Adjust insurance for Gear

D

DSoup

Well-known member
So after reading another rating about squid thread I had a thought, insurance that adjusts for if you wear gear or not. if You want to wear all the gear all the time, you get a % off your insurance while if you don't then you pay full price. This reflects that you will have higher medical bills in a crash. You may still be injured for sure, but your bills will probably be less.

Now if you signed the form saying you DO wear all the gear all the time, and get into an accident without it, then you are not covered for bodily injuries at all since the insurance assumed less risk because you said you wear the gear and you crashed without it so why should they have to pay for any of your injuries? (Yes I know you can be injured while wearing gear, but you breeched a contract you signed)

This would require certification levels of gear which I also support so that people buying gear actually know that some standard has been met like with helmets which have the dot/Snell2005 or 2010, or the ECE or the gold star certification etc.

Thoughts on feasibility?

Note: This isn't an incentive or anything, this is just that if you do wear ATGATT then the insurance company IS assuming less risk for you and you should pay less.
 
well i think its feasable...just like some insurance companies consider winter tires on cars
 
First problem is this is Ontario.. your insurance does not pay your medical bills.. our tax dollars do.

Your insurance mainly covers damage you do to other people's property which will not be any different whether or not you are wearing gear.. no reason for the insurance company to care if you wear it or not.
 
First problem is this is Ontario.. your insurance does not pay your medical bills.. our tax dollars do.
Click to expand...

insurance companies pay a large amount of money into out healthcare system every year.
 
I think OP possibly meant stuff that isn't covered under OHIP?

Not sure what is and what isn't covered under OHIP anymore these days, but stuff like Chiropractor, etc possibly?
 
Not a bad idea, but also unenforceable by the insurers.

But if you really wanted a good place to start how about seat belts.

Did you all hear about the kid who was ejected from his car this weekend and died. The other three people in the car who weren't ejected survived.

Wanna bet the kid ejected wasn't wearing his seat belt but the other three were.

I don't get people who don't wear their seat belt. In one respect I suppose it should be the persons right to choose if they wear it but who wouldn't wear a seat belt.....they only save lives.

Then again, I love riding through various States in the US and see the guys not wearing their helmets.
 
Actually the insurance would probably prefer the ones with those smallest legal helmets.

It is cheaper to pay for a funeral than medical bills :D
 
just_luc said:
First problem is this is Ontario.. your insurance does not pay your medical bills.. our tax dollars do.
Click to expand...

Isn't it like workers comp where the money comes from a separate pool?

And it would be enforceble...if you showed up in hospital with no gear on then you're not entitled to the coverage, if you do then you're entitled. And the paramedics bring all your stuff with you to the hospital anyways even if they cut it off so it's not impossible to conceive.
 
I read somewhere recently that in many states where there is a no helmet required law that they have less deaths or was it accidents. It seems to me that that might be due to riders riding more cautiously and being more alert more often, and possibly taking less risks via not riding so close to other vehicles, checking closer at lane changes and intersections.....
 
total cost to healthcare is probably higher keeping all those people in ICU...but it's also probably easier to get organs....
 
No, we need organs donor plus its much cheaper if the guy die instead of being injured for the rest of his life.
 
vince492 said:
No, we need organs donor plus its much cheaper if the guy die instead of being injured for the rest of his life.
Click to expand...
more chances of obliterated organs if the skin tears open
where as armour and skin protection = intact organs (might have a broken neck?) lol

amazing morbid conversation here
 
But then we should remove the helmet law and put a full leather law, we will have most of the body intact AND low insurance cost.

PS: I'm not serious in my post btw :p I totally agree that if we go ATGATT we should get a discount. Anyway my discount is not getting skinless if I crash.
 
Far too many variables to be economic.Most rider life altering injuries are of trauma in nature,broken bones,brain injuries and the like due to crushing or impact.It is the after care that costs the big money.No fault and passengers who are rarely equipped properly are the next obstacles how will their gear be assessed and how do you rate older gear?Then there's the cost of testing and rating all available new gear.What body will be authorized to do it and who will pay for the facilities.The buy in would be astronomical to set this up and alone would raise your rate.What about lawsuits frivolous or not,insurance pays on that regardless.The pool of bikers is too small in Canada,to lower rates amalgamation with the U.S is our only chance IMO.
 
Last edited:
vociferous said:
insurance companies pay a large amount of money into out healthcare system every year.
Click to expand...

After care and law suits are the loins share.Someone has to pay for the injured parties approximate wages they would have made for the rest of their life.Pain and suffering,specialized home care and equipment, Care giver wages and more.
 
Part of the auto (motorcycle premiums) automatically go towards the health care system

Believe it or not 3% of your auto (motorcycle) premiums also go to the provincial goverment in the form of "Premium Taxes". Where do premium taxes go you ask? Originally they were directed to pay for the cost of fire fighting services from motor vehicle accidents. Now they just go to the governments bank account to use as they see fit.

That's right, 3% of your premiums go to the government "just because".
 
I thought with the changes (GST, HST) that more than 3% went to the government. In the old "Sales Tax" days that wasn't the case. On topic: It seems like a good idea, but difficult to implement as mentioned above. You buy a "rated" jacket, but ride more than others so it gets more sun damage, then you go down and get coverage denied because you should have replaced it prior to the x years the insurance company said was OK. In a similar vein, I seem to recall that some "helmet optional" states have a codicil (may be an incorrect term) in their laws that state that if you choose to go without a helmet, you must have proof of third-party health insurance.
 
It is illegal to deny some injury coverages. Even if you are hammered and drive into a tree you are still provided with certain injury related coverages. Doesn't matter if you break the contract or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom