🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Mar26.151808.8197@alw.nih.gov> crtb@helix.nih.gov (Chuck Bacon) writes:
>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

	actually, the point of the inspections is supposed to be for
environmental purposes.
	the bit about the rates is a game the insurance companies play,
based primarily on actuarial (like) tables.  they are a statistical
gamee, and as we all know, statistical manipulation can make any
statement true, false or non-sequitur, as you wish.  in addition, it
is a requirement that you play the game.  house odds are stacked against
you.
	the point of the 55/65 controversy is that they picked some 
number (55) which was based on a report (i cannot speak to it's validiy,)
on fuel consumption vrs. rate of speed.  since the insurance industry
had input into the report, i would doubt it's objectivity or validity.
	rates are also claimed to be based on age.  and driving experience.
however, they are skewed results, from biased reporting, from which these
statistics are taken.  they are arbitrary, and unless the people step in
and override the automobile and insurance industry mandates, you're going
to be stuck with arbitry, unfair, and mandtory high rates.  remember, the
insurance business is a *business*!  not a public utility.  their primary
function is to make a profit.  and do they ever.  they don't give a s***
about you the consumer, except how you affect their direct profits.
	another opinion, worth what you paid for it!
	as always, i am/at:

	     doug:  <doug@eng.umd.edu> : <doug@lpf.umd.edu>

	-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-< a ghost in the machine >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-