Are drivers getting worse? Maybe

[neilsimon]

Read the article and boy is it misleading and since the info comes from ICBC, I say, ICBC, you are a lying piece of ....

Firstly, ICBC is saying that the number of crashes went from roughly 260,000 in 2013 to roughly 320,000 in 2016 (the fact they don't give exact numbers is not a good sign). That's a significant increase, 19-27% depending on their round-off induced error. It's the kind of increase you would use to justify increasing premiums, but it's also very misleading. What it leaves out is that the number of policies being held by ICBC has also increased (roughly 10% between 2011 and 2015). Admittedly, not quite as fast as the increase in crashes, but it is of a similar magnitude. ICBC doesn't really care so much about the total number of crashes, it cares much more about the number of crashes per premium and the average cost of one of those crashes. The crash rate has basically gone up 11%, which is probably more an indication that people are making more claims, rather than an actual increase in actual crashes. This would also fit with the increasing cost to repair vehicles, since fewer people would want to foot the bill themselves and would rather make a claim.

Additionally, the number of fatalities has essentially remained static from 2011 to 2015, despite the 10% increase in number of cars on the road. These and those with massive injury are the most expensive claims to deal with. Either we have gotten better at saving lives (possible) or these crashes are less common per policy (probable).

Maybe drivers aren't as good as they used to be, maybe crashes have increased in frequency, but equally, maybe more people are claiming crashes and drivers are actually having fewer fatal accidents. Maybe it's other factors which are driving up ICBC costs, and they don't want to be open about them.

The fact is that ICBC should be releasing complete numbers which give an accurate picture and not just one which justifies them increasing their premiums, but ICBC knows this and also knows that most people will blindly accept the message being pushed with little regard for the value of the provided numbers.

[Fancy]

The article:

A new poll finds most B.C. drivers think it's getting more dangerous on our roads – but that it's not their fault, it's everyone else's.

The Insights West poll, commissioned by ICBC, found 99 per cent believe they are good or excellent drivers.

However, 58 per cent said drivers are less skilled than five years ago, and fewer than half said driving is generally safe.

Nearly eight out of 10 got at least one answer wrong when asked road test questions, and one-fifth admit to being aggressive drivers. One-third feel it's OK to "bend the rules" of the road if they're in a hurry.

About half of those polled believe driving is harder than it was five years ago.

​ICBC says it has seen a marked increase in crashes during the last three years. There were roughly 260,000 crashes in 2013. Last year, that number jumped to 320,000 – about 875 per day.

The insurer has just launched a safety campaign including an online Drive Smart Quiz.

The 12 questions might give an indication if you need to brush up on your skills.

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#203469

[jimmy4321]

They don't want you to know for obvious reasons and with so many businesses milking it off ICBC, fear of the alternative is the go to.

[GordonH]

I've been accident free for decades, its been rough my head is on a swivel. Between the very aggressive drivers & clueless cellphone/texters drivers, it can be on days a maze to get from A to B without being hit.
In last few years I've had more close calls then in proceeding number of decades combined.

[lesliepaul]

Read the article and boy is it misleading and since the info comes from ICBC, I say, ICBC, you are a lying piece of ....

Firstly, ICBC is saying that the number of crashes went from roughly 260,000 in 2013 to roughly 320,000 in 2016 (the fact they don't give exact numbers is not a good sign). That's a significant increase, 19-27% depending on their round-off induced error. It's the kind of increase you would use to justify increasing premiums, but it's also very misleading. What it leaves out is that the number of policies being held by ICBC has also increased (roughly 10% between 2011 and 2015). Admittedly, not quite as fast as the increase in crashes, but it is of a similar magnitude. ICBC doesn't really care so much about the total number of crashes, it cares much more about the number of crashes per premium and the average cost of one of those crashes. The crash rate has basically gone up 11%, which is probably more an indication that people are making more claims, rather than an actual increase in actual crashes. This would also fit with the increasing cost to repair vehicles, since fewer people would want to foot the bill themselves and would rather make a claim.

