Make cyclists register their cycles and pay ACC

[Tezz]

I wonder if the Government has even considered making cyclists register their cycles as a more equitable way of funding ACC. Thousands of cyclists use our roads on a daily basis, and the numbers are increasing rapidly, but they pay nothing. They do, however, cause accidents, get hit by cars and claim ACC, and consistently break road rules without any punishment.

The Government could charge them a nominal fee of say $50 per year to register their cycles. This would raise ACC revenue, make them abide by the road rules, and even create a little extra work for the post office.

[BMW]

Agreed, why should we pay for them!

[Taz]

The government doesn't need your help to come up with more stupid ways to tax us all. We already have enough taxes.

[Usarka]

Cool, vehicle registration for 5 year olds.

How about trikes? Get them as a toddler.

[Rosie]

The government doesn't need your help to come up with more stupid ways to tax us all. We already have enough taxes.

+1 and pointing the finger and blaming other 'dangerous' road users is the kind of thinking that has lead to motorbikes being singled out for massive levy increases.

Others' blaming and finger pointing may have got us into this mess, but I don't think us doing the same to another group is going to get us out of it.

[Tezz]

Anthrax, in that respect I couldn't agree more. If it were up to me, I would do away with all government health systems including ACC. I would prefer private insurance. But that just isn't going to happen in this socialist country, so let's make everyone contribute, not just a few.

[James Deuce]

Cool, vehicle registration for 5 year olds.

How about trikes? Get them as a toddler.

That's a non-issue. You get your kids taken off you if you let a 10 year old ride to school.

[Tezz]

Usarka, I don't want a nanny state any more than you do. Either we get rid of ACC altogether or make it more equitable, it's that simple.

[rok-the-boat]

Sorry - I disagree. Wouldn't surprise me if the govt. came up with their idea INTENDING that we propose to hit bicycles. Bicycles should be free - it is our goddam right to ride a bicycle and the govts responsibility to fix us when we fall - we pay high taxes right!

Late edit: It's also our goddam right to ride motorcycles!

[vindy500]

That's a non-issue. You get your kids taken off you if you let a 10 year old ride to school.

what?????????????

[Tezz]

Sorry - Bicycles should be free - it is our goddam right to ride a bicycle and the govts responsibility to fix us when we fall - we pay high taxes right!

And this is the very problem. Since when has anything been a right? And since when has it been the Governments responsibility to fix people? If you use the road, you have to pay? Nothing is free! Trucks, cars, buses, and motorcylists pay, so why should cyclists get a free ride? As far as the Government being responsible for fixing us? I certainly don't want them in my life, fixing me, I prefer private insurance and no tax. We have been far too dependent on Governments for far too long.

[Beemer]

The government doesn't need your help to come up with more stupid ways to tax us all. We already have enough taxes.

A cyclist perhaps?

[Beemer]

And this is the very problem. Since when has anything been a right? And since when has it been the Governments responsibility to fix people? If you use the road, you have to pay? Nothing is free! Trucks, cars, buses, and motorcylists pay, so why should cyclists get a free ride? As far as the Government being responsible for fixing us? I certainly don't want them in my life, fixing me, I prefer private insurance and no tax. We have been far too dependent on Governments for far too long.

I think it should go a step further and all sports people should pay their way as well. Why should all of us who don't play rugby, go skiing, take part in adventure sports, etc pay for those who do and get injured? I'd be interested to know how much ACC pays for rugby injuries.

I drive several cars and I own a bike and I'm self-employed - so I pay more than once anyway. I'd be keen for a more equitable system whereby those INDIVIDUALS who cost ACC more pay more in levies - sort of like a no-claims bonus.

[Squiggles]

This sort of change is legislation... Doubt it'll happen in anytime soon (and its a minefield anyway). Although pointing out where alot of $$ go does somewhat attack the "drivers subsidise riders" angle they've taken.

[Tezz]

Just read this from the new site "Bikers Against ACC"

Motorcyclists are a minority group which are being unfairly targeted

In 2008 there were 1475 motorcycle accidents and 50 deaths, and motorcyclists paid approximately $12.3 million in levies.

In 2008 there were 1170 bicycle accidents and 36 deaths - cyclists paid no ACC levies.

This must be a human rights issue around a minority group, motorcyclists bearing a disproportionate financial penalty.

[The Everlasting]

Yeah i reckon so,they also have accidents,so should therefore also have to pay a fee.

[Tink]

That's a non-issue. You get your kids taken off you if you let a 10 year old ride to school.

My 9 yr old rode her bike, and still does on the pavement... with a helmet... I agree if you ride on the rode, as a sport cyclist you pay a ACC levy when you buy the bike, (INTENTION TO USE THE ROAD)... same with horse riders, rugby players, etc...


Just read this from the new site "Bikers Against ACC"

Motorcyclists are a minority group which are being unfairly targeted

In 2008 there were 1475 motorcycle accidents and 50 deaths, and motorcyclists paid approximately $12.3 million in levies.

In 2008 there were 1170 bicycle accidents and 36 deaths - cyclists paid no ACC levies.

This must be a human rights issue around a minority group, motorcyclists bearing a disproportionate financial penalty.

They just have not done their homework AGAIN, as usual!!!!

[vindy500]

My 9 yr old rode her bike, and still does on the pavement... with a helmet... I agree if you ride on the rode, as a sport cyclist you pay a ACC levy when you buy the bike, (INTENTION TO USE THE ROAD)... same with horse riders, rugby players, etc...




i rode to school from ages 10-17. i fell off a few times but never went hospital or anything. what kind of ACC do people think I should of been paying?

[NighthawkNZ]

The Government could charge them a nominal fee of say $50 per year register their cycles. This would raise ACC revenue, make them abide by the road rules, and even create a little extra work for the post office.


Covered by PAYE ACC

[FJRider]

The government doesn't need your help to come up with more stupid ways to tax us all. We already have enough taxes.

They come up with enough stupid ideas on their own ... :lol:

[munster]

Covered by PAYE ACC

If that's the case, then why aren't we all coveed by PAYE ACC levies.

