Your ACC Levy

[The Stranger]

The ACC is currently in the process of setting the levies for the next year.

Apparently they value our input.

KB constitutes a large chunk of people and who knows perhaps we can make a difference if we do give them our valued input.

So those of you whom are so inclined may wish to comment on the proposal. If so follow the following Link (http://www.acc.co.nz/wcm001/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&ssDocName=WCM2_021226&ssSourceNodeId=1494)

Some points to note.

The overall levy is reducing.

Bikers are still singled out for more than motorists. For some reason this only seems to apply to bikers. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that no other recreational activity gets singled out for such special treatment. For example do non professional Rugby players pay any more ACC?

Should Bikers bear the brunt of the cost for an accident not of their making?
Ok most bike accidents are single vehicle, right hand bend.
But there ones are generally not the expensive ones. The expensive ones are the multi vehicle ones.

[vifferman]

Bikers are still singled out for more than motorists. Should Bikers bear the brunt of the cost for an accident not of their making?
Ok most bike accidents are single vehicle, right hand bend.
But there ones are generally not the expensive ones. The expensive ones are the multi vehicle ones.
Probably why ACC says that m/bike accidents are subsidised by other vehicles, and that the true cost would result in a levy of over $1500.
One thing I think is really unfair about levies on registration rather than on petrol or per person is that if you have more than one vehicle, the risk remains the same, but the cost is multiplied - this is NOT "user pays" at all.
F'rinstance, I have four vehicles registered in my name, but can use only one at any time.

I browsed the submissions site, but didn't actually find out where I can make a submission - probably caffeine-induced extremely short attention span (and now caffeine induced keyboard dyslexia).

[Ixion]

..
I browsed the submissions site, but didn't actually find out where I can make a submission - probably caffeine-induced extremely short attention span (and now caffeine induced keyboard dyslexia).


The consultation document is Here (http://www.acc.co.nz/wcm001/groups/external_levies/documents/internet/200510060945517.pdf) but when i try to downlaod it it Firefox says it is damaged. that may just be me.

[Postie]

but I believe that no other recreational activity gets singled out for such special treatment. For example do non professional Rugby players pay any more ACC?

Should Bikers bear the brunt of the cost for an accident not of their making?
Ok most bike accidents are single vehicle, right hand bend.
But there ones are generally not the expensive ones. The expensive ones are the multi vehicle ones.

'tis true to some extent, but professional rugby players pay a larger ACC levy from their salary, well either they do or their club does. i have been looking at an ACC levy rates book for the last few days and they have different rates for different jobs, the average you would pay to ACC from your wages/salary is around 0.24 - 0.28 for a run of the mill office job or motor trade where as pro sports people pay about 0.49.

I used to get pretty pissed about paying such high levys for the bike rego, but since my accident, i have got it back 20 fold :doctor:

[The Stranger]

I suspect the problem that you are seeing is compatibility.
If I right click the link and select Save Target As..., as I would usually be able to do I get an error. If I click the link the file opens in Adobe Acrobat Reader.

[WRT]

Here's the above PDF, in case you are still having probs.

[The Stranger]

Ok, but I am not a professional rider.
Riding for me is a recreational activity.

A business can factor the levy into their cost structure and recover it.
Businesses have, for as long as I can recall had this differential, and they have the ability to change this too.
Can a good rider reduce their ACC levy?

[The Stranger]

Umm you need the part about a third of the way down which is headed "Submissions"

[The Stranger]

Incidentally, I am not getting all riled up here or trying to organise a revolt.
Just trying to bring things that affect bikers to their attention in a timely fashion.

[NodMan]

Incidentally, I am not getting all riled up here or trying to organise a revolt.
Just trying to bring things that affect bikers to their attention in a timely fashion.


Thanks CaN....we all need to be aware how vulnerable we are to ACCs agenda...(we have never had a strong lobby group like cage drivers with AA and various car clubs...and truckies with the road transport forum which just happens to have an ex politican at its head)

if you go thru that document to pages 32,33, see their note...basically that the $166 motorcycle levy is subsidised by other vehicles and the TRUE rate for motorcycle levy would be approximately $1500 (9 times as much)
See how much they want us on the roads!!!!

[bugjuice]

I used to get pretty pissed about paying such high levys for the bike rego, but since my accident, i have got it back 20 fold :doctor:
thing is, while you got your bucks-worth, I'm not willing to go to the same extremes as you to retain my ACC value..

However, I do see the reason why we pay a little more, and after seeing first hand what Postie went thru (a post - hahaha!! ACC didn't cover the post btw), and seeing what others have been unfortunate in experiancing (like StoneChucker for example), I know that we can get beat up a bit sometimes. And, even if I never have to use ACC for whatever (excluding karting accidents), I'm happy to know my few bucks could be helping out them, in the hope that should I need it, it'd work for me too.

Somehow, I'm at peace with the idea, tis only once a year for me (saves a wee bit), and yes, anything would be nice to reduce costs, but cutting health and recovery processes is not something I'd like to hear about..

