ICBC Rates

[alisvolatpropriis]

For someone your age in Alberta you would be looking at anywhere between $3000-$6000 annually. So please, Pull your head out of the sand.

Well I'm 49 years old with a completely clean drivers abstract for over a decade (possibly even 2 decades cause I can't remember my last ticket or accident) so there is no way I would be charged anywhere near even $2k for auto insurance in Alta let alone $6k.
Clearly it's someone else here who needs to pull their head out of somewhere, and it ain't the sand.

Sorry I thought you were 21... My bad!!

[Glacier]

Stutters has nothing to do with ICBC or auto insurance, they would have no way of telling what claims are like in that department when they dont associate themselves with auto insurance or ICBC at all.

Check your PM.

[cv23]

Sorry I thought you were 21... My bad!!

No problem.
Except for 6 months in Alta and a year in the US I've lived and driven in BC all my life so I am quite familiar with auto insurance and especially ICBC for over 30 years now.
I'm actually far more a fan of the idea of insuring the driver rather than the vehicle but given the wide price range of vehicles a driver could operate today that system would be very challenging to not only set up but also administer. Also because so many people own multiple vehicles these days ICBC would lose out on the number of policies they write, and subsequent dollars they collect, so we all know that will never happen.
The only good thing ICBC has brought us is that "supposedly" every vehicle on our roads is in some way insured. There will always be cheats to the system and there is nothing we can do about out of province vehicles but at least all BC registered vehicles on the road hopefully carry some insurance.

[my5cents]

True, but clearly the ICBC premium surcharges are not high enough and ICBC is not working closely enough with their partner the Superintendent to keep these poor drivers off our roads. They'll invest millions in cameras and things to supposedly reduce accidents yet they have a documented list of bad drivers at their finger tips that could easily be given to the Superintendent with a recommendation to suspend the licenses of these accident prone drivers and they don't do it. A drivers license is a privilege not a right and those that abuse the privilege be endangering themselves and others by causing or being involved in repeated accidents no longer deserve the privilege. In addition to being menaces on the roads the surcharges in no way cover the cost of one accident let alone the multiple collisions these people are involved in or cause..

Which way do you want it ? Private, where the insurance company has absolutely nothing to do with the Supt of MV or ICBC.

The actions of the Supt of MV's has nothing at all to do with what ICBC does or does not send. ICBC processes the information supplied by the police and the courts (traffic related convictions). Accidents and ICBC claims have absolutely nothing to do with license suspensions and the only time an accident is noted on you DL record is if you are named on an accident report by the police. In the DL database there is no indication if you were the victim or the one responsible for the accident.

Your claims history and experience dictates how much you pay for insurance, the tickets you get has nothing to do with your insurance premiums with ICBC.

Penalty points, charged by ICBC are calculated from your tickets, but that surcharge is not connected to an insurance policy on any of your vehicles.

I have lots of bad things to say about ICBC, the biggest are the fact that even if my wife and I own 4 vehicles and want the usage of those vehicles to be restricted to our sole use, ICBC has no policy that gives a discount for multiple family vehicles (ie. more vehicles than there are drivers) Also motorcycle insurance is overpriced and there is no consideration for partial year coverage without a penalty even if the bike is registered in a region where it can't be operated for the full year.

In the private insurance world they offer an own damage policy that is priced according to the region the bike is used. For a monthly fee they insure the bike year round no matter if it's stored or being operated. I gather it is calculated that in our region it's about 50/50 driven/stored.

Of course the biggie, over charging and sending the profit to the government as revenue.

In my opinion heads should role for the recent claim that ICBC is asking that rates be allowed to go up 2.1%, when in fact ICBC is asking to increase the premium for mandatory coverage by 11.2%. They have explained that "they estimate" optional is going down by "about 6%" and the difference is 2.1%. That was false and misleading and completely unacceptable. The 2.1% increase is conditional on one purchasing optional from ICBC.

I don't know who is responsible for the figures, but in Castanet for example they state :

Schubert said the basic rate increase is 11.2 per cent and adds up to an average of about $68, while the optional rate decrease is about six per cent and amounts to $48, which ends up as an overall increase of $27.

ICBC says that amounts to a 2.1 per cent increase in the average annual insurance cost because it rises the average insurance costs to $1,304 from $1,277.

http://www.castanet.net/news/BC/68005/I ... other-27yr

I remember in the "old days" when $68 - $48 = $20, but apparently it now equals $27,,,,, *bleep* ???

[cv23]

Which way do you want it ? Private, where the insurance company has absolutely nothing to do with the Supt of MV or ICBC.

The actions of the Supt of MV's has nothing at all to do with what ICBC does or does not send. ICBC processes the information supplied by the police and the courts (traffic related convictions). Accidents and ICBC claims have absolutely nothing to do with license suspensions and the only time an accident is noted on you DL record is if you are named on an accident report by the police. In the DL database there is no indication if you were the victim or the one responsible for the accident.

