RUC Petition for Motorcyclists

[rustys]

Hi Guys, need some help.
I am not a Facebook user, but I hear there is a Petition recently posted on it, for Motorcyclists to pay a RUC instead of an ACC levy. Does anyone know about it or where I can get a link to it. Think all Motorcycle Groups should know about it. Could be a far better scheme than we have now, when owning multiple bikes, or just using your bike occasionally.

[caspernz]

Yep, try the link, or google motorcycle ruc change org

https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwia9qKfy_XRAhUFiRoKHenbBrwQFggYMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.change.org%2Fp%2Fnzta-motorcycle-acc-calculated-on-milage-like-ruc&usg=AFQjCNG7vRbZ4UNi61zBb9OuQFiBggBc4g&sig2=8WaCSNehSFeAISkcIxb4Hw

[swbarnett]

I, for one, won't be signing. Being one of the few that uses a motorcycle as daily transport I want to know how what the cost per km would be before I support it. I also object strongly to anything that undermines the societal nature of ACC; including the current farce of grouping people for the purposes of setting different levies. I've said it many times* and I'll say it again - take the cost of ACC from the general tax pool and ALL of the argument and inequity goes away instantly.




*And not once have I heard even a flimsy argument against the idea.

[FJRider]

Could be a far better scheme than we have now, when owning multiple bikes, or just using your bike occasionally.


Bullshit .. !!! The riders that clock up the miles are (usually) the safe ones ... The ones at risk don't / wont /cant ... go far.

[FJRider]

*And not once have I heard even a flimsy argument against the idea.

It's a bullshit idea from bullshit artists. I can do 1500 km's in a weekend.

I can imagine the limp dick assholes that would/could support such a ridiculous idea. The OP included ...


Your first flimsy argument ... maybe ...

[pritch]

Pay no attention. The guys behind this ill founded idea certainly weren't.

The Gubbermint has basically said that any plan that does not meet their budgeted figure will not be considered. Notwithstanding that the current "plan" probably fails to meet their figures.

Bloody dreamers.

[Berries]

Well who knew you could spell mileage like that?

[nzspokes]

What a retarded idea.

[Akzle]

just dont pay the cunts. anything. ever.

[nzspokes]

Most motorcyclists would be paying less if those at fault paid more. It really is that simple.

Going on the amount you hit things, you would need a new mortgage just to pay for a years rego.:facepalm:

[veldthui]

I certainly wont be signing it. I have clocked up 65,000km in 2 years. Yes the current system is a ripoff because it does not apportion blame as to who caused the accident. ACC would still say they need the same money so the cost per km would be tremendous due to all those that have a bike and do a few km per year one weekend a year.
A better way would be to license the rider rather than the bike because you can only ride 1 bike at a time. This does not then penalize those with more than 1 bike. Yes I did have two myself but sold one due to rego costs.

[Mike.Gayner]

There is a lot of wishful thinking in this petition, and a lot of delusion in the facebook comments. This is about motorcyclists wanting to pay less rego, thereby less ACC. That won't happen until motorcyclists stop making up a huge comparative proportion of accident losses.

Honestly the rego cost on motorbikes is tough - something like $600/year. But that's actually one of my smallest running costs, so perhaps if it's too much for you, motorcycling isn't for you.

[Gremlin]

Stupid idea and not touching it... All reasons already said.

[Woodman]

There is a lot of wishful thinking in this petition, and a lot of delusion in the facebook comments. This is about motorcyclists wanting to pay less rego, thereby less ACC. That won't happen until motorcyclists stop making up a huge comparative proportion of accident losses.

Honestly the rego cost on motorbikes is tough - something like $600/year. But that's actually one of my smallest running costs, so perhaps if it's too much for you, motorcycling isn't for you.

You can't just come on here and be realistic...........

[Katman]

You can't just come on here and be realistic...........

Hell no - it sounds like something I might have said.

[nzspokes]

But I was not at fault thats the difference.

Bullshit. Your eyes are closed to your own errors.

[onearmedbandit]

But if only those at fault were charged more irrespective of what they ride/drive ACC would certainly come down for the rest of us. They even brought it down for cars despite far more people dying in them. Or maybe they could put up ACC for those that carry passengers in their cars as the number of injuries likely in a crash will be greater.

Have you got facts and figures to support your claim that more people are dying in cars than previously? Because I've looked it up recently and the numbers are significantly down on previous decades, especially the 70's and 80's. And this is despite far more cars being driven on the roads.

Or is this another famous cassina assumption based off what goes on in your head.

[trufflebutter]

Have you got facts and figures to support your claim that more people are dying in cars than previously? Because I've looked it up recently and the numbers are significantly down on previous decades, especially the 70's and 80's. And this is despite far more cars being driven on the roads.

Or is this another famous cassina assumption based off what goes on in your head.

Things are 'based on' not 'based off'
ie: Based on what was said/Based on how it all goes/Based on your reaction etc. Read the line below.

Based off what was said/Based off how it all goes/Based off your reaction.

[onearmedbandit]

Things are 'based on' not 'based off'
ie: Based on what was said/Based on how it all goes/Based on your reaction etc. Read the line below.

Based off what was said/Based off how it all goes/Based off your reaction.

Good stuff, cheers!

[swbarnett]

It's a bullshit idea from bullshit artists.
Do you mean the per km or the tax argument?

[swbarnett]

Most motorcyclists would be paying less if those at fault paid more. It really is that simple.
Hell, let's take this to its logical conclusion and do away with ACC all together and all pay every cent of our own costs.

You've obviouly missed the whole point of ACC.

[Tazz]

I also agree it would shift the 'problem' rather than actually fix it/make it a fairer system.

If anything it would discourage people from riding IMO.

[veldthui]

I also agree it would shift the 'problem' rather than actually fix it/make it a fairer system.

If anything it would discourage people from riding IMO.

And with people riding less the cost would need to go up per km so they could still get their money. Result: Still costs heaps. Better the system you know than then system that could come in and cost you more.

[nzspokes]

And with people riding less the cost would need to go up per km so they could still get their money. Result: Still costs heaps. Better the system you know than then system that could come in and cost you more.

To be fair, for it to work it would have to be in reverse. You pay more for doing less Ks as you have less experience.

I would like to see a discount for passing riding tests of a decent level.

[onearmedbandit]

And of course no one would ever disconnect their speedo...

[nzspokes]

And of course no one would ever disconnect their speedo...

Well for my way they need more Ks not less.

But we would end up with Hubometers.

[onearmedbandit]

Well for my way they need more Ks not less.

But we would end up with Hubometers.

True, regarding your idea.

As far as hubometers go, even diesel powered private vehicles don't have those.

[pritch]

Hell, let's take this to its logical conclusion and do away with ACC all together and all pay every cent of our own costs.

You've obviouly missed the whole point of ACC.

Correct, its supposed to be a no fault, no liability system. People whinge about prisoners injuring themselves during escape attempts but that's how the no fault, no liability works. It also works for you if you need to make a claim, previously you had to prove someone else was liable which wasn't always possible, in which case you were outa luck.

SWB I'm impressed by your pseudo HTML. When I've tried to do that here in the past, the system read the bracketed bits as HTML and didn't print them. Interesting.

[Woodman]

Hell no - it sounds like something I might have said.

If you had said it, then some on here would just disagree with it because you said it.

Personally I think the ACC system works well, and I am happy to pay the rego. And like Gayner says its a small part of running a bike.

[onearmedbandit]

$10 a week to rego my bike, I can live with that. And I've had a fair amount of money out of ACC through my accident. Yup I'm one of the worst offenders, my ACC tab would be in excess of half a million at a conservative guess...

[Katman]

If you had said it, then some on here would just disagree with it because you said it.

I know - how rational is that?

[caspernz]

RUC for bikes is a dumb idea. Had to giggle when the post popped up on Facebook.

