Approximately half of all motorcycles in NZ are rego exempt or rego expired right now

[vtec]

https://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/new-zealand-motor-vehicle-register-statistics/national-vehicle-fleet-status/

Motorcycles
Currently licenced: 69,473 (52%)
Rego exempt: 50,630 (38%)
Unlicensed or expired: 13,103 (10%)

Cars and Vans
Currently licenced: 2,677,351 (87%)
Rego exempt: 188,889 (6%)
Unlicensed or expired: 204,169 (7%)


ACC could probably learn something from the Laffer curve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve).

I just got my first $150 fine after more than 5 years of running my two road legal bikes with exempt rego's, having saved over $5,000 in the process.

[Waihou Thumper]

I just got my first $150 fine after more than 5 years of running my two road legal bikes with exempt rego's, having saved over $5,000 in the process.


Can the Police see this and ask for monies' back for the Government from your statement? :)

[Gremlin]

Well it's something that's been mooted since the rego increases. As the rego went up, less would pay.

However, basic stats are just that. Some people will have one rego'd motorcycle, which means 100% rego rate for them as an individual. Then others would have 5, 10, how ever many bikes (my boss has 6? and only 3 are probably live rego). There are various reasons for holding, off the road for restoration, not riding them all etc etc, along with, I'm riding but not paying.

[Katman]

I have 6 but only 1 has current registration.

[TheDemonLord]

Normally my Bike is Rego'd......

[Big Dog]

Normally my Bike is Rego'd......
Easier when you only have one.

I used to have 3 registered. With the cost of registration and a change of circumstances I normally only have 1 at a time registered.
By my calculations they tried to stick me for an additional 2-300 per bike. Instead I now pay 600 less a year in registration.

So from this pocket they get less money for the same kms. And without me taking a more appropriate bike on occasion.


Sent via tapatalk.

[Drew]

I have 6 but only 1 has current registration.

Why the fuck don't you have a dealer plate?

[sidecar bob]

All the bikes I use are regoed, but some are ornaments, such as the Katana 1100 which has been on hold for 16 years because its an archaic pile of shit & only worth looking at, at best.

[Reckless]

They got to greedy and everyone voted with their feet and only registered what they rode or rode illegally.
If its was the same as a car say $150 I'd register all mine just so I had a choice.
You get greedy and everyone says fuck you :P

That aside jeepers hasnt this good weather bought out floods and floods of half naked scooter riders???

I equate it to the rip off 9 bucks for a drink in town. Everyone preloads or has drinks at home before they go out (even us old buggers).
If the drinks where 5-6 bucks each you'd go in for the night and have a meal as well.
Not just the last 1/2 of the night buy 1 drink to hold and listen to the band they paid for.
Dont make sense??

[RDJ]

Well it's something that's been mooted since the rego increases. As the rego went up, less would pay.

However, basic stats are just that. Some people will have one rego'd motorcycle, which means 100% rego rate for them as an individual. Then others would have 5, 10, how ever many bikes (my boss has 6? and only 3 are probably live rego). There are various reasons for holding, off the road for restoration, not riding them all etc etc, along with, I'm riding but not paying.

Yes, precisely. The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes, again. Who'd have thunk it...

[RDJ]

All the bikes I use are regoed, but some are ornaments, such as the Katana 1100 which has been on hold for 16 years because its an archaic pile of shit & only worth looking at, at best.

This is true of both mechanical and humanoid Katanas. But. both types lack insight... I suspect we will have to suffer them a while longer.

[Katman]

Why the fuck don't you have a dealer plate?

Because I'm not a dealer.

[rastuscat]

It's such a crap system.

To top it off, there are 15 demerits for riding a bike while on hold.

Joke, but not funny.

[nodrog]

Why the fuck don't you have a dealer plate?

how will this help?

http://40.media.tumblr.com/47671c48b58aafc8557893ab7086abf2/tumblr_n4260vNHKc1svev3yo1_500.jpg

[Drew]

Because I'm not a dealer.

So? Know two workshops that have dealer plates. Mind, it's fucken hard to get them first time these days. Used to be a piece of piss and just a renewal fee for the rest of time.

[Shane M]

Did you get to ride your bike home after you got the ticket

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[pritch]

Because I'm not a dealer.

That seems like a pretty good reason not to have a D Plate?

Currently I'm one of the errant 13,000+. Not for much longer though, I'm missing all the good riding weather.

[AllanB]

Mines always paid up. Does that mean I'm subsidizing you buggers?

[vtec]

Did you get to ride your bike home after you got the ticket

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Yeah, was a pretty sweet cop. Plus I think he liked me. Got a couple of chuckles out of him, as he'd pulled me over for going really fast around a corner on my scooter.

[WNJ]

Mine always paid, only for insurance purposes though, can't afford to give away 6 or 7k if bike written off,

[awayatc]

got 2 registered for summer, cars went down so spend the difference on bikes....

but since increase only pay rego for half year.

[5150]

It's such a crap system.

To top it off, there are 15 demerits for riding a bike while on hold.

Joke, but not funny.

That's fine.... It still leaves me with 85 points on my license. So by my calcs I can afford to be pulled over 6.67 times for no rego before I loose my license for what, say 3 months? Still worth it :cool:

[5150]

Mine always paid, only for insurance purposes though, can't afford to give away 6 or 7k if bike written off,

No rego has nothing to do with insurance as it is not a safety factor. No WOF is a different story tho.

[STEPHASAUR]

No rego has nothing to do with insurance as it is not a safety factor. No WOF is a different story tho.

Considering if for whatever reason you get involved in an incident you can just update the rego online?
or perhaps im mistaken. :P

[5150]

Considering if for whatever reason you get involved in an incident you can just update the rego online?
or perhaps im mistaken. :P

You can go on line and buy a rego on the spot. I have seen a mate got pulled over for no rego. He asked the officer to hold on, went quickly on line on his smart phone and bought 3 mnths rego. Told the officer that bike is registered but system have not updated yet, and got let off.

[Banditbandit]

No rego has nothing to do with insurance as it is not a safety factor. No WOF is a different story tho.

Some insurance policies state that the vehicle must be registered and hold a WOF - if not no payout. The owner signed that contract, and so if they have an accident on a non-rego-ed bike they will not get a pay out ..

[Ocean1]

Some insurance policies state that the vehicle must be registered and hold a WOF - if not no payout. The owner signed that contract, and so if they have an accident on a non-rego-ed bike they will not get a pay out ..

I seem to recall a thread here claiming just that, but when challenged nobody could substantiate the claim. Even with the lack of a wof an insurance company needs to show the lack contributed to the accident.

[5150]

Some insurance policies state that the vehicle must be registered and hold a WOF - if not no payout. The owner signed that contract, and so if they have an accident on a non-rego-ed bike they will not get a pay out ..

I have actually rang my insurance company and asked whether lack on Rego at the time of an accident would stop them from paying out on my claim, and was told that as long as the Wof was current and bike was up to wof standards at the time of the accident then they would still pay out as Rego is not a safety factor. It is just a tax we pay to use the roads.

[FJRider]

You can go on line and buy a rego on the spot. I have seen a mate got pulled over for no rego. He asked the officer to hold on, went quickly on line on his smart phone and bought 3 mnths rego. Told the officer that bike is registered but system have not updated yet, and got let off.

The charge is actually "Failing to display the current License label" ... if the vehicle is actually registered ... or not.

It's up to the officers discretion as to ticket any offender ... or not

[FJRider]

I have actually rang my insurance company and asked whether lack on Rego at the time of an accident would stop them from paying out on my claim, and was told that as long as the Wof was current and bike was up to wof standards at the time of the accident then they would still pay out as Rego is not a safety factor. It is just a tax we pay to use the roads.

Such things are usually written in the fine print of your policy. It might be a good idea to read it.

[Banditbandit]

I seem to recall a thread here claiming just that, but when challenged nobody could substantiate the claim. Even with the lack of a wof an insurance company needs to show the lack contributed to the accident.

last time I dumped a bike the insurance company asked for a photo of the rego and warrant to prove they were up to date - they were. I didn't ask the company if they woud have halted the pay out if the rego was out of date ..

[5150]

Such things are usually written in the fine print of your policy. It might be a good idea to read it.

I have read my policy before I rang them as there was nothing in there about Rego being a condition

[5150]

last time I dumped a bike the insurance company asked for a photo of the rego and warrant to prove they were up to date - they were. I didn't ask the company if they woud have halted the pay out if the rego was out of date ..

I could be wrong, but there could be a difference of expired Rego vs one put on hold. Others could correct me if I am wrong

[5150]

Having demerits affect your insurance premiums but maybe not if you can prove it was no reg. Ring your insurance company and find out.

