Me and my wife both ride motorcycle and enjoy it big time we are active in our community and engage in charity bike fund raising which benifits our community bikers represent the most charitable dollars of any single group. We find it appallingly that sgi raises our insurance yearly and unjustly that is not what sgi was founded to do. So I have to object to unjust rate increases we are a small demographic but our voices will be heard please reverse this injustice thanks for your time.

> I  disagree with your increase of motorcycle insurance rates.  The statistics do not support this increase and we feel as if we are being chastised for being a minority.  I suggest increasing the insurance of people who are found to be at fault due to undue care and attention. Changes need to be made.

Like so many have already expressed, I am opposed to any increase in motorcycle rates. Between poor road conditions and SGI rate increases the province is making motorcycling an untenable proposition. Recently I looked into purchasing a new motorcyle for 2014 and found that thanks to new pricing and low interest rates the cost of financing was very reasonable, yet when I checked out the cost of insurance, the monthly rate for the plate was more than the cost of financing. With the current rates I would be paying SGI the full purchased price every three years.  Please SGI, adjust rates to the rider not the bike. I am 51 years old and have not had an incident since 1983 in which there was no personal injury. My driving record and style remains the same regardless of the bike I ride.   In addition to this I find SGI's division of motorcycles in the current classifications uninformed. How is the decision made to classify which bike into which catagory. Do the individuals who make this decision have an understanding of the motorcyle industry? Is a BWM GS1150 a touring bike, a dual purpose or a sport bike? Honda's new CB500 which is in four flavours including a dual purpose version and a european scooter version, yet all three share the same engine and frame? Which catogory do they fit under when they are all the same under the body work? The current system is archaic and in no way reflects current designs. This catagorization needs to be eliminated and replaced with a UK like Motorcycle Insurance Grouping.

 Please stop SGI from raising our rates again. The cost of insurance is so high because SGI has wage replacement as a benefit in case of an accident. Most companies in Saskatchewan offer a wage replacement benefit therefore SGI does not need to offer it as part of their insurance. Without the benefit of wage replacement through SGI, everyone would see the insurance cost go down. Many people have more than one vehicle they register and pay into multiple insurance plans. Only one of those plans pay out in the case of an accident so we are paying for extra insurance that we will never use. Thanks for the opportunity to voice my comments.

Do you realize how fed up motorcyclists are in Sask. with the draconian regulations that happen with regard to the incredibly high rates that we must pay to satisfy the crown corporations of this province. Perhaps if rates don't come down then SGI should be replaced by a company that knows how to manage money.

 Ridiculous rates when a person is 50 and has Never made a claim nor had a ticket or accident on their motorcycle- let's get real!!

 I think rate hikes are not necessarily valid and some are too high. I think you are NOT being fair to motorcycle riders who have been riding "safely" for 20 years plus...especially those who ride highway cruiser type bikes etc. I think the young new riders on crotch rockets should absorb the rate increases - as most have no respect for other drivers and most reach outrageous speeds.

I am against the rate increase on motorcycles. We already pay a very high price to insure our bikes for such a short season. I think that the person at fault should be held accountable. It should be done case by case. The increase that SGI is implementing is ridiculous. It is making it impossible for some to continue their passion. I just don't understand how such a huge increase is even legal. Please reconsider.

Insurance rates are already too high for motorcycles and I am also not in favor of any noise by-laws. Motorcycles need to be seen AND heard for safety reasons. Obvious racing or stunting should be penalized but not just a little louder exhaust note.

I understand that increases are necessary but motorcycle rates are rising at an unbelievable rate. I have been riding for over 20 years without any accidents so why should I pay so much for plates. It was said that rates need to go up because other motor vehicle drivers shouldn’t have to pay for motorcycles. Then I need to ask this, I have been driving for 23 years without an accident so as a driver (motorcycle and car) I am paying high premiums on both. Why is this? I ride a Harley 883 that is only about 60hp but pay close to the same as a 600 sport bike that is 120hp. Bikes need to be based on horse power not engine size and should be based on a drivers history. People that are bad drivers should pay more for their insurance. Saying other drivers shouldn’t have to pay for motorcycles is ridiculous. I would like to see some facts as to how many motorcycle collisions were the fault of the motorcycle rider. If a car hits a motorcycle then wouldn’t it be right that other motor vehicle drivers pay for it.

