Uninsured Drivers

[Malibook]

Only 64% of uninsured drivers who get caught get convicted and some of them only get fined $2500, half the minimum of $5000.

I wonder what percentage of them get caught.
It is probably a drop in the bucket.


Toronto police are saying that more and more drivers are hitting the road without car insurance.
Const. Hugh Smith said the problem is getting worse every year and that drivers are "taking those risks and weighing the options (if) we will stop them."
Clayton Fletcher, a GTA driver, said he drove without valid insurance for one year because he simply couldn't afford the monthly payments.
He said he was nervous every time he got behind the wheel.
"If I ever had been caught, I would have been in a mess of trouble. But at the time it was worth the risk because I really just could not afford it," said Fletcher, who now has insurance.
While Fletcher never got caught, police say that thousands of drivers do. Over six thousand motorists were charged with driving without insurance last year. This year, 1,646 uninsured drivers have already been caught.
The conviction rate for drivers caught without insurance is estimated at 64 per cent in Ontario and drivers face a minimum fine of $5,000.
However, Const. Andrew Ouellet said that some drivers have received a lowered amount of $2,500 due to economic hardship.
Smith said that police need to re-visit the policy and make $5,000 the firm minimum fine.
Ontario drivers pay an average of $1,504 a year for car insurance, which police said is cheaper than getting caught without it.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...rivers-gta-110418/20110418?hub=TorontoNewHome

 

[alwayslooking]

I was called to traffic court as a witness about a month ago. Saw 1 hot chic in her 20's get the fine knocked down to $750. There's a lot more people driving with suspended licences than no insurance from what I observed

 

[nottyboi]

The problem is the cost of insurance. Some people are put in a no win situation...so I have some sympathy for them. There should be a way for people to decline more options and get basic liability.

 

[alexmst]

A big problem in the UK as well. I can understand why hard up people do it - in the burbs driving is a right not a privilege as it can be necessary for one's survival.

Drivers who don't renew car insurance in time 'will be clamped on their driveway'

By Ray Massey
Last updated at 8:14 AM on 19th April 2011

Motorists who fail to renew their car insurance face having their car clamped in their driveway, seized and destroyed.

The clamp-and-scrap powers, being given to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) by ministers, are a fresh weapon in the Government’s fight against uninsured drivers.

The new system, called continuous insurance enforcement, goes fully live in June and means cars must be insured at all times - and no long have to be spotted on the road to be clamped and seized.

New measures mean that drivers who forget to renew their insurance could face having their cars clamped on their driveway or even seized and destroyed

The only exception is if the registered keeper makes an official declaration that the car is permanently off road and not being driven.

Motoring groups fear innocent motorists who forget to insure their vehicle on time because they are on holiday or have an extended stay in hospital will fall foul of the new rules which can also see drivers landed with a £100 fine.
But road safety minister Mike Penning insists drivers will be given a warning letter and a £100 fixed penalty notice before any car is clamped and seized from the driveway.

The Department for Transport said: ’Under continuous insurance enforcement it will be an offence to keep an uninsured vehicle, rather than just to drive when uninsured. The regulations laid today will allow the DVLA to take action against those who ignore warnings to get their vehicle insured.’

’If the vehicle remains uninsured - regardless of whether the fine is paid - it could then be clamped, seized and destroyed. The regulations laid in Parliament today would give the DVLA the powers to take this action.’

Road safety minister Mr Penning said: ‘Uninsured drivers injure 23,000 people each year and add £30 to every responsible motorist’s premium so we need to do everything we can to keep them off the roads.

'These new powers will help us to take targeted action while freeing up police time to deal with the hard core of offenders.'
But the AA's Paul Watters said: ’Many otherwise innocent motorists face being unwittingly fined or clamped for doing little more than being forgetful or distracted by the normal business of life.

Transport Minister Mike Penning said all drivers would be given a warning notice and fixed penalty fee before any car is clamped or seized from a drive

‘There must be some flexibility or leniency, otherwise this will become just another scam, like some cowboy parking ticket or clamping operations. It must not become a money spinner.’

