Victims Right's

[B. Max]

Yes it is up to the GOVERNMENT in Canada to provide Compensation for victims of crime, this does not INCLUDE items that have been stolen.

Well this item has not been stolen.

What's a government problem. Letting an uninsured driver on the road who causes an accident.

A crime has been committed, should the government pay to replaces the vehicle?

[guyser]

What's a government problem. Letting an uninsured driver on the road who causes an accident.

No. They have absolved themselves of liability when the driver forged the ins co name and policy number on the licence plate forms.

It is also why you purchase "uninsured motorist" coverage.

There can be many ways the gov is liable.

- bridge collapse when they should have known

- wrongful convictions

- denial of services

- failure to perform

...you get the drift.

[B. Max]

guyser' date='Aug 2 2007, 12:50 PM' post='241516']

No. They have absolved themselves of liability when the driver forged the ins co name and policy number on the licence plate forms.

No they haven't. They set the flawed system up. Where one can buy PL and PD then register a vehicle, get a plate and then turn around and cancel the insurance. The system invites fraud and abuse and they know it, and they know it is happening every day.

It is also why you purchase "uninsured motorist" coverage.

Which is all you should have to buy or not buy . Only in a backwards system does one have to buy insurance that covers everyone but the guy who actually buys the insurance.

Edited August 2, 2007 by B. Max

[guyser]

guyser' date='Aug 2 2007, 12:50 PM' post='241516']

No. They have absolved themselves of liability when the driver forged the ins co name and policy number on the licence plate forms.

No they haven't. They set the flawed system up. Where one can buy PL and PD then register a vehicle, get a plate and then turn around and cancel the insurance. The system invites fraud and abuse and they know it, and they know it is happening every day.

Happens all the time. But it does absolve them of responsibility as they have committed a criminal act as spelled out on the back of your liability slip.

The gov knows fraud occurs everywhere, but we are talking about liability and they are not liable.

Which is all you should have to buy or not buy . Only in a backwards system does one have to buy insurance that covers everyone but the guy who actually buys the insurance.

Not right. You are only buying to protect your own interests/investments . No one else , under no fault insurance, is covered by your policy. (some exceptions-rarely invoked)

[B. Max]

Not right. You are only buying to protect your own interests/investments . No one else , under no fault insurance, is covered by your policy. (some exceptions-rarely invoked)

Wrong, you are insuring everyone else but yourself. The whole system is wrong and has to be changed.

[guyser]

Wrong, you are insuring everyone else but yourself. The whole system is wrong and has to be changed.

Would you care to expand?

If I take auto insurance out, I am insuring my car , myself, and my family for damages to ourselves only.

Should I be in an accident, I am insuring that my car gets fixed, some payments are made for damages that may occur to my clothes (but not contents), and for some property damage that I may be liable for. Should I not be at fault, then the damages comes from the at fault party.

How am I insuring everyone else?

[B. Max]

Wrong, you are insuring everyone else but yourself. The whole system is wrong and has to be changed.

Would you care to expand?

If I take auto insurance out, I am insuring my car , myself, and my family for damages to ourselves only.

Should I be in an accident, I am insuring that my car gets fixed, some payments are made for damages that may occur to my clothes (but not contents), and for some property damage that I may be liable for. Should I not be at fault, then the damages comes from the at fault party.

How am I insuring everyone else?

You are paying twice if you buy collision. If you buy PL and PD which under the current system you have to have it will fix every one's car but not yours. Yet you foot the bill. If you want yours fixed, you have to pay again. It is bullshit.

Now if you are hit by someone who doesn't have PL and PD you are out of luck again, even though you have PL and PD which will fix everyone else's vehicle but yours.

This has to be changed to system where you pay once at the same rate you would currently have to pay for PL and PD now, subject to whatever savings their would be because of more people buying, but it covers you and your vehicle. Will people have to go out and buy insurance to cover themselves who currently don't have any. If they want to be insured they will. But that will be a good thing because more people will be buying which should bring the rates down. Will you have to buy insurance. No, and someone can run into me all they want, I'm still covered. Such a system would be more like house insurance. I hope that explains it.

[geoffrey]

PLPD protects other's on the road. If you wish to protect yourself, you pay extra. But I want to be damned sure everyone has big enough bank accounts behind them to pay for all the damages if they ever were to hit me.

