Liberals Left ICBC In Bad Shape

[Smurf]

my5cents wrote:

I am sick of paying extra because of these people and of all the accidents, deaths and injuries they are causing. Time to make people responsible citizens instead of idiotic fools.

The mechanics and the roadblocks our laws put up to link the driver to the offending vehicle are what makes assessing points to photo violators, be that red light cameras or photo speeding enforcement, impossible.

Agreed, but like I said charge it to the owner of the car and let them straighten it out. They are responsible for that vehicle so if they want to let an idiot drive it let them worry about it.

The costs we are paying more and more for, started back when lawyers were given the ability to advertise.

Agree 100%.

The real downside to photo speed enforcement is the fact that it's a continuing violation. It may be an impaired driver, it could be many things. We loose a lot of the benefits of traffic enforcement when we just photograph an ongoing violation, for the benefit of quantity (drift net policing).

Agree again, but I do not mean to decrease actual road checks just use the cameras in addition to. As I have said many times take the money from fines and hire more cops, put them on the roadways and start enforcing our laws properly.

[mr.bandaid]

Take the money and put it into hiring more police and if there is extra put it into roads or what ever but they should make sure they are taking lots. I don't care if it goes to the owner of the car they can collect it from the driver if it wasn't them. Maybe they'll stop lending their car to idiots if it costs them enough. There are lots of places to put the money to good use. Give lots of points with the tickets and let ICBC soak them on their drivers licenses and any car insurance they buy. Let ICBC know the owner of all cars caught in infractions and add a premium to their insurance next time around. If it starts to cost them 20 thousand or more a year most will soon learn and soon no one will lend them a car. Make it so that if a company hires someone with so many points on their licence and allows them to drive company cars their company insurance goes up. One way or another it is time these idiots pay big time for their foolishness.

I am sick of paying extra because of these people and of all the accidents, deaths and injuries they are causing. Time to make people responsible citizens instead of idiotic fools.

I'm sick of paying too Smurf, but if we go too "over the top" with penalty rates we'll just encourage more folks to drive without any insurance at all. Which would make the current bad situation even worse.

I do think we need to increase the penalties for things like driving and texting, but we have to keep them affordable so as not to encourage people to skip the insurance process entirely (desperate people sometimes do desperate things).

What I'd really like to know is how ICBC got into the current financial mess in the first place. I've heard various explanations - too much bureaucracy within the organization, too high compensation for top management, too much government dipping into the profits to spend on non ICBC things, and I'm sure there are more. I suspect the truth is that it's an amalgamation of all of those suggestions that are at least partly to blame, and if so that points the finger at overall mismanagement.

So, maybe what we really need to do is get rid of all the current managers at ICBC and start with a fresh lot, while at the same time eliminating political interference by making it more of an "arms length" corporation whose coffers cannot be "raided" by the Government. If ICBC doesn't need the money to run the business, it should be returned to it's customers in the form of lower premiums.

Already happening more than you know. I was rear ended by a drunk driver a few years back. He never had insurance or a drivers license which left me happy I paid for under insured.

[my5cents]

...........Agree again, but I do not mean to decrease actual road checks just use the cameras in addition to. As I have said many times take the money from fines and hire more cops, put them on the roadways and start enforcing our laws properly.

Completely agree

However, I've never been a big fan of the traditional photo speed enforcement, the two main reasons, a speeder should be stopped, not allowed to continue, perhaps causing a collision, second, getting a ticket in the mail for something one did several weeks previous, could put them at a disadvantage in defending themselves. (fair is fair)

For me, I don't recall what I had for dinner last night (ya, I know, someone will say, then perhaps I shouldn't be driving anyway)

It actually happened to me... When I was a worker, I had a company car. Vehicle control sent me a violation linked to my company car. Location date time and the photo of the car. From the location, I certainly could have been there, time of day and day of week was a bit strange. I racked my brain and thought and thought. My wife was at work so I couldn't run it by her at the time.

By the time she got home, I pretty well admitted to myself, "yes, I guess I did it, oh well, gee, I usually don't speed there and I usually spot the vans".

