ACC levies for multiple bike owners

[RentaTriumph]

I heard a story about an old boy who has two motorcycles and registered the first. He then paid seperate cheques for the registration component and acc levy on the second bike. he then went to the bank and cancelled the cheque for the ACC levy. ACC have been onto him and he refuses to pay stating that he can only ride one bike at a time. Apparently ACC are now not going to chase him for the second levy as they are concerned it could grow into a monster if word go out and support grew.

What is other KB's thoughts on this. Is it fair for people who register more than one bike a year to pay the ACC levy more than once?.

[Jantar]

Can you find out more?

If true, I'd support this guy with a donation towards his legal costs.

[gijoe1313]

Dizzam thats something I never considered ... and me with a gargre praked full of bikes that need wasing! :scratch:

Hmmmm very interesting food for thought ... mind you, I guess its the same as if you owned a bunch of cages ...

I may have to set myself up as a dealer and just transfer a plate across :lol:

[rwh]

While there's a point with the extra cost for 2 bikes, the argument that 'I can't ride both at the same time' doesn't really work - he can still lend one to a mate.

It would make more sense for the fees to be distance based, rather than time based. But then is the risk really proportional to the distance travelled, or more to the time spent on the bike (which we have no standard instruments to measure)?

It's a hard problem.

Richard

[vtec]

Totally, I owned 2 bikes and a car in NZ. ACC were shafting me hardcore, especially because I was a bicycle courier. They were taxing my income at crazy levels too, and I wasn't even using my motorvehicles much.

And my parents?? 3 bikes, 2 cars. That's over $1000 for my parents alone in registration. We were paying the equivalent of 3 peoples ACC fees each. And we could only use one vehicle at a time. It's bollocks. System needs to be changed so you are allowed to own a few vehicles without getting raped. Good on the old boy.

But as pointed out the system could then be manipulated by people putting all their families vehicles in one name. The ACC should definitely be distance based. I say more fuel tax :D

Would encourage people to use their vehicles less, creating less chance of having a road accident related injury, better for the environment, better for congestion, and fairer.

I'm earning way better money in the lucky country now (Australia) being taxed less, and I don't even need a vehicle here. The public transport system kicks arse. Affordable trains and trams and buses everywhere. NZ is rooted, it's about time a decent recession took hold. The oil and the subprime crises are just the kickstarters. The housing market is the next deck of cards to go. Good luck to you all and god speed.

[The Stranger]

While there's a point with the extra cost for 2 bikes, the argument that 'I can't ride both at the same time' doesn't really work - he can still lend one to a mate.

It would make more sense for the fees to be distance based, rather than time based. But then is the risk really proportional to the distance travelled, or more to the time spent on the bike (which we have no standard instruments to measure)?

It's a hard problem.

Richard

Just levy fuel (as they do now) and only fuel. Those that travel the most km pay the most. Sure fuel would go up in price, but it need be no more than we would get back from the saving on our reg. Not a hard problem at all.

[Mikkel]

Just levy fuel (as they do now) and only fuel. Those that travel the most km pay the most. Sure fuel would go up in price, but it need be no more than we would get back from the saving on our reg. Not a hard problem at all.

While I'm for anything to scare big nasty 4WD petrolsuckers off the roads - I'd still have to maintain that putting all levies on fuel would not be any fairer to those who own a comparatively thirsty vehicle.

Yes, it might make sense as a govermental policy to reduce emissions - but not in regards to the ACC levy.

Tricky business this stuff - but I doubt it would be possible to introduce a taxing schedule that would could not be considered unfair from one perspective or the other.
How about putting a weekly/bi-weekly/monthly/annual fee on your license? If you want to use your license you have to pay for the priviledge - some of that to ACC.

One good thing about the current system is that it isn't hugely complicated - introducing all sorts of finicky rules and excemptions would only make everything more expensive by introducing a larger bureaucratic overhead.

[vtec]

No need to make it complicated, just one rate on diesel and one rate on petrol, that's the only thing you'd have to work out, how much to put on each. I'm quite happy for people driving bigger or more gas guzzling vehicles to pay more ACC, because first of all the bigger the vehicle the more damage they are capable of doing. The more energy a vehicle uses, the more danger it poses. Trucks carry too much energy and can't stop... I could go into detail. But from where I'm sitting it's the fairest and best and simplest method of collecting ACC. Collecting it with Rego, is archaic and the only reason I can think of not changing it is laziness.

