Insurance co.s out to KILL cars like Mustang

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 15:03:31 GMT, "Larry Hepinstall"


Some states will even allow you to post a cash bond in the amount of their insurance minimums and you can run what you brung. I have been told I am not allowed to use a broadsword to disprove ‘The Pen is Mightier than the sword’.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Very well said Larry!

can
right,
very
it.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What ????
It's all the PREVIOUS 16-18 year old kids the fugged it up for the future 16-18 year old kids! Sorry kids!! Us old farts ruined it for you when we where YOUNG and STUPID! ;>) ;>)
Personally, I don't think KIDS need to drive BEFORE the age of 18! Today's kids are MUCH more immature than kids of the past.
-ERIC
89 5.0 LX Vert w/93 Cobra long block, GT-40 heads, Unknown Camshaft(??), HyperTech Chip, 73mm C&L MAF, BBK 2.5" O/R H-pipe, Flowmaster 40 Series Deltas, King Cobra Clutch Set, BBK Strut Tower Brace, Poly bushings.

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I disagree - in today's world, both parents (for those households that still have both parents) need to work to survive. Given our hectic schedules, it's a real PITA to have to drive kids all over hell and creation. Much easier if they can drive themselves.

Disagree big time, Eric. Today's kids are under pressures that I knew nothing about when I was a kid. They're handling stuff that we never even dreamed about.
Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe wrote in a message:

Besides more homework, what exactly are they dealing with? Lack of discipline? The overwhelming need of instant gratification? LOL
Iggy '01 Dyna Super Glide '96 Mustang GT Convertible Keep your powder dry and don't let your meat-loaf. :o)
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm viewing it from a Safety Point of view. I read about More and More 16-18 year old drivers killing themselves and innocents than ever before.
Maybe the solution is stricter Licensing Requirements like Longer Training Periods. Maybe BETTER Training is needed to teach Kids the Dangers of today's distractions. (such as Cell Phones, DVD players etc...)
I'm seeing kids (in my area) dying (with passengers), emulating the movie Fast and Stupid (I mean Furious).
I remember vividly, my friends and I also acting STUPID drag racing and stunt driving also. But it seemed way back in the day, that we took ALOT of precautions NOT to involve INNOCENTS. We took our foolishness out on the Country roads and RARELY carried a carload of passengers with us.
I dunno........

You're right. VERY valid point there! Like I said above, it's OUR (Societies/Parents) responsibility then to TRAIN our kids on better Coping/Skills and Driving Skills so they DON'T kill themselves, their passengers and INNOCENT people.
-ERIC
89 5.0 LX Vert w/93 Cobra long block, GT-40 heads, Unknown Camshaft(??), HyperTech Chip, 73mm C&L MAF, BBK 2.5" O/R H-pipe, Flowmaster 40 Series Deltas, King Cobra Clutch Set, BBK Strut Tower Brace, Poly bushings.

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

True. But do you think that waiting for another couple years will make their chances better? I seriously doubt it.

Agreed. The requirements for getting a driver's license in this country are a joke.

That's simply because they're morons. Nobody's bothered to teach them the proper attitude. As cliche as it sounds, it all starts at home with parents (if there are any left).

Agree 1000%. The number of idiot/moron parents out there is astonishing. And guess how their kids will turn out?
Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I understand that the numbers say that certain age groups are responsible for a large number of the accidents. From personal experience I have noticed that the the demograph can further be broken up into gender and race. I'm not saying that the insurance companies should start going after these groups but I do think that targeting a certain age group to the extreme is harsh as well.
Age doesn't make you smarter or a better driver. If it did then I wouldn't see so many people swervring around following 3 feet from my bumper and not using signals while putting on makeup and talking on a cell phone.
Lets face it the teens today have better hand/eye coordination and quicker reflexes than any generation before them. With the proper training they should be, and somethimes are, better drivers than most. Its the lack of proper training and lack of parental displine that is the reason for high accident rates in this group. Proper training would make up for some of the inexperience that causes accidents. If mommy and daddy would finally clue in and not let junior or princess take the car out for joyriding with 90 of their friends when ever the brat wants then accidents would be lest likely.
I would think that a more sensible approach would be to start with a high fee in the first year and then punish or reward as appropriate.
Example: (fictional numbers) 16yo - $1500 17yo w/good driving (one minor ticket no accidents) $1250 17yo w/poor driving (multiple minor tickets, one major or accident) $1750 and up depending on number of tickets and accidents.
This can keep going until the cost for good drivers goes down to a reasonable sum. (Even if they have a sporty car) And finally those extremely poor drivers are forced to pay through the nose for endangering peoples lives every time they are behind the wheel.
Of course an entire insurance plan can't be written up in one newspost but I think the idea is good.
When you first sign up for the insurance the company assumes you are a moderate risk. Then as the years progress your performance should dictate the rates you pay, not your age.
Kirk
Long winded... yes has a point....maybe Worth $0.02....not a chance

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The whole basis of insurance is statistics. As soon as you start dealing with specifics, things get real lopsided real quick.
Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I don't understand what you mean. I don't see a problem with rewarding safe drivers and punishing bad ones. If you need the insurance obviously your risk increases and therefore you policy goes up. If you don't need the insurance then your policy drops. Within reason of course you still have to pay for the adminstration and enough for them to make it worth their while.
The problem is that insurance companies are exactly that, companies. Their one goal it to make as much cash as they can in the least amount of time. Not that there is anything wrong with making a buck, it that they have you by the short and curlies if you don't use them. As far as I know there are no non-profit insurance companies that 'reimburse' the clients when they take in more than they pay out and use to cover administration.
Insurarnce companies are not so much of a pool of money that people pay into in case of future mis-haps. Its a loan agency where individuals are covered in the short term and then everyone pays for it in the future. Sure the individual suffers a higher premium but eventually everyone else will to.
Just my opinion.
Kirk

