What a bunch of Bull..driving without Insurance is a CRIME.. WE HAVE To PAY FOR...UNINSURACE DRIVERS ALREADY,.. ICBC SHOULD SUE.. STEHEN FOR THE $1500.00 and the POLICE SHOULD CHARGE HER..Bull BULL BULL.

I don't understand why charges of driving without insurance weren't laid. There is an admission of guilt if a claim was made to ICBC, so why is Sethen treated so advantageously.

Simple.No insurance no claim.Sethan should pay her own expenses and damages.
I thought no one was above the law.
I think ICBC better rethink this move.

Another good case for private insurance being available in BC.

I know of an accident (not mine) where a pickup backing out hit a car behind them in the right side door. Lucky no passing pedestrian was killed or injuried. Anyway the car that got hit was minding their business in the laneway, yet was blamed for the accident! Apparently in this paticular parking lot two way traffic is not the norm. The lines and arrows were no longer visible, and it doesn't matter.
So if you see traffic going the wrong way, hit them! It's a free repair. You will not be charged, and the accident has no effect on your insurance.
Just one of those funny ICBC rules where ICBC has other priorites that have nothing to do with insurance.

>Councilor Sherry Sethen.<

Common decency requires an immediate resignation. Those who lead us must lead by example.

Well, looks like there will have to be a by-election to fill a vacant councilor seat!

Good luck Lyndo Bryant on your appeal. I went through an ICBC appeal and guess who was there. A lawyer that did work for ICBC, a private insurance ajuster that worked for them and at the last minute they pulled the ICBC ajuster that worked on my claim and the local manager sat in his place. Sorry but its your fault and you have to pay.
I was lucky it was my first inssuance claim ever so there was no increase in my annual rate.
So drive carefully and avoid claims and we will continue to have the best coverage and the lowest rates in Canada. All else equal.

Correct me if I am wrong, but when your plate comes up for renewal, is that not the time the insurance is placed also????
If she had no insurance, then the wehicle was being driven absolutely illegally, as it would not bear a valid licence plate.
Would the plate itself not have expired in June 2005????
No valid plate, no insurance-true or false???
Illegally being driven except on her own property. If the vehicle entered any area of a public thoroughfare, then it was obviously in the wrong, and Sethen should be charged the same as any other illegally driven vehicle would bear a penalty.
To rush out the next day would imply she renewed her plate and subsequently had insurance placed at the same time.
Let me know if this is wrong.
I C B C is then guilty of not adhering to their own laws re the right to operate a motor vehicle in the province of British Columbia.
Is it possible to obtain a plate through I C B C and have no insurance attached, allowing an owner to purchase all insurance through a private company???
This could prove informative to any readers.
Somebody has to know the legalities out there!!!!

ICBC gave the Bike as an example why the insurance company is paying for Sethen Car, THE CAR WAS BEEN DRIVEN ILLEGALY. The bike in ICBC example was not. MAYBE ONE OF OUR LIBERAL MLAs can hold ICBC and the RCMP feet to the fire SO they tell the truth and do the right thing.The accident would not of happened If Sethen had stayed off the road,she had no right to be on without Insurance. THE RICH AND POWERFUL CAN DO ANYTHING AND THE SYSTEM AND POLICE PROTECT THEM..COME ON MLAs DO SOMETHING.

Don: "The accident would not of happened If Sethen had stayed off the road,she had no right to be on without Insurance."

Precisely. Her plates had expired in June together with her insurance policy. So, she had absolutely no business being on the road.

The RCMP is showing an unusual amount of "tolerance" in her case, in my humble experience.

I got a ticket years ago for "disobeying an amber light" at the intersection of 5th and Central. I did NOT go through a red light but simply could not stop on a dime travelling at the posted speed limit of 60km/h going north on Central.

I had to go to court to fight the ticket, but succeeded only in part.

Perhaps, had I been a person of "community importance" I would have simply gotten a verbal warning to make a smoking tires attempt at stopping in the middle of the intersection.

Well, well. Is it any wonder ordinary people become somewhat cynical or sarcastic?

Amazing, isn't it? One wonders where this thinking comes from? Someone sitting down around a table drafted up a rule that even protects those who have no insurance.

Ever heard of underinsured motorist protection? Well, almost everyone can purchase it. Except those who spend most of their time on the road during the highest risk times of the day. Like Chauffeur drivers, Taxi drivers, Designated drivers etc. Do you think it's just an oversight? Or, does the insurance company not think those drivers who are out driving around in the wee hours of the night worth offering the needed protection?

