I pitched this a while ago....

I think in a Tyee comments section, and it went nowhere. Someone posted a response outlining some reasons against it.

I drive marginally (I'm trying to sell my car, actually) so I would undoubtedly benefit, assuming that the "average" driving distance would be 15,000 to 20,000 km/yr. (If I hit 15,000 km in a year, it's because of a road trip.)

You need actuarial data to support the assertion to be sure. I'm not sure that there's a DIRECT correlation between mileage and safety. It might make sense to link some portion of insurance to mileage, but perhaps not all.

It could be argued that driving more often makes one a safer driver through experience. (I've seen taxi drivers...I don't buy the argument, but you need data.)

If you car isn't being driven that means it's parked and more likely to get stolen. Should there be an corresponding increase in the cost of your comprehensive insurance?

As a public institution, mileage based insurance could also allow ICBC to create a system that effectively required drivers to pay their way for road maintenance as well. A 40,000 km driver is harder on the roads than a 9,000 km driver. (What if a lot of that 40,000 km is out of province? Issues...issues...)

Anyway, as I said I like the idea I'm just not sure that the fact that I like it makes it a rational idea. There are, after all, people who like the idea of a Justin Bieber concert in Vancouver and that's most definitely something I don't want to see implemented.

multiple vehicles

I have two vehicles, one for work one for recreation. I may use the recreation vehicle a weekend or two every month. I can only drive one at once but pay for two.

With American insurance I only pay 10 percent more for the second vehicle.

Every ICBC head that I have heard discussing the subject on Chicken Dub over the last 30 years allows that this is a bad thing and will look into it. Nothing of course has ever been done. NDP, Socred, the current buncha Fascists all the same.

Crooks take all kinds of forms don't they.

claims and mileage don't always equate

At first read, I thought this could be a clever idea. The only problem is, the mileage someone puts on and the actual risk is not always proportional. In fact, someone who drives less is actually far more likely to be involved in a motor vehicle accident, especially during adverse weather conditions. There is a certain amoount of skill and judgement that come with practice, and driving is no different. In this regardm the current system actually works quite well. If you crash, you pay. If you don't crash, you get discounts.

This system is still wrong.

Basic insurance should be charged on the driver's licence and not the vehicle. If one does not drive much short term insurance could be purchased almost anywhere. This would include PL & PD with all other coverage being applied to individual vehicles.

This may make it it possible to utilize different types of vehicles within a family like say a commuter special and an SUV.

This does make it harder on newer drivers but those younger ones could be subsidized by their parents without having an increase in the parents insurance if the novice driver has an accident as the novice would now be fully liable and no liability would be attached to vehicles as is the case now when you lose your safe drivers discount..

One of the problems with mileage based insurance is that you must either pay for more than you need or run the risk of exceeding that stated amount on the insurance policy. The consequences of that would be left up to a gaggle of lawyers to decide.

Interesting...

this is an oddly civil and well thought out discussion for an Internet forum. I feel a compulsion to sling some mud just for the sake of it! Sigh. I'm not going to though.

Seth, I certainly think you've got a point but don't forget that while you can't drive both vehicles at once, both vehicles CAN be driven at once because your insurance covers others driving the vehicle. That doesn't happen in your case (presumably) doesn't make it impossible that your collision, comprehensive and third party liability might be required on both vehicles at the same time.

True story: I know a guy who had a truck and a motorcycle. He had a wicked motorcycle accident (off his feet for almost two months.) The driver who hit him from behind was driving his truck. ICBC loved that one. He's basically suing himself.

As for ICBC being crooks? Not in my book. Rates here are significantly lower than they were in Ontario.
If you're legally required to purchase a service, I think it behooves government to provide that service. I do think that ICBC should get right out of the "optional" services and stick to providing the legally legislated minimums, but that's a longer philosophical conversation.

Sharing the Video

Hi:

I found the idea interesting and tried to post the video to my Facebook wall. I was unable to do so. Could you make the video shareable??

Good idea...

