ICBC considering raising car insurance premiums by 30 per cent

[Kragar]

21 hours ago, J.R. said:

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.

Oh yeah!!!  I remember years ago, trying to get onto the freeway heading, either on 176th or 200th on-ramp, and someone in front of me frickin came to a complete stop still about 150 -200 feet back from where the on-ramp meets the freeway.  I'm looking over my shoulder, trying to judge my spot to merge in, and turn to see brake lights in my face!  Fortunately, a quick swerve avoids a collision, and I continue to make my merge just fine.  No idea how the other driver fared, but that is one person who doesn't belong on the freeway, if the road.  It wasn't even busy traffic at the time, so there was plenty of room and no one in front for that driver to be worried about.

 

I often wonder, if in a decade or so whether I will be in those same shoes, what with the faster traffic on our freeways and my inevitable decline in response time and judgment.  I really don't want to be that person.

[Alflives]

7 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Oh yeah!!!  I remember years ago, trying to get onto the freeway heading, either on 176th or 200th on-ramp, and someone in front of me frickin came to a complete stop still about 150 -200 feet back from where the on-ramp meets the freeway.  I'm looking over my shoulder, trying to judge my spot to merge in, and turn to see brake lights in my face!  Fortunately, a quick swerve avoids a collision, and I continue to make my merge just fine.  No idea how the other driver fared, but that is one person who doesn't belong on the freeway, if the road.  It wasn't even busy traffic at the time, so there was plenty of room and no one in front for that driver to be worried about.

 

I often wonder, if in a decade or so whether I will be in those same shoes, what with the faster traffic on our freeways and my inevitable decline in response time and judgment.  I really don't want to be that person.

Do the driving tests now have freeway merge and lane change as part of the tests?  

[aGENT]

8 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Oh yeah!!!  I remember years ago, trying to get onto the freeway heading, either on 176th or 200th on-ramp, and someone in front of me frickin came to a complete stop still about 150 -200 feet back from where the on-ramp meets the freeway.  I'm looking over my shoulder, trying to judge my spot to merge in, and turn to see brake lights in my face!  Fortunately, a quick swerve avoids a collision, and I continue to make my merge just fine.  No idea how the other driver fared, but that is one person who doesn't belong on the freeway, if the road.  It wasn't even busy traffic at the time, so there was plenty of room and no one in front for that driver to be worried about.

 

I often wonder, if in a decade or so whether I will be in those same shoes, what with the faster traffic on our freeways and my inevitable decline in response time and judgment.  I really don't want to be that person.

The other one that grinds my gears is the people who can't be bothered to match freeway speed and EXPECT you to brake to let them in. Sorry folks, it's YOUR responsibility, by law, to merge in to traffic, not mine.

 

Normally I try to move over and or brake/speed up as appropriate in an attempt to be safe/proactive/courteous but I actually had one woman get pissed at me (honking, yelling and hand gestures) because I sped up a bit to get in front of her as she tried to merge in to traffic that was going ~110KPH at closer to 80-90KPH (while cutting off the person behind me). The left lane was full preventing me from moving over. 

 

Gong show 

[Alflives]

6 minutes ago, J.R. said:

The other one that grinds my gears is the people who can't be bothered to match freeway speed and EXPECT you to brake to let them in. Sorry folks, it's YOUR responsibility, by law, to merge in to traffic, not mine.

 

Normally I try to move over and or brake/speed up as appropriate in an attempt to be safe/proactive/courteous but I actually had one woman get pissed at me (honking, yelling and hand gestures) because I sped up a bit to get in front of her as she tried to merge in to traffic that was going ~110KPH at closer to 80-90KPH (while cutting off the person behind me). The left lane was full preventing me from moving over. 

 

Gong show 

This happens all too often with me on my scooter.  The people walking need to GET THE HELL OUT OF MY WAY!  

 

I wonder if ICBC will force us using scooters to get some kind of license, and insurance?  

[Kragar]

3 minutes ago, J.R. said:

The other one that grinds my gears is the people who can't be bothered to match freeway speed and EXPECT you to brake to let them in. Sorry folks, it's YOUR responsibility, by law, to merge in to traffic, not mine.

