ICBC - massive losses - report coming Monday Jan 29

[MarkyMark]

I like the direction they are going in but I hope they go after people who cause accidents more than people who just get tickets. Getting a couple tickets in a 3 year span shouldn't necessarily fuck you up the ass in rate hikes compared to someone who had a couple at fault accidents in the same time frame. I've only had one ticket in my 16 years on the road so I'm not trying to save myself from anything, just my thoughts on it.

[BIC_BAWS]

I like the idea of all drivers must be listed. Like others, I know friends who always use their parents' names as owner/primary operator. On the other hand, the survey talks about risk levels, but there can be drivers who have never been caught, but caused an accident. For example, if some idiot cuts you off, and you swerve and end up into a pole, that's your fault. Not the idiot's negligence.

[Badhobz]

I think this survey is some sort of faux gauge of the public's opinion. Im almost 99% sure ICBC will do the following

1) jack up the rates for everyone
2) try and recover revenues by any means necessary (whether thats dinging drivers with tickets/at fault accidents/whatever)

So either way we are getting fucked, but exactly how much and when will be the deciding factor. I SINCERELY doubt that some of us will see a premium decrease... no fucking chance.

[DragonChi]

LOL, in the survey, raising speeding ticket fines from 175 to 210.

I think they're testing the waters to see how much push back they're going to get for doing the proposed items.

[320icar]

In the final page where you can leave comments, what suggestions did you leave?

- offer larger discounts for single drivers with multiple vehicles; I can’t drive more than one at a time, so why pay full all the time on 3/4/5 vehicles.
- offer discounts for advanced driver/rider training such as track day lessons etc
- get rid of international licenses
- mandatory seniors retesting

Can’t remember what else I put on

[The Producer]

Originally Posted by 320icar

In the final page where you can leave comments, what suggestions did you leave?

- offer larger discounts for single drivers with multiple vehicles; I can’t drive more than one at a time, so why pay full all the time on 3/4/5 vehicles.
- offer discounts for advanced driver/rider training such as track day lessons etc
- get rid of international licenses
- mandatory seniors retesting

Can’t remember what else I put on

Just this one - but I like what else you've got here.
There are some discounts to be had on your optional insurance with additional driver training. BMWCCBC is hooked up with Canadian Direct (at least they used to be)

[DragonChi]

I did not leave any comments. I couldn't think of any other than what the survey was implying. I like the comments you put down though.

I also like how they're moving towards the focus of driver based insurance pricing and for profit alignment policies.

I'm surprised that they did not cap injury claims. Reading their annual report they will not be transferring funds to the BC government from 2016 to 2020 due their financial situation. They seem to be moving in the right direction to get out of this hole.

[jasonturbo]

http://www.icbc.com/about-icbc/newsr...statistics.pdf

According to ICBC, 300,000 collisions in 2015, 58,000 of which resulted in a injury or fatality.

https://www.transportation.alberta.c...ion/AR2015.pdf

According to the Gov. of Alberta, 140,705 collisions in 2015, 18,237 of which resulted in a injury or fatality.

What does that data tell us?

The population of BC in 2015 was 4,694,000

4,694,000 / 300,000 = 1 in 15 people were involved in a collision in 2015

58,000 / 300,000 injury or fatality claims = 1 in 5 people involved in a collision in 2015 were injured or killed

The population of Alberta in 2015 was 4,177,000

4,177,000 / 140,705 = 1 in 30 people were involved in a collision in 2015

140,705 collisions / 18,237 = 1 in 8 people involved in a collision in 2015 were injured or killed

Conclusion:

BC residents are 200% more likely to be involved in collision than residents of Alberta

BC residents are 60% more likely to be injured or killed in a collision than residents of Alberta

Opinion:

Consider that my insurance premiums are virtually identical in BC and Alberta, the delta between premiums is +/-10%.

So why is it that ICBC is in the RED? Because ICBC is systematically abused by residents putting in injury claims, and the local legal community know exactly how to play the game, it's well established.

In Alberta it's a fucking nightmare trying to get paid out for any pain or suffering, the soft tissue injury cap was introduced many years ago to systematically grind out claims that were less than authentic.

There is a strong cultural phenomenon in BC in which people are encouraged to submit injury claims knowing there is an easy 25-50k payout. It's sickening how many people I know that have personally submitted bogus injury claims, and what's worse is the "friends and family abuse ICBC support group" mentality where everyone convinces you that it's a good idea to put in a claim.

The end result - ICBC in the RED. Thank your friends and neighbours for their bogus injury claims, the only possible path forward is a major premium hike.

[Traum]

Jason,

While I thoroughly appreciate the numbers and stats you dug up, I have come up with quite a different conclusion than you do. Looking at your conclusion #1 alone:

Originally Posted by jasonturbo

Conclusion:

BC residents are 200% more likely to be involved in collision than residents of Alberta

BC residents are 60% more likely to be injured or killed in a collision than residents of Alberta

Here in BC, we have some pretty fxxking horrible shxt drivers who gets into 2x more accidents per capita than Alberta. It is already a fxxking miracle that our insurance rates aren't more than 2x as much as what Alberta pays.

And people still complain that ICBC and the public system sucks? Gimme a break!

