You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
There is a reason they are called "Violation Tickets"...or VTs for short. VT = voluntary tax. When you choose to break the law and get caught, you have just volunteered to pay a tax that you didn't have to pay. Obey the traffic laws (yeh I know that is a strange concept for some ) and you don't give ICBC any more than you have to for your insurance coverage.
^ I don't think you got the point.
I think $138 for a speeding is reasonable.
What I don't think reasonable is $900($300 x 3years) penalty from ICBC for just having a single ticket. Which turns $138 into a $1,038 speeding ticket.
And that particular ticket is for going 20km/h(or less) going over the speed limit.
Going 104km/h on 90km/h zone, 50km/h on 61km/h zone, etc...
And seriously and realistically, EVERYBODY does that. Police officers, justice of the peace, prime minister, military chief, everybody. Depending on the flow of traffic.
I'm not talking about DUI, reckless driving, etc...it's a speeding ticket, for going less than 20km/h over the limit.
Strictly speaking, I bet you break the law everyday by going over speed limit and on some roads, you can virtually give tickets to every single car on the road.
If ICBC is truly concerned about the safety, then yeah you can say "you didn't obey the law" but this "law" is turning into extra cash grab for ICBC than improving the road safety.
Also, I am no way trying to support speeders, but the cause for accident in Canada is 33.8% DUI, followed by physical impairment(eye sight, etc), youth(new drivers, less experience), old age(slow reaction), sleep depriviation, drug use, distraction(not paying attention, looking elsewhere, texting, etc).
As strange as it sounds, speeding isn't the direct cause for a lot of accidents, same as street racing. (I am strictly talking about percentage, because only very few citizens will actually street race. A lot of car enthusiast, as you know, won't street race. I don't and I bet you don't too)
I know the movie Fast and Furious made police departments to be very cautious about speeding, but if you look at the statistics, the biggest cause of accident is DUI, hands down. It makes more sense to target catching drunk drivers if they're concerned about safety.
IIRC it was one ticket for 50 over (596), or 3 tickets for <20 over (138). So either you go fucking nuts once and get punished (harsh, but not completely unreasonable) or you consistently speed and icky bicky says you're probably a hazard.
I don't think that's unreasonable. One ticket leads to that giant jump? ICBC's a dick, but not that much of one, I don't think.
IIRC it was one ticket for 50 over (596), or 3 tickets for <20 over (138). So either you go fucking nuts once and get punished (harsh, but not completely unreasonable) or you consistently speed and icky bicky says you're probably a hazard.
I don't think that's unreasonable. One ticket leads to that giant jump? ICBC's a dick, but not that much of one, I don't think.
no ICBC is trying to change the rule, so if you get 1 speeding ticket for going 61km/h on 50km/h zone, you'll be market as a "dagerous driver" and they will slap you with $900 premium.
OK you didn't even read it so I don't think you should be replying to my post solely on assumptions.
I did not say I have a problem with officers doing their job catching speeders. I'm just saying that what ICBC is doing is dumb.
If you get a $300 insurance premium for next 3 years just because of 1 speeding ticket, it is clearly just a easy cash grab for ICBC.
so you're driving 60km/h on 50km/h zone, the $138 ticket will turn into $1,038.
(ticket price + $300 premium x3 years)
$1,038 is a shit load of money to pay for going 20km/h(or less) over the speed limit.
ICBC's excuse is to make road safe, but seriously, do you think catching a random average soccer mom going 60km/h on 50km/h zone and slap her with $1,038 penalty will actually make a change?
Oh, there is NO doubt it's nothing but a cash grab, I mean look in some states (slightly relevant) you can pay a double fine and not get any "points".
Oh, there is NO doubt it's nothing but a cash grab, I mean look in some states (slightly relevant) you can pay a double fine and not get any "points".
True, and it was posted on Vancouver forum that even ICBC insider said that when you propose a new rule to your boss(so called new "safety" rule), you must make sure that your boss knows that it is going to be profitable for ICBC.
Show all the projected revenue, market research, business plans for the new safety rule, etc.
How is the DRP Calculated?
Each year just prior to your assessment date (which is usually your date of birth) we review your driving record for offences in the previous three years.
