Ontario Auto insurance

[guyser]

Don't forget the cases of priceless glass figurines you had in the trunk, those should help rack up the claim even more. All these inflated claims just add to the cost for everyone else who drives.

I would forget about the figurines entirely. You put them in your trunk, you claim from your homeonwers policy NOT the auto policy.

Unattached equipment is not covered with very few (and minor) exceptions.

For instance, your entire CD collection + your in car stereo cd player is stolen? You get paid for the stereo plus one CD since it is assumed you had a CD in the player. All else excluded.

Clothes you are wearig that are destroyed by an accident or its aftermath can be claimed.

Inflated claims are generally not caused by damage to the cars, those amounts are rather static, but the bodily injury portions are what have skyrocketed.

Hey Max....we shall talk since yes you will be increased, mark my words.

[P. McGee]

This point you keep bringing up, inflated costs, resides mostly in your imagination.

Forgive me if I don't take your word on it based only on the rationale you've provided. Guyser's argument that personal injury claims are a more significant factor does sound plausible though. Paying thousands over the years for coverage I don't want and may never use is not the way I like to spend my money, so I've opted for other means of transportation through the ages that insurance would have been most expensive for me. If a golf cart type vehicle was road legal and could be insured at minimal cost in line with its low destructive potential to others, I'd be all over it. But that doesn't seem to be an option right now.

[M.Dancer]

Paying thousands over the years for coverage I don't want and may never use is not the way I like to spend my money, so I've opted for other means of transportation through the ages that insurance would have been most expensive for me.

You don't buy insurance hoping that you will use it...you buy it as....insurance..in case you need it. Whther you want it or not is irrelevant, if you drive the car the potential for you causing an accident is there and you are responsible for the damage whether it is life and limb or the car. Not wanting it is not an option if you want to drive.

And if you are unwilling or cannot afford coverage to pay for the unforeseen, then yes it is best you find alternative means of transpot

[madmax]

Hey Max....we shall talk since yes you will be increased, mark my words.

that even looks like u.

Renewal comes up in December.. Notice in November. I will let u know.

[Michael Hardner]

Paying thousands over the years for coverage I don't want and may never use is not the way I like to spend my money, so I've opted for other means of transportation through the ages that insurance would have been most expensive for me.

In any case, you would be wise to have some liability insurance, for if you hit somebody on your bike and it's bad, you may be financially ruined for one mistake.

[M.Dancer]

In any case, you would be wise to have some liability insurance, for if you hit somebody on your bike and it's bad, you may be financially ruined for one mistake.

As a regular bike commuter I have always thought that a mandatory licensing programme whose fees would include a portion for insurance as well as a portion to fund bike lanes would be a no brainer. I would be more than willing to pay $100 per year.

[Michael Hardner]

As a regular bike commuter I have always thought that a mandatory licensing programme whose fees would include a portion for insurance as well as a portion to fund bike lanes would be a no brainer. I would be more than willing to pay $100 per year.

And yet again, you throw off anybody who knows you on these boards, who would have guessed you would be against another government proposal like that.

How about, then, a city transportation license - upon which all your car, TTC and bike costs are put - like a smart card ? Better yet, add it to a Provincial card that includes driver's license, and have large private companies bid for the right to manage it.

Oh, but we dream.

[M.Dancer]

And yet again, you throw off anybody who knows you on these boards, who would have guessed you would be against another government proposal like that.

Why..have I ever come out against governement issued drivers licences?

How about, then, a city transportation license - upon which all your car, TTC and bike costs are put - like a smart card ? Better yet, add it to a Provincial card that includes driver's license, and have large private companies bid for the right to manage it.

Oh, but we dream.

That's going to far. Linking bikes to other forms of transport that I may or may not use will in the ned cost more and dilute the revenue from the intended purposes. Besides, Rob Ford wouldn't allow it.

In montreal when I was growing up everyone was supposed to have a bike license plate on their bike. No idea what the revenues went for but they were sold at city hall and a ike stores and obstensibly the idea was to combat bike theft. If you had a license, the bike serial number was recorded. I think at the time ( 1960-70s) it ws $2.00

[P. McGee]

In any case, you would be wise to have some liability insurance, for if you hit somebody on your bike and it's bad, you may be financially ruined for one mistake.

