Critical Mass Tunnel Freaks

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! 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.
Disclaimer- All of the above is based solely on my personal and professional
experience in dealing with insurance companies here in the US so it may not be
readily applicable to the BC system.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

(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.

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

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.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

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

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

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

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?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

(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.

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