Motorcyclist ACC Levy rates 2015-2016 New ACC Support Data Pages / PDFs

[GSXR1]

ACC have just posted up new data blah blah on the 2015 - 2016 ACC levy changes. As most probably know, the ACC levy component of vehicle re-licensing (your Reg Sticker) has dropped a bunch for pretty much all vehicle classes EXCEPT MOTORCYCLES.

So no reason to go mad trying to realign your reg with the first of July as nothing at all has changed as far as the price you will pay under any of the bike CC rate charging categories.

But it is interesting to read their blurbs, and for myself anyway it's actually a lot better public service than Ive ever seen from ACC in the past. It did take a bit of digging to find, but there are actually two biker specific PDF's that have been prepared (links below) that at least attempt to tackle the reasons and the costs and don't just gloss over everything that is raised by bike riders year after year. And if you take a moment to look at the broader argument in relation to just cost, then there is a clear statement that they have worked out the actual cost of Motor Cycle injury support per vehicle registration for 2015 is likely to be $1267. Whether you believe it or not, at the very least they are publicly throwing out a lot of stats in these two docs and they are even taking on board the "car caused my accident" stance to some degree by showing a split in cost by percentage of accidents that are bike only ($44 million) or involving other vehicles ($60 million) of the $104 million projected total cost.

Note too something I didn't know:
"There will also be a reduction in the ACC petrol levy by 3 cents per litre (from 9.9 cents to 6.9 cents)."
So there will be a 3 cents a litre price drop in petrol for everyone at the 1st of July 2015.

The new page is here:
http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/levies/current-years-levy-rates/

It includes a section:
Find your Motor Vehicle levy rate ---> Motorcyclists page IGNORE THIS THE LINK IS WRONG

They somehow currently have F$$ked the link up but what do you know I actually found it in this section:
Levy risk groups
http://www.acc.co.nz/for-individuals/motorcyclists/WPC088542

And that Motorcyclists page has two PDF links in this section:
Understanding the 2015/16 levies
http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/groups/external_levies/documents/reference_tools/wpc137726.pdf
http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/groups/external_levies/documents/reference_tools/wpc137725.pdf

[kiwi-on-wheels]

I'd like to see the acc levys aligned with the lams system, and as such, a higher weighting on lams bikes, because lets be honest whos more likely to do themselves more damage, a learner rider or someone who's had all the training and experiance?

In saying that, discounts on production of reciepts for safety gear (riding pants, gloves boots jackets etc) because the damage done to someone in the gear is significantly less than someone in shorts and teeshirt...

[GSXR1]

I'd like to see the acc levys aligned with the lams system, and as such, a higher weighting on lams bikes, because lets be honest whos more likely to do themselves more damage, a learner rider or someone who's had all the training and experiance?

In saying that, discounts on production of reciepts for safety gear (riding pants, gloves boots jackets etc) because the damage done to someone in the gear is significantly less than someone in shorts and teeshirt...


I ride at least 50k every day. I own seven bikes. I have no car license. I have 32 years riding experience (more if you count farm bikes as a kid). I'm probably as much a biker as you can get as far as this goes. The problem with policies and rules as i have always seen it is that this is all about insurance, but it's done by a govt entity that simply can;t purely treat it as a profit/loss insurance scheme. Why? because the govt has voters and gets swayed by all the BS that every ACC action or inaction produces.

So IF it was privatized with several money making insurance companies all offering schemes you'd probably get all the changes we all want:
* Cost based on CC rating would be abolished
* Cost would be based on rider experience to some degree
* Cost would be based on the rider and NOT on the vehicle (one premium per person)
* Cost would be based on protective gear (or rather you'd have no cover at all if you were not wearing XYZ gear in an accident)
* Cost would change over years with a "no claims bonus" style reduction

But you'd get the one change I don't think any rider wants as a trade off
* Cost would be based as a percentage of the real cost to JUST that class of claims

The fact is that while at the moment it's not totally fair as to how the burden gets distributed for all the reasons in the first section, we only actually want JUST those things fixed. None of us want to trade off those "fixes" against being charged what it actually costs to cover all the bike accidents, because premiums would on average triple for everyone even once "fixed". As a government agency ACC doesn't right all the wrongs in the first section because it's a nightmare of law management each year and administration, while private companies would be more than happy to do it if the law was changed to let them, because we'd all be paying them to manage all the fine print, plus a whole lot more.

