|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563 |
Quote:
Quote:
Do you think it's more probable that they will wreck the car if they get drunk and drive?
I just want to reply to this...and my answer is also no. People who aren't drunk fall asleep, swerve when they drop something, don't concentrate when they're on the phone, hit animals, etc. Any of those things could be just as fatal as drunk drivers that get into accidents.
Agreed, but you don't get into the car with knowing you are going to fall asleep, drop something, get a phone call, ect.
When you get into your car and decide to drive drunk, you are making a choice to drive with a (possible) impairment.
But i'm not going to get into this subject because I am somewhat biased.
EDIT: Quote:
I see what you are getting at, But I think he mean's that if you are sobber are the chance's just as likely? correct me if im wrong?
Yes, this is correct. Is it just as likely to get in a wreck driving drunk rather than sober.
Last edited by Thebigbaddawg; 08/12/08 08:49 PM.
you had a good run Hank.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
Sorry Coach, but I believe you're being misled.
I never said that driving after drinking or drugging makes you a safer driver. I just don't think it is as dangerous as many people assume. I believe that if you wreck your car, while drunk, then you should face the consequences. I just don't believe it should be a crime if you drive safely to your destination without hurting anyone and you happen to be over .08.
The punishment should be for causing the accident, killing the person, maiming the person. I don't think that there should be charges in instances where these things do not happen.
On a side note, completely unrelated; I believe that you should get back 75% of the money you pay in car insurance at the end of the year if you are not involved in an accident, or claim of any kind.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
Quote:
On a side note, completely unrelated; I believe that you should get back 75% of the money you pay in car insurance at the end of the year if you are not involved in an accident, or claim of any kind.
Now that I Agree with 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 647
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 647 |
how effective would that be? that would buy you some time and you'd get off relatively free--albeit with a little less $$ due to the lawyer. But no conviction or suspended license.
I'm surprised more people don't think sequentially like that.
Go Browns!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563 |
Quote:
On a side note, completely unrelated; I believe that you should get back 75% of the money you pay in car insurance at the end of the year if you are not involved in an accident, or claim of any kind.
That would be awesome and deserved...unfortunately, insurance companies are greedy.
you had a good run Hank.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,250
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,250 |
Quote:
I will always question the government, its the way I was raised, and I thought for along time, that it was what this country was about.
Anymore, I am disillusioned with America. There aren't any outlaws anymore. 
Money has conquered the spirit of America.
What the heck does that have to do with taking responsibility for your actions?
Or is it your tack to ignore your responsibility to obey the law by questioning the validity of it? You don't feel it is right, so you don't follow it?
But then you don't think you should be held accountable to the consequences of not obeying the law, either?
Damn, isn't that an awfully convenient view of things.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. Why should you, or anyone, be allowed to risk peoples' lives just so you can drive around drunk? I'd rather SAVE those lives of innocent people that don't deserve to die just because you want to be irresponsible.
You can have the OPINION that it isn't as bad as is claimed. Unfortunately, for you, the evidence is overwhelming that you are dead wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,150
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,150 |
Quote:
I believe that if you wreck your car, while drunk, then you should face the consequences.
If you injure/kill someone in the process, why should they have to pay the consequences because of your quest to be an outlaw?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
If you injure someone in the process of being sober, then why should they pay the consequences of you being sober? 
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
Ignorance at it's finest. I honestly beleive you post your drivel just to get a rise out of people.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
Quote:
Why should you, or anyone, be allowed to risk peoples' lives just so you can drive around drunk?
You could just leave the drunk part out. You risk your life when you leave your house and get into your car and drive where ever it is you are going.
Again, you folks act like getting into a vehicle after having 4 or 5 beers means that you are some kind of tornado flying down the highway without any ability to drive a car. Its not like that.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
Again, I'm basing my stance on studies that show that I'm right. You are basing it on "nuh uh".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
No matter what you folks think, I post what I believe, and how I was raised. My brother, my folks, a lot of my friends are in line with this thinking.
I think that you should face prosecution if you get into an accident---not if you don't.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
Quote:
I'm basing my stance on studies that show that I'm right.
You have yet to post anything of the sort. I am basing it on my opinion and upon my own experiences and common sense.
