ICBC a mess....

[GordonH]

One of the biggest issues of No Fault insurance is having a spotless driving record means nothing. Since even if person has that very thing they still have to make a claim to have their vehicle fixed (premiums go up because of that claim), even though 100% reason for accident was the other driver. All it takes is 1 ever small claim, so there goes the spotless record.

Where are you getting your information ?

The term "No Fault" concerns minor Pain and Suffering claims.

The CRS system (Claim Rated Scale) will still be in effect, in fact the report recommends it be enhanced to hammer, repeat claimants even more.

Check out what is currently happening in Canada on the report (page 164 of the report or Page 170 in the pdf file)

The easiest was to explain it, is to compare No Fault to Worksafe BC. You get hurt on the job when another employee drops a brick on your head. Worksafe will pay for your medical, your wage loss and rehab, but you CAN'T sue the other employee.

If it's a serious injury Worksafe will even give you a pension.

In the auto insurance world, generally it is a Threshold No Fault. Meaning if its a huge claim with catastrophic injuries you can sue, the goal is to get rid of the "whiplash Willies".

If we went to private auto insurance like so many think is best, the private auto insurance companies, I'm sure would demand it.

Looked for pros & cons of no fault insurance found this:
http://www.nofaultinsurancequotes.org/pros-and-cons/

[my5cents]

Looked for pros & cons of no fault insurance found this:
http://www.nofaultinsurancequotes.org/pros-and-cons/

You do know you are looking at a US web site, talking about US No Fault, right ?

This is the same USA that is scrapping their "government" health care insurance, that it a nightmare, right ?

No Fault in Canada is directed at minor injuries, not material damage.

If you are not at fault in a car accident and there are no injuries your car is fixed and your rates remain the same, the other car's rates go up. Nothing is different.

If you are not at fault or at fault in a car accident and receive a minor injury, you get medical, wage loss, and rehab (if required), just like you do know.

If you are not a fault in a minor claim and you want to sue for pain and suffering for your minor injury, there is either a cap or nothing at all (depending on what they go for). You get your wages, your medical but no cheque to rub on your "stiff" neck, or you get a limited amount (I'm for no cheque).

The blame for the claim still goes against the liable driver/vehicle.

The only difference is the $5000 +/- -> ? "go away" money, the Wiplash Willies are getting now.

You actually have a form of it right this minute... You are driving your company truck and are rear ended by a service truck from another company. Both you and the other driver are workers and covered under Worksafe BC. ICBC settles the loss for the damage to your vehicle and assesses blame (and Claims Rated Scale increase) to the rear ending vehicle.

You CAN'T sue the other driver, it is "Worker vs Worker", you get any medical, wage loss etc from Worksafe BC, zip from ICBC.

[GordonH]

Looked for pros & cons of no fault insurance found this:
http://www.nofaultinsurancequotes.org/pros-and-cons/

You do know you are looking at a US web site, talking about US No Fault, right ?

This is the same USA that is scrapping their "government" health care insurance, that it a nightmare, right ?

No Fault in Canada is directed at minor injuries, not material damage.

If you are not at fault in a car accident and there are no injuries your car is fixed and your rates remain the same, the other car's rates go up. Nothing is different.

If you are not at fault or at fault in a car accident and receive a minor injury, you get medical, wage loss, and rehab (if required), just like you do know.

If you are not a fault in a minor claim and you want to sue for pain and suffering for your minor injury, there is either a cap or nothing at all (depending on what they go for). You get your wages, your medical but no cheque to rub on your "stiff" neck, or you get a limited amount (I'm for no cheque).

The blame for the claim still goes against the liable driver/vehicle.

The only difference is the $5000 +/- -> ? "go away" money, the Wiplash Willies are getting now.

You actually have a form of it right this minute... You are driving your company truck and are rear ended by a service truck from another company. Both you and the other driver are workers and covered under Worksafe BC. ICBC settles the loss for the damage to your vehicle and assesses blame (and Claims Rated Scale increase) to the rear ending vehicle.

You CAN'T sue the other driver, it is "Worker vs Worker", you get any medical, wage loss etc from Worksafe BC, zip from ICBC.

You are comparing Work BC with Auto insurance industry, sorry to totally different.

[my5cents]

You are comparing Work BC with Auto insurance industry, sorry to totally different.

I'm illustrating a motor vehicle collision in BC, covered by ICBC and by Worksafe BC.

Because of the law in this type of matter, it creates the exact same situation that No Fault would and points out to you, and others, reading this, that actually right here in BC there are situation where drivers or subject to a No Fault situation.

