Why people with collector cars are wary to drive them on the street.

[Byteme]

I used to drive Lola (my E-type) everywhere and always risked the chance some boob would hit it.  Seinfeld just had a rare Porsche damaged by an oblivious driver.  I doubt I would have told the woman to drive away scott free.


Jerry Seinfeld furious after driver inflicts shrinkage on rare Porsche 911




Justin Hyde
By Justin Hyde
5 hours ago

Well before "Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee," Jerry Seinfeld was known in automotive circles as a consummate car collector, especially for classic Porsches, and his garages include the first 911 built. And as any car collector knows, the value of owning such vehicles isn't just in looking at them, but driving them as they were meant to be.

Which is all great, right until someone uses your rare Porsche 911 as a slow-motion crash tester.

According to the New York Post, Seinfeld was out in his 1973 Porsche 911 Carrera RSR — a racing model of which only 49 were built — last weekend in the Hamptons when a woman in a white BMW began backing into it:


"We could hear the sound of metal crunching — rare, classic, expensive, vintage metal, by the way — from across the street. A sickening sound to a car person,'' Seinfeld said.

"And even though I'm sure I deserved this, because of who I am and that I have this amazing car, I was furious. I ran across the street, out of my mind, and yelled at her, 'You just crashed into my car!'

In Seinfeld's telling, the woman seemed oblivious, and while she offered to trade information he let her go because "the idea of having her in my life for one more second was intolerable." This may be a bit of an over-correction; while even Seinfeld will find vintage Porsche repair parts pricey, it's not like he doesn't have a few other cars to drive.

Serenity now, Jerry. Serenity now.

[veeman]

It would be stupid of him to get her insurance company to pay for it.  He's a multi multi millionaire.  This is chump change for him.  Getting media attention for being a good guy is worth more than the 15 grand to fix his car.

[FlatBlackCaddy]

Some people do things on principal. It's actually seen as a good character trait in some circles/age groups.

Personally, I'd pay for(or my insurance company) would pay for the damage that I inflicted to someones car, if it where my fault of course.

[FlatBlackCaddy]

Then again I wouldn't leave anything I owned(that nice) unattended.

Didn't he make his entire comedic career around the stupidity/ineptitude of other people.

Shouldn't really be surprised, should he. Still that doesn't absolve the other person from their part.

[cawimmer430]

I wonder what would happen to that woman if the classic Porsche owner was not Seinfeld but Steven Seagal... 

[veeman]

You can maybe consider it a principal that fabulously wealthy people shouldn't make others pay for nonpurposeful accidents.  It's obviously the judgement of the fabulously wealthy person.  It shouldn't be expected, just a nice gesture.  It happens all the time in third world countries where there is a much greater disparity in those who have wealth and those who are just getting by.

[MexicoCityM3]

Above a certain level of wealth insurance stops making sense for certain things IMO. You can carry the risk yourself.

[Byteme]

You can maybe consider it a principal that fabulously wealthy people shouldn't make others pay for nonpurposeful accidents.  It's obviously the judgement of the fabulously wealthy person.  It shouldn't be expected, just a nice gesture.  It happens all the time in third world countries where there is a much greater disparity in those who have wealth and those who are just getting by.

I don't know what kind of message that sends.  Perhaps, one that says if you damage the property of someone who can afford to pay to fix it themselves you shouldn't have to pay?  Try as I might I just don't think that's proper behavior or a good object lesson on personal responsibility.   

A nicer gesture might be to make a claim, and if her insurance goes up she just might learn to be aware of her surroundings and learn from the experience.

[veeman]

Above a certain level of wealth insurance stops making sense for certain things IMO. You can carry the risk yourself.

No way dude.  It's not the physical damages.  It's the liability.   Minor fenderbender, the person claims chronic neck pain from whiplash, that's potentially a million dollar judgement from stupid American juries.

[GoCougs]

No way dude.  It's not the physical damages.  It's the liability.   Minor fenderbender, the person claims chronic neck pain from whiplash, that's potentially a million dollar judgement from stupid American juries.

I agree - it's simply a good financial bet IMO. One moderate crash ($10k) could be 7-10 years of payments. A serious crash ($50k) could be a lifetime of payments. A horrendous crash (lawsuit, death) could be many many lifetime of payments.

[MexicoCityM3]

You're both right. Liability changes the equation I had in mind.

[GoCougs]

As to the topic at home? Meh, I don't have much sympathy really. Many people are "oblivious" and cars get damaged - door dings, road rash, crashes, etc. If you choose to buy and drive such a car as this ($500k+) that's the risk you take, plus, have good insurance, because I'm sure many don't carry enough insurance to cover major damage to such a car (and shouldn't IMO).

[Rupert]

Some people do things on principal. It's actually seen as a good character trait in some circles/age groups.

Personally, I'd pay for(or my insurance company) would pay for the damage that I inflicted to someones car, if it where my fault of course.

