New ICBC Rates: Who Will Pay More?

[Energy]

Wow, ICBC considers less than 15 years of driving experience as "inexperienced".

[meme405]

Originally Posted by fliptuner

First off, it shouldn't be so easy to transfer an out of country license. They should at least have to take a road test. Even with the same rules, every country has a different driving culture.

This.

And seniors need to be tested further on their ability to drive. I see just as many decrepit old people doing stupid shit on the road as I do N drivers.

If a pilot has to retire at 65 to keep flyers safe, i think it's totally reasonable to expect someone who wants to pilot 4000lbs of metal around pedestrians to be able to pass a second road test.

Also they really need to look at some sort of solution for people who insure two vehicles who are the primary (and only) operator of both vehicles. To me the discount on a second insured vehicle should be enormous.

Right now I am insuring two cars for 6 months of the year, only to drive my FX like 5 times a month, and yet I pay full insurance on it. Thats retarded, I should get a discount based on the fact that I clearly cannot drive both my insured cars at the same time.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by Jmac

The proposed CRS changes never actually took effect.

So this isn't actually what they're using? It's what I was shown a little while back.

https://www.icbc.com/autoplan/costs/Documents/crs.pdf

[Jmac]

Originally Posted by tiger_handheld

said it before, will say again, if we want fair rates, only way is to plug in a monitoring device into obdII. may feel like big brother but if you got nothing to hide and can save significantly, why bother?

Those devices log:
- Acceleration/deceleration/speed
- km driven
- Time of day driving takes place

It doesn't quantify:
- Whether or not the driver is distracted
- Whether or not the driver is impaired
- Whether or not the driver is driving too fast for conditions
- Whether or not the driver is following too close
- Whether or not the driver is obeying traffic signals/signs
- Whether or not the driver is obeying traffic laws

So if it doesn't actually quantify useful data that accounts for the majority of crashes, how does it make things any better?

[Jmac]

Originally Posted by underscore

So this isn't actually what they're using? It's what I was shown a little while back.

https://www.icbc.com/autoplan/costs/Documents/crs.pdf

That IS what we're using (aka the old system)

The proposed system would've had anyone at -15 or lower increase to -9 with a single at-fault claim. It punished drivers with good records far more than drivers with poor records.

https://www.icbc.com/about-icbc/news...t-premiums.pdf

It was due to take effect May 6, 2018, but the NDP scrapped it.

[Jmac]

Originally Posted by meme405

This.

And seniors need to be tested further on their ability to drive. I see just as many decrepit old people doing stupid shit on the road as I do N drivers.

If a pilot has to retire at 65 to keep flyers safe, i think it's totally reasonable to expect someone who wants to pilot 4000lbs of metal around pedestrians to be able to pass a second road test.

Also they really need to look at some sort of solution for people who insure two vehicles who are the primary (and only) operator of both vehicles. To me the discount on a second insured vehicle should be enormous.

Right now I am insuring two cars for 6 months of the year, only to drive my FX like 5 times a month, and yet I pay full insurance on it. Thats retarded, I should get a discount based on the fact that I clearly cannot drive both my insured cars at the same time.

There's a new low-mileage discount (<5000 km/year), which will hopefully make it worthwhile for a weekend car.

[bomberR17]

Originally Posted by underscore

So this isn't actually what they're using? It's what I was shown a little while back.

https://www.icbc.com/autoplan/costs/Documents/crs.pdf

That was the old system and hasn't been changed. Shows that you can have 3 at fault accidents before your discount drops from 43%.

This is what it was suppose to be until they scrapped it for this new program.
https://www.icbc.com/about-icbc/news...pdf#search=crs

EDIT: oops, left the screen on too long and someone already posted. haha

[J-Chow]

I've said it before, but if they want to have competent skilled drivers, you need to impose

mandatory re-certification / driving exams every 2 years or so, regardless of age.

It'll help generate revenue but also keep the shitty drivers off the street.

[Yodamaster]

IMO wage, distance to commute, and record should play a part.

A person who makes $12 an hour and has to drive 60km to get to that job shouldn't be paying a ridiculous amount of money because of what opportunities were (or in this case weren't) afforded to them, given that they have a good record.

A person who drives less than 15km to work with a so-so record should be paying substantially more, more accidents per kilometer driven.

[unit]

i have 20 years of driving experience, nothing at fault, i still pay about $1900/yr..
insurance rates have a lot to do with where you live. you can't get a $900 insurance rate like that guy in whistler living here in vancouver, unless you have just basic insurance with no collision/comprehensive.

[fliptuner]

Originally Posted by Yodamaster

IMO wage, distance to commute, and record should play a part.

A person who makes $12 an hour and has to drive 60km to get to that job shouldn't be paying a ridiculous amount of money because of what opportunities were (or in this case weren't) afforded to them, given that they have a good record.

A person who drives less than 15km to work with a so-so record should be paying substantially more, more accidents per kilometer driven.

A person with a $12/hour job should be taking the bus.

[unit]

not only that but it's not hard to get a min wage job, there's absolutely no reason to drive more than a few km to find one.