Common sense being: you should not be prosecuted unless you actually cause an accident---I really don't see the issue here.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 402
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 402 |
Quote:
Quote:
On a side note, completely unrelated; I believe that you should get back 75% of the money you pay in car insurance at the end of the year if you are not involved in an accident, or claim of any kind.
That would be awesome and deserved...unfortunately, insurance companies are greedy.
for that to work, you would have to have a 75% increase for every claim you make.
Lets just say you pay $1200 a year. You get into a wreck and it cost the insurance company $4000 to repair the damages. That is a pretty sizable difference that your rates will not be affected that largely for the amount of money you just cost the insurance company. Now the next year you pay 1200 again and do not claim an accident. So you are saying the insurance company should give you $900 back and only collect $1500 over 2 years when you actually cost the company $4000. The company goes off of averages and make a fair amount of money for the amount of liability that they have.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
LOL, common sense has nothing to do with what you're posting....in fact it is the POLAR OPPOSITE of common sense. So, you're parents taught you this and that makes it right? You know what, parents have taught their kids that the earth was flat but that didn't make it true. You base this on your own experience? Oh, yeah, that's right, there had never been someone impaired that thought he was ok to drive.  Keep spewing your opinoin in defiance of the facts. Studies have proven you are dead wrong about the affects of alcohol on driving. You think it's ok to put people's lives in jeaopardy unecessarily so you can get behind the wheel of a car while unfit to drive it. You can keep spewing that as long as you want. You are either trolling to incite a reply or are simply clueless. Either way, you are making yoursel look like a fool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 402
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 402 |
Quote:
No matter what you folks think, I post what I believe, and how I was raised. My brother, my folks, a lot of my friends are in line with this thinking.
I think that you should face prosecution if you get into an accident---not if you don't.
most people that get DUI's are prosecuted because they were speeding, recklessly driving, or breaking another driving law and the DUI is a secondary offense that becomes the primary offense because of the risk you are putting other drivers at. You admitted that you were pulled over because you were speeding in a speed trap that you knew was there. The cop knowing where your vehicle was at everyday, had nothing to do with why you were pulled over. You could have been completely smashed and if you were not speeding and driving safely you would not have been pulled over and made it home without having to deal with the cops. But people that drive drunk have a higher rate of speeding and recklessly driving and that is a fact that can be proven looking at the other laws many DUI offenders recieve along with the DUI.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 402
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 402 |
Quote:
Quote:
I'm basing my stance on studies that show that I'm right.
You have yet to post anything of the sort. I am basing it on my opinion and upon my own experiences and common sense.
Common sense being: you should not be prosecuted unless you actually cause an accident---I really don't see the issue here.
The relative risk of death for drivers in single-vehicle crashes with a high BAC is 385 times that of a zero-BAC driver and for male drivers the risk is 707 times that of a sober driver, according to estimates by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 402
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 402 |
.02 BAC Level
At the .02 blood alcohol concentration level, experiments have demostrated that people exhibit some loss of judgment, begin to relax and feel good. But tests have also shown that drivers at the .02 level experience a decline in visual functions, affecting their ability to track a moving object, and experience a decline in the ability to perform two tasks at the same time.
These changes may be very subtle and barely noticable to the person who has had only one drink, but in an emergency situation while behind the wheel of a vehicle, they could cause the driver to react (or not react) as they would without having had a drink.
.05 BAC Level
At the .05 BAC level, people begin to exhibit exaggerated behavior, experience loss of small-muscle control -- such as being able to focus their eyes quickly -- have impaired judgment, lowered alertness and a release of inhibition.
If someone with a BAC level of .05 gets behind the wheel, they would be operating the vehicle with reduce coordination, a futher deminished ability to track moving objects, more difficulty in steering and a markedly reduced response in emergency situations.
.08 BAC Level
When someone drinking is approaching the borderline of legal intoxication, studies show that he or she has poor muscle coordination -- affecting their balance, speech, vision, reaction time and hearing -- find it more difficult to detect danger, and exhibit impaired judgement, self-control, reasoning ability and memory.
A driver with a BAC of .08 will find it more difficult to concentrate, judge the speed of the vehicle, experience reduced information processing capability and exhibit impaired perception.
