Lower rego only for 40-year-old bikes?

[Beeza]

Why does a bike need to be all of FORTY years old before you get a cheaper rego? Shouldn't a rolling 25 year date qualify a "classic" bike for lower rego/ACC fees? The 40 year limit means that lots of good :shit:oldish bikes end up in the scrapyard or the rubbish tip instead of being restored and added to our history.

[xwhatsit]

Dude your bike is already 38 years :D Don't have long to wait. I think mine should qualify, but only because it is a rolling heap, more decrepit than many 40yr old bikes :lol:

I think 40 years is reasonable. Remember the biggest rego cost is the ACC levy, and many riders of 25yr old bikes still are hurting themselves well enough.

[scumdog]

Why does a bike need to be all of FORTY years old before you get a cheaper rego? Shouldn't a rolling 25 year date qualify a "classic" bike for lower rego/ACC fees? The 40 year limit means that lots of good :shit:oldish bikes end up in the scrapyard or the rubbish tip instead of being restored and added to our history.

Hence why 4 out of our 5 cars are over 40 years old!!

[janno]

I fully agree. My bike is 18 years old, so I think cheaper rego should start at mmmmmm, 17.5 years. Still, it's dirt cheap over here compared to Aus as we don't yet have compulsory third party insurance with our regos.

It's not as good as you'd think in Aus though, cos the comp. insurance covers personal injury, nothing to do with third party for the other person's vehicle. It's all about sueing the pants of each other if you break a fingernail in a nose to tail etc, etc.

[Beeza]

The ACC levy is the real stinker. But, if we have more than one bike, why do we have to pay a separate ACC levy for each one? Nobody I know has ever mastered the art of riding more than one motorbike at the same time. And, if you tried, the cops would bust you pronto.

So, shouldn't that pricey ACC component of all motorbike regos be tagged to the RIDER rather than the BIKE? After all, ACC aren't insuring for bike repairs but only for rider repairs.

So, even if you're rich enough own a collection of 50 public road-going bikes, you should only pay ACC levies for ONE bike because that's the maximum you will ever be riding at any given moment.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

[Morcs]

The ACC levy is the real stinker. But, if we have more than one bike, why do we have to pay a separate ACC levy for each one? Nobody I know has ever mastered the art of riding more than one motorbike at the same time. And, if you tried, the cops would bust you pronto.

So, shouldn't that pricey ACC component of all motorbike regos be tagged to the RIDER rather than the BIKE? After all, ACC aren't insuring for bike repairs but only for rider repairs.

So, even if you're rich enough own a collection of 50 public road-going bikes, you should only pay ACC levies for ONE bike because that's the maximum you will ever be riding at any given moment.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

I agree. Just like if you get suspended for 3 months or whatever you should be refunded rego for that time.

[xwhatsit]

The ACC levy is the real stinker. But, if we have more than one bike, why do we have to pay a separate ACC levy for each one? Nobody I know has ever mastered the art of riding more than one motorbike at the same time. And, if you tried, the cops would bust you pronto.

So, shouldn't that pricey ACC component of all motorbike regos be tagged to the RIDER rather than the BIKE? After all, ACC aren't insuring for bike repairs but only for rider repairs.

So, even if you're rich enough own a collection of 50 public road-going bikes, you should only pay ACC levies for ONE bike because that's the maximum you will ever be riding at any given moment.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

That's been brought up a few times, but there's a number of difficulties. For a start, our expensive ACC levy apparently isn't anywhere enough to cover the amount we claim as a group on ACC. Apparently it should be even higher. However if we start taking away collections of that levy, by limiting it to one collection per rider, then they'd really be out of pocket, and would have to raise it quite a bit. So we wouldn't save much, and those with single bikes would be penalised heavily (which is perhaps fair, but I can't see them liking it).

Secondly, how do you organise the collection of this? I might have two bikes in my shed, and be paying only one ACC levy for myself, but what if I lend the bike to somebody who just sold their bike a little while ago? The way to get around that would be to tie the levy to your licence. But what if you sell your bike and drive your car for a few years? Should you still have to pay that levy? Maybe you will have to buy a little sticker every year for a few hundred dollars, that you stick on the back of your licence, that says you are registered this year to ride a motorcycle.

Believe me, I'm a collector-type, and I can see myself in the future having half a dozen bikes easily, so I'm more than sympathetic. But there are quite a few difficulties with making it fairer.