To Mr. Wall, Mr. Cartmell, and everyone else on the address list above; I am absolutely opposed to S.G.I.’s 2014 Rate Proposal!!I am concerned, and angry at Premier Wall, and the Provincial Government for permitting S.G.I. to continue to flagrantly ignoring investigation, and implementation, of a real and long term sustainable public policy that would end this continuous cycle of Autofund rate increases. The Saskatchewan Rate Review Panel (SRRP) has made numerous recommendations and suggestions in recent years regarding alternative courses of action to curb escalating accident levels, and injury, and fatality costs. These costs are a direct result of individuals high-risk driving behavior, not the general population. S.G.I.’s inability to effectively deal with this issue, and manage the Auto fund, means the burden then falls directly on the shoulders of Saskatchewan taxpayers, year after year!!!Issues Summary:SGI has simply refused to take alternative and appropriate action with respect to the root cause of rising Auto Fund costs, high-risk vehicle operators. Long term changes in public policy such as appropriate financial penalties, an effective revision of the operators license demerit/reward system, license suspension, criminal charges still appear absent from SGI’s proposal. In place of effective public policy focused on safety, driver behavior, financial stability and recovery focused directly towards offending individuals, we have SGI returning yet again to the same old practice of forcing the taxpayers of this province to bear the burden of SGI inability to manage, the Auto Fund effectively. 2) General rate increases year after year has neither made drivers in Saskatchewan more responsible, nor safe. Saskatchewan roads and highways are even less safe than previous years, evidenced by fatality statistics, which continue to climb. How long must the people of this province bear the financial brunt of SGI’s inability to effectively initiate public policy that would make our streets and roads safer for everybody??I have included for your consideration, what I believe to be a sound long term solution to the escalating accident, injury and death rates in this province. It is a behavior shaping, forward looking policy that puts consequences for behavior of high-risk motorists squarely on the shoulders of the individual where it belongs. This forward looking proposal mirrors policies and practices adopted in other jurisdictions and private enterprise. Strong public policy should reflect accountability and responsibility and not provide a masked socialist blanket, that protects offenders, and penalizes safety conscious taxpayers.R.A.G.E.'s Proposal (summary);License Demerits- Place financial demerits on high-risk drivers "driver's license" not the license plate, thereby initiating both an effective behavior shaping policy and a appropriately focused revenue stream.- Raise the dollar value on the demerit points to where they are more in line with to-days costs, and present a very real and effective consequence for high-risk driving behavior.- Extend the time-frame of demerit fees from a "one-time" cost, to multi-year financial demerit system, the time frame of which is commensurate with the severity of the offence. License Suspension- Reduce the number of driving infraction demerits an individual can accumulate on their driver's license before their license is suspended.- Demerits and fines associated with driving offence demerits must remain in effect through-out the term of suspension.Criminal Charges- Review the criteria for criminal charges related accidents, injury, and high-risk behavior causing death.Law Enforcement- Request law enforcement be more diligent in assessing fault and charging individuals "at the scene". According to law enforcement statisticians, police officers seldom assess fault, or charge individuals at the scene of an accident unless alcohol is involved. Conclusion:1. Penalties for high-risk behavior would be appropriately focused and provide a substantial revenue stream, releaving the burden on the taxpayer.2. Consequences of individual actions would be felt directly by, and only by the offending party.3. Effective consequences have the potential to shape public behavior, or remove the offending individual from the ability to initiate risk, thereby increasing safety, reducing accidents, injury and fatalities, and stem escalating Auto Fund costs.In ending, I would like to remember my days as a young driver, who at times, drove irresponsibly. I paid ALOT of money for the privilege of driving every year, and eventually lost my license due to too many demerit points. After spending many years with increased license fees, I finally reached a point where I was only paying 25$ for the privilege to drive. Now, after close to 20 years later, without any speeding, reckless driving, no seatbelt, etc types of fines, I am once again being raked over the coals. The difference between these two points in my life? I am being condemned for the simple fact i drive a motorcycle, instead of being penalized for bad driving behaviour.   I do not pose a threat on public roads, my motorcycle is not a threat, my driving record proves that i am no longer a dangerous driver, yet SGI continues to raise my plates for my motorcycle, based on some theory that the motorcycle community has been being subsidized by the rest of the driving public.  This statement is totally true, but every insurance company has one part of its insured being subsidized by others. Such a statement that we must pull our own weight is utter garbage!!!  If every agency out there made people pull their own weight for insurance, Low Income families, Handicapped people, and every other person that accepts social insurance of some type, should be paying for their own costs! Now isn't that a smart statement!!! I work very hard, long hours, in some of the worst temperature extremes we see in this great province, and am proud to live here. I know that I must pay into income tax(both Federal and Provincial) and do so at some very high rates, but do not frequent the Dr's offices, Hospitals, or any other provincially/federally funded regularly, or as regularly as say as someone with MS, or perhaps a severely handicapped person that does not work and pay taxes.  This is the same scenario, but we don't ask that they pay for their own way, nor should we. A great man came up with a pretty simple solution, and due to that, we have a great health-care system here. If we would not expect the less fortunate to pay for their services, why would then allow SGI to adopt a policy like this? I am not comparing riders to the less fortunate, rather I'm suggesting that they are a minority, and therefore should be treated like that. We are licensees of a vehicle, and should not be grouped into a separate category.  We can go even further into this in regards to the private sector. I pay the same rates for my insurance through work as the person who has 4 kids, one of which is handicapped. Should i pay less, or he pay more than me? NO, there are 50,000 employees worldwide within my company, and the majority subsidize the few, AS IT SHOULD BE! There should be no reason that my 2010 Chevrolet Silverado cost less than my 2010 Harley Davidson Touring Motorcycle.I would request that someone please send me a response to this lengthy letter, as I (a member of your constituency) have taken the time to send it to you(an elected member of parliament)  Thank You, Brad Bell