The one exception to this is that it would advantage motorcycles :) because they are dangerous to the occupant without using much fuel. But hey, you have to make a sacrifice somewhere. And two wheeled travel should be encouraged for many reasons. NZ would be a better place in many ways if 2 wheeled travel was encouraged.

Something like 80% of accidents on public roads involve trucks. I can't back this stat up, but I'm sure I saw it somewhere. Feel free to shoot it down.

Bugger it, while we're at it, the f(*^ing licencing system should be fixed so you don't need to do all the tests twice to get a bike licence. The road rules are the same for a bike as a car. There should just be a booster test if you already have one to get the other. Two wheels needs to be encouraged to fix the transport and parking problems of Auckland. Because it's obvious they don't have the money for serious public transport solutions.

Honestly, there are people being paid to think up solutions and yet in NZ nothing sensible ever seems to go ahead. Whats happened to make the national psyche so backwards?

In Melbourne here, motorcycle are treated like bicycles in terms of parking. If it's out of the way you're allowed to park it on the footpath. NZ is run by grey haired rich people who can't see past their own backyards.

[Mikkel]

Get that mandatory 3rd party insurance put into place, remove all ACC levies and let the 3rd party insurance take care of it.

That way each road-user and his/her choice of vehicle will be subject to a risk evaluation by the insurance brokers and levied accordingly.

[vtec]

Does that solve the problem of multiple vehicle ownership? And then the people who are irresponsible and illegally don't get insurance or rego are the winners on the day, until they have an accident and injure someone, and everyone else foots the bills.

Mandatory insurance has some major drawback. Makes insurance way more expensive. And drains the economy and development hardcore. I do see the benefits, but it doesn't stop people from driving illegally without insurance, and for some reason these are generally the people who are most likely to crash.

[kiwi cowboy]

While there's a point with the extra cost for 2 bikes, the argument that 'I can't ride both at the same time' doesn't really work - he can still lend one to a mate.

It would make more sense for the fees to be distance based, rather than time based. But then is the risk really proportional to the distance travelled, or more to the time spent on the bike (which we have no standard instruments to measure)?

It's a hard problem.

Richard

i agree it is a problem but i dont agree with your coment about it not working if he lent one to a mate.
Why cant we all be redgistered individualy then it wouldnt matter if he lent it to a mate as long as he has himself redged its ok cos while hes riden his mates bike hes not riden his or posibly drivin a car.
Then the vehicle would only need a warrent.
Also the redgistration could be rated a bit like insurance like a bit more expensive for younger people getting cheeper as get older relative to risk.
Just my 2 cents worth.:devil2:

[Katman]

What about if the ACC levy was a fee paid when we renew our license on a yearly basis?

[NighthawkNZ]

I heard a story about an old boy who has two motorcycles and registered the first. He then paid seperate cheques for the registration component and acc levy on the second bike. he then went to the bank and cancelled the cheque for the ACC levy. ACC have been onto him and he refuses to pay stating that he can only ride one bike at a time. Apparently ACC are now not going to chase him for the second levy as they are concerned it could grow into a monster if word go out and support grew.

What is other KB's thoughts on this. Is it fair for people who register more than one bike a year to pay the ACC levy more than once?.

I don't believe in paying ACC any way (I distrust them...) I would prefer that I pay my own private health insurance...

as for ACC in the rego fees again I disagree... it should be paid when you fill up at the pump... for this very reason I can only ride one bike at a time and something needs to be done...(lucky I only own one at present... but Better half owns a car and a bike and she can only ride or drive one at a time...)


Can you find out more?

If true, I'd support this guy with a donation towards his legal costs.

so would I...

[vtec]

That brings us to another problem though, if someone drives way more than someone else, then it isn't fair that everyone pays the same motorvehicle ACC. Fuel based is still way more fair. It encourages so many good things, and discourages so many bad things while being the fairest option.

It encourages... fuel efficiency, carpooling, motorcycles, bicycles, less emissions, less usage of limited natural resources, less money going to oil barons in Saudi, and instead helping to keep the NZ economy above water.

It discourages... traffic congestion, oil barons, Remuera tractors, AMG mercedes 4wds and Porsche Cayennes and all American vehicles... don't we all hate these?

Oil's not going to come down in price people.

