MY BAD GEICO INSURANCE EXPERIENCE !

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:29:21 -0600, "WindsorFox[SS]" wrote something wonderfully witty:

While that is a true statement not every Tom, Dick or Harry can get insured with USAA either. GEICO at one time had affiliation restrictions, but no longer do. The GE in GEICO used to mean Government Employees once upon a time.

Thank goodness for USAA. There is nothing better than a good price on insurance with great service, and I get to support hard working folks in my home town of San Antonio.

I used to have Geico. Then one month they were renewing policies. They decided to change my payment to the first of the month from the 15th. I paid a full payment on the 15th and now they wanted a full payment on the

AnthonyS

I used to have an AllState policy too.... I really don't see where their insurance coverage is 3 times as valuable as USAA's. It does pay to shop around, that's for sure.

I've had Geico for a few years now. No major complaints yet, but one incident that kind of got me curious. I was involved in a minor fender bender, causing $1200 damage to another person's vehicle. Geico paid out to him for the repairs, and then I got my "surcharge" the next cycle. Wouldn't it figure, for 3 years I'll be paying an extra $400 per year.

So, I pay a couple of thousand a year for two vehicles, and if there's an accident I wind up paying the full repairs anyway (My damage was less than deductible, so I paid outright). Nice policy.

You can spread your peanut butter from the left to the right..... you can spread it from the top to the bottom. It doesn't matter how you do it but the faster you spread it, the more likely you'll smear some on the counter.

Try a little math instead of rhetoric..... figure out how many feet you cover in a second at various speeds. Figure out how far away very hard, unforgiving objects are. Public thoroughfares are no place to flex your penis.... oops, I mean muscles.

It's that kind of thinking that has me picking up those "in the know" with a stick and a spoon....

Don't believe me? Tap your hand with a hammer..... not bad, huh? Now.... take a good hard swing - gee, not so much fun, right?

Jim Warman snipped-for-privacy@telusplanet.net

Speed does NOT cause accidents, that's the BS. I'm not talking about street racing or going 120 mph in a residential area, so leave my "penis" out of this. The truth is, studies show that when speed limits are set to the 85th percentile there are fewer accidents, even when the 85th percentile speed is higher than the original limit. The 55 and 65 mph speeds on most major highways are not the 85th percentile speed and setting the proper speed, higher or lower, would lower the accident rate. Do you get on the highway and drive with the flow of traffic at 10 or 15 over the posted limit or drive the set limit causing traffic flow problems and accidents behind you? Hell, I don't drive 25 in my neighborhood, that's too fast. A kid could come out from between parked cars any second. I don't drive 65 on a major interstate either, I'd be run down by the cars going 15 - 25 mph faster than me. I drive with the flow of traffic keeping to the right except to pass. Maybe you should read a few studies so you understand what the 85th percentile speed is instead of jumping on the "Speed Kills" bandwagon like a lemming...

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:05:18 -0500, "WraithCobra" wrote something wonderfully witty:

It will all depend on what a person means when they say speed kills. Driving at the 85th percentile isn't really speeding in anything other then the eyes of the law. The true act of speeding is an act that involves driving faster then the road, visibility conditions, vehicle condition/ability, and/or driver's abilities/state of mind. Driving with the flow of traffic is not normally going to cause problems. Driving in excess of it eventually will. Also driving significantly faster then the majority of the other drivers expectations can cause problems as well. Usually during lane changes.

Now if you take a solo vehicle crash at two different rates of speed, then look at the end result you will undeniably agree that the crash at 100mph results in significant more damage then the crash at 55mph. On the autobahn in Germany they do not have very many crashes, but when they do they are usually horrific incidents of mass destruction and death. The net can provide you with plenty of pictures.

Most Americans simply do not have the skill sets to drive at rates of speed much higher then the currently posted ones. We also don't have some of the laws that other nations have concerning safety inspections for a vehicles road worthiness. We got some folks out there driving vehicles that are dangerous at 25mph let alone 50 or 60 mph. Just go on down to Florida where you see a little puff of blue hair and two hands on the steering wheel if you don't believe me about some drivers abilities to drive at a significant rate of speed.

