Some road rage from commenters
APLAN by MPI and the Selinger government to have the public insurer pick up the tab for certain road and street repairs that would boost driver safety had our readers leaning on their horns
Awesome wedge issue. The NDP is just looking for another back- door way to tax us. Open up the province to competition and then see if MPI is still gung- ho to fund roads. This monopoly poppycock has to end.
— Blue Rod Blog This is dishonest at best. Road repairs do need to be paid for and traditionally, this has been funded by some form of tax. For the NDP to now start funding needed road repairs using Autopac revenues and not calling it a TAX is dishonest. If the NDP needs to tax more to pay for road repairs, then please tax more, but be honest about it so we the taxpayers can fairly evaluate your ability to manage our taxes.
— fooch I think so long as MPI can provide a business case for each location. That is to say they need to demonstrate that their investment in that specific repair project is likely going to be covered by the reduction in claims, then it makes good business sense to do the work.
— Trophy Time They are also donating their “profits,” or our money, to the CMHR.
Manitoba Hydro, the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission, Manitoba Lotteries Corporation, MPI Special Risk Extension all gave between $ 1 million to $ 2 million to the CMH WinnipegHome
I understand that this goes behind their mandate. Though this is no different then when Insurance companies had their own fire halls and when they help with the success of Underwriters Laboratories. This is just them mitigating their, and most and importantly your, potential for future loss.
— kevmac89 Hey, I need a new truck because my old one is 24 years old and the brakes are not so good. So to improve public safety I would like all of the Autopac ratepayers to buy me a new one.
Thank you very much, NDP.
— [email protected] winn Apparently, Manitobans hate to save money with forward- thinking ideas. This type of policy is applied in B. C. and in the U. S. because it is far cheaper for an insurance company to pay for minor upgrades than to pay out all the claims at these locations. Should it be done by the province and cities? Yes, but there is not always a budget for these upgrades. All I need to ask is why would you be against lowering costs? Are these comments coming from the same people that were against the installation of immobilizers? Those saved money in the long run, and were criticized just like these programs.
— mountainrage As a matter of principle, MPI should not be paying for road repairs. It confuses their mandate and potentially creates a longer- term situation where insurance rates would rise so vehicle owners would be responsible for roads. The roads are used by everyone ( public transportation, non- Manitoba cars and trucks) so they are the responsibility of government. Keep it as is.
— D in Wpg I’ll keep saying it until someone listens. MPI has gone off the rails a long time ago. The original mandate to provide quality auto insurance at cost has been forgotten. They have become an over- bloated bureaucracy, top- heavy with empire- building management of questionable ability. A full independent and transparent review has never happened and is long overdue.
— pentax99 I love MPI. Their TV commercials build awareness on road rules and safe behaviours. They do an awesome job financing driving courses through schools. They approach their mission with a sense of partnership a dose of pragmatism — the roads are unsafe, let’s help make them safe. No need to get political about this, it’s practical. And I for one appreciate their initiative.
— Zabou Don’t know why the Cons are opposed to this. Isn’t it a form of “user- pay”? They prefer that big brother should pay the tab?