Levy discounts for fewer benefits

[Genestho]

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/8269343/discounted-acc-for-fewer-benefits/

Just a media article, haven't chased up the documents..


"Discounts could be offered on ACC levies, in exchange for less compensation, longer waits and higher medical fees.

The Accident Compensation Corporation is seeking feedback on the ideas in a consultation document. It suggests motorists' levies could be increased for people who get a lot of traffic tickets, and for younger drivers. Pensioners and others with good safety records could be offered a discount.

A no-claims discount could also be introduced for people who avoid injury over a five year period while those who make more regular claims, such as sports players, could have to pay a higher levy.

The document asks whether people would prefer to pay lower rates, but in exchange for a decreased level of service or less compensation in the event of an injury"

[James Deuce]

God no! Only if higher levels of trauma cover and income protection are available from the private sector first, and public waiting lists are slashed.

The public health system in NZ is disastrously flawed. Those people who have been treated at a local hospital will have no idea what I'm talking about, but if you end up in a non-resident DHB, their goal is to discharge without referral.

I've had to battle both the public and private health systems to simply get an MRI of my ankle because Palmerston North Hospital didn't do their job. It took 3 months and repeated visits to specialists to find one who was willing to organise an MRI. The look of horror on his face when he looked at it was almost comical.

Without that and then specialised, targeted ACC funded physio my ankle would long since be useless.

ACC are just betting on those that regard themselves as invulnerable and immortal (90% of motorcyclists IMO) taking a punt on not getting hurt in an off. This is the result of psycho-social evaluation of the personality types who ride bikes.

[yachtie10]

Have to agree with james
A bad road to go down

I also have an issue with traffic tickets being related to levies (no that ive had that many) there are plenty of bad drivers that dont get tickets(for a lot of reasons)

[oldrider]

If they think we would be better off with an ACC insurance scheme, why don't they set one up along side the current ACC welfare and lets us make our own choices!

They (National) say they believe in free choice, then may the best system win!

[Owl]

because Palmerston North Hospital didn't do their job.

Why doesn't that surprise me:facepalm:

[p.dath]

Sigh. It seems someone is fixated with accident insurance, not accident compensation. Lets stick with the accident compensation please.

[bogan]

Sigh. It seems someone is fixated with accident insurance, not accident compensation. Lets stick with the accident compensation please.

indeed, and they are changing it quicker than I expected. With the new experience discount though, the over 600cc bikes must be up for a discount, right?

[mashman]

I disagree oldrider... Insurance is a slippery slope. The right to sue? or Saying sorry? It ain't the financial slope i'm worried about :).

Personal insurance calculated on how you live your life and NO other alternative :shit:.

Fuck it, i'd rather go on the dole.

Whether ACC or Insurance Company, BOTH will always check the fine print to see if they can weedle their way out of it.

It's disgusting.

[JohnR]

On the bright side...this now affects everyone, not just selected target groups:shit:
We are no longer special because we have been used by "the powers" to see how far and how quickly compulsory accident insurance could be implemented. This was achieved by proposing an outrageous increase, gauging the reaction and level of support (from the masses), then implementing a substantial increase with insurance like criteria. This then gave an indication of the public interest in ACC.:rolleyes:

Those wanting an opt out for private insurance are out of luck, although you could have both...
Why?. Because as soon as "ACC" is no longer, the right to sue returns and an unsignposted patch of gravel will become a goldmine for Biker's lawyer vs Transit NZ.:buggerd:

[oldrider]

I disagree oldrider... Insurance is a slippery slope. The right to sue? or Saying sorry? It ain't the financial slope i'm worried about :).

Personal insurance calculated on how you live your life and NO other alternative :shit:.

Fuck it, i'd rather go on the dole.

Whether ACC or Insurance Company, BOTH will always check the fine print to see if they can weedle their way out of it.

It's disgusting.

I didn't actually say that.

