Who didn't get Collision Insurance?
 

I was messing around with the variables at Progressive.com, and it seems that collision coverage adds the most brunt. If I opt not to have it, but still have comprehensive, it'll chop my rates in half! That's from $310/month to 158/month with a clean record at age 21!

I know collision insurance is important, but I don't have a garage, so I think comprehensive is more important. What do you guys think about this? Is anyone else opting not to have collision coverage?

Keep in mind I know that you must have collision/comprehensive if you're taking a loan to the car, but I just wanted to know how others thought. On the same thought, if you take out a regular loan from a bank (let's say $15k), versus a car loan, would you still have to have both comprehensive and collision coverage?

Um... Well if you don't have collision, you wont be able to claim on your insurance if you get into a wreck. If some uninsured jackass slams into you, your screwed. You'll have to pay to fix your car. I think its pretty important.

Truthfully, your liability should cost the most out of anthing, at least it always has with me.

If the car is financed you have to have comprehensive and collision. Every bank in its right mind will verify coverage every six months if they are not sent a renewal notice from your insurance company.

Also, if you are hit by another driver and they are uninsured (depending on your state) collision coverage may be your fall back. Most states don't have uninsured motorist property damage (just uninsured/underinsured bodily injury).

Seems to me like $150 a month or $1800 year is less than $30,000.

Thoe...coming from another college student living in Houston...DO NOT skip on the collision.

Like any insurance you should carefully assess the risk vs. reward. Given how many less experienced drivers wreck cars (particularly this one), you're chances are above average at 21...

If destruction of the car is going to financially devastate you (and since you're considering financing it sounds like it would)--insurance against that possibility!

Ironically, the less wealthy you are, the more insurance you need to protect your assets.

My $6000 cars get the minimum legal coverage, as I can go out and buy another easily enough. The S is fully insured, even though it's exposure is far limited as a "weekend car".

(Yes, insurance is drastically over-sold in this country, but some of it you really DO want...)

Randy

In CA, if some uninsured bastards hit you, the
uninsured motorist property damage coverage (which doesn't
cost that much) will kick in.

Collision coverage only happens this way. YOU hit somebody,
you'll have to pay out of your own pocket to get your car fixed.
If someone hit you, whether he's insured or not, the insurance will pay.

At least that's how my policy is... in CA.

Unless you're a careless driver, I think Comp. is more important
than Collision. At least that's how it is here in CA, where the
theft rate is so high. Just drive carefully, I've only got into
1 accident (whether it's minor or major) in 5-6 years since I'd been
diving when I was 16.

Here is the problem, 15 minutes after you take away either of the 2 overages......the one you just cancelled will be the one you need :) Welcome to insurance :)
Steve

I can't believe someone buying a $30,000 car is trying to save a few bucks by not insuring it. I just moved from Texas and the uninsured motorist coverage there only covers medical. You would have to have collision coverage to fix the car if some uninsured moron hits you. If you can't afford to fully insure an S2000, you should probably be getting a cheaper car. Banks will require insurance for the collateral you will be financing to protect their investment if you finance.

just my two cents (and probably not what you want to hear) but unless you are pretty well off finiancially, I'd look at getting a different car totally. I couldn't swallow an insurance payment that was as much as my car payment. $300 a month for insurance is just crazy. I know its not your fault, but you should consider holding off on a car like this until you are old enough that the premiums drop for you :(

Personally I think its:bs: what younger drivers pay for insurance vs what elderly pay. I'm 34 so I'm in the comfortable middle between the two ages and will be paying a reasonable $109 for full coverage monthly when I get my S2K (very soon). I know statistics supposedly show that under 25yr old drivers are riskier, but man, here in Florida we are surrounded by elderly people who can barely walk and are so dangerous on the roads that its sickening. My grandfather is in his 80's and has caused several accidents (even hitting a teen on a bike) and he's still allowed to drive. He doesn't even have to go in for any kind of eye test when its time to renew. He just fills the form out by mail!

Sure, the elderly might not get into nearly as many accidents as younger drivers, but I'd love to know how many they CAUSE that they are obvlivious to and are never involved in (thus lowering the statistics). Elderly people have the slowest reflexes, the poorest sight and hearing and often pull out into traffic without even realizing they are cutting off other drives (who sometimes end up plowing into other cars..."but officer, there was a little old blue haired lady in a 1982 lincoln that pulled out and just drove off! I swear!"):eek2:

heh...just my two cents on insurance.

Thanx, as much as I didn't want to hear some of this this, it's good that you guys can provide the reality check. Although I still insist buying the car!

Personally, I think insurance should be cheap when a teenager first gets insured, and the high cost penalty should kick in after their first accident at fault occurs. It would be a lot more fair this way.

I really wasn't going to skimp on collision though.