Northern toll road? No rego? Fines? [Archive]

Edbear

9th October 2010, 08:47

Why should we be singled out as a minority group and pay more than cagers? We're consuming fewer fossil fuels, polluting the environment less, doing less damage to the roads etc, so the government should be rewarding us.

If they can catch bikes they can catch cars and I'm sure they wouldn't pass up the opportunity to catch unregistered cars as well. There're thousands more cars than bikes on the road. But regardless of that, it's still a simple answer, and that is register your motor vehicles....

SMOKEU

9th October 2010, 11:03

If they can catch bikes they can catch cars and I'm sure they wouldn't pass up the opportunity to catch unregistered cars as well. There're thousands more cars than bikes on the road. But regardless of that, it's still a simple answer, and that is register your motor vehicles....

We can't all afford that. My bike always has a current WOF, and I always keep it to a safe WOF standard as best as I can, so are you saying I don't deserve to be riding a motorbike just because I can't afford the tax that goes with it?

p.dath

9th October 2010, 11:11

I don't think so - but the cameras fitted are capable of average speed calculations (aka, they can be used to measure your speed over the length of the road, and not just the point they are located at). At the moment they only do tolling.

But because they have this additional function, I think it is highly likely in the future that the tolling cameras will have their additional functions turned on.

The Police have done some work already in NZ on cameras to automatically indicate plates of interest. However about 1 day of use generated about 1 week of paper work they picked up so much - so they have been looking at making them only look for plates for serious issues. Having Police spend 6 days in an office filling out forms is not an effective use of their time.

But it does seem inevitable the whole process will become automated (which may require supportive legislative change), and at that point, it will be open slather. I'll guess 5 to 7 years away before wide spread adoption. Just a guess.

SMOKEU

9th October 2010, 11:16

Having Police spend 6 days in an office filling out forms is not an effective use of their time.

Rumour has it that as long as that office time generates a lot of money, then it's a perfect use of police time.

p.dath

9th October 2010, 11:23

Rumour has it that as long as that office time generates a lot of money, then it's a perfect use of police time.

Which is why they are changing to giving people demerits instead of fines ... so people can drop this rumour.

FJRider

9th October 2010, 11:28

Public notification of the cameras location/existance means ... they can if they so desire ... and the video footage CAN be used in court as evidence ...

The "filling out of form" is usually relegated to the NON-sworn staff ... perfect use of THEIR time ....

Edbear

9th October 2010, 11:28

We can't all afford that. My bike always has a current WOF, and I always keep it to a safe WOF standard as best as I can, so are you saying I don't deserve to be riding a motorbike just because I can't afford the tax that goes with it?

Yup! If you can't afford the cost of motoring, you can't afford to motor. You can afford a helmet, gloves, boots etc. and you can afford tyres and servicing and you can afford to maintain it up to WoF standard. You may not like the registration cost but it is part and parcel of motoring and if you thought it was important enough you would pay it. In short, you find the money to pay what you think is necessary and important. You'll have to pay the fines anyway, which is cheaper?

bsasuper

9th October 2010, 11:28

SMOKEU

9th October 2010, 11:32

Which is why they are changing to giving people demerits instead of fines ... so people can drop this rumour.

That's because the government lets unemployed people rack up thousands of $ worth of fines before they do anything about it.

Yup! If you can't afford the cost of motoring, you can't afford to motor. You can afford a helmet, gloves, boots etc. and you can afford tyres and servicing and you can afford to maintain it up to WoF standard. You may not like the registration cost but it is part and parcel of motoring and if you thought it was important enough you would pay it. In short, you find the money to pay what you think is necessary and important. You'll have to pay the fines anyway, which is cheaper?

I bought the bike and gear before I was a poor student. I'm finding it hard enough to scrape up the cash to fill up the petrol tank, vehicle licensing is something I can't afford even if I wanted to pay it.

p.dath

9th October 2010, 11:43

We can't all afford that. My bike always has a current WOF, and I always keep it to a safe WOF standard as best as I can, so are you saying I don't deserve to be riding a motorbike just because I can't afford the tax that goes with it?

