ACC - Born Again Riders

[Murray]

OK ACC have increased registration to a super ridiculous amount

Couple of points I recently have had on my mind

We now (me and wifey) pretty much register our bikes for 6 months of the year - Oct to March.

Going back on the bike in October are we Born again Riders because I sure as hell know for a month or so it takes some time to get that "feel" of the road.

So in effect (2 fold) ACC are getting less money from registration and putting people on the road that haven't ridden for some time.

Is this Smart? Of course it isn't

Whats your thoughts?

Is there any way of making them know their stupidy? If you actually agree with the above scenario I have pointed out?

[AllanB]

Costs what it costs. Tried a 3 month lay over some years back and missed a few weeks of the best winter riding weather ever (stupidly warm for the month). So since I've just paid.

Can't say a short lay-off makes any difference to mu riding, just take it easy the first one out.

ACC and the gov don't give two F's about us.

[Berries]

Double post.

Like my rego

[Berries]

As for a gap without riding its those that give up for many years rather than months that are most likely to come to grief.
Another golden nugget you made up or pulled out of your arse?

[Voltaire]

I have said it many times before on here and I will say it again in that ACC needs to set fees based on the "at fault" history of the motorist and not their mode of transport. Too many on here are too frightened of being at fault to want to see things change though despite the fact there may actually be fewer accidents if people had a fear of being at fault.

As for a gap without riding its those that give up for many years rather than months that are most likely to come to grief.

Your wasted here on KB, but the good news is there are jobs going at ACC.

I can't imagine making huge changes to motorcycling is harder than posting on the internet.

https://careers.acc.co.nz/



Murray, buy a 1978 bike and ride around all year for $50 Rego/ACC, will be 79's next year and very usable large Japs in about 3 more.
( I suspect like in the UK they may try and cap it)

[Oakie]

I have said it many times before on here and I will say it again in that ACC needs to set fees based on the "at fault" history of the motorist and not their mode of transport..

The whole underlying premise of ACC though is that its a 'no fault' system. If you start looking at 'at fault' you are going to a completely different system and one that probably allows people to sue each other which was what ACC took away.

[Oakie]

OK ACC have increased registration to a super ridiculous amount Expensive for sure (just paid mine a couple of weeks ago) but the total ACC take from bikers is just a portion of what out injuries cost them so is justified ... unfortunately.


If you actually agree with the above scenario I have pointed out? I'd really like to know what portion of bike regos are put on hold and for how long. It would give a bit more meaning to this conversation. Hmmm. I guess you could also say that if a significant number of people are putting their rego on hold over winter would that also lower the accident rate through people not riding in more dangerous conditions so less accidents may eventually lead to lower ACC levies?

I've always ridden through winter but now that I don't need a bike for the daily commute, who knows ... perhaps next winter I may put mine on hold.

[Moi]

I have said it many times before on here and I will say it again in that ACC needs to set fees based on the "at fault" history of the motorist and not their mode of transport...



The whole underlying premise of ACC though is that its a 'no fault' system. If you start looking at 'at fault' you are going to a completely different system and one that probably allows people to sue each other which was what ACC took away.

+1

What this man said ^

[AllanB]

The whole underlying premise of ACC though is that its a 'no fault' system. If you start looking at 'at fault' you are going to a completely different system and one that probably allows people to sue each other which was what ACC took away.


Cassina struggles with basic concepts like this. There is a degree of user pays within ACC regarding their levies - motorcycle rego is a example.

As you say the alternative is a USA type of sue everyone system. The winners then are lawyers. I find the sue sue sue culture in the USA nuts - go to a restaurant for a hot curry, get the shits the next day and miss work, sue the restaurant for your loss, restaurant sues the chef for making the curry too strong, chef sues the supplier of the curry he used .......

[Moi]

There have been many articles written stating what I said is fact if you don't believe me. You sound like a MLC rider yourself to be discrediting my comment and I guess you will end up learning the hard way unless you maybe go to riding school.

Which articles? If you want to sound credible then you need to link to peer-reviewed papers or articles written by people who have insight into road/traffic crashes.


Please explain where I have advocated a right to sue? However safer roads would no doubt result if a fear of losing ones house was the punishment for a serious "at fault" crash.

Perhaps you need to go and live in the USA where that scenario is always a possibility...