 

Normally I try to move over and or brake/speed up as appropriate in an attempt to be safe/proactive/courteous but I actually had one woman get pissed at (honking, yelling and hand gestures) because I sped up a bit to get in front of her as she tried to merge in to traffic that was going ~110KPH at closer to 80-90KPH (while cutting off the person behind me). The left lane was full preventing me from moving over. 

 

Gong show 

Wow, that's crazy.  Something that happens often down here are those cutting over into the right lane, just trying to pass someone, and are likely completely unaware that people are trying to merge in.  Drives me nuts (no pun intended, not sure if you meant one either... gears, good one either way), especially when trying to merge at higher speeds.  

[PhillipBlunt]

Just now, Alflives said:

This happens all too often with me on my scooter.  The people walking need to GET THE HELL OUT OF MY WAY!  

 

I wonder if ICBC will force us using scooters to get some kind of license, and insurance?  

If it's the four wheel variety that rides on a sidewalk...no.

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

If it's the four wheel variety that rides on a sidewalk...no.

Mine is three wheels:  It could be a big money grab for ICBC.  There are a lot of people using them outside their homes.

 

[PhillipBlunt]

Just now, Alflives said:

Mine is three wheels:  It could be a big money grab for ICBC.  There are a lot of people using them outside their homes.

 

My dad has a four wheeler version.

[Ronaldoescobar]

18 hours ago, Kragar said:

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.

 

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.

 

 

This one really gets me. I have been in a few car accidents as a passenger (never as a driver thankfully), some the clear fault of the other vehicle and some the fault of the driver I was with. Each and every single time ICBC has tried to make it a 50-50 fault and only change their stance with the threat of bringing in a lawyer or actually acquiring legal assistance and you know this is mandated from the top... F*^king scum! 

[Gurn]

5 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.

you want fair and equal? what are you, some kind of communist?

[Tre Mac]

26 minutes ago, J.R. said:

The other one that grinds my gears is the people who can't be bothered to match freeway speed and EXPECT you to brake to let them in. Sorry folks, it's YOUR responsibility, by law, to merge in to traffic, not mine.

 

Normally I try to move over and or brake/speed up as appropriate in an attempt to be safe/proactive/courteous but I actually had one woman get pissed at me (honking, yelling and hand gestures) because I sped up a bit to get in front of her as she tried to merge in to traffic that was going ~110KPH at closer to 80-90KPH (while cutting off the person behind me). The left lane was full preventing me from moving over. 

 

Gong show 

I found people from Washington cannot merge to save their lives. 

 

How about people oncoming that get into your lane because they feel they need a 4 ft buffer zone from anything on their side of the road.  Truck and Bus drivers are the worse for this, why can't they just wait until there is no oncoming traffic instead of putting other motorists lives at risk? 

 

[aGENT]

Just now, Tre Mac said:

I found people from Washington cannot merge to save their lives. 

 

How about people oncoming that get into your lane because they feel they need a 4 ft buffer zone from anything on their side of the road.  Truck and Bus drivers are the worse for this, why can't they just wait until there is no oncoming traffic instead of putting other motorists lives at risk? 

 

Yeah, that's another problem. People with ZERO concept of the size of their vehicle (going back to the discussion earlier of people who can't park their own cars).

 

Also see that in the tunnel as well semi-frequently. Some eedjit hugging the line of the other lane while doing 60KPH (in an 80KPH speed limit and usually in the left lane) because they have no idea how big their car is and/or are driving scared. It's extra fun with the counter flow in and oncoming traffic coming at them instead of just a tunnel wall to their side 

 

How did these people get their licences!!!??

[ForsbergTheGreat]

36 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

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.

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.

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.

Again that's a big assumption.  IF that was the case then why do people who are poor constantly get speeding ticket still. you with think they'd speed far less simply because they can't afford the ticket?

 

36 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

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.

To an extent, but you're making a pretty big generalization.

Do all rich people speed?

Do all poor people never speed?

 

36 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

They meaning who exactly?

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,

Cool. So do I.

Summed up.  Motivation is what causes people to break the law. Demerits and losing your license ensures all people are held on equal playing field.  

 

The whole argument is that rich people are far more a danger to society while driving than poor people, so we should punish them accordingly.