Additionally, the number of fatalities has essentially remained static from 2011 to 2015, despite the 10% increase in number of cars on the road. These and those with massive injury are the most expensive claims to deal with. Either we have gotten better at saving lives (possible) or these crashes are less common per policy (probable).

Maybe drivers aren't as good as they used to be, maybe crashes have increased in frequency, but equally, maybe more people are claiming crashes and drivers are actually having fewer fatal accidents. Maybe it's other factors which are driving up ICBC costs, and they don't want to be open about them.

The fact is that ICBC should be releasing complete numbers which give an accurate picture and not just one which justifies them increasing their premiums, but ICBC knows this and also knows that most people will blindly accept the message being pushed with little regard for the value of the provided numbers.

You have hit it on the head..............ICBC or any insurance company will only point out numbers that reinforce what they feel is a justified rate increase. Ask ICBC (or any of them) to explain with more detail and you will more likely be ignored or given the run-a-round until you get tired of asking. Management in almost any business is taught........."if you are questioned about something you do not feel comfortable with answering............ignore the person asking". Human nature tells them that if you ignore someone long enough, they will give up.

[lightspeed]

Worse? Yes, absolutely.

There's awful driving every day. I see things that tell me we have a substantial minority of bad drivers, ignorant drivers, medicated drivers, oblivious drivers, uncertain drivers, lazy drivers, dumb drivers, dangerous drivers, incompetent drivers, and reckless drivers....

I see them every day and I know it's only a matter of time before they cause an accident.

Fix it:

Higher premiums for higher risk drivers
Higher premiums for new drivers.
Double every fine. In fact, triple it.
Double the risk premiums. Tomorrow.
30 day impound for distracted/texting/phoning while driving.
$1,000 fine for ANY distracted driving.
Visible, active enforcement.
Rack up the points and get the perils off the road.
Mandatory every-ten-year road testing.
Tougher driver testing for all classes.

If you object to ANY of the above, you're probably part of the problem.

Cheap insurance is not a right. Insurance itself is not a right.

[neilsimon]

Worse? Yes, absolutely.

I hate relying on my own experience as it's just one person's experience and hardly a good measure, so do you have numbers to back this up? Like, can you show that accidents per mile travelled have significantly increased, or similar?

There's awful driving every day. I see things that tell me we have a substantial minority of bad drivers, ignorant drivers, medicated drivers, oblivious drivers, uncertain drivers, lazy drivers, dumb drivers, dangerous drivers, incompetent drivers, and reckless drivers....

Yes, we do, and as far as I can remember, we've always had all of these drivers.

I see them every day and I know it's only a matter of time before they cause an accident.

Technically, that's true for all of us, it's only a matter of time before any one of us causes an accident.

Fix it:

Higher premiums for higher risk drivers What if they are already bearing their share of the burden?
Higher premiums for new drivers. Again, what if they are already bearing their share of the burden?
Double every fine. In fact, triple it. What if the safest drivers are those who have received a fine? In the UK, the safest drivers per mile tend to have points.
Double the risk premiums. Tomorrow. That means doubling yours too
30 day impound for distracted/texting/phoning while driving. I trust that you would apply the same to other similarly risky behaviours, such as talking on a hands-free system
$1,000 fine for ANY distracted driving. I trust you include listening to music, talking, drinking a coffee, etc. They are all distracting
Visible, active enforcement. I agree with this, but I'm not sure I want to pay the increased taxes
Rack up the points and get the perils off the road.
Mandatory every-ten-year road testing. I completely agree with this, though some might complain of the increased taxes/costs
Tougher driver testing for all classes. I completely agree with this and it will take many drivers off the road reducing traffic, etc.

If you object to ANY of the above, you're probably part of the problem. If you drive, you are part of the problem already

Cheap insurance is not a right. Insurance itself is not a right.