So your annual rego includes funds for things like ACC in case you have an accident, the wear and tear of a public shared resource - the road, the maintenance of the register so they know who is responsible for a vehicle, etc.

So if you expect to be able to receive medical treatment for an accident on your bike, assistance if your vehicle is suspected of being stolen, and the use of a shared road with everyone else then you should be paying your rego.

Like someone else has said, if you can't afford to pay the rego, weather you agree with the fee or not, you can't afford to operate that vehicle on the public shared road.
Remember, the rego is a way we all contribute towards a shared resource - not something that only you use personally.

Otherwise your bludging off everyone else who has paid to provide the resources that you are taking.

SMOKEU

9th October 2010, 11:50

So your annual rego includes funds for things like ACC in case you have an accident, the wear and tear of a public shared resource - the road, the maintenance of the register so they know who is responsible for a vehicle, etc.

So if you expect to be able to receive medical treatment for an accident on your bike, assistance if your vehicle is suspected of being stolen, and the use of a shared road with everyone else then you should be paying your rego.

Like someone else has said, if you can't afford to pay the rego, weather you agree with the fee or not, you can't afford to operate that vehicle on the public shared road.
Remember, the rego is a way we all contribute towards a shared resource - not something that only you use personally.

Otherwise your bludging off everyone else who has paid to provide the resources that you are taking.

Just as an example, rugby players phuck themselves up playing their sport with alarming frequency. If you have a bunch of big guys tackling eachother, one would expect injuries. These rugby players sometimes take time off work due to their injuries, so ACC has to pay for treatment and loss of income. Why should motorists have to fund sports players who don't pay these ACC levy's?

p.dath

9th October 2010, 11:58

Just as an example, rugby players phuck themselves up playing their sport with alarming frequency. If you have a bunch of big guys tackling eachother, one would expect injuries. These rugby players sometimes take time off work due to their injuries, so ACC has to pay for treatment and loss of income. Why should motorists have to fund sports players who don't pay these ACC levy's?

ACC is deducted from their wages. But that is beside the point.

You're still using a shared resource, the road, and everyone is sharing the cost of it.

Edbear

9th October 2010, 12:04

That's because the government lets unemployed people rack up thousands of $ worth of fines before they do anything about it.

I bought the bike and gear before I was a poor student. I'm finding it hard enough to scrape up the cash to fill up the petrol tank, vehicle licensing is something I can't afford even if I wanted to pay it.

I'm not without sympathy for being a poor student, but you have to prioritise your expenses. I've managed to get through life not breaking the law, (mostly...:innocent:), and while there are times you may do so inadvertantly, you have to cut your pattern to fit your cloth, so to speak, and live within your means. The fact that you are tight for money won't stop the law from fining you and you can't complain if you get caught. When necessary I resorted to a pushbike, walking, bus or hitched a ride.

It's not easy out there but that's life, I'm afraid.

yachtie10

9th October 2010, 12:04

So your annual rego includes funds for things like ACC in case you have an accident, the wear and tear of a public shared resource - the road, the maintenance of the register so they know who is responsible for a vehicle, etc.

So if you expect to be able to receive medical treatment for an accident on your bike, assistance if your vehicle is suspected of being stolen, and the use of a shared road with everyone else then you should be paying your rego.

Like someone else has said, if you can't afford to pay the rego, weather you agree with the fee or not, you can't afford to operate that vehicle on the public shared road.
Remember, the rego is a way we all contribute towards a shared resource - not something that only you use personally.

Otherwise your bludging off everyone else who has paid to provide the resources that you are taking.

jeez phil your sounding like an old man
Just for interest sake what part of the registration pays for road maintenance? or police? its a new one on me

unfortunately its a downside of democracy (well the form of it we have) that these are the rules and we must pay whether we wanted the system or not. I dont mind paying but do mind that I have to pay for both vehicles when in my case only one is used at a time.

