PDA

View Full Version : ACC levies...to increase again



Deano
26th October 2004, 17:36
From the Dom Post this morning.

Basically, it is proposed that bikers will face a 5% increase in ACC component of registration, and petrol levy will increase from 5.04 to 5.77 cents a litre.

Bikers are being singled out (again) "because they use less fuel than cars and had a high rate of accidents".

We all know that most bike accidents are the fault of another driver so how the hell can they keep raising that as an argument ?

And, isn't less fuel consumption = less pollution a good thing ?

I doubt the Minister for the Environment would be too impressed by that statement.

The final comment is that charging motorists at the pump is fairer "because it targets those who travel longer distances". Well, people travelling longer kms use more fuel, so how does that balance with the comment about bikers using LESS fuel, paying a higher levy ?

All this despite ACC posting a $696 million surplus over budget.

Farking twats, the lot of them.

Im off to write a letter to Ruth Dyson - probably not much use, (perhaps we all should) then again, it is generating work and probably keeps some other twat in a job.

I feel a protest ride coming on - lets block the motorway into Wellington for a couple of hours. If its good for the goose......

Ms Piggy
26th October 2004, 17:40
I feel a protest ride coming on - lets block the motorway into Wellington for a couple of hours. If its good for the goose......
I'm in! Haven't been to a good protest in...days! :Punk:

sAsLEX
26th October 2004, 17:42
Bikers are being singled out (again) because they use less fuel than cars and had a high rate of accidents.

.


$12 bucks of petrol for 90 odd Km on the RG, show me a normal car less economic than that!!!

James Deuce
26th October 2004, 17:43
From the Dom Post this morning.

Basically, it is proposed that bikers will face a 5% increase in ACC component of registration, and petrol levy will increase from 5.04 to 5.77 cents a litre.

Bikers are being singled out (again) because they use less fuel than cars and had a high rate of accidents.

We all know that most bike accidents are the fault of another driver so how the hell can they keep raising that as an argument ?

And, isn't less fuel consumption = less pollution a good thing ?

I doubt the Minister for the Environment would be too impressed by that statement.

The final comment is that charging motorists at the pump is fairer because it targets those who travel longer distances. Well, people travelling longer kms use more fuel, so how does that balance with the comment about bikers using LESS fuel, paying a higher levy ?

All this despite ACC posting a $696 million surplus over budget.

Farking twats, the lot of them.

Im off to write a letter to Ruth Dyson - probably not much use, (perhaps we all should) then again, it is generating work and probably keeps some other twat in a job.

I feel a protest ride coming on - lets block the motorway into Wellington for a couple of hours. If its good for the goose......

Write the letter as a letter we can all download and sign and send in individually. Makes it more likely that more of us will actually send it, and more mail means a broader sampling of public opinion.

We should try not to get righteously indignant, because once the accident is over the ACC is left paying for the motorcyclist's recovery, and the effect of a debilitating accident reverberates throughout our families and community. We should probably concentrate on not falling off or getting ourselves into the position of being involved in injury accidents.

Remember that the concept of motorcyclists not being responsible for the greater proportion of their accidents is not publicly acknowledged in NZ. If you are going to claim that make sure you quote the studies that make those claims, with both a copy of the table in the letter and a link to URL with more detail.

Bear in mind that the greenies don't want anyone to be burning any hydrocarbons full stop. They are helping to define public policy. As far as they are concerned the amount of hydrocarbons consumed versus distance travelled is irrelevant.

DarkNinja
26th October 2004, 17:46
JEEZ!
and with petrol prices just saoring up, i guess ACC wanted some of that dosh
bunch of wankers, perhaps i should start designing the electric mtb with 6 by 9 sound blasters of the best sound in the world (a mtb running petrol, duh):D
I would protest, lets sit across the Aotea quay offramp who else is up for it?

Mongoose
26th October 2004, 17:49
According to the ACC dude in the ODT the other day, if we were to pay the full value of ACC for bikes, we would end up with a bill of $1500 each bike!!
Administration is what stops them charging other high user sports, their words, not mine.

Deano
26th October 2004, 18:04
Write the letter as a letter we can all download and sign and send in individually. Makes it more likely that more of us will actually send it, and more mail means a broader sampling of public opinion.


My engrish wasn't that great at school and Im sometimes not renowned for my tact :innocent: but there is no copyright so feel free to hack and slash.




We should try not to get righteously indignant, because once the accident is over the ACC is left paying for the motorcyclist's recovery, and the effect of a debilitating accident reverberates throughout our families and community. We should probably concentrate on not falling off or getting ourselves into the position of being involved in injury accidents.


True, but accidents are often unavoidable (on the bikers part) and if you aren't at fault then I think a little righteous indignance is justified at being hit harder in the wallet for it.



Remember that the concept of motorcyclists not being responsible for the greater proportion of their accidents is not publicly acknowledged in NZ. If you are going to claim that make sure you quote the studies that make those claims, with both a copy of the table in the letter and a link to URL with more detail.


Anyone want to help with the research here ? Im sure it has been quoted and posted on one of these forums.



Bear in mind that the greenies don't want anyone to be burning any hydrocarbons full stop.

Even Nandor ? He's admitted to burning hydrocarbons gratuitously :doobey:

James Deuce
26th October 2004, 18:53
My engrish wasn't that great at school and Im sometimes not renowned for my tact :innocent: but there is no copyright so feel free to hack and slash.

The English is fine! :)



True, but accidents are often unavoidable (on the bikers part) and if you aren't at fault then I think a little righteous indignance is justified at being hit harder in the wallet for it.

I've said this before and gotten into trouble, but there is no such thing as an accident when you are talking about driving a vehicle on the road. Someone always cocks up to cause a situation that was avaoidable, whether it is a single vehicle accident or a multi vehicle pile up.


Anyone want to help with the research here ? Im sure it has been quoted and posted on one of these forums.

It's not New Zealand research, nor will it be published by Monash university, where all our transport policy seems to be generated.


Even Nandor ? He's admitted to burning hydrocarbons gratuitously :doobey:

If Nandor is true to his party's agenda then, yes, even Nandor.

Good on you for taking a stand and quickly making your feelings known, and for asking some pertinent questions.

New Zealand needs more people to take this kind of stance on issues they care about, because politics is essentially a form of consensus mob rule, and if the mob doesn't like something (i.e. motorcyclists - the dirty heathens!), then it can be a vote winning issue, or justification for legislation that ends up affecting everyone.

Nice one Deano.

Stinger
26th October 2004, 19:08
I feel a protest ride coming on - lets block the motorway into Wellington for a couple of hours. If its good for the goose......

Bastards :angry2:
Yup protesting would be good. Not sure about going down to wellington to do it, but maybe.

pipeman
26th October 2004, 19:39
From the Dom Post this morning.

Basically, it is proposed that bikers will face a 5% increase in ACC component of registration, and petrol levy will increase from 5.04 to 5.77 cents a litre.

Bikers are being singled out (again) "because they use less fuel than cars and had a high rate of accidents".

We all know that most bike accidents are the fault of another driver so how the hell can they keep raising that as an argument ?

And, isn't less fuel consumption = less pollution a good thing ?

I doubt the Minister for the Environment would be too impressed by that statement.

The final comment is that charging motorists at the pump is fairer "because it targets those who travel longer distances". Well, people travelling longer kms use more fuel, so how does that balance with the comment about bikers using LESS fuel, paying a higher levy ?

All this despite ACC posting a $696 million surplus over budget.

Farking twats, the lot of them.

Im off to write a letter to Ruth Dyson - probably not much use, (perhaps we all should) then again, it is generating work and probably keeps some other twat in a job.

I feel a protest ride coming on - lets block the motorway into Wellington for a couple of hours. If its good for the goose......


"PROTEST RIDE" save your petrol it's not going to help.
You see protesting to the politician will not do anything. I no because I went on the last ACC protest ride where about 1000 motorcyclists had the same idea. But too no avail.
You see MPs are just signature writters and don't really have any idea on what to do, so they employ consultants and logistical people too advise them on these matters. Now here's the tricky part the consultants and logistic people have the wrong formula and don't have whole equation hence the $696 million surplus.
But you might say well why don't they see this and rectify this. The anwser is no one wants to look like a dook, do they. Now all this making profit and not waisting consultant fees looks good on the politician portfolio and can earn him or she further points in furthering themselves to being promoted up the ladder in there future. Now you might say this is kind of deep and far out but this what really goes on a sort of organised kayoss. :yeah:
:Punk: :Punk: Are fuck it if you arrange it I'll be there :Punk: :Punk:
:scooter: and lets ride :scooter:

Ms Piggy
26th October 2004, 19:54
My engrish wasn't that great at school and Im sometimes not renowned for my tact :innocent: but there is no copyright so feel free to hack and slash.
Nice one. I'll do a bit of adjusting and sign and send it mate. :2thumbsup

jimbo600
26th October 2004, 20:06
From the Dom Post this morning.

Basically, it is proposed that bikers will face a 5% increase in ACC component of registration, and petrol levy will increase from 5.04 to 5.77 cents a litre.

Bikers are being singled out (again) "because they use less fuel than cars and had a high rate of accidents".

We all know that most bike accidents are the fault of another driver so how the hell can they keep raising that as an argument ?

And, isn't less fuel consumption = less pollution a good thing ?

I doubt the Minister for the Environment would be too impressed by that statement.

The final comment is that charging motorists at the pump is fairer "because it targets those who travel longer distances". Well, people travelling longer kms use more fuel, so how does that balance with the comment about bikers using LESS fuel, paying a higher levy ?

All this despite ACC posting a $696 million surplus over budget.

Farking twats, the lot of them.

Im off to write a letter to Ruth Dyson - probably not much use, (perhaps we all should) then again, it is generating work and probably keeps some other twat in a job.

I feel a protest ride coming on - lets block the motorway into Wellington for a couple of hours. If its good for the goose......

At this stage it's just rhetoric (my england is choice). If it's ratified then protest action is on. Worked for the farmers on the fart tax issue. In the interim letter writing is the go in the form of submissions to the select committee on the matter.

Failing all that then burn them.................burn them all!!!

magnum
26th October 2004, 20:11
fuck em[acc homos]. :mad:

dhunt
26th October 2004, 20:56
How come the motorcyclists ACC goes up when often cages are involved (Cause prangs) ?? Shouldn't their ACC go up to pay for there lack of sight??? when they cause a crash.

sAsLEX
26th October 2004, 21:06
how about ACC on horses?? they tend to hurt themselves just as much as people or Push bikes and everything else that people hurt themselve on these days. A levy on glass tables/ showers and ladders would also be appropriate??

Milky
26th October 2004, 21:10
We should probably concentrate on not falling off or getting ourselves into the position of being involved in injury accidents.
Come on guys... Think about the number of bins reported on this site. By my reckoning, AT LEAST 50% are due to riders not remembering what Jim2 states. Maybe if we all tried our best to ride within our ability on the road, and saved the balls out shit for the track, both insurance and ACC premiums would be a hell of a lot less. I know that this may rankle some here who like to ride fast, but think about the situation YOU are creating for yourself before waxing lyrical about it being the car drivers fault...

Pwalo
27th October 2004, 10:15
Come on guys... Think about the number of bins reported on this site. By my reckoning, AT LEAST 50% are due to riders not remembering what Jim2 states. Maybe if we all tried our best to ride within our ability on the road, and saved the balls out shit for the track, both insurance and ACC premiums would be a hell of a lot less. I know that this may rankle some here who like to ride fast, but think about the situation YOU are creating for yourself before waxing lyrical about it being the car drivers fault...

I think Jim and Milky have a point. We can be our own worst enemies.

The problem that I have with ACC is that ACC operates on a no blame basis, so I can't see how they can differentiate between groups (ie bikers, drivers, rugby players etc).

Why should any one group, in this case us, be singled out for extra payment over any other if ACC is really a no blame system? And if it isn't how come other groups (bicyclists, pedestrians etc) avoid extra payments?

Cheeky of them to admit that m/cyclist use less petrol and therefore need to be targeted differently to other road users.

Be careful out there boys and girls.

Mongoose
27th October 2004, 10:27
how about ACC on horses?? they tend to hurt themselves just as much as people or Push bikes and everything else that people hurt themselve on these days. A levy on glass tables/ showers and ladders would also be appropriate??

As I said up there, in their own words the administaration makes it hard to target other high risk activities, its easy with bike rego

Dodgyiti
27th October 2004, 10:41
The rising costs of oil/petrol are the best thing to hit the planet.
And now we get further penalised by trying to be environmentally friendly in our choice of transport.
The people that require further taxing are those who travel on our already congested m/ways with one person in a big V8, let them pay, they must already have too much money to be able to do that.
And I have mentioned this before, but here goes again- stop binnin it you lot ! :bash:
Heh Heh Heh

Deano
27th October 2004, 11:35
I think Jim and Milky have a point. We can be our own worst enemies.



Come on guys... Think about the number of bins reported on this site. By my reckoning, AT LEAST 50% are due to riders not remembering what Jim2 states.

Ive checked in with LTSA for statistics over where the blame lies for motorcycle crashes. May take up to a week for a response though - fark knows why it should take that long. The twats are probably too busy scheming ways of taking money off us, or patting themselves on the back for a lower road toll on Labour Weekend.

I was always under the impression that about 75% of crashes were not the fault of the motorcyclist.

If that is true, then its rank that we get hit with the increased levy.

Coldkiwi
27th October 2004, 11:36
...so the real message from ACC is that we should use more petrol to pay less?
Wait - whats that over there? A 10 gallon hat with 'I Love Dubya" on it? So much for clean green NZ!

James Deuce
27th October 2004, 11:56
Ive checked in with LTSA for statistics over where the blame lies for motorcycle crashes. May take up to a week for a response though - fark knows why it should take that long. The twats are probably too busy scheming ways of taking money off us, or patting themselves on the back for a lower road toll on Labour Weekend.

I was always under the impression that about 75% of crashes were not the fault of the motorcyclist.

If that is true, then its rank that we get hit with the increased levy.


ACC is a no fault organisation. Irrespective of the cause of your injuries, their job is to ensure your eventual rehabilitation.

Motorcyclists cost more to repair, according to stats from many countries, not just NZ, so we pay more.

You will struggle to find an LTSA, ACC, or NZ Stats analyst that has the balls to attribute blame in MVAs. Bear in mind that a good chunk of Motorcycle accidents are single vehicle, i.e. rider error. You'll see that reflected in the stats you get back, and I believe you see that trend reflected in the "bins" reflected on this site. Maybe 1 in 10 KB bins involve another vehicle.

James Deuce
27th October 2004, 12:00
...so the real message from ACC is that we should use more petrol to pay less?
Wait - whats that over there? A 10 gallon hat with 'I Love Dubya" on it? So much for clean green NZ!

There's no point arguing with stupid people CK. They'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Change the Government next election. Make the unfairness of the ACC levies an issue with your local MP as well as Deano's plan. Make it a public opinion/votes issue.

Pwalo
27th October 2004, 12:02
...so the real message from ACC is that we should use more petrol to pay less?
Wait - whats that over there? A 10 gallon hat with 'I Love Dubya" on it? So much for clean green NZ!

You got it mate. Bizarre. We'll penalise because you don't use as much of something - a sort of non consumption tax.

Ghost Lemur
27th October 2004, 12:28
There's no point arguing with stupid people CK. They'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Change the Government next election. Make the unfairness of the ACC levies an issue with your local MP as well as Deano's plan. Make it a public opinion/votes issue.


You're forgetting, governments may change, but bureaucrats always remain the same.

As for the number of bins, generally the cost related aspect of biker-bins is minimal to nothing compared to the cost of car vs bike. Don't believe me just go though all the recent bins and see just how few actually resulted in injuries. So it still doesn't sit. But it wont change either, like speeders we are an easy target to apportion blame on.

rodgerd
27th October 2004, 12:35
Bikers are being singled out (again) "because they use less fuel than cars and had a high rate of accidents".

We all know that most bike accidents are the fault of another driver so how the hell can they keep raising that as an argument ?




