From your weight and facial expressions to your destination, cars collect a startling amount of data about you. Some of it may even raise your insurance costs.
From your weight and facial expressions to your destination, cars collect a startling amount of data about you. Some of it may even raise your insurance costs.
That’s a false equivalency, though, as the former didn’t include matching insurance— nevermind that it’s generally illegal, IIRC, to drive uninsured. 😅☝🏼
The minimum insurance to cover legal requirements (and not damages to your own car) is pretty cheap tbf
That isn’t the technicality in question, though, and while that cost may be “cheap” (and fluctuate by area/provider), that’s a qualitative judgement not a quantitative value.
The first set lacked any mention of insurance (despite it being a pre-req for legal use of a motor vehicle on public ways), unlike the comparative second set that followed.
If something is going to be “cheaper than” something plus another thing, and the add-on for emphasis is actually a requirement for the former, it doesn’t exactly work as a comparison or even as hyperbole. 🫡🤷🏼♂️🤓
It works because liability coverage should be basically the same for both vehicles, and insignificant compared to non-liability insurance for a new car. The latter is not a legal requirement, but it is much more necessary for a new expensive car because it would be much more difficult to cover the cost of replacing such a car out of pocket if something happened to it. If you can cover the cost of replacing your car yourself, then you can avoid paying the insurance company a premium for their service. Also if the new car is purchased with a loan that insurance is probably a contractual requirement.
For these reasons these types of insurance are better considered separately, and the legally required insurance won’t affect the conclusion of the analysis of which car is a better financial decision, so it is reasonable to omit mention of it.
While your logic seems sound on the surface, the simple omission of any insurance mentioned in the first set undermines the rationalization. Whereas, including “and minimum required insurance” to said set would correct the inaccuracy, if only slightly.
Assumptions in formulae should always be clearly notated, if only to prevent their absence from otherwise implying a null/negative value. 🤓
Good effort, though. 🖖🏼
Really cool emojis. Where can you drive a car and NOT have insurance? You cannot drive a car without insurance. It’s not a false equivalency lmao
Ah, I see you’re still missing the crux of the matter. Fair. LMK when you parse it. Good luck out there, kiddo.
Be more pretentious, lmfao
The legally required minimum liability insurance for my 20 year old Honda is $36 a month.
My wife’s 2013 Lexus? Full coverage: $120 a month.
Both of them are paid off, but hers is “prettier” and so she wanted to keep full coverage on it when we paid it off.
When you drive a car owned by the bank, they require you have full coverage on the vehicle. I own my car and am not making payments, so I can have the lowest possible liability my state allows on my car.
If I had a used car I was making payments on, I would be required by law to have full coverage on the vehicle. I did no suggest that I have NO insurance.