B.C.'s distracted drivers to get hit with higher insurance premiums

B.C.'s provincial government has announced it will be targeting distracted drivers with higher insurance premiums.
The change will mean distracted driving will be considered a high-risk behaviour under the ICBC Driver Risk Premium program.
Driver Risk Premium charges are fees above and beyond a regular car insurance plan, and can be charged even if the driver does not own or insure a vehicle.


This means a driver with two distracted driving tickets in a three-year period could see their financial penalties rise up to as much as $2,000.
Currently about 12,000 people in B.C. have multiple distracted driving offences. The change will result in an extra $3 million to $5 million in additional premiums for the provincial insurance corporation.
Attorney General David Eby said the measure is meant to curb the dangerous behaviour.


"Distracted driving continues to put people in danger and significant pressure on insurance rates for all drivers," he said in a statement. "Taking action to improve safety and penalize dangerous behaviours benefits all British Columbians and is another step in the right direction."
According to the government, more than 25 per cent of all car crash fatalities in B.C. occur due to distracted driving. The behaviour kills an average of 78 people each year.
The higher premiums are expected to go into effect for distracted driving convictions beginning March 1, 2018.


The new fees announced Monday are on top of existing distracted-driving fines, which doubled in 2016 to $368 on a first ticket, as well as four penalty points on an insurance record. A second ticket increases “driver penalty points” premiums to $520. The new fees are part of the “driver risk premium” program. Both fees are separate but tied to your driver’s licence, and generally due for payment when a licence is renewed.
Multiple violations in one year will continue to result in a driver being subjected to an automatic review and penalties ranging from a three-to-12 month driving prohibition, the government said.
Drivers in the learner’s stage could lose their licence with a single offence.

---------------------------
nice change. Not sure it will alter some folks behaviour. But hope many do. I got rear ended in 2014 on my bike by someone futzing with their phone.

It's a start.

Awesome.

mikbusa said:

It's a start.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's a step in the right direction. I think due to enforcement resource issues that only a very small percentage of distracted drivers ever get a ticket and the chances on a second one are minuscule. There are about 3.4M driver licenses issued in BC and 12k people with multiple distracted tickets represents 0.35%, a third of one percent, yet over 25% of fatal accidents are attributed to distracted driving. This summary is interesting reading. http://www.icbc.com/about-icbc/newsroom/Documents/quick-statistics.pdf.

In this type of centrally managed insurance you would think it would pay ICBC to fund dedicated law enforcement to work 100% of the time on distracted driving issues. Hire more officers, increase fines and let the system pay for itself.

mikbusa said:

It's a start.

Click to expand...

Hopefully, at some point drivers will recognize that texting is no more acceptable than taking a swig from a mickey.

Peeve: I text a relative that I'm on my way, about to leave home for their place about an hour away. About 30 minutes later they TEXT me to ask me a favour. I have bluetooth if they phoned but not text to talk. They KNOW I'm on the road. The person initiating a call / text has to use some common sense as well.

BTW I ignore the text ping.

As mentioned earlier, it's a start..
Personally, I believe people texting while driving need more than just a little slap on the wrist. Head straight to DWI.

The MTO currently lists DWI as alcohol and drug only, but should be updated.

It is a crime under the Criminal Code of Canada and the consequences are serious. You may:

• lose your licence
• have your vehicle impounded
• need to pay an administrative monetary penalty
• need to attend an education or treatment program
• be fined upon conviction
• be required to install an ignition interlock device in your vehicle
• spend time in jail
• end up with a criminal record

Instead of an ignition interlock, a cellular signal jammer.
Fully agree with it being a criminal offence.

BigEvilDoer said:

As mentioned earlier, it's a start..
Personally, I believe people texting while driving need more than just a little slap on the wrist. Head straight to DWI.

The MTO currently lists DWI as alcohol and drug only, but should be updated.

Click to expand...

I thought you could get DWI for lack of sleep as well (like staying awake for 24 hours, not just a bad sleep last night)? Maybe I was mistaken but I thought they could apply it when a driver was unable to pass the screening tests. If that is the line, it still doesn't help with cell phone use unless you have to send texts while taking the tests.