Why single out motorists for onerous levies, when it has already been shown (proved even) on this site, that Pedestrians & cyclists cost more per injury?

At least risky jobs incur higher PAYE ACC levies, i.e forestry workers

Where's the fair & equitable levies for weekend rugby players (non-proffesional), cycists, dirt bikers, mountain bikers etc (the list is endless)

[Tezz]

i rode to school from ages 10-17. i fell off a few times but never went hospital or anything. what kind of ACC do people think I should of been paying?

It doesn't matter whether you went to hospital or not - you were lucky - good on you. But other cyclists get hit by cars and spend months in hospital and collect ACC. If you use the road, you must pay. I ride my motorcycle along Tamaki drive every day and see cyclists taking up the bus lane (so much so the buses don't even use it any more) in packs of 50 riding 5 abreast sometimes. And ironically, there is a cycle lane provided for them on the footpath, but they choose not to use it, they choose the road. Just a week or so ago a car crashed into a group of them and injuring several and killing one. The car was in the wrong, but that's not the point.

[Tink]

i rode to school from ages 10-17. i fell off a few times but never went hospital or anything. what kind of ACC do people think I should of been paying?

NONE.... I am referring to adults.. not kids... kids don't claim ACC (or do they)... I am purely referring to cyclists.. not kids on bikes. I am a working mum, who RODE a bike for exercise... but the other day a woman and man on a blind bend (me on motorbike going opposite way), came around 2 abreast, any car would have killed her on impact from behind... or she would have been serious and on ACC... she was so close to the center line it frightened me.. WEARING A HI-VIZ... I don't think that would have saved her.

[That looks like fun]

Yeh!! thats right we are bad :headbang: but they are worse :Oi:
Well thats solved that problem, next please :dodge:
What about an idea? like .. oh lets say registering a plate to an owner not a vehicle :clap: The right to change that plate to whatever vehicle you are driving / riding at that time. One plate, one set of fees :2thumbsup
Nah bugger alternative ideas, lets keep pointing the finger at everyone who is worse than us :Pokey:

[Tezz]

Yes, kids are covered by ACC as far as I know. They get free hospital treatment paid for by ACC and they can also get long-term disability payments.

[Tink]

Yes, kids are covered by ACC as far as I know. They get free hospital treatment paid for by ACC and they can also get long-term disability payments.

Oh that I don't understand, they don't pay, they don't work.. or is there something I don't know about ACC... surely its a parental claim to look after a sick child... my sister daughter as been off school the whole of Term 3 with a broken leg... she couldn't claim ACC!!! MMM food for thought.

[NighthawkNZ]

If that's the case, then why aren't we all coveed by PAYE ACC levies.

Why single out motorists for onerous levies, when it has already been shown (proved even) on this site, that Pedestrians & cyclists cost more per injury?

At least risky jobs incur higher PAYE ACC levies, i.e forestry workers



we are suppose to be...

Risky jobs are covered by the Business ACC levies


Yes, kids are covered by ACC as far as I know. They get free hospital treatment paid for by ACC and they can also get long-term disability payments.

Yes kids are fully covered by ACC... usually comes out of parents PAYE ACC...

as I have said all along the fundamental argument has to be that ACC is a "no faults" as soon as the point fingers then it became a blaming gane and AT fault syste.

From the ACC Website

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.

[Tink]

Yeh!! thats right we are bad :headbang: but they are worse :Oi:
Well thats solved that problem, next please :dodge:
What about an idea? like .. oh lets say registering a plate to an owner not a vehicle :clap: The right to change that plate to whatever vehicle you are driving / riding at that time. One plate, one set of fees :2thumbsup
Nah bugger alternative ideas, lets keep pointing the finger at everyone who is worse than us :Pokey:

I don't think we are pointing the finger, more like evening out... I still believe user pays..!!!

[Tezz]

One plate, one set of fees

How would that work? I have a car, a motorbike, and two trailers, so a person with only a car should subsidise me?

New ideas are good, so explain them.

[Tink]

Yes, kids are covered by ACC as far as I know. They get free hospital treatment paid for by ACC and they can also get long-term disability payments.


Just asked her, and she tried, they would only supply a baby sitter for a 12 yr old, and there is no way in hell she was leaving her with a stranger!!!!

[Tink]

How would that work? I have a car, a motorbike, and two trailers, so a person with only a car should subsidise me?

New ideas are good, so explain them.

I agree!!!

[kiwifruit]

The tighter the lycra the more they should pay!

[Naki Rat]

I can see no good reason why cyclists shouldn't be paying ACC in some way that is directly related to that activity. They ride on the same roads as us and are exposed to very similar risks and injuries, and ATGATT for many cyclists is about looking trendy and being aerodynamic rather than the body protection that responsible motorcyclists use to minimise injury.

Rego for pushbikes sounds pretty good to me :niceone:

[Tink]

The tighter the lycra the more they should pay!


I can see no good reason why cyclists shouldn't be paying ACC in some way that is directly related to that activity. They ride on the same roads as us and are exposed to very similar risks and injuries, and ATGATT for many cyclists is about looking trendy and being aerodynamic rather than the body protection that responsible motorcyclists use to minimise injury.

Rego for pushbikes sounds pretty good to me :niceone:

I still have the lycra pants.. long and short, gloves, that would not save my hands, and a helmet, that if I wore on a bike at 20km would kill me... go figure... but on that note, we work we pay ACC... so how do they qualify the payment... note your hobbies on your work payslip.. its a tough one... I am in two mind of JUST GET RID OF ACC... and user pays with insurance... like others have said here... (I am a woman lol, I can change my mind)... ;):rolleyes:

[avgas]

Nah bugger that.
Just put ACC charge on everything - like GST. 1% on everything should cover the lot
More people cut themselves with knives than fall off a bike.

[vindy500]

I can see no good reason why cyclists shouldn't be paying ACC in some way that is directly related to that activity]

because its good for them, and in a country of fat arses we should be encouraging this kind of activity

[James Deuce]

because its good for them, and in a country of fat arses we should be encouraging this kind of activity

Cyclists cost ACC more money each than motorcyclists do in rehab costs, yet motorcyclists are singled out.

