Petition to align New Zealand motorcycle ACC levy structures to LAMS

[Eddieb]

Sign the petition at Change.org (https://www.change.org/p/hon-simon-bridges-minister-of-transport-align-new-zealand-motorcycle-acc-levy-structures-to-the-lams-learner-approved-motorcycles-scheme)

New Zealand’s current motorcycle ACC motorcycle levy structure and the LAMS learner approved motorcycle scheme are in conflict in relation to how the current motorcycle ACC fee is applied to learner approved motorcycles versus more powerful motorcycles that have a greater cost risk to ACC.

The NZTA LAMS Learner Approved Motorcycles defines a list of motorcycles deemed to be of low enough power that they are suitable for learner/new riders as below (1):

The NZTA LAMS learner license scheme defines LAMS leaner approved motorcycles as:

All motorcycles with engine capacities of 250cc and under, except for those on the LAMS-prohibited list.
Fully electric powered motorcycles with a power-to-weight ratio of 150 kilowatts per tonne and under (this includes all fully electric powered motorcycles registered on New Zealand's Motor Vehicle Register as of 1 June 2012).
All motorcycles manufactured prior to 1960 with an engine capacity of 660cc and under.
The following list of motorcycles with engine capacities between 251cc and 660cc - these motorcycles must be in standard form as produced by the manufacturer. They cannot be modified in any way to increase the power-to-weight ratio. (See the list of approved motorcycles: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/ licence/getting/motorcycles/ lams.html#approved).

The ACC Levy is applied to the registration fee for all motorcycles, with motorcycles over 600cc (601cc+) paying a premium of $99.27 over motorcycles of 600cc or less.

ACC’s justification for this is “more powerful bikes have a greater cost risk.”(2)

Current ACC Motorcycle Levy Component of registration fees (3)

Motorcycles up to 600cc $327.91

Motorcycles 601cc + $427.18

This leads to a conflict where 24% (85) out of the 352 different makes and models of motorcycles engine capacities from 601cc and 660cc, yet defined by the NZTA as being low powered enough to be learner safe and listed on the LAMS learner approved motorcycles list are considered by ACC to be “More powerful motorcycles” and charged the significantly higher ACC levy rate. This is a significant proportion of the LAMS approved motorcycles with engine capacities from 601cc and 660cc.

All of the 85 makes and models of motorcycle that are LAMS approved yet have an engine capacity of 601cc to 660cc produce 50% or less of the power than many motorcycles rated at 600cc and therefore receiving the lower ACC levy do, for example the Suzuki GSXR-600, Yamaha R6, Honda CBR600 and others all produce double the power or more of the LAMS approved models of 601cc to 660cc. This goes directly against ACC's claim that motorcycles over 600cc are more powerful so have a greater cost risk.”(2)

This punishes a large number of existing motorcycle riders who ride lower powered motorcycles with engine capacities from 601cc and 660cc which are still Lams approved, and provides a strong dis-incentive for learners riders to purchase the impacted makes and models of motorcycles, thus narrowing their choices.

Data Sources:

(1) http://www.nzta.govt.nz/ vehicle/registration- licensing/fees.html
(2) http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ sites/all/files/ACC_ QuestionsandAnswers.pdf
(3) http://www.acc.co.nz/for- individuals/motorcyclists/ index.htm#P34_2384


We the undersigned call for the ACC Motorcycle Levy structure to be aligned with the NZTA LAMS leaner motorcycle scheme by either

A) Changing the “Motorcycles up to 600cc” category of the ACC levy to “Motorcycles up to 600cc or LAMS approved”
or
B) Raising the CC changeover point of the ACC motorcycle levy from 601cc to 661cc

Sign the petition at Change.org (https://www.change.org/p/hon-simon-bridges-minister-of-transport-align-new-zealand-motorcycle-acc-levy-structures-to-the-lams-learner-approved-motorcycles-scheme)

[TheDemonLord]

Signed, good luck - I ride a GSX650FU and would love to pay lower registration fees.

[James Deuce]

Spot on!!!

[Luckylegs]

...This goes directly against ACC's claim that motorcycles over 600cc are more powerful so have a greater cost risk.”(2)

Whether I agree with your petition or not what you have stated is as selective use of the material as ACC and government in their use of the accident statistics. Quite simply, the information you quoted above is not what is written in the acc doc. More specifically, it clearly states that the biggest issue is with the size of the bike and not the power.

...Therefore, given the bikes you are whining about are the same size and weight as the more powerful sports oriented bikes they are therefore as equally capable of injuring or killing you and should be taxed at the same rate... OMG :eek5:

Perhaps if piloted by a learner they should be charged more. I mean is a learner as capable of handling the same or heaver height or weight bike as a full license holder* in an emergency situation. Are they more likely to drop or fall off and suffer an injury from falling from a higher seat or having the weight of their bigger bike land on them or a body part Probably right ?

:jerry:

[kiwi-on-wheels]

I'm strongly of the opinion that anything registered as a "moped" should be taxed up the whazoo.

How many scooter riders do the squid impressions? Seriously, those guys with no gear ducking in and out of traffic put themselves at huge risk... and we have to pay for them. Registering a moped is like, $100 a year, or there abouts...

[Luckylegs]

I'm strongly of the opinion that anything registered as a "moped" should be taxed up the whazoo.

How many scooter riders do the squid impressions? Seriously, those guys with no gear ducking in and out of traffic put themselves at huge risk... and we have to pay for them. Registering a moped is like, $100 a year, or there abouts...

Again, as above, whether I agree or not, you miss the point. The thing is, the moped be such a small beast with the rider considerably closer to the ground and with their feet (on the end of straighter legs) already poised to touch the ground, and the fact that it weighs less than a Mcdonalds combo, they are in a great position to not actually fall off from a great height or get squashed senseless by their own ride and therefore limit the damage they do to themselves....

Maybe?

[Luckylegs]

...put themselves at huge risk... and we have to pay for them

Oh, and... REALLY! Putting yourself at risk and actually making exorbitant amounts of ACC claims are two very different things (I should have read the actual stats while I was reading the acc doc from the OPs post but didnt so happy to be corrected if indeed mopeders actually account for a proportionally high level of ACC payout)

But still...