And it means that the further you travel in a vehicle the more ACC tax you pay... which is fair X|

[kiwi cowboy]

(lucky I only own one at present... but Better half owns a car and a bike and she can only ride or drive one at a time...)


individual personal redgo would fix that:clap:

[Mikkel]

Does that solve the problem of multiple vehicle ownership? And then the people who are irresponsible and illegally don't get insurance or rego are the winners on the day, until they have an accident and injure someone, and everyone else foots the bills.

And that is different from what it is like now in exactly which way? :scratch:

However, you tend to get benefits if you gather all your insurances with one company - thus you could expect to see a reduction on your premium if you ensured the entire armada with one company.


Mandatory insurance has some major drawback. Makes insurance way more expensive. And drains the economy and development hardcore.

Bullshit! Plain and simple, bullshit!

[NighthawkNZ]

individual personal redgo would fix that:clap:

So would paying ACC only at the pump... ;)

[rwh]

What about if the ACC levy was a fee paid when we renew our license on a yearly basis?

Then you have the reverse problem - if you have a licence but no vehicle, or just don't drive it very much, then you pay too much compared to someone who commutes 200km every day (or is a truck/courier/taxi driver etc)

Richard

[CookMySock]

What about if the ACC levy was a fee paid when we renew our license on a yearly basis?if that was doable, then why not just privatise or self-insure ? A grand a year for insurance is a LOT of cash with compounding interest over my lifetime.

DB

[rwh]

No need to make it complicated, just one rate on diesel and one rate on petrol, that's the only thing you'd have to work out, how much to put on each.

And a rate for LPG. And another for CNG. And how do you levy it for those who plug into the wall socket in their garage to charge up over night?

And you still have the problem of all those uses of fuel that don't involve road use (though it does catch the dirt bikers riding unregistered vehicles)

It's not a particularly bad option, but I still think using the odometer is easier.

Richard

[kiwi cowboy]

So would paying ACC only at the pump... ;)

while i agree up to a point but you would be paying the same acc every litre as a young stupid boyracer but if the individual was redged it could be rated on age relative to risk a bit like insurance is [gets cheeper as we get older]:niceone:

[Oakie]

One ACC fee per person instead of per bike? Think it thru guys:

Say ACC needs $15 million per year to cover all bike related injuries.
There are 70000 bikes registered in NZ (just a figure plucked out of thin air)
So $15mil divided by 70,000 = $214.28 per bike

Change that to ACC levy per person instead of per bike and guess what. The cost of accidents doesn't go down but the number of contributors goes down. The sum is now
$15 mil divided by (lets say) 40000 individual bikers.
The result is an now an amount payable per person of $375 per person

Yep. It's a win for those with more than one bike but a loss for the majority of riders who only have one bike.

Swings and roundabouts. Yes, the old fella can only ride one bike at a time but he can go an have an accident every month and still be covered by ACC.

[vtec]

And that is different from what it is like now in exactly which way? :scratch:

However, you tend to get benefits if you gather all your insurances with one company - thus you could expect to see a reduction on your premium if you ensured the entire armada with one company.



Bullshit! Plain and simple, bullshit!


Haha. Well reasoned argument ... nice. Insurance companies are not designed to be fair mate. They are designed to make money, the more they can make the more they will.

[NighthawkNZ]

while i agree up to a point but you would be paying the same acc every litre as a young stupid boyracer but if the individual was redged it could be rated on age relative to risk a bit like insurance is [gets cheeper as we get older]:niceone:

and that is where your insurance comes in to play... Paying at the pump means you pay as you require to drive, ride, boat (who at present don't pay acc) mowind your lawn (ie my mate go his eye taken out by fly debre), using your chainsaw...

The more you drive the more you pay which is fair... I can only do so many kms a day...

I personally disagree with ACC full stop, and never have liked the idea especially if I pay private insurance, if I had an accident tomorrow I am sure ACC would fight to pay my bill, yet over the years I have paid over 40g to their pocket. My private insurance while they would investigate I would get the help I need quicker...

[davereid]

However, you tend to get benefits if you gather all your insurances with one company - thus you could expect to see a reduction on your premium if you ensured the entire armada with one company.

The insurance industry has made it very clear that compulsory third party insurance will be very expensive for everyone.

My insurance broker estimates $300 per year as perfect driver entry level insurance, charged per vehicle.

Currently I pay $65.

The reasons are simple.

1. Right now, you don't need it. So if its too expensive you dont buy it and it thus has found its economic level.

2. We run a knock for knock system. So, even if we are comprehensively insured with different companies, your insurer will pay your costs. Thus, if you are a good driver, you get a cheaper premium.

