I HATE ICBC

No Really? DUH!!

As you know by know, I hate ICBC, I Fuc*&% HATE ICBC.

There are many, many reasons - chief among them, though, is that spending the equivalent of a mortgage payment a year to insure our car galls the hell out of me. Thank God and safe driving premiums I’ve managed to stay accident-free. Without such, we’d pay twice that.

This week, the snake-oil salesmen have been shilling ICBC’s latest cash-grab - the $25 top up to add sanctioned drivers to a vehicle insured in your name.

So single car families – that’d be The DeMones of White Rock, B.C. – who will see Momma, Poppa and Baby Bear sharing the wheel, will now pay more to ICBC for exactly the same privilege we’ve enjoyed until now.

I understand we will be blessed with the peace of mind of third party coverage in the event one of those named on the insurance is driving at the time of at at-fault accident. Ah, such bliss…

I am all for whatever fair moves ICBC can make to ease the cost of insurance for safe drivers. Bad drivers should pay more - and often do. But that seldom filters back to lower premiums for good drivers.

ICBC, like most bloated bureaucracies propped up by government-sanctioned monopoly, just finds more ways to retain the excesses they fleece from us. Like they need to have ’sufficient reserves’ - and better double-talk to justify additional charges, fees or fines.

Like this week, when one hack preached how the $25 additional driver fee does indeed equate to lower fees for good drivers because it means ICBC won’t have to raise rates for good drivers.

Now there’s twisted logic for you. We’ll charge you more so we don’t have to charge you more.

I say heap it all on the bad drivers.

Feb. 16 of 2007, I passed a mini van which was moving at glacial speed. Double line, and exceeded the posted limit. The ticket was just shy of $300.

Last week, I got a notice from ICBC that my heinous transgression had earned me three points for each infraction. To a total of six. Which is more than four. Which is the number ICBC allows as grace each year before tarring us as bad drivers.

So I am a bad driver. My name is Rob, and I speed. Or sped.

It cost me another $300 to clear my good name.

Passing that glacial mini van really cost me $600.

I’m not complaining one whit. I deserved it. I like to think I’m a better driver.

But did you good drivers out there get a break as a result? Did my wife, the primary driver of our only car, get a break on her premiums?

Nope and nope.

ICBC, of course, says that’s because all these fees, fines and charges are permutations concocted, devised and otherwise contorted to ensure fairness for all drivers from Yak to Agassiz to Barriere and beyond.

Can’t expect honesty. Can’t expect that snake-oil salesmen to just say ‘Hey, we need to show a 9% bump in bottom line profits for 2009, and rather than work harder or smarter, we’re just going to charge you all $25 more. Sign here…’

I want that job - better still, I want the ICBC talking head on my side when I negotiate my contract.

This news just shocked me, startled me, and left me heart-broken (errr, I mean PISSED OFF). At this point, the only thought in my mind was - “WTF?”.

What was happening: ” formerly written-off cars were being resold after their repair histories were altered.” So eight staff members were - let me use the euphemism to cover a variety of issues - ‘let go’.

Most normal people would agree that Fired staff, especially the ones who STEAL, should be getting a Boot in their @#$, not a Severance package. People don’t even get a Thank You card when they get fired, and these bastards are getting severance package, Are you Fuc*$& Serious?

What happened was clearly wrong, certainly a tort for the people who got cars with fraudulent records, probably criminal. Certainly due cause for dismissal. But it now appears that the action was more about PR than good sense. The whole thing was quickly hushed up - so the scandal would “go away”, preferably quickly.

If people are dismissed - or allowed to resign - to avoid other penalties they deserve no severance at all. Indeed those who profitted from this scheme should make restitution. But that would require an investigation, which might well turn up other related issues - who knows? - and all that it seems was to be avoided at all costs. Which is something you might be able to do with a closely held private company. But not with a crown coporation.

The more one knows about ICBC, the less one feels comfortable about it. I have been sitting on some material for some time now on distance based inssurance. This is an idea that Tod Littmann has been promoting for some time - and I did not really want to move onto his turf. But the main concern I have is that ICBC has not - so far as I can determine - ever even considered the idea. It certianly has given no credible reason why it should not be tried. And my question is why should this be? Why is ICBC so reluctant to being open and letting its owners - us - know what it is doing and why.

It is something of a cultural issue in crown corporations - and it is noticeable that the present government is getting increasingly ham fisted at dealing with these government owned and directed operations. BC Ferries and BC Transit are the two I am most familiar with - and neither are any longer examples to be proud of. The way BC Hydro is being chopped up and forced into a corner is even worse. And at least part of the problem is that the right wing does not think public enterprises should be successful. They must be made to fail in order to promote the ideology (there’s a word I havebeen reaching for a lot lately) that private is good public is bad.