ACC Levies

[dpex]

Why is it that a bike is more expensive to rego than a car?

Simple. The ACC lvey is higher because we bikers are more likely to be involved in a crash requiring ACC to part with some funds.

So far the logic stands up....Bikers/crashes/pay-out.

However, stats show that 85%+ of all bike collisions are caused by drivers of 'other' vehicles.

And so, ACC are asserting that just being a biker is reason enough to up the levy because we are more likely to claim. The issue of 'fault' seems to have been entirely missed from this assertion.

Why don't ACC charge car-drivers more lest they should, by their poor driving, cause an ACC claim from a biker whom they hit because....'I just didn't see ya!'

But ACC don't apply this reason. They simply assert that bikers are more likely to claim so they up the fees.

So why don't they up the fees on every Indian or Asian owned dairy, liquor store, hot-bread-shop, or pertrol station, on the basis that the staff in such places are far more likely to get shot, stabbed, bludgeoned and beaten than those nice 'terribly' folk who run boutique bullshit shops in Parnell? It's not the fault of the Indians or Asians that the ungodly attack them. So why is it our fault that the idiots attack us?

But that's the way this bunch of Nanny-state cretins think, isn't it?

Remember how, after the Indian guy was shot after he gave the arseholes the money, the Gov coming out with a plan to 'limit' the number of liquor outlets and their trading times....Like it was the fault of the store-owners and that the ungodly were out and about.

And so it is with we bikers. The arseholes cause the claims 85% of the time, so why are we penalised? Just because we exist? Yes.

Do we minimize polution and parking issues? Are we better for the environment? Do we lessen the impact on the balance of trade on account of our bikes are way cheaper than a basic car, and we use way-less gas?

The answers to each Q is a declaratory 'YES'. But the bastards sting us for the incompetence of those who can't drive properly, stink up the environment, take up vast amounts of land to park their cars, and generally cause fiscal mayhem.

This ACC extra levy is a bullshit!

I recommend a 10,000 biker rally to Wellington, to protest. I'd be prepared to pilly an Indian Dairy owner, just to make the point. He can carry a placard asserting......


STOP THESE FUCKERS
FROM KILLING US

[dpex]

Why is it that a bike is more expensive to rego than a car?

Simple. The ACC lvey is higher because we bikers are more likely to be involved in a crash requiring ACC to part with some funds.

So far the logic stands up....Bikers/crashes/pay-out.

However, stats show that 85%+ of all bike collisions are caused by drivers of 'other' vehicles.

And so, ACC are asserting that just being a biker is reason enough to up the levy because we are more likely to claim. The issue of 'fault' seems to have been entirely missed from this assertion.

Why don't ACC charge car-drivers more lest they should, by their poor driving, cause an ACC claim from a biker whom they hit because....'I just didn't see ya!'

But ACC don't apply this reason. They simply assert that bikers are more likely to claim so they up the fees.

So why don't they up the fees on every Indian or Asian owned dairy, liquor store, hot-bread-shop, or pertrol station, on the basis that the staff in such places are far more likely to get shot, stabbed, bludgeoned and beaten than those nice 'terribly' folk who run boutique bullshit shops in Parnell? It's not the fault of the Indians or Asians that the ungodly attack them. So why is it our fault that the idiots attack us?

But that's the way this bunch of Nanny-state cretins think, isn't it?

Remember how, after the Indian guy was shot after he gave the arseholes the money, the Gov coming out with a plan to 'limit' the number of liquor outlets and their trading times....Like it was the fault of the store-owners and that the ungodly were out and about.

And so it is with we bikers. The arseholes cause the claims 85% of the time, so why are we penalised? Just because we exist? Yes.

Do we minimize polution and parking issues? Are we better for the environment? Do we lessen the impact on the balance of trade on account of our bikes are way cheaper than a basic car, and we use way-less gas?

The answers to each Q is a declaratory 'YES'. But the bastards sting us for the incompetence of those who can't drive properly, stink up the environment, take up vast amounts of land to park their cars, and generally cause fiscal mayhem.

