The Editor,
Re: “Major changes are required, but ICBC can still be salvaged” (Opinion, The Tri-City News, Aug. 16).
You make the case that ICBC can be saved but it will require a new perspective on driving and auto insurance, but provide no rationale as to why ICBC should be saved.
What is the societal imperative that makes it necessary for good drivers to subsidize premiums for bad or inexperienced drivers? Furthermore, as a society, we are trying to encourage citizens to take transit more often and give up the car, so why do we want to subsidize any driver?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to let private insurers decide what premiums reflect driver risk and take the apparent $3.7 billion in ICBC equity and use it to fund more transit options?
If private insurance ends up being more expensive (not a given), it will have the same effect as a higher carbon tax, by reducing auto usage, without the bureaucracy or the political manipulation.
Lastly, those who continue to engage in distracted driving will pay the appropriate financial costs for such behaviour, without government shouldering the blame.
Bob Elliott
Port Coquitlam
