Motorcyclists don't pay enough?

[Thaeos]

How can it be claimed that motorcyclists don't pay enough, when the vast majority of motorcyclists will be paying rego for at least 2 vehicles? How many people own a bike + a car, or multiple bikes + multiple cars??

They won't be using them all at the same time. I wonder what the average motorcyclists ACTUAL contribution to ACC is. Restricting the stats to only that paid from motorcycle rego alone doesn't make any sense, and is obviously skewing it in their favour.

[Coldrider]

Number of vehicles owned by one is irrelevant.
To keep the math simple for political purposes, define expected payouts/vehicle in that type to rape (each).
Larger capacity machines tend to have more exhaust pipes, or a larger singular one combined, so they can physically be raped more, compared to a schroter.

[nothingflash]

2 bikes and 2 cars for me. Just sold the boat so no more rego for the trailer...

[Thaeos]

Number of vehicles owned by one is irrelevant.

Well I guess you're taking the piss, but on this point it's completely relevant.

My reasoning is that the claim that 'motorcyclists' only contribute 12 million towards ACC is a complete fabrication. Why? because the vast majority of motorcyclists pay rego for other vehicles also. Which can't all be used concurrently... So how much does the average motorcyclist really pay for ACC each year? The total will add up to alot more than $12 million I would think.

It's just picking the stats you want to hide the reality.

[digsaw]

Two cars, and 5 road bikes,i guess i pay more than my fair share:Pokey:

[StoneY]

2 bikes and 2 cars for me. Just sold the boat so no more rego for the trailer...

NOW theres a point...do Boat trailers and Boats have a levy?
Not being smart....just curious mate, educate us if you know the answer...

[Coldrider]

Well I guess you're taking the piss, but on this point it's completely relevant.

My reasoning is that the claim that 'motorcyclists' only contribute 12 million towards ACC is a complete fabrication. Why? because the vast majority of motorcyclists pay rego for other vehicles also. Which can't all be used concurrently... So how much does the average motorcyclist really pay for ACC each year? The total will add up to alot more than $12 million I would think.

It's just picking the stats you want to hide the reality.I know what your're saying, I own 2 cars. one ute, motorcycle, pay acc from my income etc...
But it is irrelevant because ACC and NZTA (whatever their latest is) do not view it that way. It always has been levered one rego, one acc levy regardless of ownership numbers.

[bogan]

Well I guess you're taking the piss, but on this point it's completely relevant.

My reasoning is that the claim that 'motorcyclists' only contribute 12 million towards ACC is a complete fabrication. Why? because the vast majority of motorcyclists pay rego for other vehicles also. Which can't all be used concurrently... So how much does the average motorcyclist really pay for ACC each year? The total will add up to alot more than $12 million I would think.

It's just picking the stats you want to hide the reality.

someone got the registered bike and scooter figures from ltsa i think, and worked out the acc levys at the current rate, income would be around 20million, so they have already started off by skewing the stats somehow. Cant member what thread it was in, theres soooo many!

[Thaeos]

Ok, ACC and NZTA see it that way, but it doesn't really make sense does it.

Motorcyclists aren't just 'motorcyclists'. They pay just as much as everyone else and quite possibly even more. The reasoning behind the proposal is just plain wrong.

[Reckless]

Well I guess you're taking the piss, but on this point it's completely relevant.

My reasoning is that the claim that 'motorcyclists' only contribute 12 million towards ACC is a complete fabrication. Why? because the vast majority of motorcyclists pay rego for other vehicles also. Which can't all be used concurrently... So how much does the average motorcyclist really pay for ACC each year? The total will add up to alot more than $12 million I would think.

It's just picking the stats you want to hide the reality.


Two cars, and 5 road bikes,i guess i pay more than my fair share:Pokey:


I know what your're saying, I own 2 cars. one ute, motorcycle, pay acc from my income etc...
But it is irrelevant because ACC and NZTA (whatever their latest is) do not view it that way. It always has been levered one rego, one acc levy regardless of ownership numbers.

Same with me a car, two bikes! Wifes car etc

As I said Bikers are Middle income NZ right smack in the National sector! I'd bet a very large % here are national voters?? The message has got to get across loud and clear. They are toying with their supporters Loyalty! :Pokey:

[Coldrider]

As my three car regos subsidise motorcycles by $77 each, do you think i will get a $231 refund from the ACC?

[Coldrider]

Ok, ACC and NZTA see it that way, but it doesn't really make sense does it.

Motorcyclists aren't just 'motorcyclists'. They pay just as much as everyone else and quite possibly even more. The reasoning behind the proposal is just plain wrong.
Never will, just gets too complicated to administer different cost structures.
Plus, what suits one group does not suit another.
Different ages, classes of bikes, number kilometers travelled, number of vehicles owned etc, so many variables that affect our vulnerability and risk.

