Vancouver promotes insurance by the km

quote:

---

Most insurance fees are now set at a flat annual rate, Coun. Anne Roberts said in a CBC Radio interview. "What that's meant is once you paid the money, there's no advantage to you to drive less. ... There's no financial savings if you left your car home for the day.

---

[ 28 April 2005: Message edited by: scooter ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melsky:
Since it's based on global positioning systems, perhaps not just the milage could be tracked but also where you are driving. Rural areas could have lower rates than urban areas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
I'm not sure it would make much difference to premiums rates, at least not under the current Ontario insurance scheme. That is because an insuror's risk exposure is very little different whether their insured is driving her own vehicle, or riding a public bus or cycling or walking. Any personal injuries in any way related to a any motor vehicle are compensated by the injured party's own insurer (up to the no-fault threshhold ). So, you drive only once a month or in very inclement weather, and otherwise ride your bicycle downtown to work ? If a city bus hits you, or if some careless motorist opens a car door in your path, your own vehicle insuror pays for your medical expenses and compensates you for your time off work, rehab etc. So, their risk is not really all that less just because your car is parked in your garage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
So, you drive only once a month or in very inclement weather, and otherwise ride your bicycle downtown to work ? If a city bus hits you, or if some careless motorist opens a car door in your path, your own vehicle insuror pays for your medical expenses and compensates you for your time off work, rehab etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melsky:
So that could be changed along with the insurance system.

---

quote:

---

if it works that way then what happens to the cyclist who doesn't own a car at all and thus doens't have auto insurance?

---

If the injured person is not an insured under a policy of auto insurance, then the policy of the vehicle involved must respond. Note that the spouse and dependant children of a policy holder are also defined as an insured, hence say Joe buys "pay as you go" insurance and keeps his car parked most of the time; by selling the policy his insurance company becomes payor of first resort for his non-driving spouse and his three kids. That's what makes me think that it probably wouldn't change the underwriting much.

[ 28 April 2005: Message edited by: James ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
If the injured person is not an insured under a policy of auto insurance, then the policy of the vehicle involved must respond.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by paxamillion:
However, if the injured person has benefits that can be used to defray costs, the insurer will pay for what the benefits don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
It is however, another example of how all workers and society in general are forced to subsidize motorists and auto insurance.

---

For those who do not live in cities that have car co-ops, or who need to drive every day, I do think that it would be a fantastic improvement over the current flat rate insurance.

Currently, drivers who rarely use their cars are essentially subsidizing the people who drive all the time. By definition, when your car is in the garage, you have no risk of accident and should not have to insure it for accident. Your risk of accident increases with every kilometer you spend on the road, statistically speaking.

Per kilometer rates could be scaled to reflect driving ability etc. as well, so a person who drives a lot but never gets into accidents would have a lower rate/km than someone who is an appalling driver, but doesn't get into accidents by virtue of rarely driving.

I can speak from experience with the Car co-op that paying per kilometer changes the way you think about car usage for the better. I don't get into a car and drive thirty kilomters (at the present rate of 20 cents/km all inclusive) without a good reason. When I do use a car, I use it efficiently, for whatever reason I need it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
Per kilometer rates could be scaled to reflect driving ability etc. as well, so a person who drives a lot but never gets into accidents would have a lower rate/km than someone who is an appalling driver, but doesn't get into accidents by virtue of rarely driving.

---

quote:

---

Drivers could pay up to £1.34 a mile in "pay-as-you go" road charges under new government plans.

---

I especially like that they've thought of this:

quote:

---

Every vehicle would have a black box to allow a satellite system to track their journey, with prices starting from as little as 2p per mile in rural areas.

---

As an observation, I'm surprised that posters on this board don't find the idea of having the whereabouts of your car available to the authorities (never fear, if there is a system that collects that data in any way, shape, or form, it's only a matter of time before big brother accesses the data).

However, returning to the question of Paygo insurance, the one thing that this system will not do is decrease the overall cost of insurance. It won't decrease the number of accidents or the cost of claims. The result? The total amount of premium paid by all drivers will not change, it will only be distributed differently. In other words, some premiums will go down and some will go up, but the total monies collected by the system will remain unchanged.

quote:

---

Originally posted by abnormal:
Unfortunately it's obscenely easy to set your speedo back on most cars.