Do you know anyone who has ever received an ICBC settlement for more than $1 Million? I don't, yet it amazes me who many insurance brokers try to push everyone to increase their public liability insurance to $2 Million, $3 Million or even $5 Million. Why?

Every Insurance company is in business to make money. End of story. Even ICBC. Chester

Its a measly $1,500...Sethen if she has any morals will just pay it all herself, and also make a public apology to the people she represents in PG for driving a vehicle without insurance.

And thank her lucky stars she is not charged and fined for illegal operation of a motor vehicle.
I am glad she did not plow into a vehicle and seriously injure or kill someone while driving for 3 months with no insurance.

>"And thank her lucky stars she is not charged and fined for illegal operation of a motor vehicle."<

There is absolutely no excuse for this. A friend of mine spend a couple of month in Mexico and did not realize that his insurance had expired. He got stopped by the RCMP on the way from his house to the highway and the super mailbox where he would have found the ICBC letter with the expiry notice. He was fined to the full extent of the law! It cost him (he is retired on a small pension) close to 800 bucks, yet, he had not caused any accident.

Go figure! We are supposed to be equal under the law.

Apparently some people are more equal than others!

A few years back I thought my insurance ran out on the 28th of the month because it always used to run out on the 28th on February, if anyone else as old as me remembers. However, it had expired on the 14th of the month instead. I went in to renew it and the I.C.B.C. agent told me it was a good thing I hadn't gotten into an accident because they wouldn't care if I made a mistake if I was in an accident. They said the law is the law. I guess I am just a commoner. I think Sethen should pay for the other lady's car and also be charged with driving with no insurance (which is supposed to be 10 points and a fine). You can't forget for 3 months, I don't care how "simple" you are.

I,m going to copy and paste this whole conversation to the councillor it is in reference to. I hope she does the right thing and lets the lady off the hook. We have a right to know her decision.

It's easy to forget about the insurance expiring, if you have things to do. I even went through three road blocks in four months, and what I was looking at was the trailer insurance! I did fiquire it out later, and went to ICBC in another vehicle to renew.
I don't understand what Sherry has to do with the ICBC decision? Why would it be different if Sherry had insurance?

>"I don't understand what Sherry has to do with the ICBC decision? Why would it be different if Sherry had insurance?"<

The ICBC decision is one aspect, driving around without insurance and registration is the main issue.

Perhaps it isn't that important after all to be properly insured and licensed?

IF Sherry was driving with a non valid licence plate--EXPIRED-then the vehicle is on the road illegally, and if it were not on the road it would not be in a position to be involved in an accident-of any kind.
I C B C licences and insures your vehicle for a period of time-and when that times has gone by-you are not legally permitted to drive that vehicle on any public thoroughfare. If you do so you are breaking the law, as the vehicle does not have a valid plate or insurance, and if it is involved in an accident there is NO insurance to cover damages.
I C B C came up with a NO FAULT insurance, and this terminology escapes me, as in the majority of accidents one of the parties is at fault, but gets off the hook. Both parties must then pay their own deductible, thereby letting I C B C off the hook on deductibles??? If the parties involved in the accident are equally to blame, does this not mean they both pay their own deductible?? In a write off I would assume the deductible is deducted from the pay out figure?? It would appear it is a cost saving measure to benefit I C B C.
I understand most minor accidents are not attended by the R C M P, and as this is supposedly minor, then the parties involved would have been told to file the claims with I C B C. The R C M P would NOT have attended.
The driver of the Bryant car should have checked the licence and registration of the Sethen vehicle and taken down the particulars. If she had so much as looked at the plate she would have realized it had long expired, and YES, a call would have had the vehicle removed and Sethen would have been charged. She would not have been at liberty to remove the vehicle herself, therefore she would have been exposed.
If there were no damages to the Bryant vehicle, she did not need to rush out and obtain insurance . She did have to re-licence her vehicle, which automatically came with liability insurance.
Now if the Bryant driver had suffered any injury, Sethen would have been in some good old proverbial "hot water." She should simply have paid for her own damages and counted her blessings!!!
Am I wrong???
Please inform if I am in error.

Quote from story: >"Sethen can seek to receive $750 dollars from ICBC, in spite of having no insurance at the time."<

Pardon me? Why, for heaven's sake? Did ICBC make this ruling? If so, it is ridiculously idiotic and typical of a monopoly which can make all its own rules because there is no competition.