ACC is no-fault. User pays. You use an ambulence, it goes back into our levvies.
We do know this, do we? Most of the overseas studies (Hurt report et al) suggest a huge proportion of motorcycle crashes are people twatting themselves on corners and the like in single-vehicle crashes.


On the second point, you might want to reflect on it next time you hear someone having a giggle about chucking their bike down the road while they're riding like it's a track day and give them a slap on the back of the head.



And, isn't less fuel consumption = less pollution a good thing ?

I doubt the Minister for the Environment would be too impressed by that statement.


That bit's just fucking wierd, I agree. I guess we need to start registering pushbikes, too.

rodgerd
27th October 2004, 12:38
Come on guys... Think about the number of bins reported on this site. By my reckoning, AT LEAST 50% are due to riders not remembering what Jim2 states. Maybe if we all tried our best to ride within our ability on the road, and saved the balls out shit for the track, both insurance and ACC premiums would be a hell of a lot less. I know that this may rankle some here who like to ride fast, but think about the situation YOU are creating for yourself before waxing lyrical about it being the car drivers fault...

You're right, but you aren't going to win too many friends.

rodgerd
27th October 2004, 12:40
The problem that I have with ACC is that ACC operates on a no blame basis, so I can't see how they can differentiate between groups (ie bikers, drivers, rugby players etc).


It operates on a cost basis. So if an ambulence is dispatched to a crash, the cost is accrued against the parties involved, and gets fed into the costs for the types. If you break your neck playing rugby, it gets allocated to the costs for rugby players.

What does stink, of course, is that lots of costs from many of these pools never get recovered, eg there's nothing for pushbike riders.

dhunt
27th October 2004, 12:40
Now if there was a way that we could pay one lot of ACC for multiple vehicles it wouldn't be too bad. It's not as if you can ride/drive more than one thing at once.

dhunt
27th October 2004, 12:45
What does stink, of course, is that lots of costs from many of these pools never get recovered, eg there's nothing for pushbike riders.
So with promoting people to push bike etc to cut traffic down etc our ACC levies will increase??? Due to increased number of acciccidents?

James Deuce
27th October 2004, 13:26
You're forgetting, governments may change, but bureaucrats always remain the same.

No they don't actually. A large number of bureaucrats are employed by political parties, and if the role of their minister changes they do lose their job.



As for the number of bins, generally the cost related aspect of biker-bins is minimal to nothing compared to the cost of car vs bike. Don't believe me just go though all the recent bins and see just how few actually resulted in injuries. So it still doesn't sit. But it wont change either, like speeders we are an easy target to apportion blame on.

The cost of injuries for motorcyclists is MUCH higher overall and proportionally greater than for any other motor vehicle user of the ACC system. It does sit. If you are injured in an injury bike accident it usually results in fractures, which are expensive to treat and rehabilitate, soft tissue injuries which are even more expensive and complex to treat, and organ damage which no one wants. Yes there are a large number of non-injury or minor injury bins, but they still get added to the stats if police or insurance are involved, and it is all just grist to the mill for legislation that hurts us motorcyclists, and anti-motorcycling groups in general.

Denial is not a long term survival technique for motorcycling.

F5 Dave
27th October 2004, 14:29
What DHunt brings up is valid. Most motorcyclists these days also have a car so we are paying several ACC levies (I have 2 bikes & one Van). How is this fair? I understand in France they place the fees per driver not per vehicle.

It isn’t always fair to go entirely user pays. Imagine if there was a levy on playing Rugby? the uproar would be hilarious.

Mongoose
27th October 2004, 14:33
No they don't actually. A large number of bureaucrats are employed but they still get added to the stats if police or insurance are involved, and it is all just grist to the mill for legislation that hurts us motorcyclists, and anti-motorcycling groups in general.

Denial is not a long term survival technique for motorcycling.

Not forgetting of course that the word MOTORCYCLE is used not just for road use but ALL things that can be discrbed in that way. Farm Quads, Trail Bikes etc

scumdog
27th October 2004, 15:34
M/C bins with max. of two on board, reg. of said M/C pays one lot of ACC which will cover both parties if they are injured.

Cager vs cager, four in each cage, reg of said cages pays two lots of ACC levies which will cover all eight people involved if they are injured, WTF???!

And ACC says it has to be "fair" - yeah right!!!!

NordieBoy
27th October 2004, 16:18
ACC is a no fault organisation. Irrespective of the cause of your injuries, their job is to ensure your eventual rehabilitation.

Motorcyclists cost more to repair, according to stats from many countries, not just NZ, so we pay more.

You will struggle to find an LTSA, ACC, or NZ Stats analyst that has the balls to attribute blame in MVAs. Bear in mind that a good chunk of Motorcycle accidents are single vehicle, i.e. rider error. You'll see that reflected in the stats you get back, and I believe you see that trend reflected in the "bins" reflected on this site. Maybe 1 in 10 KB bins involve another vehicle.

And the reason diesel car owners pay more acc than petrol car owners?

marty
27th October 2004, 16:18
$12 bucks of petrol for 90 odd Km on the RG, show me a normal car less economic than that!!!
$24 LPG for 280kms in my V6 sedan. oh and i just got a letter from rockgas advising that LPG is dropping 3.3 cents per litre :)

jrandom
27th October 2004, 16:28
No they don't actually. A large number of bureaucrats are employed by political parties, and if the role of their minister changes they do lose their job.

Indeed, Jim... Hacker?


usually results in fractures

Har har! (Nelson style)

[Edit: Oops. Biker gods gonna get me *good* now.]


organ damage

Arrrrrgh! Me pipes!