---

That's what I was thinking. This idea is either easy to cheat or so technologically complex as to be rife with failure.

As per my earlier note the idea of adding a surcharge to gasoline was floated in the early 1980's by Tobias. As I remember, a lot of the discussion in his book relates to the logistics of such an idea since it's a lot more complicated than you might think.

There are other issues. Gas useage is not simply a function of the mileage driven. For example, driving habits play a large part - probably a good connection. On the other hand, you're also saying that the low income earner with a large family that needs a "large" car and can't afford the latest in fuel efficient vehicles is going to pay more than someone who is comparatively well off, and doesn't need a large car, but drives more.

Since insurance law is very much a provincial matter how do you handle someone that lives near a border. Unless the entire country changes at once (and changes to some sort of common set of insurance laws) you'll be faced with individuals that pick and choose where to buy their gas based on insurance costs.

We need to remind the bastards that their system is supposed to be all about having choices.

[ 06 June 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
Hmm... would I want private companies (or the government, for that matter) to use a GPS system to know exactly where my (hypothetical) car is at all times, revealing exactly where I live, where I work, where my friends live, etc.

---

Really, either you keep insurance fairly flat so it's fair that way, or you charge for insurance based on risk, which has nothing to do with miles driven necessarily, and be fair that way. How far people drive is freakin' irrelevant.

And roads are a public good. Trying to charge people by the mile to use them is moronic private-sector-style thinking which would be counterproductive even if it wouldn't cost more to collect than you'd ever make from it. If you want a gas tax equivalent, tax gas. And it's ludicrous to say that's more complicated than it seems--they already do it, hello! If you don't want a gas tax equivalent, get road money from general revenue the way we already do and elect governments with mandates to make intelligent policy decisions on the subject. Reduced use of roads isn't going to happen because they're more expensive to use, anyway. This is all just a smoke screen for "We don't want to spend money on rail or transit to actually get people wanting to not use cars, and we can't do much about rail anyway because we (well, Thatcher) stupidly sold it."

Edited to add:
And these freakin' meters would be an unacceptable "big brother" intrusion on privacy as well.

[ 06 June 2005: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]

Odometers could be improved so they it would be impossible to cheat. Cheating could be punishable by a refusal of insurance - few people would be willing to risk losing their ability to drive for 5 years in order to save a few bucks.

Have your odometer reading taken when you get your oil changed - mail it in to the insurance company. They could base monthly premiums on 'average mileage' so that people don't get hit with wildly varying insurance bills.

Personally, I'd say that every aspect of driving should have its own fees. Tax gas to discourage oversize engines and reduce pollution. Per kilometer insurance to discourage excessive driving and reduce congestion. Road tolls to acquire cost-recovery on road construction and maintenance.

Rural people have different issues and challenges - though it's not exactly easy street in the city. That being said, exceptions can be made depending on employment status etc. - for example, someone whose primary income derives from farming could have a different insurance rate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kurichina:
Rural residents can have to drive for up to two hours to get groceries, (especially in the winter when we don't have gardens), to go to the hospital, to get any sort of services that city people completely take for granted.

---

Some do, yes. They drive on roads, paid for by everyone. Most rural people are NOT 2 hours from the nearest service.

quote:

---

You think that farmers get such a good deal? Why are so many of the neighbours from my hometown going bankrupt? Why does my dad have to work a second job on the oilfield to subsidize his farm so that people in the city can buy their bread for way cheaper than they would otherwise? Food prices don't reflect the labour involved in their production at all.

---

I said that farmers (not rural people) get a break on fuel, and some other taxes. I don't have a problem with that. As for the price of wheat and bread, it is tied to US agricultural subsidies, as you no doubt know. It is not because of gas.

quote:

---

Rural people have to drive to live. City people do not *have* to drive to live. So you can't (credibly) say that farmers have a great deal.

---

quote:

---

Rural people already subsidize those in the city in a big way. The advantages like the purple gas, etc, are a pittance compared to this.

---

Aside from rural people saying this, and others uncritically repeating these assertions, I have yet to see any evidence of this. Please back it up.

quote:

---

So go ahead and take away their privileges - but look forward to having to buy your food from big, conglomerates who don't give a shit about quality when there are no more family farms left.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
Most rural people are NOT 2 hours from the nearest service.

