hey all,

just found out today via email from my statefarm representative that they will no longer be insuring my RHD evo...

I've had a steller record and on top of that I have other things with them but i guess with new company policies theres nothing that can be done....

any places you guys can recommend? ... Grant going to pm you mate.

cheers
Ben

PMing me won't do any good, I work for SF as well.

Strange, I have quite a few RHD vehicles on our books and we haven't received any notices of cancellation.

Brandon, good thing you got rid of your MR2!

Weird indeed I will call my rep tommorrow to find out why.

Having said you haven't revived any cancellations from your underwriter if it is in effect with my rep will your clients be losing the insurance as well or is there something else going on?

Definitely a good thing my MR2 is gone, I would be crushed if I owned it and couldn't get it insured anywhere. I read somewhere that an insurance company cannot refuse to register a completely legal vehicle if you have a clean record.

I heard they have the right to refuse anything.

Is this perhaps cause of the ban in Quebec on RHD ? That I hear is going to be in effect for Ontario in april?

I don't think they can refuse to insure a completely legal vehicle and a person with a perfect record. They can charge an insane amount for the policy and make the person say no, but they can't say no out right.

or at least I didn't think they could. It's kind of bullshit if they can, and I would like to see a study done with the same amount of vehicles, lhd vs rhd that get into accidents every year.

So much bullshit out there, I am getting so sick of the policies of different insurance companies and the laws coming out. I'm about to pack up my sh!t and move to Australia.

oddly enough after posting this I was at the mall and ran into my rep...so I'm thinking great I can clear this up instead of pondering about it all night long.

so my rep tells me the underwriter is the one doing this cancellation, I asked if they had other ppl with rhd cars and he said yes, then I asked him if they were getting cancelled and he said no. Reason he said why they are the "exception" is because they have other normal cars(LHD) insured with them as well. So I ask him hypothetically if I have another car register with them will I also be part of this "exception" he says maybe but no garantee.

Then he begins to tell me there is another possibility why this is all happening as I never had one car consistently insured with them as I cancelled my insurance for my starlet LHD(starlet was insured with them for 2 years and cancelled when I sold it), but not long after I insured the evo.

I have car,home,life and business insurance with them so wth does it really matter if I have another vehicle registered with them??? in addition I've been a good standing client with them for 4 years.... so if this doesn't get sorted i will be taking all my business else where... wth

If I had a spare car I would let you borrow it to keep the evo insured

thanks bro, I appreciate the sentiment.

actually i have a spare car I can insure with them so I'll see what progress he can tell me tommorrow, but the principle of it all tells me this is wrong and I should just go elsewhere. indeed like you said it brandon its BS!!!

btw I just begun noticing on some other forums something about mentioning or just registering the car under policy 19a when insuring the car,,, any idea whats that about?

You should call them up, and say that you will be canceling all of your insurance policies with them if they cannot insure the RHD. Just watch how fast their "retentions" department will offer you a better rate and try and keep you as a customer.

If that doesn't end up working, take you business somewhere else.

Find you local ALL RISKS Ltd insurance broker and you will be satisfied.

errr, sorry to burst your bubble but we don't have a retentions department. each office is individually owned and run in accordance to our head office's guidelines.

Your agent SHOULD be able to talk to their underwriter given your tenure and other policies with them.

I would express your disappointment with your agent and go from there. I would fight my ass off for that however (if this happened to Brandon for example).

Very odd.

This is directly from the Financial Services Commision of Ontario in reference to the Ontario Automobile Policies.

"we" represents your insurance company
"you" well...represents you

The facts below have been in effect as of Jan 2007 and have NOT been amended therefore they should be taken as being enforced TODAY.

I was bored tonight

---------------------------

1.7.2 When We Cancel

Where your policy has been in effect for less than 60 days, we may only cancel your policy for a reason that we have filed with the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.


Where your policy has been in effect for more than 60 days, we may only cancel your policy for one of the following reasons:

- non-payment of premium,
- you have given false particulars of the automobile,
- you have knowingly misrepresented or failed to disclose information that you were required to provide in the application for automobile insurance, or
-the risk has changed materially.

If we cancel your policy, we will calculate the premium you owe on a proportionate basis. Proportionate means you will pay for the actual number of days you were covered. For example, if half the premium period is over, you will pay half the premium.
There may be a minimum premium shown on your Certificate of Automobile Insurance. This will not be refunded.

If you have paid more than the premium you owe, we will refund the difference on cancellation. Your refund may be delayed if the amount of premium you owe is subject to adjustment, or we are waiting for reports in order to determine the premium paid or owing. We will make the refund as soon as possible in that case.

----------------------

The above seems to apply to cancelling an existing and current policy only, it says nothing of a company choosing to not offer a renewal policy. Perhaps that was the case here.

Absolutely correct.

