Maybe another angle?

[FROSTY]

A thought occurred to me whilst on holiday.As bikers we are asking the gubbinment to back down right across the board. Their reasoning/explaination for the hike is the cost of motorcycle related injuries .
I'd like to suggest that we show them that rider safety is very important to us.
We do this by very strongly suggesting that ALL motorised cycles regardless of size be required to pass a compliance and WOF.
Basicly suggesting that 49cc or below scooters are still capable of severely hurting someone and we as bikers care about PREVENTION.

[MSTRS]

Their reason for the hike is safety.


Whilst I agree with the rest of your post...this line is wrong.
It's all about getting more money out of motorcyclists, to cover a greater percentage of motorcyclist's injuries.
If it was anything to do with safety, there would have been advertising campaigns about us.

[FROSTY]

eeep i got distracted whilst typing that line

[p.dath]

Their reason for the hike is safety.

The reason is pre-funding.


Basicly suggesting that 49cc or below scooters are still capable of severely hurting someone

"Statistics" suggest that scooter riders don't tend to get injured as badly as motorcllists on average. However I think that the requirements for sub 50cc bikes is being changed anyway if the Safer Journeys consulatation outcome is any guide.

[Mudfart]

If it was anything to do with safety, there would have been advertising campaigns about us.[/QUOTE]

LOl, havent you seen one of the three billboards posted round the country. It says look twice for bikes. Theres one in Dawkland, one in Waikato, and the other one i havent seen yet.
Yes, the govt goes to great expenditure to see motorcycle enthusiasts are safe on our roads. Oh wait, no, no they don't.

[crazyhorse]

why not have EVERYTHING that goes on the road, pay a fee.................... now, that would be fair.

[Pedrostt500]

why not have EVERYTHING that goes on the road, pay a fee.................... now, that would be fair.

But you will still get those who will refuse to pay regardless what sort of system you invent, +2.5% on GST as a dedicated ACC levey, would be the only accross the board way of catching every group, then cutting out all other levies.

[crazyhorse]

But you will still get those who will refuse to pay regardless what sort of system you invent, +2.5% on GST as a dedicated ACC levey, would be the only accross the board way of catching every group, then cutting out all other levies.

I know, but would be much more of a fair system................. could you imagine school kids paying to use their pushbikes on the road :killingme :rofl:

[sunhuntin]

LOl, havent you seen one of the three billboards posted round the country. It says look twice for bikes. Theres one in Dawkland, one in Waikato, and the other one i havent seen yet.
Yes, the govt goes to great expenditure to see motorcycle enthusiasts are safe on our roads. Oh wait, no, no they don't.

i havent seen one yet and ive travelled between wanganui, palmy and welly in the last 2 or 3 weeks. surely they should have at least one on such a main road?

[p.dath]

But you will still get those who will refuse to pay regardless what sort of system you invent, +2.5% on GST as a dedicated ACC levey, would be the only accross the board way of catching every group, then cutting out all other levies.

So your saying that only end users would pay it, and no business would - since businesses claim back any GST they pay? So consumers would be directly responsible for paying for their own workplace accidents (through the GST which only consumers pay)?

Not necessarily bad. They are going to be paying for it one way or another. But you need to reflect on the wider scale of things if you change the general taxation system.

[scissorhands]

I think its crazy to penalize cycles or mopeds. Look to modern cities which encourage fuel saving, congestion reduction, low carbon footprint etc etc. Forget the US Policy of larger, heavier, gas guzzling safer vehicles with a huge padded arse to go with it

If scooter CVT transmisions were redesigned or a drive train like a belt or chain was used, 150mpg should be common. Then there is electric scooters and powered bicycles....really the most feasable personal transport option for the present future. Would you discourage these becoming common place in favour of tax disincentives, which push motorists toward acquiring safer heavier gas guzzling vehicles?

Or maybe we should introduce wof's for pushies and a fat tax for those that cost the health system in obesity related surgeries and health costs?

Low weight and low speed 2 wheel vehicles should be a cheaper option. We still have students and parents buying scooters for their kids university. And young families often get a scooter rather than a second car. Ethically to ask scooters to pay as much as 100km/hr plus motorbikes is unfair, will increase congestion and pollution.

A move to 125cc 4 strokes 4speeds with larger wheels from 2 stroke CVT autos is a wise move both enviromentally and in regard of safer motoring. There are a better design for the people, as cities like Bangkok and Jakarta demonstrate against the smelly, smoky, ring ring ring of Taipei



And if safety is the issue.
Noobs fall off alot.
Stop noobs from buying bikes (make it expensive).
Downside's: shops go under, numbers dwindle and the now reduced fleet of bikers become more of a minority that does not get 'seen' by cagers. No one to make fun of.
Upsides: less accidents against bikers statistically (too late to expect a reduction in levy increases though unless your really hopeful...). Less scooterists around

Train the noobs.
This seems the sensible option to me. I feel extensive training, like 1/2 day every 6 months over a 2 year period or such.

Then we have the high speed bikers on their high powered racing machines.....

However, since 66% of all motorcycle and moped accidents are caused by cagers, I would also suggest greater costs against recidivist traffic offenders.

