Honda Car Forum

Exeter <Exeter@spamex.com> spake unto the masses in
news:Xns9496CE79A6B13exeter99x@216.148.227.77:

> "Invalid Email Adress" <invalid@emailadress.com> wrote in
> news:BKSZb.35579$ac.6748706@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.ne t:
>
>> I rear ended another car.
>>
>> Thank you for any advice you can give me.
>
> 1) Slow down
> 2) Don't tailgate



To which may I add: 3) Pay Attention.

Many rear-enders are caused by not paying attention to where your car is
headed.

--
TeGGeR®

Around here the insurance adjuster comes out and gets an estimate on the car
and then I have to take my car to a qualified body shop. The body shop
throws out their estimate and uses the insurance's estimate granted there is
no unseen damage. In my case there was and a quick call to the insurance
company got the increase approved.

Ryan

"Paul Brandon" <paul.brandon@mnsu.edu> wrote in message
newsaul.brandon-2202041331250001@pkbrando-laptop.psych.mnsu.edu...
> In article <BKSZb.35579$ac.6748706@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> , "Invalid
> Email Adress" <invalid@emailadress.com> wrote:
>
> >I rear ended another car. Had to reported it to the insurance company and
> >will picked up a police report in 5 business days. No summons/ tickets
were
> >issued.
> >
> >Is there anything I should be aware of, as far as liability is concern?
> >
> >The insurance company will send a claims adjuster to look at my Civic
(2000
> >Civic EX. I love this car!! I got 42 miles to the gallon on the highways,
> >driving around 70 mph .). I've put 100,000 on it and plan on putting more
on
> >it.
> >
> >I want it as close to the original as possible. On repairing my car, can
I
> >specify the repair shop to use OEM parts? Do I have to settle for second
> >hand stuff?
>
> You can probably have the work done anywhere you want it and to your
specs.
> Using secondparty, remanufactured or used parts is pretty well insurance
> industry standard.
> On the other hand, a Honda dealer can get new OEM Honda parts for not much
> more (10-20%).
> Usually the insurance company will pay what _their_lowball estimate came
> to and you'll have to pay the balance. Probably would not be huge. A lot
> depends on how reassonable your insurance company is.
>
> --
> * PAUL K. BRANDON pkbrandon@mankato.msus.edu *
> * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University *
> * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
> * http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *

"Tegger®" wrote:

> Pars <"sdaro(remove)"@hotmail.com> spake unto the masses in
> news:40382664.ABF4E025@hotmail.com:
>
> > I don't know about NJ but here in Toronto insurance rates are
> > extremely high. In my case, I've owned my 1998 Civic since new (for 6
> > years), no accidents, two minor speeding tickets, I've been driving
> > since 1986 and have been insured for more then 6 years continuously.
> > Even with my great track record, I'm still getting charged $2600/year
> > to insure my car.
>
> Ontario has no-fault auto insurance, one of the stupidest ideas ever
> thought of. Ontario also has extremely restictive governmental regulations
> under which insurers must operate, as well as enormously lucrative payouts
> for collision participants. There are other serious problems.

I don't know about the other stuff, but I can see how the payout can be a big
problem. I think the root of the problem are from doctors. Crack down on the
doctors that are lose with their prescriptions and you reduce on bogus
insurance claim. The next culprit is body shops that seriously over charge for
insurance work. Insurance company should be given the option to ban certain
body shops that seem to be abusing the system.