Subike

9th October 2010, 12:31

Registration bah Humbug,
WOF yeap worth the money spent

Cameras,
$15 for the gizmo that lowers you numer plat flat over 50kph
Democrasy freedom of choice, I chose not to reg.
No af ACC claims in 53 years ONE

p.dath

9th October 2010, 15:10

jeez phil your sounding like an old man
Just for interest sake what part of the registration pays for road maintenance? or police? its a new one on me

So the registration database keeps a list of number plates and registered owners. When Police see suspicious activity or pull someone over they often see if the driver/rider matches the registered owner. If so, move onto something else interesting.

If not, then it may warrant further investigation.

However this information is only good if it is current - aka the vehicle is registered.

Mully

9th October 2010, 17:17

I recall seeing a UK Police patrol show on Sky where they have cameras that pick uninsured cars from scanning number plates.

My thoughts at the time was it was "matter-of-time" before they were utilised here - either for rego/WOF or for when insurance becomes compulsory.

The Everlasting

9th October 2010, 20:30

I bought the bike and gear before I was a poor student. I'm finding it hard enough to scrape up the cash to fill up the petrol tank, vehicle licensing is something I can't afford even if I wanted to pay it.

Yeah it certainly is tougher,now that the registration costs went up,I just paid $138 for 3 months!!!

Taz

9th October 2010, 20:32

SMOKEU

9th October 2010, 21:51

We're crashing more. well our crashes are costing more. Stop doing the stupid shit and we'll pay less.

Apparently motorbicycles are more dangerous than cages. That's probably why we're getting charged more than cagers.

Swoop

13th October 2010, 11:31

The popo have number plate cameras, they have been using them for quite a while now.In the small town i live in, they have been using them to iron out any bugs, so be warned, it wont be long till they roll them out mainstream.
Do you have a photo of what they look like in/on the car?? Type of unit being used?

Cameras,
$15 for the gizmo that lowers you numer plat flat over 50kph
2 keyrings to attach your plate to the bike will do exactly the same...

Max Preload

13th October 2010, 11:48

2 keyrings to attach your plate to the bike will do exactly the same...And exactly how would that work... the cameras are above, just like fixed speed cameras...

Swoop

13th October 2010, 13:57

And exactly how would that work... the cameras are above, just like fixed speed cameras...
Just sayin'...
Cheap and effective solution.

Max Preload

13th October 2010, 16:28

Just sayin'...
Cheap and effective solution.Not much of a solution given it can't work.

Swoop

13th October 2010, 19:04

Not much of a solution given it can't work.
Uh, huh.

:whistle:

slowlegs

31st October 2010, 10:14

... then sell your bike and gear and take the bus. Instead of stating that you can't afford to pay your rego, have you stopped to think that if the taxpayers and fellow road users decided that ACC wouldn't be paying you if you were injured you would be up 5h1t creek? Pay up or get the *^$@ off the roads.

So your annual rego includes funds for things like ACC in case you have an accident, the wear and tear of a public shared resource - the road, the maintenance of the register so they know who is responsible for a vehicle, etc.

So if you expect to be able to receive medical treatment for an accident on your bike, assistance if your vehicle is suspected of being stolen, and the use of a shared road with everyone else then you should be paying your rego.

Like someone else has said, if you can't afford to pay the rego, weather you agree with the fee or not, you can't afford to operate that vehicle on the public shared road.
Remember, the rego is a way we all contribute towards a shared resource - not something that only you use personally.

Otherwise your bludging off everyone else who has paid to provide the resources that you are taking.

davereid

31st October 2010, 13:10

Buddy L

31st October 2010, 18:10

My ute didn't have a rego (just expired) and i went through the Toll etc, didn't think of it untill i got a new rego for it. and then a week after getting the rego i had a bill in the mail for the toll road.