[vindy500]

Cyclists cost ACC more money each than motorcyclists do in rehab costs, yet motorcyclists are singled out.

whats your point?

[duckonin]

I wonder if the Government has even considered making cyclists register their cycles as a more equitable way of funding ACC. Thousands of cyclists use our roads on a daily basis, and the numbers are increasing rapidly, but they pay nothing. They do, however, cause accidents, get hit by cars and claim ACC, and consistently break road rules without any punishment.

The Government could charge them a nominal fee of say $50 per year to register their cycles. This would raise ACC revenue, make them abide by the road rules, and even create a little extra work for the post office.

:Oi:Dislike of cyclists for the week is it ?

[FJRider]

It doesn't matter whether you went to hospital or not - you were lucky - good on you. But other cyclists get hit by cars and spend months in hospital and collect ACC. If you use the road, you must pay. I ride my motorcycle along Tamaki drive every day and see cyclists taking up the bus lane (so much so the buses don't even use it any more) in packs of 50 riding 5 abreast sometimes. And ironically, there is a cycle lane provided for them on the footpath, but they choose not to use it, they choose the road. Just a week or so ago a car crashed into a group of them and injuring several and killing one. The car was in the wrong, but that's not the point.

So in the statistics ... was that a push bike accident ... or a car accident ???

[mstriumph]

Cool, vehicle registration for 5 year olds.

How about trikes? Get them as a toddler.

there's no WAY a 5 year old should be on the highway
- but if its parents are so stupid as to allow it then, yes, the bike upon which it rides to its potential end SHOULD be registered and pay ACC - just in case it survives as a vegetable and needs to be maintained at public expense.

[FJRider]

Rego for pushbikes sounds pretty good to me :niceone:

With compulsory lights on at all times too...

[YellowDog]

I work for New Zealand Post.

The government owns New Zealand Post.

New Zealand Post owns thousands of cycles.

Never gonna happen.

[mstriumph]

I work for New Zealand Post.

The government owns New Zealand Post.

New Zealand Post owns thousands of cycles.

Never gonna happen.

HEY YOU!!!! :Oi:

I'M the cynic around here, stop stealing my thunder!! :lol:

[Ivan]

we talked about it at work around town cyclists no problem that allows for kids etc but if you choose to go on state highway's you should pay a regestartion fee to do it, they are blimmin shocking on highway not there fault but the speed deiffernce is huge and dangerous!

[twinkle]

I wonder if the Government has even considered making cyclists register their cycles as a more equitable way of funding ACC. Thousands of cyclists use our roads on a daily basis, and the numbers are increasing rapidly, but they pay nothing. They do, however, cause accidents, get hit by cars and claim ACC, and consistently break road rules without any punishment.

The Government could charge them a nominal fee of say $50 per year to register their cycles. This would raise ACC revenue, make them abide by the road rules, and even create a little extra work for the post office.

I love it how the instinctive answer for a lot of people is MORE bureaucracy :lol: I thought that we had enough already?

[McJim]

Oh brilliant - now I'm gonna get pinged twice!:mad:

This is the sort of shit that will make me pretend to be a biker to infiltrate those biker groups and then beat bikers up for victimising me as a cyclist - Then I'm gonna infiltrate the car lovers society so I can beat those fuckers up for victimising me as a motorcyclist.

FFS the gubberint are the enemy here.:girlfight:

[NighthawkNZ]

There will never be a fair system unless they drop every levy we pay at present and introduce a levy for being Human.

[twinkle]

When the relative populations of these age groups are considered, cyclists aged 10-14 are the group
with the most risk of hospitalisation, with a rate of 14 per 100,000 head of population each year
(population data from census). Other age groups between five and 55 have rates in the region of 6-8 per
100,000 each year. Above the age of 55 the rate of hospitalisation per 100,000 gradually decreases.
So 10-14 year olds should either be banned from cycling or pay twice as much ACC as the rest of the cyclists. :lol:
Damn kids costing the rest of us so much money :baby:

[NighthawkNZ]

So 10-14 year olds should either be banned from cycling or pay twice as much ACC as the rest of the cyclists. :lol:
Damn kids costing the rest of us so much money :baby:

They at least need more education about the dangers than they are getting... and they do get some...

[Tink]

:Oi:Dislike of cyclists for the week is it ?

To name a few that ride the main roads... I rode a avanti bike!


So in the statistics ... was that a push bike accident ... or a car accident ???

Does not matter if its on the highway.... someone pays !


we talked about it at work around town cyclists no problem that allows for kids etc but if you choose to go on state highway's you should pay a registration fee to do it, they are blimmin shocking on highway not there fault but the speed difference is huge and dangerous!

Speed makes a huge difference naturally, but bikers don't (from looking) ride two abreast, and if they do they are idiots.... cyclists although do... and expect hi-viz to make them visible (not)... I STILL SAY ALL ROAD RULES APPLY TO EVERYONE... if you ride a road bike on a main 100km road you must be able to read and write... and to learn the rules... like all of us.

[MidnightMike]

I wonder if the Government has even considered making cyclists register their cycles as a more equitable way of funding ACC. Thousands of cyclists use our roads on a daily basis, and the numbers are increasing rapidly, but they pay nothing. They do, however, cause accidents, get hit by cars and claim ACC, and consistently break road rules without any punishment.

The Government could charge them a nominal fee of say $50 per year to register their cycles. This would raise ACC revenue, make them abide by the road rules, and even create a little extra work for the post office.

Charging cyclist's was among the most laughable ideas to come out of this whole ACC proposition. How the hell is it supposed to be policed? Where do you draw the bracket between a cyclist having to register their bike or not? Should the guy on his BMX have to register his bike because he popped down to the dairy to grab some milk?, because the guy training for the Triathlon who just rode down the same street does, or what about the guy commuting home from work on the footpath?, or the kid riding home from school?

Fucking rediculous, bikers are just targeting another minority group to take the heat off themselves.