 

Until i see actual evidence (again by comparing apples to apples) that supports the idea that rich people are this huge danger on the road then i'll just assume it's simply people whining about how unfair life is.  

[PhillipBlunt]

3 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Yeah, that's another problem. People with ZERO concept of the size of their vehicle (going back to the discussion earlier of people who can't park their own cars).

 

Also see that in the tunnel as well semi-frequently. Some eedjit hugging the line of the other lane while doing 60KPH (in an 80KPH speed limit and usually in the left lane) because they have no idea how big their car is and/or are driving scared. It's extra fun with the counter flow in and oncoming traffic coming at them instead of just a tunnel wall to their side 

 

How did these people get their licences!!!??

That's the $4.4 B question. How did they take a road test and manage to pass? Was the tester on their phone? Did the tester give the person the option to purchase the passing grade?

 

It would seem that the Drivers Licencing arm of ICBC is doing a deplorable job of ensuring that people are ready and capable of driving. As well, anyone coming from another country should be subject to a driver's test to gauge their ability before granting them a BC drivers licence.

[Gurn]

"Again that's a big assumption.  IF that was the case then why do people who are poor constantly get speeding ticket still. you with think they'd speed far less simply because they can't afford the ticket? "

 

 

There are more poor people than rich people, this tends to skew the results.

[PhillipBlunt]

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Again that's a big assumption.  IF that was the case then why do people who are poor constantly get speeding ticket still. you with think they'd speed far less simply because they can't afford the ticket?

You have actual proof that poor people are constantly getting speeding tickets? That to me is the meaning of an assumption.

 

People who get tickets have to pay or they can't renew their licence.

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

To an extent, but you're making a pretty big generalization.

Do all rich people speed?

Do all poor people never speed?

I digress. My use of the word "everyone" was misleading. I should have used anyone instead. As in "anyone who speeds". That being said, I still don't think that the paragraph you were referring to had any inclination that I believed that all rich people sped, or that poor people didn't. Reaching.

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Summed up.  Motivation is what causes people to break the law. Demerits and losing your license ensures all people are held on equal playing field.

People do break the law, for various reasons, but I think we are trying to keep this vehicle-centric as far as discussions go. I am game to opening it up to a larger discussion on motivation=crime=punishment as well, but don't really want to derail a thread that's clipping along fairly well.

 

Back to the point though. People sped or break other traffic laws for a variety of reasons, but as I said initially "Being punished is the main motivating factor to get the average person to follow laws". I stand by that statement.

 

Not everyone. The average person. Some people are conscientious, aware, and possess a healthy dose of respect for their fellow man and common sense. The average person doesn't, so the idea of being caught or fined is a huge motivational factor, especially when it comes to BC roads. Although considering that there is little to no police presence on the highway system in BC, rampant speeding and overall $&!#ty/dangerous/moronic driving becomes the norm.  

 

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

The whole argument is that rich people are far more a danger to society while driving than poor people, so we should punish them accordingly.

Who said that? Everyone should be fined by the same standard, but the escalation of the fines and punishments should be based on the severity of the infraction, and if someone loses their licence and is caught driving, they should be imprisoned, no questions asked, regardless of income.

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Until i see actual evidence (again by comparing apples to apples) that supports the idea that rich people are this huge danger on the road then i'll just assume it's simply people whining about how unfair life is.  

Wealthy people aren't a huge danger on the road. Where do you get this stuff from?

 

Reckless, $&!#ty, disrespectful drivers are. The people who consider that their need to get somewhere is more important than the safety of their fellow motorists are. The people who can't speed without tailgating and cutting people off are. The folks who don't shoulder check or give enough room are. The jackholes who can't merge or drift into other lanes are.

 

And the organization that has allowed these people of all stripes to get a licence is very, very responsible for this.

[Toews]

4 hours 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. 

 

 

Our system is far from perfect. If the demerit system was working then we wouldn't be seeing so many dangerous drivers on the road. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. These Scandinavian countries have figured out that dipping into an offender's paycheque is a more effective means of enforcement than handing a $500 fine to someone who can just shrug it off and continue driving the way they used to. Cops aren't around everywhere either which is why these people get away with this reckless behavior. I am not saying their system is perfect, like Phillip said giving people $35000 for slight instances of speeding is probably not a good idea. Idiots on their cellphone though should be fair game, hammer them fines so they get it into their heads to keep their hands off their phones. There are many hands free devices that do not require you to operate your phones. These people do not have any valid excuses.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 minute ago, PhillipBlunt said:

You have actual proof that poor people are constantly getting speeding tickets? That to me is the meaning of an assumption.