Denial is not a long term survival technique for motorcycling.

Apart from the "wasn't there, never saw it, me bike can't even GO that fast, yer 'onour" flavour, of course.

James Deuce
27th October 2004, 16:53
And the reason diesel car owners pay more acc than petrol car owners?

The same reason why we do - because the Govt. says so.

DEATH_INC.
27th October 2004, 17:15
At the mo,my 4wd (deseasil)costs more to rego than my bike.....
My turbo sucks more gas than most cars(or aircraft for that matter),can I get a cheaper petrol levy?
You know what has more deaths per year than bikes???Pleasure boats.....with no rego's( at least in last years figures...)
Maybe a blockade of the harbour bridge like the french farmers do would get some attention......in the morning rush hour.

Mongoose
27th October 2004, 17:21
At the mo,my 4wd (deseasil)costs more to rego than my bike.....
My turbo sucks more gas than most cars(or aircraft for that matter),can I get a cheaper petrol levy?
You know what has more deaths per year than bikes???Pleasure boats.....with no rego's( at least in last years figures...)
Maybe a blockade of the harbour bridge like the french farmers do would get some attention......in the morning rush hour.

Boating may have caused more deaths, but they are cheaper to mend than broken bodies so hardly a fair comparison. That is the sort of stat. that the Gov uses to confuse an issue.

TwoSeven
27th October 2004, 20:03
why dont they make push bike riders pay for their own injuries as well then - who pays for fixing up those beggers.

James Deuce
27th October 2004, 20:07
why dont they make push bike riders pay for their own injuries as well then - who pays for fixing up those beggers.

The ACC Levy that comes out of your pay packet.

Pwalo
28th October 2004, 10:21
The ACC Levy that comes out of your pay packet.

Come on Jim, you're not suggesting that we pay ACC in more than one form now are you?

You cynical so and so.

Deano
29th October 2004, 10:49
Here is the response to my query at the LTSA re: motorcycle crashes and where the 'fault' of the accident lies. Appears to be more 50/50 in terms of apportioning blame, excluding the lone vehicle accidents where it is most likely to be the lone vehicles fault (naturally).

"Using data for 1999 to 2003 for fatal and injury crashes, I found that:

* For motorcycle only crashes, the motor cycle was at fault for 60 out of 65 fatal crashes and 858 out of 958 injury crashes.
* For motorcycle vs another party crashes, the motor cycle was PRIMARILY at fault (the motorcyclst was completely at fault for the crash, no blame on the other vehicle(s) in the crash) for 57 fatal crashes and 955 injury crashes and PARTLY at fault (The motor cyclist and other other vehicle(s) were both at fault for the crash) for 13 fatal crashes and 308 injury crashes out of 125 fatal crashes and 2668 injury crashes.

It pays to context fault this way, since vehicle only crashes tend to have the vehicle at fault in nearly all instances but this is not always the case with crashes involving 2 or more vehicles. I wouldn't add them together since it may distort the 'at fault' picture one is trying to convey.

I hope this helps,

Stephen Evans"

I have amended my letter accordingly, but still suggesting 50/50 is not evidence enough to make motorcyclists pay higher levies.

Milky
29th October 2004, 15:40
You're right, but you aren't going to win too many friends.
Milky doesnt... need... friends :weep:

*rocks quietly in a corner*

rodgerd
30th October 2004, 08:07
I have amended my letter accordingly, but still suggesting 50/50 is not evidence enough to make motorcyclists pay higher levies.

The levies are less about fault and more about cost. Even when the car driver is at fault, it will still typically cost a lot more to deal with a rider involved in a crash.

Deano
30th October 2004, 08:34
The cost of injuries for motorcyclists is MUCH higher overall and proportionally greater than for any other motor vehicle user of the ACC system. It does sit. If you are injured in an injury bike accident it usually results in fractures, which are expensive to treat and rehabilitate, soft tissue injuries which are even more expensive and complex to treat, and organ damage which no one wants. Yes there are a large number of non-injury or minor injury bins, but they still get added to the stats if police or insurance are involved, and it is all just grist to the mill for legislation that hurts us motorcyclists, and anti-motorcycling groups in general.
.



The levies are less about fault and more about cost. Even when the car driver is at fault, it will still typically cost a lot more to deal with a rider involved in a crash.

On that basis, why don't small car owners or those that don't fare as well in crash tests pay higher levies.

Surely in a mini vs falcon accident the mini occupants are going to be worse off. How about 4wd with bullbars - should the higher levy be paid by the vehicle owner that is going to do more damage, thus causing the injuries ?

James Deuce
30th October 2004, 09:31
On that basis, why don't small car owners or those that don't fare as well in crash tests pay higher levies.

Surely in a mini vs falcon accident the mini occupants are going to be worse off. How about 4wd with bullbars - should the higher levy be paid by the vehicle owner that is going to do more damage, thus causing the injuries ?

But more often not as badly off as the rider in a bike vs Falcon accident.

You're preaching to the converted Deano. The levy system doesn't make a lot of sense to me either.

The purpose of ACC is not to apportion blame, but to rehabilitate. They report their costs on that basis. Motorcyclists proportionally cost ACC more than any other group of motorists. That is an incontrovertible fact you cannot escape when discussing this issue.

If you want a comprehensive revamp of the ACC levy system you will have to come up with a submission that makes better sense than the current system. Despite most people's opinion of Politicians and Government, you may be surprised at how much good stuff is contained in ACC compared to a system without a no fault insurance scheme.

