Rego rebates for completing RideForever courses

[SaferRides]

https://www.shapeyouracc.co.nz/have-your-say-on-your-acc-levies/should-safe-motorcyclists-get-a-rebate/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=weblink_vehicles_bike&utm_campaign=acc_levy&tab=overview

[AllanB]

I see they are proposing to increase ACC as it's running out of coin. Higher on vehicles - I think $35 or so per car, extra 3.5c on the current XX ACC fuel tax and some others. No doubt they will sting motorcycle riders.


In response to your post. Good idea.

However, currently I am not going to find the time to spend doing the courses - yet I have not made a vehicle related ACC claim since...... hmmm ever. And that's holding a motorcycle licence for 37 years.

So why not drop mine $100 as a 'good road user' - OK one who has not crashed and claimed anyway. Good may be pushing it. Lucky?

[SaferRides]

You could suggest that. At the end of the day, that is the outcome ACC want.

[Murray]

I see they are proposing to increase ACC as it's running out of coin.

Is it really I thought they had more money than our National debt? Or is Labour shifting funds?

[AllanB]

Appears to be mixed reporting as to why or value of increases but all agree they want you to pay more.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/09/acc-proposes-higher-levies-for-motorists-in-new-zealand.html

[Paul in NZ]

You need to spend $100 on courses to get a $100 rebate... Erm OK the courses are very good value but...

I dunno

[SaferRides]

You need to spend $100 on courses to get a $100 rebate... Erm OK the courses are very good value but...

I dunnoYou get the rebate for 2 years, which is $200. And if you do a course at the right time of year, it's free. Some insurance companies will refund part or all of the course fee also.

[rambaldi]

You need to spend $100 on courses to get a $100 rebate... Erm OK the courses are very good value but...

I dunno

Only the first time you go through. After your first Silver + Gold then it is only a $50 Gold every two years.

[russd7]

Only the first time you go through. After your first Silver + Gold then it is only a $50 Gold every two years.
its interesting that they are only touting this to those who have held a license for ten years or more and they want people t do a silver and gold, i have so far done two gold courses and i know of a few others who have also done them but there is no mention of that being taken in to account so that we only need to do the one course to qualify.

[nerrrd]

There's an 'article' about this today among the promoted stuff on the Herald website front page, ACC must be serious about it.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/acc/news/article.cfm?c_id=1504582&objectid=12138914

[Katman]

I'll just wait another 3 or 4 years till all my bikes qualify for vintage rego.

[Berries]

- yet I have not made a vehicle related ACC claim since...... hmmm ever. And that's holding a motorcycle licence for 37 years.

So why not drop mine $100 as a 'good road user' - OK one who has not crashed and claimed anyway.

You could suggest that. At the end of the day, that is the outcome ACC want.
It may be the outcome they want but you would be wasting your time suggesting it. Clearly instead of just using the magic pill of training they could perhaps consider past claims history and reward those who have paid thousands in levies and never made a claim and/or penalise those who through their claims show quite clearly they are at a higher risk, whether they have done additional training or not, whether they have 20 years experience or not or whether their bike is over 600cc or not.

Consultation my arse.

[rastuscat]

Talked to a local dealer yesterday.

Bloke came in last week and bought a new Gixxer thou. He wrote it off 5 days later doing wheelies.

As long as there are dickheads like that riding bikes, we will continue to be targeted like we are.

[Scubbo]

lol crackup

[Katman]

Talked to a local dealer yesterday.

Bloke came in last week and bought a new Gixxer thou. He wrote it off 5 days later doing wheelies.

As long as there are dickheads like that riding bikes, we will continue to be targeted like we are.

Perhaps if they concentrated on targeting the likes of those who write off 5 day old GSXR1000s, the rest off us might not be so fucked off.

[FJRider]

There's an 'article' about this today among the promoted stuff on the Herald website front page, ACC must be serious about it.



This bit I find interesting ...


ACC's chief customer officer Emma Powell says riders who have been through the programme - Ride Forever - are 23 per cent less likely to have an ACC claim (to June 2018).

Those riders that have been riding for ten years or more should be less likely to make an ACC claim than a rider with limited experience.

If they ARE serious ... the courses should be completed (free [or subsidized] .. ??) as part of the license process. With subsidized (at least) refresher courses every two years.

[FJRider]

Appears to be mixed reporting as to why or value of increases but all agree they want you to pay more.



