[Timpo]

WATCH: Why are insurance rates going up when the number of crashes on provincial highways is down?

Watch Video: WATCH: Why are insurance rates going up when the number of crashes on provincial highways is down? - BC | Globalnews.ca (http://globalnews.ca/news/1431811/watch-why-are-insurance-rates-going-up-when-the-number-of-crashes-on-provincial-highways-is-down/)

By Ted Chernecki Global News

Buried in Wednesday’s announcement of speed limits going up on some of British Columbia’s highways was an important statistic showing the number of serious crashes on provincial highways has decreased by 28 per cent since 2003.

ICBC rates over that same period have climbed significantly with mandatory basic coverage going up by almost 26 per cent.

That has some critics wondering why insurance rates have continued to rise.

In response, ICBC has issued a statement to Global News saying its rates are driven by the cost of claims, which are increasing every year, particularly our injury claims costs.

Meanwhile, ICBC is forecast to hand over $480 million to the provincial government as general revenue over the next three years.

“ICBC is being used as cash cow by the government,” says NDP finance critic Mike Farnworth. “We see it in budget after budget. We also see requests for rate increases each year.”

http://i0.wp.com/media.globalnews.ca/videostatic/850/291/GBCNH140703CHERNECKI_tnb_4.jpg

[kkthind]

Didn't they just increase the insurance rate like 7% last year? :suspicious:

[v_tec]

I'm not sure if I'll still remember by the time it's Thanksgiving in 3 months. So I'll say it now.
THANK YOU Timpo, for starting a decent thread for once.

[Timpo]

I'm not sure if I'll still remember by the time it's Thanksgiving in 3 months. So I'll say it now.
THANK YOU Timpo, for starting a decent thread for once.

:ohgodwhy: I always only start decent threads...

[FS1992EG]

Isn't the whole point of ICBC is to have affordable insurance rates for British Colombian's.

If there showing a surplus of $160,000,000 annually, shouldn't that money to refunded to the B.C. tax payers?

[asian_XL]

Tax the lambo, r8 drivers, they drive the insurance cost up

[v_tec]

Tax the lambo, r8 drivers, they drive the insurance cost up

:yuno:

Y u no include GTR

http://www.carzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/nissan-gt-r-bank-crash-vancouver.jpg

[J____]

Isn't the whole point of ICBC is to have affordable insurance rates for British Colombian's.

If there showing a surplus of $160,000,000 annually, shouldn't that money to refunded to the B.C. tax payers?

hahaha good joke.

[wouwou]

Think ICBC's bad?

You guys should really move over to Ontario.

[dangonay]

All you need to know is in ICBC's release. It's not the number of claims, it's the cost of each claim. And injury claim costs are going up.

You want to blame someone? Do any of you know somebody who had a minor rear end accident, went after ICBC and got a nice payout (10's of thousands of dollars) because they had a sore neck for a couple days? People seem to think getting rear ended is like winning the lottery. Find the right doctor/lawyer and it's payday.

Soft tissue injuries (like whiplash) account for almost 50% of ICBC's total costs.

Or another way to look at it: almost 50% of your insurance premiums are going to people who make these claims.

[stewie]

i wouldn't be surprised if certain dr's could be bought. either through family friends or just friends of friends. offer a payout to the dr., and have him go along with your reoccurring pain etc. they do it with prescription pain killers like oxycontin

time to go buy a moped....or a bicycle so i can cruise down royal oak or canada way and petition for new bike lanes.

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

Isn't the whole point of ICBC is to have affordable insurance rates for British Colombian's.

If there showing a surplus of $160,000,000 annually, shouldn't that money to refunded to the B.C. tax payers?

4.61 million (Jan 1, 2014)
British Columbia, Population

lol.

3.47million bucks each person eh?

I like that idea. HAH....

edit: i need a new calculator that goes up to 9 digits.

[Jgresch]

4.61 million (Jan 1, 2014)
British Columbia, Population

lol.

3.47million bucks each person eh?

I like that idea. HAH....

You mean $34 each person?

[Manic!]

Tax the lambo, r8 drivers, they drive the insurance cost up

:gtfo:

[Gumby]

Tax the lambo, r8 drivers, they drive the insurance cost up
I think you mean BMW X5, Lexus RX, and Benz ML drivers.

And not to mention gold-coloured Corollas. :troll:

[meme405]

4.61 million (Jan 1, 2014)
British Columbia, Population

lol.

