Article View: dc.general
Article #55175Re: GEICO's opposition to 65 mph (was Re: recommendations for auto/home insurance?)
From: Chuck Bacon
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 15:18
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 15:18
37 lines
2665 bytes
2665 bytes
In article <1992Mar26.024822.2509@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >In article <5188@npri6.npri.com> bryan@npri6.npri.com (Bryan Smith) writes: > >>safety inspections. I just moved from Virginia to Maryland and my rates went >>up because in Maryland a car needs only to be inspected if it is >>moved to the state or sold. And, I was told by my insurance agent that that is >>the reason why my rates went up. > > >Come on, how many accidents are caused by a mechanical failure that a >yearly inspection would find? The insurance companies are entering >the realm of the ridiculous here. Now this one makes me mad! Here's a small list: 1. Misadjusted headlights (VERY common in Md.) 2. Burned-out tail and brake lights (increased rear-end collision probability) 3. Illegal add-on lights (just plain unpleasant; sometimes dangerous) 4. Instrument lights that don't work (can't tell how fast you're going?) 5. Unsafe tires (bald or damaged) (oh, well, I've always been lucky) 6. Almost-rusted-through suspension elements (my VW fell down once, and couldn't get up) 7. Exhaust leaks (there's a mandatory exhaust test for some cars, not mine) (Ever feel drowsy in your smelly old car? Maybe it's the CO) 8. Fuel leaks (Fear of fire may help you quit smoking, at least in the car) You can invent your own list. Most other states I've lived in have annual or semiannual inspection. It can be a boondoggle or a real public benefit depending on how it's run. Compare Pa. and Mass. >-- >Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu >Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here. >Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force. >(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)8. Damaged windshield (you often see a long horizontal crack at eye level) -- Chuck Bacon - crtb@helix.nih.gov ( alas, not my 3b1 )-: ABHOR SECRECY - RESPECT PRIVACY
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Mar26.151808.8197@alw.nih.gov>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!nih-csl!helix.nih.gov!crtbReferences:
<MITCH.92Mar20170002@spica.clsi> <5188@npri6.npri.com> <1992Mar26.024822.2509@eng.umd.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 101049,769f95e5eb227b3b X-Google-Attributes: gid101049,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1992-03-26 07:18:08 PST Newsgroups: dc.general Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!nih-csl!helix.nih.gov!crtb From: crtb@helix.nih.gov (Chuck Bacon) Subject: Re: GEICO's opposition to 65 mph (was Re: recommendations for auto/home insurance?) Message-ID: <1992Mar26.151808.8197@alw.nih.gov> Sender: postman@alw.nih.gov (AMDS Postmaster) Organization: National Institutes of Health, Bethesda References: <MITCH.92Mar20170002@spica.clsi> <5188@npri6.npri.com> <1992Mar26.024822.2509@eng.umd.edu> Distribution: dc Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 15:18:08 GMT