That example No Fault situation, contrary to the information contained in the US Wed site you linked to your post, shows that the innocent driver DOES NOT suffer an increase in insurance premiums and the liable driver DOES.

Using a link to a US Web site trying to prove what would happen in BC if no fault was enacted, is like Criticizing our Canadian health care system by sighting problems with Obama Care.

[GordonH]

^^^ well, if you can find a Canadian site talking about the pros & cons of no fault insurance..... please do so.

[GordonH]

well, if you can find a Canadian site talking about the pros & cons of no fault insurance..... please do so.

Here is a site comparing the differences & similarities between auto insurance in Canada vs US
https://www.carinsurancecomparison.com/ ... insurance/

[my5cents]

^^^ well, if you can find a Canadian site talking about the pros & cons of no fault insurance..... please do so.

Well for starters I linked to a 200 page consultant's report, they don't have a horse in the race.

You can check the SGI site, for how they do things in Saskatchewan or the MPIC in Manitoba, check out any site describing the auto insurance in Alberta, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, or Ontario. All have forms of no fault.

The pressure to keep Tort based auto insurance in BC is from the lawyers. They are making a killing.

Don't tell me you think the lawyers are in favor of keeping Tort because they care about you rights ?

[my5cents]

Here is a site comparing the differences & similarities between auto insurance in Canada vs US
https://www.carinsurancecomparison.com/ ... insurance/

The site, complete with several errors, compares US auto insurance to Canadian auto insurance, not the Pro and Cons of No Fault in Canada.

The glaring facts missing in the article was how it glossed over policy limits that are allowed in some areas in the US.

In BC the minimum liability coverage is $200,000. This amount covers each accident claim. On top of that $200,000 there is No Fault coverage of $150,000 each for medical, wage loss and rehabilitation.

There is no limits inside this $200,000. Also VERY FEW carry bare bones coverage.

In the USA someone could have a $200,000 policy that was limited to $20,000, per person per incident. So even though there is $200,000 coverage, any one person can only get that limit. They generally have limits per person for bodily injury, per accident, and property damage per accident. ie, $15/$30/$10, $15,000 per person, $30,000 per accident, $10,000 property damage per accident.

So if that's your coverage you better not own anything of value, because if you get in an accident, it will be G.O.N.E.

https://www.thebalance.com/understandin ... ts-2645473

So you're and insurance company and have a claim for a vehicle with $15/$30/$10 and it a huge claim, just get out the cheque book and write a check for $55,000 and you are done. No legal fees no, nothing.

[dontrump]

Looked for pros & cons of no fault insurance found this:
http://www.nofaultinsurancequotes.org/pros-and-cons/

You do know you are looking at a US web site, talking about US No Fault, right ?

This is the same USA that is scrapping their "government" health care insurance, that it a nightmare, right ?

No Fault in Canada is directed at minor injuries, not material damage.

If you are not at fault in a car accident and there are no injuries your car is fixed and your rates remain the same, the other car's rates go up. Nothing is different.

If you are not at fault or at fault in a car accident and receive a minor injury, you get medical, wage loss, and rehab (if required), just like you do know.

If you are not a fault in a minor claim and you want to sue for pain and suffering for your minor injury, there is either a cap or nothing at all (depending on what they go for). You get your wages, your medical but no cheque to rub on your "stiff" neck, or you get a limited amount (I'm for no cheque).

The blame for the claim still goes against the liable driver/vehicle.

The only difference is the $5000 +/- -> ? "go away" money, the Wiplash Willies are getting now.

You actually have a form of it right this minute... You are driving your company truck and are rear ended by a service truck from another company. Both you and the other driver are workers and covered under Worksafe BC. ICBC settles the loss for the damage to your vehicle and assesses blame (and Claims Rated Scale increase) to the rear ending vehicle.

You CAN'T sue the other driver, it is "Worker vs Worker", you get any medical, wage loss etc from Worksafe BC, zip from ICBC.

the usa does not have government health insurance per say if your a low life you get free health care and if low income a government subsidy
the actuall insurance are private companys

[Merry]

As someone who's driven for over 40 years without so much as a parking ticket, I'm fed up having to pay large premiums just so shysters and con artists can make frivolous claims for unproven minor injuries.

Insurance should only cover actual out of pocket costs when the injuries are minor.

[GordonH]

As someone who's driven for over 40 years without so much as a parking ticket, I'm fed up having to pay large premiums just so shysters and con artists can make frivolous claims for unproven minor injuries.

