Why so many totaled S's
It makes me so sad to see all these S2000's on here that have been in an accident be deemed as totaled. I was hit twice in a 3 month period and the second time when I thought it was going to be totaled, it wasnt. They replaced my rear quarter panel, bumper, tail light, had to weld together my trunk floor, replaced my TE37, and new tire. I believe the grand total to fix it was around 7k-8k. It seems like they are just wanting to "total out" the Ap1's than fix them. I guess I got lucky with my '02 :scratch:
https://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e...e/photo2-1.jpg https://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e...ome/photo4.jpg |
Looks good , your is worth more than 7-8k ...ins co.don't make mistakes with money .
|
So why were you hit?
|
Originally Posted by cosmomiller
(Post 22782628)
So why were you hit?
|
Originally Posted by s2kyay
(Post 22781726)
It seems like they are just wanting to "total out" the Ap1's than fix them.
|
The more that get totaled, the more mine will be worth. :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by Bloody Hatch
(Post 22784794)
The more that get totaled, the more mine will be worth. :rolleyes:
|
Your bumper looks off from the rest of the car...
Mine is the same way, but I'm about to get it resprayed |
Originally Posted by Unho1yghost
(Post 22787159)
i like how cheap they are getting. once all the kids have crashed them, theyll be as rare as srt-4's
I'm reasonably certain that "kids" do not have the market cornered on getting into car crashes. Sometimes, you are just in the wrong place at the wrong time and it has nothing to do with age. Vintage crew will vouch for that. |
Originally Posted by thenoxus1
(Post 22787171)
Your bumper looks off from the rest of the car...
Mine is the same way, but I'm about to get it resprayed |
Originally Posted by vasquezgno
(Post 22787183)
Originally Posted by thenoxus1' timestamp='1379621617' post='22787171
Your bumper looks off from the rest of the car...
Mine is the same way, but I'm about to get it resprayed The bumper looks darker than the rest of the car. |
Originally Posted by thenoxus1
(Post 22787226)
Originally Posted by vasquezgno' timestamp='1379622019' post='22787183
[quote name='thenoxus1' timestamp='1379621617' post='22787171']
Your bumper looks off from the rest of the car... Mine is the same way, but I'm about to get it resprayed The bumper looks darker than the rest of the car. [/quote] They painted the trunk, panel, and bumper. The paint actually is a custom brighter red, not NFR. They did a pretty good job matching and blending for it being a custom color. Pictures don't ever do justice. https://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e...ome/dfhgbd.jpg |
Originally Posted by RMurphy
(Post 22787176)
Originally Posted by Unho1yghost' timestamp='1379621216' post='22787159
i like how cheap they are getting. once all the kids have crashed them, theyll be as rare as srt-4's
I'm reasonably certain that "kids" do not have the market cornered on getting into car crashes. Sometimes, you are just in the wrong place at the wrong time and it has nothing to do with age. Vintage crew will vouch for that. |
You are pretty "lucky" the insurance company didn't total it out. With the high book values of old S2000s, they have a better chance of not being totaled with moderate damage versus your typical 10-13 year old car. Unfortunately, proper collision repair is very pricey and it doesn't take much to write off just about any old car that isn't quite a classic yet.
