Big bikes - four times as dangerous as a moped?

[Rev DJ]

The ACC Questions and Answers information released today states in Paragraph 10 that: "A 50% factor has been applied to mopeds, a 150% factor to motorcycles up to 600cc, and 200% for motorcycles over 601cc, plus a specific $30 per bike safety levy... This approach to setting motorcycle levies on relativity to the standard motor vehcile is intended to apply into the future."

There are a raft of comments I'd like to make to this one paragraph alone, but time permits just one observation.

This is an insurance view of the world and does not bear any relation to reality. I ride a number of bikes. Many times during the year, I will ride these bikes over the same route - to and from work. My risk profile does not change if I choose to ride a 250cc bike, or a 650cc bike or a 1000cc bike. So why the hell do I have to pay more for riding my 1000cc bike than my 250cc bike?

These ACC "reforms" are fast becoming one of the biggest jokes in NZ political and social sector history.

Rev

P.S. the relativity clause is a concern too - when car levies go up, motorcycle levies will increase according to their proportional weighting - ouch!

[Bald Eagle]

P.S. the relativity clause is a concern too - when car levies go up, motorcycle levies will increase according to their proportional weighting - ouch!

You need to watch the relativity thats how the govt traded off primary and secondary teacher salaries awhile ago, a sneaky reverse shafting.

[Okey Dokey]

Yes, a very dodgy move, that one. Relativity sets we bikers up for a lifetime of inequity! is there any underlying rational/statistic for this 4x claim, or is it just more BULLSHIT? :mad:

[neels]

They appear to have justified it by cost per claim, seems reasonable as moped riders are more likely to fall off due to hitting cyclists while they are riding in cycle lanes, proper motorcyclists get hit by cars and trucks on the road. I guess there has to be some advantage to not being able to do the speed limit.

[allycatz]

They appear to have justified it by cost per claim, seems reasonable as moped riders are more likely to fall off due to hitting cyclists while they are riding in cycle lanes, proper motorcyclists get hit by cars and trucks on the road. I guess there has to be some advantage to not being able to do the speed limit.

Mopeds arn't meant to be in the cycle lanes

[neels]

Mopeds arn't meant to be in the cycle lanes
Neither are harleys, but I get passed by one riding in the cycle lane every wednesday afternoon.

[The Everlasting]

This is wrong,in my opinion mopeds/scooters are way more dangerous than motorbikes,as they generally lack the power to keep up with traffic(especially up hills etc),and also top speed is bad.

I've done around a 1000k's on the scooter now,once i almost got cut off,because I could not keep up with traffic.

So i don't know where they get their stats from,I feel a lot safer on the bandit.


I know it says big bikes,but the theory is the same.

[scissorhands]

I'd say its more political than scientific. They still want to screw bikers for being ballsey renegades who stood up to them and called them lots of names....

Being a scooterist myself I'm glad for the small levy for mopeds. But kinda disappointed for bikers who did all the hard work, while commuters and many scooterists did little protesting. That and many noobs on a new scooter fall off in the first six months. Which is good for parts but puts up insurance and ACC for everyone else. Its not fair or just to charge experienced riders more rego. Its bullshit

4X bullshit ACC

[Berries]

My risk profile does not change if I choose to ride a 250cc bike, or a 650cc bike or a 1000cc bike. So why the hell do I have to pay more for riding my 1000cc bike than my 250cc bike?

You are quoting my ACC submission there word for word. The whole cc issue is a crock of shit. It is the rider, not the bike.