Under compulsory third party, this will end. Why ? as specialist hi-risk third part only insurers will arrive. They won't play the knock for knock game. They will deny liability, fight everything, and decline claims left right and center.

ie.. you are a good driver, with no claims and no points. Right now, under the knock for knock system, you get a really good premium, as your insurer is covering only you, and your real risk. If you F.Up and crash your $5000 honda into my $60,000 V8, its knock for knock - my insurer will cover my V8, the guy who insured you will cover your Honda.

Add Compulsory third party.

I insure my $60,000 V8. You insure your honda. But I'm with a company that wont play the knock for knock game. Guess what, you now have to pay for my car too.

And guess what it will be incuded in your premium.

[The Stranger]

While I'm for anything to scare big nasty 4WD petrolsuckers off the roads - I'd still have to maintain that putting all levies on fuel would not be any fairer to those who own a comparatively thirsty vehicle.

Yes, it might make sense as a govermental policy to reduce emissions - but not in regards to the ACC levy.

Tricky business this stuff - but I doubt it would be possible to introduce a taxing schedule that would could not be considered unfair from one perspective or the other.
How about putting a weekly/bi-weekly/monthly/annual fee on your license? If you want to use your license you have to pay for the priviledge - some of that to ACC.

One good thing about the current system is that it isn't hugely complicated - introducing all sorts of finicky rules and excemptions would only make everything more expensive by introducing a larger bureaucratic overhead.

the scheeme which I am proposing is simpler than what we have now, so meets one of your criteria.

Which is more likely to do damage in an accident the larger vehicle or the smaller? Think of extra burden on larger vehicles as a chicken tax.

[Pedrostt500]

I was told along time ago that when a motorcycle crash victim goes to hospital, the A&E nurse who fills out the ACC form just ticks the box for motorcycle, and does not need to refeer to on road or off road, when ACC talley up the figures they asume all motor cycle accidents are on road, and this is how they crunch their numbers to figure out the ACC fee for road regerstered bikes.
This may have changed but I doubt it. Ok the system that is in place is probably the fairest, if it was distance monetored most would disconect their Tacometeres.
Maybe a system that was more personal based, Every one in NZ gets charged an ACC fee it could be quiet minimal base fee, now Every one is assesed for their Risk value of bieng in an Injury related Accident, this could be partialy age related, and also related to your History, What type of injuries and how they came about, and also if the person had injured others through their carelessness, Ie drunk driver causing an accident, causing multiple injuries and or death.
so the drunk driver or the person charged with careless use of a motorvechicle may still end up paying a higher ACC levie even though they did not cause an accident, but because they were caught and prosecuted for a dangerious driving offence.
Ok those who would pay the least personal ACC fee would be the very young, Ie under 10 yrs and the elderly Ie over 70 yrs, may be no fees for both groupes. those who would probaly pay the most personal acc fee would be those between 18yrs and 40yrs, a step down in cost for those between 40 and 50 yrs, another step down between 50 and 60 yrs, and then again between 60 and 70 yrs. now some factors that could be taken into account that could reduce the personal fee would be if they had a drivers licence or not, if they hold a drivers licence and it is squeaky clean, regardless of licence catorgories held, if the licence has been infringement free for more than 2 yrs, and if the person has not caused an injury accident to them selves or others in the previous 10 yrs, also how a person is personaly insured may also reduce their ACC fee.
How this scheme is worked, charged out, and the cost of the fees per person are worked I dont know, that is for greater minds than mine.

[kiwi cowboy]