 

People who get tickets have to pay or they can't renew their licence.

I digress. My use of the word "everyone" was misleading. I should have used anyone instead. As in "anyone who speeds". That being said, I still don't think that the paragraph you were referring to had any inclination that I believed that all rich people sped, or that poor people didn't. Reaching.

People do break the law, for various reasons, but I think we are trying to keep this vehicle-centric as far as discussions go. I am game to opening it up to a larger discussion on motivation=crime=punishment as well, but don't really want to derail a thread that's clipping along fairly well.

 

Back to the point though. People sped or break other traffic laws for a variety of reasons, but as I said initially "Being punished is the main motivating factor to get the average person to follow laws". I stand by that statement.

 

Not everyone. The average person. Some people are conscientious, aware, and possess a healthy dose of respect for their fellow man and common sense. The average person doesn't, so the idea of being caught or fined is a huge motivational factor, especially when it comes to BC roads. Although considering that there is little to no police presence on the highway system in BC, rampant speeding and overall $&!#ty/dangerous/moronic driving becomes the norm.  

 

Who said that? Everyone should be fined by the same standard, but the escalation of the fines and punishments should be based on the severity of the infraction, and if someone loses their licence and is caught driving, they should be imprisoned, no questions asked, regardless of income.

yes, so what do rich people need to pay more if they commit the same speeding infraction?

 

1 minute ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Wealthy people aren't a huge danger on the road. Where do you get this stuff from?

 

That's what this discussion is about,  you know the idea that people who can afford the ticket are "more likely" to speed based on the fact that the ticket is chump change....

 

If there's not issue about them being more of a danger, then why are we having this discussion? What benefit does ticketing wealthy people more if it's not about making the roads a safer  place?

 

1 minute ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Reckless, $&!#ty, disrespectful drivers are. The people who consider that their need to get somewhere is more important than the safety of their fellow motorists are. The people who can't speed without tailgating and cutting people off are. The folks who don't shoulder check or give enough room are. The jackholes who can't merge or drift into other lanes are.

Yes punish those people give them tickets, and if they don't learn they will lose their license do to demerits.  that doesn't have anything to do with income.

 

 

1 minute ago, PhillipBlunt said:

And the organization that has allowed these people of all stripes to get a licence is very, very responsible for this.

I agree

[Ryan Strome]

54 minutes ago, gurn said:

you want fair and equal? what are you, some kind of communist?

Communism is the furthest thing from fair and equal.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

5 minutes ago, Toews said:

Our system is far from perfect. If the demerit system was working then we wouldn't be seeing so many dangerous drivers on the road. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Not to be a strawman, but what is the point of this statement?  To me this basically states that you believe the reason the roads are dangerous is because rich people don't care about the fines. 

 

It's as if you assume the reason the roads are dangerous lays at the feet of rich people and the solution to make the roads safer is to punish rich people. 

 

I would like to point out that poor people who own a vehicle is just as likely to get a speeding infraction. 

 

5 minutes ago, Toews said:

These Scandinavian countries have figured out that dipping into an offender's paycheque is a more effective means of enforcement than handing a $500 fine to someone who can just shrug it off and continue driving the way they used to.

Until the run out of demerits and lose there license?

 

5 minutes ago, Toews said:

Cops aren't around everywhere either which is why these people get away with this reckless behavior. I am not saying their system is perfect, like Phillip said giving people $35000 for slight instances of speeding is probably not a good idea. Idiots on their cellphone though should be fair game, hammer them fines so they get it into their heads to keep their hands off their phones. There are many hands free devices that do not require you to operate your phones. These people do not have any valid excuses.

Again......Where does this idea come from that rich people are the only ones that are breaking the law?  Poor people are just as likely to get the same infractions as rich people.  When poor people who can't afford tickets aren't no longer getting distracted driving tickets then we'd might have some logic to stand on but I don't think that's the case.