3.47million bucks each person eh?

I like that idea. HAH....

Something doesn't add up here...:concentrate:

In all seriousness Dangonay hit the nail right on the head.

The number of people trying to scam the system by claiming frivolous injury claims is absolutely ridiculous.

This is what I posted in another thread (semi related to the same topic):

I swear people seem to forget that the point of lawsuits is to get fair compensation for loss of income, or damages that you incurred. The point was never to "Strike it rich".

People seem to have this romanticized idea that they can strike it rich by suing people. This is the absolute wrong mentality, it is SUPER rare that the courts award punitive damages to someone, but people seem to think that its common place because the media only reports the rare instances where it does happen.

Same thing with the fuckers who rape insurance claims for bullshit injuries. ICBC has caught onto this one, they don't base your monetary compensation based on anything you say any longer. They now base it on the damage to the car. Their not stupid they know if you got rear ended at 20, realistically there isn't anything wrong with you.

The above was related to that frankly ridiculous thread on some dudes GF slipping on a grape and suing the store.

Like I said there your claim is supposed to compensate you for money that you actually lost due to injury. That means that if you had to stay home from work, or were stuck in bed. Other than that if your neck is a little sore and you can still go to work without problem, then you really should just suck it up.

[underscore]

All you need to know is in ICBC's release. It's not the number of claims, it's the cost of each claim.

Ding ding ding. They also seem to be more eager to write cars off now than before, but that could just be me.

[6o4__boi]

All you need to know is in ICBC's release. It's not the number of claims, it's the cost of each claim. And injury claim costs are going up.

You want to blame someone? Do any of you know somebody who had a minor rear end accident, went after ICBC and got a nice payout (10's of thousands of dollars) because they had a sore neck for a couple days? People seem to think getting rear ended is like winning the lottery. Find the right doctor/lawyer and it's payday.

Soft tissue injuries (like whiplash) account for almost 50% of ICBC's total costs.

Or another way to look at it: almost 50% of your insurance premiums are going to people who make these claims.




This.

I remember i rear ended some dumb bitch a few years ago. It was my mom's tiny Tercel rear ending an EG civic sedan. I wouldn't even call it rear end. I just let go of the accelerator for a few seconds while reaching for something and the car rolled forward very slightly and tapped hers. We both got out, asked if either was alright, exchanged info, figured there was no damage done. Both of us filed a claim anyway. Adjuster looks at my car and hers and tells me that it doesn't look like anything happened to either cars but we'll wait and see. I find out later on that that dumb fucking cunt faced waste of life whore bitch apparently decided to lawyer up, fake injury and get a $20k+ payout. Drove my premiums pretty high. I wish there were dashcams then.
And I hope that that cunt-faced bitch developed a cocaine and heroin habit and is sucking dicks for a nickel in the DTES. Or she's dead.

[meme405]

They also seem to be more eager to write cars off now than before, but that could just be me.

I think that might just be due to the fact that cars are built more like disposable razors now, then they were many years ago.

I mean back in the day when your alternator failed you would go to a specialist and he would rebuild it and toss it back in for you. Now though, every single shop will just buy a new one, and send the old one in as a core exchange.

I wanted the alternator in my truck rebuilt, and I swear it took me a month before I found some guy at like clark and venables in Van that would actually rebuild the thing...

[underscore]

^ potentially, although I've seen them write off an MR2 because the front and rear window were broken.

Completely off topic but I got lucky, since my alternator is apparently very uncommon I was told right away where I could go to get it rebuilt.

[VR6GTI]

This.

I remember i rear ended some dumb bitch a few years ago. It was my mom's tiny Tercel rear ending an EG civic sedan. I wouldn't even call it rear end. I just let go of the accelerator for a few seconds while reaching for something and the car rolled forward very slightly and tapped hers. We both got out, asked if either was alright, exchanged info, figured there was no damage done. Both of us filed a claim anyway. Adjuster looks at my car and hers and tells me that it doesn't look like anything happened to either cars but we'll wait and see. I find out later on that that dumb fucking cunt faced waste of life whore bitch apparently decided to lawyer up, fake injury and get a $20k+ payout. Drove my premiums pretty high. I wish there were dashcams then.
And I hope that that cunt-faced bitch developed a cocaine and heroin habit and is sucking dicks for a nickel in the DTES. Or she's dead.
Same thing happened to my wife, she hit someone from behind going about 5kph, put 2 little license plate marks in the guys cover, her civic hb had 0 damage. Guy gets out saying his neck blah blah blah. She phones ICBC insists they take pictures of her car. She gets no claim sheet cause she has no damage. Then she phones ICBC 4 months later to check the status of the other insured car so she can pay back the damage. He hasnt reported yet :heckno: 6 months after the accident he gets his car fixed and puts in an injury claim. $432 to fix and repair his car but my wife cant pay it out because he has injury claim going. She gets served with papers about a year later from his lawyer. Has his name, address, plate number are on the papers :devil:

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

You mean $34 each person?

sorry i just realised my calculator only goes up to 8 digits. hahahahahaha :failed:

[Timpo]

Same thing happened to my wife, she hit someone from behind going about 5kph, put 2 little license plate marks in the guys cover, her civic hb had 0 damage. Guy gets out saying his neck blah blah blah. She phones ICBC insists they take pictures of her car. She gets no claim sheet cause she has no damage. Then she phones ICBC 4 months later to check the status of the other insured car so she can pay back the damage. He hasnt reported yet :heckno: 6 months after the accident he gets his car fixed and puts in an injury claim. $432 to fix and repair his car but my wife cant pay it out because he has injury claim going. She gets served with papers about a year later from his lawyer. Has his name, address, plate number are on the papers :devil:

why would his lawyer send papers to her instead of ICBC?

[VR6GTI]

why would his lawyer send papers to her instead of ICBC?Because the insured is not suing ICBC they are suing my wife.

[murd0c]

Because the insured is not suing ICBC they are suing my wife.

I thought they can't sue your wife directly since she is covered by ICBC or the insurance company you guys are using?

[H.Specter]

your wife's insurance policy gets sued as a result of this incident. ICBC "jumps in her shoes" to defend her.

[Mr.HappySilp]

Is not that hard to fake injuries if you have the time. Just go to the doctors like once or twice a week and keep saying this hurt and that hurt and you can't sleep blah blah blah.

There are lawyers who live on ICBC claims because is easy money.

[Timpo]

I thought they can't sue your wife directly since she is covered by ICBC or the insurance company you guys are using?

yeah, just contact ICBC, they will fight against the guy on behalf of your wife.

[Timpo]

Is not that hard to fake injuries if you have the time. Just go to the doctors like once or twice a week and keep saying this hurt and that hurt and you can't sleep blah blah blah.

There are lawyers who live on ICBC claims because is easy money.

Just did a quick Google search :suspicious:

Why Frequent Doctor Visits Do Not Increase The Value of Personal Injury Claims | ICBC Personal Injury Claims Lawyer Erik Magraken | Victoria & Vancouver Island BC (http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/frequent-doctor-visits-increase-personal-injury-claims)

Why Frequent Doctor Visits Don't Increase The Value Of Personal Injury Claims

As previously discussed, frequent doctor visits in and of themselves add no value to a personal injury claim. Seeing a doctor simply to ‘paper’ a personal injury claim really does nothing to add to the amount of compensation a claimant is entitled to receive not to mention that it creates a costly and unnecessary burden on the medical system. Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, demonstrating that medical visits to address ‘inconsequential‘ matters with a view to assisting a personal injury claim are frowned upon.

In this week’s case (Hough v. Wyatt) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2009 collision. He sued seeking over $350,000 in damages. The Court largely rejected the Plaintiff’s claim finding that while the collision did cause some injuries these were little more than a ‘minor degree‘ of aggravation of pre-existing injuries. Non-Pecuniary damages of $15,000 were assessed.

In the course of the judgement Madam Justice Stromberg-Stein had provided the following critical comments:

[9] Mr. Hough was a very difficult witness. He is a poor historian, which is understandable given his extensive medical history. However, he bears the burden of proof. He was argumentative, abrasive, sometimes rude, often unresponsive, and many times inconsistent in his evidence. Mr. Hough clearly demonstrates an attitude of entitlement to insurance benefits, at one point indicating he doesn’t understand the problem here, it is only insurance money. He reports everything, no matter how inconsequential, even a broken fingernail, so if there is a problem in the future, he can get compensation. The trouble for Mr. Hough is he was a medical disaster before the accident, and the defendant is not obliged to pay for all that ails him or ailed him. Mr. Hough’s pre-existing medical condition, his original position, as outlined in the evidence of Dr. Waiz, and what Mr. Hough can recall, would have manifested debilitating effects in any event, regardless of the accident. His original condition would have detrimentally affected him even absent the defendant’s negligence. The defendant is not required to compensate him for debilitating effects not caused by the accident….