FJRider

31st October 2010, 18:14

Max Preload

1st November 2010, 00:53

Pixie

2nd November 2010, 07:33

Yup! If you can't afford the cost of motoring, you can't afford to motor. You can afford a helmet, gloves, boots etc. and you can afford tyres and servicing and you can afford to maintain it up to WoF standard. You may not like the registration cost but it is part and parcel of motoring and if you thought it was important enough you would pay it. In short, you find the money to pay what you think is necessary and important. You'll have to pay the fines anyway, which is cheaper?

So your annual rego includes funds for things like ACC in case you have an accident,

Well well well, in one year we have gone from riding on Parliament to defending ACC bullshit and recommending everybody pays up.

The Politicians must be elated - I imagine they are putting in their orders for extra supplies of personal lube

miloking

2nd November 2010, 07:45

Edbear

2nd November 2010, 07:47

I can afford it.

But I'm not going to pay for it until Nanny either comes up with a way of reliably catching me, or she makes the fee fair.

Well well well, in one year we have gone from riding on Parliament to defending ACC bullshit and recommending everybody pays up.

The Politicians must be elated - I imagine they are putting in their orders for extra supplies of personal lube

I'm not commenting on the fairness or otherwise of the ACC levy, but on the costs associated with motoring. Civil disobedience and anarchy has a very poor record of making positive change in society and breaking the law only means adverse consequences for the law-breaker. The hullaballoo over the increase in the ACC levy resulted in a change, even if not what the majority of bikers wanted. Now we can either accept the costs or continue to lobby for what we believe may be a fairer charge.

ACC is facing huge demand on resources and if you stop and think about the costs of an accident, and multiply that by the number of accidents you may get some idea.

I must also point out that recent months have done the biking community no favours at all in its cries for "fairer" levies. Far too many idiots are killing themselves and being caught doing ridiculous speeds and riding unwarranted/unregistered bikes.

The "problem" of what to do with the sheer number of idiot bikers is rather going to have the effect of a harder clamp down, not of seeing the authorities take us seriously!

p.dath

2nd November 2010, 08:58

Well well well, in one year we have gone from riding on Parliament to defending ACC bullshit and recommending everybody pays up.

The Politicians must be elated - I imagine they are putting in their orders for extra supplies of personal lube

You might not like the rules, but we have a shared resource that everyone needs to contribute to for it to work. If enough people refuse to contribute it would eventually fail, and I hope you can see that a complete failure of ACC would be a terrible thing for New Zealand.

davereid

2nd November 2010, 17:59

Civil disobedience and anarchy has a very poor record of making positive change in society and breaking the law only means adverse consequences for the law-breaker.

I am most certainly breaking the law.

And I will keep on doing so until it is uneconomic.

Thats a long way into the future, several years, so when I am forced to pay, I will have thousands of dollars of reserves to pay from.

In the mean time, I am doing lots of other things to make ACC fairer.

I am in several political action groups.

I am standing for the Transport Committee. My MP and the minister of transport know me very very well.

I see no conflict with my refusal to pay an unfair levy.

I see those who say " just pay it". Thats up to you, but these things can be changed.

Instead of rolling over, stand up. Fill your mps' mailbox with your views, join a looby group, do something.

Be proud, stand up and don't let little grey men take motorcycles from your grandchildren.

Edbear

2nd November 2010, 18:10

I am most certainly breaking the law.

And I will keep on doing so until it is uneconomic. T

Thats a long way into the future, several years, so when I am forced to pay, I will have thousands of dollars of reserves to pay from.

In the mean time, I am doing lots of other things to make ACC fairer.

I am in several political action groups.

I am standing for the Transport Committee. My MP and the minister of transport know me very very well.

I see no conflict with my refusal to pay an unfair levy.

I see those who say " just pay it". Thats up to you, but these things can be changed.

Instead of rolling over, stand up. Fill your mps' mailbox with your views, join a looby group, do something.