Well theoretically it is not a driving offence is it?

[5150]

For those interested. Here is the policy conditions from State Insurance. Nothing about no Rego. Only Wof 319276

[Tazz]

Out of 3 bikes only 1 is almost always registered and the rest fluctuate with use. I can't drive everything at once and why should I pay for something that is sitting in the garage.


For those interested. Here is the policy conditions from State Insurance. Nothing about no Rego. Only Wof 319276

How dare you bring facts instead of speculation!

Even calling your insurance company instead of just believing someone on-line. Double ewe tee eff mate.

:bleh:

[Swoop]

Mine always paid, only for insurance purposes though, can't afford to give away 6 or 7k if bike written off,
You should be with a company that accepts lack of rego. Mine actively does just that, saying "it's a tax! Don't pay it!"
I phoned and queried my bike insurer specifically about this.


I have actually rang my insurance company and asked whether lack on Rego at the time of an accident would stop them from paying out on my claim, and was told that as long as the Wof was current and bike was up to wof standards at the time of the accident then they would still pay out as Rego is not a safety factor. It is just a tax we pay to use the roads.
Hmmm. Sounds like the same company. A darned good one as well.

[FJRider]

I have read my policy before I rang them as there was nothing in there about Rego being a condition

In such cases (usually) ... unless explicitly forbidden ... it is allowed.

[Jin]

They got to greedy and everyone voted with their feet and only registered what they rode or rode illegally.
If its was the same as a car say $150 I'd register all mine just so I had a choice.
You get greedy and everyone says fuck you :P

That aside jeepers hasnt this good weather bought out floods and floods of half naked scooter riders???

I equate it to the rip off 9 bucks for a drink in town. Everyone preloads or has drinks at home before they go out (even us old buggers).
If the drinks where 5-6 bucks each you'd go in for the night and have a meal as well.
Not just the last 1/2 of the night buy 1 drink to hold and listen to the band they paid for.
Dont make sense??
We preload on drinks before heading to town when they were $5. Which i thought was a ripoff.

[00quattro00]

The entire registration system is a load of shit. Why should I pay for 4x regos when i can only drive/ride one at a time

[neels]

The charge is actually "Failing to display the current License label" ... if the vehicle is actually registered ... or not.
There are 2 different offences, one is failing to display a current licence label, the other is operating an unlicenced motor vehicle, or words to that effect.

One there is some grey area, the other there isn't.

Regarding insurance, I've just had a look at the wording of my policy, there is no specific mention of WOF or Rego, only the statement below which I suppose a valid WOF would assist with 'reasonable steps'

There is no cover if the motorcycle is overloaded or being used in an unsafe or unroadworthy condition. Cover will still apply if you can prove that you and the rider were unaware of such
condition and had taken all reasonable steps to maintain your motorcycle

[release_the_bees]

The entire registration system is a load of shit. Why should I pay for 4x regos when i can only drive/ride one at a time
Whilst no system is perfect, I'd rather the registration was tied to kilometers traveled than to a hard-coded expiry date. That way people would only pay for what they actually used and those with multiple vehicles would be able to be changed in a much more equitable way.

Alternatively, the costs could be added to the existing fuel tax instead of having to manage and pay for a separate registration system.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

[00quattro00]

Whilst no system is perfect, I'd rather the registration was tied to kilometers traveled than to a hard-coded expiry date. That way people would only pay for what they actually used and those with multiple vehicles would be able to be changed in a much more equitable way.

Alternatively, the costs could be added to the existing fuel tax instead of having to manage and pay for a separate registration system.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
You should just register and insure yourself. Obviously vehicle must have a wof

[flashg]

Whilst no system is perfect, I'd rather the registration was tied to kilometers traveled than to a hard-coded expiry date. That way people would only pay for what they actually used and those with multiple vehicles would be able to be changed in a much more equitable way.


Now I do like your idea.
We could register bikes at the normal rate, less ACC charges. And buy ACC road user charges for each bike, that don't expire if not used. That way we can ride whatever we have whenever

[00quattro00]

Just register one at a time which is what most people are doing now. It costs a little more than a full single registration over a year though.
Do you have a bit of down in you or something?

[Moi]

OK, first... pedant time... it is actually "licence fee" that you pay to have the right to ride / drive on a public road... pedant time over...

The amount that you pay to licence a bike to use the road is $24.50 pa [!]... the biggest part of the whole sum you pay is the ACC levy... plus a Motorcycle Safety levy plus other sundry charges and GST.

So it is the ACC levy which is the cause of the angst - that is the part which needs to be rethought so it is fairer for all and that has to include ACC who are paying the bills when you come off.

So, how about some suggestions to solve this issue? So far we have had 'tie it to mileage' rather than a date...

What else can you think of?

[PistonBlown]

The problem with any km based system is that it's open to abuse by people disabling the speedo/milometer.

Which also means a lot more 'clocked' bikes of the second hand market. A problem that's already common for diesel vehicles because of the road usage charges.

I even know a serving policeman who, when he bought a diesel 4x4, had a switch fitted so he could disable the speedo/milometer at will to keep the km's down. (They are not a member of this forum:-))

Simple enough to use the speedo on your phone or gps instead.

[eldog]

tie it to the licensed rider, on a per day cost - via phone app?
and a per km or day (cost = ((ACC for full year-ACC initial) /(52 weeks*5days))*number of days ridden per year
uptil a maximum amount once that is achieved then no more charge no matter what bike riding

there would be a minimum 'license/registration fee' per each bike owned that will be on the road ie low cost + ACC initial starter cost per rider
non riding/show bikes no rego - see below

the ACC (or whatever) component would be split as per above

options for owners of 1 bike etc

if its a classic then similar to the classic vintage car say license

I know its unfair to people who will more likely have more skill than the weekend warriors but its a start
maybe have a ACC start value = $50 say to get more $ from occasional rider so not to penalise the day to day users

ACC initial cost is a bit like a handicap in a race - those that ride more days will get to the max value but only quicker

need to have a EROAD type of application like with trucks?

[neels]

I have posted a solution to the ACC unfairness but to my surprise some on here do not want things to be made fairer. My solution is to make those who cause crashes pay a higher ACC premium on their reg than those who dont.
It is that that simple but some on here are just too scared of being at fault in a crash and do not want things too change. That is the way it works for vehicle insurance so it can work for ACC premiums too. We may even end up with safer roads as a result.
This is far too logical for ACC, not to mention far too hard to administer as then you have to take who is at fault into account, which is what they are actively avoiding.

Following their current thinking it would make more sense to charge by make/model the same as they are for cars, that might actually make it economical to have a 100cc commuter bike again, and the squids who are regularly binning their bikes can pay according to the behavior of themselves and likeminded others who ride the same bike as them.

I would still prefer the earlier suggestion though, of an ACC levy on a persons licence on a per km basis, the more you ride the greater the cost as there is more exposure to risk.

[Drew]

Jesus there are some convoluted ideas coming out.

Licence the licenses. Simple. Only drivers get taxed that way.

[caspernz]

Jesus there are some convoluted ideas coming out.

Licence the licenses. Simple. Only drivers get taxed that way.

The issue also includes the lack of a tangible penalty for non-licensing of either vehicle or operator.

[Moi]

The issue also includes the lack of a tangible penalty for non-licensing of either vehicle or operator.

Leave that with me... just how tangible do you want that penalty? :devil2:

Seriously, is $150 and 15 demerit points a deterrent?

[merv]

Jesus there are some convoluted ideas coming out.

Licence the licenses. Simple. Only drivers get taxed that way.

Good idea mate and to me also the best solution. Me and Mrs both own more than one bike but we only ride one at a time each and also have cars and trailers, so having ACC cover on the person and not the machine makes far more sense to me.

[Moi]

Good idea mate and to me also the best solution. Me and Mrs both own more than one bike but we only ride one at a time each and also have cars and trailers, so having ACC cover on the person and not the machine makes far more sense to me.

What about the driver who owns no vehicles and rents a car once or twice a year? How do you spread the levy fairly for them?

Or, as has been said before, does ACC change this aspect of its income, the vehicle levy, to the general tax take?

[merv]

The problem with doing that though is that ACCs income would go down substantially. My idea of charging those that cause accidents more would result in no loss of income for ACC. It would end up with many bad car drivers paying the $550 that owners of big bikes pay or more.

I agree with you on that too that each person then has the opportunity for the equivalent of a no claim bonus. When I talked of that on here years ago the naysayers went on about how ACC was meant to be a no blame system or some such, but the fact that different industries pay different rates and bikes cost more than cars now the system has already been bastardised to be nothing like what was originally intended. So I reckon making it more like a personal accident insurance system would be good, especially for us with very good records.

