Critical Mass Tunnel Freaks - Page 49

07-18-2004, 09:54 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Hunrobe) wrote in
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com:

>>Ryan Cousineau [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> 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.

07-18-2004, 09:54 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Hunrobe) wrote in
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com:

>>Ryan Cousineau [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> 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.

07-18-2004, 09:54 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Hunrobe) wrote in
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com:

>>Ryan Cousineau [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> 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.

07-18-2004, 09:54 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Hunrobe) wrote in
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com:

>>Ryan Cousineau [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> 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.

07-18-2004, 10:52 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Hunrobe) wrote:

> >Ryan Cousineau [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> 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, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

07-18-2004, 10:52 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Hunrobe) wrote:

> >Ryan Cousineau [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> 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, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

07-18-2004, 10:52 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Hunrobe) wrote:

> >Ryan Cousineau [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> 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, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

07-18-2004, 10:52 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Hunrobe) wrote:

> >Ryan Cousineau [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> 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, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

07-18-2004, 10:52 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Hunrobe) wrote:

> >Ryan Cousineau [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> 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, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

07-19-2004, 11:56 PM

Sun, 18 Jul 2004 11:52:36 -0700,
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ca>, Ryan Cousineau
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>-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.

In my case the cycling entity holds a valid drivers license so
therefore is insured. Say, for instance, if the lying **** thinks he
can claim for damage (none) to his stinking scud.

Monday I spoke with four people who recalled the incident but couldn't
remember where the bike was laying.

None of them wanted to be contaced by ICBC!

I'm still holding out hope of bumping into the guy with the gold chain
again soon. He might have the nads to state what he saw even though he
didn't see the collision occur.
--
zk