Motorcycles - a hidden agenda?

As noted in another thread, I was at the local motorcycle show this past weekend. The Insurance Corporation of BC (ICBC) was there for the first time, conducting a survey of attitudes towards motorcycle insurance. Since ICBC is in fact a government agency I've had my doubts about whether they were in fact "objective" in their determination of rates for motorcycles.
One of the items I learned is that there are only some 65,000 bikes of all sizes and makes registered in BC. The person I was talking to was in fact himself a rider, so had some perspective on what was going on.

The questions they (ICBC) asked had to do with "fairness" which was a good thing. I (and many other riders) feel that the rate structure is "bass-ackwards" in many ways. The 600cc "crotch-rockets" with a 20 year old organ doner is charged far less than my 'Wing with a verteran of 30+ years at the helm. People without the "class 6" motorcycle license can get insurance for their machines and there is no recognition of the difference between car driving experience and motorcycle driving experience.

In addition, there is no difference in "risk" category (for theft for example) for a Harley (the machine with the highest vapour pressure - meaning they evaporate/get stolen frequently) and machines like my Honda 'Wing or a BMW (have you ever seen a "chopped" BMW or Gold Wing?)

My insurance for my 'Wing is far more than that for my Dodge Caravan or even my wife's Chev. Cavalier - both of which were worth as much or more than the bike; yet the chances of having my Caravan stolen are far higher than my Honda (in fact, my previous, almost identical 1993 Caravan was stolen a few years ago - I got it back, but only with a fair amount of damage.)

On the other hand, many of the motorcycles on show were "chopped" Harleys with potential for parts from many different machines. A small number were other "twin-V" engined bikes, but not one was built around a Honda 4 or 6 cylinder engine. I think this says something about the likelyhood of a 'Wing being stolen and not recovered.

Similarly, the chances of me having a fatal or major accident that is not someone else's fault (driver turning in front of me or diesel on the road, etc.) compared to someone on a "crotch-rocket" with minimal experience is far less - despite the fact that my machine is 1500cc and theirs is 600cc or even 400cc.

I guess the major point I made to the ICBC rep was that, with reasonable insurance rates for "commuter" bikes there would be more of them on our roads and less roads needed in the future. We've already proven that motorcycles take up far less road space (and ferry space - packing something over 100 machines on a ferry designed for less than 30 cars on the Albion ferry run a couple of years ago.) The point was that a 50cc step-through is not a commuter cycle in today's age of 40km commutes and freeways. Today, the 400-650 step-through (like the Suzuki Burgmans) and on up to the 1800 'Wing and its other cruising peers are legitimate vehicles that warrant reasonable consideration as alternates to cars - and should be treated separately from the vanity bikes and the crotch-rockets for insurance rating calculations. Similarly, the 20 year old commuter with 4 years of experience on her cycle should get a break compared to the 50+ year-old driver with lots of car experience and a brand new class 6 license.

At least we're going to see a change in the way we license multiple vehicles in 2005. I'll be able to have a "portable" plate for multiple motorcycles - being able to ride one at a time from a stable of several/many. Maybe now my wife will let me have both a Harley and the Honda :)