Demerit points hiked for unlicensed vehicles

[Bald Eagle]

They feeling a revenue loss already ?



Driving an unlicensed vehicle could soon see you banned from the road.
The fines for those driving unlicensed vehicles will be reduced and offenders instead handed demerit points, Transport Minister Steven Joyce has just announced.
He said the changes to vehicle licensing regulations will be a deterrent to those who try to dodge payment.
"We know there are people who would currently rather risk the fine than pay their licensing fees," Joyce said.

From May 1 the NZ Transport Agency could require people to surrender licence plates when putting their licensing on hold

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4849437/Demerit-points-hiked-for-unlicensed-cars

[MSTRS]

From May 1 the NZ Transport Agency could require people to surrender licence plates when putting their licensing on hold


This one sucks. How they going to put that into practice? Does that mean a new plate when you liven your rego? What about needing a current wof to be able to renew rego? Can't get a wof without a rego plate number, can you?

[Dave Lobster]

That can't apply to vanity plates, surely??

[dogsnbikes]

Like that's going too work:brick:

If people are driving unlicenced mode's of transport and not paying fine's now, demerits points going Is not going to change anything:facepalm:

as for the idea of surrending plates,FFS its easy to make up your own plates:shutup:

At the end of the day the price hike in rego's Has not worked as they expected.

these clowns are just sucking farts out of dead seagulls.

even the coppers will be banging thier heads saying not more fucking paper work,maybe we should change the name of the police force to the clerk force.

[riffer]

The fines for those driving unlicensed vehicles will be reduced and offenders instead handed demerit points, Transport Minister Steven Joyce has just announced.
He said the changes to vehicle licensing regulations will be a deterrent to those who try to dodge payment.

"We know there are people who would currently rather risk the fine than pay their licensing fees," Joyce said.
"That's unfair to other law-abiding motorists. Demerit points can act as a stronger deterrent than fines as repeat offenders will face the loss of their driver's licence."
If drivers got 100 or more demerit points within two years, they would be suspended from driving for three months. The current penalty is $200, which will reduce to $150 but with 20 demerit points.
From May 1 the NZ Transport Agency could require people to surrender licence plates when putting their licensing on hold. They could decline an application to put licensing on hold when a person had abused this right in the past.
"There is a segment of drivers and motorcyclists who put their vehicle licence on hold while continuing to drive their vehicle as a way of avoiding payment. These measures combined with the added threat of demerit points, send a strong message that the Government will not tolerate this," Joyce said.
"The largest segment of the licence fee is an ACC levy that covers the cost of road injuries. These people are on the road and face the same risks as the rest of us.''
The new penalties applied only to those tickets served personally by a police officer.
Police would continue to give a person, ticketed for the first time with an unlicensed car, a two-week grace period to licence their vehicle before any penalties applied.

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr> <td valign="top" width="168"> Offence

</td> <td valign="top" width="141"> Current penalty
(will continue to apply when offence is enforced by a parking warden)

</td> <td valign="top" width="233"> Planned new penalty
(only for tickets personally served by a police officer)

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="168"> Unregistered

</td> <td valign="top" width="141"> $200

</td> <td valign="top" width="233"> $150 plus 20 demerit points

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="168"> No plates affixed

</td> <td valign="top" width="141"> $200

</td> <td valign="top" width="233"> $150 plus 20 demerit points

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="168"> Driving while licence on hold

</td> <td valign="top" width="141"> $200

</td> <td valign="top" width="233"> $150 plus 20 demerit points

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="168"> Unlicensed vehicle

</td> <td valign="top" width="141"> $200

</td> <td valign="top" width="233"> $100 plus 15 demerit points

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="168"> Current licence label not affixed

</td> <td valign="top" width="141"> $200

</td> <td valign="top" width="233"> $75
</td></tr></tbody></table>
from:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4849437/Demerit-points-hiked-for-unlicensed-cars

[riffer]

Hmmm.

There's a scary bit in there about the potential requirement to hand in your plate if you put your bike on hold.

Seems to me TPTB have discovered exactly what the impact of our not liking the ACC increases were and they are not happy with it.

[cheshirecat]

Looks like they are suffering significant revenue loss - wonder why?

[DEATH_INC.]

Hmmm.

There's a scary bit in there about the potential requirement to hand in your plate if you put your bike on hold.

Seems to me TPTB have discovered exactly what the impact of our not liking the ACC increases were and they are not happy with it.
Unless you're an ostrich you knew it was coming....

[sleemanj]

Can't say I'm surprised, but unless they do start requiring plates back to go on hold, I can't see it making THAT much difference to the numbers of bikers who put their bike on hold.

Many/most bikes have the reg label "on display" somewhere you need to look for to actually see it anyway (mines been behind the plate for years), the fines are unchanged for parking warden tickets, you get one "free pass" from the plod, and (touch wood) just how often do you get pulled up on a bike by the plod?

IF they do require plates back on hold... I can see a lot of people's plates having "fallen off" their motorbike just before they decided to "put it on hold". And IF they do start looking at odo readings, I can see a lot of people's bikes "being used off road while it was on hold".

[Trouser]

Thats fucked that then. Bugger.

I still don't see why they would attach demerits for this when there a none for not having a wof.

[Bald Eagle]

Thats fucked that then. Bugger.

I still don't see why they would attach demerits for this when there a none for not having a wof.

'Cos they didn't just hike the cost of a wof by mega bucks. It's clearly a 'safety issue"

[Katman]

There's a scary bit in there about the potential requirement to hand in your plate if you put your bike on hold.


Very scary.

I have no intention of ever handing in my original silver on black plate. Even if they swore that I'd get the same plate back I wouldn't put it past them to try swapping it for a new black on white version.

[Bald Eagle]

OK so the math changes a bit
4 x tickets for riding on hold $600 plus 80 points, still cheaper than reg on 600cc+ bike .

[kave]

Still much cheaper than rego-ing three bikes. I don't get pulled over often enough to be concerned about the demerits.

[bogan]

Guess can expect another round of 'safety' roadside talks when this comes into effect then.

Pisses me off when they go on about fairness, while I've got three vehicles that I 'have' to license so I (singular) can use the road.

[nodrog]

Guess can expect another round of 'safety' roadside talks when this comes into effect then.

Pisses me off when they go on about fairness, while I've got three vehicles that I 'have' to license so I (singular) can use the road.

You're the MAG man, sort it out for us please bud :niceone:

[HenryDorsetCase]

hundred demerits to get the "Got to jail do not pass go, do not collect $200" loss of licence for three months still?

477 is the criminal rego fee for my scooter.

I currently have a clean licence. I can get caught three times in a year, still be ahead of the game money wise, and with 60 demerits.

Or go the full monty. chuck away the licence plate, dont bother with a reg and wof, and ride the racebike on the road. Yeah!1 Anarchy!!!

[sondela]

This is a copy and paste...

"Driving an unlicensed vehicle could soon see you banned from the road.

The fines for those driving unlicensed vehicles will be reduced and offenders instead handed demerit points, Transport Minister Steven Joyce has just announced.

He said the changes to vehicle licensing regulations will be a deterrent to those who try to dodge payment.

"We know there are people who would currently rather risk the fine than pay their licensing fees," Joyce said.

"That's unfair to other law-abiding motorists. Demerit points can act as a stronger deterrent than fines as repeat offenders will face the loss of their driver's licence."

If drivers got 100 or more demerit points within two years, they would be suspended from driving for three months. The current penalty is $200, which will reduce to $150 but with 20 demerit points.

From May 1 the NZ Transport Agency could require people to surrender licence plates when putting their licensing on hold. They could decline an application to put licensing on hold when a person had abused this right in the past.

"There is a segment of drivers and motorcyclists who put their vehicle licence on hold while continuing to drive their vehicle as a way of avoiding payment. These measures combined with the added threat of demerit points, send a strong message that the Government will not tolerate this," Joyce said.

"The largest segment of the licence fee is an ACC levy that covers the cost of road injuries. These people are on the road and face the same risks as the rest of us.''

[The Stranger]

"The largest segment of the licence fee is an ACC levy that covers the cost of road injuries. These people are on the road and face the same risks as the rest of us.''

Hmm, what have we been saying for years? Put all (MV) ACC on fuel.
Given some ACC is already on fuel there is no increase cost to implement this, it should in fact result in a cost saving.

[willytheekid]

ohhhhh did ACC's revenue/rip-off plan back fire.
Now there trying to push this shit on us.....good luck Nick smith!(ya prick!)
COS YA NOT GETTING MY MONEY!! ( I only rego every 6 months since the RIP-OFF began-still feel im paying my share for the services offered)

20 points-pfft

worst case...looks like im making a plaster cast of my plate and making a spare in fibre glass/epoxy resin lol

Still can't believe they charge us more for less cover!

[StoneY]

Its getting silly now............ just too much focus on revenue....... this is an issue for BRONZ and MAG to combine forces on IMO

My Ducati is on exemption, because its on a showroom floor being sold. As noted in MSTRS post, needs a plate to get a WOF, needs a WOF to be registered...if we are expected to take off our plates for exemption periods how the hell do we get the WOF so we can re-register it for Summer, or once the 're-build' has been completed?

Time to go visit Stephen and have a chat methinks.
Wanna come for a Ride Bogan?

[bogan]

Its getting silly now............ just too much focus on revenue....... this is an issue for BRONZ and MAG to combine forces on IMO

My Ducati is on exemption, because its on a showroom floor being sold. As noted in MSTRS post, needs a plate to get a WOF, needs a WOF to be registered...if we are expected to take off our plates for exemption periods how the hell do we get the WOF so we can re-register it for Summer, or once the 're-build' has been completed?

Time to go visit Stephen and have a chat methinks.
Wanna come for a Ride Bogan?

Yeh, and the focus is only around cos of their fabricated shortfall. Time for a ride indeed!

[MSTRS]

While you're at it, can you tell Joyce to drop the ridiculous 3 month minimum hold period too.
I can reg my car/bike for 1 month if I like, but if I put it on hold then want to liven it 2 months down the track, I have to pay for the 2 months it 'sat in my shed' ... ludicrous.

[Dave Lobster]

whoops.. repost.. removed.

[Reckless]

Yep everyone is doing what I'm doing!
Classic bike Rego on permanent hold! Road bike rego will be on hold for 3 or 6 months over winter (even if I do go for the odd ride)!
Where'as when The costs where reasonable I kept the lot rego'd all year around!

This bullshit won't even go close to fix the above scenario I can still do it quite legally with still no revenue gain to them in the least! Face it most of us don't have the bike as our only transport!!

That's what happens when you price yourself off the market!! The market rejects your business! I'll pay the least I can, anyway I can! Simply won't pay 3 or 4 times for the same risk!!

This new law won't fix the above! It just turns the cops into revenue gatherers (more safety checks) and makes us and general society loose even more respect for the cops that will have to enforce it!
About fucking time the NZ police force said enough is enough as well so they can go out and get real reward for their efforts by catching bike thieves, burglars and rapists.

MY rant take it or leave it :whocares:

[riffer]

While you're at it, can you tell Joyce to drop the ridiculous 3 month minimum hold period too.
I can reg my car/bike for 1 month if I like, but if I put it on hold then want to liven it 2 months down the track, I have to pay for the 2 months it 'sat in my shed' ... ludicrous.


Have it on good authority that you can use a special form to change the relicensing date so you can actually relicense for one month intervals if you like.

Wife enquired about this at VTNZ yesterday when she relicenced her car.

[Bald Eagle]

Repost of figures from the Reg on hold thread.

It's not like they need the money FFS

The New Zealand Superannuation Fund reported gains on its investment nearly $2.3 billion above forecast. ACC and the EQC also experienced gains on their investments of $788 million due to strong equity markets.

Also, ACC and GSF experienced favourable changes in claims and the discount rate to calculate the present value of the future expected payments.

Those two factors resulted in a gain for ACC of more than $1 billion, $1.9 billion higher than a forecast loss of $853 million, and a gain for GST of $288 million, $144 million higher than expected.

[riffer]

This new law won't fix the above! It just turns the cops into revenue gatherers (more safety checks) and makes us and general society loose even more respect for the cops that will have to enforce it!

Well they need to do something. After all, National's all but eliminated violent crime if you listen to Judith Collins.

[riffer]

Repost of figures from the Reg on hold thread.

It's not like they need the money FFS

Oh come on now Paul. What about the money they blew on bailing out finance company investors? That figures going up faster than the national debt...

[nodrog]

Have it on good authority that you can use a special form to change the relicensing date so you can actually relicense for one month intervals if you like.

Wife enquired about this at VTNZ yesterday when she relicenced her car.

correct, relicense for as many months as you want, but you can only put on hold for a 3 month minimum period.

[StoneY]

Have it on good authority that you can use a special form to change the relicensing date so you can actually relicense for one month intervals if you like.

Wife enquired about this at VTNZ yesterday when she relicenced her car.

Yep MR24 form

[Blackshear]

So what are the penalties for riding a 1000cc bike with no L plate?
It's ok if I pay 2 weeks wages for rego, right?

[mikemike104]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4849437/Demerit-points-hiked-for-unlicensed-cars

Looks like those that were getting away with riding/driving with a rego on hold had better have a re-think, I was going to put the bike on hold after the current license expired in May and ride it anyway, but seeing this makes me think again.

[Str8 Jacket]

Ha, I got mocked and shut down when I suggested that people not registering their bikes/putting them on hold was only going to result in TPTB introducing demerit points..... :facepalm:

[MSTRS]

Have it on good authority that you can use a special form to change the relicensing date so you can actually relicense for one month intervals if you like.

Wife enquired about this at VTNZ yesterday when she relicenced her car.


correct, relicense for as many months as you want, but you can only put on hold for a 3 month minimum period.

And that was my point. I don't want 'continuous licencing' in smaller bites. My bike sits in the shed for great lengths of time, unused. No point in wasting money on rego if I'm not using it. But rare is the case when it would sit for 3 months. As it is now, I either pay the back reg, or risk being pinged...
With the rise in almost every other cost I incur, I have even less spare readies. And I'm just one of thousands in this position.
If tptb want me to be covered when I ride, then make it easier.

[Swoop]

The idiots in power still don't get it.:facepalm:

Also, it remains better to be unregistered.:yes:

[Str8 Jacket]

The idiots in power still don't get it.:facepalm:

Also, it remains better to be unregistered.:yes:

Yes, but stay unregistered for more than one year and end up in Baycorp.

[Little Miss Trouble]

Ha, I got mocked and shut down when I suggested that people not registering their bikes/putting them on hold was only going to result in TPTB introducing demerit points..... :facepalm:

Thems people must have been rather short-sighted.

[Str8 Jacket]

Thems people must have been rather short-sighted.

Maybe a bit too much faith in the Govt? Anyways, I have worked for the govt for 8+ years, 5 of them in MoJ. You kinda learn how things roll after awhile...