You receive only one DRP invoice per year, but each driving offence may impact DRP billings for more than one year, depending on the rest of your driving record in a three-year period.
Example
Here's an example of how the Driver Risk Premium works if your birthday is on Jan. 1, 2012:
Your driving history from Aug. 3, 2008 to Aug. 2, 2011 is reviewed for DRP offences.
You may have to pay a DRP if your driving record shows
One or more driving-related criminal code convictions and/or
one or more 10-point motor vehicle act convictions and/or
one or more excessive speeding tickets and/or
two or more roadside suspensions/prohibitions
The annual DRP amount you may have to pay is shown in the table below.
If, for example, during the assessment period you have one excessive speeding conviction, you pay $320. As DRP scans your driving record over three years, you’d pay three times $320, for a total of $960.
So as you can see, the DRP is not at frakking all about getting speeding tickets. It's about getting >10 point infractions (not a speeding ticket, those are only 3), it's about getting roadside suspensions, and other criminal code convictions. If you get a speeding ticket, you fall under the DPP which is the old 'points' system. The two can overlap (if you get excessive speeding, then you can get nailed with DPP and DRS), and I find that to be mildly unfair, but then...I wouldn't be driving 60k over the limit anyways, so
Also remember that ICBC is a corporation that makes money from people not getting in to accidents. It would make sense for them to have business and marketing plans for any of their changes; if it wasn't making money then it wouldn't be an effective safety plan (because people wouldn't be driving more safely). When revenues go up then so do profits and the rates can get adjusted down. Which yes, does happen. Much more frequently than you'd find in Ontario or Alberta or pretty much anywhere else.
While I am now 30 and would qualify for ridiculously cheaper insurance in the states and what have you, I find this system to be infinitely more fair and reasonable. ICBC is much less evil than you think it is.
So as you can see, the DRP is not at frakking all about getting speeding tickets. It's about getting >10 point infractions (not a speeding ticket, those are only 3), it's about getting roadside suspensions, and other criminal code convictions. If you get a speeding ticket, you fall under the DPP which is the old 'points' system. The two can overlap (if you get excessive speeding, then you can get nailed with DPP and DRS), and I find that to be mildly unfair, but then...I wouldn't be driving 60k over the limit anyways, so
ok I'm talking about the new rule that is coming up, NOT the current one.
OK, then find me the new rule you're talking about. Because when I got my license nearly 15 years ago, DRP didn't exist and DPP did. DRP was that "new program" that they rolled out only recently if I remember correctly.
Also remember that ICBC is a corporation that makes money from people not getting in to accidents. It would make sense for them to have business and marketing plans for any of their changes; if it wasn't making money then it wouldn't be an effective safety plan (because people wouldn't be driving more safely). When revenues go up then so do profits and the rates can get adjusted down. Which yes, does happen. Much more frequently than you'd find in Ontario or Alberta or pretty much anywhere else.
While I am now 30 and would qualify for ridiculously cheaper insurance in the states and what have you, I find this system to be infinitely more fair and reasonable. ICBC is much less evil than you think it is.
Amazing what a couple minutes of Googling can show, eh Timpo?
...like how a pushrod engine works after criticizing it for a decade. Maybe you should do some checking more often. You might end up with a lot less arguing.
Amazing what a couple minutes of Googling can show, eh Timpo?
...like how a pushrod engine works after criticizing it for a decade. Maybe you should do some checking more often. You might end up with a lot less arguing.
hmm yea ....it was my bad, this topic has been on going(as far as i know) on vancouver cat forum so i thought that this new rule will kick in sometime this year or next year.
Also remember that ICBC is a corporation that makes money from people not getting in to accidents. It would make sense for them to have business and marketing plans for any of their changes; if it wasn't making money then it wouldn't be an effective safety plan (because people wouldn't be driving more safely). When revenues go up then so do profits and the rates can get adjusted down. Which yes, does happen. Much more frequently than you'd find in Ontario or Alberta or pretty much anywhere else.
While I am now 30 and would qualify for ridiculously cheaper insurance in the states and what have you, I find this system to be infinitely more fair and reasonable. ICBC is much less evil than you think it is.
ok sorry to bring this back up but...
