Car Fix/Replace Decision

[glippy]

But if someone I knew was killed by someone with a gun, knife, or beat to death with a shoe, they would be just as dead. I can't understand how the tool used would make a difference. Other than death by a gun would probably be less painful than death by shoe beating, so maybe the shoe beating should be sentenced harsher? But that goes against your argument, I think.

But the example was assault, not murder. So if someone you knew was attacked by someone with a shoe, vs. attacked by someone with a rifle and the damages in either case were the same (e.g. some scrapes from where they were grazed), it doesn't mean the punishment should be the same, since one attack was inherently more dangerous than the other. The riskier something is the harsher it should be punished in order to deter others from taking those same risks with other people's lives.

Insurance premiums are already based on the vehicle profile/history.

True, but insurance only protects against actual damages to others because that's all the courts will award in a civil suit.

If you limit people who engage in risky behavior to only paying actual damages you're not discouraging the risky behavior, nor are you properly compensating the injured party who is limited to being "made whole", but never compensated for the fact that his injuries never would have occurred in the first place had the at-fault driver chosen a smaller vehicle.

I understand it won't be a popular idea since drivers of larger vehicles currently offload their risk to others without having to face any liabilities for the increased risk they are creating, instead pushing the liabilities onto everyone else. I, too, wouldn't want to have to suddenly start paying for something I had been getting for free.

But this uncompensated off-loading of risk by the individual to everyone else is an externality that's creating the big vehicle arms race and just making us all, as a group, pay more for transportation than we would otherwise have to.

 

[ERD50]

But the example was assault, not murder. ....

But your whole argument goes to intent. It just isn't the case that someone in a mid-size car 'intends' to inflict more damage on someone in an econo-box. Recall the info samclem provided below - that a mid-size car is also relatively safer when hitting a 'non-brick-wall' object, even if that object isn't another car. Though that makes sense, I hadn't really thought about it, so thanks to samclem for posting that.


It's like saying that if I install a burglar alarm in my house, that I'm responsible for the burglar going next door and robbing my neighbor w/o an alarm. You really want to go there?

The only way I could follow you was if someone set out to harm another on the road - then maybe one could make a case that if they chose a big,heavy truck, they intended to do more damage than if they set out to do this on a motorcycle. But to apply that thought process to every owner of a car larger than an econo-box is just plain crazy.

And I'll re-iterate samclem's argument, which I think has more merit than yours:

I'd ask the same question the other way: If I'm in a "regular" size car and cause an accident that injures a person in a less safe car (small, no airbags, seat belts inop, etc), should I get a reduced judgement for his injuries? After all, his deliberate selection of a tin foil econobox could reasonably have been anticipated to increase his chances of injury. He put me at increased risk (of damages) by his poor choice! Yeah, that's it!

PS -while I have never put any poster on 'ignore', I recently started a list of posters who make, ummmm......, 'interesting' comments.

-ERD50

 

[glippy]

But your whole argument goes to intent.

Negligence and recklessness can substitute for actual, specific intent to harm. We accept it in all other areas of civil liability where people partake in activities that endanger others, I don't see why the road should be any different.

I'm not sure what about the way I presented my argument is so upsetting. If you don't like the idea because it isn't in your interest. I get that. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be good policy and provide some balance to the insanity of constantly one-upping each other with ever larger vehicles.

I think I've explained it as best I can at this point. So I'll bow out.

 

[ERD50]

Negligence and recklessness can substitute for actual, specific intent to harm. We accept it in all other areas of civil liability where people partake in activities that endanger others, I don't see why the road should be any different.

I'm not sure what about the way I presented my argument is so upsetting. If you don't like the idea because it isn't in your interest. I get that. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be good policy and provide some balance to the insanity of constantly one-upping each other with ever larger vehicles.

I think I've explained it as best I can at this point. So I'll bow out.

I will bow out also. I will just close by saying it is not that I found your suggestion 'upsetting', or not in my interests, it is just that I find it to not be good policy at all. For the reasons I and others have already laid out. So enough.

-ERD50

 

[Chuckanut]

The only difference I can see between being shot to death and beat to death with a shoe would be that by carrying a gun, the DA could argue that the killing was premeditated, and possibly that would carry a more serious punishment. It's hard to argue that wearing shoes shows premeditation.

