Researcher criticises motorbike levy logic

[James Deuce]

Yes fuel costs would be higher but the registration would be cheeper. With the levies on fuel the only people that wouldn't pay the levies are the ones that do petrol drive offs. A lots less that the number of unregesited vehicles and unlicenced drivers

Everything you buy from a retailer or wholesaler would be more expensive, inflation would increase overnight, and your standard of living would drop. The fuel price increase to cover ACC levies wouldn't be a few cents, it would be more like $1 per litre.

[cs363]

JD is right on the money here, I'm also a proponent of linking the levy to licences for all the reasons JD has previously stated in this thread.
The positives of this sytem far outweigh any perceived negatives and would be a much fairer across the board system, spreading the cost over a wider net of people. (Not sure of the figures but I'd be willing to bet we have a much higher number of people with various classes of licence than we have actual vehicle owners) and quite likely raking in more total revenue for ACC.

As he correctly states the flow on effect of a higher tax on fuel will effect almost everything you buy, something that would probably surprise you.

I think this idea of a change to the way ACC levies are applied is one to keep on the back burner though as the immediate issue is to sort out the levy hike. ACC & the Government aren't going to be too interested in wholesale changes to ACC right now, but this is something that needs to be lobbied for by suitable groups around the country. Perhaps starting with BRONZ after the current issue is resolved (hopefully).

[caseye]

Todays herald just might contain our strongest ally.
Here he is, saying it like it SHOULD be.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10604027

[MSTRS:Me]

From an Arctuarial perspective, the license based ACC premium would probably include factors like demography and would have a basic minimum fee and then be loaded with premiums that match risk, a la MSTRS' idea. Different license classes would attract different premiums.

Maybe but that would penalise the people that have multiple licences like me that have six licences 1-6 now the only ones i use at the moment are 1 and 2 but would have to pay a higher fee just because my licence says im allowed to drive other types of vehicle BUT i can only operate ONE at a time.

To clarify...I meant that whatever licence class/es one holds, there are different levels of risk associated with each (according to accident/injury stats). Whichever one attracts the highest levy, that is the one you are charged AND THAT IS IT. You only pay one levy, the highest one. You can still only use one vehicle at any one time. Otherwise, what's the difference to multi vehicle levies as it is now?
Using licence-based levies, it is ensuring the person is covered according to their riskiest mode of travel, and allows for personal 'credit' in the form of a NCB if they have a good history of accident-free motoring.

Yes but different arguements, is someones aussie 6 cylinder put its occupants more at risk than someone who drives a suzuki swift, the aussie car uses more petrol per KM, so he pays more in acc, sorry it is not a motorbike arguement , maybe scooter vs GSX1000, but does not make sense, especially as all types are buying petrol from the pump, at one cost per litre.

Fair point against petrol-based levies. Better to have to buy kms like RUC. You get a (window) sticker that covers that vehicle until the kms run out. None of this paying every year regardless of whether the vehicle is used or not, but still allowing it to be legally available for use. Each km travelled attracts x amount of risk, so this way each driver/rider pays for the risk that attracts to that person's exposure. If the thought that some road users are subsidising others is so distasteful, then this will avoid those travelling 10,000km pa from propping up those who travel 50,000km.
Of course, it's still 'unfair', because, generally speaking, those who travel high mileage tend not to have any more accidents than those who do low mileage.

[shrub]

Apologies if this is a repost

But this article

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/new...ike-levy-logic

carries some useful data against the ACC and The Dishonorable Nick

Visit http://www.bikersagainstacc.org.nz there is heaps of info, and within the next 24 hours or so (the web designer has a full time job as well) there will be tools to make it easy to submissions, sample emails you can send to your MP, posters and flyersyou can print out etc.

It's organised by PRISM (Promoting Responsibility in Safe Motorcycling), a group of well known and well regarded motorcyclists.

They are in the process of securing support from some very well known (household name) Kiwis who are passionate motorcyclists and the national spokesman will be someone we all know of. The team includes professional web designers, professional marketing and public relations people and the guy you're quoting (Professor Charley Lamb). They have access to a wealth of information and data, including stuff that isn't normally available to the general public and relationships with the media. They also have an in to both the politicial circles and ACC, so part of their strategy is also to work from within.

They have been talking to, and have the support of the various importers and industry groups, and are working with non-motorcycle groups who will be keen to align with and support us.

They are meeting daily to develop a well researched and professional strategy for bikers to participate in influencing change, including making it easy to make submissions, lobby your MP and organise a series of national protest rides and media events. They are very keen to focus the energy and passion this event has triggered to stop the levies, but also to use the momentum to put in place a national and credible motorcycle interest lobby group.

[MSTRS:Me]

Sounds good. But so does BRONZ. We do not want our 'forces' split. I hope this spokesman you mentioned is not Alan Kirk??

[Naki Rat]

Sounds good. But so does BRONZ. We do not want our 'forces' split. I hope this spokesman you mentioned is not Alan Kirk??

Who the hell is Alan Kirk? I have suspicions of Gareth Morgan being onboard this one. He would be a great spokesmen

[Jantar]

I quiet like JDs idea of tying ACC to licences, you could use tis system to risk rate individual drivers, ie those who are the cause of an accident, through drink driving / dangerious driving, those who are convicted of drink driving / dangerious driving, or other traffic offences, they would see a persentage increase in their ACC leavey for up to a 10 yr period, 10 yrs clean record and the ACC rate drops back to the lower rate.
Those who incur Demerit point losses against their licences also incur a persentage increase in their ACC leavey, for the period of the demerit point loss, or a 2 yr period, regardless if the licence is lost during that time because of loss of demerit points.
For those who can keep their licences clean, for a 10yr period they can receive an ACC Leavy drop in fee, rewarding them for their good driving, ( or ability not to get caught.)

That's the one Pedrostt. I've been thinking a bit about how licence disqualification is pointless and how there's no incentive to improve either attitude or skills. The concept opens up a hole pile of ways to change road user behaviour without necessarily bunging more cops on the road and removes the patently unfair levy applied to multi vehicle households, without an incumbent Government having to commit suicide by making fuel the same price it is in Europe.

Now this is positive thinking outside the square. Perhaps a simple manner to manage this type of incentive would be one that doesn't require any more beauracracy or record keeping as to who is a good driver and who isn't.

Maybe a simple 100% surcharge on driving offence fines with all of that surcharge going to ACC would penalise those who are most likely to cause accidents and broaden the collection base.

[Coldrider]

Under the userpays policy, (no fault is a laugh now), where is the incentive for motorists to not injure motorcyclists, if the the penalty hits the motorcyle levy and not the motorists?
It is actually a free ride for cagers.

[kiwi cowboy]

Under the userpays policy, (no fault is a laugh now), where is the incentive for motorists to not injure motorcyclists, if the the penalty hits the motorcyle levy and not the motorists?
It is actually a free ride for cagers.

So maybe somthing like a standard levie across the board maybe based in age groups with some sort of NCB for good driving history and no tickets of some types?

[Coldrider]

So maybe somthing like a standard levie across the board maybe based in age groups with some sort of NCB for good driving history and no tickets of some types?

There will never be a cost allocation strategy that will be greeted in open arms like a $100 bottle of red, by everybody.
I have not run the numbers but, if all motorcycle caused injuries were born by motorcyclists, like wise for cars, and then the rest allocated across both groups (car hits mc, mc hit car), there are more cars to have that allocated across. Or the car hits mc cost allocated back to cars, mc hits car allocated back to motorcycles,(not sure correct the costs are).
Then as motorcyclists we track down who is causing us grief and persuade them to get a cage.