He added: ’Safeguards must be in place to ensure that where offences are committed inadvertently, for example through illness delaying renewal of insurance or where a simple registration number mistake has been made on an insurance certificate, drivers are dealt with sympathetically. ‘

The Transport Department said that under the new system the DVLA will work in partnership with the Motor Insurers’ Bureau to identify from their database vehicles which are uninsured.

The Department said: ’Motorists will receive a letter telling them that their vehicle appears to be uninsured and warning them that they will be fined unless they take action.

'If the keeper fails to insure the vehicle they will be given a £100 fine. If the vehicle remains uninsured - regardless of whether the fine is paid - it could then be clamped, seized and destroyed.

'The regulations laid in Parliament today would give the DVLA the powers to take this action.’

Vehicles with a valid Statutory Off Road Notice will not be required to be insured, he added.

The first insurance ‘advisory letters’ warning individuals that they ‘appear to be uninsured’ will be sent at the end of June following a publicity campaign to raise awareness of the Continuous Insurance Enforcement scheme.

The Motor Insurance Database will be used to identify registered keepers of vehicles that appear to have no insurance.
Drivers are advised to check that their vehicle is recorded on the database - via www.askMID.com.

Latest official estimates suggest that 1 in 25 motorists (four per cent) drive uninsured.
The penalty for driving without insurance is a maximum fine of £5,000 and six to eight penalty points. About 242,000 offenders are convicted for uninsured driving every year.

Measures already introduced in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 gave police improved access to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau database and powers to seize vehicles. In 2009 around 180,000 vehicles were seized.

AA Insurance said their own survey had shown that 6 out of 10 motorists were completely unaware of the changes that could see their car clamped and impounded from their driveway.
An AA/Populus study of nearly 13,000 AA members, an ‘extraordinary’ 59 per cent had not heard about the new law and of the balance who were aware of it, with four out of ten (38 per cent) saying they ‘don’t know what it means’.

Simon Douglas, director of AA Insurance, said: 'This tough action is to be welcomed but it is vital that the Government undertakes a campaign to increase awareness.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...me-face-having-car-clamped.html#ixzz1Jx3RUBmH

 

[burt-oh-my!]

The problem is the cost of insurance. Some people are put in a no win situation...so I have some sympathy for them. There should be a way for people to decline more options and get basic liability.

There is: just decline coverge on your own vehicle. I always do that once its value IMO falls below $10k, because then to me it is an affordable loss.

 

[diehard]

fuck greedy insurance companies

 

[rld]

There is: just decline coverge on your own vehicle. I always do that once its value IMO falls below $10k, because then to me it is an affordable loss.

Yeah you can dumb collision, or have a high deductible, but the way no fault benefits are structured it drives the cost up.

 

[rb420]

I know someone who has been driving off and on for over 20 years with out insurance. The way I see it, even if he gets busted now, he is still way a head in the long run.

It is risky to drive with out insurance, but for some it is a calculated risk that they are okay with.

I sure wouldn't recommend it though!

 

[blackrock13]

Everyone who says, 'meh no big deal' or 'good on him screw, the insurance companies', will feel different the first time they're in a collision with an uninsured driver. I suspect it'll be your penny and not his that'll pay for it.

 

[picketfence]

Everyone who says, 'meh no big deal' or 'good on him screw, the insurance companies', will feel different the first time they're in a collision with an uninsured driver. I suspect it'll be your penny and not his that'll pay for it.

There's a part of your own insurance that covers uninsured drivers-cost about 50.00 a year and I'm pretty sure it's a mandatory part of liability. The insurance companies have this lost covered just like credit card companies add on a few points to cover that percentage that they know will go delinquent. It's all worked into the system. If all uninsured drivers where removed from the roads, your rates would drop little or not at all. There's little risk for insured drivers or the companies. But, a very high and stupid risk for the uninsured driver. Besides no being covered for personal injuries, he's open to many law suits, and if caught on in an accident, good luck getting any company to insure you, most will not touch you no matter what the rate.