Insurance should only cover actual out of pocket costs when the injuries are minor.

Those out of pocket costs must come with a receipt, no receipt no payment.

[jimmy4321]

BC Liberals need to make ditching all of ICBC part of their next campaign, or NDP need to beat them to it.

[Merry]

BC Liberals need to make ditching all of ICBC part of their next campaign, or NDP need to beat them to it.

Ontario has private auto insurance, and they're the most expensive Province in the country. So I don't think merely privatizing it is the answer.

That said, BC is currently in second place when it comes to price, so obviously just being "publicly owned" isn't the answer either.

So the question becomes, what IS the answer?

First, I think we need to stop using ICBC as an "arm of government" when it comes to providing the public with information messages and the like, and start treating it like the insurance business it was originally created to be. Anything that would normally be paid for out of government coffers if auto insurance was private, should still be paid for out of government coffers even if the auto insurance provider is publicly owned.

Second, any profits should either be re-invested in the business or, if not needed, returned to customers in the form of lower premiums. The business should not be used as a means of 'back door" taxation by governments.

Third, we should follow the example of all the other Provinces and adopt "no fault" insurance when it comes to minor claims. Payouts for minor accidents should be for out of pocket costs only, and receipts should be required.

Fourth, the Government should enact a law that people caught using their cell phones while driving will be fined for a first offense, but will have their phone confiscated for any subsequent offenses (in addition to paying ever larger fines for each new offense). If they lose their phone and have to keep replacing it, that will be a bigger punishment for many than just fining them, because people are addicted to those darn phones.

And finally, after even one ticket for using their phone while driving, people should be required to have that app installed that prevents using the phone while the vehicle is in motion on any subsequent phone they buy (which should eliminate the need for the above clause, but that clause should remain just in case they get their hands on a phone that doesn't have the app). Naturally, any cost incurred will be at the offending drivers own expense.

[my5cents]

Ontario has private auto insurance, and they're the most expensive Province in the country. So I don't think merely privatizing it is the answer.

That said, BC is currently in second place when it comes to price, so obviously just being "publicly owned" isn't the answer either.

So the question becomes, what IS the answer?

First, I think we need to stop using ICBC as an "arm of government" when it comes to providing the public with information messages and the like, and start treating it like the insurance business it was originally created to be. Anything that would normally be paid for out of government coffers if auto insurance was private, should still be paid for out of government coffers even if the auto insurance provider is publicly owned.

Second, any profits should either be re-invested in the business or, if not needed, returned to customers in the form of lower premiums. The business should not be used as a means of 'back door" taxation by governments.

Third, we should follow the example of all the other Provinces and adopt "no fault" insurance when it comes to minor claims. Payouts for minor accidents should be for out of pocket costs only, and receipts should be required.

Fourth, the Government should enact a law that people caught using their cell phones while driving will be fined for a first offense, but will have their phone confiscated for any subsequent offenses (in addition to paying ever larger fines for each new offense). If they lose their phone and have to keep replacing it, that will be a bigger punishment for many than just fining them, because people are addicted to those darn phones.

And finally, after even one ticket for using their phone while driving, people should be required to have that app installed that prevents using the phone while the vehicle is in motion on any subsequent phone they buy (which should eliminate the need for the above clause, but that clause should remain just in case they get their hands on a phone that doesn't have the app). Naturally, any cost incurred will be at the offending drivers own expense.

I agree with you on most of your points.

You, like many take issue with ICBC not just opperating like an insurance company. Ironically that is one of ICBC's strengths, and a trait that helps make roads safer and saves money.

Yes, all revenue must be retained by ICBC and ICBC should be operated as intended "not for profit"

Yes, No Fault, is a must. Even if ICBC was disbanded, private insurance could only operate with any reasonable rate structure with No Fault. I'm sure government has been approached by the plaintiff bar urging them not to do so.

While distracted driving is a concern, the use of the term is not limited to electronic devices. The term has been recently overused to JUST mean that use. Long before the invention and use of handheld electronic devices "distracted driving" was a major cause of collisions.

Seizing devices would be unworkable. Escalating fines yes. When a person is caught drinking and driving, do we prohibit them from drinking and leave them to exercise the privilege to drive, no, we take the vehicle.

Requiring vehicles to be equipped with cell blocking technology creates a huge enforcement requirements. No vehicle, no problem.

[dontrump]

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-214168-3-.htm#214168

perfect examples of why ICBC rates are out to lunch nut case judges giving nutballs settlements like this