Approximately half of all motorcycles in NZ are rego exempt or rego expired right now

[Moi]

OK, first... pedant time... it is actually "licence fee" that you pay to have the right to ride / drive on a public road... pedant time over...

The amount that you pay to licence a bike to use the road is $24.50 pa [!]... the biggest part of the whole sum you pay is the ACC levy... plus a Motorcycle Safety levy plus other sundry charges and GST.

So it is the ACC levy which is the cause of the angst - that is the part which needs to be rethought so it is fairer for all and that has to include ACC who are paying the bills when you come off.

So, how about some suggestions to solve this issue? So far we have had 'tie it to mileage' rather than a date...

What else can you think of?

[PistonBlown]

The problem with any km based system is that it's open to abuse by people disabling the speedo/milometer.

Which also means a lot more 'clocked' bikes of the second hand market. A problem that's already common for diesel vehicles because of the road usage charges.

I even know a serving policeman who, when he bought a diesel 4x4, had a switch fitted so he could disable the speedo/milometer at will to keep the km's down. (They are not a member of this forum:-))

Simple enough to use the speedo on your phone or gps instead.

[eldog]

tie it to the licensed rider, on a per day cost - via phone app?
and a per km or day (cost = ((ACC for full year-ACC initial) /(52 weeks*5days))*number of days ridden per year
uptil a maximum amount once that is achieved then no more charge no matter what bike riding

there would be a minimum 'license/registration fee' per each bike owned that will be on the road ie low cost + ACC initial starter cost per rider
non riding/show bikes no rego - see below

the ACC (or whatever) component would be split as per above

options for owners of 1 bike etc

if its a classic then similar to the classic vintage car say license

I know its unfair to people who will more likely have more skill than the weekend warriors but its a start
maybe have a ACC start value = $50 say to get more $ from occasional rider so not to penalise the day to day users

ACC initial cost is a bit like a handicap in a race - those that ride more days will get to the max value but only quicker

need to have a EROAD type of application like with trucks?

[neels]

I have posted a solution to the ACC unfairness but to my surprise some on here do not want things to be made fairer. My solution is to make those who cause crashes pay a higher ACC premium on their reg than those who dont.
It is that that simple but some on here are just too scared of being at fault in a crash and do not want things too change. That is the way it works for vehicle insurance so it can work for ACC premiums too. We may even end up with safer roads as a result.

This is far too logical for ACC, not to mention far too hard to administer as then you have to take who is at fault into account, which is what they are actively avoiding.

Following their current thinking it would make more sense to charge by make/model the same as they are for cars, that might actually make it economical to have a 100cc commuter bike again, and the squids who are regularly binning their bikes can pay according to the behavior of themselves and likeminded others who ride the same bike as them.

I would still prefer the earlier suggestion though, of an ACC levy on a persons licence on a per km basis, the more you ride the greater the cost as there is more exposure to risk.

[Drew]

Jesus there are some convoluted ideas coming out.

Licence the licenses. Simple. Only drivers get taxed that way.

[caspernz]

Jesus there are some convoluted ideas coming out.

Licence the licenses. Simple. Only drivers get taxed that way.

The issue also includes the lack of a tangible penalty for non-licensing of either vehicle or operator.

[Moi]

The issue also includes the lack of a tangible penalty for non-licensing of either vehicle or operator.

Leave that with me... just how tangible do you want that penalty?

Seriously, is $150 and 15 demerit points a deterrent?

[merv]

Jesus there are some convoluted ideas coming out.

Licence the licenses. Simple. Only drivers get taxed that way.

Good idea mate and to me also the best solution. Me and Mrs both own more than one bike but we only ride one at a time each and also have cars and trailers, so having ACC cover on the person and not the machine makes far more sense to me.

[Moi]

Good idea mate and to me also the best solution. Me and Mrs both own more than one bike but we only ride one at a time each and also have cars and trailers, so having ACC cover on the person and not the machine makes far more sense to me.

What about the driver who owns no vehicles and rents a car once or twice a year? How do you spread the levy fairly for them?

Or, as has been said before, does ACC change this aspect of its income, the vehicle levy, to the general tax take?

[merv]

The problem with doing that though is that ACCs income would go down substantially. My idea of charging those that cause accidents more would result in no loss of income for ACC. It would end up with many bad car drivers paying the $550 that owners of big bikes pay or more.

I agree with you on that too that each person then has the opportunity for the equivalent of a no claim bonus. When I talked of that on here years ago the naysayers went on about how ACC was meant to be a no blame system or some such, but the fact that different industries pay different rates and bikes cost more than cars now the system has already been bastardised to be nothing like what was originally intended. So I reckon making it more like a personal accident insurance system would be good, especially for us with very good records.

[jonnyk5614]

Some insurance policies state that the vehicle must be registered and hold a WOF - if not no payout. The owner signed that contract, and so if they have an accident on a non-rego-ed bike they will not get a pay out ..

AA won't tow a vehicle without WOF/Reg. That'd be a bit of a bummer....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jonnyk5614]

The charge is actually "Failing to display the current License label" ... if the vehicle is actually registered ... or not.

It's up to the officers discretion as to ticket any offender ... or not

After my crash I got a ticket in the mail with my letter of "no further action" that was for $150 and "using unregistered vehicle". No demerits though and I'd actually bought registration 12 hours prior so it will be wiped....

Strange not getting demerits though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Racing Dave]

[QUOTE=cassina;1130944306]I have posted a solution to the ACC unfairness but to my surprise some on here do not want things to be made fairer. /QUOTE]

Some years ago, when Nick Smith was the Minister for ACC, we enjoyed a brief exchange of emails on this topic, which concluded with him declaring that the ACC system had to be fair for everyone.

I agree, and interpret his comment to mean that I shouldn't pay more than my share. So I don't.

Whether you do, or not, is entirely your choice.

[jonnyk5614]

My policy just says warrantable condition - nothing about WOF and Ref and to be fair, that covers us both ways.

Who hasn't accidentally gone a week over on their WOF?
And fair enough that an insurance company could dodge paying if you have single vehicle accident in the rain by skidding on tyres with no tread.

An up to date warrant isn't the same as fit for purpose after-all.

The clause I did like was no cover for unlicensed riders (fair enough) UNLESS their license was merely expired and they had no testing requirement to get another one.
Stops them being wankers over nothing again. All good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[roogazza]

50% down on the takings lol !

Oh , don't feel sorry for the poor old Govt. They're making plenty.

Make your choices, I have.