[Little Miss Trouble]

Maybe a bit too much faith in the Govt? Anyways, I have worked for the govt for 8+ years, 5 of them in MoJ. You kinda learn how things roll after awhile...

Fuck that for a joke! You must have the patience of a saint Hels, coz I can't imagine working in that environment for one year, let alone eight.

[CookMySock]

LOL whut? Last time I checked, they had raised the fine to like $1000 ?? What happened to that? :blink:

[Conquiztador]

"Motorists who do not register their cars will now be penalised with demerit points, as well as a fine.
Transport Minister Stephen Joyce says changes to regulations will help prevent fraud and act as a deterrent to people who try to dodge payment.
The fine for an unlicensed vehicle will drop from $200 to $150 but people will also receive 20 demerit points.
The demerit points will only apply for tickets personally served by a police officer."

I was waiting for that.

[pete376403]

It just turns the cops into revenue gatherers ...!
Y'mean they're not that already??

[Oblivion]

For gods sake... To register my Ginny will cost more than the parents Toyota highlander. I don't actually want to pay it, but, since I want to enter the Air Force, traffic "infringements" must be kept to a minimum. :bye:

Those money grubbing bastards. The absolute maximum I would pay to register my bike will be $300. No more. At all. :angry:

Can someone "persuade" him with a friendly blunt object? :innocent:

[riffer]

Can someone "persuade" him with a friendly blunt object? :innocent:


Yes they can. About 2 million of us can.

<img src=http://www.elections.org.nz/files/ballot_paper.jpg>

[SMOKEU]

This is nothing short of extortion.

[Oblivion]

Yes they can. About 2 million of us can.

<img src=http://www.elections.org.nz/files/ballot_paper.jpg>

I thought that this was meant to be a fair candidacy?

Where's the "Vote for yourself" box?

[miloking]

Everybody time to put bikes on HOLD now, before May 1st when they make you surrender plate when putting bike on hold....

Then continue riding as usual, with cops paying no attention to you since you have a plate and therefore your bike cannot be hold :D

(or just report stolen plate, and put bike on hold anyway?)

[Oblivion]

Everybody time to put bikes on HOLD now, before May 1st when they make you surrender plate when putting bike on hold....

Then continue riding as usual, with cops paying no attention to you since you have a plate and therefore your bike cannot be hold :D

Been riding for a year, haven't been pulled up by a cop once, except for the single breath test. I think I might be invisible :blink:

[sleemanj]

Been riding for a year, haven't been pulled up by a cop once, except for the single breath test. I think I might be invisible :blink:

Been road riding nearly 20 years haven't been pulled up by a cop once, except the odd breath test.

[Oblivion]

Been road riding nearly 20 years haven't been pulled up by a cop once, except the odd breath test.

So....where's the drawer of speeding tickets?

[pete376403]

[QUOTE=riffer;1130029201]Yes they can. About 2 million of us can.

(picture of voting paper snipped)

But even if National was voted out, the incoming government (whoever they may be) would be most unlikely to repeal the ACC rise - usual excuses would be trotted out eg "Canterbury earthquake /South canty. finance/ global financial crisis / books are in much worse state than we imagined / etc " as reasons why the ACC tax (or any other tax/charge/fee/levy) could not be removed or even reduced.

[yachtie10]

sorry am i missing something?
isnt this just a proposal?

cant see demerits becoming law myself

[rastuscat]

sorry am i missing something?
isnt this just a proposal?

can see demerits becoming law myself

Demerits used to be safety related.

Now it's demerits for revenue collection.

Now it's demerits for noise control.

Still no demerits for going through a red light.

Demerits are a joke. A bad joke.

[steve_t]

Demerits used to be safety related.

Now it's demerits for revenue collection.

Now it's demerits for noise control.

Still no demerits for going through a red light.

Demerits are a joke. A bad joke.

Make a change from the inside!

[Oblivion]

Make a change from the inside!

Good thing espionage isn't illegal. :yes:

[Brian d marge]

Use an Japanese or other licence . and sod the rest. Who cares ..

Take out a student loan as well, 40 k add 30 k of traffic fines then throw yourself on the mercy of Judge Erber

Stephen

[HenryDorsetCase]

Yes they can. About 2 million of us can.

<img src=http://www.elections.org.nz/files/ballot_paper.jpg>

what did you expect, voting for Party Hearty?

[Toaster]

OK so the math changes a bit
4 x tickets for riding on hold $600 plus 80 points, still cheaper than reg on 600cc+ bike .

But those points take two years from the date of incurrence to run off. No speeding for you then aye :innocent:

[Toaster]

Yes, but stay unregistered for more than one year and end up in Baycorp.

It will be interesting to see how many end up having their licence suspended and eventually become disqualified via the courts.

Plenty suspended and disqualified drivers still out there. Recidivist drink drivers being a good example of the kind of dimwits that break the law regardless - often re-caught drunk and without a licence and already ordered off the roads - it just does not stop them.

The addition of demerits is unlikely to stop those that flout the law anyway.

[miloking]

The addition of demerits is unlikely to stop those that flout the law anyway.

Wont stop me thats for sure (got fresh clean licence now anyway so should last me at least year or so hopefuly, i try to time my suspensions for winter when i dont ride much anyway)

...being suspended sucks since you cant realy speed and have to drive "nicely" in general but its definitely bearable if it comes down to that.... and it adds bit of excitement into boring everyday life :D

[Yow Ling]

Ever think that this change might not be about bikes?
Diesel vans are abour 600 to rego, plenty of them out there.

And is it really about the revenue, or more about compliance, if you were 3 year olds and didnt do as you are told you get a slap around the arse till you start behaving, dont really want too many rebels , you arent in Libya you know.

Cant see Mag or Stoney having any influence on this, the answer will be simple , we cant have some people cheating the system and making others pay more !

[Paul in NZ]

Ha, I got mocked and shut down when I suggested that people not registering their bikes/putting them on hold was only going to result in TPTB introducing demerit points..... :facepalm:

So it was YOUR idea Hels? Grrr....:angry:

[Paul in NZ]

Its getting silly now............ just too much focus on revenue....... this is an issue for BRONZ and MAG to combine forces on IMO

My Ducati is on exemption, because its on a showroom floor being sold. As noted in MSTRS post, needs a plate to get a WOF, needs a WOF to be registered...if we are expected to take off our plates for exemption periods how the hell do we get the WOF so we can re-register it for Summer, or once the 're-build' has been completed?

Time to go visit Stephen and have a chat methinks.
Wanna come for a Ride Bogan?

Tell him what you want mate but it wont change much. Its bloody stupid - the pricks will change the law to suit themselves but its too hard to accomodate us. I have 3 old bikes and I'm the only person in the house with a license, they used to be always in full rego but now the Guzzi is on hold all winter and most of the summer purely because of cost. I have always been happy to contribute but 3 bikes (one is under 50cc and the triumph is cheap as its over 40 years) is too much.

Wankers...

[nodrog]

LOL whut? Last time I checked, they had raised the fine to like $1000 ?? What happened to that? :blink:

maybe you should check with people that actually exist, not the make believe ones in your head?

[yachtie10]

Demerits used to be safety related.

Now it's demerits for revenue collection.

Now it's demerits for noise control.

Still no demerits for going through a red light.

Demerits are a joke. A bad joke.

Correct my post was a typo
cant see it happening but will have trouble voting for the pricks if they do

[yachtie10]

Cant see Mag or Stoney having any influence on this, the answer will be simple , we cant have some people cheating the system and making others pay more !

Umm NZ is built on a few people paying for the rest. the whole tax system is like that

let alone the people who get there fines cleared when they get too big

at the end of the day we will decide on election day if this stuff is important enough to vote for (not that i would trust the loony lefties to do any better)

its pity as bikers we cant get together on a plan.

[p.dath]

If people are driving unlicenced mode's of transport and not paying fine's now, demerits points going Is not going to change anything:facepalm:

I think it will have a definite impact. Previously you were facing a fine that was less than the rego fee, so the impact was minor.

Now you are facing loosing your licence. This can impact work, and insurance, etc. Not to mention a subsequent offence could mean much more serious consequences.


as for the idea of surrending plates,FFS its easy to make up your own plates:shutup:

I do have some concern over this one. At the moment if a vehicle need to be located by the Police (say it appeared in video surveillance ...) they can at least look up its last known registered address and owner. Now it will be much harder to locate vehicles of interest.


IF they do require plates back on hold... I can see a lot of people's plates having "fallen off" their motorbike just before they decided to "put it on hold".

Trust me, you don't want to have to report a plate as "missing", which I'm sure you would have to do if you said it had "fallen" off. It would also mean you could never again use that plate again, and you would instantly attract a lot of attention by anyone doing a rego check (Police, banks, finance companies, insurance companies, etc).

[86GSXR]

Seems to me TPTB have discovered exactly what the impact of our not liking the ACC increases were and they are not happy with it.

If there ever was an argument for levying the driver, and not the vehicle, this would appear to be it.

I have two bikes, plus the car and it's getting out of hand, I only drive one at a time, etc.

Do you think MAG and BRONZ can have ANY effect in lobbying for a fairer road transport ACC collection system, or are they just going to insist in shafting multiple owners?

[Bald Eagle]

:Offtopic: It's all about monetary priorities at the end of the day.

wonder what sort of ACC levy they would apply to this little beauty.

$2 million dollar canoe 60 metres long and almost 15 metres high.

[yungatart]

If there ever was an argument for levying the driver, and not the vehicle, this would appear to be it.

I have two bikes, plus the car and it's getting out of hand, I only drive one at a time, etc.

Do you think MAG and BRONZ can have ANY effect in lobbying for a fairer road transport ACC collection system, or are they just going to insist in shafting multiple owners?

I'm sure MAG and BRONZ will be doing their best to fight this. You could join either or both organisations, which would help them (if you haven't already)

[Swoop]

The fine for an unlicensed vehicle will drop from $200 to $150 but people will also receive 20 demerit points.
The demerit points will only apply for tickets personally served by a police officer."
Still sounds like a great idea.

Queue the next "runners" thread...:scooter:


The addition of demerits is unlikely to stop those that flout the law anyway.
Exactly. It's nothing more than a "slightly bigger stick" to weild at the average citizen who considers uprising against TPTB.

[rastuscat]

Just pause for a minute.

I don't agree with demerits for this. Not when a seatbelt offence has no demerits, nor does a red light offence.

However, look back at the history of it. Car enthusiasts (boy racers) have been putting their reg on hold for years, and cruising around like dicks, knowing that the worst that will happen is that they get $200 added to a fine total they will never pay. They have been trying that other old trick, registering their vehicles as agricultural equipment, or as a vehicle under restoration. Both of these things are true, arguably.

The system needed to do something about it, and this is the result. This has been on the cards for longer than the ACC levy protest, so it's clear that it's not a result purely of that.

It's an attempt to actually force compliance. Agree with it or not, I think it will cause a higher level of compliance than just fines.

That's why I want demerits for seatbelt offences. Drop the fines to say, $75, and apply 35 demerits. Red lights, leave the fine at $150, but apply 35 demerits.

Starting with this offence is unbalanced.

Harumph.:angry:

[MSTRS]

LOL whut? Last time I checked, they had raised the fine to like $1000 ?? What happened to that? :blink:

Well, duh!!
The maximum allowable fine has been $1000 for a long time. $200 is the actual fine imposed.

[86GSXR]

I'm sure MAG and BRONZ will be doing their best to fight this. You could join either or both organisations, which would help them (if you haven't already)

Yep, member of both. And I have no doubt they will be doing everything they can. I wanted to know how they think they will get on. There doesn't seem to be a good reason why the vehicle itself needs to be levvied so highly. Afterall, the vehicle doesnt have the accident (mostly), the driver does.

[CookMySock]

Car enthusiasts (boy racers) have been putting their reg on hold for years, and cruising around like dicks, knowing that the worst that will happen is that they get $200 added to a fine total they will never pay. They have been trying that other old trick, registering their vehicles as agricultural equipment, or as a vehicle under restoration. Both of these things are true, arguably.Some damn good ideas there! Car enthusiasts are little different to motorcycle enthusiasts, and if you don't think our turn is next, then think again.


The system needed to do something about it, and this is the result. This has been on the cards for longer than the ACC levy protest, so it's clear that it's not a result purely of that. It's an attempt to actually force compliance. Agree with it or not, I think it will cause a higher level of compliance than just fines.Fuck compliance. I'm not hurting any person, I'm just objecting to every little price-jackup raised against me. Everyone feels the same pain, its just they don't have the balls to do anything about it, except to cry on some forum and act their annoyance out on someone else like its their fault or something.

Why cant we work together on this? :facepalm:

[rastuscat]

Fuck compliance.

Come on DB, say what you really mean. :shutup:

[malfunconz]

dont care ... pay my way ...but..... many prev arguments right on the button . This punishment thing is gettin way outa line . At the end of the day theres a bean counter hidden away in his high rise in wellington whos figured out how many millions can be saved or made by changing the current system . Big deal you ride ya bike for a few months without paying the govt .... big criminal you . Maybe the police could quietly refuse to ticket the unlicensed biker . End game , is an unlicensed bike any more dangerous .....

[Voltaire]

If there ever was an argument for levying the driver, and not the vehicle, this would appear to be it.

I have two bikes, plus the car and it's getting out of hand, I only drive one at a time, etc.

Do you think MAG and BRONZ can have ANY effect in lobbying for a fairer road transport ACC collection system, or are they just going to insist in shafting multiple owners?

If ever there was time when the Govt needed money this would appear to be it.
I also have multiple bikes and cars but can't see them ever wanting to give up that nice little earner.
The US Govt is even looking at introducing a 'collectors' tax.....

[Bald Eagle]

End game , is an unlicensed bike any more dangerous .....

absolutely - that little sticker is an invisible safety barrier :sick:

[Toaster]

Wont stop me thats for sure (got fresh clean licence now anyway so should last me at least year or so hopefuly, i try to time my suspensions for winter when i dont ride much anyway)

...being suspended sucks since you cant realy speed and have to drive "nicely" in general but its definitely bearable if it comes down to that.... and it adds bit of excitement into boring everyday life :D

Yes it must suck, but it is 100% your choice mate.

Don't forget the police do track down suspended and disqualified drivers and riders and target them too. It will eventually mean impoundment and possible jail time.

Is it really worth it mate?

I hate paying these ridiculous fees too, but at least I can ride with a clear conscience and not a care in the world. Don't you think slowing down a bit and paying your dues is worth that freedom?

[Toaster]

Fuck compliance.

I wondered what the girl in your Avatars name was!

[CookMySock]

[...] police do track down suspended and disqualified drivers and riders and target them too. It will eventually mean impoundment and possible jail time. Is it really worth it mate?

I hate paying these ridiculous fees too, but at least I can ride with a clear conscience and not a care in the world. Don't you think slowing down a bit and paying your dues is worth that freedom?It would be ok if the po po were even-handed, and I admit most often they are. I got stopped for a random breath check, which I admit is a good thing - that is, I take value from them doing this - it keeps society safe. But because I forgot to carry my wallet I get a $55 fine for not carrying my wallet! They can stick this up their jixie - it would be fair enough if they stung me fair and square for some stupid and dangerous stunt, but this is just random taxation. Fuck them. Lets see how they can turn a $55 fine into jail time - I'd like to see them try that one on.

In the end, as you suggest they are just more fees for using the road, and fucked if I am going to lubricate the kings' arse hole with my cash. I already ride with a clear conscience, its the govts conscience that needs a reality check. My stress level from fines is a result of their brutal approach, not my evasion of it.

[MSTRS]

...But because I forgot to carry my wallet I get a $55 fine for not carrying my wallet!...
Somehow I doubt your wallet was the problem.

... I already ride with a clear conscience... My stress level from fines ...
So which is it?

[p.dath]

Fuck compliance. I'm not hurting any person, I'm just objecting to every little price-jackup raised against me.

You realise the "price", as in the cash that leaves your wallet for this offence, is being lowered? The fine will be less?

[p.dath]

There seems to be a common thread the Government is out to get your money. So lets take a step back for a minute.

ACC, as in the organisation that pays for your care after an accident, costs money. Lets pretend it costs $500m for the year.

No matter what, that is what the cost is. So the question is how to divy up the bill amongst us all. And in case it isn't really obvious, if one person pays less, or doesn't pay at all, then someone else has to pay more - we still need to collect the $500m to pay for everyone who has gotten hurt.

So when someone decides that their share of the ACC bill is not fair, and decides not to register their bike/car, what they are in actual fact doing is asking everyone else to pay their share. And they call that fair. I don't personally understand their logic.

And think about it. If next year 10% more people don't register their vehicles and pay their ACC fees, and it still costs $500m - what do you think will happen to the individual cost of ACC? It will, of course, increase so that $500m is still collected.


So please don't waste your breath by telling me you don't think it is fair that you shouldn't have to pay ACC and because of that you won't, and that you think I should pay part of your bill so you don't have to.

Instead, if your not happy with the service you are paying for - work on changing that, or work on changing how the bill is divided up - but do realise that no matter what, the same $500m has to be collected, and if you end up getting a smaller bill then it means someone else will end up getting a bigger bill.

[riffer]

Yep, member of both. And I have no doubt they will be doing everything they can. I wanted to know how they think they will get on. There doesn't seem to be a good reason why the vehicle itself needs to be levvied so highly. Afterall, the vehicle doesnt have the accident (mostly), the driver does.


Well, speaking with the BRONZ hat on, We've recently discussed this with Chris Hipkins (Labour ACC spokesperson) and they've absolutely no plans to shift ACC motor vehicle levies on to driver's licences.

And we all know National's position on this. As for the Greens they'd be happy to get rid of motor vehicles altogether.

So whilst I like the idea, I think you can rule that out.

Many people have called for the motoring portion of the ACC levies to be placed on petrol instead and, while the idea has merit, and Labour haven't ruled it out, the potential of alternative fuels coming onstream in the next two years would tend to put a spanner in those works.

Add to that the fact that we're in an election year and lawmaking is effectively stopped from end of May onwards, I'd suggest nothing will happen in this regard for at least 12 months, no matter what happens in the election.

TBH I think TPTB are concerned with RWC and Canty earthquake for the rest of the year (followed by the election) so we rate so far down the scale it ain't funny.

Best bet from now on would be finding ways to make this an electoral issue and lobby Political parties heavily from June onwards, hoping to get someone to listen while we build up to the RWC. There's just no time after then for them even to be bothered listening to us once they hit the hustings.

So, to sum up, I don't personally believe we will get any legislation passed this year, but we will be doing our utmost to keep this issue in their minds for the next government three-year cycle.

[MSTRS]

Yeah, but under your scenario, ACC is actually collecting $750M pa against the $500M they spend. And they play the markets with that spare $250M to increase it.
A relative few who don't pay their regos are not hurting the overall picture.

[riffer]

BTW heard last night from reliable source that LAMS, removal of 70km/hr learner speed limit and CBTA were all approved by the last government, but this government has let it languish for the last 2.5 years.

So they really don't care about us unless they want more money.

[p.dath]

Yeah, but under your scenario, ACC is actually collecting $750M pa against the $500M they spend. And they play the markets with that spare $250M to increase it.
A relative few who don't pay their regos are not hurting the overall picture.

Doesn't matter how you dice it. If they budget to collect $750m, and less people pay their ACC rego, then everyone else gets to make up the shortfall.

[riffer]

Yeah, but under your scenario, ACC is actually collecting $750M pa against the $500M they spend. And they play the markets with that spare $250M to increase it.
A relative few who don't pay their regos are not hurting the overall picture.


Feb 22 changed everything. We now are in a position where Govt wants every dollar they are entitled to off us. Wait until IRD starts clamping down.

[Bald Eagle]

and not forgetting that 'the bill' is not evenly shared by all who benefit. The artificial distortion based on cc rating means if we as motorcyclists pay - we are paying 'our share' and then some.

[MSTRS]

Well, speaking with the BRONZ hat on, We've recently discussed this with Chris Hipkins (Labour ACC spokesperson) and they've absolutely no plans to shift ACC motor vehicle levies on to driver's licences.



Many people have called for the motoring portion of the ACC levies to be placed on petrol instead and, while the idea has merit, and Labour haven't ruled it out, the potential of alternative fuels coming onstream in the next two years would tend to put a spanner in those works.



On licences doesn't work, for the same reason that multiple vehicles are cited as unfair. You drive/ride 6 days a week, 52 weeks of the year and do 35,000kms. I drive/ride 2 days a week, 52 weeks of the year and do 9,000 kms. Do the math.

Who says just petrol? I'm talking ALL fuels.

[riffer]

On licences doesn't work, for the same reason that multiple vehicles are cited as unfair. You drive/ride 6 days a week, 52 weeks of the year and do 35,000kms. I drive/ride 2 days a week, 52 weeks of the year and do 9,000 kms. Do the math.

Who says just petrol? I'm talking ALL fuels.

My bad. For petrol, read all fuel.

FWIW, it's my preferred option. Although I can imagine companies like Mainfreight raising a right royal stink about it.

[Bald Eagle]

On licences doesn't work, for the same reason that multiple vehicles are cited as unfair. You drive/ride 6 days a week, 52 weeks of the year and do 35,000kms. I drive/ride 2 days a week, 52 weeks of the year and do 9,000 kms. Do the math.

Who says just petrol? I'm talking ALL fuels.

But we all only have one body to hold a licence and get injured.

If distance is included your talking risk rating which is an even bigger can of worms.

[bogan]

Instead, if your not happy with the service you are paying for - work on changing that, or work on changing how the bill is divided up - but do realise that no matter what, the same $500m has to be collected, and if you end up getting a smaller bill then it means someone else will end up getting a bigger bill.

I am working on that, so far I've changed the way my bill is divided up by not regoing a vehicle, this is now much more fair as I pay a similar amount to others (though still too much as I'm in the 'high risk' 647cc bracket), rather than twice what they pay.

[MSTRS]

My bad. For petrol, read all fuel.

So what are these 'alternative' fuels you mention? Any form of pump-measured fuel is a source of possible ACC levy.
Electric cars? Can't see them being much of a problem in the scheme of things.

[MSTRS]

But we all only have one body to hold a licence and get injured.

If distance is included your talking risk rating which is an even bigger can of worms.

Currently, people are upset about having to pay a levy on EVERY vehicle. We can only use one at a time and resent having to pay just to have the potential use of a vehicle.
If the levy was shifted to licences, those that do very little driving would resent paying the same as those that drive heaps. N'est pas?

[p.dath]

I am working on that, so far I've changed the way my bill is divided up by not regoing a vehicle, this is now much more fair as I pay a similar amount to others (though still too much as I'm in the 'high risk' 647cc bracket), rather than twice what they pay.

That's like saying why is it fair that everyone else has to pay for the bikes/vehicles you choose not to register.

Whenever people have to pay money for a service they can't directly use (such as accident cover - unless you have an accident) they often consider it unfair. Hell, we don't like money being forcibly taken out of our pockets when we don't think we are getting anything for it, or at least not getting value for that money.

Lots of people don't think it is fair they have to pay tax - but just because you personally don't think what you have to pay is fair doesn't make it right that everyone else has to cover your share.

[bogan]

But we all only have one body to hold a licence and get injured.

If distance is included your talking risk rating which is an even bigger can of worms.

exactly, it's a very complex issue, the only way to be 'fair' (for the individual) would see massive overheads involved with evaluating everyones risk factor and charging accordingly. Seems far easier, cheaper, and fairer for society, to just have a flat rate on everyones license.

[riffer]

So what are these 'alternative' fuels you mention? Any form of pump-measured fuel is a source of possible ACC levy.
Electric cars? Can't see them being much of a problem in the scheme of things.

My point is that currently in legislation they must mention the levy for each particular fuel. I'm simply pointing out the potential of a loophole.

Trust me, if I knew of an alternate fuel source that cost $0.30/litre and worked as well, I'd be using it now.

Doesn't mean there isn't some clever bugger in a Skyline working on it right now. This is New Zealand after all.

[bogan]

That's like saying why is it fair that everyone else has to pay for the bikes/vehicles you choose not to register.

Whenever people have to pay money for a service they can't directly use (such as accident cover - unless you have an accident) they often consider it unfair. Hell, we don't like money being forcibly taken out of our pockets when we don't think we are getting anything for it, or at least not getting value for that money.

Lots of people don't think it is fair they have to pay tax - but just because you personally don't think what you have to pay is fair doesn't make it right that everyone else has to cover your share.

put it this way, i have one bike i use daily, and pay $500pa, i then buy another cos i like a bit of change which i use on alternate days. Now with two bikes I am at the same level of 'risk' and i get the same level of cover. If i pay an extra $500 for the second, who's share does it go on?

[Swoop]

Electric cars? Can't see them being much of a problem in the scheme of things.
Until more hydro dams and Cook Strait cable (or 2, or 3) are required...

[rastuscat]

Pontificate all you want about what system would be fair or not. The system we have isn't going to be swapped for another, coz it cost lots to set up and gathers lots of dosh.

None of our pollies have the gumption to admit that the system is wrong.

No, on second thought, the ones who will say it's wrong are normally the opposition party. When they are in power they just roll over and keep the gravy train running.
:shit:

[MSTRS]

That's like saying why is it fair that everyone else has to pay for the bikes/vehicles you choose not to register.



Who says he is using a vehicle whilst it is unrego'd?
If a vehicle is not being used, how is it fair to charge a levy on it, a levy which is designed to cover the risk it poses whilst being used?

[Voltaire]

Mr Dath, my only real objection is paying for multiple vehicles. If people don't want to contribute and ride/drive around on unwarranted unregistered vehicles good on the Govt for hitting them hard in the wallet and or demerit points.:yes:
That could easily be determined at WOF time....

If I was Mr Joyce I'd introduce compulsory third party insurance too.
Motoring here is way cheaper than other countries I've lived in. I was paying $350 AU on my bike in Sydney 20 years ago....it was probably about $100 here....:violin:

[davereid]

The devil will be in the detail, personally for me, it will be a win.

(a) Handing in the plates.
Waste of time as the same legislation allows you to get duplicate plates.
Yes, as many with the same number on as you want. Thats going to be very handy.

(b) Demerits.
May affect some. But not me, I don't have any and never have had.

On average I get tickets for no vehicle licence from a policeman never. Unless that is massively improved with improved enforcement, I don't anticipate getting any more than the current total of zero.

And even if I do, I can cope with 4 in two years before it even looks like being a problem.

(c) Effectiveness of enforcement by others.
The effectiveness of enforcement of licensing by meter maids etc has been reduced. It rules out enforcement of demerits by camera or meter maid and reduces the fines.
EDIT - not entirely correct. It rules out demerits from metermaid or cameras. But fine sent by meter-maid same as current

(d) Its muddled. Demerits are applied to a driver. But tickets for licensing are the responsibility of the owner. That makes the foolish assumption that they are one and the same. Which in my case I ensure they are not.

(e) There is a Prohibition on repeat offenders getting any more exemptions. Once again relies on the offender, and vehicles licensed owner being one and the same. This is going to be a real mess, if Fred borrows Joe's car and gets a ticket.

(f) Effective bit may be the ability for Baycorp to chase up fees, as the licence exemption is canceled if you are caught, and provision allows for the debt to be collected.

Once again if the vehicle owner is different to the offender this will be messy.

I don't know, but I would be interested in finding out how effective Baycorp are at collecting fees.

For example, I know lots of people who have got the shitty letters, bad credit rating etc. But I know of no-one who has actually been taken to court, or had a balif arrive.

Can anyone advise if Baycorp take the debt collection that seriously ?

I think they just take the NZTAs collection fee, write a letter or two, and adjust their system to show a poor credit score. But I'd be interested if others have a different experience.

A little bit of devils advocate being played here...

[MSTRS]

My point is that currently in legislation they must mention the levy for each particular fuel. I'm simply pointing out the potential of a loophole.


We all know that legislation is 'easy' to change...
And I'm talking a flat rate on fuel/s. Currently, 9.9c/l is imposed on petroil at the pump. How hard is it to change that to, say, 20c/l and add the same to lpg and diesel, and bio-diesel?

[awa355]

Thie reminds me of the stink raised when the govt changed the law about re-registering vehicles.

Remember when you could re register a vehicle, and the rego date started from the date you paid? Many people ( me included ), would let the rego lapse untill they could afford to pay the new fee. Quite handy at xmas time. Car trailer regos still work this way, I think?

The govt said then that they were missing out on $30 million a year in unpaid rego fees, so made backdating your rego,into law.

Was it at that time, rego stickers went from the different coloured square sticker ( yearly change) in the centre of the windscreen to the white sticker we have now?

[StoneY]

Can anyone advise if Baycorp take the debt collection that seriously ?

I think they just take the NZTAs collection fee, write a letter or two, and adjust their system to show a poor credit score. But I'd be interested if others have a different experience.

Yes baycorp will zealously persue thier commision, and will list it as a default if not paid

They do with expired reg fee's over a year old, and this can affect your credit history

[davereid]

Yes baycorp will zealously persue thier commision, and will list it as a default if not paid

They do with expired reg fee's over a year old, and this can affect your credit history

Yes, thats all I thought they did.

It appears they give up without taking it to court, so if your credit rating is not a problem the Baycorp thing is not a problem.

