Discussions

Not sure if anyone has seen this. MPI are doing a survey regarding possible changes to the system.  
https://www.mpi.mb.ca/en/About-Us/Community/pages/public-consultation-setting-your-Autopac-premium.aspx

Thanks for posting this-it is the first I've heard of it. I went and filled it out right away.

On the flip side, drivers who have a bad driving record, but don’t own a vehicle, might see their costs adjusted properly.

if a bad driver doesn't own a vehicle and their license is adjusted accordingly ...fine that's the way it is now....but MPI wants you to claim if this person is driving one of your vehicles that you have registered thus making your premiums go through the roof...doesn't mistake license and premiums on you insurance.

I remember at one time of the MPI agent was telling me that if I drive a certain make and model of vehicle in Brandon, and for example that same make and model is involved in crashes or tickets by other people that it affects my insurance as well?  
 
Is this true?  
 
IMO ...every bad driver, that is convicted of an at-fault accident and have tickets. Their premium should sky-rocket, not others.

In the survey MPI is apparently considering multiple different options for the driver rating scale.  
 
Some of them are pretty absurd, but the one that has some merit (if they were to change) puts the emphasis solely on the drivers license. That’s the one I was referring to above.  
 
This is a bit of an extreme example, but here it goes anyway. Say I have a bad drivers record and go 50,000km a year in my own vehicle, I’m going to pay through the nose for insurance. Now my neighbour, who has the same driving record, and goes 50,000km a year as well, but does it in a company vehicle, avoids all the extra penalties I do because he isn’t insuring that vehicle. It could even be his own company that owns the vehicle, but he still gets way less “punishment” than I do despite posing a very similar risk to everyone else. Not too fair, is it?

I would like to see the majority of our insurance premium applied to the drivers license. The premium rate on your driver license should be based on your personal driving record, not on what you drive, how much you drive, where you drive or how many vehicles you have on the road  
 
Basing insurance premiums on the vehicle has the high risk drivers being subsidized by lower risk drivers. Not fair in my opinion.  
Let the high risk driver pay, and I do not care how unaffordable their drivers license gets. The rest of road users will be safer if some could not afford a drivers lisence. Just a bit of cause and effect.  
 
An added benefit of applying the insurance premium to the drivers license is it would encourage people to drive a vehicle more suited to their needs. Example, I require a truck 3 or 4 times a month. The rest of the month I could use a more enviromently friendly vehicle. As it is with the insurance premium applied to the vehicle it make no sense to have a second easier on the enviroment vehicle.

If one chooses to get a license so they can drive about once every 2 months (emergency, DD or any other reason). But they don't own a car and instead take the bus, bike, or walk the majority of the time. Those license holders should not pay more than they do now (maybe its a choice based on financial hardship). WE need to maintain the ability for people to make choices that allow them to cut costs, while still having the legal ability to get behind the wheel if circumstances require it.  
 
In a way it sounds good, In one way it would be fairer, in another massively unfair to anyone making a low income.

My premium goes up every year even though I have not been in an accident in years. MPI need to review

not unfair for anyones license to cost more if their driving record indicates they are a high risk driver. If you are having at fault crashes and collecting tickets, I do care if you only drive a couple of times a year. You should pay according to your driving record. If have a poor driving record you should pay extra even if is a hardship. Might help you learn to drive safely.  
 
If you drive 10 mile a year and crash every 2nd year, why should you pay less than someone who drives 100,000 miles a year and crashes every 2nd year. You are both costing MPI/ premium payers money.  
 
The insurance costs should be borne by the drivers that cost MPI/premium payers money, not the drivers that have multiple vehicles and never have a claim or traffic ticket.  
 
Why should anyone have to pay more just so high risk drivers get a break on the cost of insurance be it on the DL or car insurance.

Having worked in the motor insurance industry for a number of years, I feel that the main premium cost should be on the vehicle, area, and age of driver. The licence fee is already weighted by the holders history. If an owner has other drivers who are currently penalized by licence cost it should not affect his vehicle premium. If needs be restrict driving to named persons.  
What I would like to see is the choice of cover being expanded. Why should a person driving an older car, quite roadworthy, but low value have to pay for full cover when Third party would be adequate, with or without fire or theft cover. Frequently the insurance cost will be higher than the vehicles worth in a write off.  
Just my thoughts.

