Trademe Poll

[Bald Eagle]

This is gaining wider attention than just bikers.

Check out the Poll on Trademe (http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/Vote.aspx) about how ACC should levy vehicles.

[slofox]

This is gaining wider attention than just bikers.

Check out the Poll on Trademe (http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/Vote.aspx) about how ACC should levy vehicles.

Mmmm - I see most people agree with me on this one...

[ukusa]

prefer petrol levy myself, that way those who use the road most pay the most. It's not always accurate (because of differing fuel efficiency), but I could see odometer tampering as being an issue if it were based off milage. Only downside is the petrol for other use (eg lawnmowing etc), who would end up paying the ACC levy as well.

[Jantar]

.... Only downside is the petrol for other use (eg lawnmowing etc), who would end up paying the ACC levy as well.

I don't see any issue here. People do get injured mowing lawns from stones being thrown up to losing fingers from trying to clear clogged grass with the mower running. Any activity that uses petrol has an element of risk that can result in injury, so ACC on fuel makes a lot of sense.

[steve_t]

But what about when electric vehicles start becoming more mainstream? A levy via fuel may not be forward-thinking enough

[JimO]

But what about when electric vehicles start becoming more mainstream? A levy via fuel may not be forward-thinking enough

easy.... they will put a acc levy on electricity after all people burn themselves on the jug

[Ender EnZed]

I am a little concerned about this "Levy according to driver history". Some people like to crash a lot without getting hurt and costing ACC.

[Pedrostt500]

I am a little concerned about this "Levy according to driver history". Some people like to crash a lot without getting hurt and costing ACC.


And some seem to crash alot maybe not hurting them selves, but hurting others, some repeatedly get Pissed and Drive / ride, & end up hurting others.

[MadDuck]

Any activity that uses petrol has an element of risk that can result in injury, so ACC on fuel makes a lot of sense.

At first it does yes. I am on the fence on this one. ACC on fuel means increased freight costs....means well increased prices on just about everything.

[BMWST?]

i dont agree with petrol levy...i have an old bike and and old car,neither that fuel efficient,why should i pay a premium...

[mossy1200]

prefer petrol levy myself, that way those who use the road most pay the most. It's not always accurate (because of differing fuel efficiency), but I could see odometer tampering as being an issue if it were based off milage. Only downside is the petrol for other use (eg lawnmowing etc), who would end up paying the ACC levy as well.

And if its got a motor then the average kiwi could hurt himself with it.Means at least mx bikes,go carts,boats are all paying a share also.

[mossy1200]

i dont agree with petrol levy...i have an old bike and and old car,neither that fuel efficient,why should i pay a premium...

Your older vehicles would not be as safe as newer ones assuming the comparision is made at road legal speeds and not the vehicles potential fast factor.

[McJim]

I don't see any issue here. People do get injured mowing lawns from stones being thrown up to losing fingers from trying to clear clogged grass with the mower running. Any activity that uses petrol has an element of risk that can result in injury, so ACC on fuel makes a lot of sense.

I disagree. sometimes I can throw a molotov cocktail without harming myself at all.

[StoneY]

And if its got a motor then the average kiwi could hurt himself with it.Means at least mx bikes,go carts,boats are all paying a share also.

Thats the big sell on the petrol levy side of it, but as mr BMWST points out, older vehicle fuel consumption issues does not necessarily equal dangerous speed ranges or gross technological redundancy
My Ducati has emition control exhausts that meet Euro standards...the GixxeR...shes killing us :lol: (and my bank balance, thirsty bitch)

[mossy1200]

And some seem to crash alot maybe not hurting them selves, but hurting others, some repeatedly get Pissed and Drive / ride, & end up hurting others.

Agree .It goes away from no fault system and become insurance policy.Someone runs you off the road and doesnt get caught doing it this would leave you out of pocket .Accidents happen at any time to anyone and does that mean they should be pocket punished.