That is a possibility, but fairly remote compared to the possibility of injuring someone else seriously with a car. Since such insurance is not mandatory, I don't feel I'm taking a huge risk by forgoing it and just trying to be aware and considerate when I'm on a bike.

Apparently moped insurance was optional until into the McGuinty era, but no longer. I've seen anecdotal accounts that it can be difficult to find an insurer that deals with them. I'm still scratching my head over the rationale given for treating bikes with small gas motors so differently from those with comparably powered electric motors. Emissions from mopeds have nothing to do with issues of licensing and insurance in my mind.

[Michael Hardner]

Why..have I ever come out against governement issued drivers licences?

No, just generally against government annexation of life, I think.

That's going to far. Linking bikes to other forms of transport that I may or may not use will in the ned cost more and dilute the revenue from the intended purposes. Besides, Rob Ford wouldn't allow it.

In montreal when I was growing up everyone was supposed to have a bike license plate on their bike. No idea what the revenues went for but they were sold at city hall and a ike stores and obstensibly the idea was to combat bike theft. If you had a license, the bike serial number was recorded. I think at the time ( 1960-70s) it ws $2.00

Oh, you're from Montreal. Say no more.

[Michael Hardner]

That is a possibility, but fairly remote compared to the possibility of injuring someone else seriously with a car. Since such insurance is not mandatory, I don't feel I'm taking a huge risk by forgoing it and just trying to be aware and considerate when I'm on a bike.

It's not just your risk, but the risk of anybody walking in the street. If you don't have money to pay for their liabilities, then they're on the hook for their own medical expenses if the need arises.

[Alta4ever]

Public auto is the way to go. You will never see it in Ontario their insurance lobby is to big, that is why they were the last province to take up Medicare the insurance lobby fought tooth and nail and almost won that one.

And yet you still pay to much. I can insure two vehicles much cheaper in Alberta then in MB or BC.

[P. McGee]

It's not just your risk, but the risk of anybody walking in the street. If you don't have money to pay for their liabilities, then they're on the hook for their own medical expenses if the need arises.

Outside of those already covered by OHIP of course. You may believe I'm being irresponsible but I'm following my obligations under the law as well as common courtesy. I don't ride at excessive speed (typically I ride a bike with 20" wheels) and I slow down to near walking speeds when passing pedestrians on shared paths or when visibility ahead is limited. If I rode irresponsibly and killed someone, all the insurance in the world wouldn't change that. Maybe you can give some examples of situations where a cyclist followed all applicable laws but still caused an injury that they were found legally responsible for, resulting in care not covered by OHIP?

[M.Dancer]

Maybe you can give some examples of situations where a cyclist followed all applicable laws but still caused an injury that they were found legally responsible for, resulting in care not covered by OHIP?

Whether they are following the rules or not, an accident that you cause (by riding into someone) will leave you open to legal action.

Are you then claiming that it is impossible and that OHIP covers loss of income if it was? Will OHIP cover your legal fees and settlement if they sue you?

http://www.thestar.com/article/678179

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23420042-city-chief-dies-after-being-hit-by-cyclist.do

http://videos.torontosun.com/video/featured/toronto-and-gta/5745370001/cyclist-kills-pedestrian-no-charges-laid/33741807001

[guyser]

And yet you still pay to much. I can insure two vehicles much cheaper in Alberta then in MB or BC.

MOve the mountains east , add more people and voila, higher premiums in Alberta.

[P. McGee]

<i>Whether they are following the rules or not</i>, an accident that you cause (by riding into someone) will leave you open to legal action.

Are you then claiming that it is impossible and that OHIP covers loss of income if it was? Will OHIP cover your legal fees and settlement if they sue you?

I think you may have misunderstood, I was talking about me following the rules, not them. My suspicion is that cases where the cyclist followed all applicable laws but was found legally responsible for injuries are not very common. The sidewalk riding cases you mention would not seem to be a counterexample since the cyclists apparently broke the law. Can you be more specific about what you thought I was claiming was impossible?

