Canada Election 2015

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I guess you fail to see the irony of who the quote is from. Oh well.

Keynes didn't believe in the laissez-faire approach to economics, but he certainly was not a socialist either. I doubt this quote was a criticism of capitalism on the whole, but rather the hands off approach of unbridled free markets.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by geotag277

I looked for actual costs and couldn't really find much. If you have sources I'd love to see them.

I found this report:

https://www.sgi.sk.ca/pdf/Motorcycle-Review-Committee-Report-on-Findings.pdf

This generally alludes to the fact that they aren't collecting enough from motorcycle insurance to cover the claims. That makes sense as the population of motorcycle riders is generally incredibly small and the personal injury potential much higher (helmet or no). I wouldn't be surprised if they can't cover their costs and need to increase their collections. They will find out however, that no matter what the education and safety laws they implement, the numbers will be very linear with the number of riders on the road. That's what pretty much every other study says. The population of riders is so small the numbers are statistically insignificant anyway.

I did manage to find this helpful graphic to put into perspective what we are talking about here.



These are SK numbers. We are talking 0.5 fatalities a month about 14 personal injuries a month for motorcycles. Cars have about the same number of personal injury cases every single day (~11).

I'd have to look up what is in the publicly available data...

As for comparing those numbers, it's also important to keep in mind that the motorcycle season is about half a year, so you wouldn't average over 12 months, but rather 6 or 7 if you have a nice year. People don't generally insure their motorcycles out of season... You can't ride them anyway.

As for injuries... You can't look at populations as a whole, for vehicle types. (Comparing number of claims per day vs per month), you'd need to look at claims per exposure per day/month. I don't know if exposure data is available without an FOI request.

You do mention the statistically insignificant number of motorcyclists which is fairly true, though as SGI has all business in the province, it's not as insignificant as many insurers in other jurisdictions even with higher populations would have. But the issue the last number of years has been that motorcycle claims (per exposure) have increased at a much higher rate than other types of vehicles. It will almost certainly be slightly elevated for the reasons you mentioned, but there's no reason it couldn't go down to previous levels accounting for inflation (in relation to cars). This is where they are hoping that training/protective equipment will help to alleviate some of the need for large rate increases (which are basically capped in Saskatchewan at 10%).

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Nathan

It will almost certainly be slightly elevated for the reasons you mentioned, but there's no reason it couldn't go down to previous levels accounting for inflation (in relation to cars).

Actually there are a lot of reasons of why we wouldn't expect motorcycle injuries or deaths to go down. Vehicles get safer every year, motorcycles don't. There is no concept of crumple zones, air bags, seat belts, lane departure warnings, blind spot detection, etc. in motorcycles.

Despite all these safety advancements, generally speaking, there are more and more collisions every year. The collision "rate" can fluctuate (and generally has been trending down), but the mere fact that there are more and more and more collisions on the road (in terms of absolute number) poses a significant problem for motorcyclists.

A snap shot from the SK data:



This poses a unique problem for motorcyclists, as even as the traffic rate falls, riders still deal with an increasingly large # of distracted drivers, a large # of potential collisions, and a large # of incompetent drivers. It takes much more skill to navigate these dangerous streets in a motorcycle compared to a car.

Of course, education will certainly help, but it is a bit of a stretch to expect motorcycle injuries to follow a pattern similar to cars.

BTW I have no doubt motorcycle injuries are generally more expensive than car injuries, I was just curious about the actual data. Frequently I see disingenuous use of statistics, such as comparing very specific periods with other very specific periods to try to extrapolate large trends, when the fact is, the population of motorcycle riders are so small to begin with this group is susceptible to large fluctuations in these numbers anyway, regardless of other variables.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

What you've said here is true, but only given the revisionist definition of socialism. Originally socialism was seen as very much an economic model, where the means of production was socialized. In other words, socialism considered the capitalist as an unnecessary middle man, that could easily be bypassed through worker ownership of the means of production.

Over the last few decades, the interpretation of socialism has evolved to encompass more of a welfare state approach combined with free markets.

In fact, the original definition of socialism was far more radical, to the point that Karl Marx considered socialism merely a transitional state between a capitalist and communist society. He saw it only as a means to an end. I suppose this could explain the fear mongering from the far right that any and all socialist policies will necessarily lead towards a communist state. If you only consider the original definition of socialism, they technically aren't wrong.