For me I'd say an annual licence fee for those who wish to have the class 6? That way it's the same for multiple bike owners, ditto for commuters and fair weather riders only. Discount for those of us who have done recognized extra training of course. But then we'd also have to resolve the unlicensed rider/unregistered bike issue, to level the playing field.

If I'm to believe the various bits of info I've seen on the ACC component of bike rego, then the ACC component should be higher than it is now in order to recover costs, but then this in itself is already wrong in the spirit of the ACC original intent isn't it?

[TheDemonLord]

I'd support it if it was an Inverse RUC - ie the Less you rode, the more you paid....

[onearmedbandit]

I am guessing you would not be in support of those at fault paying more then?

You guess right, but not because of my situation. I hadn't actually thought about my impact on ACC until this thread, but I haven't supported the idea of appropriating blame and basing ACC levies ever since I heard the idea.

FYI - my 'ACC bill' comes from one very serious accident many years ago, not that that should matter.

[onearmedbandit]

More people are dying in car crashes than bike crashes in any year but they reduced registration for car owners which is odd in my opinion.

Gotcha, I misunderstood what you said.

[swbarnett]

$10 a week to rego my bike, I can live with that. And I've had a fair amount of money out of ACC through my accident. Yup I'm one of the worst offenders, my ACC tab would be in excess of half a million at a conservative guess...
Agreed. And I, for one, don't mind at all contributing my equitable share towards paying for another's misfortune. This is just what you do in a caring society.

[swbarnett]

So the whole point of ACC is to discriminate on what vehicle you drive but not as to whether you have a history of being at fault or not and you think thats fair?
WRONG! The whole point of ACC is to provide help for the unforunate WITHOUT fault; discriminating against NOONE. Charging based on history (or whatever group you happen to belong to) runs directly counter to the core principles of ACC.

The whole of society benifits from all of us being able to persue our chosen pasttime; no matter what the health bill of that pasttime turns out to be.

[Katman]

This is just what you do in a caring society.

What about in a society which seems determined to produce idiots?

[onearmedbandit]

I assume you accident was your own fault many years ago but if it was someone elses fault would you want them to be paying more than you? I have had ACC claims as a result of the fault of others which may explain the way I think.

You assume correctly. And to answer your question, no.

[swbarnett]

What about in a society which seems determined to produce idiots?
The single most inalienable right we have is the right to be an idiot. This is part of what it means to be human. Can you honestly say that you haven't been an idiot more than once in your life? I know I have.

[FJRider]

Do you mean the per km or the tax argument?

The current system is flawed and biased to our detriment ... and the per km suggestion is bullshit.

As is the "I have 5 bikes and can't afford to keep them all legal" argument.

[FJRider]

So you dont call the difference between car and motorcycle ACC as being discriminating? Your thinking is flawed then just like ACCs. You dont work for them by any chance?

ACC is a "NO FAULT" scheme ... assistance for medical help regardless of actual fault of the injured persons. For them to charge a rate depending on actual amount of guilt in the accident is hypocritical at the very least ...

Charging a fee dependent on the known/believed risk is at the least ... a bit dodgy ... a point few seem to grasp.

[Katman]

The single most inalienable right we have is the right to be an idiot.

Not when your idiocy has a negative impact on society.

[FJRider]

... I have had ACC claims as a result of the fault of others which may explain the way I think.

I believe it was the drugs they gave you ... that explains the way you think ... :pinch:

[FJRider]

Not when your idiocy has a negative impact on society.

It is not the idiots fault they are idiots ... Who do you blame ... ??

[Woodman]

ACC is a "NO FAULT" scheme ... assistance for medical help regardless of actual fault of the injured persons. For them to charge a rate depending on actual amount of guilt in the accident is hypocritical at the very least ...

Charging a fee dependent on the known/believed risk is at the least ... a bit dodgy ... a point few seem to grasp.

I get the no fault part after the accident has happened, but surely the extra charges that bikers pay is for responsibility awareness considering we knowingly use a form of transport that is inherently dangerous.

If ya get what I mean.

[Katman]

It is not the idiots fault they are idiots ... Who do you blame ... ??

Those whose agenda it is to produce idiots.

Guess who.

[FJRider]

$10 a week to rego my bike, I can live with that. And I've had a fair amount of money out of ACC through my accident. Yup I'm one of the worst offenders, my ACC tab would be in excess of half a million at a conservative guess...

I can remember pre ACC years ... get hurt in a motorcycle prang ... and no money till you were working again.

And the number of years motorcycle rego was less than half that of the four wheeled vehicles.

I personally would prefer equal ACC levy attached to all vehicle rego's ...

[FJRider]

Those whose agenda it is to produce idiots.

Guess who.

Well ... Government policy seems to cater for them. Legislation seems to revolve around their very existence.

[Moi]

As has already been said, ACC is not perfect but it is far better than what we could have.

If you had to pay for a private medical/accident/income protection insurance I'm sure your eyes would water - ask Americans about health/medical/accident insurance.

The issue of "I have a number of bikes..." I suggest may be able to be solved by having a situation where the bike that is not used often is licenced [rego] but no ACC is paid until you want to use it and then you buy the ACC for the time you want. You print a receipt for those days you've bought and away you ride. For those who don't want to play the game, there will be consequences. If you ride all year or want your bike available all year you do as we do now.

ACC is certainly a case of better the devil you know than the devil you don't...

[FJRider]

As has already been said, ACC is not perfect but it is far better than what we could have.

If you had to pay for a private medical/accident/income protection insurance I'm sure your eyes would water - ask Americans about health/medical/accident insurance.

The issue of "I have a number of bikes..." I suggest may be able to be solved by having a situation where the bike that is not used often is licenced [rego] but no ACC is paid until you want to use it and then you buy the ACC for the time you want. You print a receipt for those days you've bought and away you ride. For those who don't want to play the game, there will be consequences. If you ride all year or want your bike available all year you do as we do now.

ACC is certainly a case of better the devil you know than the devil you don't...

If you ride unregistered ... you still get ACC assistance ...

[Madness]

If you ride unregistered ... you still get ACC assistance ...

Yeah, but "you're" a bit of a cunt though at the same time, eh?

[Moi]

If you ride unregistered ... you still get ACC assistance ...

Yes, but is that fair? I would not want someone to miss out, just thinking about all those who claim to ride unregistered because I only ride that one "once in a blue moon", this would mean they ride it licenced and pay ACC for only the time they want. It would men a rethink of licencing and 'on-hold' licences - a halfway point between on-hold and full everyday use licence. It might actually increase ACC's income... It would also require a rethink of the "them and us" attitude of some...

[swbarnett]

So you dont call the difference between car and motorcycle ACC as being discriminating?
You really are fucked up in the head. How on earth did you get that from my post? I specifically said: "Charging based on history (or whatever group you happen to belong to) runs directly counter to the core principles of ACC."

Note: "or whatever group you happen to belong to" includes what mode of transport you use.

FFS, this is like trying to explain Quantum Mechanics to a five year old.

[swbarnett]

The current system is flawed and biased to our detriment ... and the per km suggestion is bullshit.

As is the "I have 5 bikes and can't afford to keep them all legal" argument.
Ah, I thought I'd read it wrong. Agreed.

[swbarnett]

Not when your idiocy has a negative impact on society.
Bullshit! You and I both have a right to be human, we are not and cannot be expected to be automatons. To do so would destroy the entire point of our existence. The impact on society is irrelevant; the only difference good or bad makes is in the concequences, both personally and publically.

No matter how much we delude ourselves to the contrary, expecting people to be perfect is by definition an act of madness.

[swbarnett]

I get the no fault part after the accident has happened, but surely the extra charges that bikers pay is for responsibility awareness considering we knowingly use a form of transport that is inherently dangerous.

