Poll: Auto Accident Fatalities and Injuries

Things that are not part of politics happening presently and how we approach or address it as Anabaptists.

Check all that apply...

1. I've never given much thought to this topic.
2
5%
2. I've given some thought to it but never knew want to do about it.
5
14%
3. I've tried to raise awareness about this matter.
7
19%
4. I'm interested in doing what I can on grass roots level to make at least a bit of a difference.
7
19%
5. I intend to make some changes in how I drive and the things I do while driving.
4
11%
6. People are going to die one way or another, so I don't have much vision for trying to do anything about the number of accidents.
6
16%
7. Other
6
16%
 
Total votes: 37

ken_sylvania
Posts: 2255
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2024 5:41 pm
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Poll: Auto Accident Fatalities and Injuries

Post by ken_sylvania »

JohnH wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2026 2:00 pm
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2026 1:49 pm
Most auto insurance companies pay out more in claims than they receive in premiums.
I don't believe that is correct. Certainly not true for Geico or Progressive for the past three years.
I should be a little more clear with operating expenses+claims being more than received in premiums. State Farm paid out significantly more a few years ago and was ordered by the several states to get their loss ratios lower. They are at about 85% now.

Most insurers sit in a gigantic pool of money and try to invest it prudently so they can rely on that extra income.

If an insurer is paying out significantly less in claims (after operating expenses etc.) than premiums, the state will often order them to lower premiums. For example, this just happened in Florida with Progressive. I think the minimum is 80%.
Yes if you had said underwriting expense plus claims I wouldn't have argued about it. 8-)
1 x
Neto
Posts: 1516
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2024 7:01 pm
Affiliation: Gospel Haven Men.

Re: Poll: Auto Accident Fatalities and Injuries

Post by Neto »

JohnH wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2026 1:23 pm
Neto wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2026 12:43 pm I personally strongly dislike ABS. It can take away the driver's ability to control the vehicle in the best possible way. The main such situation I have encountered is when attempting to slow down or come to a stop on a street where the right side of the road is snow or ice covered. The ABS system will disengage the brakes on the wheels that are on dry pavement, making the vehicle continue farther or faster than if the driver had full control of the brakes. (All you have to do is counter steer. Anyone who drove vehicles before the ABS nonsense came into fashion does this instinctively. But I guess this is an "old geezer attitude", because perhaps most drivers now-a-days never drove before that all came about. The first vehicle we owned that had ABS was the 93 Chrysler Town & Country minivan we bought in 2000. I was driving already for nearly 30 years before that.)
I suppose one could also make arguments for drum brakes, bias-ply tyres, no power steering, no power brakes, and a number of other modern things. The good news is that if you want to drive a vehicle like that, you certainly can. You could even pull the fuse for your ABS system and the brakes will work the old fashioned way.
Yep, did that on a 98 S-10 I had for a work vehicle. Since I only drove that vehicle on any road with a speed limit of over 55 MPH once or twice it didn't matter, but Chevy tried to force people to keep that fuse in by running the cruise control on the same circuit. I could have bypassed it, but didn't care. (Most roads I need to travel for my work are 45 MPH or less. A very few were set at 50 MPH, but are now 45.)
0 x
Post Reply