Recently we learned from the Government’s mouth that our beloved ICBC, a.k.a Itchy -Bitchy, is very ill. This was let out on Saturday January 27, I think. The Minister handling the ICBC, compared it to a dumpster on fire, pushed behind a building to hide the flames and the smoke from the public eye and nose.
The Minister promised to douse the flames, which I think is the proper thing for a person in his position to do, and I doubt neither his sincerity nor his resolve. But this does not mean he will succeed, for the arsonists are still on the loose.
Two days later, (would have been quicker, but papers do not publish on Mondays), on Tuesday, January 29, a full-page colour newspaper add hit us from the R.O.A.D. which Googles to: “a coalition of British Columbians who are committed to protecting the rights of anyone who becomes injured on our roads.” Impressive! The R.O.A.D.sters tell us to forget about the fire in the dumpster and urge us to focus on the real peril, it being, they say, the government using the fire in the dumpster as “an excuse to cap ICBC claims”
I fear those who set ICBC on fire may infiltrate R.O.A.D., our uninvited saviour, and together win the day. I fear them keeping the fire in the dumpster burning hot but, for the worse, burning invisibly and odourlessly
I do not want to detract from the need to seek and get accountability for the ICBC mess. But this said, I would suggest we move outside the box of the usual patches. There are many fixes possible but I will restrain myself to one that I believe its time has come but not yet gone.
This is a very simple idea: Split the cost of auto insurance into three components: Part of it on the vehicle (plates); part on the driver (driver’s licence) and part on the fuel (gas and diesel, for the time being) . The rationale is, I think, irrefutable.
A licenced car may collide with statutory or moving objects thereby resulting in claims. Hence the premium on the “Plates”, to take care of that particular peril.
Even driverless vehicles may be prone to “no- driver’s fault” claims, (it may be so called, I fear) but when driver’s licences go the way of the typewriter, we will think of a word, I hope. For now vehicles are driven and drivers, even when sober, do cause ICBC claims, hence a portion of the premium should be on drivers’ licences.
But idle drivers and garaged vehicles rarely cause ICBC claims, nor do they consume fuel. But they become risky the moments they start drinking petroleum products. The risk gets must larger when drivers consume fermented stuff, but this should be left to the police.
As for electric cars, I do not know how to cope with that but, at least for now their number is too small to mention, due to Tesla’s pricetags, perhaps. But will not take long for politicians to come up sooner or later with clever ways to tax that. For now, the third component of the insurance premium should be piggibacked on fossil fuels, because the more fuel a vehicle drinks, the more the likelihood of kissing another vehicle or hugging a tree.
This would reduce the facility of bosses to botch ICBC and that is a large plus and surely not the only gain from this arrangement. But I exhausted my space and, I better repair to let you search for fault with what I thoughts.