[Rhys]

I'm strongly of the opinion that anything registered as a "moped" should be taxed up the whazoo.

How many scooter riders do the squid impressions? Seriously, those guys with no gear ducking in and out of traffic put themselves at huge risk... and we have to pay for them. Registering a moped is like, $100 a year, or there abouts...

When someone falls off or gets knocked off a moped they are going a max of 50 kph not 100 kph

and while I agree with you in regard to gear there is no law other than a helmet as to clothing and foot wear

[pritch]

I'm strongly of the opinion that anything registered as a "moped" should be taxed up the whazoo.

How many scooter riders do the squid impressions? Seriously, those guys with no gear ducking in and out of traffic put themselves at huge risk... and we have to pay for them. Registering a moped is like, $100 a year, or there abouts...

At the same time bike regos had a big jump moped rego went up from about $56 to $213.93.

But hey, feel free to pull a figure outa yer arse or wherever you got $100 figure from.

[mossy1200]

Seems odd to be asking for the learner legal bikes that have a high percentage of less experienced riders to pay less acc tax.

[Madness]

Motorcycles. Just ride the cunts.

That said, well done to the organisers of this on being vastly more intelligent than those who think that taking all available car parks in an area at a given time will somehow miraculously have a positive effect on reducing motorcycle licensing costs :facepalm:

[James Deuce]

Seems odd to be asking for the learner legal bikes that have a high percentage of less experienced riders to pay less acc tax.

You can crash half a dozen MT07 riders to the average Harley Davidson rider because mt07 riders are comparatively cheap to rehabilitate. CEOs and board chairmen cost ACC a fuckload more than retail assistants and insurance clerks to get back to work.

[Eddieb]

Quite simply, the information you quoted above is not what is written in the acc doc. More specifically, it clearly states that the biggest issue is with the size of the bike and not the power.
:jerry:

quoted from the 2nd to last page of the doc referenced

"that larger and more powerful bikes have a greater cost risk"

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/ACC_QuestionsandAnswers.pdf

[Eddieb]

That said, well done to the organisers of this on being vastly more intelligent than those who think that taking all available car parks in an area at a given time will somehow miraculously have a positive effect on reducing motorcycle licensing costs :facepalm:

Thanks Madness


Why not buy a bike smaller than 600cc to learn on if you want to pay lower Reg?

What if you not learning and are riding the bike you are riding by choice because of it's capabilities?

[Ocean1]

You can crash half a dozen MT07 riders to the average Harley Davidson rider because mt07 riders are comparatively cheap to rehabilitate. CEOs and board chairmen cost ACC a fuckload more than retail assistants and insurance clerks to get back to work.

Or, in plain English: there's much better money to be made charging according to their ability to pay than charging according to their risk/cost.

Personally I'd rather they priced and charged income insurance separately from accident insurance. And personally I reckon that given the chance there'd be a few that'd decline income cover all together. Me for one.

[Madness]

Why not buy a bike smaller than 600cc to learn on if you want to pay lower Reg?

What if you're 1.9 metres tall and weigh 220kg? A DR650 could be the ideal LAMS-approved learner for someone fitting that description.

I think you'll find that the intent behind the introduction of the LAMS system was to give learners more choice than either a 250 , a 250 or a 250. The issue being addressed in this petition is in my mind simply pointing out a discrepancy in the current licensing rules. It makes perfect sense to align LAMS with licensing brackets. Besides, I want to buy a 650.

[Luckylegs]

quoted from the 2nd to last page of the doc referenced

"that larger and more powerful bikes have a greater cost risk"

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/ACC_QuestionsandAnswers.pdf

Im sure someone might be along to tell me my piss poor use of the english language is causing the issue, but I read that as Larger bikes and more powerful bikes (IE two types of bikes, not one that is both large and powerful) are the issue.

In my opinion this is reinforced by the rest of that paragraph (below) which states the bigger the bike (not the faster the bike) the harder the fall and the cost of the accidents, not the frequency. If they are talking about the cost of an accident, they are talking about the amount spent presumably due to the nature of the injurues (allowing of course for james duices good point about the salaries etc of certain bike riders.). Now the types if injuries causd by a 1000CBR and a lams bike have nothing to do with the extra horsepower of the CBR. It has to do with the fact that if you fall off em youve got a fair way down to the ground and if either of them fuckers hits you or lands on you its gonna hurt a lot.

...Its not bad enough that the government split bikers, now bikers want to do it to bikers too. Hmmm, whatever, lams bike riders are just as likely to be travelling at the same speeds when accidents happen (bikes go fast)

[mossy1200]

You can crash half a dozen MT07 riders to the average Harley Davidson rider because mt07 riders are comparatively cheap to rehabilitate. CEOs and board chairmen cost ACC a fuckload more than retail assistants and insurance clerks to get back to work.

Explained. Thanks.

[mossy1200]

When you fill out a accident acc form at A&E does it ask what type of bike you were riding?
How do they get the data on what size bikes are costing the most?

[Madness]

I understand ... I think ... I found ...

I don't care.

[mossy1200]

They perhaps just get the data from the registration database which would be pretty accurate if you only owned 1 bike.

Idd say its more likely they don't give a fuck but feel justified charging an extra big bike premium tax.

[Madness]

Idd say its more likely they don't give a fuck but feel justified charging an extra big bike premium tax.

With the LAMS system I'd say they just followed the Aussie model without any data analysis at all.

[James Deuce]

When you fill out a accident acc form at A&E does it ask what type of bike you were riding?
How do they get the data on what size bikes are costing the most?

From the cop who turns up to the accident.

From the insurance companies who write the bikes off.

They can also collect earning data related to the rider from the Insurance company and your employer once you go on ACC. None of this is mysterious. The reasoning behind the mooted massive increases prior to the Bikoi was based entirely on the fact that the demographic of motorcycling had almost completely inverted when compared to the last time there were that many active motorcycle registrations. It wasn't apprentices and process workers riding bikes any more it had turned almost entirely into a leisure pursuit undertaken by the moderately to fantastically wealthy. Tracy Watkins (John Key's press secretary) erected a "Biking is blue collar pursuit" smoke screen whihc I tried to combat but I only had a captive and friendly audience.

