PDA

View Full Version : Researcher criticises motorbike levy logic



jim.cox
16th October 2009, 08:15
Apologies if this is a repost

But this article

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/2969254/Researcher-criticises-motorbike-levy-logic

carries some useful data against the ACC and The Dishonorable Nick

Ragingrob
16th October 2009, 08:49
What an awesome article! Great stats and reads clearly. Definitely helpful to the cause!

Laxi
16th October 2009, 08:56
and on a major media site too, awsome:2thumbsup

spookytooth
16th October 2009, 08:56
Lamb said last year there were 1475 motorcycle accidents in New Zealand and 50 deaths.

By comparison, 36 cyclists died in 1170 bicycle accidents but the cycling community paid no levies

pzkpfw
16th October 2009, 09:07
The motorcycle stats in that article don't really help us.


It paid $62 million in motorcyclists' claims last year, while receiving only $12m in levies from users.
...
Lamb said analysis of Ministry of Transport crash data showed 67 per cent of motorcycle accidents involved other drivers, and 60 per cent of those crashes were caused by the other driver.

Even if (as the evil Nick says) we assume ALL of the multi vehicle crashes (67%) were not the bikes "fault", the other 33% of $62M is still more than the $12M they collected in fees.


Lamb said 43 per cent of the 420 accidents – studied last year – between motorcycles and other vehicles in Auckland and Canterbury did not have the bike's engine size on the police accident report. The most common engine size in the remaining 57 per cent of crash reports was 250cc, which lent no weight to charging higher levies on bigger machines, he said.

This unfortunately doesn't say ACC shouldnt' raise fees. It more means that the differential may be wrong. i.e. maybe they would just raise us ALL to $500 per year - regardless of cc rating or whatever.


If any statistics would help, it would be other stuff like how many motorcycle riders also have cars; and therefore are part of the car "subsidy" of bikes. Given the difference in the numbers of cars versus bikes - I doubt this would help us much.

Could we convince them that ALL vehicle users rates should rise equally? Would car owners (who outnumber us) accept that, if they think their rise is paying for "our" accidents?



Our only defence really is the suddeness and steepness of the rise, and the inequality in how different groups are targetted:


Lamb said last year there were 1475 motorcycle accidents in New Zealand and 50 deaths.

By comparison, 36 cyclists died in 1170 bicycle accidents but the cycling community paid no levies.

...the trouble here is that ACC doesn't actually have the power to change that. For example, ACC can't decide that bicycles should have rego plates and pay a yearly license - it's the Government of the day that makes that kind of legislation.

"Inequality" isnt something the ACC really cares that much about - it's just not part of their brief. (As with those "bikes don't damage the roads" point. ACC doesn't care about the roads! [Apart from the issue that better roads might mean fewer accidents...])


Geez I hate this. It's too late to change my hobby to knitting or macrame.

James Deuce
16th October 2009, 09:13
The $511 is what I'm expecting to go through, and is roughly the sum that ACC have always quoted per motorcyclist. The upper one is pure fabrication via manipulation of data.

What you haven't cottoned on to in your analysis is that motorcycle registrations have doubled since 2003 and accidents, injuries, and fatalities are roughly 2/3rds of what they were in 2003.

Meanwhile, DIYers, bathing, and home cooking costs us $600million a year.

Time for an ACC Levy to go with the Fire levy on Home & Contents insurance I think.

Inequality isn't the issue. The obvious targeting of a small minority before they become significant in terms of voter power is.

JohnR
16th October 2009, 09:21
The motorcycle stats in that article don't really help us.



Even if (as the evil Nick says) we assume ALL of the multi vehicle crashes (67%) were not the bikes "fault", the other 33% of $62M is still more than the $12M they collected in fees.



.

I believe the $62 m represents the total payment for the year...including existing and long standing claims for injuries received since, well who knows when, i.e. people with permanent disability from motorcycle crashes.

Rhubarb
16th October 2009, 09:26
Apologies if this is a repost

But this article

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/2969254/Researcher-criticises-motorbike-levy-logic

carries some useful data against the ACC and The Dishonorable Nick

To add a little weight to where ACC's funds go here are a few high profile companies that ACC invest our fees in ..................

