

--Geoff

Before that it was insurance or food for his "3 or 4" kids. None of this is really about him, it's just a bunch of buloney he's made up in the attempt to make a point.