Not sure what topic, I have an insurance question.

-first speed ticket in 12yrs period... on mbike 168kmh alleged east of London 401, May 2015

-did you go to trial? no bargained for straight "speed fine=$782", NO stunt driving because 1/6 judges will give you "jail time" in this area, ... so I was told by legal council

-did you hire a paralegal, yes for $2,200 tax incl.

-TD Meloche Monnex Insurance customer of 25 yrs, never at fault, 7* rated driver

Today I get a call from a nice TD rep. saying "your insurance will be cancelled in 1 mth for you/wife/kids" - have a nice day, no alternatives, good luck with your search.

"We won't insure 'major convictions' end of story" -TD

So any suggestions on where to go, what to say?

my insurance was renewed without incident early Nov 2015, but now that it expires Nov 2016, NOW the red flag came up, recall MY CONVICTION date was end of Nov 2015, so that spared me ONE YEAR of good timing.

Insurance companies go by CONVICTION DATE 3yrs and not offense date May 2015.

Demerits disappear in 2yrs

Insurance in 3yrs

Nothing you can do but contact other insurance companies before yours is cancelled!

If you can't get coverage through a regular provider, you'll need to go through facility insurance. They provide insurance for everyone, but the rates are astronomical since they only insure those deemed "high risk". Probably also want to look at seeing if your wife and children can get regular coverage without you on their plan. Probably be required to sign a waiver stating you can never operate vehicles they've insured or the coverage would be void.

Nice registered letter came in the mail 5 days after initial TD phone call making the cancellation official. "1 or more major conviction within the last 3 years".

Got my first ins. quote back from a BROKER was $900/yr, now will be $2,400/yr for next 2 yrs. So $3,000 insurance total penalty over 2yrs on top of $800 towing/7days storage during initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law.

Never an at fault accident in 38 yrs of driving.

No speed ticket or any ticket for 12 yrs.

If you do the math on this thread and add 200 for travel to/from impound lot...

$7,000 total.

And you wonder why people won't stop for cops anymore.

Yep, it is "legal" robbery... they have the guns and jails so they can legally rob you!

Now more on this...

250alp wrote:

...initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law...

So I am confused by this... you were never convicted of the speeding charge?

I am pretty sure that insurance can not use a roadside suspension against you. You have to have been actually convicted.

250alp wrote:

Nice registered letter came in the mail 5 days after initial TD phone call making the cancellation official. "1 or more major conviction within the last 3 years".

Got my first ins. quote back from a BROKER was $900/yr, now will be $2,400/yr for next 2 yrs. So $3,000 insurance total penalty over 2yrs on top of $800 towing/7days storage during initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law.

Never an at fault accident in 38 yrs of driving.

No speed ticket or any ticket for 12 yrs.

If you do the math on this thread and add 200 for travel to/from impound lot...

$7,000 total.

And you wonder why people won't stop for cops anymore.

All of which could be avoided by you driving sensibly and not going 68 over the limit. The severe penalties for doing what you did have been in place for several years now. Don't blame the police, don't blame the insurance companies, and don't blame the government. Blame yourself and consider this saga a lesson learned.

jsherk wrote:

Yep, it is "legal" robbery... they have the guns and jails so they can legally rob you!

Now more on this...

250alp wrote:

...initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law...

So I am confused by this... you were never convicted of the speeding charge?

I am pretty sure that insurance can not use a roadside suspension against you. You have to have been actually convicted.

Convicted in absentia??

jsherk wrote:

Yep, it is "legal" robbery... they have the guns and jails so they can legally rob you!.

I didn't know that insurance agents have guns and jails. The excessive penalties described here are insurance costs, nothing to do with the police nor even the government.

The insurance companies see a correlation between excessive speed and excessive claims so they don't want to insure drivers like that.

But sure, it's just easier to blame the police for everything.

argyll wrote:

The excessive penalties described here are insurance costs, nothing to do with the police nor even the government.

The government makes insurance mandatory and therefore we have to pay for it or else they send their guys with guns to enforce it. The government is the one sending the police to charge for pre-crime speeding when there is no proof that it was unsafe. So the execessive insurance costs are directly related to government intervention.

I agree that the police are just doing their job... the job the government tells them to do. The problem though with both government and police is that they have taken an oath to the Queen, not to the people, so they have no requirement to serve us or do what is right for us.

I'd love for you to go and tell the family of someone killed by a speeder that you think speed enforcement is not doing what's right. You have consistently failed to reply when asked to comment on whether all speeds that don't result in injury are safe. Can I do 100 in a school zone if I don't hit any one ? What about 150 ? You repeat your mantra that if no-one is hurt then there should be no enforcement but enforcement stops people doing the things that can cause catastrophies. Darwinism is fine if it the driver getting killed but sadly it is often the people not encased in steel who are the victims.

argyll wrote:

I'd love for you to go and tell the family of someone killed by a speeder that you think speed enforcement is not doing what's right.

If enforcement was so effective then nobody would get killed by speeders!

Some speeds are not safe. But speed limits are not about safe speeds. They are just a random numbers on a sign.

I have seen 50 zones where you could easily do 100 safely. There are times on the 400 where it is completely safe to be doing 140 easy.

Is it a school zone with kids and cars all over the street? Well then if you are doing 100 then you are probably scaring people and swerving in and out of traffice and that is what makes it unsafe. Is it 2am and the street is completely empty? Well then if there is nobody around and no vehicles then maybe it is no unsafe.

If enforcement was about proving the speed to be unsafe then I would certainly have a lot less to complain about.

Prove to me that the op doing 168 on the 401 was unsafe. Traffic, weather, road conditions, etc all play a part in this. It might have been unsafe, but it also might have been perfectly safe! They want to call it stunt driving, but the average person knows that just driving fast is not the same thing as doing stunts.

Simply driving fast is not necessarily unsafe. Simply driving faster than a speed limit is not necessarily unsafe. Speed enforcement is promoted as keeping us safe, so then why not have to prove that it was unsafe? Insurance goes up because you supposedly did something that was unsafe, so why not have to prove that it was unsafe?

jsherk wrote:

Is it a school zone with kids and cars all over the street? Well then if you are doing 100 then you are probably scaring people and swerving in and out of traffice and that is what makes it unsafe. Is it 2am and the street is completely empty? Well then if there is nobody around and no vehicles then maybe it is no unsafe.

How do you know the road is empty. People say, "the road was empty" but then get pulled over so clearly they couldn't see the road was empty. A road at 2 am is often empty but the one time it isn't with a pedestrian maybe the vehicle should be travelling at a slower speed.

I don't disagree that some speed limits should be raised but your concept of no speed limits and prosecute those that hit someone is just insanity.

My concept is that there needs to be harm, injury or damage. Harm can be defined as simply as "being scared", so nobody has to be hit or injured and nothing has be damaged for this to apply. An example would be erratic driving like weaving in and out of traffic on the 401.

I guess if I ever run for Premier's office, I won't get your vote!

Again, so it's OK to drive like a bat out of hell along a road and the only problem comes when you pass the person who you didn't see because you were going too fast for that class of road ?

Do you wear a seatbelt ? Why bother - you only need it when you crash ? If you aren't crashing then what's the point ? Aaaaah, because you MIGHT crash and you can't predict when that would be.........