Quote Originally Posted by racer7 View Post
Why are you not arguing the whole nonsensical premise of this program? It is obviously just one more way to make or justify making $ off of minor speed issues when human judgement is more important.
I'm not sure why you think I haven't advanced these arguments, but how can I be sure its nonsensical, unless I investigate it?

As to our speed limits, the allowable overage of 16% on top of our limit of 110 kph, means that anything under 127.6 kph (79 mph) is not notable. That's pretty close to what you're saying is fair. If I get cited for doing that speed by a cop, the ticket would be in the >$200 range, and the money goes into gov't revenues and doesn't help defer overall insurance costs. The exact methodology for handling overspeeds hasn't been determined yet, but our understanding at this point is that if you have enough of them related to the distances travelled, you will have your insurance deduction reduced, and any monetary advantage the insurance company "makes" using this scheme would directly offset overall motorcycle insurance rates. The maximum deduction available using the device is yet to be determined, but 25% has been floated (I think it may have to be higher), and if you have enough overspeeds to raise a flag, it would by itself, only reduce the deduction by, say, 10%. Even if you raise every flag the device/system has, at worst, your insurance won't be any higher than it would have been if the device wasn't installed.

Your comments about the importance of rider judgement are spot-on. From the insurance company's perspective, the intent of this device is to highlight (what they think are) errors in individual behavior that may indicate poor judgement. This is valid if any of the data is predictive in nature. For example, if a rider consistently has lots of overspeeds, that may indicate they are more likely to have an accident (their's or someone else's fault because of closing speeds, etc.) or at least have more severe consequences when/if they do.

The predictive nature of cornering data (if they ever get that working) is harder for me to fathom. In Sask at least, there aren't a lot of complex corners, and going slower through 99% of them, doesn't mean you're going to be awake for the one you fall asleep on. Unfortunately, SGI's accident stats show that a very high percentage of at-fault m/c accidents occur at corners. But I'm still not convinced that monitoring our cornering speed will be all that predictive, and may become punitive for corner-junkies like myself.

Quote Originally Posted by racer7 View Post
How about automatic upcharges for every distracting device installed or carried in functional form? Distracted drivers kill a higher number here every year. a couple in my local club have been hit by these folks but lucky enough to get off without serious injury. A serious upcharge might put a crimp on makers installing more of this junk all the time- before lawsuits do it instead.
If you can come up with an easily enforceable way to do this, you can sell it to every insurance company and enforcement agency in the continent. Unfortunately, in spite of all the present legislation and counter measures against distracted driving, texting and cell-phone use remains the most common, observable (except by enforcement agencies, apparently) infraction out there. Glad your local club buddies have been lucky so far, keep up the good work.

JP