Bad drivers should absorb this

[mexi cali]

The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia is aiming to hike basic insurance rates by 5.2 per cent.

Spokesman Adam Grossman says in a written release that the Crown corporation will submit an application to the B.C. Utilities Commission on Friday. What a joke. This is as big a "formality" as there is.

If (like it won't) the application is approved, customers will have to pay roughly $3 extra each month.

Grossman says the proposed rate increase stems from a rise in injury claims costs, (these guys write checks like kids hand out pez) which climbed to $1.9 billion in 2013, an increase of $73 million in just one year and a leap of more than $500 million compared to five years ago.

He says factors such as distracted driving (if this doesn't say hike the fines, What does?) have contributed to more injury-related crashes, while higher medical and legal bills have driven up the costs of settling the claims.

ICBC is applying for the higher rates to come into effect on Nov. 1 on a temporary basis while the utilities commission reviews its application. (does this not negate the need for an application? Like they're gonna have to roll it back when the utilities commission says NO.)

What a friggin joke.

[GordonH]

I totally agree with title of this thread.

I'm accident free in entire driving history, thats pushing 35 to 40 years now.

[jimmy4321]

I Couldn't agree more with the title.
They should make crappy at fault drivers pay FAR more. Also they should target higher risk age groups or whatever other criteria private insurance use with higher rates , and show the door to those who drive impaired.

[mexi cali]

Distracted driving is apparently the number one cause of accidents today.

More so than impaired (alcohol) driving yet it can cost thousands if you get caught driving under the influence.

The fine for "distracted" driving though is what, 167 bucks or something?

My guess is that there is a fear within the corporation that if they charge the lousy drivers too much, they will simply stop buying insurance but they won't stop driving.

The one percenters are winning the war.

[the truth]

imo,the only thing that might get some people to stop texting and driving is, you get caught , your phone is gone on the spot never to be given back

[Hassel99]

I don't understand this post.

Bad drivers do absorb much more of the rate increases than good drivers. Be a good driver get 43% off your premiums, thus your 5% increase could only be 2.85% while a person in a 205% surcharge position pays 15.25%

What's the problem?

Want to stop high insurance premiums? Figure out a way to control medical and lawyer costs, that is the largest problem.

[jimmy4321]

imo,the only thing that might get some people to stop texting and driving is, you get caught , your phone is gone on the spot never to be given back

YOu can get a $700 phone for $49, not to mention the 3 or 4 fairly modern phones I have in a junk drawer i'm sure i'm not the only one

[the truth]

its not as much about the value of the phone as much as a the information in the phone,

[Bsuds]

YOu can get a $700 phone for $49,

Not if you lose it. You get the phone cheap when you sign up for a new plan which is usually 2-3 years. Try getting a cheap phone when you still have a long time to go on your plan.

[jimmy4321]

I didn't consider the "content" thing, I guess says a lot about my phone. Most people breaking the texting laws have a phone kicking around or a friend with one, a lot of people don't run full term (2yrs) anyway for the latest greatest.
There's also places you can get good refurbished unlocked ones for cash to get you through your term if you must. I don't think smashing phones is the answer, might be fun though.

Do you really think smashing a phone is gonna stand in the way of someone consumed with texting and taking selfies? They know the risks, they just don't give a *bleep*.

[Bsuds]

He didn't say to smash them just that they would lose their phone. Confiscate them and then sell it back for $500. Similar to a fine but maybe not get it back for 30 days. (first offence)

[GenesisGT]

Also they should target higher risk age groups

I would have probably agreed with this statement one day long ago, but our son who lives in Ontario just turned 25, had a license since he was 16, not one ticket and not involved in any accidents, during this period he paid more for insurance then for his college/university education.

Ridiculous costs, at least the insurance companies could provide some sort of rebate or extreme discount for drivers who pay the higher rates but do not fit the mold of a "higher risk age group" and prove this with a clean driving record. And it may actual provide incentive for drivers in the high risk groups to drive better.

[jimmy4321]

oh!! Lol Sorry thought I saw smash.

[mexi cali]

I would have probably agreed with this statement one day long ago, but our son who lives in Ontario just turned 25, had a license since he was 16, not one ticket and not involved in any accidents, during this period he paid more for insurance then for his college/university education.[color=#FF0000]Hmmmm. What exactly was his insurance premium?
[/quote]
[/color]Ridiculous costs, at least the insurance companies could provide some sort of rebate or extreme discount for drivers who pay the higher rates but do not fit the mold of a "higher risk age group" and prove this with a clean driving record. What does "fit the mold" mean? There is a mold and your son, while being a good driver, fits it because of his age group. what should the yardstick be? And it may actual provide incentive for drivers in the high risk groups to drive better.[/quote][/quote] There is an incentive. If you drive in BC, you get a good driver discount. However, It's like offering a 2 for 1 deal on a roast except that the store jacks up the price on the roast before the sale so it's not really 2 for 1. It's like, barely a deal. ICBC charges way too much from the get go and then offers discounts which if you drive accident free for 100 years brings you down to what you should have started at,

[wanderingman]

I Couldn't agree more with the title.
They should make crappy at fault drivers pay FAR more. Also they should target higher risk age groups or whatever other criteria private insurance use with higher rates , and show the door to those who drive impaired.

they already do this.If you have a bad driving record and mine is clean you will pay more insurance than I do.
The one thing I don't like is a high accident rate area like say Prince George the rates are higher across the board
so a good driver pays more than say someone in Armstrong but both have the same clean record