[jonnyk5614]

Some insurance policies state that the vehicle must be registered and hold a WOF - if not no payout. The owner signed that contract, and so if they have an accident on a non-rego-ed bike they will not get a pay out ..

AA won't tow a vehicle without WOF/Reg. That'd be a bit of a bummer....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jonnyk5614]

The charge is actually "Failing to display the current License label" ... if the vehicle is actually registered ... or not.

It's up to the officers discretion as to ticket any offender ... or not

After my crash I got a ticket in the mail with my letter of "no further action" that was for $150 and "using unregistered vehicle". No demerits though and I'd actually bought registration 12 hours prior so it will be wiped....

Strange not getting demerits though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Racing Dave]

[QUOTE=cassina;1130944306]I have posted a solution to the ACC unfairness but to my surprise some on here do not want things to be made fairer. /QUOTE]

Some years ago, when Nick Smith was the Minister for ACC, we enjoyed a brief exchange of emails on this topic, which concluded with him declaring that the ACC system had to be fair for everyone.

I agree, and interpret his comment to mean that I shouldn't pay more than my share. So I don't.

Whether you do, or not, is entirely your choice.

[jonnyk5614]

My policy just says warrantable condition - nothing about WOF and Ref and to be fair, that covers us both ways.

Who hasn't accidentally gone a week over on their WOF?
And fair enough that an insurance company could dodge paying if you have single vehicle accident in the rain by skidding on tyres with no tread.

An up to date warrant isn't the same as fit for purpose after-all.

The clause I did like was no cover for unlicensed riders (fair enough) UNLESS their license was merely expired and they had no testing requirement to get another one.
Stops them being wankers over nothing again. All good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[roogazza]

50% down on the takings lol !

Oh , don't feel sorry for the poor old Govt. They're making plenty.

Make your choices, I have. :msn-wink::msn-wink:

[pritch]

When the problem of motorcyclists owning more than one bike, but only being able to ride one at a time, was originally pointed out the official response was that any modiification to the plan would not meet the budget. Basically, it seems thay had a total figure in mind and had divided that figure by the number of registered bikes.

Since that plan doesn't seem to be working too well, their obvious solution would be a 100% increase in the ACC levy. :whistle:

[5150]

Since that plan doesn't seem to be working too well, their obvious solution would be a 100% increase in the ACC levy. :whistle:

I could see the total number of registered bikes going from 50% to 5% :laugh:

[Asher]

To me there a few obvious solutions to this issue are:
Every vehicle must pay road user charges so you are not paying for a vehicle you hardly use and the more kms you clock up the more you pay. Only downside is it's easy to stop your odo.

Add the ACC levy to fuel. So again if you rarely use a vehicle you don't pay much and vice versa. It's also very hard to cheat and is an incentive to buy newer fuel economic vehicles.

Or you simply pay for the most 'at risk' vehicle and an admin fee for every subsequent vehicle. So I would pay the current fee for a 601cc+ bike and my car would only cost ~$30. I think some Ozzie states use this.

[caspernz]

To me there a few obvious solutions to this issue are:
Every vehicle must pay road user charges so you are not paying for a vehicle you hardly use and the more kms you clock up the more you pay. Only downside is it's easy to stop your odo.

Add the ACC levy to fuel. So again if you rarely use a vehicle you don't pay much and vice versa. It's also very hard to cheat and is an incentive to buy newer fuel economic vehicles.

Or you simply pay for the most 'at risk' vehicle and an admin fee for every subsequent vehicle. So I would pay the current fee for a 601cc+ bike and my car would only cost ~$30. I think some Ozzie states use this.

The fuel levy approach has merit on several levels. ACC and RUCs can be run thru fuel levy, but then you create an instant black market for fuel. Think of Europe where you have transport and commercial diesel for instance, many a truck has been found doing highway running on untaxed farm diesel (colour different).

I do like this approach, but as with any system there needs to be a tangible penalty for those who choose to flout the rules. Think vehicle confiscation for example :innocent:

[Moi]

If you are using your bike every day as a commuter then paying the full amount is appropriate.

It's the second and/or third or more bikes that are the true issue, and as pritch has noted the officials don't seem to be able to deal with that issue or want to deal with it.

What if there was an intermediate step between the present 'on-hold' and full ACC levy structure? A situation which allowed you to have the bike licenced for minimal cost - licence fee plus safety levy plus admin plus GST - and when you wanted to use the bike you went online to 'buy' levy for those days only at a rate of 1/365th of the full levy for that bike times the number of days you want to use it for?

And as has been said before, there has to be a tangible deterrent to those who wish to flout the rules - impounding of vehicle and return on full payment of all levies owing? If ACC does come to the party on something like this - I don't see NZTA as the ones who are causing this issue - then we too need to be prepared to play by the rules.

As an aside:
I believe that if your ride is unlicenced and you ride in country areas and smaller centres you are more likely to get away with it than those who ride metropolitan and larger centres where the dreaded parking warden is likely to see your parked ride has no "licence label displayed"... believe parking wardens should only deal with parking issues, like those who park on yellow lines, or on footpaths or across driveways...

[RDJ]

As an aside:
I believe that if your ride is unlicenced and you ride in country areas and smaller centres you are more likely to get away with it than those who ride metropolitan and larger centres where the dreaded parking warden is likely to see your parked ride has no "licence label displayed"... believe parking wardens should only deal with parking issues, like those who park on yellow lines, or on footpaths or across driveways...

Agree, I just can't see councils giving up the power to raise money by going after the grey area of non-parking issues.the easiest thing to spend in the world is other people's money... Which is why so many troughers gonna trough, whether a national or local bully oops body politicians, NGOs' and quangos' 'employees', even so-called charities...

[Gremlin]

I could see the total number of registered bikes going from 50% to 5% :laugh:
You, I, and every other sane person with half a brain can see it... but the officials can't.


What if there was an intermediate step between the present 'on-hold' and full ACC levy structure? A situation which allowed you to have the bike licenced for minimal cost - licence fee plus safety levy plus admin plus GST - and when you wanted to use the bike you went online to 'buy' levy for those days only at a rate of 1/365th of the full levy for that bike times the number of days you want to use it for?
Quite simply officialdom doesn't want that. Continuous vehicle licensing means that it's every day.

[awa355]

As an aside:
I believe that if your ride is unlicenced and you ride in country areas and smaller centres you are more likely to get away with it than those who ride metropolitan and larger centres where the dreaded parking warden is likely to see your parked ride has no "licence label displayed"... believe parking wardens should only deal with parking issues, like those who park on yellow lines, or on footpaths or across driveways...

Agreed. I would never ride in Hamilton without a current rego sticker but I could probably ride the Waitomo/King country roads (apart from highways) every day and never pass a cop. If I did see one, chances are he's on a mission anyway. In fact, I can not ever recall seeing a police car off the beaten track. One of the beauty's of having hour on hour of corners, views, hills, etc on my back doorstep.

[5150]

Agreed. I would never ride in Hamilton without a current rego sticker but I could probably ride the Waitomo/King country roads (apart from highways) every day and never pass a cop. If I did see one, chances are he's on a mission anyway. In fact, I can not ever recall seeing a police car off the beaten track. One of the beauty's of having hour on hour of corners, views, hills, etc on my back doorstep.

That's what I like about my ADV bike. Places I go to are hardly roads. And only time I will use a public or main road is to get to those places..... Chances of seeing a cop there are about as high as winning Lotto

[Moi]

I don't see the issue as being the cost of licencing a vehicle, in this case a motorbike, which is the domain of NZTA.

I see the issue being the ACC levy that is attached to the licence by ACC who are using NZTA's licencing process as a method for gathering their levy - same as ACC uses IRD to gather levies through income tax payments.

So, I don't see NZTA being the "baddie" in this issue, if anything they are an innocent party who have a mechanism to collect licence fees that is also used by ACC to collect their levy.

It is the levy that appears, in my opinion, to be the problem for those who have two or more bikes.

Don't need to change the licencing process as that is not broken, what needs addressing is the application of the ACC levy to each and every licence so if a bike is used occasionally then the owner does not feel as if they are being ripped off but are paying their fair share.

[Welly-Ray]

Don't need to change the licencing process as that is not broken, what needs addressing is the application of the ACC levy to each and every licence so if a bike is used occasionally then the owner does not feel as if they are being ripped off but are paying their fair share.

It's not rocket science to set up a fair system to collect reasonable amount of ACC Levy from motorcyclists.

I wonder how long will it take for government to realise it. Or they are simply enjoying the overpaid levies.

[TheDemonLord]

It's not rocket science to set up a fair system to collect reasonable amount of ACC Levy from motorcyclists.

