Survey Results

ICBC & Enhanced Care Review

First, we found out that most respondents rely on motor vehicles to some extent, but not exclusively; this suggests the importance of walking, transit, bicycles, and other devices as options for personal mobility.

We asked about who has insurance, and who’s an ICBC customer specifically.

About 4 in 5 people have insurance, and while most are ICBC customers, ICBC status is an area of uncertainty for some.

Over the last four years, the Government of B.C. has given $1.62 billion in ICBC rebates to British Columbians as a result of savings from insurance system changes since 2019. This includes the introduction of ‘no fault’ legislation in 2020, and Enhanced Care in 2021.

We asked survey participants whether they thought that was fair; results were mixed.

We wanted to know what British Columbians think about road safety overall, and also whether they’d been in a crash before.

The responses to these two questions along with the past four years of ICBC statistics, suggests that the majority of B.C.’s road users know we have a public safety problem, and are also experiencing it first-hand.

Lastly, we wanted to know what respondents thought about the two biggest changes to the vehicle insurance system, related to crashes:

• Consideration of fault; and

• Road users’ loss of tort rights (the ability to sue for damages), and ICBC’s expanded role in compensation and care delivery, via Enhanced Care.

The majority of respondents prefer fault-based insurance, and are either against or uncertain about ICBC’s new role and Enhanced Care.

Comments from survey respondents

If this takes away protection for cyclists then I'm totally against it - cyclists (and other vulnerable road users) are at higher risks than cars when they share the roads and car crashes between cars and bikes disproportionally effect cyclists and have lasting negative impacts - physically and mentally. Cyclists are utilizing more sustainable modes of transportation than cars and should be rewarded for that, not penalized by removing security and insurance measures.

I feel like taking away a right to sue will bring us closer to the oppressive regimes in the world where people have no rights, that no-fault system removes rights for pain and suffering that could be very damaging for the injured. Pedestrians and cyclists seem to have a disadvantage as they are more vulnerable to damages than the car that hits them, yet the fault will not matterI understand the need to stop the bleeding for ICBC, but I am very concerned about impacts to insurance/protection of cyclists and pedestrians.

A crash can have long-lasting effects that do not develop right away. Enhanced Care is fine as long as their decision can be reviewed after a few months or years to determine if there is a need for more compensation for the care needed.

July, 2023, I was 'doored' by a negligent driver while cycling on an official Vancouver city cycling route. My injuries so far have required emergency hospitalization, shoulder reconstruction surgery, and may require a second surgery. I eventually had to stop working. My experience with Enhanced Care has been quite lengthy and quite negative. Although ICBC deemed the vehicle driver 100% at fault, the No Fault insurance laws prevented me from pursuing any injury compensation, which I believe has infringed (removed) my constitutional rights.

$250,000 will not cover the life-debilitating injuries that I, as a cyclist, would endure when a 1 ton vehicle hits me. I would expect that any careless driver that is speeding into cyclists, or not shoulder-checking as they turn, or turning left at an intersection hitting a cyclist that had the straight right-of-way in the opposite direction....they should have to pay. Or, ICBC pays the full amount that is due, coming out of the collective pool. There must be a deterrent, especially to those that have not learned the lesson in respectful and cooperative use of the road.

I was hit in 2022 by an “at fault” driver while commuting to work and was knocked out and woke up in hospital with various cuts and bruises. ICBC ended up buying my damaged bike and was given the full slate of health care recovery services.

Cycling in Shawnigan lake July 23 2025 and was t boned by a truck turning left. I was deemed 100% not responsible. I was airlifted to vgh and had surgery to repair broken ankle and hip while suffering a severe concussion. I’ve been unable to work since and receiving icbc enhanced care benefits.

I have had one car almost hit me which led to me hitting my bike brakes so abruptly that I flew off my bike. They left the scene without providing info. A few months ago, I was doored while cycling. Both experiences with Enhanced Care had me constantly fighting for treatments, spending way too much time talking to ICBC. It seems totally unfair given the driver likely only suffers a few points off their licence (if they're even known of), and there is no compensation for pain and suffering.

Taking away an injured person's access to an impartial judicial system is the definition of unfair. The benefits already in place for treatment (Part 7) rarely, if ever, are maxed out and are near impossible to access.

1) Having an insurance adjuster manage my health care and other benefits following a crash is frightening.
2) Removing fault from the system discourages good behaviour (e.g., seat belt use, speeding, wearing helmets, etc.) because there are no serious consequences (unless it's a criminal code offense).
3) As a cyclist, will I be able to buy the added insurance to remove the limit on my income replacement benefit? I make more than the proposed cap on income replacement.
4) I am opposed to not compensating crash victims for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life due to their injuries. Simply paying my medical bills (they would be paid anyway in BC) and replacing (part of) my incomes does not restore my quality of life.

Removing fault and the ability for those severely injured to sue ICBC in courts is unfair and unkind. ICBC has repeatedly shafted those who are injured for many years. How are those who've had terrible dealings with ICBC ever supposed to believe that ICBC will actually treat them fair going forwards? Those same adjusters who have low-balled settlements and not provided proper care and reimbursement are now supposedly going to have a heart and offer supports? Impossible to believe that.

If a driver is totally negligent and causes serious injury to a cyclist then they should be sued. Drivers will now be more negligent under the proposed system as they know they have an easy way out.

Removing the ability of an injured person to seek damages through the court system is unjust. Removing my ability to sue the person at fault for my injuries to potentially lower insurance costs for the many is unfair.

I agree with the courts not being a good way to settle claims, however road users need to be protected regardless of whether or not they are insured drivers. For example cyclists.....