[Str8 Jacket]

Yes baycorp will zealously persue thier commision, and will list it as a default if not paid

They do with expired reg fee's over a year old, and this can affect your credit history

Exactly! When I worked at Justice we had people ringing us all the time having a waaaah about the debt being lodged with Baycorp cause they couldn't tick that PS2 up with bad credit debt. We always had to direct them back to Baycorp. Unless NZTA withdraw the debt from Baycorp it will effect anyone's credit rating.

**The thing you have to think about next is that once your vehicle has not been registered for 12 months then you have to go through costly re-rego processes!

**I am not sure if this is still the case nowdays.

[MSTRS]

**The thing you have to think about next is that once your vehicle has not been registered for 12 months then you have to go through costly re-rego processes!

**I am not sure if this is still the case nowdays.

Yes it is. Plus, if your rego is on hold, when the anniversary of the original due date rolls around, you have to renew the hold.

[CookMySock]

I don't know, but I would be interested in finding out how effective Baycorp are at collecting fees.How do they "collect" anything? Knock on the door and ask? Hard to do that when they are trespassed to the eyeballs.

While you are at it, trespass the issuing officer, his agent, and his representative ; I think that should cover it nicely. Once everyone is fully trespassed and warned in writing, and a few people removed by the scruff of their neck I'd say there should be no more issues.

If some rather persuasive person DOES turn up, call the police and tell them you have a 'trespassed person' on your property and you are concerned there might be a breach of the peace. Watch the po po turn up quick-smart, and then stand your ground and insist no person touch any property of yours without your consent, and that there be no breach of the peace - exactly what the officer swore to the queen and country to uphold the day he began work.

Also might pay to send a few registered letters to various agencies revoking all implied consent to act for you in any fashion whatsoever, and specifically forbidding a few other things as well.

I don't owe any bitch anything nor do I want to, so they can go sing for it.

[p.dath]

put it this way, i have one bike i use daily, and pay $500pa, i then buy another cos i like a bit of change which i use on alternate days. Now with two bikes I am at the same level of 'risk' and i get the same level of cover. If i pay an extra $500 for the second, who's share does it go on?

Once again, your trying to argue why it is not fair for you. Once again, I'll point out that if $700m needs to be collected than $700m needs to be collected - and when you choose not to pay what you are really asking is for everyone else to pay your share instead.

There will also be someone who considers that it is not fair. Always.

For someone to pay less, someone else has to pay more. So I put it to you, who would you like to ask to pay more so that you can pay less. Who? Get ready for a frosty response from that person.


Who says he is using a vehicle whilst it is unrego'd?
If a vehicle is not being used, how is it fair to charge a levy on it, a levy which is designed to cover the risk it poses whilst being used?

Same argument as above. It fails to consider everyone else.

Once again, if your not happy with the share you are paying then you need to work on changing the system - but it might simply be that the majority of the users on the ACC scheme may not want to have their average fee increased so that the much smaller number of multi-vehicle users can have a lower bill to pay.


Personally, I think it would be fairest to put 100% of the motor vehicle account ACC levy on fuel. But it is not going to happen. Obviously what I think is fairest, from my point of view, is not what a lot of other people consider fair.
On the flip side, because I don't consider the current scheme to be fair does not mean I should stop paying the fee - effectively asking everyone else to pay my share.

If everyone took the view that they should only have to pay for things in life that are fair then society would quickly break down - which is what will happen to ACC if a lot of people choose not to contribute. And I think those that think ACC fees are unfair now will be really unhappy without ACC.


If I was Mr Joyce I'd introduce compulsory third party insurance too.

This has already been looked at, many times, and found to have no benefit in our environment. Basically just about every vehicle that can be insured is. Those that have no insurance are usually because they can't (e,g. disqualified driver, vehicle not safe) - and a new law telling them they have to have insurance will just add to the list of laws they are already ignoring.

So in essence, they found the cost to catch the tiny percentage of vehicles not insured that can be is far less than the cost of the system to administer and act on them.

[nodrog]

....blah blah....... call the police and tell them you have a 'trespassed person' on your property and you are concerned there might be a breach of the peace. Watch the po po turn up quick-smart.....blah more shit blah.

How are you going to get the police to turn up, after you have tried to tresspass them the first time for turning up with the debt collector?

P.S. is this you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg_kO_9H2Bs

[MSTRS]

Same argument as above. It fails to consider everyone else.

Once again, if your not happy with the share you are paying then you need to work on changing the system - but it might simply be that the majority of the users on the ACC scheme may not want to have their average fee increased so that the much smaller number of multi-vehicle users can have a lower bill to pay.



Fuck me. Are you thick?
How is it fair to charge a rego/ACC levy on a vehicle that is not being used?
And how is it 'ripping off other motorists' if I own a vehicle that is not registered - because it's not being used?

[StoneY]

Problem is the world is not a fair place and NZ under this govt is getting worse............

[cold comfort]

Was only a matter of time before they plugged that loophole. Would be interested in the second set of plates as if i want to re-register an "on hold" bike at short notice, for a short time, having to go cap-in-hand to LTSA pleading for my plates back by a certain date is ridiculous and a blatant move to discourage people from putting their rego on hold!:angry: No surprise there either.

[steve_t]

This has already been looked at, many times, and found to have no benefit in our environment. Basically just about every vehicle that can be insured is. Those that have no insurance are usually because they can't (e,g. disqualified driver, vehicle not safe) - and a new law telling them they have to have insurance will just add to the list of laws they are already ignoring.

So in essence, they found the cost to catch the tiny percentage of vehicles not insured that can be is far less than the cost of the system to administer and act on them.

So if someone can't afford 3rd party insurance in an environment where it is compulsory, they can't afford a car fullstop. If they are caught driving without insurance, or without a current licence, or with an unsafe vehicle, they should crush the car. Easy. If you can't afford to own a car, don't own one. Take the bus or get a bike or walk. Law abiding citizens do it. Hmmm...Is this where someone suggests impounding and crushing these cars would just lead to more car thefts?

[bogan]

Once again, your trying to argue why it is not fair for you. Once again, I'll point out that if $700m needs to be collected than $700m needs to be collected - and when you choose not to pay what you are really asking is for everyone else to pay your share instead.

There will also be someone who considers that it is not fair. Always.

So your argument is it's never going to be fair, so we must put up with whatever unfairness they decide is best? Or are you trying to argue the current system is the fairest option?

Also, as somebody else pointed out, TPTB claim 700m needs to be collected, but realistically, 500m would be plenty to keep ACC running, it's this future funding bollocks that has caused the hikes.

[CookMySock]

Problem is the world is not a fair place and NZ under this govt is getting worse............It is a fair place bro. Fair to who? Fair to the fucking govt, thats who.

The only time it will be fair to you or I is when we tell them to stick their rules up their arse. Until that time, they will arbitrarily continue to make rules that pull money out of your and my pockets to grease their arse with.

The quicker everyone does it the better, and if we DO all do it they can never win.

[Str8 Jacket]

It is a fair place bro. Fair to who? Fair to the fucking govt, thats who.

The only time it will be fair to you or I is when we tell them to stick their rules up their arse. Until that time, they will arbitrarily continue to make rules that pull money out of your and my pockets to grease their arse with.

The quicker everyone does it the better, and if we DO all do it they can never win.

Oh dear, I think that someone has their head up their arse and it may just be you!

[p.dath]

Fuck me. Are you thick?
How is it fair to charge a rego/ACC levy on a vehicle that is not being used?
And how is it 'ripping off other motorists' if I own a vehicle that is not registered - because it's not being used?

I think I am of average build. Currently 75kg. Does that count as thick? I would have said medium. :lol:

I guess your not getting the point. Your taking the view point of "poor me", I have to pay for something I am not using. If you own multiple vehicles you need to take responsibility for multiple vehicles. The vast majority of road users have complete choice over the number of vehicles they own.

I'm taking the viewpoint of the other side - that of everyone else, the majority, with a single motorbike or car, who don't want their ACC fee increased so that someone else can have their fee reduced.
Is that fair? Maybe, maybe not. But it doesn't matter. Lots of things in life aren't fair, and that's the rules at the moment.

As I said, if you don't like the rules, try and get them changed - but currently neither Government is interested in changing the rules so that the majority are made worse off (by increasing their ACC levy) for the benefit of the minority (to allow their ACC levy to be reduced).


I can just see the comments in a years time ... I lost my licence through demerits because I didn't pay my rego fees. It will be the same "poor me" mentality. The same "blame the Government" line. The same "it's someone else's fault". The same lack of accepting of responsibility for the choices they make.

[bogan]

I'm taking the viewpoint of the other side - that of everyone else, the majority, with a single motorbike or car, who don't want their ACC fee increased so that someone else can have their fee reduced.
Is that fair? Maybe, maybe not. But it doesn't matter. Lots of things in life aren't fair, and that's the rules at the moment.

So as long as the majority are happy, it's fine? You're taking the view of somebody who knows it's unfair others have to pay more to support them, but selfishly insist the status quo should be maintained. It is a sad thing when this is the majority's viewpoint.

[MSTRS]

Your taking the view point of "poor me", I have to pay for something I am not using. ...........and that's the rules at the moment.



Yep. You're thick.

The rules as they are, have been, and will continue to be are - if you are not using your vehicle, it does not have to have a current, paid up registration.

ACC levies are on a rego as that vehicle's risk-rated contribution to the Motor Fund. If it's parked up in the shed (or where-ever) it is hardly likely to be the cause of some of those funds having to be spent, is it?

[Toaster]

... got stopped for a random breath check,

.... Fuck them

No smint no kiss!

[86GSXR]

Well, speaking with the BRONZ hat on, We've recently discussed this with Chris Hipkins (Labour ACC spokesperson) and they've absolutely no plans to shift ACC motor vehicle levies on to driver's licences.

And we all know National's position on this. As for the Greens they'd be happy to get rid of motor vehicles altogether.

So whilst I like the idea, I think you can rule that out.

Many people have called for the motoring portion of the ACC levies to be placed on petrol instead and, while the idea has merit, and Labour haven't ruled it out, the potential of alternative fuels coming onstream in the next two years would tend to put a spanner in those works.

Add to that the fact that we're in an election year and lawmaking is effectively stopped from end of May onwards, I'd suggest nothing will happen in this regard for at least 12 months, no matter what happens in the election.

TBH I think TPTB are concerned with RWC and Canty earthquake for the rest of the year (followed by the election) so we rate so far down the scale it ain't funny.

Best bet from now on would be finding ways to make this an electoral issue and lobby Political parties heavily from June onwards, hoping to get someone to listen while we build up to the RWC. There's just no time after then for them even to be bothered listening to us once they hit the hustings.

So, to sum up, I don't personally believe we will get any legislation passed this year, but we will be doing our utmost to keep this issue in their minds for the next government three-year cycle.

Thank you for a clear, concise and honest answer. This issue will certainly influence who I vote for this year.

Well I guess those of us that choose to have more than one vehicle will continue to be unfairly penalised.

I wonder if the Labour Party would be open to the idea of paying a fair ACC levy on one bike and a marginal fee on any subsequent ones?

[biker baz]

[QUOTE=riffer;1130028917]Have it on good authority that you can use a special form to change the relicensing date so you can actually relicense for one month intervals if you like.
Sounds like this is the form you need. There is a catch, as you can only use it when the rego has expired to nominate a new rego expiry date. Of course you pay extra- can't remember how much.

The best date for expiry is 30 June, as the new ACC rates change on 1st July. If the rates increase (when have they not?) you can rego up to 15 months ahead at the old rego price using a MR 27 form & save some hard earned cash.

If you plan to put any vehicle on hold, then think in 3 mth chunks so the rego still expires on 30/6.
The vehicle licence to operate on a road -aka rego- is only 24.50 for 12 months; so ltsa will allow rego on hold for only $6.125 saving.
WTF cant they allow the rego on hold for 1 month saving us $30 -$40 in ACC levy?:doh:

I agree ACC s/be in the cost of petrol & this would save a shitload of political angst & hand wringing about riders avoiding rego:violin: & the nice policemen could get on with the job of fighting crime &/or evil.

[Conquiztador]

In this thread there are a few issues:

1. We are asked to pay towards ACC from each vehicle license fee. If you own one vehicle you pay once and if you have 10 vehicles you pay 10 times. What would be a fairer setup that all could agree upon?

2. How can we, as vehicle owners, get away with paying as little as possible?

3. What can we, as vehicle owners who consider the current system unfair, do to change it all?

4. If the system as it seems, has it loopholes closed one by one, how will evasion of payment (in any form) affect us?

5. Will we ever be able to get the majority to care enough to stand up as a force to recon with so that the rule makers get scared enough to change it all to a more fair setup?

6. Can we ever get the NZ population to understand that they are ripped off and ACC is not broke or bankrupt?

7. What is the REAL reason all this re ACC/license fees etc. keeps on going up and is unfair?


And here my answers FWIW:

1. 10% discount for two vehicles, 20% for three and so up to say 75%.

2. Already a few ways of doing this. The "no pay at all", the "on hold but ride anyhow" one, the "swap plates between the one in system and the one not". There is also a few others, but you will have to figure out those your self as I have no interest in advertising the good ones here for all to see...

3. Fuck all if you are really honest! (if you do not want to spend months and weeks lobbying for something that you never will get a thanks for)

4. This is a purely individual one depending on your personal situation financially/legally/morally etc.

5. Nope.

6. Nope.

7. NZ is in debt and needs to find a way out. Now!


As I conclude that I can do fuck all re this I have looked at the positives that will eventually come out of this. And the one I really like is that as the costs of fuel, license fees and everything else keeps on going up there will be less vehicles on the road. And for that I am prepared to pay!

[Usarka]

7. What is the REAL reason all this re ACC/license fees etc. keeps on going up and is unfair?



ACC are fucking people off left right and centre with the goal of getting people to say "we don't even have a choice" so super-gubbermint can fly in and privatise it and say there you go have a mintie up your arse.

[scumdog]

Been road riding nearly 20 years haven't been pulled up by a cop once, except the odd breath test.


Likewise, in the last ten+ year only two breath test stops, prior to that a stop because of a bent number-plate.

[CookMySock]

NZ is in debt and needs to find a way out. Now!Well thats it in a nutshell innit. So the king is going to tax everyones sorry arse right off until they have had enough and tell him to get bent. So who is first?

[scumdog]

How do they "collect" anything? Knock on the door and ask? Hard to do that when they are trespassed to the eyeballs.

While you are at it, trespass the issuing officer, his agent, and his representative ; I think that should cover it nicely. Once everyone is fully trespassed and warned in writing, and a few people removed by the scruff of their neck I'd say there should be no more issues.

If some rather persuasive person DOES turn up, call the police and tell them you have a 'trespassed person' on your property and you are concerned there might be a breach of the peace. Watch the po po turn up quick-smart, and then stand your ground and insist no person touch any property of yours without your consent, and that there be no breach of the peace - exactly what the officer swore to the queen and country to uphold the day he began work.