To simply tax mopeds and not train users (then tax the bad ones) seems overly anti moped. But if you really dislike them that much, or feel the reduced accident statistics are worth the negative enviromental and social impact, good luck to you

[bogan]

I think its crazy to penalize cycles or mopeds. Look to modern cities which encourage fuel saving, congestion reduction, low carbon footprint etc etc. Forget the US Policy of larger, heavier, gas guzzling safer vehicles with a huge padded arse to go with it

its crazy to penalize motorcycles as well for the same reasons, no reason scooters should get special treatment



Low weight and low speed 2 wheel vehicles should be a cheaper option. We still have students and parents buying scooters for their kids university. And young families often get a scooter rather than a second car. Ethically to ask scooters to pay as much as 100km/hr plus motorbikes is unfair, will increase congestion and pollution.


well actually moving scooter riders to motorcycles would decrease congestion, as motorcycles can go over 50kmhr, and accelerate quicker. But if the scooter riders move back to cars then yes it is a bad thing.


And if safety is the issue.
Noobs fall off alot.
Stop noobs from buying bikes (make it expensive).
Downside's: shops go under, numbers dwindle and the now reduced fleet of bikers become more of a minority that does not get 'seen' by cagers. No one to make fun of.
Upsides: less accidents against bikers statistically (too late to expect a reduction in levy increases though unless your really hopeful...). Less scooterists around

Train the noobs.
This seems the sensible option to me. I feel extensive training, like 1/2 day every 6 months over a 2 year period or such.

Then we have the high speed bikers on their high powered racing machines.....

However, since 66% of all motorcycle and moped accidents are caused by cagers, I would also suggest greater costs against recidivist traffic offenders.

Exactly, there should be far more of an effort put in to prevention of bike accidents, rather than prevention of bikes.

I think saying scooters should pay the same as bikers is a good idea, and both scooters and bikers should pay the same as car drivers, who should pay the same as truckies..... and all should be warrant checked as well, I cant see any reason to give one group a break, with respect to ACC that is. If the government want to encourage fuel efficient transportation then maybe provide a rego rebate, fuel efficiency and congestion simply isn't an ACC issue so should be treated seperately.

[scissorhands]

I think excessively powered bikes should pay more. Cost should be inline with horsepower and speed related accident risk. This is common overseas in most countries. A 1000cc car costs much less than a 2000ccturbo. Similarly in most overseas countries, scooters pay less.

Its a no brainer unless you think NZ should break the global mould regarding scooters registration and insurance costs. Risk is relavent to ACC

[bogan]

I think excessively powered bikes should pay more. Cost should be inline with horsepower and speed related accident risk. This is common overseas in most countries. A 1000cc car costs much less than a 2000ccturbo. Similarly in most overseas countries, scooters pay less.

Its a no brainer unless you think NZ should break the global mould regarding scooters registration and insurance costs. Risk is relavent to ACC

you have completely missed the point, risk is not relevant to ACC, well not originally as set out by the woodhouse principals, no-fault ring any bells? Risk is relevant to insurance companies, which ACC is not, and we are protesting to keep it that way, if you want ACC to become an insurance scheme as in other countries then just sit back and wait till it get future funded, national will sell it to go private, and then you will see just how good ACC used to be!

[scissorhands]

I agree in principle but hate paying for recidivist traffic offenders who dont learn from their mistakes, or boy racers about to make mistakes, and those who choose to ride fast on high powered machines.

NZ is the world champion at killing their young men in road accidents.....something needs to be done and that should be extensive and ongoing training for all new drivers and riders, with financial disincentives for constantly screwing up no matter what you operate.

[bogan]

I agree in principle but hate paying for recidivist traffic offenders who dont learn from their mistakes, or boy racers about to make mistakes, and those who choose to ride fast on high powered machines.
yeh, I agree and dont want to pay for recidivist offenders, but insurance takes people who are likely to offend for the first time and makes them pay a higher premium as well, not just the ones who have offended before. And trying to add any middle ground would just result in some loopholes, and some getting shafted, I think we have come to an all or nothing point in ACC, totally risk/fault based like an insurance scheme, or completely removing the risk factor from the equations. I vote the latter.

Unfortunately for scooterists this would mean an increase in ACC levies, but imo a justified one.

NZ is the world champion at killing their young men in road accidents.....something needs to be done and that should be extensive and ongoing training for all new drivers and riders, with financial disincentives for constantly screwing up no matter what you operate.
If something needs to be done I definably dont think forcing us into a bubble word by increasing the cost of all high risk activities to be un-affordable by the masses. I wonder just how significant a burden these ACC re-offenders are, I would have though most people would shape up after a single serious injury. But I agree with you on training, more the better!

[sunhuntin]

if you dislike recidivist offenders, then maybe target cagers like the drunk guy who killed two bikers in one hit. it was NOT his first offence and the riders were just doing their thing legally. far as i know, the drunk had kids in the car as well. that drunk caused more damage than any rider on any machine ever could. or maybe the old woman from otaki who hit and killed the teacher cycling home to his wife and young baby. wasnt her first drink driving offence either, but she was allowed to get away with all the previous times until she murdered someone innocent.

financial disincentives will do sweet fuck all... look at all the fines that get wiped every year. the drunk driver should have faced life in prison and a life time ban on driving. im not sure what kind of sentence he actually got, or if he even got one. but a fine wouldnt have proven anything, as shown by the fact he had been caught before. the old woman basically got away with it as well, if i recall.

[98tls]

I agree in principle but hate paying for recidivist traffic offenders who dont learn from their mistakes, or boy racers about to make mistakes, and those who choose to ride fast on high powered machines.

NZ is the world champion at killing their young men in road accidents.....something needs to be done and that should be extensive and ongoing training for all new drivers and riders, with financial disincentives for constantly screwing up no matter what you operate.

Young men?Go on a poker run or 2,theres not to many young men but a heap of experienced motorcyclists (apparently)Been riding 38 years and up until a month ago had never bothered attending such a thing,after going on 2 since my whole perception of ACC and the publics view of motorcycles/motorcyclists has changed and though i dont like there attitude i can see why they have one.