Insurance News

[thich]

Proposed new insurance laws in AB, what does everyone think of this?

http://www.canada.com/calgary/story.asp?id=C26C1630-261B-4D43-AC37-36AD3E876C5E

[Khyron]

You know that actually looks good. A defined scheme for getting discounts, etc. However it doesn't mention anything about specific car models - how do they figure the base rate for a porsche vs a civic.

And you can use how many demerits you have to figure your rate instead of the "I think I had 2 tickets in the last 3 years, not sure what that is etc".

Odd that the DUI people only get the massive 200+ hike if they actually kill someone. I'd like to see that stiffer.

And the 4K cap is fine by me as it is for non serious injuries and it separate from actual medical bills/loss of work claims. I'm so sick of the fake "ooh I got whiplash" bullshit.

Khyron

[rice_eater]

"The province will consider a $4,000 cap on minor injury awards in a massive overhaul of the insurance industry that would save the average Alberta driver about $120 annually in insurance rates."

$120 per year is NOTHING!!! $10 a month??? Fuck you!

"After three demerit points, the premium would jump by five per cent. Four demerit points would prompt a 10 per cent spike, and 10 demerit points would see a 40 per cent jump in premiums."

nothing new here...4 demerits would be 2 smaller tickets, and 10demerits would be roughly 4-5 tickets. Right now there is a 10%surcharge for 2 tickets, 15% for 3 tickets, 25% surcharge for 4 tickets...so the new 40% surcharge would mean that rates will go up MORE!

"One of the most controversial points centres around the $4,000 cap for injuries deemed not to be serious"
That could not be more vague as to what exactly falls under that

"- Ticket demerit points will see surcharges of up to 90 per cent added to insurance rate."
WOOPTIE DOO


to sum it up, i'm pretty skeptical about this

[rage2]

They've decided against the $4000 cap already. In New Brunswick, they have a $4000 cap on soft tissue injuries, which was supposed to bring rates down significantly. The rates did not go down at all (in fact they went up) because the insurance companies pocketed all the savings as profit :).

NB insurance is currently trying to sort out their mess hehe.

As for me saying that current GOOD drivers will get punished and absorb the losses by with this new system, the proof is in the article.

Calculations to be provided at today's meeting will show a Calgary driver using a vehicle for pleasure use under 16,000 kilometres annually would face a flat rate of $1,564 for $1 million liability insurance coverage. If the maximum 65 per cent discount applied, the driver would pay $547.40 annually.
I currently pay $320/year for the PLPD portion of insurance on each of my cars. The new system would bump my premiums by 71%. So for all you old guys who endured years of high premiums to finally enjoy cheap insurance, this will suck.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Khyron
You know that actually looks good. A defined scheme for getting discounts, etc. However it doesn't mention anything about specific car models - how do they figure the base rate for a porsche vs a civic.
This scheme is for PLPD only. PLPD is the same for all cars. It's the comprehensive that bumps rates up based on cars.

Originally posted by Khyron
And you can use how many demerits you have to figure your rate instead of the "I think I had 2 tickets in the last 3 years, not sure what that is etc".
I've always been against the demerit vs insurance rate formula. Why? Because there's quotas for most cops, and the ones they nab to hit their quota will have premium increases. What separates a good vs bad driver is how many at fault claims they make. I know of relatives, your typical old female asian driver, who would never get a ticket cuz they go 5 under the limit, but they're the ones with the at fault accidents.

Originally posted by rice_eater
"One of the most controversial points centres around the $4,000 cap for injuries deemed not to be serious"
That could not be more vague as to what exactly falls under that
Even broken bones are NOT considered serious beacuse they heal (in new brunswick anyways). So even if your leg gets broken, and you forever walk like a gimp, you're only entitled to $4000.