Now that we've recovered from the GFC (largely) motorcycle registrations have rocketed up and the crash/injury/death rate per 100,000km is plummeting. The whole premise of the higher levies is non-existent and the whole "born again middle aged rider" premise is so massively over-hyped it is hugely insulting. There are nowhere near as many BABs as they make out. Most of the middle aged riders they point at have been doing it their whole lives with small breaks for life reasons every now and then. The biggest crashy demographic is, has always been, and will always be, young male learners. A DR650 is way easier to ride and ride well in a variety of situations than an RGV250. As is an ER650. As is an NK650. And so on, and so on.

The bureaucratic Idiocracy still think 750cc motorcycles are "big" bikes. Casssina's examples of adequate leaner bikes are utterly invalid. Part of the resoning behind the LAMS laws was to get rid of the vast array of poorly maintained and difficult to live with 250s and 400s that were 20 years past their use by date. A Street Triple is much easier to ride slowly and tour on than a KR1S. Modern 750cc motorcycles are a piece of wee to ride. They're not cammy, flexi-framed, poor-handling pieces of cheap crap made from scrap of an indeterminate origin with bizzare geometry. Whoever was going on about "big" bikes earlier in the thread has missed the point. Some non-motorcycling dunderhead has decided that motorcycle cc rating = physical size and "danger level", but some clever wag somewhere needs to be thanked for establishing the power-weight paradigm that has enabled LAMS.

There is no clear formula for determining the perfect learner bike. Motorcycles are individually appealing for varied reasons. Motorcycling isn't magic. It requires practice, an open mind and the ability to be strongly self-critical. It is not life-affirming until you've been doing it for a long time, and you've given up all pretense of special abilities and sorted out what it is you're doing it for.

[Luckylegs]

Blah, blah blah james deuce sermon blah!...

In your not so humble opinion eh?

...I'm probaby the person who has supposedly missed the point but I cant quite figure out from your post how. My point was that my non lams bike over 600cc should be charged no more than someones lams bike over 600cc as they have exactly the same injury potential. So... do I agree with the fact that over 600cc bikes (lams or not) should be charged more than <600?... No, but they are and as long as they are I see no justification for one particular type of bike to be charged less.

How would you justify a dr650 being less likely to cause injury than a zx636 or triumph 675 @ 100km/h... Im genuinely interested.

[James Deuce]

In your not so humble opinion eh?

...I'm probaby the person who has supposedly missed the point but I cant quite figure out from your post how. My point was that my non lams bike over 600cc should be charged no more than someones lams bike over 600cc as they have exactly the same injury potential. So... do I agree with the fact that over 600cc bikes (lams or not) should be charged more than <600?... No, but they are and as long as they are I see no justification for one particular type of bike to be charged less.

How would you justify a dr650 being less likely to cause injury than a zx636 or triumph 675 @ 100km/h... Im genuinely interested.



They don't though. Power to weight determines the dynamic potential of any motorcycle.I don't understand where you're coming with with that argument nor the bit about my "opinion". My lecture is is distilled from the years of research people like Charlie Lamb did and my own subsequent research over the last few years. ACC's argument and the stats do not match up. ACCs claims about their financial position were a fiction. Their investment portfolio has exceeded 1 billion dollars.

I don't get what you are trying to say, especially as learners aren't supposed to be riding non-LAMS bikes. I can guarantee that DR650 riders get hurt a lot less severely and a lot less often than Daytona 675 riders. Crashing at 100kmh is seldom the issue. Serious accidents usually take place either at a lot lower speeds or massively higher speeds. If 100kmh is the boogeyman then we shoul djust ban motorcycling. Anything that can do 100kmh is equally dangerous? I don't belive so. I sincerely believe that a bike with gentle, predictable reactions to braking, weight transfer, and acceleration are much easier to ride than ZXR636 or a Daytona 675. The relatively extreme riding positions of modern sportsbikes are designed for managing body weight distribution and aerodynamics at the race track, not seeing over commuter traffic or looking through a partially obscured bend or maintaining a degree of all day comfort so your riding performance doesn't deteriorate dangerously towards the end of a day out.

It wasn't you I was talking about. Chill.

[FJRider]

Signed, good luck - I ride a GSX650FU and would love to pay lower registration fees.

Buy a smaller bike and learn to ride it properly.

[FJRider]

But I would think not many experienced riders would buy a Lams bike over 600cc because it was more capable than a non Lams bike over 600cc.

No ... they buy them because they are cheaper ... "Classic status" ... almost ...


Maybe someone could post who has bought a Lams bike over 600cc because they like it better than non Lams bikes over 600cc and explain why nothing lower in cc would be any good.

Cheap power ... lower revving ... more torque ... did I mention cheaper .. ???

[Luckylegs]

They don't though. Power to weight determines the dynamic potential of any motorcycle.I don't understand where you're coming with with that argument nor the bit about my "opinion". My lecture is is distilled from the years of research people like Charlie Lamb did and my own subsequent research over the last few years. ACC's argument and the stats do not match up. ACCs claims about their financial position were a fiction. Their investment portfolio has exceeded 1 billion dollars.

I don't get what you are trying to say, especially as learners aren't supposed to be riding non-LAMS bikes. I can guarantee that DR650 riders get hurt a lot less severely and a lot less often than Daytona 675 riders. Crashing at 100kmh is seldom the issue. Serious accidents usually take place either at a lot lower speeds or massively higher speeds. If 100kmh is the boogeyman then we shoul djust ban motorcycling. Anything that can do 100kmh is equally dangerous? I don't belive so. I sincerely believe that a bike with gentle, predictable reactions to braking, weight transfer, and acceleration are much easier to ride than ZXR636 or a Daytona 675. The relatively extreme riding positions of modern sportsbikes are designed for managing body weight distribution and aerodynamics at the race track, not seeing over commuter traffic or looking through a partially obscured bend or maintaining a degree of all day comfort so your riding performance doesn't deteriorate dangerously towards the end of a day out.

It wasn't you I was talking about. Chill.

I realise where your lecture came from, I was frankly being a cnut cos It really just sounded like the same stuff reguritated again and not entirely relevant to this particular thread. Again, I was being a dick earlier and it may very wel have been more relevant than I gave it credit.