Driving is not a right and we are all a risk when we get behind the wheel. Often the worst offenders are those who insist that they never or rarely make a mistake. We all make mistakes, every time we get behind the wheel, thankfully most mistakes have no consequences. We all present some risk to the insurance company, and ICBC is supposed to use numbers to spread that risk in proportion to the risk presented. If you have numbers to suggest that new drivers (ignoring age, since we can't discriminate based on age) aren't paying their share, then maybe ICBC need to get on fixing that. What surprises me is that ICBC do not take many factors into account when determining the risk one presents. Some vehicles present a greater danger to others, some vehicles attract more dangerous drivers, etc. For instance, a truck is almost certainly more dangerous to others than a Nissan Micra and insurance premiums should reflect that.

[lightspeed]

as far as I can remember, we've always had all of these drivers.

So let's deal with it. All talk, now it needs action.

Higher premiums for higher risk drivers What if they are already bearing their share of the burden?

Then charge them more. They're the risk. Or they can use transit.

Higher premiums for new drivers. Again, what if they are already bearing their share of the burden?

Then charge them more. Clearly based on data, they're more of a risk. Or they can use transit.

Double every fine. In fact, triple it. What if the safest drivers are those who have received a fine? In the UK, the safest drivers per mile tend to have points.

Research. Here's an example.

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/44 ... ad-traffic

Double the risk premiums. Tomorrow. That means doubling yours too

Nope. I pay peanuts because I'm a safe driver with maximum bonus. No high risk premium for this cat. I'd pay less because the asshats would contribute more. Win for the safe drivers out there.


30 day impound for distracted/texting/phoning while driving. I trust that you would apply the same to other similarly risky behaviours, such as talking on a hands-free system

Yes. If it causes poor driving, ticket it.

$1,000 fine for ANY distracted driving. I trust you include listening to music, talking, drinking a coffee, etc. They are all distracting

Yes. If they result in loss of control they're DD so ticket anyone who can't control their vehicle. Putting on makeup, eating cereal, changing their iPod tunes.

Visible, active enforcement. I agree with this, but I'm not sure I want to pay the increased taxes

I would. In five or ten years most the asshats would be off the road. Impact would be made on driving behaviour. People are crappy drivers because 99% of the time they can and will get away with it.

Rack up the points and get the perils off the road.
Mandatory every-ten-year road testing. I completely agree with this, though some might complain of the increased taxes/costs

Tougher driver testing for all classes. I completely agree with this and it will take many drivers off the road reducing traffic, etc.

Not my problem. Crappy drivers would raise revenue because they'll take 5 attempts to pass a road test. More whiners, more victims. Tax the stupid.

If you object to ANY of the above, you're probably part of the problem. If you drive, you are part of the problem already

Nope. Plenty of great drivers out there who pay peanuts for their insurance like myself. Reward them by getting the idiots off the road. Free up the highways for the good safe drivers.

[neilsimon]

...
Nope. Plenty of great drivers out there who pay peanuts for their insurance like myself. Reward them by getting the idiots off the road. Free up the highways for the good safe drivers.

There are also plenty of not so great drivers out there who pay peanuts for their insurance. My grandfather had many years of claims free driving but was also seriously dangerous and almost killed a motorcyclist as a result. Thankfully he was taken off the road before he could actually hurt anyone. It's a miracle that nobody was hurt in the last 5 years while he was driving, but we got lucky (and yes, people tried to take away his freedom to drive, but that's not easy to do).

I too have quite a few years of claims free driving (even for my age), but I'm well aware that one of the many mistakes I make could result in an accident, despite my best effort. I try to better my driving, but I'm well aware that like every driver out there, I make mistakes. Therefore, like you and every driver out there, I present some form of risk. Since there is little evidence that drivers are actually having far more accidents (despite what ICBC would have you believe), the chances are that the financial risk has increased for everyone across the board. The driver who has gone 10+ years without an accident, might have a 5% chance of having one (I actually don't have the stats, but I know that beyond about 10 years there is little reduction in actual risk based on claims free driving), where the new driver might have a 30% chance, but that just means that a driver with lots of claims free driving has 1/6 the risk associated with them. When claims costs go up (rather than claims frequency), then the costs associated with each and every driver goes up proportionately to the risk. If the frequency change, then we get a different profile and a different result altogether. The problem is that ICBC is fairly opaque about numbers, so we have no real way of working out the actual risk profile and so no way of working out if your premium should be going up or if it is others' premiums which should.