This ACC extra levy is a bullshit!

I recommend a 10,000 biker rally to Wellington, to protest. I'd be prepared to pilly an Indian Dairy owner, just to make the point. He can carry a placard asserting......


STOP THESE FUCKERS
FROM KILLING US

[cs363]

You're forgetting the fact that you are dealing with the Gummint....therefore logic and fairness do not apply. :whistle:



(Not that I disagree with any of the points you make :) )

[cs363]

You're forgetting the fact that you are dealing with the Gummint....therefore logic and fairness do not apply. :whistle:



(Not that I disagree with any of the points you make :) )

[Hitcher]

Repost.

Write to your MP and to the Ministers of Transport and ACC. There is a coterie of policy analysts in Wellington with a very fixed world view, as evidenced by a number of "injustices" inflicted on motorcyclists, cheesecutter barriers included.

Remember that we are a minority in the universe of New Zealand road users, and tribal in a fragmented bitchy non-constructive way.

It's election year. If you can't get an opposition political party interested in this issue now, it's never going to happen.

[AllanB]

You make good points.


We should all write to our ACC minister making the same point - I understand you do not need a stamp to post to your government. Someone will confirm this.

There is one point you missed - since Suzuki's crash more often than other bikes they should pay higher ACC levies.


:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: shake::shake::ride:

[Oakie]

However, stats show that 85%+ of all bike collisions are caused by drivers of 'other' vehicles.

And so, ACC are asserting that just being a biker is reason enough to up the levy because we are more likely to claim. The issue of 'fault' seems to have been entirely missed from this assertion.

The whole philosophy under-pinning the scheme is that it's a 'no fault - no blame' system. The idea of 'fault' hasn't been missed. It's been deliberately removed from the equation. You get hurt ... you get compensated regardless of if it was due to your own idiocy or someone else's.

[dipshit]

However, stats show that 85%+ of all bike collisions are caused by drivers of 'other' vehicles.

They do not. Stats showed that 38% of bike accidents were caused by other vehicles in NZ during 2002 - 2006 period.

[Drum]

I think it's fair that we pay more.

What's not fair is when you wave at another rider and they don't wave back!

[reofix]

asian dairy owners do pay more... so do people who live in high crime areas ... so do people who happen to be young and male ... pay it and get over it

[vinnieh]

<rant>

Ha, funny. I came to this forum just now for the sole reason to bitch about how much it costs to get a bike on the road.

I only have my car license, and now I have found out that to get my MC Learners, I have to fork out $120. Then, to get my restricted, another $87.90. Finally, to get my full, it costs $115.10. That's $320 all up, which I think is a ridiculous amount of money to pay for the right to ride a motorbike on the road.

But not only that, it costs $267.21 per year per bike for rego! That is an insane cost for something that should be promoted for all the reasons stated by OP. Motorbikes are a million times greener than cars. People are encouraged to run a car instead of a bike simply because it's cheaper.

And if motorcyclists are so dangerous, why the crap aren't bicyclists charged an arm and a leg for THEIR right to be on the road? Don't get me wrong, I don't think they should be charged (even though they are a pain in the arse a lot of the time: think 3 cyclists riding abreast like I saw today :mad:).

But according the the way LTSA thinks, why do they get off scot-free?

So much for green NZ; there are NO incentives for people to adopt greener lifestyles in this country. I bet half the ACC fee is down to a bloated system, they probably employ a room full of jokers at huge cost just to answer the letters that pissed off bike-riders send in.

I am definitely voting National, even for the sole reason that they want to cap the amount of bureaucrats. I am pissed because I'm a student and I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place cause I can't afford to run a car and I can't afford to get my license and have to keep registering a motorbike at some astronomical cost.

Fuck the stupid LTSA and ACC in their stupid arses. Can't wait for some competition in the accident compensation market when National gets in.