[403Gemini]

Do you support the proposal to cap injury claims and discount auto insurance premiums in Alberta?

right now the vote is 41 % for yes and 58% as no on a-channel.com

But you know what, its all older people voting, people who dont give 2 shits about insurance....

in case youve missed the news ill give a brief run down:

they wanna change the insurance to about $1600 a year... for EVERYBODY. no matter age, sex anything. and if you have a 100% clean record (no tickets or accidents) then it gets instantly reduced by 65%.

yet their capping the amount you can claim on insurance or something for injury.

But you know what? way i feel its exactally like the pedestrian thing. we raised the prices for not stopping for pedestrians, and they get all cocky, look how many have been hit this year! 13 or 14? last year it was only like 60-100 for not stoppin no demerits and TWO were hit.

Now people are drivin around thinkin "ah shit if i get in an accident ill be covered" fuck that you shoulnt be thinkin like that.

I think they should lower insurance prices. it helps out EVERYBODY.

if you want to vote

http://calgary.a-channel.com/news.php

bottom right

[403Gemini]

OOPS

http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25682

[rice_eater]

FUCK THOSE INSURANCE BASTARDS!!! are their BILLIONS of dollars in profit not enough??? Do they still need more??? Fuck these cum guzzlers

[403Gemini]

you guys hafta realize though how shitty it is to be 20 and have a penis. its different. granted prices have always been high for males... but its sick

about 6 months ago my parents were lookin at helpin me get a saturn ion. since they already have cars insured under their named they'd insure it under me... now a 2003 ion for me to insurce woulda cost me $6500 PER YEAR. ive been driving for 2 1/2 years, not a single ticket, not a single accident. ive been to the drivers ed course to lower my insurance as well... and its still $6500... the ion we were lookin at was base stock and it only cost about $13,000 or so... so 2 years of me insuring the car woulda been the entire price of the car?

Then theres my friends sister. shes 19. She wrote off 2 cars. a jeep tj and a geo metro... now her parents got her a 98 civic si. she wrote off the other 2 cars from flipping the jeep, and hit 2 parked cars and 4 city signs... for her to insure a 98 civic si its costing her roughly $3200 a year... is this fair? shes been driving for 1 1/2 years with no drivers ed course.

i'm waiting for somebody to explain how this is fair?

their statistics say how male drivers get in more accidents, yet they wave and ignore the statistic that there are more male drivers on the road.

dont believe me? well when your parents go out for the day... who drives? 90% of the familys the dad drives. in high school when you go out for a date, who drives? if both parteners in the relationship have their liscneces... 80% chance the male will drive.

people dont look at the obvious

[89coupe]

That is a total joke. The government is trying to suck more money out of us. Don't be fooled. The majority of us pay less then that already. I only pay $780/year full coverage. Why would I want to pay more?

[rage2]

Originally posted by 403Gemini
right now the vote is 41 % for yes and 58% as no on a-channel.com

But you know what, its all older people voting, people who dont give 2 shits about insurance....
Dude, when I was 17, I was paying $5k a year on PLPD on my Mazda 323, and later, my Acura Integra. I then went and paid $10k a year for a 944 turbo. ZERO claims. When I turned 25, my insurance got dirt cheap. So us old farts have gone through what you guys are going through now. We've paid stupid rates. So yes, we do give 2 shits about insurance, cuz the kids that are bitching about it now will fuck us over, and raise our rates (see above post of mine).

Us "older people" are bithcing for a reason.

Originally posted by 403Gemini
they wanna change the insurance to about $1600 a year... for EVERYBODY. no matter age, sex anything. and if you have a 100% clean record (no tickets or accidents) then it gets instantly reduced by 65%.
The reason why this system doesn't work, is because now, a large amount of people are going to all of a sudden be able to afford insurance. They'll buy cars, and hit the road with little/no training. They'll get in an accident, and their rates go up. They can't afford it, so they stop driving. Who pays for all this? Everyone else.

I personally think it's fine to set insurance rates based on age groups. I mean, statistically, young males ARE more likely to get into an accident and make claims. When I was young, I've had close calls, and was lucky enough to survive without a claim. Insurance rates should be based on risk, otherwise, everyone else is going to lose out.