If ya get what I mean.
Pick a group, any group, carve it up any way you like - mode of transport, race, sex, age, the list goes on. In any list of groups you will find one that has a more costly health bill than all others. To charge one group more than the rest would mean that the vast majority of the population would be put in one high risk group or another. So what's the point of splitting us up?

P.S.: Read my sig. Third line.

[Katman]

Bullshit! You and I both have a right to be human, we are not and cannot be expected to be automatons. To do so would destroy the entire point of our existence. The impact on society is irrelevant; the only difference good or bad makes is in the concequences, both personally and publically.

No matter how much we delude ourselves to the contrary, expecting people to be perfect is by definition an act of madness.

And I'll call 'bullshit' back at you.

If someone is determined to not give a fuck about how their actions negatively impact society then they can fuck off and find another society.

[swbarnett]

If someone is determined to not give a fuck about how their actions negatively impact society then they can fuck off and find another society.
The trick is in the definition. I actuallly agree with you on the above. However, the important point is that this person is a sociopath. The fact that they may be an idiot as well is irellevant.

[Katman]

The trick is in the definition. I actuallly agree with you on the above. However, the important point is that this person is a sociopath. The fact that they may be an idiot as well is irellevant.

What a load of semantic bullshit.

If someone has the belief that 'it is my right to be as much of an idiot as I like regardless of any negative impact to society my actions might be' then that idiot can go fuck themselves.

I refuse to tolerate wilfull idiots.

[Gremlin]

The issue of "I have a number of bikes..." I suggest may be able to be solved by having a situation where the bike that is not used often is licenced [rego] but no ACC is paid until you want to use it and then you buy the ACC for the time you want. You print a receipt for those days you've bought and away you ride. For those who don't want to play the game, there will be consequences. If you ride all year or want your bike available all year you do as we do now.
They really only want continuous vehicle licensing... While the facility to put on hold exists, it wasn't intended for the purposes of putting a bike on the road for a day/weekend/week.

[swbarnett]

If someone has the belief that 'it is my right to be as much of an idiot as I like regardless of any negative impact to society my actions might be' then that idiot can go fuck themselves.
I agree wholeheartedly.


I refuse to tolerate wilfull idiots.
Now we get to the crux of the matter. The word "wilful" is the important one. It is a fact of the inner workings of the human brain that we will ALL do idiotic things from time to time. If we're lucky we don't do any harm. Either way we learn from it and move on; hopefully never to make the same mistake again. However, someone with a "devil-may-care" attitude that cares nothing for anyone but themselves is another matter.

[Katman]

Either way we learn from it and move on; hopefully never to make the same mistake again.

It's the ones who never seem to learn that particularly bug me.

[pritch]

It's the ones who never seem to learn that particularly bug me.

You can't do anything to help them so it's no good letting them bug you. Work on something you can change, it's more rewarding and better for the mental health.

[Woodman]

I agree wholeheartedly.


Now we get to the crux of the matter. The word "wilful" is the important one. It is a fact of the inner workings of the human brain that we will ALL do idiotic things from time to time. If we're lucky we don't do any harm. Either way we learn from it and move on; hopefully never to make the same mistake again. However, someone with a "devil-may-care" attitude that cares nothing for anyone but themselves is another matter.

Riding a motorcycle could be considered having a devil may care attitude.

And I agree with your third sig line, but accidents happen and a fender bender between two cars is a different kettle of fish than a car vs bike "fender bender" no matter who is at fault, and one of those vehicle operators chose to use the more dangerous option.

[Moi]

They really only want continuous vehicle licensing... While the facility to put on hold exists, it wasn't intended for the purposes of putting a bike on the road for a day/weekend/week.

I am not thinking of licencing that "switches on and off", but the ACC levy - your bike is licenced continuously, the licence is not on-hold, but you buy the ACC levy to cover the days you want to use it. For example, good weather over the coming weekend, you pay on-line for ACC levy* from mid-night Friday to mid-night Sunday, print out a receipt and away you go.

* The licence component is about $25 per year, the ACC levy is the big expense - so for the above example you'd pay 2/365ths of what would be the year ACC levy for that class of bike.

[nzspokes]

What a load of semantic bullshit.

If someone has the belief that 'it is my right to be as much of an idiot as I like regardless of any negative impact to society my actions might be' then that idiot can go fuck themselves.

I refuse to tolerate wilfull idiots.

Like gangs, drug dealers and the like......

[Katman]

Like gangs, drug dealers and the like......

Well I suppose that depends on your definition of 'idiot'.

[jasonu]

Most motorcyclists would be paying less if those at fault paid more. It really is that simple.

But how would you know who is going to be at fault before an incident so as to charge them more in advance?

[Akzle]

Riding a motorcycle could be considered having a devil may care attitude.

And I agree with your third sig line, but accidents happen and a fender bender between two cars is a different kettle of fish than a car vs bike "fender bender" no matter who is at fault, and one of those vehicle operators chose to use the more dangerous option.

... and one of them is guilty of being a fuckwit causing injury. guess who i'd penalise.


vote akzle.

[Akzle]

Like gangs, drug dealers and the like......

mate. kb wouldn't function without drug dealers. half you cunts must be cracked up on something.

[jasonu]

If you had said it, then some on here would just disagree with it because you said it.

.
Some people like to argue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

[jasonu]

As has already been said, ACC is not perfect but it is far better than what we could have.

If you had to pay for a private medical/accident/income protection insurance I'm sure your eyes would water - ask Americans about health/medical/accident insurance.

...

When I had a bike (GSXR1100) it cost me $40 per year for rego and about $250 a year for insurance which also covered medical costs for myself as well as liability for someone elses medical costs if I was at fault.

[swbarnett]

It's the ones who never seem to learn that particularly bug me.
I know what you mean. These days I'm slowly getting better at "ignoring" them while at the same time watching out for them so I don't end up suffering the concequences of their actions.

[swbarnett]

Riding a motorcycle could be considered having a devil may care attitude.
Unfortunately you're right. Those that know nothing about those of us that live the motorcycle lifestyle do tend to insist on judging us.


And I agree with your third sig line, but accidents happen and a fender bender between two cars is a different kettle of fish than a car vs bike "fender bender" no matter who is at fault, and one of those vehicle operators chose to use the more dangerous option.
Yes, the concequences of an accident are greater if you're on a bike. However, there is often more you can do on a bike to avoid the accident.

[jasonu]

Unfortunately you're right. Those that know nothing about those of us that live the motorcycle lifestyle do tend to insist on judging us.


Yes, the concequences of an accident and receiving injuries that require medical attention are greater if you're on a bike. However, there is often more you can do on a bike to avoid the accident.

Fixed for accuracy.

[jasonu]

The higher fee for being "at fault" would be determined by historical "at fault" accidents. For example when I insured my bike with a new company recently they wanted to know of all "at fault" claims in the last 5 years and if I had had any I would have been charged a higher premium. If the system works for vehicles it can work for drivers/riders too if ACC were to think outside the square.

But how would you know to charge someone extra based on what hasn't yet happened?

[jasonu]

As I said in my previous post it would be determined from historical "At Fault" claims in the same way vehicle premiums are set.

But why would funny at fault claims get charged more?

[Moi]

As I said in my previous post it would be determined from historical "At Fault" claims in the same way vehicle premiums are set.

Premiums equates with insurance, ACC is not an insurance, it's Accident Compensation Corporation, ... hence we pay a levy...


For goodness sake... don't encourage the sods to think of themselves as an insurance company!

[jasonu]

Whats funny about being at fault?

That's what i asked. You said people that have histerical at fault accidents should be charged more and you have still not said how you would know to charge someone more because of future accidents.

[FJRider]

You have never heard of the fact that vehicle insurers charge more to those who have had "at fault" accidents than those who dont? So based on that model ACC being charged at a higher rate to those at fault is perfectly doable. There is a roadsafety spinoff too with this as people will drive more carefully to avoid facing a higher "at fault" ACC premium. ACC has already labeled motorcyclists "At Fault" for just riding a motorbike.

