Yeah, that's true... when I was driving my old beater cross-country, comprehensive coverage felt like throwing money away. But then again, I hit a deer once in Wyoming—totally random, totally sucked—and suddenly wished I'd had it. Guess it's all about knowing your comfort zone and how much risk you're cool with taking. Still, odds are usually in your favor... usually.
Yeah, gotta agree with you there—it all comes down to how much risk you're willing to stomach. Personally, I've rolled the dice plenty of times and skipped comprehensive. Figured it was just padding the insurance company's pockets... until I hydroplaned on a rainy night and ended up in a ditch. Suddenly that extra coverage didn't seem so pointless. Still skeptical about insurance in general, but sometimes life's randomness makes you reconsider your bets, ya know?
I get what you're saying, but honestly, comprehensive coverage isn't always the no-brainer it seems. I've done tons of road trips—some pretty sketchy roads too—and never had a serious mishap (knock on wood...). The one time I did scrape up my bumper, the deductible was so high it wasn't even worth filing a claim. Sometimes it's smarter to stash that extra cash into an emergency fund instead of handing it over to insurance companies who love finding loopholes anyway. Just my two cents from someone who's spent way too many hours behind the wheel.
Totally get where you're coming from. I used to think comprehensive was a must-have, until I actually needed it. A few years back, driving home from work, a deer jumped right in front of me out of nowhere. Thankfully, I wasn't hurt, but my car took a pretty good hit. Thought I was covered, but after looking at my deductible and what they'd actually pay out, it barely made sense to file the claim. Ended up paying most of it myself anyway.
After that, I started crunching numbers and realized I'd been paying a hefty premium for coverage that wasn't really benefiting me. Decided to drop comprehensive and just put that money aside each month instead. So far, it's been working out fine—knock on wood again, haha. I guess it really depends on your personal situation and risk tolerance, but I agree that insurance isn't always the safety net it's cracked up to be.
I see your point about comprehensive coverage not always being as beneficial as we assume. Still, I think it might be worth considering a different angle, especially if you're someone who drives an older or classic car. For instance, I've got a vintage Mustang that I've poured a lot of time and effort into restoring. Even though it's not my daily driver, comprehensive coverage has saved me more than once from unexpected headaches.
A couple years ago, a tree branch fell during a storm and put a nasty dent in the hood. Without comprehensive, I'd have been stuck footing the entire bill for repairs and repainting—which, trust me, isn't cheap when you're dealing with classic parts and specialized labor. Sure, the deductible wasn't exactly pocket change, but compared to the total repair cost, it was manageable and definitely worth filing the claim.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that comprehensive coverage isn't always about the immediate payout or even just crunching numbers month-to-month. Sometimes it's about protecting the investment you've made in your vehicle, especially if it's something you genuinely care about or that's hard to replace. Of course, everyone's situation is unique, and if you're driving something that's easily replaceable or not particularly valuable to you personally, setting money aside each month might indeed be smarter.
But from my perspective—especially as someone who's seen firsthand how quickly restoration costs can skyrocket—I wouldn't dismiss comprehensive entirely. Maybe it's more about carefully evaluating your own circumstances and deciding what level of risk you're comfortable accepting...