She got home took a look at the photo. "Isn't that the company car you used to have ?,,, When did you switch and give that car to ...... ?" Three days before the violation.

Ironically ICBC doesn't get the cash from the tickets, does get the penalty point money, and they have a program where they pay the police to work overtime to do enforcement (I don't agree with it, but they do).

I think that IF the government thinks the speed limit on the floating bridge should be 60 then they should see to it that vehicles travel in that range (let's say up to 70) and DO SOMETHING about the violators.

The floating bridge is great example of an area that just about nobody obeys the limit. Mostly because if you do, you put your life in jeopardy.

So.... my idea. For areas like the floating bridge, school zones, any place where there is continual flagrant violations of speeding laws, permanent photo radar. The bridge is just about the best example, hard for traditional speed enforcement (no place to pull vehicles over), and an extreme percentage of vehicles violating the speed limit.

Having said that, the real reason for speed enforcement is safety. I don't know, if, even with the high percentage of vehicles exceeding the limit on the floating bridge if there is a corresponding high number of collisions. I've seen very few.

So unlike the red light cameras where they have 10 places that have the box that holds the camera in a town but only 2 have cameras and they move them around. If you want to slow vehicles down in a school zone, put in a couple of permanent cameras, at least in that stretch you'll slow traffic down and make money doing so.

[Urban Cowboy]

^^ Similar to why I don't like photo radar.

It focuses on the vehicle and registration, as opposed to the real offender which is the driver.

It's also a pain for company fleets.

Places such as the bridge you mentioned, the problem isn't so much the vehicles and speeding as it is the wrong speed limit imposed on it in the first place. There's no solid reason really for the speed to be set at 60kph when everyone is doing 80kph safely and that's also the speed on Hwy 97.

Similarly there's another example along Hwy 97 where they should adjust the speed limit as they even promised to do a couple of years back. That's the section from Lake Country to Vernon, which has the median barriers installed the full length, yet still carries two different speed limits, 100kph on the newest section to Oyama, and then drops to 90kph, for no good reason really.

[ferri]

*Don't stray too far off topic please! Thanks!

[hobbyguy]

Under the ICBC mandate, BC has among the lowest rates in Canada for young drivers. Young drivers have the highest accident rates, the highest incidence of distracted driving, and are gender split in their risk.

BC just doesn't "do" that, subsidizing young male drivers very heavily - which everyone else pays for.

Before ICBC, when I got my first quote on car insurance, I nearly fell out of my chair. It was the equivalent cost to a decent used car. (I opted for a small motorcycle instead).

ICBC should be charging young male drivers $4,000 - $7,000 per year for basic insurance on a 5 year old economy sedan. That's what they charge in Toronto. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/household-finances/unlocking-lower-insurance-rates-for-young-drivers/article20883208/

But ICBC neither splits young female and male drivers, nor charges that group near enough to cover costs.

http://www.consumer.ca/uploads/general/2001_08_08_comparison_auto_insurance_rates.pdf

Some interesting comparisons at the end of that last article.

[Hurtlander]

Back to the original topic..I basically support the reports recommendations to help ICBC get back on track, and to keep premiums as low as possible for drivers with a clean abstract.

[maryjane48]

A report by Ernst & Young, released by minister David Eby on Monday, claims that recent government intervention has eroded ICBC’s financial situation to a point where it is not sustainable.



The report says ICBC is under increasing financial pressure because of a spike in the number of car crashes happening on B.C roads and a jump in the cost of vehicle repairs and injury claims.

The report says changes could include bringing back photo radar, capping payments for pain and suffering and making high-risk drivers pay more.


from global news


pretty amusing watching any bclib supporter trying blame anyone but themselves

the bclibs raped icbc and for that mismanagment now everyone gets to pay for the bclib mistakes .

[hobbyguy]

Yup - and that has nothing to do with Liberals.

Get ready for 30-40% higher rates on the basic insurance. It has been coming for a while - and only political interference has kept it at bay.

Bye-bye NDP lie "we will freeze ICBC rates".

[maryjane48]

Yup - and that has nothing to do with Liberals.

Get ready for 30-40% higher rates on the basic insurance. It has been coming for a while - and only political interference has kept it at bay.

