Ontario proposal: Crash in bad weather, pay the bill

[j8smith]

The idea is that if you have a crash in bad weather because of your own negligence, you are held liable. I.E. no insurance coverage. This sounds scary, especially once the insurance industry gets a hold of it. Who is going to determine if you were driving recklessly or not. As usuall, the intent is good but how it is implemented will be another story.


discuss

"By The Canadian Press
TORONTO - The head of the Ontario Provincial Police says drivers who crash in bad weather because of their own negligence should have to pay the bill. Commissioner Julian Fantino will propose absolute liability legislation today under the Highway Traffic Act to hold irresponsible drivers accountable. This essentially means making drivers pay for accidents in which they were driving aggressively in poor weather, not insurance companies
Fantino says at least 40 per cent of crashes are caused because people are going too fast in poor conditions and not paying attention.
He says his proposal targets people "who could care less" about how they are driving when the roads are bad.
Fantino says his proposal mirrors laws currently on the books in almost every state in the U.S."

[1HungryMan]

Fantino is an idiot and so is this proposal.

[ZIPNBYE]

I applaud efforts to make people more accountable for their actions (ie: drive off the road in winter while on winter tires...okay, but drive off the road in winter while on all-seasons or summer tire = ticket), but this is a little too far, in so much as insurance should not be invalidated willy-nilly...maybe after the fact, based on a review, either your rates go up or you get dropped, but outright refusal to pay is not the way to go.

[larryn]

Sounds like Mr Fantino is going to have a really nice Christmas, courtesy of the Canadian Insurance lobby collective.

As if the insurance companies don't already get away with murder with denial of claims. Nevermind that this jamoke wants to add all sorts of vagueness into this. What, exactly, constitutes "bad weather"? How could anybody defend an insurance company state "There were microbursts in your area. DENIED". You would need street-by-street weather logs to rebut.

[Cooldaddygroove]

What a crock. Nice mile wide gray area to label someone "irresponsible".

[looking]

Originally Posted by larryn

Sounds like Mr Fantino is going to have a really nice Christmas, courtesy of the Canadian Insurance lobby collective.

As if the insurance companies don't already get away with murder with denial of claims. Nevermind that this jamoke wants to add all sorts of vagueness into this. What, exactly, constitutes "bad weather"? How could anybody defend an insurance company state "There were microbursts in your area. DENIED". You would need street-by-street weather logs to rebut.

You raise a lot of good points.

1) There is definitely too much vagueness and too many subjective elements to this proposed legislation to make it something worth putting into law. With that said, I am sure that if this is to be passed, "they" will have to make it more "objective"

2) Fantino is definitely getting huge kick-backs from the insurance lobbying groups. What a joke Canadian politics has come to be, at all levels. At least try to make yourself look impartial and unbias, give us some good reasons as to why this would benefit the public and not just the insurance companies. Does Fantino really thing that people drive around recklessly in bad weather because they know they're covered by insurance? Does he really think that people see snow on the ground and say to themselves, "good think I have insurance, now I can gun it!" or "I don't care that there's bad weather outside, I'm still going to talk on my cell and speed because, if I get into an accident I'm covered"

3) Insurance is one of the biggest scams going! Right now most people getting in accidents don't even want to go through insurance because, they know they'll get screwed by the insurance company. Either the insurance company will deny your claim or they'll raise your premium, so that you're paying for your accidents for years to come. I thought the idea behind insurance was to "cover" you so you didn't have to have pay for the repairs when you did get into an accident, not for the insurance company to be sole in it for profit. Yes they should be entitled to profit, but not at the expense of the people they are there to "protect". It's gotten to a point where it's better not to have insurance.

4) Time and again, the police keep perpetuating that speeding is the main cause of accidents. If this was the case then the autobahn should be a death trap. Why doesn't Fantino spend his time trying to encourge the government and the public, that better driver trainning would save more lives than just stop speeding? Oh, I forgot, no lobby groups are giving him kick-backs for that. Maybe it's because if people became better driver and speeding wasn't focused on, the police would lose a revenue stream?

I think Quebec's got it right - it would be more effective to put snow tires on every car in Ontario for the winters. Is Fantino aware of the fact that cars with winter tires on get into 40% less accidents? maybe if those 40% of speeder, Fantino is refering to, had snow tires on they wouldn't have gotten into those accidents. It's proven that winter tires stop cars 25-40% less in distance - maybe that a factor Fantino should consider?