I was told along time ago that when a motorcycle crash victim goes to hospital, the A&E nurse who fills out the ACC form just ticks the box for motorcycle, and does not need to refeer to on road or off road, when ACC talley up the figures they asume all motor cycle accidents are on road, and this is how they crunch their numbers to figure out the ACC fee for road regerstered bikes.
This may have changed but I doubt it. Ok the system that is in place is probably the fairest, if it was distance monetored most would disconect their Tacometeres.
Maybe a system that was more personal based, Every one in NZ gets charged an ACC fee it could be quiet minimal base fee, now Every one is assesed for their Risk value of bieng in an Injury related Accident, this could be partialy age related, and also related to your History, What type of injuries and how they came about, and also if the person had injured others through their carelessness, Ie drunk driver causing an accident, causing multiple injuries and or death.
so the drunk driver or the person charged with careless use of a motorvechicle may still end up paying a higher ACC levie even though they did not cause an accident, but because they were caught and prosecuted for a dangerious driving offence.
Ok those who would pay the least personal ACC fee would be the very young, Ie under 10 yrs and the elderly Ie over 70 yrs, may be no fees for both groupes. those who would probaly pay the most personal acc fee would be those between 18yrs and 40yrs, a step down in cost for those between 40 and 50 yrs, another step down between 50 and 60 yrs, and then again between 60 and 70 yrs. now some factors that could be taken into account that could reduce the personal fee would be if they had a drivers licence or not, if they hold a drivers licence and it is squeaky clean, regardless of licence catorgories held, if the licence has been infringement free for more than 2 yrs, and if the person has not caused an injury accident to them selves or others in the previous 10 yrs, also how a person is personaly insured may also reduce their ACC fee.
How this scheme is worked, charged out, and the cost of the fees per person are worked I dont know, that is for greater minds than mine.

that is whot ive been trying to say in preveious posts. bling sent

[Mikkel]

Insurance companies are not designed to be fair mate. They are designed to make money, the more they can make the more they will.

And in which way are they then different from any other company you could think of? Or, let's say, the government for that matter?


The insurance industry has made it very clear that compulsory third party insurance will be very expensive for everyone.


If a bill is passed to make 3rd party insurance compulsory - hopefully the government will realise that they either 1) need to put regulations into place that will dictate what service the insurance companies are required to provide if they are to be considered fit to meet the compulsory insurance or 2) make sure that the market is completely free to regulate itself (effectively preventing monopolies and shady price regulating deals behind the scenes).

Do not underestimate the force of free market forces - most of what you see around you has been created due to exactly these forces.

If you crash into a $200,000 porsche today with a 3rd party insurance and are found to be at fault - your insurance is still required to pay for all the costs involved less your excess.
That is not going to change by making 3rd party insurance compulsory. The difference is that with compulsory insurance - the guy who crashes into your $200,000 porsche is bound to have 3rd party cover, so in the case he is found to be at fault there will be an insurance company to compensate you instead of you having to have goons chase up the money for you.

Obviously, if the 3rd party insurance was to cover the ACC levy as well - premiums are bound to go up.

All that said - I'd happily pay twice the 3rd party premium I'm paying now to know that everyone else on the road are insured.


Which is more likely to do damage in an accident the larger vehicle or the smaller? Think of extra burden on larger vehicles as a chicken tax.

Definitely - there's no arguing against more inertia -> more momentum -> more bang.

However, the accident has to occur one way or the other - I'm just saying that a brand new Porsche Cayenne is likely to have better handling characteristics than an '83 toyota corolla that hasn't seen a decent service for 10 years, running tyres with a minimum tread and inconsisten tyre pressures. I'd rather not be hit at all than be hit by something "not too terribly large" anything weighing more than 50 kgs travelling at more than 30 km/h is going to leave some sort of mess. (If you don't trust me, try walking into a wall at 6 km/h.)

[Mully]

I was told along time ago that when a motorcycle crash victim goes to hospital, the A&E nurse who fills out the ACC form just ticks the box for motorcycle, and does not need to refeer to on road or off road, when ACC talley up the figures they asume all motor cycle accidents are on road, and this is how they crunch their numbers to figure out the ACC fee for road regerstered bikes.


They also do this for scooters (mopeds) which do not require bike licences.

Helps them chastise the nasty dangerous motorcycle riders for costing them so much in care.

[Racey Rider]

Where does all our speeding ticket money go?

Should that be going to ACC?

Run a Stop sign - :Police: Here's your ticket Plus your Extra ACC levee for creating more risk by not stopping as you should have.

[BM-GS]

We seem to have hit upon the fact that a system can either be fair or simple, but never both.

Self-interest is where it's all at: personal (that's why we're all here, isn't it?), economic (for insurance companies, they're not charities, y'know), or whatever.

The current system is simple and relatively cheap to administer. As it's simple, it's not particularly fair, but to make it fairer, it'll need more administering bureaucrats (it's not all bad, it'll create jobs) and cost more (probably bad).

Pay yer money and take yer choice. Vote.

(My personal belief is that we're gonna get screwed whichever way. Front licence plates, anyone?)

[road king]

what i dont get is why we pay GST on our rego, are we getting goods or a survice????