Motorcyclists are our own worst enemies. Our public image is poor thanks to outdated images of motorcycle gangs, and the single biggest contributor to our bad image is the roaring up behind a vehicle with a family on board and then making a seemingly stupid looking overtaking manoeuvre. Remember most non-motorcyclists have no perception of the performance envelope available to even a 250cc single.

ACC finds it extremely easy to levy more from motorcyclists thanks to the lack of public and government support for motorcycling as transport, hobby, and sport.

BRONZ (as just one example of a NZ motocycling "organisation") should be sending press releases to every form of media imaginable from TV stations to Bloggers every time there is a charity event organised by motorcycling. Instead we have a toy run, do some good for the community and then don't tell people that we did it. We sit back justifiably feeling good about ourselves, but the news of our actions doesn't extend beyond the recipients. If it sounds lacking in humility, well it is. But it is how public opinion is shaped. Without the backing of a significant chunk of the population the unfairness of the current levy raise will never be apparent.

We've got a massive opportunity available at the moment. The Baby Boomers are getting back into bikes in huge numbers and they are of an age to be influential in setting public policy. Perhaps they need to escape the trappings of the "Me" generation, and the general attitude of "Who gives a F__k so long as it doesn't affect me", and help establish some measured and logic based approaches to government to highlight the benefits of motorcycles and to discuss ways of spinning image issues for motorcyclists in a more positive light. I don't think they understand the tyranny of population bias that they hold over anyone born after 1964, but the government sure does. They'll be controlling the next 4-5 elections, so we need to get them onside - Hitcher this is a job for you buddy!

The Greenies should be praising us for our efficient and congestion beating transport. Instead we're going to get charged more at the pump because we use less. I'm going to follow the wife down to the gas station when she fills up the car and then fill up the bike from the same pump without replacing the nozzle. Let's see the gresy herbert gas station attendant figure that one out.

Ms Piggy
30th October 2004, 10:44
Hey Deano,
I just edited your letter a bit and sent it off in an email to Ruth Dyson.
If anyone else wants to do so her email address is: rdyson@ministers.govt.nz
I got it form the Labour Party website www.labour.org.nz

I also added that I think they should be penalising all those 4WD drivers that cause a lot more congestion and pollution than motorcyclists - of couse I know thats not everyone elses view but being a townie I hate all the bloody 4WD's round Wgtn used as an everyday vehicle.

Cheers Cathy

cycosis
30th October 2004, 11:11
I'm going to follow the wife down to the gas station when she fills up the car and then fill up the bike from the same pump without replacing the nozzle. Let's see the gresy herbert gas station attendant figure that one out.

I think the petrol levy will be a flat rate for all vehicles. Pity, as I would fill up a tin "for the lawnmower" as often as possible....actually that begs the question...why do we pay a motorist levy on fuel for the lawnmower and weedeater?

Not a perfect system by any means, but I guess few are. Those lucky enough to own more than one bike are paying for three registrations, when they are most likely only riding one at any one time.

(p.s. actually Deano here - Im at Cycosis's getting a few riding tips.)

James Deuce
30th October 2004, 11:23
I think the petrol levy will be a flat rate for all vehicles. Pity, as I would fill up a tin "for the lawnmower" as often as possible....actually that begs the question...why do we pay a motorist levy on fuel for the lawnmower and weedeater?

Not a perfect system by any means, but I guess few are. Those lucky enough to own more than one bike are paying for three registrations, when they are most likely only riding one at any one time.

(p.s. actually Deano here - Im at Cycosis's getting a few riding tips.)

Ahh I see.

I misread the legislation to say that we were going to get charged more tax because we use less petrol, by about 0.5 cent a litre. Hope I'm wrong!

NC
30th October 2004, 11:52
I'm still not going to drive a cage! :blink:

sAsLEX
30th October 2004, 12:22
I think the petrol levy will be a flat rate for all vehicles. Pity, as I would fill up a tin "for the lawnmower" as often as possible....actually that begs the question...why do we pay a motorist levy on fuel for the lawnmower and weedeater?

(p.s. actually Deano here - Im at Cycosis's getting a few riding tips.)

You can get petrol minus the Tax for the like of farmers for use in their four wheelers etc but not sure on the logistics etc or this could be another urban myth

rodgerd
31st October 2004, 10:15
On that basis, why don't small car owners or those that don't fare as well in crash tests pay higher levies.


It's a legitimate question, and I wouldn't complain if the ACC levy were tied into something like EU safety ratings, as it happens. I imaging the ACC/LTSA response would be to put that in the too hard basket.

Mind you, it always pays to be careful what you wish for. I'm willling to bet if the same were carried through to bikes, I'd do better (since I ride a small displacement standard), but 600 and 1000 sports bikes would get real expensive real fast...



Surely in a mini vs falcon accident the mini occupants are going to be worse off.

You might think so, but I recall seeing (and posting here) comparisons showing modern minis doing better than many Remuera Tractors!

rodgerd
31st October 2004, 10:18
Ahh I see.

I misread the legislation to say that we were going to get charged more tax because we use less petrol, by about 0.5 cent a litre. Hope I'm wrong!