Originally posted by 403Gemini
Now people are drivin around thinkin "ah shit if i get in an accident ill be covered" fuck that you shoulnt be thinkin like that.
If you get into an accident now, you'll be covered, but your rates WILL go up. Maybe not this year, but when you renew the next year, it WILL go up.

Originally posted by 403Gemini
I think they should lower insurance prices. it helps out EVERYBODY.
No it wont. The minimum for best driver is still more than what I pay (PLPD + comprehensive) on my Civic.

[rage2]

Originally posted by 403Gemini
Then theres my friends sister. shes 19. She wrote off 2 cars. a jeep tj and a geo metro... now her parents got her a 98 civic si. she wrote off the other 2 cars from flipping the jeep, and hit 2 parked cars and 4 city signs... for her to insure a 98 civic si its costing her roughly $3200 a year... is this fair? shes been driving for 1 1/2 years with no drivers ed course.

i'm waiting for somebody to explain how this is fair?
How many cars do you have in your family? What kind of cars? How many licensed drivers are there in your family?

[88CRX]

Originally posted by rage2

Dude, when I was 17, I was paying $5k a year on PLPD on my Mazda 323, and later, my Acura Integra. I then went and paid $10k a year for a 944 turbo. ZERO claims. When I turned 25, my insurance got dirt cheap. So us old farts have gone through what you guys are going through now. We've paid stupid rates. So yes, we do give 2 shits about insurance, cuz the kids that are bitching about it now will fuck us over, and raise our rates (see above post of mine).

Us "older people" are bithcing for a reason.

The reason why this system doesn't work, is because now, a large amount of people are going to all of a sudden be able to afford insurance. They'll buy cars, and hit the road with little/no training. They'll get in an accident, and their rates go up. They can't afford it, so they stop driving. Who pays for all this? Everyone else.

I personally think it's fine to set insurance rates based on age groups. I mean, statistically, young males ARE more likely to get into an accident and make claims. When I was young, I've had close calls, and was lucky enough to survive without a claim. Insurance rates should be based on risk, otherwise, everyone else is going to lose out.

If you get into an accident now, you'll be covered, but your rates WILL go up. Maybe not this year, but when you renew the next year, it WILL go up.

No it wont. The minimum for best driver is still more than what I pay (PLPD + comprehensive) on my Civic.

bah! dont be so greddy. :D

im just as good of a driver as you so why should i be paying more :dunno: because this is what you payed when you were under 25? no! i have been driving for over 2 years... no tickets, no accidents, no claims, nothing. i pay $2400/year for plpd on a 15 year old car. its bullshit.

insurance rates should not be based on stats or probability.... it should be based on # of tickets/accidents/etc. not age or sex.

[rage2]

Originally posted by 88CRX
im just as good of a driver as you so why should i be paying more :dunno: because this is what you payed when you were under 25? no! i have been driving for over 2 years... no tickets, no accidents, no claims, nothing. i pay $2400/year for plpd on a 15 year old car. its bullshit.

insurance rates should not be based on stats or probability.... it should be based on # of tickets/accidents/etc. not age or sex.
You see, when I was young, I was high risk. I drove like a maniac on the streets. Every corner to me had to be taken at 9/10ths... ON THE STREET. The insurance company that insured me was lucky cuz I didn't get into any accidents (like I said, some close calls). $2400/year for PLPD means you already have been "discounted" for being a good driver in your age group. I was paying $5k a year on a 10 year old car that was worth $3k. But that's irrelevant, because you're paying insurance to pay for OTHERS that you MIGHT hit, not your own car, so you can't really compare it to the cost of your car.

If you're such a good driver, when you turn 25, you'll be happy because you'll be paying very low rates (as long as you're a good driver) and not have to pay for the mistakes of others in riskier age groups. You'll be crying for the old system then.

