ICBC and new drivers should work together

[36Drew]

ICBC does not discriminate because of age or sex.

different rate class for drivers with less than 10 years experience. It's pretty steep, too.

[LongHaul]

jess-bel wrote:

Tell me your ICBC horror stories so I can feel better about how screwed I am. Now I get to choose between food or insurance. Welcome to 2014.

It could have went down worse. Don't know if this horror story from a few years back of how a 17 year old driver was stereotyped after an accident will make you feel better but you can read it at

http://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/58546/Court-finds-ICBC-wronged-young-driver

[my5cents]

different rate class for drivers with less than 10 years experience. It's pretty steep, too.

It's not a rate class, one just get a discount every year they drive without a liable claim.

One needs experience to drive, not just training. That's why pilots of aircraft keep track of their flying hours.

Ironically we see the new drivers, (and usually young as well) even on this forum mention that they think they should be allowed to be tested, they pass and let them drive fully qualified.

foxtrot276 said :

"I hate how it takes me this long to get my class 5, all because of a few bad apples. Make the test hard and tough if you have to icbc, but let there be some breathing room if I make an honest mistake, and don't tell me when I can and cant take these tests of yours, If Im able to pass all your tests you throw at me, then why should you put a time limit on my licence, let me take the test when I am confident and ready to take the test, don't put a time limit on it."

Obviously missing the point that important duties/privileges/tasks are NOT like passing an English test were one can cram, really apply themselves for an hour or two and then forget 3/4's of what they learned. Life isn't like that.

Would you want to fly in an aircraft flown by a pilot that took a course, followed by a "hard, tough, test" and has no experience ?

[rvrepairnut]

reading the story of the 17 year old that was railroaded by ICBC adjuster makes a person shake their head
Reminds me of a problem I ran into.Guy drives through my yard and does 5K damage to my yard.ICBC writes the
go ahead and repair order.I had to wait till spring.Send in the bill for payment and a new adjuster looks at the pictures and says not paying because in her personal opinion and looking at the pictures it should not cost 5K
This is after it had been approved by ICBC. That's the problem with ICBC they allow people working there to apply
payment and charges just solely based on one single persons opinion
Long story short I got paid and it was not a pretty site at the time

[36Drew]

It's not a rate class, one just get a discount every year they drive without a liable claim.

ICBC actually refers to it as a rate class.

http://www.icbc.com/autoplan/insure-teen

you are required to change the rate class on the vehicle when adding drivers to your policy who do not have 10 years' experience.

(Third bullet point)

One needs experience to drive, not just training. That's why pilots of aircraft keep track of their flying hours.

Ironically we see the new drivers, (and usually young as well) even on this forum mention that they think they should be allowed to be tested, they pass and let them drive fully qualified.

I'm not arguing with you at all on this point. In fact, if you've read my posting history in regards to at least class 6/8, I'm a very staunch supporter of professional training and experience-based graduation programs. I actually don't think ICBC goes far enough. I think we need to have mandated compulsory training. On the one hand, we have enough drivers complaining that our speed limits are too low and point to Germany's traffic as an example [*], yet refuse to acknowledge that our driver education in this country and province just generally.....sucks.

My point to you was not that ICBC's graduated licensing program sucks, and that everybody should be given equal weight - but rather that ICBC does *indeed* class discriminate between experienced and inexperienced drivers. It is, however, justified. I just figured that I shouldn't have had to write you, of all people, a novel to explain all of that.


[*] I've had the pleasure of spending a lot of time with German travellers over the past few months. In-city is generally much like ours. 30/50/70 kph. The autobahn isn't universally unlimited speed - only sections, and they're super-grossly over engineered. None of the Germans I've mingled with (to the tune of nearly 3 dozen by now) would dream of having an unlimited section on highway 1 or highway 5 as it's currently constructed. They also have a rigorous graduated licensing and driver education system that makes ours look like a total joke. We can go from zero to fully licensed in 2 years. There, you'll be early 20's before you actually have that full, unrestricted license. You'll also have taken formal driver training at least once, and potentially twice.

[my5cents]

Sorry 36Drew, I guess were quibbling over semantics, a rate class always describes a vehicle not a driver, you stated :

"different rate class for drivers"

Also, quite frankly I forgot about the rate class for vehicles being driving by a driver with less that 10 years experience who is a member of the household. (your visiting nephew, with 6 years experience can drive your vehicle, you just may not want to tell the nephew that)

ICBC actually refers to it as a rate class.
"you are required to change the rate class on the vehicle when adding drivers to your policy who do not have 10 years' experience.

My point to you was not that ICBC's graduated licensing program sucks, and that everybody should be given equal weight - but rather that ICBC does *indeed* class discriminate between experienced and inexperienced drivers. It is, however, justified. I just figured that I shouldn't have had to write you, of all people, a novel to explain all of that.

I still don't see how you feel ICBC discriminates between experienced and inexperienced drivers.

I concede the "experience" ICBC rewards is "liable claims free experience" vs managing to remain alive for 10 years (or whatever) driving, with no regard for liable claims.