Re-reading it, I'm reading that as the fact that because accidents are a function of mileage covered, and because petrol used by bikes is so low, they think they need to jack up the flat rego cost to cover a gap in what riders are charged.

bevsta
31st October 2004, 14:45
Hi all,
Have just read all the thread and written another letter to those hotshots over in the beehive to express my concerns.
First of all I think it is outrageous that we are facing more fees. One of the biggest draw-cards to becoming a biker (apart from being able to associate with all the cool Kiwi biker people) is the low ongoing costs. Sure it might cost a bit to get your licence, buy a bike and get all the gears but from then on it is suppose to be low petrol bills, no parking fees and generally minimal cost. So yea I made it clear that the govt would face strong opposition if this goes through.
I understand the ACC point of view that in a lot of accidents involving motorcyclists they end up footing bodily repair bills. However, as has been mentioned we do not cause a lot of the accidents we are in and I'd also like to highlight the fact that we all wear helmets while there are still a number of twats who won't wear a seatbelt! As for the fuel cost it is rediculas that we get singled out in a time when across the board every consumer is feeling the effect of rising global oil prices. I'd also like to point out (and I didn't directly do this in my letter to MPs) that New Zealand is going in the wrong direction in terms of forms of transport. This has been shown most recently with the axing of the Northener train service. We should be embracing the means of transport which have a lesser impact on the environment (and the pocket)- motorbike, electric train/bus.
Those views go quite a long way but with increases of 5% and 13% for ACC and fuel levies respectively I think it is necessary becasue who wants to pay more?!? I say protest, they will listen, the election isn't far away and every issue counts, so I'd be there. I've done my letter, also carboned a copy to the transport minister and I'd encourage others to do one also. Feel free to use mine, I've attached it, just don't forget to update your details at the top and bottom!

RidE oN :rockon:

rodgerd
1st November 2004, 06:35
I understand the ACC point of view that in a lot of accidents involving motorcyclists they end up footing bodily repair bills. However, as has been mentioned we do not cause a lot of the accidents we are in and

Except if you read upthread it turns out we do, according to the numbers.

Midnight 82
1st November 2004, 06:57
:stoogie: Im in lets get it happening yep lets get so many bikes together that we do block up the highway into wellington just from riding down there.

scumdog
1st November 2004, 07:08
Jim2, what is your thought re the scenario I posted about ACC levy from two cages involved in a head-on, each with 4 passengers who have not contributed anything in the way of levies, - versus the m/c crashing and only capable of carrying one passenger? - but whose rider has paid a bigger ACC levy thanb either of the cage owners? :blink:

Ms Piggy
4th November 2004, 11:10
I've had a "reply" to my email:

Dear Ms Agnew

Thank you for your letter of October 30, 2004 addressed to Hon Ruth Dyson,
Minister for ACC, regarding your ACC levies and your dealings with the
Corporation.

Your letter has been placed before the Minister for her consideration. She
will provide you with her personal response as soon as possible.

Regards

Brendan Gage
ACC Private Secretary
Office of Hon Ruth Dyson
Parliament Buildings
WELLINGTON

I had one previously just confirming receipt of it but, this means it in a pile! Woo hoo! :eek:

HanaBelle
4th November 2004, 11:36
I've had a "reply" to my email:

Dear Ms Agnew

Thank you for your letter of October 30, 2004 addressed to Hon Ruth Dyson,
Minister for ACC, regarding your ACC levies and your dealings with the
Corporation.

Your letter has been placed before the Minister for her consideration. She
will provide you with her personal response as soon as possible.



It means standard "ministerial" process which in my day was as follows:

- send to relevant ministry in Ministerial Bag thereby triggering 21 day turnaround policy timelimit

- delegate via Chain of Endless Authority to junior assistant policy analyst unfortunate enough to have to write this months Defensive Responses to Annoying Ministerial Questions from Mad People in Public Who Just Dont Understand the Job We Do In Their Best Interests Because They Cant Manage Their Own Lives Without Needing Big Daddy (or in Helen and Ruth's case Skinny Mama)

- [exhaust 12 of said 21 days achieving this dripdown, causing junior assistant policy analyst small heart attack because they have been in the job 2 months and cant find the Motorcycles are Evil so Charge Them More file]

- formulate seventeen drafts of dull little response that says "because we want to" without seeming to lack moral cause...usually selecting from a list of Jolly Good Reasons Du Jour Preferably Involving Money and Public Safety

- give Line Manager lots of power orgasms using red pen on your drafts, increasing backflow of Public Monies in the form of junior assistant policy analysts salary expended in (a) alcohol and illicit dug purchases, often followed by fiery chilli and Alka Selzter..(b) counselling and Employee Assistance referrals for work related stresssss {now a legal obligation on employers}

- finally cough out very very very safe lil reply explaining in as little detail as possible aforesaid "because I said so". Post it 4 days after the 21 deadline has expired in order to risk spanking needed to assuage guilt at having just been Agent of Useless Response to Good Question.

Get ready to be disappointed and disillusioned about the real workins of public democracy. Oh dear, Ive gotten all cynical.

HB

Stinger
4th November 2004, 11:47
What about the fact that most bikers also own a car. Has any research been done to include the amount that we pay for both of the acc levvies combined, vs the amount that we cost. Because we can only drive one vehicle at a time I would imagine that our exposure in the car is reduced by riding the bike.

James Deuce
4th November 2004, 12:18
What about the fact that most bikers also own a car. Has any research been done to include the amount that we pay for both of the acc levvies combined, vs the amount that we cost. Because we can only drive one vehicle at a time I would imagine that our exposure in the car is reduced by riding the bike.