Hellabys - Fall in interim profit - NZ Herald 16-10-09

Charlies - Net loss after tax of $1.8m - charliesgroup.co.nz

Telecom - Profit slumps - scoop.co.nz

Mainfreight - Profit down 66% - scoop.co.nz

Skellerup - Shares dropped 23% this year - scoop.co.nz

Sky TV - Forecast profit down $6.4m - scoop.co.nz

Smiths City - Full year profit 'substantially' down - scoop.co.nz

F&P Appliances - Profit down $10.8m - scoop.co.nz

Nth'land Port - Profit 'tumbled' by $7.31m, shares down 32% - scoop.co.nz


This is only a few I selected from a very long list. Obvioulsy some of the companies they invest in would record a good return on investment but it would have to be a really good return to counter balance the investments listed above.

James Deuce
16th October 2009, 09:38
This is only a few I selected from a very long list. Obvioulsy some of the companies they invest in would record a good return on investment but it would have to be a really good return to counter balance the investments listed above.

Despite all that, ACC have an average return of 8.7% over the last 5 years. They do better than any other Government portfolio, simply by letting their two ACC employed fund managers (both worth their salary) do their job rather than paying a fleet of "Fund Management Advisers".

They've simply been bitten by an unforeseen recession and like all Western Governments are incapable of riding it out and taking the long view because they feel naked and vulnerable (read - losing in the polls - which they aren't) when it's going all wrong. Complaining about ACC's portfolio performance is ridiculous when you find out it is the only one still making money.

2wheeldrifter
16th October 2009, 09:54
Lamb said last year there were 1475 motorcycle accidents in New Zealand and 50 deaths.

By comparison, 36 cyclists died in 1170 bicycle accidents but the cycling community paid no levies


WTF! Would be nice to know the cost for the cyclists, but in the some content for us the numbers are high and makes us look better, in reality there injuries are not going to be as server are they??

:2thumbsup for the Press release....

Mikkel
16th October 2009, 09:59
Very nice article, but I fell over one thing:


ACC said riders were 16 per cent more likely than other road users to be involved in a crash.

I believe that the figure ACC used was 16 times, i.e. 1600 percent. Getting a quote wrong - especially by 2 orders of magnitude - is pretty poor journalism.

Maki
16th October 2009, 10:00
is still more than the $12M they collected in fees.


This $12M they allegedly collect in fees is a fabrication. There is no way that figure takes into account ACC fees associated with salaries and registration of other vehicles. I believe the $12M is the money they recieve from motorcycle registration only.

MSTRS
16th October 2009, 10:00
WTF! Would be nice to know the cost for the cyclists,

Thank Sanx (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1129461437&postcount=1)

Rhubarb
16th October 2009, 10:01
Despite all that, ACC have an average return of 8.7% over the last 5 years. They do better than any other Government portfolio, simply by letting their two ACC employed fund managers (both worth their salary) do their job rather than paying a fleet of "Fund Management Advisers".

They've simply been bitten by an unforeseen recession and like all Western Governments are incapable of riding it out and taking the long view because they feel naked and vulnerable (read - losing in the polls - which they aren't) when it's going all wrong. Complaining about ACC's portfolio performance is ridiculous when you find out it is the only one still making money.

Fair enough - but if they are investing for profit where are our 'no claim bonuses' like other insurance companies?

MSTRS
16th October 2009, 10:05
This $12M they allegedly collect in fees is a fabrication. There is no way that figure takes into account ACC fees associated with salaries and registration of other vehicles. I believe the $12M is the money they recieve from motorcycle registration only.

$12M? From which year? There are approx 130,000 mopeds/motorcycles regd...using a loose average of $150 ACC each, I come up with $19,500,000.
Of course, many of those machines will be 'on hold' outside of summer.

2wheeldrifter
16th October 2009, 10:06
Thank Sanx (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1129461437&postcount=1)

Thanks Mstrs :2thumbsup

also just found some figures here... http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=110119

bogan
16th October 2009, 10:15
This $12M they allegedly collect in fees is a fabrication. There is no way that figure takes into account ACC fees associated with salaries and registration of other vehicles. I believe the $12M is the money they recieve from motorcycle registration only.

also, I think there been some rises since then anyway, using current rates, and 2007-2008 registered bike numbere (couldnt find current but i assume its gonna be more) they should have collected 16mil. WTF.

http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/statistics/motor-vehicle-registration/docs/2008.pdf got data form there

cheshirecat
16th October 2009, 10:18
Apologies if this is a repost

But this article

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/2969254/Researcher-criticises-motorbike-levy-logic

carries some useful data against the ACC and The Dishonorable Nick

Thanks,
I've just emailed for comments to every ACC email contact I can find

Rhubarb
16th October 2009, 10:21
Here are some figures I have copy and pasted from the Southern Rider site.