[403Gemini]

So your saying for the next 5 years if i get a new car im going to have to put up with $5k+ payments a year? thats bullshit and you know it. you must have agreed at my age! ill be paying insurance for $25k on a car that by that time would probably be worth only $5k

its bs. 88crx said it best, it should be based on tickets and accidents. granted younger people should have higher ammounts to pay due to their inexperience, but maybe for the 1st 2 years or something, not this bullshit till your 25.

i am a WAY better driver than id say 90% of those 70+ year olds... and I have to pay the higher insurance? those bastards cant even see half the time!

I also feel when your 65 you should have to take the test again. look at that guy in california that ran over how many people on a strip mall? what was his excuse "i thought the gas was the brake pedal" OH MY GOD if i said that, i would be charged with murder

EDIT: and by the sounds, i dont drive at all what you drove like. 1st year driving, yes its exciting, now i drive the speed limit like 80% of the time, and when im speeding theres usually nobody around and its only by about 10 over the speed limit. if i EVER feel uncomfortable (to many people around, bad conditions) ill slow right down, no questions asked

but i do agree rage2, for 25+ they should get the rates that you have now, but 16-25 it should be based off how many tickets and accidents you have... i honestly wouldnt even mind seeing the driving age set to 18... (im going to get flamed bad for this)

but its true when i was in high school, almost ALL my friends were lowsy ass drivers. i drove with lots of people and they were horrible.t hey liked to speed. they liked to tell storys how "OH I GOT SO WASTED and i drove home on the weekend"

and then FEMALE high school students... im not even gunna touch that one :rofl:

[88CRX]

You should start with a clean slate. A rate that EVERYONE would start at... you get a ticket it goes up $x.. you get in an accident it goes up $x

seems simple to me....



If you're such a good driver, when you turn 25, you'll be happy because you'll be paying very low rates (as long as you're a good driver) and not have to pay for the mistakes of others in riskier age groups. You'll be crying for the old system then.

So i pay out the ass for 7 years cause magically when i turn 25 I'm a better driver :bullshit: just doesnt make sence to me :dunno:

A 27 year old soccer mom should have to pay out the ass for a ticket just like some puck ass 16 with a brand new lisence would have to.

[rage2]

Originally posted by 403Gemini
So your saying for the next 5 years if i get a new car im going to have to put up with $5k+ payments a year? thats bullshit and you know it. you must have agreed at my age! ill be paying insurance for $25k on a car that by that time would probably be worth only $5k
Like I said, it has NOTHING to do with how much your car costs. You're paying for insurance on the RISK that you're going to hit other people. If you don't want to pay for more insurance than your car is worth, then buy a Ferrari :).

Your rates do go down yearly. If I remember, I went from 5k, to 3k, and eventually, $1.5k when I was 24 for PLPD. When I turned 25, that's when there was a huge drop to only $320 or something for PLPD.

Originally posted by 403Gemini
its bs. 88crx said it best, it should be based on tickets and accidents. granted younger people should have higher ammounts to pay due to their inexperience, but maybe for the 1st 2 years or something, not this bullshit till your 25.
It is based like that (to a degree). After 3 years, your insurance rates go down huge. At 24, it should be around $1500-$2000 for PLPD if you're a completely clean driver. It's just when you turn 25, you're all of a sudden out of a high risk group, and therefore allowed to enjoy very cheap rates.

Originally posted by 403Gemini
EDIT: and by the sounds, i dont drive at all what you drove like. 1st year driving, yes its exciting, now i drive the speed limit like 80% of the time, and when im speeding theres usually nobody around and its only by about 10 over the speed limit. if i EVER feel uncomfortable (to many people around, bad conditions) ill slow right down, no questions asked
That's how I drive now. Fortuantely for the insurance companies, you're helping reduce rates in the under 25 group. The only way to make up for that is to go hit someone. It's not fair, but that IS how insurance works. The good people suffer for the bad people, it evens out. Same goes for medical insurance. You're paying monthly for the people that get sick a lot more than you.

