October 30, 2012 at 7:50 pm #2032
This is from a member that did not wish to be identified.
As I understand it, the primary concern raised by members is that the Collector Plate program criteria of vehicles being 25 years or older allows for owners of “non-collector” type vehicles that fit the criteria to benefit from lower insurance rates. The example is the 1987 K car 4 door that meets the program criteria is marketed on the basis of cheap insurance. This situation is assumed to then translate into the types of driving behaviour (driving to work, drivers who don’t have the “love” of the vehicle etc) which are then assumed to cause the number and severity of claims to rise and thus premiums. Frankly, while there may be some of this happening, I don’t expect that the loss in annual premiums for these few rare cases would come anywhere close to raising general insurance costs, or paying the costs of the collector car program, let alone the costs of the high risk behaviour drivers we see causing all the crashes.
The solution being considered is an inspection program. This is a terrible idea that will certainly drive up costs for hobbyists. I would like to offer other suggestions and some other thoughts.
As stated previously, the fastest, most efficient and least cost method would be to give a one year notice and require that the program be limited to 1988 and older vehicles. This option may upset some folks with newer Vipers, Prowlers, Corvettes etc – but likely the vast majority of “collectable” vehicles were built prior to 1988.
Alternatively, the criteria of the program can be tightened to require that the vehicle be “collectible”. It would be easy to define “collectible” based on the existence of clubs etc.
However, I am a big fan of efficient administration and my first preference for a new collector program would be to automatically deem any pre-1970 vehicle as having collector status and provide lower premiums based on restricted pleasure use and the reduced risk (yes – this would eliminate the “test” of originality and mint condition). Anyone insuring a pre-1970 vehicle that wanted to use it for work would have to state that purpose and pay regular premiums that would reflect that risk. This program would also eliminate the need for the collector application and the ICBC overhead costs of administering that program. It would also promote the hobby with low risk for ICBC. Let’s face it, in the days of small parking spots, congested highways and $1.40/L gasoline, it would be very rare that people wanted to drive a pre-1970 vehicle to work. As a result, more hobbyists would have a chance to drive their cars that are collectable – but currently do not meet the “test”.
Like many other hobbyists I know that ICBC rates for non-collector cars affect my ability to enjoy some of my cars. If my 54 Belair hardtop was cheaper to insure I would use it more for fun. The car is in excellent mechanical shape but the paint is old. I don’t really want to paint it as I like the look of original.
To see this from ICBC’s perspective, its all about charging premiums based on risk. Am I a greater risk in my 54 than a guy who has a 54 with fresh paint? Should I pay more just because I don’t have fresh paint? Currently, according to ICBC’s risk pricing matrix I am a greater risk. This simply does not make sense and even worse, it undermines the car hobby.October 30, 2012 at 10:57 pm #2310
For those who want to exclude FWD cars from the collector program: I guess they don’t own the 1968-69 Cadillac Eldorado or the Olds Tornado. These are classic FWDs.
I remain convinced that the best way is to limit the year to the 20 year rule as of now – then take all new ones on “collectible” status – or better yet – go with my preferred idea.October 31, 2012 at 1:30 pm #2312
Where did the notion come from that anyone wants to, or has suggested eliminating front-wheel-drive cars from the collector program?
NigelMarch 27, 2015 at 6:54 pm #2363
You have made some excellent points regarding the condition of the vehicle. My love is mechanically top notch yet the paint like yours – leaves something to be desired. But its an old vehicle and like you I don’t necessarily want to paint it. Because of the paint the vehicle cannot qualify as a collector vehicle despite the fact it is 60 years old. this is a point that should be addressed by the Association. I do not drive the vehicle for more than 6 months as I have two regular cars that I insure. Insuring the old car for a year would really hit into the family budget.
Another point which has been brewing but I will confess that I am not up to date with is the inclusion of reproduction bodied vehicles qualifying as collector or modified collector vehicles with the decreased insurance premium. How can a new built Deuce with a glass body be considered a collector car and my 60 year old vehicle, because of faulty paint is not?May 25, 2015 at 1:18 pm #2374
This idea of allowing new build kit cars to be considered as collector cars is not only ridiculous but unfair. This is something the SVA BC has been pushing and just another reason I have not renewed my membership.May 25, 2015 at 9:31 pm #2376
Some interesting comments. I am surprised that nobody from SVA BC has bothered to comment. Maybe they do not read this.May 27, 2015 at 4:08 pm #2378
Kit built, or fibreglass cars will not get collector status. The idea is to call the car “what it looks like”, not a 2015 Replica.
If it looks like a ’32 Ford Roadster it will become a 1932 Ford, and “replica” will appear on the status line. Almost all USA jurisdictions use this approach.
Let’s see now…..a 911 call comes to police……a 2015 replica car has just been hijacked be on the lookout…..May 27, 2015 at 4:21 pm #2380
If that is true good but I spoke with a former ICBC person who is now working for Hagerty and he says that once ICBC gets their computers set up it will occur. He figured next year. I mentioned my old car and he agreed that its all wrong but ICBC wants everything black and white with no grey areas, the area in which my car would fall.May 28, 2015 at 10:48 am #2382
Nigel will be at a breakfast meeting in PG on Saturday. I will be discussing this then.
I think you have confused the need fIor “modified/altered” status on all modified and kitbuilt
vehicles with modified collector plates. Two different things.May 29, 2015 at 3:38 pm #2384
Perhaps so. I am looking forward to his comments. To me it does not matter how it is designated but its about the cost. I do not feel I should be paying over $650 annually to drive a safe, reliable vintage vehicle less than 1000 miles per year. If people can have new-build “vintage” cars and pay a much reduced premium is my point. And as you know people like us with older vehicles that we cherish do not take unnecessary chances when using them as well as having them securely protected when we are not.
The forum ‘News’ is closed to new topics and replies.