Making car registration so high that people can only afford to register them for 3 - 6 months would lower the cost of car accidents for ACC too. But as long as most voters remain car drivers that would be a risky political move.

You "register" a vehicle once when it's first put on the road - ignoring the re-registration of vehicles that have been de-registered. What you do each year is "licence" your vehicle, this allows you to use it on a public road.

Now, how does raising the cost of "licencing" lower the cost of car accidents?

[OddDuck]

OK ACC have increased registration to a super ridiculous amount

Couple of points I recently have had on my mind

We now (me and wifey) pretty much register our bikes for 6 months of the year - Oct to March.

Going back on the bike in October are we Born again Riders because I sure as hell know for a month or so it takes some time to get that "feel" of the road.

So in effect (2 fold) ACC are getting less money from registration and putting people on the road that haven't ridden for some time.

Is this Smart? Of course it isn't

Whats your thoughts?

Is there any way of making them know their stupidy? If you actually agree with the above scenario I have pointed out?

Yep I have the same thing - even taking a break from riding for two weeks is enough to notice a period of awkwardness when starting again. If I've been off the bike for over a month then the first three to four hours of a decent day ride will be settling back into it.

I don't think that ACC are going to listen or backtrack. Bikers have been trying to push for change for a while now. This is probably best treated as a situation where it's up to an individual rider to manage things for themselves.

There are options. Run dark (and take the risks), get into dirt riding maybe, buy a classic rego bike and run that for 6 months of the year, go track only over the winter? As another poster mentioned we are just about to get into the classic rego era when the bikes suddenly got quite useable. Of course there's what you're doing, just take it easy on the first few rides until you're back into it again.

Or even just pony up the readies and accept that rego per ride is getting a bit high over winter and it's shit but just keep going. If it keeps you sharp and you avoid a crash because of that then it might be cheaper... maybe a lot cheaper. Crash repairs that you don't have to pay, insurance premium rises that you also don't have to pay, lost income etc etc... aside from the injury consequences of course.

Just my 2c.

[Berries]

There have been many articles written stating what I said is fact if you dont believe me.
I don't believe you and I don't believe those articles exist.


You sound like a MLC rider yourself to be discrediting my comment and I guess you will end up learning the hard way unless you maybe go to riding school.
Ha ha, riding school. I knew it would be that, group riding or multi-vehicle overtakes, and the obvious "I read somewhere" statement to start it off. Pretty much all of your broken record contributions to KB can be discredited.

[Berries]

Is this Smart? Of course it isn't

Whats your thoughts?
Not only that, but I might consider that my soft old 1000cc costs too much to cover so swap down to a 600 purely for ACC reasons. So I go from a soft and cuddly CBX for example to a GSZXR6-RRRR or something. While the engine size may be smaller the actual risk of me putting it in the bushes is higher. For me the risk is probably greater on a 600cc sports bike than it is on a 1000cc plodder. That was the nutshell of my pointless ACC submission.

The risk between rider A and rider B is different for a multitude of reasons. I understand how ACC works but to me it would be better if rider A (or B) was priced out of it due to actual risk rather than have the other one subsidise them. A bit like increasing cassina's levy due to the all the crashes she has been involved in which paints a picture of her needing ACC sooner rather than later.

As I type I can see that might be exactly what car drivers think of motorcyclists so we are on a hiding to nothing. And whoever mentioned how good things are in the UK has clearly never tried to get bike insurance over there.

[MarkH]

Whats your thoughts?


I pay for 12 months rego every 12 months, I want to be able to ride whenever I decide to ride.

But: over the last years I've bought a car and sold a bike and traded a bike for another bike. I now own 1 car & 1 bike, a year ago I owned 2 bikes. I wouldn't mind owning 2 bikes, but it is just too expensive on the rego. A car costs me around $440 less per year to rego than a bike. I don't want to own no bikes though, I like riding and moto-camping and touring the country on a motorcycle. I go to the Cold Kiwi each year and to the Burt Munro as well. Next year I want to take 5 weeks off work so I can do a longer South Island trip - planning on doing bike week, Vincent rally & Burt Munro.