In regards to my point. It was made very (very) specifically in regards to the acc document that the OP posted a link to and in particular what I considered to be the implication that it was more concerned with the dimensional size and weight of the bike and not the power. In other words I opined that it read like they were suggesting that injuries caused from an accident involving a bigger heavier bike (absolutely without regard to what caused the accident) were more likely to cost more than one involving a smaller/lighter bike). This may or may not be the case but presuming it is then you cannot split lams and non lams bikes as lams bikes of the same cc rating are not inherantly lighter.

Maybe its another badly written document, maybe I just read too much into what it said... could be.

[Luckylegs]

Do you agree with me then that the lower down riding position on sports bikes restricts your peripheral vision when commuting then?

Fuck off dumbarse. You already have a thread dedciated to your special blend of stupidy and closed mindedness....

THIS ONES MINE!!!

[pritch]

THIS ONES MINE!!!

All yours. :drinknsin

[TheDemonLord]

Buy a smaller bike and learn to ride it properly.

I did, I had a 250 Hornet before, which I crashed, repaired and then got a bigger bike.

As a matter of interest, when I took my resticted CBT test, I got I think 11 mistakes (which was a pass), on my Full licence test (which was on my 650, after almost a year of commuiting on it everyday) - 4 mistakes.

Out of interest - how many people posting in this thread have experience riding a LAMS bike vs a 250cc bike? and by experience I mean riding it at least for a week?

[TheDemonLord]

If the class of bike called LAMS had been around in the late 1970s both my XL350 and XL500s would have been called LAMS. I kept the XL350 for 2 years and the XL500 for 3 years.

So thats a 'No' then

Further - has anyone ridden a LAMs bike since they came out?

[TheDemonLord]

I have had a ride of a Honda GROM 125 which is a true LAMS era bike if you don't believe any bike manufactured before LAMS came in could qualify as being LAMS compliant. Why not take one for a test ride yourself because others will have different opinions to you on how they like them anyway.

No.

any 125 or 250 cc Bike was okay to ride before the LAMS rules came into effect.

I am talking about the LAMS approved bikes (either bikes that under the old rules weren't allowed or new bikes that were restricted in order to be sold as a LAMS bike)

As for why not take one for a test ride, I ride a LAMS bike....

[James Deuce]

Maybe its another badly written document, maybe I just read too much into what it said... could be.

This.

You're reading too much into it. Someone's Grandad will have told them anything over 650 was a "big" bike so it's become policy. They really don't put too much thought into it. Having said that the LAMS concept is based in some sound research done at Monash as well as using source research for the multi-class power to weight restrictions in places like the UK. IN other words our lot did a cut and paste. I don't believe that the accidents stats are granular enough to tell if it's bikes landing on people doing damage or what they hit, though I suspect anecdotally that what you hit is worse than a bike landing on you.

For the record, a late 80s FZR250 weighs 141kg. A DR650 weighs 147kgs. They put out roughly the same Hp. But the low-end torque of the 650 makes it way easier for a n00b to ride.

[Luckylegs]

My reply was not to you muppet.

I know! However your comment was not relevant to the thread, so.....

308658

[Luckylegs]

This.

You're reading too much into it. Someone's Grandad will have told them anything over 650 was a "big" bike so it's become policy. They really don't put too much thought into it. Having said that the LAMS concept is based in some sound research done at Monash as well as using source research for the multi-class power to weight restrictions in places like the UK. IN other words our lot did a cut and paste. I don't believe that the accidents stats are granular enough to tell if it's bikes landing on people doing damage or what they hit, though I suspect anecdotally that what you hit is worse than a bike landing on you.

For the record, a late 80s FZR250 weighs 141kg. A DR650 weighs 147kgs. They put out roughly the same Hp. But the low-end torque of the 650 makes it way easier for a n00b to ride.

Very good! I also had the wrong bike in mind while referring to the DR. We were talking DR when I was picturing the bohemoth monstrosity that is a DL650 (of which there is a version on the lams list) which tips the scales at over 200kg.



...though I suspect anecdotally that what you hit is worse than a bike landing on you.

Presuming that the rider hits something at all (as opposed to being hit) or that a big bill only occurs if you hit something...

[TheDemonLord]

If you check this website http://www.nzta.govt.nz/licence/getting/motorcycles/lams.html you will find both the bikes I mentioned are now LAMS approved which I had thought they would be due to being not high performance or over 650cc. The XL350 is actually called an SL350 in the list but its just a later model of the same bike. So you are not the only poster on here who has owned a LAMs bike.

Okay, so 40 years ago, you owned a Bike, that at the time, wasn't allowed to be ridden by a Learner.

Have you ridden a bike since the LAMs rule came into effect? Have you ridden a Bike that is restricted to comply with the LAMs requirements?

[Banditbandit]

Can't be fucked reading the whole thread to see if this has been said before ...

LAMS riders are more likely to crash due to inexperience - they should pay the same as us experienced riders -so no, I won't sign the petition.

[Reckless]

Edited cause I'm a Dumb ass LMAO

But in essence I don't really agree a 650F should be a lams bike at all?
I also agree that it shouldn't be in the 1000cc category for rego??
Surly its not to hard to do a power to weight Ratio calculation so there's a line in the sand??
Something akin to what a VTR250 or a 250 bandit produces for a lams bike IMHO.
A heck of a lot of larger bikes have similar HP than the GSX650F if this partition is successful should also be allowed, they will never do it on that premise alone.


The point is We are Getting ripped on CC rated rego's!! There needs to be serious revise of the system??

But bikers in NZ will never get together well enough to challenge the system like this http://news.motorbiker.org/blogs.nsf/dx/paris-biker-protest-ride-against-ban-on-old-motorcycles.htm or MAG in England. Kiwibikers just winge on the internet instead of getting involved and making things happen in the form of protest they want to be involved in?
I'm bloody sure MAG would love 10,000 (or even 2000) paid up members, some researching, some lobbying and some protesting.

The guts of the petition is the hypocrisy of ACC in putting and charging for a bike in a high risk category then giving it to learners as a lams machine??
If they approve the extra 51cc where does it stop? Next thing we will be reading is 650cc learners are the highest crash group?
Thats stupid and makes the whole ACC system look dumb, uninformed and untrustworthy.