I'm really unsure how anyone can have a problem with this. Collision insures your vehicle against your own negligence. PLPD insures you from getting yourself sued into servitude. It's up to you if you want the former, the latter is required so that economies can happen (if PLPD wasn't required, coverage for uninsured driver collisions would skyrocket).

[B. Max]

name='geoffrey' date='Aug 3 2007, 02:28 AM' post='241735']

But I want to be damned sure everyone has big enough bank accounts behind them to pay for all the damages if they ever were to hit me.

Well I can tell you from experience they don't. There are all kinds of people running around out there with no PL and PD.

I'm really unsure how anyone can have a problem with this. Collision insures your vehicle against your own negligence.

Because I should not have to pay twice, and many vehicles are not worth putting insurance on.

PLPD insures you from getting yourself sued into servitude. It's up to you if you want the former, the latter is required so that economies can happen (if PLPD wasn't required, coverage for uninsured driver collisions would skyrocket).

That's the way the system is set up at this time, but it's not working. It's great if everyone has insurance, but they don't and it's getting worse. The system needs to be changed so that PL and PD covers yourself. If someone chooses not to have insurance that's their problem. It's a rip off right now that PL and PD covers essentially everyone in the entire province, yet won't cover one unless you pay twice. Even the guy out there running around with no insurance is covered but the guy footing the bill isn't. It's insane.

[geoffrey]

Well I can tell you from experience they don't. There are all kinds of people running around out there with no PL and PD.

Because I should not have to pay twice, and many vehicles are not worth putting insurance on.

Then don't get collision. It's optional.

And not having PLPD is a serious offense, it's going to cost you well over a year's worth of insurance in fines, not to mention massive insurance premiums if you ever decide to get your car out of the impound lot.

That's the way the system is set up at this time, but it's not working. It's great if everyone has insurance, but they don't and it's getting worse. The system needs to be changed so that PL and PD covers yourself. If someone chooses not to have insurance that's their problem. It's a rip off right now that PL and PD covers essentially everyone in the entire province, yet won't cover one unless you pay twice. Even the guy out there running around with no insurance is covered but the guy footing the bill isn't. It's insane.

Ya, it's called no-fault insurance. Your insurance pays if I hit you. Great. Until you realise it's way more expensive for good drivers and cheap for people that cause lots of collisions. I could hit your car everyday on the drive to work and we'd both pay the same in premiums. Is that what you want?

Or would you rather have an accountable system where people pay their assessed risk.

The insurance system works. Those that break the law by not having PLPD will have it come bite them in the ass. You do realise that if someone without insurance hits you and causes damage, you have every right to sue them for your entire damages?

PLPD doesn't protect other drivers as much as it protects people from financial ruin. PLPD doesn't technically cover damage to other's cars, it covers YOUR LIABILITY in damages to others.

[B. Max]

name='geoffrey' date='Aug 3 2007, 07:37 PM' post='241842']

Then don't get collision. It's optional.

So is house insurance. But if your neighbours house catches fire and burns yours down at the same time and he doesn't have insurance do you care. No. When you bought your house insurance did they say that will be 700.00 just in case your house burns down your neighbours house and another 700.00 just in case your neighbours house burns yours down. No. If they did, you would tell them to shove it. Why should car insurance be any different. Do you not see the rip off here.

And not having PLPD is a serious offense, it's going to cost you well over a year's worth of insurance in fines, not to mention massive insurance premiums if you ever decide to get your car out of the impound lot.

So what, it doesn't replace my vehicle.

Ya, it's called no-fault insurance. Your insurance pays if I hit you. Great. Until you realise it's way more expensive for good drivers and cheap for people that cause lots of collisions. I could hit your car everyday on the drive to work and we'd both pay the same in premiums. Is that what you want?

Or would you rather have an accountable system where people pay their assessed risk.

That is a good point. We will assume you can afford to smash your vehicle up every day.

The insurance system works. Those that break the law by not having PLPD will have it come bite them in the ass. You do realise that if someone without insurance hits you and causes damage, you have every right to sue them for your entire damages?

Yes you can sue them, with no guarantee you'll ever see a cent.

