The ICBC thread...

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by skeptic

In my opinion ICBC behaves like a dinasaur left-wing government monopoly from the 1970's (which, of course, it is--it was created by the NDP in 1973).

And yet we still have average or below average insurance rates.

Competition in the insurance industry usually ends up with the insurers working as an oligopoly anyway with customers rarely saving much money compared to ICBC.

[sebberry]

What do you think? Should ICBC be involved with the collection of non motor vehicle related fines and withhold insurance/licence renewals until said fines are paid?

Drivers with outstanding fines will be unable to renew their licence or vehicle registration with the Insurance Corp. of B.C. under the new enforcement regime, which could take effect as early as this summer

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Fre...#ixzz1uG1tLrdY

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by sebberry

What do you think? Should ICBC be involved with the collection of non motor vehicle related fines and withhold insurance/licence renewals until said fines are paid?

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Fre...#ixzz1uG1tLrdY

No, but what are ya gonna do? I'm sure stats show it is a way to get fines paid.

[Mike K.]

It's also a surefire way to get people yelling and screaming more often at local DMV's.

That's the one thing I never understood. If you get a ticket, why not just pay it off and get the whole charade over and done with?

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

It's also a surefire way to get people yelling and screaming more often at local DMV's.

That's the one thing I never understood. If you get a ticket, why not just pay it off and get the whole charade over and done with?

If no interest is levied, and it isn't on most tickets and fines, paying your credit card bill ought to be a more prudent choice in household budgeting. Any financial counselor will tell you that. Some people, of course, can't handle the psychological burden on having an unpaid fine hanging around, and for them, it's better to pay it. For others, provided it has no effect on your credit rating (and most fines don't) it should not precede payment of any interest-bearing household debts like a mortgage, car payment etc.

[skeptic]

If you break the law (and I believe paying a transit fare for using the service is probably enshrined somewhere in law) you should have to pay the consequences, and the government is entitled to use whatever leverage it has to extract payment. Regardless of what anyone may think of ICBC, it's a tool in the toolkit and the fact the government hasn't chosen to use it until now strikes me as rather odd.

[skeptic]

Originally Posted by VicHockeyFan

For others, provided it has no effect on your credit rating (and most fines don't) it should not precede payment of any interest-bearing household debts like a mortgage, car payment etc.

I don't see why a legally-mandated fine couldn't be put into collection, with a potential impact on one's credit rating.

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by skeptic

I don't see why a legally-mandated fine couldn't be put into collection, with a potential impact on one's credit rating.

I'm not clear on that, but I think there are laws that say if you did not apply for credit, signing a clear contract etc., then it can't be placed on a credit file. I suppose there is some correlation between your creditworthiness and your propensity for getting and/or not paying fines, but legislation separate the two for credit-granting and reporting purposes, I think.

Fine-escalation also has some limits.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by skeptic

If you break the law (and I believe paying a transit fare for using the service is probably enshrined somewhere in law) you should have to pay the consequences, and the government is entitled to use whatever leverage it has to extract payment. Regardless of what anyone may think of ICBC, it's a tool in the toolkit and the fact the government hasn't chosen to use it until now strikes me as rather odd.

But BC is fairly unique in that most provinces don't have an "ICBC" to wage war against unpaid transit fines.

Consequences for anything should be reasonable for the crime committed. Losing your ability to drive because you hopped on a train without paying the $2.50 fare? Bit much, don't you think?


A while back the City of Victoria attempted to tie parking ticket collection into insurance renewal and ICBC said that it wasn't their job to be collecting parking tickets. Unlike a skytrain ticket, that is related to the operation of a motor vehicle. I was glad ICBC said it wasn't their job to collect on parking fines, so I don't see why they're being used for fare evaders.

[Mike K.]

Ah, see, I wasn't aware the unpaid tickets didn't have some bearing on your credit and/or may result in a collections case against you.