It's real simple ... ACC are not vehicle insurers.

They provide a NO FAULT medical assistance to those injured in an "Accident" ... Who caused the accident is immaterial. That is why they call it accident compensation. Not accident insurance.

Doable but unethical with ACC NO FAULT basis.

If the safety "spinoff" you mention had any merit or social standing ... "The Faster you go, the bigger the mess" policy might/should also carry more impact socially. Simply because nobody will ever admit THEY could ever be at fault. So it couldn't possibly happen to THEM ... it is then ignored.
People can afford (it seems) multiple speeding fines ... and get upset when the Demerits mount up enough their license is suspended. Bugger eh .. !!!


ACC do not label us AT FAULT ... They label us as MORE AT RISK OF INJURY. Which ... is basically true. Two totally different policy's ... and/or concepts.

[FJRider]

Yes, but is that fair? I would not want someone to miss out, just thinking about all those who claim to ride unregistered because I only ride that one "once in a blue moon", this would mean they ride it licenced and pay ACC for only the time they want. It would men a rethink of licencing and 'on-hold' licences - a halfway point between on-hold and full everyday use licence. It might actually increase ACC's income... It would also require a rethink of the "them and us" attitude of some...

Fair ... :killingme

ACC is a no fault medical assistance scheme. Nobody misses out due to them being found at fault ... or for any other reason.

Remember ... ALL tax-payers contribute to the coffers of ACC in one form or another. Some pay in multiple forms ... Such is the system.

I do not foresee ANY rethink of the system anytime soon.

The "On Hold" system was instigated to restore / rebuild vehicles and still keep them in the system. Not as a method to avoid/reduce registration costs.

The lower rego costs for SAFER vehicles is my pet hate. Vehicles don't kill ... stupid drivers DO. The people in safe vehicles may be saf(er) ... but they can STILL kill a motorcyclist riding safely and within legislation.

[flashg]

This whole thread reminds me of the old saying "There's more than one way to skin a cat"
The talented people on here that have explained, exactly how the system works, must be ready to hold a gun to ones own head. All because one female member is either the thickest person this side of the black stump or is indeed a troll laughing her tits off.
Stop feeding it.

[FJRider]

Yeah, but "you're" a bit of a cunt though at the same time, eh?

CUNTS need money too. Such is the current system in place in NZ at this time.

If fingers need to be pointed ... the fingers should be pointed at ourselves in far to many of the "motorcyclist involved" accidents. Not bleating about who pays more $$$ to be given assistance.

[FJRider]

This whole thread reminds me of the old saying "There's more than one way to skin a cat"
The talented people on here that have explained, exactly how the system works, must be ready to hold a gun to ones own head. All because one female member is either the thickest person this side of the black stump or is indeed a troll laughing her tits off.
Stop feeding it.

YOU FIRST ...:2thumbsup

[FJRider]

That's what i asked. You said people that have histerical at fault accidents should be charged more and you have still not said how you would know to charge someone more because of future accidents.

There are historical accidents ... and hysterical accidents ... to which do you refer .. ???

[Akzle]

CUNTS need money too. Such is the current system in place in NZ at this time.

If fingers need to be pointed ... the fingers should be pointed at

...fucken jew cunts

[FJRider]

...fucken jew cunts

That's YOU ... right .. ?? <_<

[Moi]

Fair ... :killingme

ACC is a no fault medical assistance scheme. Nobody misses out due to them being found at fault ... or for any other reason.

What you say is why I believe that ACC is a great scheme, not perfect but certainly worth supporting.



Remember ... ALL tax-payers contribute to the coffers of ACC in one form or another. Some pay in multiple forms ... Such is the system.

I do not foresee ANY rethink of the system anytime soon.

The "On Hold" system was instigated to restore / rebuild vehicles and still keep them in the system. Not as a method to avoid/reduce registration costs.

I don't advocate what you're suggesting - I agree with On-Hold for restoration etc.

What I don't agree with is those who put vehicles on-hold to avoid ACC levies but still, sneakily, use them. If you could buy ACC for a few days at a time or several weeks while the bike is licenced continuously might be a way to "encourage" those who are at present abusing the system by using "On-Hold" for non-restoration purposes. I know there'll be those who'll suggest that they already pay for one full-time levy for one bike they use most of the time and why pay for other bikes that are used occasionally, and I can understand that, hence my thinking of being able to buy ACC on-demand a possible solution.


The lower rego costs for SAFER vehicles is my pet hate. Vehicles don't kill ... stupid drivers DO. The people in safe vehicles may be saf(er) ... but they can STILL kill a motorcyclist riding safely and within legislation.

Can't argue with you on that...

I do wonder how some drivers would cope if all the electronic aides were turned off on their latest pride and joy...

[Moi]

There are historical accidents ... and hysterical accidents ... to which do you refer .. ???

hysterectomial accidents perhaps?

[swbarnett]

Fixed for accuracy.
You read between the lines. Yes, that matches the intent of that statement.

[russd7]

So you dont call the difference between car and motorcycle ACC as being discriminating? Your thinking is flawed then just like ACCs. You dont work for them by any chance?

for fucks sake, ACC has been discriminatory for years, for example, a farmer pays considerably higher employer levies to acc than an office or retail employer, and that is based wholly on risk and cost of injuries and that has been done for more than 20yrs. the differentiation towards motorcyclists is just the latest discrimination. would you prefer we go to a private insurance system, those from countries where that is done may be able to enlighten us on what that may cost

[jasonu]

My idea has nothing to do with charging more for future accidents that have not happened thats something you have dreamed up. If they have an "at fault" history and continue to have at fault accidents their premiums will go up though. Lets not forget ACC put charges up in the first place due to a large number of motorcyclists crashing and they continue to crash in large numbers so they will have another excuse to put charges up even higher unless they do a shift from blaming the mode of transport to the person at fault.

But what about the funny accidents?

[russd7]

taken from the ACC website
"1967: Woodhouse Commission recommendations
The Woodhouse Commission recommends a ‘no-fault’ accident compensation scheme
In 1967, as a result of complaints about the inadequacy of workers’ compensation benefits, a Royal Commission was established to report on workers’ compensation. The commission produced the well-known Woodhouse Report, named for its chairman Mr Justice Woodhouse (now the Right Honourable Sir Owen Woodhouse).

The report recommended a completely new ‘no-fault’ approach to compensation for personal injury. It recommended a scheme to cover:

all motor vehicle injuries, funded by a levy on owners of motor vehicles and drivers
all injuries to earners whether occurring at work or not, funded by a flat-rate levy on employers for the cost of all injuries to their employees. A levy on the self-employed to pay for injuries occurring at work or outside of work was also proposed.
Employers would have to pay a compulsory levy for injuries to employees, but they would also be protected from being sued for damages. The right to sue for motor vehicle injuries and non-work injuries to earners would also be removed.

The report recommended that the scheme be based on five basic principles:

Community responsibility
Comprehensive entitlement
Complete rehabilitation
Real compensation
Administrative efficiency."