Your claims history and experience dictates how much you pay for insurance, the tickets you get has nothing to do with your insurance premiums with ICBC.

Penalty points, charged by ICBC are calculated from your tickets, but that surcharge is not connected to an insurance policy on any of your vehicles.

Drivers who are involved in numerous accidents are just damned unlucky or have poor driving habits. Because the police usually don't actually witness most accidents ( hell they don't even attend most accidents) what actually happened is to often a mystery. If the police can point blame then ICBC follows along by assessing liability but if the police can't make that call then ICBC makes the call themselves and often from the second hand, third hand or completely false information they are supplied. More often than we'd actually believe ICBC finds fault with the victim not the causer of an accident. The ICBC appeals process is so long and drawn out and ends with them still being judge and jury anyways many only take their appeal so far before just giving up in sheer frustration with the totally biased and unjust system.
It should be mandatory that those involved a number (say 3) accidents over a say two year period would automatically have their licenses reviewed by the Superintendent. ICBC has this info at their finger tips but the majority of it never make it to motor vehicles.
Driving infractions are the cause of most accidents so why are these not part of what ICBC bases a drivers insurance rate on? Traffic tickets should be considered by ICBC as at fault accidents and should have an effect on that vehicles insurance rate. We have two government agencies that have total control of our motor vehicles, licensing and insurance yet for the most part they act independently when they should work together with one another to make our roads safer. Get rid of the stupid points system and start increasing premiums for those who like to speed, drink and drive, run stop signs, etc.

[my5cents]

Drivers who are involved in numerous accidents are just damned unlucky or have poor driving habits. Because the police usually don't actually witness most accidents ( hell they don't even attend most accidents) what actually happened is to often a mystery. If the police can point blame then ICBC follows along by assessing liability but if the police can't make that call then ICBC makes the call themselves

The police have absolutely nothing to do with determining liability. They may have gathered information at the scene of an accident that will assist ICBC in determining liability, or they may provide names of witnesses that ICBC can contact, but that's the extent of the polices' involvement in the civil end of a motor vehicle accident.

and often from the second hand, third hand or completely false information they are supplied. More often than we'd actually believe ICBC finds fault with the victim not the causer of an accident.

ICBC obtain statements from witnesses and base their decision on the information they have gathered from them.

It should be mandatory that those involved a number (say 3) accidents over a say two year period would automatically have their licenses reviewed by the Superintendent. ICBC has this info at their finger tips but the majority of it never make it to motor vehicles.

As I've stated, someone's claims history is not a factor in suspending or reviewing licensing. No, none of the information is given to the Superintendent of MV (OSMV) (Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) none, zip, zilch.

Driving infractions are the cause of most accidents so why are these not part of what ICBC bases a drivers insurance rate on? Traffic tickets should be considered by ICBC as at fault accidents and should have an effect on that vehicles insurance rate. We have two government agencies that have total control of our motor vehicles, licensing and insurance yet for the most part they act independently when they should work together with one another to make our roads safer. Get rid of the stupid points system and start increasing premiums for those who like to speed, drink and drive, run stop signs, etc.

Well when someone has more than a couple of tickets, ICBC's point system surcharges the driver, so in actual fact the driver is charged once for the price of the ticket and a second time by ICBC under the points system, which is a surcharge on the driver's "insurance" but is not related to any one vehicle.

If you linked the number of tickets directly on someone vehicle insurance, which vehicle ? What if they don't own a vehicle ?

[cv23]

Drivers who are involved in numerous accidents are just damned unlucky or have poor driving habits. Because the police usually don't actually witness most accidents ( hell they don't even attend most accidents) what actually happened is to often a mystery. If the police can point blame then ICBC follows along by assessing liability but if the police can't make that call then ICBC makes the call themselves

The police have absolutely nothing to do with determining liability. They may have gathered information at the scene of an accident that will assist ICBC in determining liability, or they may provide names of witnesses that ICBC can contact, but that's the extent of the polices' involvement in the civil end of a motor vehicle accident.
The police most certainly do have a large part in assessing liability of many accidents. If a driver is charged as the result of an accident they are determined by the police as being responsible for the accident and therefore liable for the consequences of their actions. The first thing ICBC does in review of any multi-vehicle accident is see if any charges were assigned to a driver

and often from the second hand, third hand or completely false information they are supplied. More often than we'd actually believe ICBC finds fault with the victim not the causer of an accident.

ICBC obtain statements from witnesses and base their decision on the information they have gathered from them.
And who says those witnesses are not prejudice, have a vested interest in the outcome or just plain lie?????? How can a correct decison be reached on anything without accurate and truthful information? What about single vehicle single occupant collison? Doesn't the driver and only witness have a vest interest in if he is found at fault or if it is deemed a no fault/accident?