One person or small group initiated petitions will never work imho. And they wont let this one through either I don't reckon?
We need to Fight this as a bikers nationally and we as bikers are to disorganized and separatist to get our shit together.

My 2c

[Banditbandit]

Hate to interrupt another Ms Cassina show with a comment?

But in essence I don't really agree a 650F should be a lams bike at all?
I also agree that it shouldn't be in the 1000cc category for rego??



I agree ... but then the LAMS version is the GSX650FU ... a very detuned version of the 650 Bandit ...

I also think that the 650F does belong with the bigger bikes - I've seen 217 kph on the clock on my air-cooled and carbed one .. which has much the same power as the later water-cooled, inject bike - which I have left in my dust on Hampton Downs. And yeah, I have the older 650 and the newer 1250 - so I pay the top rego cost on two bikes (as do many people here ...)

But I think ACC costs should go with the rider, not with the bike ...

[Reckless]

I agree ... but then the LAMS version is the GSX650FU ... a very detuned version of the 650 Bandit ...

I also think that the 650F does belong with the bigger bikes - I've seen 217 kph on the clock on my air-cooled and carbed one .. which has much the same power as the later water-cooled, inject bike - which I have left in my dust on Hampton Downs. And yeah, I have the older 650 and the newer 1250 - so I pay the top rego cost on two bikes (as do many people here ...)

But I think ACC costs should go with the rider, not with the bike ...

Oh my Bad thanks Bandit (you must spread some rep ...) I'll go back and edit the correct info LMAO

Cant find the HP at a quick search they are all blanked on the FU?? But you get the point?

Maybe TheDemon has them in his bike manual??

[Ocean1]

Thats stupid and makes the whole ACC system look dumb, uninformed and untrustworthy.

:shifty::shifty:

[Reckless]

:shifty::shifty:

Yeh deserve a bit of stick for that :doh:
650FU Forums say 25Kw or 34hp my bad time for the KB Stretching rack :shit:
Edited DUH lol

[Luckylegs]

But the dam things as heavy as my CBR. This must effect its ability/stablility/fall overness in emergency situations meaning riders of these bikes are at just as much risk of injury in an accident????

[James Deuce]

How many times have you had a bike land on you?

[Luckylegs]

How many times have you had a bike land on you?

Really JD, you're better than that...

The likelihood of being unable to handle the heavier bike and the injury from dropping it regardless of whether the things hits you or not. I know for a fact that if I had moments like I had on my gpx250 when I was learning on a 200kg bike I'd have likely hurt myself

[mossy1200]

Most likely outcome if anything is changed will be all bikes will cost $427.18. That's assuming they don't use the opportunity to lift that while they make the changes. Would net them more bike tax and decrease the chance anyone will try another petition.

[Kickaha]

The high cost of bike rego needs to be shared by car drivers who hit bikes because they did not see them. Punish them by making them pay the highest motorbike reg for life on their cars.

How do we punish the at fault motorcyclists who hit cars then?

[James Deuce]

The high cost of bike rego needs to be shared by car drivers who hit bikes because they did not see them. Punish them by making them pay the highest motorbike reg for life on their cars.

No it doesn't. ACC isn't an insurance scheme. It loosely falls into the category, but it is actually a compensation scheme designed primarily to avoid the escalating cycle of litigation post-accident, where he or she with the biggest lawyer and wallet can destroy the "innocent" party in an accident in court. The whole point of ACC is the society carries the cost and amortizes the funding for rehabilitation and funerals across the vast range of requirements that stem from the results of accidents.

There isn't actually any proof that motorcyclists are particularly expensive in the grand scheme of things. DIYers cost the country 1 billion. People falling down stairs and falling over in the bathroom cost 500 million. Don't see them being targeted and "punished". Horse riders cost more to rehab than motorcyclists by a factor of 2. 300 million vs. 150 million and they have less accidents than motorcyclists. You need to stop perpetuating the myth that motorcyclists are both special and "costly to society". They're not.

[Reckless]

The high cost of bike rego needs to be shared by car drivers who hit bikes because they did not see them. Punish them by making them pay the highest motorbike reg for life on their cars.

The at fault motorcyclists are already being punished as they pay more than car drivers. Under the current system the motorcyclist is being punished whether they are at fault or not. Do you think that is fair?

No argument on that one?? And that is the crux of the Matter ACC is supposed to be a NO Fault system if you allocate fault and charge accordingly surly you are an insurer.
1967: Woodhouse Commission recommendations
The Woodhouse Commission recommends a ‘no-fault’ accident compensation scheme
The report recommended a completely new ‘no-fault’ approach to compensation for personal injury. It recommended a scheme to cover:
-all motor vehicle injuries, funded by a levy on owners of motor vehicles and drivers
-all injuries to earners whether occurring at work or not, funded by a flat-rate levy on employers for the cost of all injuries to their employees.
-A levy on the self-employed to pay for injuries occurring at work or outside of work was also proposed




No it doesn't. ACC isn't an insurance scheme. It loosely falls into the category, but it is actually a compensation scheme designed primarily to avoid the escalating cycle of litigation post-accident, where he or she with the biggest lawyer and wallet can destroy the "innocent" party in an accident in court. The whole point of ACC is the society carries the cost and amortizes the funding for rehabilitation and funerals across the vast range of requirements that stem from the results of accidents.

There isn't actually any proof that motorcyclists are particularly expensive in the grand scheme of things. DIYers cost the country 1 billion. People falling down stairs and falling over in the bathroom cost 500 million. Don't see them being targeted and "punished". Horse riders cost more to rehab than motorcyclists by a factor of 2. 300 million vs. 150 million and they have less accidents than motorcyclists. You need to stop perpetuating the myth that motorcyclists are both special and "costly to society". They're not.

I disagree about the insurance thing you put forward, but as an aside MAG could do with someone like you big time.

[mossy1200]

Horse riders cost more to rehab than motorcyclists by a factor of 2. 300 million vs. 150 million and they have less accidents than motorcyclists.

Wonder what would happen if they decided to ear tag horses with a acc registration fee. Face it we are a soft minority target with an existing method of collecting funds. If they could tax MX bikes and enforce it they would but they don't have a method to do it at the moment.

[Ocean1]

If they could tax MX bikes and enforce it they would but they don't have a method to do it at the moment.