Bye-bye NDP lie "we will freeze ICBC rates".

more like bye bye corrupt bclibs. thanks for mismanagment that will cost everyone more .

[Sparki55]

ICBC should be charging young male drivers $4,000 - $7,000 per year for basic insurance on a 5 year old economy sedan. That's what they charge in Toronto. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/household-finances/unlocking-lower-insurance-rates-for-young-drivers/article20883208/

That is insane. I have family in Ontario; the cost of insurance in the area they live was too high for my cousin to afford so he went without a car. His driver's licence expired and now he is 26 and never had a car. I remember some of his friends parents would put the car in their name to keep the cost low for their children but if their kid ever crashed it would have ruined their safe driving record.

Charge people who cause multiple accidents a year a massive premium until they cannot afford to drive, get the distracted drivers off the road with police force and put caps on all injury claims (or better yet have set amounts for each injury same as a life insurance plan has).

I have never caused an accident, while I'm not perfect and they are called "accidents", I see myself as one who pays way more attention than others and I should be rewarded for not costing ICBC a cent in payout.

[jimmy4321]

Call a broker in any province with private insurance and you will get better if not comparable rates if you have a good record and NO you don't have to drive a KCar - shop around

Don't call 1800-ima-fool, rates will be insane,also NO to internet shopping when it comes to private insurance.

[hobbyguy]

sparki - I agree, the rates for young drivers in Toronto are just goofy.

But we can't have it both ways. We can either accept that young drivers are going to drive up the costs for everyone, or not. The problem right now is that distracted driving is driving insurance costs through the roof everywhere. Insurance companies can only by the stats.

I personally don't mind paying a little more to help young folks out. It may have been back in the bronze age, but I remember the ridiculous situation where if you didn't have several years of safe driving - you were, as a young driver - hooped. How do you get that several years of experience if you can't afford the insurance for the first year??

What chokes me is the cost of parts - and I know ICBC pays more.

My neighbor has a used Infiniti. The daytime running light is out on one side (not broken - just out). $350.00 for the parts to fix it. Really? For my older truck I can buy a complete 4 piece set of 2 complete headlight units, 2 complete signal marker and running light assemblies - new - for $110 delivered to my door.

And yes, ICBC pays a lot more. In part because IF a vehicle is repaired using "generic" parts, not genuine GM etc., folks complain. The rear window on my truck was broken out, tinted and heated window. The initial quote to replace it was really high, when I explained that it was NOT an ICBC claim, and "genuine GM" was not required - the price dropped by over 60%. There is absolutely no difference from the "genuine GM".

So their are lots of reasons that we pay more now for insurance and those costs are going up. 15-20 years ago you rarely saw BMWs, Mercedes, Lexus, Infiniti etc. on the road. Now you see them all over the place. A single headlight for a Mercedes the same year as my truck costs almost 3 times as much as the full 4 piece set I noted above.

Overall, there is no escaping that insurance rates are going to go up. A lot.

That isn't ICBCs fault or any government's fault. Maybe a little bit, but the inefficiencies have always been there in ICBC (and any private insurer as well). The public has only itself to blame for high accident rates, and wanting fancy looking vehicles with pricey nameplates.

[flamingfingers]

hg wrote:

I personally don't mind paying a little more to help young folks out. It may have been back in the bronze age, but I remember the ridiculous situation where if you didn't have several years of safe driving - you were, as a young driver - hooped. How do you get that several years of experience if you can't afford the insurance for the first year??

If you don't mind 'helping out' the young folks, why don't you put a little ad in the papers saying you will PERSONALLY help fund 16-year-olds with the insurance for their first year of driving - and maybe say that they can use YOUR car for that first year as well?

[my5cents]

Already happening more than you know. I was rear ended by a drunk driver a few years back. He never had insurance or a drivers license which left me happy I paid for under insured.

If what you say is true and the drunk driver that hit you also didn't have any insurance, it's nice you had purchased "Underinsured Motorist Protection", however the coverage that you would access in the circumstance you described is "Uninsured" protection which is included coverage in every Autoplan policy.