Be proud, stand up and don't let little grey men take motorcycles from your grandchildren.

That's your choice and you're obviously prepared to take the consequences. I would though, encourage you to be even-handed and take it to the muppets who are spoiling your arguments by riding stupidly and killing and maiming themselves to the point where you are likely to be rebuffed by TPTB based on the news in recent months. How many bikers have died or been seriously injured lately, NOT due to inattentive drivers? How many have hit the headlines by excesive speed or dangerous/inconsiderate riding? Far too many if we want to have any hope of convincing ACC we deserve lower fees!

davereid

2nd November 2010, 18:24

Of course. Many motorcyclists are fools.

As are cyclists, pedestrians (per km way more "risky" than us), base jumpers, jet boaters... its endless.

If YOU accept a levy system designed to ensure that motorcycling ends, then pay your levy, go drink an orange juice with Pdath, and when you are an old man tell the grandkids how much fun a bike was.

Or, get stuck in. Tell them you will pay the same as a car. Thats it.

Yes, lots of bikers hurt themselves, drive like wankers, and get hurt.

On the other hand, they seldom wipe out innocent grandmothers enjoying a picnic after a day in the garden.

As far as I am concerned this is not a debate.

You are happy with the system and want me to comply.

Im not happy, and I wont comply until there is no choice.

And even then, the politicians will know me with fondness, and will have battled me at every step.

BMWST?

2nd November 2010, 18:25

The popo have number plate cameras, they have been using them for quite a while now.In the small town i live in, they have been using them to iron out any bugs, so be warned, it wont be long till they roll them out mainstream.

this.....i think they have been more stringent of late with non std rego plates,leading up to the recognition cameras

scracha

2nd November 2010, 19:51

... then sell your bike and gear and take the bus. Instead of stating that you can't afford to pay your rego, have you stopped to think that if the taxpayers and fellow road users decided that ACC wouldn't be paying you if you were injured you would be up 5h1t creek? Pay up or get the *^$@ off the roads.

Have you stopped to think that the whole point of our argument is that we believe the whole "taxpayers" and "fellow road users" subsidising us when rego's were sub $300 is a crock of shit.

I pay ACC on my earnings as I'm self employed.
I pay ACC on my work vehicle.
I pay ACC on my private vehicle (a fuckload as it's a diesel)
I pay out for private accident and sickness cover as I'm self employed and don't believe for a second ACC will keep a roof over my head if I can't work.
I didn't mind paying a few hundred bucks for both my road-bikes but over a $1000 is just bullshit.

I haven't claimed a cent in ACC. Nobody would be subsidising me if I fell of my bike. The 13 year old helmetless lad on his dirtbike across the road or the pavement riding postie in shorts and t-shirt I saw today may be a different story.

I'm sure Daverid and many other riders out there are in similar or worse situations.

Take the bus...I should fuckin coco. Not that there is a bus.

Ocean1

2nd November 2010, 21:10

I'm not commenting on the fairness or otherwise of the ACC levy, but on the costs associated with motoring.

Exactly how much damage does a bike do to our roads, dude?

Civil disobedience and anarchy has a very poor record of making positive change in society and breaking the law only means adverse consequences for the law-breaker.

Worked bloody well in the UK re poll tax. When the cost of compliance is greater than the alternatives mate you’re on a hiding to nothing, fuck’em they can whistle for it.

I'm sure Daverid and many other riders out there are in similar or worse situations.

The joys of small business eh? I shudder to think what they claw out of me in total every year, and the chances of any sort of return are negligible.

Edbear

3rd November 2010, 07:08

Exactly how much damage does a bike do to our roads, dude?.

That's entirely NOT the point, is it?

"ACC is facing huge demand on resources and if you stop and think about the costs of an accident, and multiply that by the number of accidents you may get some idea.