[Big Dog]

Still doesn't change the fact that our no blame cover squarely blames motorcyclists for their increased risk without doing the same for other high risk groups.
Until you get past that basic prejudice you will never garner wholesale support for the policy... Except from non motorcyclists... Who all they see is a reduction of a few dollars a year in their costs.

It is no different than saying "We will charge Maori more because they are disproportionately likely to suffer from disease related to smoking in their lifetime and they drive cars."

The argument can be raised that Maori can't opt out of being Maori. Well I can't opt out of being a biker. The cost to the mental health system would be outrageous, my quality of life would be significantly less, and there would be yet another co2 belching obstruction on the road during the rush hour Grand Prix.
Plus you can opt out of being a Maori by declaring yourself pakeha on all govt documents. I know of a few who do just that.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Big Dog]

Ps, I don't care if it increases my acc. So long as it is fair and applied to all risk groups an all sports equitably.
Oh that would be cost prohibitive to collect from football players and cyclists and rock climbers etc?
Well, surprise surprise! That was the foundation of the ACC's intent was it not?
To distribute the cost across sectors of the community by ability to pay?
With no blame?


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Big Dog]

While it is rattling around in my head.
If collection is to be scaled thus surely we should stop seeing our road safety engineers choosing road furniture and layouts that sacrifice motorcyclist safety in favour of other motorist safety?
Or is reduction in harm to such a high risk group not desiresble?



Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[willytheekid]

:oi-grr:

Op talks REAL purdy "talk"...and claims to be "as much a biker as you can get"


And yet...still Pro ACC? :confused:


...and just how many times have you actualy had to rely on the system GSXR1?...been hit by drunk drivers and left to ROT for 8yrs while ACC fucks up the paper work and bitches over the cost of Knee surgery?...had a doctor walk in and say "If you don't wiggle your fingers, we have to take your arm!, sorry, but ACC are presuring us!"....presuring doctors and knee surgeons for cheaper surgery, cheaper recovery, and making YOU feel like the fucking criminal for ALLOWING some drunken fuck to hit you during there travels.

...you can put lipstick on a pig and call it what the fuck you like!...it is still a pig!, and you can use all the purdy talk and BS stats you like about ACC, but its still a rip off self centrered, BUSSINESS taking far too much of our money and offering FAR to little in return....PROFIT!, thats ACC's SOLE! focus.

310606

310607

...Read what BD has posted, then come back and "try again" in telling us how "fair" and "non discriminatory" ACC is towards motorcyclists <_<


...best you get back to ya Council, Govt or ACC job you commute to everyday "fellow biker" :rolleyes:

[Swoop]

ACC: Arseholes, Cocks & Cunts.

I have private health insurance and vehicle insurance.
Therefore I choose to not pay their extortionate rego fees.

I seem to remember a press release stating that they now had enough money in the bank to support their "fully funded" campaign of terror.

[gjm]

The first post is as close to a dispassionate description of what, why and how that I've so far seen.

The thing I cannot understand is any rationale for the cc-based rego costs, other than that it is easy. Bundling an old 650cc single into the same rego bracket as the new Kawasaki H2R makes no sense.

[Big Dog]

The first post is as close to a dispassionate description of what, why and how that I've so far seen.

The thing I cannot understand is any rationale for the cc-based rego costs, other than that it is easy. Bundling an old 650cc single into the same rego bracket as the new Kawasaki H2R makes no sense.

Ability to pay.
IIRC 600 and smaller have many more accidents with much more gravel rash and minor bone trauma. Most harm is due to poor gear choices rather than speed.
601 and larger have fewer but more expensive crashes. Since helmets and good gear is around high speed crashes tend to be survived but at a high cost.

