Call me cynical. Call me jaded. But . . . I do not suppose that SGI really cares about what makes us safer or what makes us live longer. They are running a business and they are looking for yet another way to get our money. And they are looking for ways to reduce the number of times that they have to pay out a claim. It is cheaper to replace a written off bike than it is to fix a new 1/2 ton, but as it has been pointed out here already, even low speed accidents on a bike can result in expensive medical bills.

So tell me, is SGI's interest in setting up a graduated licensing program generated by genuine concern or from the bottom line of a financial sheet?? Will SGI take 100% control over the operation of the safety courses? And if so, will it cost us more or less to take the course?

Just thinkin' out loud here. Not looking for a big debate.

(I notice the vote is strongly favouring the mandatory safety course.)

No doubt what so ever about sgi watching the bottom line. My thinking is that you educate the rider with proven skills learned at a mandatory training course would cut down on claims, which hopefully saves lives, and keeps our rates from going up.
I'd want to see sgi pay the lions share on the training, seeing as they will save so much money from less accidents and claims.

Although I won't comment on what SGI's motive may or may not be regarding GDL, I will say that SGI loses money on insuring motorcycles - most notably in the Sport class. I believe the number for sport was almost 3 bucks paid out for every 1 dollar premium they brought in. In the Cruiser/Touring class, it was nearly 1.25 for every 1 they brought in.

This was why they broke the bikes into classes last year and raised the rates but they couldn't (wouldn't) raise them high enough to "break even" or make a profit because the customers (us) would have lost it on them. As SGI called it - it would have been rate shock.

So, SGI currently loses money on insuring motorcycles, less accidents is not only good for them but also good for the average motorcyclist in the long run as SGI won't have to charge as much to insure us down the road if the claims come down.

At any rate, I would assume that SGI currently has a plan to raise rates every couple years so that at some point they can make insuring motorcycles profitable. They can't continue insuring us at a loss and whether or not you agree that SGI should make at least a moderate profit from insuring stuff, I think we could agree that they shouldn't lose money either - especially given they are a crown.

Kevin wrote:

QUOTE:
They can't continue insuring us at a loss and whether or not you agree that SGI should make at least a moderate profit from insuring stuff, I think we could agree that they shouldn't lose money either - especially given they are a crown.

Well I have four cars/trucks insured so if they are losing money on my bikes then they are more then making it up on my other vehicles.


I wonder when they are going to do like other private insurance companies and start charging double (or more) for young 16-18 year old drivers? I bet their payout for that category is more then 3-1.

Your last point is surely true although I don't know if there is any plans in place to charge young/new drivers more.

On your other point... Although I also have a number of things insured with SGI and I understand where you're coming from - I would disagree with you. No business, crown or otherwise can be expected to sell many things at a profit and something at a deficit. Are they making a profit overall? Sure. But that doesn't mean that they should be expected to suck up the losses just because they're doing ok overall - in my opinion anyhow...

Funny thing about SGI.
They have all those wheels making wikkid loads of cash, but none are smart enough to setup a system where insurance is more than loosely based on statistical evidence
The safety rating idea was a slight step forward.

As far as cc rating as a graduated licencing, why not really?
As long as you combine it with the licencing method for cages...

But really mean it.

Just a reminder that the meeting is tonight so if you have any questions or comments you want brought forward on your behalf...post up by this afternoon!

Daniel_r wrote:

QUOTE:

As far as cc rating as a graduated licencing, why not really?
As long as you combine it with the licencing method for cages...

But really mean it.

What do you mean?

Kevin wrote:

QUOTE:
No business, crown or otherwise can be expected to sell many things at a profit and something at a deficit. Are they making a profit overall? Sure. But that doesn't mean that they should be expected to suck up the losses just because they're doing ok overall - in my opinion anyhow...

Utilities have been provided to rural and remote customers at a loss since the dawn of time. So they already do that. You can't penalize a customer because of where he lives...same as you can't penalize for his choice of vehicle.


And SGI does that with kids as well. A 16 year old new driver pays the same as a 40 year old experienced driver. So it is the same argument. IF this was about money and penalizing the groups that cost more then they should apply that logic to them as well.

I have three bikes currently registered. In the past I have had others. I had a Magna that I paid much more in registration then the vehicle was ever worth. I have never had a motorcycle claim. So...maybe it is not the vehicles we should be looking at but the drivers?

Course... now I've gone hijacked this thread ... lol

Kevin,
If you haven't left for your meeting yet, I hope that I am summarizing what I have read correctly when I say:
- mandatory safety course will do more than restrictions on displacement
- no need for some type of probationary licence or novice designation, because that is already in place with the learner's licence and then the step up to full'M' endorsement. The change would be that there needs to be time limit under which one is allowed to operate a bike with a learner's licence. (Don't we all know someone that has been riding with just their learner's for several years?)
- if there is going to be some restrictions placed on new riders, then there should be some recognition of the experienced rider without violations
- if the safety course is going to be made mandatory, then it absolutely needs to be affordable!!

Please add to or correct my list.

I haven't had a chance to summerize the points I plan to bring up given my own views and the one's expressed here, but what you've said here sounds pretty good to me and I'll post up with my final list before I head to the meeting (it's at 6).

The only thing I'm kinda left to wonder about is whether or not 300-350 for a safety course is considered unaffordable by most? I would definitely suggest that SGI should subsidize the program or provide a rebate of some sort but what would you (and others) think would be a reasonable price for a mandatory safety course?

I think that considering the other cost of getting into motorcycling (helmet, leather, boots, etc), I wouldn't want to pay more than $100.

What is the cost of other safety courses in this provence: firearm safety course, boating or snowmobiling?

I agree with Pharbus. $100 dollars is a fair price to pay for the safety course.

Also while your there see what you can do about the helmet laws.
Let those who ride decide!

Pharbus wrote:

QUOTE:
Kevin,
If you haven't left for your meeting yet, I hope that I am summarizing what I have read correctly when I say:
- mandatory safety course will do more than restrictions on displacement
- no need for some type of probationary licence or novice designation, because that is already in place with the learner's licence and then the step up to full'M' endorsement. The change would be that there needs to be time limit under which one is allowed to operate a bike with a learner's licence. (Don't we all know someone that has been riding with just their learner's for several years?)
- if there is going to be some restrictions placed on new riders, then there should be some recognition of the experienced rider without violations
- if the safety course is going to be made mandatory, then it absolutely needs to be affordable!!

Please add to or correct my list.

I like that.

Cory wrote:

QUOTE:
Also while your there see what you can do about the helmet laws.
Let those who ride decide!

That will NEVER happen. If they are looking at adding restrictions for "safety" do you actually think they will remove the biggest safety law they have?

Please note that the tone of some points makes it sound like I agree (or we agree collectively) with it. This is not necessarily true as I will preface these points by saying that some people think this etc etc.

I just want to accurately reflect what people have said and bring up all relevant points on your behalf...



Let me know your thoughts!