Slower Reaction Time
For the person who is drinking, the above impairments may be hardly noticeable at the time, but the slow reaction times that they can produce could prove fatal in a emergency driving situation. That's why it is not a good idea to drive no matter how much or how little that you have had to drink.
There is another consideration: Alcohol affects people differently. Some people have a higher response to drinking alcohol than others. In other words, people with a high response to alcohol can experience signs of impairment at the .02 BAC level that others do not experience until the .05 level.
The Safe Limit
For this reason, in some states drivers can be arrested for driving while impaired even if their blood alcohol concentration is lower than the legal limit, if the law enforcement officer believes he has probable cause based on the behavior and reactions of the driver.
It's simply not a wise choice to get behind the wheel no matter how much you have had to drink. The only safe driving limit is .00 percent.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Since you don't like the pointing a gun analogy... what if you drive 90 mph through a residential neighborhood and get where you are going safely? Should the cops be allowed to fine you for driving that fast or only punish you after you wreck your car or kill a kid?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,921
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,921 |
Quote:
On a side note, completely unrelated; I believe that you should get back 75% of the money you pay in car insurance at the end of the year if you are not involved in an accident, or claim of any kind.
Ignorance at its finest.
Unbelievably ignorant.
You obviously have no concept whatsoever of how insurance works. At all.
OR, you would rather be in favor of getting 75% of your premiums back if there is no claim for a year, BUT, with that, you would also be in favor of the insurance company only 25% of any expenses owed if you DO have an accident. - You'd pay the other 75%. And if you couldn't pay it, jail for you. Is that what you want? You want 75% of your 1500 a year back if you don't have an accident? Great - here's $1125. Have an accident - you pay the $20,000 to fix the car you hit, and add in the $500,000 in medical bills - you pay 75%, then add in the $500,000 in lawyers bills - of which you pay 75%.
Damn, dude - you're screwed in that scenario - as would most other people be. But, that's what you seem to want - fine.
Me? I'll stick with paying my premiums and if something happens letting the insurance company sort things out.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
Whatever you say Coach. Keep drinking the kool-aid.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563 |
Quote:
Whatever you say Coach. Keep drinking the kool-aid.
...just don't drive... 
you had a good run Hank.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
I think your assessment is faulty.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
Keep saying "nuh uh" without anything to back it up, Tyler. It's all you have ever done in any of these discussions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
Quote:
Quote:
On a side note, completely unrelated; I believe that you should get back 75% of the money you pay in car insurance at the end of the year if you are not involved in an accident, or claim of any kind.
Ignorance at its finest.
Unbelievably ignorant.
You obviously have no concept whatsoever of how insurance works. At all.
OR, you would rather be in favor of getting 75% of your premiums back if there is no claim for a year, BUT, with that, you would also be in favor of the insurance company only 25% of any expenses owed if you DO have an accident. - You'd pay the other 75%. And if you couldn't pay it, jail for you. Is that what you want? You want 75% of your 1500 a year back if you don't have an accident? Great - here's $1125. Have an accident - you pay the $20,000 to fix the car you hit, and add in the $500,000 in medical bills - you pay 75%, then add in the $500,000 in lawyers bills - of which you pay 75%.
Damn, dude - you're screwed in that scenario - as would most other people be. But, that's what you seem to want - fine.
Me? I'll stick with paying my premiums and if something happens letting the insurance company sort things out.
Wow! this is one time I disagree with ya Arch
Say I pay in to my company for 20 year's, nevefr have a wreck or sitation, You think That I should not be intitled to anything? Insurense is a good idea ..But they use it just to make money! It is all run from the same people that have NO! iodea about running this country. ...JMO!
/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 402
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 402 |
Quote:
I think your assessment is faulty.
i think your assessment is faulty. Why should insurance companies take all the liability and then give you 75% of the money you paid them to insure you if you do not make a claim. But then if you do make a claim, not ask anything of you but to continue making your monthly payments even though you're payment is a much smaller value compared to the damage they must now pay for.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
Sorry Coach, but you have been the only one to use that phrase within this thread.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
If I don't get into an accident, then I go on paying, paying, paying. And unless I get into an accident, then I never see a bit of that money. However, if I get into an accident, then I will see some money.
Its almost as though we are taxing good drivers, and rewarding poor ones.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,921
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,921 |
Quote:
I think your assessment is faulty.
