[AstulzerRZD]

http://www.icbc.com/about-icbc/newsroom/Documents/changes-how%20at-fault-crashes-affect-premiums.pdf

Thoughts?

[fliptuner]

It's fucked for the people that have long term, good driving records.

If you're at -20 CRS, you go down to the same level as someone who's at -17, to -9.

ICBC's logic is that someone at -20 can get into 3 at fault accidents and not have their basic, premiums change and that's not fair, yet those people have proven over the course of 20+ years that they're safe drivers. The same folks who have not contributed to the cost of injury claims.

So how does this encourage safer driving when you potentially punish the safest drivers?

[dark0821]

yea... so... okay... have to agree that is pretty fucked up.

[flagella]

Obviously a step towards charging higher insurance premiums. Look at the stretch.

[tonyzoomzoom]

15 years of safety driving is the new 20 years of safety driving. Stupid.

[Timpo]

Worst drivers on ICBC's radar to lose safe-driving discount
BRIAN MORTON
Published on: March 4, 2017 | Last Updated: March 4, 2017 9:23 AM PST

ICBC to hit drivers with higher premiums for at-fault crashes | Vancouver Sun (http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/icbc-to-make-it-harder-for-poor-drivers-to-get-safe-driving-discount)

http://wpmedia.vancouversun.com/2017/03/vancouver-bc-june-14-2015-a-three-car-crash-injured-s.jpeg

ICBC announced Friday it will be quicker to boost premiums of drivers who cause multiple crashes, starting in May 2018. ARLEN REDEKOP / PNG FILES

The Insurance Corporation of B.C. wants the province’s worst drivers to pay a heavier price sooner.

“We believe that drivers who cause crashes should pay more than those who don’t,” said ICBC board chair Barry Penner in a statement Friday.

“There were 20,000 more crashes last year than in 2015. With the escalating pressures being put on insurance rates — from more crashes, more claims and higher costs per claim — we’re making sure at-fault drivers are held more accountable for the costs they add to the system here in B.C.”

ICBC said it will increase the accountability of drivers who cause crashes by changing how much at-fault crashes affect their basic insurance rates, which Penner said will help prevent future rate hikes for better drivers.

ICBC announced drivers who cause multiple at-fault crashes will lose their safe driving discounts faster than they do now, with the changes expected to take effect on May 6, 2018.

According to ICBC, it’s now possible for some drivers getting the maximum discount to have caused two, or even three, crashes and have the same discount on basic insurance as a driver who has never caused a crash.

Under the new system, long-term safe drivers will continue to have their discount protected if they’re at fault for one crash, but that won’t be the case if they have multiple at-fault crashes.

ICBC said most of its customers — those who don’t cause crashes — will not see any change.

All drivers will continue to earn credit toward discounts for every year they’re crash-free, and drivers who cause a crash will regain their previous discount if they go three consecutive years without being responsible for a crash.

ICBC said the latest announcement follows other changes, including higher penalties for distracted driving, preventing fraudulent and exaggerated claims, and doubling basic premiums on vehicles worth more than $150,000.

[Timpo]

Get ready for massive ICBC rate hikes
Keith Baldrey / North Shore News
MARCH 1, 2017 09:27 AM

BALDREY: Get ready for massive ICBC rate hikes (http://www.nsnews.com/opinion/columnists/baldrey-get-ready-for-massive-icbc-rate-hikes-1.10685159#sthash.G7YZu7R9.dpuf)

http://images.glaciermedia.ca/polopoly_fs/1.10685533.1488389238!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_804/baldrey.jpg

Can ICBC survive? And if so, can it do so only through a huge increase in auto insurance rates?

Those are questions worth pondering given the latest update on the Crown corporation’s fiscal situation.

A few months back in this space, I pointed out ICBC was once again being used as a political football by the B.C. Liberal government and it now appears the air has been rapidly squeezed out of the ball.

What was supposed to be a $95-million contribution from ICBC back to government this fiscal year has turned into a loss of almost $400 million. And what were supposed to be profits over the next few years are now expected to turn into major annual losses.

Adrian Dix, the NDP’s dogged ICBC critic, has pointed out in that the difference between projected profits and actual losses is even greater over a period of years – a $1.5 billion difference, as a matter of fact.