Originally posted by 403Gemini
but i do agree rage2, for 25+ they should get the rates that you have now
It's impossible that will happen in the proposed system, because with such a huge loss of incoming $, it has to be made up somehow.

Originally posted by 88CRX
You should start with a clean slate. A rate that EVERYONE would start at... you get a ticket it goes up $x.. you get in an accident it goes up $x

seems simple to me....
Like I said before, this wont work well. Here's an example why.

1. I'm 16. Get my license. $1500 insurance.
2. 1 year in, I get into a nice wreck. Costs the insurance company $30k.
3. New rates are at $3000. Can't afford insurance. Wont drive.
4. I'm 22 now. Buy insurance again. Clean slate, no accidents in 6 years. Pay $1500.
5. Another accident. Damn. Guess I'll take the bus again. Costs insurance company $30k.

So, I've given the insurance company $3000. The insurance company has paid out $60,000. Everyone else (yes, you too Mr. Good Driver) ends up paying for the $57,000. Which is why 25+ rates will be going up significantly to make up for this.

Originally posted by 88CRX
So i pay out the ass for 7 years cause magically when i turn 25 I'm a better driver :bullshit: just doesnt make sence to me :dunno:
When you turn 25, you don't magically become a better driver. But statistically, your age group does drop significantly in claims. Insurance was designed so as a GROUP, costs can be absorbed by others in your group so you, as an individual, don't get stuck with huge bills. If you want to be treated as an individual, then insurance wouldn't exist, and you would pay for your own mistakes. Unfortunately, that's an even more fucked up system, because most of us won't be able to afford $30k out of our own pockets.

[sml]

Originally posted by 88CRX
You should start with a clean slate. A rate that EVERYONE would start at... you get a ticket it goes up $x.. you get in an accident it goes up $x
seems simple to me....


It's not that simple, you can't do that. That's not how the insurance system works. It works on a very complex series of probability and statistics. They have a running record of how many claims were made in the past and what age group, what sex, what kind of car, etc... Then when you go looking for insurance, they categorize you according to their database. This is not a court of law, it's not innocent until proven guilty, you have to prove yourself worthy and accident free BEFORE they give you the discounts. It's unfortunate that you happen to be in that age group and of the wrong sex driving the wrong type of car. But if you really want, you can go cut off your peepee and tell them that you're no longer the male species and demand lower insurance rates! :rofl:



So i pay out the ass for 7 years cause magically when i turn 25 I'm a better driver :bullshit: just doesnt make sence to me :dunno:


Once again, it's called statistics. It's the same system that controls how long the traffic light stays on at a particular intersection and the same system that governs how many cops patrol a certain part of the city and the same system that determines where to setup a red light camera. There's a reason for everything and the the reason for cheaper insurance when you turn 25 is that it is LESS "probabable" that you will make an insurance claim if you're >25 verse if you're less than 25yrs old. Less insurance claims = less money the insurance company has to pay you = less money they'll ask from you = less money you'll have to pay to them!

[link785]

The complete solution for Alberta is to get rid of private insurance. When I was visiting some friends in BC last year, one of them had to go renew their insurance. For the fun of it, I decided to go find out how much it would be for me to insure myself in BC.

Small bit of info: I've been driving 2 years, no claims, no accidents. I do have driver training, and I don't drive a $20 000 car.

Anyways, here's the breakdown:

For Alberta, this is what I'm paying right now. $1 million liability, $500 comprehensive, no loss of use, glass, or anything else. No collision. I'm paying $4600 a year.

For BC. $2 million liability, $250 comprehensive, loss of use and glass included. No collision. I would pay $1200 a year.


Also, I found out in BC, if you make a theft / vandalism claim, your insurance premium does NOT incease one penny, where-as in Alberta it does, because it counts as a "claim". Also, in BC, tickets and fines do not affect insurance. You could get 40 speeding fines, and your insurance won't go up one penny. Instead, they have an extra "tax" that you get in the mail every year if you have too many demerits (3 and over I think). Much better than jacking up the insurance for a few years.

