ICBC Proposed Rate Hike

[se7entse7en]

FYI:
http://www.globaltvbc.com/money/Propose ... story.html
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/So ... story.html

Basically, ICBC wants to charge you more for insurance if you have had even just one speeding ticket (or other traffic violation) in the previous 3 years. They want to impliment this plan in 2014 and yes, it would be retroactive. What this means is that speeding tickets you collect now will affect your insurance in 2014.

The Soliciter General is concerned about the system and is investigating.

Based on the article ICBC claims/implies that ~70% of all drivers have not had a speeding ticket in the last 3 years. Agree? Disagree?

Just sounds like another money grab from ICBC.

[joel]

so that leaves 30% of all drivers have... that sounds like a pretty large number of people that they will charging more to... i haven't read the article but if they are only considering 70% of all driver it's possible that many of those drivers are not necessarily insured... but are licensed to drive, which may skew the statistics too.

[supersuk]

that's like double dipping

[nature boy]

weren't they already doing this? each moving violation gives you ~3 pts and you get 4 free ones a year, but after that it builds like crazy. when you renew insurance or even your license then you pay for all those points (ask me how i know).

i'm proud to say that i haven't gotten a speeding ticket in the past 3 years but i did in the past 3.5 years (and the one i got was in arizona), before that my last ticket was in 2000 (remember me flying into a ditch? i got a ticket for speeding into a ditch).

i guess joel's point is valid though, many people who don't have an insured car get caught for speeding. then who pays those fines?

[Duncan]

[se7entse7en]

Also, your insurance goes up for three years, not just the one.

[supersuk]

i wonder if my violation for driving while talking on cellphone counts towards it too.. i wouldnt doubt it..

ffs

[se7entse7en]

They did say they wouldn't count a burnt out tail light. Anything more than that though... who knows?

[joel]

This is stupid and I hope it gets turned down. Just sounds like more money grab...

[jeSteR]

I actually don't have a problem with this... again, not interested in debating over a forum, but if you want to know my thoughts, just ask me next time you see me.

[Duncan]

i guess i don't have a problem with the 3 year term of the new rule, but the fact that almost all violations will affect your insurance premiums on the FIRST infraction sucks. It's like a rule w/o grace... Get caught speeding once, sure sucks, so you pay the fine and you'd think that's enough. Get caught speeding again, then ok, you're a repeat offender so you should get dinged extra because you obviously haven't learned your lesson. But i don't think think people should get double dinged on the first infraction....

i agree with keian... it's double dipping

lol, you got caught driving while talking on your cell?

[se7entse7en]

A few things bother me.
1) It's retroactive. It's like they're changing the rules in the middle of the game.

2) No grace. Encounter a crabby cop who tickets you for going 101 in a 100 zone and you're deamed a dangerous driver for three years.

3) The numbers. They claim that only 30% of drivers would see an increase in their premiums? The thing is, I'd bet that more than 80% of drivers actually speed.

In any event, it looks like it's back to the drawing board for ICBC:
http://www.globaltvbc.com/personalities ... story.html

[geForce]

I can see the intention of this new policy, which is to reduce speed related accidents. However, is that really their intention?

ICBC is known to set their rates and policies in suspect ways. In my recent car purchase, I was really disappointed in finding out that the rate level that my car was set at was the second highest level possible. Their reasoning behind this is because other people who also drive the same car are more prone to accidents, plus the cost to repair this car are more expensive. That means, I am being punished just based on the fact that other people who own the same car have gotten into accidents.

Another thing I have a problem with is - they are quick to punish those who are more at risk of causing an accident, but they aren't very generous with the people who are super safe drivers. You max out at 43% discount for having caused no accidents for 5 years. And that's 43% off of the base rate, which still GOES UP just because other people who drive the same car have gotten into accidents. So, it doesn't matter if you've never caused an accident or gotten a speeding ticket in your whole 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years of driving - you'll still get punished for other peoples' mistakes no matter what.

I'm not entirely against this new policy, but I think that if they're going to implement extra penalties for bad driving, then they should add extra benefits for good drivers.

[Duncan]

actually, it takes 8 or so years to get 43% discount now... it's about 5% a year... sucks monkey balls but hey, i've gotten to that 43% mark while easing into the 5% each year.

I also agree that they should give more discount to safe drivers and ding the unsafe drivers more. in the second article shaun posted, it did say that they were hoping to give the drivers w/o infractions more of a discount due to the higher premiums the 30% of drivers would pay... but still, it'd probably just be like 50 bucks less a year.

either way, i'm glad icbc had their proposal rejected. i think they need to give grace for those who get the odd ticket because nobody's perfect.

[geForce]