And $50 a year would never 'make' cyclist's abide by the road rules, generally the 'Hit by a car/truck etc' consequence makes things quite clear to anyone who's willing to take it to the road, or atleast with half a brain in their helmet.

Instead of targeting specific road users we should be looking at spreading it throughout all groups that claim ACC, just as Rosie said:


+1 and pointing the finger and blaming other 'dangerous' road users is the kind of thinking that has lead to motorbikes being singled out for massive levy increases.

Others' blaming and finger pointing may have got us into this mess, but I don't think us doing the same to another group is going to get us out of it.


I think it should go a step further and all sports people should pay their way as well. Why should all of us who don't play rugby, go skiing, take part in adventure sports, etc pay for those who do and get injured?

Imagine what would happen to grass roots sport in New Zealand if we starting charging people ACC levies to play it?. Teams would drop off like flies, especially in lower socio-economic groups of the population who decide to get into sport as opposed to other illegal activites because the money isn't there in the first place to entertain themselves with. Whether its those teams created to get people socialising, or working on their fitness/weight its always been a positive thing. If you happen to get injured, well thats life outside of the lounge isn't it?


I drive several cars and I own a bike and I'm self-employed - so I pay more than once anyway. I'd be keen for a more equitable system whereby those INDIVIDUALS who cost ACC more pay more in levies - sort of like a no-claims bonus.

Brilliant idea, 'equitable' is what the Government should be looking at to bring themselves out of the current mess without treading on too many toes.

[Usarka]

Pedestrians get hurt on roads too. Charge every fucken' one.

[FJRider]

Speed makes a huge difference naturally, but bikers don't (from looking) ride two abreast, and if they do they are idiots.... cyclists although do... and expect hi-viz to make them visible (not)... I STILL SAY ALL ROAD RULES APPLY TO EVERYONE... if you ride a road bike on a main 100km road you must be able to read and write... and to learn the rules... like all of us.

Then by my observations of cyclists to date ... there are many cyclists on the road that shouldn't be ...

[nothingflash]

Pedestrians get hurt on roads too. Charge every fucken' one.

Dog runs on road, car swerves, hits other car, one injured. Charge pets too!! :2thumbsup

[Tink]

Dog runs on road, car swerves, hits other car, one injured. Charge pets too!! :2thumbsup

No charge the owners for letting them out of the gate.... I am although not that cruel having two dogs... whom roam out the gate... but if push comes to shove the human comes first... I pay the consequences of my dogs actions.

There is no true answer... there is one answer... but who knows what that is!!! Not me for sure.

[The Everlasting]

Dog runs on road, car swerves, hits other car, one injured. Charge pets too!! :2thumbsup



Haha :lol: Yeah let's charge cat's too,and while were at it,birds can cause accidents too....charge the lot.

[Tink]

[/B]

Then by my observations of cyclists to date ... there are many cyclists on the road that shouldn't be ...

Pretty much YES

[nothingflash]

No charge the owners for letting them out of the gate.... I am although not that cruel having two dogs... whom roam out the gate... but if push comes to shove the human comes first... I pay the consequences of my dogs actions.

There is no true answer... there is one answer... but who knows what that is!!! Not me for sure.

Was suggested with tongue firmly in cheek...

[Tink]

Haha :lol: Yeah let's charge cat's too,and while were at it,birds can cause accidents too....charge the lot.
A friend got hit on a bike by a bird.... swiped him off his bike...and put him in hospital, I have no idea if he claimed ACC, but I do know he took the risk... to ride... but anything that is owned is the owners responsibility.

[Tink]

Was suggested with tongue firmly in cheek...

Fair enough ;)

[Sanx]

A friend got hit on a bike by a bird

Tax pigeons.

[wickle]

A few years ago my son on his bicycle was hit by a car who failed to giveway on a giveway sign while I believe he was talking on a cellphone,was not charge to my knowledge. so once again Accicent caused my car driver.

[rocketman1]

This is exactly what the government is doing to us bikers is what we are doing to the cyclists.
Cherry picking is all the ACC have done, they cannot pick out one group and ping them as the big ogre in the ACC loss. If they are going to do this, they need to pick all other high risk groups, and grade everyone appropriately.
Dont just pick on one group, (just not fair)
Privatize the whole scheme those that have a bad record pay more, just like insurance.
Some old dude who has been riding for 40 years without an accident , why should he pay (subsidise) a young crazy whose fallen off his bike regularly.
Dont pick on cyclists, if you do you are becoming as bad as the government.
Scrap ACC altogether.

[NighthawkNZ]

This is exactly what the government is doing to us bikers is what we are doing to the cyclists.

Correct hence our fundamental arguement we have to use is "No Faults" else where does it end...

There is enough money gathered every year to cover all accidents... if their is not finger pointing at all ie all road vehicles pay the same acc, then the "No faults" should work, as long as we don't start complaing we we see a pay out to another minority or something stupid...

[Tink]

Tax pigeons.

Out Miranda way.. more like idiot pigeons !!!


A few years ago my son on his bicycle was hit by a car who failed to giveway on a giveway sign while I believe he was talking on a cellphone,was not charge to my knowledge. so once again Accicent caused my car driver.

And so it should be that you can claim, and them should pay!! Its a confusing system .. sadly :(


T
Privatize the whole scheme those that have a bad record pay more, just like insurance.
Some old dude who has been riding for 40 years without an accident , why should he pay (subsidise) a young crazy whose fallen off his bike regularly.
Dont pick on cyclists, if you do you are becoming as bad as the government.
Scrap ACC altogether.

I would like to know why ACC was put in place, and which govt put it there?

and

Well yes they could scrap ACC, but cyclists do ride ALL OVER THE ROAD, and expect us to sit behind them, they can account for some accidents, even tho in america they WOULD most definitely not be at fault.



There is enough money gathered every year to cover all accidents...

so why the ACC changes.. ?

[NighthawkNZ]

so why the ACC changes.. ?

Scare mongering, alternative agenda, money grabbing... list goes on

[sport-cruzer?]

We need to stop attacking sports and other road users and concentrate on the gross mismanagement within the ACC system. What are we paying idiots like Nick Smith for exactly?