I also think that it is unfair that motorcyclists pay more because of the costs to ACC of motorcycling. Other groups that also have a higher risks are not similarly charged. Cyclists don't pay any more ACC levy because they cycle. There is no huge ACC levy on ladders, but cunts fall off them and cost ACC heaps. I can go and buy all the power tools I want from a hardware store, no ACC levies on them regardless of ACC claims from muppets that don't know how to keep their fingers out the way. If you play club-level rugby there is no ACC levy, unless you play a sport at a professional level it is all free of ACC charges. In fact, for a recreational activity, what else other than motorcycling is charged by ACC? Yeah, it feels kinda like we (and we alone) are being picked on!

[Moi]

It was another poster that said the fact that many riders can not afford to register for a whole year would lower the number of motorcycle ACC claims due to only riding for part of the year. Now applying the same high cost e.g. $550 to car registration would mean many cars would only be registered for part of the year would it not resulting in fewer car crashes too.

Wrong...

just more unlicenced SUVs on the road...

[Moi]

It was another poster that said the fact that many riders can not afford to register for a whole year would lower the number of motorcycle ACC claims due to only riding for part of the year. Now applying the same high cost e.g. $550 to car registration would mean many cars would only be registered for part of the year would it not resulting in fewer car crashes too.


So the other poster was wrong in their thinking according to you but we will never know unless high rego is charged across the board and not just to motorcyclists.

Tell you what... do a search and find that post...

meanwhile, I'll stand be what I've said... raising the licence fee* will only increase the number of unlicenced vehicles on the road...

* BTW, which part of the licence fee are you going to increase? The actual licence fee or the ACC levy?

[Moi]

Have a read of post #8 by Oakie who said with fewer riders on the road for a full year would mean less motorcycle accidents or as you think everyone would ride unlicensed and take a punt at not being caught anyway.

Yes, I did read Oakie's post. He did not say "with fewer riders on the road for a full year would mean less motorcycle accidents", he posed a question, see below, which is quite different.


...I guess you could also say that if a significant number of people are putting their rego on hold over winter would that also lower the accident rate through people not riding in more dangerous conditions so less accidents may eventually lead to lower ACC levies?

[Paul in NZ]

I dont give a fat rats fck

While I can afford it I'll ride when I want... Some shits bigger than $$

[AllanB]

Please explain where I have advocated a right to sue? .


Fucks sake read it - I was replying to a quote from Oakie.

[FJRider]

Whats your thoughts?

Is there any way of making them know their stupidy? If you actually agree with the above scenario I have pointed out?

There are two main groups of riders ... those that ride ALL year round anyway ... and those that don't.

Those that ride for the full year pay the full amount. Those that don't pay for the months they find convenient and comfortable for them.

An increasing number doing the latter ... thus reducing the total $$$ to their respective recipients. (Maybe risking legislation changes to increase "On Hold" minimum periods to 12 months)

But ... if with a lesser ACC portion ... it might mean more riders will elect the full year licensing fees.

[FJRider]

Please explain where I have advocated a right to sue? However safer roads would no doubt result if a fear of losing ones house was the punishment for a serious "at fault" crash.

Avocation for a fault based system is the automatic avocation for the right to sue. The two go hand in hand ...

And ... ALL your posts thus far have strongly indicated a huge fear of actually being at fault.

[MarkW]

My two wheeled “fleet” comprises four motorcycles currently. In the good old days one of the LAMS approved 650’s would be registered for the full year as would my street legal 250 trail bike so I always had two bikes that I could ride at any time. Which one I rode depended on the season and the roads that were to be travelled. A trip to Auckland [350km each way] would be the 650 and into the local supermarket [42km each way including 14km of nice muddy/dusty gravel] would be the trail bike. Nice and simple.

Then ACC upped the ACC levy part of the annual registration costs by a huge margin. So the 650 is now registered for the 6 or so months of summer and the 250 does the rest of the year. I’m not going to be riding a motorcycle in NZ over the next 6 weeks so the big bike’s rego expires this Thursday and will go on hold. The currently on hold 250 will be registered in 6 or 7 weeks time – probably for three months. So while I’m unable to ride in NZ, with preplanning, I won’t be paying any motorcycle based ACC levies. It isn’t a huge saving but it is still a saving.

The other two motorcycles are on hold full time – only coming off if I desperately need a big bike to do a decent trip – and then the big bike will only be registered for as short a time as possible. This only happens in the winter when the 250 is my weapon of choice. I’ve posted posts in other sections on how I do this legally.

So my ACC levies have increased but not by very much.