Perhaps, but it seems to me that the far right fear mongers about most topics whether there's any historical justification or not. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if many of them weren't even aware of the historical evolution of the different economic models.

Not to sound partisan or anything

[travis3000]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

The NDP have been sliding due to losses in Quebec. The Liberals aren't gaining much in Quebec but elsewhere you have the Grits siphoning from the Dips base.

Not true , today's Nanos poll shows the Liberals only 2 points behind the NDP in Quebec. The NDP has plunged from 50% support here in early September to below 30% now . The Liberals are up 5 points to 28. If this trend continues the liberals may actually take the top spot there.

Also, the NDP has been falling in Ontario. At one point near 30% in the province , now down to 18% in some polls.

[ozonemania]

Originally Posted by lio45

If MPs vote freely then what's the point of parties? I mean, Trudeau can say "if you elect the Liberal Party, we'll be doing this or that" but if the MPs are truly free there's no telling what they'll vote for. It's going to be empty promises (well, even emptier than ordinary politician's promises!)

I like the idea of having MPs be free (representing their constituents) and I also can find things I like with a party system and some form of PR, but it seems that with FPTP combined with strict party lines we have the worst of both worlds.

Strict party lines would work fine with (as of right now) ~35% power to the LPC, ~30% power to the CPC, ~25% power to the NDP, ~5% power to the BQ and Greens. Why do we need warm flesh and bones tools assigned to specific ridings in a party line system?

I found reading their actual (Liberal) platform very useful in clarifying what they mean by free voting. Maybe those that are confused should read it.

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by Migs

That's funny since capitalism created this website & the device you're using to post that nonsense.

Actually, people created both. Captitalism doesn't create anything. It is a structure, also created by human beings. Of course fundamentalists are prone to believe that their object of belief is the alpha and omega of existence. Fundamentalism is dangerous, right?

And I thought you left?

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by ozonemania

I found reading their actual (Liberal) platform very useful in clarifying what they mean by free voting. Maybe those that are confused should read it.

I'm not sure how seriously you can really take all the statements made in that 88 page political document which reads more like desperate-to-get-elected-Xmas-wist-list-hand-outs-for-everyone-in-Canada than it does a realistic proposal document, but for those interested, here is the relevant section:

We will make free votes in the House of Commons standard practice.

We will give Canadians a stronger voice in the House of Commons by limiting the circumstances in which Liberal Members of Parliament will be required to vote with Cabinet.

For members of the Liberal Caucus, all votes will be free votes with the exception of:

• those that implement the Liberal electoral platform;

• traditional confidence matters, like the budget; and

• those that address our shared values and the protections guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by socialisthorde

Actually, people created both. Captitalism doesn't create anything. It is a structure, also created by human beings. Of course fundamentalists are prone to believe that their object of belief is the alpha and omega of existence. Fundamentalism is dangerous, right?

Of course people created it, that goes without saying. The structure of capitalism that was created by sane hard working people is what created this webpage & the device you are currently using.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Migs

Of course people created it, that goes without saying. The structure of capitalism that was created by sane hard working people is what created this webpage & the device you are currently using.

Actually who created the actual device he is using is likely the outsourcing of manufacturing from successful advanced capitalist economics into communist countries for cheaper labour which is exploiting the fact that communist countries have generally pushed lower salaries (and lower standards of living) upon their workers for generations compared to their capitalistic counterparts.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by geotag277

I'm not sure how seriously you can really take all the statements made in that 88 page political document which reads more like desperate-to-get-elected-Xmas-wist-list-hand-outs-for-everyone-in-Canada than it does a realistic proposal document, but for those interested, here is the relevant section:

Lol... they just described every possible voting situation. Final nail in the coffin being the last item, "Liberal MPs will be forced to toe the party line on any matter that addresses our shared values" for which basically anything can qualify.

I'd sooner buy oceanfront land in Saskatchewan than this idea that they'd make their MPs free to vote as they wish... the former is more credible. Would've been refreshing, but I should've known better than to believe it.

[O-tacular]

Check out this mock Barbaric Practices Tip Line website:

http://www.reportyourneighbour.ca/

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Migs

Of course people created it, that goes without saying. The structure of capitalism that was created by sane hard working people is what created this webpage & the device you are currently using.

