832 replies to this topic

[Bob Fugger]

When the GLP started, it was a 6 month L stage and 18 month N stage.  You could shave 3 months off the L stage if you took an approved GLP course.

Now it's a minimum of 12 months in the L stage, and if you take a GLP course, you can reduce the N stage from 24 to 18 months. 

 

The GLP Year 3 and Year 6 Reports (fulsome Program Evaluations) showed that offering a time reduction in the L stage actually led to an increase in crash rates.  That is why the time-incentive moved to the N stage, along with the requirement to take a GLP-approved course and remain violation ticket and at-fault crash free.  You also got a partial high school credit.  Yes, it wasn't as incentivy as the previous L stage incentive, but then road safety outcomes improved significantly.  As a result, enrolment in an ICBC-approved GLP course has fallen to it's lowest ever level: only 7% of registered GLP drivers have enrolled in an ICBC-approved GLP course.

 

As for driver training, most of us of a certain age will remember drivers ed courses in high school or remember old sitcoms that showed this.  And then suddenly, drivers ed started to disappear.  Why?  A seminal research study back in 1976 (give or take) called the DeKalb Report basically concluded that at best, driver training did little to improve road safety outcomes and at worst, was actually detrimental to them.  This is part of the reason why ICBC will not give you a discount for having taken a driver training course - even one that is an ICBC-approved GLP course, which ICBC actually has approved the curriculum.  Other driver training is basically unregulated.  ICBC is the regulator of record of BC's driver training industry; however, Division 27 of the Motor Vehicle Act Regulations (The Driver Training Regulation) is a piece of consumer protection legislation versus quality assurance.  So while there is recourse if the driver training school to which you signed up Little Johnny or Little Janey goes under after you paid their tuition, there's very little that can be done if the education they received is total crap. 

 

So back to driver training being more or less useless - that was the prevailing theory since DeKalb.  Until people started asking the question a bit differently: "Does good driver training lead to improved road safety outcomes?" and then went on to qualify what exactly makes driver training "good."  Guess what?  Good driver training indeed does make a difference.  Here are some statistics that came out from ICBC earlier this week, providing the following evidence for the ICBC-approved GLP course:

 

Crash, violation and road test pass rate stats for GLP drivers who completed an ICBC-approved driver education (GLP) course are now available on our Driver training statistics page.

The stats show that GLP drivers who completed a GLP course:

• were between 9% and 13% less likely to be at fault in a crash while in GLP
• were about 4% less likely to receive a violation in their first year of holding their Class 7 (novice) driver’s licence, and
• had a 19% higher first-attempt pass rate on their Class 7 road test.

 

Source: http://www.dtcbc.com...es-to-stats.asp.

 

The driver training industry has lacked that kind of data from ICBC since basically forever.  Armed with this information, one could market that having their Little Johnny or Janey take an ICBC-approved GLP course is actually worth the premium that the course charges.

[lanforod]

Seems they need to provide a financial incentive to taking the expensive GLP courses then.  How about free basic insurance for your first year after getting your class 5 if you passed a GLP course?

[VicHockeyFan]

^ you are ALWAYS free to pay the damages in cash with no effect on your record.

[lanforod]

^ you are ALWAYS free to pay the damages in cash with no effect on your record.

That is something they want to take away as well, though I'm not sure how they'd manage that for unreported accidents.

[VicHockeyFan]

Interesting...

[LeoVictoria]

Interesting...

 

One of the questions was whether to take it away entirely, or only for larger claims (allow paying it outright for claims under $2000).   I like the option of paying it out for small claims and agree that for large claims you should not be able to.   If you cause a large crash you shouldn't be able to pay to make it go away.   That just prevents proper risk classification.

[Mike K.]

Proper risk classification sounds fancy but it's meaningless in the real world. You're still behind the wheel as a terrible driver whether you've paid out of pocket for a crash or took a hit on your insurance.

 

The only tangible positive effect on society as a whole is to take away licenses from bad drivers or force them into regimented driver training and mandatory re-testing. Anything else is a wash.

[Mike K.]

And what's this nonsense about having to include individuals on your insurance who may drive your vehicle? So if my friend, the designated driver, wants to drive me and my friends home he's taking a massive insurance risk, as am I, because he's not on my magic list of permitted drivers? How ridiculous is that?

[LJ]

One of the questions was whether to take it away entirely, or only for larger claims (allow paying it outright for claims under $2000).   I like the option of paying it out for small claims and agree that for large claims you should not be able to.   If you cause a large crash you shouldn't be able to pay to make it go away.   That just prevents proper risk classification.

It also prevents the person buying the car from you the fact that the car has been in an accident. I think all accidents should be reported to ICBC even if you are going to pay the damages yourself to prevent your insurance costs from increasing.

[LeoVictoria]

And what's this nonsense about having to include individuals on your insurance who may drive your vehicle? So if my friend, the designated driver, wants to drive me and my friends home he's taking a massive insurance risk, as am I, because he's not on my magic list of permitted drivers? How ridiculous is that?