Car Occupants:
- 8525 active claims
- $208,305,000
- $24,434 per claim

Cyclists:
- 567 active claims
- $12,573,000
- $22,174 per claim

Pedestrians:
- 1115 active claims
- $24,494,000
- $21,967 per claim

Motorcyclists:
- 3173 active claims
- $62,523,000
- $19,704 per claim

We're cheaper !!

James Deuce
16th October 2009, 10:23
Fair enough - but if they are investing for profit where are our 'no claim bonuses' like other insurance companies?

Don't get me wrong, I'm with you. But I do think that ACC is one of the better run Government businesses. They just don't go the whole way.

Tie ACC to license instead of rego. Then NCBs are easy to do. No license, no cover. Annual license fee instead of annual rego. Multiple licenses, mulitple fees, however if you use it for work the specific license fee could be a claimable employer perk.

Fairer than current practice, but not as fair as adding a dollar a litre to fuel.

dipshit
16th October 2009, 10:25
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/2969254/Researcher-criticises-motorbike-levy-logic

At least this is presented better than... "waaa, it's all the car drivers fault!... waaaa, there should be better training for car drivers!"


Still, 60% car's fault and 40% rider's fault in multiple vehicle accidents for motorcyclists doesn't change the big picture that much.

MSTRS
16th October 2009, 10:29
Don't get me wrong, I'm with you. But I do think that ACC is one of the better run Government businesses. They just don't go the whole way.

Tie ACC to license instead of rego. Then NCBs are easy to do. No license, no cover. Annual license fee instead of annual rego. Multiple licenses, mulitple fees, however if you use it for work the specific license fee could be a claimable employer perk.

Fairer than current practice, but not as fair as adding a dollar a litre to fuel.

Nope. Fee that pertains to the 'riskiest' class applies across the board.

Rhubarb
16th October 2009, 10:32
Tie ACC to license instead of rego. Then NCBs are easy to do. No license, no cover. Annual license fee instead of annual rego. Multiple licenses, mulitple fees, however if you use it for work the specific license fee could be a claimable employer perk.

Fairer than current practice, but not as fair as adding a dollar a litre to fuel.

Good thought.

What about purchasing ACC miles (similar to Road User Charges for diesels).

I am a fair weather weekend rider. Riders like me are on the road a lot less therefore the odds of us having an ACC claiming accident is also less.

The more you ride, the more you pay.

By the way James Deuce - good discussion, thanks

NighthawkNZ
16th October 2009, 10:40
Despite all that, ACC have an average return of 8.7% over the last 5 years..

so they make a profit I want a no claims as well since it our money

Ixion
16th October 2009, 12:45
$12M? From which year? There are approx 130,000 mopeds/motorcycles regd...using a loose average of $150 ACC each, I come up with $19,500,000.
Of course, many of those machines will be 'on hold' outside of summer.

In 2008 there were 71648 LICENSED motorcycles (ie , rego actually paid up, not on hold) and 25304 mopeds ditto

The rate for a motorcycle was $204.66 (ACC levy component) then . That's $14.7 Million. I don't know the levy rate for mopeds then, but it was around $60. That's another $1.5 million or so. Total at least $17 million.

That's what MoT say they collected on behalf of ACC

Where's the missing five million dollars Mr Judge

MSTRS
16th October 2009, 12:48
The figures for registered etc vary from one source to another. I actually used figures that you posted somewhere yesterday. I know the ACC content of a m/c is greater than that of a moped, which is why I take a stab at an average for the sake of simplicity. The end result basically shows the same thing...$12M does not fly.

rok-the-boat
16th October 2009, 18:45
Listen guys - there is no rule that says motorcycles have to pay their way in terms of ACC. Pedestrians don't have to. Cyclists don't have to. We should be 'looked after' for doing our bit to save fuel. The car drivers should pay more - and that is most of us too, myself included. Government should subsidise some of that, which is why we pay our taxes, our very high taxes. One day, down the road, we will be paying our way in hospital fees, road tolls, education, and then some bright spark will ask - what the hell are our taxes for!!! We are over taxed already.