[russd7]

The "On Hold" system was instigated to restore / rebuild vehicles and still keep them in the system. Not as a method to avoid/reduce registration costs.


ya might find it was actually designed to stop people from not registering their vehicles for a couple of years then registering it before the plates died. I know that in your sheltered world you may not have been aware that such things would happen but they did.
where i grew up it was quite common to have vehicles on the road not licenced, it was even common in the earlier days to have reg stickers and warrants stolen off bikes to make other vehicles appear legal, hence the reason none of my warrants are visible on my bikes and i have never had an issue with cops as long as i can show them

[flashg]

ya might find it was actually designed to stop people from not registering their vehicles for a couple of years then registering it before the plates died. I know that in your sheltered world you may not have been aware that such things would happen but they did.
where i grew up it was quite common to have vehicles on the road not licenced, it was even common in the earlier days to have reg stickers and warrants stolen off bikes to make other vehicles appear legal, hence the reason none of my warrants are visible on my bikes and i have never had an issue with cops as long as i can show them
And if you park the bike and are not there to show your warrant, The lovely parking warden will issue you a parking infringement for "not displaying a current WOF"
Just saying [emoji16]

[FJRider]

ya might find it was actually designed to stop people from not registering their vehicles for a couple of years then registering it before the plates died. I know that in your sheltered world you may not have been aware that such things would happen but they did.
where i grew up it was quite common to have vehicles on the road not licenced, it was even common in the earlier days to have reg stickers and warrants stolen off bikes to make other vehicles appear legal, hence the reason none of my warrants are visible on my bikes and i have never had an issue with cops as long as i can show them

To do that required payment for the full period it was unregistered ... unless you changed ownership and left the unpaid fee to the "previous" owner. Or just getting new plates while it was still in the system.

People still dont register for aq few years ... and the modern system allows police to acess vehicle records before they stop you ... or get out of their car. Free replacement of rego and Wof labels make life easy now. No need (or point) to hide them. But if the paranoid pricks feel the need ... who am I to argue. Even a half-wit parking Hitler can see labels are for a wrong bike or "Not Displayed".
The fines are for not displaying ... as opposed to not having ... the appropriate labels.

[FJRider]

The report recommended that the scheme be based on five basic principles:

Community responsibility
Comprehensive entitlement
Complete rehabilitation
Real compensation
Administrative efficiency."

1. Community responsibility ... ACC beneficiary is now a common listed "occupation" in many community's ...

2. The sense of entitlement is greater for some ...

3. But no realistic time frame for this all to happen. And a Dr's signature on a form gets you more time off ... Refer to "Sense of entitlement" ...

4. Real money but few can agree they are getting fair compensation for their injuries .... Refer to "Sense of entitlement" ...

5. A bad joke at best. Three months after your accident you might start to get money. Many Acc offices have security guards at their door too ...

[FJRider]

Registrations and WOFs could still be stolen off bikes today as parking wardens would be only likely to check the date is current.

He comes from Riverton. There are NO parking wardens there.

[FJRider]

But what about the funny accidents?

The hysterical accidents you mean .. :innocent:

[russd7]

And if you park the bike and are not there to show your warrant, The lovely parking warden will issue you a parking infringement for "not displaying a current WOF"
Just saying [emoji16]

aware of that but a lot of times can be parked in such a manner as to make it difficult to even see the back of bike, if i start getting pinged for this then i may change but a lot of bikes have warrants tucked in behind number plates anyway,

[russd7]

To do that required payment for the full period it was unregistered ... unless you changed ownership and left the unpaid fee to the "previous" owner. Or just getting new plates while it was still in the system.

People still dont register for aq few years ... and the modern system allows police to acess vehicle records before they stop you ... or get out of their car. Free replacement of rego and Wof labels make life easy now. No need (or point) to hide them. But if the paranoid pricks feel the need ... who am I to argue. Even a half-wit parking Hitler can see labels are for a wrong bike or "Not Displayed".
The fines are for not displaying ... as opposed to not having ... the appropriate labels.

:laugh::laugh: you can be a twat at times, you wind up to easily, as for the the reg and warrant comment i did say back in the day and the reason i still keep the warrants out of the way is its easier and those pathetic licence holders they have don't protect the warrant very well and the police and traffic have been able to have that info before stopping for years, even back in the early eighties they would get out of their cars already knowing my name and address and the ownership of the vehicle.

just out of curiosity, have you always lived in central otago

[russd7]

He comes from Riverton. There are NO parking wardens there.

:laugh: actually, i don't "come from riverton", i come from me dear old mum, god rest her soul, I have only lived in Riverton for just over a year, but your assumption is correct, we do not have parking wardens in Riverton tho why that would matter when Im out and about on my bike i really have no idea, i tend to ride my bike for more than a few meters at a time so therefor the only time my bike is parked anywhere in Riverton is when Im fueling up or when Im at home and i wasn't aware that parking wardens did house calls.

[granstar]

Well she does, (but only in Riverton), i'll send her around 328354


"you can be a twat at times", er there's two of us.:wacko:

[zwies]

What about a levvy on your drivers license rather than your vehicles. You can only drive/ride one at a time. And its you that is covered. Not what you are using at the time.

Levvy based on vehicle classes held. For private vehicles at least.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

[swbarnett]

What about a levvy on your drivers license rather than your vehicles. You can only drive/ride one at a time. And its you that is covered. Not what you are using at the time.

Levvy based on vehicle classes held. For private vehicles at least.
Just because you hold a particular class of license doesn't mean you actually drive that type of vehicle. My father has a m/cycle license and hasn't ridden in thirty years.

Take ACC out of tax. Problem solved.

[zwies]

Thats true. While i hold both car and bike. I don't own or drive a car.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

[Hads]

Lets assume ACC want to cover the entire cost of a serious injury accident, and that the average cost is 100k, motorcyclists on average every 1 million km's driven have a serious injury crash, acc would then have to charge 10c per km. So RUC's would be $100 per 1000km, this would be terrible for commuters.

[FJRider]

Just out of curiosity, have you always lived in central otago

Nope, I once lived about 20 minutes away from where you actually live ... And at one stage ... my father worked at the Waimatuku garage.

[russd7]

Nope, I once lived about 20 minutes away from where you actually live ... And at one stage ... my father worked at the Waimatuku garage.

was that for the current owner or his father

[FJRider]

was that for the current owner or his father

I was eight years old at the time.

[Moi]

Nope, I once lived about 20 minutes away from where you actually live ... And at one stage ... my father worked at the Waimatuku garage.


was that for the current owner or his father


I was eight years old at the time.

Guess that means in the days of Model-Ts...

[swbarnett]

Lets assume ACC want to cover the entire cost of a serious injury accident, and that the average cost is 100k, motorcyclists on average every 1 million km's driven have a serious injury crash, acc would then have to charge 10c per km. So RUC's would be $100 per 1000km, this would be terrible for commuters.
That would cost me over 3 grand a year. You're right, this proposal just shifts the burden from those rich enough to own more than one bike to commuters that may not even be in the comfortable category financially.

[R650R]

Haven't read whole the whole thread but.... some pertinent points....

A distance based payment system means the need for an accurate, certified, maintained and inspected distance measurement tool. This is half the reason why trucks have their own dedicated police force, the CVIU, to check that distances are being accurately recorded. Because given half the chance many people will resort to cheating the system.
So do you want an extar reason/rpobable cause for police to be stopping bikes or having dedicated bike checkpoints, NO.
Also for truck RUC the massive trend at the moment is for electronic based payment and recording. This means having a GPS device fitted to your vehicle. But it gets better (or worse depnding on your view), those devices also operate as black box data recorders and record your entire driving history to the cloud....
So you still want RUC? Well its just about always paid for in advance, smallest at moment is 1000km increments i think....
Also most RUC differentiate between max apyload and number of axles, so there's already a precedent to charge/steal extra based on size weight of bike etc.....
Successive govt regimes ahve found various excuses to continually jack up RUC prices....

So NO to any pay as you go system.... ACC is a rort but its a set amount of rort and pillage....

[trufflebutter]

I like the idea of a RUC. No need for me personally to own more than one bike and I am an occasional rider, can't please everyone but I feel that overall, most will not be to adverse to the idea proposed. In saying that, I might sell the bike and buy a boat.

452 signatures so far? pretty pathetic to be honest. When the ACC hikes where introduced in 09' the opposition was swift.

[nzspokes]

I like the idea of a RUC. No need for me personally to own more than one bike and I am an occasional rider, can't please everyone but I feel that overall, most will not be to adverse to the idea proposed. In saying that, I might sell the bike and buy a boat.