I wonder how long will it take for government to realise it. Or they are simply enjoying the overpaid levies.

You are right - Rocket Science is far simpler....

[RDJ]

They are simply enjoying the overpaid levies.

You nailed it with this.

[danchop]

I don't see the issue as being the cost of licencing a vehicle, in this case a motorbike, which is the domain of NZTA.

I see the issue being the ACC levy that is attached to the licence by ACC who are using NZTA's licencing process as a method for gathering their levy - same as ACC uses IRD to gather levies through income tax payments.

So, I don't see NZTA being the "baddie" in this issue, if anything they are an innocent party who have a mechanism to collect licence fees that is also used by ACC to collect their levy.

It is the levy that appears, in my opinion, to be the problem for those who have two or more bikes.

Don't need to change the licencing process as that is not broken, what needs addressing is the application of the ACC levy to each and every licence so if a bike is used occasionally then the owner does not feel as if they are being ripped off but are paying their fair share.
there is one form of acc levy collection that they can only ASK that you pay,not force you ie:vehicle licence unpaid=fines etc,wages=automatic deductions,fuel=its in the price at the pump.
only self employed people like myself can take advantage of this,and it does affect your credit rating a tad,so very few will take advantage of my acc saving plan,but it works for me.
theres one trait in the French that I actually admire,and that is if they feel theyre being ripped off by their government in any way,they do something about it.
I loathe the current acc department,they rip off motorcyclists,self employed people,anyone nearing 50 by way of their "degenerative" medical term to avoid liability,and yet they still continue to pay out to manipulative losers that have been on their system for years,tourists,new immigrants who have contributed sfa to any taxes,etc etc
for the last 4 years,soon to be 5 ive refused to pay acc levies on my income and theres fuck all they've done or can do about it.

[Banditbandit]

theres one trait in the French that I actually admire,and that is if they feel theyre being ripped off by their government in any way,they do something about it.


People in Godzone feel ripped off by the Govermment all the time - but they vote according to "I trust him" ... "He will be good for the country" ...

It doesn't matter what shit teflon John and his Government get up to - people still trust the prick ..

[RDJ]

People in Godzone feel ripped off by the Govermment all the time - but they vote according to "I trust him" ... "He will be good for the country" ... It doesn't matter what shit teflon John and his Government get up to - people still trust the prick ..

I'm not sure that is necessarily the case. I do not know many people who say that. Most of the people I know, and I, vote for the least incompetent mismanager of society and the economy. Compared to Labour and the Greens, National is the preferable option. And yes, I know that is damning with faint praise...

[flashg]

I'm not sure that is necessarily the case. I do not know many people who say that. Most of the people I know, and I, vote for the least incompetent mismanager of society and the economy. Compared to Labour and the Greens, National is the preferable option. And yes, I know that is damning with faint praise...


+1. Pick the best of a bad bunch, until someone offers us something better.

[pritch]

Or they are simply enjoying the overpaid levies.

It was said at the time of the levy increase that adding the fee to registration was the only way they could meet their budgeted figures. None of the other things suggested in this thread would be considered because they would not meet this magically calculated figure.

I'm not sure they are enjoying the overpayment. Now that only something like half the bikes in the country are currently registered it probably follows that they are missing their budget by about 50%. On previous performance this would suggest they they will want to increase the ACC levy by 100% to make up the shortfall? :whistle:

[fxxk]

Its not like you can ride more than one bike at a time, so why are they charging an ACC levy for a second bike? you're already paying for being at risk of injury on your first "registered" bike, how is having a second bike any different? are you now twice as likely to have an accident and claim ACC? no you're not.. HOWEVER, whats stopping you from letting a friend ride your second bike while you ride your other bike, typical NZ authorities - if its too hard and confusing to sort out just do a blanket charge... just like rates - lets charge someone who lives in the country for "kerbing,drainage and water supply" because its too hard to distinguish

[Banditbandit]

And yes, I know that is damning with faint praise...


Damn them all ... damn away ...

[Erelyes]

For those interested. Here is the policy conditions from State Insurance. Nothing about no Rego. Only Wof 319276

Here are Protecta's conditions. (http://www.protectainsurance.co.nz/docs/default-source/forms/policy-wording---motorcycle-insurance.pdf)

The only caveat with the general policy is there is an exclusion for vehicles 'Being ridden in either an unsafe or unroadworthy condition or is being ridden in a manner likely to cause an accident'.

Note there is an exclusion from roadside assistance that basically says they won't cover you for roadside assistance, if the bike has no wof/reg.

[actungbaby]

the thing that bloody anoys me is i never ever claimed on acc in my life 2. why the hell should you pay for more than

One motorbike when you can only ride one at a time ;-)

[Moi]

Bit of a dredge...

But the problem is solved... all for $260 apparently. ;) :yes:

Read this (http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/81190889/mastermind-cashing-in-on-fake-warrant-and-regos)

[Madness]

Bit of a dredge...

Cheers, reminded me to renew my 3-month exemption before it was late.

[pete376403]

[QUOTE=Welly-Ray;1130948185]It's not rocket science to set up a fair system to collect reasonable amount of ACC Levy from motorcyclists.

I wonder how long will it take for government to realise it. Or they are simply enjoying the overpaid levies.[/QUOTE
Yup. Just the same as ACC will not refund the excess car regos that were overcharged because they got the safety ratings wrong.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/306540/no-more-refunds-for-acc-rego-blunder

[AllanB]

Did 4 months rego on the Ducati Friday - $180 odd! The lady behind the counter was surprised - apparently cars drop again in July. Not bikes. Ah at least the savings for the cars will fund the bikes rego.

[roogazza]

Got a newish Falcooon thats now about $46 for 6mths if renewed on line.Or $86 for 12 mths.

bike stays on hold.:shifty::rolleyes:

[Old Steve]

Drioe the car a few weeks ago instead of riding the bike, parked at Takapuna and came back to it to find a $200 ticket for not displaying a rego as required by the regulations. I looked at it, bottom left corner of the screen above the RUC label, what could be wrong? Oh, expired 2015. But I renewed it, I know I did. Checked the file cabinet at home and I had re-registered it. Must have taken the old label out of the holder, put it down, picked it up again and put it back in the holder and thrown the new label away. $4 for a replacement label from VTNZ. Wrote to AT, explained my label confusion and lapse in co-ordination, they replied that they knew the vehicle was registered, don't do it again, and let me off.

Ironic thing was I was attending an AT sponsored Safety for Motorcycle Commuters course at Takapuna.

As to multiple registration fees, the majority of the fee is ACC levies, so how can the one person be levied more than once if they own more than one bike, they don't ride more than one bike at a time. Maybe what is needed is some reduced ACC component on 2nd and more bikes registered to the one person, don't know how you'd cover other riders though.

[Akzle]

It would make far more sense to apply safety ratings to drivers/riders as most crashes are due to human and not vehicle fault. When I suggested that on here some time back all those with a history of being at fault or a fear of being at fault rubbished the idea though.

it would bankrupt you

[awayatc]

Previously I would register bikes all year...
Now I don't. ...
Number of accidents in last 40 or so years?
Nil
This year is the first time ever I took insurance on 2 of my bikes..... don't see myself at risk

[Akzle]

Lets say they charged all those at fault irrespective of vehicle the top motorcycle rate of $550 how on earth would that bankrupt me or anyone else? I bet if they did that they would actually get more $550 premiums than they do now with so many motorcyclists putting their reg on hold. We should not really have to pay more for being at fault as they are already charging us an at fault premium now.

i expect to extrapolate it out. ie, each crash you're in it doubles. you're up to, what, 8? making your per-vehicle premium $14080

[Akzle]

So the fear of it doubling each time you crash is the reason why you don't want things to change then? I think with the pricing I suggested they would definitly collect more money than they do now. As there has been nothing in the media about such a thing happening you can continue to enjoy paying the somewhat discounted fee you do now irrespective of the number of crashes that you have. Such a system that I propose would actually provide an incentive for many to drive safer as well.

i'm not affeared of anything. I frankly don't care as it doesn't affect me.
All i do is control what i do. Y'know... The thing i actually have control over. Idiots walk among us, you can't legislate for that.
Vote akzle.

[old slider]

But we may end up with less of them on the road if they get penalised with hefty registration for behaving that way. We will never know though unless its tried.


I don't believe any of us go out to get injured on purpose, increasing ACC levies through rego is probably reducing accidents only by removing many motorcyclists from the streets over the winter months.

As in most things education is the best tool in the box. Some of us need compulsory rider education, but as in school, there are some who simply can not or wont be educated.

I love the bike, but being able to Rego my car for $88.68 per year vs the Bike rego dictates what gets parked up over the wetter, cooler months. I cry on those clear calm winter days.

