I stumbled across this article today. It is written by Lyle Fisher of News-1130.
ICBC doesn’t totally agree with a BC Green Party candidate’s idea of adopting a ‘pay-as-you-drive’ auto insurance program. Damian Kettlewell made the proposal, saying such a system would lead to a reduction in fuel consumption, lower carbon-dioxide emissions, and fewer car accidents.
However, ICBC’s Doug Henderson says they’ve considered a similar system in the past, but driver risk is the bigger factor determining insurance rates. “Distance itself isn’t really the most effective way to predict insurance risk. We look at other factors, mainly the driving history of the driver.”
Henderson says they already have a form of the ‘user pay’ system. “We do currently incorporate distance to a certain degree in how we set premiums…for instance someone who drives to-and-from work will pay more than someone using their car just for ‘pleasure use’. Our priority right now is on high risk driving to keep rates stable.”
Todd Litman, Executive Director of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute says under the proposal, responsible drivers would pay less per kilometer, while drivers involved in more car crashed would pay more. (Lyle Fisher, News1130)
A shame. The benfits of Kettlewell’s alternative go on and on. Odometer-based insurance would encourage carpooling and responsible trip planning, and would definitely lead to a reduction in fuel consumption, lower carbon-dioxide emissions, and fewer car accidents, as Damian Kettlewell suggests. It would allow daily pedestrians to have the option of owning a car and being able to drive it for trips outside the city, without paying over 2000$ a year in insurance, and secondly, it would encourage responsible automotive usage (as the more you drive, the more you pay) and ultimately transit usage.
Despite all these seemingly obvious benefits, I’m not surprised that ICBC doesn’t want to consider it. If a driver in BC wants to use his or her car on weekends to go fishing or snowboarding, the person will have to pay for an insurance plan that would equal (roughly) the same of someone who commutes everyday. Leisure drivers are ultimately forced to pay the same price as other drivers who rely on their vehicles to commute everyday. Doug Henderson says that ICBC already has an option for leisure drivers, however, the fiscal difference between these “options” is around an insulting 10$ a month in savings. It’s robbery, and ICBC knows it, which is exactly why they’re trying to avoid the issue with silly rebuttles. Once again, it is coming down to dollars and profit, with no sympathy toward pedestrians, lower income citizens or the environment.
I think it’s about time ICBC either gave us a logical argument against Kettlewell’s alternative, or admit that it is much more sensible then their current ultimatum and adopt it as soon as possible!