</rant>

[FJRider]

The cause of accidents is not the issue. User pays... so the majority of the claimaints pay, thats motorcyclists...two three or four wheeled one's. Old Joe Retired on his lifestyle block, drives his four wheeler into the ditch, without a helmet...thats a motorcycle accident too. It matters little that no rego or ACC fees were paid by him.
Statistics then prove "motorcyclists" are more prone to accidents...simple ehh...

[MaxB]

I remember reading somewhere that all claims involving bikes are included in our levy. This includes off-road and farm bike accidents on bikes that are unregistered. How fair is that?

Talking about fair, try running your own business and dealing with the ACC day to day. They stopped being value for money years ago.

[steved]

asian dairy owners do pay more... so do people who live in high crime areas ... so do people who happen to be young and male ... pay it and get over itThey don't pay higher ACC levies, higher standard insurance premiums maybe.

[steved]

I only have my car license, and now I have found out that to get my MC Learners, I have to fork out $120. Then, to get my restricted, another $87.90. Finally, to get my full, it costs $115.10. That's $320 all up, which I think is a ridiculous amount of money to pay for the right to ride a motorbike on the road.

But not only that, it costs $267.21 per year per bike for rego! That is an insane cost for something that should be promoted for all the reasons stated by OP. Motorbikes are a million times greener than cars. People are encouraged to run a car instead of a bike simply because it's cheaper.

And if motorcyclists are so dangerous, why the crap aren't bicyclists charged an arm and a leg for THEIR right to be on the road? Don't get me wrong, I don't think they should be charged (even though they are a pain in the arse a lot of the time: think 3 cyclists riding abreast like I saw today :mad:).

But according the the way LTSA thinks, why do they get off scot-free?

So much for green NZ; there are NO incentives for people to adopt greener lifestyles in this country. I bet half the ACC fee is down to a bloated system, they probably employ a room full of jokers at huge cost just to answer the letters that pissed off bike-riders send in.

I am definitely voting National, even for the sole reason that they want to cap the amount of bureaucrats. I am pissed because I'm a student and I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place cause I can't afford to run a car and I can't afford to get my license and have to keep registering a motorbike at some astronomical cost.

Fuck the stupid LTSA and ACC in their stupid arses. Can't wait for some competition in the accident compensation market when National gets in.

</rant>

Harden up. Riding a bike is an ungodly privilege and worth every penny. Why do you think motorbikes are greener than cars? They consume almost the same amount of fuel as a car, more tires, more oil, greater emissions.

Go National!

[Rhubarb]

Well, it might seem expensive to ride a bike when you add it all up, but...............DAMN IT'S WORTH IT!!!

[Grahameeboy]

Harden up. Riding a bike is an ungodly privilege and worth every penny. Why do you think motorbikes are greener than cars? They consume almost the same amount of fuel as a car, more tires, more oil, greater emissions.

Go National!

Agree the pleasure is worth more than the extra dough.....cheaper than a prostitute which never lasts as long and no money back guarantee...did I just say that!!!!

[Rhubarb]

It's not really that expensive when you ride a reliable old hack like mine.

[vinnieh]

Harden up. Riding a bike is an ungodly privilege and worth every penny. Why do you think motorbikes are greener than cars? They consume almost the same amount of fuel as a car, more tires, more oil, greater emissions.

Go National!

Hey steved,

I think riding a bike on the road is as much of a privilege as driving a car. To me, a privilige is something that you earn, whereas to ride a bike all you need to do is front up the cash.

Bikes are greener because instead of me using my 800kg 1300cc car to get me to school I can ride something that has a 100cc or even 250cc engine that doesn't have to pull a whole lot of extra shite, just a frame, engine and me. Next time you are sitting at the lights in the morning traffic, take a look and see how many cars have only one person in them - most of them have only one. If everyone rode some form of motorbike or cycled or whatever, legislation like the carbon emissions trading scheme might not affect us as much as it will. I think the govt should encourage people to ride bikes and also make the roads safer for motocyclists.