[caseye]

I don't believe any of us go out to get injured on purpose, increasing ACC levies through rego is probably reducing accidents only by removing many motorcyclists from the streets over the winter months.

As in most things education is the best tool in the box. Some of us need compulsory rider education, but as in school, there are some who simply can not or wont be educated.

I love the bike, but being able to Rego my car for $88.68 per year vs the Bike rego dictates what gets parked up over the wetter, cooler months. I cry on those clear calm winter days.

100% agree with your education comment.

Me too. As in, I too cry on a clear , calm winters day, mostly cause I'm out on the bike thinking about all of my silly mates who have stayed at home, for fear of the rego Nazi's.

Hey was there an echo, (strange anomaly occurring in this thread,)??? Did someone here actually reply to IT???????????

[Moise]

Well, I've recently become an ACC "statistic". Not my fault and not sure how I could have avoided it. With medical costs, compo, etc will probably cost ACC $10k. Mine was a minor accident, I can see how they become very expensive.

Really, the problem is the no fault system. It's not just motorcyclists who are screwed by this, but employers have been able to kill and maim their staff with almost no consequences for decades.

The ACC scheme needs a major rethink, but I can't see it happening.

[Ocean1]

Well, I've recently become an ACC "statistic". Not my fault and not sure how I could have avoided it. With medical costs, compo, etc will probably cost ACC $10k. Mine was a minor accident, I can see how they become very expensive.

Really, the problem is the no fault system. It's not just motorcyclists who are screwed by this, but employers have been able to kill and maim their staff with almost no consequences for decades.

The ACC scheme needs a major rethink, but I can't see it happening.

Your boss murdered you?

Never mind, he probably didn't mean it.

[Scubbo]

:shifty::shifty::shifty:B reg:shifty::shifty::shifty:

[russd7]

Not my fault and not sure how I could have avoided it.

the number of times i see and hear that is amazing. would be interested to hear the full circumstances behind it.

what kind of work were you in

[Moise]

No, it was a motorbike accident. Sorry that wasn't clear.

The comments on workplace accidents are based on what I've seen and heard over the years. I'm sure that some employers weren't that concerned about health and safety because accidents were covered by ACC. It has changed in recent years though.

[Ocean1]

I'm sure that some employers weren't that concerned about health and safety because accidents were covered by ACC. It has changed in recent years though.

Well I'm certainly not that concerned about the health and safety of my employees. Since they made me responsible for their behaviour I stopped having any.

Which makes me responsible for unemployment I suppose.

[Moise]

You are wrong when you say work related injuries and deaths resulting from the fault of an employer do not get punished as there are court cases where fines of 10s of thousands of dollars are awarded to employees or their families. Maybe those at fault on the road who cause serious injury or death should be fined the same with the result being safer roads but ACC are just not bright enough to see it.
Really? You might want to compare the number of court cases with the rates of death and serious injury.

Things have changed post Pike River but it took all those deaths before the government took any serious action.

[old slider]

Really? You might want to compare the number of court cases with the rates of death and serious injury.

Things have changed post Pike River but it took all those deaths before the government took any serious action.


Health and safety has made huge inroads into our work related injuries, but I think they have become another empire building organisation. The huge fines placed on businesses mostly goes into their pockets.

I feel for employers, regardless of precautions placed workers are human and we make mistakes, rules and laws don't stop us from doing stupid shit aye.

Employers face huge obstacles taking a risk when employing staff, the employment relations courts are sucking huge amounts of money from businesses who are trying to survive and when some lazy prick finds it difficult to arrive at work never mind actually doing anything decides to go see a no win no fee employment lawyer the guy trying to earn enough to pay them wages, plus four weeks holiday, plus 11 stat days, 5 sick days and huge ACC levies and is often earning less than his staff gets shafted for another 10K fighting him.

[pritch]

employees who spot unsafe practises in the workplace having the ability to get an enforcement order for the unsafe practise to be stopped

I knew I shouldn't have taken a peek at your post.

That exact situation already exists. A "trained H&S delegate" can issue a Hazard Notice. The Hazard Notice rates as equal to a first warning from the Labour Dept. Only a seriously stupid employer would ignore one of those.

[Ocean1]

I knew I shouldn't have taken a peek at your post.

That exact situation already exists. A "trained H&S delegate" can issue a Hazard Notice. The Hazard Notice rates as equal to a first warning from the Labour Dept. Only a seriously stupid employer would ignore one of those.

Any employee, period has the right to question any work practice regarding safety.

Has done since the old Marine Dept was in charge of such shit.

Only, they had a far more realistic idea of who's fault any given accident was.

[pritch]

Any employee, period has the right to question any work practice regarding safety.



True. As far as it goes. These days employees are entitled to elect a H&S rep and there is training available for such. I did see that the Gubbermint was considering cutting some of the funding for training but I'm out of the system now so don't know the current situation.

If a serious safety concern were to arise, and after discussion, management and the trained H&S rep could not agree, the rep then has the option to issue a Hazard Notice. IIRC a copy of this would be sent to the Labour Dept but in the real world the rep would probably already be on the phone.

There were three levels of training available:
The first was about general workplace safety and the correct use of a Hazard Notice. Only H&S reps who have completed this course are permitted to issue a Hazard Notice.
The second course focussed on accident investigation.
The third was primarily about getting injured people back to work.

H&S reps are to be paid while attending these courses. An obstacle for the smaller employer, but a more positive way of looking at it might be that the employer benefits from having someone on the staff with that training.

[Moise]

I am aware of that and did exactly that and got a written warning for my effort. The employer thought I was having them on as it was a heat exhaustion complaint I had which would have taken me to collapse and maybe die before they would believe with their attitude. Even the Labour Dept was not interested and I was forced to resign. I heard the person that took over my job also resigned for the same reason. Maybe at that point the employer made changes to their ventilation. Where there is no strength in numbers you can easily be ignored but maybe the new OSH regs don't make this so easy for employers to do now.
You would have had every employment lawyer in the country lining up to take a constructive dismissal case!

[Gremlin]

Any employee, period has the right to question any work practice regarding safety.
In the real world, it appears more that now the employee wanders around, not paying much attention, because the employer has made the environment safe, and gets in the shit if they haven't.

[russd7]

In the real world, it appears more that now the employee wanders around, not paying much attention, because the employer has made the environment safe, and gets in the shit if they haven't.

our work force is becoming seriously dumbed down due to the fact that everything has to be set for the muppet.

[Akzle]

our work force is becoming seriously dumbed down due to the fact that everything has to be set for the muppet.

and as soon as it's idiot proof, there always seems to be better idiots...

[Ocean1]

In the real world, it appears more that now the employee wanders around, not paying much attention, because the employer has made the environment safe, and gets in the shit if they haven't.

Aye. I'm firmly of the opinion that the guy responsible for my safety is me. And the same applies to everyone else.

Which means most current H&S law targets the wrong guy most of the time, there's simply no ethical reason why an employer should be held responsible for any employees safety.

[pritch]

Which means most current H&S law targets the wrong guy most of the time, there's simply no ethical reason why an employer should be held responsible for any employees safety.

A lot of safety problems arise from the actions of first level supervisors.

I remember being shouted at, "You've got a safety margin, use it."
That's not what safety margins are for. Anyway there was ony going to be a few minutes delay until the correct gear was available. To a drop kick sitting in a ute it probably seemed a long time, but he wasn't qualified and knew not that of which he spoke. (Shouted?)

Some guys were impatient and would ignore safety rules. We had a very ugly near miss which resulted in a very pale Maori. As a result he and his team gained an enhanced understanding of why some rules existed.

There was a complicated lock out tag system for the electricians, one impatient engineer removed a tag, switched on, and an electrician was electrocuted. No fault of the victim. He survived, but the problem was caused by the impatience of the engineer. That caused some unhappiness among the other electricians and probably a few days industrial action.

There's no shortage of impatient idiots.

[Murray]

Yes true but after looking at what people get awarded when they win such cases the legal cost would have likely exceeded any amount I was awarded. From my experience
I would go to the media before the Labour Dept if I found myself in a similar situation again.

what a load of crap - there are many lawyers/law firms out there that work on a percentage of payouts.

Ever heard of 0800 SACKED????

[Ocean1]

A lot of safety problems arise from the actions of first level supervisors.

I remember being shouted at, "You've got a safety margin, use it."
That's not what safety margins are for. Anyway there was ony going to be a few minutes delay until the correct gear was available. To a drop kick sitting in a ute it probably seemed a long time, but he wasn't qualified and knew not that of which he spoke. (Shouted?)