This bit made me laugh ... buying petrol wont make you broke. The issues behind being broke are more involved than not being able to afford the (current) price petrol.

Owning and (legally) running a motor vehicle is a luxury many cannot afford. Yet many of them claim it should be "As of right" to do so ... as owning your own home should be (Often those making this claim are [and always will be] on a benefit).


"Have you seen the price of petrol in New Zealand?" one person commented on Twitter, followed by the hashtag #AndThatsWhyImBroke.

If the annual Government income from fines that are no WOF or no Licensing related ... ACC wouldn't be the only Government department "short" on funding.

[FJRider]

I'll just wait another 3 or 4 years till all my bikes qualify for vintage rego.

And ... your Gold card ... :nya:

[Hoonicorn]

It appears ACC really really want riders to do Ride Forever training.
The "23% less likely to have an accident" statistic could be due to safer riders doing the training courses and unsafe riders not doing training because they over-rate themselves. The difficult part is convincing the bad riders they could benefit from training... a rebate might help persuade them... a little bit.

As for ACC running out of coin - doesn't that contradict the report that ACC have reserves of $15bn-30bn?

[caspernz]

Those riders that have been riding for ten years or more should be less likely to make an ACC claim than a rider with limited experience.

If they ARE serious ... the courses should be completed (free [or subsidized] .. ??) as part of the license process. With subsidized (at least) refresher courses every two years.

The simple version is the target group is BABs. They cost ACC more when they crash, the income replacement component being significant. Newer riders have to go thru the stricter licensing regime, so if they've done BHS & CBTA, they'll start off with better skills/knowledge than a 10 year plus rider who hasn't had training.



It appears ACC really really want riders to do Ride Forever training.
The "23% less likely to have an accident" statistic could be due to safer riders doing the training courses and unsafe riders not doing training because they over-rate themselves. The difficult part is convincing the bad riders they could benefit from training... a rebate might help persuade them... a little bit.

Always the way, the other aspect being the stats can be argued to be off, for the same reason. The safer group who now crashes less, was more safety minded from the outset. Baby steps I suppose...:rolleyes:

[FJRider]

It may be the outcome they want but you would be wasting your time suggesting it. Clearly instead of just using the magic pill of training they could perhaps consider past claims history and reward those who have paid thousands in levies and never made a claim and/or penalise those who through their claims show quite clearly they are at a higher risk, whether they have done additional training or not, whether they have 20 years experience or not or whether their bike is over 600cc or not.

Consultation my arse.

It is irrelevant how many motorcyclists actually have accidents ... and/or ... make a claim (OR NOT). ACC base their policy around motorcyclists being "MORE AT RISK" of having a motorcycle related injury. This means that regardless of fault (with ACC's NO fault policy) a clean accident record means little. We can be involved in an accident that could not be predicted nor avoided. But ... we are more at risk of injury if we are involved in an accident. Which is basically true.


Personally ... I would be more supportive of removal of GST or import taxes/duties of ALL motorcycle related safety clothing and equipment. That would do more to reduce injuries than many might think.

[FJRider]

The simple version is the target group is BABs. They cost ACC more when they crash, the income replacement component being significant. Newer riders have to go thru the stricter licensing regime, so if they've done BHS & CBTA, they'll start off with better skills/knowledge than a 10 year plus rider who hasn't had training.

Some of the BAB's know their skill levels are down but figure (hope) they'll come back to them in time. Some (most ???) do not believe ANY deterioration in THEIR abilities has occurred. Both groups do generally know the value and importance of insurance though ... :shifty:

Learner riders generally think their ability is greater than it is. Especially after they pass their full ... but seldom know the value (and importance) of insurance ... <_<


Always the way, the other aspect being the stats can be argued to be off, for the same reason. The safer group who now crashes less, was more safety minded from the outset. Baby steps I suppose...:rolleyes:

Statistic's are only of value to those that compile them. If you ask the right questions ... you'll always get the answers you want.

The safer group is irrelevant ... the "More at risk of injury" is the motorcyclists "monkey" on our backs ... <_<

[FJRider]

Talked to a local dealer yesterday.

Bloke came in last week and bought a new Gixxer thou. He wrote it off 5 days later doing wheelies.

As long as there are dickheads like that riding bikes, we will continue to be targeted like we are.

