ICBC changing how many steps you get when you get in accident?

[roastpuff]

As of May 6, 2018, if you have a -20 (or better) ranking on the CRS, and you get into an accident, you will drop 11 steps down to -9, instead of previously dropping only 3 steps.

Claim-rated scale prior to May 6, 2018
Claim-rated scale on or after May 6, 2018

[mr00jimbo]

ICBC's slogan should be "LOL like you have a fucking choice, peasants."
I'd sign a petition to officially make it that.

[silva95teg]

Why don’t they just end it at step 15? The discount doesn’t change after that anyway and the end result if you are in an accident is you end up at step 9 no matter what.

[nsx042003]

Just don't be "at fault"

drive defensively and this doesn't really matter.

I think it's a good thing, fuck all the retards who can't drive

[SkunkWorks]

Originally Posted by nsx042003

Just don't be "at fault"

drive defensively and this doesn't really matter.

I think it's a good thing, fuck all the retards who can't drive

Uh... This change punishes those who drive well. Someone with -20 on the claim scale means they drove 10+ years without an accident.

[nsx042003]

^ oh man, talk about fail....i apologize for my comprehension fail, you are right lol

But i still don't think it matters much, usually people who has gotten to -20, isn't really likely going to mess up more than once. so in a way, ICBC can filter through the bad ones right off the bat. Case in point: My mom qualifies for -20, but she isn't a good driver.

[keifun]

You can get a -20 rating without even driving a car for 10+ yrs. Then one day you decide to drive with no experience whatsoever in those 10+yrs and you get into an at fault accident. GG right there.

[teggy604]

What are the chances icbc going to raise the premiums another 6 percent this yr?

[!LittleDragon]

So you get 2 free accidents instead of 3 before it affects your rates. Not a big deal for me.

As long as they didn't get rid of the loophole where your second vehicle gets the full discount. I get a new car every 5 years anyways so if I find myself below the 43% discount, I'll time the new car purchase a month before my insurance expires. New car gets a new insurance policy with the full discount, transfer what's left of the old policy to my MR2T in the garage and let it expire.

Not sure if it still works tho. That's what happened when I bought my first new car 7 years ago. The new car got full insurance discount.

[twitchyzero]

Originally Posted by keifun

You can get a -20 rating without even driving a car for 10+ yrs. Then one day you decide to drive with no experience whatsoever in those 10+yrs and you get into an at fault accident. GG right there.

you need at least 20 years of zero at-faults on your driving record to be at CSR -20

i'm surprised icbc is making this adjustment...there must be enough -20 motorists causing accidents to prompt them into this cost-saving move, I feel like there must be plenty of other easier ways to gouge us *shrugs*

Originally Posted by nsx042003

My mom qualifies for -20, but she isn't a good driver.

she might not be good driver, but she hasn't caused any at-faults and costed icbc anything, if they cut back on rewarding her safe driving habits (or lack of driving?), whatever, but I better not see icbc execs getting more bonuses next year after this and the 6% rate hike

[snowball]

Originally Posted by !LittleDragon

So you get 2 free accidents instead of 3 before it affects your rates. Not a big deal for me.

As long as they didn't get rid of the loophole where your second vehicle gets the full discount. I get a new car every 5 years anyways so if I find myself below the 43% discount, I'll time the new car purchase a month before my insurance expires. New car gets a new insurance policy with the full discount, transfer what's left of the old policy to my MR2T in the garage and let it expire.

Not sure if it still works tho. That's what happened when I bought my first new car 7 years ago. The new car got full insurance discount.

I don't see why this is a thing, maybe I misunderstand, but your second vehicle and any other vehicles owned by the same person should receive equal discount no matter what as it is technically the driver who is insured, not the vehicle.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by teggy604

What are the chances icbc going to raise the premiums another 6 percent this yr?