Some guys were impatient and would ignore safety rules. We had a very ugly near miss which resulted in a very pale Maori. As a result he and his team gained an enhanced understanding of why some rules existed.

There was a complicated lock out tag system for the electricians, one impatient engineer removed a tag, switched on, and an electrician was electrocuted. No fault of the victim. He survived, but the problem was caused by the impatience of the engineer. That caused some unhappiness among the other electricians and probably a few days industrial action.

There's no shortage of impatient idiots.

There is, as you say no shortage of people breaking H&S rules, and they're not limited to supervisors. Removing a lock-out tag when you weren't the one that put it there has been an immediate sacking offense in every place I've ever worked.

But here's the thing: Part of H&S culture specifically states that cost of implementation is NOT to be included in any process evaluation. Now, take that to it's natural conclusion, you've got safety costs being applied to markets that simply can't afford them. New house anyone? New roof?

Which is why employers are the only ones financially hammered under the rules, nobody else can afford the compliance cost. Guess what? I can't either.

I've got work for at least a couple of good tech staff, but there's simply no way I'm going to put myself at risk from the possibility that one of them may get hurt. Added to the cost of hiring someone in the first place it's just one compliance nightmare too many.

[old slider]

There is, as you say no shortage of people breaking H&S rules, and they're not limited to supervisors. Removing a lock-out tag when you weren't the one that put it there has been an immediate sacking offense in every place I've ever worked.

But here's the thing: Part of H&S culture specifically states that cost of implementation is NOT to be included in any process evaluation. Now, take that to it's natural conclusion, you've got safety costs being applied to markets that simply can't afford them. New house anyone? New roof?

Which is why employers are the only ones financially hammered under the rules, nobody else can afford the compliance cost. Guess what? I can't either.

I've got work for at least a couple of good tech staff, but there's simply no way I'm going to put myself at risk from the possibility that one of them may get hurt. Added to the cost of hiring someone in the first place it's just one compliance nightmare too many.


Talking about a new roof or even just getting it painted!!!!

The quotes are all pretty good, most around the $2500 mark to blast, rust treat, prime and top coat.

but the added Health and Safety requirements for scaffolding, roof edge protection etc is nearly twice the cost of doing the actual job?, luckily I can get family and friends to go up on the roof without the scaffolding costs, don't figure aye.

[Scubbo]

DOH wrong thread...

[Bass]

Aye. I'm firmly of the opinion that the guy responsible for my safety is me. And the same applies to everyone else.

Which means most current H&S law targets the wrong guy most of the time, there's simply no ethical reason why an employer should be held responsible for any employees safety.

Used to think this way but now disagree.

Worked in the food industry (in several of its various forms) for decades now. Workers are hired off the street for usually close to the minimum wage - often Pacific Islanders. They typically have little or no mechanical background and so what is common sense around machinery for you and I, just never occurs to them. In fact this is true for most industrial activities, not just those involving machines. This is NOT stupidity, just inexperience.

If the employer doesn't keep them safe, who will?

[george formby]

Used to think this way but now disagree.

Worked in the food industry (in several of its various forms) for decades now. Workers are hired off the street for usually close to the minimum wage - often Pacific Islanders. They typically have little or no mechanical background and so what is common sense around machinery for you and I, just never occurs to them. In fact this is true for most industrial activities, not just those involving machines. This is NOT stupidity, just inexperience.

If the employer doesn't keep them safe, who will?

Yup. During one of my non hospo incarnations I worked on a Long liner, fishing boat. I was totally ignorant of so much stuff it was not funny and potentially deadly, all day, everyday. Thankfully the Skipper was happy to bark at me 24/7 to keep me safe.

In hospo I've seen some unbelievably ignorant things. A young chef stuck his hand into a fryer to check the temperature......

[rastuscat]

in hospo I've seen some unbelievably ignorant things. A young chef stuck his hand into a fryer to check the temperature......

Which restaurant do I go to for Deep Fried Stupid Chefs Hand? Sounds tasty.

[Bass]

Which restaurant do I go to for Deep Fried Stupid Chefs Hand? Sounds tasty.


See, this is the sort of thing I was talking about. It's an extreme case, but consider the possibility that this kid has never done any cooking - he has just started as an apprentice chef. He knows that it's hot but has no practical appreciation of how hot

[rambaldi]

See, this is the sort of thing I was talking about. It's an extreme case, but consider the possibility that this kid has never done any cooking - he has just started as an apprentice chef. He knows that it's hot but has no practical appreciation of how hot

He may have no appreciation before but he certainly would afterwards....

[Bass]

He may have no appreciation before but he certainly would afterwards....

Good judgement comes from experience. Unfortunately, experience comes from bad judgement.

[Ocean1]

Used to think this way but now disagree.

Worked in the food industry (in several of its various forms) for decades now. Workers are hired off the street for usually close to the minimum wage - often Pacific Islanders. They typically have little or no mechanical background and so what is common sense around machinery for you and I, just never occurs to them. In fact this is true for most industrial activities, not just those involving machines. This is NOT stupidity, just inexperience.

If the employer doesn't keep them safe, who will?

Not saying there's not a need for training at all, just that there's no ethical room to blame anyone else for most accidents.

Inexperience, stupidity, unsafe gear or any other combination of holes in the cheese there's just no way that anyone else can be responsible for my actions.

As soon as they are then I'm no longer responsible at all.

[Moi]

... As soon as they are then I'm no longer responsible at all.

Is that not today's mantra?

I'm not responsible for myself and who can I blame when it goes wrong?

[Ocean1]

Is that not today's mantra?

I'm not responsible for myself and who can I blame when it goes wrong?

And what do you suppose is driving that?

[Moi]

And what do you suppose is driving that?

I am sure there are those who would lay the blame squarely at the feet of ACC and their argument could be that you will be treated for an accident and have the accompanying benefits even if that accident was partly or wholly of your making. Before ACC would the workers' compensation act been as generous as ACC is today if it could be shown that your injury was a result of you not following sensible work practices?

There will be others who see it as progression within society of people not taking responsibility for their own actions and looking for escapes to blame when they have an accident or things go wrong in their life.

I am sure there will be other reasons offered as well...

[russd7]

Used to think this way but now disagree.

Worked in the food industry (in several of its various forms) for decades now. Workers are hired off the street for usually close to the minimum wage - often Pacific Islanders. They typically have little or no mechanical background and so what is common sense around machinery for you and I, just never occurs to them. In fact this is true for most industrial activities, not just those involving machines. This is NOT stupidity, just inexperience.

If the employer doesn't keep them safe, who will?

two things i live by concerning H&S and have been for a number of years,
A/ H&S is more about attitude than anything else
B/ there is no such thing as common sense, it is purely learned response to a certain set of circumstances.
experience is what brings what people refer to as commonsense.

[Ocean1]

I am sure there are those who would lay the blame squarely at the feet of ACC and their argument could be that you will be treated for an accident and have the accompanying benefits even if that accident was partly or wholly of your making. Before ACC would the workers' compensation act been as generous as ACC is today if it could be shown that your injury was a result of you not following sensible work practices?

There will be others who see it as progression within society of people not taking responsibility for their own actions and looking for escapes to blame when they have an accident or things go wrong in their life.

I am sure there will be other reasons offered as well...

ACC makes sense firstly because it eliminates legal costs, and given the fact that the US spends more on medical legal costs than they do on the associated health and insurance costs that implies that all of us are getting more than twice the value, regardless of blame. It also makes sense in terms of a single, bulk funded accident repair and income insurance system, which entails serious economies of scale.

The fact that it spreads it's costs across entities with less than full regard to that entities cost to the system irks some, but it's performance in terms of delivered value across the board makes that articular bitch a bit redundant. In short; if it was fair it'd be more expensive for everyone.

So I'd say that while the effect of ACC may contribute to the general progression of people not taking responsibility for their own actions it's value is otherwise excellent. It's the individual, somewhat childish refusal to be responsible for themselves that seems to be endemic.

Difficult to see how that'll change, with no end in sight to the ways we compensate people for their failure earn what they want and discourage people from producing all that they could.

[Moi]

ACC makes sense firstly because it eliminates legal costs, and given the fact that the US spends more on medical legal costs than they do on the associated health and insurance costs that implies that all of us are getting more than twice the value, regardless of blame. It also makes sense in terms of a single, bulk funded accident repair and income insurance system, which entails serious economies of scale.

The fact that it spreads it's costs across entities with less than full regard to that entities cost to the system irks some, but it's performance in terms of delivered value across the board makes that articular bitch a bit redundant. In short; if it was fair it'd be more expensive for everyone.

Totally agree with you - ACC has much to recommend it. However, like anything, it could be improved and that has been debated elsewhere on this site...