There are more dickheads driving cars like that that than dickhead motorcyclists ... I'd prefer to see the courts deal with them more seriously than they do (wet bus tickets all round). An out of control car has more potential to do more injury/harm than an out of control motorcycle ...

Maybe it's just lack of (interest/ability) in the enforcement ... :shutup:

[ripping]

I realize I'm preaching to the converted here, but this the diatribe I posted as feedback on the ACC site :

Let me start by saying I am in favour of safety training for motorcycles, subsidised or not. I would of benefited I'm sure, when I started riding 38 years ago. Since I got my licence I have never been more than a month without a motorcycle - I currently have 8.

The incentive you offer is to complete a course and receive a subsidy is laughable. Spend $100 on courses get $100 off for two years on ONE motorcycle? The course you propose I do should help me be safe on ANY bike I ride, not just one on which I choose to claim the rebate. Which brings up the point, why if I own multiple bikes do I have to pay multiple ACC levies? I can only ride one at a time. I have at least 2 bikes registered at any one time, all attract maximum levies. I'm paying a minimum $1100+ a year, over $2200 if I choose to have only half my bikes registered. Motorcycle riders should attract the ACC fees, not their motorcycles.

Your statistics with regard to the courses and subsequent risk are ambiguous and disingenious. A rider who volunteers to do a safety course is by definition a safer rider - (s)he is actively seeking additional tools to remain safe. The ones that do attend a course are likely to be close to the 23% less likely to have an accident, course attendance or not.

Your target demographic is wrong, so very wrong. NEW, INEXPERIENCED riders should be attending the courses ahead of 10 year veterans. That's not to say more experienced riders would not benefit from training, but how many young riders will be seriously injured or die because you choose not to include them in your safety incentive. Young riders would also be more appreciative of a break on their ACC levies as it would be more likely they have less disposable income than an older rider.

The ACC operates on a no-fault premise, you clearly state this on your own website but your levy on motorcycles clearly flies in the face of that doctrine. You deem motorcyclists to be at fault because they own a motorcycle. Guilty, not until proven innocent, just guilty.

We as motorcycle riders use the roads alongside cars - who incidentally can carry up to 5 or six people - one of whom pays a small (by comparison) ACC levy. Those car passengers, along with other road users such as horse riders, cyclists, pedestrians (there are no footpaths where I live) all pay no ACC levy, yet receive full benefit of the system if involved in an accident.

Finally, the government should be encouraging motorcycling, not creating barriers to prevent young men and women getting on two wheels. Bikes are fun, economical and reduce congestion. They make the riders, as car drivers, more aware and safer when they do drive a car. I don't have any dodgy statistics to back that up, but it sure makes sense.

Stop ripping me off.

[Berries]

ACC base their policy around motorcyclists being "MORE AT RISK" of having a motorcycle related injury.
Pretty hard to argue with that logic. I have heard that netball players are more at risk of having a netball related injury.

[nzspokes]

Your target demographic is wrong, so very wrong. NEW, INEXPERIENCED riders should be attending the courses ahead of 10 year veterans. That's not to say more experienced riders would not benefit from training, but how many young riders will be seriously injured or die because you choose not to include them in your safety incentive. Young riders would also be more appreciative of a break on their ACC levies as it would be more likely they have less disposable income than an older rider.


Stop ripping me off.

Couldnt be more wrong. You old farts never went through CBTA. Most of you think you are riding gods and are perfect.

Its you lot that are ripping me off having stupid and expensive accidents.

[nzspokes]

And ... your Gold card ... :nya:

That vintage rego thing is bullshit. They should be paying the same or more as they dont have ABS etc. And its normally old untrained guys riding them.

[Katman]

That vintage rego thing is bullshit.

It's great.

I think it's something like $54 for a full years rego.

[Voltaire]

That vintage rego thing is bullshit. They should be paying the same or more as they dont have ABS etc. And its normally old untrained guys riding them.

That's funny, never seem to see them come up at crashed auctions..... they are generally the ones with ABS.

Most of my old bikes are pretty hard to go out and replace, have average handling and brakes so I tend to ride accordingly.





It's great.

I think it's something like $54 for a full years rego.

Yes just over a hundy a year to keep my R90s, Thunderbird and Commando on the road. Lemans in 2020 so will give that a spruce up soon.

[FJRider]

That vintage rego thing is bullshit. They should be paying the same or more as they dont have ABS etc. And its normally old untrained guys riding them.

