ICBC could easily provide insurance for ride-sharing. (files)

ICBC could easily provide insurance for ride-sharing. (files)

Letter: ICBC was brought in to reduce insurance costs

B.C. had high rates then and it would be a lot higher.

Editor, The News:

Re: Call revived to end ICBC car insurance monopoly.

The insurance industry representative, Aaron Sutherland, had written a letter to imply that because ICBC is a monopoly that insurance costs more than private insurance.

This is definitely not true any more than the fantasy of giving tax breaks to private companies will trickle down to the people better than providing government services.

I worked for a private auto insurance company before ICBC was brought in. Insurance at that time was much more costly on average.

ICBC was brought in to reduce insurance costs. The cost of lawyers was very high and ICBC cut down the liability costs by reducing cost like they are currently doing in restricting payout for certain injuries.

ICBC also took some responsibility for public safety things. B.C. had high rates then and it would be a lot higher now that the population has increased and with poorer drivers.

Private insurance would see a dramatic increase in rates — if they had to provide the same coverage. They currently can insure some liability, but only insure best risk drivers.

The very misleading statement that some drivers could save money does not consider that most drivers would face increases.

ICBC could easily provide insurance for ride-sharing, but only if the government directs it to do so. The government is only using the ICBC insurance as a excuse to delay and shift blame.

If insurance were a reason, as Mr. Sutherland explains, private insurance could be used for now. The government delay is politically motivated.

Dan Banov

Maple Ridge