Older vehicles = increased ACC levy?

[rok-the-boat]

This idea is total tosh, bollox, garbage. The WOF test should, legally, ensure that older vehicles are SAFE. Are they implying that older vehicles are dangerous? That wouled mean their own WOF test is bogus. Do they have any statistics that prove it? I doubt it - they just want our $$$. I am dead set against it. It is just another stealth tax.

[rok-the-boat]

I just read a few more other posts - I can't believe some seem to support the idea. You must be nuts. And to say an 'older' crash costs more is ridiculous - they just scrap the car. New cars crashing at 10kph can cause thousands of dollars of damage. If the damage exceeds the low total value of the old car then ... end of story. Wake up. Keep our costs down.

[pete376403]

Yeah but - ACC doesn't pay any of the cost of repairing / replacing the vehicle, so that doesn't come into it. ACC is only about repairing the occupants.

I guess that once rego reaches a certain level, people just won't bother registering. Or WoF-ing, or insuring (if they do at all), so the only revenue the govt will get is from traffic tickets. Which these people won't pay anyway

[p.dath]

I just read a few more other posts - I can't believe some seem to support the idea. You must be nuts. And to say an 'older' crash costs more is ridiculous - they just scrap the car. New cars crashing at 10kph can cause thousands of dollars of damage. If the damage exceeds the low total value of the old car then ... end of story. Wake up. Keep our costs down.

ACC has nothing to do with the damage done to the vehicle. It's to do with paying for the person to return to a normal life after having an injury.

When you have an accident in a car that is less safe, you tend to sustain worse injuries. Just like if you have an accident on a motorcycle you tend to have worse injuries than if you have an accident in a car. Hence motorcycle ACC premiums are higher.
All they are saying is that if you have an accident in a safer 5 star rated car, then it costs ACC (and that means you and me) less money to get you back to a fit and healthy state.

[scumdog]

ACC has nothing to do with the damage done to the vehicle. It's to do with paying for the person to return to a normal life after having an injury.

When you have an accident in a car that is less safe, you tend to sustain worse injuries. Just like if you have an accident on a motorcycle you tend to have worse injuries than if you have an accident in a car. Hence motorcycle ACC premiums are higher.
All they are saying is that if you have an accident in a safer 5 star rated car, then it costs ACC (and that means you and me) less money to get you back to a fit and healthy state.

As I said in post #13, more or less...

[Ocean1]

I think its about time the person was levied and not the vehicles and then we could be rated on our own risk factor, no claim bonus or whatever like happens with insurance now.

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

You're obviously both labouring under the misapprehension that ACC funding is driven by some logical extension of market forces. It is, of course driven by the single policy set designed to extract the most cash from each respective demographic.

Which is why any move to levy older cars more won’t happen, the citizens who own older cars mostly can’t afford to pay more. Neither can those who make a habit of injuring themselves, so the usual insurance rules regarding correct risk costing are also a non-starter.

Any noise about higher levies applied to “sports” vehicles, however, would get my attention…

[merv]

You're obviously both labouring under the misapprehension that ACC funding is driven by some logical extension of market forces.

Not at all, just say its about bloody time it was. I know that in my demographic I've been a very cheap member of it and wish I could be charged accordingly.

[MaxB]

ACC has nothing to do with the damage done to the vehicle. It's to do with paying for the person to return to a normal life after having an injury.

When you have an accident in a car that is less safe, you tend to sustain worse injuries. Just like if you have an accident on a motorcycle you tend to have worse injuries than if you have an accident in a car. Hence motorcycle ACC premiums are higher.
All they are saying is that if you have an accident in a safer 5 star rated car, then it costs ACC (and that means you and me) less money to get you back to a fit and healthy state.

I think the real story is that modern cars make severe accidents more survivable and this will cause ACC treatment costs to skyrocket and some poor bastards will have to pay these extra costs. This is already happening.

ACC are remarkably short of facts, just rhetoric. They neglect to mention that 20 years ago when cars were deadly pro rata treatment costs were lower than today. More people were killed outright ending ACC obligations to them. Also the number of actual donors has decreased and the number of wheelchair bound accident victims has increased over this period.