Fond memories of playing cops and robbers up the Hutt firebreaks when the local fed's got trail bikes. Briefly.

[Reckless]

Fond memories of playing cops and robbers up the Hutt firebreaks when the local fed's got trail bikes. Briefly.

There were some horrid head on crashes up there tho :(

Quote Originally Posted by mossy1200 View Post
If they could tax MX bikes and enforce it they would but they don't have a method to do it at the moment.

IF they do they'd better use the same method for cyclists :)

[Ocean1]

There were some horrid head on crashes up there tho :(

Aye. I stared in one. The kneecap has never been the same.

[mossy1200]

There were some horrid head on crashes up there tho :(

Quote Originally Posted by mossy1200 View Post
If they could tax MX bikes and enforce it they would but they don't have a method to do it at the moment.

IF they do they'd better use the same method for cyclists :)

Im not for MX tax im against minority tax(motorcycling).
Still say every licence holder should pay acc as a one figure amount to cover anything they can legally drive or ride rather than per vehicle. It is after all for the repair cost of the person which there is one of only( plus passengers if you want to get technical...oops maybe people mover cars should cost more as hold more people).
If they could they would try introduce a fart tax also.

[Kickaha]

The at fault motorcyclists are already being punished as they pay more than car drivers. Under the current system the motorcyclist is being punished whether they are at fault or not. Do you think that is fair?

On the scale of "shit I actually care about" that doesn't even rate a blip on the giveafuckometer

[TheDemonLord]

The bikes I have ridden since LAMs came in are too big to qualify. I sold the XL500 in 1982 What exactly are you trying to find out from your questioning considering you know the answers yourself about the feel of a LAMs bike?

To point out that you haven't ridden a LAMs bike.

You rode a series of bike 30-40 years ago that have since become LAMs approved, but have not ridden a LAMs bike recently.

As with others in this topic, I would bet very few of you have seriously ridden a LAMs bike in recent times.

I shall start with why I ride a 650 LAMs bike:

I ride alot of Ks - I think Cassina, in another thread I even gave you a very quick rundown of the minimum distance I ride. I did it on a 250 and it was fine, but it was a lot of work - my 650 is simply easier to ride on long distance.

I like the bigger bike feel - especially in wind and weather - the bike is more stable and more comfy.

Fuel gauge and gear indicator - cause I am lazy and am used to having those in my Cage.

I also like the fact that it is a 650 (MROE POWAAAAAH!) but in seriousness - I think the here that it is both good, but could do with tweaking - If I rode my 650 straight after my BHS - I would almost certainly have twatted myself seriously on it. the power and torque is a lot to handle, even before the limiter kicks in. however going onto a restricted 650 from a 250 provided a very good stepping stone - allowing me to get used to handling a bike with more power, while not overloading my abilities and experiance. When I apply for my Full licence (2 months!) I shalll de-restrict my 650 and ride it as a full power bike - again this will be a stepping stone.

Then when I come to sell it, I am looking to get either a 1300 or a 1250, which will be another step up again.

The point here is that LAMs allows you enough of a taste of a big power bike, allowing you to learn to control it, while limiting it so that you don't end up dead - and from this PoV LAMs is a good idea.

To reply to Bandit on another matter:

if ACC had a levy against the rider due to being a learner - then okay, but the point of the petition is that ACC are not playing by their own rules.

[Luckylegs]

To point out that you haven't ridden a LAMs bike.

You rode a series of bike 30-40 years ago that have since become LAMs approved, but have not ridden a LAMs bike recently.

As with others in this topic, I would bet very few of you have seriously ridden a LAMs bike in recent times.

I shall start with why I ride a 650 LAMs bike:

I ride alot of Ks - I think Cassina, in another thread I even gave you a very quick rundown of the minimum distance I ride. I did it on a 250 and it was fine, but it was a lot of work - my 650 is simply easier to ride on long distance.

I like the bigger bike feel - especially in wind and weather - the bike is more stable and more comfy.

Fuel gauge and gear indicator - cause I am lazy and am used to having those in my Cage.

I also like the fact that it is a 650 (MROE POWAAAAAH!) but in seriousness - I think the here that it is both good, but could do with tweaking - If I rode my 650 straight after my BHS - I would almost certainly have twatted myself seriously on it. the power and torque is a lot to handle, even before the limiter kicks in. however going onto a restricted 650 from a 250 provided a very good stepping stone - allowing me to get used to handling a bike with more power, while not overloading my abilities and experiance. When I apply for my Full licence (2 months!) I shalll de-restrict my 650 and ride it as a full power bike - again this will be a stepping stone.

Then when I come to sell it, I am looking to get either a 1300 or a 1250, which will be another step up again.

The point here is that LAMs allows you enough of a taste of a big power bike, allowing you to learn to control it, while limiting it so that you don't end up dead - and from this PoV LAMs is a good idea.

To reply to Bandit on another matter:

if ACC had a levy against the rider due to being a learner - then okay, but the point of the petition is that ACC are not playing by their own rules.

You makes ya choices though eh?

The petition is like moving in next to the airport or local speedway and then complaining about the noise.

[eldog]

level the rego cost then
perhaps the fuel tax should be increase - fund direct to ACC, like tobacco
tax it so high we wont use it. :corn:

[TheDemonLord]

You makes ya choices though eh?

The petition is like moving in next to the airport or local speedway and then complaining about the noise.

A more apt description would be that you own a section of 1000 m2, but 200 m2 is a radioactive swamp, that the council says you can't do anything with. Come time for Rates however, they charge you for the full 1000 m2, as prime residential land, even though their own rules say that only 800 m2 is prime residential land.....

[Luckylegs]

A more apt description would be that you own a section of 1000 m2, but 200 m2 is a radioactive swamp, that the council says you can't do anything with. Come time for Rates however, they charge you for the full 1000 m2, as prime residential land, even though their own rules say that only 800 m2 is prime residential land.....

Shirly you wouldnt buy the land then bitch about it though right. and back to cassinas question. Are you going to re-register your bike when youbde-restrict? Would you if there was a price difference?