Just my two cents.
Pars

>
>
> There is a reason the number of insurance companies that are willing to
> sell auto insurance in Ontario has been in steep, steady decline since the
> mid-'80s.
>
> > Consider that the car is 6 years old, never been in
> > to an accident, and is only worth about $6000 dollars, I think my
> > insurance rate is high!!!
>
> Compared to prior to the advent of the Family Law Reform Act of 1980 (?),
> and compared to other jurisdictions without no-fault and without an idiotic
> liability regime, yours is VERY high.
>
> > The funny thing is, compared to everyone
> > else I know, I'm actually getting a fair shake with my insurance
> > payment. If I had actually made a claim that was my fault, I'm sure my
> > premium would double.
>
> Not quite. You might pay closer to $3,000 for a couple of years. Your
> problem is that the few insurance companies left will treat at-fault
> collisions differently. You may discover that yours is excessively harsh on
> first-time claims, whereas another might be more lenient.
>
>
> >
> > In NJ, claiming for a minor accident might be a good thing, but here
> > in Toronto, making a claim is a bad idea... I wish all the insurance
> > company would go to hell. As is, if any politician dared to side with
> > the insurance company (in Toronto),
>
> You have it TOTALLY backwards. The problems have been caused by
> governmental meddling in the automotive risk-management industry, not the
> insurance companies.
>
> I've been covered by auto insurance since 1978. Back then there were NO
> regulations on who could be charged how much. There was no "no-fault"
> stupidity. Until 1981, you didn't even have to have insurance. Post-
> collision claims could only be made by the persons actually in the vehicle
> at the time of the collision, and even then there were serious limits.
>
> And insurance was cheap. A 19 year old with a 5-year old Toyota paid as low
> as $638 per year. That 19 year old was me.
>
> When I was younger and on my parent's insurance, my parents paid about $100
> per year for me as an occasional driver.
>
> > their political career would be
> > short lived. There's a lot of extremely frustrated people...I'd be
> > amazed if these insurance company will ever be able to regain people's
> > trust after giving us the shaft. Considering the high premium, the
> > government probably could do a better job managing Auto Insurance.
>
> The National Post newspaper recently had a series of articles on auto
> insurance. You should go to the library and read them. Might be a real eye
> opener for you.
>
> I feel sorry for the people that run insurance companies. Did you know that
> in some cases the payout under the new liability environment and under no-
> fault can be MORE than 100% of the premiums they are allowed to charge? No
> wonder they don't want to sell you insurance any more.
>
> --
> TeGGeR®

Pars <"sdaro(remove)"@hotmail.com> spake unto the masses in
news:403E6656.C39F406@hotmail.com:

>
> I don't know about the other stuff, but I can see how the payout can
> be a big problem.


Let's put it this way: Suppose you manufactured widgets for a living.
Suppose it cost you $1 to build each widget, but the government would only
let you charge 93¢ for each widget. How long do you think you would be
willing to make widgets?

Payout is EVERYTHING. Risk assessment and management is the very core of an
insurance company. Playing things so that they pay out less than they make
is how they stay in business at all, just like any other business, and just
like your own home finances.

You should see how cheap is insurance in areas--like Britain--where the
government has not horribly distorted things. You should have seen how
cheap insurance was RIGHT HERE before the government decided they ought to
"do somethin' about it".


> I think the root of the problem are from doctors.
> Crack down on the doctors that are lose with their prescriptions and
> you reduce on bogus insurance claim.


The problem is the government, and partially the insurance companies
themselves, who lobbied for regulations that ended up backfiring on them.

If you had read that National Post series I suggested you read, you would
find that the main causes of high insurance rates are four things:
1) Accident Benefits
(Check your policy to see how much of your premium goes to that alone)
2) Regulations that dictate how much the insurance companies may charge.
(Basically, through your premiums, you are providing subsidies that keep
the most risky drivers on the road, so they can continue to crash into
you.)
3) Accident Benefit Fraud
(Make benefits lucrative enough, and you eventually invite crooks to the
party.)
4) Air bags and other "safety" devices.
These result in a very large number of injury claims, even in minor
collisions. Those injury claims pay out...Accident Benefits!

There is a reason why insurance companies in Canada give neither rewards
nor penalties for having air bags or not.


> The next culprit is body shops
> that seriously over charge for insurance work. Insurance company
> should be given the option to ban certain body shops that seem to be
> abusing the system.


The difference between an abusive body shop and a cheap one is trivial.
Cars are very expensive to repair these days due to all the "safety"
features they have. Air bags ALONE can double the amount the insurance
company must pay to have a car fixed. "Crumple zones" can damage a car
enough to write it off, when a similar collision with an older car would
have been fixed easily.

>
> Just my two cents.


Pars, at the beginning of your reply, you state: "I don't know about the
other stuff". Well that "other stuff" IS the ONLY stuff.

Go to the library and read that series in the National Post. Until you do
that, you will be unable to express opinions that embody much more than
frustrated emotion.


--
TeGGeR®

"Tegger®" <teggeratistopdotcom@changetheobvious.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns94984C45C686Fteggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .
> Exeter <Exeter@spamex.com> spake unto the masses in
> news:Xns9496CE79A6B13exeter99x@216.148.227.77:
>
> > "Invalid Email Adress" <invalid@emailadress.com> wrote in
> > news:BKSZb.35579$ac.6748706@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.ne t:
> >
> >> I rear ended another car.
> >>
> >> Thank you for any advice you can give me.
> >
> > 1) Slow down
> > 2) Don't tailgate
>
>
>
> To which may I add: 3) Pay Attention.
>
> Many rear-enders are caused by not paying attention to where your car is
> headed.
>
> --
> TeGGeR®
>
And some rear enders are caused by lack of experience behind the
wheel.....not having learned to anticipate what might happen and react
before it happens.