aum108
28th December 2011, 07:01
Hi guys,
As someone just getting back onto 2 wheels after too many years cage-bound, I'm stunned and appalled by the ridiculously high ACC premiums bikers are getting slogged with on their rego.
Not only that, but I'm shocked at the stupid and arbitrary charges and thresholds and the underlying statements these make, such as:
Bikes 60cc and under are 2 1/2 times as risky as mopeds with similar capacity
All bikes 61cc to 600cc are equally risky
All bikes 601cc and up are equally risky
No matter who you are, where you live, how long you've been riding, your risk is the same
In cage versus bike collisions, it's mostly the biker's fault for not being visible enough
If a cage driver is dorking off playing with the stereo and hits a biker, it's the biker's fault
I do understand the philosophy underlying these charges - pay according to risk. But the way these new charges are set is mathematically and statistically unsound, and stinks of an underlying agenda to push bikers (particularly less well off bikers) off the road.
If the ACC charges have to change to reflect risk, then why can't they be based on current insurance tables? The insurance industry has worked long and hard over many years to calculate accurate risk-based premiums for bikers. So why not ACC?
So what's the current state of play with lobbying on this?
Cheers
a
As someone just getting back onto 2 wheels after too many years cage-bound, I'm stunned and appalled by the ridiculously high ACC premiums bikers are getting slogged with on their rego.
Not only that, but I'm shocked at the stupid and arbitrary charges and thresholds and the underlying statements these make, such as:
Bikes 60cc and under are 2 1/2 times as risky as mopeds with similar capacity
All bikes 61cc to 600cc are equally risky
All bikes 601cc and up are equally risky
No matter who you are, where you live, how long you've been riding, your risk is the same
In cage versus bike collisions, it's mostly the biker's fault for not being visible enough
If a cage driver is dorking off playing with the stereo and hits a biker, it's the biker's fault
I do understand the philosophy underlying these charges - pay according to risk. But the way these new charges are set is mathematically and statistically unsound, and stinks of an underlying agenda to push bikers (particularly less well off bikers) off the road.
If the ACC charges have to change to reflect risk, then why can't they be based on current insurance tables? The insurance industry has worked long and hard over many years to calculate accurate risk-based premiums for bikers. So why not ACC?
So what's the current state of play with lobbying on this?
Cheers
a