Just my .3985¢ worth (inflation and ACC coverage)

[The Stranger]

The issue here though as I see it is if you accept the principal of a differential in pricing now what if next time they decide to put the whole lot on us, ie the $1,500.00, will you still be happy with it then?

[heavenly.talker]

The issue here though as I see it is if you accept the principal of a differential in pricing now what if next time they decide to put the whole lot on us, ie the $1,500.00, will you still be happy with it then?

I so would not be happy playing $1500...it's bad enough as it is. Statisticly speaking how many bikes have accidents per bike population in comparison to cars per car population?

Is the higher price a reflection that the bikers have more accidents or the fact that when we do we sustain greater damage?

Cheers

[bugjuice]

well, yeah.. see, I completely missed the point of the difference of cost. I'd say raise cars, lower bikes. There's more cars on the road, so even something like $5 increase for cars is nothing, yet it'd probably generate more ACC than raising bikes by $100.

Personally, I think cars are worse off than bikes. We get thrown clear of most wreckages. Cars get all caught up, then the fire crew have to cut them out, and the dsh board has squashed legs etc.. more to do, more personel etc.. More cars than bikes full stop. We're the more careful ones on the road (usually), cos we have more to loose when it goes bad. When it gets bad, we're no better or worse off than our caged counterparts at the end of the day. Can still break legs and arms from a bike or car/truck crash. Still requires the same treatment etc

[The Stranger]

In general I think bikers would sustain greater injury. We obviously are more vulnerable.
I am not sure of the statistics and even if they would be accurately maintained and by whom. For example a woman pulled out on my son in his car at an intersection a short while ago and hit him on his rear right. He reported it, but the Police did not even note it. There was no insurance claim (she paid) so I have no idea how that one for example would have found it's way to the statistics. Had it been a bike, I dare say there would have been a hospital visit and a statistic.
This morning on my way to work I had 2 cages pull out on me in separate incidents. One in particular, the closest one did so whilst staring me in the eye, I know I saw her eyeballs before she started moving. The other one was looking in my direction too. That is my point though. Had I been collected, which I very nearly was, I would show up as the consumer of the ACC services not the cage driver.

[bugjuice]

yeah, fair call.. really not switched on today.
I'd still say statistically, there could be more car accidents vs bike accidents. But I wasn't thinking of the 'minor knocks' of car vs bike etc..

[Beemer]

One thing I think is really unfair about levies on registration rather than on petrol or per person is that if you have more than one vehicle, the risk remains the same, but the cost is multiplied - this is NOT "user pays" at all.
F'rinstance, I have four vehicles registered in my name, but can use only one at any time.

Yes, it sucks! We have six bikes (only one is a dirt bike so not licensed) and three cars yet can only drive or ride one each at a time! I would rather pay it through the petrol, then everyone pays the same amount no matter how many vehicles they own.

[heavenly.talker]

So true CaN!

Really like the idea of raising the acc levy of cars by $5 bugjuice. Although I would get stung by that too...but considering that most cars are the perpetrators of bike accidents it seems fair to me.

I like the way you's think

[madboy]

It's a shame the proverbial "they" aren't able to come up with a fairer way of funding ACC. Look at skiing, mountain biking and off-road bikes. None pay anything in ACC levies, but plenty of ACC funds are directed that way. And as the learned few point out here - it's often not the motorcyclists fault, yet they still get shot by the stats. It's easier to just whack a tax onto the nice lawful road riding community who are willing to pay it.

I guess that's the system, and short of not maintaing current registration on a bike (I'm not admitting nothin here), there's not a lot we can do about it.

[What?]

That's the grandest thing about ACC, madboy - if you hurt yourself in the act of operating an unlicensed motor vehicle, you are still covered. See, ACC is NOT user pays, which is how they manage to calculate different levies for different groups of people... :bash:

[madboy]

No one ever accused life of being fair. I pay more income tax than most in society, I pay a fair whack of GST, a fair whack of petrol tax that I don't see the benefits of, because I'm white and "rich" and choose to go to the GP in the "rich white" area that I was brought up in I pay shedloads... so I've got no moral problem with operating an unlicensed motor vehicle. Would do it on the cars too if they were capable of avoiding the taxman like the bike can.

[Rhino]

It's a shame the proverbial "they" aren't able to come up with a fairer way of funding ACC. Look at skiing, mountain biking and off-road bikes. None pay anything in ACC levies, but plenty of ACC funds are directed that way. And as the learned few point out here - it's often not the motorcyclists fault, yet they still get shot by the stats. It's easier to just whack a tax onto the nice lawful road riding community who are willing to pay it.

BRONZ and Ulysses NZ both have good dialogue going on with ACC regarding levies. Maybe we should try and get submissions from KB put through one of these groups.

This would mean someone here organising and correlating comments from KBers, that could then be passed on to either club.

[The Stranger]

Don't worry you comments will get back to BRONZ and yes submissions will be made by BRONZ.

Hopefully though, the more submissions they get the more they listen.
The squeeky wheel gets the oil etc.