You can try and do "creative accounting" as much as you want, by we motorcyclists have a startling propensity for single vehicle accidents in proportional numbers that car drivers just don't. We have more accident, we get hurt badly more often, and we cost more money to repair. If we stopped falling off with quite such frequency we might be a lot better off.

rodgerd
4th November 2004, 13:08
What about the fact that most bikers also own a car. Has any research been done to include the amount that we pay for both of the acc levvies combined, vs the amount that we cost. Because we can only drive one vehicle at a time I would imagine that our exposure in the car is reduced by riding the bike.

Except when I own a bike and a car and my wife is driving the car, of course.

rodgerd
4th November 2004, 13:11
Jim2, what is your thought re the scenario I posted about ACC levy from two cages involved in a head-on, each with 4 passengers who have not contributed anything in the way of levies, - versus the m/c crashing and only capable of carrying one passenger? - but whose rider has paid a bigger ACC levy thanb either of the cage owners? :blink:

1/ The passengers have contributed in the way of levvies on their incomes, like everyone else.

2/ I don't have any kids. I haven't used schools for over a decade. Why are my taxes supporting other peoples' kids? That's what your argument appears to boil down to - "fuck you, I've got mine."

You might want to be careful before you head down that route. All the bike ACC levvies you pay in your lifetime are unlikely to cover one serious crash. If you go that way, you'll likely find yourself selling half of what you own the first time you bin it and break a few limbs.

Ms Piggy
4th November 2004, 13:13
It means standard "ministerial" process which in my day was as follows:

Get ready to be disappointed and disillusioned about the real workins of public democracy. Oh dear, Ive gotten all cynical.

HB
Yep I knew it something like that. I work for the Govt, so I'm aware of how slooooooooowy the cogs turn.

Optimist & idealist to the end me. ;)

James Deuce
4th November 2004, 13:19
Jim2, what is your thought re the scenario I posted about ACC levy from two cages involved in a head-on, each with 4 passengers who have not contributed anything in the way of levies, - versus the m/c crashing and only capable of carrying one passenger? - but whose rider has paid a bigger ACC levy thanb either of the cage owners? :blink:
Proportionally motorcyclists are one of the smallest groups of road users, yet the ACC can state and frequently does, that motorcyclists are the most expensive group of motorist clients for ACC. The head-on accidents that you've pointed out still happen less frequently than single vehicle motorcycle accidents. Breaking my neck and back was rated as a moderate injury, but I know I cost ACC at least $50,000 in lump sum and treatment costs. If I'd had precisely the same accident whilst driving a car, there would have been an insurance bill and no injury.

I know what you are saying, and I know it seems unfair, but shying away from the fact that we cost the government proportionally way more money than car drivers is ostrich syndrome in my book.

bevsta
4th November 2004, 15:59
I've had a "reply" to my email:

Dear Ms Agnew

Thank you for your letter of October 30, 2004 addressed to Hon Ruth Dyson,
Minister for ACC, regarding your ACC levies and your dealings with the
Corporation.

Your letter has been placed before the Minister for her consideration. She
will provide you with her personal response as soon as possible.

Regards

Brendan Gage
ACC Private Secretary
Office of Hon Ruth Dyson
Parliament Buildings
WELLINGTON

I had one previously just confirming receipt of it but, this means it in a pile! Woo hoo! :eek:


I just got my confirmed receipt one from Hon Pete Hodgson. Still waiting on one from Ruth tho...

tassle
5th November 2004, 21:48
a point to remember is that all motorcycle accidents are lumped in together weither it was on the road (road registered high acc content) or a 4 wheel farmbike,or motorcross bike with someone learning to do freestyle backflips,so they all get lumped together as motorbike accident statistics,and we pay through the nose for the unreged accidents.suppose just have to remember that lifes not supposed to be fair.

Ms Piggy
25th November 2004, 19:58
I've just got my reply from Ruth Dyson. :)

Hitcher
25th November 2004, 20:10
I've just got my reply from Ruth Dyson. :)
A beautifully-crafted response. It's good to know our taxes aren't being squandered on illiterate boguns.

James Deuce
25th November 2004, 20:12
I've just got my reply from Ruth Dyson. :)

That's legendary!

Don't show it people who don't ride bikes though. ;)

Ms Piggy
25th November 2004, 20:12
A beautifully-crafted response. It's good to know our taxes aren't being squandered on illiterate boguns.
Yes it healps me sleep well at night ;)

crashe
25th November 2004, 20:22
I spoke to Rick Barker MP last weekend... he is fighting to get the ACC levies dropped again.

Rick is a Labour MP and he rides bikes as well.... as does his young son....
Liane Dailzeil MP (labour) her husband rides bikes....

So start contacting Rick Barker.... Rick is based in Hastings... but send him a letter to wellington - FREE POST..... he is behind the ACC levies being dropped....
You can also go on his mailout list and he sends out letters with updates on what he is doing re the ACC levies....

Both Rick and I hit up on Harry D.... Labour MP last weekend about upping the speed limit on "L" riders.... as both of us said that 70km on the open road or motorways was dangerous.... and yet a "L" car driver can do 100km....
Rick's son is on a "L" plate. So both Rick and I got stuck into Harry as Harry D is the minister that deals with it...Harry is also the minister for LTSA....

So we again hit him up about allowing bikes to use the motorway bus lanes... for our safety and maybe more ppl will ride bikes and that may help stop the congestion... had to point out that the green lanes in Ak are ruled by AK CC and not LTSA... so he said that he will look into it...

So send Harry letters as well.
The more letters that they receive the better.