|
|||||||
| Coffee Lounge Talk amongst other community members. |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Topic Tools | Rate Topic |
May 27, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
You young guys are getting hosed because you haven't been driving long, so are considered risky, even if you haven't had any accidents. Statistically young people do have lots of accidents.
That is one of the reasons ICBC was set up by the NDP - because young people were getting hit with really high rates. The NDP considered this unfair and ICBC did originally have much lower rates for young people, but now they're just another car insurance company (or worse because they're semi-integrated into other government functions like vehicle registration, Air Care, and the police). BTW there's been recent research that shows the brains of guys are not fully developed until about age 25. In particular there is a part of the brain that controls how they assess risky situations, and that part is not working very well until 25. That's one of the reasons young guys get into fights, drive way too fast, get drunk & do drugs, get mangled in car accidents etc etc. 
|
|
May 27, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well actually no matter what you have heard about younger people getting dinged more with higher rates is totally untrue. Im 22 i got my license at 16 so i have been driving for 6 years now. If i hadnt have gotten into that at fault accident i would be at a 30% discount. Every 16 year old starts off at 0% discount and the rate goes down 5% every year whether you insure a vehicle or not. They dont take your age into account whatsoever. They go by there rates and everyones rates drop the same if a claim is made unless of course you have Road Star where you have 1 Free at fault accident
|
|
May 27, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
there isn't a civilized country that i know of that allow people to drive without insurance....cars are big dangerous things capable of causing a lot of damage, therefore it's in everyone's interest that they are insured. though what they are really doing is not insuring cars so much as insuring drivers and everyone else in the country. that's why arguments like "my friends car only cost 4000 but her insurance is 3200 a year" don't make sense, they're not isnuring the car, they're insuring the friend. you can do just as much damage with a $200 honda shitbox as a ferrari if you're really stupid.
the simple fact is that car insurance is there not to protect car owners, but to make sure that if someone in a car hits someone there's a mechanism to see that the injured party will receive compensation. before arguing against icbc maybe it'd be wise to compare rates versus jurisdictions where insurance is private...and the fact is that rates are simply not that different. icbc is on the high end of the scale, but not orders of magnitude higher than private insurance. as well, it's only the basic coverage that is exclusive to icbc now, there are private companies that can compete for additional companies, and they do offer discounts, but the kicker is that they only accept people with dafe driving records. if you have any kind of blemish they're not intersted in insuring you. so much for competition. personally, i don't mind that a crown corporation runs insurance here. at least they take the money that would have gone to profit and spend it on road safety, drunk-driving, and other campaigns. what's wrong with that? it'd be different if privatization would cut rates drastically, but there's no proof that that would happen. it would certainly cut rates for "safe" drivers, but it would also raise rates for anyone with an incident, if not make it impossible for them to drive. shit, in the states right now even people with completely safe driving records are being denied insurance, as more and more companies are refusing to insure young people based on their stastically higher collison rates, never mind the individual record. and wum, you argument seems to be less against icbc and more against being required to pay insurance in general, which i think the vast majority of people would look at and instantly come to the concluion bad idea.....even if we sold of icbc and went totally private you'd still be required by law to have adequate insurance.
|
|
May 27, 05
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
i mean look at how the Patullo still lacks a divider. Accidents drive up rates, although pay outs are bad too. I think they found the right balance 
|
|
May 27, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Absolutely, but for some reason the 'p' word scares people in the province whenever it is mentioned, people really fail to see the positive side of it...gotta love the grip the bcgeu has over this province.
|
|
May 27, 05
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
May 27, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And what would the Positive side be to privatizing for the average driver Myra....
|
|
May 27, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
the one thing that i will always like about icbc is very simple. they are the government. that means barring a near apocalyptic event, they will not be bankrupt if you need to be payed out.
where as if some private company pulls an enron and you just got hit by a truck. you're fucked.
|
|
May 27, 05
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
hey dude, i see you on IIDB :)
|
|
May 27, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
*are you wum on iidb too?
|
|
May 28, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
I moved here from "back east" my insurance there was $2k per year here they quoted me $4700 I don't see how that is proving in favor of ICBC.
Basically it is a monopoly, with no competition to drive down rates they can pretty much charge whatever they want. The system here is outrageous, never seen anything like it before.
|