Also might pay to send a few registered letters to various agencies revoking all implied consent to act for you in any fashion whatsoever, and specifically forbidding a few other things as well.

I don't owe any bitch anything nor do I want to, so they can go sing for it.

I really r.o.t.f.l.'d at that, I really did!:rofl::rofl::2thumbsup:lol:

[Katman]

So I put it to you, who would you like to ask to pay more so that you can pay less. Who? Get ready for a frosty response from that person.


Tell me about it! :whistle:

[cold comfort]

As I conclude that I can do fuck all re this I have looked at the positives that will eventually come out of this. And the one I really like is that as the costs of fuel, license fees and everything else keeps on going up there will be less vehicles on the road. And for that I am prepared to pay!

+1 Thats about it in a nutshell

[86GSXR]

In this thread there are a few issues:

1. We are asked to pay towards ACC from each vehicle license fee. If you own one vehicle you pay once and if you have 10 vehicles you pay 10 times. What would be a fairer setup that all could agree upon?

1. 10% discount for two vehicles, 20% for three and so up to say 75%.



Just looking at the first issue for the time being.

I would say 90% discount on all additional bikes.

And if we don't keep on hammering away at the lawmakers we'll never see any changes.

Good post btw.

[p.dath]

I would say 90% discount on all additional bikes.


Don't forget, the cost of everyone's rego on their first bike would increase to allow this to happen ... I can smell a lot of pissed off bikers over that one. :lol:

[Swoop]

I wonder if the Labour Party would be open to the idea of paying a fair ACC levy on one bike and a marginal fee on any subsequent ones?
:rofl:
Yeah, right!

[MSTRS]

Don't forget, the cost of everyone's rego on their first bike would increase to allow this to happen ... I can smell a lot of pissed off bikers over that one. :lol:

A glimmer of hope that you're not totally thick...

Simply put, without the differing risk-ratings, vehicle-based ACC levies have to provide $XM, split between the number of vehicles. If discounts are offered on multiple vehicles, then the first vehicle/s must carry a greater proportion of the amount required.

Put the levy on fuel. The annual litreage of fuel use is a relative constant, so tptb can easily work out how much is required per litre, add it at the pump, and adjust up or down as required. No-one is penalised for owning multiple vehicles, everyone pays according to their road use and barring the odd drive-off at fuel stations (never stop those) no-one escapes paying their share.

Of course, those with fuel-hungry vehicles might complain...

[DougieNZ]

It could be a lot worse. Get caught on the UK without a current tax disk (or insurance) and the vehicle is instantly impounded.

Lets see:

1. Govt announce increase in registration costs.

2. Heaps of prople come on here and say "right - I am not going to pay any registration".

3. Govt announces demerit points for offences

Hmmmm

I have always struggled with the whole argument at point 2. Where is the logic in not paying anything? this means, in effect, myself and other law abding road users are contributing for you. Is that fair? So - sorry if you end up getting caught and losing your licence they you will get little symapthy from me. You roll the dice, you pay the price.

As for the revenue gathering argument. Hang on - they have decreased the fine? So this is not about revenue gathering for the offence? It is more about getting people to contribute for using the roads?

Ever used a hospital? Ever collected govt subsidies on prescriptions? Got kids in school? Been on a benefit?

How do you think all this stuff is paid for? Magic? What if we all said - "I don't agree with paying taxes so I'm not paying"?

Drive on the roads? Then contribute to the costs!

[nodrog]

It could be a lot worse. Get caught on the UK without a current tax disk (or insurance) and the vehicle is instantly impounded.

Lets see:

1. Govt announce increase in registration costs.

2. Heaps of prople come on here and say "right - I am not going to pay any registration".

3. Govt announces demerit points for offences

Hmmmm

I have always struggled with the whole argument at point 2. Where is the logic in not paying anything? this means, in effect, myself and other law abding road users are contributing for you. Is that fair? So - sorry if you end up getting caught and losing your licence they you will get little symapthy from me. You roll the dice, you pay the price.

As for the revenue gathering argument. Hang on - they have decreased the fine? So this is not about revenue gathering for the offence? It is more about getting people to contribute for using the roads?

Ever used a hospital? Ever collected govt subsidies on prescriptions? Got kids in school? Been on a benefit?

How do you think all this stuff is paid for? Magic? What if we all said - "I don't agree with paying taxes so I'm not paying"?

Drive on the roads? Then contribute to the costs!

Sweet, ill go and register all 7 of my vehicles and try and drive/ride them all at the same time.

[StoneY]

I wonder if the Labour Party would be open to the idea of paying a fair ACC levy on one bike and a marginal fee on any subsequent ones?

Believe it or not this has been discussed with TPTB in several 'meetings' I have attended, there is some sympathy toward multiple vehicle owners, yet there is no system in place that (currently) can deal with this

Risk assessment based on history and claims has been discussed as well (I would be cooked LOL) but I am not allowed to talk about these things of course........:facepalm:

:shutup:

[Max Preload]

Well, duh!!
The maximum allowable fine has been $1000 for a long time. $200 is the actual fine imposed.The maximum fine is $1000. The infringement fee is $200.


Yep MR24 formMR27.

I'll be making moulds of my plates and I still won't be licensing any vehicles. Fuck any 'consequences'. I'm all about the principle.

[MSTRS]

Risk assessment based on history and claims has been discussed as well ...

I'm sure that this would be even more unfair. I touched on it in an earlier post.
The only way to offer discounts for good claim history would be to shift to licence based levies. Which penalises those who do very little motoring. Unless the way it was applied utilised a method of adjusting the levy according to expected annual mileage...but how would that be policed?

[imdying]

It could be a lot worse. Get caught on the UK without a current tax disk (or insurance) and the vehicle is instantly impounded.How many people without a current tax disk do the runner? Common or unheard of?

Because if I had to play the numbers, a fake plate and a fireblade seems like pretty good odds of getting away with it. Might need a Chinese fairing kit and some matt black paint though... (or at least a couple of kits, IYKWIM).

[p.dath]

Giving some consideration to multi-vehicle ownership - I can see considerable scope for abuse if discounts were offered in this scenario.

A group of owners could get together and form a partnership, company, trust, or any other single legal entity, and then register all of their vehicles under that one name. They could still retain the right to their bike under a constitution or equivalent legal framework within that entity.
And if we are talking about saving people $500 each, then there is considerable motivation for them to do this. I can't see anyway to prevent this.

Also considerable ACC revenue may be lost to current fleet operators. Consider a large corporate with 500 vehicles - all of a sudden their ACC bill would reduce from 500 down to the hugely discounted rate.
The effect of this would be that everyone else's ACC levy would increase. Possibly by quite a bit.

And part of this is that just because a person owns more than one vehicle does not mean all of those vehicles are not used at once. Consider your typical two car family where the cars are registered to a single legal entity - yet both cars are being used.

The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion of trying to handle the situation of a single person owing multiple vehicles where only one is used at a time to achieve a lower ACC premium for that one person within the current framework is just too dangerous. There could be a lot of unintended issues.


Shifting 100% of the ACC levy to fuel seems like the simplest option to me, still.

[Bald Eagle]

Shifting 100% of the ACC levy to fuel seems like the simplest option to me, still.

TPTB don't want simple they want maximum revenue for minimum effort.

They also want to sell a flourishing business to the highest bidder once they've got the revenue stream pumped up enough.

[MSTRS]

Shifting 100% of the ACC levy to fuel seems like the simplest option to me, still.

Fair.
Least open to abuse.
Covers all the bases for high, or low, mileage (read that as time exposed to risk).
Easily implemented.
Easy to adjust amount as required (no need to wait until July 1st to raise/lower).

The only 'drawback' for the govt/ACC is their bullshit risk-rating wouldn't apply.

[nodrog]

And part of this is that just because a person owns more than one vehicle does not mean all of those vehicles are not used at once. .

This is why it should be a yearly ACC premium on your drivers licence, then everybody (legally) operating a vehicle has payed.

[86GSXR]

Don't forget, the cost of everyone's rego on their first bike would increase to allow this to happen ... I can smell a lot of pissed off bikers over that one. :lol:

So instead of penalising all bikers (again), just penalise the ones with more than one bike? Sounds really fair.


:rofl:
Yeah, right!

But it's not about revenue is it? :innocent:


A glimmer of hope that you're not totally thick...

Simply put, without the differing risk-ratings, vehicle-based ACC levies have to provide $XM, split between the number of vehicles. If discounts are offered on multiple vehicles, then the first vehicle/s must carry a greater proportion of the amount required.

Put the levy on fuel. The annual litreage of fuel use is a relative constant, so tptb can easily work out how much is required per litre, add it at the pump, and adjust up or down as required. No-one is penalised for owning multiple vehicles, everyone pays according to their road use and barring the odd drive-off at fuel stations (never stop those) no-one escapes paying their share.

Of course, those with fuel-hungry vehicles might complain...

This is probably the best solution, as long as rego's go down in proportion to the levy on fuel. The gov't will probably never allow such an increase tho, too many voters drive cars.



Drive on the roads? Then contribute to the costs!

I have no problem contributing to the costs, it's contributing twice that fucks me off. And you're right, the UK is driver hell.


Sweet, ill go and register all 7 of my vehicles and try and drive/ride them all at the same time.

I'll join you!


Believe it or not this has been discussed with TPTB in several 'meetings' I have attended, there is some sympathy toward multiple vehicle owners, yet there is no system in place that (currently) can deal with this

Risk assessment based on history and claims has been discussed as well (I would be cooked LOL) but I am not allowed to talk about these things of course........:facepalm:

:shutup:

Cheers! Well at least there is sympathy, a good place to start in addressing this inequity. Hopefully a system will emerge out of discussions like these.

Of course you're not allowed to talk of these things :yes: :niceone:

[Max Preload]

The only fair way is with the ACC levy entirely on fuel. I'm happy to pay my fair share based on mileage risk because, face it, if your vehicle isn't being driven it poses no risk. Am I right or am I right?

None of this multiple vehicle ownership bullshit which is open to abuse.

[imdying]

Are V8s more at risk than Suzuki Swifts? If not, why should they pay more ACC through fuel?

[MSTRS]

This is probably the best solution, as long as rego's go down in proportion to the levy on fuel.


Of course! Have a look at your rego demand...remove the ACC levy part (because that's now on the fuel you purchase) and see how cheap your rego will be.

[MSTRS]

Are V8s more at risk than Suzuki Swifts? If not, why should they pay more ACC through fuel?

That a loophole. Easily utilised. By not using gas-guzzlers.

[bogan]

This is the 21st century, it's not that hard to implement new systems, putting the ACC levy onto a persons license isn't difficult, all the databases etc are there already. Cross reference with owned vehicles and charge only for the most expensive if they insist on different levies for different types. Only real problem is educating everyone about the change, but even that won't be too bad as you could just say no new vehicle license without current paid up driver license.

[Max Preload]

(d) Its muddled. Demerits are applied to a driver. But tickets for licensing are the responsibility of the owner. That makes the foolish assumption that they are one and the same. Which in my case I ensure they are not.Only if it's parked are infringement fees or fines for unlicensed motorvehicles applied to the registered owner rather than the operator.

[Swoop]

But it's not about revenue is it?
Of course not.:sick:

Any gubbinment will be after as many $$$'s as possible to fund their hobby-horses and junkets (and the poor taxpayer can get stuffed).

[Max Preload]

Are V8s more at risk than Suzuki Swifts? If not, why should they pay more ACC through fuel?The difference is negligible especially when you can spend the $$$ saved on the ACC portion of the vehicle licenses from operating one V8 and one Swift on petrol to run the one appropriate to your needs on that day. That is to say, you're not penalised for owning 2 vehicles, one to commute in and one to tow the boat.

[p.dath]

This is the 21st century, it's not that hard to implement new systems, putting the ACC levy onto a persons license isn't difficult, all the databases etc are there already. Cross reference with owned vehicles and charge only for the most expensive if they insist on different levies for different types. Only real problem is educating everyone about the change, but even that won't be too bad as you could just say no new vehicle license without current paid up driver license.

If it is put onto a persons licence, how do you plan to collect the cash? Are you going to propose that every licences driver has to go somewhere every 12 months to pay something? So someone has to process an extra 1 to 2 million transactions per year, perform debt collection, follow up letters, handle complaints, etc?
Sounds very expensive to me.

What about all the vehicles not owned by humans (as in, they are owned by companies and the like)? There is no linkage between licence and vehicle.

[MSTRS]

Cross reference with owned vehicles

Don't have to have a vehicle to hold a licence. And vice versa.
Only need a licence to OPERATE a vehicle.

[nodrog]

If it is put onto a persons licence, how do you plan to collect the cash? Are you going to propose that every licences driver has to go somewhere every 12 months to pay something? So someone has to process an extra 1 to 2 million transactions per year, perform debt collection, follow up letters, handle complaints, etc?
Sounds very expensive to me.

What about all the vehicles not owned by humans (as in, they are owned by companies and the like)? There is no linkage between licence and vehicle.

what extra transactions? you pay on your license not your vehicle, so there will be no vehicle transactions.

you dont need a link between person and vehicle, throw the rego label away.

[MSTRS]

If it is put onto a persons licence, how do you plan to collect the cash? Are you going to propose that every licences driver has to go somewhere every 12 months to pay something? So someone has to process an extra 1 to 2 million transactions per year, perform debt collection, follow up letters, handle complaints, etc?
Sounds very expensive to me.


Be no different to now. All those transactions for each re-licencing of vehicles. Can be over the counter or online. Nothing would change.
BUT - what form would the driver licence/proof of levy payment be? Same licence as now, and a new piece of plastic/paper that you must carry along with your current photo licence? And what is stopping those who don't bother paying? Tons of unlicenced drivers now...it would just get worse.

EDIT: I see what you mean about 'extra transactions'...vehicles still need to be registered PLUS licence levy. That's 2 transactions, compared to the 1 as it is now.

Fuck me - fuel-based is looking better and better.

[bogan]

If it is put onto a persons licence, how do you plan to collect the cash? Are you going to propose that every licences driver has to go somewhere every 12 months to pay something? So someone has to process an extra 1 to 2 million transactions per year, perform debt collection, follow up letters, handle complaints, etc?
Sounds very expensive to me.

What about all the vehicles not owned by humans (as in, they are owned by companies and the like)? There is no linkage between licence and vehicle.

well you could do it online as well, or post office etc, expensive you reckon? how many bill payment transactions are performed daily at post offices do you think, an extra 2 million per year is a drop in the bucket. Vehicles not owned by humans don't matter, as it's very difficult for one to crash without a driver. You should try to stop seeing it as lost income, and start looking at how it is a much fairer way to charge.

[RE5Guy]

It is all a load of the proverbial.