It's an excellent idea since I don't put on more than 5 to 7 thousand km a year. So, I thought, I'll sign the on-line petition and contribute a few bucks to the cause.... But why should I contribute in US dollars??

No brainer indeed

I drive an '86 Tercel and still pay $1,000/yr after driving in BC for 6 years. As far as the comment about a parked car being more likely to be stolen- um, I don't really worry that anyone is going to try and make off with my little car. As far as skill, I've been driving for over 20 years so I pretty much have the skill down pat, whether I'm driving every day (which I don't) or not.

Just increase the gas tax and subsidize ICBC

Lower all of our insurance; reward those who drive less; penalize those who drive gas guzzlers. You can do all of that by raising gas taxes and subsidizing ICBC with that money.

The bottom line

Funny isn't it? ... ICBC is more than willing to have bad drivers pay more RATHER than good drivers paying less. Which of course would mean a drop in their income. Something they're not willing (as any big business with a monopoly will tell you) to do unless forced to.

Perhaps Cliff ought to get vancouver's bicycling mayor Gregor Robertson (along with anyone else with a public profile and two environmentally conscious brain-cells to rub together) on side as well as those who might give him a hearing in Victoria.

re-privatize auto insurance

When auto insurance was expropriated from the private sector insurers, idea probably was that everybody drove and no good reason why it shouldn't be a public good? Then more recently, ICBC was put under overview by BCUC. However, I think that Sightlines, and Tod Litman both see this idea of mileage-based auto insurance as an environmental benefit, with an assumption that it is socially-equitable. I think some commentators are picking away at that.

I'd say that auto insurance has little value as a social good - and therefore re-privatize it. If the companies charge more, suck it up, buttercup. Take the poor off the roads - put them on buses?

Lower middle classes occupy many of the far-flung suburbs, while the gentry live close to town. Being able to afford a million-dollar home with little access to schools is no problem for us older higher-income "DINKS" (double income, no kids).

IF ICBC did adopt a mileage-based plan, the actual consumer savings might be small, but on the social side, ICBC would have to hire a bunch of people to read odometers. Winners!

They have it already

The corporation already offers by the km purchase for a certain few legacy fleets. Much to their chagrin. And probably also to big private insurers who would like to see ICBC get CNized or privatized....errr.....you know, given to them to allow the flow of profits to go to the appropriate people. Not to be negative, but there is a whole lot at stake here if you know what I mean. The owners of some of these fleets won't let go even though the corporation has done everything to scare them away by "adjusting" the rates upward to make it more expensive than buying their standard policy anyway. It is without a doubt the fairest way to sell on the road insurance and was until the "adjustments" came along. NO travel=no exposure. Theft rating can be done based on type of vehicle and locale, which are real risk factors. High theft vehicle in high theft area should equal higher premium. Old farm trucks out in the country don't get stolen quite as often as some popular cars based in cities. A garaged vehicle is also less likely to be stolen. total cost of immobilizers should be credited to owners who install them.
Aviation insurance has been sold forever based on hours that the airplane is flown per year. More hours=more exposure=higher premium. Simple, but then who wants simple when you can over-charge for what is a good thing, preventing gouging by private insurers, and then gouge customers to subsidize a poorly run government?? But the same people think cost savings (?) from the HST will be passed on to consumers!!!!!! Where do I sign?

Old hat in spades

"pay-as-you-drive auto insurance is more fair for drivers and more socially responsible as well."

This is such an old, tired disucssion. It really is about whether we will play it by all for one and one for all, or by pay-as-you-go or 'user fees'. We already have so much pickpocekting that is correlated to usage, taxation etc. What is the basic philosophy? Should we then also not help pay for any public service which we don't use right now, this week, or any longer, such as schooling when we no longer have children who are school-aged? Do we have a community or just a bunch of little tribes each doing their own thing, tightly connected to what we need as individuals or interest groups? Why bother having a government or even a country then? Let us just disband Canada and let everyone pay his own way in all things. Nor more solidarity or shared risk or shared expenses! Neat. This ultimately becomes an advocacy for every man for himself, and the Devil take the hindmost. Prove me wrong. And I do meet these sniveling 'I drive very little' people every so often. They have no conduite and are a pest in the traffic...