[skeptic]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Consequences for anything should be reasonable for the crime committed. Losing your ability to drive because you hopped on a train without paying the $2.50 fare? Bit much, don't you think?

Fare evasion is theft.

The consequence of evading the fare is the fine. While I do not know how much that is, it is probably proportionate.

The ICBC action is the consequence of not paying the fine, not the fare evasion itself. Big difference.

You are advocating that the penalty for refusing to pay a penalty levied for a legal infraction should be proportionate to the original infraction. That would lead to an essentially toothless legal system.

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by sebberry

But BC is fairly unique in that most provinces don't have an "ICBC" to wage war against unpaid transit fines.

Consequences for anything should be reasonable for the crime committed. Losing your ability to drive because you hopped on a train without paying the $2.50 fare? Bit much, don't you think?

If you jumped out of a cab without paying the $2.50 fare you could face criminal prosecution. Maybe the Skytrain fine lets you off easy.

[Bob Fugger]

ICBC already collects Translink fines - it's just that it cannot refuse to issue a licence if you don't pay it. That's all this change is about.

To be honest, I'd be MUCH MUCH more concerned with other proposed changes to the Motor Vehicle Act: http://www.newsroom.gov.bc.ca/2012/0...t-changes.html

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by Bob Fugger

To be honest, I'd be MUCH MUCH more concerned with other proposed changes to the Motor Vehicle Act: http://www.newsroom.gov.bc.ca/2012/0...t-changes.html

Indeed.

Discounted penalties for prompt payment. New online payment options will let a driver who pays an undisputed ticket within 30 days receive a discount.

So if I begin the dispute within the 30 days, do I still pay the discounted fine if I lose the dispute?

The new law will also streamline the ticketing process by replacing written citations with electronic ones generated at the roadside by new devices mounted in police vehicles.

ie. you don't pull the driver over, just print an electronic ticket, then mail it like photo-radar? Or e-mail a notice?

Amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act have the potential to deal with traffic offences that currently may be disputed in court, such as speeding, texting while driving, and disobeying a traffic signal.

Yes, those pesky courts always getting in the way of collecting fines. How dare due process and impartial judges get in the way of the revenue stream.

[G-Man]

Well it won't be hard for this to be raised to judicial review fairly easily. Doubt that it will last more than a year.

[G-Man]

Also you already get a discount for prompt payment that is not new.

[sebberry]

What surprises me the most is that only 14% of people dispute their tickets....

500,000 tickets issued per year on approximately 3 million drivers. That's one in six. The majority are very likely issued for speeding. Either there are a lot of screwups on the road or our traffic laws need some review.

[Bob Fugger]

Originally Posted by G-Man

Well it won't be hard for this to be raised to judicial review fairly easily. Doubt that it will last more than a year.

Apparently, the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles is ready to go to the mattrasses on this one. Don't be surprised to see this administrative tribunal dispute model for violation tickets up at the Supreme Court of Canada.

What's lost in the fine print is that rather than the prosecutor (in BC, that's also the arresting officer) having to prove what you did "beyond a reasonable doubt" (criminal threshold), judgements will be made on a "balance of probabilities" (civil threshold). So, to build on a well-known metaphor, instead of having to run a DNA test on a duck to prove it is a duck, one only needs to show that "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck".



Awrrroo000ooo, *cough* *cough* *cough* scary stuff, keeds!

[Bob Fugger]

ICBC floats new basic insurance plan that would reward good drivers

But the company vows it has killed an idea where drivers who received just one speeding ticket could expect to pay three years of higher rates

BY JONATHAN FOWLIE, VANCOUVER SUN MAY 14, 2012 2:02 PM

VICTORIA - One year after it was forced to retract a controversial proposal for how to set basic rates, the Insurance Corp. of B.C. is today launching a widespread public consultation to help vet its newest set of ideas.

The publicly-owned company says it is seeking a fairer system that better rewards good drivers, and ensures bad drivers pay more.