We all know the ACC levies suck and are unfair, but nothing will happen to change this.

We are a minority and we will be treated as such.

[imdying]

The difference is negligible especially when you can spend the $$$ saved on the ACC portion of the vehicle licenses from operating one V8 and one Swift on petrol to run the one appropriate to your needs on that day. That is to say, you're not penalised for owning 2 vehicles, one to commute in and one to tow the boat.

I live in an apartment and only have one parking space. I don't want to pay to insure two cars. I don't want to pay to maintain two cars. I don't want to drive a Swift at $30 a week, I want to drive a V8 at $120 a week. Why should I pay four times the ACC Levy when my risk hasn't changed? You're looking for a fair system, fuel isn't it.

Personally I vote scrap it and I'll keep paying for medical, surgical, dental, and life cover.

[imdying]

Only need a licence to OPERATE a vehicle.No, you don't. You only need one to operate it LEGALLY.

[MSTRS]

Why should I pay four times the ACC Levy when my risk hasn't changed?
Your choice.
Same as now,really. You choose to ride a 750cc bike, instead of a 400? You pay more. Where's the extra risk?

No, you don't. You only need one to operate it LEGALLY.

True. :facepalm:

[imdying]

Same as now,really. You choose to ride a 750cc bike, instead of a 400? You pay more. Where's the extra risk?Isn't that the point though?


True. :facepalm:Guess that's a plus for the fuel levy then.

[lone_slayer]

Here's an idea how about motorcyclists being able to purchase a multi vehicle plate much like a D-Plate for car dealers, you can ride one of your bikes dosent matter which 1 and only pay 1 rego.... Would help out all you guys with multiple bikes. Also as an idea what does a D plate cost to have for a year? and is it easy to get your hands on 1? Also would be great if you want to use a friend spare or somthing just grab your plate (registerd to the rider not the bike) and throw it on a bike any "fun" you have is on you and no one else

[awa355]

Here's an idea how about motorcyclists being able to purchase a multi vehicle plate much like a D-Plate for car dealers, you can ride one of your bikes dosent matter which 1 and only pay 1 rego.... Would help out all you guys with multiple bikes. Also as an idea what does a D plate cost to have for a year? and is it easy to get your hands on 1? Also would be great if you want to use a friend spare or somthing just grab your plate (registerd to the rider not the bike) and throw it on a bike any "fun" you have is on you and no one else

That sounds okay in theory, but, You couldn't apply it to cars towing trailers etc, Would be a pain to physically change plates. Easier to have an endorsement on your licence.

[lone_slayer]

That sounds okay in theory, but, You couldn't apply it to cars towing trailers etc, Would be a pain to physically change plates. Easier to have an endorsement on your licence.

Was thinking motorcycles only very easy to swap a plate but I guess it also means that whatever CC bike you ride the cost would be the same and we all know 600cc+ is a death trap:blink:

[MSTRS]

Was thinking motorcycles only ...

Can't agree with that. Motorcyclists are NOT something special (even if we were targetted first for big ACC rises).
Why would we want to be viewed by others with even more rancour than now, because we are allowed something special as far as our bikes go that they can't have for their cars?

[Pixie]

There seems to be a common thread the Government is out to get your money. So lets take a step back for a minute.

ACC, as in the organisation that pays for your care after an accident, costs money. Lets pretend it costs $500m for the year.

No matter what, that is what the cost is. So the question is how to divy up the bill amongst us all. And in case it isn't really obvious, if one person pays less, or doesn't pay at all, then someone else has to pay more - we still need to collect the $500m to pay for everyone who has gotten hurt.

So when someone decides that their share of the ACC bill is not fair, and decides not to register their bike/car, what they are in actual fact doing is asking everyone else to pay their share. And they call that fair. I don't personally understand their logic.

And think about it. If next year 10% more people don't register their vehicles and pay their ACC fees, and it still costs $500m - what do you think will happen to the individual cost of ACC? It will, of course, increase so that $500m is still collected.


So please don't waste your breath by telling me you don't think it is fair that you shouldn't have to pay ACC and because of that you won't, and that you think I should pay part of your bill so you don't have to.

Instead, if your not happy with the service you are paying for - work on changing that, or work on changing how the bill is divided up - but do realise that no matter what, the same $500m has to be collected, and if you end up getting a smaller bill then it means someone else will end up getting a bigger bill.

Save your breath,the nats have already designed ACC to be best readied for sale and that design does not include changing the income structure by putting levies on fuel or one fee per driver.

Anyway,every couple of years they talk about banning radar detectors - usually it is just FUD (fear,uncertainty ,doubt)

[MSTRS]

Save your breath,the nats have already designed ACC to be best readied for sale and that design does not include changing the income structure by putting levies on fuel or one fee per driver.



Yep. Except history tells us that when National find themselves out, Labour will re-nationalise ACC and quite possibly initiate changes to the way levies are collected.

[Pixie]

Are V8s more at risk than Suzuki Swifts? If not, why should they pay more ACC through fuel?

More benefits! It gets lumbering pieces of shit off the road,too

[imdying]

More benefits! It gets lumbering pieces of shit off the road,tooMmmm, like anything over a 250... I'm sure they've thought about that too.

[CookMySock]

No, you don't. You only need one to operate it LEGALLY.And legally according to who?

The king, er, govt has ALWAYS made a point of taxing every single activity simply from a fund-raising perspective - they have done this for hundreds of years, and every year they find yet a new way to slice of a chunk of whats yours and make it theirs. All the courts, lawyers, and so on, are just part of the fund-raising system. Well they can stick it up their arse. What's mine stays mine.

[admenk]

What's mine stays mine.

Good luck with that...

[Conquiztador]

If it is put onto a persons licence, how do you plan to collect the cash? Are you going to propose that every licences driver has to go somewhere every 12 months to pay something? So someone has to process an extra 1 to 2 million transactions per year, perform debt collection, follow up letters, handle complaints, etc?
Sounds very expensive to me.

What about all the vehicles not owned by humans (as in, they are owned by companies and the like)? There is no linkage between licence and vehicle.

The more I read of your postings the more I am sure you are in someones pocket.

[Yow Ling]

Ok so I own 2 houses, why should I pay rates on 2 houses when I only live in 1?
Nobody argues with rates
One of the houses is bigger than the other , I pay more rates on the big one
No problem there either

When the powers that be apply the same charging regime on motorvehicles its a revenue gathering exercise etc bla bla bla.

If you dont pay yer rates, you get penalised, happens every day , nobody complains.

Some guys here are going to speak with their vote. wont make much difference, they wont change this, a swing to the left will cost as much or more than where we are now.

I think you are all screwed ! China has 1 child policy , NZ going to have 1 vehicle policy maybe

[rastuscat]

Sweet, ill go and register all 7 of my vehicles and try and drive/ride them all at the same time.

Maybe you could get discounted for 6 of your 7 bikes.

Then when you loan the 6 discounted bikes to some mates, they can ride around on your bikes, get injured, and still expect ACC to pay.

Yeah, that's really fair.

[bogan]

Maybe you could get discounted for 6 of your 7 bikes.

Then when you loan the 6 discounted bikes to some mates, they can ride around on your bikes, get injured, and still expect ACC to pay.

Yeah, that's really fair.

same as having 1 bike and loaning it out! putting the fees on the license is looking better eh?

[blackdog]

Also as an idea what does a D plate cost to have for a year?

I can't remember exactly, but it's well into the thousands.

[Yow Ling]

I can't remember exactly, but it's well into the thousands.

I used to have one , it was about $20 less than the full rego. that was about 3 years ago, it sure wasnt more than normal rego.

It requires that you make a declaration for its use , and has some conditions as well, all a bit of a pain in the arse, plus everyone wanted to borrow it !

[racefactory]

They won't have the resources to take plates away and give them back to people. It would require a big effort and that might easily cost more than the losses from people like us riding and driving with rego on hold.

It has worked beautifully for me so far. Just ran the car without rego for a year and put it on hold for another 12 months. The bike has not seen a rego for a long time now. Life is good.

[Reckless]

Ok so I own 2 houses, why should I pay rates on 2 houses when I only live in 1?
Nobody argues with rates
One of the houses is bigger than the other , I pay more rates on the big one
No problem there either

When the powers that be apply the same charging regime on motorvehicles its a revenue gathering exercise etc bla bla bla.

If you dont pay yer rates, you get penalised, happens every day , nobody complains.

Some guys here are going to speak with their vote. wont make much difference, they wont change this, a swing to the left will cost as much or more than where we are now.

I think you are all screwed ! China has 1 child policy , NZ going to have 1 vehicle policy maybe

Jeepers I think you may have missed the point here the main charge in rego is ACC risk. I'm pretty sure there's no comparison between sitting in your house compared to sitting on your bike?? Not quite the same risk factor, don't think this house/rates vs bike/rego/ACC argument flys at all??



Maybe you could get discounted for 6 of your 7 bikes.

Then when you loan the 6 discounted bikes to some mates, they can ride around on your bikes, get injured, and still expect ACC to pay.

Yeah, that's really fair.

Also this post! If I know bikers at all there is very very few that lone their bikes out to anyone (even if they owned 6 of them) they are personal always have been? That's why we are so passionate about them isn't it??! The people doing the above simply wouldn't rate as a valid argument imho!

Secondly if bikers where paying ACC levies (say through their license) they would be less inclined to increase they're risk by loaning out to people who didn't pay??

Finally if you have already taken the position that blame is to be specifically allocated this is not how Woodhouse set it up or intended it! Anyone with this approach has already lost the ACC argument. Thats what they want you to do change your ethos of thought. Our ACC system is dead. They've won!

[yachtie10]

They won't have the resources to take plates away and give them back to people. It would require a big effort and that might easily cost more than the losses from people like us riding and driving with rego on hold.

It has worked beautifully for me so far. Just ran the car without rego for a year and put it on hold for another 12 months. The bike has not seen a rego for a long time now. Life is good.

Its people like you that are causing the problem
if you wont register at least one of your vehicles then your a bludger
and I bet you will expect acc to cover you when you crash

(I have no issue with people not registering one of many vehicles)

[Yow Ling]

Jeepers I think you may have missed the point here the main charge in rego is ACC risk. I'm pretty sure there's no comparison between sitting in your house compared to sitting on your bike?? Not quite the same risk factor, don't think this house/rates vs bike/rego/ACC argument flys at all??




Also this post! If I know bikers at all there is very very few that lone their bikes out to anyone (even if they owned 6 of them) they are personal always have been? That's why we are so passionate about them isn't it??! The people doing the above simply wouldn't rate as a valid argument imho!

Secondly if bikers where paying ACC levies (say through their license) they would be less inclined to increase they're risk by loaning out to people who didn't pay??

Finally if you have already taken the position that blame is to be specifically allocated this is not how Woodhouse set it up or intended it! Anyone with this approach has already lost the ACC argument. Thats what they want you to do change your ethos of thought. Our ACC system is dead. They've won!


No I dont think I missed ay point, you and the anti ACC brigade are so caught up in the "so unfair for bikers" bullshit that you have forgotton what this thread is actually about, and that is a new penalty for anyone using unregistered motorvehicles , the majority are most likley cars. You of all people should be happy as a pig in mud as you pay nothing for regoing a dirt bike and have the full support of the ACC system when you get hurt.

ACC is not dead, last time I used it it paid for an Ambo ride to hospital and luxury care in A&E, time before that they paid for 4 days in Hospo with surgery, also about 5 lots of physio, ultrsounds etc.
Maybe you justnot reckless enough to enjoy the benifits

[awayatc]

ACC is not dead, last time I used it it paid for an Ambo ride to hospital and luxury care in A&E, time before that they paid for 4 days in Hospo with surgery, also about 5 lots of physio, ultrsounds etc.

Maybe you justnot reckless enough to enjoy the benifits

What?...............
What sort of piss poor attitude is that?
Maybe the 1 child policy makes those that "make it" to selfcentered?
I am not reckless and can't remember when I last " enjoyed the benefits" of ACC....
at least a decade or so ago.
I have 7 motorvehicles to register and am half my life at sea....
Just so I can pay for cocksuckers like you.....?

[86GSXR]

To charge someone more than once for the same amount of risk is just screwed. A bike sitting home alone cannot possibly injure itself, the environment, or its rider.

[nodrog]

Maybe you could get discounted for 6 of your 7 bikes.

Then when you loan the 6 discounted bikes to some mates, they can ride around on your bikes, get injured, and still expect ACC to pay.

Yeah, that's really fair.

maybe the levy could just be on drivers licence's, so everybody has payed their fair share.

[ajturbo]

To charge someone more than once for the same amount of risk is just screwed. A bike sitting home alone cannot possibly injure itself, the environment, or its rider.

you stupid person..... what sort of logic is that..?????:angry::woohoo::facepalm:

[ajturbo]

What?...............
What sort of piss poor attitude is that?
Maybe the 1 child policy makes those that "make it" to selfcentered?
I am not reckless and can't remember when I last " enjoyed the benefits" of ACC....
at least a decade or so ago.
I have 7 motorvehicles to register and am half my life at sea....
Just so I can pay for cocksuckers like you.....?

now this is even funnier than the last one......

hook line and sinker..!!!!

hahahahahahahaha

[davereid]

maybe the levy could just be on drivers licence's, so everybody has payed their fair share.

Maybe it could just be on fuel, or even better as a road user charge that reflects distance traveled.

Remember that the BIGGEST reason the motorcycle levy is high is that ACC funds 80% of your income while you get back to work. This can be correctly thought of as income protection insurance.

So a beneficiary, or low wage earner pays the same premium for income protection insurance as I do, yet the beneficiary actually gets NO cover.

The way to sort this mess out is easy.

1) Collect income protection insurance, by putting the charge on income. So poor people don't pay for cover they don't get.

2) Collect the balance from road user charges that reflect distance traveled.

3) Return to a no-fault basis, where all road users pay the same km rate.

[Pixie]

Ok so I own 2 houses, why should I pay rates on 2 houses when I only live in 1?
Nobody argues with rates
One of the houses is bigger than the other , I pay more rates on the big one
No problem there either

When the powers that be apply the same charging regime on motorvehicles its a revenue gathering exercise etc bla bla bla.

If you dont pay yer rates, you get penalised, happens every day , nobody complains.

Some guys here are going to speak with their vote. wont make much difference, they wont change this, a swing to the left will cost as much or more than where we are now.

I think you are all screwed ! China has 1 child policy , NZ going to have 1 vehicle policy maybe

People do have problems with rating property.Each year there is talk of a better way of raising local body funds.Why,for example,should two properties pay different amounts for the same services merely because one is valued at a higher level by the vagaries of the property market?

[Pixie]

Maybe you could get discounted for 6 of your 7 bikes.

Then when you loan the 6 discounted bikes to some mates, they can ride around on your bikes, get injured, and still expect ACC to pay.

