JonboyE

No judgment from me on whether or not it is a worthwhile aim, but it is the only justification I can think of.

JonboyE

To a large extent I agree. Public monopolies are only necessary when the private sector cannot efficiently deliver the required services. Health and Education are obvious examples. I don't see why auto insurance should be. As dbd33 has pointed out, properly regulated private insurance seems to work in most of North America.

A combination of latent puritanism and a cash cow IMO.

4d32ftw

i'd love to, but i've had so many cars and swapped companies so often to get the best price I can't remember who i was insured with bar the last one ! and i stupidly dispossed of all the previous years paperwork before i moved over so i'm stuffed. and they where all specialist companies that dealt with moddified cars, if it was the big companies i'd just right to them all lol

Almost Canadian

If you contact your last insurer and speak to a nice customer relations person (that is the difficult bit) you should be able to find that out quite easily as there is a Motor Insurers Database upon which all such information is stored. Alternatively, speak to one of the larger Personal Injury Law Firms who will have access to the same database.

Alan2005

You got that right - and why can't I have a beer on the beach! ... ok that's well off-topic.

4d32ftw

i'll give it a shot

agr

A free market may drive more efficiency into the system, but let's remember that motor insurance is made compulsory for the sole reason of spreading the cost of road carnage across all road users. The road transport network functions because drivers don't have to face the full financial consequences of their failures. If premiums were truly a reflection of risk then safe drivers wouldn't bother and dangerous drivers would be priced off the road (subject to enforcement). Premiums only vary because insurance companies compete, and they compete less hard for the business of drivers with poorer records. If there's no competition then premiums tend to level out, as can be seen in BC.

Really, if we want to get annoyed we should question the whole premise of motor insurance - enforced subsidy for dangerous drivers.

jerry brewer

Hi
True, but I have been told in the event of a claim it can get very messy dealing with the different insurers.

I prefer, maybe a slightly higher premium for peace of mind, knowing I am dealing with only one company.

One positive with ICBC is the plate is insured for any driver,
i.e. for no extra I have the other half and the two daughters.
In the UK I would have to pay extra.

And also apparently unlike private insurers ICBC have to insure you to drive,
private insurers can decline you insurance.
cheers
Jerry

Alan2005

That's very big of them

dingbat

ICBC can and do decline to insure, by voiding policies after the fact. ICBC even sell insurance to people without valid licenses, as you must have a BC license within 90 days of becoming resident, if you wish to drive.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...insurance.html

In 1999, my now ex stole my car, and totalled it. ICBC refused to pay out, until I threatened to take them to court. When I came to renew my insurance later that year, ICBC refused to insure me, until I paid the $250 at fault fee, and the increased premium, which put the insurance up by over 40%. Again, this was not my accident, and the car was taken without my permission. It took two years to get the restitution I was entitled to, my no-claims back, and the accident history transferred to my ex. ICBC are a bureaucratic disgrace.

Aviator

With younger drivers be sure there is no 10 year experience clause, we have one and would have to remove it for our teenager to drive.

With other drivers using the vehicle, any claim stays with the policy holder, unless the driver who had the accident takes out insurance, then it follows them.

Not re insuring the vehicle does not get you out of it, they just transfer any claims penalty to the other vehicle if you have more than one in the same name.

The ploicy holder is responsible for any claims or short falls - Can be dicey if there is not enough liability. These days I would not have under $5m.

When there is a dispute of in an accident the 50/50 rule with ICBC is not each driver pays their own claim. The total value of the claim for both vehicles is added together and divided in half. Each policy holder pays half of the total.

A driver reverses into you, no witnesses, you get dinged for rear ending the other vehicle unless the driver fesses up.

Make a claim and they'll get it back off you one way or another.

paolosmythe

off topic or not.... that caught my attention!!

free meth pipes for junkies, but you can't crack a cold one on sand?

Alan2005

Nope - it's illegal. It's kind of tolerated if you are discrete I believe, but personally I'd rather it not be at the whim of the copper doing the beat (if that's what you call it here).

ExKiwilass

Word. And why can't I buy a beer at the supermarket..or a cellphone with a $20 card for calls, for that matter, instead of being locked into a stupid expensive 3 year plan...and why can't I take my kid into a pub...do they really think I'm going to buy her a vodka & tonic?...bah.

Anyway...this thread is making me even more glad we don't have a car Yay for the car co-op

R I C H

I've never understood the rules or criteria for this. My local convenience store that's part of a gas station sells pretty much all basic foodstuffs, confectionary, candy, soft drinks, wine, hard liquor, beer, fishing licences, propane, magazines, cigarettes, you name it, it's all there. And yet, a large supermarket apparently can't operate under the same business model