[guyser]

Since such insurance is not mandatory, I don't feel I'm taking a huge risk by forgoing it and just trying to be aware and considerate when I'm on a bike.

You likely are not taking a huge risk, or any risk at all ....IF....you have any kind of home insurance (tenants ins,condo ins etc)you are covered for liability for accidents incurred on a bicycle and in fact, worldwide.

[guyser]

I think you may have misunderstood, I was talking about me following the rules, not them. My suspicion is that cases where the cyclist followed all applicable laws but was found legally responsible for injuries are not very common. The sidewalk riding cases you mention would not seem to be a counterexample since the cyclists apparently broke the law. Can you be more specific about what you thought I was claiming was impossible?

your worry should not be about being held responsible, but being able to withstand the cost of defence. Anyone can bring suit against you, it s the cost from that point to discovery and beyond that will sink you in a bloody hurry should you have no liability insurance. $30 or $40 grand to find the case dismissed is an expensive option.

This is why insurance brokers are your best friend.

[M.Dancer]

The sidewalk riding cases you mention would not seem to be a counterexample since the cyclists apparently broke the law. Can you be more specific about what you thought I was claiming was impossible?

Re -read the article. The cop said the rider was not breaking the law.

"It's not a good idea to ride a bicycle on a sidewalk but not strictly illegal," Bowman said

[P. McGee]

Re -read the article. The cop said the rider was not breaking the law.

He may be right, but my impression was that only bicycles with wheels 20" or less can be legally operated on the sidewalk, and even in that case there was a maximum age mentioned. I'll try to find a quote on that.

Edit: it may be Toronto specific, and the allowable wheel size seems to be higher than I thought: "The Toronto bylaw states that riding a bicycle with tire size over 61cm (24 inches) on sidewalks is prohibited, as is riding/operating a bicycle (or roller skates, in-line skates, skateboard, coaster, toy vehicle) on a sidewalk without due care and attention and reasonable consideration for others."

http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/safety/sidewalk/sidewalk.htm

So in the Star example the cyclist may not have broken the bylaw by riding on the sidewalk if his wheels were small enough, but if he wasn't exercising "due care and attention" then it would seem he wasn't following all applicable laws as I specified.

Edited August 19, 2010 by P. McGee

[Alta4ever]

If I rode irresponsibly and killed someone, all the insurance in the world wouldn't change that. Maybe you can give some examples of situations where a cyclist followed all applicable laws but still caused an injury that they were found legally responsible for, resulting in care not covered by OHIP?

Maybe not but the family of the deceased has the right to sue you for damages.

[P. McGee]

your worry should not be about being held responsible, but being able to withstand the cost of defence. Anyone can bring suit against you, it s the cost from that point to discovery and beyond that will sink you in a bloody hurry should you have no liability insurance. $30 or $40 grand to find the case dismissed is an expensive option.

This is why insurance brokers are your best friend.

I would give some consideration to mounting cameras on my bike to provide documentary evidence of my actions if needed. My contention is that if I exercise caution beyond the requirements of law, it's quite unlikely I'll injure someone in the first place. I would not make the same claim about driving a faster and heavier vehicle.

[Alta4ever]

your worry should not be about being held responsible, but being able to withstand the cost of defence. Anyone can bring suit against you, it s the cost from that point to discovery and beyond that will sink you in a bloody hurry should you have no liability insurance. $30 or $40 grand to find the case dismissed is an expensive option.

This is why insurance brokers are your best friend.

So right.

[Alta4ever]

I would give some consideration to mounting cameras on my bike to provide documentary evidence of my actions if needed. My contention is that if I exercise caution beyond the requirements of law, it's quite unlikely I'll injure someone in the first place. I would not make the same claim about driving a faster and heavier vehicle.

What if you don't react to a situation fast enough, and you do injure someone. Though you may not have done anything against the law you can sit be held liable for damages incurred.

[P. McGee]

What if you don't react to a situation fast enough, and you do injure someone. Though you may not have done anything against the law you can sit be held liable for damages incurred.

The possibility is certainly not zero, but it diminishes significantly with lower speeds, both in terms of stopping time and kinetic energy to transfer (since kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity). All the more reason for me to exercise caution.