http://www.icbc.com/cs/Satellite?pag...ience-discount

Just a polite correction but this is 100% false. I currently work Commercial Insurance but I did my time on entry level auto years ago.

As long as the primary operator of the vehicle has above 10+ years experience, he can still get the 10+ years rate credit and IS still allowed to loan his car to friends, aquaintances, families as long as they have a valid drivers license.

There is always that small margin of leeway. Just like despite rating your car as "pleasure use" you are still allowed a small margin of times when it's allowed to be used "to & from work." Up to 6x per calendar month IIRC.

Now IIRC, there IS a rate credit where a car's policy is given additional credit as long as ALL occupants within the household holds 10+ years driving experience or over. But I doubt this is actually the case as the OP's dad is obviously ineligible due to having N sign drivers within the household, or he has misrepresented the car's rating to be eligible for lower rates.

In any case, the insurance, the cop stakeout, the whole series of complications is only feasable by long stretches to be considered realistic. Still sounds like OP was just driving w/ a suspended license.

I don't see any issues with the vehicle impoundment at all, if anything you should be furious at your brother.

Your brother's license was suspended which means that he is not allowed to operate a vehicle in any manner, he did so by parking so the vehicle was correctly impounded for 60 days. Your brother should be taking responsiblity for this and you need to stop blaming the officers or ICBC, when his license was suspended he should've known all the rules of what he can or can't do. http://www.icbc.com/driver-licensing...le-impoundment, notice it states that a vehicle will be impounded even if it doesn't belong to the operator, so its irrelevant that its your dads car and he needs it for work or that his gf could have driven it.

The officers caught your brother operating the vehicle while suspended, so they had to impound the vehicle as per the motor vehicle act, see http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/...l#section105.1, notice the key word must "If a peace officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person has operated a motor vehicle while (a) the person is prohibited from driving a motor vehicle under............the peace officer must cause the motor vehicle to be taken to and impounded at a place directed by the peace officer"

The 10 yr experience rule, only applies to members that are within the household (son, daughter, grandchildren, wife, husband, etc).

Now if its a friend's son or daughter and they have less than 10 yrs driving experience than that it ok.

Check the wording on the actual insurance paper, in the the top middle section, where how the vehicle will be driven. It is all mentioned there.

Sometimes if the principal operator and or the owners do not have 10 yrs driving experience, ICBC will then send out a letter to get them to change the rate class aka vehicle usage. If the members who drive the vehicle, they have less than 10 yrs, if they are not the principal or the owner, if there is an accident, ICBC has the right to deny any claim.

You don't RC :) From the ICBC page quoted below:

"The experience rate classes apply to the vehicle and not to the drivers. In order to qualify, the owner, principal operator and all members of their households who drive the vehicle must have had a valid driver's license for 10 years or more."

When our son had his L, I got the 10-year discount because I didn't let him drive my car (mainly because it was a standard tranny). We decided he'd use my wife's minivan for his driving practice/training, so she didn't get the 10-year discount. When he left for UVic, she switched her insurance to include the discount again, since he wouldn't be driving anymore.

That's actually pretty funny... going by what's written there to the word, it actually does imply that if you are not a member of the household, you don't need 10 years of experience to drive that vehicle... unless there is a specific clause somewhere else that also states ONLY members of your household are allowed to drive the vehicle.

his bro is my friend...

That's because most of the people on RS don't have 10 years driving experience!

the 10 year insurance thing is only for residents of the household. anyone living outside the house (the GF) can drive it with less then 10 years.

if it wasn't for the guy parking nothing was done wrong... and if you were in the mall for hours, then the GF pulled the car out of the lot, and was pulled over, then I'd be bitching. if the guy pulled it out of the parking spot, and then traded spots before pulling away, that would have attracted attention. (but he says he only parked it, not un parked it, so who knows)

yes it's true.... how often do people let their neirbors kid drive there car away. almost never. where as their own kids take it every day = the bigger risk. it also states your own kids can drive it for emgs. like taking the injured parents to the hospital etc.

wait this sounds so stupid
Do they have proof that they saw your brother driving? or just accusing him seems disputable, considering GF has an N she has the ability to park a car in a mall parking lot.