There’s an increased risk of accident when I use one of the bikes that is not super suited to the trip I’m doing – but ACC covers me even if I’m riding a knobbie tyred 250 in the pissing rain on the tar bled slick roads of Northland in the dark. You’ll have to take my word for it that this is a truly awesome experience. ACC also covers me on the road tyred fully faired 650 when I’m slightly sideways [sometimes a little more than slightly] in the gravel.

One of the joys of user pays is that the reciprocal also applies – if I’m having to pay then I’m entitled to use. Best simple example of this is Auckland’s wheelie bins. As an ex Auckland ratepayer I was levied a flat compulsory fee in my rates for 52 bin empties. So my bin went out to the gate every week to be emptied by the big truck – even if there was only 1kg of rubbish in it. I’d paid for 52 empties so I was going to use all of them.

So my use of an unsuitable vehicle for the journey increases the risk of ACC having to pay for a crash – as it increases the risk of me having one. But there’s no extra charge placed on my unsuitable use just as there’s no discount for not making a motorcycle based ACC claim in the last 43 years of active riding. I’m not planning to crash but if I do ACC picks up the tab no matter how stupid the reason[s] for the crash.

And Cassina – this does NOT mean that I agree at all with your ongoing [exceedingly boring] suggestions that at fault people should pay more. That is NOT how ACC works.

[skippa1]

Speaking as the recipient of some mighty fine ACC help, I am now glad I paid my bit. Getting it back in spades now. When self employed and when registering my bikes for over 30 years I always felt a bit of a grudge parting with that coin......now, fucken beaudy.........

[george formby]

There’s an increased risk of accident when I use one of the bikes that is not super suited to the trip I’m doing – but ACC covers me even if I’m riding a knobbie tyred 250 in the pissing rain on the tar bled slick roads of Northland in the dark. You’ll have to take my word for it that this is a truly awesome [/B[B]]experience. ACC also covers me on the road tyred fully faired 650 when I’m slightly sideways [sometimes a little more than slightly] in the gravel.


Yup, exceedingly focusing. But fun in a strange kinda way.

Good point on cover regardless of how appropriate (or otherwise) the bike is for purpose.

Oh, we've just had 4 inches of rain in an hour.. That's why we didn't get up this weekend, might have got stuck at your place.

[Woodman]

But I have said numerous times my crashes were not my fault. Its those at fault who should be paying the higher ACC not those without an "at fault" history. By experiencing a "not at fault" crash yourself I am sure you will change your way of thinking and that goes for others on here who think the same way too.

You are a fuckwit.

[Woodman]

No the only fuckwits are people like you that think no one should pay a penalty for doing anything wrong. I bet if you were in power you would close down the jails and justice system then irrespective of what people do right or wrong they can never be found at fault for anything. I read a media story last year that stated "Life is Cheap on Kiwi Roads". The way you think it always should be eh sport??

If someone breaks the law whilst driving and causes an accident and/or injury/death then they should indeed pay a penalty but that is not ACCs job to dish the penalty out rather it is the justice systems job.

You are seriously confused*


*And a fuckwit.

[skippa1]

But I have said numerous times my crashes were not my fault. Its those at fault who should be paying the higher ACC not those without an "at fault" history. By experiencing a "not at fault" crash yourself I am sure you will change your way of thinking and that goes for others on here who think the same way too.
Really..........?

[rastuscat]

But I have said numerous times my crashes were not my fault.

The cry of those who can't accept personal responsibility.

Whose fault it is means little. Look for solutions, regardless of fault.

[Hoonicorn]

Insurance is already based on 'at fault' accidents, people still have accidents and not having an accident could be just dumb luck for some people.

A discount from doing Gold ACC courses or a similar training courses might encourage people to improve their riding, which could reduce the number of road accidents and then lower the levy.

$520 for 12 months :crybaby:

[caspernz]

The cry of those who can't accept personal responsibility.

Whose fault it is means little. Look for solutions, regardless of fault.


The "solutions" as you put it are very limited when its someone elses fault though other than staying off the road completely or buying a bigger vehicle e.g. a 4WD which I have actually done as a result of one of my crashes or staying off the road completely out of fear. Another "solution" would be having those at fault paying higher ACC but no one on here except for me wants that as they either have a history of being at fault or a fear of it.

Denial is a river in Egypt ain't it? :wacko:

[rastuscat]

Denial is a river in Egypt ain't it? :wacko:

Chortle. Nice one, Centurion.