[Blackshear]

what i dont get is why we pay GST on our rego, are we getting goods or a survice????

+1,
Answers?

[Irontusk]

For arguments sake.. sure, a larger vehicle can do more damage.. but if you get into something stupid like a mini, then you're putting yourself at more risk of injury, especially if you hit something that isn't another vehicle.

Old people are more likely to break bones and recieve other major injuries in a crash (my grandmother had her hip replaced, she wasn't supposed to drive for a while, she did anyway and she likes to put her handbag under her seat, guess what the straps got wrapped around? The pedals! Her car ended up meeting another car. Old people.). The younger you are the faster you heal.

The odomoter in one of my cars (petrol) doesn't work. And I've known a few diesel owners who disconnect their speedo cables half the time.

A very nice change would be only having to do ONE theory test to get licences. Cause that's just irritating isn't it? (I have to go for my class 6 on Saturday)

I had more points but I got distracted and have forgotten them..

[buellbabe]

Oh wow so many excellent points made...where do I start?
Ok, deep breath...my biggest gripe with ACC has always been that the victims seem to get penalised. Motorcyclists cost alot to fix so lets charge them more, never mind that motorcylist Bill Bloggs was riding safely when car driver Jo geriatric decided to do an illegal u-turn and didn't 'see' the bike...

Ya see where I am going with this?

if only there was some way to link insurance claims/damage reports to the ACC levy. IE: if you have been a safe (lucky!) rider/driver then you should be rewarded by having a lower ACC levy like a no-claims bonus. Likewise the pricks causing the accidents should be penalised by having higher levies.
So I guess I am leaning towards some kind of individual registration system (of the person) but don't ask me how on earth to make it work!

Sure there are some holes in my logic and it would probably be a nightmare to introduce such a system...cos what do ya do about those people that will continue to drive/ride uninsured/unregistered/unwarranted vehicles...what do we do about those barstards? LOL

My head hurts just thinking about it!

[Patch]

Fuel based is still way more fair.
like hell it is. Why should a boatie, someone mowing their lawns, farmers with tractors etc etc be penalised by some twat who can't drive on the road??
Distance based would be ruc's for every vehicle.


So I guess I am leaning towards some kind of individual registration system (of the person) but don't ask me how on earth to make it work!
Go back to how National had it - no acc. Private ins, which is a crap load cheaper and a lot more effective.


No acc, would mean we could afford medical and loss of income insurance and a few other things. User pays.

[buellbabe]

like hell it is. Why should a boatie, someone mowing their lawns, farmers with tractors etc etc be penalised by some twat who can't drive on the road??
Distance based would be ruc's for every vehicle.


ooooh yes! I forgot to make that point. TOTALLY AGREE!

User pays? Hmmm has its merits buuuut doesn't that mean that bad rider/drivers causing accidents are still getting away with it while their victims are having to fork out?

[alanzs]

Honestly, there are people being paid to think up solutions and yet in NZ nothing sensible ever seems to go ahead. Whats happened to make the national psyche so backwards?

Part of it could it be that people chose to leave and complain as opposed to staying and facilitating change? Some people act, some people talk. Just a thought.... :shit:

[Eurodave]

The easiest way out of paying ACC on multiple vehicles is to own only vehicles that are at least 40 years old, as they have NO ACC levy at all :)
For example my 1936 Morris 8 Sport & 1967 Matchless G15CS only cost me about $80 each & in a few years my 1971 CB 450 & my 1972 Guzzi Eldorado will be about the same :whistle:

[JMemonic]

Folks are going to hate me for this but leave it alone, pay it with the rego just get the figures right a moped is not a motorcycle, according to the ACC system a moped is less likely to suffer disabling injuries in comparison to a motorcycle when hit by a large truck, this is the issue that needs to be looked at, and it does not matter who is at fault.

One suggestion was private insurance, here's my question on that, you have an accident, a law enforcement officer determines that the cause was your fault, regardless of your arguments to the contrary your insurance company takes the stand that as it was your fault you are not covered for the care needed for the spinal injury where is that money coming from?

ACC is not a perfect system but it covers you and everyone whether you slip in the shower (one of the major accident zones in the home) or get hit by a drunk driver, distance is not a practical option either why should I pay more than that old bugger who drove the wrong way up a motorway and endangered every other driver on the road because I use the vehicle to go to work everyday and he uses his to go to bowls and the supermarket once a week?