Down here in nelson the ACC has subsidised motorcycle safety courses run by the counsel, They are stopping this because ACC say they cant afford it now,
PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE!!!

ACC have also stopped funding the police booze bus so it no longer travels to Blenheim and the west-coast.
I don't know why it was ACCs job to pay for this but apparently drunk drivers don't hurt people anymore.
PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE!!!

If ACC would stop paying stupid things like 10 follow-up visits to a physeo' for a sprained ankle that was sorted after 2 or paying specialists $400 just to write a referral then perhaps they wouldn't be in the mess they are in now.

ACC needs to be as careful with our money as we need to be!

[bo-nz]

how about 0.5-1% charge on all eftpos/visa etc transactions to everyone, including tourists(e.g. spend $200 pay $1-2) on each transaction. Would this cover ACC?? It then would cover most people including pedistrans, cyclists, and anyone that uses the roads, plays a sport etc. Then everyone could have more of a right to claim ACC when needed.

Just an idea. Oh and also like the no claims bonus.

[Marmoot]

Sorry - I disagree. Wouldn't surprise me if the govt. came up with their idea INTENDING that we propose to hit bicycles. Bicycles should be free - it is our goddam right to ride a bicycle and the govts responsibility to fix us when we fall - we pay high taxes right!

And why can't we replace "bicycles" with "motorcycles" in that sentence?

[modboy]

I wonder if the Government has even considered making cyclists register their cycles as a more equitable way of funding ACC. Thousands of cyclists use our roads on a daily basis, and the numbers are increasing rapidly, but they pay nothing. They do, however, cause accidents, get hit by cars and claim ACC, and consistently break road rules without any punishment.

The Government could charge them a nominal fee of say $50 per year to register their cycles. This would raise ACC revenue, make them abide by the road rules, and even create a little extra work for the post office.

Main reason it won't happen. Unenforceable!

By the same token we should make people with skil saws register them and pay a nominal fee, while we are at it, people with ladders (very common cause of household accident picked up by ACC).

All ladders must be registered. And kids scooters while we are at it.

Skateboards ! This is a four wheeled vehicle which is responsible for nasty accidents, broken arms, head injuries etc etc. They should all be registered and their owners have to pass a basic skills course before they are allowed to be ridden on the street.

So where do you stop?

[twotyred]

this is exactly what the government is doing to us bikers is what we are doing to the cyclists.
Cherry picking is all the acc have done, they cannot pick out one group and ping them as the big ogre in the acc loss. If they are going to do this, they need to pick all other high risk groups, and grade everyone appropriately.
Dont just pick on one group, (just not fair)
privatize the whole scheme those that have a bad record pay more, just like insurance.
Some old dude who has been riding for 40 years without an accident , why should he pay (subsidise) a young crazy whose fallen off his bike regularly.
Dont pick on cyclists, if you do you are becoming as bad as the government.
Scrap acc altogether.

+1 .......

[Angusdog]

Scrap ACC altogether.

Not a good idea. ACC is a superb scheme, whereby we don't need to sue someone after an accident. They provide car and income support on a no fault basis. Without them, you could be suing a 16 year old with no money. We need ACC.

It's just that motorcyclists are already targeted by ACC in the levy on registration. It's a very blunt tool, and they're looking to use it as a softening up exercise. We'll probably end up paying about $500 without a capacity limit, I imagine (if motorcyclists protest enough).

I think the public really need to know that it's unfair on motorcyclists, and an attack on the general freedom of all New Zealanders. This, if passed in its current state, could be used to argue for higher ACC levies on risky activities, such as rugby and bicycle riders. So they should be concerned, and they shouldn't support it.

We just need the public to realise this is unfair and an attack on personal freedom (sounds a bit like the same argument against motorcycle helmets, so we need to be careful here). We need to show that most serious motorcyclists have thousands of dollars in protective gear, that we're not suicidal, we're just like them - mountain bikers, horse riders, rugby players - and yet we're getting tagged. We need unity, not trying to divert the attack onto another group. The end result would be Helen Clarke's dream of a risk-free nanny state.

[Tezz]

Main reason it won't happen. Unenforceable!

What do you mean unenforceable? They make us register our bikes, and they enforce it, don't they? A very small plastic registration at the back of the bicycle, just under the seat would be enough.

I hear lots and lots of ranting like "we should register ladders." "Where will it stop?" etc etc. And to some degree I agree, but we have two choices here, either we scrap ACC altogether (privatise it), which is actually my preference, or we make it more equitable.

The problem with all Government run programs, is the fact that they all fail; they end up costing us more, and the ACC is a classic example of this. Each year it keeps costing us more and each year we get less and less in return. The present ACC is nothing like what it was when it first started.

The problem in this country is we have two socialist governments. One which is center left (National) and the other which is left of centre left (Labour), and do you honestly believe National has the balls to privatise anything at the moment. They would prefer just to pick out a small bunch like us and make us pay, because, realistically speaking, no one except us really cares. Do you think car drivers care that we have to pay more?

However, we can give them suggestions where they could raise funds and make things a bit more equitable.

[modboy]

So... what your gonna have cops booking 4 yr olds cos they don't have their barbie bike with trainer wheels registered.

I guess you'd then whinge and moan that cops are chasing kids on unregistered bikes when they should be catching crims.

You need to take a "Get Real" pill !!!

[Tezz]

So... what your gonna have cops booking 4 yr olds cos they don't have their barbie bike with trainer wheels registered.

I guess you'd then whinge and moan that cops are chasing kids on unregistered bikes when they should be catching crims.

You need to take a "Get Real" pill !!!

What do you mean, get real? We all know I am talking about road users, so please be sensible and have a sensible discussion. Ranting is a waste of time.

[yungatart]

Report in our local paper this avo...4 cyclists hit by a car that turned in front of them while they were doing the "Tour of the Bay"...the poor buggers were sprinting for the finish line. According to the cop we should feel sorry for them. 109.5 km into a 110 k ride...only trrouble is THEY WERE ON THE WRONG SIDE OFTHE ROAD!!!!
Nobody will be charged as it is too difficult to sort out responsibilty!!!

