ICBC considering raising car insurance premiums by 30 per cent

[Rush17]

they could just rename the fines as "idiot bills".  i know our pc world wouldn't like it. but to be called an idiot would definitely detter people.  one thing people hate being called is stupid.

 

obviously there would be a supreme court hearing and all that right away though lol. whatever deals with that sort of stuff. i wish it was that simple though.

[PhillipBlunt]

Just now, Rush17 said:

Interesting. very interesting.  i wonder if they need to determine the driver or if it auto defaults to the owner. in the event a family member used thr vehicle.

Defaults to the owner in that case. Whatever family member used the vehicle will have some 'splainin to do.

[Rush17]

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Because income has zero to do with driving ability. 

 

I find it funny how people are on board with this.  but if this type of discrimination was flipped, people would be acting a lot differently.  It's a common stereotype that Asian's are bad drivers, what if we passed a law that punished them more on driving infractions, lets say just doubled the fines. Would that be fair?

 

Sorry but it's not about the pain that prevents people from breaking the law.. How come poor people also get driving infractions, shouldn't they be concerned about feeling the pain. 

 

Is the goal to make the roads safer or is it a way to stick it to the rich people.  Until someone provides evidence that rich people not being worried about the pain makes the roads more dangerous, than poor people with cars. It's simply just bank account envy. 

do you make over 80,000 a year?

 

in all fairness i get your point. but ur just simply set in your ways.  the very concept your pushing which happens to be the current model simply isn't fair.

 

why is it unfair to fine people based on the percentage of their income?  it is arguably the best method for equality.  if you wanted to add stipulations for constant reoffenders regardless of income that's fine.  but saying its unfair to base it off of % of income is just silly.  your argument stands for the opposite of what you are trying to portray it as.

[PhillipBlunt]

3 minutes ago, Rush17 said:

they could just rename the fines as "idiot bills".  i know our pc world wouldn't like it. but to be called an idiot would definitely detter people.  one thing people hate being called is stupid.

If it walks like an idiot, talks like an idiot, and drives like an idiot....

3 minutes ago, Rush17 said:

obviously there would be a supreme court hearing and all that right away though lol. whatever deals with that sort of stuff. i wish it was that simple though.

Lawyers don't like simple. Doesn't keep them employed.

[Toews]

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Because income has zero to do with driving ability. 

 

I find it funny how people are on board with this.  but if this type of discrimination was flipped, people would be acting a lot differently.  It's a common stereotype that Asian's are bad drivers, what if we passed a law that punished them more on driving infractions, lets say just doubled the fines. Would that be fair?

 

Sorry but it's not about the pain that prevents people from breaking the law.. How come poor people also get driving infractions, shouldn't they be concerned about feeling the pain. 

 

Is the goal to make the roads safer or is it a way to stick it to the rich people.  Until someone provides evidence that rich people not being worried about the pain makes the roads more dangerous, than poor people with cars. It's simply just bank account envy. 

No one has said it does though.

 

There is no discrimination. Everyone is fined the same percentage. Do you think its unfair that someone that makes 2M a year pays more in income taxes than someone that makes 50K a year? 

 

Currently everyone commits driving infractions and gets away with it because no one is facing steep enough punishment. This is why our roads are currently a mess.

 

Its about making the roads safer by sticking it to offenders. If these offenders are outraged at their fines then they will learn the rules and follow them to the letter of the law. 

[Toews]

delete.

[PhillipBlunt]

2 minutes ago, Toews said:

No one has said it does though.

 

There is no discrimination. Everyone is fined the same percentage. Do you think its unfair that someone that makes 2M a year pays more in income taxes than someone that makes 50K a year? 

 

Currently everyone commits driving infractions and gets away with it because no one is facing steep enough punishment. This is why our roads are currently a mess.

 

Its about making the roads safer by sticking it to offenders. If these offenders are outraged at their fines then they will learn the rules and follow them to the letter of the law. 

A post so nice, you said it twice.

 

[Toews]

7 minutes ago, Rush17 said:

they could just rename the fines as "idiot bills".  i know our pc world wouldn't like it. but to be called an idiot would definitely detter people.  one thing people hate being called is stupid.

