I have raised this before, Multi-bike Registration

[Laava]

Azalia and Cassandra together at last]

[IMG][/IMG]

[Cosmik de Bris]

I don't mind paying GST on the 1st bottle of beer, but I think the GST on the other 5 in the 6 pack should be less.

Without attribution or any other hint for context it is difficult to know what you're on about, but if it's about only paying one ACC charge per person then your comment is plain idiotic. Registration is for the vehicle. A person, in most cases, can only drive one vehicle at a time and is the person that incurs the charges for hospital care. Thus, it is reasonable in a society whose Government is not just about revenue collecting, to attribute the costs to the person, perhaps as part of the driving licence.

This makes much more sense to me, but you seem to like straw man type arguments that make little sense.

[Voltaire]

Without attribution or any other hint for context it is difficult to know what you're on about, but if it's about only paying one ACC charge per person then your comment is plain idiotic. Registration is for the vehicle. A person, in most cases, can only drive one vehicle at a time and is the person that incurs the charges for hospital care. Thus, it is reasonable in a society whose Government is not just about revenue collecting, to attribute the costs to the person, perhaps as part of the driving licence.

This makes much more sense to me, but you seem to like straw man type arguments that make little sense.

Makes about as much sense as thinking that something is not fair that anything is going to change.

I have a car a van and two motorcycle on full rego, the ACC component is about $744 a year ( based on 12 months). Cheap cover in my opinion. If i was not happy with it I'd sell some of them.

Strawman arguments are the bread and butter of this forum.

[Jeff Sichoe]

Could have a little sheep-ear tag on your helmet which entitles you to ride on the road, then the bike wouldn't matter cause if you got pulled up if you didn't have your ear tag you'd be in trouble

I'd suggest for a minor fee you could get upgraded to a sweet barcode tat on your forearm which gives you the right to ride (but if you lapse rego they scrape the tat off with a bit of glass)

better than getting fucked in the ass by the current system amirite?

[Akzle]

Could have a little sheep-ear tag on your helmet which entitles you to ride on the road, then the bike wouldn't matter cause if you got pulled up if you didn't have your ear tag you'd be in trouble

I'd suggest for a minor fee you could get upgraded to a sweet barcode tat on your forearm which gives you the right to ride (but if you lapse rego they scrape the tat off with a bit of glass)

better than getting fucked in the ass by the current system amirite?

implanted rfid chips. with remote det function...

[Moi]

What say we scrap ACC, then you'll only have to licence your bike at about $25 per annum...

But the trade-off is that you have to arrange your own comprehensive accident insurance to cover while you're at home, at work, on your way to and from work, when you're out enjoying yourself for the night, when you're driving your classic car or riding your bike... the list goes on...

I've challenged people in the past to go and get a quote for accident insurance provided by an insurance company that is of the same quality as that provided by ACC - and quick as a flash there's been no reply... I wonder why?

[Jeff Sichoe]

dude no-one is saying that the idea of ACC is shit

I think you'll find most people who understand the idea would agree.

what this thread is about is when people own MULTIPLE bikes and are then paying for that privilege of having them sit in the garage at home, un-ridden, yet still costing megabucks.

The argument is that just because YOU are only able to ride one bike, that there would be nothing stopping OTHERS riding your bikes also.

The other argument is that the cost of enforcing compliance through other means (Fuel Tax, Drivers License fee increase etc) is not worth the time the government would need to put into a solution.

I think most people would agree that currently, multiple bike owners who want them legal and who don't share their toys are getting screwed compared to the rest of us.

[old slider]

dude no-one is saying that the idea of ACC is shit

I think you'll find most people who understand the idea would agree.

what this thread is about is when people own MULTIPLE bikes and are then paying for that privilege of having them sit in the garage at home, un-ridden, yet still costing megabucks.

The argument is that just because YOU are only able to ride one bike, that there would be nothing stopping OTHERS riding your bikes also.

The other argument is that the cost of enforcing compliance through other means (Fuel Tax, Drivers License fee increase etc) is not worth the time the government would need to put into a solution.

I think most people would agree that currently, multiple bike owners who want them legal and who don't share their toys are getting screwed compared to the rest of us.

I agree. Yet I still think about my $25 ACC fee having 6 people in my car with my $88 rego and my $422 ACC cover to ride my bike.

[pritch]

Some of you guys haven't been reading the thread - or fuck all else? There is a budgeted figure ACC are attempting to meet - end of story. They give zero fucks about anything else.

If you want to change that you need to change the government. Good luck with that.

[rocketman1]

What say we scrap ACC, then you'll only have to licence your bike at about $25 per annum...

But the trade-off is that you have to arrange your own comprehensive accident insurance to cover while you're at home, at work, on your way to and from work, when you're out enjoying yourself for the night, when you're driving your classic car or riding your bike... the list goes on...

I've challenged people in the past to go and get a quote for accident insurance provided by an insurance company that is of the same quality as that provided by ACC - and quick as a flash there's been no reply... I wonder why?

Has some merit , but that would as per the USA system where everyone has to pay for their hospital care through insurance. For those that dont have insurance, tough luck, things are not good for you.

[Moi]

dude no-one is saying that the idea of ACC is shit

I think you'll find most people who understand the idea would agree.

what this thread is about is when people own MULTIPLE bikes and are then paying for that privilege of having them sit in the garage at home, un-ridden, yet still costing megabucks.

The argument is that just because YOU are only able to ride one bike, that there would be nothing stopping OTHERS riding your bikes also.

The other argument is that the cost of enforcing compliance through other means (Fuel Tax, Drivers License fee increase etc) is not worth the time the government would need to put into a solution.

I think most people would agree that currently, multiple bike owners who want them legal and who don't share their toys are getting screwed compared to the rest of us.

You are only getting screwed, to use your expression, if you think you are being screwed... if, as has been said earlier, you accept that the requirements at present are that to have your bikes legal for road use requires you to have paid multiple ACC payments then you are not being screwed... you have chosen to pay multiple amounts - as no one is making you own any bikes at all, let alone multiple bikes. You make the choice, you pay the price.

I have made the choice to own multiple vehicles so I have chosen to accept the requirements that if I want them to be available for use year round then I multiple ACC levies. If I don't like it, then I can either not pay the levies and not ride or ride and risk the penalties if caught. It is nothing about being "screwed", it is about choice and personal responsibility...

My tuppence worth...

[Moi]

Has some merit , but that would as per the USA system where everyone has to pay for their hospital care through insurance. For those that don't have insurance, tough luck, things are not good for you.

Precisely...

[5ive]

Works for me, I'm paying less than $1 per 100km for the one bike. Well worth it.

According to the stats, it's the older/returning riders with larger bikes, and big incomes having most of the accidents and creating the expenses. They'd be getting their moneys worth as well.

http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/...rcycles-15.pdf

So if you're worried about the cost, you could own less bikes, ride more, or ban older riders.

I know who tends to vote/throw more money around though...

[old slider]

Some of you guys haven't been reading the thread - or fuck all else? There is a budgeted figure ACC are attempting to meet - end of story. They give zero fucks about anything else.

If you want to change that you need to change the government. Good luck with that.

Sorry Pritch, I skipped the recipe, fat tax and diet pages and missed some of the pertinent earlier posts.

Do ACC lump all accidents/incidents involving bikes on public roads, quads, and all off road riding in the one basket?

[Coldrider]

Having been on the on ya bike charity ride on Saturday I don't see the accident rate coming down anytime soon. In fact if that is what anybody is waiting for we're fucked.