Insurance in the states is more or less the same thing. What gets to me the most is that insurance companies will raise your rates EVERYTIME you make a claim.

And of course, private insurance companies still try to get out of insuring you when you get in trouble, just like ICBC.

So ICBC aint that bad after all .

 

I don't have a problem with ICBC, in general, but I am not keen on this particular policy. It seems to me that one error that does not result in an accident, should not cost over $1000.

If there are speeders out there that are causing accidents, then crank their rates through the roof when they have/cause an accident. I just don't see how it is right that people with 15, 20, or 30 years of safe driving can instantly be branded as a high risk and penalized more than some of the boneheads that we saw on the news who could not navigate a little snow and crashed their vehicles.

 

I thknk you guys should readup on the new rulings before passing judgement.

http://www.icbc.com/inside_icbc/november2007news.asp#5

 

I read those rules, that is where I got the information from. Unless I am not reading it correctly, one excessive speeding conviction results in the ticket fine (motor vehicle act) plus the $320 (times 3 years) charge tacked on by ICBC.

The motor vehicle act defines excessive speeding as 40km over the posted limit. To me, a $1000 fine for that is too high. That said, I have not had a speeding ticket for about 10 years.

I just feel like there are some situations where you could find yourself going 40 over the limit, but not creating a danger. As an example, There are some roads with speed limits posted at 80km. Most drivers, on a clear, dry day will do about 100km (and rightfully risking a ticket). The problem is that in some case the speed limit drops down to 60km, without a change in road conditions. That would mean that the people who are doing a 100, are now facing an excessive speeding charge.

 

Your interpretations are correct, but as a whole I see nothing wrong with their attempt with this new program.

A Criminal code conviction results in paying $905 per year for 3 years.
(2) 24 hour roadside suspensions result in paying $370 per year for 3 years.
(3) motor vehicle related offenses result in paying $350 per year for 3 years.
(1) Excessive speeding conviction results in payling $320 per year for 3 years.

Currently, each motor vehicle offense carries drivers points premiums which also carries a bill that is mailed to you just before your birthday. For example, 2 speeding tickets result in 6 points and a $300 premium.
3 speeding tickets and 9 points result in a $640 premium.
1 excessive speeding ticket is 3 points, which has no premium points by itself unless you get a second ticket inwhich points will follow ie a ticket for driving without due care since they were excessively speeding.

I commend ICBC's attempt but in reality, all they have done is given a new name to their driver's points premiums and rasied the penalty. If speeding tickets did not deter people from driving drunk or speeding, what makes you think the increased fines will?

My personal favourate example of this is the death penalty for murder or drug trafficking in asia, or the 3 strike rule in California.

 

fines only apply if you break laws...so dont break laws.

 

in no way is this a safety issue (as they claim it to be), this is simply, yet another governmental cash-grab

 

Not exactly. If you got 3 speeding tickets in 1 year, you would pay $640 in driver penalty point fines for the 9 points.
Now they want to charge you $1050 as opposed to the $640.

And I know for a fact the DPP has not changed for at least 14 years since I've had my liscence for that long yet minimum wage, inflation, housing prices have gone up a lot since then.
Heck, a speeding ticket is still $138 with the victim's surcharge whereas it was $100 for a long time.

If these new rates can reduce one fatality, it was done it's job.

Just something to consider before throwing out blanket statements like this being a "cash-grab".

One more thing, an excessive speeding ticket IIRC was a $483 dollar ticket, so I don't see the extra $1050 being a cash grab, and I cannot see why one should not be a "high risk" driver if they are caught excessively speeding.
Also, if you were in the US and you were going 40 km/h over the speed limit, expect your insurance rates to go up and you would be thrown in jail. I know cause when I was young I came that close to going to jail for going 98 mph in a 70 mph zone.

 

Well, let me explain my reasoning further. First, I am not opposed to speeding tickets and I am not opposed to fining people who demonstrate repeated violations. I think these are a good thing.

What I am opposed to is the idea that one incident of excessive speed will cost a driver $1000 over and above the cost of the ticket. Is it possible for someone to do 40km above the speed limit and not be "high risk"? I would say yes. Clearly, all drivers are not equal - some drivers have far greater driving ability than others. The best reflection of this ability is their past driving record.

Excessive speed for some bad drivers is anything over the speed limit, but some very good drivers can easily handle 40 km over in a safe manner in some situations. I am not talking about roaring down a residential street at 100km per hour. I am thinking of those roads that we have all encountered where the road is built for speeds higher than what has been posted. Take David Avenue in Port Moody/Coquitlam - this is a commuter route, with no houses fronting the road. The road is posted 50km, but should probably be 60 to 70. Given the speeds that I see people travelling on this road, I would say the natural flow of traffic is about 70km. So, on a dry, clear day with little traffic on the road, could a highly experienced driver, in a well tuned car with excellent tires drive at 90km and not be a high risk? I think so...

What I would like to see, is a system where drivers who have demonstrated a previous history of accidents are penalized more for their "risky behaviours" because clearly their behaviours are more risky. There are other charges that police have in their arsenal to deal with clearly unsafe driving practices.

The other point that I made was that I doubt ICBC will not pass on the increased revenues to reduce the rates of safe drivers. My experience with ICBC has not been good and I generally view them as slimey buggers. I imagine the increased revenues will be used to pay increased bonuses to ICBC managers that deprive accident victims of their rightful and reasonable insurance payouts, but that is a whole other story...

 

my insurance in BC was 1/2 of what i am paying here in alberta.