I never said the Gov't is correct, but they make the rules and we have to play by them. If you don't like the rules, contact your MPP.
|
|
|
I never said the Gov't is correct, but they make the rules and we have to play by them. If you don't like the rules, contact your MPP.
Yes, the insurer would indeed pay. The only person who would not be covered on your car is someone who stole it or specifically signed an OPCF28a exclusion form.
However, given that the price of a bottle of beer has increased significantly above the rate of inflation over the past 10 years (don't even bother, I worked in the industry for 10 years and know this) your argument in this case does not exactly hold water.
However, things cost more over time. You're completely correct.
I'm not happy with my rate increase from Jevco either. Going to stick with them for some other intangibles I get.
adamwest
Well-known member
Okay. I'm a 38 y.o. rider of a 900 CC SS bike and my Jevco premiums went down from 1100 to 640. But it doesn't matter. I think 900 CC SS bikes shouldn't even be permitted on the street. You can't really ride them to their full potential. Not even half that. We certainly need a major insurance reform. And let's just consider some of the stupidity of mass transit vs. the automotive industry. bla bla bla. i'm out. it's a nice day for a ride. must do before all the crazies get off work.
However, given that the price of a bottle of beer has increased significantly above the rate of inflation over the past 10 years (don't even bother, I worked in the industry for 10 years and know this) your argument in this case does not exactly hold water.
But the rate of inflation of injury claims has far exceeded the price of a bottle of beer.
How about we create another "OPCF28a exclusion form" where everyone except for me is excluded for driving my car. But please, do explain. How do you plan on policing this form? Does it have some kind of magical powers that prevents the other person from sitting behind the wheel, turning the key and driving? Does it create some sort of force field that only allows that person to be a passenger? How do you plan on policing? Just like you said, you cannot prevent or prove that other people are not driving the car. But of course we cannot have a form that allows only one driver, because we cannot police that, and since we cannot police that we MUST charge your double liability. It just makes sense for us to take double your money. Don't feel bad that you work your *** off for 1/3 of your life to have a little fun and we are clearly scamming you. Its okay, your money is safer with us anyway.
K
Krauser
Guest
I've signed the policy with TD they were awesome over the phone, I only owe them $701 because of their riding program.
If someone signs an OPCF28a exclusion yet drives the vehicle anyway and is involved in a collision, they are not covered. Their signature is proof that they were aware that they are not covered on the vehicle.
If you were to sign an endorsement excluding all other operators but yourself, someone could still borrow your vehicle and claim that they didn't know that they weren't covered (since they did not sign a form). The courts would rule in favour of the claimant.
Okay so, what if there was a device that has to be with the driver for the vehicle to run and cannot be duplicated without the concent of the company. So in this instance...... if I am with this device on my bike, there is no possible way (unless it is theft) my car would be running at the same time.
not sure if you would call it a staple (though one can't really call motorcycle insurance a staple) - but computer and office equipment has been getting way less expensive as time goes on. used to be that you paid 1000 dollars for a printer and a couple thousand for an entry level computer, now you can pick up a printer for under $30 and a name brand computer for under 300...
Anything deriving from a high tech start is almost always an exception. Back in the 80's almost nobody had a personal computer at home. Today almost everyone has a computer and even multiple computers at home. Improved component and manufacturing efficiencies plus improved usability have move that kind of equipment from its former niche origins into a high volume consumer commodity.
That's why prices have dropped in technology products. There may still be room for some further incremental drop in prices, but the price trend line has been pretty flat for some time now.
With bread, gasoline, insurance, and even cars, these are now pretty much mature industries with mature "production" technologies and little room for significant break-throughs. There may be room for incremental improvements in industry efficiencies for each, and maybe even a break-through or two in their respective futures that may spur a drop in production costs which could in turn provide support a drop in consumer prices.
Unfortunately for insurance, any efficiencies found within the insurance industry itself can easily be offset by external factors beyond the direct control of the insurance companies - collision shops, medical clinics, lawyers and courts, and fraudsters.
And such a device is implanted into your body so that you can't give it to someone else to use?
Arguments are more persuasive if you aren't an idiot to the person you are trying to convince.
Are you suggesting a single proximity device per operator, rather than one single device per vehicle? For example, if you own two cars, you would have a single proximity sensor and two vehicles? In this case, I believe it would be possible for the Gov't to draft an endorsement that could cover such people. I don't know how much that technology would cost.
In this situation, you could still let someone borrow your proximity device and they would be covered. This wouldn't be an issue from an insurance perspective . . . we just want to be sure that if we are charging a rate for one vehicle that only one vehicle is on the road at any given point in time. The premium charged would be the same as the current system where it is based on the person who uses the car the most.
Last edited:
The cost to treat an injury IS subject to inflation.
Well, if you're insane you shouldn't be driving anyways. Think of all the money you'll save without a vehicle or insurance costs. Feel better now?
|
|
|
|
|