You can maybe consider it a principal that fabulously wealthy people shouldn't make others pay for nonpurposeful accidents.  It's obviously the judgement of the fabulously wealthy person.  It shouldn't be expected, just a nice gesture.  It happens all the time in third world countries where there is a much greater disparity in those who have wealth and those who are just getting by.

Dammit, guys, the word is principle.

[J86]

Ah, Easthampton (I assume).

[93JC]

The way I heard it yesterday was that she almost hit the car.

http://theinterrobang.com/seinfeld-stops-woman-hitting-456000-vintage-porsche/

[SJ_GTI]

FWIW, it doesn't sound like he "let her go" to be a nice guy.

Its sounds like he just didn't want to have to deal with this stupid person. And since he is really rich, it was worth the ~15k (or whatever) to just pay for it himself rather than risk having to talk to her again.

If I was as rich as him I would probably be the same way when it comes to dealing with people I don't like. 

[Lebowski]

I agree - it's simply a good financial bet IMO. One moderate crash ($10k) could be 7-10 years of payments. A serious crash ($50k) could be a lifetime of payments. A horrendous crash (lawsuit, death) could be many many lifetime of payments.

Insurance by definition is a bad financial bet.

[GoCougs]

Insurance by definition is a bad financial bet.

Not at all. By definition if it was a bad financial bet insurance would not exist. Insurance is an excellent financial bet - one of the best in the financial world today. Without insurance there would likely be no jetliners, skyscrapers, ships, or other Big Expensive Things. In the least the world of Big Expensive Things would be vastly different (likely much slower progression, much less common) than it is today.

Insurance is philosophically no different than options investing. There is real, tangible and in the case of a sophisticated system as options investing, quantitative value in reserving the right today to do something tomorrow. That the something may or may not be done is irrelevant - the value is in the knowing. For insurance it is risk - you are buying predetermined level of predictable risk which has value (obviously, otherwise it wouldn't exist).

[Byteme]

Insurance by definition is a bad financial bet.

Until you need it.   

[AutobahnSHO]

FWIW, it doesn't sound like he "let her go" to be a nice guy.

Its sounds like he just didn't want to have to deal with this stupid person. And since he is really rich, it was worth the ~15k (or whatever) to just pay for it himself rather than risk having to talk to her again.

If I was as rich as him I would probably be the same way when it comes to dealing with people I don't like. 

+1

[Lebowski]

Not at all. By definition if it was a bad financial bet insurance would not exist. Insurance is an excellent financial bet - one of the best in the financial world today. Without insurance there would likely be no jetliners, skyscrapers, ships, or other Big Expensive Things. In the least the world of Big Expensive Things would be vastly different (likely much slower progression, much less common) than it is today.

Insurance is philosophically no different than options investing. There is real, tangible and in the case of a sophisticated system as options investing, quantitative value in reserving the right today to do something tomorrow. That the something may or may not be done is irrelevant - the value is in the knowing. For insurance it is risk - you are buying predetermined level of predictable risk which has value (obviously, otherwise it wouldn't exist).

I didn't say it doesn't have value, I said it's a bad bet. Not the same thing.

[GoCougs]

I didn't say it doesn't have value, I said it's a bad bet. Not the same thing.

Yes, they are the same thing, plus, I didn't say you said it didn't have value . Insurance is an excellent bet as demonstrated - by definition it wouldn't exist if it wasn't.

[Lebowski]

From an expected payout standpoint, mathematically of course it's a bad bed (otherwise insurance cos wouldn't sell it) and of course that's not the same as saying it has no value. The value is mitigation of catastrophic financial loss.



Following your "if it's a bad bet by definition it wouldn't exist" logic, by that metric virtually all casino gambling wouldn't exist.

Bad bets exist.

[GoCougs]

From an expected payout standpoint, mathematically of course it's a bad bed (otherwise insurance cos wouldn't sell it) and of course that's not the same as saying it has no value. The value is mitigation of catastrophic financial loss.



Following your "if it's a bad bet by definition it wouldn't exist" logic, by that metric virtually all casino gambling wouldn't exist.

Bad bets exist.

Do you know how options trading works?

[Lebowski]

Do you know how options trading works?

Yes.

[MexicoCityM3]

From an expected payout standpoint, mathematically of course it's a bad bed (otherwise insurance cos wouldn't sell it) and of course that's not the same as saying it has no value. The value is mitigation of catastrophic financial loss.



Following your "if it's a bad bet by definition it wouldn't exist" logic, by that metric virtually all casino gambling wouldn't exist.

Bad bets exist.

Bad financial bet, it always is.
Bad overall bet, no because most people do not place the same value on losing money than earning additional money. The expected financial value of insurance from the perspective of the buyer always has to be negative, otherwise there wouldn't be a margin for the insurer on it. But, the consequences of the loss must unbearable or very hurtful for the buyer - or, in many cases, the buyer couldn't afford the loss. Thus, insurance is a good bet for the buyer even though it's expected financial value is demonstrably negative.