Well he isn’t taking a risk. If he crashes his insurance will be impacted. That’s fair.
I don’t really see that you should be fined too, for exactly this reason. However I do see the logic in listing all drivers. If a household has one car you can list only the primary driver but let’s say a husband/wife drives a car, doesn’t it make sense to charge the insurance rate based on say the average risk of both drivers, not just one?

[LeoVictoria]

It also prevents the person buying the car from you the fact that the car has been in an accident. I think all accidents should be reported to ICBC even if you are going to pay the damages yourself to prevent your insurance costs from increasing.

Sure but you can never get away from two drivers deciding to not report a claim at all.

[Mike K.]

Well he isn’t taking a risk. If he crashes his insurance will be impacted. That’s fair.
I don’t really see that you should be fined too, for exactly this reason. However I do see the logic in listing all drivers. If a household has one car you can list only the primary driver but let’s say a husband/wife drives a car, doesn’t it make sense to charge the insurance rate based on say the average risk of both drivers, not just one?

If my gf drives the car once in a blue moon, my insurance shouldn’t be significantly higher for that odd instance she’s behind the wheel.

If Billy is driving his own car that’s insured under dad then that’s starting to game the system, but then dad does take a lot of risk.

The simplest solution, IMO, is for your discount level to remain static in perpetuity unless you’re the primary driver of a vehicle and the insurance is under your name, or you’re part of a joint coverage plan that pays 50/50.

No name on any insurance? No discounts applied for “safe driving,” aka not driving at all or choosing to be insured under someone else’s coverage.

[rjag]

We had riders on our cars for 'drivers with less than 10 years experience' I think it was about $50 extra per car. Finally took them off when our insurance guy told us that it only applies if its someone living in your home with less than 10 years experience.

 

Seems strange as just because my kids have their own places now doesnt mean they will drive any of our cars less often.

 

I have always wondered why ICBC didnt recognise and profile higher risk drivers and have them add riders reflecting that risk, ie less than x years of experience, males under 25, seniors etc. Not to forget the HP value of a car such as a Mustang compared to a Shelby Mustang or a 3 series BMW compared to an M3.

[rjag]

The elephant in the room that they arent discussing for some reason is to improve driver training. The GLP is only slightly better than nothing. How about some proper training where they have to take all weather lessons, driving in snow and ice, highway speeds in pouring rain and learn the dynamics of a skid. You know, the things that actually happen when a collision is imminent. 

 

Anyone actually read the UK Highway Code? Its about as thick as War and Peace and you are tested on it, properly tested. You also have to learn on a manual transmission otherwise you have restrictions on your license.

 

Imagine an 18 year old driving a stick, kind of hard to text isnt it? Its really only N.A. where we wimp out and have slush boxes. I wonder about levels of situational awareness driving in heavy traffic with a manual vs auto. 

[Mike K.]

The automotive industry, of which the biggest players in this province at heavily invested in, would frown on that. That's my theory, at least.

[LeoVictoria]

Kinda hard to argue that you are making life more affordable when you start mandating several thousands of dollars in driving lessons for everyone.   

 

I agree that better education leads to better drivers, but that is a heck of a difficult change to make when a region is not already used to it.  

 

Really doesn't matter anyway.   In a relatively short time autonomous vehicles will make this a moot point.

[jonny]

Kinda hard to argue that you are making life more affordable when you start mandating several thousands of dollars in driving lessons for everyone.   

 

I agree that better education leads to better drivers, but that is a heck of a difficult change to make when a region is not already used to it.  

 

Really doesn't matter anyway.   In a relatively short time autonomous vehicles will make this a moot point.

 

Hard to argue you are making life more affordable when the carbon tax is going up again and we have the highest fuel and insurance costs in North America, but whatever. Better put together a task force to figure out why the government keeps driving up the cost of transportation necessities...

[Bob Fugger]

Kinda hard to argue that you are making life more affordable when you start mandating several thousands of dollars in driving lessons for everyone.   

 

I agree that better education leads to better drivers, but that is a heck of a difficult change to make when a region is not already used to it.  

 

Really doesn't matter anyway.   In a relatively short time autonomous vehicles will make this a moot point.

Oops, you appear to have misspelled "hundreds."  And no matter what the media says, autonomous vehicles are nowhere near as close as anyone thinks they know they are.

[VicHockeyFan]

Really doesn't matter anyway.   In a relatively short time autonomous vehicles will make this a moot point.

 

Indeed.  

[VicHockeyFan]

And no matter what the media says, autonomous vehicles are nowhere near as close as anyone thinks they know they are.

 

I've said it before, it'll be insurance companies (the differential rates they will charge old school, vs. new self-driving cars) that will make the transition quicker than many think.

 

What!?!  You still drive your own car around town?  I save $700/yr. because my car is virtually self-driving.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 07 March 2018 - 10:02 AM.