[DragonChi]

LOL, wait a couple more years, if the 1 billion deficit continues, we'll get to twice the rate. ::

[jasonturbo]

I can appreciate that the increase in the number of collisions per resident can be attributed to certain demographics etc. (IE: Mainlanders with phoney licenses).

However, I cannot rationalize that by crossing an imaginary line in the rockies you are somehow 60% more likely to be injured or killed in a car accident.

Both factors would obviously impact the total value of claims paid out, though there are mitigating measures that address the cost impact associated with the number of collisions per resident. These measures are the discounts and surcharges ICBC places on drivers. For every collision that occurs someone is found at fault and their premiums are adjusted accordingly due to their perceived risk as a driver.

There are no mitigating measure to address "victims" that have had multiple expensive soft tissue injury claims. This is cost that cannot be controlled by ICBC, it needs to be addressed by legislation.

[ScizzMoney]

BC has twice as many visible minorities than Alberta

Spoiler!

I kid, I kid. Just trying to trigger some of y'all

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by ScizzMoney

BC has twice as many visible minorities than Alberta

Spoiler!

I kid, I kid. Just trying to trigger some of y'all

Well, even if you are trying to say that VM is a factor(which, sadly, it kind of is), I think you should look at the last numbers. Absolute numbers mean little, while relative numbers matter. In that case, the ratio of VM vs. the total population of BC is 1.5x of that of Alberta.

I do still think it's BS that ICBC admits Chinese(or Korean and any other countries with a not-so-strict licensing system) driving license. Aside from the fake licenses, bribery is still a problem in some cities in China, which means even if the license is legit, it can be tricky to tell how good they are at driving. I and my Chinese buddies will even make jokes about how a bad driver "bought" their license if we see one on the road, LOL.

[snowball]

Originally Posted by jasonturbo

[url]

4,694,000 / 300,000 = 1 in 15 people were involved in a collision in 2015

Technically it's double because 300,000 collisions means 600,000 drivers! I don't know the number of accidents per driver but I've been driving for almost 20 years and I've been at fault for no accidents, but been hit 3 times. I imagine there are many drivers at fault for multiple accidents causing multiple injury claims.

[Qmx323]

Originally Posted by snowball

Technically it's double because 300,000 collisions means 600,000 drivers! I don't know the number of accidents per driver but I've been driving for almost 20 years and I've been at fault for no accidents, but been hit 3 times. I imagine there are many drivers at fault for multiple accidents causing multiple injury claims.

Does that stat not include single vehicle accidents?

[snowball]

Originally Posted by Qmx323

Does that stat not include single vehicle accidents?

It might but they are not as frequent but it all balances out as some accidents have multiple injuries per vehicle too, but I get his point.

[Acura604]

ICBC spends $800,000 in damage claims for Ferrari that crashed into pole | The Province

VANCOUVER — British Columbia’s public insurer says it has spent $789,375 in damage claims for a Ferrari that crashed into a pole.

The Insurance Corp. of B.C. is embroiled in a court battle over the claims and repairs, which it says could cost more than $982,000 in total.

According to documents filed in B.C. Supreme Court, the plaintiff accidentally drove the 1990 Ferrari F40 into a utility pole on Sept. 9, 2012, leaving it badly damaged. The repairs have not yet been completed.

The driver is arguing that ICBC has breached an implied duty to process his claim and carry out the repairs in good faith and a timely manner.

“He alleges further that ICBC acted in bad faith in refusing, at least for a time, to approve and arrange the needed repair work and that delay has caused him various kinds of harm,” a judgment in the case reads.


Following an investigation, ICBC eventually admitted coverage and has agreed to cover most of the cost of repairs. But it says it has already paid enough toward the claim, since its payments exceed the cash value of the car — which an arbitrator pinned at $696,061 in 2014.

The case is ongoing.

Last week, the province introduced an online survey on major shifts being considered to modernize ICBC.

The provincial budget forecast a $1.3-billion deficit at the Crown corporation this year and Attorney General David Eby has described the situation as a “dumpster fire” he says he inherited by the former Liberal government.

An Ernst and Young report commissioned by the Liberals last year suggested charging higher rates for luxury vehicles, among a suite of options for reducing losses at ICBC.

[dapperfied]

BC government looks to raise insurance rates for bad drivers

BC government looks to raise insurance rates for bad drivers - NEWS 1130

[invader]

I just renewed my car insurance today

[Jmac]

Originally Posted by dapperfied

BC government looks to raise insurance rates for bad drivers

BC government looks to raise insurance rates for bad drivers - NEWS 1130

The government admits feedback was mixed when it came to the exact penalty amount drivers should pay if a crash is caused by an unlisted driver, as well as whether “distance driven should play a greater role in determining insurance rates.”

Why are they even asking the public this? Shouldn't they have decades worth of data to show how much more likely you are to be in an accident based on driving distance?

[Traum]

Whatever happened to the part where good drivers pay less? Making bad drivers pay more isn't the same as making good drivers pay less.

[twitchyzero]

they're bleeding a billion
you really believe a crown corp will cut existing revenue?

[VR6GTI]

The crown corp needs to get rid of the useless staff members they have.

[VR6GTI]

Looks like they one up’d me by hiring 40 new estimators. Costing the tax payers over 3 million dollars a year. What a waste of money.