Noise bylaws....cmon thats a joke.then charge us an arm and a leg to insure our bikes? What about bike enthusiasts? Loud pipes is a part of motorcycle culture. Bikes are cheaper to drive than cars and burn less fuel. Sure there idiots out there on bikes as is there in cars and trucks as well as other vehicles. Where is the bylaw against people with nothing to do but complain about people minding their own buisness enjoying their lives on their bike loud or quiet fast or slow vintage or new custom or factory...I appose the increased rate as well as the noise bylaw. Because noise doesnt kill people.

Please refuse the rate increase for SGI. The insurance rates should be based on the driver not the type of vehicle they driver. A safe driver should not have to pay the same amount an unsafe driver pays. I know there is extra cost that an unsafe driver pays for a short amount of time. That time frame is too short and the costs increase is too small. Increase the fines for causing accidents and the length of time the bad driver has to be a good driver to gain back the safe driving points.

Please note I am against any rate hike for any vehicle. Motorcycles have taken an excessive amount of abuse over the past. Rates should be rolled back to the previous rates before the outrageous hikes. I believe that the driver not the vehicle should pay for their infractions. If hikes similar to SGI Motorcycle plates were attempted by any other organization I believe that they would be in front of the Court System. Respectfully Submitted

My name is ____ born and raised in Saskatchewan. I am ___ years old, a university graduate, home owner, and work for the City of Saskatoon. My wife is also born and raised in Saskatchewan. She is ___ years old, has 3 university degrees, is a Dr, and owns her own Practice. We license 5 vehicles with SGI. Three personal vehicles all year long and 2 motorcycles during riding season. We want to voice our opinion about SGI and how unfairly they continue to target Motorcycles and bully rate increases yearly and like this year, planning to raise them more than once in a calendar year. Are you serious? What kind of Crap is this? No private cooperation would ever be able to implement rate hikes of 20% and then 5 months later do it again. No one would use them and they would go bankrupt within a few years. With my only choice of issuer being a Crown Cooperation this is ludicrous. My bike is going up $300 for the 5 months I plan on licensing my bike. That's absurd. My wife's bike will be going up by $250. That's $550 dollars more than last year. Try this crap with the rest of the vehicles SGI has as customers and see how fast you have a backlash on your hands. This is Communist techniques to say the least. Why are you singling out motorcycles? You say that they have a high risk of getting into accidents. Really, then I welcome and encourage you to please use your government issued power to check both myself and my wife's driving record to see how many accidents we have had since we have been issued our M endorsement. Zero is the number. I have been riding since 2005 with my license and have had no accidents. My wife has been riding since 2007 and has no accidents. Why am I being punished with a $550 hike then? We have never used any insurance or made any claims. Unfair, I believe so!!! I come from a farming community of 300 people, rode motorbikes since I was 5 years old. I was able to finally afford a sport-bike in 2005. Went and got my learners and past on the 1st try. Then went out and bought a brand new Kawasaki ZX-10R 1000cc bike. Took it slow and then went and got my M endorsement. Since then I have had 3 other 1000 cc bikes, rode 80000 kms and had no accidents. Have I had close calls. You bet I have!!! I have been cut-off daily by inattentive drivers, been tail-gated by drivers with no patience, have been squeezed to curbs by city buses, and on an on. There isn't one ride that I go on that isn't risky. Not because motorcycles are dangerous but because the general public doesn't respect us riders and the space we need to ride safely. My wife grew up in Regina. Never was on a motorcycle until I got my M endorsement and could take her for a ride on my seat. This was in 2005. She rode with me until I 2007. Then decided cause I loved riding that she would try too. At this point she was 40 years old. We enlisted her in a motorcycle safety riding school here in Saskatoon. She went on her own. She was taught by professionals. She passed and learned from the very basics. I was very proud of her. I could of taught her but know that by taking the safety school she learnt more and came out way more advanced then if I would of taught her. We went and bought her a brand new Suzuki GSXR 600 sport-bike. She started off slowly and