[14] Dr. Waiz’s evidence is unsatisfactory on many levels, not the least of which his manner in which he managed Mr. Hough’s care with increasing doses of narcotics. His records are unreliable. He blames computer programs and computer generated forms. He has been willing to fill out reports to benefit Mr. Hough, for example, claiming all Mr. Hough’s drugs were WCB-related so Mr. Hough could be compensated, and claiming a wrist fracture was a WCB injury due to ongoing weakness and pain in his right leg. This is the same broken wrist that Mr. Hough now claims was caused by the accident for the same reason. Where it has suited Mr. Hough, Dr. Waiz has reported to WCB Mr. Hough is unable to work in any capacity. Now he was reporting to this court that, because of the accident, Mr. Hough cannot work. The concern is he is parroting what Mr. Hough wants him to say.

While it is true that serious injuries warrant higher damage awards than minor injuries and that serious injuries typically result in more medical appointments, the mere number of doctor’s visits in and of themselves do not assist in valuing a personal injury claim. You can click here for a short discussion addressing the factors Court’s often consider when assessing non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering) in a BC personal injury lawsuit.

[Timpo]

Here's another one
http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/tag/medical-marijuana

Frequency of Doctor Visits

The last point of interest deals with the Plaintiff’s frequency of doctor’s visits I have canvassed this topic previously. In this week’s case the Plaintiff pointed to having 128 doctor visits as supporting his claim for injury. The Court, however, found that there was no reasonable justification for this and instead came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff was simply papering his claim. The following observation was made by Justice Sigurdson:

[65] Up to June 2012, the plaintiff saw Dr. Irene Chan, a general practitioner, 128 times for his injuries. From July 8, 2008 to June 2012, the complaints he made to her were virtually the same on each occasion. Dr. Chen was not called as an expert witness but testified simply with respect to some of the observations she made…

[107] It is difficult to know what to make of the fact that the plaintiff attended his general practitioner for 128 visits and appears to have repeated his symptoms almost without change on each visit. He explained in his testimony that he went to his doctor to report changes in his condition; however his doctor noted each of his attendances with the plaintiff reporting no changes. The evidence left me with the impression that the plaintiff was creating a record of his injuries for his claim as there appears to be no reasonable medical justification for the number of attendances before his family doctor. Rather than supporting his credibility, this evidence of the numerous attendances on his family doctor left me with the opposite impression.

[flagella]

4.61 million (Jan 1, 2014)
British Columbia, Population

lol.

3.47million bucks each person eh?

I like that idea. HAH....

edit: i need a new calculator that goes up to 9 digits.

u need a calculator to tell u that ur number clearly made no sense?

[Hondaracer]

moral of the story? When you're gonna hit someone, make it count.

[FS1992EG]

Instead of raising rates. Why doesn't icbc make it cheaper for drivers to purchase insurance if you buy a finevu camera.

This way, any small fender benders would be dismissed as fraud for the claimer.

But we should be proactively putting camera's on are our cars so are family members don't get sued by scammers.

[Speed2K]

Lol, am I the only one that saw the title and went, "F#$%, insurance rates are going up by 26%!!!!" :fuuuuu: :heckno:

Then read the article and saw that insurance rates HAD ALREADY gone up by 26% since 2003. Not that it's much better. :okay:

[dangonay]

They also seem to be more eager to write cars off now than before, but that could just be me.

I think that might just be due to the fact that cars are built more like disposable razors now, then they were many years ago.

Cars aren't built to be disposable - they're built to be sacrificial. For example, crumple zones are designed to absorb the impact of a collision so the forces applied to passengers are reduced.

Bottom line is cars are replaceable, people are not. Better to have a $30k car thrown away and passengers with minor injuries than a car that's still repairable and a passenger with $100K (or more) in medical bills and on-going physical therapy.

It is unbelievably expensive to "repair" people.

[Ludepower]

Shouldn't ICBC be a revenue neutral government insurance company?
Why are profits being siphoned out and used in other government expenditures.