Sorry - it's not. You want 75% of your premiums back if you don't have an accident? Not the way insurance companies work. Ignorance is bliss, I know - but, if you were to have it your way, you would also pay 75% of any damages you create.
Plus, you'd never get insurance with any company, based soley on your posts here.
Insurance: a big pool of people pay for what a small number claim.
You want money back? Fine - we won't insure you. Sorry, it happens. It's called the real world.....you know, the world where dropping acid just doesn't cut it? The real world where bills have to be paid? By someone other than your mom and dad? (at least for most of us)
We're talking about life - not "ideal" world. Wanna live "ideal"? Good luck. Sorry you feel that the cops are against you....grow up and deal with the fact that your own gov't is against you. That'll put some hair on your chest.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 402
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 402 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
On a side note, completely unrelated; I believe that you should get back 75% of the money you pay in car insurance at the end of the year if you are not involved in an accident, or claim of any kind.
Ignorance at its finest.
Unbelievably ignorant.
You obviously have no concept whatsoever of how insurance works. At all.
OR, you would rather be in favor of getting 75% of your premiums back if there is no claim for a year, BUT, with that, you would also be in favor of the insurance company only 25% of any expenses owed if you DO have an accident. - You'd pay the other 75%. And if you couldn't pay it, jail for you. Is that what you want? You want 75% of your 1500 a year back if you don't have an accident? Great - here's $1125. Have an accident - you pay the $20,000 to fix the car you hit, and add in the $500,000 in medical bills - you pay 75%, then add in the $500,000 in lawyers bills - of which you pay 75%.
Damn, dude - you're screwed in that scenario - as would most other people be. But, that's what you seem to want - fine.
Me? I'll stick with paying my premiums and if something happens letting the insurance company sort things out.
Wow! this is one time I disagree with ya Arch
Say I pay in to my company for 20 year's, nevefr have a wreck or sitation, You think That I should not be intitled to anything? Insurense is a good idea ..But they use it just to make money! It is all run from the same people that have NO! iodea about running this country. ...JMO!
/
Alright, lets say you go with no insurance then. You wreck and total your car while also severely hurting another driver. The insurance company would have paid a majority of this, depending on the insurance of course, covering the 20 years of wreckless driving you could have just paid for. But you don't have insurance and are basically unable to pay for the damages you have just imposed on your car, the other car, and the other driver. But since you did not wreck in the first 20 years you deserve 75% of your money back and the insurance company should accept your $1500 and take the huge loss you just imposed upon the company
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
Sorry, Tyler, but that's what your "arguement" boils down to. People have pointed to studies and you say "they're exaggerated" or "keep drinking the kool aid". Basicaly, all you have said is "nuh uh" and not cited ONE study to prove your point.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 402
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 402 |
Quote:
If I don't get into an accident, then I go on paying, paying, paying. And unless I get into an accident, then I never see a bit of that money. However, if I get into an accident, then I will see some money.
Its almost as though we are taxing good drivers, and rewarding poor ones.
You are paying to know that if you do cause an accident you will not be the one liable to pay for all the damages. If you are going to tell me that you are confident that you will never wreck your vehicle and would gladly go without insurance, i would not believe you for a second. Things happen, especially to people that think driving drunk is completely ok, 707 times more likely. The insurance company needs to protect it's interest and if you don't agree with it, don't pay them then
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
Quote:
Quote:
I think your assessment is faulty.
i think your assessment is faulty. Why should insurance companies take all the liability and then give you 75% of the money you paid them to insure you if you do not make a claim. But then if you do make a claim, not ask anything of you but to continue making your monthly payments even though you're payment is a much smaller value compared to the damage they must now pay for.
I my friend believe you are wrong in your thinking.
So what you are saying is that if I pay for 20 years and have no wreck,s And someone hit's me they are losing money? LOL! Wake up and smell the rose's.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Quote:
not cited ONE study to prove your point.
Neither have you.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 402
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 402 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think your assessment is faulty.
i think your assessment is faulty. Why should insurance companies take all the liability and then give you 75% of the money you paid them to insure you if you do not make a claim. But then if you do make a claim, not ask anything of you but to continue making your monthly payments even though you're payment is a much smaller value compared to the damage they must now pay for.
I my friend believe you are wrong in your thinking.