So I'd say that while the effect of ACC may contribute to the general progression of people not taking responsibility for their own actions it's value is otherwise excellent. It's the individual, somewhat childish refusal to be responsible for themselves that seems to be endemic.

Difficult to see how that'll change, with no end in sight to the ways we compensate people for their failure earn what they want and discourage people from producing all that they could.

Again, agree with you.

[Akzle]

ACC makes sense firstly because it eliminates legal costs, and given the fact that the US spends more on medical legal costs than they do on the associated health and insurance costs that implies that all of us are getting more than twice the value, regardless of blame. It also makes sense in terms of a single, bulk funded accident repair and income insurance system, which entails serious economies of scale.

The fact that it spreads it's costs across entities with less than full regard to that entities cost to the system irks some, but it's performance in terms of delivered value across the board makes that articular bitch a bit redundant. In short; if it was fair it'd be more expensive for everyone.

So I'd say that while the effect of ACC may contribute to the general progression of people not taking responsibility for their own actions it's value is otherwise excellent. It's the individual, somewhat childish refusal to be responsible for themselves that seems to be endemic.

Difficult to see how that'll change, with no end in sight to the ways we compensate people for their failure earn what they want and discourage people from producing all that they could.

yeah. See. How about instead of all this huggy helpy hippy shit, anyone who gets injured by stupidity, has the shit kicked out of them instead. Save a fuck load of ambilances and creates jobs for angry people.

[Bass]

Not saying there's not a need for training at all, just that there's no ethical room to blame anyone else for most accidents.

Inexperience, stupidity, unsafe gear or any other combination of holes in the cheese there's just no way that anyone else can be responsible for my actions.

As soon as they are then I'm no longer responsible at all.

Thought long and hard about this. Me on my bike on the road - agreed, no argument.

However, at work, I am responsible to my boss for my staff's actions, but they are responsible to me for their own.

To take someone with absolutely no appreciation of the inherent dangers and drop them into an industrial environment, is never gonna end well, no matter how careful the person concerned is.

For the life of me, I cannot see how you can blame that person for the nasty outcome.

[old slider]

Thought long and hard about this. Me on my bike on the road - agreed, no argument.

However, at work, I am responsible to my boss for my staff's actions, but they are responsible to me for their own.

To take someone with absolutely no appreciation of the inherent dangers and drop them into an industrial environment, is never gonna end well, no matter how careful the person concerned is.

For the life of me, I cannot see how you can blame that person for the nasty outcome.


Have to agree, sadly even with the very best in training methods, experience and appreciation of the dangers, shit still happens, often its the people who have been doing it for awhile that come unstuck, complacency? familiarity? etc. I don't know.

Yes we have a terrible work related injury record in NZ , we can certainly improve and are doing so.

We also come from a get stuck in and do it type of culture which I actually like.
As soon as all workers need to stand or sit around each morning for 30 mins listening and watching on the correct use of things like a two step ladder we may lose that.

[Ocean1]

Thought long and hard about this. Me on my bike on the road - agreed, no argument.

However, at work, I am responsible to my boss for my staff's actions, but they are responsible to me for their own.

To take someone with absolutely no appreciation of the inherent dangers and drop them into an industrial environment, is never gonna end well, no matter how careful the person concerned is.

For the life of me, I cannot see how you can blame that person for the nasty outcome.

The easiest thing in the world to blame someone else. Too easy. It starts with feeling sorry for the injured party and a feeling that they didn't do much so very wrong. But there's this remaining need to apportion blame, so it falls to someone else, someone who failed to prevent the injury, the damage. The boss, the cops, the govt. Someone who orta have been "responsible" for the victim.

A senior specialist may be responsible for training and mentoring a trainee or apprentice, but that doesn't infer blame by omission for that trainee's actions.

Other than that, all I've got is a conviction that everyone is responsible for their own safety, that nobody has the right to expect someone else to take that responsibility from them. Part of that conviction is an awareness that in giving responsibility for any of your behavior to someone else you also risk giving them a lot more, and you risk becoming something for which others have little respect.


A Labour supporter.

[dman]

We preload on drinks before heading to town when they were $5. Which i thought was a ripoff.

Ah the good old days! But if you hunt hard you can find a few places still like that, such as tourist bars or student bars on mid week nights.

[Oakie]

There is a surprising amount of insight and intelligent comment on the last couple of pages of this thread. Some I'll even copy and take to work with me (being the Health and Safety guy). Had to stop and make sure that I was still in KB!

[Oakie]

Aye. I'm firmly of the opinion that the guy responsible for my safety is me. And the same applies to everyone else.
Absolutely true in respect of the way you carry out your work in the way instructed but ...


Which means most current H&S law targets the wrong guy most of the time, there's simply no ethical reason why an employer should be held responsible for any employees safety.

... the employee has to rely on the employer for (just off the top of my head)

> have I been trained properly in codes of practice?
> have I been trained properly as to how to use this tool / machinery?
> is the tool / machine I'm using of good quality? (or is it a cheapy that will break in time)
> is the environment I'm working in producing harmful effects?(asbestos etc)
> is the work vehicle I use in good repair?
and 100 other things.

To me, and the way I explain it when I do HSE trainings, is like this. If I borrow my neighbour's chainsaw to cut down my other neighbour's tree, then I am ethically obliged to use the chainsaw properly and return it in the same condition in which I borrowed it. It's the same for my employees. I am borrowing them from their family for the day so I am ethically responsible for not allowing them to work in an uneccesarily dangerous situation so i can return them intact to their family at the end of the day.

To ensure my employees' safety is absolutely my ethical responsibility. If I've done that and then despite my best efforts and full attention they still go and do something dumb well that is on them so I think that yes:

Aye. I'm firmly of the opinion that the guy responsible for my safety is me. And the same applies to everyone else. but that only comes after I have first put in my best efforts to ensure their safety.

It's like the guidelines around the HSWA say repeatedly 'Everyone has a part to play in health and safety at the workplace".

[Ocean1]

AIf I borrow my neighbour's chainsaw....

That's a very contrived and convoluted analogy dude.

It's also wrong on several fronts.

Not least of which; the chainsaw isn't a sentient being. If it was, and had any valid claim to the distinction then it would insist on making it's own decisions about how it should behave.

So, now are we going to behave like sentient beings, or are we going to allow others to do that for us?

And assuming "responsibility" for me is very much dictating my behaviour.

So I'll continue to insist that my decisions are in fact mine, that I'm responsible for each and every one of them and that nobody else should have the right to dictate what they should be.

[Oakie]

That's a very contrived and convoluted analogy dude.

It's also wrong on several fronts.

Not least of which; the chainsaw isn't a sentient being. If it was, and had any valid claim to the distinction then it would insist on making it's own decisions about how it should behave.

So, now are we going to behave like sentient beings, or are we going to allow others to do that for us?

And assuming "responsibility" for me is very much dictating my behaviour.

So I'll continue to insist that my decisions are in fact mine, that I'm responsible for each and every one of them and that nobody else should have the right to dictate what they should be.

Yeah I know it's not an entirely appropriate example because it's an inanimate object but my point was around my ethical responsibility. It'll do it's work as designed but I as user (employer) need to take care of the things it can't control same as some things are outside of employees' control.

I think that in this context, it is entirely appriopriate for your employer to dictate your behaviour within what is seen as the behaviour required in that job. A tradesman can be told and be expected not to work off the top rung of a ladder in the same way as a receptionist can be told and expected not to swear at visitors to the office.

[old slider]

Yeah I know it's not an entirely appropriate example because it's an inanimate object but my point was around my ethical responsibility. It'll do it's work as designed but I as user (employer) need to take care of the things it can't control same as some things are outside of employees' control.

I think that in this context, it is entirely appriopriate for your employer to dictate your behaviour within what is seen as the behaviour required in that job. A tradesman can be told and be expected not to work off the top rung of a ladder in the same way as a receptionist can be told and expected not to swear at visitors to the office.


I imagine the worrying part for an employer is even after having the appropriate training in place, the employee signs papers each month at training sessions saying he has been trained in how to use a two step ladder, turn on the tap without spraining his wrist etc and still injures himself H & S could probably still fine the RRRs of you, even more risk is reprimanding the worker, written warnings etc, end up with dismissal and then face a 10k payout for unfair dismissal even if your found not guilty.

[Oakie]

I imagine the worrying part for an employer is even after having the appropriate training in place, the employee signs papers each month at training sessions saying he has been trained in how to use a two step ladder, turn on the tap without spraining his wrist etc and still injures himself H & S could probably still fine the RRRs of you, even more risk is reprimanding the worker, written warnings etc, end up with dismissal and then face a 10k payout for unfair dismissal even if your found not guilty.

