ICBC considering raising car insurance premiums by 30 per cent

[trek]

2 minutes ago, gurn said:

I thought premiums were already based on a combination of car value and driver record.?

But their deductibles are the same as mine? So ICBC would be paying out a heck of a lot more to fix their ride vs. my 2011 Acura...

[Toews]

I believe the Finns have fines that scale with your income an idea that I have always liked. I have tried bouncing that off a few people but nobody cared for it. People think they will get dinged for minor speeding cases. 

[Ronaldoescobar]

24 minutes ago, trek said:

Those people who have > $100000 cars should be required to take out additional private insurance. I don't want my ICBC premiums being used to fix their $30000 lambo door or something.

Fix it... that thing's a write off, but who cares as mommy and daddy buy them a Mclaren the next day only to be wrecked 2 months later and replaced with a 911. And our premiums continue to rise... Gotta flex though or you aint sh*t. Hurt someone... well then just leave the country and problem solved....

 

[Kragar]

24 minutes ago, trek said:

Those people who have > $100000 cars should be required to take out additional private insurance. I don't want my ICBC premiums being used to fix their $30000 lambo door or something.

I read recently on wikipedia that ICBC does not insure cars worth over 150K.  Seems odd to me, since insurance is mandatory.  That's like Obamacare denying a pre-existing condition... makes no sense.

 

13 minutes ago, trek said:

But their deductibles are the same as mine? So ICBC would be paying out a heck of a lot more to fix their ride vs. my 2011 Acura...

The deductibles might well be the same, but the point of them charging higher premiums should be to cover the added cost of fixing these more expensive vehicles.  If they don't set their premiums properly, that is on ICBC.  

 

Personally, it all comes down to bringing in competition.  Since ICBC virtually represents every driver in the province, they have no incentive to protect you, the customer.  At least if there were a dozen or so outfits, ICBC might actually fight on our behalf when we are in an accident, rather than try to make it 50-50 fault so both driver's premiums get hammered.  The Liberals making ICBC a for-profit company just makes it worse.

 

 

[CBH1926]

5 hours ago, Tre Mac said:

Almost 20 years of flawless driving and my insurance that I renewed last night was $1857 for a full size truck.  That's already too high imo and now they want to tack on another 30%?  Wasn't ICBC executives involved in a scam a couple of years ago?  Maybe start by overhauling their front office and start trimming the fat off these pigs.

I pay around $1100 for 2 cars, you guys are getting shafted over there.

What is the total $ amount on your policy?

[Barnorth]

8 hours ago, J.R. said:

The biggest problem is vehicles traveling at different speeds in the same lanes, not outright speed itself. How anybody can determine that 105KPH = 'safe' and 115 KPH is 'impending death!' defies logic. You crash at either speed and it's not going to tickle.

 

Better training and one's ability to be aware of their surroundings/be courteous to fellow motorists and better enforcement of poor/dangerous/not paying attention drivers would do far, FAR more to improve driving/traffic conditions than any speeding enforcement. 

 

I'd also love to see them ticket and suspend/withdraw licences of 'scared' drivers more. People afraid to merge/match speed, unable to maintain speed limit, unable to change lanes to get out of the way etc. They just bottleneck traffic and confuse and enrage drivers and encourage aggressive drivers to perform dangerous maneuvers. If you're too scared to perform basic driving tasks, you should not be driving IMO.

Couldn't agree more on your last bit. Not to throw my cousin under the bus (pun?) but she had passed her N test first try, however she didn't drive on the highway for a year because she was scared to merge.  I failed my first N test because I drove "too close" to the line, drove a little too slowly in a 30, and while pulled over didn't come up with enough possible dangers for their little checklist. Guess that's how it goes for young males I guess? 

[Ryan Strome]

ICBC = communism.

[Ryan Strome]

13 hours ago, Toews said:

I believe the Finns have fines that scale with your income an idea that I have always liked. I have tried bouncing that off a few people but nobody cared for it. People think they will get dinged for minor speeding cases. 

How would police officers know what a persons income is?

 

I see why no one cares for it. It seems very unfair, so if a person does well for himself he would pay more for speeding tickets? That certainly doesn't treat everyone fair and equal.

[Toews]

1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said:

How would police officers know what a persons income is?

 

I see why no one cares for it. It seems very unfair, so if a person does well for himself he would pay more for speeding tickets? That certainly doesn't treat everyone fair and equal.

Quote

Reima Kuisla, a Finnish businessman, was recently caught going 65 miles per hour in a 50 zone in his home country—an offense that would typically come with a fine of a couple hundred dollars, at most, in the U.S. But after Finnish police pulled Kuisla over, they pinged a federal taxpayer database to determine his income, consulted their handbook, and arrived at the amount that he was required to pay: €54,000.

 

The fine was so extreme because in Finland, some traffic fines, as well as fines for shoplifting and violating securities-exchange laws, are assessed based on earnings—and Kuisla's declared income was €6.5 million per year. Exorbitant fines like this are infrequent, but not unheard of: In 2002, a Nokia executive was fined the equivalent of $103,000 for going 45 in a 30 zone on his motorcycle, and the NHL player Teemu Selanne incurred a $39,000 fine two years earlier.