So why is it so much cheaper and better in BC? Because the insurance is government run. It's pretty simple. Private companies are greedy mother fuckers. Sure the government is greedy too, but it's also not in their best interest to rip off the voters THAT badly.

The solution for Alberta? Look at our neighbouring province, and observe why their system works so well, and ours doesn't.

[rage2]

Originally posted by link785
For Alberta, this is what I'm paying right now. $1 million liability, $500 comprehensive, no loss of use, glass, or anything else. No collision. I'm paying $4600 a year.

For BC. $2 million liability, $250 comprehensive, loss of use and glass included. No collision. I would pay $1200 a year.
Compare that again when you're 25 years old, and see what happens. When ICBC stepped into the picture, older drivers had hikes of nearly 100% compared to private insurance.

Originally posted by link785
Also, I found out in BC, if you make a theft / vandalism claim, your insurance premium does NOT incease one penny, where-as in Alberta it does, because it counts as a "claim".
Wonder if that's just insurance company based... my 944 was in a vandalism claim when my dad owned it, and the rates never went up. The ins. companies CAN, however, deny you from buying theft/vandalism in the future.

Originally posted by link785
Also, in BC, tickets and fines do not affect insurance. You could get 40 speeding fines, and your insurance won't go up one penny.
That's a system that we need! :)

Originally posted by link785
So why is it so much cheaper and better in BC? Because the insurance is government run. It's pretty simple. Private companies are greedy mother fuckers. Sure the government is greedy too, but it's also not in their best interest to rip off the voters THAT badly.

The solution for Alberta? Look at our neighbouring province, and observe why their system works so well, and ours doesn't.
Ask your friends what happens to their rates in BC if they are stopped at an intersection at a light, and some crazy mofu rear ends them. Then tell me how well the system works :).

[Khyron]

BC is no fault? Wtf?

Khyron

[link785]

Originally posted by rage2
Ask your friends what happens to their rates in BC if they are stopped at an intersection at a light, and some crazy mofu rear ends them. Then tell me how well the system works :).

The ONLY way your insurance goes up in BC is if YOU are at fault for the accident. If you're not at fault (theft / vandalism isn't your fault either), your insurance will not increase, which is only fair.

rage, I agree with you with the hikes that older people experienced when "set rates" came into the picture. However, so far there really isn't another alternative, and these hikes that older people are affected by will only happen once. Once another generation of drivers comes into the picture, it's no longer an issue. But like I said, I understand what you mean, but our Alberta system is horribly failing and something needs to be done :(

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by 403Gemini
granted younger people should have higher ammounts to pay due to their inexperience, but maybe for the 1st 2 years or something, not this bullshit till your 25.

So you're saying 2 years experience is better than 9 years?? I wrote off my car 2 months after I turned 16 and it sucked. My parents are paying a butt load on insurance because of me and I regret it. 4 years later it's still on my record and I still think it sucks but I can honestly say that after 4 years I'm a helluva lot more mature than I was 4 years ago.

You may be a decent driver without any claims/tickets, but you can't tell me you've never had a lapse in judgement or focus. I admit to it, I had a LOT of close calls at 16, but after 4 years I get very little.

[rage2]

Originally posted by link785
The ONLY way your insurance goes up in BC is if YOU are at fault for the accident. If you're not at fault (theft / vandalism isn't your fault either), your insurance will not increase, which is only fair.
Sorry, I was thinking Sask. But BC is currently pushing (yet again) another no-fault system which may or may not happen.

Originally posted by link785
rage, I agree with you with the hikes that older people experienced when "set rates" came into the picture. However, so far there really isn't another alternative, and these hikes that older people are affected by will only happen once. Once another generation of drivers comes into the picture, it's no longer an issue.
Sure it is. Which is why BC people are bitching about high insurance rates. You know, you will get old eventually, and will be pissed that you're paying for all the high risk driver's mistakes.

Originally posted by link785
our Alberta system is horribly failing and something needs to be done :(
I don't see how it's failing. It's working great for me. As an Albertan, I pay the lowest rates in Canada. When I was young, I was paying 2nd highest rates in Canada, but that was because I belonged in a high risk group.

If you don't see how risk has ANYTHING to do with it, then maybe smokers should bitch about having to pay more than non-smokers for life insurance. Sure the risk is higher for the insurance company, but I know smokers who are super healthy! They shouldn't have to pay more!

Doesn't make sense does it?

[link785]

Originally posted by rage2
Sure it is. Which is why BC people are bitching about high insurance rates. You know, you will get old eventually, and will be pissed that you're paying for all the high risk driver's mistakes.

I don't see how it's failing. It's working great for me. As an Albertan, I pay the lowest rates in Canada. When I was young, I was paying 2nd highest rates in Canada, but that was because I belonged in a high risk group.

If you don't see how risk has ANYTHING to do with it, then maybe smokers should bitch about having to pay more than non-smokers for life insurance. Sure the risk is higher for the insurance company, but I know smokers who are super healthy! They shouldn't have to pay more!

Doesn't make sense does it?

Well, if the "set rates" will only happen once, then it'll only affect older people once, and then never should again. Even in BC tho, rate hikes for older people aren't THAT bad, they'd probably all have a heart attack if they came here to Alberta ;)

Normally I'd agree with you on the high risk category thing. However, it's not working out that way. My dad has been driving for 15 years claim free. He was paying, for complete insurance including collision, around $600 a year.

2 years ago he had a minor accident, not much damage, no injuries, nothing of that sort. His insurance went up to $3000 a year, until a year after the accident, his insurance company came back and said they had changed their mind, and he was now a high risk driver. They wanted $14 000 a year for the same policy, and actually recommended that he find a new insurance company because there was still the chance that they would cancel his insurance because of his "high risk" status.

Now I agree, if you're at fault for an accident, and rates go up, then that's fair. But come on. A $13 400 increase for a minor accident?!?!? Accidents happen, that is why we HAVE insurance. When you see figures like this, it's just plain obvious that a blatent rip-off is going on.

Then there's another story of a teacher I once had. Someone broke into her van and stole some items, so she called her insurance company to see if it was worth making a claim. After talking with a representative, she decided it wasn't worth making a claim, and didn't make one.

2 weeks later, she received a notice in the mail that because she had called and inquired about the theft, she was now classified as a "high risk" client. Ok... that makes sense, someone steals from YOU, so that makes you high risk because something you had no control over happened.

Anyways, the point I'm getting at is, our province's insurance problem is not only affecting young drivers, but old drivers alike. Private insurance companies are ripping people off left and right, and it's gotten to a point where many people can't afford to drive anymore, old or young.

[rage2]

Originally posted by link785
Well, if the "set rates" will only happen once, then it'll only affect older people once, and then never should again. Even in BC tho, rate hikes for older people aren't THAT bad, they'd probably all have a heart attack if they came here to Alberta ;)
Yes, and I'll forever be paying a 71% rate hike, year after year after year. And assuming you're 22 and drive till you're 70, you'll pay cheaper insurance for 3 years, then end up paying higher insurance for 45 years. I'll bet you a lot of BC folks want my $320/year PLPD price.

Originally posted by link785
Normally I'd agree with you on the high risk category thing. However, it's not working out that way. My dad has been driving for 15 years claim free. He was paying, for complete insurance including collision, around $600 a year.

2 years ago he had a minor accident, not much damage, no injuries, nothing of that sort. His insurance went up to $3000 a year, until a year after the accident, his insurance company came back and said they had changed their mind, and he was now a high risk driver. They wanted $14 000 a year for the same policy, and actually recommended that he find a new insurance company because there was still the chance that they would cancel his insurance because of his "high risk" status.

Now I agree, if you're at fault for an accident, and rates go up, then that's fair. But come on. A $13 400 increase for a minor accident?!?!? Accidents happen, that is why we HAVE insurance. When you see figures like this, it's just plain obvious that a blatent rip-off is going on.
Well then switch insurance carriers :). Someone I know was paying $3k/year on a car. He totalled it, and it was his fault. His insurance co. told him it's going to cost him $9k for insurance. He switched companies, and got a policy for $6k. That was 2 years ago, it's slowly dropped to the $4k mark today.

Then there's this other guy I know, well under 25, crashed his own car, $16k damage on a $80k car. He was insured under his parents name. Both his and his parents insurance barely went up.

Both of these cases, the persons are on here and can verify, but I won't mention names :). I agree there should be some sort of regulation on insurance companies and deceitful practices. But you have to learn to shop around too, to find a trustworthy company to deal with. Maybe I'm missing something in your story, but I've never heard of anything like that before. Removing risk groups is not going to help the situation you described.

Originally posted by link785
Then there's another story of a teacher I once had. Someone broke into her van and stole some items, so she called her insurance company to see if it was worth making a claim. After talking with a representative, she decided it wasn't worth making a claim, and didn't make one.

2 weeks later, she received a notice in the mail that because she had called and inquired about the theft, she was now classified as a "high risk" client. Ok... that makes sense, someone steals from YOU, so that makes you high risk because something you had no control over happened.

Anyways, the point I'm getting at is, our province's insurance problem is not only affecting young drivers, but old drivers alike. Private insurance companies are ripping people off left and right, and it's gotten to a point where many people can't afford to drive anymore, old or young.
So switch companies. These are downright deceitful practices, regardless of regulation or not, they'll be doing it unless someone complains and someone investigates them.

[redx2nv]

So lets say now, i have three tickets.

By june 1st i will have no demerits(2 years since i last got the tickets), no accidents, no claims. Would i be paying base pay of $1500 +whatever coillison is for my car(less than 16000kms, to school and back for a semi modded ITR)..

Or would i still be stuck with $7000 a year to drive a buttfucking daytona(winter car). Like geez, only 3 insurance comapnies would even take me and i am 19, 3 tickets, no accidents, no claims.

My family though, are a long string of BAD drivers, therefore fucking me over with the expensive rates as i have to be as the same company as them since im not 21(would be a different story if i moved out)

Im just getting assraped right now because other people are careless drivers, and its about dam time that the governmet has stepped in.

[link785]

Originally posted by rage2
Well then switch insurance carriers :). Someone I know was paying $3k/year on a car. He totalled it, and it was his fault. His insurance co. told him it's going to cost him $9k for insurance. He switched companies, and got a policy for $6k. That was 2 years ago, it's slowly dropped to the $4k mark today.

Both of these cases, the persons are on here and can verify, but I won't mention names :). I agree there should be some sort of regulation on insurance companies and deceitful practices. But you have to learn to shop around too, to find a trustworthy company to deal with. Maybe I'm missing something in your story, but I've never heard of anything like that before. Removing risk groups is not going to help the situation you described.

So switch companies. These are downright deceitful practices, regardless of regulation or not, they'll be doing it unless someone complains and someone investigates them.

I agree with shopping around, problem is, a LOT of companies now, State Farm, All State, ING Direct, among others, will ONLY take on new clients if they are "claim free" since 6 years, and have been driving for at least 10 years. I know this cause I went shopping myself for insurance many times.

Removing risk groups isn't the solution, no, but putting people in the "highest risk" category for tiny things like one minor accident in 15 years, or making a theft claim, that's crazy too. Some moderation should be in there.

I know a lot of people, especially people who haven't done claims recently don't know how bad it really is. I once had some vandalism damage to my very first car, and when I asked about making a claim, my insurance told me they'd drop me as a customer because I made a claim at my age (I was 16 at the time). I've seen this happen with friends as well, who are with various difference insurance companies.

Things are getting pretty bad for us Albertans right now, I hope the government does something about it :(