As I have said before, I actually prefer to stay with the "original" Woodhouse version of ACC but every subsequent government (of whatever persuasion) has messed with it for their own advantage and our disadvantage!

So let those who want the insurance option have the choice! No further argument then, it should sort it's self out!

[R6_kid]

only sensible way to decrease the price, or more appropriately to make the levy fair, is to do it by distance traveled rather than by calendar periods. Vehicles don't get into accidents when they are parked up in the garage.

[bogan]

only sensible way to decrease the price, or more appropriately to make the levy fair, is to do it by distance traveled rather than by calendar periods. Vehicles don't get into accidents when they are parked up in the garage.

fuel tax would be easiest, but then bikers get off lightly, and risk based levy could not be applied. Something like diesel miles could work for that, but it's so easy to disconnect the odometer. As I see it there are only two solutions to the problem, non-risk based levies so nobody feels too hard done by, or private insurance companies with market competition ensuring all groups are only being overcharged a little bit. Which then re-introduces the fault factor, ties up legal system, wastes more money, furthur raises levies for high fault users like learners.... Pity we are moving from the former to the later :facepalm:

[mashman]

For me. The simplest way to do it, would be to put it all on the workers account, kinda. They're the ones who are most likely to pay anyway. No? You pay for your fuel and rego using money from the same salary, you may as well take it straight from my salary. There's a financial target for the year somewhere. It includes fuel levies, workers account and rego. Has that target been met. Did you generate the revenue streams you needed to meet your targets?

If no, then someones gonna feel the pain.

If yes, then adding the motor vehicle and workers levy accounts together and treating them as one account (we're using the same salary to pay for it), could actually be a fuckload cheaper, for the individual, than we're all paying at the moment. Just need the numbers to prove it financially. You'd catch those that aren't paying it at the moment too. Extra revenue stream. If you're workin you're paying for it already, whether at the pump or your rego. Just take your final forecast amount, and i'll pay for it using my workers account. Single transaction, less mess, nothing really changes. A single levy.

[Squiggles]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/acc/news/article.cfm?o_id=3&objectid=10685770


The ACC document suggests that motorists' levies, paid through vehicle licence fees to compensate road accident victims, could be increased for people who get many traffic tickets and for younger drivers, and reduced for people such as pensioners with good safety records.

That's an interesting one, we're cheap when it comes to income replacement (often minimum wage) which is where the real "costs" for motorcyclists lie. We are probably responsible for more than our share of accidents (I've never tried to find out) but I wonder if we actually cost more in the long run...


Also worth a glance (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10685673)


In the Budget this year, Health Minister Tony Ryall announced "an extra $59.5 million for elective surgery over the next four years", and that public hospitals had done even better than he had asked at increasing their volumes of elective surgery.

But it later emerged in a Ryall cabinet paper that $40 million of the money was to cater for patients being declined by ACC and who were now causing "increasing waiting times" on public hospital lists.

Subsequently, officials have expressed uncertainty about the size of this ACC to public hospital shift.

[James Deuce]

fuel tax would be easiest, but then bikers get off lightly,

No they don't. A 10 year old 1300cc car is much cheaper to run than a 600cc motorcycle, including fuel consumption.

[bogan]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/acc/news/article.cfm?o_id=3&objectid=10685770



That's an interesting one, we're cheap when it comes to income replacement (often minimum wage) which is where the real "costs" for motorcyclists lie. We are probably responsible for more than our share of accidents (I've never tried to find out) but I wonder if we actually cost more in the long run...


Also worth a glance (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10685673)

good point about the young drivers, and I'd say the average wage would be very minimal, part time at minimum wage is fuck all.

And yeh, somebody needs to put the question to him about the transfer of injury cost.


No they don't. A 10 year old 1300cc car is much cheaper to run than a 600cc motorcycle, including fuel consumption.

not in my experience, cars round 10-12k/l, bikes round 15-20k/l.