Nah. I went to a presentation by a Labour Inspector and he said that if you can show you have taken all reasonable precautions and done your hazard check, you'll be OK. And he emphasised 'reasonable'. He also said that even though the people with the big fines get publicity and it seems a common event, he said that only 3% of notifications to the Labour Inspectors result in court action.

[Bass]

So I'll continue to insist that my decisions are in fact mine, that I'm responsible for each and every one of them and that nobody else should have the right to dictate what they should be.

I do hear you and I understand.
The law is sort of with you, at least in part. Basically it now says that the employee is ALSO responsible for his/her own safety. They can be prosecuted for e.g. deliberately defeating safety measures that they have signed off as being necessary and such cases are happening. However OSH still goes for the employer and their safety measures first.

I still maintain that it is important that the worker first understands the possible consequences of their decisions before they can be held accountable for them.

I guess I'm saying that in this case, ignorance IS an acceptable excuse.

Stalemate

[Voltaire]

I trained as an Electrician back in the early 80's.
I learned at lot about H and S the hard way.
Falling of ladders hurts.
If a drill had a sticky switch and jams when going into a wall breaking your wrist hurts.
Driving to hospital with a broken wrist also hurts.
Touching 230 volts hurts
Hitting your hand with a hammer hurts
When using a knife to strip cable cut away from yourself.
and so on....

What I have now is called Common Sense but to get that you need to learn by doing, falling out of trees, stubbing toes, crashing bicycles etc.

Did a course at work the other day, not a proper one, an on-line one done by some dreary Aussies with a a monotone voice.....20% of 'accidents' happen at work.
Must mean 80% don't so pretty stupid lot really.

[Ocean1]

I think that in this context, it is entirely appriopriate for your employer to dictate your behaviour within what is seen as the behaviour required in that job.


I still maintain that it is important that the worker first understands the possible consequences of their decisions before they can be held accountable for them.

It's been decades since any employer knew enough about what's required to do my job to have any chance whatsoever of contributing anything meaningful to a discussion on how I should carry out that job.

This is true of most specialist techies I know, the days of NZR and NZED where your boss knew more than you about your job, and his boss likewise are gone.

So not only is there an ethical reason to insist on managing your own behaviour, but there's increasingly a practical one, too: Nobody knows as much about your job as you do.

None of which is why I insist on managing my own safety, that's as I've explained above, but it's a good reason not to delegate responsibility to any "authority" simply because the rules say you should.


I trained as an Electrician back in the early 80's.
I learned at lot about H and S the hard way.
Falling of ladders hurts.
If a drill had a sticky switch and jams when going into a wall breaking your wrist hurts.
Driving to hospital with a broken wrist also hurts.
Touching 230 volts hurts
Hitting your hand with a hammer hurts
When using a knife to strip cable cut away from yourself.
and so on....

What I have now is called Common Sense but to get that you need to learn by doing, falling out of trees, stubbing toes, crashing bicycles etc.

Did a course at work the other day, not a proper one, an on-line one done by some dreary Aussies with a a monotone voice.....20% of 'accidents' happen at work.
Must mean 80% don't so pretty stupid lot really.

Aye, statistics say that home handyman stuff is bloody lethal. I suspect that's true even for those who do that stuff professionally, nothing's as straightforward as it is at work where everything is to hand and you've done it a hundred times this month.

Time will come when you'll not be allowed to change your own light bulbs, clean your gutters or mow your lawn.

[rastuscat]

It's all a big sucky fat thing.

[Bass]

It's been decades since any employer knew enough about what's required to do my job to have any chance whatsoever of contributing anything meaningful to a discussion on how I should carry out that job.

This is true of most specialist techies I know, the days of NZR and NZED where your boss knew more than you about your job, and his boss likewise are gone.



OK, I don't know what field you work in so I'm going to generalise a bit.

What you say may well be true, but you sound to me like well trained and experienced technician and so everything you say in relation to the way you do your job, should be true.

Tell me though, how many mistakes did you make on the way to getting there, that could easily have been fatal?

I suspect that I am in a similar situation to you, and everytime I look at a missing fingertip, it reminds me of what might have been.

(Yeah, yeah, I know - if it's missing, how can I look at it. You know what I mean.)

[Ocean1]

OK, I don't know what field you work in so I'm going to generalise a bit.

What you say may well be true, but you sound to me like well trained and experienced technician and so everything you say in relation to the way you do your job, should be true.

Tell me though, how many mistakes did you make on the way to getting there, that could easily have been fatal?

I suspect that I am in a similar situation to you, and everytime I look at a missing fingertip, it reminds me of what might have been.

(Yeah, yeah, I know - if it's missing, how can I look at it. You know what I mean.)

Plenty. I still do. And while others can learn from my mistakes and vice versa that's not relevant to:


a conviction that everyone is responsible for their own safety, that nobody has the right to expect someone else to take that responsibility from them. Part of that conviction is an awareness that in giving responsibility for any of your behavior to someone else you also risk giving them a lot more, and you risk becoming something for which others have little respect.

[Bass]

We have debated this one back and forth without much progress.

I don't have anything further to add, so it's probably time to stop.

[Swoop]

Talking about a new roof or even just getting it painted!!!!

The quotes are all pretty good, most around the $2500 mark to blast, rust treat, prime and top coat.

but the added Health and Safety requirements for scaffolding, roof edge protection etc is nearly twice the cost of doing the actual job?, luckily I can get family and friends to go up on the roof without the scaffolding costs, don't figure aye.

I'd double check the new regulations. I'm lead to believe that a homeowner can be screwed over if a "Worksafe" chap is driving by and notices you doing something that offends him.


Secondly, the scaffolding issue.
Exorbitant prices are being charged and lots of new companies getting onto the scaffolding bandwagon, to massively increase the costs of work being done.
A wise person can merely go down to Bunnings / Mitre10 and purchase a set of compliant scaffolding for less than what would be charged on your quote for the same thing. You then have an asset to keep or to sell and recover costs.


Finally, a club member mentioned a 4 min job that needed doing on a roof, that took 4 HOURS to rope-up and harness, prior to the 4min job.:weird:

[old slider]

I'd double check the new regulations. I'm lead to believe that a homeowner can be screwed over if a "Worksafe" chap is driving by and notices you doing something that offends him.


Secondly, the scaffolding issue.
Exorbitant prices are being charged and lots of new companies getting onto the scaffolding bandwagon, to massively increase the costs of work being done.
A wise person can merely go down to Bunnings / Mitre10 and purchase a set of compliant scaffolding for less than what would be charged on your quote for the same thing. You then have an asset to keep or to sell and recover costs.


Finally, a club member mentioned a 4 min job that needed doing on a roof, that took 4 HOURS to rope-up and harness, prior to the 4min job.:weird:


Thanks for that swoop, I was not aware a home owner could be possibly prosecuted for being less safety conscious while doing home maintenance than say a business.

Do you know if we need to have scaffolding certificate etc or can anyone chuck it up? in case something goes wrong and they try and blame the scaffolding installation process.

[RDJ]

It is unfortunate, but many 'accidents' (whether you are the promulgater or the victim) are a result of evolution in action.

[Oakie]

I'd double check the new regulations. I'm lead to believe that a homeowner can be screwed over if a "Worksafe" chap is driving by and notices you doing something that offends him.

Nah. You can do what you like at home as a householder. It's not a workplace. From the Act:

20 Meaning of workplace

(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, a workplace—
(a) means a place where work is being carried out, or is customarily carried out, for a business or undertaking; and
(b) includes any place where a worker goes, or is likely to be, while at work.

(2) In this section, place includes—
(a) a vehicle, vessel, aircraft, ship, or other mobile structure; and
(b) any waters and any installation on land, on the bed of any waters, or floating on any waters.

[old slider]

Nah. You can do what you like at home as a householder. It's not a workplace. From the Act:

20 Meaning of workplace

(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, a workplace—
(a) means a place where work is being carried out, or is customarily carried out, for a business or undertaking; and
(b) includes any place where a worker goes, or is likely to be, while at work.

(2) In this section, place includes—
(a) a vehicle, vessel, aircraft, ship, or other mobile structure; and
(b) any waters and any installation on land, on the bed of any waters, or floating on any waters.




Thanks Oakie.

[Swoop]

Cheers for the clarification Oakie!


Do you know if we need to have scaffolding certificate etc or can anyone chuck it up? in case something goes wrong and they try and blame the scaffolding installation process.
A very good mate is a roofer and quotes customers with "owner to supply scaffolding". He's been to quite a few of these OSH courses and says "so long as it is compliant" (tested and certified) and installed according to the regulations (distances from building, qty of boards, etc).
It would pay to check, once again, prior to charging in to it.