452 signatures so far? pretty pathetic to be honest. When the ACC hikes where introduced in 09' the opposition was swift.

For those of us that a motorcycle is not a fashion accessory, its a bullshit idea.

[trufflebutter]

For those of us that a motorcycle is not a fashion accessory, its a bullshit idea.

Like I said ''can't please everyone'' and that will be the case no matter not what policy/levy is introduced in the direction of motorcycle owner. Whether they be weekend riders or daily commuters, which I suspect you are?

[onearmedbandit]

452 signatures so far? pretty pathetic to be honest. When the ACC hikes where introduced in 09' the opposition was swift.

I'm guessing that's the case because most motorcyclists will be opposed to it...

[trufflebutter]

I'm guessing that's the case because most motorcyclists will be opposed to it...

Opposed to 'Paying for usage like RUC means bike owners can own more than one bike but pay only for actual use' ?

I thought that is what many who owned more than one bike wanted when the the ACC hikes where introduced?

[Katman]

That would cost me over 3 grand a year. You're right, this proposal just shifts the burden from those rich enough to own more than one bike to commuters that may not even be in the comfortable category financially.

Surely the answer to that would be having the option of paying the current rate for 12 months rego or opting for a mileage based fee.

[FJRider]

Guess that means in the days of Model-Ts...

Close ... My brothers Mark 1 Zephyr was 12 years old ... <_<

[onearmedbandit]

Opposed to 'Paying for usage like RUC means bike owners can own more than one bike but pay only for actual use' ?

I thought that is what many who owned more than one bike wanted when the the ACC hikes where introduced?

This is the first time I've seen the idea of RUC proposed and it would seem there are not many supporters of it. Yes there are many who don't like the current scheme but that doesn't mean they would prefer RUC, as seen both here and by the number of signatures gathered.

[trufflebutter]

Buying rego by the day online? Would you be happy to pay between $1:60 and $1:95 per day?

[roogazza]

I manage the current system quite well, Reg when I need it (which is bugger all ) and on hold the rest.
ACC works when you need it doesn't it ?

[onearmedbandit]

It is obvious the number of motorcyclists finding registration expensive is far less than many think. With media reports saying a lot of lawyers, accountants and other professioals are getting into motorcycling that would explain why so many are happy to pay the current rate. I picked quite a while back on here most were happy to pay the current rate rather than have those at fault being the ones that paid most. Even my post from last night suggesting an alternative to RUC by being able to buy days on line got no interest.

The way I see it, $10/wk isn't too bad. And lets make that $20/wk as I have two bikes above 601cc or whatever the threshold is. So I'm one of the ones happy with the status quo.

[Berries]

Even my post from last night suggesting an alternative to RUC by being able to buy days on line got no interest.
I think most people have given up on conversing or arguing with you because you appear to have a one track mind and blinkers on. I certainly have but you can have this one for free.

[trufflebutter]

I would be better off as I only ride between 1 and 3 days a week.

If you’re paying rego on a 601cc and over motorcycle, you are forking out around $1:95 per day, not a lot when consider the fun you receive while out riding alone or with your mate/s or even the fun factor experience of that daily commute. Whichever way you look at it, the cost of owning a bike legitimately is nothing, compared to what some are prepared to pay in extras to add to their bike, and don’t give me that ‘’yes but that’s their choice’’ bullshit. If people can afford the money (at times $1000’s) to pretty up their bike, then they can surely afford the $1:95 per day that it costs to enjoy that (arguably ridiculous) expenditure.

[Moi]

Buying rego by the day online? Would you be happy to pay between $1:60 and $1:95 per day?

And how do you get those figures?

[Moi]

The way I see it, $10/wk isn't too bad. And lets make that $20/wk as I have two bikes above 601cc or whatever the threshold is. So I'm one of the ones happy with the status quo.

I'm in much the same boat - a 400 and a 650 - and more than happy with the present regime...

However, that doesn't mean that I don't want to see improvements.

[FJRider]

And how do you get those figures?

Annual fee divided by 365/6 ... ???

[Moi]

Annual fee divided by 365/6 ... ???

The problem with some on here is that they use words without knowing what they mean...

Rego is a total misnomer - we register a bike once when it is put on the road for the first time or it is re-registered if the original registration has lapsed. Whereas "rego" is an Australian expression they use for their annual fee to use a vehicle on the road - yes, I know NZTA use the expression rego but I think they do so within quotes - could be wrong on that. We "licence" a vehicle for road use and the annual licence for a bike is about $25 per annum - $25 divided by 365 = 6.8 cents a day.

What the "RUC" concept that has been proposed is for the ACC levy that is attached to the annual licence fee and other fees as a method of collecting it.

So those who are rabbiting on about dividing the "rego" into daily bits really need to sit down and think about what they are saying....

Pedantic rant over...

Well, for the meantime it is.

[Drew]

So you agree with me then being able to buy registration for a day/s online would be a good idea?

You can kind of do that now. Think you're supposed to wait 3 moths between each time you do it, unless you know someone at the post office.

[trufflebutter]

And how do you get those figures?

Simple Mathematics.

One year’s registration (just for you) for a 601cc motorcycle and over is $585.94 Six months is $328.16.
$585.94 @ 365 days = $1:60 per day
$328.16 @ 168 days (six months) = $1:95 per day.

No animals were harmed during the adding of theses figures.

[Moi]

Simple Mathematics.

One year’s registration (just for you) for a 601cc motorcycle and over is $585.94 Six months is $328.16.
$585.94 @ 365 days = $1:60 per day
$328.16 @ 168 days (six months) = $1:95 per day.

No animals were harmed during the adding of theses figures.

Go and read very carefully the licence renewal form that you receive from NZTA...

The annual licence for a 601cc and over bike is: $24.50 - see below

Licence Fee - $24.50
ACC Levy - $397.18
ACC Safety Levy - $25.00
Other Levies - $1.64
Online admin plus label fee* - $3.74
GST - $67.81

See: http://nzta.govt.nz/vehicles/licensing-rego/vehicle-licensing-rego/

If you read the petition, they are petitioning for the ACC Levy to be payable through some method similar to the current RUC method.

[FJRider]

So those who are rabbiting on about dividing the "rego" into daily bits really need to sit down and think about what they are saying....

Pedantic rant over...

Well, for the meantime it is.

You will note in the part of my post you quoted ... I clearly stated (as you quoted) annual FEE. This may (or may not) include any registration costs that any may choose to find their actual "Daily Costs" for their bike.

In this day and age ... with the "on hold" system ... not all motorcyclists have their machine registered for the road ... for the entire year. Thus ... for some ... annual daily costs may vary.

[flashg]

If everyone thinks it would be cheaper, coming up with these ideas, think again.
The fact is we cost X amount to repair no matter who's at fault.
ACC aren't going to make things cheaper and lose more money. They would like us to pay more not less.
If we keep stirring things up, it could bite us on the arse and end up paying the true cost.
Also the more bikes on hold, the less they get. Good chance of it going up more to get whats needed.
I don't like paying so much, but let sleeping dogs lie. I won't be signing anything.
PS- Thats no invitation for Cassina to crash into them...................... "sleeping dogs"

[Berries]

So you agree with me then being able to buy registration for a day/s online would be a good idea?
No.

The cost would have to be adjusted to reflect the fact that someone who rides one day a year is more at risk of a crash on that particular day than someone would be on the same day but who rode every day of the year, ie the risk is clearly not 1/365. And if you are going to adjust the levy based on the recent/relevant riding experience component then you have to adjust based on exposure - both km travelled and where. This tips things the other way and then you have to take in to account actual history of claims and offences etc etc. If the one day chosen to ride is a weekend should it cost more than a weekday? Should there be a daylight only fee to reflect the increased risk of riding at night? Should you be forced to stop if it rains because you only paid for the risk involved in a dry day ride?