Way to go Fantino, way to show the public how much money means more to you than the safety of the public! What an idiot!

[1HungryMan]

Fantino is a fascist. I remember when I went to school in London and he harassed gay people to no end. I'll never forget that.

As someone mentioned above, people are loathe to get in accidents already terrified of their premiums going up. As if someone is going to suddenly be more careful because of liability issues.

[larryn]

Originally Posted by excel

Way to go Fantino, way to show the public how much money means more to you than the safety of the public! What an idiot!

Why would we have insurance if every driver did everything perfectly? Insurance is to cover when we make mistakes.

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by larryn

Why would we have insurance if every driver did everything perfectly? Insurance is to cover when we make mistakes.

Great point. I think the idea is okay in principle, but it opens so many loop-holes and question marks that it can't possibly be allowed to happen. Pop up thunderstorm and you are not covered. I would love to know how he thinks this could be enforced or used fairly.

Mike

[EspressoBoy]

I am no fan of Fantino. There is a well known list of things wrong with his style of police. This just adds yet another level of trouble he causes. I also remember reading in the newspaper about his London-gay-bashing-days and that is his style...a bully.

I do agree with 1 fact, more bad drivers every year. Our roads are x3 worse than 20 years ago. Why cut off insurance? Why not push for stiffer fines when people get caught breaking the law? It is very obvious to see why... $$$$$

I hope that some how down the "road" this is exposed and he pays for his methods.

Imagine getting in an accident, and due to poor policing... one gets stuck with huge bills when one thought their insurance covered it. Even if it did pass it would just be another 20% we would pay to have insurance cover us when we are at fault.

EspressoBoy

PS
Wikipedia has a write up on him...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Fantino

It talks about his gay-days... under Policing controversies!

It talks about organized crime and the link to Toronto cops... very sad... yes the case was thrown out due to lack of evidence... I still smell a rat!

[123d]

How stupid can Fantino get!?! Say I'm walking down the 'snowy' sidewalk, and a car is going just a bit too fast and spins out and hits me. Now say I end up paralized but Joe driving the car has a minimum wage job and no money. I would be the one that gets screwed!

Get a brain Fantino!!

[looking]

Originally Posted by larryn

Why would we have insurance if every driver did everything perfectly? Insurance is to cover when we make mistakes.

That's the initial philosophy around insurance. The idea was/is to cover you and the victim from the huge bills that can accumulate. However, once the companies got involved it became solely about making a profit. Remember how privatization or the energy market in ON was suppose to lower the price of electricity? that didn't happen! Left to the free markets own devices, things always seem to get a bit out of hand. I'm not a communist or anything but, somewhere along the line something needs to govern the market as, time and again, the free market always seems to end up screwing the general public.

Originally Posted by EspressoBoy

I do agree with 1 fact, more bad drivers every year. Our roads are x3 worse than 20 years ago. Why cut off insurance? Why not push for stiffer fines when people get caught breaking the law? It is very obvious to see why... $$$$$

I have to agree with this comment. I left Canada and move to the UK for 3 yrs, now that I'm back, I definitely agree that there are definitely less skilled drivers on the road. Compare Toronto/Vancouver drivers to those in the UK and it's night and day. Drivers in the UK pay attention to what's around and anticipate what other drivers will/might do. Here in Toronto and Van, drivers only car about what they're doing and have no clue what's going on around them. Driver here tend to believe that driving is a passive activity and not a active action, that's why I believe they're always on their phones and cruising in the passing lane. There seems to be this mentality that as long as they don't hit anything or they're not speeding they're doing everything right.

Driver training is the main issue with the poor driver. It's too bad everyone doesn't go to the track to sharpen their driving skills (tracking isn't only to drive fast, it helps you learn about your car and your skills)

Originally Posted by 123d

How stupid can Fantino get!?! Say I'm walking down the 'snowy' sidewalk, and a car is going just a bit too fast and spins out and hits me. Now say I end up paralized but Joe driving the car has a minimum wage job and no money. I would be the one that gets screwed!
Get a brain Fantino!!