[James Deuce]

not in my experience, cars round 10-12k/l, bikes round 15-20k/l.

Fuel usage is not the only measure. I can buy four really good tyres for my 1300cc car for the price of a 180/55 rear and they'll last 5 times as long. Insurance is practically free compared to the bike at less than a third of the adjusted cost (equalising vehicle value and then adjusting accordingly). Servicing is almost exactly 50% of the bike's costs.

I'm getting 15-18 km/l from the car around town which is slightly better than the Z750S I had and a LOT better than the limited knowledge I have of fuel consumption for the Buell I briefly owned. I get 16-20km/l out of it on the open road. The car is 10 years old and lots of kms too. My wife's Renault is better than the Zed was and it's heavy and underpowered.

Cars are much cheaper to run than bikes and the fuel consumption of a motorcycle is appalling compared to almost any car when you look at power to weight ratios. I don't think your argument stacks up. Bikes are not fuel efficient enough to definitively state there's any advantage for a bike if the ACC levy was solely on petrol.

[bogan]

Fuel usage is not the only measure. I can buy four really good tyres for my 1300cc car for the price of a 180/55 rear and they'll last 5 times as long. Insurance is practically free compared to the bike at less than a third of the adjusted cost (equalising vehicle value and then adjusting accordingly). Servicing is almost exactly 50% of the bike's costs.

I'm getting 15-18 km/l from the car around town which is slightly better than the Z750S I had and a LOT better than the limited knowledge I have of fuel consumption for the Buell I briefly owned. I get 16-20km/l out of it on the open road. The car is 10 years old and lots of kms too. My wife's Renault is better than the Zed was and it's heavy and underpowered.

Cars are much cheaper to run than bikes and the fuel consumption of a motorcycle is appalling compared to almost any car when you look at power to weight ratios. I don't think your argument stacks up. Bikes are not fuel efficient enough to definitively state there's any advantage for a bike if the ACC levy was solely on petrol.

If ACC would be charged on fuel then it is the only relevant measure here, and comparing a buell with a 1300cc town car (I assume? or very similar) is hardly apples with apples is it? A big enough average of cars and bikes fuel efficiencies will see bikes on top, a lot less mass, and a lot less aerodynamic drag makes it the obvious result.

edit: and on average bikes do a quarter of the kms cars do apparently

[James Deuce]

If ACC would be charged on fuel then it is the only relevant measure here, and comparing a buell with a 1300cc town car (I assume? or very similar) is hardly apples with apples is it? A big enough average of cars and bikes fuel efficiencies will see bikes on top, a lot less mass, and a lot less aerodynamic drag makes it the obvious result.

No, the Buell's fuel efficiency was MUCH worse than the Zed and therefore worse than the Ka. The R6 I had was worse than the Buell. The majority of bikes on the road in NZ are split into two categories: Sports and Cruisers. Sports bikes are horrible inefficient and have a drag coefficient that would make a car designer blush with shame. Most motorcycles have a cd in the .5 to .6 range. Most cars designed in the last 15 years are aiming at a cd of less than .3. I think you may need to re-evaluate some of your assumptions. :)

Because cruisers are lower revving than sports bikes they can get away with smaller fuel tanks, because they use less fuel over a given distance at the same speed as a Sports Bike. Where bikes have gone "wrong" in the fuel efficiency stakes over the last 20 years is that redlines have soared to the point where bikes use more fuel to maintain the same speed at velocities where cd (drag coefficient) is unimportant, e.g. 100km/hr or less.

I may have got it wrong, but I assumed your argument was around comparative fuel consumption giving a bike an advantage. In fact common rail, direct injection diesels make bikes look like coal burning power stations of the early 20th century as those diesels have 30-40 km/l fuel consumption figures. Bikes have NO advantage in an ACC fuel levy only situation.

