Penalty Points and How They Affect You

I was rather surprised to see driving without a licence as a three point penalty.  But I guess it depends on what driving without a licence means.

If driving without a licence means you have a licence, but you don't happen to have it with you when stopped by the police, then perhaps that is only worth two points.

On the other hand if you have never been granted a licence, never taken the test, then that, in my opinion, shows a much higher degree of disregard for the law.  Perhaps that is worth four points.

And I certainly agree with Tim's assessment that blowing through a red light needs a stiffer penalty.  Ditto for distracted driving.

Always the easiest way to find out where the offences are buried in the mighty Motor Vehicle Act - find the ticket in Div. 28 and there will be your reference to the appropriate Section.

It does seem weird, that violating an amber or red light only carries 2 demerits, it's so dangerous!  But I guess a cop could always slap a Section 144 Careless Driving charge on the more egregious violations.

Effective June 1, 2016 there will be a new category of four penalty points for drivers who are convicted for distracted driving offences such as texting and driving.

Yeah, that new 4-point category caught my eye, being a whole new penalty.  But what if we look at things this way?  It's a more severe ticket than anything else other than the Table 3 & Table 4 offences, and those are aimed at pretty outrageous behaviour behind the wheel, particularly drivers taking deliberate risks and thus potentially endangering other road users.

But, look at the double-whammy under ICBC Penalty Point Premiums.  The driver not only has to pay the ticket, but those 4 points also mean that he/she has to pay a penalty point premium in addition, which would not have been the case under Table 1 or Table 2 (I guess they'll call this one Table 2.5 or something ha ha).

People may agree with it, some may not, but I can undertand what I believe to be the rationale behind this.

My only issue with the new law is that there still isn't any provision for the police officer to take away the cell phone for a finite period.  How come the authorities may, in some cases, take away and impound an entire automobile - but they can't just yank somebody's cell phone right here right now and impund that for a month?  Two months for second offence.  Four months for third.  And so on ...

That's always seemed a bit strange to me, as well.  A vehicle runs a red light at a major intersection and 2 points ?  But running a stop sign 3 points ???

The only difference, I can see is if we believe that the accused accidentally (ie, didn't just intentionally do it) disobeyed each, is that, stop signs don't change, they always mean stop.  A traffic light changes, it's green it's yellow and changes to red.

Distracted driving is another kettle of fish.  There has always been an offence for driving while distracted.  It just wasn't as direct.  It was also a more appropriete number of points, six. 

The section, which still exists, is "Driving Without Due Care and Attention", and encapsulates a number of things a driver could do (or not do) that would constitute driving in such a manner.

It was also the old "catch all" for some police, investigating collisions.

In my opinion it really was intended for a driver committing multiple violations.

But, what about a person driving along eating a bowl of corn flakes ?  Shaving ?  Putting on makeup ?  Reading a map ?  They would all fall under the original "distracted driving" section.

What the government has done is explicitly described one act and basically said "if you do this you are distracted" (and guilty).

It would be like saying "if you have consumed any alcohal within two hours of driving you are guilty.  With no allowance for the quantity, a sip, a glass, a bottle, doesn't matter, guilty.  It would certainly make it easy to convict and remove any grey area.

Naming an exact act without any interpretation brings the act to the forefront in the minds of the motoring public and makes it easy to convict.  Either you did or you didn't.

As for the point system it, has two functions.  Points are assessed and points are dropped off, the balance gives a numeric indicator for the RoadSafetyBC to assess who needs further attention.

The second reason and this is missed by many.  In BC we have government auto insurance.  In areas where private auto insurance is the norm, when one gets a ticket or two, their annual auto insurance goes up.  That doesnt' happen in BC.  There is no increase in your annual premium if you get a couple of tickets.  Have a couple of at fault claims, oh yes it will go up, but tickets, no.

BUT those tickets don't just cost their face penalty value.

Each driver who gets over 3 points during a scan period has to pay ICBC a penalty.  So in effect, the driver's auto insurance company does collect for violations (and other more serious offenses), but that "fee" isn't attached to the driver's annual insurance premium.