 

“This is no constitutionally governed state,” one Finn who was fined nearly $50,000 moaned to The Wall Street Journal, “This is a land of rhinos!” Outrage among the rich—especially nonsensical, safari-invoking outrage—might be a sign that something fair is at work.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/

 

Someone that earns minimum wage is going to get a lot more hurt by a $500 fine. Someone like the Nokia executive won't even blink at that $500, but when its 103K, its going to burn a hole in their wallet.

 

Also I wouldn't exactly say that I have enough of a sample size to support the conclusion that "no one cares for it". There seems to be quite a bit of frustration with people in expensive cars not caring about meager fines and continuing to drive like maniacs. Having visited Switzerland, the streets seem a lot more safer there than in Canada. Everyone is motivated to follow the laws or they have to pay through the nose for fines. I don't see any reason to protect rule breakers as well. If they don't like the fines then they should read up on the rules and follow them for their own safety and those sharing a road with them.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 hour ago, Toews said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/

 

Someone that earns minimum wage is going to get a lot more hurt by a $500 fine. Someone like the Nokia executive won't even blink at that $500, but when its 103K, its going to burn a hole in their wallet.

 

Also I wouldn't exactly say that I have enough of a sample size to support the conclusion that "no one cares for it". There seems to be quite a bit of frustration with people in expensive cars not caring about meager fines and continuing to drive like maniacs. Having visited Switzerland, the streets seem a lot more safer there than in Canada. Everyone is motivated to follow the laws or they have to pay through the nose for fines. I don't see any reason to protect rule breakers as well. If they don't like the fines then they should read up on the rules and follow them for their own safety and those sharing a road with them.

That's a stupid reason. Do they not have the demerit system?  It's not like rich people in Canada can just can get speeding tickets over and over with no consequences, eventually they will lose there license.  . 

Fines need to be judged on the act itself and not the person committing the crime.  That's what is fair and equal. Fines shouldn't be the motivation the follow the laws, commonsense should. 

 

 

[johngould21]

1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said:

ICBC = communism.

lol! Really?? You obviously didn't live through the era of private insurance in BC. How about probation for a month? Not one cent stayed in BC as most of the insurers were US based. I remember during the Bill Bennett/Dave Barrett campaign, a helecopter circling the studios of CKNW, with banners flying, similar to your comment, and a drunk Gary Bannerman, screaming and chortling at the same time, for them to get lost. The fact is, the BC Conservatives screwed ICBC and BC Hydro over big time, and you and I are about to pay. It's now up to the NDP, to right this ship, but unlike folks like you, I'm going to give them more than a week.

[Ryan Strome]

1 hour ago, johngould21 said:

lol! Really?? You obviously didn't live through the era of private insurance in BC. How about probation for a month? Not one cent stayed in BC as most of the insurers were US based. I remember during the Bill Bennett/Dave Barrett campaign, a helecopter circling the studios of CKNW, with banners flying, similar to your comment, and a drunk Gary Bannerman, screaming and chortling at the same time, for them to get lost. The fact is, the BC Conservatives screwed ICBC and BC Hydro over big time, and you and I are about to pay. It's now up to the NDP, to right this ship, but unlike folks like you, I'm going to give them more than a week.

I live in Alberta. Privatization worlds great.

[PhillipBlunt]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

That's a stupid reason. Do they not have the demerit system?  It's not like rich people in Canada can just can get speeding tickets over and over with no consequences, eventually they will lose there license.  . 

Fines need to be judged on the act itself and not the person committing the crime.  That's what is fair and equal. Fines shouldn't be the motivation the follow the laws, commonsense should. 

 

 

Yeah, because that always works.....Please. Being punished is the main motivating factor to get the average person to follow laws. Especially those who make a huge amount of money.

 

Common sense should be the true deciding factor, but along with instinct, it's becoming far less prevalent in a society numbed by technology and entertainment.

[-DLC-]

17 hours ago, trek said:

Those people who have > $100000 cars should be required to take out additional private insurance. I don't want my ICBC premiums being used to fix their $30000 lambo door or something.

This.  Right here.  

 

On an hourly basis a teenage, new driver will fly by my place with a need for speed in a Ferrari, Lambo, Maserrati.   Most clearly don't have experience beyond GTA in driving yet,  there they are, peacock feathers in a show of status and money.  At our expense.  And, before any go there, NO .. it's not jealousy.  I don't need to impress others with a car.  I will try to do so in life by being a kind, honest, hard working person.   Priorities.

I also will say that ICBC are not a trustworthy or transparent organization...and that needs to change. 

 

Quote

I thought premiums were already based on a combination of car value and driver record.?

"Car value"....some of the cars trying to park in this city are worth more than my condo.

And let's face it.  When ICBC has a 'shortfall', they aren't going to stop raising their own salaries and costs...they look outward, toward their customer base.  And we ALL are facing those increases, not just the idiots driving their egos around town.

[Seifer86]

2 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

This.  Right here.  

