|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Mass Tunnel Freaks
(Hunrobe) wrote in
: Zoot Katz wrote in part: There's one auto insurance company in BC everybody must use. http://www.icbc.com/Inside_ICBC/corpinfo.html Man, that stinks! Well that's an opinion, however ICBC is not the only insurance company. It is the insurance company that you must buy your PL/PD insurance from to get your licence, and that way there are no uninsured clowns on the road in BC, but you can buy your collision, theft, comprehensive, etc from anyone you want. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Mass Tunnel Freaks
17 Jul 2004 17:17:52 GMT,
, (Hunrobe) wrote: There's one auto insurance company in BC everybody must use. http://www.icbc.com/Inside_ICBC/corpinfo.html Man, that stinks! I still think though that simply refusing the offered settlement may cause the adjuster to look at the circumstances again. Refusing the settlement is really simple too- just don't cash the check. From an accounting standpoint, I don't see how the adjuster can simply close his file until the check clears so not cashing the check could cause him a little aggravation. Maybe that aggravation would be sufficient to motivate him to take another look. There is no check to not cash. At this point the "accident" is my fault. There is an appeals process about which I'll surely learn more than I really care to know. I've read that people with uncompensated injuries recover more quickly. I'm not in this for any gain. I simply don't want word getting out that it's okay to mow down cyclists and then for it to be erroneously recorded as having been their fault. This incident has me doubting the validity of any accident statistics citing cyclists at fault. -- zk |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Mass Tunnel Freaks
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Mass Tunnel Freaks
In article ,
(Hunrobe) wrote: Mike Latondresse wrote: Well that's an opinion, however ICBC is not the only insurance company. It is the insurance company that you must buy your PL/PD insurance from to get your licence, and that way there are no uninsured clowns on the road in BC, but you can buy your collision, theft, comprehensive, etc from anyone you want. Maybe it works but maybe instead of having X number of uninsured licensed motorists on the road, BC has X number of uninsured _un_licensed motorists. The law of unintended consequence is universal. g My comment anyway was mainly in the context of Zoot's predicament. Disputes are harder to settle when options are limited. Surprisingly, I don't think so. Partly because you get everything (plates, tags, and insurance) from an insurance agent in one go (the agents are private contractors for ICBC; they usually do all kinds of insurance, with Autoplan being one of the regular businesses). So, no insurance, no tags. No tags=rapid detection by local LEOs. -- Ryan Cousineau, http://www.wiredcola.com President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Mass Tunnel Freaks
In article ,
Ryan Cousineau writes: Surprisingly, I don't think so. Partly because you get everything (plates, tags, and insurance) from an insurance agent in one go (the agents are private contractors for ICBC; they usually do all kinds of insurance, with Autoplan being one of the regular businesses). So, no insurance, no tags. No tags=rapid detection by local LEOs. I've met people who've obtained tags (decals) by snipping them off other people's license plates with a pair of tin shears. I consider it another example of the desperate lengths to which addicts will go. cheers, Tom -- -- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Mass Tunnel Freaks
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:43:18 -0700, Zoot Katz
wrote: There is no check to not cash. At this point the "accident" is my fault. There is an appeals process about which I'll surely learn more than I really care to know. I've read that people with uncompensated injuries recover more quickly. I'm not in this for any gain. I simply don't want word getting out that it's okay to mow down cyclists and then for it to be erroneously recorded as having been their fault. This incident has me doubting the validity of any accident statistics citing cyclists at fault. Keep us posted, Zoot. If it comes to a letter-writing campaign, our pens are at your service. -Luigi |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Mass Tunnel Freaks
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Mass Tunnel Freaks
(Hunrobe) wrote in
: Ryan Cousineau wrote: Surprisingly, I don't think so. Partly because you get everything (plates, tags, and insurance) from an insurance agent in one go (the agents are private contractors for ICBC; they usually do all kinds of insurance, with Autoplan being one of the regular businesses). So, no insurance, no tags. No tags=rapid detection by local LEOs. This of course is based on the assumption that all the motor vehicles in BC are driven only by the vehicle's registered owner. ICBC must not have the same level of faith in the system that you do because their website specifies that the policies they sell include "uninsured/underinsured" coverage so maybe the above assumption is mistaken? No that is to protect the locals against the underinsured/uninsured US tourists (and other out of provence visitors) that have no such restrictions. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Mass Tunnel Freaks
In article ,
(Hunrobe) wrote: Ryan Cousineau wrote: Surprisingly, I don't think so. Partly because you get everything (plates, tags, and insurance) from an insurance agent in one go (the agents are private contractors for ICBC; they usually do all kinds of insurance, with Autoplan being one of the regular businesses). So, no insurance, no tags. No tags=rapid detection by local LEOs. This of course is based on the assumption that all the motor vehicles in BC are driven only by the vehicle's registered owner. ICBC must not have the same level of faith in the system that you do because their website specifies that the policies they sell include "uninsured/underinsured" coverage so maybe the above assumption is mistaken? In general, ICBC insurance covers any driver with a valid license. The exception would be that the "primary operator" must be properly specified. Underinsured Motorist Protection (UMP) has several useful purposes, but here's a few major examples of when it comes into play: -if your car is in a hit-and-run, UMP allows you to file an insurable claim -if your car gets hit by a non-insured entity (say, er, a cyclist...maybe a bad example in this thread...) then you can claim against UMP if they can't pay. -if an out-of-province driver hits you, they may not have proper coverage. -if the driver who hits you is DUI, by law their insurance is invalid, and they are directly responsible for the costs. Again, UMP protects you. -And yes, there are drivers who manage to drive on the roads uninsured, whether by being drunk, rolling on expired tags, or as Tom suggested, stealing tags from another car, but not only does UMP protect the not-at-fault motorist in these cases, my impression is that these cases are quite rare, partly because of the unified tags/insurance system. Not an advocate of public car insurance, but I understand the advantages, -- Ryan Cousineau, http://www.wiredcola.com President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|