Quite likely, I'd say. Remember that David Eby -- the provincial AG who is responsible for the ICBC portfolio -- has recently came out back in Nov to say that the Liberals have significantly downplayed / covered up the size of ICBC's deficit. Instead of the $11M that the Liberals have claimed, it was really more like $1B.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3863586/i...llion-dollars/

Following the report, many critics / analysts have said that ICBC is on the brink of bankruptcy now, and would be bankrupt in a few years if drastic measures are not taken to stem the $$$$ hemorrhaging.

[!LittleDragon]

Originally Posted by snowball

I don't see why this is a thing, maybe I misunderstand, but your second vehicle and any other vehicles owned by the same person should receive equal discount no matter what as it is technically the driver who is insured, not the vehicle.

Beats me, no idea how it works. Just saying that's what happened... lol

I had an accident when I was 19 in my parent's car. Slipped on a patch of ice and hit a tree at maybe 15kph. It was enough to write off that pos Plymouth Sundance. Dad had full roadstar so he just claimed it, didn't affect his rates.

When I bought my first car a few years later, I found that the accident followed me and I was at a surcharge. Don't see how that's fair double dipping into two policies for one accident but whatever.... I was working my way up to roadstar when I needed a new car. I bought a new car, started a new policy for the new car. I kept my old car insured so I can drive it for pleasure for the rest of the summer. The insurance agent told me the new policy has full roadstar discount while my other policy still had 3 years to go... I was surprised but I wasn't going to complain... lol

People used to buy scooters and transferring their tainted policies to that but that loophole has been closed. Probably because scooters are easy to buy and store. Insurance for a scooter is cheap, etc... Most people are not going to buy another car to pull this off but if you have a second car laying around, it's easy.

[BrokenEuro]

Originally Posted by !LittleDragon

Beats me, no idea how it works. Just saying that's what happened... lol

I had an accident when I was 19 in my parent's car. Slipped on a patch of ice and hit a tree at maybe 15kph. It was enough to write off that pos Plymouth Sundance. Dad had full roadstar so he just claimed it, didn't affect his rates.

When I bought my first car a few years later, I found that the accident followed me and I was at a surcharge. Don't see how that's fair double dipping into two policies for one accident but whatever.... I was working my way up to roadstar when I needed a new car. I bought a new car, started a new policy for the new car. I kept my old car insured so I can drive it for pleasure for the rest of the summer. The insurance agent told me the new policy has full roadstar discount while my other policy still had 3 years to go... I was surprised but I wasn't going to complain... lol

People used to buy scooters and transferring their tainted policies to that but that loophole has been closed. Probably because scooters are easy to buy and store. Insurance for a scooter is cheap, etc... Most people are not going to buy another car to pull this off but if you have a second car laying around, it's easy.

I am quite certain that with the new system implemented as of November 2016, the system follows your name, then searches for all cars linked to your name, rather than the old system which searches the vehicle and then your name shows up. Because of this, all rates are the same no matter which vehicle you insure.

[TouringTeg]

I had a similar situation where the claim followed the plate. I had an at fault with my father's car. When the plate was turned in it became a hanging claim. I was the next to get new plates and the claim attached to my plate.

I had two cars insured each at a different discount.

[twitchyzero]

icbc seems to have shitty record keeping?

they claim I first got my license 14 months after I passed my knowledge test, when I know I took it a week after I turned 16

doesn't matter much now because CRS is still the same

[J-Chow]

Originally Posted by teggy604

What are the chances icbc going to raise the premiums another 6 percent this yr?

High as Fuck.

It's ICBC. When do they NOT increase premiums

Actually better question is, what are the chances ICBC will lower the premiums

[TouringTeg]

^ Exactly. We will all pay the price of increased claims (poor driving habits) and ballooning repair costs.

[freakshow]

Originally Posted by snowball

I don't see why this is a thing, maybe I misunderstand, but your second vehicle and any other vehicles owned by the same person should receive equal discount no matter what as it is technically the driver who is insured, not the vehicle.

How ICBC works (or at least used to work), is that your second vehicle gets the maximum potential discount you would have had assuming no accidents.

