832 replies to this topic

[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]

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.

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]

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]

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!

[sebberry]

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

You base that on what?

[Mike K.]

Aren't we already paying mileage based insurance? Driving distances in Victoria are far shorter than in the lower mainland and that's got to be one of the factors involved in our relatively lower insurance rates compared to the lower mainland. And statistically speaking, are commuters causing the majority of accidents/expensive accidents on our roads?

I'd say most accidents occur during non peak driving hours (i.e. not 7-9AM or 3-6PM). We just hear more about the accidents during commute times because they impact the most people.

[pherthyl]

You base that on what?

You don't know any of those people? The ones that always complain about getting screwed over by the law or others and their story makes it seem like they're completely innocent. Usually the truth is that they are just so antagonistic that they invite trouble. Picking fights with bouncers, annoying cops into giving tickets, etc.

Ticket + points for 4km/h over? I find that very hard to believe that's the whole story. I bet a courteous driver with a reasonable driving record would not have gotten that ticket.
I drive by the 10% over rule myself and have passed countless cops. None of them ever blinked an eye. My wife has gone on ridealongs with IRSU and they don't even bother pulling people over until they see 20km/h over (Malahat). Yeah I'm sure the occasional person gets the wrong end of a cop's bad day, but that is by far the exception.

[Mike K.]

I can confirm that there is no such thing as a 10% over rule. It's an urban myth.

[sebberry]

I can confirm that there is no such thing as a 10% over rule. It's an urban myth.

There's no 10% over rule per se, but they do generally allow for x over depending on what road they're monitoring.

I was listening to the scanner the other day and they were trying to pick what speed over the limit they should stop cars at up on the Malahat. One officer said 30 over, the other said 21 over and the cop with the laser gun decided to settle at 25 over. Hilarity ensued when they started botching up the vehicle descriptions/models over the radio.

That being said, I've seen cars being waved over for 5 over in 50kph zones.

It would be nice if there was some consistency in their enforcement so I don't have to decide between driving at a speed suitable for the immediate traffic conditions, or a speed limit that was picked and painted on a sign 20+ years ago.

[LJ]

Aren't we already paying mileage based insurance? Driving distances in Victoria are far shorter than in the lower mainland and that's got to be one of the factors involved in our relatively lower insurance rates compared to the lower mainland. .

Isn't to and from work over a certain kilometerage before you get dinged?

If you live in Oak Bay and travel 5k to work I don't think that would increase your rate.

[VicHockeyFan]

Isn't to and from work over a certain kilometerage before you get dinged?

If you live in Oak Bay and travel 5k to work I don't think that would increase your rate.

http://www.icbc.com/...et/rate-classes

[VicHockeyFan]

So I suppose the silence in this thread means it comes as no surprise to anyone that ICBC is just another in the long list of Crown Corporations that managers use as slush funds for themselves and their friends.

1/3 increase in number of managers over 4 years, where there is no corresponding increase in sales/revenue. 70% wage increases, an increase from 14 to over 50 the number of managers making over $200k.

And people in this thread say they hope we don't get private insurance.

[Sparky]

^ One of the reasons for this increase is that if ICBC shows a profit, the government of the day sucks that money out of ICBC into general revenue instead of leaving that money in ICBC to apply towards a reduction in premiums the following year.

There is no incentive to be efficient.

[sebberry]

And people in this thread say they hope we don't get private insurance.

I like my reasonable insurance rates. Competition doesn't do much good among auto insurers.

[G-Man]

^ Exactly. I am not for competition for the sake of competition. While I believe there is great opportunity to reward efficiency and encourage profit in places like ICBC even if it goes into general revenue. I as a consumer don't want my insurance rates to go up for ideological reasons.

[Bob Fugger]

So I suppose the silence in this thread means it comes as no surprise to anyone that ICBC is just another in the long list of Crown Corporations that managers use as slush funds for themselves and their friends.

1/3 increase in number of managers over 4 years, where there is no corresponding increase in sales/revenue. 70% wage increases, an increase from 14 to over 50 the number of managers making over $200k.

And people in this thread say they hope we don't get private insurance.

VHF, one thing that you missed that was in the report was that total compensation to unionized staff - you know, those entitled scum sucking lazy buggers of whom I know you are a big fan - has actually decreased by 1% over the same period.

Now, do you still think that it is unreasonable that unionized staff, who have been without a contract for over two years, accept a new collective agreement rife with zeros and less-than-inflationary pay raises? Let's remember that ICBC's top heavy establishment aren't the ones doing the real work for the corporation. ICBC's success results directly from the hard work of bargaining unit staff, the only group whose real purchasing power has been decreasing. Medical practitioners, lawyers, ICBC managers and executives, body shops and even government have all received generous bumps in compensation?

What about bargaining unit staff? More importantly, what about rebating drivers?

[spanky123]

... or failed to mentioned that the CEO quits but yet gets to keep being paid for nearly a year at $400K plus and that the board was obviously providing zero oversight. Board chairman is Paul Taylor who happens to have been the Deputy Finance Minister for Gary Collins during railgate. I wonder how much he was paid as chairman while this was going on?

[Bingo]

^ One of the reasons for this increase is that if ICBC shows a profit, the government of the day sucks that money out of ICBC into general revenue instead of leaving that money in ICBC to apply towards a reduction in premiums the following year.

"ICBC is hiking rates this year 11.2 per cent. It says an average driver will only see a 2.1 per cent increase, or $27."

Read more: http://www.timescolo...l#ixzz23q1ZL5uw

[Baro]

I wish ICBC was run by some huge financial giant in the private sector. Those guys keep their executive pay and benefits so much more reasonable and when a CEO screws up he's out on the street, no fat severance packages! No cronyism!