OK…can’t argue that point.
You have to know what the book value of the car is, and be realistic with the current condition. Just because you think it’s in excellent condition, any adjuster might not, and it’s his/her opinion that will be the deciding factor.
So, armed with all the above information, you have to decide whether it’s right for you…or a waste of money. 
Drop the collision but keep the glass insurance. A broken windshield is common. I got my last one from a gravel truck that was ahead of me but in the next lane.
Just some thoughts:
There is liability coverage, collision converage, and one that folks usually forget about - comprehensive. Comprehensive covers those sitauions where there isn’t a collision, but the vehicle is damaged. Windshields, hail stone damage, damage caused by running over something, are all covered under comprehensive.
If you decline collision and comprehensive coverage, you have to be willing to pay for the damage (or a new car) yourself - and don’t think that just because you are a careful driver, you don’t need these types of coverage. Both collision and comprehensive get your car back on the road REGARDLESS of who is at fault!
WOW!! Thank you for all of your help. Everyone has given me a lot of information that I would not have considered on my own. Chances are I will keep the collision… for the “peace of mind” factor…since it also includes road side assitance and a rental if the car were to be unable to drive. It is not super expensive, and for the moment I can afford the cost. Thank you again everyone!
I know this post will ne highly controversial and I respect the perspectives of others, but perhaps we could have more fuel efficent vehicles if we could find a way to back off on some of our regulations. Europe has some very efficient vehicles that simply won’t pass our odeous regulations. Asia also has such vehicles.
Perhaps we can find a way to differentiate small-engined vehicles for local use only, perhaps lagal only for roads with speed limits below 50mph, maybe with a different colored license plate, and have less stringent regulations. That would allow the microtruck and microvehicles such as those 3-cylinder vehicles being imported from Asia for off-road use to be used on-road, and that might reduce fuel use as well as provide low cost transportation for urban dwellers. Perhaps it isn’t necessary for vehicles that never go over 40 mph to pass the same crash tests as those that cruise the highways at 75 mph.
When I was in China 3 years ago I saw many vehicles that blurred the distinction between scooters, motorcycles and cars:
SMB,
I can sympathize with what you are saying, but I have a different angle. When I was a young lad and didn’t know any better, many cars had 1.6 to 2.0L engines. They had plenty of power for average get about town stuff.
I would have thought that as time went on, engines would become more efficient and more powerful - and they have! But the average car buyer has grown used to faster acceleration and isn’t inclined to give that up just to get a few more mpg’s!
To me, this says that unless government forceably intervenes, the marketplace will continue to demand cars that consume more fuel - until the price of fuel gets to a certain point. Personally, I find the scenario unacceptable.
I did most of my growing up in Europe. Over there, 1.2, 1.6 and even the “big” 2.0 motors were the most common. The amount of power available was a fair amount given the weight of the vehicle. Here in the US, vehicle size (and weight) is up, so we need more power to push them around. So, to me, it’s a power to weight thing, not necessarily just a horsepower one.
There’s nothing quite like a highway full of opel kadet’s and similar vehicel all doing over 100mph…