[36Drew]

I still don't see how you feel ICBC discriminates between experienced and inexperienced drivers.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discriminate

dis·crim·i·nate verb \dis-ˈkri-mə-ˌnāt\
: to notice and understand that one thing is different from another thing : to recognize a difference between things

The word has multiple definitions. You're thinking of the insinuation that one is treated unfairly via discrimination. I'm referring to the base definition, which is what I've pasted there. I don't feel that ICBC discriminates - they simply do. They differentiate experienced and inexperienced drivers and adjust their rates accordingly.

[Bsuds]

It would seem to be much more equal if it was based on driving records. Accidents, fault, moving violations etc.
Everyone starts the same and rates go up accordingly.

[36Drew]

It would seem to be much more equal if it was based on driving records. Accidents, fault, moving violations etc.
Everyone starts the same and rates go up accordingly.

It is. New drivers start at the same rate as other new drivers. Good driving will gain them a discount. 10 years of experience will net them yet another discount.

[my5cents]

It is. New drivers start at the same rate as other new drivers. Good driving will gain them a discount. 10 years of experience will net them yet another discount.

You're on the right track but the "rate class" for a vehicle that is driven by a driver WHO LIVES IN THE HOUSEHOLD is not considered a "discount" when removed. I guess, if anything, it's an "under 10 years experience surcharge". ICBC looks at it as a "vehicle rate class"

Each insured, over or under 10 years of experience, attains certain discounts for liable claims free driving.

It's slightly complicated. I'll give you an example. You have a pickup and a car both in your name and you are the PO (principle operator). You have an accident in the pickup and loose some of your discount on the pickup. You still retain the discount on the car. Two years later you sell the pickup and don't replace it. The loss of discount will now show up on the car. The fact YOU had the liable claim only affected the insurance on the vehicle you had the claim in, not the other one, until it was gone, then the ICBC computer looks for another policy to attach the liable accident to.

The strange part is the separation of liable claims and moving violations on one's driving record and insurance costs. It's a strange mix.

(for the example lets forget the "N" driver and their suspension)

You get a couple of speeding tickets, you pay the fines, but ICBC also send you a bill for your points. You get this bill completely independent from any vehicle you may or may not have insured with ICBC, there is no link. Your insurance rates and costs on any vehicles you are insuring is not impacted by tickets.

You have a liable accident, you loose positions on the Claims Rated Scale that can affect how much you are paying for insurance on the vehicle (if you were the insured) that you had the claim in.

The number of accidents that you have, if there isn't a corresponding traffic ticket, for the event, has no bearing on your driving privileges.

We know that the police are not attending "minor" accidents, so unless you injure someone or get unlucky and police decide to attend for another reason, as long as you or the other driver wasn't suspected of, lets say drinking and driving, the only people you will be dealing with is ICBC.

So the bottom line, you do something that MAY cause an accident, speeding, texting, blowing a stop sign, etc you can get a ticket that could result in you loosing the privilege of driving.

You actually smash into something/someone, cause all sorts of damage, but for whatever reason the police don't attend the accident and although your insurance may increase the following year, it won't affect you driving privileges.

Do something the MIGHT cause an accident, risk your license... Do something the DID cause an accident, your license may not be at risk at all.

[goatboy]

Do something the MIGHT cause an accident, risk your license... Do something the DID cause an accident, your license may not be at risk at all.

Or you could state it as:

Do something that is illegal, risk your license... Do something that DID cause a (minor) accident, your license may not be at risk at all.

[my5cents]

Or you could state it as:

Do something that is illegal, risk your license... Do something that DID cause a (minor) accident, your license may not be at risk at all.

In the illustration the suggestion/point was, if you got two tickets for actions that COULD have caused a collision or had two liable collisions, the actual collisions would have less affect on your right to drive than the actions that could have caused a collision.

We, as a society, wrongly use the term "accident" for a traffic collision.

If you subscribe to the principle that when a vehicle hits something by itself, or two vehicles or more are involved in a COLLISION that "it is just an accident it couldn't be helped" you are wrong most of the time.

Generally, in every collision, someone did something illegal and if investigated by police a ticket would, or should, be issued to someone.

In actual fact, for insurance purposes, if you were involved a collision (for argument sake lets say a single vehicle collision) for which you were completely not responsible for [such circumstances are very rare, and no, slipping on an icy road is negligence], the insurance industry calls this an "inevitable accident".

Lets say a passenger in your vehicle was injured. Normally in such an accident in which you were driving and caused an injury to a passenger, that passenger would get compensation from your liability insurance coverage or could sue you and get compensation from your liability coverage.

In an "inevitable accident" they could not. Liability insurance covers the driver for negligence, if there was no negligence there is no liability claim.

[John500]

I dont understand the discussion. If all new drivers stick to the rules of the road, whats the problem? But thats utopia of course.

[GoStumpy]

I always laugh, if everyone followed the rules of the road we would eliminate nearly all 'accidents'.

[Smurf]

Are you saying most of them are not accidents, but actually human error? I will go with that.