[bogan]

No, the Buell's fuel efficiency was MUCH worse than the Zed and therefore worse than the Ka. The R6 I had was worse than the Buell. The majority of bikes on the road in NZ are split into two categories: Sports and Cruisers. Sports bikes are horrible inefficient and have a drag coefficient that would make a car designer blush with shame. Most motorcycles have a cd in the .5 to .6 range. Most cars designed in the last 15 years are aiming at a cd of less than .3. I think you may need to re-evaluate some of your assumptions. :)

Because cruisers are lower revving than sports bikes they can get away with smaller fuel tanks, because they use less fuel over a given distance at the same speed as a Sports Bike. Where bikes have gone "wrong" in the fuel efficiency stakes over the last 20 years is that redlines have soared to the point where bikes use more fuel to maintain the same speed at velocities where cd (drag coefficient) is unimportant, e.g. 100km/hr or less.

I may have got it wrong, but I assumed your argument was around comparative fuel consumption giving a bike an advantage. In fact common rail, direct injection diesels make bikes look like coal burning power stations of the early 20th century as those diesels have 30-40 km/l fuel consumption figures. Bikes have NO advantage in an ACC fuel levy only situation.

Firstly, Cd for bikes will of course be worse, bikes have way more sticky out bits etc, but the drag force is proportional to Cd*Area, so the bikes still come out better off, being they have far less frontal area. Still don't beleive me, the busa can hit 300kmhr with 160bhp, any cars that can do that? And yeh redlines are getting pretty up there, but pretty easy to change up a gear and keep the revs low init :yes:

As it stands diesel cars pay their fuel tax through diesel miles, it'd be better to put the ACC levy on them anyway. And yes there are some bikes less fuel efficient than some cars, it doesn't mean all of them are! Hell 25% of the motorcycle fleet are scooters now, sfa cars rival their fuel efficiency. I'd estimate the average car fuel efficiency at around 12km/l with bikes at least 15, going by my own experiences

[James Deuce]

Firstly, Cd for bikes will of course be worse, bikes have way more sticky out bits etc, but the drag force is proportional to Cd*Area, so the bikes still come out better off, being they have far less frontal area. Still don't beleive me, the busa can hit 300kmhr with 160bhp, any cars that can do that? And yeh redlines are getting pretty up there, but pretty easy to change up a gear and keep the revs low init :yes:

As it stands diesel cars pay their fuel tax through diesel miles, it'd be better to put the ACC levy on them anyway. And yes there are some bikes less fuel efficient than some cars, it doesn't mean all of them are! Hell 25% of the motorcycle fleet are scooters now, sfa cars rival their fuel efficiency. I'd estimate the average car fuel efficiency at around 12km/l with bikes at least 15, going by my own experiences


Hayabusa's cannot hit 300 km/hr with 160 HP.

Bikes are not more fuel efficient than cars.

[slowpoke]

Hayabusa's cannot hit 300 km/hr with 160 HP.

Bikes are not more fuel efficient than cars.

Sorry Jim, I think you're fighting a losing anecdotal battle on this one. While some bikes definitely like more than a tipple every real world test I could find seems to confirm bikes as being more fuel efficient than your average car. For example a Suzuki Swift 1.6 drinks 7.5l/100km's whereas a Hayabusa uses just 5.9l/100km's. Even allowing for smaller engined cars you're gonna battle to get close to the 'Busa's figures. The "hypermiling" ultra economy figures quoted about the place are good for bugger all 'cos no-one in their right mind actually drives like that.

FWIW, the average fuel consumption for NZ's light vehicle fleet (excludes bikes) is estimated at around the 10l/100km mark (http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/NZ_Vehicle_Fleet_Statistics_2010.pdf page 10) and the average engine size is actually growing (I thought it would be going the other way, but nup) at just over 2.2l whereas the bike average capacity has been reasonably steady round 550cc, so even the above Swift/Hayabusa comparison makes cars look closer than they are.

