Older vehicles = increased ACC levy?

[Paul in NZ]

Fuck this for a game of soldiers...

This is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. Utter complete bullshit.

Look - I have an older car, a 1993 corolla wagon getting on 250,000 km and yes, no stinking air bag or bugger all else amd amazingly I still stagger a minimum of 500km a week.... week in week out, reliably, economically and cheaply. Its a complicated as a brick and dead cheap n easy to maintain myself (well most things)

If they want to put ACC levies up - put them up for the pricks than are identified as causing accidents and reduce them for those that don't much like an insurance company would.

The ONLY people that will win out of this are the bloody car dealers and importers who i would suggest this anti kiwi battler idea came from. I really can't remember being this pissed off about anything!

[p.dath]

Surely "safety" or "risk" lies in the nut behind the wheel, rather than in the vehicle being driven or ridden?

How often is vehicular failure the primary cause of an accident, rather than driver/rider error?

This is bureaucratic nonsense. If ACC and other agencies don't want older vehicles on the road, bring in compulsory emissions testing. That will get rid of many in short order. It's also more sensible than this latest nonsense.

But don't forget that a vehicle can contribute to the severity of the accident and the more severe the accident the more it costs ACC (and us!) to rehabilitate that person.

For example, if costs a lot more on average to rehabilitate someone in a motorcycle accident than a car, because motorcycles offer less protection.

[p.dath]

The tin-pots are gonna legislate the life out of motorbikes, by 2011 you'll be applying 2 weeks in advance for a 24 hour/185 kilometre riding permit. 24 hours or 185 kilometres, whichever comes first, extra kilometres will be charged accordingly. You'll also be queuing at the postshop buying mileage at 58 cent per kilometre if requiring the over 1528 kilometre per year permits which will be issued strictly on a limited basis and if you've got any sort of traffic record, speed tickets etc.. well, you know you can damn well forget about doing anymore than fifteen hundred and twenty fucken kilometres a year on a motorbike. The opinions of the non-motorcycling public must be taken notice of. ACC'll be mortgaging your arses and regos are gonna be a standard $65.95 per month per person per vehicle per year. And anyone with the cheek to own more than one motorbike is gonna be copping some more really really steep charges on top..

As you know, trucks already pay by the km. The system has already been looked at for cars (the idea being the more km's a car does the more it has used the road), however the cost to administer it was found to be greater than the benefit, and hence the status quo remained.

It will be the same case for motorcycles.

[p.dath]

Damn ACC Levies! Besides paying ACC on motor vehicles you pay ACC out of your wages and then for business owners they get stung huge ACC levies on their profits. ACC should be for those injured by someone else and all the bludgers/ self abusers should be users pays!

ACC is not charged based on profit. ACC is deducted from an employees wages, and is based on their occupation and the amount of money they get paid.
The levies cover you for work related accidents, and for "social" accidents, like sports.

Vehicle ACC levies cover you for injuries arising from vehicles.

[p.dath]

Fuck this for a game of soldiers...

This is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. Utter complete bullshit.

Look - I have an older car, a 1993 corolla wagon getting on 250,000 km and yes, no stinking air bag or bugger all else amd amazingly I still stagger a minimum of 500km a week.... week in week out, reliably, economically and cheaply. Its a complicated as a brick and dead cheap n easy to maintain myself (well most things)

If they want to put ACC levies up - put them up for the pricks than are identified as causing accidents and reduce them for those that don't much like an insurance company would.
...

If you could predict who was going to cause a car accident then we could stop accidents happening altogether, so I guess that wont be happening.

You have missed one point. There are two major contributing factors, the number of accidents, and the average cost to rehabilitate those that have an accident.
Motorcycles and older vehicles tend to cause more serious accidents - those that require more money to fix those who were injured.

[BiK3RChiK]

ACC is not charged based on profit. ACC is deducted from an employees wages, and is based on their occupation and the amount of money they get paid.