Total Cost distribution is about 60/40 on the 600cc mark. On the other hand the ability to pay ( read that not students and not as likely to be only vehicle ) is about 40/60 on the same mark.

Cheerily you are more likely to end up saving the tax payer money by not surviving the incident the less CCs:Speed ratio due to again cheaper gear and less education / experience.

That is the dispassionate side.
Unfortunately it is also a tale of woe to those of us who actually survive past the first 100,000 kms.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Big Dog]

I wonder if the trend will be to higher cc ratings in the average fatality post LAMS?
:Gasp: so in reality that levy change mark needs to be reviewed as the basis of its implementation has changed.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[GSXR1]

:oi-grr:

Op talks REAL purdy "talk"...and claims to be "as much a biker as you can get"


And yet...still Pro ACC? :confused:


...and just how many times have you actualy had to rely on the system GSXR1?...been hit by drunk drivers and left to ROT for 8yrs while ACC fucks up the paper work and bitches over the cost of Knee surgery?...had a doctor walk in and say "If you don't wiggle your fingers, we have to take your arm!, sorry, but ACC are presuring us!"....presuring doctors and knee surgeons for cheaper surgery, cheaper recovery, and making YOU feel like the fucking criminal for ALLOWING some drunken fuck to hit you during there travels.

...you can put lipstick on a pig and call it what the fuck you like!...it is still a pig!, and you can use all the purdy talk and BS stats you like about ACC, but its still a rip off self centrered, BUSSINESS taking far too much of our money and offering FAR to little in return....PROFIT!, thats ACC's SOLE! focus.

310606

310607

...Read what BD has posted, then come back and "try again" in telling us how "fair" and "non discriminatory" ACC is towards motorcyclists <_<


...best you get back to ya Council, Govt or ACC job you commute to everyday "fellow biker" :rolleyes:

I don't work for ACC, any council, nor the government. My bikes have put me in hospital three times, I have holes all over my legs. scars in my forehead and chin, a big toe that doesn't bend because its been fused solid and titanium screws holding my left wrist together. Two of those accidents were caused by cars and one by me being stupid. I had to fight the fuckers for 2 months loss of self employed income once, they couldn't calculate anything right, and it was only when my lawyer sent them intent of court action that I finally got someone competent to review it all and agree they had it wrong.

So I'm not Pro ACC at all, and I'd sooner it was 100% privatised, ANYONE with more than one bike is probably the same. Paying per vehicle is the most stupid thing when you can't ride more than one at once, cant cause wear and tear to more than one road at a time, can't have more than one accident at a time etc.

All I was saying is that for once I am reading something from the ACC that actually at least starts to even make statements that go some way to showing they are in fact TRYING to address some of the issues and saying some things that make sense. You can criticise me all you like I really don't care, I didn't up the links support the ACC, purely just as information so people could actually see it. I went looking just to see if there was a hope in hell they had ANY kind of justification for why everyone gets a drop in reg fees except bike riders. What anyone thinks of it is up to them to decide, yourself included. My own opinion was that I was surprised they had actually made some kind of sense (my opinion).

[willytheekid]

I don't work for ACC, any council, nor the government. My bikes have put me in hospital three times, I have holes all over my legs. scars in my forehead and chin, a big toe that doesn't bend because its been fused solid and titanium screws holding my left wrist together. Two of those accidents were caused by cars and one by me being stupid. I had to fight the fuckers for 2 months loss of self employed income once, they couldn't calculate anything right, and it was only when my lawyer sent them intent of court action that I finally got someone competent to review it all and agree they had it wrong.

So I'm not Pro ACC at all, and I'd sooner it was 100% privatised, ANYONE with more than one bike is probably the same. Paying per vehicle is the most stupid thing when you can't ride more than one at once, cant cause wear and tear to more than one road at a time, can't have more than one accident at a time etc.