Here are some comparative M/C figures: http://www.totalmotorcycle.com/MotorcycleFuelEconomyGuide/index.htm

As for how much grunt a Hayabusa (or any bike) puts out, that is huge can o' worms. But this site makes some good points, comes from a reputable company with a large testing database, and has nothing to gain from overinflating figures: http://factorypro.com/dyno/true1.html

A 'Busa could well do 300kph with less than 160hp, depending where/how you measure it.

[slowpoke]

Edit: my apologies for the farkin' hesitant heap of shit IT network I've gotta use and the double posts it caused........

[James Deuce]

I've already posted the data on what's required to get a bike through the 300kph mark and it is substantially more HP than people assume. The only Busa's I've seen bust 300kph at the sprints have been lightly modified.

In regard to the fuel consumption figures for bikes you're forgetting one huge point. NONE of the riders I know who own Sports bikes ride at or below the limit anywhere and New Zealand has very few roads where a constant steady state throttle is achievable and fewer riders who ride like that. No busa owner gets 5.9km/l. God, I was averaging 4.7 km/l running the Buell in. Nearly 200cc less than a 'busa and being relatively gentle running it in.

My personal figures aren't anecdotal. I recorded my fuel consumption on the Zed for six months and posted the results on here. I repeated the experiment 2 years later and abandoned the bike as commuter transport. It was too inefficient and cost too much to run especially as petrol started to hit the $2/litre mark. It was cheaper to get a Snapper card and a train ticket. As a result I can compare the running costs of the Ka against the bike and including fuel it costs 2/3rds what the Zed did with a little over half the engine capacity. Take fuel out of the equation and it costs less than half what the bike did to run thanks to bigger service intervals and lower consumable costs. It costs significantly less than public transport, enough to justify depreciation.

I'm talking about actual usage, not what's hypothetically possible. My worn out Ka gets better mileage than my owned from new, pampered Z750 did. That's a fact.

NZ's car fleet is in for a rude shock in the near future. Where the rest of the civilised world (I'm deliberately excluding the US - they're not civilised) has long since adopted small capacity diesels as the default family vehicle, NZ and Australia continue to sneer at the diesel family vehicle because of some bad experiences foisted on both markets by unscrupulous Japanese manufacturers bolting diesel heads on to alloy petrol blocks (I'm looking at you Mitsubishi). Add NZ's legislated bias against diesel vehicles and we're missing out on a revolution the rest of the planet has been enjoying for a decade. We have one of the best diesel producing oilfields in the world just off Taranaki and we've given it away to other countries to make diesel with.

[oldrider]

fuel tax would be easiest, but then bikers get off lightly, and risk based levy could not be applied. Something like diesel miles could work for that, but it's so easy to disconnect the odometer. As I see it there are only two solutions to the problem, non-risk based levies so nobody feels too hard done by, or private insurance companies with market competition ensuring all groups are only being overcharged a little bit. Which then re-introduces the fault factor, ties up legal system, wastes more money, furthur raises levies for high fault users like learners.... Pity we are moving from the former to the later :facepalm:

A tyre tax would get the whole spectrum, every wheeled vehicle has a tyre on it's wheels, even little kids trikes!

That would get the off road vehicles and cyclists etc that are not registered!

All the other sports (skiers etc) and non registered vehicles would be covered by the vehicles that they use to get there!

It's been suggested before but I'm just saying it again!

[bogan]

A tyre tax would get the whole spectrum, every wheeled vehicle has a tyre on it's wheels, even little kids trikes!

That would get the off road vehicles and cyclists etc that are not registered!

All the other sports (skiers etc) and non registered vehicles would be covered by the vehicles that they use to get there!