Ford (and probably more than a few other manufacturers) deserve corporate DWI for their infotainment systems. Those blasted things take so many key presses and so much driver attention to do things that could be simply addressed by a few physical buttons.

BigEvilDoer said:

As mentioned earlier, it's a start..
Personally, I believe people texting while driving need more than just a little slap on the wrist. Head straight to DWI.

Click to expand...

+1 +1 +1 +1

Instead of an ignition interlock, a cellular signal jammer.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it's time manufacturers were required to place virtually unhackable features in their equipment that disables certain features when, say, GPS shows a velocity of greater than 10kph. Keyboard popups could be disabled, for example. The device could default to only allow certain other function (e.g. GPS/maps and hands-free phone. My car is like that: As soon as I start moving a good number of features are locked out on the nav screen to prevent distraction from going through menus to, say, turn off DST. Radio and nav works but a DVD playing on the screen is stopped. Etc etc.

Unfortunately the hacker ecosystem would likely find ways around this. So, if you are involved in an accident involving injury or property damage and your device is found to have been in use and had protective functions disabled, any charges are elevated to "aggravated" or something...

Blackfin said:

+1 +1 +1 +1



Perhaps it's time manufacturers were required to place virtually unhackable features in their equipment that disables certain features when, say, GPS shows a velocity of greater than 10kph. Keyboard popups could be disabled, for example. The device could default to only allow certain other function (e.g. GPS/maps and hands-free phone. My car is like that: As soon as I start moving a good number of features are locked out on the nav screen to prevent distraction from going through menus to, say, turn off DST. Radio and nav works but a DVD playing on the screen is stopped. Etc etc.

Unfortunately the hacker ecosystem would likely find ways around this. So, if you are involved in an accident involving injury or property damage and your device is found to have been in use and had protective functions disabled, any charges are elevated to "aggravated" or something...

Click to expand...

They are getting pretty damn good with locating objects within vehicles (think keyless entry that only unlocks the door you are in front of). It is not a giant leap to apply this to cell phones that don't work in the driver seat of a car in motion (but not a trivial one either).

If people keep being stupid, I could see politicians attempt to pass a law in which physical access to cell phones is restricted (similar to open alcohol). If you want GPS you either go back to a standalone or use something like Carplay or Android Auto to access a restricted feature set through the car (and the accident recorder can easily track that use in addition to the existing parameters). This is a relatively easy one for police to catch and enforce as they don't need to prove use, just proximity. I am not sure if it could ever pass though as the backlash would be horrendous.

GreyGhost said:

This is a relatively easy one for police to catch and enforce as they don't need to prove use, just proximity. I am not sure if it could ever pass though as the backlash would be horrendous.

Click to expand...

I can't agree more. People want to put and end to texting just like drinking and driving, but as soon as someone would table such a "heavy handed" and "extreme" penalty system people would vote them down in a heartbeat. Would be political suicide for something that's so desperately needed.

GreyGhost said:

Maybe I was mistaken but I thought they could apply it when a driver was unable to pass the screening tests. If that is the line, it still doesn't help with cell phone use unless you have to send texts while taking the tests.

Click to expand...

I think the tests could be administered that way without issue. Try following an officer's pen, eyes only while typing an error free message (i.e. The Quick Brown Fox Jumped Over the Lazy Dog -- complete with capitalization as shown). ANY errors and you're done.
I'm sure several other roadside tests could easily be administered the same way.

I'm not a smartphone guru and don't know if this can be implemented from a technical perspective....

* when vehicle is moving phone can receive incoming phone calls, but can only answer on hands free mode
* e-mail and texts will be received, but will not display on screen if vehicle is moving and all outgoing e-mail and text capability is disabled.
* If vehicle stops moving then disabled functions resume after 2 or 3 minutes. This delay would stop people from being distracted at stop signs and while waiting for a light to change.
* Phones would be hard coded for above functions and not something a user could change or modify via a software download or app.

Above is not a perfect solution, but would likely eliminate 95%+ of all unwanted phone activity. Seems a small price to pay to eliminate 25%+ of all fatal accidents and accidents in general.

to eliminate 25%+ of all fatal accidents and accidents in general.