Yep as horrible as it is safer cars means more people with lifetime care requirements that the average joe has to pay for.

[Beemer]

IMO - Getting old and unsafe vehicles off the road is a good idea.

However there are many very well maintained and fully resored classics on the road. It would be unfair to descriminate against these.

Exactly - my Corvette is 32 years old but it's been well maintained and isn't a piece of shit! Check out some less than 10 years old cars and see if any of them are in as good nick. The majority of the other's half's bikes are from the 1980s and they are in far better condition than some of the fairly new bikes you see on the road.

They keep going on about compliance costs if they taxed the driver rather than the vehicle but that's what IRD does so I can't see any difference. As those who earn more money pay more tax, so should those who crash more or who are involved in more accidents should pay more. I've been driving for 25 years and riding for more than 10 and in that time I've had one speeding ticket and two minor fender benders - one I backed into another vehicle and the other I hit one that stopped suddenly on a bridge - no motorcycle crashes, no car crashes, no drink driving offences, etc. But my car is 32 years old so I must be a terrible risk...

[mossy1200]

With three times the amount of off road bikes than on road in NZ when you go to hospital and fill in nature of accident is motorcycle even though it was motox fall it lifts the acc claims against bikes pushing the rego up for road bikes.Road bike subsidize motox accidents.Hence the higher acc content of bike regos.Not really fair on those with road bikes.

[Ocean1]

I think the real story is that modern cars make severe accidents more survivable and this will cause ACC treatment costs to skyrocket and some poor bastards will have to pay these extra costs. This is already happening.

ACC are remarkably short of facts, just rhetoric. They neglect to mention that 20 years ago when cars were deadly pro rata treatment costs were lower than today. More people were killed outright ending ACC obligations to them. Also the number of actual donors has decreased and the number of wheelchair bound accident victims has increased over this period.

Yep as horrible as it is safer cars means more people with lifetime care requirements that the average joe has to pay for.

All true, and all known to ACC, (their policy analysists do occasionally produce some output). Remarkably absent from public debate, though, 'cause the facts don't quite support the desired policy objective...

Another wee point. Older cars ain't nescessarilly inherently more dangerous. I'd argue that improvements in safety, (making accidents more survivable), are more or less exactly balanced by improvements in handling and horsepower, making average accident impact speeds higher.

By way of illistration; Try as I might, (and I tried as hard as most) the amount of trouble I could possibly encourage my 100E Prefect into was only just barely enough to induce tolerably transient trauma.

[davereid]

New Zealand has a long way to go yet.

Licencing your Falcon in Queensland will cost you $1000, and you will need 3rd party cover as well.

Singapore will sting you $5000 for your company vehicle - thats for the rego. You will also need 3rd party insurance.

But before you buy the car, you need a "certificate to buy". The government issues these every month, and you bid for them at auction.

These kind of charges show how much G'mint can pluck from the motorist if they wish.

[davebullet]

Well if they legislate this shit, I'll just not license my vehicle. I think the fine ($400?) will only occur once every 2 - 3 years (since I rarely park my car where it can be inspected and ticketed. Just found me a way to reduce my licensing fee but still contribute to society.

[steve_t]

Well if they legislate this shit, I'll just not license my vehicle. I think the fine ($400?) will only occur once every 2 - 3 years (since I rarely park my car where it can be inspected and ticketed. Just found me a way to reduce my licensing fee but still contribute to society.

I'd suspect that if they don't do it at the same time, they'll later realise that people aren't relicencing their cars due to the cost and they'll make the fine more. I'll put my money on $800
It's pretty retarded. As someone else said, it's the people who can't afford to upgrade their car every few years that will end up being charged the most!

[p.dath]

Well if they legislate this shit, I'll just not license my vehicle. I think the fine ($400?) will only occur once every 2 - 3 years (since I rarely park my car where it can be inspected and ticketed. Just found me a way to reduce my licensing fee but still contribute to society.

It will be more than that, as you wont be able to get a WOF once the vehicle becomes de-registered (after 12 months), and that means you wont be able to get insurance.