|
Originally Posted by cosmomiller
(Post 22787627)
Originally Posted by RMurphy' timestamp='1379621722' post='22787176
[quote name='Unho1yghost' timestamp='1379621216' post='22787159']
i like how cheap they are getting. once all the kids have crashed them, theyll be as rare as srt-4's I'm reasonably certain that "kids" do not have the market cornered on getting into car crashes. Sometimes, you are just in the wrong place at the wrong time and it has nothing to do with age. Vintage crew will vouch for that. [/quote] My profession really has nothing to do with the fact I stated. Not all car crashes involve only "kids." If they did, then insurance for non-"kids" would be free or not even required. Not all S2000s get crashed by "kids." |
Originally Posted by RMurphy
(Post 22787766)
Originally Posted by cosmomiller' timestamp='1379644979' post='22787627
[quote name='RMurphy' timestamp='1379621722' post='22787176']
[quote name='Unho1yghost' timestamp='1379621216' post='22787159'] i like how cheap they are getting. once all the kids have crashed them, theyll be as rare as srt-4's I'm reasonably certain that "kids" do not have the market cornered on getting into car crashes. Sometimes, you are just in the wrong place at the wrong time and it has nothing to do with age. Vintage crew will vouch for that. [/quote] My profession really has nothing to do with the fact I stated. Not all car crashes involve only "kids." If they did, then insurance for non-"kids" would be free or not even required. Not all S2000s get crashed by "kids." [/quote] Accident rates for teens is by far more expensive then adults. Furthermore married men get even cheaper. And you must not be married. Wives basically get on your policy for free. For example, on my two sedans $137/month. Add a wife as primary driver on one of them. Still $137/month. |
Originally Posted by rob-2
(Post 22788125)
Originally Posted by RMurphy' timestamp='1379658477' post='22787766
[quote name='cosmomiller' timestamp='1379644979' post='22787627']
[quote name='RMurphy' timestamp='1379621722' post='22787176'] [quote name='Unho1yghost' timestamp='1379621216' post='22787159'] i like how cheap they are getting. once all the kids have crashed them, theyll be as rare as srt-4's I'm reasonably certain that "kids" do not have the market cornered on getting into car crashes. Sometimes, you are just in the wrong place at the wrong time and it has nothing to do with age. Vintage crew will vouch for that. [/quote] My profession really has nothing to do with the fact I stated. Not all car crashes involve only "kids." If they did, then insurance for non-"kids" would be free or not even required. Not all S2000s get crashed by "kids." [/quote] Accident rates for teens is by far more expensive then adults. Furthermore married men get even cheaper. And you must not be married. Wives basically get on your policy for free. For example, on my two sedans $137/month. Add a wife as primary driver on one of them. Still $137/month. [/quote] Then I suggest you add as many wives to your policy as can stand the process. LOL! I stand by my statement which is accurate: Not all car crashes involve only "kids." Not all S2000s get crashed by "kids." Rates for under 25 year old drivers are higher, but that does not mean they are the *only* people involved in car crashes and that the *only* people who have crashes in S2000s are "kids." It's simply impossible. Argue it if you want for whatever your reasons might be for doing so, but it's impossible to honestly and accurately say that people over a certain age never crash cars. Edit: To make it even clearer: "kids" don't have a monopoly on car crashes. Crashes can and do happen to drivers of all ages. It is not a requirement that you be under a certain age to be involved in a car crash. |
Originally Posted by RMurphy
(Post 22788305)
Originally Posted by rob-2' timestamp='1379684106' post='22788125
[quote name='RMurphy' timestamp='1379658477' post='22787766']
[quote name='cosmomiller' timestamp='1379644979' post='22787627'] [quote name='RMurphy' timestamp='1379621722' post='22787176'] [quote name='Unho1yghost' timestamp='1379621216' post='22787159'] i like how cheap they are getting. once all the kids have crashed them, theyll be as rare as srt-4's I'm reasonably certain that "kids" do not have the market cornered on getting into car crashes. Sometimes, you are just in the wrong place at the wrong time and it has nothing to do with age. Vintage crew will vouch for that. [/quote] My profession really has nothing to do with the fact I stated. Not all car crashes involve only "kids." If they did, then insurance for non-"kids" would be free or not even required. Not all S2000s get crashed by "kids." [/quote] Accident rates for teens is by far more expensive then adults. Furthermore married men get even cheaper. And you must not be married. Wives basically get on your policy for free. For example, on my two sedans $137/month. Add a wife as primary driver on one of them. Still $137/month. [/quote] Then I suggest you add as many wives to your policy as can stand the process. LOL! I stand by my statement which is accurate: Not all car crashes involve only "kids." Not all S2000s get crashed by "kids." Rates for under 25 year old drivers are higher, but that does not mean they are the *only* people involved in car crashes and that the *only* people who have crashes in S2000s are "kids." It's simply impossible. Argue it if you want for whatever your reasons might be for doing so, but it's impossible to honestly and accurately say that people over a certain age never crash cars. Edit: To make it even clearer: "kids" don't have a monopoly on car crashes. Crashes can and do happen to drivers of all ages. It is not a requirement that you be under a certain age to be involved in a car crash. [/quote] The average teenager is 4 times more likely to crash then someone who's 20. http://www.nhtsa.gov/ State of California results http://www.dmv.ca.gov/imageserver/dm...crash_1000.jpg It's illegal to have more then one wife... oh darn. |