I don't understand how an insurance company can refuse to insure a type of vehicle to a competent driver?

Insuring 17y/o kids is more dangerous and has a higher chance of accidents than insuring a rhd vehicle. Honestly.

My guess is that the insurance co. saw an entire province suspend registrations for those vehicles, and so they followed suit (at least for the daily driven vehicles).
So long as there is data indicating a risk, that's the policy.

Then what about the data saying that 17 year old males get into more accidents and get more traffic violations than any other demographic, thus causing them to have a higher than average insurance rate, yet they keep on insuring them?

I just find it to be completely bullshit.

It's not about the driver, it's about the car.
Take yourself and add 40% more risk*.
Take the best driver and add 40% more risk.
Either way, they don't want it!

*This number was pulled out of an ass apparently just like that study on RHD safety was.

It's not about the car though, it is 100% about the driver, unless the car is a pile of sh!t that shouldn't be on the road and is unsafe mechanically. Besides that, it is completely about the driver or the drivers around you.

The only reason my MR2 got wrecked, is because a person driving a LHD vehicle didn't pay attention and cut me off, had nothing to do with me driving a RHD car.

In the end, any car that is mechanically sound is safe for the road, it's the driver not paying attention that turns a vehicle into a risk.

Driving a RHD vehicle only took more attention when I was making left hand turns at intersections, and even then, I never had even the slightest of close calls.

It is 100% driver error, put a bad driver behind the wheel of any car and they will wreck it.

I meant "to the insurance company, it's about the car, because of a study".
The study is probably bullshit and then you are right it is all about the driver

To be honest, I don't even know why they are pulling these vehicles from the books.

My best guess is that they have a higher likelihood of being involved in accidents AND/OR STOLEN/VANDALIZED.

They also may have inferior safety standards, have been modified or the like which places the driver in a higher risk to be injured in the event of an accident, therefore costing the insurance company more money.

But isn't it true that in order to get full coverage on a RHD vehicle you have to get it appraised first since they don't technically have a value?

To say they can't be insured due to them having a higher likely hood of being stolen just doesn't make sense, when the most stolen vehicle for many years was the Honda Civic, yet it's probably one of the most insured / driven vehicles on the road today.

When a JDM vehicle comes to Canada they have to go through a thorough out of country inspection to make sure that they pass the safety laws here in Canada. And lets face it, half the people here with FMIC has modified or removed rebars, or crash re-enforcements removed for weight, they should be not allowed to renew their policy either...

Stuff like this just infuriates me. Grant, if you could, could you check and see if I keep my Talon with you guys, can I insure a RHD vehicle as well. I was looking at purchasing an Evo for a DD.

I'll just leave this here..

SAAQ cited safety reasons for the ban, saying that drivers do not have an optimum field of vision, and that a study carried out in British Columbia over a four-year period showed that operating a right-hand drive vehicle increases crash risks by more than 40 per cent. The study also concluded that the first collision for which the driver is responsible happens 68 per cent earlier with a right-hand drive vehicle than with a left-hand drive one.

http://www.canadiandriver.com/2009/05/31/quebec-prohibits-right-hand-drive-vehicles.htm

http://www.saaq.gouv.qc.ca/en/accident_prevention/righthand_drive/index.php

There are a fair number of RHD vehicles in my area. You just need to get stuck behind one of these guys trying to make a left turn to see what the risks are.

Usually they just wait a full cycle until the light changes, but I saw one guy in a RHD Civic (WTF?) was going when his buddy in the passenger seat told him it was clear.

Add to that the fact that it's probably hard(er) to find some parts for these cars and the company probably just decided it's not worth it for so few customers.

Quebec also thought they would be better on their own. There is a lot of issues going on now with people in Quebec who love and want to own these cars that are much easier to gain access to when importing. There are cars (Evo 1) that you can't even get here, is it fair to not let an enthusiast own one of these cars because a few 17 year olds bought a turbo charged car and crashed it.

Canada wide, I am willing to bet that percentage wise, there is more accidents with LHD vehicles than there are with RHD vehicles. And again, I still stick to my thought that it's a driver not paying attention that causes the accident, you just need to pay more attention.

There have been numerous times I have been caught behind a LHD driver that waits a full cycle at an intersection because they are nervous to make a turn, does that mean we should ban them from driving? No.

I can be almost certain that you give any kid without experience a turbo car and they will wreck it. I think if there is a ban it should be on a demographic, under 21 and you cannot own a RHD vehicle.

I don't know about all of you, but I owned a RHD car, drove it as a daily driver for 5 months, put on almost 10 000kms on it, and I never had a close call.

Driving a RHD car requires you to pay attention, but does driving a LHD car allow you to pay less attention and be more forgiving? If so, then BAN LHD CARS, because people should be paying 100% attention all of the time while driving one.

