Not really. Insurance companies in Ontario do not look at the details of MC claims to form policies and rates, they are set based on demographics they see in the car business. They would prefer not to offer MC insurance at all -- the market is provincial and too small and they don't always how they are making or losing money. Most only offer insurance because because it's required to capture bundles of home & auto.
...
In Ontario, rates are not based on risk for motorcycle insurance.
I have a feeling there's more to it than that. Were it the case there wouldn't be blacklisted bikes and they wouldn't differentiate between an 1100 and a 250. They probably wouldn't care if you were riding a race rep or a Grom.
Instead, they very much target the bigger capacity machines, they care how long you've been licensed and have had continuous motorcycle insurance, they differentiate between supersports and nakeds and the Grom is actually kind of expensive (from what I hear) etc.
The demographics of the automotive side probably form a baseline of sorts but I think it's an oversimplification to say they don't rate "based on risk" for motorcycle insurance.
I have a feeling there's more to it than that. Were it the case there wouldn't be blacklisted bikes and they wouldn't differentiate between an 1100 and a 250. They probably wouldn't care if you were riding a race rep or a Grom.
Instead, they very much target the bigger capacity machines, they care how long you've been licensed and have had continuous motorcycle insurance, they differentiate between supersports and nakeds and the Grom is actually kind of expensive (from what I hear) etc.
The demographics of the automotive side probably form a baseline of sorts but I think it's an oversimplification to say they don't rate "based on risk" for motorcycle insurance.
They actually do very little to classify bikes and drivers. I always say go look at Impact, Copart and Strark to see what types of bikes are at the crashed auctions -- they are mostly heavy cruisers. Same with fatality and crash data -- 45 to 60 year olds on heavy cruisers are the most likely to crash, be injured and die yet they pay the lowest premiums. Why? Because insurance companies don't care about the details on MCs, they want those middle aged men for their car and home insurance, giving them a deal on bikes helps.
Ins co's also use auto crash data to characterize MC riders. It's well known 16-24 year old men in cards are the worst crashers. Lots of them, very little respect for the road, somewhat risk avers because of the protection that cages offer. 12% of those men will crash their cars each year. The same age men on bikes have crash rates of about 3.5% -- substantially lower. It's true they are more expensive to fix in a crash, but only by a factor of 2, meaning bikes are a lot less expensive to insure than cars.
The Quebec gov't puts out the actuarial data every year as do many states. In the USA, they have a national market so insurers can afford to study and target bikes, why do you think you see so many bike insurance commercials for Geico and Progressive? Simple, it's a moneymaker if you know how to manage the product AND you have a reasonable size market.
I hate the word privilege, as it implies no freedom. Nothing should be a privilege riding is a ******* right as you should be able to do whatever the **** you wanna do and not need permission from nanny state.
I hate the word privilege, as it implies no freedom. Nothing should be a privilege riding is a ******* right as you should be able to do whatever the **** you wanna do and not need permission from nanny state.
There are no freedom absolutes, even in the free-est societies in the world. When any group of humans decides to congregate societal rules begin to emerge.
As a motorcyclist surely you understand the need for codified societal rules regarding safe and responsible operation of motor vehicles and the ability of society as a whole to deny the privilege from those that can't pass minimum skills tests or revoke it from those who have proven themselves a danger to themselves and others on the road.
Remember, if anarchist thinking applies to you, it applies to everyone else too. Every day I ride or drive I'm amazed that so many idjits managed to get a license let alone hold on to it. Do you really think everyone out there deserves the privilege of piloting a car or bike on public roads without boundaries or minimum standards for skills and behavior?
You guys really think the underwriters care about this little detail?
Motorcyclists are so small that we're not even relevant to them,
pretty sure they just use car stats to come up with our policies/premiums
True, motorcycle insurance is likely less than a couple of percent of their total business. But it is a BUSINESS, and as a business they look for ways to increase profits. If they have a hole in the bucket, they will pursue to patch it. A questionnaire whether or not a rider uses a helmet, is totally fair game, it has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with whether or not you use a helmet. Period. And if the answer is "no", then the risk of injury is higher and you will be surcharged, just like if you accumulate enough demerit points on your record.
Insurance is about assessing risk and the potential to pay claims. So it is totally fair game, to know the habits of the insured and what the risk is of who you insure.
Thing is, the decision has been made to accommodate folks that wear turbans and complaining about it with facts will fall on deaf ears.
Politicians know if they try to change it back, they get labelled as racist or picking on a minority group. It’s toxic.
The only way it gets changed back now, a riding group of turban riders experiences a tragic incident of multiple injuries that could have been prevented with a helmet and it makes headlines. Even then, I’m not sure.
Thing is, the decision has been made to accommodate folks that wear turbans and complaining about it with facts will fall on deft ears.
Politicians know if they try to change it back, they get labelled as racist or picking on a minority group. It’s toxic.
They only way it gets changed back now, a riding group of turban riders experiences a tragic incident of multiple injuries that could have been prevented with a helmet and it makes headlines. Even then, I’m not sure.