I have nothing to back up about this, but do you think accident rate and number of traffic violation tickets are relevant?
so more tickets you have on your record, more likely the person have been in an accident?
I know statistically speaking, I'd have to investigate thousands of people to get this answer, but I know this girl who have caused car accident 3 times(at least), but never had any tickets. I also know someone who got many tickets but never caused any accident.
and also I know someone who got his insurance rate jacked up because ICBC had to fix his car twice.
and none of accident was his fault. Their reasoning was, because they had to spend their money to fix his car, he better pay them back. It may sound unbelievable to you but it did happen.
I think speeding and accidents are connected and tickets are proof of speeding. You'll notice that in most jurisdictions that have private insurance, they'll jack the rates up through the roof based on the number of tickets and accidents that you have. I can't speak for the weight of each, but there you have it. In those places, they have a whole frakton of statisticians and Actuarial Scientists who are working to discover the best way to link driving habits to collision likelihoods.
"Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack"; just because you don't have tickets doesn't mean you don't speed. And as I said before, speed is not the only factor in accidents. Speed is a factor in the severity of accidents but not always the likelihood.
If your friend had to get his car fixed twice by ICBC and his rates went up, this is likely because he had either a partial fault (he was doing something which contributed to the accident) or it was a comprehensive claim which triggered his insurance rates to increase.
I'm not ICBC. I can't speak for them. I don't know everything. But from what I know and what I have heard and what I have read, it is one of the least imbalanced insurance agencies in terms of maximum to minimum claim rates. The readjustment of the types of things which will set your rates is good. I was a business major, and I remember the 80/20 rule; "80% of your business comes from 20% of your customers" "80% of thefts come from 20% of thieves" "80% of accidents are caused by 20% of employees" and so on and so forth.
Why shouldn't the most riskily expensive pay more?
I know statistically speaking, I'd have to investigate thousands of people to get this answer, but I know this girl who have caused car accident 3 times(at least), but never had any tickets. I also know someone who got many tickets but never caused any accident.
and also I know someone who got his insurance rate jacked up because ICBC had to fix his car twice.
and none of accident was his fault. Their reasoning was, because they had to spend their money to fix his car, he better pay them back. It may sound unbelievable to you but it did happen.
OK, also, here's something else. Let me translate this into another method of speaking.
Quote:
I know that with statistics we have to analyze at least thousands of people to get a proper answer, but three people I know don't fit what you're saying and so that means that I have a strong argument against it because I mentioned the word statistics.
What you're quoting is anecdotal evidence. Last Wednesday night, I was driving my mom's car back from the gas station where I had been getting gas so I could drive her to the airport because she was busy packing. I rolled into the intersection to turn left as the light turned green, and when I saw that traffic was clear and there seemed to be no pedestrians, I started to go. As soon as I did, I saw a pedestrian in dark clothing step out and slammed on the brakes.
Just as I thought to myself "Oh, thank god I didn't hit any pede--"BANG.
I was rear-ended by a BMW X5. We exchanged information, I called ICBC the next day, and was told that I would pay no deductible and that the accident was zero fault for me.
So if we were to quote my story where I have been driving for 13 years, have two speeding tickets in that time and that this is my first accident where I was rear-ended and I pay nothing and my rates don't go up...I would say that ICBC fits my view fairly well.
But we shouldn't use anecdotal evidence because the "yeah, well, I know this guy who..." or "yeah, well, there's this lady I heard of who..." are single cases. And ICBC is insuring millions of people. Millions.
How do you know if ICBC isn't making money? Their executives are serious business professionals, they know how to generate revenue.
I'm pretty sure ICBC has all the numbers figured out, if you look at the big picture or change the perspective, the truth might be different. (That ICBC won't benefit from raising the insurance rate for violation ticket)
I know this is just a speculation but you know what I mean.
oh, and I'm pretty sure if you rear end someone, both ICBC and police will tell you that you should've kept sufficient distance from the car infront of you...as you know.
but oh well I'll just be glad that ICBC bullshit premium didn't go through. Because at the end of the day, realistically, the traffic do go at 60km/h on 50km/h zone depending on what.