And Richard McCandless, a retired senior civil servant and an intervenor at B.C. Utilities Commission hearings, says the government has allowed an annual structural deficit of around $400 million to $500 million to become embedded in ICBC, one that cannot be sustained within the current funding model.

A contributing problem to the mess is the fact the government has drained the corporation of so much money its capital reserve (regulatory rules require it to be maintained at a high level) has been sinking. The government has shifted almost $1 billion from its profitable, optional insurance side over the past three years to make up the shortfall, and another $1.5 billion will be required over the next three years.

McCandless says there are only two options here: either cut costs significantly, or increase revenues dramatically. Unless the government turns around and starts subsidizing ICBC with hundreds of millions of dollars, rate increases could total between 42 per cent over the next four years (or as high as a cumulative 117 per cent if the capital reserve problem is factored in).

McCandless likens the situation to a “not-so-slow-motion train wreck.” In other words, a crisis is mounting very quickly (he also offered another analogy to me: “It’s like trying to put out a house fire with $1,000 bills.”).

While it is true that ICBC, like many other auto insurance providers, is struggling to deal with skyrocketing claims, as the cost of repairing modern vehicles is much more expensive than even a few years ago, other issues are behind the crisis.

Dix points to almost 500 layoffs of ICBC staff starting almost a decade ago.

Many were experienced claims adjusters, and so the time required to settle claims took longer, thus adding to the costs (Dix acknowledges things have started to turn around this year on this front as more adjusters have been hired, but he argues the damage has been done).

And Dix says ICBC has become more litigious, dragging out claim settlements as long as possible, thus driving up costs even more. Management ranks became bloated over time and that management failed to deal with a 45 per cent increase in non-litigated claims costs in six years.

He thinks ICBC can still be saved, but only if big changes are implemented, and implemented quickly (one possibility: make penalties for distracted driving – the number one cause of accidents – even more severe than they are now).

Expect Dix and his party to use the short legislative session to continue to berate the B.C. Liberals over its use of ICBC as a political cash cow and its record of political interference in an entity once considered a shining example of public auto insurance to show off to other jurisdictions.

So far, the government has offered little in the way of explanation or even defence of its action. Transportation Minister Todd Stone, who has ministerial responsibility for ICBC, has basically criticized the New Democrats for even daring to raise the issue.

But get ready for a looming sticker shock from your car insurance rates.

It won’t happen before the election, but it will happen eventually – whether ICBC survives or not.

[Lomac]

It's fucked for the people that have long term, good driving records.

If you're at -20 CRS, you go down to the same level as someone who's at -17, to -9.

ICBC's logic is that someone at -20 can get into 3 at fault accidents and not have their basic, premiums change and that's not fair, yet those people have proven over the course of 20+ years that they're safe drivers. The same folks who have not contributed to the cost of injury claims.

So how does this encourage safer driving when you potentially punish the safest drivers?

I wanted to defend ICBC's reasoning behind their rate change, but then I actually checked that pdf... and fuck that.

All I can say in defense of ICBC is that a good chunk of the blame can be laid at the government's feet for siphoning away their capital reserve.

[Traum]

On the surface, the new CRS levels and insurance discounts seem to make sense -- good drivers still enjoy 1 "free pass" before their insurance premiums go up. Have an at-fault crash more than once, and you will pay for the mistake. This all sounds good and fair.

The problem with the new approach is, ICBC has a strong tendency (and track record) to lay blame on as many parties involved in an accident as they can. When everybody gets a share of the blame, nobody gets off the hook on an accident, and everyone's premiums go up! (or lose their free pass).

[Jmac]

So I'll have 18 years of driving with no accidents (-18 CRS) ... and now I'll get fucked if I get into more than 1 accident over the next decade ...

How the fuck did they come up with this bullshit of dropping you MORE if you have more years of accident-free driving? It makes no goddamn sense ...

Fuck you, ICBC ...

[320icar]

So I'm confused. If I'm at -9 then I stay at -9 for my first at fault accident?

[hud 91gt]

I always thought the 3 free accidents was a bit crazy. But wow, the logic for CRS -16 to -19 is messed up. The longer you've been fault-free the more you get punished. Unreal.

[Presto]

So I'm confused. If I'm at -9 then I stay at -9 for my first at fault accident?

Previously, an at-fault accident at -9 would move you 4 steps down to -5 (25%). With the new scale, an at-fault accident at -9 moves you down 6 steps to -3 (15%).