I must also point out that recent months have done the biking community no favours at all in its cries for "fairer" levies. Far too many idiots are killing themselves and being caught doing ridiculous speeds and riding unwarranted/unregistered bikes.

The "problem" of what to do with the sheer number of idiot bikers is rather going to have the effect of a harder clamp down, not of seeing the authorities take us seriously! "

"That's your choice and you're obviously prepared to take the consequences. I would though, encourage you to be even-handed and take it to the muppets who are spoiling your arguments by riding stupidly and killing and maiming themselves to the point where you are likely to be rebuffed by TPTB based on the news in recent months. How many bikers have died or been seriously injured lately, NOT due to inattentive drivers? How many have hit the headlines by excesive speed or dangerous/inconsiderate riding? Far too many if we want to have any hope of convincing ACC we deserve lower fees!"

Ocean1

3rd November 2010, 09:36

That's entirely NOT the point, is it?

No?

I'm not commenting on the fairness or otherwise of the ACC levy, but on the costs associated with motoring.

So if the ACC component of our registration fee is supposedly related to that cost centre then why isn’t the rest of it?

Again, how much does it cost to repair roads due to motorcycle traffic?

Or do they just want to both save the cake and eat it?

'Cause if that's OK then I'll be restructuring the standard terms and conditions for my business pretty much straight away.

Edbear

3rd November 2010, 09:44

No?

So if the ACC component of our registration fee is supposedly related to that cost centre then why isn’t the rest of it?

Again, how much does it cost to repair roads due to motorcycle traffic?

Or do they just want to both save the cake and eat it?

'Cause if that's OK then I'll be restructuring the standard terms and conditions for my business pretty much straight away.

You obviously misunderstood. The costs were in relation to running our own vehicles and registration is part of that cost. Most here are disputing the ACC levy part of the registration fee, and it is this aspect that I was referring to.

duckonin

3rd November 2010, 10:01

That's entirely NOT the point, is it?

"ACC is facing huge demand on resources and if you stop and think about the costs of an accident, and multiply that by the number of accidents you may get some idea.

I must also point out that recent months have done the biking community no favours at all in its cries for "fairer" levies. Far too many idiots are killing themselves and being caught doing ridiculous speeds and riding unwarranted/unregistered bikes.

The "problem" of what to do with the sheer number of idiot bikers is rather going to have the effect of a harder clamp down, not of seeing the authorities take us seriously! "

"That's your choice and you're obviously prepared to take the consequences. I would though, encourage you to be even-handed and take it to the muppets who are spoiling your arguments by riding stupidly and killing and maiming themselves to the point where you are likely to be rebuffed by TPTB based on the news in recent months. How many bikers have died or been seriously injured lately, NOT due to inattentive drivers? How many have hit the headlines by excesive speed or dangerous/inconsiderate riding? Far too many if we want to have any hope of convincing ACC we deserve lower fees!"

Gezze Ed didn't think the ACC could pull the wool over your eyes..Acc isn't a charity it is an accident compensator, and is not broke at all, the investments ACC has would make your eyes boggle, so if there is such HUGE demand on resources then they should call some of the dollars back home, but no they increase every persons costs instead simple for them it is a stroke of the pen, no need to consult us at all..

"Idiots killing them selves" nope one or two maybe but certainly not all were idiots..

why try and convince ACC to lower the fees for motorcyclists, it is never I repeat never going to happen as long as your arse points to the ground,..

Read more overseas newspapers Ed it may enlighten you, for when another country raises charges then a short while later the mutts here do the same, recently our GST went to 15% reason England got away with lifting their VAT to 20% some time back.

Motorcyclist are not as agressive as you have pointed out not by a long shot !!:innocent: Enjoy your day..

Edbear

3rd November 2010, 10:35

Gezze Ed didn't think the ACC could pull the wool over your eyes..Acc isn't a charity it is an accident compensator, and is not broke at all, the investments ACC has would make your eyes boggle, so if there is such HUGE demand on resources then they should call some of the dollars back home, but no they increase every persons costs instead simple for them it is a stroke of the pen, no need to consult us at all..