All I was saying is that for once I am reading something from the ACC that actually at least starts to even make statements that go some way to showing they are in fact TRYING to address some of the issues and saying some things that make sense. You can criticise me all you like I really don't care, I didn't up the links support the ACC, purely just as information so people could actually see it. I went looking just to see if there was a hope in hell they had ANY kind of justification for why everyone gets a drop in reg fees except bike riders. What anyone thinks of it is up to them to decide, yourself included. My own opinion was that I was surprised they had actually made some kind of sense (my opinion).

:clap: Great reply!

My appologies if I offended you(was kinda my intent to honest:laugh:) ...next time tho, maybe don't post in such a way that you come across like some Pencil up the arse Gov't- Pro ACC employee invading the forums to peddle craptastic stats and fictitious lies from ACC...and more like the biker you obviously are ;)




ps...ACC, need to "try" ALOT harder to fix the damage they have done to thousands of kiwis

[Mike.Gayner]

I'm a biker and I very much support the ACC system. In concept it's fantastic, and it's decent (though not perfect) in execution. I guess by your weird definition I'm not a real biker.

PS: I don't work in the public sector, and never have.

PPS: You're a wanker.

[willytheekid]

I'm a biker and I very much support the ACC system. In concept it's fantastic, and it's decent (though not perfect) in execution. I guess by your weird definition I'm not a real biker.

PS: I don't work in the public sector, and never have.

PPS: You're a "HONDA RIDER" :D.

:killingme...SHEEEESH! taken out of context much Mike?

Look at the first post again....look like a ACC blurb?...cos most of us would have seen it as that.(hence wtf!...thats no "biker/motorcyclist"...ACC/GOVT??...da faq?)

And in "concept", yes...its a great system!...but in REALITY!...what say you mike?...still great?

ps...I NEVER said he wasn't a "real biker"...his claim! "as much a biker as you can get"...again, sounds like sales pitch!, not something most on here say now is it?.

pps...I fixed that for ya ;) (Cos im not...your just in a pissy mood and need coffee or beersies)

[Marmoot]

I couldn't find the data on cyclist (must've overlooked it).
Would still like to know why motorcyclists are pinged with higher levy due to injury cost while cyclists are still zero levied despite having injury cost.

If there is a precedent for a group to be pinged due to their injury cost, why not the others?
And what about those that get injured riding motorcycles to work? Is that funded by earners levy or motorcycle registration levy? Or petrol levy?
Why the levy is not done on driver licensing instead?

[Berries]

My bikes have put me in hospital three times, I have holes all over my legs. scars in my forehead and chin, a big toe that doesn't bend because its been fused solid and titanium screws holding my left wrist together. Two of those accidents were caused by cars and one by me being stupid.
Kind of explains why my levy is so much.

[Scuba_Steve]

So I'm not Pro ACC at all, and I'd sooner it was 100% privatised, ANYONE with more than one bike is probably the same. Paying per vehicle is the most stupid thing when you can't ride more than one at once, cant cause wear and tear to more than one road at a time, can't have more than one accident at a time etc.

Nope, not with you on that. It's the push to privatise that's fucking ACC, I'd rather see it fixed & represent the system it was intended than private insurance; Privatisation would only increase cost & decrease service (& trust me, bad as ACC currently is, private would be worse)

[AllanB]

I will sleep well tonight knowing if I go to work tomorrow and stick a pencil up my nose I will be able to claim ACC for any damage as a work place accident.

[Big Dog]

Nope, not with you on that. It's the push to privatise that's fucking ACC, I'd rather see it fixed & represent the system it was intended than private insurance; Privatisation would only increase cost & decrease service (& trust me, bad as ACC currently is, private would be worse)

Correct. The premise is awesome. The practice is usury.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[GavinB]

I couldn't find the data on cyclist (must've overlooked it).
Would still like to know why motorcyclists are pinged with higher levy due to injury cost while cyclists are still zero levied despite having injury cost.

If there is a precedent for a group to be pinged due to their injury cost, why not the others?
And what about those that get injured riding motorcycles to work? Is that funded by earners levy or motorcycle registration levy? Or petrol levy?
Why the levy is not done on driver licensing instead?

