B.C. Attorney General David Eby is publicly musing about making the biggest change yet when it comes to distracted driving and ICBC: treating the activity like impaired driving.
The public insurer is facing billion-dollar losses, and the province has instituted a suite of reforms in a bid to cut down on red ink, including a crackdown on distracted driving.
So Eby has floated an idea that could leave distracted drivers uninsured if they’re involved in a collision while using a device.
“It seems strange to me that ICBC on one hand would treat drunk driving as an invalidation of your insurance, and would treat distracted driving as not invalidating your insurance,” Eby told CKNW’s The Simi Sara Show on Friday.
“More and more we need to think of distracted driving as being just as bad as having a bunch of beers and then getting behind the wheel.”
Eby said he’s also heard suggestions that distracted drivers should be given roadside prohibitions.
He has raised the issue with ICBC, though he admitted that it’s an “open question” as to whether he’ll move forward with the policy.
But Eby is thinking about it seriously, and arguing that distracted driving is contributing to “carnage” on the roads.
LISTEN: Sit down with BC Liberal leader Andrew Wilkinson
No coverage
BC Liberal Leader Andrew Wilkinson rejected the idea out of hand.
He’s concerned that if a driver had their insurance voided, then the victim would be left without compensation.
“That’s a crazy idea, because if you have actually run someone down and that person is critically injured, that means that person would get nothing,”nowhere,” he told CKNW’s The Jon McComb Show.
“You can’t just abandon the victim in the street and say we’re going to penalize the driver.”
However, victims would still be protected if the province shifted distracted driving to a model that directly mirrored impaired driving, according to ICBC.
“The impairment of the driver would not affect your ability to be compensated, if you were injured or killed,” said an ICBC spokesperson.
Impaired drivers, however, would be considered in breach of their insurance.
They wouldn’t be able to make claims on their own vehiclse, and could potentially be in serious financial trouble.
That’s because they would lose their right to indemnity, meaning the insurer would look to recover any payout to the victim from the impaired driver through the courts, said ICBC.
Unintended consequences
That’s a consequence that could end up causing more problems than the policy change would solve, experts said.
“If your insurance is breached because an officer determined subjectively that you were distracted, then you have no insurance,” said Mark Canofari, a litigator with Broughton Law.
“If you’re in an accident, with the price of car repairs, if there’s three or four people in that car who were injured… you’re bankrupting people.”
That’s a severe financial consequence, Canofari said.
And it could also be unfair because distracted driving is not in the Criminal Code — meaning the accused can’t take advantage of due process protections like the right to legal counsel.
LISTEN: The issue with penalizing distracted drivers as harshly as drunk drivers
Proving distraction in court could also create a massive legal headache for police and Crown counsel, he added.
Richard McCandless, a former deputy minister and expert on ICBC, echoed the concern about court time.
The NDP has been working to move ICBC-related cases out of the courtroom to save money, capping pain and suffering payouts for minor injuries at $5,500, and increasing no-fault medical benefits.
LISTEN: ICBC expert Richard McCandless on treating distracted driving like drunk driving
“This, on the other hand will, in my view, drive people back to the lawyers.”
Eby shrugged off that concern, arguing that crashes linked to distracted driving are already clogging up the courts.
He stressed that there had been no decision on whether to target distracted drivers’ insurance.
But he did say the province’s approach is already, in a way, mirroring the manner in which it tackles impaired driving, pointing to escalating financial penalties for those caught breaking the rules.
“That’s a lot of cash, and we’re getting up in the realm of the kinds of fines and costs that you see when someone is driving… under the influence of drugs or alcohol,” he said.
“We are moving incrementally to try to find that sweet spot where we can communicate to people, look, this is a serious issue, put the phone down and drive.”
Comments