ICBC explores insurance options to reward safe drivers
 

Quinn Rollins was happy to hear Monday that ICBC is considering changing the way it sets basic insurance rates to reward good drivers.

ICBC will canvass the public over the next six about moving basic insurance from vehicle-based to driver-based.

The idea is that lower-risk drivers would pay less and higher-risk drivers would pay more.

“I don’t think good drivers should be paying for bad drivers,” said Rollins, 27, of Ladysmith.

“It seems to be a step in the right direction,” he said.

Getting an insurance break appealed to Costa Stoyanov, 29, of North Vancouver.

“I think, in general, insurance is ridiculously high — especially in this province,” said Stoyanov.

Mark Blucher, ICBC senior vice-president of insurance, said that under the current system eight out of 10 drivers qualify for the same 43 per cent discount.

ICBC’s consultation guide cites the example of Driver A with 20 years of driving experience and Driver B, who also has 20 years of driving experience but three at-fault crashes.

They both get the 43 per cent discount.

“From the insurance perspective, that’s not really differentiating risk,” said Blucher.

Moving to a driver-based insurance will result in about two-thirds of drivers paying less and one-third, who are more risky drivers, paying more for basic insurance.

ICBC also uses the example of three hypothetical drivers: Joe Low-Risk, Pam One-Crash and Jerry High-Risk.

All three have 25 years of driving experience, are located in the Lower Mainland and rate their vehicles for pleasure use only.

Joe is crash-free and now pays a premium of $825, which would go down to $675 under the new system. Pam has had one crash in the past 10 years and currently also pays $825 but would still pay a new premium of $675.

But Jerry, who has been responsible for multiple crashes, is also currently paying $825. His premium under the new system would be $1,250.

Changing the way basic premiums are set won’t change the total amount ICBC collects in B.C., according to vice-president of communications Steve Crombie.

“It will stay the same,” he said. “It’s a redistribution of the premiums we already collect based on risk. It’s not a cash grab.

“There’s also a safety element to this,” said Crombie. “We’d like to incentify people to drive more safely, to be safer drivers.

“It might change some people’s driving behaviour,” he said.

Sheena Ang, 24, of Vancouver wants to see more about the plan but she likes that ICBC is doing public consultation.

“I think it’s a good idea they put that out to test it,” she said.

The notion of changing to the widely-used driver-based system was first presented to ICBC three years ago by the provincial government and the B.C. Utilities Commission, which approves insurance rates. It was also a common complaint of customers.

Preparations for consultation got into high gear about six months and will culminate in a series of 12 open houses around the province that begin May 22 in Vancouver at the Simon Fraser University Segal Graduate School of Business from 6-9 p.m.

In addition to the open houses, feedback can be given to ICBC by going online at publicengagement.icbc.com. Written submissions can also be sent by to P.O. Box 4004, Vancouver, V6B 3Z4.

Information is available from 604-982-6153 or toll free at 1-855-982-6153.

There will also be a webinar in the week of June 18, although the exact date has not been finalized.



Read more: ICBC explores insurance options to reward safe drivers

Well what the hell are they waiting for? Do it!!!

As long as it's crash based, not speeding ticket (i.e. revenue generation) based, I am 150% on board.

Mark

How bout they fucking open their eyes and get some half decent fucking adjusters with a fucking brain cell or two to evaluate an incident rationally and not just fucking flipping a god dam coin to decide whose fault is whose. :rukidding:

End of rant.

FINALLY.. they should have done this YEARS ago..


Now all the high risk whiners are all going to complain!! :devil:

+1 for this

im all for this.

100% Agreed

I think Mark is leaving out some info. EG: When your CRS hits (-9) 43% your Optional discounts don't stop @ 43% they INCREASE every year. So next year (-10) you will have 44% on your OPTIONALS only Thus making every year cheaper on the same car, plus depreciation yadda yadda yadda. Don't know why he didn't mention it.:suspicious:

Don't know how they can make it more crash based than what it is right now. I see this for them to make way for more convictions = more expensive insurance.

They are also not looking to change the existing rate class, or any of the terriorities. As I see it, what's on the table would be a way to tack on the DRP more in place. Running a stop sign? $300 to ICBC insurance please.

Cuz ICBC doesn't need to say anything about their optional insurance to the public.

I will put money on the fact that once they charge premiums based on "driver's risk" they will start charging you more insurance based on your driving record.

Knowing Mark personally, that's not so much the case. ^

good news. I will be saving more. 15 years of accident free driving for me!

half of revscene won't benefit from this. drive safe :D

You're going to see more hit and runs.

I get that people that cause accidents should pay more, but damn.

Well, I'm "Pam one crash" probably about 8 years ago. I was a younger driver then. Ever since then, I've become a cautious driver...grandmother like on public streets if you ask my girlfriend. Do I really need to be paying a premium 10 years later? Mr. multiple crashes obviously gets a discount on buying more than one because hey..his multiple at faults only carry a 400 premium over Pam one crash.

I paid my dues on my mistake. I went down to zero discount and earned it back at 5% at a time. I sit here now, and I don't think "gee, 8 years later I'm still a shit driver" I think "8 years later I'm as good as anyone else-as shown in my 41% discount"

Am I missing something, the bolded says we're going to a driver based rather than vehicle based, does this mean we're going to the English system where one cannot just insure a car for another to use (still wrong but mostly unpunished), where now you could only drive a car if you were registered and insured for said car? I yearn for that day.

I also want insurance premiums from young ppl driving powerful cars, not slight premiums, MAJOR premiums. Will hopefully prevent 20 Yr old idiots in r8's and ferraris (hopefully)

More premiums just because a young person drives a powerful car? I smell jealousy there.

I actually want insurance premiums for people driving shit boxes.
:rukidding:
You know the ones with burnt out tail/headlights and bumpers held on by zip ties. MAJOR premiums!

Kidding, right?

Seems like a "jealousy tax" more than anything. I hear of kids dying in minivans and shitboxes all the time.

^he jelly

No, because they are a MUCH higher liability on the road. And that is something no one here can try to deny. It's simple fact.

I just want to point out that the vehicle one drives is not a factor to determine basic insurance premiums. Unless ICBC is persauded in the public consultation that it should be... but currently, no.

The vehicle is a factor for optional insurance though.



And just to be clear, current laws prohibit ICBC to discriminate against age and gender. Funny, the government tells ICBC age can't be discriminated but offer a senior discount of -25%.
:ilied:

Seniors discount on insurance... what a joke. From what I see on the roads, there should be a senior SURCHARGE of 25%!

Mark

i'm thinking shit can go south a lot faster in a ferrari than a shit box with less than 100HP.