Short answer: Because a bicycle isn't a motor vehicle and therefore when they wipe themselves out it's not a motor vehicle accident... unless there's actually a motor vehicle involved. The same for if a pedestrian gets nailed by a motor vehicle really.

Nothing is ever perfect and a balance always needs to be found. Things could always be fairer and more detailed, but then the costs of administering the system will overtake whatever savings there might be.

For what it's worth, the original post was pleasingly thoughtful and considered.

Gavin

[EmBe]

http://www.trademe.co.nz/jobs/other/listing-871179020.htm

$30 from every motorbike registration goes into a motorbike safety fund as you all probably know, well spotted this ad today for advisors to this fund and I'm sure there's many on here with the required relevant knowledge and maybe even a passion for motorbike safety. Spend our money wisely :yes: and represent :Punk:

[Pixie]

http://www.trademe.co.nz/jobs/other/listing-871179020.htm

$30 from every motorbike registration goes into a motorbike safety fund as you all probably know, well spotted this ad today for advisors to this fund and I'm sure there's many on here with the required relevant knowledge and maybe even a passion for motorbike safety. Spend our money wisely :yes: and represent :Punk:

Don't get me started on those MSAC cunts.They have $10 million of our money and have done fuck all - fitted a bike with a camera to see "what it's like to be a motorcyclist";flown to Canada to get an "award",and paid Monash university to do some research.

And no one's mentioned AA in this.Below is AA submission to ACC.

The New Zealand Automobile Association (NZAA) welcomes the opportunity to comment onthe proposed 2015/16 Motor Vehicle levies.
The NZAA represents over 1.4 million Members on issues affecting motorists. The NZAA’s
advocacy and policy work mainly focuses on protecting the freedom of choice and rights of
motorists, keeping the cost of motoring fair and reasonable, and enhancing the safety of all
road users. Accordingly, we have a particular interest in the ACC levy because of its safety
and financial implications for all motor vehicle owners.
We make our comments on the ACC proposals under the following headings:
• reduce the combined average motor vehicle levy by 40%
• maintain the petrol levy at 9.90 cents per litre
• maintain the current levies charged to motorcycle and moped owners
• introduce risk rating for light passenger vehicles
• maintain the Motorcycle Safety Levy at $30 per year per motorcycle
• collect a portion of ACC levies on alcohol sales


A. Reduce the combined average Motor Vehicle levy by 40%
In the NZAA’s view, reduced levies have been unjustly denied to motorists for two years in a
row now, so we fully support proposals to reduce the current combined average MotorVehicle by 40%, with a further reduction likely the following year. In light of improvements in
the Motor Vehicle Account, and the deferral of the levy reduction proposed for the 2014/15
year, such a reduction is justified and overdue.






C. Maintain the current levies charged to motorcycle and moped owners
The NZAA supports retaining the current levy for motorcycles and mopeds. Over time we
believe ACC should aim to recover a greater portion of costs from users. So, while most
other vehicle classes are scheduled to pay lower levies in the next financial year, it is
appropriate that motorcycle and moped levies remain at current levels so that riders are
contributing a greater share of motorcycle injury costs and the cross-subsidy from passenger
vehicles is reduced. According to the ACC discussion document, by retaining motorcycle
levies at current levels, the cross-subsidy from passenger vehicle owners will have fallen
from approximately $80 per vehicle just a few years ago, to $24.36. This is to be applauded,
and is an endorsement of the policy to retain motorcycle levies at current levels.
While motorcycle and moped owners may be disappointed that levies are not falling, it is
important that ACC explains to riders that keeping levies unchanged will also account for the
lower petrol tax contribution by motorcycles due to their superior fuel economy, and the
failure by ACC to account for this previously over several years when the petrol tax
component of aggregate motor vehicle levies rose. As noted in section B above, although the
annual amount motorcycles and mopeds contribute in petrol tax is low, it would be necessary
to raise motorcycle and moped licence levies slightly to retain equity if the petrol tax was
reduced 4 cents per litre.