Gypsy,
Lots of if's and what if's, but the next time you run a red light or park with the meter expired or any other "crime", will you fess up? Or maybe I should report every infraction I find on anybody? It's the RCMP's job, and they don't catch everyone. So relax. Unless I suppose you have proof Sherry did not renew her insurance on purpose? And even then, so what? Everything she ever worked for is at risk in our baby sitting society, if she drives the car. You think anyone would do this on purpose? Silly.

yamadoopolcat--PLEASE do not respond to what I have written.
I know there are posters that are knowledgeable on this subject, and I do not require information from space cadets!!!!
What in hell does parking at an expired meter have to do with operating a motor vehicle illegally without a valid plate and insurance on public roadways????
Yes, people forget, but to forget something that important for 3 months is questionable. Then to look for a means to "cover up" and have the other party who was supposedly on the road legally pay for the party involved who was illegally operating a motor vehicle is just not acceptable.
I also take note of the color of lights, and do not run red ones.
Stupid comparable, to say the least.
If a persons house burns down they cannot run to the Insurance company--pay their insurance and say pay me anyhow for my loss-it is permissible that I forgot to pay for my insurance!!! People forget!!!!
How thick can some people get???

From the story: "There was about $1500 dollars worth of damage done to Sethen’s car, none to the Bryant vehicle,"

Sethen should have gotten her vehicle fixed without involving ICBC because her vehicle was NOT insured with ICBC at the time it was involved in the accident.

Fortunately for her the other vehicle suffered no damage.

I agree with Don; making sure that one's vehicle has proper insurance is a duty that every sensible adult driver must assume before getting behind the steering wheel.

DIPLOMAT

Now krisb states I C B C has the mandate to reward a party who operates an unlicenced, uninsured vehicle on a public roadway and receives remuneration for this illegal act if involved in an accident.
How interesting!!!!
And how did krisb arrive at this conclusion???
Should be even more interesting!!!!

First of all, ladies and gentlemen, we know very little about the circumstances of this accident. We know that they were backing into each other and thus, without witnesses (although we really do not know even that) it is one person’s word against another's.

I presume this took place in a parking lot, not on a public street. That is problem number one. Second, this could have been a case where both parties began backing up at the same time, in which case I would suspect it would be a 50/50 fault situation. However, it could also very well be that one party was pulling out prior to the other party starting to do so. In that case, a car was in motion prior to the other and, I believe, the car in motion had the right of way. Perhaps someone has some konwledge of a specific regulation about that or some case law.

Anyway, let us say that the latter is the case, and Sethen was the individual whose car was in motion first. If I was in her shoes, I would be ticked at the lack of equity.

That being said, I would also expect a ticket regarding not having insurance and have to pay whatever fine is required for that. In fact, do we know whether she will be getting a ticket or not? All we appear to know is that she has not been charged yet. She may still be once ICBC has finished the investigation. There is enough proof that she was driving without insurance and I would be very upset if she is not ticketed. I would like to know from ICBC why that would be the case.

Another fact we also do not know is whether she was driving this vehicle for the full three or so months or whether she was driving another vehicle and was using the vehicle for that day; not that that matters. She was driving without insurance whther for one hour or 3 months is irrelevant.

What is apparent one more time, as was stated above, is that when one is in public life, how one conducts themselves in private life is fair game, especially when it deals with matters of ethics and fair treatment of others. It is, after all, one’s character which is very much an indicator of how one will conduct themselves in public life. It is a rare person who will act one way in private and another way in public.

It is a good thing ICBC has deep pockets.

In my neighbourhood snowmobiles share the traffic in the dark in the middle of the street with other traffic and they also scream along the sidewalk at breakneck speeds! That's in the winter! During the rest of the year its trailbikes, no plates, no helmets, young riders mostly.

ICBC probably has to pay up as well when something goes awfully wrong.

Another way to look at this, btw, is that instead of assessing equal fault, ICBC could assess "no fault" ... in which case each would pay for the damage to their own vehicle.

Here is an example of a short police report: "Two students backed into each other in the Book Store parking area. Officers were UNABLE TO DETERMINE FAULT due to both vehicles being moved. Damage was minor."

Good heavens, can't everyone get it through their heads it was a vehicle without a valid plate. Might as well of had NO licence plate at all, let alone one with an expiry date of June. Should not have been operated in a parking lot-or road.
The hang up everyone has is INSURANCE. Of course-NO licence-No insurance.
The vehicle was being driven illegally-PERIOD.
Get it???
No one has come up with any other information-so I suppose Sethen is guilty of breaking the law.
YES or NO???
Simple.