[Grahameeboy]

And this is the very problem. Since when has anything been a right? And since when has it been the Governments responsibility to fix people? If you use the road, you have to pay? Nothing is free! Trucks, cars, buses, and motorcylists pay, so why should cyclists get a free ride? As far as the Government being responsible for fixing us? I certainly don't want them in my life, fixing me, I prefer private insurance and no tax. We have been far too dependent on Governments for far too long.

To be fair cyclists are not allowed to ride on pavements so they have to use the road....they own cars..pay ACC wages so they contribute so they don't get a free ride...or am I missing something.

[Grahameeboy]

Report in our local paper this avo...4 cyclists hit by a car that turned in front of them while they were doing the "Tour of the Bay"...the poor buggers were sprinting for the finish line. According to the cop we should feel sorry for them. 109.5 km into a 110 k ride...only trrouble is THEY WERE ON THE WRONG SIDE OFTHE ROAD!!!!
Nobody will be charged as it is too difficult to sort out responsibilty!!!

You were driving the car weren't you....chanting McJim, McJim (remembering Msters debate with McJim).

[Tezz]

Report in our local paper this avo...4 cyclists hit by a car that turned in front of them while they were doing the "Tour of the Bay"...the poor buggers were sprinting for the finish line. According to the cop we should feel sorry for them. 109.5 km into a 110 k ride...only trrouble is THEY WERE ON THE WRONG SIDE OFTHE ROAD!!!!
Nobody will be charged as it is too difficult to sort out responsibilty!!!

Exactly my point! These cycle bozos think they rule the road. They ride in packs of 50, sometimes 5 abreast where live. And they get hit by cars and cry! And of course they blame the cars.

[Tezz]

To be fair cyclists are not allowed to ride on pavements so they have to use the road....they own cars..pay ACC wages so they contribute so they don't get a free ride...or am I missing something.

Not where I live, they have a special cycle lane on the footpath but they still choose to use the road. Every other road user pays and pays ACC through wages etc, so why are cyclists exempt?

[Grahameeboy]

Not where I live, they have a special cycle lane on the footpath but they still choose to use the road. Every other road user pays and pays ACC through wages etc, so why are cyclists exempt?

Okay exceptions to the rule although to be honest I would say the road is a safer place for them...driveways...crossing intersections are a hazard...but surely cyclists pay ACC levies through wages and if they have a car they pay ACC to use the road...beats me

[yungatart]

You were driving the car weren't you....chanting McJim, McJim (remembering Msters debate with McJim).

No, I wasn't. If I had been the ACC payout would be death benefits only!

[Tezz]

Okay exceptions to the rule although to be honest I would say the road is a safer place for them...driveways...crossing intersections are a hazard...but surely cyclists pay ACC levies through wages and if they have a car they pay ACC to use the road...beats me

I have a car and pay ACC and a motorcyle and pay ACC and work and pay ACC, what is your question?

[yungatart]

I have a car and pay ACC and a motorcyle and pay ACC and work and pay ACC, what is your question?

All of the above...+ I pay a self employed levy too.
What was your question again, GB?

[Grahameeboy]

I have a car and pay ACC and a motorcyle and pay ACC and work and pay ACC, what is your question?

It was a point of debate not a question....

I have a car, bike and work and have a pedal cycle which I don't use right now.....

[Grahameeboy]

All of the above...+ I pay a self employed levy too.
What was your question again, GB?

What question..

[modboy]

What do you mean, get real? We all know I am talking about road users, so please be sensible and have a sensible discussion. Ranting is a waste of time.

By "get real", I mean get real dumbass.

The current "ACC issue" will not be solved by trying to license cyclists -
1. that's just fucked in the head.
2. it's NEVER going to happen.

Move on.

[Tezz]

By "get real", I mean get real dumbass.

The current "ACC issue" will not be solved by trying to license cyclists -
1. that's just fucked in the head.
2. it's NEVER going to happen.

Move on.

I rest my case

[freddy72]

[/B]

Then by my observations of cyclists to date ... there are many cyclists on the road that shouldn't be ...

The same can be said about car drivers, truck drivers, bus drivers and motor cyclists so whats your point

[FJRider]

It was a quote/reply to a post with my observation of the comment the quoted member made, nothing more. There my interest ended. If you choose to infer/imply/question my post ... feel free.

[modboy]

I rest my case

You have no case - that was my point (not so subtle, yet obviously missed by you).

The Govt/ACC have arbitarily singled out motorcyclists as a group. Your suggestion is just the same.

Anyone suggesting cyclists should be licensed needs to know in simple crude terms how idiotic the idea is. I make no apologies for treating the suggestion with the contempt it deserves. Don't take it personally.

It's been dealt with here to the point of boredom. Yet some people still feel the need to bang on about it.

Dead Horse <<<--- Flog!

[Tezz]

You have no case - that was my point (not so subtle, yet obviously missed by you).

The Govt/ACC have arbitarily singled out motorcyclists as a group. Your suggestion is just the same.

Anyone suggesting cyclists should be licensed needs to know in simple crude terms how idiotic the idea is. I make no apologies for treating the suggestion with the contempt it deserves. Don't take it personally.

It's been dealt with here to the point of boredom. Yet some people still feel the need to bang on about it.

Dead Horse <<<--- Flog!

I just love people who put down credible ideas but never proffer their own. I am not singling out cyclists; I am merely trying to spread the burden around more equitably. As I have said many times, the best thing would be to scrap ACC, but that just isn't going to happen in this socialist country. Key hasn't the balls for that; he wouldn't even reverse the smacking law.

[FJRider]

Anyone suggesting cyclists should be licensed needs to know in simple crude terms how idiotic the idea is. I make no apologies for treating the suggestion with the contempt it deserves. Don't take it personally.



Singapore has had bicycle registration in law for some years now. Quite successfully actually. Aside from extra revenue gathered, bike theft dropped dramaticly... and cyclists became more law abiding when they found they could be indentified more easily (in photos).