If the law were to change, I could see it going to helmet optional. Someone can argue in court that the law discriminates against them as it only allows Sikhs to ride without a helmet.
If the law were to change, I could see it going to helmet optional. Someone can argue in court that the law discriminates against them as it only allows Sikhs to ride without a helmet.
I believe the insurance industry has insulated themselves from long term costs. So this may not matter to them. But it does make me think of another point. The chances of a lifelong brain injury must be far greater when you hit your head with no helmet. I am sure there are plenty on this forum, myself included that have walked away after a crash with a damaged helmet. There is no denying that would be a cracked skull or worse.
I believe the insurance industry has insulated themselves from long term costs. So this may not matter to them. But it does make me think of another point. The chances of a lifelong brain injury must be far greater when you hit your head with no helmet. I am sure there are plenty on this forum, myself included that have walked away after a crash with a damaged helmet. There is no denying that would be a cracked skull or worse.
I'm hoping the Pastafarians challenge this and break it open for all to make their own choice.
I can imagine all brown/bearded guys can now don a turban and the cops will ignore.
A more interesting case would be if a white dude wore a turban and was charged under HTA 104 / O.Reg 610. I'm not sure if the cops would ignore for the hassle or jump on it to get more OT if a long court case comes up.
To go without a motorcycle helmet in Ontario, a rider or passenger must:
Be of the Sikh religion
Regularly wear a turban composed of five or more square meters of cloth
Be 18 years old or older
Have unshorn hair
The law doesn't specify where the unshorn hair must be? Do legs and armpits count? Does the law exclude bald Sikh's?
If the cop doesn't think you look like a Sikh, can he ask your religion during a traffic stop? It seems to me Dug Ford opened a can of worms.
I believe the insurance industry has insulated themselves from long term costs. So this may not matter to them. But it does make me think of another point. The chances of a lifelong brain injury must be far greater when you hit your head with no helmet. I am sure there are plenty on this forum, myself included that have walked away after a crash with a damaged helmet. There is no denying that would be a cracked skull or worse.
My wife fell 30 inches in our garage 18 months ago. She had 2 broken bones in her wrist, 3 broken ribs,2 minor bleeds on her brain and 1 major bleed. A long hospital stay in the head trauma ward was very eye opening with all the various head injuries in there. She is still recovering and learning to walk again.
She was lucky. We saw a few young people that were waiting for a space in a long term care facility. The bills must be staggering.
To go without a motorcycle helmet in Ontario, a rider or passenger must:
Be of the Sikh religion
Regularly wear a turban composed of five or more square meters of cloth
Be 18 years old or older
Have unshorn hair
The law doesn't specify where the unshorn hair must be? Do legs and armpits count? Does the law exclude bald Sikh's?
If the cop doesn't think you look like a Sikh, can he ask your religion during a traffic stop? It seems to me Dug Ford opened a can of worms.
How does one prove/disprove of believing in a religion? Is there a way to scientifically measure this?
How does one prove they regularly wear a turban? What does regularly mean in the context of the law?
I do hope the rastafarians challenge this as it should apply to them as well.
The police do not have the right to ask your religion during a traffic stop.
I believe the insurance industry has insulated themselves from long term costs. So this may not matter to them. But it does make me think of another point. The chances of a lifelong brain injury must be far greater when you hit your head with no helmet. I am sure there are plenty on this forum, myself included that have walked away after a crash with a damaged helmet. There is no denying that would be a cracked skull or worse.
There is no argument that helmets save head injuries, nobody refutes that.
The issue at stake is freedom of choice and the greater good for society. In the case of helmets is complicated and wacky -- sometimes there is a compelling social argument (saves the public purse a pile of dollars), sometimes there is no compelling social argument (no savings to the public purse). Sometimes the rules are right, sometimes wrong, the wacky part is that changing them has little to do with right and wrong -- it's mostly about political will.
For example, football and hockey helmets save the public purse. The types and number of head injuries sustained in those games are rarely fatal and expensive to rehab -- cutting the injury rates has a profound impact on the public purse. Same goes for cycling, skiing, and and figure skating -- the public cost of head injuries is huge and the argument for helmets is about as compelling as it is for hockey yet there are no laws regulating helmets for those activities.
Now lets look at MC. Nobody's going to argue helmets save lives and reduces injuries, however unlike bicycle helmets, which do save the public, there is ample evidence that it doesn't work that way with motorcycles, sadly because fatality rates cancel more than the cost of long term care.
So the primary argument for helmets on motorcycles comes down to protecting riders from themselves. That in itself is the definition of a nanny state law, not one that is there to protect the greater good. If this was universally applied cyclists, snowboarders, figure skaters, & skiiers would all be required to wear helmets. Maybe anyone found drinking over .08 also ought to required to don a helmet?
People are salty because some laws apply to them while others are exempt based on their background/skin color and religion.That's why people are "salty" and rightfully so.
If it were white folk, Jews or Christians who were getting special laws made up for them, everyone else would be protesting.... just saying.
One law for everyone, no exceptions. Government and the law should be separate from religion.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