 

[Igorm]

fuck greedy insurance companies

Agree!!!

 

[blackrock13]

There's a part of your own insurance that covers uninsured drivers-cost about 50.00 a year and I'm pretty sure it's a mandatory part of liability. The insurance companies have this lost covered just like credit card companies add on a few points to cover that percentage that they know will go delinquent. It's all worked into the system. If all uninsured drivers where removed from the roads, your rates would drop little or not at all. There's little risk for insured drivers or the companies. But, a very high and stupid risk for the uninsured driver. Besides no being covered for personal injuries, he's open to many law suits, and if caught on in an accident, good luck getting any company to insure you, most will not touch you no matter what the rate.

Fair enough, good to know.

 

[supernatural]

I have previously worked in insurance for several years so maybe I can shed a bit of light on things.

fuck greedy insurance companies

Greedy, yes. But you'd be surprised how close to closing up shop some insurance companies are. In 2010 both Chatham and Toronto got his by mass hail storms which severely hurt the auto sectore as these claims were significant enough to be deemed "catastrophic" which means that the insurance companies had to go to their re-insurance companies to help offset the costs.

None of this though holds a candle to the mass floodings that took place in and around Hamilton the last two years in addition to a few north of Toronto communities (London area also had a bad year) that have almost forced some pretty major name insurance companies out of the property line of business. If you look at your policy (if its not there yet you can expect it) you'll now notice that all water damage claims are subject to a seperate $2000 deductible instead of the normal one you pay for that applies to all other things.

I'm not saying insurance companies don't turn a profit, but much of it is put into reserve for bad years like that last few we have had to say nothing of all the ridiculous medical costs associated with it (hence the changes recently to your auto medical benefits)

Yeah you can dumb collision, or have a high deductible, but the way no fault benefits are structured it drives the cost up.

True. There was a lot of talk prior to the implementation of going no fault to adopting a public government run insurance much like BC has with private companies supplementing things. Right now the overwhelming cost of insurance stems from lawyers and paralegals exploiting some silly loophole definitions when it comes to benefits... for example with very minimal effort you were until recently (not sure of the current benefit package) entitled toa bout $5600 worth of housekeeping a year... and let me assure you that anyone who knows about this claims it (its often what is used to pay the paralegal). Generally speaking unless you are a high risk facility market or commerically insured this benefit alone represents more than what an average annual policy brings in.

True enough. I don't know what happens to your insurance rates if caught without driving, but if you get into an accident and there is any sort of serious injury, you can kiss your life savings, your home and your income away, and perhaps the income of your children and grandchildren. Dumb idea to drive without insurance.

Sadly no. Generally speaking when I've run a subrogation against an uninsured motoroist we got about $20-50 a month out of the guy as typically your average uninsured motorist doesn't have much to take away. Even if you did the only thing the courts would recognize in order to let you keep your license is that you made SOME effort to repay the debt... its actually kinda sad for all of us to do pay into the system how light of a slap on the wrist people who don't play by the rules get.

I'm not saying its all easy, as heaven forbid you did hurt someone I'm sure their lawyer would hound you, but most just declard bankruptcy afterwards anyway and just walk away with minimal payments.

Everyone who says, 'meh no big deal' or 'good on him screw, the insurance companies', will feel different the first time they're in a collision with an uninsured driver. I suspect it'll be your penny and not his that'll pay for it.

Your insurance covers everything anyway regardless of the other guys insurance status. The only thing you would really be held liable for is a $300 uninsured motorist deductible.

There's a part of your own insurance that covers uninsured drivers-cost about 50.00 a year and I'm pretty sure it's a mandatory part of liability. The insurance companies have this lost covered just like credit card companies add on a few points to cover that percentage that they know will go delinquent. It's all worked into the system. If all uninsured drivers where removed from the roads, your rates would drop little or not at all. There's little risk for insured drivers or the companies. But, a very high and stupid risk for the uninsured driver. Besides no being covered for personal injuries, he's open to many law suits, and if caught on in an accident, good luck getting any company to insure you, most will not touch you no matter what the rate.