E. Maintain the Motorcycle Safety Levy at $30 per year per licensed motorcycle
The NZAA supports the purpose of the MSL, and retaining the annual charge at $30.
However, as noted in earlier submissions, progress remains slow on approving motorcycle-
specific safety initiatives that have been developed by the Motorcycle Safety Advisory
Council (MSAC). The NZAA supports the work of MSAC, and we commend ACC to support
the MSAC to implement projects they have nominated to be funded by the levy.

[rastuscat]

I couldn't find the data on cyclist (must've overlooked it).
Would still like to know why motorcyclists are pinged with higher levy due to injury cost while cyclists are still zero levied despite having injury cost.

If there is a precedent for a group to be pinged due to their injury cost, why not the others?
And what about those that get injured riding motorcycles to work? Is that funded by earners levy or motorcycle registration levy? Or petrol levy?
Why the levy is not done on driver licensing instead?

It's done because they can. We have to have number plates on our motorcycles, and that provides a process for extracting dosh.

I happen to be a road cyclist too, and I'll resist having number plates until I die. Probably because when I'm riding my bike I'm paying ACC via my motorbike, car, trailers and my wifes car, which are all sitting in my driveway when I'm out cycling, slowly drip feeding money to ACC. The next fecker who says I don't pay my way will be getting a big earful.

[Mike.Gayner]

Every cyclist I know, including myself, has multiple motor vehicles and pays into the worker's account. Fuck people who say cyclists don't pay their share.

[Reckless]

Every cyclist I know, including myself, has multiple motor vehicles and pays into the worker's account. Fuck people who say cyclists don't pay their share.

Dirt bikers, Down hill cycle racers, Skiers, Rugby & league players, heck even motorcyclists, a large % of us have more than one bike and a car, we can all say that.
Still doesn't make fair being singled out, risk assessed and charged more, in what is supposed to be a no fault system when all those other groups aren't?

They could in fact put a small ACC levy on New cycles, Snowboards or MX bikes or Rugby boots depending on the sports risk rating? Do this at import or Manufacturing stage rather than retail where the paperwork and collection is least and costs are easily passed on.

Some groups like grandma falling in the kitchen will always be an overhead but if they charged all chargeable risk groups something you might find we all pay less the load would be spread more and the scheme would be self funding a lot sooner?

They need to get back to Woodhouses "NO Fault" or charge "all Risk groups something" what we have now for bikers is forced mandatory risk based insurance.

[Oakie]

Turns out the ACC levies on bikes are all my fault. This is what the guy who got out of his his car at a blocked up two lane came over and told me today. Both lanes blocked up like a constipated thing and everything stopped without even the red light's intervention so I used the cycle lane to pass a handful of vehicles and get to the front. I saw Mr Grumpy bum get out of his car and storm over to me to tell me I'm the root of all motorcycle mahem then he stormed off before I could come up with a worthy response (apart from beating him across the intersection when the lights finally went green). So sorry guys ... it's all my fault we pay so much ACC. (Yeah, a bit naughty I was, but done with no traffic moving and no cyclists around).

[Marmoot]

Turns out the ACC levies on bikes are all my fault. This is what the guy who got out of his his car at a blocked up two lane came over and told me today. Both lanes blocked up like a constipated thing and everything stopped without even the red light's intervention so I used the cycle lane to pass a handful of vehicles and get to the front. I saw Mr Grumpy bum get out of his car and storm over to me to tell me I'm the root of all motorcycle mahem then he stormed off before I could come up with a worthy response (apart from beating him across the intersection when the lights finally went green). So sorry guys ... it's all my fault we pay so much ACC. (Yeah, a bit naughty I was, but done with no traffic moving and no cyclists around).

Meh, don't take it too seriously.
He probably thought you were me.

[willytheekid]

Turns out the ACC levies on bikes are all my fault. This is what the guy who got out of his his car at a blocked up two lane came over and told me today. Both lanes blocked up like a constipated thing and everything stopped without even the red light's intervention so I used the cycle lane to pass a handful of vehicles and get to the front. I saw Mr Grumpy bum get out of his car and storm over to me to tell me I'm the root of all motorcycle mahem then he stormed off before I could come up with a worthy response (apart from beating him across the intersection when the lights finally went green). So sorry guys ... it's all my fault we pay so much ACC. (Yeah, a bit naughty I was, but done with no traffic moving and no cyclists around).