But the company vows it has killed an idea it floated almost exactly a year ago where drivers who received just one speeding ticket could expect to pay three years of higher rates.

"Last May, there was a fair bit of controversy over single speeding tickets and the concept that they would be used to increase people's premiums," Steve Crombie, vice-president of corporate communications, said Monday.

"That is completely off the table. It is not part of this consultation and we're not changing the current way we deal with penalty points and driver risk premiums."

Instead, Crombie said, the company is proposing a driver-based system that sets rates by looking at a combination of driving experience and crash history...

http://www.vancouversun.com/ICBC+flo...#ixzz1utVh3GP6

Oh I see what they've done here: rather than punish bad drivers, they're going to reward good drivers. Why yes, that's totally different!

It's a shame that as a customer, ICBC won't give me what I really want: mileage-based insurance. From an actuarial perspective, I present a far, far lower risk than someone who commutes daily precisely because there is less opportunity me to cause an accident. I walk and take the bus to work, and I pay moderately less insurance than if I drove to work everyday, rather than far less insurance because I present less of an actuarial risk.

Unfortunately, the system relies on chumps like me to overpay and so introducing something like this would have a massive impact on revenue, especially for those who have second, third and/or casual vehicles.

I would urge everyone to tell ICBC what they think either at their local open house or online: http://www.publicengagement.icbc.com/index.html

[G-Man]

Hear hear! My leaves my driveway perhaps three times a week and I drive in a busy week perhaps 100 km. The added benefit of a plan like this is that it rewards those that live a "greener" life. And may do more for the environment than the Carbon Tax.

[sebberry]

Bob, you are already saving money by only insuring your car for pleasure use. Those who insure their cars for driving to/from work pay higher rates which reflect their increased risk.

[Bob Fugger]

Originally Posted by Bob Fugger

It's a shame that as a customer, ICBC won't give me what I really want: mileage-based insurance. From an actuarial perspective, I present a far, far lower risk than someone who commutes daily precisely because there is less opportunity me to cause an accident. I walk and take the bus to work, and I pay moderately less insurance than if I drove to work everyday, rather than far less insurance because I present less of an actuarial risk.

Originally Posted by sebberry

Bob, you are already saving money by only insuring your car for pleasure use. Those who insure their cars for driving to/from work pay higher rates which reflect their increased risk.

You've missed my point. The discount I pay on my pleasure use insurance is nowhere near proportionate to the diminished risk I present versus commuters. Take G-Man's example: 100km per week...maybe. Many people commute 15-20km each while many others commute 25+km.

If I drive 1/10th or 1/20th the amount that an average driver drives, should I not get an 80-90% discount on my policy? I've removed myself from being a crash risk during those times. That's my point.

[sebberry]

If I live in Victoria and drive daily to Langford, should I pay the same rate as someone who lives in Victoria and drives daily to Victoria? Under your milage based rate plan, I would. But realistically my drive to Langford is less risky because I'm driving with much lighter traffic.

[pherthyl]

Originally Posted by rjag

If you get pulled over by IRSU, expect to get a ticket 100% of the time. They gave a ticket to my neighbour for doing 44 in the 40 zone of Henderson....plus points.

The chance of that being the whole story is about 0%.

Most vehicle accidents are not caused by speed but by driver inattention. Have you seen how many scrapes & dings are in parking lots and most vehicles there are doing less than 10km/h.

Not a good argument. Fender benders have nothing to do with this issue and aren't in the same ballpark as a crash at 100km/h.

As for the new ticket model.. I think it's a good idea. The court backlog is ridiculous and they really need to be freed for more important cases.

[LJ]

Originally Posted by Bob Fugger

You've missed my point. The discount I pay on my pleasure use insurance is nowhere near proportionate to the diminished risk I present versus commuters.

.

Get your money's worth out of them Bob, drive to work at least once a week!