"Idiots killing them selves" nope one or two maybe but certainly not all were idiots..

why try and convince ACC to lower the fees for motorcyclists, it is never I repeat never going to happen as long as your arse points to the ground,..

Read more overseas newspapers Ed it may enlighten you, for when another country raises charges then a short while later the mutts here do the same, recently our GST went to 15% reason England got away with lifting their VAT to 20% some time back.

Motorcyclist are not as agressive as you have pointed out not by a long shot !!:innocent: Enjoy your day..

It's as always, a case of the few spoiling it for the many, though isn't it? Too many headlines lately, regardless of the percentage compared to the number of bikes on the road. It's the news headlines that catch the attention of both the powers that be and the general public.

You and I and most other bikers may be generally quiet and law-abiding, not drawing attention to ourselves, but that doesn't make the news, or get the attention of those who make the decisions. Now with the big beef being about the ACC levy, such headlines and incidents are not helping us are they?

davereid

3rd November 2010, 17:25

It's as always, a case of the few spoiling it for the many, though isn't it? Too many headlines lately, regardless of the percentage compared to the number of bikes on the road. It's the news headlines that catch the attention of both the powers that be and the general public.

You and I and most other bikers may be generally quiet and law-abiding, not drawing attention to ourselves, but that doesn't make the news, or get the attention of those who make the decisions. Now with the big beef being about the ACC levy, such headlines and incidents are not helping us are they?

I think you are way off track Ed.

Some people are idiots regardless of what they ride or drive.

For my money, I think I drive carefully, albeit not particularly skillfully in and on all my vehicles.

When I choose a motorcycle instead of my V8, I don't become a worse person, or a worse driver.

All that happens is, that I become more vulnerable should I or another person make a mistake on the road.

ACC like to present this as "greater risk", and indeed it is. But the cause of this risk is vulnerability, not me suddenly becoming an risky driver.

And indeed, the motorcycle has a major redeeming feature, which is that even though I increase my vulnerability should anyone make a mistake, I also decrease the chances of me injuring an innocent person.

So for me the issue is do I want a system that penalises the vulnerable ?

I know that no matter what vulnerable person I eliminate, there will always be a next target.

So, I see then, that a system that identifies the vulnerable, and taxes them out of existence, is social engineering of the worst type.

There may be health and safety reasons to do it. They might even add up mathematically.

But my life is a rich place. Because of some of the things I do that are not best practice. In the transport world its my motorcycle that makes me rich, at the expense of being a poor safety choice.

I don't think that ACC have the right to socially engineer motorcycling out of existence. I want my kids and grandkids to live long lives.

But not by locking them in a cotton wool cell in the name of risk.

So no amount of math gives an insurance system designed to help the vulnerable, the right to become the tool of their elimination.

Edbear

3rd November 2010, 18:01

I think you are way off track Ed.

...SNIP...So no amount of math gives an insurance system designed to help the vulnerable, the right to become the tool of their elimination.

No I think we're talking about two different perspectives. I agree completely that the original purpose of ACC was a "no fault" scheme where everyone had access to treatment and compensation regardless of status, as most people couldn't afford private insurance or to sue for compensation through the courts. Unlike an insurance company which may load premiums to risk, ACC was intended to be equitable to all.

I have commented from the first discussions on the increase in levy for motorcyclists that ACC were heading away from its initial purpose and becoming just as insurance companies loading the "premium" to the greatest cost, regardless of fault. Certainly, motorcycle related injuries may cost more than car related, or any other cause, but as you say, that is due to vulnerability, not fault. I still believe that the majority of injuries are not the rider's fault, and the blame may rest with the car driver or the road conditions. (My own accident was investigated and the result was the fault lay with the road condition, ie: oil, not on my driving or the condition of my van. Had I been on my bike, the injuries may well have been more serious).