 

obviously there would be a supreme court hearing and all that right away though lol. whatever deals with that sort of stuff. i wish it was that simple though.

My proposal was "moron's tax". I like the idea of shaming people. After every driving offense an envelope arrives in your mail, it will have the word "MORON" printed in all caps, bolded and in large font right on the cover. 

[Rush17]

i think the disagreement we are having in terms of % of income is more a question whether the fine and safe driving system should be based on capitalist or socialist values.

 

to me. equality and more socialist values should be had to deter speeding. not just as a caring citizen but also because it would simply be more effective.  

 

i vote for socialist principles in driving enforcement.  Canada is pretty socialist.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

20 minutes ago, Rush17 said:

do you make over 80,000 a year?

Yes

 

Quote

in all fairness i get your point. but ur just simply set in your ways.  the very concept your pushing which happens to be the current model simply isn't fair.

 

why is it unfair to fine people based on the percentage of their income?  it is arguably the best method for equality.  if you wanted to add stipulations for constant reoffenders regardless of income that's fine.  but saying its unfair to base it off of % of income is just silly.  your argument stands for the opposite of what you are trying to portray it as.

 

You're goal in equality is about finding equal pain in terms of $.  If a person murders another person, should the amount of years in jail be higher based on a person income?  That would be quite stupid wouldn't it?

 

Demerits are an equal playing field based on performance. 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

11 minutes ago, Toews said:

No one has said it does though.

 

There is no discrimination. Everyone is fined the same percentage. Do you think its unfair that someone that makes 2M a year pays more in income taxes than someone that makes 50K a year? 

 

Currently everyone commits driving infractions and gets away with it because no one is facing steep enough punishment. This is why our roads are currently a mess.

No that's not why?  You don't drive do you?  People commit driving infractions for other reasoning than the concern about the punishment.  People tend to speed when they are late for something.  Poor and rich people alike . 

 

11 minutes ago, Toews said:

Its about making the roads safer by sticking it to offenders. If these offenders are outraged at their fines then they will learn the rules and follow them to the letter of the law. 

Then why do poor people who can barely afford the fine still speed.  That's the same line of thinking that raising alcohol taxes would make people drink less. 

 

In your Lucic scenario.  The NHL realized penalizing people based on income is dumb so guess what they did, they increased the suspension.  The more suspensions you get the harsher the punishment.  

 

Guess what, demerits are the same thing, an equal playing field that punishes equally based on their driving record. 

[trek]

What if the punishments were not monetary? I'd think it would be more fair rich or poor if you had multiple offences, the DMV would suspend your license for longer and longer duration. IMO the inconvenience of not being able to drive the car for a period of 1 week/month/6mo/year would be far more deterrent than a $200 fine.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

8 minutes ago, Rush17 said:

i think the disagreement we are having in terms of % of income is more a question whether the fine and safe driving system should be based on capitalist or socialist values.

 

to me. equality and more socialist values should be had to deter speeding. not just as a caring citizen but also because it would simply be more effective.  

 

i vote for socialist principles in driving enforcement.  Canada is pretty socialist.

Did you just use equality and socialist in the same sentence?

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 minute ago, trek said:

What if the punishments were not monetary? I'd think it would be more fair rich or poor if you had multiple offences, the DMV would suspend your license for longer and longer duration. IMO the inconvenience of not being able to drive the car for a period of 1 week/month/6mo/year would be far more deterrent than a $200 fine.

 

Aka the demerit system. 

[aGENT]

32 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Because income has zero to do with driving ability. 

 

I find it funny how people are on board with this.  but if this type of discrimination was flipped, people would be acting a lot differently.  It's a common stereotype that Asian's are bad drivers, what if we passed a law that punished them more on driving infractions, lets say just doubled the fines. Would that be fair?

 

Sorry but it's not about the pain that prevents people from breaking the law.. How come poor people also get driving infractions, shouldn't they be concerned about feeling the pain. 

 

Is the goal to make the roads safer or is it a way to stick it to the rich people.  Until someone provides evidence that rich people not being worried about the pain makes the roads more dangerous, than poor people with cars. It's simply just bank account envy. 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

7 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Is that necessary?  Toews, Philip and Rush and having an actual discussion oh but wait J.R feels left out and needs to post a picture.  Grow up J.R

 

 

[Toews]

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

No that's not why?  You don't drive do you?  People commit driving infractions for other reasoning than the concern about the punishment.  People tend to speed when they are late for something.  Poor and rich people alike . 