It's illegal to have more then one wife... oh darn. |
Originally Posted by AZS2KDancer
(Post 22791353)
It's illegal to have more then one wife... oh darn. |
Originally Posted by rob-2
(Post 22790028)
The average teenager is 4 times more likely to crash then someone who's 20.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/ State of California results http://www.dmv.ca.gov/imageserver/dm...crash_1000.jpg It's illegal to have more then one wife... oh darn. Original Claim: "I'm reasonably certain that "kids" do not have the market cornered on getting into car crashes." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornering_the_market In finance, to corner the market is to get sufficient control of a particular stock, commodity, or other asset to allow the price to be manipulated. Another definition: "To have the greatest market share in a particular industry without having a monopoly. Even if teenagers have accidents at 4x the rate of non-teenagers, in Los Angles (since you're talking about California) they (including 15 year olds) only make up about 7.2% of the population. In addition in this subset of the population, the many of them do not have licenses. According to this 2010 data, for 16, 17, 18, 19 year olds, only 28%, 45%, 61%, and 70% have licenses. For the overall population of CA it's 77.4%. If we multiply the accident rate per 1000 drivers by the percentage of the population with licenses, we can get accidents per 1000 people. If we multiply the percentage of the population in the age group with the population of Los Angeles (unnecessary if you're willing to work in percentages, but it makes the data more readable), we get number of people in that age group. If we multiply those two numbers together we get number of accidents in that age group. https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7330/...51f9f291_o.png From there we can see that teenagers only make up 13% of the accidents. Sure, they are over represented, almost by a factor of two. However, they are far from having a huge controlling portion in the number of car accidents. Sure, the numbers will be different if we applied this to only S2000s. Maybe their rate would be twice as high as before and for the rest of the population it will be half as much. Even if that was the case, they'd still be in the minority. *Your statement is grossly incorrect context because first it fails to factor in the fact that the data is per 1000 drivers. If you look at the fourth column in my data it shows that 16s are less likely to cause accidents than 17-19 year olds. This is solely because of their low license rate. Your blanket statement of teenagers also includes 13-15 year old which cause very few accidents. Finally and most importantly, your claim that the averaged data for >19 years old applies to 20 year olds is absolutely absurd. |
Originally Posted by dwight
(Post 22791953)
Originally Posted by rob-2' timestamp='1379808862' post='22790028
The average teenager is 4 times more likely to crash then someone who's 20.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/ State of California results http://www.dmv.ca.gov/imageserver/dm...crash_1000.jpg It's illegal to have more then one wife... oh darn. Original Claim: "I'm reasonably certain that "kids" do not have the market cornered on getting into car crashes." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornering_the_market In finance, to corner the market is to get sufficient control of a particular stock, commodity, or other asset to allow the price to be manipulated. Another definition: "To have the greatest market share in a particular industry without having a monopoly. Even if teenagers have accidents at 4x the rate of non-teenagers, in Los Angles (since you're talking about California) they (including 15 year olds) only make up about 7.2% of the population. In addition in this subset of the population, the many of them do not have licenses. According to this 2010 data, for 16, 17, 18, 19 year olds, only 28%, 45%, 61%, and 70% have licenses. For the overall population of CA it's 77.4%. If we multiply the accident rate per 1000 drivers by the percentage of the population with licenses, we can get accidents per 1000 people. If we multiply the percentage of the population in the age group with the population of Los Angeles (unnecessary if you're willing to work in percentages, but it makes the data more readable), we get number of people in that age group. If we multiply those two numbers together we get number of accidents in that age group. https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7330/...51f9f291_o.png From there we can see that teenagers only make up 13% of the accidents. Sure, they are over represented, almost by a factor of two. However, they are far from having a huge controlling portion in the number of car accidents. Sure, the numbers will be different if we applied this to only S2000s. Maybe their rate would be twice as high as before and for the rest of the population it will be half as much. Even if that was the case, they'd still be in the minority. *Your statement is grossly incorrect context because first it fails to factor in the fact that the data is per 1000 drivers. If you look at the fourth column in my data it shows that 16s are less likely to cause accidents than 17-19 year olds. This is solely because of their low license rate. Your blanket statement of teenagers also includes 13-15 year old which cause very few accidents. Finally and most importantly, your claim that the averaged data for >19 years old applies to 20 year olds is absolutely absurd. Accident rates are higher in teens it's pretty stupid to debate this and I won't. We see higher accident rates in teens and then again in the elderly. Those are facts. Move along now... |
The elderly, now why did you have to bring me into this. :LOL:
ROD |
Originally Posted by rob-2
(Post 22792121)
Pretty sure you've read the info wrong. It's a break down by age group. Those 16 years old by 1000 16 year old drivers will see 61.4 in accidents. Not 16 year olds in a 1000 drivers of any age.