[Derpdidoo]

Originally Posted by Energy

Wow, ICBC considers less than 15 years of driving experience as "inexperienced".

exactly! 10 years resulted in a discount prior, now anything less than 15 years relates to inexperience?

they're also still planning the general rate hike next budget as well, damn commy insurance

[yray]

Originally Posted by unit

not only that but it's not hard to get a min wage job, there's absolutely no reason to drive more than a few km to find one.

you be surprised at the expectations of employers for $12.65 of pay

[Jmac]

Originally Posted by Yodamaster

IMO wage, distance to commute, and record should play a part.

A person who makes $12 an hour and has to drive 60km to get to that job shouldn't be paying a ridiculous amount of money because of what opportunities were (or in this case weren't) afforded to them, given that they have a good record.

A person who drives less than 15km to work with a so-so record should be paying substantially more, more accidents per kilometer driven.

It’s an insurance company. Insurance companies shouldn’t be playing social politics; they should assess financial risk (to them) and charge based on that risk.

[CCA-Dave]

Originally Posted by meme405

Also they really need to look at some sort of solution for people who insure two vehicles who are the primary (and only) operator of both vehicles. To me the discount on a second insured vehicle should be enormous.

Right now I am insuring two cars for 6 months of the year, only to drive my FX like 5 times a month, and yet I pay full insurance on it. Thats retarded, I should get a discount based on the fact that I clearly cannot drive both my insured cars at the same time.

Try my driveway with, currently, five cars insured. Because I use each of my classics on an event, I can't put collector plates on any of them because for those three days I'm using them for 'work'. The fact that I pay full pop on each of the five vehicles, and I'm the ONLY person living in my house, is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Jmac

There's a new low-mileage discount (<5000 km/year), which will hopefully make it worthwhile for a weekend car.

Well, that will help. Especially since I have so many cars with non-op odometers. :P

-Dave

[quasi]

Originally Posted by Yodamaster

IMO wage, distance to commute, and record should play a part.

A person who makes $12 an hour and has to drive 60km to get to that job shouldn't be paying a ridiculous amount of money because of what opportunities were (or in this case weren't) afforded to them, given that they have a good record.

A person who drives less than 15km to work with a so-so record should be paying substantially more, more accidents per kilometer driven.

That makes zero sense to me, like none. If you drive less you're less likely to get in an accident which is why they offer the discount if you're close to work. The wage thing really makes no sense, who cares what someone gets paid as my dad would say what's that got to with the price of rice in China? That's like saying I should pay $2,000 for a TV and some kid who works at Walmart should pay $600 because he makes way less then me.

It's all about risk management, some people are more risky then others so how do you judge who's more of a risk? IMO the only thing that's relevant is how long have been driving, how many accidents, distance to work and tickets should be factored in there as well. Those are the only fair metrics you can use that fairly judges where someones insurance rate should be. It's not perfect, but I can't think of any other way that would be more efficient or fair.

[Nabatron]

so pretty much people who drive safe and don't live in lower mainland will pay less lol

[Nlkko]

What's "at fault"? Is 50/50 at fault? Is 1/99 at fault?

This indirectly discourages driving in the cities, as you automatically have way higher chance to get into an at-fault accident given the density compared to rural. Higher chance to be arbitrarily assigned partially at fault.

Just another tax on driving in Vancouver, albeit targeted.

[Jmac]

Originally Posted by Nlkko

What's "at fault"? Is 50/50 at fault? Is 1/99 at fault?

This indirectly discourages driving in the cities, as you automatically have way higher chance to get into an at-fault accident given the density compared to rural. Higher chance to be arbitrarily assigned partially at fault.

Just another tax on driving in Vancouver, albeit targeted.

Existing ICBC at-fault premium increases

When fault is split, you might share 25%, 50% or 75% of the fault with another driver.

Your insurance premium may increase if you are found to be more than 25 percent at fault for a crash unless you have been claim-free for a long time.

I'm guessing it'll stay the same. So 50% at fault = premium increase.

[Gerbs]

Anyone know how the reimbursement works if you insure a car for a year. Then un-insure it a few months later cause it's a summer car. Do you just get the prorated days back?

[TOPEC]

Originally Posted by Gerbs

Anyone know how the reimbursement works if you insure a car for a year. Then un-insure it a few months later cause it's a summer car. Do you just get the prorated days back?

yes, how ever long is left on the current policy will be refunded via credit card if paid via cc or cheque if paid via cash/debit. there is however, a non refundable surcharge for short term polices (re: 3 months or less if i remember right) of about $30.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by CCA-Dave

Try my driveway with, currently, five cars insured. Because I use each of my classics on an event, I can't put collector plates on any of them because for those three days I'm using them for 'work'. The fact that I pay full pop on each of the five vehicles, and I'm the ONLY person living in my house, is ridiculous.

Can't you get fleet insurance once you hit 5 vehicles?

Originally Posted by CCA-Dave

Well, that will help. Especially since I have so many cars with non-op odometers. :P

-Dave

I'm assuming a non-op odometer is technically illegal, like rolling back the odo? Although some cars can max out their odo and then you're stuck so idk.

[68style]

Odometers with too few digits just roll over again... like my Mustang is at 9,000 miles right now... but it's actually 109,000 because it got to 99,999 and it went back to 0 again hahaha... kind of amusing actually

[underscore]

I meant the digital ones, I think it's the Matrix and Corolla that can top out at 3xx km.