ICBC

Way to go, Cliff...

And consider putting a premium on gasoline prices to cover the insurance costs, and, presto, whoever buys more gasoline is buying more insurance. And presumably there is an approximate relationship between gasoline consumption, and time spent on the road driving. And in BC, we have a unique opportunity because the insurance agency is 'owned' by the govt. It wouldn't work in most other provinces.

Then with an artificially high gasoline price ( we pay more attention to short term costs than to long term ie. annual, costs), we would really drive less as a population, and actually take some steps towards saving this environmental stage for our children...

Where's the petition? I'll sign it...

Insurance should encourage the Second Commuter Car.

The simple fact is that a lot of people like their big fuel guzzling, smoke belching, behemoth SUV or 4x4 Truck. These are great Workhorse Vehicles, but don't belong on the roadways as City Commuter vehicles, a >2000 kg vehicle carrying typically one 100 kg passenger, 10-50km to work each day.

People need to be encouraged to get that second, small, lightweight, fuel efficient, one or two passenger Commuter Car. And punishing that purchase with much higher insurance costs is inexcusable stupidity. The commuter car greatly reduces expensive deadly emissions, traffic congestion, catastrophic collisions between steel tankmobiles & consequent traffic stoppage, foreign Oil consumption and limited parking space. The commuter vehicle is a Win-Win for the taxpayer, for the environment and the driving public. An insurance system that discourages the use of the 2nd commuter car is an enemy of the environment and a killer of citizens.

Ultimately, City Planners may someday come to their senses and develop the Citizen Personal Travel Infrastructure using Bicycles, E-Bikes and E-Trikes and Ultra-light, speed-limited Extreme Efficiency Electric Vehicles.

sharing the video

@Don_EC - just right click on an embedded YouTube video and you will see "Watch on YouTube" as an option. Click on that and it will start the video on YouTube's site (at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x36Ir93BoTU&feature=player_embedded#!) and there you will find the embed code

So Many Scalped!

The flat rate insurance is totally unfair. I do agree with the concept of charging more for the high risk drivers, as a former taxi driver (Professional) doing 200 miles a day in city traffic I would be high risk in that job. The real risk is in the amount of time you are out there, being vulnerable to someone who is careless. For ICBC risk reduction is to have fewer people on the road and giving incentives to drive less has to be a plus.

I have two vehicles and no

I have two vehicles and no public transit availiable. I have an econo car for commuting and errand running that I prefer to use most of the time. I also have a pickup that I need for hauling bulky materials and backroad use. Drive about 14,000 km per year total and would welcome lower insurance costs in return for driving less.

two drivers

Now Darcy you have to declare on your insurance any other principle drivers so your two drivers two vehicle thing is handled that way.

Crooks - well perhaps your are fight, but when you are getting ripped on your insurance it sure feels like its a crook doing you.

YCTCS there straightened you pot on why you would want to encourage the secend commuter car.

Not a fan

I don't really see any great advantage to most people by having insurance tied to mileage.

One thing is that I believe that those that live outside the big cities would pay much more. Their access to transit is either limited or just not available at all.

If ICBC went to this system, how long do you think it would take them to emulate BC Hydro's two-tiered pricing system?

In my opinion, a scheme such as this is just another means by which we will be further socially engineered by government. Our freedoms are disappearing fast enough without giving them any new ideas.

Not Fair For All British Columbians

It is understandable for those that live in urban settings would latch on to an idea such as this however we are a large province and not everyone lives in the city. For those of us that live in rural BC it is simply not an option to drive less. To access many services and shops I must drive 175kms one way to Prince George. I can not change my habits and use public transportation…there isn’t any. In addition the risk of a claim climbs exponentially when I enter the congestion of the concrete jungle.