Accident rates are higher in teens it's pretty stupid to debate this and I won't. We see higher accident rates in teens and then again in the elderly. Those are facts. Move along now... |
To the OP:
Your repair looks impeccable. I have a certain fondness for the NFR and I'm glad they were able to bring yours back from the brink of death. :rev: |
Originally Posted by rrounds
(Post 22792282)
The elderly, now why did you have to bring me into this. :LOL:
ROD |
Originally Posted by dwight
(Post 22792293)
Originally Posted by rob-2' timestamp='1379954701' post='22792121
Pretty sure you've read the info wrong. It's a break down by age group. Those 16 years old by 1000 16 year old drivers will see 61.4 in accidents. Not 16 year olds in a 1000 drivers of any age.
Accident rates are higher in teens it's pretty stupid to debate this and I won't. We see higher accident rates in teens and then again in the elderly. Those are facts. Move along now... |
Originally Posted by Mack21
(Post 22792346)
To the OP:
Your repair looks impeccable. I have a certain fondness for the NFR and I'm glad they were able to bring yours back from the brink of death. :rev: |
Originally Posted by rob-2
(Post 22790028)
Originally Posted by RMurphy' timestamp='1379691303' post='22788305
[quote name='rob-2' timestamp='1379684106' post='22788125']
[quote name='RMurphy' timestamp='1379658477' post='22787766'] [quote name='cosmomiller' timestamp='1379644979' post='22787627'] [quote name='RMurphy' timestamp='1379621722' post='22787176'] [quote name='Unho1yghost' timestamp='1379621216' post='22787159'] i like how cheap they are getting. once all the kids have crashed them, theyll be as rare as srt-4's I'm reasonably certain that "kids" do not have the market cornered on getting into car crashes. Sometimes, you are just in the wrong place at the wrong time and it has nothing to do with age. Vintage crew will vouch for that. [/quote] My profession really has nothing to do with the fact I stated. Not all car crashes involve only "kids." If they did, then insurance for non-"kids" would be free or not even required. Not all S2000s get crashed by "kids." [/quote] Accident rates for teens is by far more expensive then adults. Furthermore married men get even cheaper. And you must not be married. Wives basically get on your policy for free. For example, on my two sedans $137/month. Add a wife as primary driver on one of them. Still $137/month. [/quote] Then I suggest you add as many wives to your policy as can stand the process. LOL! I stand by my statement which is accurate: Not all car crashes involve only "kids." Not all S2000s get crashed by "kids." Rates for under 25 year old drivers are higher, but that does not mean they are the *only* people involved in car crashes and that the *only* people who have crashes in S2000s are "kids." It's simply impossible. Argue it if you want for whatever your reasons might be for doing so, but it's impossible to honestly and accurately say that people over a certain age never crash cars. Edit: To make it even clearer: "kids" don't have a monopoly on car crashes. Crashes can and do happen to drivers of all ages. It is not a requirement that you be under a certain age to be involved in a car crash. [/quote] The average teenager is 4 times more likely to crash then someone who's 20. http://www.nhtsa.gov/ State of California results http://www.dmv.ca.gov/imageserver/dm...crash_1000.jpg It's illegal to have more then one wife... oh darn. [/quote] 1. The stats are all well and good but they don't disprove my statement that it isn't only "kids" who crash cars. But the pretty colors in the graph certainly brighten the place up. 2. It isn't illegal to have more than one wife. Larry King has had at least 8. It's only illegal if you have multiples simultaneously. So there is hope for you yet. |
Originally Posted by rob-2
(Post 22792510)
The point of a 1,000 sample size is to standardize :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
By the way, didn't you say you weren't going to continue? |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:55 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands