Well finally, Calgary Herald notices our fucked up auto insurance

[rage2]

Front page in the Herald today.

http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=3ad2787c-a372-4b62-989f-c1ff89e4a8c9


New rates favour worst drivers

The Alberta government's auto insurance reforms have backfired on the province, giving huge discounts to bad drivers while those with clean records see very little benefit, say critics inside the industry.

Changes to the way premiums are calculated mean some high-risk drivers are getting 50 per cent discounts, while those with no accidents are seeing reductions of a few dollars, according to brokers.

The issue confronted Progressive Conservative Premier Ralph Klein on the campaign trail Saturday after allegations arose that the government told brokers not to raise the issue before Albertans head to the polls.

"The Alberta government has asked brokers to keep quiet about the disparity in savings from auto reforms with an election approaching," says a recent edition of Thompson's World Insurance News, an industry publication.

Insurance brokers in Calgary echoed those concerns after Klein told reporters at a campaign stop in the city that "the system is not going to be perfect."

Klein said a provincial ombudsman has been put in place to deal with complaints about the province's insurance system.

"You have to understand that the reforms we brought about were to accommodate good young drivers and older, good drivers -- and not have good drivers subsidize bad drivers."

However, Calgary broker Kona Nakamura, of Diamond Insurance Agencies Ltd., said the reforms have benefited young, inexperienced drivers and high-risk drivers -- not those who have "kept their nose clean for 20 years."

"We're not happy about it," said Nakamura. "The wrong people are getting the money. We've seen some policies cut in half for people who don't deserve a break."

Such problems show the government's reforms have been hurried, New Democrat leader Brian Mason said.

"They've come up with a seriously flawed system which they tried to rush to get into place before the election," Mason said. "They only make it worse when they try to cover it up."

Several parties have made auto insurance reforms part of their election platforms. Both the Liberals and NDP have proposed a public system similar to B.C. as a way to drop rates.

The Alberta Alliance also took aim in its "I blame Ralph!" campaign, saying drivers in the province are paying record-high premiums. A party brochure to be mailed to Alberta homes this week says car insurance premiums in the province have soared 44 per cent in the past three years.

Thompson's World Insurance News quotes Jim Harris, president of the Independent Insurance Brokers Association of Alberta, saying the government rewrote some of the rules hours before the new reforms were implemented.

"Three hours before the grid went live the government moved the goalposts," Harris said. The newsletter also says one broker is cutting staff in Alberta as a result of the changes and plans to stop covering high-risk drivers.

Klein, who has rejected the idea of public auto insurance, said the government's intention was not to drive insurance companies out, but added "that's their choice" in a free-enterprise society.

Any concerns with the system, Klein added, should be brought to the government's attention.

Calgary broker Martin Luken said premiums for young drivers have been too high in recent years, but the reforms have been an overcorrection.

"They deserved a better rating but now we're going to the other end of the scale," Luken said. "People with the worst records are getting a greater percentage of the discounts."

Should high-risk drivers get into an accident, there are no longer larger premiums to cover the losses and insurance companies will start to pull their contracts, Luken said.

Liberal Leader Kevin Taft, who also questioned the timing of the reforms, said the issue needs to be dealt with immediately.

"The Tory's auto insurance reforms are a mess," Taft said. "The industry is in confusion and the bad drivers are getting a break while the good drivers are having to pay for it."

And to think, I've been bitching about how stupid the new reforms are for over a year before they came into effect and how they're not gonna work over time. Wonder why nobody even noticed until now.

[method]

what are you talking about! the PC government in this province can do NO wrong! :rolleyes:

[kanjus_paki]

whatever still the best province....cept for weather

[A_3]

Originally posted by method
what are you talking about! the PC government in this province can do NO wrong! :rolleyes:

:werd: It's pathetic, Klein could commit murder and no one would care just because he always brings in massive surpluses. It's too bad that who ever is in charge here will bring in the same amounts of money. Albertans need to wake up and see the shit show of a premier he is.

[finboy]

meh, my rates were cut in half so i'm happy :D

[Weapon_R]

So let me get this straight:

Older drivers see a small reduction in insurance premiums.

Younger (and higher risk) drivers see a large decrease in insurance premiums.

WTF is the problem?

Long Live KLEIN!

[300rwhp]

hey the reason he brings in massive surpluses is becuase the government budgets that oil revenues will be much lower than they always are. So to simplify the price per barrell is budgetted at say 20 when the price has been around 45

[jdmakkord]

Fucking BS!!! I turned 25, traded in my 94 accord for a 97, have a clean record and no claims, and my insurance still went up 120/yr. Sure I have a newer car, but where the hell is my age discount now?

[rage2]

Originally posted by Weapon_R
So let me get this straight:

Older drivers see a small reduction in insurance premiums.

Younger (and higher risk) drivers see a large decrease in insurance premiums.

WTF is the problem?

Long Live KLEIN!
The problem is BAD drivers gets huge reductions with the new system. I've talked about this before. And GOOD drivers aren't getting any reductions, and in some cases, getting increases. In the Calgary Sun article, they list an example:


The broker said he recently wrote a quote for a 19-year-old northern Alberta man -- with two at-fault accidents, seven tickets and a suspension -- whose $7,000 premium dropped by half.

(Sun article here (http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/CalgarySun/News/2004/11/07/703906.html).)

That to me is BS. Now, since there are no more people paying huge premiums that cover a lot of these losses, well, it'll be interesting to see after a year or so who's rates are gonna get jacked up. Unless of course the insurance companies decide to stay with the rates and lose money (highly doubtful).


Originally posted by jdmakkord
Fucking BS!!! I turned 25, traded in my 94 accord for a 97, have a clean record and no claims, and my insurance still went up 120/yr. Sure I have a newer car, but where the hell is my age discount now?
Age discount's gone now, although you do get a bit of a break (less than before) after 9 years of clean driving.

[Superesc]

I nominate Rage 2 to be the next premier . :rofl:

[ninspeed]

Originally posted by Superesc
I nominate Rage 2 to be the next premier . :rofl:
we got till 2pm monday to sign him up

[EK 2.0]

Originally posted by Superesc
I nominate Rage 2 to be the next premier . :rofl:


hear, hear...I second that...

[finboy]

Originally posted by CycloneAWD



hear, hear...I second that...

i third that if there are beyond.ca insurance discounts :rofl:

[kenny]

I think the insurance companies will attempt to move people up on the grid based on ANY claims now with absolutely no "freebies". Get in a fender bender and boom, up the grid you go and up goes your premium right away. Thats the only way the system will sustain itself.

[Singel]

The reason the reforms are flawed, is because Ralph wants to buy votes from good drivers, and bad drivers.Wonder why it happened just before the election...kinda like Energy rebates last time. He says they plan on fixing it after the election...and i guess we'll have to wait and see. Hell, they might just rederegulate it and the companies will have to make up for this year

[bmeier]

I am 21, i have been driving for 5 years with no accidents or claims and i have a 2 vehicle policy. THat being said my rates did go down quite a bit. THe thing that bothers me about this reform is it seems like they have just thrown everyones previous driving record out the window.

In my case i dont feel the need to being paying an ultra high premium because i have never claimed anything while there are people in a similiar age with mulitple accidents who somehow pay only slightly more than i do. it makes no sense....

[Singel]

i guess its kind of a 2nd chance for everyone...but the problem IMO is that its a 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th chance for many people that causes the problem

[Khyron]

I'll parrot my same comment as the last thread - the insurance companies shouldn't be deciding who drives and who doesn't by using rates.

If that guy above with 7 tickets and 2 suspensions shouldn't be driving, then he should lose his license. Legislate it, otherwise you have the rich being able to afford 100 tickets/accidents while poor students with 1 ticket get barred from driving. You want them off the road, do it evenly across the board and across income levels. Rates should NEVER get 3000+/year. That's the same as revoking a licence, without actually doing it.

Khyron

[xkon]

Originally posted by finboy
meh, my rates were cut in half so i'm happy :D

:werd: iive been waiting all my driving life for a break like this... ive paid out my ass for almost 10 years!

[davidI]

Originally posted by rage2

The problem is BAD drivers gets huge reductions with the new system. I've talked about this before. And GOOD drivers aren't getting any reductions, and in some cases, getting increases. In the Calgary Sun article, they list an example:


Something needed to be done though. Just because you're under 25 doesn't necessarily mean that you're a bad driver! People always bitch about racial discrimination when it comes to crime but isn't this the same thing only with age?

[rage2]

Originally posted by davidI
Something needed to be done though. Just because you're under 25 doesn't necessarily mean that you're a bad driver! People always bitch about racial discrimination when it comes to crime but isn't this the same thing only with age?
Did you see my quote from the article????

The broker said he recently wrote a quote for a 19-year-old northern Alberta man -- with two at-fault accidents, seven tickets and a suspension -- whose $7,000 premium dropped by half.
You may not be a bad driver, but you're definately a bad reader!

BTW - if you're under 25, you're "generally" a bad driver. I'm not gonna debate this again, just read my old posts in the old insurance threads to understand how insurance actually works, and why even if you alone are a good driver, you can't be singled out and given a good rate because it ruins the whole concept of group based insurance. :rolleyes:

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by bmeier
I am 21, i have been driving for 5 years with no accidents or claims and i have a 2 vehicle policy. THat being said my rates did go down quite a bit. THe thing that bothers me about this reform is it seems like they have just thrown everyones previous driving record out the window.

In my case i dont feel the need to being paying an ultra high premium because i have never claimed anything while there are people in a similiar age with mulitple accidents who somehow pay only slightly more than i do. it makes no sense....

I'm 22, been driving for 6 years, and my insurance only went down $30/year, instead of the usually 10-15% it's went down the past three years.

I hate paying for people who can't drive, to keep driving and have even lower rates.

[davidI]

Originally posted by rage2

Did you see my quote from the article????

You may not be a bad driver, but you're definately a bad reader!

BTW - if you're under 25, you're "generally" a bad driver. I'm not gonna debate this again, just read my old posts in the old insurance threads to understand how insurance actually works, and why even if you alone are a good driver, you can't be singled out and given a good rate because it ruins the whole concept of group based insurance. :rolleyes:

Yea, I read that and of course I don't agree with someone like thats rates going down but I don't agree with a good drivers starting at $4k either. You said GOOD drivers aren't getting reductions - but I'm sure when I renew I will get a decrease just as a lot of other younger people on this forum. I know rice_eater or someone posted about how their insurance went up with the new reforms because of his accidents/tickets so obviously it is going in the right direction but it's still not perfect :dunno:

[Aleks]

Originally posted by jdmakkord
Fucking BS!!! I turned 25, traded in my 94 accord for a 97, have a clean record and no claims, and my insurance still went up 120/yr. Sure I have a newer car, but where the hell is my age discount now?

What insurance company are you with? I've asked my company 3 times now to confirm this and they have told me all 3 times that: Once I turn 25 which is next summer my rate will go down from 2200/year to 1100/year. (Meloche) I guess that's due in part to no tix or accidents and at that time i will have had my lisence for 9 years. :thumbsup:

[rage2]

Originally posted by Aleks
What insurance company are you with? I've asked my company 3 times now to confirm this and they have told me all 3 times that: Once I turn 25 which is next summer my rate will go down from 2200/year to 1100/year. (Meloche) I guess that's due in part to no tix or accidents and at that time i will have had my lisence for 9 years. :thumbsup:
Wait till you turn 25 and see what happens, because with the new reforms the new off grid rates are fucked up. They won't be able to give you a straight answer until you renew.

[Superesc]

Originally posted by Aleks


What insurance company are you with? I've asked my company 3 times now to confirm this and they have told me all 3 times that: Once I turn 25 which is next summer my rate will go down from 2200/year to 1100/year. (Meloche) I guess that's due in part to no tix or accidents and at that time i will have had my lisence for 9 years. :thumbsup:

My rate went up by a few hundred bucks ... (TD Meloche...) and I am 26..

[Aleks]

Originally posted by rage2

Wait till you turn 25 and see what happens, because with the new reforms the new off grid rates are fucked up. They won't be able to give you a straight answer until you renew.

I just called again and they still are saying the same thing. 50% off. even with new reforms. hm maybe I should get them to give me that quote in writing haha. I guess I'll just have to wait and see for sure then.

[QuasarCav]

I'm still waiting for the 23rd when my new insurance (TD) should come out.

hooray for 100/month:clap:

[Z_Fan]

I know this thread is few days old...and I'm not trying to revive it. BUT, I just wanted to add something to it since I'm mad at what came in the mail today. :rolleyes:

<Start Rant!>

Thank you Ralph Klein - you stupid lush. If you'd stop drinking before you went to work in the morning, this shit wouldn't happen. Thank god for oil Ralph. You know it too.

It would appear whomever is responsible for the Insurance Reforms should be shot and pissed upon. Whomever was on the board that made up this new 'pricing ladder' is a fucktard. See, now all the assholes who shouldn't be able to drive, can now afford it. The idea here should be that the shitty drivers who get lots of tickets and cause accidents should have to pay through the nose to drive. I'm completely OK with that. If you're rich, and want to drive like a moron getting tickets, fine I guess that's your reward for being rich. But you should have to pay and pay big. Bad ass drivers should be the ones who completely subsidize the good drivers. So much so, that the rates should be severely lop-sided. My rates should be cut in half, because perfect records should be rewarded. It's not like I don't have the equipment to drive like an asshole - I do - but I don't do it on the street. There is no reward, so perhaps I'll start driving like a moron since I can afford it?

Bah, The new Insurance reforms - kiss my ass - it's not for good drivers at all. That's just a bunch of bullshit. I just today received my 'check' for the Alberta Government Legislated Refund based on the new insurance reforms. For all the cars in the stable, we're going to see a whopping savings of...hang on to your hat, sit if you are standing... ** $21 ** Wow, like, thanks man. You are so kind. Too bad I wasn't a shitty ass driver and I could have saved thousands.

I should scan this mother fucker of a check - this is a slap in the face IMO. We insure multiple drivers and multiple vehicles - all drivers have perfect driving records (no tickets or accidents) and wow, we get a $21 break. Meanwhile, fucktards who have tickets can actually wind up saving money, in some cases, thousands of dollars, or even worse, now be able to afford to drive.

*** TWENTY ONE DOLLARS *** OMFG!

This is :bullshit: size large.

So, if I pass you on Deerfoot Trail at some insane speed...please don't blame me. But the fucktards who decided it was OK cuz my insurance is gonna be cheap even if I get caught, have the licensed suspended, bah, who cares. It's still easily affordable to drive. This is SO VERY VERY WRONG!

<End Rant>

Ok, so basically if you are a shitty driver, you best hop on the band wagon and get insurance now. Enjoy it while you can afford it. Drive like crazy wild childs NOW - cuz in a few years, when the Insurance system collapses because of these new reforms not generating enough revenue to cover payouts, we're all gonna be in for huge premium increases...and again, the good driver gets screwed in the pocket book.

Man...how annoying!!!

Now I have to go cash this god damn check to recover the costs the insurance reforms cost me for wasting my damn time to write this post! Bah!

[Singel]

They'll fix it after the election, and probly make it shitty for Everyone again. This is just like the energy rebates last time, he's purchasing votes. The only good drivers it helped are young people like me, but it also helped all the shitty ass ones. But i think it's just like they wiped the slate clean, and bad drivers will get dinged really bad now, at least i hope thats how it turns out.

[rage2]

Z_Fan, just be glad yours didn't go up. I think all the Meloche Monnex guys went up because the entire old discount system is gone.

Man, I saw this from so far away, everyone was like "it won't go up, just wait till they roll it out then report back". So few people were on my side, well, having the forum full of under 25 year olds didn't help either :D.

What's gonna happen when the fix this? In a year, they're gonna realize that they reduced all the big premiums (bad drivers and young drivers) and that the claims are going to be more than they collected in premiums. Unless miraculously, accident rate goes DOWN... which I doubt. So, one of 2 things will happen.

1. The insurers quit the business here. Because nobody can step up and increase rates, Alberta rolls out it's own system, own price structure. Which may very well follow scenario #2.

2. Reforms are modified so price can move. To make up for the big premiums lost since Oct/04, they're not going back to the old system, it's all about pride! So, all the claim free drivers (they wont go back to the old age risk system either... PRIDE!) goes up in price, and bad drivers go up more, but not as bad as the old system.

Which goes back to statements I made over a year ago... is that for the young drivers, is the few years of cheap insurance worth it because you ARE going to be paying a lot more during the rest of your life. Because that's what the new reforms will do.

I hope I'm wrong about this... but I guess I'll post again in a year with another "I told you so".

[RSRT-4]

Originally posted by 300rwhp
hey the reason he brings in massive surpluses is becuase the government budgets that oil revenues will be much lower than they always are. So to simplify the price per barrell is budgetted at say 20 when the price has been around 45


Hey you should move back to ontario because you probably want a liberal goverment that will just spend spend , as for the oil yes the surplus is due to the high oil and gas prices.

But the goverment was smart to due the budget at a low price and not count on the oil being at $45/barrell , then tobudget everything with oil at $45/br and having it come in at 26 and have to run in the neg.

Although RAGE For Premier might be a good Ideal

[rice_eater]

Originally posted by rage2
Z_Fan, just be glad yours didn't go up. I think all the Meloche Monnex guys went up because the entire old discount system is gone.

Man, I saw this from so far away, everyone was like &quot;it won't go up, just wait till they roll it out then report back&quot;. So few people were on my side, well, having the forum full of under 25 year olds didn't help either :D.

What's gonna happen when the fix this? In a year, they're gonna realize that they reduced all the big premiums (bad drivers and young drivers) and that the claims are going to be more than they collected in premiums. Unless miraculously, accident rate goes DOWN... which I doubt. So, one of 2 things will happen.

1. The insurers quit the business here. Because nobody can step up and increase rates, Alberta rolls out it's own system, own price structure. Which may very well follow scenario #2.

2. Reforms are modified so price can move. To make up for the big premiums lost since Oct/04, they're not going back to the old system, it's all about pride! So, all the claim free drivers (they wont go back to the old age risk system either... PRIDE!) goes up in price, and bad drivers go up more, but not as bad as the old system.

Which goes back to statements I made over a year ago... is that for the young drivers, is the few years of cheap insurance worth it because you ARE going to be paying a lot more during the rest of your life. Because that's what the new reforms will do.

I hope I'm wrong about this... but I guess I'll post again in a year with another &quot;I told you so&quot;.


so what should they do rage? what system would you put in place? According to your predictions, either 1: we'll finally get public insurance and all the low rates people expect from it (how is this bad??) or 2: if the end result is we will get higher rates, then why the hell should we go out bitching about this system? only so they reform it again and raise the rates back?

do you guys remember this recent thread?
http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65756

well guess what, it's the same freakin deal!!! if you already have a small rate, what the hell do you expect? You've been having low rates for a while, your rates are still decent, what's the big deal? Your rates went up? big deal, most of everyone elses rates have been going up steadily for years so suck it up and let someone else get something back once in a while

So some bad drivers get a break. SO? how about all the other people with small dings in their records that they've been paying for through their asses for so long and finally catch a break. Remember all the outrage over the millions of dollars that the insurance companies were making in profits off our backs? give me a fucking break, the only reason why the private insurances will leave this province is because they wont be able to make shitloads of money off us. Unfortunately this isn't going to happen coz even like this they're still going to keep raking in the doe. the insurance companies are just pissed that their astronomical profits have been cut down and are just trying to fuck this up.

The point is, the only thing most of you think about is yourselves. How does this affect ME? It doesn't matter how many people benefit from this, if this doesn't help me in any way i'm gonna do my best so no one else gets it. The article on the other hand is obviously biased, and timed to cause a stir before the elections

[rage2]

Originally posted by rice_eater
So some bad drivers get a break. SO? how about all the other people with small dings in their records that they've been paying for through their asses for so long and finally catch a break.
The point is, if you fuck up (ie bad drivers) you should NOT get a break. Your risk goes up, and your rates should go up with it. Otherwise, we'd all be irresponsible drivers, because we wouldn't be held accountable for our actions, like it is today. I can drive like an ass, enjoy myself, and it won't be too expensive compared to the old system. Kind of a license to drive like a jackass.


Originally posted by rice_eater
Remember all the outrage over the millions of dollars that the insurance companies were making in profits off our backs? give me a fucking break, the only reason why the private insurances will leave this province is because they wont be able to make shitloads of money off us.
So they're not allowed to make money? :dunno:. That's the whole fucked up reasoning behind this for guys paying too much for auto insurance. It's like bitching at futureshop cuz they're making too much money, and you're pissed off that they're allowed to mark up that new TV so much. You should be able to buy it at cost. Doesn't really make sense does it?


Originally posted by rice_eater
The point is, the only thing most of you think about is yourselves. How does this affect ME? It doesn't matter how many people benefit from this, if this doesn't help me in any way i'm gonna do my best so no one else gets it, just coz i'm a eggocentric prick
Maybe you should read my posts more carefully before ranting off:

Originally posted by rage2
Which goes back to statements I made over a year ago... is that for the young drivers, is the few years of cheap insurance worth it because you ARE going to be paying a lot more during the rest of your life. Because that's what the new reforms will do.
Over time, ALL good drivers, regardless of age, will lose out. But that doesn't apply to you with your spectacular accidents ;).

[GC84ever]

I would like to know what sized cut Klien is getting from the pie to keep everything private?
Public insurance works in other provinces to cover basic insurance needs; and if you want extra insurance you can go to a private insurer.
If you vote this year, vote for anyone else but Klein.
I'm actually starting to get scared to when I have to renew my insurance in July.

[rice_eater]

"The point is, if you fuck up (ie bad drivers) you should NOT get a break. Your risk goes up, and your rates should go up with it. Otherwise, we'd all be irresponsible drivers, because we wouldn't be held accountable for our actions, like it is today. I can drive like an ass, enjoy myself, and it won't be too expensive compared to the old system. Kind of a license to drive like a jackass."

yeah but they should be allowed a reasonable rate. why does everyone want public insurance? coz they think the rates will be better. If there is such a huge disparity even with the new system between alberta and other provinces, could it be partly because the rates are unjustifiably high to begin with?? The rates do go up if you keep screwing up even after this system so i dont see your point

"So they're not allowed to make money? . That's the whole fucked up reasoning behind this for guys paying too much for auto insurance. It's like bitching at futureshop cuz they're making too much money, and you're pissed off that they're allowed to mark up that new TV so much. You should be able to buy it at cost. Doesn't really make sense does it?"

future shop doesn't provide me with an essential service. i dont HAVE to buy a DVD player to use my TV. Futureshop is there to sell you stuff you may want. PLPD is a must for anyone to drive and insurance companies hold a monopoly on that. It's great that they make tons of money, but not if the rates they charge are unjustified. If a company saves tons of cash by dumping it's waste in the river, is it still it's right to make a profit?

"Which goes back to statements I made over a year ago... is that for the young drivers, is the few years of cheap insurance worth it because you ARE going to be paying a lot more during the rest of your life. Because that's what the new reforms will do."

yeah well after you pay thousands of dollars over a few years, the extra few dollars a month you MAY pay down the road will take a long LONG time to make up for dont you think?

i'm still wondering what your (and everyone elses actually) plan would be rage, not for argument's sake, but out of curiosity

[rice_eater]

Another question for the people that say that now the good drivers are paying for the bad drivers. When you get in an accident the insurance pays for your fuck up from the pool. The pool is mostly supported by the high risk drivers who contribute high rates because they are a high risk. when a claim does come in, the repair costs are the same for everyone. i'm willing to bet that eventhough high risk drivers do have more claims, at the end of the day their high rates are supporting the low rates of the good drivers. so the question is, should we have 2 pools then? one for the good drivers and one for people who after a point are considered bad drivers? would that finally please everyone? If the current rates are justified then the low risk pool should be able to sustain itself because low risk drivers dont have many claims, and the high risk will sustain itself WHILE NOT creating ridiculous amounts of surplus. my guess is that wont happen

[rage2]

Originally posted by rice_eater
yeah but they should be allowed a reasonable rate.
No you shouldnt! Why should the rest of us have to pay for the stupidity of others?

Originally posted by rice_eater
future shop doesn't provide me with an essential service. i dont HAVE to buy a DVD player to use my TV. Futureshop is there to sell you stuff you may want. PLPD is a must for anyone to drive and insurance companies hold a monopoly on that.
OK, lets use another example. Superstore, owned by Westfair foods, makes a shitload of money every year. We all have to do grocery shopping, it's an essential. Why are they allowed to make astronomical sums of money like that? We should be able to get groceries cheaper, because some people just can't afford it.

Originally posted by rice_eater
yeah well after you pay thousands of dollars over a few years, the extra few dollars a month you MAY pay down the road will take a long LONG time to make up for dont you think?
My insurance for 3 cars went up by $700 a year as of the new reforms. No tickets, no at fault claims. I'm predicting that to fix the system, "good drivers" will go up even more in the future, regardless of age. So let's just assume to make up for the high premiums of the old system, the difference between the rates of the "25y/o and older good drivers" on the old system vs the "ageless good driver" on the new system is $1000. So this difference will apply from 25 years old until 60. That's 35 years of a large increase. Multiply by $1000, and you're paying $35k more for PLPD insurance over your lifetime. To save a few grand in a few years when you were young.

That's the point I'm trying to get across.

[rage2]

Originally posted by rice_eater
i'm willing to bet that eventhough high risk drivers do have more claims, at the end of the day their high rates are supporting the low rates of the good drivers.
:rofl:


Originally posted by rage2
No names to protect the innocent/guilty ;).

So this guy I know, used to pay $2600/year in insurance part time under parents. Over a span of 2 years, he cost the insurance company over $100,000 in claims. Not to mention large speeding tickets. I'd classify that as a &quot;shitty driver&quot;.

Oct rules, he can't be denied, and his insurance has dropped to $700/year under the grid. Gotta love how the new system rewards shitty drivers.
From this thread:
http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60560

To pay that $100,000 back with interest at 4%/year, this person would have to drive for 35 years and pay $5357.74 per year in insurance. That's assuming he miraculously becomes a perfect driver and never gets into another accident again. That my friend is an impossibility.

I've mentioned this before, if you wanna get a good deal out of insurance, get into 2 accidents, you'll get your money's worth!

If you are a good driver, you'll never get your money back.

[rice_eater]

"No you shouldnt! Why should the rest of us have to pay for the stupidity of others?"

proves my point about only caring about oneself :dunno: Yes of course you should pay more if you screw up, and this system allows for that just like the old one. But what is reasonable? I'm repeating myself because you're ignoring this, but if there is such a big discrepency between the rates of people here and outside our province between people with similar driving experience and records, how can you tell me that the current rates are anywhere close to reasonable unless our driving habits here are fundamentally wrong. No you shouldnt pay for others but your rates should be normal.

"OK, lets use another example. Superstore, owned by Westfair foods, makes a shitload of money every year. We all have to do grocery shopping, it's an essential. Why are they allowed to make astronomical sums of money like that? We should be able to get groceries cheaper, because some people just can't afford it."

the government doesn't dictate to you that you have to eat. you can starve. the government doesnt make you eat carrots every day before you can buy a steak. PLPD is mandatory weather you can afford to pay for 3 lawsuits a day out of your own pocket or not. Again, i dont care that they make money, hell all power to them. BUt let this money come from their later investments or what not, not off the back of people. High rates are fine as long as they are justified

"My insurance for 3 cars went up by $700 a year as of the new reforms. No tickets, no at fault claims. I'm predicting that to fix the system, "good drivers" will go up even more in the future, regardless of age. So let's just assume to make up for the high premiums of the old system, the difference between the rates of the "25y/o and older good drivers" on the old system vs the "ageless good driver" on the new system is $1000. So this difference will apply from 25 years old until 60. That's 35 years of a large increase. Multiply by $1000, and you're paying $35k more for PLPD insurance over your lifetime. To save a few grand in a few years when you were young."

rage, i'm sorry but i'd much rather pay that 35k over 35 years instead of 6-7 years

[rage2]

Originally posted by rice_eater
the government doesn't dictate to you that you have to eat. you can starve.
Nor does the government dictate that you have to drive. You can take the bus. :dunno:

Your "you can drive" comment is just retarded.

Originally posted by rice_eater
rage, i'm sorry but i'd much rather pay that 35k over 35 years instead of 6-7 years
That was in a "perfect driving record" scenario. In which case, as a young driver, at an average rate drop of $1500/year over 7 years (based on the thread with people posting their savings), would work out to $10,500. Which means over your lifetime, you're getting screwed for $24,500 + inflation.

[rice_eater]

Originally posted by rage2

:rofl:


From this thread:
http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.php?s=&amp;threadid=60560

To pay that $100,000 back with interest at 4%/year, this person would have to drive for 35 years and pay $5357.74 per year in insurance. That's assuming he miraculously becomes a perfect driver and never gets into another accident again. That my friend is an impossibility.

I've mentioned this before, if you wanna get a good deal out of insurance, get into 2 accidents, you'll get your money's worth!

If you are a good driver, you'll never get your money back.

wow man, you should tell me which insurance company this is coz i'd like to sign up tomorrow! Unless he's pretty old/married, there is no way that his rate would be that low. tickets and claims (i'm guessing big accidents since 100k is huge). The starting rate is 1800, so he would need a LOT to bring that rate down that much, AND to void all his previous claims/tickets. :bullshit:

[rice_eater]

Originally posted by rage2
Nor does the government dictate that you have to drive. You can take the bus. :dunno: how does this have anything to do wiht my point? my point is that the rates they make you pay are ridiculous and nothing else! Also if you can take the bus across the city in a timely fashion that's great, but most of us need cars to get places in time. do you have any idea how many people depend on their cars to get to work? if they pay an arm and a leg for insurance what happens? they cant go to work, they can't "pay for your insurance" and tehy can't pay taxes. but lets shit on them as long as our rates dont go up

sorry man, but you are completely ignorant to most of what i'm saying and to the questions i'm directing at you. if you're only gonna pick and choose the points that work for you then we can't have a constructive discussion can we? i'm done with this thread

[Singel]

Originally posted by rage2

What's gonna happen when the fix this? In a year, they're gonna realize that they reduced all the big premiums (bad drivers and young drivers) and that the claims are going to be more than they collected in premiums. Unless miraculously, accident rate goes DOWN... which I doubt. So, one of 2 things will happen.



Which goes back to statements I made over a year ago... is that for the young drivers, is the few years of cheap insurance worth it because you ARE going to be paying a lot more during the rest of your life. Because that's what the new reforms will do.


The claims won't be more than they collected, they made profits of around 800% (Probly more considering our right wing media). I don't think Premiums went down by more than 800%, it'll still be a profitable business, but they can't rape us anymore.

I'ma easily be able to afford it for the rest of my life, it's not very easy now while paying for tuition and earning nothing now. Sort of like with income tax, the rich shoould share a bit more of the tax burden ceteris parabus between a young and old driver. That's not saying old people should be paying more, it should be slightly less or equal, but the disparity in rates shouldn't be so large betweena clean drivin 18 year old and 35 yr. old.


Originally posted by rage2

The point is, if you fuck up (ie bad drivers) you should NOT get a break. Your risk goes up, and your rates should go up with it. Otherwise, we'd all be irresponsible drivers, because we wouldn't be held accountable for our actions, like it is today. I can drive like an ass, enjoy myself, and it won't be too expensive compared to the old system. Kind of a license to drive like a jackass.


So they're not allowed to make money? :dunno:. That's the whole fucked up reasoning behind this for guys paying too much for auto insurance. It's like bitching at futureshop cuz they're making too much money, and you're pissed off that they're allowed to mark up that new TV so much. You should be able to buy it at cost. Doesn't really make sense does it?



775% (likely more than) profits compared to the previous year, when rates were already obscene. Futureshop are wants, i could get equal satisfaction by going for a hike (if i weren't so lazy).


Originally posted by GC84ever
I would like to know what sized cut Klien is getting from the pie to keep everything private?
Public insurance works in other provinces to cover basic insurance needs; and if you want extra insurance you can go to a private insurer.
If you vote this year, vote for anyone else but Klein.
I'm actually starting to get scared to when I have to renew my insurance in July.

:werd: The gov't could earn revenue from public insurance, and still charge less than they do now. It would also be in the gov't's best interest to remove bad drivers from the road, so charge em 10 000 a year and you'll get em off the road and reduce accidents, thereby fewer people in the hospital and draining from other areas of healthcare...but o wait I forgot, they're going to privatize healthcare so they don't have to worry about this shit and can start promoting cigarettes to make more revenue.


Originally posted by rice_eater
Another question for the people that say that now the good drivers are paying for the bad drivers. When you get in an accident the insurance pays for your fuck up from the pool. The pool is mostly supported by the high risk drivers who contribute high rates because they are a high risk. when a claim does come in, the repair costs are the same for everyone. i'm willing to bet that eventhough high risk drivers do have more claims, at the end of the day their high rates are supporting the low rates of the good drivers. so the question is, should we have 2 pools then? one for the good drivers and one for people who after a point are considered bad drivers? would that finally please everyone? If the current rates are justified then the low risk pool should be able to sustain itself because low risk drivers dont have many claims, and the high risk will sustain itself WHILE NOT creating ridiculous amounts of surplus. my guess is that wont happen

I don't know exact numbers, but lets say 2 in 10 drivers are bad.
8 drivers x 2000/yr. to keep it easy = 16000
2 drivers x 3000/yr. = $6000

So let's say 1 driver from each group has an equal accident, each are going to get $11 000 from the pool. So yes, the good drivers are paying for the bad. I like the idea of 2 pools, the idiot only gets 6 g, and us good drivers get 16 (but then get to join the idiots)


Originally posted by rage2

No you shouldnt! Why should the rest of us have to pay for the stupidity of others?

OK, lets use another example. Superstore, owned by Westfair foods, makes a shitload of money every year. We all have to do grocery shopping, it's an essential. Why are they allowed to make astronomical sums of money like that? We should be able to get groceries cheaper, because some people just can't afford it.


Groceries are reasonably priced. Sure they could be cheaper, but there's a lot of people to be fed along the way (farmers, truckers, distributers, bag boys and cashiers, management/shareholders, etc.) Sure they're making profit, that's what our mixed economy is all about. But IGA, Safeway, Superstore, and everyone else don't collude to charge obscene prices to increase profits 800%. I really don't mind paying $.59/pound for my bannannas, even though I could get them for 45 cents if we decided private profits were bad...and became communists? If you don't like paying more for groceries, grow your own food...make your own clothes, etc. and you won't even need to buy insurance because all of your basic needs are satisfied, you dont need money to drive to the store to buy your needs. Go amish or join a hutterite colony.

How old are you rage? Driving a car, therefore having insurance has basically become a need in today's society. My dad's always telling me he didn't get a car till he was older because he'd just ride his bike everywhere. I'd love to ride my bike everywhere, but it would take me an hour and a half to get to the uni (around the same as the bus), and i can't really ride my bike in the winter. Even since you were my age the city has expanded miles outward, it's not as simple as getting on a bus and being there quickly anymore, you gotta transfer, and are lucky to get on the bus because there's so many people in the city. You older guys didn't have to pay obscene rates when you were our age, its a fairly recent thing...so if we have to pay down the road for saving now, you should have to pay now for saving in the past.

[rice_eater]

"I don't know exact numbers, but lets say 2 in 10 drivers are bad.
8 drivers x 2000/yr. to keep it easy = 16000
2 drivers x 3000/yr. = $6000

So let's say 1 driver from each group has an equal accident, each are going to get $11 000 from the pool. So yes, the good drivers are paying for the bad. I like the idea of 2 pools, the idiot only gets 6 g, and us good drivers get 16 (but then get to join the idiots)"

i agree with you, but that is assuming that there is the same amount of bad and good drivers. I would hope that most people out there are good drivers and the trully bad drivers are just a small portion :dunno:

[$uPeRrlcE()()()]

Original Post Removed. (Please read the Forum Rules and Terms of Use (http://forums.beyond.ca/articles.php?action=data&item=1) before posting again, or risk getting banned).

[$uPeRrlcE()()()]

Original Post Removed. (Please read the Forum Rules and Terms of Use (http://forums.beyond.ca/articles.php?action=data&item=1) before posting again, or risk getting banned).

[Singel]

Originally posted by rice_eater

i agree with you, but that is assuming that there is the same amount of bad and good drivers. I would hope that most people out there are good drivers and the trully bad drivers are just a small portion :dunno:

That's a horrible assumption to make. Half of the drivers have an accident each year? Let's say there's 20 accidents a day on avg., that means around 7500 accidents/year here in calgary (And any of those would be repeats by the same guy). I think there's more than 15000 drivers in this city. Many bad drivers can go a year without accidents, so lets say every 4 years there's 30 000 accidents, maybe 5000 are by good drivers and the other 25 000 are bad drivers. It just doesn't work out. Maybe 1 in 5 people are bad drivers, i dunno exactly though, but its nowhere near half

[rage2]

Originally posted by rice_eater
proves my point about only caring about oneself :dunno: Yes of course you should pay more if you screw up, and this system allows for that just like the old one. But what is reasonable? I'm repeating myself because you're ignoring this, but if there is such a big discrepency between the rates of people here and outside our province between people with similar driving experience and records, how can you tell me that the current rates are anywhere close to reasonable unless our driving habits here are fundamentally wrong. No you shouldnt pay for others but your rates should be normal.
Care about myself? How about the majority of drivers, the good ones. All of us are getting juiced because of the shitty drivers out there. The whole point of this new system was to reward the GOOD drivers. It's clearly NOT doing that (except for good young drivers). It's rewarding the POOR drivers. Yes, if you keep crashing and making mistakes, you do not deserve to drive, regardless if it's via suspension, or priced out of your budget. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Don't forget that.

The herald and the sun picked up on the story for a reason. I just happened to have noticed everyone's bitchings a year earlier cuz I read the fine print.


Originally posted by rice_eater
wow man, you should tell me which insurance company this is coz i'd like to sign up tomorrow! Unless he's pretty old/married, there is no way that his rate would be that low. tickets and claims (i'm guessing big accidents since 100k is huge). The starting rate is 1800, so he would need a LOT to bring that rate down that much, AND to void all his previous claims/tickets. :bullshit:
Nope, it's called stupidity in the current system:


Occasional drivers who have less than eight years experience may be charged a maximum of 25 per cent of the grid calculation, if the primary driver for the vehicle is on the grid. Under the old system, the occasional driver could be charged up to 50 per cent of the market rate. There will be no charge for occasional drivers who have more than eight years experience and clean driving records.

Because of this 25% cap, his rates dropped by 75%. The old system, the primary driver rate is based on the rate of the worse driving record. That's not the case anymore.

As for $100k is huge between 2 accidents, they were actually quite minor comparatively speaking. Cars get written off quite easily these days. 2 Accidents, 2 written off cars, damage to city property (signs, lampposts, curbs), and injury claims. The accidents were much less spectacular than yours.

http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30864


Originally posted by rice_eater
Also if you can take the bus across the city in a timely fashion that's great, but most of us need cars to get places in time. do you have any idea how many people depend on their cars to get to work? if they pay an arm and a leg for insurance what happens? they cant go to work, they can't &quot;pay for your insurance&quot; and tehy can't pay taxes. but lets shit on them as long as our rates dont go up

sorry man, but you are completely ignorant to most of what i'm saying and to the questions i'm directing at you. if you're only gonna pick and choose the points that work for you then we can't have a constructive discussion can we? i'm done with this thread
I'm answering every one of your points. Tell me what I missed. Nobody depends on a car. If I wanted to, I can take the bus to work everyday. I just choose not to. At our office of nearly 100 people, about 4 people drive to work.

The point is, shitty drivers should get punished. Hike the rates so they can't afford it. Again, DRIVING IS A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT. Guys like you should not be allowed on the roads, regardless if it's from a license suspension, or unaffordable insurance.


Originally posted by Singel
The claims won't be more than they collected, they made profits of around 800% (Probly more considering our right wing media). I don't think Premiums went down by more than 800%, it'll still be a profitable business, but they can't rape us anymore.
That number is WAY off. The article you referred to was their profits increased by 800% over the previous years profits. The previous year, they barely broke even, very little profit. Multiply that by 8. 2 years before they, they were losing money on auto insurance.


Originally posted by Singel
Sort of like with income tax, the rich shoould share a bit more of the tax burden ceteris parabus between a young and old driver. That's not saying old people should be paying more, it should be slightly less or equal, but the disparity in rates shouldn't be so large betweena clean drivin 18 year old and 35 yr. old.
We're arguing over shitty drivers getting huge discounts. I've given up on the young vs old debate because nobody seems to understand how insurance model works. Your idea won't fly very well either, old people aren't always richer than young people, so you can't put the burden on old people.


Originally posted by Singel
But IGA, Safeway, Superstore, and everyone else don't collude to charge obscene prices to increase profits 800%.
:rofl:

So what you're telling me is, the insurance companies are guilty of price fixing? If that was truly the case, I'd be a multi-millionaire today by introducing the beyond.ca insurance program with low rates for everyone. I can offer 1/2 the price for just beyond members and make a killing. (yea right).


Originally posted by Singel
How old are you rage? Driving a car, therefore having insurance has basically become a need in today's society. My dad's always telling me he didn't get a car till he was older because he'd just ride his bike everywhere. I'd love to ride my bike everywhere, but it would take me an hour and a half to get to the uni (around the same as the bus), and i can't really ride my bike in the winter. Even since you were my age the city has expanded miles outward, it's not as simple as getting on a bus and being there quickly anymore, you gotta transfer, and are lucky to get on the bus because there's so many people in the city. You older guys didn't have to pay obscene rates when you were our age, its a fairly recent thing...so if we have to pay down the road for saving now, you should have to pay now for saving in the past.
It is NOT a recent thing. I paid nearly $7000/year with a clean record when I first started driving. The system has always been like this.

And it's entirely possible to take the bus to work if you're not so god damn lazy. Whaaa whaaa whaaa I cant get there on time. Whaaa whaaaaa whaa, I have to transfer to a different bus. Well, christ, leave earlier! Driving is a luxury, a privilage. How many times do I have to repeat that?

I can't afford plasma tv's throughout my house, you don't see me fucking whining or anyone giving me a hug over it. That's because it's a luxury. I have NO right to bitch about richer folks.

The only reason why the majority of us here feel that driving is a need is because, woah, surprise, it's a car forum!

[rage2]

A note to Singel regarding profit.


8. How much of the industry’s $2.6 billion profit last year is going back to the consumer?

All savings from the reforms will be passed through to consumers through reduced premiums and enhanced benefits: about $200 million annually.

It’s important to remember that the $2.6 billion is profit for all types of insurance, all across Canada. Alberta is 10 per cent of the market, and auto insurance is only a portion of that.
That's taken off the alberta insurance reform government site.

$2.6 billion, Alberta is 10% of the market, so $260 million in profits for alberta. Auto insurance is 30% of all insurance, so $78 million in profit (compared to about $10million the year before, therefore the 800% profit figures).

The savings to consumers (primarily young drivers and poor drivers) is $200 million annually in lower premiums. So $78m - $200m == $122m. Let's cover that up with the profit from last year... which means this year, the insurance industry will lose $44m. Next year, loss will go up to $122m. Of course, that can't be sustained, so all rates go up, but the gap between good bad and poor drivers remain relatively the same. There's no way the old system will be brought back now, which is the only way to reward good older drivers with good rates. That's my look into my crystal ball for next year folks.

Remember, all you guys eventually will get old, and eventually will get good and responsible at driving (I hope). So this affects everyone.

[Singel]

Originally posted by rage2

Care about myself? How about the majority of drivers, the good ones. All of us are getting juiced because of the shitty drivers out there. The whole point of this new system was to reward the GOOD drivers. It's clearly NOT doing that (except for good young drivers). It's rewarding the POOR drivers. Yes, if you keep crashing and making mistakes, you do not deserve to drive, regardless if it's via suspension, or priced out of your budget. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Don't forget that.


Good young drivers are the ones who needed the biggest change, because we were getting fucked over the most. Older guys were paying fairly reasonable rates before, they don't deserve to save $2000/year like I do, because then they'd be paying 0. I agree that its bullshit how bad drivers are getting rewarded too, and that's another reason why i fucking hate klein. But these reforms are far, far , far more equitable than the old system.



The point is, shitty drivers should get punished. Hike the rates so they can't afford it. Again, DRIVING IS A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT. Guys like you should not be allowed on the roads, regardless if it's from a license suspension, or unaffordable insurance.

Privilege or not, it can't be discriminatory. It's like charging white people twice as much for a plasma screen tv than asians for some bullshit reason like they were made in japan, so asians deserve the break. That's about how ridiculous overcarging young drivers is. I have no problem paying a bit more than you cuz I'm in a higher risk group, but fuck, i've been driving 3 years squeeky clean im not high risk. I should pay $0 more than you now. There should be drastic drops for long periods of clean time, and drastic increases for accidents to get the idiots off the roads.



That number is WAY off. The article you referred to was their profits increased by 800% over the previous years profits. The previous year, they barely broke even, very little profit. Multiply that by 8. 2 years before they, they were losing money on auto insurance.

Those books are cooked more than the NHL's.



We're arguing over shitty drivers getting huge discounts. I've given up on the young vs old debate because nobody seems to understand how insurance model works. Your idea won't fly very well either, old people aren't always richer than young people, so you can't put the burden on old people.

Well shit, i bet i could find a statistic to prove that lower income older people are less intelligent, and worse drivers so they should pay more. The insurance model is bullshit, and it clearly doesnt work if they have to be charging these obscene rates to break even.



And it's entirely possible to take the bus to work if you're not so god damn lazy. Whaaa whaaa whaaa I cant get there on time. Whaaa whaaaaa whaa, I have to transfer to a different bus. Well, christ, leave earlier! Driving is a luxury, a privilage. How many times do I have to repeat that?


My times worth more than that. It's not a smart decision for me to waste over 3 hours a day just to get to and from school. It's blatant discrimination, how many times do i have to repeat that? (and know your going to throw some statistics at me that you gullably believe just like the insurance companies "losses")

[rage2]

Originally posted by Singel
Well shit, i bet i could find a statistic to prove that lower income older people are less intelligent, and worse drivers so they should pay more. The insurance model is bullshit, and it clearly doesnt work if they have to be charging these obscene rates to break even.

For the last time:

It's a proven fact that the 16-24 age group gets into the majority of accidents. That's why that group is a riskier group and pays higher rates based on risk. Hurricane insurance is a lot more expensive in Florida than California. Earthquake insurance is a lot more expensive in California than in Florida. It's not discrimination, it's risk assessment. Why can't people understand that?

Let's look at it this way... my AMG, if it gets hit, is a lot more expensive to fix than a Honda Civic. Last time I got rear ended, it cost $30k. Why do I have to pay more for comprehensive than a Civic owner? That's fucking discrimination against rich people. Fuck that noise. My driving skills doesn't make a difference what car I drive. Right?

No. The insurance companies sees me as a risk. The risk of paying a larger sum in the case of an accident is higher with the AMG, so thus, the AMG insurnace is higher.

This is the LAST TIME I'm explaining how risk works. It's fucking simple.


Originally posted by Singel
My times worth more than that. It's not a smart decision for me to waste over 3 hours a day just to get to and from school.
If your time is worth more than that, then it'd be a good investment to pay for it.

Welcome to capatalism buddy. :thumbsup:

[davidI]

Originally posted by rage2


This is the LAST TIME I'm explaining how risk works. It's fucking simple.


So if I could find statistics saying asians stab more than whites should I say they have to pay a $300 cover to get into a night club?

I don't see how discrimination is fine here but not acceptable in other areas of society?

[Singel]

Originally posted by rage2

For the last time:

It's a proven fact that the 16-24 age group gets into the majority of accidents. That's why that group is a riskier group and pays higher rates based on risk. Hurricane insurance is a lot more expensive in Florida than California. Earthquake insurance is a lot more expensive in California than in Florida. It's not discrimination, it's risk assessment. Why can't people understand that?


And your proven fact is from who?? I wonder why the insurance companies would skew statistics to their favour, i cant imagine any reason for it myself (sarcasm).


Let's look at it this way... my AMG, if it gets hit, is a lot more expensive to fix than a Honda Civic. Last time I got rear ended, it cost $30k. Why do I have to pay more for comprehensive than a Civic owner? That's fucking discrimination against rich people. Fuck that noise. My driving skills doesn't make a difference what car I drive. Right?

You choose to drive that car, I can't choose to be 18 years old. Discrimination is worst when it is about something people have no choice in.



If your time is worth more than that, then it'd be a good investment to pay for it.

Welcome to capatalism buddy. :thumbsup:

OK, here's another scenario...I'm in control of your houses' water, and electricity (fairly essential services, just like car insurance, and there's no competitors with better rates you can choose) you can either pay me $2000 a month for it, or dig a well on your back yard, pump the water, boil it, and let it cool before you can use it. And you also have to ride an excersize bike for 2 hours in the morning to power your house for the day (or pay say $80 000 for a windmill).

What are you going to do? Both choices are crap, and the simplest, most equitable solution is for me to charge reasonable rates. Now what if I'm black, and I decide to charge black people $100/month because it's statistically proven that they use less water and power than everyone else, but I charge all others $10 000/month...you're not going to be too happy about that are you? (unless your black)

What about if (i mean when) Ralph privatizes education, just because say black kids are statistically proven to be dumber, and require more resources, they have to pay double of the white kids. Now lets say asians are proven to be smarter (to promote a stereotype, the asians were compiling the statistics, and it would seem they have an interest in the results), they should pay half of what the white kids.

The asian statisticians could have just as easily thrown in average man's penis size to calculate these statistics which would work out the same way (discrimination isn't so great, eh?) There's no way the general public is going to know, and most people will just believe what you tell them, while the asians wil be laughing all the way to the bank.


Originally posted by davidI


So if I could find statistics saying asians stab more than whites should I say they have to pay a $300 cover to get into a night club?

I don't see how discrimination is fine here but not acceptable in other areas of society?

:werd: I've made several examples in other topics, plus a few more here about how statistical discrimination is still wrong, but he doesn't seem to want to consider them.

[kenny]

Originally posted by Singel
You choose to drive that car, I can't choose to be 18 years old. Discrimination is worst when it is about something people have no choice in.[/B]

People also cannot choose to not have cancer, or to not have other major illnesses that disqualify them for life insurance yet hundreds of thousands of people are turned away for life insurance coverage because they are a huge risk. Is that discrimination?

[davidI]

Originally posted by kenny


People also cannot choose to not have cancer, or to not have other major illnesses that disqualify them for life insurance yet hundreds of thousands of people are turned away for life insurance coverage because they are a huge risk. Is that discrimination?

No...because they chose to get insurance after they were unhealthy! That argument suggests that I could crash my car and then call up the insurance company and ask for collision. :confused:

[Kirbs17]

I always found it kind of funny, last year at the same time, I bought a 91 plymouth laser and my buddy bought a 92 eagle talon (both the turbocharged models). Hes a year old than me, but thats really the only difference between our insurance policies ( both from the same broker, both live in airdrie, both had driving school, no accidents/tickets) and I was paying 190$ a month to drive my laser, and he was paying 245$ a month. I still dont understand to this day how that worked. We dealt with the same agent. Oh well. And now under this great new reform we have upon us, I thought the discounts would be larger for better drivers. I only have PLPD on my 99 Jetta right now, and It went from 190 to 160. Maybe its the new car thing (probably). But ive still got a perfectly clear record and that was NOT the discount I was expecting. Good old PC's... When will people learn.

[02bump'nWRX]

I agree that insurance companies have as much right as any of us to make a profit. The problem is that there is legislation that every person operating a motor vehicle must have insurance, therefore the govt is giving the insurance comapines a virtual monopoly (oligopoly to be more correct).

Yes i can complain that future shop is making too much profit and marking their TV's up too much but there is no legislation saying that that i need a TV.
And before anyone tries to tell me that a car in not nessecary think of what the economy in this provice would be like if younger people couldn't afford to drive......The alberta economy revolves around the oil patch which is depended on having a labour intensive workforce which is made up of generally young males. This being said we need these young males to get jobs but how are they going to get to work? Assuming you don't live in major centers like Calgary or Edmonton its pretty damn tough!!! i don't know of any c-train in red deer, nisku, grand praire or any of the smaller centers in AB. My point is young people need to be able to commute in this provice. If they cannot they can't get to work, if they can't get to work how do oil companies get oil out of the ground and make this the ricest province in canada? The insurance thing has more far reaching effects than just people paying too much insurance.

I agree that poor drivers should not be getting a break but in my opinion insuarance was too high for every driver regardless. The thing is young people need a break on insuranace in order to get jobs and start making a living. Its economicaly bad for this province to charge young males in particular (not trying to be sexist or anythign like that) huge premiums for insurance.

What is the best scheme for insurance then? i don't have an answer but i think that what we have no is not bad. If the govt is going to legislate that we need insurnace there needs to be some legislation on what the insurnace companies can charge. Sure there can be improvments in the system but what government system ever created couldn't use imporvement.

[MerfBall]

Originally posted by Singel


Privilege or not, it can't be discriminatory. It's like charging white people twice as much for a plasma screen tv than asians for some bullshit reason like they were made in japan, so asians deserve the break. That's about how ridiculous overcarging young drivers is. I have no problem paying a bit more than you cuz I'm in a higher risk group, but fuck, i've been driving 3 years squeeky clean im not high risk. I should pay $0 more than you now. There should be drastic drops for long periods of clean time, and drastic increases for accidents to get the idiots off the roads.


It's not discretionary it's statistical fact that drivers in the age 16-19 age group cause more accidents.



Originally posted by Singel


Well shit, i bet i could find a statistic to prove that lower income older people are less intelligent, and worse drivers so they should pay more. The insurance model is bullshit, and it clearly doesnt work if they have to be charging these obscene rates to break even.

Intelligence has very little to do with the ability to drive safely. For that fact people with known mental disabilities do not have driver's licenses... but according to your argument maybe they should have a license.


Originally posted by Singel


My times worth more than that. It's not a smart decision for me to waste over 3 hours a day just to get to and from school. It's blatant discrimination, how many times do i have to repeat that? (and know your going to throw some statistics at me that you gullably believe just like the insurance companies &quot;losses&quot;)


All you college/university kids try to justify your time is worth so much to justify that you should own a car. Yet hundreds of thousands of university students take public transportation to school and what you are in University???

On top of that you see people crowd the buses and the trains every morning to go to work and I can assure you that their time is worth a lot more than yours (especially when they have families as well).

Again driving is a privilege not a right.

As an aside, if you were really that smart and your time is that valuable then you would forego the insurance, gas and car payments and use that money to live in res or an apartment across the street from the University so u can walk to your class.



Originally posted by davidI


So if I could find statistics saying asians stab more than whites should I say they have to pay a $300 cover to get into a night club?

I don't see how discrimination is fine here but not acceptable in other areas of society?

This isn't nearly the same, but if you must bring this up. This is why at the bar people scream racism when a bouncer decides not to allow some asians into the bar or give them hassle, sure they might be upstanding citizens, but let's face it I'm sure you could very easily find a statistic that says that ethnic minorities, namely asians are the prime cause of violence at the calgary club scene.



Originally posted by Singel



And your proven fact is from who?? I wonder why the insurance companies would skew statistics to their favour, i cant imagine any reason for it myself (sarcasm).



This fact is from Transport Alberta Statistics let me give you the links of the past 6 years of data they have on their site (click on the drivers in TOC):


1998 Alberta Traffic Collision Statistics (http://www.tu.gov.ab.ca/Content/doctype47/production/98annreport.pdf)
1999 Alberta Traffic Collision Statistics (http://www.tu.gov.ab.ca/Content/doctype47/production/99annreport.pdf)
2000 Alberta Traffic Collision Statistics (http://www.tu.gov.ab.ca/Content/doctype47/production/00%20ann%20reportpdf.pdf)
2001 Alberta Traffic Collision Statistics (http://www.tu.gov.ab.ca/Content/doctype47/production/2001ar.pdf)
2002 Alberta Traffic Collision Statistics (http://www.tu.gov.ab.ca/Content/doctype47/production/2002AR.pdf)
2003 Alberta Traffic Collision Statistics (http://www.tu.gov.ab.ca/Content/doctype47/production/2003AR.pdf)

Look at the facts out of 1000 licensed drivers the observation is that:


Collision rates per 1000 licensed drivers indicated that males 18 to 19 year olds were more likely
to be involved in a casualty collision than any other age group. The next age group most likely to
be involved in casualty collisions were males 16 to 17 year olds.


This is the same observation over 6 years of available data, this can't just be a coincidence.

On top of that here's a publication from AMA:
AMA Study (http://www.ama.ab.ca/advocacy/traffic_progress_reportS04_3F.pdf)

Look at Indicator #13, I'll quote for the lazy people:



TREND: The rate of casualty collisions for younger drivers (16-24 years of age) remains high in Alberta compared to other age groups.

WHAT IT MEANS

Young Drivers

Young Drivers contribute disproportionately more to traffic safety statistics than other age groups. Deaths and injuries from road crashes remain the most significant public health problem facing young Canadians between the ages of 16 and 24, producing almost 50 per cent of the deaths in this age group. Young drivers (16 to 19_ represent about 5 percent of all license holders yet are involved in nearly 13 per cent of all fatal highway crashes.

In Alberta in 2002, the 18-19 year old age group followed by the 16-17 year old age group (both male and female) have the highest respective casualty collision rates (per 1,000 licensed drivers) at 28.8 and 30.9 per 1,000 licensed drivers, respectively (Figure 11).

In the case of young drivers, the situations that are high-risk include driving with peer-aged passengers, driving at night, driving high powered vehicles, driving on high speed expressways and in congested traffic, and driving with even small amounts of alcohol in their blood.

Typically this age group exhibits inexperience with driving, lacks knowledge and skill, has a proclivity for risk-taking (usually involving excessive speed), low tolerance for alcohol, overexposure to night driving, general susceptibility to peer pressure, reluctance to use safety belts, and a preference in many cases for high-risk vehicles.






Originally posted by Singel

You choose to drive that car, I can't choose to be 18 years old. Discrimination is worst when it is about something people have no choice in.


You can choose not to drive and take the bus, I don't understand what the big issue is with this, millions of people across the country do this daily. Especially in larger metropolitans like Toronto and Vancouver, people cannot even afford a car because their rent is so high, so they spend hours using public transit to get to and from work. Having a car is a choice not a necessity.


Originally posted by Singel
OK, here's another scenario...I'm in control of your houses' water, and electricity (fairly essential services, just like car insurance, and there's no competitors with better rates you can choose) you can either pay me $2000 a month for it, or dig a well on your back yard, pump the water, boil it, and let it cool before you can use it. And you also have to ride an excersize bike for 2 hours in the morning to power your house for the day (or pay say $80 000 for a windmill).

What are you going to do? Both choices are crap, and the simplest, most equitable solution is for me to charge reasonable rates. Now what if I'm black, and I decide to charge black people $100/month because it's statistically proven that they use less water and power than everyone else, but I charge all others $10 000/month...you're not going to be too happy about that are you? (unless your black)

What about if (i mean when) Ralph privatizes education, just because say black kids are statistically proven to be dumber, and require more resources, they have to pay double of the white kids. Now lets say asians are proven to be smarter (to promote a stereotype, the asians were compiling the statistics, and it would seem they have an interest in the results), they should pay half of what the white kids.

The asian statisticians could have just as easily thrown in average man's penis size to calculate these statistics which would work out the same way (discrimination isn't so great, eh?) There's no way the general public is going to know, and most people will just believe what you tell them, while the asians wil be laughing all the way to the bank.


Again this isn't some statistic an insurance company or some guy in a corner dreamed up in his head. The statistics are from the government, oh but wait we better not believe the staticians that work for the Government because to generate these crazy statistics that say that young drivers are high risk.

As for your extreme examples we do see that already, sure there are people that are less intelligent or even people with disabilities that cannot go to University to get their degree, are you suggesting that University degrees should be accessible by everyone regardless of mental capacity? Or maybe we should extend that to driver's licenses too because after all your arguments suggest that driving is a right and no one should be denied that right, so maybe somebody that is mentally handicapped should be allowed to drive and pay the same insurance rate as everyone in your age group.


[i]Originally posted by Singel
:werd:
I've made several examples in other topics, plus a few more here about how statistical discrimination is still wrong, but he doesn't seem to want to consider them.


It's funny looking at your arguments and you argue both ways, that statistical discrimination is wrong but only when it's to your disadvantage. You say that you should not have to pay high insurance because of your age, but yet Rage's choice of cars warrants his high insurance because it's by choice. Isn't that statistical discrimination too?

[lint]

Originally posted by davidI


No...because they chose to get insurance after they were unhealthy! That argument suggests that I could crash my car and then call up the insurance company and ask for collision. :confused:

Actually, people can be denied health insurance based on family history, even if they are currently healthy.

for example, you have a history of heart disease in your family, your dad, uncle and brother all have been diagnosed with heart disease. Even if you are currently healthy, you may be denied coverage because statistically speaking, you have a very high risk of developing heart disease down the road, and a HIGHER RISK than the insurance company would like to take on, therefore you get no coverage.

a more appropriate analogy is "you are more likely to get into an accident because of your peer group (statistically shown in MerfBall's post) And an insurance company refuses you coverage." Your risk of collision, even though you haven't had an accident YET, is such that the insurance company knows that insuring drivers like yourself will cause them losses in the long run, and make a business decision not to insure.

Again, this is risk assessment, the concept that seems to be lost on the majority, and mainly younger readers of this board.

[import_illusion]

Originally posted by rice_eater
how does this have anything to do wiht my point? my point is that the rates they make you pay are ridiculous and nothing else! Also if you can take the bus across the city in a timely fashion that's great, but most of us need cars to get places in time. do you have any idea how many people depend on their cars to get to work? if they pay an arm and a leg for insurance what happens? they cant go to work, they can't &quot;pay for your insurance&quot; and tehy can't pay taxes. but lets shit on them as long as our rates dont go up

sorry man, but you are completely ignorant to most of what i'm saying and to the questions i'm directing at you. if you're only gonna pick and choose the points that work for you then we can't have a constructive discussion can we? i'm done with this thread

That is one of the stupidest things i have ever heard. A car is not a NEED..it is a WANT! It is very possible to get across the city in a timely fashion taking the bus, i do it every day! It is just takes more time and might take abit of walking so don't be saying that most of us need cars.

A car is a luxury, i say that if you have a car, you shouldn't really be complaning much about insurance costs. Owning a luxury, you should be willing to pay the costs that are included.

I'm going to be buying my new car in a couple weeks and I sure ain't gonna be complaining that my insurance is too high. It'll be my own fault and my responsibility for owning something i WANT, not NEED.

[Singel]

Originally posted by MerfBall


It's not discretionary it's statistical fact that drivers in the age 16-19 age group cause more accidents.






Intelligence has very little to do with the ability to drive safely. For that fact people with known mental disabilities do not have driver's licenses... but according to your argument maybe they should have a license.


Where in my post did I say that? I don't think it should be a right, it is a privilege, but it shouldn't be a privilege only for old people. All bad drivers, young or old should be priced off the roads, not young people.



All you college/university kids try to justify your time is worth so much to justify that you should own a car. Yet hundreds of thousands of university students take public transportation to school and what you are in University???

On top of that you see people crowd the buses and the trains every morning to go to work and I can assure you that their time is worth a lot more than yours (especially when they have families as well).


So you can put a value my time now? What gives you the right to do that? If I worked downtown, I'd take a bus to work, because it would be economically advantageous to me, but it is not personally for me to the university.



Again driving is a privilege not a right.


A privilege for old people, good or bad @ driving. Not even an attainable privilege for good young drivers.



As an aside, if you were really that smart and your time is that valuable then you would forego the insurance, gas and car payments and use that money to live in res or an apartment across the street from the University so u can walk to your class.


If you were really that smart you'd know that the cost of living far outweighs the cost of insurance. If I were living on my own 20 miles from the uni you'd be right, but i dont do that cuz its stupid.



This isn't nearly the same, but if you must bring this up. This is why at the bar people scream racism when a bouncer decides not to allow some asians into the bar or give them hassle, sure they might be upstanding citizens, but let's face it I'm sure you could very easily find a statistic that says that ethnic minorities, namely asians are the prime cause of violence at the calgary club scene.





Collision rates per 1000 licensed drivers indicated that males 18 to 19 year olds were more likely
to be involved in a casualty collision than any other age group. The next age group most likely to
be involved in casualty collisions were males 16 to 17 year olds.



This is left wide open for bias all over the place. How do you know they don't only select dumb HS kids who are most likely to do these stupid things, and middle aged family men with clean records for their 1000. Stats only tell half the story.

I could take 1000 licensed teens on the honor roll, and they woyuld be less risky than 1000 35 yr. old redneck men who spend each night at the bar.




You can choose not to drive and take the bus, I don't understand what the big issue is with this, millions of people across the country do this daily. Especially in larger metropolitans like Toronto and Vancouver, people cannot even afford a car because their rent is so high, so they spend hours using public transit to get to and from work. Having a car is a choice not a necessity.


Have you seen the size of Calgary? We are too sprawled and don't have a high enough population to fund an effective public transit system liket those 2 cities.



Again this isn't some statistic an insurance company or some guy in a corner dreamed up in his head. The statistics are from the government, oh but wait we better not believe the staticians that work for the Government because [insert conspiracy theory here] to generate these crazy statistics that say that young drivers are high risk.


Ya, the gov't has never mislead people, ever.



As for your extreme examples we do see that already, sure there are people that are less intelligent or even people with disabilities that cannot go to University to get their degree, are you suggesting that University degrees should be accessible by everyone regardless of mental capacity? Or maybe we should extend that to driver's licenses too because after all your arguments suggest that driving is a right and no one should be denied that right, so maybe somebody that is mentally handicapped should be allowed to drive and pay the same insurance rate as everyone in your age group.


Don't know where you're getting this from again. Dumb people shouldn't get into university, and bad drivers shouldn't drive.



It's funny looking at your arguments and you argue both ways, that statistical discrimination is wrong but only when it's to your disadvantage.

You sound like you're describing rage.



You say that you should not have to pay high insurance because of your age, but yet Rage's choice of cars warrants his high insurance because it's by choice. Isn't that statistical discrimination too?

yes, but it was his CHOICE. i can't decide to be white, black, young or old. Discrimination is wrong if people have no say in the matter

[boi-alien]

Originally posted by Singel
You choose to drive that car, I can't choose to be 18 years old. Discrimination is worst when it is about something people have no choice in.
[/B]
You also choose whether or not you drive. All of you young pups are forgetting, DRIVING IS A PRIVILEDGE, NOT A RIGHT. If you can't afford to drive then too fucking bad. I don't feel like paying for your insurance just so you can drive. Saying that shitty drivers and young drivers who are proven to be the highest risk age group sound be given reasonable rates just because they WANT to drive is bullshit. Think about how absurd it would sound if I said hmm, I WANT a Ferrari, I think everyone should have to pay for MY Ferrari. Who the fuck would say "Ok, what a sweet deal, I'll pay for YOUR Ferrari." NOBODY! That's exactly the same point that rage is trying to make, WE DON'T WANT TO BE PAYING MORE BECAUSE SOME YOUNG KID WANTS TO DRIVE. Just like you wouldn't want to be paying for my Ferrari.

[rage2]

Kids these days :D.

I was getting a bit tired answering the same thing over and over and over again. Thanks to the few that stepped up and understand WTF I'm talking about.

Let me know when the right to drive gets introduced into the charter of rights. Or when the mustard seed starts passing out cars along with soup for people that NEED cars.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by Singel
yes, but it was his CHOICE. i can't decide to be white, black, young or old. Discrimination is wrong if people have no say in the matter [/B]

Please put away the "discrimination" and "hate crime" cards. Insurance companies look at statistics so that they dont lose money. Its is a RISK assessment. It is NOT discrimination.

Quite frankly insurance companies could stop insuring young drivers altogether and with the new reforms now in place you may start to see this.

Insurance policies arent pulled out of someones ass. They determined from statistical analysis of risk.

From reading Beyond daily I am 100% behind the insurance companies in charging crippling rates for young male drivers with new cars. With the number of cocky posts I read daily about people fighting tickets, complaining about cops, racing j-bodies or trying to determine how much they can drink and still blow under 0.08, I can now see how the statistics really add up.

Lets face it. Male drivers in the 16-21 age group are DANGEROUS drivers for a variety of reasons.

Just be thankful that you can GET insurance.

[Singel]

Originally posted by boi-alien

You also choose whether or not you drive. All of you young pups are forgetting, DRIVING IS A PRIVILEDGE, NOT A RIGHT. If you can't afford to drive then too fucking bad. I don't feel like paying for your insurance just so you can drive. Saying that shitty drivers and young drivers who are proven to be the highest risk age group sound be given reasonable rates just because they WANT to drive is bullshit. Think about how absurd it would sound if I said hmm, I WANT a Ferrari, I think everyone should have to pay for MY Ferrari. Who the fuck would say &quot;Ok, what a sweet deal, I'll pay for YOUR Ferrari.&quot; NOBODY! That's exactly the same point that rage is trying to make, WE DON'T WANT TO BE PAYING MORE BECAUSE SOME YOUNG KID WANTS TO DRIVE. Just like you wouldn't want to be paying for my Ferrari.

Put yourself in my shoes, and I feel the exact same way. I don't want to pay for young bad drivers', or old bad drivers' "ferraris" (flamboyant driving and accidents), but that's exactly what i'm doing, and paying for them a hell of a lot more than you.



Originally posted by rage2
Kids these days :D.

I was getting a bit tired answering the same thing over and over and over again. Thanks to the few that stepped up and understand WTF I'm talking about.

Let me know when the right to drive gets introduced into the charter of rights. Or when the mustard seed starts passing out cars along with soup for people that NEED cars.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, ageor mental or physical disability.

People dont' NEED cars, but we NEED to not be discriminated against for things beyond our personal control. Drivers should be discriminated against for being BAD DRIVERS, because its a choice that can be made, unlike someones age or gender.


Originally posted by sputnik


Lets face it. Male drivers in the 16-21 age group are DANGEROUS drivers for a variety of reasons.

Just be thankful that you can GET insurance.

That's just an incorrect blanket statement, kind of like saying white people were slave owners, or black people are criminals, implying that all members of a group are is just ridiculous.. It should read,

Many male drivers in the 16-21 age group are dangerous drivers for a variety of reasons, but many male drivers in the 16-21 age group are not dangerous drivers for a variety of reasons.

I hate these damn idiots as much, if not more than you do for perpetuating this stupid stereotype that we're all testosterone driven, irresponsible morons. Most of these kids have rich parents, so it doesn't matter how much insurance charges them, changes need to be made at the legal level to get them off the roads.

We're all pretty stubborn here, and nobody's gonna change their beliefs from reading anything here. Just try to think objectively, i can completely understand why you feel you're right, just like i hope you have considered why i tihnk I am right.

Basically i think the whole risk assessment system is flawed. Age, and sex just seem like easy copouts for the insurance companies to me, because the can exploit young people so easily because of our limited economic and political power. Half the people in the "highest risk" can't even vote. i think the system could be a lot better, which would also mean being a lot more complicated. Several other factors need to be more strongly weighted (ex: Grades for younger drivers, score on actual license test, etc.) Since insurance companies are only concerned with profit, the easiest, simplest solution is what they use, even if it is not for the welfare of the general public. We should have gov't insurance, because through regulations both the gov't and society as a whole can benefit by getting bad drivers off the road, and reducing strain on health care system.

I'd say a high % of the bad young drivers can't be priced out of the market, because they are generally rich and irresponsible (likely from rich parents who just through $$ at the kids instead of parenting them)...at least that has been my experience.

Each year of experience should result in a big discount, while each infraction should result in HUGE increases. For this to work the gov't needs to get off their ass and legislate stiffer laws for driving without insurance (Say $10000+, with potential for more and even jail time for repeat offense), and harsher driving (Lower # of demerits before suspension/revoking) and licensing regulations.

Nothing you can say will make me believe that overcharging, or just treating people differently based on things beyond their control is ever right. Unless we can start bringing in ethnicities, gender and age into other situations in society, like many of my examples, its absolute BS. When will being a responsible, young, white male start paying off?

[Singel]

Originally posted by sputnik

Quite frankly insurance companies could stop insuring young drivers altogether and with the new reforms now in place you may start to see this.


So can i stop letting native people into my store, or limit them to 1 at a time because I'm afraid they'll shoplift or rob me? I bet I could find some statistics to prove it. A storeowner would be in court for that. yet they are allowed to limit young people (Usually under 18, so they can't vote or make any human rights noise even if they wanted to) to coming into their stores. I could probly find stats that say native people are more likely than young people to do it, but I don't think that's gonna save my ass in court, or public image. Hell, I've often considered filing a complaint with a human rights organization over insurance, but I know I could never beat billion dollar companies, and HR Orgs. have more important issues to deal with.

Very equitable society we live in people can be discriminated against over age, but not gender or race. i miss the good old days, when I would have had rights as a young white male, but i guess that probly makes me a racist, and sexist...

[lint]

Originally posted by Singel
Blah blah blah damn racist blah blah

When will being a responsible, young, white male start paying off?

You're turning insurance into a racial debate?? You are the poor oppressed white male now? The world is against you?

Take a good look around. White males still dominate positions of power within organizations. How many non-white CEOs/CFOs/COOs are there relative to visible minorities? How about Executive VPs? VPs? Directors? They greatly out number females in those positions, let alone minorities.

If you're really trying to play the race card, you are truly an ignorant little shit,.

[Singel]

Originally posted by lint


You're turning insurance into a racial debate?? You are the poor oppressed white male now? The world is against you?

Yup, that's clearly what I think [/sarcasm] I'm just saying my rights are being deprived more and more these days, while others are gaining superior status http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64740



Take a good look around. White males still dominate positions of power within organizations. How many non-white CEOs/CFOs/COOs are there relative to visible minorities? How about Executive VPs? VPs? Directors? They greatly out number females in those positions, let alone minorities.

Wait and see how it is in 30 years, I don't have a crystal ball, but it'll certainly be different.



If you're really trying to play the race card, you are truly an ignorant little shit,.

Very intelligent deduction. Why can't i play the race card if I want to? Everyone else seems to be doing it, and I'm paying for it (see above link)

[lint]

Originally posted by Singel


Yup, that's clearly what I think [/sarcasm] I'm just saying my rights are being deprived more and more these days, while others are gaining superior status http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.php?s=&amp;threadid=64740


Your rights are not being eroded. Rather the rights of other CANADIANS are being recognized. As the cultural make up of this country changes, so must the rules that govern it. If you want to talk about rights, I suggest you read up on the Chinese Immigrantion Act (aka the Chinese Exclusion Act). If you want fair, the head tax should have been applied to ALL immigrants, not just those of Asian (specifically chinese) decent .


Originally posted by Singel

Wait and see how it is in 30 years, I don't have a crystal ball, but it'll certainly be different.

You're right, in 30 years time, maybe there will be EQUALITY. We are still far from it, and if attitudes stay the same, we will never get there. You're crying about being disadvantaged as a young white male, but what you truly fear is a level playing field, and when all else is equal, maybe you just can't compete.


Originally posted by Singel

Very intelligent deduction. Why can't i play the race card if I want to? Everyone else seems to be doing it, and I'm paying for it (see above link)

You're paying for it? Well now, you're generalizing. I'm sure that you wouldn't want to be lumped in with the other young white males now. Because by the same logic, you cause the most accidents, are the worst drivers and should have to pay out of your ass for your insurance coverage.

[boi-alien]

Originally posted by Singel


So can i stop letting native people into my store, or limit them to 1 at a time because I'm afraid they'll shoplift or rob me? I bet I could find some statistics to prove it. A storeowner would be in court for that. yet they are allowed to limit young people (Usually under 18, so they can't vote or make any human rights noise even if they wanted to) to coming into their stores. I could probly find stats that say native people are more likely than young people to do it, but I don't think that's gonna save my ass in court, or public image. Hell, I've often considered filing a complaint with a human rights organization over insurance, but I know I could never beat billion dollar companies, and HR Orgs. have more important issues to deal with.

Very equitable society we live in people can be discriminated against over age, but not gender or race. i miss the good old days, when I would have had rights as a young white male, but i guess that probly makes me a racist, and sexist...
Actually, you can. Look at the clubs they do it all the time. THEY OWN THE PROPERTY, they can revoke the right for you to visit their property if they choose to do so for WHATEVER reason they want. It's a private establishment, and if they wanted, they can call the cops and have you thrown out.

also you ask for us to show you proof, WE SHOW you statistics and you guys refute them. so what gives?

[Singel]

Originally posted by lint


Your rights are not being eroded. Rather the rights of other CANADIANS are being recognized. As the cultural make up of this country changes, so must the rules that govern it. If you want to talk about rights, I suggest you read up on the Chinese Immigrantion Act (aka the Chinese Exclusion Act). If you want fair, the head tax should have been applied to ALL immigrants, not just those of Asian (specifically chinese) decent .


I completely agree, there shouldn't have even been a head tax, and now I'm paying for my forefathers mistakes. in the process of recognizing their rights, they're taking away mine. If Merry Christmas is politically incorrect nowadays, but Happy Chinese New Year is okay, my rights have clearly been sacrificed to appease the minority. I have no problem with other cultures celebrating their traditions, just not at the expense of mine, which I've said in the other thread.



You're right, in 30 years time, maybe there will be EQUALITY. We are still far from it, and if attitudes stay the same, we will never get there. You're crying about being disadvantaged as a young white male, but what you truly fear is a level playing field, and when all else is equal, maybe you just can't compete.

I can't get scholarships specifically for being white. I'd love a level playing field, so people can stop making excuses when I beat them, and we can have fair competition. Others won't be competing if they can' benefit from minority scholarships or ESL special ed. I'm not saying those are bad things, but scales of equality weigh down on both sides.

Do you think its a good thing that less qualified minorities/women get jobs over better qualified white men to appease affirmative action? Of course underqualified white men still get jobs at minorities expenses, but the trend is reversing the other way. I'm all for equality, nobody deserves status superior or inferior to me, but that's just the way the world is right now.



You're paying for it? Well now, you're generalizing. I'm sure that you wouldn't want to be lumped in with the other young white males now. Because by the same logic, you cause the most accidents, are the worst drivers and should have to pay out of your ass for your insurance coverage.

Those statistics don't say anything about enthnicity (I didn't read all 100 pages though, maybe its in there). There is no way you can say young white male drivers cause more/less accidents on avg. than young asian males, etc. Of course there are probly more white male drivers than other ethnicities, so in total yes, but not per 1000 drivers.

I'd like to be lumped in with good drivers actually, because I am one and race, age or gender plays no role in that. You don't seem to understand that I am for equality 100% in every facet of society through things that cannot be change and are not by your choice. Commit a crime, crash a car, or being dumber than me (not working as hard, some peeps just aren't all that bright to begin with and they can't really be blamed) are all controllable variables, and people deserve to be "discriminated" against.

[Singel]

Originally posted by boi-alien

Actually, you can. Look at the clubs they do it all the time. THEY OWN THE PROPERTY, they can revoke the right for you to visit their property if they choose to do so for WHATEVER reason they want. It's a private establishment, and if they wanted, they can call the cops and have you thrown out.

also you ask for us to show you proof, WE SHOW you statistics and you guys refute them. so what gives?

And look at the great publicity they've been getting, and the human rights complaints they've received. Just because something is technically "legal" doesn't mean its right, or a good idea. Most businesses do have the right to refuse service to anyone, but they don't do it for arbitrary reasons such as age/race because it would be suicide.

Stats only tell half the story, and are rarely 100% accurate and unbiased. If I were to show you the NHL owner's stats would you not refute them? Ralph could probly make a stat that killing puppy dogs is good for the economy, and most people in the province would believe it. I'm sorry that i'm not gullable and easily manipulated like you want me to be.

[HTN SWCHS]

its gone down, period. stop bitching about how much

[Singel]

Originally posted by HTN SWCHS
its gone down, period. stop bitching about how much

hope ur not talkin bout me, cuz I;m the one happy about this:dunno:

[sputnik]

Originally posted by Singel

That's just an incorrect blanket statement, kind of like saying white people were slave owners, or black people are criminals, implying that all members of a group are is just ridiculous.. It should read,

Many male drivers in the 16-21 age group are dangerous drivers for a variety of reasons, but many male drivers in the 16-21 age group are not dangerous drivers for a variety of reasons.


Sorry... let me re-word

STATISTICALLY males aged 16-21 have the most tickets and at fault accidents than ANY OTHER AGE GROUP

Us that are older than 21 and now fall into statistically safer groups should not have to pick up the slack by paying to cover the damages that the male 16-21 group causes.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by Singel

So can i stop letting native people into my store, or limit them to 1 at a time because I'm afraid they'll shoplift or rob me? I bet I could find some statistics to prove it. A storeowner would be in court for that. yet they are allowed to limit young people (Usually under 18, so they can't vote or make any human rights noise even if they wanted to) to coming into their stores. I could probly find stats that say native people are more likely than young people to do it, but I don't think that's gonna save my ass in court, or public image. Hell, I've often considered filing a complaint with a human rights organization over insurance, but I know I could never beat billion dollar companies, and HR Orgs. have more important issues to deal with.


No you cant not let them come in. However if you are in an area where armed robberies and B&E's are very common you can expect your insurance to be very high or have insurance companies that wont cover you.

In Winnipeg there was a couple of years where a few areas were being hit with arsons and all of the people that lived in that area paid more for fire insurance.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by Singel

Stats only tell half the story, and are rarely 100% accurate and unbiased. If I were to show you the NHL owner's stats would you not refute them? Ralph could probly make a stat that killing puppy dogs is good for the economy, and most people in the province would believe it. I'm sorry that i'm not gullable and easily manipulated like you want me to be.

Half the story? What else are you looking for? Young drivers are HIGH RISK. Not ALL of them. But insurance companies cant interview everyone and make assumptions on a person by person basis because everyone is at risk of an accident. They cant choose who will turn out to be the better driver when the driver has barely driven.

You are paranoid for the sake of being paranoid. You have it in your head that everyone out there is out to get you so anything you hear you automatically believe the opposite.

Don't be gullible, be more educated and less ignorant. Start by talking to people who run large insurance companies and ask them why they charge so much for young drivers. I have twenty bucks you will hear the words "high risk" in the FIRST sentence they say.

Ive said it before. Killing puppies IS a good idea as it will lower the requirement of dog pounds and animal shelters.

[davidI]

Originally posted by sputnik

Half the story? What else are you looking for? Young drivers are HIGH RISK. Not ALL of them.

So you condone the use of sterotypes and discrimination?

[sputnik]

Originally posted by davidI


So you condone the use of sterotypes and discrimination?

These arent stereotypes and this isnt discrimination. These are statistics that have come from actually accidents and traffic violations from a specific group of people.

How do you suggest that insurance should work then? Are insurance companies supposed to assume that everyone will be a perfect driver and then when they get into an accident their own insurance goes up? Well if the person caused $100,000 damages how much should that persons insurance go up without affecting the rest of the people with insurance?

Well, do you know that would actually work. HOWEVER, in order for it to work your insurance after an accident would have to go up to an insane rate that you probably wouldnt be able to afford. So you wouldnt get insurance and would stop driving. The insurance company would pay for the damages out of pocket and would eventually lose money and go out of business thus ending the insurance industry and the money you would spend on insurance would go to lawyers to hunt down the people that injured you in the accident. Sounds like a fun time.

[JeremyD]

There are a few problems i see with the idea of higher rates for bad drivers. While to an extent I am totally for it, but it doesn't entirely address the issue of the fact that people are bad drivers and shouldn't be on the road. I see a couple of situations:

1) If you are a bad driver and are wealthy, you may not see the increased insurance rate enough of a penalty to change your driving habits. It is fun to push your SL55 or whatever to its limits. If it costs you 7000 a year to do it so be it.

2) The bad driver and not wealthy. There is always the option is always to drive without insurance. 5000 a year for insurance or a 2800 no insurance ticket? hmmmm I think I will pick the no insurance ticket. If I destroy the car I can always rebuild it. This isn't all that uncommon.

3) Bad driver gets high rates for bad driving and changes his ways.

While raising the rates of bad drivers helps to differ the losses associated with these people I don't see it as actually helping.

With the regulated PLPD coverage I think within the next year we will see a sharp increase in premium coverage as the insurance companies will have to recoup their losses somehow. Those that can't afford full coverage...well there is always cheap PLPD to fall back on.

Too many people believe that driving is a right not a priviledge, that combined with as a society no one really wants to take responsibility for their actions nor do they understand the concept of "just because I can, doesn't mean I should" means that those few responsible people are going to supporting the rest of society.

[MerfBall]

Originally posted by Singel



This is left wide open for bias all over the place. How do you know they don't only select dumb HS kids who are most likely to do these stupid things, and middle aged family men with clean records for their 1000. Stats only tell half the story.

I could take 1000 licensed teens on the honor roll, and they woyuld be less risky than 1000 35 yr. old redneck men who spend each night at the bar.


Yes companies can report the statistics in their advantage to increase sales. But in what advantage does Transport Alberta gain by reporting to the general public the statistics of accidents and spending the time show trends? Again you need to look at this objectively and put away your conspiracy theories/equality issues. But to make it more clear to you this is from the preface of the same reports:


The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the “who”, “what”, “when”, “where”, “why”,
and “how” of traffic collisions which occurred in Alberta during 2003. Although the report is
general in nature, it pays particular attention to casualty collisions, that is, those collisions which
result in death or injury. Legislation in Alberta requires that a traffic collision which results in
either death, injury or property damage to an apparent extent of $1000.00 or more, be reported
immediately to an authorized peace officer. The officer completes a standardized collision report
form which provides information on various aspects of the traffic collision. This report is based on
the data collected from these report forms.

The collision report form is issued with standard instructions to every police service within Alberta,
to be completed by the officer attending the scene of a motor vehicle collision or at a police
station. Police priorities at the scene of a collision are to care for the injured, protect the motoring
public and clear the roadway. Completion of the collision report form is a secondary, but
necessary task.

After completion, the information on the collision report form is coded for input to computer files.
The Alberta Collision Information System, which has been operational since 1978, undergoes
several manual and computerized inspections each year in order to ensure maximum accuracy of
the final data output. This collision information is used to make Alberta’s roads safer for all road
users. Due to continuing police investigation, some numbers presented in this report may be
subject to revision. It should also be noted that not all percentage columns will total 100 due to
rounding error.

This report was produced based on collisions reported to Alberta Transportation by police, at the
time of printing. The numbers presented in this report will not be updated. However, the patterns
and trends detailed in this report represent an accurate description of Alberta’s traffic collision
picture.


Yes there are many minor accidents that many people do not report, BUT neither insurance companies, nor the general public is interested in minor accidents, it is the major accidents that claims are filed and people are seriously injured.



Originally posted by Singel

Put yourself in my shoes, and I feel the exact same way. I don't want to pay for young bad drivers', or old bad drivers' &quot;ferraris&quot; (flamboyant driving and accidents), but that's exactly what i'm doing, and paying for them a hell of a lot more than you.


Most of the people disputing your points have been in your shoes and have paid outrageous insurance and this is also the same reason people are telling you the way it is and why from our own experiences. On the topic of outrageous insurance you have to question the car that you drive, because there are many cars out there that basic insurance (required by law) is dirt cheap.


Originally posted by Singel

People dont' NEED cars, but we NEED to not be discriminated against for things beyond our personal control. Drivers should be discriminated against for being BAD DRIVERS, because its a choice that can be made, unlike someones age or gender.

That's just an incorrect blanket statement, kind of like saying white people were slave owners, or black people are criminals, implying that all members of a group are is just ridiculous.. It should read,

Many male drivers in the 16-21 age group are dangerous drivers for a variety of reasons, but many male drivers in the 16-21 age group are not dangerous drivers for a variety of reasons.

I hate these damn idiots as much, if not more than you do for perpetuating this stupid stereotype that we're all testosterone driven, irresponsible morons. Most of these kids have rich parents, so it doesn't matter how much insurance charges them, changes need to be made at the legal level to get them off the roads.

We're all pretty stubborn here, and nobody's gonna change their beliefs from reading anything here. Just try to think objectively, i can completely understand why you feel you're right, just like i hope you have considered why i tihnk I am right.

Basically i think the whole risk assessment system is flawed. Age, and sex just seem like easy copouts for the insurance companies to me, because the can exploit young people so easily because of our limited economic and political power. Half the people in the &quot;highest risk&quot; can't even vote. i think the system could be a lot better, which would also mean being a lot more complicated. Several other factors need to be more strongly weighted (ex: Grades for younger drivers, score on actual license test, etc.) Since insurance companies are only concerned with profit, the easiest, simplest solution is what they use, even if it is not for the welfare of the general public. We should have gov't insurance, because through regulations both the gov't and society as a whole can benefit by getting bad drivers off the road, and reducing strain on health care system.



I still don't understand how young people are being exploited. The statistics clearly show it and even look over the historical data, over the past 6 years it is the same trend. let me quote Transport Alberta again:


• Casualty rates were highest for persons between the ages of 15 and 24.
• Male drivers between the ages of 16 and 19 had the highest involvement rate of all drivers
involved in casualty collisions.


Definition of Causlty Collision

Casualty Collision – A vehicle collision which results in either a fatal or personal injury.


I don't see how you are being objective here, you still are arguing your rights because of age is being infringed on and yet the facts show that drivers between the ages of 15 to 24 have high causality collisions/rates, the data is collected annually and reported annually (each report contains annual sample size), is produced by a public organization that has nothing to gain other then informing the general public and yet you still refute with nothing more then infringement of rights. Where are your FACTS to say otherwise?

Do you really think that being the government reports these statistics that if there is regulated insurance that young people will not pay a higher rate over a lower risk group? They would use the same statistic, oh but wait that's when you will be screaming conspiracy for sure because it is a government run agency providing the statistics and a government run agency providing insurance.



Originally posted by Singel

Each year of experience should result in a big discount, while each infraction should result in HUGE increases. For this to work the gov't needs to get off their ass and legislate stiffer laws for driving without insurance (Say $10000+, with potential for more and even jail time for repeat offense), and harsher driving (Lower # of demerits before suspension/revoking) and licensing regulations.


They already do this. And let's see how many posts do we see in this forum alone about fighting tickets, getting off without demerits or without paying the fine/reducing the fine, when people clearly admit that they are at fault????? Frankly so long as JP's allow fines to be reduced or demerits removed that whole system is a joke. It's either you're guilty or not, not in between guilty.


Originally posted by Singel

Nothing you can say will make me believe that overcharging, or just treating people differently based on things beyond their control is ever right. Unless we can start bringing in ethnicities, gender and age into other situations in society, like many of my examples, its absolute BS. When will being a responsible, young, white male start paying off?

When we get off of group based insurance/benefits. Then people with cancer and life threatening diseases will not have to pay more for life insurance. I won't have to pay so much for health care because my family goes to a doctor less then a single adult.



Originally posted by Singel

I completely agree, there shouldn't have even been a head tax, and now I'm paying for my forefathers mistakes. in the process of recognizing their rights, they're taking away mine. If Merry Christmas is politically incorrect nowadays, but Happy Chinese New Year is okay, my rights have clearly been sacrificed to appease the minority. I have no problem with other cultures celebrating their traditions, just not at the expense of mine, which I've said in the other thread.


How are your right infringed??? There's a difference between political correctness and infringements of rights. People can go around saying Merry Christmas all they want, there is no law saying you cannot say that. What rights are you giving up to appease minorities? Am I missing something or has Christmas Day been removed as a statuatory holiday and Chinese New Year been given a statuatory holiday in the calendar year?


Originally posted by Singel

I can't get scholarships specifically for being white. I'd love a level playing field, so people can stop making excuses when I beat them, and we can have fair competition. Others won't be competing if they can' benefit from minority scholarships or ESL special ed. I'm not saying those are bad things, but scales of equality weigh down on both sides.

Do you think its a good thing that less qualified minorities/women get jobs over better qualified white men to appease affirmative action? Of course underqualified white men still get jobs at minorities expenses, but the trend is reversing the other way. I'm all for equality, nobody deserves status superior or inferior to me, but that's just the way the world is right now.


No but statistically speaking ethnic minorities and females are under represented in the work force and in terms of education are at a disadvantage (namely foreign students). And workforce equality is not a government sanction but a program many companies choose (and some choose not) to run as part of their corporate culture.

But even when you talk about scholarships, many scholarships are not offered by the government, but private organizations, why would a Native Indian organization payout a scholarship or donate money for a scholarship for people that are not even Native? Just like why would an Oil company offer a scholarship to someone studying Psychology.

You are taking this gender/race issue to far.


Originally posted by Singel

Those statistics don't say anything about enthnicity (I didn't read all 100 pages though, maybe its in there). There is no way you can say young white male drivers cause more/less accidents on avg. than young asian males, etc. Of course there are probly more white male drivers than other ethnicities, so in total yes, but not per 1000 drivers.


Your right it doesn't say anything about ethniticity, but you really need to look at the statistics. Yes the observation says out of 1000 licensed drivers because reporting statistics you look for trends, if you actually look they didn't take a sample size of a mere 1000 drivers it is the total of 34073 drivers that were involved in causality accidents.


Originally posted by Singel

I'd like to be lumped in with good drivers actually, because I am one and race, age or gender plays no role in that. You don't seem to understand that I am for equality 100% in every facet of society through things that cannot be change and are not by your choice. Commit a crime, crash a car, or being dumber than me (not working as hard, some peeps just aren't all that bright to begin with and they can't really be blamed) are all controllable variables, and people deserve to be &quot;discriminated&quot; against.


And I'm sure you are a good driver and you're not being discriminated against, look at the statistics again over the past 6 years the annual data has not changed one bit, drivers between the age of 16-24 are involved in the most causality accidents. Remember again the data is sample size over one year, it contains no historical samples.


Originally posted by Singel


And look at the great publicity they've been getting, and the human rights complaints they've received. Just because something is technically &quot;legal&quot; doesn't mean its right, or a good idea. Most businesses do have the right to refuse service to anyone, but they don't do it for arbitrary reasons such as age/race because it would be suicide.

Stats only tell half the story, and are rarely 100% accurate and unbiased. If I were to show you the NHL owner's stats would you not refute them? Ralph could probly make a stat that killing puppy dogs is good for the economy, and most people in the province would believe it. I'm sorry that i'm not gullable and easily manipulated like you want me to be.

Here's the problem with your argument, and you would learn this in any statistical analysis course, yes statistics can be made to favor one side using a variety of graphical charts. But when it boils down to it and you look at the raw statistics and do the trending yourself there is no way for it to be made to look favorable. Transport Alberta's statistics site the source of their data and methodology and show you the raw data and then a chart of the trend, not only that Transport Alberta gains nothing from reporting these stats.

You say you are being objective and yet you won't look at the facts and yet with your arguments you bring no facts to the table other then that your own personal opinion.

You say that the risk assessment system is flawed and yet not only is this how it works for insurance, but many risk assessments in the financial markets and companies. You argue that it is flawed because it "discriminates" I'd hate to tell you that this is just how acutaries work. Basic Actuary fact:


- Offsetting one risk with another. Under certain circumstances, two harmful events might possess the characteristic that when the likelihood of one goes up, the likelihood of the other goes down. Thus, if we know that when coffee prices go up, soda prices go down, we might want to invest in both coffee and soda stocks, to manage our risk.

- Risk is a matter of perspective. What might be harmful to one party, might be good for another. For example, when the value of the dollar goes down against the French Franc, that might be bad for an American business, but favorable for a French business. By trading off the consequences of an undesirable event with another party who is affected favorably, both parties are made better off.

- Focus on catastrophic risks. Mathematical theory shows that the greatest relief from risk (and consequently, the greatest increase in peace of mind) comes from eliminating the consequences of events that are very unlikely, but result in very big losses. Thus, families should think about what might happen if the breadwinner dies, their house burns down, or they lose all of their savings. They should then implement solutions that reduce the likelihood of these events, as well as manage their financial impact. This might involve purchasing a life insurance policy or investing the savings in many different stocks, to reduce the exposure to any one company's fortunes. Generally, a few simple measures taken to address catastrophic risks have a great impact on our well-being. Diversify, diversify, diversify. It is better to take on many small risks than face one big risk. Many small risks generally average out, to give an outcome that is not too extreme in one direction or another. Results become more predictable. Thus, diversification is an important tool in managing risk.


now crossreference with the statistics from Transport Alberta and what do you have. I'm pretty sure anyone would come up with the same conclusion that many insurance companies have, drivers between the age of 16-24 should be charged more because they are involved in more causality accidents. Note that I am saying involved in, not even necessarily cause, because to insurance companies it costs them alot of money either way whether you are the person who caused the accident or are just involved.

This is the same reason why Rage pays more for his AMG then Joe accross the street pays for his Caravan (more expensive to repair, a class of cars statistically involved in more accidents, higher rate), and why people in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Timbuktoo pay different rates for same vehicles in Calgary.

[MerfBall]

Originally posted by JeremyD

1) If you are a bad driver and are wealthy, you may not see the increased insurance rate enough of a penalty to change your driving habits. It is fun to push your SL55 or whatever to its limits. If it costs you 7000 a year to do it so be it.


No but insurance companies can refuse you insurance if your driving history is that bad. I do know some insurance companies that will refuse a driver that has ever had their license suspended. Even for people that just get out of accidents with bodily injuries, many, many insurance companies will refuse insurance initially.

Hell even Meloche Monnex will not insure anyone under 25, and again according to singel's posts this is age discrimination, but Monnex chooses to not take on the risk of high risk drivers and as a result many of their customers enjoy better rates.


Originally posted by JeremyD

2) The bad driver and not wealthy. There is always the option is always to drive without insurance. 5000 a year for insurance or a 2800 no insurance ticket? hmmmm I think I will pick the no insurance ticket. If I destroy the car I can always rebuild it. This isn't all that uncommon.


Guaranteed that this ticket will show up and later on in life you will find yourself either not being able to find an insurance company or paying alot more for it because it is on your record.



Originally posted by JeremyD

3) Bad driver gets high rates for bad driving and changes his ways.

While raising the rates of bad drivers helps to differ the losses associated with these people I don't see it as actually helping.


Remember insurance is not a means to create safer driving conditions. It's more of piece of mind that if you are involved in an accident (to the extreme that it is severe) that you will be ok financially in the time it takes to recover or even just to repair the vehicle. The law for minimum insurance is there to protect people from you're option b, because lets face it you are right people do do that.

[JeremyD]

No insurance tickets are not factored into your driving history. In my reckless youth I drove briefly without insurance and got caught. It does not show up on your record. The only real negative effect on your insurance that this brings is that you have a break in coverage. At one point in time it was 6 months and you were considered a first time driver. Now I don't see it as mattering.

Meloche Monnex can be fairly restrictive. I don't think they cover certain vehicles either such as crotch rockets but I could be wrong. It is possible that these guys will lose their insurance but you can't tell me that MM would deny this guy car insurance if he has a lot of other insurance through them especially if they are large policies. It is all about money.

And then they can take the option of not using insurance at all. The point I was trying to make was that high insurance rates isn't necessarily going to stop the people from driving. Which seems to be the initial point of this thread.

[davidI]

Originally posted by sputnik


These arent stereotypes and this isnt discrimination. These are statistics that have come from actually accidents and traffic violations from a specific group of people.



Statistics show asians have been involved in a lot of stabbings this year. No more immigrants should be allowed in this country!

Statistics show that drug activity involves a high ratio of minorities. All colored people should go to jail!

Obviously what I said is ignorant, stereotypical and discriminatory so I have no idea what your point is!

And yes I do think everyone should start off being seen as a perfect driver. You asked how a person who causes a $100 000 accident could be covered...my answer is 100 people paying a $1000/yr rate. That person could then have their rates increased to 5 grand a year or whatever - it's their own fault they can't afford it and not some blanket stereotype.

I'd like you to go look at the correlation between insurance rates and accidents and then look at the correlation between insurance rates and the stock markets and tell me which is stronger :dunno: Truth is, a lot of our insurance rate is just an investment pool for the companies - when the markets go up our rates stay the same, when the markets drop our rates increase! It sure would be nice to invest other's money for my profit!

[sputnik]

Originally posted by davidI

And yes I do think everyone should start off being seen as a perfect driver. You asked how a person who causes a $100 000 accident could be covered...my answer is 100 people paying a $1000/yr rate. That person could then have their rates increased to 5 grand a year or whatever - it's their own fault they can't afford it and not some blanket stereotype.


So what you are saying is that you would rather pay $2000/year for the rest of your life instead of paying more until you are 25 and then under $1000/year for the remainder?

Face it. It is just a matter of time where insurance companies will cry foul and stop insuring young drivers altogether. This isnt racism or stereotyping. It is RISK management. Is the Saddledome discriminating the hockey fans by only putting netting at the ends of the ice and not in the middle? No, because statistically it is more likely for someone to get hit by a flying puck at high speeds at the ends of the rink.

The option is yours. Dont drive. Thousands of people in Calgary dont have cars and rely on transit daily. In Europe driving and parking is so cost prohibitive that even more people dont drive.

Lets face it. We have ALL been there and have had to pay high insurance rates. However in my case I decided to drive a beater (still do) that didnt require anything more than PLPD. So I never paid more than $3200/year. If you are 16 and really want the RSX-S or whatever... be prepared to pay.


Originally posted by davidI

I'd like you to go look at the correlation between insurance rates and accidents and then look at the correlation between insurance rates and the stock markets and tell me which is stronger :dunno: Truth is, a lot of our insurance rate is just an investment pool for the companies - when the markets go up our rates stay the same, when the markets drop our rates increase! It sure would be nice to invest other's money for my profit!

Communism at its FINEST. So when a drunken 18 year old runs a school bus off the road and the settlement is in the millions we ALL are supposed to pay more for his faults? What does the 50 year old with a 30 year clean driving record deserve to have to pay more? Or the person who just turned 25 and kept his driving record clean through the "dark years" supposed to think. Your mentality makes it ok to get into an accident because EVERYONE else will pick up most of the slack instead of just the people responsible for the majority of the accidents.

[Singel]

Originally posted by sputnik

The option is yours. Dont drive. Thousands of people in Calgary dont have cars and rely on transit daily. In Europe driving and parking is so cost prohibitive that even more people dont drive.

Lets face it. We have ALL been there and have had to pay high insurance rates. However in my case I decided to drive a beater (still do) that didnt require anything more than PLPD. So I never paid more than $3200/year. If you are 16 and really want the RSX-S or whatever... be prepared to pay.


You're just assuming that I'm a ricer, just like insurance companies assume I'm a bad driver, and you're both wrong. I don't even drive my own car, because I can't afford it. I'm occasional on a minivan, but when I do insure my own vehivle it will be a POS. I agree 100% that someone drivin an RSX should pay more than a beater...it's their choice.



Communism at its FINEST. So when a drunken 18 year old runs a school bus off the road and the settlement is in the millions we ALL are supposed to pay more for his faults? What does the 50 year old with a 30 year clean driving record deserve to have to pay more? Or the person who just turned 25 and kept his driving record clean through the &quot;dark years&quot; supposed to think. Your mentality makes it ok to get into an accident because EVERYONE else will pick up most of the slack instead of just the people responsible for the majority of the accidents.

You're just making my point for me. Why should I be paying for the idiots any more than you? Because I'm more statistically likely to be an idiot? I'm clearly not an idiot, and they could use their statistics to prove it if they wanted. I'm like 3 years squeeky clean, why should I have to wait until I'm 25 to get a break. Tell me what the % of drivers is that are squeeky clean for 3 years, but then have 3 accidents in the next 6? I'm guessing it's awfully low. 9 years is a hell of a lot of time to to pay to prove that ur a good driver.

Meh, your other post is 2 long, i'm not going to waste my time responding cuz it won't really accomplish much anyways. I'm not gonna say the stats you've posted are completely falsified, but they DO NOT tell the whole story. Several other variable factors can be broughten in to paint a clearer picture of what's really happening.

[Singel]

And yes, I'd rather pay $2000 my whole life than $4000 for 9 years, and then $1000 the rest. I the end I will be paying more overall, but I'll able to afford it.

Say I make around $6g a year now

$4000 = 75% of my budget now
$2000 = 33% of my budget now

If I'm making $50 g's (it will be more though ;))

$1000 = 2% of my budget in the future
$2000 = 4% of my budget in the future

(assuming I drive till around 65)
4000x9+ 1000x40 = $106 000
2000x49 = 98 000

So actually a flat rate my whole life would end up costing less, but these are of course estimated round numbers. The difference would not end up being as large as you might think.

$2000 in my pocket now is more advantageous than $1000 in the future.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Singel
You're just making my point for me. Why should I be paying for the idiots any more than you? Because I'm more statistically likely to be an idiot? I'm clearly not an idiot, and they could use their statistics to prove it if they wanted. I'm like 3 years squeeky clean, why should I have to wait until I'm 25 to get a break. Tell me what the % of drivers is that are squeeky clean for 3 years, but then have 3 accidents in the next 6? I'm guessing it's awfully low. 9 years is a hell of a lot of time to to pay to prove that ur a good driver.
And they tell me that all I care about is myself :rolleyes:.

If the insurance system was designed around "you", the system wouldn't exist. We wouldn't need insurance. We'd pay for our own mistakes (clearly what you want). If you get in an accident and you incur $50k of damages, then you should pay for that $50k yourself.

[lint]

Originally posted by Singel
And yes, I'd rather pay $2000 my whole life than $4000 for 9 years, and then $1000 the rest. I the end I will be paying more overall, but I'll able to afford it.

Say I make around $6g a year now

$4000 = 75% of my budget now
$2000 = 33% of my budget now

If I'm making $50 g's (it will be more though ;))

$1000 = 2% of my budget in the future
$2000 = 4% of my budget in the future

(assuming I drive till around 65)
4000x9+ 1000x40 = $106 000
2000x49 = 98 000

So actually a flat rate my whole life would end up costing less, but these are of course estimated round numbers. The difference would not end up being as large as you might think.

$2000 in my pocket now is more advantageous than $1000 in the future.

Wait a sec. You've been driving for 3 years squeaky clean, but you're 16 now. So you started driving when you were 13? And your math skills aren't up to par.
$4000 x 9 = $36000
$1000 x 40 = $40000
Total = $76000

And you still don't get it that insurance is based on a peer group, it's group insurance. An individuals performance is only part of the equation, the balance is how their peers do.

No one is saying that YOU specifically are an idiot, but statistically speaking, there are more idiots in the age group that you belong to than in other age groups. There are more accidents causing death caused by members of your peer group relative to others.

And you keep saying that the statistics are skewed against you, yet you've failed to cite one example that supports your case.

Also, you keep arguing that you're being discriminated against based solely on your age. Well, driver history also increases with age. At 18 (I don't see how you have 3 years of driving experience at 16 anyways) you would have 2 years of driving experience. And I'm talking unsupervised, no mommy or daddy in the passenger seat. Compare that with someone who's 25 who was insured at the same time. That's 9 years of driving experience. What does 2 years of clean driving mean relative to someone who has 9 years? Say the 25 yr old person had 1 accident. Well, that leaves 8 years of clean driving. Which is still 4 times what the 18 year old has. Should the 18 yr old be paying the same amount for insurance? Is the 16 yr old still being discriminated against based on age? Or does driver history factor in?

[Singel]

Originally posted by rage2

And they tell me that all I care about is myself :rolleyes:.

If the insurance system was designed around &quot;you&quot;, the system wouldn't exist. We wouldn't need insurance. We'd pay for our own mistakes (clearly what you want). If you get in an accident and you incur $50k of damages, then you should pay for that $50k yourself.

I'm not the one creating topics to complain about the new, equitable insurance system. And yes, I clearly do want people to have to pay for there own mistakes. You guys all whine about paying for my age groups mistakes, when I'm the one who's really paying for them.


hmmm, not too sure how i ended up putting 106:confused:

Where did you get that I'm 16 from? 2004-1986 = 18, so my math skills aren't the only one's not up to par.

So I'm in my 3rd year of driving, squeeky clean. What % of drivers who are clean after 2 years start fucking up and crashing? Does that percentage magically change at age 25 or something? NOW it has to do with driving experience, BEFORE, a 25 year old new driver would pay less than me, so it was tied a lot more to age than experience.

[boi-alien]

Originally posted by Singel
Meh, your other post is 2 long, i'm not going to waste my time responding cuz it won't really accomplish much anyways. I'm not gonna say the stats you've posted are completely falsified, but they DO NOT tell the whole story. Several other variable factors can be broughten in to paint a clearer picture of what's really happening.

When he's given clear factual numbers he keeps arguing that the statistics are somehow skewed. And when he's confronted with factual evidence he just says "oh, your post is too long, i don't want to respond". None of your arguements carry any weight junior. You keep saying how the statistics don't show the entire story, so enlighten me with the entire story, what are these "other variable factors" that you keep speaking of? You have yet to show any of us ANY type of evidence to back up that claim. I'm not talking about something you're going to make up, Take MerfBall's example and FIND me some "other variable factors" that you speak of.


Statistics show asians have been involved in a lot of stabbings this year. No more immigrants should be allowed in this country!

Statistics show that drug activity involves a high ratio of minorities. All colored people should go to jail!

Show me your statistics. MerfBall has been nice enough to find an entire website with raw data for us. Show us some real proof to back up your absurd claims.

[blueripper6]

I think they wiped everyones slate clean.. and the only reason the shitty drivers saw the big improvements because they were getting bent over paying 500 bucks a month!!! now down to 180... i guess its just a second chance.. dont worry everyone, soon they will be back to paying 500!!!

[Seanith]

Originally posted by rage2

For the last time:

It's a proven fact that the 16-24 age group gets into the majority of accidents. That's why that group is a riskier group and pays higher rates based on risk. It's not discrimination, it's risk assessment. Why can't people understand that?



I refuse to accept it because its fucking bullshit. My insurance went down $1700 from what I paid last year. No claims, only 1 speeding ticket in 5 years of driving. Fuck anyone who says I shouldn't be paying what I should have been paying all along. Innocent until proven guilty.

[bol]

My insurance is still 9k/year... so the breaks aren't that great!!


5 months till it's reasonable...

[davidI]

Originally posted by boi-alien


Show me your statistics. MerfBall has been nice enough to find an entire website with raw data for us. Show us some real proof to back up your absurd claims.

They were examples idiot.

Statistics show that 70% of beyond members can't read worth a shit and aren't smart enough to wipe their own ass. :rolleyes:

[Singel]

Originally posted by boi-alien


When he's given clear factual numbers he keeps arguing that the statistics are somehow skewed. And when he's confronted with factual evidence he just says &quot;oh, your post is too long, i don't want to respond&quot;. None of your arguements carry any weight junior. You keep saying how the statistics don't show the entire story, so enlighten me with the entire story, what are these &quot;other variable factors&quot; that you keep speaking of? You have yet to show any of us ANY type of evidence to back up that claim. I'm not talking about something you're going to make up, Take MerfBall's example and FIND me some &quot;other variable factors&quot; that you speak of.

Show me your statistics. MerfBall has been nice enough to find an entire website with raw data for us. Show us some real proof to back up your absurd claims.

Read the pages. I've already spent enough time on this, and am not gonna waste more time looking all over. I've already written several long posts, and one more responding to that one isn't going to solve anything. You're probly gonna take this as me saying "Screw u guys I'm going home"...because u think i think u beat me in this argument or something and thats fine by me, i dont really care if people think they beat me in an internet debate. Half the people here have similar views to mine, and I've received pm's from people supporting what i've said (why they don't just post i dont know). Nothing you guys can say will change my mind, just like nothing i say will change yours. I believe I'm right, and that's all that matters to me.

The same people who are supporting a discriminatory system here, are the first to bitch and complain about nightclub discrimnation, etc. Remember that whatever stats I throw at you won't mean shit when you're the one being stereotyped unjustifiably.


Originally posted by Seanith


I refuse to accept it because its fucking bullshit. My insurance went down $1700 from what I paid last year. No claims, only 1 speeding ticket in 5 years of driving. Fuck anyone who says I shouldn't be paying what I should have been paying all along. Innocent until proven guilty.

:werd:

[davidI]

Originally posted by Seanith


I refuse to accept it because its fucking bullshit. My insurance went down $1700 from what I paid last year. No claims, only 1 speeding ticket in 5 years of driving. Fuck anyone who says I shouldn't be paying what I should have been paying all along. Innocent until proven guilty.
:thumbsup:

What I don't get is how I paid $1800 @ 16, $3200@ 17 and 3600@18....

Is a driver with 3 years experience twice as likely to get in an accident as a driver with 1 year experience? Doubtful. Oh shit, I know, the stock markets took a blow that year :guns:

[Jynx]

Originally posted by davidI

:thumbsup:

What I don't get is how I paid $1800 @ 16, $3200@ 17 and 3600@18....

Is a driver with 3 years experience twice as likely to get in an accident as a driver with 1 year experience? Doubtful. Oh shit, I know, the stock markets took a blow that year :guns:

Any accidents or tickets over the 3 years.......change of cars etc?

[davidI]

Originally posted by Jynx


Any accidents or tickets over the 3 years.......change of cars etc?

No accidents or tickets. Cars changed but it's just PLPD so it shouldn't matter (my aunt works for an insurance firm and said it shouldn't atleast).