Spectre
The Deported
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2007
- Messages
- 36,832
- Location
- Dallas, Texas
- Car(s)
- 00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
In addition to what CrzRsn said above...
IIRC, the stats say most people will not be rear ending another vehicle. IIRC, only about 30% of all crashes in the US are rear-end collisions.
Further, that is EXACTLY how risk is calculated in part.
Speeding tickets do not generally get rate hikes anywhere near that high except under special circumstances (doing 99 in a 55, serial offender, etc.). Accidents are what will jack your rate like mad.
Uh... It's a deductible. You paid it to the repair facility. You don't get that back unless they didn't do the work.
Wow, you found incompetence in Massachusetts. How... unsurprising.
Also, if they were working from a national call center, there are many states where it is legal to pass on the right in such circumstances. They may have simply been confused or just stupid.
Get a dash cam.
Just because the insurance company says it's the law, doesn't mean it is. They can be wrong. So, no, they didn't give you permission to lane share and you can't even claim ignorance as the judge told you otherwise already.
Yeah but if you are labeling it as "risk" you would think it would have something to do with how bad you fucked up and how likely you are to do it yourself. A rate hike like that I would expect from something like a speeding ticket, not a mistake literally every driver will make at some point.
IIRC, the stats say most people will not be rear ending another vehicle. IIRC, only about 30% of all crashes in the US are rear-end collisions.
Further, that is EXACTLY how risk is calculated in part.
- Were you at fault for rear-ending someone else through negligence? Yes. You are now statistically a higher risk than a baseline driver.
- Did you cause more than average amount of damage? Yes. You are now statistically in in an even higher risk category.
- Rear end accidents are some of the more medically damaging types due to whiplash and such. This increases the potential amount the insurance company would have to pay out. You are therefore elevated another risk category.
Speeding tickets do not generally get rate hikes anywhere near that high except under special circumstances (doing 99 in a 55, serial offender, etc.). Accidents are what will jack your rate like mad.
I got both at faults revoked by taking them to court over it, but that doesn't change the fact that they looked at a case where the other guy's car was in a place it shouldn't have legally been and gave me 100% fault. Oh also I had a witness for the accident that was telling me "don't worry I saw everything, people do what he did all the time it's awful". This also cost me my deductible which they do not refund when you get their decision overturned.
Uh... It's a deductible. You paid it to the repair facility. You don't get that back unless they didn't do the work.
I'd probably be less pissed if not for the incompetence. Like I didn't immediately switch insurance, maybe the decision was fair. But after this recent incident I am just disgusted. I had an independent agent too, who was supposed to have my back with this shit, but apparently lied to me when I asked her to check other companies rates given she said the maximum difference would be like maybe 200$.
Hilarous though: Do you know what their argument was? That you legally can pass on the right anywhere your car will fit. Now I both looked it up and found otherwise (iirc the cars have to be stopped to take a turn, this case was someone stopped to LET ME GO and he got impatient and went around them and hit me) and the judge sided with me confirming it, but can you imagine if it were true.
Wow, you found incompetence in Massachusetts. How... unsurprising.
Also, if they were working from a national call center, there are many states where it is legal to pass on the right in such circumstances. They may have simply been confused or just stupid.
Get a dash cam.
I mean I guess if you believe that it SHOULD cost me an extra 2k to be insured, because I have a turbocharged shoe that's main selling point is how fast if can zip between cars, and you just gave me premission to basically lane share on a very large number of roads. But I am not enough of an asshole to do that sort of thing anyway unless it's to avoid another dangerous situation.
Just because the insurance company says it's the law, doesn't mean it is. They can be wrong. So, no, they didn't give you permission to lane share and you can't even claim ignorance as the judge told you otherwise already.