Coldrider
16th October 2009, 18:50
Listen guys - there is no rule that says motorcycles have to pay their way in terms of ACC. Pedestrians don't have to. Cyclists don't have to. We should be 'looked after' for doing our bit to save fuel. The car drivers should pay more - and that is most of us too, myself included. Government should subsidise some as that, which is why we pay our taxes, our very high taxes. One day, down the road, we will be paying our way in hospital fees, road tolls, education, and then some bright spark will ask - what the hell are our for!!! We are over taxed already.
In NZ we get our health & acc coverage so cheap it is laughable.
In reality as Fred Dagg used to sing, 'we don't know how lucky we mate, we don't know how lucky we are'.

bogan
16th October 2009, 18:52
In 2008 there were 71648 LICENSED motorcycles (ie , rego actually paid up, not on hold) and 25304 mopeds ditto

The rate for a motorcycle was $204.66 (ACC levy component) then . That's $14.7 Million. I don't know the levy rate for mopeds then, but it was around $60. That's another $1.5 million or so. Total at least $17 million.

That's what MoT say they collected on behalf of ACC

Where's the missing five million dollars Mr Judge

I did similar calculation and got 16mil, older figures though. Perhaps a thread should be started to get to the bottom of this issue, it would certainly make them look bad if they are blatantly lying about figures, though it sounds like they are doing that about most of the other figures too.

NighthawkNZ
16th October 2009, 18:55
This $12M they allegedly collect in fees is a fabrication. There is no way that figure takes into account ACC fees associated with salaries and registration of other vehicles. I believe the $12M is the money they recieve from motorcycle registration only.

Correct...

Salary and wages PAYE also have to be added to that figure and as you said any other vehicle rego the Biker has... (can only ride/drive one at a time) Plus the ACC in fuel...

There is no way they can calculate how much a biker has put into ACC

They can only calculate from registrations which is only a fraction of the over all ACC we pay as a collective.



However our fundemental argument still lies on the "no fault system..." If they start charging any extra than any other road user then they are pointing fingers and it is no longer a "No Fault system"

caseye
16th October 2009, 18:59
Despite all that, ACC have an average return of 8.7% over the last 5 years. They do better than any other Government portfolio, simply by letting their two ACC employed fund managers (both worth their salary) do their job rather than paying a fleet of "Fund Management Advisers".

They've simply been bitten by an unforeseen recession and like all Western Governments are incapable of riding it out and taking the long view because they feel naked and vulnerable (read - losing in the polls - which they aren't) when it's going all wrong. Complaining about ACC's portfolio performance is ridiculous when you find out it is the only one still making money.

Well said mate, fraid I wasn't able to green ya, site rules or summit@#$%!

Divide and conquor is as old as the hills, but oh so effectivwe.First BIG motorcyclists,then little ones, then big car owners then littel ones, eventually thery'll get you pedal pushers too! I certainly hope they do.:Pokey:

kiwi cowboy
16th October 2009, 19:38
Don't get me wrong, I'm with you. But I do think that ACC is one of the better run Government businesses. They just don't go the whole way.

Tie ACC to license instead of rego. Then NCBs are easy to do. No license, no cover. Annual license fee instead of annual rego. Multiple licenses, mulitple fees, however if you use it for work the specific license fee could be a claimable employer perk.

Fairer than current practice, but not as fair as adding a dollar a litre to fuel.

Dont agree with you on the tying it in with licences [multiple licence= multiple fees cos i can still only drive-ride one vechile at a time.

Much prefer the fuel tax idea myself.

James Deuce
16th October 2009, 19:59
Dont agree with you on the tying it in with licences [multiple licence= multiple fees cos i can still only drive-ride one vechile at a time.

Much prefer the fuel tax idea myself.
It won't happen anyway, but the discussion is about providing a framework that suits owners AND the Government. Most proposals we make will lose the Government revenue. My proposal is less inequitable than the current system where motorcyclists are clearly the only "at fault" party in a no fault insurance system, and makes provision for identifying individuals who qualify for the proposed ACC NCB idea while still maintaining an income stream on the basis of potential use, without you having to pay an ACC levy for each bike or other vehicle you own.

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.

Anything that moves the levy to the driver has to be an improvement and would significantly alter the tenor of statistical data collection. I believe it would be vastly more meaningful than the current practices.

kiwi cowboy
16th October 2009, 20:21
[QUOTE

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.

Anything that moves the levy to the driver has to be an improvement and would significantly alter the tenor of statistical data collection. I believe it would be vastly more meaningful than the current practices.[/QUOTE]

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.

Fuel tax would be fairer because if your operating a vehicle you are using fuel so you are paying acc -all motor sports would automaticly pay acc through fuel tax as well as grandpa mowing lawns on sunday.

NighthawkNZ
16th October 2009, 20:30
Fuel tax would be fairer because if your operating a vehicle you are using fuel so you are paying acc -all motor sports would automaticly pay acc through fuel tax as well as grandpa mowing lawns on sunday.

and boaties

Coldrider
16th October 2009, 20:31
[QUOTE

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.