It is an unworkable and unnecessary solution. If those who only ride on a few days a year think the levy is too much then they should piss off and get a car.

IMHO.

[Akzle]

The problem with some on here is that they use words without knowing what they mean...

Rego is a total misnomer - we register a bike once when it is put on the road for the first time or it is re-registered if the original registration has lapsed. Whereas "rego" is an Australian expression they use for their annual fee to use a vehicle on the road - yes, I know NZTA use the expression rego but I think they do so within quotes - could be wrong on that. We "licence" a vehicle for road use and the annual licence for a bike is about $25 per annum - $25 divided by 365 = 6.8 cents a day.

What the "RUC" concept that has been proposed is for the ACC levy that is attached to the annual licence fee and other fees as a method of collecting it.

So those who are rabbiting on about dividing the "rego" into daily bits really need to sit down and think about what they are saying....

Pedantic rant over...

Well, for the meantime it is.

well actually

it's continuous vehicle licensing

look up the legal definition of any of that shit at your leisure.
i've said it all before and all you KB-faggots™ were like "you should pay some shit you bludger" and i was all liek "why" and they were all liek "derp derp, we cheat the system by putting shit on hold but that's cool. cos you definitely need to fill out forms and give them jewgolds sometimes cos my dad said so"

and i was all liek "wtf"
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/a2/a251beb450c4396772febf13fb8798a997df0e7d8fb641d03c 33719bffea1d25.jpg



You can kind of do that now. Think you're supposed to wait 3 moths between each time you do it, unless you know someone at the post office.
fuck me, the post office stilll exists?? what the fuck do they DO all day?



It is an unworkable and unnecessary solution. If those who only ride on a few days a year think the levy is too much then they should piss off and get a car.


i can think of a better solution <_<

[Zedder]

If everyone thinks it would be cheaper, coming up with these ideas, think again.
The fact is we cost X amount to repair no matter who's at fault.
ACC aren't going to make things cheaper and lose more money. They would like us to pay more not less.
If we keep stirring things up, it could bite us on the arse and end up paying the true cost.
Also the more bikes on hold, the less they get. Good chance of it going up more to get whats needed.
I don't like paying so much, but let sleeping dogs lie. I won't be signing anything.
PS- Thats no invitation for Cassina to crash into them...................... "sleeping dogs"


Yep, the big picture is the cost of getting crash victims sorted long term which comes from the many ACC revenue streams. Although, they have chucked some of us a bone with the reductions to the motor vehicle account plus work and earners levies etc.

I do however admit to bemusement on how they have $35 billion of funds under management and the system is fully self funded, yet they still lost $3.4 billion recently. Apparently it was due to "low interest rates"...

[Moi]

well actually

it's continuous vehicle licensing

I'd suggest that we pay a "licence fee" each year to both maintain the continuous vehicle licence for our vehicle and to use our vehicle on the road system...


However, if a few stop calling it "rego" - a bloody Australian-ism - and actually call it licencing then we might have achieved something - not sure quite what, but something...

[Moi]

... If those on high incomes were the minority and not the majority that would have helped get changes made maybe.

Define "high income"...

[R650R]

another point... you can get compliance/warning for no rego if you know how to swallow....
BUT fail to display or buy RUC is ALWAYS a fine.

And setting up a new system means paying/training new workers to administer it plus branding and publicity costs, all of which will be fronted up by you the biker. Just look at the disaters some recent online payment systems for bus tickets and other govt things have been.... With our luck it would be handled by some Nevapay type broken arse computer system.....

[Berries]

I said nothing about riding one day a year and if you only wanted to ride 1 day a year motorcycle ownership would be uneconomic anyway.
Do you have to be so literal? It was an example so you could understand.




10 seconds to PD because I had the wrong attitude.

[Drew]

You can buy registration online but you have to wait for an offical label to arrive in the mail rather than being able to print one out on your computer like you can with a concert ticket. The 3 month wait would need to be waivered for it to be beneficial too.

There is too much divison among motorcyclists for them to feel any desire to change anything. They only need to read the posts on here to see that. If those on high incomes were the minority and not the majority that would have helped get changes made maybe.
Online doesn't give the option of less than 3 months.

[Drew]

I know it would take a change to allow it. The division among motorcyclists about what changes they would like means nothing will change anyway. ACC has won and they know it. According to one poster on here if they were to allow only a few days at a time they would have to vary the cost depending on riding ability and day of the week/year for it to work. That would have to be the most loopy comment I have ever read on here but the beuocracy of the govt would love it I guess,
I'm pretty sure you still have the title for loopiest comment ever on KB. But I digress.

I think what he said was that if a rider only uses a bike once a year, they present a bigger hazard than one who rides often. Meaning that your idea is fundamentally flawed.

You're right about riders not being able to agree on anything though. Which is the same with any large volume of people no matter what. It's the reason that we have government, and elected representitives in nearly all walks of life.

[Berries]

I think what he said was that if a rider only uses a bike once a year, they present a bigger hazard than one who rides often. Meaning that your idea is fundamentally flawed.
Although it was a hypothetical example to make it easier to understand I see I failed with certain people so thank you.



According to one poster on here if they were to allow only a few days at a time they would have to vary the cost depending on riding ability and day of the week/year for it to work. That would have to be the most loopy comment I have ever read on here but the beuocracy of the govt would love it I guess,

:brick::brick::brick::brick::brick::brick:

[onearmedbandit]

I have read on here over a year ago that it is possible to register for 1 day a year by going into the post office and filling out a special form and if it was so dangerous to only ride 1 day a year they would not allow 1 day registrations I would have thought.

Yet again you astound.

[Drew]

I have read on here over a year ago that it is possible to register for 1 day a year by going into the post office and filling out a special form and if it was so dangerous to only ride 1 day a year they would not allow 1 day registrations I would have thought. In the media I have read its the guys who have a 10 year or more gap from riding that are the most risky when they return. Someone may post to confirm if its correct you can get a one day registration by going into the post office. I would think if it can be done in the post office being able to do it online would also be feasable as so much else can now be bought online.
The required form (MR31A) cannot be done online.

[Drew]

I never said it could be done online at the moment but the technology would be there to do it most likely considering many other purchases can be made on line.

I dunno that people printing their own licence labels is a great idea.

[aprilia_RS250]

A RUC type licence would suit people who have +2 bikes or don't ride many miles which I assume would easily be a majority of NZ motorcyclists. I would more than welcome it if priced correctly.

[swbarnett]

A RUC type licence would suit people who have +2 bikes or don't ride many miles
Exactly.


which I assume would easily be a majority of NZ motorcyclists.
Can you back that up? I suspect the opposite is the case (which I can't back up, just wondering if you have figures).


I would more than welcome it if priced correctly.
I think you'd feel differently if single bike owning commuters were priced off their bikes and into cars. Having more cars on the road benefits no-one.

[Drew]

Exactly.


Can you back that up? I suspect the opposite is the case (which I can't back up, just wondering if you have figures).


I think you'd feel differently if single bike owning commuters were priced off their bikes and into cars. Having more cars on the road benefits no-one.

I think it's been shown that bikes are worse for the environment per passenger than cars. So, less bikes kind of benefits everyone.

[onearmedbandit]

I think it's been shown that bikes are worse for the environment per passenger than cars. So, less bikes kind of benefits everyone.

From an environmental standpoint maybe, but more bikes equals less congestion, equals less cars sitting in traffic idling away. Surely that benefits not only through less traffic hassles but also the the environment in some small way?

[Drew]

From an environmental standpoint maybe, but more bikes equals less congestion, equals less cars sitting in traffic idling away. Surely that benefits not only through less traffic hassles but also the the environment in some small way?

That's logical.

[aprilia_RS250]

Exactly.


Can you back that up? I suspect the opposite is the case (which I can't back up, just wondering if you have figures).


