Some of our image-laden pages may load more slowly depending on your internet service. Patience if they don't display immediately. You'll be glad you waited.

South Okanagan Photos

Do you agree with any or all of these statements?

* 82.3% said that drivers who are found to be at-fault in crashes should pay more.
* Written comments indicated they believe that the current system does not penalize high-risk drivers appropriately.

* 63.5% said that the option to pay back at-fault claims should be modified or eliminated entirely, while 30.7% believed it should be kept the same.
* The most popular response (41.4%) was that the option should be kept only for vehicle damage claims totalling $2,000 or less.

* 92.1% indicated that the driver – not the registered owner – should be held responsible and see their premiums increase if they cause a crash.

* 74.3% agreed that drivers with one serious conviction within a three-year period should pay higher insurance premiums.
* 58.7% agreed that drivers with two or more minor convictions in a three-year period should pay higher premiums.

* When asked about an appropriate scan period to consider convictions, responses were mixed, with 39.3% at five years, while 50.6% preferred a scan period of two (21.2%) or three (29.4%) years. Age and driving experience had a strong influence on the responses.

* 50.6% supported transition caps of 20% or more annually, to phase in rate increases for high-risk drivers, and decreases for low-risk drivers.
* Written feedback from those who chose the 20% or greater than 20% transition options suggested that higher rates for higher-risk drivers are appropriate, and lower-risk drivers deserve to receive the benefits as soon as possible.

* Regarding the amount of a one-time penalty for a registered owner who did not list a driver who was found at-fault in a crash, 70.9% of people chose a fee option ($250, $500 or $1,000), while a 29.1% chose don’t know/no opinion.

* 38.5% selected $250 (54.3% of those who chose one of the three fee amounts).

* 46.5% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that distance driven should have a greater impact on insurance rates, while 38.8% agreed or strongly agreed.
* Written comments indicated that respondents believed distance driven was a poor estimator of risk, and cited the typically longer driving distances of those who live in rural and remote areas as a reason why considering distance may be unfair.