One major problem with this idiotic proposed legislation. If the diver is deemed to be negligent how the heck are you going to get the insurance company to cover the cost. The insurance companies already won't cover an accident if it's a result of you simply sneezing.

I know the economy is in bad shape and Fantino needs his x-mas money from the lobbiest, but come on!

[1HungryMan]

The problem is not the quality of drivers. It is that drivers are confronted with too many distractions in their lives. Cell phones, texts, divided attention, stress, etc etc. The level of stress and distraction that most people are driving around with is the primary problem.

The only law that makes any sense is one that gives cop discretionary powers to fine people who use cell phones, pda's, ipods, etc., while driving. The rest of the stuff cannot be solved easily, other than reducing the overall stress of society. People are stressed and distracted because we're all busy chasing the wrong gods.

[looking]

Originally Posted by 1HungryMan

The problem is not the quality of drivers. It is that drivers are confronted with too many distractions in their lives. Cell phones, texts, divided attention, stress, etc etc. The level of stress and distraction that most people are driving around with is the primary problem.

The only law that makes any sense is one that gives cop discretionary powers to fine people who use cell phones, pda's, ipods, etc., while driving. The rest of the stuff cannot be solved easily, other than reducing the overall stress of society. People are stressed and distracted because we're all busy chasing the wrong gods.

You definitely have a point here. In car distraction really do lower a drivers ability. I believe that the police do have discretionary powers to fine these people, the problem is they don't. It's much easier and more profitable to focus on speeding.

Some what interesting that the Province hasn't commented on this proposal yet.

[MrPink]

Fantino is an idiot, plain and simple. They botch up the "enforcement" of the laws they currently have, so why not throw another one on top of the pile they'll screw up for sure.

Left lane should be a passing lane, but I've never seen anyone being pulled over for impeding traffic going slow in that lane. Which forces drivers to pass on the right, oddly enough its against the law to pass on the right.

The Ontario laws are a joke, the court system is a circus and with retards like Fantino begging to be in a spotlight, it's going to be one bad punch line after another.

Why don't we start with yearly physicals for our "law enforcers" and useless porkers like Fantino would be on probation until he quits snorting twinkies?

Bottom line, correct and enforce the laws currently in place. If the Bacon Brigade can actually manage do that, then let them take a crack at new laws. Oddly enough I don't think that would happen in my lifetime.

[AlienDNA]

Originally Posted by MrPink

Fantino is an idiot, plain and simple. They botch up the "enforcement" of the laws they currently have, so why not throw another one on top of the pile they'll screw up for sure.

Left lane should be a passing lane, but I've never seen anyone being pulled over for impeding traffic going slow in that lane. Which forces drivers to pass on the right, oddly enough its against the law to pass on the right.

Actually, in Ontario it's legal to pass on the right. Which is good, because the right lane on the DVP is usually completely empty when I'm going to work...

[Qube]

"I thought the idea behind insurance was to "cover" you so you didn't have to have pay for the repairs when you did get into an accident"

No sir.

The biggie is a blanket against legal liability claims against the driver and loss of or damage to the vehicle itself. It's not there to cover every nick and ding you get.

Raising your premiums when you get one claim, I believe, is a fuking scam. Given they've got our huge pool of premiums to play with (and invest), there is no need to jump the gun on an accident claim... now if you have three our four, then you have bigger issues than worrying about premium increases!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance

"If the province didn't give out drivers licenses to every single person, the roads would be much safer. ever seen what the people in Finland have to do to get their license?"

It really IS too damn easy to get a license these days. Much too easy.

[Lester]

Originally Posted by Qube

"
"If the province didn't give out drivers licenses to every single person, the roads would be much safer. ever seen what the people in Finland have to do to get their license?"

It really IS too damn easy to get a license these days. Much too easy.

+1 Totally agree with you. The problem is too many bad/inexperienced drivers on the road. They make stupid choices. They stop in traffic wanting to make a right hand turn when they are in the center lane. They turn left over double solid yellows, through oncoming three lanes of traffic. They pull blind u-turns.

Most accidents are caused by one fundamental issue - bad drivers. The symptoms- ie. excessive speed, following too close, jumping red lights, making stupid left hand or u-turns are all due to the same problem - underqualified bad drivers with poor driving skills and very little if any common sense.

It will never change, as goverments don't want to make it tougher to get licenses as that translates into lost votes at the polls.