Anyone who has had a few accidents pay a huge cost for their licenses. That is enough, in fact the amounts are ridiculous in my opinion.  
 
And for the record, I've always had a good record. But I do feel for those who pay greater than $1000 for just their license. To throw insurance premium on top of that if the person decided to stop driving to save costs is unfair. They are likely to keep the license so they continue to pay a large sum even if they choose to sell their vehicle.

I knew a few people with lousy driving g records-their vehicle insurance would have been very high so they transferred it over to their spouses, who had good driving records- that way the insurance premiums were much lower. Does MPI still allow that? I know some do pay very high insurance just to keep their licenses now.

Whatever they do it will not change parents from registering their children cars (my parents never did that for me) to get the lower premium. Even though it worked off a line of trust people still lie. I knew a insurance broker who her parents were still paying her car insurance because she didn't get a discount. Now if that is not a breech of trust I don't know what is.  
 
All I know I have been driving the same car for over 8 years and purchased it new and I am paying the same for insurance ( I had the New car protection for the first 2 years) as I was 8 years ago even though my discount has gone up 13% to the top of the DSR scale.  
 
You can't depend on people to be honest. you just have to live it.

MPI has a significant flaw with insurance values according to insurance rates. Everyone here should play around with the MPI website. Here's a great example...  
 
Basic coverage, 1 million third party on a 2019 Cadillac Excalade -$2050  
Basic coverage, 1 million third party on a 2009 Ford Focus - $1597  
 
Both vehicles get destroyed after one year after registering/insuring. The ford is basically worth $2,000 (estimating), thus is wiped to zero with the years insurance and deductible. The Cadillac gets over $80,000 (more guessing, than estimating). Why does the $453 difference have such a heavily lopsided outcome for the same coverage? One person on a fixed income gets pretty much nothing and must start over again because the insurance costs 75% of the cars worth, while someone with more money (credit) then brains is better off by paying insurance that's under 2.5% of the vehicles worth . ...The balance just isn't fair. Why squeeze out the only loophole most families have by insuring vehicles under the driver with more merits when there are so many fat cats that could afford paying premiums at a fair ratio to the book value?  
 
MPI should re-evaluate premiums on vehicles over sixty grand, before nickel and dime every household for a quick cash grab. Yeah, there's abuse in some households where bad drivers are relying on other peoples good premiums and that's not fair. But, I think it's more obscene to think the ones that have the money get the better deal with insurance. That's truly unfair.  
 
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

I think you have to buy extra insurance if your vehicle is valued at over $50k or so. There is a max payout on basic insurance

Never mind a survey on rates, what MPI needs to do is drag it’s ass into the 21st century and have us able to do our autopac online. At least after first registration. I have an old Yukon XL. It gets used lots during hockey season or when the whole family goes somewhere because there is 6 of us. Would be nice to be able to get a smaller, more economical vehicle to use when we don’t actually need to take the big vehicle. Not worth doing and having it insured as well as the Yukon because it would have to save us at least $100 a month in gas to cover the cost of autopac. If we could have one on the road and one on lay up and we could do our autopac online, if we decided say on a sunday that we didn’t need to take the Yukon because just me and a couple kids going somewhere, we could just go online and switch the lay up in minutes instead of having to wait for the autopac agent to open on Monday and then drive 14 miles to get there. Have been able to do vehicle insurance 24/7, 365 days a year in the UK since before I got my license 23 years ago! Catch up Manitoba!

Yes the maximum insured value that comes with the basic insurance coverage is $50,000 anything over will need to purchsed. It is techinvall6 not required unless new car protection is purchased but if there is a write off and they value your vehicle more than $50k and did not insure it for more you will just get the $50k.  
 
There are also plans for people who make an income more than $98,500 and if you are involved in an accident and no longer able to work you can receive injury benefits from a car accident obvisly