Probably a little more efficient and fair, in that every BC licensed driver pays ICBC for those points, where in a private insurance situation, if you don't insure a vehicle (you borrow, rent, or just drive company vehicles) your tickets only cost their face value, no surcharge. 

In the private auto insurance areas, the person who insures a vehicle and gets multiple tickets pays more and the person who doesn't insure a vehicle doesn't.

In my opinion, NONE of the points, fines, or prohibitions....are relevant. Higher penalties are needed to deter (somewhat) the devil may care attitude I see everywhere.

I get really riled up, pretty easily, on this topic. ICBC has divorced John Q Public from the consequences of his actions. And, IF and when he is caught doing something, the price he pays, is (again, in my opinion) a paltry sum.  

In my opinion, NONE of the points, fines, or prohibitions....are relevant. Higher penalties are needed to deter (somewhat) the devil may care attitude I see everywhere.

I think I get where you're coming from. But what 'higher penalties' do you suggest? We can't just shoot the bastards ...

Personally, I think the necessary system is already in place, using penalty points and consequent fines/prohibitions. However, the seeming disinterest on the part of the police (or their practice of predominantly using passive radar 'enforcement' whilst ignoring failure to signal, or following too closely) is the essential issue. It didn't used to be like this, you know! Time was that if a pedestrian jaywalked in Vancouver, they would be ticketed; these days, it happens at every damn intersection on every traffic light sequence, but the VPD are 'busy' nailing speeders in the longest Playground Zone known to mankind along Pacific Avenue instead.

It should be simple enough. You ignore the rules (failing to use your turn signals like you did to pass your road test for a license being the most obvious example) and if that's your habit then it should eventually catch up to you. Acquire enough penalty points and never mind how much you have in your bank account, you lose your license for a finite period.

We can wish for better drivers, we can promote driver education, but the fact is that many of the idiots behind the wheel don't know and/or don't care unless there is a personal negative consequence to their actions that will 'smarten them up' (yikes I think I'm showing my age).

Much better though if the system can appeal to a driver's self-interest, than relying on their good nature.

The system in place is motivated by revenues and targets, not by results. And as I've said before, if you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem; and that goes for the cops just as much as anybody.

CompetentDrivingBC  I have grown to value highly your views on many issues presented here, and every once and a while, your high brow wit comes into play, affording us little gems such as the one below.

I think I get where you're coming from. But what 'higher penalties' do you suggest? We can't just shoot the bastards ...

As the hippies used to say...."I dig the space you're coming from".

Seriously though, I have felt that if you cause an accident where someone is killed, that should be a 5 year prohibition right there. If you cause an accident, you should be required to take some training related to your mistake, and then retest. These minor offences, like fail to produce, and your car being impounded the second time, I like that. You had 2 chances, you obviously don't give a shit if you are getting a second citation. 

Driving is such a huge responsibility, it needs to have serious and thought provoking deterrents associated with it....because so many people think its a right, and I see people all the time who treat it like a lark. It should be hard to obtain a license, there should be regular checks on a persons abilities, and mistakes should be costly and perhaps they should give a person some pedestrian experience while they think about what they've done, and maybe they'll appreciate what its all about a bit more.

I wonder why ICBC will increase premiums on optional insurance as a consequence of too many penalty points.  Surely the penalty points are indicative of expected risk and that should be applied to the basic liability policy.  Some people, perhaps those high-risk drivers might not be inclined to purchase optional insurance and hence avoid the increased premiums their behavior justifies.

On a related topic of seemingly permanent concern to your readers is the fact that risky driving behavior is just not being caught at the time.  I think most tickets for this are given following a crash.  Risky drivers just don't think they will be caught, and that is a reflection of the lack of dedicated traffic enforcement in this province.  Even if there is a ticket issued the penalties are not seen as significant enough to deter future risky behavior.  We need greater certainty of being caught and of being punished at an appropriate level so the behavior is rewarded with meaningful consequences. We have a great political reluctance to pay for enforcement.