PLPD doesn't protect other drivers as much as it protects people from financial ruin. PLPD doesn't technically cover damage to other's cars, it covers YOUR LIABILITY in damages to others.

If the accident was my fault, my insurance would cover his vehicle. Other wise what good would it be. Even if he doesn't have insurance.

[geoffrey]

Seems like your arguing for no-fault coverage. One rate, pays for damage to your car regardless of who caused it.

I don't like this because it rewards poor drivers and punishes good ones. Everyone's risk to the system is equal.

[jawapunk]

Our system does have the means by which to compensate vicitims, it is called a civil lawsuit. The rules are a little more stringent than perhaps the United States, which is why you see less frivolous suits, but one can sue for emotional, physical, and mental trauma, loss of the ability to work etc...

There are also many lawyers who would work pro bono or only get paid if a successful suit is brought. I don't think anyone should be able to simply sue for personal gain nor would I want to see the level of litigiousness in Canada that we see in the States.

A better question to ask yourself is, does money make it better? Is justice not enough or do you need to see dollar bills? You were stating that there aren't many government programs set in place for victims, but this is hardly the case. What kinds of government programs are you looking for? Ones that pay you money for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? That is called INSURANCE. Perhaps it would be better to enact (if it doesn't already exist) personal injury insurance laws that deal with crimes against the person, where one can purchase insurance should they ever be attacked, or have the government pay the premiums of this type of insurance.

The problems with this is the costs which would spiral out of control when everyone would feel they have a claim...Not only that, because murder does not have a time frame/expiration, there would be thousands of retro claims, which more than likely would tie the courts up, if I know anything about the likelihood of insurance companies actually paying out.

Anyways...bottom line is that civil courts are the manner of resolving this issue, they already exist. PErhaps a victims legal fund should be set up so that a victim could prosecute their case without cost, but I don't think the accused should arbitrarily have to pay, and even after conviction a civil lawsuit is the appropriate venue.

Edited August 7, 2007 by jawapunk

[B. Max]

name='geoffrey' date='Aug 4 2007, 04:50 AM' post='241889']

Seems like your arguing for no-fault coverage. One rate, pays for damage to your car regardless of who caused it.

No I'm not aguing for that at all. The government already operates a no fault system that covers personal injury, and used to cover property but they dropped it.

I don't like this because it rewards poor drivers and punishes good ones. Everyone's risk to the system is equal.

Good drivers are being punished right now, and are footing the bill. I don't know if everyones risk is equal or not, but everyones contribution certainly is not.

[guyser]

Seems like your arguing for no-fault coverage. One rate, pays for damage to your car regardless of who caused it.

I don't like this because it rewards poor drivers and punishes good ones. Everyone's risk to the system is equal.

Geoffrey, your info supplier is not telling you the truth.

"NO Fault" only refers to who will foot the bill. IOW, you buy insurance, and when time comes for a claim, YOUR insurance will pay the damage, without any regard to who is "at fault" . It solves any delays in determining fault and gets money in your hands sooner.

Your rates are based on "at fault " accidents the same as in a tort system. That has not , nor at anytime since implication of the new system, changed.

If you smashed your car daily.....your rates would be thru the roof, and you would be in the high risk market doling out thousands.

B Max

When you bought your house insurance did they say that will be 700.00 just in case your house burns down your neighbours house and another 700.00 just in case your neighbours house burns yours down. No. If they did, you would tell them to shove it. Why should car insurance be any different. Do you not see the rip off here.

It is slightly different because you have a roving missile (the car) and not a static entity (House) but the fact remains you have a form of PL and PD on your house , only it is called simply Liability.

[geoffrey]

If you smashed your car daily.....your rates would be thru the roof, and you would be in the high risk market doling out thousands.

I'm already doling out thousands despite 5 years of clean driving, no collision and no convictions.

Your right on the no-fault though. We don't have it here so I don't know much about it.

[beatenwoman2005]

Our system does have the means by which to compensate vicitims, it is called a civil lawsuit. The rules are a little more stringent than perhaps the United States, which is why you see less frivolous suits, but one can sue for emotional, physical, and mental trauma, loss of the ability to work etc...

There are also many lawyers who would work pro bono or only get paid if a successful suit is brought. I don't think anyone should be able to simply sue for personal gain nor would I want to see the level of litigiousness in Canada that we see in the States.