So, if you're at -18, or higher, you should give your car a good smashing before the rule changes. There's no point going beyond -15, now.

[GG]

wait let me get this straight

on the old scale if i was road star i basically get three accidents quota before my insurance goes up

on the new scale

doesnt matter if i was -20 or -17?
i crash once i drop to -9

i crash one more i go from 43% discount to 15%??????

am i reading this right????
are u fucking kidding me????

[!LittleDragon]

I don't think this is anything to get upset about. Most drivers aren't going to drive safely to reach -43% and all of the sudden cause 3 accidents in a year.

Besides, if I caused a big enough accident that I can't pay out of pocket then I'll probably get a new car with a new policy/discount... lol... if that loophole still exists in the future.

[Liquid_o2]

I must be an idiot, because no matter how much I study this .pdf file it doesn't make any sense to me :pokerface:

Edit: I think I got it. Carry on.

[320icar]

Besides, if I caused a big enough accident that I can't pay out of pocket then I'll probably get a new car with a new policy/discount... lol...

Uh. Either you explained that REALLY poorly or you have no clue how insurance works

[The Producer]

I don't think this is anything to get upset about. Most drivers aren't going to drive safely to reach -43% and all of the sudden cause 3 accidents in a year.

Besides, if I caused a big enough accident that I can't pay out of pocket then I'll probably get a new car with a new policy/discount... lol... if that loophole still exists in the future.

you're just going to stroke a cheque for the entire claim of a major accident? including injuries and damages? :pokerface:

Had a new one today during a renewal. My excess underisured policy expired. Was quoted 25.00 for the year which is a bit lower than before. Until she told me it's per vehicle insured.

I have 3-4 vehicles insured at any given time. Another ICBC rip

[Great68]

Besides, if I caused a big enough accident that I can't pay out of pocket

Not if there are injuries involved...

Why do you think they offer extended liability insurance up to 5 million?

[Timpo]

On the surface, the new CRS levels and insurance discounts seem to make sense -- good drivers still enjoy 1 "free pass" before their insurance premiums go up. Have an at-fault crash more than once, and you will pay for the mistake. This all sounds good and fair.
I don't think this is anything to get upset about. Most drivers aren't going to drive safely to reach -43% and all of the sudden cause 3 accidents in a year.

Are you guys suggesting that ICBC is really trying to be fair to the good drivers?

Or are they trying to make more cash?

ICBC has all the stats and figures, I'm sure they don't change the policy before estimating the economic impact on their side?

:pokerface:

[PiuYi]

so in order not to waste years of good driving, after your 15th year of accident free driving, you should smash your car into a shopping mall....... and do this again and again every 6 years :lawl:

(not accounting for deductibles)

[Traum]

Are you guys suggesting that ICBC is really trying to be fair to the good drivers?

Or are they trying to make more cash?

ICBC has all the stats and figures, I'm sure they don't change the policy before estimating the economic impact on their side?

:pokerface:
There is no doubt that ICBC is haemorrhaging badly, for whatever reasons it may be. We have discussed many of those reasons in other threads before, and I am not particularly interested in discussing them again now.

It is obvious that ICBC is changing its policy to become less generous in attempt to slow / stop the massive money outflow. As an insurance-paying motorist, I am supportive of that at a theoretical level. I would even say that on paper alone, the new changes are acceptable since long time safe drivers would still be entitled to 1 free pass at fault accident. As someone has already mentioned, safe drivers don't tend to get into multiple at-fault crashes within a short time frame. 1 at-fault crash every 6 years seem a bit stringent, but I can live with that.

As indicated in my original post, the problem I have with the new policy is how ICBC executes its at-fault evaluations. They love to categorically lay blame on all parties involved so that everyone is at fault, and I do not agree with that. And because of how they execute their at-fault evaluations, the new CRS-vs-discounts policy becomes quite a ripoff.

As a disclaimer (though frequent RSers are probably aware of this), I am generally supportive of ICBC running a public insurance system in the province. That doesn't mean I think ICBC is great; I just think the merits of a public system is better than the gong show that we have over in Onterrible. I also have a good driving record -- my last at-fault accident was almost 15 years ago, and I have been receiving my 43% discount for a very long time.