 

[brewer12345]

It's hard to argue that wearing shoes shows premeditation.

It would only be premeditated if you were carrying the shoe in question concealed. If glippy gets his way, it will be premeditated if the shoe is bigger than the victim's shoe.

 

[Midpack]

It would only be premeditated if you were carrying the shoe in question concealed. If glippy gets his way, it will be premeditated if the shoe is bigger than the victim's shoe.

I see glippy is a "part-time attorney." The pieces fall into place...he could become full time.

Occupation
Real Estate Investor / Part-Time Attorney

 

[FUEGO]

Right now larger vehicle drivers increase their own safety by directly increasing the risk of injury to others. Yet they face zero increased liability.

If you take a risk, you should have to deal with the liability, not be able to just shift it to everyone else with no consequences. That's what is creating the problem of the heavy-vehicle arms race.

Looks like I am agreeing with the least popular guy in the room at the moment, but I think he has illustrated an important issue that is not adequately addressed.

In law school I took a very interesting course on insurance law. I learned insurers are smart - they have to be to continue making money. They are good at identifying risks and pricing premiums adequately to cover those risks (and then some). I also learned that in pricing auto policies, the liability coverage is not tied to the kind of vehicle you drive. In other words my 2800 lb honda civic costs me the same in liability coverage as a 6600 lb Hummer.

My insurance law professor said this was one of the few big actuarial inequalities in auto insurance. That is, driving a much heavier vehicle that would inflict more damage on any vehicle you hit has no bearing on your liability premium (note I said liability and not comprehensive or collision). So my honda civic would be likely to cause much less damage in an accident than a much larger vehicle, although I still pay the same liability premiums as the driver of a larger vehicles.

I don't know why this is the case, as a savvy insurance company could offer discounts to drivers of smaller cars (assuming we are not more accident prone than drivers of larger cars). Maybe the insurance regulators don't allow vehicle type to factor in to the rate they can charge?

I have not studied this in depth and this is 10 year old knowledge at this point, but to test out my statements I obtained an online quote from GEICO by putting in my name and address and priced out a policy with my old honda civic, a hummer H2 and a BMW M5 (a variety of econobox, huge metal beast, and zippy sports car). All the exact same premium - $133 for 6 months liability only.

Assuming this discrepancy still exists, heavy vehicle owners in general receive an insurance subsidy from drivers of lighter vehicles.

Glippy's suggestion to have some system to increase the statutory accountability based on vehicle size or weight seems overly complicated. If there was a big discrepancy in damages resulting from vehicle size or weight, auto insurance companies should be allowed to price it in their premiums. That, in my opinion, would be the best way to match the increased risk of injury with choice of vehicle. Those driving heavier vehicles would be safer (generally) but would pay the price via higher insurance premiums due to higher average damages in the event of a collision.

 

[brewer12345]

Auto insurance pricing is complex and I would not take a law professor's word as gospel on it. I also would not draw any conclusions from a brief poke at GEICO. Insurance law & regs also vary substantially by state, so what might hold true in one state might not in another.

 

[TromboneAl]

Classic thread drift.

 

[FUEGO]

Auto insurance pricing is complex and I would not take a law professor's word as gospel on it. I also would not draw any conclusions from a brief poke at GEICO. Insurance law & regs also vary substantially by state, so what might hold true in one state might not in another.

True - they definitely vary by state.

I would be surprised if GEICO had this wrong - they had the comprehensive and collision premiums roughly right (ie hundreds of $$ per period for the much more expensive cars and a couple dozen $$ for my 12 year old beater).

And I have an account there from a while ago so they knew who I was and what cars we have from pulling DMV records. So a little more than a quick poke at GEICO.

I also checked my state's insurance regulator and they did not vary the liability premium based on vehicle type (they have a fancy smancy online calculator). Although I would trust a market based quote from GEICO over my state's insurance regulator that may have errors in their calculator, screwed database and/or stale data or pricing rules in their calculator.

 

[haha]

Classic thread drift.

We understand that the car decision has been made.

 

[unclemick]

Great thread. I stand enlightened.

My silly 12 yr old 26 mpg, 300M, attacked a highway divider in this years snowstorm in the PacNW thus getting totaled.

This thread has convinced me I need an old really big V8. twin pipe, 4WD, gas sucking pickup with big wide tires.