progressed with every ride. Since that day she has rode 35000 kms and has had no accidents. Very proud of her. My point here is that given the proper education and safety lessons anyone can learn to ride a motorcycle safely. Last year I thought SGI and the government were implementing mandatory motorcycle safety schools for new riders before they could get their M endorsement of learners. In my opinion this is a great idea, it would initially cost the rider in the range of $400 dollars for one of these safety schools but in the long run would decrease their chance of rider accidents exponentially. These are programs that SGI should be making mandatory. You as the government and SGI have brought this on yourself. You have given people the opportunity to walk into an sgi office and sit down and write a stupid test that takes less than 5 minutes to write. Pass, walk out and jump on a 180 horsepower 1000cc bike. Let me put this into perspective in case you are unaware of the risk of this. My 2008 Mitsubishi lancer car has 153 horsepower and weighs 4000 lbs. A new 1000cc sport-bike has 180 horsepower and weighs 450 lbs. Without proper riding training or years of riding experience like I had before getting my bike what do you think the outcome is going to be? Just another tidbit about my bike. From the factory top speed of it is 186 mph or 299 kmph. Don't blame the kids that jump onto these things and hurt or kill themselves. Remember what you acted like at their age. Rate hikes won't fix this. It's a tax grab. If you want to fix this. Mandatory Safety Riding Schools for new riders is the answer. Then maybe a probationary license for the 1st season. And maybe a cc license for a season as well. Brainstorm and use us riders for resources. Not you guys and women that push pencils. Don't penalize everyone just because some riders are prone to accidents. My wife and I shouldn't have to pay for other people's mistakes. That's democracy. Communism and dictatorships use this method your trying to pass. Canada is free and we all make and live with our mistakes and successes. That is what makes us the best country and why I choose to remain living here. I pay tons of taxes to this province and country. I don't bitch about where my 40 percent goes. But in this case I am livid angry. Don't make this mistake. Don't raise my license. SGI had a 70 million dollar surplus last year. I don't think you need anymore money from bike riders. Another demise of this rate hike is that sooner or later you are going to drive riders to stop plating their bikes cause they won't be able to afford too. Which in turn means lower revenue for your company. With this also risks motorcycle dealers to go bankrupt cause no one will be buying bikes. Is that the government that you are? A government that forces people to lose their businesses and lose their jobs? We are asking you to think of the outcome of these potential rate hikes. Use common sense and look at the big picture. Saskatchewan is supposed to be the place to live and we are booming with our economy. Rate hikes for motorcycles doesn't need to be implemented. Annoyed and Pissed off

after looking over the rate increases I am questioning the reason that SGI is losing money. Perhaps their business practice is the problem. When I have questioned about why certain vehicles cost more, the answer was "due to the number of that vehicle type being in accidents" well answer me this, why is it when there is only 425 of one type of vehicle made in the world is it that SGI is raising the rates on this vehicle, of those 425 how many have had claims in SK (by the way I believe only 3 of these vehicles are in SK). Perhaps it is time to stop raising the rates of Sask residents to cover for poor management skills of those at SGI. It is past time that private insurance be allowed in Sask. which would keep SGI in check. Here is another question SGI sells coverage for vehicles in AB at a lower rate than what we pay here, why is this?

Enough is enough!! No more general rate increases! The ones who should have their rates hiked are the bad drivers. I understand that every organization has to be mindful of their bottom line but NOT at the expense of those who exercise due care and attention. As a driver and a motorcycle rider I understand the privilege of having my driver's licence and operate my vehicle accordingly. Thank for being receptive to the comments of concerned taxpayers.

The yearly increases by SGI are unacceptable, they need to focus more on making the bad drivers pay penalties. I plate my car and motorcycle and almost need a second job to pay for the freedom to ride for a few months a year and I have their maximum discount. Please SSRP refuse this increase not just make a suggestion that will be ignored by SGI.