It should be mandatory that those involved a number (say 3) accidents over a say two year period would automatically have their licenses reviewed by the Superintendent. ICBC has this info at their finger tips but the majority of it never make it to motor vehicles.

As I've stated, someone's claims history is not a factor in suspending or reviewing licensing. No, none of the information is given to the Superintendent of MV (OSMV) (Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) none, zip, zilch.
Read carefully as you obviously missed it above "IT SHOULD BE....." While I'm not runnings things just yet it I can wish

Driving infractions are the cause of most accidents so why are these not part of what ICBC bases a drivers insurance rate on? Traffic tickets should be considered by ICBC as at fault accidents and should have an effect on that vehicles insurance rate. We have two government agencies that have total control of our motor vehicles, licensing and insurance yet for the most part they act independently when they should work together with one another to make our roads safer. Get rid of the stupid points system and start increasing premiums for those who like to speed, drink and drive, run stop signs, etc.

Well when someone has more than a couple of tickets, ICBC's point system surcharges the driver, so in actual fact the driver is charged once for the price of the ticket and a second time by ICBC under the points system, which is a surcharge on the driver's "insurance" but is not related to any one vehicle.
Fair enough. Unfortunately a driver can avoid paying his points and/or his fines often for several years if he doesn't insure a vehicle in his name. The MOT will allow him to keep his license if he pays a token amount, as little as $10/mnth, and ICBC can't really collect until they renew their license which is only every five years.

If you linked the number of tickets directly on someone vehicle insurance, which vehicle ? What if they don't own a vehicle?
This where our two government agencies should and could work together rather than they ineffectually do now as separate entities. A insurance surcharge could firstly be placed on the vehicle involved's insurance and a healthy fine given to the driver. If the driver is not the vehicle's owner/insurer then the private vehicle's owner/insurer will learn a costly and not soon forgotten lesson about lending out their vehicle to those who drive recklessly or chose to seek reimbursement from the driver. In the case of a rental vehicle, company vehicle or the such they could be allowed to apply directly to MOV to have the surcharge amount added to the drivers fine. Give the offender 90 days to pay or their license is automatically suspended. The MOV becoming an informed watchdog with cachongas and teeth is the key. Most drivers get rare tickets and/or are in the rare fenderbender so they would not be affected at all but those who drive recklessly or poorly and are issued multiple tickets or involved in multiple collisions would pay extremely heavily for the risks they placing on themselves and others or be removed from the roads altogether.
Less bad drivers on the roads= less accidents= so less risk by the insurer and lower insurance rates for good drivers

[my5cents]

The police most certainly do have a large part in assessing liability of many accidents. If a driver is charged as the result of an accident they are determined by the police as being responsible for the accident and therefore liable for the consequences of their actions. The first thing ICBC does in review of any multi-vehicle accident is see if any charges were assigned to a driver

The first thing police are taught in relation to accident investigation is that they do not get involved in deciding liability.

Does it make sence that ICBC would take direction from an agency that is not involved in the civil legal process to determine liability ? When ICBC is sued because the liability is at issue, do they just explain "well the RCMP said X was at fault"

Enough said, you are testing patients.

[cv23]

The police most certainly do have a large part in assessing liability of many accidents. If a driver is charged as the result of an accident they are determined by the police as being responsible for the accident and therefore liable for the consequences of their actions. The first thing ICBC does in review of any multi-vehicle accident is see if any charges were assigned to a driver

The first thing police are taught in relation to accident investigation is that they do not get involved in deciding liability.

Does it make sence that ICBC would take direction from an agency that is not involved in the civil legal process to determine liability ? When ICBC is sued because the liability is at issue, do they just explain "well the RCMP said X was at fault"

Enough said, you are testing patients.

LOL , I think I'll test on then.

ICBC sure does say "well the RCMP said X was at fault" and then finish the sentence by saying "so X is responsible and possibly liable for the accident". ICBC relies heavily on the findings of trained traffic professionals such as RCMP officers who actually attend accidents, especially those where injuries have occurred. The RCMP interview witnesses on the scene, when their recollections are fresh in their minds, not days or weeks later when ICBC interviews them. That is if ICBC does interviews at all because the witnesses have already given their statements to the RCMP. ICBC then uses the RCMP report and findings to assign responsibility and subsequent liability if necessary as in the case of an impaired driver causing injury.
When ICBC sues a driver to recover costs they rely even more heavily on the RCMP's report and findings. If the driver was found to be impaired by the RCMP, not ICBC, then ICBC's case is basically a slam dunk in court and the impaired driver has no real defense.