It's been suggested before but I'm just saying it again!

flat rate or percentage? cos percentage would mean those who buy safer tyres are penalised more for it. And we don't want to get off road vehicles as their accidents should come from the earners account as does all the other sports. And those who do burnouts would get taxed the fuck out of! But it does make a lot of sense for the road account, factoring in expected mileage per tyre could see all vehicles charged a very similar rate per km. Best idea yet I reckon :2thumbsup though no doubt someone will be along shortly to correct me on this :bleh:

[Katman]

You guys and p.dath would get on like a house on fire. :blink:

[bogan]

You guys and p.dath would get on like a house on fire. :blink:

umm, briefly and destructively?

[slowpoke]

I've already posted the data on what's required to get a bike through the 300kph mark and it is substantially more HP than people assume. The only Busa's I've seen bust 300kph at the sprints have been lightly modified.

Haha, you've seen munter's like me out at Dalefield Road, it's not exactly the ideal test track and half the folks don't even fold in the mirrors, let alone know how to tuck properly. Lotsa mag's haven't been able to refuse the temptation to see what a stock Busa will do and pretty much all of em haven't had too many problems breaking 300kph....once the 300kph limiter is removed.

In regard to the fuel consumption figures for bikes you're forgetting one huge point. NONE of the riders I know who own Sports bikes ride at or below the limit anywhere and New Zealand has very few roads where a constant steady state throttle is achievable and fewer riders who ride like that. No busa owner gets 5.9km/l. God, I was averaging 4.7 km/l running the Buell in. Nearly 200cc less than a 'busa and being relatively gentle running it in.

My personal figures aren't anecdotal. I recorded my fuel consumption on the Zed for six months and posted the results on here. I repeated the experiment 2 years later and abandoned the bike as commuter transport. It was too inefficient and cost too much to run especially as petrol started to hit the $2/litre mark. It was cheaper to get a Snapper card and a train ticket. As a result I can compare the running costs of the Ka against the bike and including fuel it costs 2/3rds what the Zed did with a little over half the engine capacity. Take fuel out of the equation and it costs less than half what the bike did to run thanks to bigger service intervals and lower consumable costs. It costs significantly less than public transport, enough to justify depreciation.

I'm talking about actual usage, not what's hypothetically possible. My worn out Ka gets better mileage than my owned from new, pampered Z750 did. That's a fact.


You can write down numbers until the AB's win the World Cup (Tui?) but unless you took the Ka for "enthusiastic" runs over the 'taka's or for spirited drives to Lake Ferry for fish 'n chips while largely ignoring the speed limit, as you would on your 750/Buell the figures aren't comparable. Everyones right wrist has a mind of it's own so your figures are only representative of your use at that time, not a definitive answer for most motorcyclists. Not to mention your Buell and 750 are respectively 100% and nearly 50% larger than the average NZ motorcycle (550cc) and the Ka is approx half the size of the average NZ car (2200cc): not quite worst case but not far off it. Haha, contrast that with my 40 year old Septic Tank which probably uses more gas warming up in the shed (leccy choke not set up on the 780 Holley, grumpy heap of shit) than your Ka uses in a week. To categorically say M/C's are less fuel efficient than cars based on your figures alone is a step too far.

You are absolutely right regards the higher fuel useage in NZ conditions compared to the stock test figures quoted, and that was noted by the technocrat who put together the paper I noted in the previous post. I suspect you may also be right regards actual running costs rather than just fuel economy, but am happy to be corrected.

But realistically fuel economy isn't even on my radar. If I come back from a ride or day at the track feeling pleasantly knackered then it's worth whatever it cost. Sorry mate, I don't mean to be argumentative or score points, I'm just on nightshift and would rather be writing shit (and it is shit) on here rather than face what I should be doing.

[FastBikeGear]

If they think we would be better off with an ACC insurance scheme, why don't they set one up along side the current ACC welfare and lets us make our own choices!

They (National) say they believe in free choice, then may the best system win!

Better still open it up to private competition so that ACC have to be honest and competitive with their premiums!

Liam Venter
Self Elected National Spokesman for P.A.I.N! (Privatise ACC Insurance Now!)