When I removed comprehensive coverage, the lady from the insurance company audibly said "wow" before telling me my new yearly rate. It dropped quite a bit. Over 50% decrease IIRC.

In Australia I changed from comprehensive to third party property damage, fire and theft and my rate changed from $950 to $240/y. For a $5000 vehicle! (NB: first and third party medical insurance are covered by rego and Medicare).

More generally, it usually doesn't make sense to have insurance for anything where you could comfortably afford to pay for the bad thing out of pocket if it happened. For me that means 3rd party liability coverage, yes; comprehensive coverage, no.

As a brit where at least 3rd party insurance is a legal requirement,I consider that everyone should be fully comp. It's not just your car you're damaging, it's likely another car and potentially legal fees and loss of earnings.

Even if insurance went optional I'd still go fully comp, as the cost of a new car is not what I need if I'm already financially struggling due to injury

That’s liability insurance, not comprehensive.

In the US you either have to have liability insurance or be very wealthy. Bill Gates has no need for insurance after all.

In the US, auto insurance policies are split into 3 buckets: collision, comprehensive and liability. Comprehensive kicks in for events which are “not collisions,” so tree falling on the car, theft, etc.

You are required to have liability and collision coverage in most states, but comprehensive is optional. People often drop it from their policies to save on the premium. I have tried doing that on one of our vehicles over the years but have barely realized any savings so I’ve ended up keeping it on the policy. Seems like others have fared better.

No state requires collision. If you've got a rust bucket, no reason to cover your own car.

Oh, good point