Stupid rhetorical question I know...

[Mike Oxbig]

:yuno:

Y u no include GTR

http://www.carzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/nissan-gt-r-bank-crash-vancouver.jpg

PLEASE post the picture of the driver sitting on the chair after the crash

[RRxtar]

Lol, am I the only one that saw the title and went, "F#$%, insurance rates are going up by 26%!!!!" :fuuuuu: :heckno:

Then read the article and saw that insurance rates HAD ALREADY gone up by 26% since 2003. Not that it's much better. :okay:
yes, because no one actually read the article and took the threat title as fact for an easy way to jump into an ICBC shitting thread

[hotjoint]

I never understood why there was a ceiling for discounts. There should be no ceiling so if you're a good driver, you should have the opportunity to be insured for free one day by all the other dumb ass drivers that cause the accidents and claims. Make those people pay more to get their vehicles insured. There should be REAL incentives for people who are claim free. Fuck this 42% discount BS, gimme 100% discount. That's just my opinion.

[underscore]

Cars aren't built to be disposable - they're built to be sacrificial. For example, crumple zones are designed to absorb the impact of a collision so the forces applied to passengers are reduced.

Bottom line is cars are replaceable, people are not. Better to have a $30k car thrown away and passengers with minor injuries than a car that's still repairable and a passenger with $100K (or more) in medical bills and on-going physical therapy.

It is unbelievably expensive to "repair" people.

The same amount of energy is going into the car, so crumple zones or not the car is going to sustain roughly the same amount of damage, the crumple zones just help to ensure that the damage is directed away from the passengers.

[GGnoRE]

I never understood why there was a ceiling for discounts. There should be no ceiling so if you're a good driver, you should have the opportunity to be insured for free one day by all the other dumb ass drivers that cause the accidents and claims. Make those people pay more to get their vehicles insured. There should be REAL incentives for people who are claim free. Fuck this 42% discount BS, gimme 100% discount. That's just my opinion.

lol thats not how insurance work; the point of insurance is to pool and share the risk. There is always a non-zero probability that you might cause an accident as long as you are on the road. 100% discount means others are paying for your risk for free.

[knight604]

100% discount , thats not how monopolies work.

[Marco911]

I think vehicle black boxes should start tracking accelerometer data. If you want to sue, be prepared to provide the data.

[bing]

I never understood why there was a ceiling for discounts. There should be no ceiling so if you're a good driver, you should have the opportunity to be insured for free one day by all the other dumb ass drivers that cause the accidents and claims. Make those people pay more to get their vehicles insured. There should be REAL incentives for people who are claim free. Fuck this 42% discount BS, gimme 100% discount. That's just my opinion.

Even if you are not causing any accidents, there are still administrative costs so why would you get a 100% discount?

Regardless, it only takes one costly accident with a payout in the millions to wipe out everything you've ever paid into the system.

[asian_XL]

:gtfo:

I work in the insurance industry, underwriting car insurance is part of my job.
Gold-coloured colloras, SUV are what we highly preferred.

We got Maybach, Bentley, Ferrari, Lambo application all the time, these are the models we send inspectors to check out the car.

[ancient_510]

Why doesn't icbc make it cheaper for drivers to purchase insurance if you buy a finevu camera.

+1

They already discount for a passive immobilizer, why not discount for a camera if you agree to surrender the video if you make a claim or a claim is made against you?

[vitaminG]

Instead of raising rates. Why doesn't icbc make it cheaper for drivers to purchase insurance if you buy a finevu camera.

This way, any small fender benders would be dismissed as fraud for the claimer.

But we should be proactively putting camera's on are our cars so are family members don't get sued by scammers.

Because icbc makes more money when accidents are 50/50 and they can raise both rates.

[ImportPsycho]

+1

They already discount for a passive immobilizer, why not discount for a camera if you agree to surrender the video if you make a claim or a claim is made against you?

How does having cam help icbc save money?
Cam doesn't prevent accidents, and icbc doesn't give a sht who is at fault, as long as someone takes the fault

[Timpo]

How does having cam help icbc save money?
Cam doesn't prevent accidents, and icbc doesn't give a sht who is at fault, as long as someone takes the fault

It depends.

If you hit a kid in school zone today, you'll be in a lot of shit and parents are gonna sue your ass for multi million $$$.