[geoffm]

Well, with 3 bikes, the rego is around 5% of my after tax (the only number that counts) income - basically a 8% before tax tax increase.
WIth this, the wage earners levy, the MSSA change the police brought in by stealth, the power companies overcharging,petrol tax increases, and every other sneaky tax increase and levy, National have taken more off me in increased taxes than Helen did in 9 years.
I used to be a Nat voter, at least electorate - never, ever again.

[breakaway]

Never will, just gets too complicated to administer different cost structures.

Sorry, what?

Say a person owns a bike AND car. The rego for a bike is more than a car. The solution is simple, charge him the rego cost of the car. It's not like the person will be driving car and riding the bike at the same time.

This is better than paying two sets of regos.

[NighthawkNZ]

How can it be claimed that motorcyclists don't pay enough, when the vast majority of motorcyclists will be paying rego for at least 2 vehicles? How many people own a bike + a car, or multiple bikes + multiple cars??

They won't be using them all at the same time. I wonder what the average motorcyclists ACTUAL contribution to ACC is. Restricting the stats to only that paid from motorcycle rego alone doesn't make any sense, and is obviously skewing it in their favour.

Don't forget ACC in petrol and PAYE which also covers any thing do as citizen, including riding your motorcycle...

They have no way of working out how much ACC motorcyclists pay

[Coldrider]

Sorry, what?

Say a person owns a bike AND car. The rego for a bike is more than a car. The solution is simple, charge him the rego cost of the car. It's not like the person will be driving car and riding the bike at the same time.

This is better than paying two sets of regos.Sorry what, has not happened before, if your so smart, you make this happen then, EPIC FAIL on your words if you can't.
PUT UP.

[Coldrider]

Sorry, what?

Say a person owns a bike AND car. The rego for a bike is more than a car. The solution is simple, charge him the rego cost of the car. It's not like the person will be driving car and riding the bike at the same time.

This is better than paying two sets of regos.

In question time in Parliament, Nick Smith was asked about ACC and motorcycles. The full cost of injuries to motorcyclicts allocated back over motorcycle regos would be $2,700 (cars were wanted to be $130).
It is also common knowledge that $77 per car rego Acc levy subsidises motorcycle levies, which is why we are being hit for only $500 or $750 etc.
The bigger picture shows what we will be ultimately paying.
Now when 2.5 million cage drivers (or what ever amount) find out they are subsidising motorcycles, and their rate is going up $30, that $30 and the previous $47 is for motorcycles, we are going to be swimming against the current.

[Beemer]

Yes, six bikes and three cars - and I'm self-employed so get hit there as well! And yet when I tried to claim for OOS after an eight-week stint of non-stop data entry, I was told it was a gradual injury and therefore not covered. Can't even opt out. Arseholes!

It's about time they brought in a no-claims discount for people like my husband who have ridden bikes for about 30 years and had ONE claim in all that time. I bet most skiers and rugby players have had more claims than that.

[NighthawkNZ]

Now when 2.5 million cage drivers (or what ever amount) find out they are subsidising motorcycles, and their rate is going up $30, that $30 and the previous $47 is for motorcycles, we are going to be swimming against the current.

That is a how a no fault system works and always will be like that... bikers also own cars... and there own stats show cars cost more injuries compared to bikes

[Coldrider]

That is a how a no fault system works and always will be like that... bikers also own cars... and there own stats show cars cost more injuries compared to bikes
In total agreement, just have to pay and ride.

[kwaka_crasher]

2 bikes and 2 cars for me. Just sold the boat so no more rego for the trailer...

There's a saving of $35 right there! :lol:


Well I guess you're taking the piss, but on this point it's completely relevant.

My reasoning is that the claim that 'motorcyclists' only contribute 12 million towards ACC is a complete fabrication. Why? because the vast majority of motorcyclists pay rego for other vehicles also. Which can't all be used concurrently... So how much does the average motorcyclist really pay for ACC each year? The total will add up to alot more than $12 million I would think.

It's just picking the stats you want to hide the reality.

Paying licence fees for other vehicles is irrelevant - the point is that motorcyclists are not paying their way.


NOW theres a point...do Boat trailers and Boats have a levy?

No, they don't.


Say a person owns a bike AND car. The rego for a bike is more than a car. The solution is simple, charge him the rego cost of the car. It's not like the person will be driving car and riding the bike at the same time.

I can just see it now. All the cars in the street registered to one person that lives there...

[Thaeos]

Paying licence fees for other vehicles is irrelevant - the point is that motorcyclists are not paying their way.


Well my point is that in reality they are

[Coldrider]

Well my point is that in reality they are
Individually, we are paying too much, should be cheaper than cars.
Collectively we are not paying enough, that is there is not enough rego'd motorcycles contributing to the pool.
That is statistics for you.