[my5cents]

The problem has to be approached on all fronts. Reduce claims, reduce claim costs keep our premium dollars away from the government and a problem ICBC can't fix,,, earn more money on investments.

In the real boom times ICBC made a fair amount investing our premiums, which reduced yearly increases.

A biggie is the claim awards. Some form of no fault would fix that.

[lesliepaul]

The problem has to be approached on all fronts. Reduce claims, reduce claim costs keep our premium dollars away from the government and a problem ICBC can't fix,,, earn more money on investments.

In the real boom times ICBC made a fair amount investing our premiums, which reduced yearly increases.

A biggie is the claim awards. Some form of no fault would fix that.

Before we go overboard...........

1) How about trying to LEAVE THE MONEY ALONE THAT WAS RAISED THROUGH ICBC........................that means the provincial government does not rape it into general revenues whenever they feel like it.

2) Go after that LARGE group of people who are KNOWN by the government to be committing countless fraudulent injury claims........many of which occur in multiples under ONE roof. You know who they are Todd Stone. Lets not worry about political correctness on this one........a thief is a thief!

3) CUT DOWN on the ENDLESS bureaucracy that has no limits within ICBC. JUST ONCE have the balls to streamline this mess and stop ignoring it when the idea is posed to you.

These 3 points can make a difference without hiring an outside source paid by taxpayers to continually tells us "the only way out is to raise rates". Public insurance CAN WORK but our governments only see one thing, a cash cow. Try hiring a completely impartial person or group that will look at and see the waste. One name comes to mind and he was ruthless with CN and CP........Hunter Harrison. Was hated by employees, but shareholders loved him.

[my5cents]

Before we go overboard...........

1) How about trying to LEAVE THE MONEY ALONE THAT WAS RAISED THROUGH ICBC........................that means the provincial government does not rape it into general revenues whenever they feel like it.

2) Go after that LARGE group of people who are KNOWN by the government to be committing countless fraudulent injury claims........many of which occur in multiples under ONE roof. You know who they are Todd Stone. Lets not worry about political correctness on this one........a thief is a thief!

3) CUT DOWN on the ENDLESS bureaucracy that has no limits within ICBC. JUST ONCE have the balls to streamline this mess and stop ignoring it when the idea is posed to you.

These 3 points can make a difference without hiring an outside source paid by taxpayers to continually tells us "the only way out is to raise rates". Public insurance CAN WORK but our governments only see one thing, a cash cow. Try hiring a completely impartial person or group that will look at and see the waste. One name comes to mind and he was ruthless with CN and CP........Hunter Harrison. Was hated by employees, but shareholders loved him.

#1 - Yes, money is money, but that would save only 5% of the cost of claims. Be aware ICBC is split into mandatory and optional. The money the government takes comes from optional, which even with the money being taken, still competes with private insurance pretty well. The area of loss is the mandatory coverage (tort claims), that isn't touched by the government. Also there is legislation that ICBC can't supplement the losses in mandatory by taking from the optional.

#2 - Yes, we'll have the BC Government, backed by ICBC, approach the Federal Government to change discrimination legislation, and the Charter of Rights and change the rules of evidence.

Until then ICBC's SIU (Special Investigation Unit) will have to govern their investigation with consideration for the rules of evidence and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Lots of arm chair quarterbacks out there saying "all they got to do is....." If only it was that easy, if only.

#3 - ICBC has had lots of CEO's under two different governments. Hard to run a multi billion dollar insurance company with thousands of employees without some bureaucracy.

The bulk of the bleeding is dictated by non-employees of ICBC, that can't be controlled or told what to do... Supreme Court Judges.

If only ICBC was building wigits and selling them retail, things would be so simple.