Actually sadly he can claim through YOUR insurance if he's driving without insurance in term of his medical stuff....

Insurance companies played fast and loose with this whole "not touching you" thing for a while (mostly brokers) but in Ontario there is something called the "Take all comers" rule meaning that if you qualify for their underwriting rules (say 1 at fault accient and 2 tickets would disqualify you... there's a lot of variations and combos) but after that there is Kingsway insurance which kinda covers the higher than normal risk but not quite high risk market place, and then something in Ontario (all provinces have it) called the Facility association which takes everyone who doesn't qualify for normal insurance rates... you're going to be paying so much it won't be worth driving, and you should be checking for other insurance once a year if you wind up in this mess, but you can always get insured via facility insurance.... FYI, the brokers hate these because instead of getting a percentage or anything really good they get like a flat $100 fee for for these clients.

Anyone else have any other insurance questions post them in this thread and I'll try to answer them... I mostly handled auto stuff (from sales to claims), but you tend to see and hear a lot about the other stuff.

 

[blackrock13]

SN,

I always love the reaction when talking profits and losses, you ask someone up the food chain how much money the insureance company lost in the recent stock market roller coaster; Manulife comes to mind of the big ones. They end to choke on their words and good really silent. regular folks aren't supposed to know that.

 

[rld]

I have previously worked in insurance for several years so maybe I can shed a bit of light on things.

Greedy, yes. But you'd be surprised how close to closing up shop some insurance companies are. In 2010 both Chatham and Toronto got his by mass hail storms which severely hurt the auto sectore as these claims were significant enough to be deemed "catastrophic" which means that the insurance companies had to go to their re-insurance companies to help offset the costs.

None of this though holds a candle to the mass floodings that took place in and around Hamilton the last two years in addition to a few north of Toronto communities (London area also had a bad year) that have almost forced some pretty major name insurance companies out of the property line of business. If you look at your policy (if its not there yet you can expect it) you'll now notice that all water damage claims are subject to a seperate $2000 deductible instead of the normal one you pay for that applies to all other things.

I'm not saying insurance companies don't turn a profit, but much of it is put into reserve for bad years like that last few we have had to say nothing of all the ridiculous medical costs associated with it (hence the changes recently to your auto medical benefits)

I can't help myself.

The auto industry made record profits from 2003 to late 2008 by lying to both the public and the government in 2003. They have made massive underwriting profits over those years which were historically unprecedented. They have an unfair and incestuous rate setting system that has forced regulation on them.

There is a reason there is reinsurance.

And last year was a slow claims year for Ontario in P&C and insurers are getting very profitable again, since we were forced to bail them out in the early 2000's due to their over investment in the tech sector. Still waiting for the government bailout for my investments in that period.

Insurers also play a load of games in setting and adjusting reserves to force rate increases and time them so they can get maximum political impact. Insurers intentionally manipulate the political system to get rate increases that otherwise there would be no hope for.

And I expect we are now paying for the failure of Kingway's pet insurance market attempt.

 

[Ridgeman08]

But wait a second. You have to provide proof of insurance every time you get a license plate sticker.

OK, maybe I don't have a devious enough mind to try & figure a way around this, but how would one go about renewing a license sticker without insurance?

 

[Malibook]

Thanks for the informative post sn.

You are like the anti-fuji.

 

[Ridgeman08]

SN,

I always love the reaction when talking profits and losses when you ask someone up the food chain how much money the insurance company lost in the recent stock market roller coaster; Manulife comes to mind of the dig ones. They end to choke on their words and good really silent. regular folks aren't supposed to know that.

That was the immediate counter argument that popped into my mind when I read this:

I have previously worked in insurance for several years so maybe I can shed a bit of light on things.

Greedy, yes. But you'd be surprised how close to closing up shop some insurance companies are.