Second, I don't get why it would be wrong for GF to be driving the car even though she's not insured, she has permission, and seems like your bro would've been insured, so they'd be the same rate class? I dunno, but i mean, if i drop my car off at the dealer, and a lot boy decides to joyride it and gets caught. It doesn't seem reasonable to have my car suspended for 60 days... maybe his license but not my car

Isn't there something about principal operator on the insurance? can't you dispute that the GF has only driven it once for like 15 mins, and isn't the principal operator?
hmm... ICBC is confusing

It's because he drove the car with a suspended licence that it got towed and impounded, not because the insurance issue. If I borrowed my friends car, got pulled over and was impaired they would impound my friends car. Thats exactly what happened to this guy/girl, the cops seen him driving and he didn't have a licence. It doesn't matter who's car it is unless it was stolen or something.

Edit: Reading up, 7seven said the exact samething but worded it better. :)

but how'd they prove he was driving?
I think it seems arguable, even though we know he was...

How do the police prove you were speeding? They obviously have a radar gun but it's not like they don't use it again after clocking a speeder, place it in the trunk and save it for the court date if there is one. They write a ticket then testify to the fact in court. Same idea, they seen him do it's all the proof they need.

They have to show you the readings on the radar gun to actually fine you.

but neways, isn't 60 days vehicle suspension a little harsh?

No they don't.

yeah its actually in your right to look at the readings,
when your caught by the radar gun, you have a right to ask.
They aren't required to show it, but they can't refuse?
otherwise police could pull anyone over.
Sorta like the cameras they install in intersections, they have to send you the actualy picture of you running the red,

Interestingly enough, if your car was in a street race they impound it for 48 hours? strange that its significantly less than driving with a suspended license.

Exactly. The officers have been trained to use a radar gun, and some have been trained to guestimate your speed when you are driving.
Because they are trainer and certified, their word tends to stand up in court better than the average person.

So when you go to court and say you weren't speeding and the cop says you were, you will lose 100% of the time.

So unless you can go to court and prove that you were not speeding, ie GPS recording, then you are guilty.

I'm not going to argue, go post on the police forums and ask the same question. If you ask they'll probably show you but by no means are they required to show you.


http://www.beyond.ca/show-me-the-rad...ding/1877.html

In British Columbia, the police are not required to show radar or laser readings to the alleged offender. Further, I have never used a radar or laser that created any sort of printout to hand to the person receiving the ticket.

Failing to do either one will not make any difference to the case in traffic court.

I wouldn't be surprised actually if they didn't have to show you the radar, considering how tight lipped and biased they are.

But I know people who have been caught for speeding and probably were, but disputed and won the case, because the officer says he has many years of experience in judging speed and could tell you were speeding (argued saying human error)

Without any proof they aren't guaranteed a victory, that's why our country can be considered less corrupt than others, when someone can dispute a speeding ticket against and officer and win.

they don't need to show you, and don't even need a radar gun to give you a ticket, they could watch you drive by and give you a ticket using their own speed judgement.

Also, a lot of the officers are about attitude, and if your pleasant they may just issue a warning.

I'm assuming the guy in the above story probably wasn't very friendly, and argued with the officers, and got his car suspended for 60 days.

I have somewhat of a similar situation. I was riding in the back seat of my friend's mom's car. His mom was driving and he was in the passenger seat. There was a police road block for some reason, and they noticed that my friend had not been wearing his seat belt. So they pulled us over and told his mom to get out of the car. Originally they were going to issue a ticket for not wearing a seat belt, but when his mom pulled out her driver's license they noticed it was expired so on top they issued a ticket for that as well, coming to a grand total of $400 in tickets. But also on top of that they towed her car since her license was expired and said that if someone came before the tow truck. They could take posession of the car. Unfortunately we called my mom but she didn't get there in time so she had to drive all of us to Autoplan to get her license renewed and then to the impound lot to get the car back.

at least they gave the car back quickly, but this guys getting his car impounded for 60 days!!!
in your case seems like it was clearly non-disputable, when your pulled over while in the drivers seat with an expired license...