I for one will be purchasing another RHD car. And one thing I was going to do to my MR2 was install a reverse cam in my front fender to make it easier to see on coming traffic, but honestly, the times where I couldn't see past a car with my MR2, I couldn't see past them with my Talons either, big trucks, big cube vans etc.

Also Jeff, would you have wanted that guy to wait for the cycle / for his friend to say it's clear, or would you have rather him given it when he "thought" it was clear and ripped it through the turn. Waiting a full cycle is being cautious, are you in such a hurry that you can't wait the minute for the next turn? Either way, I'm sure you would have called the guy an idiot in both scenarios.

Also, a lot of the vehicles that are imported from Japan have a USDM version, if that's so, then only a few things from the steering assembly are not transferable. And also, most insurance companies write off a car that is older than 99 if it gets into an accident anyways, so with a JDM they actually pay out less (unless it gets appraised then it gets paid out slightly less than the USDM version) so really, writing off a lhd or rhd vehicle doesn't matter. All these imported cars are mid - early 90s. It doesn't matter one way or another for the insurance company.

Personally I don't think RHD cars should be allowed on the road. That study in BC confirms my beliefs. As far as I am concerned, when importing a RHD drive car into the country, one of the things that should NEED to be done to make it SAFE is to convert it to LHD! If you want to drive a RHD car so badly, move to Britain or Japan or wherever else they drive them...

Ziggy siding with the insurance companies? Hell has indeed frozen over.

^^^

On "waiting for the cycle" - in some cases you still wouldn't know for sure that it is clear - for instance, if there is a semi stopped at an opposing double-left. You'd just have to assume nobody is gunning it to run the red.

Bottom line - RHD cars are designed for best safety on left side drive roads.
You can argue all you want that it's the driver that makes the difference in safety, but it would be the same argument as "Why must I pay so much to insure a sports car vs. a sedan with my perfect driving record?" The answer is obvious: There is data indicating a higher risk for sports cars regardless of the driver.

That's why you wait til it's completely red then you go for it. I think people who don't and have not driven RHD cars speak ignorantly on the subject.

But you're not supposed to start the turn unless it's clear. The light being completely red means it should be clear - but you might still get t-boned if you "go for it".

I'm not ignorant on the subject. I know enough about this left turn scenario just by the fact that you would put a video camera in the fender to make it more safe! But I suppose it's my personal opinion that easy visibility contributes to safety. I like logic, though.

You might get t-boned too in a lhd car, even in a lhd car if you pull out to see around a big 18 wheeler, or a huge truck, your nose is still out to get clipped.

I would sooner put a good focused driver behind the wheel of a rhd car then a bad driver an a camera.

And I said that was what I was GOING to do, until I started driving it, and after I started driving it, I learned that it's not as bad as people think.

And honestly, if you haven't driven a rhd car for more than a couple weeks, you are ignorant on the subject. I think that the hate on RHD cars is a government thing because since RHD cars, and imports came into the country, our economy has suffered.

And also a lot of people think it's dumb because it's different. But then again, people like my dad thought I was dumb for installing 550cc injectors in my car, said "it's not normal to do this stuff to your car" and hated it.

Alberta and BC are too of the biggest importing provinces for JDM cars, and they are still completely legal to import there.

And like I mentioned, the only reason my mr2 got wrecked was because someone in a LHD wasn't paying attention..

I will agree there are too many morons on the road, and MOST of them are driving LHD drive cars, because MOST cars ARE LHD. Still, fact is, with the same level of driving skill, a LHD drive car is safer on our roads than a RHD drive car...so let's compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges....

If you want to remove all idiot drivers from the road, I am in favour. But you should also remove all DANGEROUS (RHD) cars, whether they have idiot drivers or not. If I decided I want to build my own car and sit in the middle facing backwards and look at where I am boing through mirrors, you think just because I could probably handle it that should be permitted?

BTW, I HAVE driven RHD drive cars....in Japan, where it is appropriate..

And your MR2...as you said..the other driver wasnt paying attention....whether he was driving LHD or RHD has nothing to do with it..Of course MOST accidents are in LHD cars, because most cars here are LHD...

Otherwise it would be like me saying look at the statistics in JAPAN....ALL of the accidents there are in RHD cars, they MUST be dangerous...

Tiny update... I heard back from one of the reps with the statefarm agent/rep/office I'm insured with. She informed me that I have an option to insure another LHD vehicle for 6 months with the condition of putting the evo away for six months. At the end of the 6 months I could try and insure the evo with no guarantee. Now I do have another vehicle that I can insure but I have no interest in insuring it because the Evo was my dedicated winter car. I've purchased and prepped this car for the winter so by going with her suggestion it defeats the purpose of evo.