Not doubting you at all Supe. Just curious is all.

 

[Malibook]

But wait a second. You have to provide proof of insurance every time you get a license plate sticker.

OK, maybe I don't have a devious enough mind to try & figure a way around this, but how would one go about renewing a license sticker without insurance?

I was wondering that too but I suppose they could start up a policy that is paid monthly and then cancel it once they get the insurance slip.
Then they get a sticker good for 2 years.

 

[picketfence]

I have previously worked in insurance for several years so maybe I can shed a bit of light on things.



Greedy, yes. But you'd be surprised how close to closing up shop some insurance companies are. In 2010 both Chatham and Toronto got his by mass hail storms which severely hurt the auto sectore as these claims were significant enough to be deemed "catastrophic" which means that the insurance companies had to go to their re-insurance companies to help offset the costs.

None of this though holds a candle to the mass floodings that took place in and around Hamilton the last two years in addition to a few north of Toronto communities (London area also had a bad year) that have almost forced some pretty major name insurance companies out of the property line of business. If you look at your policy (if its not there yet you can expect it) you'll now notice that all water damage claims are subject to a seperate $2000 deductible instead of the normal one you pay for that applies to all other things.

I'm not saying insurance companies don't turn a profit, but much of it is put into reserve for bad years like that last few we have had to say nothing of all the ridiculous medical costs associated with it (hence the changes recently to your auto medical benefits)



True. There was a lot of talk prior to the implementation of going no fault to adopting a public government run insurance much like BC has with private companies supplementing things. Right now the overwhelming cost of insurance stems from lawyers and paralegals exploiting some silly loophole definitions when it comes to benefits... for example with very minimal effort you were until recently (not sure of the current benefit package) entitled toa bout $5600 worth of housekeeping a year... and let me assure you that anyone who knows about this claims it (its often what is used to pay the paralegal). Generally speaking unless you are a high risk facility market or commerically insured this benefit alone represents more than what an average annual policy brings in.



Sadly no. Generally speaking when I've run a subrogation against an uninsured motoroist we got about $20-50 a month out of the guy as typically your average uninsured motorist doesn't have much to take away. Even if you did the only thing the courts would recognize in order to let you keep your license is that you made SOME effort to repay the debt... its actually kinda sad for all of us to do pay into the system how light of a slap on the wrist people who don't play by the rules get.

I'm not saying its all easy, as heaven forbid you did hurt someone I'm sure their lawyer would hound you, but most just declard bankruptcy afterwards anyway and just walk away with minimal payments.



Your insurance covers everything anyway regardless of the other guys insurance status. The only thing you would really be held liable for is a $300 uninsured motorist deductible.



Actually sadly he can claim through YOUR insurance if he's driving without insurance in term of his medical stuff....

Insurance companies played fast and loose with this whole "not touching you" thing for a while (mostly brokers) but in Ontario there is something called the "Take all comers" rule meaning that if you qualify for their underwriting rules (say 1 at fault accient and 2 tickets would disqualify you... there's a lot of variations and combos) but after that there is Kingsway insurance which kinda covers the higher than normal risk but not quite high risk market place, and then something in Ontario (all provinces have it) called the Facility association which takes everyone who doesn't qualify for normal insurance rates... you're going to be paying so much it won't be worth driving, and you should be checking for other insurance once a year if you wind up in this mess, but you can always get insured via facility insurance.... FYI, the brokers hate these because instead of getting a percentage or anything really good they get like a flat $100 fee for for these clients.

Anyone else have any other insurance questions post them in this thread and I'll try to answer them... I mostly handled auto stuff (from sales to claims), but you tend to see and hear a lot about the other stuff.

Thanks for the helpful info. Could you clarify what would happen to someone who was convicted of being uninsured? and say in case of one who hasn't been insured in 20years, as mention above. You appear to be a broker? If so, I'm a big fan, I've been with my broker for 20 years and would never buy direct insurance. My broker gets me much better rates and are there "for me" if I have a problem or question.