[Katman]

I think you'll find there is a reduction in price at the 25 year mark. Mine has just passed that mark and the woman at the testing station was surprised when her computer gave her the price I owed. Took us a minute to realise it must be due to the age. There may well be a further reduction at 40 years.

[Beeza]

I own two 250cc road-going bikes -- one over 40 years old and one only just under 40 years old. The rego/ACC/whatever on the over-40 bike is comfortably less than half of the under-40 one. No discounts of any sort for an over 25 but under 40 machine!

As these old bikes are ridden for substantially less than 1000km a year each -- sunny high days and holidays only --- I'd like to see a rego/ACC fee that works like diesel cars where you buy so many kilometres/miles of road-going use. The more you ride, the more you pay on your rego/ACC bill.

It's enough of a mission to keep these old bikes in good enough order to pass 6-monthly warrants of fitness --- their hooters tend to fall silent, their vibration naturally kills headlight-bulbs or stop-lights which you never discover as you only ever ride by day and use hand-signals anyway...

[janno]

Acc levies tied to mileage for motorcycles makes sense to me - but do the high mileage riders tend to bin less due to having more road smarts accumulated over the years? So are the high bin rates group the newbies and low to moderate milers?

Be interesting to see some stats, though I doubt anyone has looked into this as it's not regularly collected information.

[Katman]

No discounts of any sort for an over 25 but under 40 machine!



Just checked the LTNZ site and it looks like you're quite right. I paid the same as anyone else would be expected to pay. Oh well, the chick at the testing station must have just been desperate to make conversation with me. :msn-wink:

[avgas]

Sweet, i didnt know any of this. Time to put the 3TA back together

[Beeza]

Well, high mileage riders will almost always be riding modern bikes on modern rubber and with modern brakes etc. And you'll treat the bike as just another Point A to Point B personal transportation device.

Old-bike riders are only too aware they have an irreplaceable, mobile and fragile piece of history in their hands, and so will take their Point A to Point B traverse with all the necessary seriousness and care. Yes, admittedly their brakes are pretty dodgy, the electrics comically crude and the suspension suspect. So you compensate by doing everything with EXTRA careful care because if you DO fall off, the spare parts to set things right don't just come straight off the shelves of your friendly local Yamakawazuki agent.

So a diesel-car "road user charge" based on mileage for over-25 year old bikes makes sense. And over 40 (or 50) year-old bikes ought to be totally tax and WOF exempt as they really are pretty impressive mobile history lessons chugging by.

[Beeza]

Just checked the LTNZ site and it looks like you're quite right. I paid the same as anyone else would be expected to pay. Oh well, the chick at the testing station must have just been desperate to make conversation with me. :msn-wink:

I need to know what after-shave you're using.:eek:

[rwh]

The ACC levy is the real stinker. But, if we have more than one bike, why do we have to pay a separate ACC levy for each one? Nobody I know has ever mastered the art of riding more than one motorbike at the same time. And, if you tried, the cops would bust you pronto.

So, shouldn't that pricey ACC component of all motorbike regos be tagged to the RIDER rather than the BIKE? After all, ACC aren't insuring for bike repairs but only for rider repairs.

So, even if you're rich enough own a collection of 50 public road-going bikes, you should only pay ACC levies for ONE bike because that's the maximum you will ever be riding at any given moment.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

Kind of - until you consider all the licensed riders who don't have a bike, and might be rather upset at having to pay ACC.

And while one person may not be able to ride more than one bike at a time, they can certainly lend one to someone else.

I think the mileage suggestion sounds better.

Richard

[Beeza]

How many motorcyclists will LEND someone else their bike? And then lend it to someone cack-handed enough to crash it badly enough for THEM to need money from ACC?

Just DON'T lend out your bike! You really don't WANT to, so here's a good excuse to tell your mate you just can't do it.

[Squiggles]

I think you'll find there is a reduction in price at the 25 year mark. Mine has just passed that mark and the woman at the testing station was surprised when her computer gave her the price I owed. Took us a minute to realise it must be due to the age. There may well be a further reduction at 40 years.

Woot, must take my gn's rego's off hold then, ones 25 and the other 24 :eek:

[Beeza]

Don't bother. They'll have to be 40.

Ridiculous.