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I understand how basic insurance works. Suggesting that the demographics that they select on move away from age. If they initially treated everyone the same (Moderate to high risk) to start with and then lowered the policy rates (not drop, that was bad choice of words on my part) for those that behaved and didn't use the insurance over time and raise the rates for those that use the insurance. To a degree they already do that (punish people that use the insurance) but they still assume that when you hit 25 you automatically become a save driver. If they are going to use only age statistics for determining policy rates then they already have a slanted view. Essentially they are nailing EVERYONE who fits that demographic because a small percentage use the insurance. To be fair (note I never said insurance was fair) they should break the statistics down further to individual years (16, 17, 18,19 etc), male/female, etc, then they really could hit them with high rates. I just think that everyone should be treated equally at first. It would be insane to say that everyone gets cheap insurance right away brates and the rates depended more upon the record of the driver then it would make ecause all the companies would go under. If everyone started with higher more sense to me.
Insurance is a gamble, you are right. Basically you are betting that you will get in an accident and need insurance and the insurance company is betting you won't. You play the odds and I think that once you have a record of being a safe driver the odds change and you should be able to take avantage of that. Also, if you are safe for a period and then you get into a fender-bender then you don't get placed into the "bad" driver category instantly. You just move up a notch on the rate scale rather than skip right to the top.
It wouldn't surprise me if the insurance companies hit the teens harder for the rates and then let up once they hit their 20's. The teens are too young to vote a politician into office that would propose legistlation that would put a collar on the insurance companies. It all boils down to money and politics, I'm pretty sure of that.
I'm not going to change the world with this idea, I'm just offering an opinion. That and wasting time at work.
Kirk

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well said, Larry.... Alberta is moving (or has moved without me noticing) to a graduated licencing system. New (read that as young) drivers can't drive after dusk and (IIRC) they can't cart a carload of friends all over the place.
I was young once and I recall peer pressure being one of the biggest threats to public safety...
Jim Warman snipped-for-privacy@telusplanet.net

to
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I guess the evolution of the automobile with all the safety improvements,etc. has NOT decreased accidents one bit, heck the 60's stuff I drove was an nearly an accident waiting to happen, with drum brakes, seatbelts were a joke, manual steering,to much power,etc. I don't agree with the reasoning behind the high insurance cost for teens. I do believe the public in general is at the mercy of Insurance companies, they should be regulated IMO.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Guess you never heard of a "mutual" insurance company.. one that does not make a profit.. or if it happens to, the excess gets paid back to the policy holders. While a mutual's rates are lower (no shareholders to pay), the rates can still be substantial IF you are in a high risk group. It's not a question of insurance companies ripping off poor abused drivers, its a case of insurance companies paying millions when a poor driver kills or maims someone... or even has to repair a $30,000 vehicle. It takes a lot of insurance premiums to pay just ONE of these claims.
LJH 95GT

tend
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It should make sense to 18 year olds. Parents should explain it to them in great detail so they fully understand what happens to their rates (which they should be paying themselves) if they screw up. If more of them fully understood, perhaps they would drive accordingly and their rates would decrease.
I NEVER said that kids are "undisciplined, lazy, ect". They can be if their parents taught them to be that way but they can also be smart and industrious.
LJH 95GT

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Uh huh; Here's the list of excuses given to me by insurance companies as to why rates rise: 1988 Mustang LX 5.0: No safety devices, high theft, high crash rate. 1993 Mustang LX 5.0: (Now has airbags, insurance rises even higher). -High crash rate, high theft. No comment on airbags now included. 2001 Mustang GT: Car drops WAY off top theft list due to ignition immobilization system that is standard. Mustangs have dual airbags and have ALWAYS had good front crash test results. Now they have airbags, anti-lock, anti-skid. What's left?? -Soft tissue injuries, 9/11, the stock market crash.
So a car that is now NOT being bought the the average teenager is still being treated as if it was by the insurance companies.
If they want to subsidize their stock market losses, tell them to hit up cars with REAL problems. The Acura Integra's theft rate is now 7 TIMES that of a Mustang. Many cars, according to ratings from Highway Traffic Safety Associaton have worse peformance than the Mustang in three key areas: -Theft -Collision -Injury.
BUT: If you price insurance on some of these cars, they come out less than the Mustang. What we are seeing are the vestiges of ratings for Mustangs from 15 years ago, when you could buy an out of control 5.0 litre for peanuts, and destroy it as a youngster. The Mustangs of today should NOT have insurance rates as high as they are. It's just prejudice based on past data.
Simply put, the idea that a late model V8 Mustang is a risk is CRAP simply because most reckless young people cannot afford to drive them. It would cost you about $27,000/year to drive a GT as an 18 year old in Toronto. That means you'd need an net (not gross) income of at least double that to justify it. How many young people at that age are netting $75,000 a year. Even the stats on V6 Mustangs put the LIE to the insurance company claims. The average buyer (55%) are women, in their 30s who make $50,000/year.
If Ford was smart, they'd get into the insurance game like GM and stop the abuse of Mustang drivers. It might make more sense than trying to defend the dismal performance of things like the Explorer. -Rich
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.