‘Minor injury’ is too vague a term

Re: “Money-losing ICBC to cap pain payouts,” Feb. 7. Attorney General David Eby, a lawyer, should not be the one responsible for changes to ICBC. That should be the responsibility of the health minister, since only doctors can determine the severity of an injury.

I wonder if Eby or anyone involved with making the recommended changes has ever had a softtissue injury, in particular whiplash. I disagree that whiplash is a “minor” injury.

The body is incredibly complex, and repairing it effectively and permanently is a long-term, expensive process. In the meantime, the stress of being unable to work or do any of one’s usual activities, not to mention the financial burdens treatment places on accident victims, adds further complications to recovery.

Insurance, whatever it is for, is there for its clients, and should be there when needed. No questions. If that means tougher penalties for fraudsters, so be it. Insurance is legally required by motorists, so it should also be the law that insurance companies compensate crash victims promptly and adequately.

In the meantime, the vague term “minor” must be more specific because that word could be misconstrued. The word “minor” as it applies to injury is just arbitrary and leaves a lot to interpretation.

Finally, if ICBC wants to save money, it should concentrate on removing bad drivers from our roads. As it is now, driving is a chess game, trying to figure out if the driver next to you is going to follow the rules. Bennett Guinn Victoria