New ICBC fee for lending your car out

[Catsumi]

Anyone out there that knows anything for sure?

If so, please step in and spell it out to us bewildered but law-abiders.

TIA

[seewood]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british- ... -1.4842114

At the moment looks like a proposal that might be implemented next year. Hope it fizzles for the numerous examples previously mentioned.
Another dumb tax.

[Catsumi]

You said it was another dumb tax, seewood.

Translation: It will become law.

[Urban Cowboy]

WTH ???

I was thinking of giving a pal my keys after driving to airport (vernon to kelowna), parking vehicle for two weeks, then him/her driving to kelowna airport to pick me up and I drive us both home.

Is this another reason to boost my rates or, if I do without extra isurance coverage, a reason to hit me again for another premium or negate my insurance should an accident occur?

I have 55 YEARS clean driving and would never allow an irresponsible person to drive my car.

From what I have read above, it looks like they are coming after me instead of the j-azzes !

Agree.

As far as I'm concerned closing loopholes is all well and good, however I should still be able to hand one of my adult children the keys once or twice a year should the need arise, without having to be extorted.

I don't as a rule have anyone drive my vehicles, but with increasing health challenges, I could see possibly having to get my son to do me a favor now and then, requiring driving my truck.

As always though the information just seems vague because for example if I'm already paying for artisan use, which means for work, then that should include someone else being allowed to drive say once a month or so, should the need arise.

For all I know perhaps it does, but I've found many times in the past that often even the insurance clerks aren't completely certain when you ask questions pertaining to policies. If they don't know, how on earth should we?

Oh well, five more weeks and they will have to cut my basic rate by 25% on two vehicles. This just feels like a way to claw some of that back.

[LTD]

so if you lend your vehicle out more than 12 times a year do you not pay this fee it doesnt make any sense

[Urban Cowboy]

so if you lend your vehicle out more than 12 times a year do you not pay this fee it doesnt make any sense

Yes the story causes me to wonder if there isn't an error involved.

Forcing people who loan their vehicle out more than 12 times a year, to pay this fee makes far more sense to me, not to mention makes the fee more palatable.

[twobits]

The NDP are the Gov't now. What were you morons that voted for them expecting?? Rational policy lol.

[madmudder]

We'll be paying for the Liberal misdeeds of sucking the life out of ICBC and BC Hydro for years to come.

[dontrump]

A new $50 “unlisted driver protection” fee is just one of the changes starting as early as 2019. It will apply to motorists who lend their vehicle out to someone else fewer than 12 times a year.
While the fee is entirely optional, ICBC said it could cost you if a unlisted driver is to be involved in a crash and isn’t protected by coverage.

makes no sense at all if this article is correct it looks like all u do is list the person u will be lending your car
to on your insurance

[Bsuds]

So do you need to list all the friends you trust that you "might" loan your car to?

[rustled]

Listing all drivers
You will need to list all drivers of your vehicle to more accurately reflect the risk involved.

The majority of your premium (75%) will be based on the principal driver, with the remaining 25% reflecting the other driver with the highest risk. This risk is determined by the number of at-fault crashes and experience a driver has.
You will be able to purchase unlisted driver protection if you want to lend your vehicle occasionally to someone who is not listed on your policy. Find out more about the unlisted driver protection.
https://www.icbc.com/about-icbc/changin ... story.aspx

From the link "Find out more"

Add-ons
Unlisted drivers

If you think you may need to lend your vehicle occasionally to a driver not listed on your policy, a new "unlisted driver protection" will be available should they cause a crash. This protection is entirely optional and would be available starting at $50 per year.

If your vehicle is involved in a crash caused by an unlisted driver and you didn’t have the unlisted driver protection, you will face a financial consequence for that. The idea is to ensure that the right incentives exist.

We know that extraordinary events occur - such as an unlisted driver using the vehicle for a medical emergency - and there will be exemptions to recognize these situations. https://www.icbc.com/about-icbc/changin ... d-ons.aspx

Boils down to: list others you expect to drive your vehicle (a spouse, sibling, offspring, parent, etc.) so their use of your vehicle is reflected in your insurance cost. And, if you're someone who uses an occasional DD service, purchase the add-on.

Seems reasonable. Although until we see how the "exemptions" work out it may be sensible NOT to take it on faith that ICBC will act in our best interest, and shell out the extra $50.

If there's no penalty, people won't bother to list the other drivers (particularly anyone in their family with a poor driving record) and insurance cost won't reflect the actual risk level.

[LTD]

well that's all fine and dandy except that im getting sick and tired of just "shelling" out the extra 50 bones every time some *bleep* feels there should be a fee for this and a cost for that, every time I turn around some one has their hand out wanting more maybe icbc should start looking internally to cut some costs as well.

[Vacancyrate]

This is how most insurance works cross Canada and I'm surprised that people are surprised that you can no longer lend your car out to random people who have no coverage without paying higher premiums.

When I visited my parents this summer in Ontario (I flew) I couldnt drive their cars because I wasn't on their policy. This is despite the fact I have 20+ years diving experience with a perfect record.

[Smurf]

I hate to be a negative person but there is another side to this story. In our case my wife and I have never had an accident or a bad driving record in over 50 years. All our vehicles are driven reasonably low miles because driving is split between them throughout the year. We have the cheapest rates possible. However we could lend or allow someone else to drive our vehicle for whatever reason. That driver might be a higher risk driver and they might get in an accident. Why should ICBC be responsible because suddenly someone else is driving? Why should we the customers be responsible and have our rates go up because of this? We already pay enough to cover other peoples bad habits or deliberate actions.

Apparently records show that 20% of accidents are caused by drivers not insured for the vehicle they are driving. That seems high to me but I can understand why ICBC might like to do something about it. It is also apparently apparent that people with good rates are licencing a vehicle and then letting someone else, a bad driver, like a spouse, drive it regularly. That is cheating the system and the rest of us who are paying for it in the long run.

I think it stinks like everyone else but there is actually reason for it. The money has to come from somewhere and our rates are their only income. Just maybe p[people who allow others to drive their vehicle should put up a bit extra. I just can't figure out a better way to do it.

[Vacancyrate]

It is also apparently apparent that people with good rates are licencing a vehicle and then letting someone else, a bad driver, like a spouse, drive it regularly. That is cheating the system and the rest of us who are paying for it in the long run.

I know of many people who drive their partner/parents car (on paper) because they have terrible driving records and would pay extremely high premiums otherwise. Same goes with people who owe huge fines. As long as you don't insure or renew you can go years without paying by driving someone else's vehicle.