Yeah, that's really fair.

This happens a lot - pass me a tui

[davereid]

People do have problems with rating property.Each year there is talk of a better way of raising local body funds.Why,for example,should two properties pay different amounts for the same services merely because one is valued at a higher level by the vagaries of the property market?

Yes, rates are alleged to be a charge for services. A $500,000 house with a little old lady in does not use anywhere as many services as the house next door worth $350,000 that has 14 people in.

Its chosen simply as its easy and reliable way of collecting the money.

What did fairness have to do with it ? lol

[p.dath]

Jeepers I think you may have missed the point here the main charge in rego is ACC risk. I'm pretty sure there's no comparison between sitting in your house compared to sitting on your bike?? Not quite the same risk factor, don't think this house/rates vs bike/rego/ACC argument flys at all??

Actually, it's the exact opposite. ACC pay out *substantially* more for accidents at home than on motorcycles. It seems you are far more at risk staying home.

Get out on your bike now. Save yourself. :)

[Pixie]

Its people like you that are causing the problem
if you wont register at least one of your vehicles then your a bludger
and I bet you will expect acc to cover you when you crash

(I have no issue with people not registering one of many vehicles)

I pay $2000 / year in business ACC levies,in a field in which the chances of injury is next to nil.In fact the highest risk to me recently,occurred when I found myself in Christchurch on Feb 22.
I feel I've covered myself adequately with that sum and don't feel any guilt not paying any vehicle levies.

[MSTRS]

Ok so I own 2 houses, why should I pay rates on 2 houses when I only live in 1?
Nobody argues with rates

Is the other house empty and unused? If it is, then it's the same as a vehicle on hold and sitting in the shed...it's not 'using' any services...and you'd have a genuine gripe about rates.

Maybe you could get discounted for 6 of your 7 bikes.

Then when you loan the 6 discounted bikes to some mates, they can ride around on your bikes, get injured, and still expect ACC to pay.

Yeah, that's really fair.

Yep. Those calling for this, believing it would be fairer, must be naive if they think this wouldn't be a source of massive abuse. The odd unrego'd vehicle is a drop in the ocean compared....

[racefactory]

Maybe it could just be on fuel, or even better as a road user charge that reflects distance traveled.

Remember that the BIGGEST reason the motorcycle levy is high is that ACC funds 80% of your income while you get back to work. This can be correctly thought of as income protection insurance.

So a beneficiary, or low wage earner pays the same premium for income protection insurance as I do, yet the beneficiary actually gets NO cover.

The way to sort this mess out is easy.

1) Collect income protection insurance, by putting the charge on income. So poor people don't pay for cover they don't get.

2) Collect the balance from road user charges that reflect distance traveled.

3) Return to a no-fault basis, where all road users pay the same km rate.

Just like how everyone is running on hold right now, if that was the case then instead everyone would be winding back speedometers. It just wouldn't work doing it on kms.

[Latte]

Just like how everyone is running on hold right now, if that was the case then instead everyone would be winding back speedometers. It just wouldn't work doing it on kms.

It's exactly how they do road user charges on diesels now . The govt can force us all to buy hubodometers :D

[Scuba_Steve]

Just like how everyone is running on hold right now, if that was the case then instead everyone would be winding back speedometers. It just wouldn't work doing it on kms.

I could be wrong but I don't think winding back is quite as easy on these new fangdangeled digital odo's & even stopping them I believe to sometimes be quite a challenge without being noticed.

I am a huge supporter of RUC's for everyone & that being the way to pay for all our road tax's it's fairer that current systems especially for those of use with multi vehicles. Pay only for what you use :yes:

[racefactory]

That could well work depending on what the fine is for disconnecting the speedo cable and if the police were out enforcing random checks.

[Yow Ling]

I could be wrong but I don't think winding back is quite as easy on these new fangdangeled digital odo's & even stopping them I believe to sometimes be quite a challenge without being noticed.

I am a huge supporter of RUC's for everyone & that being the way to pay for all our road tax's it's fairer that current systems especially for those of use with multi vehicles. Pay only for what you use :yes:

RUC is probably the basis for a fair system, dont forget though its pay before you use, and the current penalty is 3 times the unpaid distance, so say it were $40 per 1000km (same as a light van) and you were 3000km over the fine would be $480 , same as it is now, all of a sudden $600 to reg a bike with road user built into the fuel as it currently is with petrol vehicles, is looking like an easier system for the user to maintain.

For the guys with 7 bikes , they would need to buy 7000km up front before being able to go on the road. That is if they actually rode their 7 bikes.

[MSTRS]

RUC is probably the basis for a fair system, dont forget though its pay before you use, and the current penalty is 3 times the unpaid distance, so say it were $40 per 1000km (same as a light van) and you were 3000km over the fine would be $480 , same as it is now, all of a sudden $600 to reg a bike with road user built into the fuel as it currently is with petrol vehicles, is looking like an easier system for the user to maintain.

For the guys with 7 bikes , they would need to buy 7000km up front before being able to go on the road. That is if they actually rode their 7 bikes.

What's the problem with that? You do that now with petrol...

[miloking]

I could be wrong but I don't think winding back is quite as easy on these new fangdangeled digital odo's & even stopping them I believe to sometimes be quite a challenge without being noticed.


one word = speedohealer


You can calibrate it to run at 10% of the actual speed...so could show like 5km/h instead of 50 or something (just so you have some idea how fast you are actualy going)

[Scuba_Steve]

RUC is probably the basis for a fair system, dont forget though its pay before you use, and the current penalty is 3 times the unpaid distance, so say it were $40 per 1000km (same as a light van) and you were 3000km over the fine would be $480 , same as it is now, all of a sudden $600 to reg a bike with road user built into the fuel as it currently is with petrol vehicles, is looking like an easier system for the user to maintain.

For the guys with 7 bikes , they would need to buy 7000km up front before being able to go on the road. That is if they actually rode their 7 bikes.

but usually those 7 bikes wouldn't have been brought all at once & once the RUC is on you can use at you leisure no yearly raping by the Govt.
As for being over, I would ditch the fines, if your caught with your odo over your RUC's you can either pay right there on the spot for new distance licence or you can get out & leave your vehicle wherever it is (or if more than than 1000km's over it will be kindly towed back to the nearest town for you at your expense where it will not be released until both RUC's are upto date & the towage fee has been paid). that means if your in the middle of the desert road, well stink for you should have kept your RUC's up to date

[AllanB]

I find it hard to believe you are all surprised. It was always coming.

I'd rather see them add demerit points for lack of warrants - after all a lack of a WOF can mean a vehicle may be dangerous to the user and others on the road. Rego is apiece of paper only.

[StoneY]

I find it hard to believe you are all surprised. It was always coming.

I'd rather see them add demerit points for lack of warrants - after all a lack of a WOF can mean a vehicle may be dangerous to the user and others on the road. Rego is apiece of paper only.

Exactly, and as the Demerits are meant to be for issues genuinely affecting safety this is a logical idea, Demerits for WOF and not for Reg issue's is the way it should be

As I said earlier in the thread, this drive on revenue collecting is getting pathetic........ if this is an attempt to buffer the bikes placed on exemption, just up the bloody fine for riding when on exemption ffs, and aim that fine revenue at the MSL to boost it, simple!
The fines in place for breaching the rules are sufficient, and do not need demerits added, its just over doing it and causing more work for the cops, work they shouldnt have to do.

Those in thread comparing us to UK etc, if you think its so wonderful there (which it aint) bugger off and live there, this is NZ and I for one am getting pretty annoyed with the cost of trying to enjoy a decent, freedom filled lifestyle here.

[rastuscat]

one word = speedohealer


You can calibrate it to run at 10% of the actual speed...so could show like 5km/h instead of 50 or something (just so you have some idea how fast you are actualy going)

Just disconnect it. Then use your GPS for speed.

[Scuba_Steve]

I find it hard to believe you are all surprised. It was always coming.

I'd rather see them add demerit points for lack of warrants - after all a lack of a WOF can mean a vehicle may be dangerous to the user and others on the road. Rego is apiece of paper only.

I would hardly call a WOF more than a sticker, especially if from VTNZ I would rather see WOF's abolished, but that's an argument been done many times before & suited for another thread

[riffer]

I think the fairest option is going to be a levy on petrol. This will then collect ACC from offroaders, chainsaw and lawnmower and other petrol-powered appliances which currently don't pay.

As for relicensing, if this is done at the same time as you get your warrant, the administration costs go way lower, so you could be looking at as little as $20-30 a year in licensing.

I'd certainly be prepared to pay an extra $0.15 a litre in gas for the removal of the motor vehicle levy.

Big problems I can see with this model are the complaints from those who do huge kms like taxis, couriers, truck drivers, etc.

[cold comfort]

People do have problems with rating property.Each year there is talk of a better way of raising local body funds.Why,for example,should two properties pay different amounts for the same services merely because one is valued at a higher level by the vagaries of the property market?

Don't get me started on rates. I had a "lifestyle" block in Canterbury which i was paying rates to two different local bodies for services i didn't get! The bus service ended 6km away,i supplied my own water, no rubbish collection etc-but i still had to pay for them! In Dunedin we are now paying rates for vanity projects we didn't want at the expense of basic services. Just because we pay unreasonable levies doesn't make it right or palatable.

[MSTRS]

I'd certainly be prepared to pay an extra $0.15 a litre in gas for the removal of the motor vehicle levy.

Big problems I can see with this model are the complaints from those who do huge kms like taxis, couriers, truck drivers, etc.

No system will ever keep everyone happy.
But it could be said that as things are, these people are on the road longer, exposed to 'risk' much more, pay the same (basically) as everyone else does, and therefore those of us who do a fraction of the kms are subsidising them.
I've heard that justification used before...

[Swoop]

That sounds okay in theory, but, You couldn't apply it to cars towing trailers etc,
Why? The rego plate on the back of the car simply gets moved onto the trailer and it it treated as "one vehicle".

The scheme will never take off though. TPTB will have a heart attack if it is suggested that each driver's licence comes with one set of plates which can get moved around.:facepalm:

[riffer]

No system will ever keep everyone happy.
But it could be said that as things are, these people are on the road longer, exposed to 'risk' much more, pay the same (basically) as everyone else does, and therefore those of us who do a fraction of the kms are subsidising them.


You're signing from my songsheet mate.

[bogan]

No system will ever keep everyone happy.
But it could be said that as things are, these people are on the road longer, exposed to 'risk' much more, pay the same (basically) as everyone else does, and therefore those of us who do a fraction of the kms are subsidising them.
I've heard that justification used before...

Imo, risk isn't vehicle numbers, it isn't vehicle type, it isn't kms traveled, it is the ability of the person behind the wheel or bars. It is impossible to bureaucratically evaluate that, so it should be one flat rate for all.

However I am not opposed to fuel levies or acc miles, as I see it as paying more for something you use more often, not paying more for more risk. But I would prefer it on the license, hell we could even have every 5 years and when you pay for your license you get to go on a roadcraft course! 'Fix' (even though it isn't broken) ACC through accident reduction rather than a big money grab :shit:

[DougieNZ]

The "fuel tax" advocates on here are forgetting a few things.

1. The govt are not going to introduce any scheme which gathers them less revenue. At the moment they are collecting money from old Mrs Jones that parks her car in the garamge most of the year with a weekly trip to the shops. A tank of fuel lasts her 3 months. Very littkle fuel tax revenue is collected there.

2. So the fuel tax will need to be significant to make up for the above lost revenue.

3. So who will pay the most fuel tax? Heavy users of vehicles. People who drive for their PROFESSION. Taking trucks out of the debate (road user charges apply) - Taxi drivers/travelling salesmen/people providing services etc etc

4. So what will they do when their fuel costs go through the roof?

5. I know! they WILL PASS IT ON TO US CONSUMERS!

So whichever way you look at the merrry go round the end result is the same. I would rather just pay my registration than see prices in other areas going through the roof.

[Cheesy]

I think the fairest option is going to be a levy on petrol. This will then collect ACC from offroaders, chainsaw and lawnmower and other petrol-powered appliances which currently don't pay.

As for relicensing, if this is done at the same time as you get your warrant, the administration costs go way lower, so you could be looking at as little as $20-30 a year in licensing.

I'd certainly be prepared to pay an extra $0.15 a litre in gas for the removal of the motor vehicle levy.

Big problems I can see with this model are the complaints from those who do huge kms like taxis, couriers, truck drivers, etc.

They could adjust the earner premiums for driving related industries to compensate for for the increase due to fuel use

[MSTRS]

The "fuel tax" advocates on here are forgetting a few things.

1. The govt are not going to introduce any scheme which gathers them less revenue. At the moment they are collecting money from old Mrs Jones that parks her car in the garamge most of the year with a weekly trip to the shops. A tank of fuel lasts her 3 months. Very littkle fuel tax revenue is collected there.

2. So the fuel tax will need to be significant to make up for the above lost revenue.

3. So who will pay the most fuel tax? Heavy users of vehicles. People who drive for their PROFESSION. Taking trucks out of the debate (road user charges apply) - Taxi drivers/travelling salesmen/people providing services etc etc

4. So what will they do when their fuel costs go through the roof?

5. I know! they WILL PASS IT ON TO US CONSUMERS!

So whichever way you look at the merrry go round the end result is the same. I would rather just pay my registration than see prices in other areas going through the roof.

Me? I'm forgetting nothing...

I never said fuel-based levies were fair. But it is fairER than any other system of collection.
None of us is happy with the bullshit risk-based method...the safest rider on the road presents far less risk to himself and others, compared to Joe Halfasleep in his new Merc with 75 airbags etc.
However, if risk is part of the equation, then exposure to risk is covered by RUC or fuel based...
Has to be much fairer than any other way.

[p.dath]

The "fuel tax" advocates on here are forgetting a few things.

1. The govt are not going to introduce any scheme which gathers them less revenue. At the moment they are collecting money from old Mrs Jones that parks her car in the garamge most of the year with a weekly trip to the shops. A tank of fuel lasts her 3 months. Very littkle fuel tax revenue is collected there.

You don't seem to understand we need to collect a certain amount to fund ACC. Lets pretend it is $700m. If the ACC levy is removed from re-licencing and added to fuel $700m still needs to be collected. All that happens is the cost of the ACC gets redistributed from those paying per vehicle to those who use the road the most.
Note that there is already an ACC levy on Petrol. We are merely saying we want 100% of the levy on Petrol.



2. So the fuel tax will need to be significant to make up for the above lost revenue.

If I recall correctly, it needs to increase by about 15 cents per litre to raise the same amount as is currently being generated through re-licencing.


3. So who will pay the most fuel tax? Heavy users of vehicles. People who drive for their PROFESSION. Taking trucks out of the debate (road user charges apply) - Taxi drivers/travelling salesmen/people providing services etc etc

Correct. Heavy users of the roading network with the most exposure will pay the most.