Click to expand...

that's a crock ....trying to tie that number to cell phone use.

Fatal accidents are down over the last decade yet cell phone use has skyrocketed.

It's good money grab for the province and the insurance companies. While I applaud the campaign ...blaming it on phones is ridiculous.

That said distracted driving is a risk and legislating handsfree is common sense. There is nothing worse than trying to read a map or directions and drive.

Voice com can perform everything these days and the stats don't take into account the lives saved by cell users reporting road hazards and drunk drivers.

The problem with higher penalties is they don't work because we don't catch enough people to make them matter. Technology already exists to stop smart phones from working once a vehicle starts moving. That technology should be mandated for all phones and anyone caught tampering or circumventing it should then face stiff penalties. I see every day how current distracted driving laws are useless. People behave like they don't even exist because they know the chances of getting a ticket are almost non-existent.

Roadghost said:

I see every day how current distracted driving laws are useless. People behave like they don't even exist because they know the chances of getting a ticket are almost non-existent.

Click to expand...

It could be so easy, at least for 3/4 of the year:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N1iw5Vdim8

Cheap dual-sports with some lights could catch hundreds and hundreds of these idiots. Hell, in traffic, even cops on bicycles could pick these addicts off quite literally left, right and centre. We, as riders, see them all the time. There's a huge opportunity for policing being missed here for reasons that aren't exactly clear to me.

BigEvilDoer said:

I can't agree more. People want to put and end to texting just like drinking and driving, but as soon as someone would table such a "heavy handed" and "extreme" penalty system people would vote them down in a heartbeat. Would be political suicide for something that's so desperately needed.

Click to expand...

I was in sales before cell phones and the reps spent Monday to Thursday on the road but Friday we were in the office so people could more easily call us back. When we got cell phones we were on the road five days a week. Businesses like cell phones because of productivity.

Those worms are never going back into the can.

nobbie48 said:

I was in sales before cell phones and the reps spent Monday to Thursday on the road but Friday we were in the office so people could more easily call us back. When we got cell phones we were on the road five days a week. Businesses like cell phones because of productivity.

Those worms are never going back into the can.

Click to expand...

Not sure there's much problem with hands-free phone calls and don't see much impact on business. I could be wrong.

But if you're holding, dialing or texting your phone while you're driving you're a danger to everyone around you. Businesses adapted to all sorts of "social engineering" over the last decades. They can adjust to this one too, if need be.

I believe the stats for distracted driving are way understated. In the lat 3 years, I have been hit twice by texting drivers, and my son hit once - luckily we were in trucks at the time as 2 of the 3 accidents could have been deadly on a bike or in a small car. The police issued careless driving charges for all 3 accidents, they could not prove the drivers using their phones.

A few weeks back my friend's kid got rear ended on Woodbine north of Davis. He wasn't so lucky - his bike exploded into a fireball, he was badly hurt. The police found texts on the offender's phone at the time of the accident, but no witnesses. The driver was charged with Dangerous Operation causing bodily harm.

My main point is this is a real problem AND the stats must be really under-reported. It's a deadly practice, if they impounded cars and took your licence for a month like the do for those accused of being impaired, they might put a dent in this dangerous practice.

my cell phone does much of what was described above. I have an Apple iPhone 7plus and a 2016 Civic EX with carplay.

A new thing recently with the phone is it is disabled when car / bike is moving. Anyone calling or texting will get an auto reply saying i am driving
and will get back to them when able. Prior to that i could answer hands free. Even have a text read to me by the car and also was able to reply to text
by voice and send it. Pretty cool.

Blackfin said:

It could be so easy, at least for 3/4 of the year:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N1iw5Vdim8

Cheap dual-sports with some lights could catch hundreds and hundreds of these idiots. Hell, in traffic, even cops on bicycles could pick these addicts off quite literally left, right and centre. We, as riders, see them all the time. There's a huge opportunity for policing being missed here for reasons that aren't exactly clear to me.

Click to expand...

The problem is a lot of the people making the laws are the ones breaking it. So many people are doing it they don't want enforcement. I would support a special squad of police DS bikes.