What I am annoyed about, is the number of recent headlines where the biker was very much at fault either having an accident or speeding. This is what gets the attention of TPTB and hurts any case we as bikers may present against the levy. Yes, they may be a minority but isn't that usually the case where the general public suffer due to the actions of the few?

I don't agree with those who believe bike registration itself should be boycotted, but each person must make their own decision on that and be prepared to take the consequences.

Ocean1

3rd November 2010, 18:44

You obviously misunderstood.

I asked a simple question, yet mistaking it for argument you can only suppose I've misunderstood?

Do try to stop being such an arrogant prick Ed. I'll ask it again, see if you can catch it this time.

If the ACC component of our registration fee is supposedly “user pays” then why isn’t the rest of it? Why isn’t the cost associated with general maintenance say, for example fuck all? Because that’s approximately what the motorcycle user’s share of the cost is.

Your turn, I’ll make it easy, choose one:
Because motorcycles really do inflict as much maintenance costs on roading infrastructure as cars and light trucks. What, with hundreds of kilometres of special motorcyclist-safe median barriers required every year and the compulsory fuel leak testing regime required of every road going vehicle at WOF time. Etc etc.

Because it was originally set up to be simple to administer in a computer-less age, same for everyone, and while it’s OK for changes in policy to INCREASE fees there’s no way in hell any road user fee is ever going to decrease for any reason whatsoever.

Because motorcycle ACC levies fit into a class of taxes which are either punitive or politically convenient and are often attempted to be “sold” as “user pays” as opposed to the more normal “wealth tax”.

Edbear

3rd November 2010, 19:24

I asked a simple question, yet mistaking it for argument you can only suppose I've misunderstood?

Do try to stop being such an arrogant prick Ed. I'll ask it again, see if you can catch it this time.

”.

Not being arrogant, mate, I wasn't addressing the registration fee per se, only the ACC levy. I haven't looked at the overall fee structure and compared it with other road user fees. I said that the registration fee is a part of our motoring costs as vehicle owners and if anyone doesn't pay it they must accept the consequences.

There may be a lot of things we don't like or agree with and many costs and charges we believe are unfairly applied, but the fact is we live in a society which is governed by our peers and rules and regulations are set by discussion and agreement by elected representatives. All we can do as individuals is express our views or remove ourselves from society. Otherwise we can refuse to comply with the law and accept the consequences without complaint.

duckonin

3rd November 2010, 19:49

=Edbear;1129899393]It's as always, a case of the few spoiling it for the many, though isn't it? You and I and most other bikers may be generally quiet and law-abiding, not drawing attention to ourselves, but that doesn't make the news, or get the attention of those who make the decisions. Now with the big beef being about the ACC levy, such headlines and incidents are not helping us are they?[/QUOTE]

Yes to the first Q Ed not sure how to do this multi thing so it is a 'no' to your 2nd Q. ACC really do not give a shit about what goes on and who gets killed ect ect, they are only trying to justifiy to the public WHY they are increasing the levies, they used the bikes as a smoke screen and at the end lo and behold my 4x4 and car got almost the same tax added to their rego...Gezzz 500 plus killed in car accidents per year how many injuries I wonder (cost's to ACC) rehabilitaion to those injured in cars trucks ect amount to way more than bikes ACC prattle on about how expensive it is to fix a "broken leg on a motorcyclist" but in reality a broken leg is a broken leg is it not?:facepalm: enjoy your night...

miloking

4th November 2010, 06:00

We can argue about it until we are blue in the face...true is ACC DOES NOT need more money now and didnt need them before levy increase, raised rego fees FOR ALL OF US (inlcuding deisels, 4x4s etc) are unfair at best and labeling them as daylight robbery isnt far off...

I say we need more bikes a) with rego on hold b) with dealer plates c) owners with multiple bikes sharing one plate on all of them etc.

What are they going to do...fine all bikes for no rego?
(Sadly even that is still cheaper option)