4. So what will they do when their fuel costs go through the roof?

It is self regulating. If less people drive, then less ACC would be collected, and you would expect less accidents to happen.


5. I know! they WILL PASS IT ON TO US CONSUMERS!

Well consumers buy petrol, so if petrol goes up in price of course consumers will pay more. What's your point?



So whichever way you look at the merrry go round the end result is the same. I would rather just pay my registration than see prices in other areas going through the roof.

Correct, the same amount of ACC needs to be collected. HOWEVER, when ACC is funded via 100% via petrol:
* It is very hard to evade paying. If no one evades paying then more people are splitting the $700m bill, and the cost per person could reduce.
* Very cheap to collect (already paying to collect it).
* Everyone gets charged exactly the same amount per km of road they use - so very fair.

If you drive the "average" number of km's that other motorists do, they your net costs for the year would not change. If you have several vehicles but only use one, your cost would drop. If your a Granddad and only drive once every three months your costs would come down. If you drive all day every day your costs would go way up.

[Subike]

That could well work depending on what the fine is for disconnecting the speedo cable and if the police were out enforcing random checks.

Have fun when disconnecting the "cable" on some new cars, Its now called "fly by wire" not a cable.
Also on many automatic vehicles if you disconnect the speedo cable, the gearbox stops working......bugger!
There are other things that make tampering with the milage on modern cars a fools errand.
Putting the ACC levey on fuel is the fairest, ok, there is the granny who drives once a mth, as opposed to the 1000k per day professonal driver... proportional risk IMO
The up side of ACC on fuel is, lawnmowers, boats, dirt bikes, get to contribute to the ACC account, and these three consume a large proportion of that account.
The .. handing in of the reg plates if vehicle is not uesd......mmm what about personalised plates? You own the plate, for life.
As for those with criminal minds, borrowing the front plate off of somebody elses car is something that already happens, this will just increase. This is already used for fuel thieft.
Demerit points for non registration is wrong big time, registration is not a saftey issue just a compliancy issue. Watch out that ciggy smoking in cars incurrs 30 demerit points..........same with eating while driving.........where will it stop.

[Scuba_Steve]

* Everyone gets charged exactly the same amount per km of road they use - so very fair.


Not doing too bad till here, your not telling me a 10l V10 Dodge Viper is gonna cost the same per km as a 1.3l 4cyl Mazda 323 are you?
Or a GSXR1000 is gonna cost the same per km as a Scorpio?

[imdying]

There are other things that make tampering with the milage on modern cars a fools errand.No, only harder. You don't have to (read 'can't') stop everyone, just 99% of them.

[Viscount Montgomery]

All justification fails, all this ACC shit was brought on by wealing dealing financiers and politicians living in cuckoo land fucking the country's economy through incompetence/greed. And all getting away with it with nothing but a bonus golden handshake payment and a 4 week trip to fucken Honolulu. Face it, bikings fucked nowadays, too many weasels and snakes running the show, the elite BMW National Party rich get fat and 90% of every other fucken slob out there is licking from the toilet, thanks a lot you sons-of-bitches, no fucken way am I paying six fucken hundy plus a year, summer and fucken winter, your bikes sitting in the fucken shed doing fuck-all for a lot of fucken time, even these strange bearded tourer and rally-weirdo types claiming half a million K's a year know I'm right, soon enough there'll be cops out patrolling the backroads and secondary routes, you'll probably be better off taking your chances and just running home-made plywood plates out on the main fucken highways

[Reckless]

Demerit points for non registration is wrong big time, registration is not a saftey issue just a compliancy issue. Watch out that ciggy smoking in cars incurrs 30 demerit points..........same with eating while driving.........where will it stop.

What about parking wardens they give out tickets for no rego does this mean Wardens and councils will now have to power to give demerit points??

Smoking/eating in cars etc etc is a non issue because there's no increased ACC revenue to be gained from it! They don't give enough of a shit to set their revenue collectors (The NZ police force) onto it!!

What happened was they fucked up, we went and put all our 2nd, 3rd, 4th bikes on hold (and our rider over winter) instead of keeping them registered. Now they think its because we are all riding illegal which is prob another fuck up! I'd bet 99% of us aren't and pay our rego for the bikes we ride! When they realise this new law doesn't double their revenue they will know its another fuck up and think of another way to put the boot in!
Instead of doing what Woodhouse intended find a way to charge everyone a little bit and have a no fault system? Its not rocket science :facepalm:

[Swoop]

just running home-made plywood plates out on the main fucken highways
An impressive "Waaaaaah" moment there.

Who would use plywood? White formica is much better.

[p.dath]

Not doing too bad till here, your not telling me a 10l V10 Dodge Viper is gonna cost the same per km as a 1.3l 4cyl Mazda 323 are you?
Or a GSXR1000 is gonna cost the same per km as a Scorpio?

Oops, you are 100% correct.


All justification fails, all this ACC shit was brought on by wealing dealing financiers and politicians living in cuckoo land fucking the country's economy through incompetence/greed. And all getting away with it with nothing but a bonus golden handshake payment and a 4 week trip to fucken Honolulu. Face it, bikings fucked nowadays, too many weasels and snakes running the show, the elite BMW National Party rich get fat and 90% of every other fucken slob out there is licking from the toilet, thanks a lot you sons-of-bitches, no fucken way am I paying six fucken hundy plus a year, summer and fucken winter, your bikes sitting in the fucken shed doing fuck-all for a lot of fucken time, even these strange bearded tourer and rally-weirdo types claiming half a million K's a year know I'm right, soon enough there'll be cops out patrolling the backroads and secondary routes, you'll probably be better off taking your chances and just running home-made plywood plates out on the main fucken highways

I think perhaps you need a history lesson.

Before ACC we had the right to sue, like in the USA. Like insurance, there were specific policies. Unfortunately a lot of people failed to get paid out when they had an accident due to specific conditions of their policy (for example, a famous case is someone who had an accident when they stepped off their work stairs, and didn't get cover under their work insurance because they were deemed to have landed outside of work and as a result, that is where they injured themselves).

Large claims frequently ended up in court. Insurance companies routinely challenged large claims because they knew the defendants couldn't afford to challenge them. At the time, 30% of the claims that got paid out were consumed in legal fees making the insurance companies pay out.


Something had to change. So that is when the Government stepped in with a Royal Commission of Inquiry. All the systems from around the world were studied. The result was ACC. It got rid of all the bureaucracy. It got rid of the lawyers, the courts, and the right to sue.
Even today, ACC routinely pays out the largest chunk of what it collects than most other systems in existence in the world today. ACC is still that good.

After the introduction things were pretty sweat. And you know what, they still are.


So perhaps stop and consider the big picture, and realise things are nothing like what you are making out.

[chasio]

After the introduction things were pretty sweat [or sweet if you prefer - Ed :shutup:]. And you know what, they still are.

And that's the nub of it. It is a good organisation. It has massive cash reserves. And it is a splendid asset to make ready for sale to the private sector. Hooray!

National remind me of paedophiles grooming New Zealanders for their evil intentions with regard to ACC. Each little request may not seem unreasonable on its own, but after a few years, we'll be so used to not saying 'No' that they will be able to ask us to go along with anything. We'll feel bad about ourselves, that we have lost something of true value, but it will be too late.

I would be delighted to be proved wrong about this, but it is my nagging fear.

[Pixie]

That could well work depending on what the fine is for disconnecting the speedo cable and if the police were out enforcing random checks.
There is no effective way to check this on the roadside,short of the cop driving the vehicle.This would not happen due to liability issues.

[Voltaire]

bit off topic, but I was in dispute with ACC over stopping being self employed and then winding it up and becoming an employee.... seems they don't talk to IRD and you have to prove you stopped being self employed...... they aren't much help when you ring either..... now I have a debt collection agency on my case for $500.00....
" Pay in 72 hours or we take legal action"...dated 5 days ago....:facepalm:

I imagine ACC will tell me its out of their hands now.......
What really irks me is they don't have to have any customer service attitude as they have a monopoly.... do as we say or else.....thats the Stalinist bit I don't like.
They chase indviduals but let the big fish go.....
I live in Mt Roskill....maybe I should go and see my Triumph riding MP....:innocent:

[Pixie]

Those in thread comparing us to UK etc, if you think its so wonderful there (which it aint) bugger off and live there, this is NZ and I for one am getting pretty annoyed with the cost of trying to enjoy a decent, freedom filled lifestyle here.

You may feel I have given you some shit in the past,but in this I am in wholehearted agreement.

[Pixie]

3. So who will pay the most fuel tax? Heavy users of vehicles. People who drive for their PROFESSION. Taking trucks out of the debate (road user charges apply) - Taxi drivers/travelling salesmen/people providing services etc etc

4. So what will they do when their fuel costs go through the roof?

5. I know! they WILL PASS IT ON TO US CONSUMERS!

So whichever way you look at the merrry go round the end result is the same. I would rather just pay my registration than see prices in other areas going through the roof.
They didn't hesitate to put the ACC levy on diesels up by a similar amount to bikes,did they?

[Pixie]

You don't seem to understand we need to collect a certain amount to fund ACC. Lets pretend it is $700m. If the ACC levy is removed from re-licencing and added to fuel $700m still needs to be collected. All that happens is the cost of the ACC gets redistributed from those paying per vehicle to those who use the road the most.
Note that there is already an ACC levy on Petrol. We are merely saying we want 100% of the levy on Petrol.




If I recall correctly, it needs to increase by about 15 cents per litre to raise the same amount as is currently being generated through re-licencing.



Correct. Heavy users of the roading network with the most exposure will pay the most.



It is self regulating. If less people drive, then less ACC would be collected, and you would expect less accidents to happen.



Well consumers buy petrol, so if petrol goes up in price of course consumers will pay more. What's your point?




Correct, the same amount of ACC needs to be collected. HOWEVER, when ACC is funded via 100% via petrol:
* It is very hard to evade paying. If no one evades paying then more people are splitting the $700m bill, and the cost per person could reduce.
* Very cheap to collect (already paying to collect it).
* Everyone gets charged exactly the same amount per km of road they use - so very fair.

If you drive the "average" number of km's that other motorists do, they your net costs for the year would not change. If you have several vehicles but only use one, your cost would drop. If your a Granddad and only drive once every three months your costs would come down. If you drive all day every day your costs would go way up.
According to http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/energy-resources/country-profile-134.html ,the average NZer uses 751 litres of gasoline per year.An increase of $0.15/litre is $112 dollars per year.
I can live happily with twice that to fund ACC

[Pixie]

Demerit points for non registration is wrong big time, registration is not a saftey issue just a compliancy issue. Watch out that ciggy smoking in cars incurrs 30 demerit points..........same with eating while driving.........where will it stop.
Shit! How many points will one get for receiving a "gummy" whilst driving?
Or will the "gummer" incur the demerits?

[jaykay]

Another vote for putting ACC levies onto fuel, it isn't ideal but it is fairer and a lot better than the present mess. And as for the idea of some sort of ACC fee for a driving licence each year - I'm sure overseas visitors would really like that.

And to those of you who have been caught forgetting to renew an exemption - Baycorp have just removed one from my credit rating slapped on by NZTA. So an amount of $67 will never get paid - doesn't affect my credit rating - and disappears after six years.

How did I do it? I wrote to Baycorp denying the amount and telling them to refer it back to NZTA and it should be removed as it was put on by default before it had been argued in court. They agreed.

[racefactory]

Shit! How many points will one get for receiving a "gummy" whilst driving?
Or will the "gummer" incur the demerits?

What's a gummy?

[red mermaid]

Really?

I've checked many a speedo/odometer.

I love it when people who dont do my job know more about it than me.



There is no effective way to check this on the roadside,short of the cop driving the vehicle.This would not happen due to liability issues.

[Berries]

I love it when people who dont do my job know more about it than me.
You still talking about gummies ?

[MSTRS]

You still talking about gummies ?

Prolly.
You have heard the term "I don't blow, Occifer, I only suck"?

[TimeOut]

There is no effective way to check this on the roadside,short of the cop driving the vehicle.This would not happen due to liability issues.

Yes there is, down south the cop takes a reading then gets you to drive down the road and back again :gob:

[Swoop]

Another vote for putting ACC levies onto fuel, it isn't ideal but it is fairer and a lot better than the present mess... I'm sure overseas visitors would really like that.
This would beg the question "would overseas visitors then be covered by our ACC?".
If they are paying the ACC levy through fuel, they would not require personal insurance while travelling here. Yes?

[MSTRS]

This would beg the question "would overseas visitors then be covered by our ACC?".
If they are paying the ACC levy through fuel, they would not require personal insurance while travelling here. Yes?

They do for sickness, but not accident. We pay that for them...
Always thought it unfair.

[StoneY]

They do for sickness, but not accident. We pay that for them...
Always thought it unfair.

There is a justification for the ACC coverage of visiting foreign nationals, it makes the insurance cost for visiting NZ a lot cheaper and encourages much more tourist spending in regards to coming to NZ, one of the most expensive destination to reach due to distances, limited air services etc...........

I dont mind this myself.
Not as much as I mind paying more than anyone else to ride our second, third or fourth bike............

My personal take on this issue, only as an individual NOT as BRONZ or any other hat I wear;

MOST of the levy raised on fuel accross all vehicle types
Risk specific calculation based on one motorcyle per owner (or 4wd, deisel vehicle etc)
Multi bike owners:Second, third, fourth bikes copping the paltry reg fee, and the MSL portion of the levy (a mere 30$ per bike so that fund grows as opposed to shrinks from 'hold' rego's)

That would be fair,and more equitable, and allow US via MSL to use the money for ourselves as intended.

No one is going to have a perfect system, the woodhouse principle is never going to be fully re-instated again, and we need to find a way to move into the future....but the way it is right now, 520 odd bucks per bike is ridiculous, and has forced me to have to sell my Ducati, and consider selling the KTM as well.......

[StoneY]

Ok

Noises are being made in regards protest action, and I for one am 100% ready to get involved and bring all resources possible to bear on this issue

As far as I am concerened, with the car, the 3 bikes I have, the bike my fiance has, we pay enough to justify being able to park the vehicles that we are not actually using

Who else feels it is time for afirmative action?

[bogan]

Ok

Noises are being made in regards protest action, and I for one am 100% ready to get involved and bring all resources possible to bear on this issue

As far as I am concerened, with the car, the 3 bikes I have, the bike my fiance has, we pay enough to justify being able to park the vehicles that we are not actually using

Who else feels it is time for afirmative action?

We have something in the works and we will need many people on bikes :yes: dates and locations/routes still to be confirmed.

[sil3nt]

How about getting cars involved as well. This isn't just a bike issue.

[MSTRS]

What's the AA's stance? Much as we don't like their attitude to us, this affects every single member, and they are a powerful lobby group.
Greypower?