 

Then why do poor people who can barely afford the fine still speed.  That's the same line of thinking that raising alcohol taxes would make people drink less. 

 

In your Lucic scenario.  The NHL realized penalizing people based on income is dumb so guess what they did, they increased the suspension.  The more suspensions you get the harsher the punishment.  

 

Guess what, demerits are the same thing, an equal playing field that punishes equally based on their driving record. 

I do drive. I follow the rules because that's how I was taught how to drive. My parents impressed upon me as I was learning how to drive to pay attention to speed limits, to be alert at all times and to follow all traffic rules. A lot of people don't though, I want to see these people punished for their reckless behavior when they endanger me and everyone they share a road with. I don't really care whether they are rich or poor, I want to see meaningful punishments handed out. The demerit system doesn't do enough to deter them.

 

To the bolded, why have punishments at all then? Might as well remove all the checks, toss the demerit system as well if people aren't concerned with punishment. You know this isn't true, people are concerned with punishment. If they weren't then we wouldn't have things like fines, demerit points and raised premiums. Consequences deter people from committing crimes, it is the same with driving offenses. Rich and poor people alike.

 

Poor people commit offenses for the same reasons rich people commit offenses because there is not enough measures being taken to deter them from doing so. 

 

It is the exorbitant taxes that they charge cigarettes that caused me and a lot of people to quit. Are there people willing to pay that to continue smoking? Of course but there are also people that ended up quitting because they realize that the cost was burning a hole in their wallet. 

 

Suspensions cause you to lose a percentage of your income, thats why they are an effective deterrent. Remember when Prust speared Marchand, he called it 'money well spent' because the 20K fine or so he got was meaningless considering the salary he was making. I believe repeat offenders get suspended now for spearing, fines were clearly not working because the NHLPA refuses to raise fines higher than the standard 20-30K.

[Rush17]

17 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Did you just use equality and socialist in the same sentence?

I did.  Our health care is a socialist system is it not?  equal access for every member of society.  how is equal fee payments based on % any different.  if you drive safe then why would you worry?  

 

your rebuttal is weak and has no substance.  equality of access and load.  that is true equality. not equality in a capitalist system that says x amount per person. instead it is using a pie metric (ie we want this radius of pie for our slice) not a stacking method where the rich reach the ceiling with their gold bars as the poor scraps by.

 

using a pie metric instead of a vertical stacking metric makes more sense. it is indeed more equal.  if you drive safe and smart what does it matter.  is it a principle thing?  

[Rush17]

53 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Because income has zero to do with driving ability. 

 

I find it funny how people are on board with this.  but if this type of discrimination was flipped, people would be acting a lot differently.  It's a common stereotype that Asian's are bad drivers, what if we passed a law that punished them more on driving infractions, lets say just doubled the fines. Would that be fair?

 

Sorry but it's not about the pain that prevents people from breaking the law.. How come poor people also get driving infractions, shouldn't they be concerned about feeling the pain. 

 

Is the goal to make the roads safer or is it a way to stick it to the rich people.  Until someone provides evidence that rich people not being worried about the pain makes the roads more dangerous, than poor people with cars. It's simply just bank account envy. 

Based on a % system they would actually feel the pain still worse then most rich. they have a smaller pot to pull from and often scrap by to pay the bills.  im by no means arguing reducing but its more of a matter of making the suffering more equal. if we live in a free and equal society why should the rich be able to pay peanuts for a major driving infraction.  poor drivers are more likely to follow the rules of the road after an enforcement because it impacts them more economically. obviously there are outliers but in general it is true.

 

the second part i highlighted is just stupidity at its finest. i dont even know what to say to that.

[Rush17]

31 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Aka the demerit system. 

I respect a lot of what you say about hockey. but i think we are at a crossroads on this matter.  your argument contradicts itself at its foundation.  i just dont know what else can be said. keep up the good hockey posts. im sure i will + rep you many more times in the future.