[kwaka_crasher]

Well my point is that in reality they are

Your 'point' is simply wrong. As motorcyclists they are not.

[Thaeos]

Your 'point' is simply wrong. As motorcyclists they are not.

Your understanding is wrong.

The 'motorcyclists' category does not include everything the so-called 'motorcyclists' are actually paying.


Individually, we are paying too much, should be cheaper than cars.
Collectively we are not paying enough, that is there is not enough rego'd motorcycles contributing to the pool.
That is statistics for you.


What Coldrider said.

[kwaka_crasher]

Your understanding is wrong.

The 'motorcyclists' category does not include everything the so-called 'motorcyclists' are actually paying.

Nor does any other category. It's called the "Motor Vehicle Account" for a reason. You're trying to justify anyone who pays a levy of any kind should be permitted to engage in any other activity regardless of risk. That's like someone whose most dangerous activity is crochet paying the same premium as a trapeze artist without a safety net. Your position is ridiculous.

[ready4whatever]

we are going to be swimming against the current.

Yip we are all like whitebait.

Right now i just have one car so im alright. for now

[Mort]

Its a good point - I pay three lots of ACC for a car and two bikes. Jesus...There must be some way of legally challenging this ACC bollocks. The more I find out about it the more unfair it is.

[Mort]

I can just see it now. All the cars in the street registered to one person that lives there...

Well what about private compulsory insurance for all drivers like they do in the UK or removing vehicle based ACC to be driver based. Its not rocket science.... This system stinks.

[5150]

We pay with our lifes...

[Thaeos]

Nor does any other category. It's called the "Motor Vehicle Account" for a reason. You're trying to justify anyone who pays a levy of any kind should be permitted to engage in any other activity regardless of risk. That's like someone whose most dangerous activity is crochet paying the same premium as a trapeze artist without a safety net. Your position is ridiculous.

You're right, nor does any other category. But they are singling us out. And no I'm not ?? I'm just saying that we as a group pay alot more than what they claim we do, or appear to be claiming.

[kwaka_crasher]

The 'motorcyclists' category does not include everything the so-called 'motorcyclists' are actually paying.

It's claimed that $12.3M was collected in levies from motorcycle vehicle licensing. Are you saying that's wrong?

[Thaeos]

It's claimed that $12.3M was collected in levies from motorcycle vehicle licensing. Are you saying that's wrong?

Did I say that?? no.

(Actually others in other threads have pointed out it should be about 16 million or so)

What I did say is that people who are motorcyclists are paying far more towards ACC than just that from the motorcycle rego fee. That's all I've said and continued to say, so I don't know where you're coming from.

[kwaka_crasher]

What I did say is that people who are motorcyclists are paying far more towards ACC than just that from the motorcycle rego fee.

Yeah. Which equates to you don't want to pay the high levy for the high risk activity because you paid other levies unrelated to motorcycling, which is irrelevant because the other activities for which you are levied are done so according to THEIR risk. So...


You're trying to justify anyone who pays a levy of any kind should be permitted to engage in any other activity regardless of risk.

Without a levy being imposed that recognises that increased risk.

[Thaeos]

Yeah. Which equates to you don't want to pay the high levy for the high risk activity because you paid other levies unrelated to motorcycling, which is irrelevant because the other activities for which you are levied are done so according to THEIR risk. So...

You're trying to justify anyone who pays a levy of any kind should be permitted to engage in any other activity regardless of risk.

Without a levy being imposed that recognises that increased risk.

Mate you keep putting words in my mouth.

And the fact is that anyone IS permitted to engage in any other levied activity regardless of risk. Paying a rego fee is not a prerequisite to riding a motorcycle you don't own ... or driving a car you don't pay rego for ...

[Winston001]

It boils down to something like this:

Motorcyclists pay $12 million at the moment.

Motorcyclists cost $60 million in ACC costs.

The shortfall of $49 million is borne by other motorists. You'd need to own a stack of cars - and never use them - to make up that difference.

[NighthawkNZ]

It boils down to something like this:

Motorcyclists pay $12 million at the moment.
Motorcyclists cost $60 million in ACC costs.

The shortfall of $49 million is borne by other motorists. You'd need to own a stack of cars - and never use them - to make up that difference.

Againg wrong... they can not say how much motorcyclist pay into ACC... they have now way of calculating it... the 12mil is only from registration collection... You then pay ACC in your fuel as well as P.A.Y.E

From ACC website
Am I covered?

Everyone in New Zealand has 24-hour, seven-day-a-week, no-fault comprehensive injury cover through ACC.

