Rear-Ended Again (Part 2 of 2)

(This is a serialized story, please read yesterday’s story for the 1st installment of this article):

Yet statistics state that there are “fewer” accidents further away from Chicago. The actuarial (Greek for actual burial) tables, or statistical charts (which are ALSO Greek to me) prove this out. That’s why insurance premiums are cheaper out here

I don’t believe it. When I was living just one suburb from Chicago I paid more for my insurance premiums and only had two accidents (not my fault) in 5 years while traveling a lot more in Chicago. The ratio where I now live is MUCH higher. 12:1, if one equals a year. Over a lifetime, that could be millions of accidents (if you lived thousands of years—see, I can do basic math). Still, I’m paying less money to be in more accidents. Sounds good on the surface—but I have to pay the deductibles (Greek for “duck” “de” “bill” because it’s too high).

Why do people pay less in premiums in the further-out suburbs—yet the driver’s all seem to be worse? The two driver’s who rear-ended me lived at least two suburbs from Chicago (I thought lower insurance rates were based on  suburban driver’s being safer—but obviously “Bumper Cars” is a required course in suburban driver education courses).

The only way this makes sense is that if I had 12 accidents a year, over a period of a five year, I’d likely be in some serious ones and would die young thus allowing my car insurance company to take and take and take—premium after premium after premium—without ever having to give anything back—since it was always the other insurance company’s liability). My insurance company (and many others) would get rich (aren’t they already?). This sounds like I’d be getting rear-ended again—this time using the “f” word. Is that how these “tables” are figured out?

Is this how this math makes sense for car insurance companies? It’s the only reason I can figure why liability insurance premiums are cheaper two suburbs outside of Chicago, while there seems to be more bad drivers there. Or perhaps these “tables” were created when a statistician was driving her car from her home in the suburbs while also reading over her statistics report. As she was applying her mascara “the car in front inappropriately yielded the right of way to an emergency vehicle” so she rear-ended this Chicago driver. Some of her makeup (black eye shadow or lipstick—because we all know that insurance statisticians are succubus’s, sucking the life out of potential claimants) smudged over the # of accidents for suburban drivers (making it appear to be “0” instead of “12” per year). This report was due at an early morning meeting to which this female statistician was late to now, so after this accident she speeding while reading. In additions she decided to call her boss and tell him she would be late. Patting her head while rubbing her tummy was too difficult (plus she still had to finish her makeup) so she rear-ended another Chicago driver (“their fault” once again, “because they were yielding the right of way when they braked at a stop sign,” so she claimed). Thus, we have our current insurance rates. Not based in reality—but based on a smudgy report—phoned in by an upset statistician who still blames Chicago drivers for yielding the right of way inappropriately (meaning they didn’t yield it to her!).

END