Now if you'll agree to more stringent vehicle safety testing, more rigid and frequent road skill testing for a license (let's say bi-annual after 62), and much more strict laws for those who break these higher speeds you want I will go along with you. Until then I think 65/75mph is more then fast enough for the majority of American drivers and their vehicles.

I have been told I am not allowed to use a broadsword to disprove ?The Pen is Mightier than the sword?.

While wa>> Speed does NOT cause accidents, that's the BS.

I agree completely.

I agree with this also, I never stated that an accident at higher speeds would not cause more significant damage.

Trust me, I lived in Florida for many years. I had to drive past Century Village in Pembroke Pines to and from work every day. Once while waiting to renew my Florida license I saw an older woman able to renew her license after being allowed 15 minutes going through half the alphabet guessing the letters in the eye test. Then when asked for her address she couldn't remember and said her husband had to give that info. I gave the tester a dirty look and she just shrugged her shoulders.

I'd like to see required drivers education for every new driver, no matter their age. I have no problem with required testing for renewals, I wouldn't mind putting in an hour every 4 years knowing the streets could be safer. Stricter vehicle safety testing to get non-roadworthy junk off the streets is also a good idea, maybe that will get these green blinker/blue headlight idiots off the road. They always say that driving is a privilege and not a right, so how come people that shouldn't be behind the wheel are given the right to renew their license?

I know the speed limits can't be changed overnight, it will also take time to change the requirements to obtain and renew a license. To start the changes I'd like to see law enforcement pull over and fine actual "speeders", drivers driving faster than traffic/conditions, not those driving safely above a posted speed limit with the flow of traffic. Most speed limits on modern highways and interstates are below the maximum safe speed under the best conditions. A speed "limit" should be just that, a limit posted as the maximum safe speed within the best conditions. Anyone driving faster than conditions and not necessarily faster than the posted limit are dangerous and should be pulled over and fined. Speed limits should not be set so the majority of drivers are above the limit, this allows anyone to be pulled over and forced to pay a speed tax.

Bingo! That's what happens when we let politicians rather than traffis engineers set speed limits. We have several small municipalities in Missouri that derive virtually their entire annual buget from traffic tickets. Speed limits as established in this country have zero to do with safety and 100% to do with revenue generation.

-- Herb Stein snipped-for-privacy@herbstein.com

I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees the truth. Here's another, Boston Township in Ohio, SSDD....

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 20:57:08 -0600, "Herb Stein" wrote something wonderfully witty:

There are a great many locations other then one small burg in Missouri that meet their revenue protections via traffic enforcement fines. It is a very common practice. While many PD's do not have a quota on tickets to meet, I can assure the statement of "We are not meeting revenue projections" have been spoken at more then one roll call.

You may not believe this, but when revenue projections are not being met it isn't speed traps that the local burg resorts to. Not enough revenue is generated via speeding tickets. When revenue is falling off simply park near a bar and wait for a patron to leave at around midnight. Simply follow them and they will give you probable cause to pull them over, more then likely they will cross the center line. The majority of stops will result in a DUI conviction. A much better source of revenue and it is better to get those clowns off the streets. I have been told I am not allowed to use a broadsword to disprove ?The Pen is Mightier than the sword?.

Could it be at all possible, that this person was using your address???

I bet they were, and that is why Geico found out about them. That is the only way which this all makes sense.

You can tell Geico, or any other insurance company, over and over again "THEY DON'T LIVE HERE AND NEVER HAVE", but if their database shows that person is, them self, claiming they live with you, no one is going to believe you.

Nospam wrote:,

Glad you brought that up........ doesn't matter that the distance/reaction time equation is complete bullshit.... Naturally, I'm relieved that you have real world experience in the subject...... If speed doesn't kill, can you please explain why I am scraping so many people off the highway with a stick and a spoon? You can throw statistics at me all you want... that does not justify your proclivity for breaking the law.

A constant statement in this NG.... 'go after the lawbreakers....'.

The other guy is always wrong... we have 'extenuating circumstances'....