Some have mentioned road maintenance could help be covered by this type of regime. Fuel taxes are suppose to cover those but have become a cash grab for governments.

For those complaining about insurance rates don’t forget the BC Libs stole the 778,000,000.00 surplus that ICBC had attained and did not let them give us a rebate.

YCSTS is right

A plan for reduced vehicle use that will have an immediate positive effect and would be accepted by the general public.

This will reduce vehicle emissions and nonrenewable resource depletion as well as somewhat stimulate the economy. Right now, not years from now.

British Columbians will still be able to enjoy outdoor activities such as camping, fishing and sporting events that typically make use of larger SUV’s and 4WD trucks. These vehicles are much safer and more robust for our winter conditions and required for use in outlying areas.

The decision to use a smaller, more efficient vehicle for daily commutes and errands is an easy one to make each and every morning…….providing we are not financially penalized and still have the option of a larger vehicle for infrequent special purposes. Present day internal combustion engines used in vehicles that qualify for this proposal are very efficient and much cleaner burning than electric vehicle proponents would have us believe.

Whether the mode of transportation involves gasoline, diesel or
electricity a horsepower is still a horsepower. You cannot get something for
nothing. If you want to get from point “A” to “B” faster and carry more weight, you
need more horsepower…more horsepower equals more fuel. Either you don’t go from “A” to “B” at all, or you go slower and move less weight. No matter the fuel used. Electricity is an unpublicized burden on our environment and cannot be used as a “cure-all”.

Poor decisions on modes of public transport and associated bureaucratic costs
are a high tax burden. This would prove the government is not driven by profit motives for its Crown corporations.

● allow registered vehicle owners to insure more than one vehicle on one
policy…….provided the second vehicle is either a scooter, motorcycle or
qualifying small fuel efficient/hybrid passenger vehicle (includes low use collectible)
● allow rebates of HST paid on purchase of qualifying vehicles
● allow carbon tax rebate on fuel purchases for qualifying vehicles
● impose surcharge on parking fees, collect bridge tolls and maintain or increase
carbon tax on non qualifying vehicles
● eliminate tolls on bridges and lower parking fees for qualifying vehicles operating
in urban cores,
● immediate marking of road allowances for safe use of bicycles throughout our
urban areas
● immediate purchase and use of smaller transit buses more suited to variable
routes and schedules as daily demands change…..more able to serve
outlying areas…..no more empty train-buses
● immediate changes to rapid transit stations to allow ample safe and economic
parking….this alone will boost ridership
●building of commuter rail lines into the valley, with same provisions for ample safe
parking…….until such time as smaller transit buses more effectively serve feeder
routes

fair/not fair...

The fairest form of auto insurance would make those who have the most accidents pay, period. My idea goes something like this: Everyone pays a basic adminstration fee...say $100.00. Insurance rates start out at 100%, and are reduced by 10% each year thereafter..and after 10 years of safe driving, you are paying nothng but the administration fee. Should you have an accident, rates go back up to 100% (assuming it is your fault).
This does nothing to encourage safer driving (those who can afford BMWs can afford higher rates),and it does nothing to encourage less driving - though it does make those who have accidents pay the most,which seems equitable, and it is in line with actuarial data.

If we truly wanted to encourage safer driving, we would get some people off the road...there are too many vehicles on the roads for safety.And if we wanted to get people off the road, we would build safe, efficient transit systems virtually everywhere (because obviously they don't exist as a reality outside of BCs largest cities). It is always said that we cannot afford to do this, yet ICBC continues to pay out more and more in claims and lawsuits, and the cost of accidents to our healthcare and other systems continues to rise...and we continue to drive because we have to to earn a living. It's a catch-22, looked at from this position - but let's face it, all it requires is political will. That political will must be driven by the people...

The problems in our society are systemic, and must be looked at from a systemic point of view. What on earth would be gained by encouraging people to have two vehicles? Exhorting them to drive less...and abetting that with lower fees does unfortunately penalize all of those who have no choice.Just as the carbon tax penalizes those who can least afford it...