Eligibility for injury cover for everyone in New Zealand

Everyone in New Zealand is eligible for comprehensive injury cover:


no matter what you’re doing or where you are when you’re injured – driving, playing sport, at home, at work.



no matter how the injury happened, even if you did something yourself to contribute to it.



no matter what age you are or whether you’re working – you might be retired, a child, on a benefit or studying

Your PAYE ACC and you ACC from petrol and if you own a car the ACC from that rego has to calculated in to that equation before they can how much ACC you have paid. Your P.A.Y.E ACC covers you for any thing that you do as above no matter how stupid including sport cycling and driving and riding your motorcycle.

There will always seem to be a group that is proping up a minor group in a no faults system and we are all proping up the cyclists, and sports which combined out way the motorcyclist and cycling could be classed as a sport... BUT that is was you pay ACC in your PAYE and it also covers you for riding your motocycle or driving your car.

to tell the honest truth they need to drop the ACC on rego's and put ACC up on every ones PAYE if they want to keep a no faults system as it was orginally designed for.

[Fluffy Cat]

On the head. Thank you NighthawkNZ. The whole country... sorry tax.... no sorry. Acc levy payers should be paying more in contributions. This is anathema to the present govt.
All other methods become quite ridiculous, punitive and hard to enforce. Imagine trying to police cyclists and the costs of admin of any such scheme. What about mountain bikers that never venture onto a road. We would need special extra fit police to head out to the hills to find and bring to justice these obnoxious people. What if they had more than one bicycle we would surely have to levy them on each, as there mates might use one. Then these levy paying vehicles would need to be checked for safety. So some form of vin plate and wof would be needed.
Mountaineering, tramping, rugby you can go on.
Or in the UK you pay NI National Insurance its a tax everyone who earns pays. This makes the NHS the money it needs to run well almost. All MV users have to pay insurance. Now I am a pom i know about this many here think its cheaper. Bwwwaaahhhhhahahhhhh. Try getting an on line quote. I was paying 650GBP in 1992 for tp third party on a ZX10 at 24years of age. So it sort of works as a filter i guess.
Guess the point is we all need to pay more.....those that can pay that is.....

[kwaka_crasher]

Mate you keep putting words in my mouth.

Just trying to get to the bottom of your position since you seem incapable of explaining it.


And the fact is that anyone IS permitted to engage in any other levied activity regardless of risk. Paying a rego fee is not a prerequisite to riding a motorcycle you don't own ... or driving a car you don't pay rego for ...

The fact is that the risk is still levied. The risk in this case is the motorcycle on the road. The ACC levy component of the vehicle license is to cover that particulary risk.

[kwaka_crasher]

Again wrong... they can not say how much motorcyclist pay into ACC... they have now way of calculating it... the 12mil is only from registration collection... You then pay ACC in your fuel as well as P.A.Y.E

Earner and employer levies do not get used to fund motor vehicle crash costs, so that's irrelevant.


From ACC website
Am I covered?

Everyone in New Zealand has 24-hour, seven-day-a-week, no-fault comprehensive injury cover through ACC.

Eligibility for injury cover for everyone in New Zealand

Everyone in New Zealand is eligible for comprehensive injury cover:


no matter what you’re doing or where you are when you’re injured – driving, playing sport, at home, at work.



no matter how the injury happened, even if you did something yourself to contribute to it.



no matter what age you are or whether you’re working – you might be retired, a child, on a benefit or studying


Yes, but all the costs of those different instances are levied and paid from the appropriate account. The money from the appropriate account is collected from levies specific to to that account (largely). The problem is the Motor Vehicle account. In the case of a pedestrian or cyclist being hit by a motor vehicle the cost is covered by the motor vehicle account and only the motor vehicle has been levied for road use.


Your PAYE ACC and you ACC from petrol and if you own a car the ACC from that rego has to calculated in to that equation before they can how much ACC you have paid. Your P.A.Y.E ACC covers you for any thing that you do as above no matter how stupid including sport cycling and driving and riding your motorcycle.

No. The motorcycle riding (on road) is not covered by the earner account levies which is where earner & employer premiums are paid to - it's covered by the motor vehicle account regardless of whether the motorcycle you're riding has had it's motor vehicle levy paid as part of the motor vehicle licence fee or not. That is to say, if you're riding a unlicenced motorcycle on the road and are involved in a crash, you're covered.


There will always seem to be a group that is proping up a minor group in a no faults system and we are all proping up the cyclists, and sports which combined out way the motorcyclist and cycling could be classed as a sport... BUT that is was you pay ACC in your PAYE and it also covers you for riding your motocycle or driving your car.

to tell the honest truth they need to drop the ACC on rego's and put ACC up on every ones PAYE if they want to keep a no faults system as it was orginally designed for.

That won't be no-fault (in your definition - "no-blame", not the ACC definition) because people who earn more will pay more thus subsidising those who pay less. To actually be no-fault (again, the colloqiual definition) everyone should pay the same amount, regardless of circumstance.

IMHO the entire concept of no-fault is flawed if you don't want one group subsidising another.