It's even worse if your car is relatively flashy, have exhaust, etc.
Witness are gonna tell ICBC and Police you were driving like a complete idiot, you are going to have a criminal charge for mischief in public, etc.

Trust me, witness will actually tell everyone that you were driving aggressively, surf on Youtube and other car websites, people post videos how single dashcam saved their ass.

It is going to save ICBC a lot of money because your dashcam shows a kid running into the road without even looking and you had absolutely no time to stop within distance.

[ImportPsycho]

It depends.

If you hit a kid in school zone today, you'll be in a lot of shit and parents are gonna sue your ass for multi million $$$.

It's even worse if your car is relatively flashy, have exhaust, etc.
Witness are gonna tell ICBC and Police you were driving like a complete idiot, you are going to have a criminal charge for mischief in public, etc.

Trust me, witness will actually tell everyone that you were driving aggressively, surf on Youtube and other car websites, people post videos how single dashcam saved their ass.

It is going to save ICBC a lot of money because your dashcam shows a kid running into the road without even looking and you had absolutely no time to stop within distance.

I see your point there

[ancient_510]

It depends.

If you hit a kid in school zone today, you'll be in a lot of shit and parents are gonna sue your ass for multi million $$$.

It's even worse if your car is relatively flashy, have exhaust, etc.
Witness are gonna tell ICBC and Police you were driving like a complete idiot, you are going to have a criminal charge for mischief in public, etc.

Trust me, witness will actually tell everyone that you were driving aggressively, surf on Youtube and other car websites, people post videos how single dashcam saved their ass.

It is going to save ICBC a lot of money because your dashcam shows a kid running into the road without even looking and you had absolutely no time to stop within distance.

Exactly. Dashcam coupled with a medical professional's opinion could lower the payout value of an injury claim... or even outright deny it.
This exactly the cause of increased rates in the article from in the first post.

[SoNaRWaVe]

so here we go again...

ICBC Wants to Raise Rates by 5.2 percent (http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2014/08/icbc-wants-raise-rates-5-2-percent/)

so much for passing down savings from reduced accidents eh?

[cdizzle_996]

Absolute joke

[melloman]

But... they gave back money to people. They need to regain their wealth from their previous fuck-up of the last 6 years... :pokerface:

[SoNaRWaVe]

lol, money that they shouldn't have charged in the first place. therefore, the bastards aren't giving you anything. they held your money and profit from it for the last 6 years if they invested the money

[ilovebacon]

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?

[PuYang]

Sorry for slight off topic, but I received mail from ICBC today saying that they miscalculated my insurance for the last 3 years on my current car, and have been undercharging me (they worded it as I have been underpaying them).

They said they will waive the charges and I don't have to do anything until my next insurance renewal, where I will be paying the correct/updated amount (more).

The insurance on my GTI vs my last car (1999 Prelude) is already a few hundred dollars higher, and now I find out I've been underpaying too lol, damn!!!

EDIT: ohhh ilovebacon posted while I was typing. Looks like me and your dad got the same letter basically. Except mine was way more than 12 dollars...

[CA_FTW]

My bro got this same letter.. say he had underpaid 250 or something..

and they will adjust accordingly..

funny how they word it so its like you were Purposely stealing that money from them, and they are doing you a HUGE favor in not charging you.

[hotjoint]

fuck you ICBC!

[Timpo]

so here we go again...

ICBC Wants to Raise Rates by 5.2 percent (http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2014/08/icbc-wants-raise-rates-5-2-percent/)

so much for passing down savings from reduced accidents eh?

ICBC Monopoly at its finest

[JesseBlue]

wrong...

ICBC Monopoly at its worst

[hotjoint]

These greedy motherfuckers just never stop

[badboy]

how do we get revenge?

[Timpo]

how do we get revenge?

This is how people revenge ICBC:
http://www.revscene.net/forums/697616-north-van-dozens-cars-keyed-pic-person-interest.html

well we know that this probably isn't a good idea since something like this will only give an additional reason to ICBC how they need to raise the insurance price.

The only way to stop ICBC monopoly is to get some petition, get media on our side, maybe get someone powerful and put ICBC under political pressure.

Find economical benefits, or any benefits for that matter by getting rid of ICBC monopoly and bringing private companies. What kind of positive change can we expect?