Closed minds get my contempt too ...

[Chrislost]

i rode to school from ages 10-17. i fell off a few times but never went hospital or anything. what kind of ACC do people think I should of been paying?

If you were riding on the road, 3 abreast, then you should pay levys

[SARGE]

[/B]

Then by my observations of cyclists to date ... there are many cyclists on the road that shouldn't be ...

cmon .. just how many pushies has anyone ever seen that have actually stopped at a red light ????? i drive the CBD/ Eastern Subs daily and have YET to see anyone in lycra obey ONE traffic signal..

run the gaytard down i say..then insist the attending officer give the fag a ticket for running a stop light/ sign

i'll get my $5000+ a year out in sheer entertainment value

[McJim]

Not where I live, they have a special cycle lane on the footpath but they still choose to use the road. Every other road user pays and pays ACC through wages etc, so why are cyclists exempt?

Do you think we're all unemployed coz we ride bicycles? Weirdo.

I choose to ride my bicycle on the road coz the wankstains in modified cars INSIST on smashin their beer bottles on the cycle lanes/paths.

If this is the general attitude of motorcyclists then I'll just have to come out in support of shonky Johnkey and Smick Nith (since I only face a $250 price hike due to me riding a sub 600cc bike).

The reason people make sweeping coments about ALL cyclists being idiots on the road is that they only notcie the ones that cause them problems. Like fucktard motorists and truckies most of the time they don't look for 'em and don't see 'em but just kill 'em and make orphans just the fuckin' same.

Many cyclists are sensible road users and haven't had a spill in decades.

So where the fuck is my tax going if it's not to pay for the hospitals?

[SARGE]

Do you think we're all unemployed coz we ride bicycles? Weirdo.


god please dont tell me you wear lycra :sick:

[BMWST?]

The car was in the wrong, but that's not the point.

what is the point.?The car is in the wrong in lots of motorcycle accidents too.Its that fact that we can argue that some subsidy is payable by car drivers,if you accept that each group is self funding

[FJRider]

cmon .. just how many pushies has anyone ever seen that have actually stopped at a red light ????? i drive the CBD/ Eastern Subs daily and have YET to see anyone in lycra obey ONE traffic signal..

run the gaytard down i say..then insist the attending officer give the fag a ticket for running a stop light/ sign

i'll get my $5000+ a year out in sheer entertainment value

I like to flag them down and ask them what makes them exempt from the law.

[SARGE]

I like to flag them down and ask them what makes them exempt from the law.

but but but .. that WOULDNT BE PC!!!! .. you might hurt the poor dear's feelings then we'd have to front up for his freaking therapy

[McJim]

I like to flag them down and ask them what makes them exempt from the law.

Have you ever exceeded 100kph? If so what makes you exempt from the law?

[FJRider]

Have you ever exceeded 100kph? If so what makes you exempt from the law?

Running a red light on a push bike carries the same penalty in court.... as if done on a motorcycle. Regarding speed limits ... I know the rules, and invite any cyclist to flag me down and question me on any speeding I may have been seen doing.

[modboy]

I just love people who put down credible ideas but never proffer their own. I am not singling out cyclists; I am merely trying to spread the burden around more equitably. As I have said many times, the best thing would be to scrap ACC, but that just isn't going to happen in this socialist country. Key hasn't the balls for that; he wouldn't even reverse the smacking law.

NZ has always been a socialist country and it always will be (and you have greatly benefited from this). Stop whining about it - or fuck off and live somewhere else.

In anycase - it's now fairly obvious Tezz that you have your own flawed political agenda - let me guess - Libertarian - oh dear !

I think you're on the wrong website mate. Don't you pack of fuckwits have your own rock that you normally exist under - why don't you go back there instead of trolling KB.

Furthermore it's not incumbent upon me in anyway whatsoever to "proffer" any idea just because I don't like the one already "proffered" by others. If this is an example of the flawed kind of fuckwittery that your politics teaches you, perhaps you should go back and do Logic101. :weird:

[modboy]

Singapore has had bicycle registration in law for some years now. Quite successfully actually. Aside from extra revenue gathered, bike theft dropped dramaticly... and cyclists became more law abiding when they found they could be indentified more easily (in photos).

Closed minds get my contempt too ...

Who fucking cares. Go live in Singapore then - idiot.

[Ozzie]

From the ACC safe as posts........

One time only offer:

Get a pair of Reebok Runners for $800, including personalised plate!

Terms and conditions:

* Runners are road use registered.
* Plates can be transfered at the end of the servicable life of your runners.
* Plates are owned by ACC, in the event of your death, they will be returned to ACC (foot removal costs may apply).
* Price includes:
- runners $20.00
- custom plates $30.00
- registration $50.00
- ACC $600.00
- MoT Admin $100.00

[avgas]

how about 0.5-1% charge on all eftpos/visa etc transactions to everyone, including tourists(e.g. spend $200 pay $1-2) on each transaction. Would this cover ACC?? It then would cover most people including pedistrans, cyclists, and anyone that uses the roads, plays a sport etc. Then everyone could have more of a right to claim ACC when needed.

Just an idea. Oh and also like the no claims bonus.
I like this

[avgas]

There will never be a fair system unless they drop every levy we pay at present and introduce a levy for being Human.

I like this too

[avgas]

I can see no good reason why cyclists shouldn't be paying ACC in some way that is directly related to that activity. They ride on the same roads as us....
errrr I don't.
Bugger that too many dangerous stuff out there. I keep it in the bush.
Last time i checked MotoX'rs dont pay ACC. So why should mountainbikers?
However I do feel that ALL ROAD USERS SHOULD USE THE SAME RULES!

[Tezz]

Who fucking cares. Go live in Singapore then - idiot.

And coming from a so-called intellectual socialist

[FJRider]

Who fucking cares. Go live in Singapore then - idiot.

Perhaps you should go back to school and take "Logical Arguments 101" ... it may give you some credibility in future "discussions".

And it is you that perhaps should go back to whatever country you came from. It seems obvious by your posts to date, that English is your second language.