So what you are saying is that if I pay for 20 years and have no wreck,s And someone hit's me they are losing money? LOL! Wake up and smell the rose's.
No i'm saying if you hit someone else, if someone hits you their insurance should pick up the claim. There is a large amount of liability that an insurance company has to deal with. Every driver they insure, they must be prepared for the worst. So, you go 20 years without a wreck and that one day you swerve to miss a deer and hit another car head on. The insurance company now must pay for your damages, their damages, AND any medical bills that the other driver sustains, some up to $500,000. Now you are telling me that liability is not worth the $1500 you paid a year, to cover the thousands of dollars of damage you just caused
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,921
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,921 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
On a side note, completely unrelated; I believe that you should get back 75% of the money you pay in car insurance at the end of the year if you are not involved in an accident, or claim of any kind.
Ignorance at its finest.
Unbelievably ignorant.
You obviously have no concept whatsoever of how insurance works. At all.
OR, you would rather be in favor of getting 75% of your premiums back if there is no claim for a year, BUT, with that, you would also be in favor of the insurance company only 25% of any expenses owed if you DO have an accident. - You'd pay the other 75%. And if you couldn't pay it, jail for you. Is that w¾at you want? You want 75% of your 1500 a year back if you don't have an accident? Great - here's $1125. Have an accident - you pay the $20,000 to fix the car you hit, and add in the $500,000 in medical bills - you pay 75%, then add in the $500,000 in lawyers bills - of which you pay 75%.
Damn, dude - you're screwed in that scenario - as would most other people be. But, that's what you seem to want - fine.
Me? I'll stick with paying my premiums and if something happens letting the insurance company sort things out.
Wow! this is one time I disagree with ya Arch
Say I pay in to my company for 20 year's, nevefr have a wreck or sitation, You think That I should not be intitled to anything? Insurense is a good idea ..But they use it just to make money! It is all run from the same people that have NO! iodea about running this country. ...JMO!
/
Apparently what you dont' get is that an insurance company is, first of all, in busniness to make a profit - they do pay their employees, right?
Secondly, you can pay your $1000, or $2000 a year in premiums, but the company is on the hook for any damage you may cause - no matter what. they could easily be out $300,000 from one accident - and they take the hit.
Shotty, I honestly believe you are smarter than this - perhaps you are playing devils advocate here? If you're not...........well, I don't know what to say.
Insure yourself, save your premiums. Just pray that you don't cause an accident - cause you'll lose everything you have and then some.
You have the ability and option to pay for insurance or to not pay for it. You don't have to, you know. But, if you don't have it - every time you start your car and drive it, you are putting everything you have at risk........it could be gone quicker than you look down for a different c.d.
Makes insurance look cheap, doesn't it? I pay $237 a month for insurance forl my wife, my son, me, and me (my car and my truck). Then, I pay, every month, for my motor home.
Every monthy I pay for my atv's.
All to Nation wide.
I also pay quarterly for my business insurance. Oh, and I forgot, the golf cart insurance.
If I drop one of those policies, and something happens??????? I lose my house and my business. That is not something I will dicker about.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 402
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 402 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think your assessment is faulty.
i think your assessment is faulty. Why should insurance companies take all the liability and then give you 75% of the money you paid them to insure you if you do not make a claim. But then if you do make a claim, not ask anything of you but to continue making your monthly payments even though you're payment is a much smaller value compared to the damage they must now pay for.
I my friend believe you are wrong in your thinking.
So what you are saying is that if I pay for 20 years and have no wreck,s And someone hit's me they are losing money? LOL! Wake up and smell the rose's.
Also, if you have a new $30,000 car/truck and it is completely totaled, it would cover your 20 years of no claims
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
not cited ONE study to prove your point.
Neither have you.
Michelle, the US DOT reported in 2005 that 42,815 people were killed in traffic accidents... 17,419 of them were deemed alcohol related... So I am either forced to believe:
A. 41% of all of the miles driven in this country are people under the influence of alcohol... OR
B. people under the influence of alcohol have a much greater chance of being in a fatal accident...
I think B is the only logical conclusion...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,921
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,921 |
And I don't mean "dicker" like you think - with my sis in law.  shoot, she's a bears fan 
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum I am being Watched?!?!?
|
|