---

I was growing up. People who lived further north than I are even further from services. And 2 major hospitals have been closed or downgraded in the Peace since I left. The school in the next town over has also been closed, meaning that children as young as 5 have a 1.5 hour bus ride to get to my old school. We could get food a little closer, if we were willing to pay double the prices.

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
As for the price of wheat and bread, it is tied to US agricultural subsidies, as you no doubt know. It is not because of gas.

---

Of course, but our government *could* be doing something to help our farmers as well. Why should the US and Europe be allowed to support their rural regions while Canada acts the "good free-trader" and lets our farms die? No one should have to keep their farm afloat by having what amounts to a full-time second job. It seems, however, that if the idea is even suggested that are general tax revenues do something to help rural residents that everyone gets in a big fit over how that money could go towards lowering taxes - as if we should be making those choices!

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
Rural people get relatively affordable property, while urban people pay outrageous amounts just to have a roof over their heads. It ain't all easy in the city.

---

When a city-dweller renovates their house it goes up in value. When a rural resident renovates, their house stays at the same value - that of the land it's on and nothing more. Every cent my mom's put into making our house more livable has been a wasted investment in this respect.

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
Aside from rural people saying this, and others uncritically repeating these assertions, I have yet to see any evidence of this. Please back it up.

---

I should be sleeping right now, but since you accuse me of lying when I talk about about my neighbours going bankrupt from increased expenses that are not sufficiently countered by prices or aid, I'll let you know that the first result of the laziest google search I could make brings up this document entitled "Survey Says: Farmers’ Expenses Soar Higher". It shows the average price of purple gasoline in '05 thus far to be 69.04, not very far below city prices as I recall them when I was last in Toronto/Ottawa. You'll note that fertilizer of all kinds has also gone up in price significantly since 1999.

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
Because those are the only two options, right? We are with the rural people or we are with the multinational conglomerates. No middle ground, no other considerations, no compromise.

---

Well, what do you think is happening when farmers lose their land because they are broke? Who buys it? What sort of organizations are becoming increasingly involved in food production? It's not a whole bunch small producers buying that land to farm it. If we're lucky, it's the Hutterites who at least use (fairly) traditional methods and produce quality food. More often it stays in the bank's ownership or if it's close to a town then it will be redeveloped in a non-agricultural way. And then we can have our food transported from all corners of the earth adding to waste of fuel and favouring areas of the world were labour standards are far worse than Canada.

And furthermore, I *never* said that things are all peachy-keen for urban-dwellers. Many of them would love for a discussion about auto insurance and road taxes to have any practical meaning for them. But why make people in the country suffer because of them when there's suburbanites driving their H2s around with little to no regard for either the poor in their midst nor those to the north?

I recall being in the truck with my family and hearing a radio news show where people were interviewed in Edmonton and Calgary about agriculture issues and one person said something along the lines of, "Well we don't need farmers to provide us with food, because I can just go and buy it at Safeway". And I despair that this attitude is not the exception. It's not maliciously arrogant, just unthinkingly so. So this is why I feel the need to remind everyone that rural and northern people exist and are effected by many of these debates.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kurichina:
Of course, but our government *could* be doing something to help our farmers as well. Why should the US and Europe be allowed to support their rural regions while Canada acts the "good free-trader" and lets our farms die? No one should have to keep their farm afloat by having what amounts to a full-time second job.

---

Canada subsidizes its farmers the least of any developed nation. But there is a long list of private enterprises that North American's prop-up with our taxes. The free market system couldnt survive without massive state intervention in our economies.

I agree with everything you've said, except when you link it to this discussion about auto insurance.

Farms do need help, especially in the North. We do need to end the transition to agribusiness, especially in Alberta. I would be the last person to advocate cutting aid to farmers or other people in need in favour of a tax cut. I don't want to be picky, but your linked article didn't indicate that farmers and rural folk are 'subsidizing' urban folk, but only that farmers are underpaid.

That being said, why can't we find a tool, like per kilometer insurance, that can be reflective of those needs? Surely we have enough imagination to deal with nuance and create useful policies that balance the needs of people in rural and urban communities? Cities are overrun with people driving when they don't need to (though many think they do). That is important - it is crucial that we address that issue.

[personal beef] And if the farm communities are in such need of help, why the fuck do they keep re-electing people from the party that will sell them down the river the fastest?[/personal beef]