Oh yes it is! I just got my bill. And based on my occupation it increases or decreases according to how much money I've made in my business during the financial year.

I still think Users should pay

[Oakie]

Yep we're all mainly on the same tack, levy the licence not the vehicles.

And you'd probably find your ACC levies go up unless you have 3 or more vehicles. To illustrate, take just motorbikes as an example :

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 the system 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

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

[rainman]

If they want to put ACC levies up - put them up for the pricks than are identified as causing accidents and reduce them for those that don't much like an insurance company would.

Amen brother. I'm pissed off that I'm paying increased premiums, at least partially because of boy racers both of the 4 and 2 wheeled variety.

As you know, trucks already pay by the km. The system has already been looked at for cars (the idea being the more km's a car does the more it has used the road), however the cost to administer it was found to be greater than the benefit, and hence the status quo remained.

How so? They already have the systems + software etc for trucks. They already take an odo reading at every WOF. They already have the mechanism to send out diverse demands for payment, and can collect money etc. What's missing?

[p.dath]

Amen brother. I'm pissed off that I'm paying increased premiums, at least partially because of boy racers both of the 4 and 2 wheeled variety.



How so? They already have the systems + software etc for trucks. They already take an odo reading at every WOF. They already have the mechanism to send out diverse demands for payment, and can collect money etc. What's missing?

The system used for trucks is designed to be a certain size. It would need to be scaled up massively to handle the number of cars - that is assuming it can be scaled up, otherwise a full replacement would be needed.

When they looked at it, the net cost was more than the return.

[Bradz]

Yet more taxes.... already paying to much acc

[p.dath]

Yet more taxes.... already paying to much acc

Well they did decide not to proceed, and stick with the flat ACC cost per vehicle, to avoid a "tax" (aka, ACC) increase.

[Ixion]

Well, isn't *that* an exciting selection

CARS WITH FIVE-STAR SAFETY RATINGS:
Fiat 500 (Pop 3 door hatch) 2008. Score: 34.91/37; Cost: From $26,990
Skoda Superb 2009. Score: 34.75/37; Cost: From $51,990
Kia Soul 2009. Score: 33.11/37; Cost: From $29,990
Hyundai i30 GLS 5-door hatch 2009. Score: 32.54/37; Cost: From $29,490

ignores, of course, the fact that anyone who would want tod rive one of those "five star" cars would almost certainly be a 'one star" driver.

[davebullet]

If the gubbermint was really serious, they'd legislate against having cars below crash rating X or older than year Y on the road. They wouldn't do that of course because they'd shorten their gubberminting life expectancy somewhat. So... what they can do is find another way to milk the motorist for their overdrafts, whilst claiming reductions in ACC costs, saving lives etc...

I'd wager I drive my old banger accord more carefully, because it doesn't have ABS, doesn't have airbags etc... Sure research overseas says occupants are more likely to survive crashes with less injuries in a modern car... but those same drivers are more distracted (gadgets), drive faster (traction control) and brake later (ABS)... are those driving habits safer?

Driver and mileage based ACC is the right way to go.

[p.dath]

Well, isn't *that* an exciting selection



ignores, of course, the fact that anyone who would want tod rive one of those "five star" cars would almost certainly be a 'one star" driver.

I have a Holden V8 Commodore SS. I'm just in the process of trading it in for a new Ford Fiesta. The Ford Fiesta has a 5 star NCAP rating.

I'm trading my Holden in because I can't afford to maintain it anymore. I love it very much, but I need to live within my means.

[p.dath]

If the gubbermint was really serious, they'd legislate against having cars below crash rating X or older than year Y on the road. They wouldn't do that of course because they'd shorten their gubberminting life expectancy somewhat.
...

Of course, if you can't legislate those cars off the road you could always increase the taxes for them so people can't afford to keep them on the road ...

Same result. Just different PR.