[Drunken Monkey]

A cyclist perhaps? (...et al)

So what? There's a few around here.

This is the whole reason motorcyclists have been done before. You fuckers can't get your shit together, if you're not blaming cyclists or cagers for something, then it's pointing the finger at power ranger suit wearing sprotbikers (sic), geriatric born again bikers on their chrome cruisers, menacing motoretards, sissy scooterers, poo-stained mud flingers, loser learners or boring skill-less cruiser riders.

Get a fucking grip.

[FJRider]

(...et al)

So what? There's a few around here.

This is the whole reason motorcyclists have been done before. You fuckers can't get your shit together, if you're not blaming cyclists or cagers for something, then it's pointing the finger at power ranger suit wearing sprotbikers (sic), geriatric born again bikers on their chrome cruisers, menacing motoretards, sissy scooterers, poo-stained mud flingers, loser learners or boring skill-less cruiser riders.



But ... but ... thats what we do .... can't be our fault .... :beer:

[Tezz]

I have copied this from this from the following thread: Common reply from MPs (I have highlighted the important bits):

"I have mailed a number of MPs and it would seem they are giving a generic reply that looks somewhat like this:

"Proposed changes to motorcycle levies

The National-led Government is determined to preserve and protect our 24/7,
no-fault accident insurance scheme.

ACC is facing some real challenges. Its liabilities have ballooned to almost $24 billion – $13 billion more than its assets. This is unsustainable and unaffordable.

In 2008/09, ACC paid more than $62 million to motorcycle riders but collected only $12.3 million in levies.

The incidence, severity and cost of motorcycle crash injuries are not reflected in current levies. The cost of injuries in motorcycle crashes is about four times higher than injuries in other motor vehicle crashes.

To help make up this difference the ACC Board has proposed a reclassification and an increase to the motorcycle levies. Even with the proposed increase in levies other motor vehicle owners will continue to pay $77 each to cross-subsidise motorcyclists.

We want to have an open and honest conversation with the public as to how they want us to fund the shortfall. If the shortfall is not funded through an increase to motorcycle levies, it will have to be funded from somewhere else.

The proposed increases are currently open to public consultation. We encourage motorcyclists and other motorists to have their say on this issue by making submissions to ACC by 5PM, 10 November.

Following public consultation, the Government will receive advice from the ACC Board and make a final decision.

To have your say on the proposals go to www.acc.co.nz/consultation"

It is obvious that National have no intention of selling off the ACC (at this stage anyway) so I strongly suggest people email the ACC and have them make cyclists pay their share. The more they hear this message, the more it will resinate

[McJim]

If we were taxed properly it could fund the hospitals.
If the hospitals were properly funded we wouldn't need to pay for treatment.
If we didn't need to pay for treatment then ACC certainly wouldn't have to pay on our behalf.
If we had a proper national assurance scheme to cover loss of earnings we could have a decent back up for losing our job due to injury.

This way we wouldn't need health insurance, ACC or the ability to sue for damages.

:2thumbsup

It also means we could stop going around finger pointing. Persuading the Govt to charge cyclists, horesriders, rugby players etc doesn't mean they'll leave motorcycles alone - it just means they'll charge the others too. And we'll still have the $750 ACC levy on large capacity bikes to fund the 250cc learners that keep binning.

[MidnightMike]

There is a great article that I read in the October NZ Listener at work,

heres a couple of links:

http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3623/columnists/14175/virtuous_cycle.html

http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3623/features/14177/crash_course.html

(It doesn't have the full article but still worth the read.)

[Twinmil]

Motorcycling is not only an economical form of travel with a lower environmental and urban profile, but a SPORT, at least according to ACC, who list it in their Section 20 Sport Claims list, in the ACC injury statistics of 2008.
This list tells us Motorcycling accidents cost the country $7.227 million dollars in 2007.

It also tells us:-

- Cycling cost us $10.447 million
- Horse Riding $ 9.14 million
- Netball $11.496 million
- Swimming $10.055 million
- Soccer $14.156 million
- Skiing $ 8.004 million
- Motocross & Dirt Biking $ 8.17 million
- Rugby Union $40.041 million
- Rugby League $10.648 million

Should Motorcycling be unique in being the only recreational activity in NZ to be asked to fund itself through exhorbitant fees just because it's functional aspect makes it liable for registration costs from which extraction of fees is relatively easy?

Should Motorcycling be targeted as an especially dangerous activity that needs discouraging by punitive charges, even though a large number of recreational activities in NZ are statistically more dangerous but that have no useful and therefore taxable component?

Should vehicles that use less resource, generate less CO2 and use less space on the road and in parking be actively discouraged?

Should motorcycling be penalised for a monstrous cost blow-out in the ACC, $4.18 Billion in, $23.78Billion Out.
(ACC Annual Report 2009)

The repeated assertion that cars are subsidising motorcycling is a red herring that masks the entire ACC Motor Vehicle Account cost blowout of $6.845 Billion claims against a net levy revenue of $739 Million, of which motorcycling is only a miniscule fraction.

If Motorcycling is not being scapegoated why is car registration not being increased pro rata for it's lack of levy income to cover it's proportionately higher percentage of the Motor Vehicle Account Funding shortfall?

Has the private outsourcing for accident care helped to contribute to this cost blowout?

Also from the ACC Annual Report of 2009
"The past year has seen a further increase in the risk premiums that investors have required for risky investments such as equities"
"...all significant developed equity markets again produced negative returns during 2008-2009."
"... a significant portion of ACC's reserves portfolios are invested in equity markets."
"ACC's reserves portfolios delivered an average return of 3.2% over the year.
While this result is significantly above our market benchmarks, it is slightly below the return that could have been achieved from low risk fixed interest investments over the year."

Does gambling with Tax payer money (particularly using opaque financial instruments) seem like a reasonable practice?

Does it seem reasonable that 259 staff members of ACC are on six figure salaries and divide $145.65 million dollars between themselves in wages while bringing about a 568% gap between income and costs that would would send any private concern incompetent enough to oversee such a cost blow into insolvency?

Thank you for your time.