Don't worry about that ... ABS will soon be on some of the bikes with vintage rego. And the old untrained guys will be dead ... some sooner than others ... ;)

[FJRider]

It's great.

I think it's something like $54 for a full years rego.

Do you get a discount if you can produce your gold card ... ??

[FJRider]

It's great.

I think it's something like $54 for a full years rego.

Check it out for yourself ...

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2011/0079/latest/DLM2938471.html

[FJRider]

Pretty hard to argue with that logic. I have heard that netball players are more at risk of having a netball related injury.

I heard that too ... :2thumbsup

[Katman]

Do you get a discount if you can produce your gold card ... ??

Why do you keep going on about gold cards?

I've got more than 10 years before I qualify for one.

[Katman]

That vintage rego thing is bullshit. They should be paying the same or more as they dont have ABS etc. And its normally old untrained guys riding them.

Yeah, none of my bikes have ABS - but then again, none of them have a faulty side stand spring either.

[AllanB]

That vintage rego thing is bullshit. They should be paying the same or more as they dont have ABS etc. And its normally old untrained guys riding them.

Not sure of factual info re old untrained riders but you raise a reasonable point regarding safety electronics etc on new bikes. Car rego costs differ specifically based on similar safety features - ABS, traction control, air bags etc. However motorcycles are based on what? Age and cc rating :blink:


I say again - a history of zero or low ACC claims (relative to motorcycle) should indeed entitle one to a decent discount off the ACC portion of their annual rego. Fuckers who fall off a lot should pay more :motu:

[nzspokes]

Not sure of factual info re old untrained riders but you raise a reasonable point regarding safety electronics etc on new bikes. Car rego costs differ specifically based on similar safety features - ABS, traction control, air bags etc. However motorcycles are based on what? Age and cc rating :blink:


I say again - a history of zero or low ACC claims (relative to motorcycle) should indeed entitle one to a decent discount off the ACC portion of their annual rego. Fuckers who fall off a lot should pay more :motu:

Exactly. Modern cars are much cheaper.

[Swoop]

So, under this scheme a person would do a bit of training but only be entitled to 2yrs of "discount" from the knowledge acquired? That tends to indicate some poor quality training being provided - "short term" gains, at best.

Perhaps ACC would like to contact the insurance company of a biker, and ask them how many claims had been made by the rider? There's an easy solution.

[rastuscat]

So, under this scheme a person would do a bit of training but only be entitled to 2yrs of "discount" from the knowledge acquired? That tends to indicate some poor quality training being provided - "short term" gains, at best.

Perhaps ACC would like to contact the insurance company of a biker, and ask them how many claims had been made by the rider? There's an easy solution.

Motorcycling is a decaying skill. Police riders who transfer to a different job but then come back know full well that it takes them time to get back into the swing of things.

I don't disagree with a lot of the points and views on here, but it's fair to say that a lot of people who have been riding for years would not pass todays CBTA riding tests. They generally have habits that are likely to lead them to grief, sooner or later.

[GazzaH]

So passing the CBTA protects them from grief?

I'm definitely not a perfect driver/rider today ... but I'm way more competent than back when I passed my tests, with a much better appreciation of how vulnerable I am.

CBTA is just a start, a basic one at that.

[nzspokes]

So passing the CBTA protects them from grief?

I'm definitely not a perfect driver/rider today ... but I'm way more competent than back when I passed my tests, with a much better appreciation of how vulnerable I am.

CBTA is just a start, a basic one at that.

CBTA is a start. Then you move on to RF.

Nothing protects you from grief, just helps you avoid it as much as possible.

[caspernz]

So passing the CBTA protects them from grief?

I'm definitely not a perfect driver/rider today ... but I'm way more competent than back when I passed my tests, with a much better appreciation of how vulnerable I am.

CBTA is just a start, a basic one at that.

Take a CBTA 6R ride with a friendly instructor, it ain't as basic as you might think. Them IFEs, instant fail errors, will render the test over in under 10 mins for a good number of riders. Which is what RC was referring to.

The bad habits we all form, left uncorrected, become our downfall. The Swiss cheese approach applies.

[rambaldi]

CBTA is a start. Then you move on to RF.