I KNEW IT HAD TO ONE OF YOU LOT!....:laugh:

seriously?...he got out of his car because you slowly filtered to the head of the Q?...:facepalm:

(I understand the cycle lane being a no go etc...but jebus!...cyclist "protecting his patch" possibly?:blink:)

[Oakie]

I KNEW IT HAD TO ONE OF YOU LOT!....:laugh:

seriously?...he got out of his car because you slowly filtered to the head of the Q?...:facepalm:

(I understand the cycle lane being a no go etc...but jebus!...cyclist "protecting his patch" possibly?:blink:)

He was just a bit pissed I guess because it probably took him 5 minutes to get 500 metres and I just rolled up beside him. He probably thought I'd passed the whole mess of vehicles on the cycle lane instead of just the last few. I'll be watching out for him the next few days anyway ...

[Bruce Lee]

You'd kind of think that councils/govt depts should be encouraging punters onto two wheels with all the traffic woes esp in Akld. Average Joe public is so car dependent and out number bikes by quite some. Make one of the motorway lanes bus/moped/motorcycle only and that might encourage a few more two wheeled folk.

[Oakie]

You'd kind of think that councils/govt depts should be encouraging punters onto two wheels with all the traffic woes esp in Akld. Average Joe public is so car dependent and out number bikes by quite some. Make one of the motorway lanes bus/moped/motorcycle only and that might encourage a few more two wheeled folk.

Christchurch Council does. Bus lanes are also for use by motorbikes according to their by-law. The only thing you have to watch is that they are only bus lanes at particular times of the day ... eg, one close to me at work is a bus lane from 7am to 9am but not in the afternoon.

[rambaldi]

You'd kind of think that councils/govt depts should be encouraging punters onto two wheels with all the traffic woes esp in Akld. Average Joe public is so car dependent and out number bikes by quite some. Make one of the motorway lanes bus/moped/motorcycle only and that might encourage a few more two wheeled folk.

All the council controlled lanes in Auckland usually are (there might be a fringe lane here or there that I am unaware of) the ones controlled by NZTA, namely those along the motorway, aren't under the council's jurisdiction and they seem to have a different opinion on the matter.

[jonnyk5614]

Yes - ACC is expensive and yes, it is equal for all thus some of us pay more than our share.
But there are others that pay far less.

The reality is, if we get rid of ACC we will have the insurance system, like the rest of the world.

On my GSXR 1000 I pay $430 ACC and $450 insurance. $880.

I got some quotes in the UK. Same bike. Same experience. The difference? The insurance company is picking up the tab for injuries.

$7500! I declared the bike to be worth $6000 and in a garage (vs. CBD carport, visible from road here) so you can't blame higher risk of theft. $7500!

Oh, and that didn't let me carry pillions. They cost more still (twice the injury bill afterall).


On top of that, we put far less into ACC coffers at the fuel pump.


I'll happily pay the ACC :D


To mitigate for careful riders/equipment. They are trying - road improvements and ride forever. Not far enough though.

Any and every biker should be able to go to a rider instructor of their choosing and use some ACC money to help fund training. Give them vouchers with their test pass certificate or whatever. I gain far more from an hour one-on-one with Phil McDaid than 8 hours cruising around in a massive group with Ride Forever.

Ride forever has too much blanket advertising. No need for bus-stops, internet ads, etc. Target bikers directly - you know where they live after-all. Gotta be cheaper to target the 3% that ride than the entire populous.

Lastly, I'm not in favour of a "nanny state" but we could mildly uprate our safety rules.
How about what they insist on for your test?
Jacket, helmet, gloves, trousers and boots.

No - not super expensive bike kit but a lot more than T shirt and safety jandals. If the cops could stop and ticket the short and T shirt brigade, the would would be a better place. We could maybe make the CE approved safety gear GST exempt?