Anything that moves the levy to the driver has to be an improvement and would significantly alter the tenor of statistical data collection. I believe it would be vastly more meaningful than the current practices.

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.

Fuel tax would be fairer because if your operating a vehicle you are using fuel so you are paying acc -all motor sports would automaticly pay acc through fuel tax as well as grandpa mowing lawns on sunday.[/QUOTE]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.

James Deuce
16th October 2009, 20:34
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.

Fuel tax would be fairer because if your operating a vehicle you are using fuel so you are paying acc -all motor sports would automaticly pay acc through fuel tax as well as grandpa mowing lawns on sunday.

In the original post I postulated making any levy required for a license used primarily for employment tax deductible. The main issue with the fuel levy is whacking $1/l on fuel isn't going to get the incumbent political party voted back in, and it will penalise businesses who are already paying ACC.

kiwi cowboy
16th October 2009, 20:59
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.

Fuel tax would be fairer because if your operating a vehicle you are using fuel so you are paying acc -all motor sports would automaticly pay acc through fuel tax as well as grandpa mowing lawns on sunday.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.[/QUOTE]

AHH but then it does become a matter of choice whot you decide to drive and how much you drive it.
My real point is the fuel tax would make it pay as you go so to speak - say i do 1000km's a year on my bike [my choice] i only pay acc on the little fuel i use as opposed to someone else doing 50,000km's would use alot more fuel so pay more acc.

Pedrostt500
16th October 2009, 21:30
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.)

Coldrider
16th October 2009, 21:38
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.

AHH but then it does become a matter of choice whot you decide to drive and how much you drive it.
My real point is the fuel tax would make it pay as you go so to speak - say i do 1000km's a year on my bike [my choice] i only pay acc on the little fuel i use as opposed to someone else doing 50,000km's would use alot more fuel so pay more acc.[/QUOTE]My point is that varying classes of users buy petrol at the pump price with varying uses, so what suits motorcyclists won't suit others. And those others buy far more petrol.

James Deuce
16th October 2009, 21:44
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.

dipshit
16th October 2009, 22:07
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.

Holding a licence doesn't necessarily mean you are using a vehicle though. Many people with licences may not have driven anything for ten years.


Fuel tax would be fairer because if your operating a vehicle you are using fuel so you are paying acc

Higher fuel prices end up driving up prices on everything else though.

James Deuce
16th October 2009, 22:13
Holding a licence doesn't necessarily mean you are using a vehicle though. Many people with licences may not have driven anything for ten years.



Higher fuel prices end up driving up prices on everything else though.

Both good points. I've thought about this too. The registered owner would have to be licensed to buy a vehicle. This might limit the number 4 year old's buying cars for their drop kick grandparents immediately (don't laugh, it happens), plus it would mean that people wouldn't be that keen to be the registered owner of a vehicle because there would be an associated cost in ACC levy if you owned multiple private vehicles for to cater for your disqualified rellies.

Company vehicle ACC would be handled as a business expense on the company's ACC account. Convictions for drivers of company vehicles would affect the ACC vehicle premiums for that company. More incentive you see.

The fuel price thing is dead right. The flow on effect of lumping ACC on to fuel is enormous. Rampant inflation, massive hikes in food costs and commuter transport are just some of them.

Pedrostt500
16th October 2009, 22:31
Holding a licence doesn't necessarily mean you are using a vehicle though. Many people with licences may not have driven anything for ten years.

Then these people may opt to retire their licences.



Higher fuel prices end up driving up prices on everything else though.

to mess with the price of fuel in any great way would be certain political suicide, and ACC wouldnt have to pay out because it was suicide.

Divot
17th October 2009, 21:41
Higher fuel prices end up driving up prices on everything else though.

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

James Deuce
17th October 2009, 21:58
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
17th October 2009, 22:31
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
19th October 2009, 07:24
Todays herald just might contain our strongest ally.
Here he is, saying it like it SHOULD be.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10604027

MSTRS
19th October 2009, 08:18
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
19th October 2009, 08:48
Apologies if this is a repost

But this article

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/2969254/Researcher-criticises-motorbike-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
19th October 2009, 09:05
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
19th October 2009, 09:20
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 :2thumbsup

Jantar
19th October 2009, 09:51
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
19th October 2009, 09:58
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
19th October 2009, 12:14
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
19th October 2009, 12:59
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.