Educate media and citizens with YouTube video. This worked for "speed kills" bullshit we had for decades.
Someone could do the same for ICBC, maybe someone smart or perhaps the same guy who made that "Speed kills your pockebook" maybe rename it "ICBC kills your pocketbook"

[meme405]

how do we get revenge?

Learn how to drive.

Educate others on how to drive.

Don't get into accidents.

Don't provoke accidents.

Don't scam ICBC on claims, or injuries.

All our collective insurances will eventually go down.

[quasi]

Learn how to drive.

Educate others on how to drive.

Don't get into accidents.

Don't provoke accidents.

Don't scam ICBC on claims, or injuries.

All our collective insurances will eventually go down.

Call me pessimistic but even if all that happened they would just keep the rates the same and continue to funnel money out ICBC into the general coffers. The only two things IMO that would lower rates (for some) is: 1.Competition in basic rates but that isn't happening, way to large of a cash cow. 2. No Fault insurance.

I was talking to my wife, between Car, motorcycle, house and life insurance I currently pay $7,000.00 a year of my net income to insurance, we've both been claim free for almost 2 decades on any type of insurance......That's fucking insane, imagine what I'd pay if I was able to get discounts like other places (USA) for lumping all my insurance into one carrier?

[gars]

Call me pessimistic but even if all that happened they would just keep the rates the same and continue to funnel money out ICBC into the general coffers. The only two things IMO that would lower rates (for some) is: 1.Competition in basic rates but that isn't happening, way to large of a cash cow. 2. No Fault insurance.

They only take money made from the optional insurance - the BC Gov't doesn't take money from the basic insurance.

[quasi]

Edited

[BoostedBB6]

Perhaps insuring cars properly would be a good idea as well.

If you drive a 2004 CLK500 and you pay the same insurance as someone who drives a 92 Ford Exploder there is something VERY wrong. I know this is the case as my father owns both.

Charge people who buy high end cars more to insure them. Class cars properly.
My IS300 is not a luxury sports car....

[320icar]

On my focus st I pay $250/mo with a 35% discount. Fuck that

[Lomac]

On my focus st I pay $250/mo with a 35% discount. Fuck that

Brand new? Full coverage with the smallest deductable possible? Replacement policy? Insured for >15km? Living in GVRD? Same model have a history of high repair costs or being stolen?

There are tons of options that can increase insurance to a high number, just as there are other options that drops the monthly payments to next to nill.

I pay <$80/month for full coverage on my car. And that's not even the cheapest I've paid in the past.

Say what you will, I'd rather have ICBC than a private market.

[godwin]

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.


If you drive a 2004 CLK500 and you pay the same insurance as someone who drives a 92 Ford Exploder there is something VERY wrong. I know this is the case as my father owns both.

Charge people who buy high end cars more to insure them. Class cars properly.
My IS300 is not a luxury sports car....

[godwin]

You do realise if you go to an insurance brokerage at any shopping mall or even BCAA, talk with them, they will give you discount for bring all your insurance services to them right?!:suspicious:

Just because you don't know the discount routes and paying more, doesn't mean they don't exist.

That's fucking insane, imagine what I'd pay if I was able to get discounts like other places (USA) for lumping all my insurance into one carrier?

[Bouncing Bettys]

If I could make one round-trip drive to the store, to work, etc without encountering someone cutting me off, changing lanes without looking, turning without signalling, left-lane hogging, etc, that would be nice.

[quasi]

You do realise if you go to an insurance brokerage at any shopping mall or even BCAA, talk with them, they will give you discount for bring all your insurance services to them right?!:suspicious:

Just because you don't know the discount routes and paying more, doesn't mean they don't exist.

I have my home insurance through BCAA the last 8 years and I've already checked into that. If I moved all my vehicles over there that would be 75% of my insurance coverage, home, 3 vehicles just my life would be elsewhere.

What kind of savings would I reap in a bundle? None, I'd save slightly on SUV and Car I'd pay more on the bike (already private somewhere else for optional) for a net increase in premiums.

Just because you know the discount routes doesn't mean you know where I get my insurance or what I've looked into. :)

[BoostedBB6]

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.

[Lomac]

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.

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.

[underscore]

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.

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.

[tr0ubl3s0m3x]

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

[quasi]

^^ 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.

Ford Pinto gas tank explosion - YouTube

[StanleyR]

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

[Yodamaster]

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

[underscore]

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.

Ford Pinto gas tank explosion - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZDVqhWGILA)

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.