And if I am going to pay shitloads of money over the years in taxes and levies etc, the least they could do is build roads that are designed to last longer. My father was a civil engineer and a lot of roads are only designed to last for 5 years to cut back on costs.

Road safety experts from overseas have looked at NZs roads and said that the killer on our roads are not speeders but that dumbasses that build roads that are cheap, but not safe.

Anyway I'm getting off track. I just think that its bullshit how expensive it is to run a bike. Basically I don't have the money to run a bike and get my license, which is a problem which hardening up will not solve for me. Maybe one day when I'm not a student.

Good to see another national supporter :niceone:

[The Stranger]

ACC is supposed to be a no blame system - the sole exception is motorcycles.

The stats on cost are largely bullshit.
They are collected by the doctor. You go in for an accident and say the word motorcycle and the doctor ticks the motorcycle box - even though off road motorcycle injuries should not be included here - neither should farm bike injuries.
Then they take the total bill (including the off road injuries etc) and divide it by the number of registered motorcycles and set our levy accordingly.

[popelli]

Are we better for the environment? Do we lessen the impact on the balance of trade on account of our bikes are way cheaper than a basic car, and we use way-less gas?



wrong on both counts

modern jap bikes use more fuel than modern cars in many cases

average life expectancy of a car in 100 - 150,000 miles

life expectancy for most bikes is well under 50,000 miles so you need 3 times as many bikes to do the same mileage

[Max Preload]

The whole philosophy under-pinning the scheme is that it's a 'no fault - no blame' system. The idea of 'fault' hasn't been missed. It's been deliberately removed from the equation. You get hurt ... you get compensated regardless of if it was due to your own idiocy or someone else's.

That's a complete falsehood. Fault and blame is being aportioned in the levies themselves by rather than charging every man woman and child in the country he exact same amount, they're differentiating between people based on how many vehicles they own, their income and their profession. Now tell me again how it's a 'no fault - no blame' system - I love a good belly laugh!

[MarkH]

So I have both a car and a bike. Since I ride a bike I am more 'at risk' and have to pay a higher ACC levy. How do I claim back the lower ACC levy that I pay when I reg my car? How is it fair to have to pay 2 ACC levies when I never operate both vehicles at once? What about the forum members that list several bikes - if they are all registered then that is a shit-load of ACC levies!

Why the hell aren't the ACC levies per driver/rider rather than per vehicle? If I have 7 cars that I called Monday, Tuesday, ... then how am I more 'at risk' then the guy that has one car that he uses everyday?

[jaykay]

Also don't forget that diesel vehicles pay more rego than petrol, which following government logic must mean they are more dangerous.

One solution to this strange logic would be:
1. Compulsory third party insurance
2. An ACC levy as a fixed percentage of this cost.

Insurance companies would decide what risk you are (perhaps for a couple of bikes and a car), and then you pay ACC levies at (for example) 50% of the quoted figure. The lower the risk, the less insurance and ACC to pay - lower claims would lead to lower costs.

IIRC Ruth Dyson said something like "If you want lower ACC levies then improve your driving", unfortunately at present the ACC levy is nothing to do with how well any particular person drives. However if you are perceived to be a high risk by an insurance company you will pay more - at present of course it's the high risk drivers who don't get insurance. And because they don't have to get insurance there is no real reason for a bad driver to improve.

[Ixion]

That is because the cost of petrol includes an ACC levy component , whilst diesel does not. So the extra 'rego' cost is to make up the shortfall on the fuel. Which actually is logical.

[Motig]

So you'll be pleased to see that a notice of the proposed new ACC levy increases is in todays papers.

[CookMySock]

Try flying a fucken cessna, that will make your eyes water. Bikes are worth it.

Steve

[Slingshot]

I've just had the consultation documents sent through from ACC, (I emailed them weeks ago to get a copy).