Every year a rate increase from SGI, what does this panel do, suggest no increases and SGI can ignore it with anyone standing up to them. Thank goodness we have RAGE to at least make them try and justify the increases, even if it is just the same old BS.

Why is it that the SRRP held public meetings in multiple locations like Yorkton and swift current and north battleford for the saskpower application but refuse to do the same for the SGI application??

Thanks to getting "a-la-carte" insurance recommendations approved. However the way SGI charges our individual personal insurance to our vehicle plates is a huge problem. For example: If I own a car, a truck and a motorcycle and plate all 3...I am in fact, paying for 3 separate individual personal insurance policies. Yet, when injured in an accident I cannot make 3 claims. So for this example let's say the cost to register EACH of my vehicles is $1,000 AFTER my 20% safe-driving discount. In the 30+ years I've been driving I've never had an injury claim, nor have I caused any injuries. So: 2 - 4-wheeled vehicles @ 23% = $460 a year for personal injury insurance (out of $2,000 for my plates) 1 - motorcycle @ 77% = $770 a year for personal injury insurance (out of $1,000 for my plate) For a total of $1230 (or $102.50 a month) for personal injury insurance that I can only use if in vehicle accident (that I haven't had to use since getting a drivers license at 16). I am also ALREADY paying for disability and injury insurance elsewhere due to SGI's Personal Injury Policies only being usable IF I am ever in an accident. This is $288 a year (or $24 a month) thru my employer. I am also covered under this insurance for any auto or motorcycle accidents. SGI needs to move all our “personal” Insurance to our “personal” drivers licenses! THIS is insurance many of us ALREADY HAVE. THIS is insurance many of us WILL NOT quality for. IF YOU are collecting full Canada Pension – you DO NOT qualify UNLESS you are also working and paying income tax on a wage! Yet SGI makes you pay!!! They’ve known this for years…and done nothing!!! WHY is a person who has never used this insurance paying the same as someone who uses it regularly, or causes others to have to use theirs? AGAIN we all are being made to shoulder the burden of bad drivers. Bad drivers should pay more for this insurance! THEY USE IT!!! For “a-la-carte” insurance to truly work…ALL personal insurance must be placed on our drivers licenses. SGI has said this can’t be done! That it isn’t done anywhere else! YET…IT IS!!! SGI used to place all personal fines and demerits on our personal licenses…so the infrastructure exists…or used to exist. SGI needs to do this to make our rates fair! To continue to charge us for personal injury insurance on EVERY vehicle we register is simply gouging us…the taxpayer and voter. We can only drive one vehicle at a time. We can only make 1 claim for injury / wage replacement. Yet we pay for it on EVERY vehicle. Why? There are more vehicles in Saskatchewan than drivers!!! SGI won’t give this up easily! THEY’VE KNOWN THIS FOR YEARS!!! PERSONAL Injury / Wage Replacement Insurance has nothing to do with vehicle damages or liability in case of an accident. THOSE (damages and liability) should be on our vehicles…NOT personal insurance!

To whom it may concern:As an experienced motorcycle rider with a clean driving record, I am very disappointed to hear that insurance rates will increase yet again. Motorcycle rates are disproportionate to the value of bikes when compared to other vehicles. Accidents are the fault of drivers, not the type of vehicle they choose to drive. I see drivers of cars and trucks talking on cell phones while driving on a daily basis, yet once again, motorcyclists are considered a greater hazard to others. Really? Why has common sense been abandoned in the quest for a simplistic solution to road safety? Please do the right thing for a change, and penalize the bad drivers, not the type of vehicle that is the most convenient (and most politically correct) target.