[freakshow]

The scale is retarded, just stop it at 15, why bother writing up to 20 when it's all the same..

aside from that, it just pisses me off the way they say “We believe that drivers who cause crashes should pay more than those who don’t,”. I'm on board with that. Except the changes they made are exactly the opposite, they are punishing the people who have been driving safely for TWENTY YEARS STRAIGHT. WTF

[FerrariEnzo]

ICBC needs a new insurance program, Chinese Mainlanders coverage! :awwyeah:

[you!]

wow what a bunch of tools seriously

[RRxtar]

I think some of you are even missing the craziest part on here.

If you drive 17 years claim free and get in 1 at fault accident, you move 8 spots down the CRS
If you drive 20 years claim free and get in 1 at fault accident, you move 11 spots down the CRS

you get punished harder if you've been claim free longer WTF! It is literally an escalating punishment the longer you've been claim free!


Currently, the longer you drive claim free, the shorter you drop down the CRS with an at fault accident. Makes sense. If someone cant drive 3 or 5 years without an accident, they should get punished harder as theyre clearly bad drivers. If you can go 15-20 years without an accident, it was likely an accident and you aren't punished so hard because you havent been a drain on the insurance.

If anything, since you hit 43% at 9 years, just keep it all at 6 steps. Its fucking absurd it goes to 11 steps for 20 years claim free!

[Jmac]

I think some of you are even missing the craziest part on here.

If you drive 17 years claim free and get in 1 at fault accident, you move 8 spots down the CRS
If you drive 20 years claim free and get in 1 at fault accident, you move 11 spots down the CRS

you get punished harder if you've been claim free longer WTF! It is literally an escalating punishment the longer you've been claim free!


Currently, the longer you drive claim free, the shorter you drop down the CRS with an at fault accident. Makes sense. If someone cant drive 3 or 5 years without an accident, they should get punished harder as theyre clearly bad drivers. If you can go 15-20 years without an accident, it was likely an accident and you aren't punished so hard because you havent been a drain on the insurance.

If anything, since you hit 43% at 9 years, just keep it all at 6 steps. Its fucking absurd it goes to 11 steps for 20 years claim free!
Exactly, keep it at +6 for everyone and their new CRS scale is fine. I mean, still worse for good drivers, but not terrible. Basically would make it so everyone moves up the same amount for an accident, which is pretty fair.

[MarkyMark]

That graph is retarded. At least give drivers with 20 years accident free an additional discount or something.

[mr_chin]

The graph is basically saying, no matter how long you've been driving for, no matter what level you're at, if you crash 2 times, you'll get the same punishment as anyone else.

Hence -20 goes to -9, which is same as -17 goes to -9, then second claim goes to -3.

Whereas the old system, you need to crash 3 times to fall to the same level as the dude who made 2 claims.

TL;DR Everyone gets the same punishment. Drop in level got bigger.

[Jmac]

The graph is basically saying, no matter how long you've been driving for, no matter what level you're at, if you crash 2 times, you'll get the same punishment as anyone else.

Hence -20 goes to -9, which is same as -17 goes to -9, then second claim goes to -3.

Whereas the old system, you need to crash 3 times to fall to the same level as the dude who made 2 claims.

TL;DR Everyone gets the same punishment. Drop in level got bigger.
Clearly punishing the people who have had 15+ years of claims free driving (in other words, have been contributing money to the system rather than draining it) who run into a string of bad luck is clearly the solution.

You certainly wouldn't want to punish the drivers who routinely demonstrate that they're poor drivers that are draining the system, would you?

3 years without a claim to get back to previous discount? Still there
Maximum of +10 on CRS scale? Still there
Increase in penalties for drivers on the + side of the scale? Nope
Increase in multiple-crash premium for drivers who have had 3 or more claims over a 3-year period? Nope

No, you're right, this is way more fair.

[bomberR17]

It looks like they are not implementing the CRS changes in May anymore. I'm surprised this isn't announced anywhere, not even on reddit.

Claims and your insurance costs (http://www.icbc.com/autoplan/costs/Pages/Claims-and-your-insurance-costs.aspx)

The provincial government has directed the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) and ICBC to not implement the changes to the Claim Rated Scale (CRS) that were announced last year, and were to take effect on May 6, 2018. Although the CRS changes previously announced will not be implemented, ICBC will continue to look at at-fault crashes within our broader rate design strategy to make rates more affordable.

[kkttsang]

That’s good news.