Gypsy ... I agree with you ... here is what I said in my post above:

"That being said, I would also expect a ticket regarding not having insurance and have to pay whatever fine is required for that. In fact, do we know whether she will be getting a ticket or not? All we appear to know is that she has not been charged yet. She may still be once ICBC has finished the investigation. There is enough proof that she was driving without insurance and I would be very upset if she is not ticketed. I would like to know from ICBC why that would be the case. "

"I suppose Sethen is guilty of breaking the law.
YES or NO???
Simple."
Gypsy - I enjoy responding to your comments. Sorry, it's just that you can be - but not everytime - the best example of what is wrong with the future for our children. It is important to argue with your ideas so other are not afraid of standing in your way.
Simple.
As for no licence plate - she's guilty, but immediately fixed the propblem. Gypsy seems to thing this is the same as driving while your drives licence has been suspended for drunk driving. People do drive without a licence, when they can not correct the situation. They may not have anything left to risk, so why not. What would you do Gypsy? Stay home and starve? No welfare available for missing drivers licences. No money - no job - no wheels. How far would you punish someone?
This is why I like argueing with posts like Gypsy produces.
My wife's father was a Polish POW from 1939 to 1941, imprisoned in Russia. Not that is a sentence!

Yama-so she FIXED it??
AFTER the FACT she had driven a vehicle with a long EXPIRED plate with NO insurance. and been involved in an ACCIDENT.
What upsets me is the fact the legal driver pays a penalty for Sethen driving a vehicle illegally.
I do not even care if she does not get ticketed.
I just do not feel she should be rewarded for her actions.
Sethen should pay to repair her own vehicle, and no way should the Bryant vehicle be responsible for any of her damages.
Just does not seem right or fair.
And personally, it would not make any difference who you are.
In my opinion I C B C is wrong, as Sethen Broke the law and still receives remuneration.
WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!

I agree 100% with gypsy!

Sethen was totally wrong.

And us, whose insurance rates are ultimately driven up by the fact that she can actually claim some money from ICBC (she was not insured with ICBC when the accident happened!) have a good reason to object!

I know that it would cost ICBC extra money but ICBC should contact its clients by telephone the day after a policy expires and demand a physical surrender of the licence plates.

That way, no one can claim forgetfulness as an excuse to be out on the road illegally.

Having to go out with a screwdriver and making a trip to ICBC with the plates is a conscious decision and effort.

That would do it, in my humble opinion250.

ICBC does send notices out about a month prior to expiration.

>ICBC does send notices out about a month prior to expiration.<

Yes, I know. I have one sitting here one my desk, in a prominent location so I won't forget!

Still, should I forget - anything is possible - I wouldn't be mad if ICBC gave me a call the day after my coverage runs out, reminding me of the lapse of my coverage! There are two call centres here in town, they would gladly do it for ICBC, I am sure. ICBC can add the cost for that to the renewal, no problem.

>"Who in hell is I C B C that they have the right to make exceptions to their own rules???
It is basically NOT their money they are playing games with."<

ICBC is a state-owned monopoly. That explains why it behaves the way it does. It is accountable only to itself.

Sure, and with whose money does this so called "monopoly" rely on for its very existence????
We really do prove over and over we are not really equipped to even question the way this province operates.
Seems we always just "go with the flow."
Is it any wonder we get taken to the cleaners again and again.
Maybe Sethen knew how the game was played, and Bryant was not even in the ball park???
Hope we are informed of the outcome!!!

Gypsy: "Is it any wonder we get taken to the cleaners again and again."

No, our provincial politics are too polarized between extreme socialism and capitalism. There, somewhere in the middle is a concept that acknowledges that our capitalism must operate within certain restrictions that are recognized as essential in many successful countries which have a system of western style capitalism. Sweden, Norway and Germany are good examples. Those who believe that private corporations must be opposed and driven out are unaware of the pitiful experiments conducted for instance in the former Soviet Union and its satellite states, where people vegetated for decades, without private capitalism, lacking even the basic necessities of life, including respect for human dignity.

One of these days a party may arise in BC that has Common Sense as its main platform!

"Maybe Sethen knew how the game was played,....???"

No, I honestly believe that she is not as crafty as that. When the other party realized that it would get stuck with having to pay, even though there was no damage to their vehicle the whole thing started to grow wings.

If she has not done so already she may yet see to it that the other party will not suffer just because she was operating her vehicle when she should't have been!

We will get over it and as for myself, I appreciate having learned a lesson or two from this whole episode!

Happy New Year!