A better question to ask yourself is, does money make it better? Is justice not enough or do you need to see dollar bills? You were stating that there aren't many government programs set in place for victims, but this is hardly the case. What kinds of government programs are you looking for? Ones that pay you money for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? That is called INSURANCE. Perhaps it would be better to enact (if it doesn't already exist) personal injury insurance laws that deal with crimes against the person, where one can purchase insurance should they ever be attacked, or have the government pay the premiums of this type of insurance.

The problems with this is the costs which would spiral out of control when everyone would feel they have a claim...Not only that, because murder does not have a time frame/expiration, there would be thousands of retro claims, which more than likely would tie the courts up, if I know anything about the likelihood of insurance companies actually paying out.

Anyways...bottom line is that civil courts are the manner of resolving this issue, they already exist. PErhaps a victims legal fund should be set up so that a victim could prosecute their case without cost, but I don't think the accused should arbitrarily have to pay, and even after conviction a civil lawsuit is the appropriate venue.

I agree that there should be something put into place where the government acts on BEHALF of a victim(S) regarding legal action, but there is NOTHING in the Province I reside in....

pertaining to LEGAL AID......

Now having said that, I am taking legal action.... it is an uphill battle if your dealing with corruptions within Justice systems that were designed (Or they have the public believe) to serve and PROTECT..

*****HINT HINT*****

[geoffrey]

You make some good points, and it's hard for me to disagree with them. In fact, interestingly enough, I think you made the best argument against yourself

I'm sorry I missed this one.

The taxpayer does have an obligation to pay for the wrongs of the state, though. You hire police, through your politicans, through ministers and eventually through the actual deparments to lay charges on people. When your employee screws up, you need to foot the bill.

The government needs to pay individuals for reckless infringements on their freedom. If they do this, then I'm ok with criminals doing the same when convicted.

[gc1765]

The taxpayer does have an obligation to pay for the wrongs of the state, though. You hire police, through your politicans, through ministers and eventually through the actual deparments to lay charges on people. When your employee screws up, you need to foot the bill.

The government needs to pay individuals for reckless infringements on their freedom. If they do this, then I'm ok with criminals doing the same when convicted.

Does this logic apply to Native residential schools?:

That's unfortunate, but I had no hand in that. Why should I pay the price?? Because I'm the same colour as the people that did that to your mom? I owe you nothing for your mom's suffering.

[geoffrey]

Does this logic apply to Native residential schools?:

I like your line of reasoning, but I'm not sure it applies.

The government's policy is reckless infringement on freedom in the hope that enough people don't fight their tickets. When such an infringement occurs, I should be compensated when the government abuse fails to convict. The government should never be allowed to force people to choose between a conviction and eatting (thankfully, I have lots of unused vacation days). If someone is not guilty, they shouldn't have to pay for their expenses in fighting the govenrment. It really makes no sense.

Someone should never be in the situation of not being able to afford to fight a ticket, no matter how minor. If they are guilty, then tough, but if not, why are they paying?

If you are suggesting that the government had a policy directed to abuse Indian children in schools, then yes, they should be subsidized, every person that has reasonable evidence that they were directly, individually, harmed. I have reasonable evidence of my harm, I have gas receipts and two days off work plus hours preparing my defense. Hundreds of dollars, because of policy of reckless infringement on freedom. I'm not willing to accept that every child was harmed.

In the big scheme of things, I see your point and I'm willing to admit that I'm conflicted on the issue. However, I do maintain that if victims are to pay financially for their crimes, then governments should pay financially for reckless prosecution (actually I'll suggest the latter unconditionally).

[gc1765]

If you are suggesting that the government had a policy directed to abuse Indian children in schools, then yes, they should be subsidized, every person that has reasonable evidence that they were directly, individually, harmed. I have reasonable evidence of my harm, I have gas receipts and two days off work plus hours preparing my defense. Hundreds of dollars, because of policy of reckless infringement on freedom. I'm not willing to accept that every child was harmed.

Fair enough, but assuming (hypothetically speaking) that there was sufficient evidence for abuse, you would have no problem with paying (through taxes) some sort of reasonable settlement to residential school victims?