The last couple of the attachment will probably be of interest, ACC is proposing a $60ish increase in motorcycle levy and they justify it with this footnote:

Note that the motorcycle levy is subsidised by the other vehicle classes. An analysis of the ‘true’ levy for motorcycles shows that if ACC charged motorcycles an unsubsidised levy this would increase the currently proposed rate of $262.75 ($392.09 for non-petrol-driven motorcycles) to approximately $1,500.

Fuckers, now I just need to find the business card of my local PM so she can hear all about this.

[Ixion]

That $1500 claim is bollocks. It's an urban myth promoted by the ACC based on some highly dodgy calculations carried out years ago, which extrapolated the decrease in motorcycle registrations that occured in the 90s out into the future and concluded that by 2014 there'd only be 2 bikes left on the road, which would have to pay for all the previous injuries (not quite, but you get the idea).

ACC ever since have sententiously trotted out the figure to justify clobbering bikes, despite the fact that the decrease in registrations has in fact reversed, and registrations are now massively increasing each year (so that the cost is spread over a greater number). Requests for them to justify the claim are met by "OK, but it's going to cost you $100000 "

[MarkH]

That $1500 claim is bollocks.

I would have to agree - ACC is really paying out an average of $1500 in claims per registered motorcycle per year? That is some serious outlay! Wait a minute - more than $1500 surely, the ACC levy on petrol + the work ACC paid for the riders that are also employees also goes into the ACC fund. We would have to be talking about maybe over $2000 in ACC costs on average per registered motorcycle per year.

That really sounds a bit too high to be accurate.
Also: to the degree that car drivers cause accidents that injure motorcyclists they should be subsidising the ACC payouts to motorcyclists, so the ACC levy for cars should incorporate some of the cost to keep things fair.

[varminter]

ACC is an acronym, it stands for ''A Collection of Cunts.''

[nodrog]

ACC is an acronym, it stands for ''A Collection of Cunts.''

whatever, cunts are useful!

[varminter]

I stand corrected. Then perhaps A Covey of Cretins:yes:

[jaykay]

That is because the cost of petrol includes an ACC levy component , whilst diesel does not. So the extra 'rego' cost is to make up the shortfall on the fuel. Which actually is logical.

There is an ACC component in Road User Charges for diesel vehicles, and this amount is obviously dependant on distance driven, which to some extent is true of taxes on petrol.

So why do diesel vehicles have higher rego? As it is a fixed cost it rewards anyone who does big miles and penalises low users - much like the extra cost for bikes.

[Ixion]

The RUC charge does not include an ACC compoenent.

Petrol taxes have three components : a central government levy (pays for roads) ; a local area surcharge (theoretically also for roads) ; and an ACC levy (goes to ACC). And petrol vehicles pay a registration levy (goes to government) and an ACC levy (goes ot ACC). So for petrol vehicles ACC get money from each litre of petrol, and from the registration levy

Diesel pays RUC instead. But they only include only the government levy. Nothing for ACC. So ACC, for diesel vehicles , only get the income form the registration levy. The levy is therefore higher , to make up for the missing fuel levy.

The oft voiced complaints of diesel owners are actually based on a demand that they should pay less than other people. Or perhaps they ahve not noticed that the cost of diesel per litre is less than that of petrol. Guess why?

The calculations are all easily available on the web (try the ACC website !).

[MarkH]

whatever, cunts are useful!

Not 5 1/2 foot tall ones.

[bucket boy]

Not 5 1/2 foot tall ones.

nodrog likes those ones

[Dargor]

The sexual affiliation of ACC and the government aside.
Protests are cool, lets do it. Nothings going to change on its own.

[bigfoot]

Too right. Its typical of our grandma (the state) to deal with issues by introducing laws that decrease the number of instances and let a minority group be disadvantaged (dairy owner/liqour store owner/bikers) rather than sit at the drawing board and try and negate the cause.
Is there such a thing as being tooo PC ?

[Max Preload]

Protests are cool, lets do it. Nothings going to change on its own.

Did it in '93. I'd gladly do it again.