 

On an hourly basis a teenage, new driver will fly by my place with a need for speed in a Ferrari, Lambo, Maserrati.   Most clearly don't have experience beyond GTA in driving yet,  there they are, peacock feathers in a show of status and money.  At our expense.  And, before any go there, NO .. it's not jealousy.  I don't need to impress others with a car.  I will try to do so in life by being a kind, honest, hard working person.   Priorities.

I also will say that ICBC are not a trustworthy or transparent organization...and that needs to change. 

 

They are...but let's face it.  When they have 'shortfall' they aren't going to stop raising their own salaries and costs...they look outward, toward their customer base.  And we ALL are facing those increases, not just the idiots driving their egos around town.

Announced last November. Legislation is being crafted to put this in effect. Could be a while though as the Act is already complex and an amendment would have a ripple effect. 

 

https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2016TRAN0368-002487

[PhillipBlunt]

3 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

ICBC = communism.

3 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

How would police officers know what a persons income is?

 

I see why no one cares for it. It seems very unfair, so if a person does well for himself he would pay more for speeding tickets? That certainly doesn't treat everyone fair and equal.

Speeding tickets should range in price based on the offence. Not necessarily the speed the driver is driving, but how reckless they are driving.

 

If a driver is on the highway going 140, but is signaling for every lane change, not tailgating, and ensuring that they are not cutting anyone off, they shouldn't be punished for being a skilled, aware and courteous driver.

 

If a driver is going 120 on a residential street and weaving in and out of traffic, they should lose their license.

 

The system should punish ineptitude and ignorance, not ability and courtesy.

 

A car, regardless of it's make or model, can kill.

[PhillipBlunt]

7 minutes ago, Seifer86 said:

Announced last November. Legislation is being crafted to put this in effect. Could be a while though as the Act is already complex and an amendment would have a ripple effect. 

 

https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2016TRAN0368-002487

I heard this too. It's a great idea.

[johngould21]

I lived the world of Private insurance, and as a young driver, it sucked. Where does that private insurance money go in Alberta? Ohama Nebraska? That sure benefits you.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

36 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Yeah, because that always works.....Please. Being punished is the main motivating factor to get the average person to follow laws. Especially those who make a huge amount of money.

 

I disagree with that,  people don't break the law based on how lenient the punishment is to them?

 

How many rich people rob convenience stores?

 

There's motivation behind everything.  Rich people don't speed simply because the they can afford the ticket?  If the impact the ticket had on you had such an important effect, then why do poor people also get pulled over, at what i'd would argue at almost the exact same rate?

 

If they really want to break the numbers down, they'd have to compare apples to apples,  aka income "A" tax bracket that drives X km per year vs income "B" tax bracket that also drives X km per year. 

 

Simple stating poor people get less tickets doesn't really mean much when most poor people don't own or often drive cars. 

 

36 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Common sense should be the true deciding factor, but along with instinct, it's becoming far less prevalent in a society numbed by technology and entertainment.

I agree with this.

 

[PhillipBlunt]

4 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I disagree with that,  people don't break the law based on how lenient the punishment is to them?

Yes they do. If you know that you're going to get a slap on the wrist for doing something versus spending your life in prison without parole, you're way more likely to do so.

 

People who are insane (cough...Vince Li.....cough) might break the law because Jesus and the aliens told them to, but for the most part people will make decisions regarding breaking the law based on the likelihood of being caught and punished.

4 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

How many rich people rob convenience stores?

I don't know. What's your point? Rich people don't need to as they usually have the money to afford most anything in a convenience store. Those who are dirt poor who choose to rob a store, usually do so out of desperation, and will, in most instances, "case" the store first to determine the amount of security cameras, the location of expensive material, blind spots, and ease of exit....and they do that so that they can get away without being caught, and....punished.

 

There are kleptomaniacs who suffer from a mental illness that drives them to steal, but I'm not sure of their numbers per capita, so I can't speak to that average.

4 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

There's motivation behind everything.  Rich people don't speed simply because the they can afford the ticket?

They speed because they want to speed, but they make the choice based on the punishment. If they enter the highway and it's littered with police cruisers, they'll most likely choose not to speed.

 

As well, if tickets were handed out based on earnings, and a wealthy person was dinged $50,000 versus $300, they would speed far less than they do.

4 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

If the impact the ticket had on you had such an important effect, then why do poor people also get pulled over, at what i'd would argue at almost the exact same rate?

Please provide the research or statistical data that backs up the claim. While it is true that everyone speeds, to make an appointment, or because it just plain feels good, if they see a cop, they don't stop because they fear the officer's wrath or just can't stand a talking to. For the majority of people, it's because they don't want to have to pay the fine.

4 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

If they really want to break the numbers down, they'd have to compare apples to apples,  aka income "A" tax bracket that drives X km per year vs income "B" tax bracket that also drives X km per year. 

They meaning who exactly?

4 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Simple stating poor people get less tickets doesn't really mean much when most poor people don't own or often drive cars. 

Where did I say that poor people get less tickets? If you want to debate, only use points that have been actually stated, and not made up material to prove a point.

 

Anyways,

4 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I agree with this.

Cool. So do I.