People agree, everyone knows. This is the reason why BC Premier, Gordon Campbell removed photo radar for speeding because it was too strict.
I have nothing to back up about this, but do you think accident rate and number of traffic violation tickets are relevant?
so more tickets you have on your record, more likely the person have been in an accident?
Insurance is all about risk management, plain and simple.
A whack of tickets demonstrates a disregard for laws - both of man, and of physics. Both mean that someone is a higher risk.
Drivers in the lower mainland pay higher insurance than those in most parts of the interior - why? Because there's a higher risk with the increased traffic. Insurance rates are lower if you drive less - because there's lower risk.
Same applies to any type of insurance.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
very interesting article...under 'comments' it says
"There are US municipalities that are very candid about hiring police officers, giving them radar units, and telling them to go and generate revenue to balance the city budget"
so the ultimate goal of violation ticket is indeed, money...or?
If everyone followed the law, there would be no need to hand out tickets, and thus no revenue... so why would ICBC be spending so much time and effort running anti-speeding, anti-drinking-and-driving, and other such ad campaigns, if they were just interested in the money they get from the tickets?
There's more money to be SAVED by reducing crashes, than there is to be made enforcing their causes.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
LONG POST WARNING. TL;DR: I refute Timpo's arguments in a long-winded way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timpo
^ This is exactly my point.
How do you know if ICBC isn't making money? Their executives are serious business professionals, they know how to generate revenue.
I'm pretty sure ICBC has all the numbers figured out, if you look at the big picture or change the perspective, the truth might be different. (That ICBC won't benefit from raising the insurance rate for violation ticket)
I know this is just a speculation but you know what I mean.
oh, and I'm pretty sure if you rear end someone, both ICBC and police will tell you that you should've kept sufficient distance from the car infront of you...as you know.
but oh well I'll just be glad that ICBC bullshit premium didn't go through. Because at the end of the day, realistically, the traffic do go at 60km/h on 50km/h zone depending on what.
People agree, everyone knows. This is the reason why BC Premier, Gordon Campbell removed photo radar for speeding because it was too strict.
I never said ICBC isn't making money. I did, however, say that ICBC has two things. One, a general goal of "saving their customers (citizens of BC) money by reducing the number of crashes and therefore insurance claims" and in the second part a more specific goal of "shifting the costs of collisions from the greater portion of drivers who are not likely to cause crashes to those who are statistically more likely." These two are not identical goals, but they do serve a common purpose: they are there to help us, the customers of ICBC and the citizens of British Columbia.
Let's assume that ICBC starts making more money from revenues of people who perform those things which are considered to be 'risky'; things in the DRP for example. If the DRP starts working, and those people either A) stop driving (and thereby create fewer accidents) or B) pay higher premiums than the rest of us because of their risky activities, then guess what? More revenue for ICBC, which means that they can provide greater discounts for the people who are not causing or are not at risk for causing accidents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timpo
ohh okay
Timpo, this is why you need to start doing research before you start commentating. If you'll look up, I mentioned that other places will give me a better discount 'at my age'. In many other places your age and gender will count more towards your premium than your driving record. 5 years driving experience and 21? High rates. 1 year driving experience and 27? Low rates.
ICBC insures purely based on how much damage you do (or don't do). I think it's high time that they started doing something more than just charging based on not-having an accident.
very interesting article...under 'comments' it says
"There are US municipalities that are very candid about hiring police officers, giving them radar units, and telling them to go and generate revenue to balance the city budget"
so the ultimate goal of violation ticket is indeed, money...or?
Again Timpo, you're cherry picking your arguments. "There are US municipalities that are..."
Are we in the US? Is ICBC part of a municipality? Do the RCMP work for a municipality? Do MVA tickets to go municipal budgets?
No. Tickets go into general revenue, not into any specific fund and it's Provincial. So local cops have no financial reason to give out tickets. A guy in Victoria like you or a guy in Vancouver like me pays everything to the provincial government, and the cops never see dime one of that money.
If we extended all your arguments to "Yeah, well, there are places that do it so that's what's happening here!" we could be here for hours. But this is BC, and we don't do things the way everyone else does.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
) and you don't give ICBC any more than you have to for your insurance coverage.