[Luckylegs]

A more apt description would be that you own a section of 1000 m2, but 200 m2 is a radioactive swamp, that the council says you can't do anything with. Come time for Rates however, they charge you for the full 1000 m2, as prime residential land, even though their own rules say that only 800 m2 is prime residential land.....

Id suggest you can use enough of your bike, or your bike has enough guts as it is to be of as much danger to you as mine is to me. Or do you suspect i am more likely to crash mine than you are, or that i am more likely to need acc worth more?

[FJRider]

When I apply for my Full licence (2 months!) I shalll de-restrict my 650 and ride it as a full power bike - again this will be a stepping stone.

Then when I come to sell it, I am looking to get either a 1300 or a 1250, which will be another step up again.

Wait until you GET your Full license first.

Resale value will be more for a LAM's class 650cc ... take a look at HP gained/cost of derestriction ... and see if it's worth the bother.



if ACC had a levy against the rider due to being a learner - then okay, but the point of the petition is that ACC are not playing by their own rules.

Has it ever occurred to you that the LAM's scheme is nothing to do with ACC .... :doh:

[Swoop]

If they could they would try introduce a fart tax also.
Stuff that. I ride along farting, so that means I would have to avoid paying TWO taxes!:confused:

[Floppy disk]

So ACC decided to review levies to the down and on average reduce registration cost by about 41%; only to explicitly exclude bikers because "motorcycle related injuries continue to generate disproportionately high costs for ACC and motorcycle levies are already heavily subsidised by owners of other types of vehicles".

But don't you fear bikers. You are not rejected because "Motorcyclists will benefit from the reduction in the petrol levy". :facepalm:

Now, should I Laugh or cry?!!

Read the formal document here: http://nzta.govt.nz/vehicle/registration-licensing/docs/2015-acc-levy-reduction-and-vrr-introduction-faqs.pdf

[Banditbandit]

Wait until you GET your Full license first.

Resale value will be more for a LAM's class 650cc ... take a look at HP gained/cost of derestriction ... and see if it's worth the bother.

Has it ever occurred to you that the LAM's scheme is nothing to do with ACC .... :doh:



GSX650FU = 34 horses

GSF650N = 85 horses ...

Yeah .. I'd de-restrict it ..

[Luckylegs]

GSX650FU = 34 horses

GSF650N = 85 horses ...

Yeah .. I'd de-restrict it ..

You forgot the other part of the equation though...

[Banditbandit]

You forgot the other part of the equation though...

The cost ?? FIIK ... but on a GSX650FU I gather it's just a matter of detaching a wire ..

[Luckylegs]

The cost ?? FIIK ... but on a GSX650FU I gather it's just a matter of detaching a wire ..

You'don't hope not on a bike suitable for learners!

...I'm pretty earlier in this thread someone said it needed a new ecu and all that accompanies that

[Eddieb]

This is a good read

http://www.revzilla.com/common-tread/a-beginner-bike-as-an-adventure-bike

[neels]

Happy to sign, just because it seems bloody stupid that on one hand a bike is over 600cc, and therefore more dangerous, and therefore attracts a higher ACC levy, but on the other hand is considered safe enough for a learner rider.

I frequently ride a LAMS approved bike, and compared to the GSXR250 my son used to own I would say it's considerably better as a learner bike, as more torque reduces the necessity to wring it's neck to get it to go. Surely it must be better from day one to have some power to learn to control, than have to learn the hard way on a bigger bike that the practice of thrashing it everywhere is not a good one.

[FJRider]

The cost ?? FIIK ... but on a GSX650FU I gather it's just a matter of detaching a wire ..

As I understood ... part of the criteria for LAM's acceptance ... is not being easily/cheaply de-restricted ... :scratch:

[FJRider]

Happy to sign, just because it seems bloody stupid that on one hand a bike is over 600cc, and therefore more dangerous, and therefore attracts a higher ACC levy, but on the other hand is considered safe enough for a learner rider.

A clue is this esteemed members post ...


GSX650FU = 34 horses

GSF650N = 85 horses ...



Cubic capacity is not the bottom line ... nor is it the determining factor in rider safety ...

[TheDemonLord]

The cost ?? FIIK ... but on a GSX650FU I gather it's just a matter of detaching a wire ..

No, its not a case of removing Wire #30 on the ECU.

This does not reset the ECU to the default Fuel Map (that is the same as the 650F) as the ECU does not require a ground wire to toggle it over the LAMS fuel map.


To answer some questions - When I apply fo rmy full (2 months!) I will tell my insurance company that it has been de-restricted and see where I go from there. I can't find any requirement to re-register the bike as a full power bike (its not like it will decrease or increase my ACC costs atm :eek: ) The only requirement I have found is that on a Restricted or Learner licence, one must ride a LAMS bike that has not been altered in anyway to increase the power-to-weight (from manufacturers specs) once on a Full, I believe you can mod the tits off your LAMS bike (except it will no longer be a LAMS bike as you have increased the Power-to-weight, but since you are on your full, its all okay)

As for Re-sale, I believe that since it hasn't been re-registered as a non-LAMS bike, all I will need to do is return it to its LAMS configuration to sell it as a LAMS bike (in the same way that one would remove an aftermarket muffler and replace it with the stock muffler)

To answer some other points (as some have raised them):

If the ACC levy was based on the fact that a bike was learner approved, therefore likely to be ridden by a Learner and on that basis, charge an additional ACC levy, then fine - but I cannot find such a charge in the ACC documentation.

All I can find is that bikes over 600 cc make more Power and are therefore more dangerous. The petition is about that with the introduction of LAMS, as someone pointed out, LAMS and ACC is separate - that ACC should be aware of the LAMS bikes and re-assess the ACC levies for bikes registered as LAMS bikes accordingly - exempting them from the above 600cc surcharge (as they make considerably less power than a bike of a smaller displacement)

[Luckylegs]

But, but, ahhhh, nevermind... It'd be boring if we all agreed lall the time! :niceone:

[Reckless]

- that ACC should be aware of the LAMS bikes and re-assess the ACC levies for bikes registered as LAMS bikes accordingly - exempting them from the above 600cc surcharge (as they make considerably less power than a bike of a smaller displacement)

The fact ACC cant suss something as simple as this casts real doubt on all their other assessments???