Perhaps we should start riding safe.Watched a bike pass cars in traffic(peak hour) in the middle of mount vic tunel double yellows when the other trafic was doing 50 already.Just got back into lane with cms to spare before ending up having an oncoming.Its getting to a stage that we should be judging each others actions.A small percentage let the majority down and cage drivers remember the worst riders not the best riders.Tell your mates to tone down or ride the race tracks.We could do with public support when everyone is looking our direction already.

[SMOKEU]

Fuel levys are a bad idea. The driver of a Charade will use around 7L/100km around town, about half that of an injected V8 Commodore and will therefore pay half the amount of fuel tax. However, the driver of the Charade will be much more likely to be injured in a crash than the driver of the Commodore. Same goes with bikes vs cars.

[MarkH]

Based on driver history isn't a bad idea. ACC is the government owned insurance corporation for accident based injury insurance, if they were competitive vs other insurance companies then I would be due at least a 60% no-claims rebate on my levy. I have NEVER made an ACC claim for any vehicle accident.

[nsrpaul]

voted and done, seems a clear majority to me!

[Rockbuddy]

Based on driver history isn't a bad idea. ACC is the government owned insurance corporation for accident based injury insurance, if they were competitive vs other insurance companies then I would be due at least a 60% no-claims rebate on my levy. I have NEVER made an ACC claim for any vehicle accident.


Bad idea, I get knocked off my bike break my collar bone am off work on acc for 6-8 weeks. not my fault so why should i loose any bonus, have to pay more or whatever because some stupid bitch wasnt paying attention.

[Icemaestro]

Bad idea, I get knocked off my bike break my collar bone am off work on acc for 6-8 weeks. not my fault so why should i loose any bonus, have to pay more or whatever because some stupid bitch wasnt paying attention.

If you're going under an insurance system that would be a not at fault claim though, therefore shouldn't contribute to drivere history - driver history should be (as per normal insurance for vehicles) based on user at fault claims

[mossy1200]

If you're going under an insurance system that would be a not at fault claim though, therefore shouldn't contribute to drivere history - driver history should be (as per normal insurance for vehicles) based on user at fault claims

So if its not your fault who pays then.If its not your insurance company is it the other driver who (cage)hasnt been forced to have private insurance.Now everyone needs liability insurance policy instead.If that person cant afford insurance what happens then?Sounds like the US to me and soon we will begin to sue each other.If other driver doesnt stop or isnt found what happens?If your company pays up without punishing you then they will factor this in everyones costing so no claims bonus is calculated on an inflated figure in the first place.
What about the bike owner who opts out of insurance because they dont want to pay or cant afford then has an accident that costs 60k.Now who pays?

[FROSTY]

i dont agree with petrol levy...i have an old bike and and old car,neither that fuel efficient,why should i pay a premium...
keep the prize in sight---which is killing the ACC increase to bikers. Its actually something to sell to the national party -ie USER pays -encouraging people into fuel efficient vehicles.

[Icemaestro]

So if its not your fault who pays then.If its not your insurance company is it the other driver who (cage)hasnt been forced to have private insurance.?

Acc principle will still be in effect (no-fault, neither party is liable for personal injury), therefore no-one is at fault. it is simply a way of recording driver history, and what would likely end up in the person who did it having an incident recorded against them, which would lead to them paying more of an acc fee in their licence fee or whatever next time round.

Personally that seems to me to be the fairest way other than the original system which was acutally designed to be a welfare system rather than the insurance scheme it has been turned into the last 10 years.

With that system you could use it to get those riding MX offroad bikes or bicycles to pay (If you have a recorded incident that you have claimed personal injury on then obviously you would be marked as needing to pay ACC fee). My grandad was saying how prior to ACC everyone had to pay club fees to play ANY sport, and this was partly to cover personal injury (not sure how much though).

[MarkH]

Bad idea, I get knocked off my bike break my collar bone am off work on acc for 6-8 weeks. not my fault so why should i loose any bonus, have to pay more or whatever because some stupid bitch wasnt paying attention.

The stupid bitch not paying attention should be looking at a nice hike in her levy next time.

[Icemaestro]

The stupid bitch not paying attention should be looking at a nice hike in her levy next time.
Haha...yeah...I was trying to put it nicely but that works good.