I would weep were I not so disgusted with a middle class, middle of the road viewpoint.

Honestly, out of all the

Honestly, out of all the factors affecting your insurance risk, mileage is probably the least related to accident statistics. Region is one of the biggest factors used for rates by ICBC and BC's few private companies.

Anyone here who's asked a few questions about their insurance will know that ICBC breaks the province into "territories" which they rate based on the claim statistics in that area. Vancouver and area is the highest rated territory in BC because the corporation pays out the most claim dollars per capita in that area. So all you urban low milers are actually having more accidents than, say, higher mileage rural Okanagan drivers.

Private companies rate by region as well. I know for a fact that Canadian Direct does it by the claims statistics in your postal code.

And this is also not taking into account the several other yardsticks used to rate insurance. All the companies also use theft & cost stats on the age and type of your vehicle, what you are using the vehicle for, and the experience of who is driving it.

Have a chit-chat with your broker next time you renew. Insurance companies don't hesitate to charge where they have to pay out the most, and if mileage was that much of a factor in BC accident stats, they'd already be clamoring to read your odometers. But don't kid yourself about lower rates, they'd just up the rates for higher mileage.

A proposal

Pay as you go is indeed a brilliant idea when it comes to car insurance. Implementation has often been seen as complex, looking for a way to measure how much mileage is actually done. A simple solution for that:

- 1. charge a base premium on a yearly basis/monthly like now
- 2. add the insurance cost on a per/km basis to the gasoline price.

this way, you drive more you pay more, you drive less you pay less. No cheat, no fancy device to measure the actual distance covered.

- to circumvent the issue of out-the-province visitors, one could introduce a payment card or member card or even use the BC driving license ID to validate the pricing, something like this.

Seth & Fii

Seth:

> Now Darcy you have to declare on your insurance any other principle drivers so your
> two drivers two vehicle thing is handled that way.

Somebody doesn't have to be declared as a principal driver to drive your second vehicle. You can lend your car to anyone.

As I said, whether you do it or not isn't the issue: the issue is that it can happen.

Fii:

> As far as the comment about a parked car being more likely to be stolen- um, I don't
> really worry that anyone is going to try and make off with my little car.

You may not worry about it, but ICBC does (unless you don't have comprehensive.) There's also the possibility that you get hit while not driving (it's happened once in BC to me and once in Toronto) in a hit and run.

The point is that your vehicle insurance isn't just about what can happen when you drive the car.

It's also worth noting that the medical costs for caring of the victims of any accident that you may be found responsible for--costs which ICBC is liable for--do not depend on how much mileage you drive. Nor are the repair costs on another cars you may hit.

You really need to look at the whole game here, not just one aspect of it. As I've said, I'd probably win in this system but I don't think the difference would be that great.

If the goal is to penalize high mileage drivers there's another way to go: I actually think we should acknowledge that ICBC is a branch of the government rather than a separate "business" and charge a levy for each kilometre driven beyond a certain amount to pay for road maintenance. You could call it a carbon levy if you wanted to as well. Basically acknowledge that roads are paid for by the entirety of society through general taxation but that there are drivers who use them disproportionately.

When I changed my driver's licence address I did it on the phone with ICBC. Pretending they're "just an inusrance" company is a joke.

Good concept but suseptable to fraud!

It makes sense in most categories but raises some questions. How would commercial vehicles be charged where they derive their living from driving? I'm sure that a black market industry would evolve to falsify the mileage that you would need to report. The replacement cost of the vehicle should also be a consideration.
The thing that I do like is that it could discourage people from living long distances from their work which seems to be a big problems in urban centers but if you could verify that you were car pooling you should be compensated etc.

Of course you can always lie and say you're 65

That way you can get mileage based coverage from the other insurance outfit/s. I got a quote from one of them and it was'$200' lower than ICBC but they also low balled the mileage. When I questioned it the price started rising so I just stuck with the devil I know.