I will be safe from pesky little cars and can't afford to travel very far so my odds of picking on them(the little cars) will be much lower.

heh heh heh - next need to learn to love planes and airports. And public transportation.

Or get a bicycle.

 

[TromboneAl]

I would try to sell it to a private party (with complete disclosure about the damage) before selling it to the scrap yard. Maybe someone in your area needs a parts car and values your daughter's car more than $800. If you don't get any takers, fall back on the scrap yard.

Thanks, on her behalf, Pajaro. Here's an email I got from her last night:

Hey! Got your message - sorry, I've had Craigslist people calling me all night.

Looks like I'm selling the car for $1300!!! Shocking, not sure why someone would want to pay that, but hey...we'll see, you know how craigslist is. Thanks for the suggestion of selling it on Craigslist!
​

 

[seraphim]

Replace it. But I'm curious what 'frame part' is 'somewhat buckled'...? The frame's buckled? Wouldn't mess with it. Can't think of anything attached to the frame other than the engine which might cost $3000 to replace. $800 might be a bit optimistic.

 

[youbet]

For this reason, my uncle who owned many used car lots over his long life, always told us kids-don't buy a used car except from a trusted family member.

I have seen otherwise honest people go to consideragle lengths to disguise flaws, even dangerous flaws, in cars they wished to sell.

Ha

Amen to that Brother Ha! I've seen used car lot dealers handle snakes in order to clinch a deal to move out a lemon. And private sellers too, for that matter.

 

[TromboneAl]

I spoke with her on the phone last night. She sold her Echo for $1,400, thanks to Pajaro.

She was skeptical, but put it on craigslist, with full disclosure, for $900. She received several calls within a minute of the posting, so she went back and upped the price to $1300. To guys came simultaneously to look at it, and bid the price up to $1,400. The winner paid cash and had it towed away.

She was surprised that anyone paid that much. I suggested that there are people who would be willing to drive a potentially dangerous car if the price is low enough. She suggested that they might plan to get it drivable, then sell it without disclosure.

She has her sights set on three used Toyota Matrixes. For example, a 2008 with 70K miles for $10,000. I offered no advice on what car to buy -- she's good at research. She said she'll take any car she considers both to a mechanic and a body shop.

 

[pb4uski]

Good for her!!!

We have a guy locally who has a shop and buys cars with significant issues (mostly accidents, totaled by the insurance company), fixes them and makes them road-worthy and then sells them. He has been doing it for years and has a pretty good reputation as far as I know. Perhaps someone like that is the buyer.

 

[harley]

She was surprised that anyone paid that much. I suggested that there are people who would be willing to drive a potentially dangerous car if the price is low enough. She suggested that they might plan to get it drivable, then sell it without disclosure.

I suspect that there are quite a few people who would not consider the frame issue as making the car potentially dangerous to drive. That whole issue is based on what a mechanic said, and who knows if he's correct or not. Anyway, cars aren't dangerous, drivers are.

Congrats to Jenny on a good deal.

 

[unclemick]

I suspect anything that gets 'good' mpg gets a premium now given gas price news. Exceptions might be a high frequency of repair reputation.

Sounds like she did ok.

heh heh heh - I liked the Mr Mustache link in this thread. In my heart pickup but in the end probably do like your daughter - get a used gas sipping hatchback when time to replace my 24 mpg Chevy Equinox comes.
Good thread.

 

[TromboneAl]

She bought this 2008 Toyota Matrix for $10,300 from a private party. It has only 50,000 miles on it.



A lot of nice options (like ABS, power locks).

 

[REWahoo]

Nice car Al, but I sure hope it isn't parked in front of Jenny's apartment in the background...

 

[Midpack]

Nice car, she could easily get another 150K miles out of it with only normal repairs.

 

[Nords]

Nice car Al, but I sure hope it isn't parked in front of Jenny's apartment in the background...

That's the Craigslist photo the seller uses to make the car look better.

Assuming anyone is willing to come to the neighborhood to look at it...

 

[W2R]

She bought this 2008 Toyota Matrix for $10,300 from a private party. It has only 50,000 miles on it.

View attachment 13931

A lot of nice options (like ABS, power locks).

Good choice, Al! It sounds like something that will last for a long time, and provide her with good gas mileage, too.