[my5cents]

The police most certainly do have a large part in assessing liability of many accidents. If a driver is charged as the result of an accident they are determined by the police as being responsible for the accident and therefore liable for the consequences of their actions. The first thing ICBC does in review of any multi-vehicle accident is see if any charges were assigned to a driver

The first thing police are taught in relation to accident investigation is that they do not get involved in deciding liability.

Does it make sence that ICBC would take direction from an agency that is not involved in the civil legal process to determine liability ? When ICBC is sued because the liability is at issue, do they just explain "well the RCMP said X was at fault"

Enough said, you are testing patients.

LOL , I think I'll test on then.

ICBC sure does say "well the RCMP said X was at fault" and then finish the sentence by saying "so X is responsible and possibly liable for the accident". ICBC relies heavily on the findings of trained traffic professionals such as RCMP officers who actually attend accidents, especially those where injuries have occurred. The RCMP interview witnesses on the scene, when their recollections are fresh in their minds, not days or weeks later when ICBC interviews them. That is if ICBC does interviews at all because the witnesses have already given their statements to the RCMP. ICBC then uses the RCMP report and findings to assign responsibility and subsequent liability if necessary as in the case of an impaired driver causing injury.
When ICBC sues a driver to recover costs they rely even more heavily on the RCMP's report and findings. If the driver was found to be impaired by the RCMP, not ICBC, then ICBC's case is basically a slam dunk in court and the impaired driver has no real defense.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

As far as impaired is concerned, yes. Depending on the level of the BAC and the result in court, that is pertainent.

As far as the rest, not even close.

[alisvolatpropriis]

The police most certainly do have a large part in assessing liability of many accidents. If a driver is charged as the result of an accident they are determined by the police as being responsible for the accident and therefore liable for the consequences of their actions. The first thing ICBC does in review of any multi-vehicle accident is see if any charges were assigned to a driver

The first thing police are taught in relation to accident investigation is that they do not get involved in deciding liability.

Does it make sence that ICBC would take direction from an agency that is not involved in the civil legal process to determine liability ? When ICBC is sued because the liability is at issue, do they just explain "well the RCMP said X was at fault"

Enough said, you are testing patients.

LOL , I think I'll test on then.

ICBC sure does say "well the RCMP said X was at fault" and then finish the sentence by saying "so X is responsible and possibly liable for the accident". ICBC relies heavily on the findings of trained traffic professionals such as RCMP officers who actually attend accidents, especially those where injuries have occurred. The RCMP interview witnesses on the scene, when their recollections are fresh in their minds, not days or weeks later when ICBC interviews them. That is if ICBC does interviews at all because the witnesses have already given their statements to the RCMP. ICBC then uses the RCMP report and findings to assign responsibility and subsequent liability if necessary as in the case of an impaired driver causing injury.
When ICBC sues a driver to recover costs they rely even more heavily on the RCMP's report and findings. If the driver was found to be impaired by the RCMP, not ICBC, then ICBC's case is basically a slam dunk in court and the impaired driver has no real defense.

Why should they have a defense in court? They were impaired while driving... They know damn well the consequenses before getting behind the wheel. And if you are found impaired your insurance is %100 null and void.

[cv23]

As far as impaired is concerned, yes. Depending on the level of the BAC and the result in court, that is pertainent.

Thanks for finally seeing the light. The issue was if the RCMP report/findings have any bearing on ICBC assessing liability or not and by your own admission it does

[cv23]

Why should they have a defense in court? They were impaired while driving... They know damn well the consequenses before getting behind the wheel. And if you are found impaired your insurance is %100 null and void.

So who what you are saying is that ICBC voids insurance, and will assign liability for that accident, basically exclusively on information gathered by and supplied to them by the RCMP? That seems totally contrary to another poster's claims doesn't it?

[my5cents]

As far as impaired is concerned, yes. Depending on the level of the BAC and the result in court, that is pertainent.

Thanks for finally seeing the light. The issue was if the RCMP report/findings have any bearing on ICBC assessing liability or not and by your own admission it does

No, I didn't say that. I said that ICBC would turn to the RCMP for evidence of impairment. The biggie with impairment isn't liability it is the breach of coverage.

I'll bet you think that if you went through a red light and hit another vehicle and it turned out the other driver was drunk and driving a stolen car, that you would not be held liable for the accident since the other driver was charge with Impaired Driving and Possession of a Stolen Vehicle.

As for your earlier statement :

ICBC relies heavily on the findings of trained traffic professionals such as RCMP officers who actually attend accidents, especially those where injuries have occurred. The RCMP interview witnesses on the scene, when their recollections are fresh in their minds, not days or weeks later when ICBC interviews them.

ICBC does not get witness statements (if any are taken) from the RCMP, they obtain their own. As for the "traffic professionals.... who actaully attend accidents", even in the case of the RCMP Traffic Analysts, ICBC may obtain the facts that were recorded by them, ie photo's and measurements, but then hire engineers to analyse the evidence to obtain findings.