[FJRider]

The petition is about that with the introduction of LAMS, as someone pointed out, LAMS and ACC is separate - that ACC should be aware of the LAMS bikes and re-assess the ACC levies for bikes registered as LAMS bikes accordingly - exempting them from the above 600cc surcharge (as they make considerably less power than a bike of a smaller displacement)

Why should learners expect to be exempt from fees already in place ... that for all motorcycles over the limit have to be paid.


It is not ACC that SET the fees.

Learners could be seen at more at risk of an accident (as they are still learning to ride) ... so perhaps ... they may ask Government for a HIGHER levy paid for ALL LAM's motorcycles.




Rock the boat and somebody might get wet ...

[TheDemonLord]

Why should learners expect to be exempt from fees already in place ... that for all motorcycles over the limit have to be paid.

Because those fees are based off assumed power of a larger displacement engine



It is not ACC that SET the fees.

The ACC levy is set by ACC is it not?


Learners could be seen at more at risk of an accident (as they are still learning to ride) ... so perhaps ... they may ask Government for a HIGHER levy paid for ALL LAM's motorcycles.

Rock the boat and somebody might get wet ...

If they changed it so that the LAMS bikes were exempted from the over 600 CC limit, but instead, as you said, imposed a learner bike levy, then that is different - but let me ask you this - prior to the introduction of LAMS - was there such a Levy applied to 250cc bikes (the only size learners and restricted licence holders could ride) - I don't believe there was - so your point there is a little moot

[mossy1200]

Idd sign a petition for a flat acc fee on my licence and no acc content on my registration on each bike.

[neels]

Idd sign a petition for a flat acc fee on my licence and no acc content on my registration on each bike.
I agree with the philosophy, it would save me from paying the ACC levy on 2 bikes if I only had to pay the levy on my licence and ride whichever I like.

It wouldn't help my son, who is a student so no longer owns a bike as it's too expensive on a limited income, currently he his bludging off me and riding one of my bikes occasionally. How long would it take not paying the ACC levy before his motorcycle licence was cancelled and he has to start again?

There's a fishhook in every cunning plan......

[mossy1200]

I agree with the philosophy, it would save me from paying the ACC levy on 2 bikes if I only had to pay the levy on my licence and ride whichever I like.

It wouldn't help my son, who is a student so no longer owns a bike as it's too expensive on a limited income, currently he his bludging off me and riding one of my bikes occasionally. How long would it take not paying the ACC levy before his motorcycle licence was cancelled and he has to start again?

There's a fishhook in every cunning plan......

Like putting your licence on hold. Hand it back and pay $15 issue fee and pay for a min 1month to have a new one issued when you want to ride again.
Wouldn't be that hard and would give vtnz something to do now 1 year warrants are in.

[Reckless]

Idd sign a petition for a flat acc fee on my licence and no acc content on my registration on each bike.

Might not work out Mossy if all those idle bikes are subsiding us riders we might get a freakin big fright at the yearly licence renew bill??
Although I guess most have gone on hold like my Z? I don't trust the buggers and their figures it'll be just another chance to set new fee's.

[mossy1200]

Might not work out Mossy if all those idle bikes are subsiding us riders we might get a freakin big fright at the yearly licence renew bill??
Although I guess most have gone on hold like my Z? I don't trust the buggers and their figures it'll be just another chance to set new fee's.

Could be the other way around. There is 3 motorcycle licences for every legal road bike in NZ.

[Reckless]

Could be the other way around. There is 3 motorcycle licences for every legal road bike in NZ.

Possibly ?? Chicken and egg I reckon? I Cant decide which?
All those bikes coming off hold or all those licences going on hold or Visa versa.
A good thing to come out of it would be the resit after a licence being on hold for say 5 years??
Anyone with more than one bike would rather your suggestion so they could ride any they choose at anytime, like the old days?
My Z is nearly a classic so will be on much cheaper rego soon anyway?

[Voltaire]

My wife has a bike licence, last rode on the road in around 1985.
Classic reg kicks in the year the bike was built.
EG: my built mid 1976 BMW R90 will be cheap rego ( $117:00) Jan 1 next year.

[FJRider]

Because those fees are based off assumed power of a larger displacement engine

Close ... based on risk factor of Cubic Capacity .... immaterial of restricted/unrestricted versions. Cubic Capacity rules in Legislation. Not BHP .. :doh:

The LAM's scheme is based on Power to weight ratio ... and is a different act of legislation. Approved/instagated by LTSA. Not ACC.


The ACC levy is set by ACC is it not?

Not SET by ACC. They have no control of Treasury ... nor can demand (only ASK) any of/from/in Legislation. (I think they actually wanted MORE)

ACC levies are a name given ... for want of a better name/excuse for demand of funding from the motoring public .....


If they changed it so that the LAMS bikes were exempted from the over 600 CC limit, but instead, as you said, imposed a learner bike levy, then that is different - but let me ask you this - prior to the introduction of LAMS - was there such a Levy applied to 250cc bikes (the only size learners and restricted licence holders could ride) - I don't believe there was - so your point there is a little moot

What benefit would Government have to such exemption .. ??? Why any in their right mind would buy (new) an oversize cc ... underpowered motorcycle with higher levies to be paid. When motorcycles under the limit would have similar weight and power with less expected in levies. I'm guessing people would rather boast they ride a 650 ... than a 550 ... :msn-wink:

Before LAM's ... ALL 250cc bikes were allowed to be ridden on Learner/Restricted licenses ... even the ones now on the banned list. THEY produced more power than the GSX650FU ..... :laugh:

Were/are motorcyclists better off then ... or now ... ??? :scratch:

ACC have already stated they do not want to reduce any levy that is applied to motorcyclists. Note that Levies are only applied to Road Registered motorcyclists. Yet off road (not road legal) motorcyclists are often requiring ACC assistance. Look to redress that ("Wrong" .. ??) .. first ... perhaps ... ??? You are helping to pay their share ... :2thumbsup

[BMWGSER]

It's just all to hard , Just put the ACC levy on to the fuel and You will get everybody .
No more regos on hold because it will only cost about $40 per year .
But then the trail bike boys will be paying ACC fees to help pay for the chopper rides.
The list just goes on , Simple just put it on the gas.

[The Reibz]

5 bucks and a bag of chips to the man who stops Cassina breathing