REVscene Automotive Forum - BC accidents down 28%, ICBC wants to raise insurance rate by 26%

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)

- Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-off-topic-current-events_50/)

- - BC accidents down 28%, ICBC wants to raise insurance rate by 26% (https://www.revscene.net/forums/696750-bc-accidents-down-28%25-icbc-wants-raise-insurance-rate-26%25.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by godwin (Post 8522381)

I think in your example, they are correct.. the demographic of CLK500 chances are it will be an older driver.. vs 92 Exploder which will be some cousin Cletus or some family trying to get by and are always late to everywhere. So even the car worth more, the insurance risk will be lower.. Not to mention if the Exploder get into an accident there will be more than 2 person beside the driver claiming. The passenger payout is the main cost.

The fact is popular cars with large sample will always be more risky than smaller run cars, hence higher cost.

You want to save on insurance? put OBD logger in every one's car, automatically ticket any risky moves.. you will save on insurance.

Accidents down, but payout is up.. that's the problem.

I have also insured both identical cars as a mid 20's guy and no difference. A $40k car (new) vs a $20k truck (new), 12 years difference in age, huge difference in parts replacement cost yet the same $$ to insure both? Regardless of age or not, if the car costs more to replace parts or to purchase you should pay more to insure it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoostedBB6 (Post 8522404)

It's the risk game. Vehicle A may a low production, high end vehicle with virtually zero records of theft or high payouts, whereas Vehicle B may be a mass production work truck, but has a large history of being stolen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by godwin (Post 8522381)

The Exploder is also more likely to be driven (higher mileage racked up each year) and it's more likely to be driven year round (through the winter) and through rougher conditions (the Coq in the winter) than the CLK500. Then the CLK is also going to have a higher safety rating than the Exploder which means in an accident the payout is likely to be lower due to fewer injuries.

It's not that the Exploder costs as much as a CLK, it's more like the CLK costs as little as an Exploder. If both vehicles had the same safety and were driven equally by everyone the CLK insurance would shoot up and the Exploders would stay the same.

^^ Exploder? . . . Am I missing something here, or are you talking about an Explorer? haha

Quote:

Originally Posted by tr0ubl3s0m3x (Post 8523633)

^^ Exploder? . . . Am I missing something here, or are you talking about an Explorer? haha

In the 1990's the tires use to blow up and they would roll over (way more then statistically possible for it to be a freak accident) and they got the nickname the Exploder. A different cause but not that dissimilar to the Pinto's bursting into flames when being rear ended.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilovebacon (Post 8521560)

so today my dad got a letter from icbc saying that he was underpaying them 12$ but they waived it so their sorry for the inconvenience. is it possible for these computer error to happen?

yeah, i got one too. Guess they undercharged me by $7 but it's funny, because they put it as a negative...so does that mean I get a reduction of $7 on my next renewal?

Yeah, this ICBC crap has gotta stop. I loved AB insurance for that. So much cheaper to own multiple cars and have them all insured at the same time

Imagine that, the company that has a death grip on basic insurance can do whatever it wants!

Quote:

Originally Posted by quasi (Post 8523682)

The problem was that they were changing the design of car tires when the Explorer was being designed and the factory tire pressure rating ended up being too low, so they have/had lots of blowouts and rollovers due to underinflated tires. I think the Blazer had the same issue.