The basic RF course (Bronze) is targetted to people thinking of taking either of the CBTA tests. At least when I did it, they went into things like what you should be looking at, and where you position your bike to maximise that (and then the assessors would be looking for you riding in a similar

[quickbuck]

The basic RF course (Bronze) is targetted to people thinking of taking either of the CBTA tests.
Yup.
Bronze for those going from L to R (CBTA-R)
Silver for those going from R to F (CBTA-F)

Gold for those on F.

Official line is if you are a returning rider, do the Silver course.

My advice is do the Bronze. There are things taught on that, but not repeated on the silver, that many have either forgotten, or did not know ever!
These are riders who have been riding for over 30 years too!

[quickbuck]

So passing the CBTA protects them from grief?

.

Well, yeah.....
CBTA is Competency Based Training ASSESSMENT!

We assess the application of the Competency Based Training they have received.
These are Habits that are displayed. Good Habits. (Obviously the bad ones add up to Fault patterns).
Too many faults, or a fault pattern or and Immediate failure Error results in a Non-Pass and a resit... after a recommendation to go back and listen and apply yourself on a R4E course.

There are people who argue that they can behave themselves for an hour in front of an assessor and then do whatever they want...
That may be so for some, but it is pretty clear that the ones I have assessed and passed, that they ride like that all the time.
I can see quite quickly someone who is covering habits, or forcing themselves to be a good rider for assessment.

Over all, the current crop who are coming through the new system appear to be a lot better than the riders of the past.

I agree, that many of those who got their license back in the day (when I did) would really struggle to pass a CBTA now.....

If you are interested, when new CBTA Assessors are under training, they call out for people to assess.
It could be a good exercise for those who have had their licence a while to po along to a mock assessment and see how you do.
It is free, feedback is given and you won't loose your licence... You might even learn something.

[nzspokes]

Ive not done the RF yet. Think I need to get that done.

[quickbuck]

Ive not done the RF yet. Think I need to get that done.

Do it :)
8 Hours, you WILL learn something and it is all about bikes for the whole day :)

https://www.prorider.co.nz/ride-forever-2/

[SaferRides]

Ive not done the RF yet. Think I need to get that done.
I'd agree with the suggestion to do the bronze first. Having done a silver course as my first training since 1974 at Western Springs (I still have the certificate!), there was clearly some assumed knowledge from the bronze that I'd missed.

Sent from my HUAWEI SCL-L02 using Tapatalk

[nzspokes]

Do it :)
8 Hours, you WILL learn something and it is all about bikes for the whole day :)

https://www.prorider.co.nz/ride-forever-2/

I will just jump to the Platinum course. :yes:

[caspernz]

I will just jump to the Platinum course. :yes:

You will learn something on Gold R4E, mainly that your perception of an "average rider" was altered when you got your pet food certificate. Never any harm in going along though, always pick up or refresh something.
Or just go for a ride with Mr Platinum himself, he lives out your way anyway :wings:

[rastuscat]

Well, yeah.....
CBTA is Competency Based Training ASSESSMENT!

We assess the application of the Competency Based Training they have received.
These are Habits that are displayed. Good Habits. (Obviously the bad ones add up to Fault patterns).
Too many faults, or a fault pattern or and Immediate failure Error results in a Non-Pass and a resit... after a recommendation to go back and listen and apply yourself on a R4E course.

There are people who argue that they can behave themselves for an hour in front of an assessor and then do whatever they want...
That may be so for some, but it is pretty clear that the ones I have assessed and passed, that they ride like that all the time.
I can see quite quickly someone who is covering habits, or forcing themselves to be a good rider for assessment.

Over all, the current crop who are coming through the new system appear to be a lot better than the riders of the past.

I agree, that many of those who got their license back in the day (when I did) would really struggle to pass a CBTA now.....

If you are interested, when new CBTA Assessors are under training, they call out for people to assess.
It could be a good exercise for those who have had their licence a while to po along to a mock assessment and see how you do.
It is free, feedback is given and you won't loose your licence... You might even learn something.

Pretty much my experience too. You can spot someone playing the game.

R4E isn't compulsory before doing CBTA, but if you do CBTA without doing R4E, it's unlikely you'll know the standard for mirrors, scanning, positioning etc. All this is available online on pages 8 and 9 of this

https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/Driver-Licences/docs/cbta-course-guide.pdf

But an R4E course gives you a better chance of passing CBTA, as you'll get some feedback on things you might want to improve, and things you likely never even thought of.

Of course, you might be just so shit hot you'd prefer to waste money failing the first time. Your call.