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. (B. Russell)

[SteelTown]

You know I was really disappointed when Kellie Leitch launched a hotline against "barbaric cultural practices". Her along with Chris Alexander I'd assume would be the next generation of Conservatives. But uh they REALLY disappoint me. It's as if Harper is purposely trying to ruin their future political aspirations.

[O-tacular]

I submitted a tip to their facebook page. I reported a neighbour's vehicle that has truck nuts. This is a barbaric cultural practice that has no place in MY CANADA!!!

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Actually who created the actual device he is using is likely the outsourcing of manufacturing from successful advanced capitalist economics into communist countries for cheaper labour which is exploiting the fact that communist countries have generally pushed lower salaries (and lower standards of living) upon their workers for generations compared to their capitalistic counterparts.

That would be clever, if all cheap labor came from communist or even former communist countries. In any case, the thing I am writing on did not arise in the context of unfettered capitalism. If you are going to use history as evidence for the success of capitalism, you have to include the fact that totally unfettered capitalism has never existed except in Ayn Rand's fantasies. Therefore, we cannot attribute all the gains of westerrn society to pure capitalism.

Seriously, didn't Migs leave?

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I submitted a tip to their facebook page. I reported a neighbour's vehicle that has truck nuts. This is a barbaric cultural practice that has no place in MY CANADA!!!

I think its barbaric of you to criticize his/her nuts. This country was build by people with nuts. Your kind of predjudice has no place in MY CANADA!

Oh, this is gonna be fun.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by socialisthorde

I think its barbaric of you to criticize his/her nuts. This country was build by people with nuts. Your kind of predjudice has no place in MY CANADA!

Oh, this is gonna be fun.

Yes it's true. I am prejudiced against those who overcompensate for their minuscule gonads with plastic testicles.

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Yes it's true. I am prejudiced against those who overcompensate for their minuscule gonads with plastic testicles.

Would it be uncanadian to cover them with a scarf?

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Actually there are a lot of reasons of why we wouldn't expect motorcycle injuries or deaths to go down. Vehicles get safer every year, motorcycles don't. There is no concept of crumple zones, air bags, seat belts, lane departure warnings, blind spot detection, etc. in motorcycles.

Despite all these safety advancements, generally speaking, there are more and more collisions every year. The collision "rate" can fluctuate (and generally has been trending down), but the mere fact that there are more and more and more collisions on the road (in terms of absolute number) poses a significant problem for motorcyclists.

A snap shot from the SK data:



This poses a unique problem for motorcyclists, as even as the traffic rate falls, riders still deal with an increasingly large # of distracted drivers, a large # of potential collisions, and a large # of incompetent drivers. It takes much more skill to navigate these dangerous streets in a motorcycle compared to a car.

Of course, education will certainly help, but it is a bit of a stretch to expect motorcycle injuries to follow a pattern similar to cars.

BTW I have no doubt motorcycle injuries are generally more expensive than car injuries, I was just curious about the actual data. Frequently I see disingenuous use of statistics, such as comparing very specific periods with other very specific periods to try to extrapolate large trends, when the fact is, the population of motorcycle riders are so small to begin with this group is susceptible to large fluctuations in these numbers anyway, regardless of other variables.

While it's true that cars benefit from increased safety improvements and motorcycles don't, this shouldn't lead to an escalation in motorcycle claims/injuries, but rather a long term trend that doesn't go down (there will of course be some wobbling in the trend line). What has been happening in Saskatchewan is that there was a dramatic rise over the last while, not compared to cars, but compared to historical motorcycle experience; it's too early to tell yet, but they are hoping some of the new measures will help.

Regarding distracted drivers though... Though motorcyclists will have to be watchful, it is more for their own personal safety than to prevent increases in insurance rates. In Saskatchewan, claim costs are assigned to the at fault party's class, so if a distracted driver hits a motorcyclist, all the insurance impact goes to that distracted driver's group. Nothing hits motorcycles. Motorcycle rates are only impacted in single vehicle collisions (e.g. wiping out when cornering or losing control otherwise) or when they are at least 50% at fault in a multi-vehicle collision.

Edit: we're kind of going slightly off-topic I guess, but I'm involved in an analytical role within the insurance industry, so I do find the topic interesting.