This, as far as I understand, is supposed to be a benefit because if you're insuring 2 cars under your name as the PO, you can't drive both cars simultaneously, so they are essentially giving you break by not charging you the penalty twice.

Let's say you've been driving for 10 years, so you're supposed to be at -43%, but because of some accidents, you're currently at -10%

The 'loophole' works like this:
- Insure a crappy car A at your current rate based on accidents. On that car, you only get a -10% discount
- Then insure your actual car B, you'll get -43% because it's your second insured car.
- Cancel the insurance on car A, and car B will still have -43%.

This is only useful if you have or get another car to insure each your before your primary car insurance comes up, a winter beater for example. It's also only worth doing if there is a bigger discrepancy between your potential rate and your actual current rate

[The Producer]

that is how people used to do it - only they went a step further and car A was a shitty scooter that may or may not even exist beyond a box of parts and a regi form

I think this loophole is now closed - and I know that it should be anyway.

What difference does it make if you have 1 or a hundred cars. Punish those with poor driving records and reward those that are excellent. Simple.

Hell - take it a pipe-dream further. Let me buy insurance for myself, and then I'll pay a much smaller per plate fee for each of my cars. I can only drive one at at time, and if I lend it out to somebody, they shouldn't be risking my insurance anyway. The most expensive part of my driving hobby is the 3-4 plates I have running at a time.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by keifun

You can get a -20 rating without even driving a car for 10+ yrs. Then one day you decide to drive with no experience whatsoever in those 10+yrs and you get into an at fault accident. GG right there.

That's why I told everyone to get their L the day they hit 16. It's b/s, but since they can't prove one way or the other that you've been driving they just assume you have been and haven't been getting into any accidents.

[quote=The Producer;8881825]that is how people used to do it - only they went a step further and car A was a shitty scooter that may or may not even exist beyond a box of parts and a regi form/QUOTE]

I believe the guy who bought the frame from the dirtbike I was parting out did this, all he cared about was that the VIN was clean.

Originally Posted by The Producer

Hell - take it a pipe-dream further. Let me buy insurance for myself, and then I'll pay a much smaller per plate fee for each of my cars. I can only drive one at at time, and if I lend it out to somebody, they shouldn't be risking my insurance anyway. The most expensive part of my driving hobby is the 3-4 plates I have running at a time.

That really would be the dream, I know some countries do this. It's especially annoying with a project vehicle that you need to test. This spring I *thought* I had my car ready to go, plated it, pulled out of the driveway... and had problems that kept it down for another few weeks.

[!LittleDragon]

Originally Posted by The Producer

What difference does it make if you have 1 or a hundred cars. Punish those with poor driving records and reward those that are excellent. Simple.

They do that with penalty points. Those target only the drivers with poor records.

Not everything is so cut and dry though. Someone can get tickets all the time and never cause an accident. On the flipside, someone who follows the law and gets rear ended all the time because they full stop at stop signs and they stop for yellows. Which one costs ICBC more money?

[The Producer]

You're in an accident - you're either at fault (or partially) or you aren't. If you are - you should pay more insurance. Nobody disagrees with that.

My thread tangent is that I just think it's bogus that additional cars aren't insured at a lesser rate. Of course they still need coverage, theft etc, but a huge portion of our insurance rates is to cover the drivers liability. - ICBC takes 3-4x as much of that rate percentage from me (insure 3-4 cars at a time) as they do from my neighbour for example. Not to mention I basically only drive for pleasure compared to some commuters doing 200 kms a day.

ahhh pipedreams

[Jmac]

Originally Posted by !LittleDragon

They do that with penalty points. Those target only the drivers with poor records.

Not everything is so cut and dry though. Someone can get tickets all the time and never cause an accident. On the flipside, someone who follows the law and gets rear ended all the time because they full stop at stop signs and they stop for yellows. Which one costs ICBC more money?

Are you insinuating it would be one's fault if one got rear-ended for stopping at a stop sign?

[!LittleDragon]

Originally Posted by Jmac

Are you insinuating it would be one's fault if they got rear-ended for stopping at a stop sign?

Not at all