Page 9 should help

http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Research/Documents/Motorcycling-y812.pdf

[Coldrider]

I have read on here over a year ago that it is possible to register for 1 day a year by going into the post office and filling out a special form and if it was so dangerous to only ride 1 day a year they would not allow 1 day registrations I would have thought. In the media I have read its the guys who have a 10 year or more gap from riding that are the most risky when they return. Someone may post to confirm if its correct you can get a one day registration by going into the post office. I would think if it can be done in the post office being able to do it online would also be feasable as so much else can now be bought online.yes you can reticence a motorcycle for one day at a LTSA branch, not online, and the BAMBI born again biker is also a myth to capture statistical middle age biker accidents. Myth busted.

[swbarnett]

I think it's been shown that bikes are worse for the environment per passenger than cars. So, less bikes kind of benefits everyone.
Ask the motorway commuters how they feel about the ever increasing number of cars trying to cram on to an already overloaded system.

On those same congested motorways a bike is far better for the environment; the vast majority of those cars only carry one person while doing barely more than an idle for a large part of the journey. Meanwhile the bikes have an engine half the size that is actually moving. The shorter journey time alone makes the bike superior for the environment under these circumstances.

[Gremlin]

Meanwhile the bikes have an engine half the size that is actually moving.
I dunno about that... some of those shopping trolleys have 1L engines, and physically don't seem much bigger than the GSA :lol: then again, I don't use it for commuting. The hybrids do extremely well however, my boss has the newer Prius V (wagon) and over 60k ish, averages 4.5L / 100km. Neither the Hornet or GSA can manage that, but the likes of an NC700 are more like 3L

[swbarnett]

Page 9 should help

http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Research/Documents/Motorcycling-y812.pdf
Maybe it's just me but I can't see anything that refers, or even infers, how many people own more than one bike. Are you per chance referring to those that don't travel many miles? Now, that I did see in that reort.

[swbarnett]

I dunno about that... some of those shopping trolleys have 1L engines, and physically don't seem much bigger than the GSA :lol: then again, I don't use it for commuting.
At a guess I's say the average commuter will be probably somewhere 500cc by the time all the 250s are counted. However, I could be wildly off.


The hybrids do extremely well however, my boss has the newer Prius V (wagon) and over 60k ish, averages 4.5L / 100km. Neither the Hornet or GSA can manage that, but the likes of an NC700 are more like 3L
Yes, hybrids are another matter entirely. They still don't make up a large proportion of the vehicle fleet (that proportion does seem to be increasing though).

How does your boss drive? I look at fuel consumption figures quoted for new cars and I'm thinking that you've gotta drive like a short-sighted grandma to achieve them.

[Gremlin]

How does your boss drive? I look at fuel consumption figures quoted for new cars and I'm thinking that you've gotta drive like a short-sighted grandma to achieve them.
Probably avg. Sedate at times, plants boot at times. Stick it in sport and you get both electric and petrol... eats boy racers off the line :eek:

[bogan]

I think it's been shown that bikes are worse for the environment per passenger than cars. So, less bikes kind of benefits everyone.

Very narrowly scoped, they were worse for NOx emmissions if I recall correctly. Likely due to not having cats (no cassina, that doesn't mean running over cats will increase your fuel economy).

[nerrrd]

On those same congested motorways a bike is far better for the environment; the vast majority of those cars only carry one person while doing barely more than an idle for a large part of the journey. Meanwhile the bikes have an engine half the size that is actually moving. The shorter journey time alone makes the bike superior for the environment under these circumstances.

Lot of newish cars seem to have that switchy-off thing when they're stopped these days, you can hear the engine starting again when they start moving (if you are next to them on a bike), but then I guess they're not completely stopped much of the time, just going very slowly.

Really couldn't afford to keep the one bike I own and use everyday if this RUC idea was adopted, so that's a big NO from me. Motorcycling is already not cheaper than driving a car, any more expensive and I'd have to give it up, especially in the current economic climate as it affects me.

[Zedder]

Very narrowly scoped, they were worse for NOx emmissions if I recall correctly. Likely due to not having cats (no cassina, that doesn't mean running over cats will increase your fuel economy).


Cassina's motorbike needs a dogalytic diverter rather than anything catalytic!

[Tazz]

Lot of newish cars seem to have that switchy-off thing when they're stopped these days, you can hear the engine starting again when they start moving (if you are next to them on a bike), but then I guess they're not completely stopped much of the time, just going very slowly.


That system is annoying as hell when you're trying to quickly reverse into a carpark. Stop, slam it in reverse and before you can take off again the bloody car is off :mad:

[eldog]

That system is annoying as hell when you're trying to quickly reverse into a carpark. Stop, slam it in reverse and before you can take off again the bloody car is off :mad:

your not doing it right

should be skid to a stop, while slamming it into reverse, wheel spin into park, skiddy as you stop into bumper

most GOOD systems have a pressure/time sensor delay
light/short pressure usually doesn't trigger the OFF

[eldog]

Ask the motorway commuters how they feel about the ever increasing number of cars trying to cram on to an already overloaded system.

On those same congested motorways a bike is far better for the environment; the vast majority of those cars only carry one person while doing barely more than an idle for a large part of the journey. Meanwhile the bikes have an engine half the size that is actually moving. The shorter journey time alone makes the bike superior for the environment under these circumstances.

Akl commuters haven't been provided for quite a while, the population/development has outstripped the planning of the 50-70's

Even now with the motorway system being expanded, its obvious these increases are only short term

Not just the motorway, there are great big areas that have only 50kph feeders

There was a larger number of bikes on the motorway going past me while I was stopped on the mway carpark. most where doing 30 ish but a few 50+ :weird:
It was good to see more bikes on the mway.

[swbarnett]

Probably avg. Sedate at times, plants boot at times. Stick it in sport and you get both electric and petrol... eats boy racers off the line :eek:
Be interesting to know what fuel a hybrid consumes when driven in full "Drive it like you stole it!" mode.

[bogan]

Be interesting to know what fuel a hybrid consumes when driven in full "Drive it like you stole it!" mode.

All of it.

There are so many tradeoffs that a fuel efficient vehicle is really only fuel efficient for the design use case (chilled as fuck driving). Tyres are a good example, pizza cutters are good for constant speed, but add braking/accel/corners into the mix and the hybrid taking twice as long to get somewhere while revving its tits off is always going to lose to the sports car carrying twice the corner speed.

[Drew]

It is more efficient to use an internal combustion engine to power a generator, and drive the wheels from an electric motor.

This is the future for the moment.

[Moi]

All of it.

There are so many tradeoffs that a fuel efficient vehicle is really only fuel efficient for the design use case (chilled as fuck driving). Tyres are a good example, pizza cutters are good for constant speed, but add braking/accel/corners into the mix and the hybrid taking twice as long to get somewhere while revving its tits off is always going to lose to the sports car carrying twice the corner speed.

The other year in northern France had a Yaris hybrid rental: great in urban traffic and okay on the departmental routes but a bit of a nightmare on any of the old Routes Nationale - poor wee thing had to rev itself almost to death to keep up with traffic in the slow lane... Totally avoided the autoroutes...

[Akzle]

Be interesting to know what fuel a hybrid consumes when driven in full "Drive it like you stole it!" mode.

not possible. the sewing machine analogy is apt. lots of noise but doesn't actually go anywhere...

[Gremlin]

All of it.

There are so many tradeoffs that a fuel efficient vehicle is really only fuel efficient for the design use case (chilled as fuck driving). Tyres are a good example, pizza cutters are good for constant speed, but add braking/accel/corners into the mix and the hybrid taking twice as long to get somewhere while revving its tits off is always going to lose to the sports car carrying twice the corner speed.
Unless you're my boss and upgrade the suspension and tyres (no, I didn't understand that part either). It corners like a rollerskate, but accelerating from an intersection... yeah... and flooring a hybrid doesn't make much sense...