Having heard the news, I wasn't too thrilled so I reminded her I had multiple lines of insurance with them and I would likely be cancelling all my polices, b/c of my disappointment and the fact that I'd prefer to have all my policies with one company for the ease of things. Anyone who knows me, knows I'm a loyal individual, with that said like others mentioned it would be a waste for both myself and them to go down the path I'm hoping isn't going to happen...*fingers crossed* Once I told her about the disappointment (thanks James & Grant), & limited options to choose from… the rep asked me to give them some more time to look into it. Told her I was no in rush and for her to please see what she could do... essentially she was hinting at the fact that they'll try and "push" my case in that I might be an "exception", b/c there has been no "pushing" at this point.

So it’s no surprise to me there have been some strong beliefs on the legality and safeness a RHD vehicle has on the road. I wish to comment on some of my ideas and opinions.

I wont deny the fact that rhd vehicles are handicapped in our country because of the obvious reason there is a limited field of view when making left hand turns. Now there are ways to assist or combat LHD turns like installing a camera with a head unit (like I have) or making 3 right turns…but truth be told RHD vehicles are handicapped & there’s no denying it when we are discussing the matter of LHD turns... It does not however mean they are more dangerous, there is only “potential” for it to be depending on the operator.

Brandon mentioned a good point above that 100% of it has to do with the driver, not the vehicle, but also others around you. It’s no different than a user with a gun, or a owner of a dog… the end result is dictated on how the owner decides to use it.

All studies completed can be very constricted on thoughts/opinions/findings, and results can vary, the conditions, parameters, controlled groups, uncontrolled circumstances etc. play a big factor into studies…Given the studies completed in BC, or where ever in the world for that matter (I have not reviewed any of them) common sense can already tell you RHD cars can be potentially more dangerous, no different than, motorcycles, large transport vehicles,400hp cars,exotics etc. it all depends on the operator… So what’s to say RHD vehicles should be removed??? In all honesty when I hear certain statements that an item should be removed from society and not the operator/owner who is actually responsible … it’s an ignorant statement, period. It’s no different when there as a time in legislation when dogs were to wear muzzles or certain breeds were banned.

Now I would like to comment on your statement Ziggy. Indeed we would all like the roads to be safer but what does removing RHD from our country have anything to do with it? Ultimately the problem doesn’t lie with RHD cars, it lies with the driver/operator regardless of the presence of RHD vehicles or not.

With everything in mind, to correctly improve safety on the road, what should be reviewed or corrected is our licensing system and legislation.

That's the truth!

The system is such that the government won't trust us with certain potentially dangerous things, thus banning them.

And unfortunately we are forced to buy insurance while the insurance company is not obligated to sell it.
It would be great if they could also trust us, then it would be all about the driver.

True, the REAL solution is tougher licensing...but that just isn't going to happen in my lifetime. You can't take 75% of the drivers on the road today and tell them that they have lost their licenses because they can't pass a "PROPER" driving test. So we should just allow anything on the road then, as long as the operator is "competent and careful"? So, watch out for that guy skateboarding down a hill on the 401. And I guess 4 wheel ATV's should be allowed there also? If I could afford it, why not a formula 1 car...that would certainly be safe? A Harley motor on a moving dolly? I'll be really careful!

Have you guys forgotten that driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT?

We should be thankful if we have 20hp getting us from point A to point B. Some things just dont BELONG on a PUBLIC roadway. In MY opinion, sport bikes and RHD cars are among them.

I am not saying that there are more LHD accidents than RHD, I'm saying if you take a look all the RHD cars, and do a % of accidents that are directly caused by driving a RHD car, so turning left at an intersection, and then you take all the LHD cars and do a % based on people not paying attention, the % of LHD cars in accidents due to idiots will be a lot higher than the % of RHD crashed due to them actually being RHD.

Also, half of the cars on this website are not safe for the road, should 10 second cars pushing 500whp with rebar removed and emissions removed be allowed on the streets? And if it is, why? The reason those cars are safe on the road is because of the drivers, same as RHD.

Driving backwards and in the middle is the dumbest thing I have heard when trying to prove your point of view in this discussion. RHD cars, you are still facing the right away, your mirrors all still work the exact same, and nothing is blocking your field of vision. It's the DRIVERS that are at fault!! You can get a 300hp Skyline for $7000, RWD, and RHD. I guarantee that more than 90% of accidents that are caused by RHD cars are from kids under the age of 21 who bought a powerful car as their first or second car.

I love how the tests they do are just RHD in general, they should do that for ALL insurance policies then, frack demographics, if you are a male, your insurance should always be 300 a month because males get in accidents. Doesn't matter if it's a 16 year old male with 6 months of driving experience. They throw demographics out the window when it comes to RHD cars, so lets do it for everything while we are at it. Lets do the same with race, bring this whole society back to the 1800s.

There was a time they tried to ban rock music, and a time where they banned alcohol.