To whom it may concern,        I am vehemently opposed to S.G.I.’s 2014 Rate Proposal in regards to the Motorcycle rates!!   Being an experienced motorcycle rider/driver (+19 safety rating) and having to pay for other riders and auto drivers mistakes/bad habits/lack of skill/no protective gear as well as fault not being assigned correctly at collisions/accidents is absolutely unacceptable. What is also unacceptable is that premiums are based only on the vehicle type/size and not on the risk factor of the person using it.  The SDR program that SGI applies does not reflect the true amount of discounted/raised premiums that it should.   As I understand last year SGI proposed an increase that was not recommended by the review panel and still went ahead and did what they wanted.  This to me seems like an insult to everyone involved with the process and I find it disturbing to say they least.  I get the feeling that the motorcycle community is being unfairly targeted and more data is needed to make an informed decision which is why I am asking to delay SGI’s request for an increase to motorcycle insurance premiums. I am concerned, and angry at Premier Wall, and the Provincial Government for permitting S.G.I. to continue to flagrantly ignore investigation, and implementation, of a real and long term sustainable public policy that would end this continuous cycle of Autofund rate increases. The Saskatchewan Rate Review Panel (SRRP) has made numerous recommendations and suggestions in recent years regarding alternative courses of action to curb escalating accident levels, and injury, and fatality costs. These costs are a direct result of individuals high-risk driving behavior, not the general population. S.G.I.’s inability to effectively deal with this issue, and manage the Auto fund, means the burden then falls directly on the shoulders of Saskatchewan taxpayers, year after year!!!Issues Summary:SGI has simply refused to take alternative and appropriate action with respect to the root cause of rising Auto Fund costs, high-risk vehicle operators. Long term changes in public policy such as appropriate financial penalties, an effective revision of the operators license demerit/reward system, license suspension, criminal charges still appear absent from SGI’s proposal. In place of effective public policy focused on safety, driver behavior, financial stability and recovery focused directly towards offending individuals, we have SGI returning yet again to the same old practice of forcing the taxpayers of this province to bear the burden of SGI inability to manage, the Auto Fund effectively. 2) General rate increases year after year has neither made drivers in Saskatchewan more responsible, nor safe. Saskatchewan roads and highways are even less safe than previous years, evidenced by fatality statistics, which continue to climb. How long must the people of this province bear the financial brunt of SGI’s inability to effectively initiate public policy that would make our streets and roads safer for everybody??I have included for your consideration, what I believe to be a sound long term solution to the escalating accident, injury and death rates in this province. It is a behavior shaping, forward looking policy that puts consequences for behavior of high-risk motorists squarely on the shoulders of the individual where it belongs. This forward looking proposal mirrors policies and practices adopted in other jurisdictions and private enterprise. Strong public policy should reflect accountability and responsibility and not provide a masked socialist blanket, that protects offenders, and penalizes safety conscious taxpayers.R.A.G.E.'s Proposal (summary);License Demerits- Place financial demerits on high-risk drivers "driver's license" not the license plate, thereby initiating both an effective behavior shaping policy and a appropriately focused revenue stream.- Raise the dollar value on the demerit points to where they are more in line with to-days costs, and present a very real and effective consequence for high-risk driving behavior.- Extend the time-frame of demerit fees from a "one-time" cost, to multi-year financial demerit system, the time frame of which is commensurate with the severity of the offence. License Suspension- Reduce the number of driving infraction demerits an individual can accumulate on their driver's license before their license is suspended.- Demerits and fines associated with driving offence demerits must remain in effect through-out the term of suspension.Criminal Charges- Review the criteria for criminal charges related accidents, injury, and high-risk behavior causing death.Law Enforcement- Request law enforcement be more diligent in assessing fault and charging individuals "at the scene". According to law enforcement statisticians, police officers seldom assess fault, or charge individuals at the scene of an accident unless alcohol is involved. Conclusion:1. Penalties for high-risk behavior would be appropriately focused and provide a substantial revenue stream, releaving the burden on the taxpayer.2. Consequences of individual actions would be felt directly by, and only by the offending party.3. Effective consequences have the potential to shape public behavior, or remove the offending individual from the ability to initiate risk, thereby increasing safety, reducing accidents, injury and fatalities, and stem escalating Auto Fund costs.     Sincerely,               

Hi, I am asking that you not increase the rates for us good drivers. I follow the rules and work very hard for my income. A motorcycle in the summer helps to lower fuel costs. My wages aren't going up nearly as quickly as the proposed rates from the crowns. This is becoming a hardship. Public transit is also very expensive, and to keep working, I need to be moblile. Thanks

I believe that it is high time that motor cycle rates reflect the amount of claims submitted and their rates increased accordingly. I also feel that motor cycles need mufflers!!! The age old argument of "if people can't see a motor cycle, then they will hear one" does NOT keep riders safe!!! What will keep them safe is a HORN!!! If I was about to cut of a bike in traffic and the rider sounded their horn, then I would pull back into my lane and avoid them!!! Just because I hear this deafening rumble from a motor cycle it does NOT tell me if it is to my right, my left,behind me or around the corner and 1/2 a block down. It only leaves me to ask; "why have motor cycles been exempt from the rules of the road for so long in respect to noise??? Loud motor cycles are NOT a safety issue but rather a vanity one!!!