I own a car, therefor I pay insurance. Being able to choose which company makes no difference as to who gets to use the money that I pay, I get no say whatsover as to whose accidents get paid out or not. So really I have no choice, I pay. Now suppose person x, a car driver insured by the same company I am insured with, has an altercation with someone on a bicycle who is also not wearing a helmet. Instead of bruises we now have concussion and brain damage.
Insurance pays damages to cyclist eventually, health insurance (in this case my tax money as it is Ontario) pays for the hospital care, other taxes pay for ambulance, police, possibly helicopter etc. I have no idea if OHIP goes after the insurance company for payment or not, but I doubt it. If there are too many expensive cycling accidents involving cars, then the rates go up, for everyone, not just that insurance company because the probility of that risk occuring has gone up. Who is at fault makes no difference, it is paid for out of 2 pools of $, both of which are funded by in essence the public, by premiums or taxes or both. In the casse of car vs cyclist incidents, the no-fault system doesn't even come into play, there is only 1 insurance company involved. So, that cyclists opinion that they have the freedom to not wear a helmet potentially impacts a lot of peoples pockets. It certainly doesn't affect theirs as they don't pay for insurance, except perhaps OHIP. Yes, they lose pay while in hospital depending on whether they have LTD coverage or not. If they do, then ,,,,, yes the insurance company who provides that pays out, using the money many others including companies pay as premiums. The company of course passes the expense to me, the consumer. There is no magic pool of money that pays for stuff. We all pay, directly or indirectly. My personal opinion is that many accidents are in fact negligence, sometimes it is the perpertrator with an innocent victim, sometimes the victim is the cause. And if negligent, then the person responsible should pay, directly, some portion of the aftermath. Maybe insurance covers a lot but they need to pay for their decision/negligence. It is called accountability. If you don't want to wear a helmet or seatbelts, then pay for the repurcusions yourself. That should maybe factor into the 'decision made by an adult in full possesion of the facts'?. Gerrit Who is now going to post a PESO so that he is not considered a non-photo contributing troll :-) -----Original Message----- From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of knarftheria...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 1:27 PM To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Subject: RE: OT For the cyclists here First off "public money" is tax money. That's who (in Canada at least) pays for healthcare. Most of it, anyway. The fact that your insurance premiums go into a pool and pay for the collisions of others does not make it public money. You may choose your insurance company, you may choose different levels of coverage or you may choose not to pay insurance (if you don't drive a motor vehicle). Most jurisdictions have a form of no fault system. That means that sometimes a portion of the damages of a person at fault will be covered by your insurance provider. Usually no-fault benefits are fairly minimal and are not a major cost to the system; that's why the insurance industry lobbied long and hard to have the government implement such a system. The big awards, the "pain and suffering", "punitive damages" and "loss of future wages" tend to still be fault-based. The bottom line is that large amounts "public funds" rarely get into the hands of one who is at fault in any motor vehicle accident. Cheers, frank -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
