Rego fees

[firefighter]

Not if ACC was done via the petrol at the pump

Holy shit another solution!

That would be my choice too.

[rosie631]

And mine.

10 char

[peasea]

Not if ACC was done via the petrol at the pump

I have to agree in principle. ACC is 'supposed' to be a no-fault accident insurance scheme, right? If that's the case then we should all pay equally and for those who operate motor vehicles then surely the easiest way to gather the revenue is at the pump?

The fact that they continually point the finger at motorcycles and say "they are a greater risk" flies in the face of their own philosophy.

Forget road deaths for a moment. Let's line up all the sporting injuries like rugby injuries, skiing injuries, tramping, hockey, netball et al, add home injuries etc and count the cost. These are injuries incurred by folk who don't pay ACC levies. I'd like to see the figures stacked up against motorcycle accident injuries (forget deaths) and see how they compare.

Anyone got such figures?

[dmouse]

Dear Miss Wong, Mr. Smith

I am totally disappointed in you and your views on charges for ACC, especially on motorcycles. it would be fair to say that myself as a motorcycle rider of a larger motorcycle, to be charged over $700 for one year`s registration is totally unfair and biased towards all motorcyclists. if we are to be charged according to engine size, then to make things fair, cars should also be charged by engine size and if a turbo is fitted.

Then main problem that i see is that all motorcyclist`s, scooter riders, and push cyclists are listed in the same category in land transport figures for accidents, so that it looks like motorcyclist`s have the highest accident rate. i have been riding motorcycles for over 35 years, and i have had three accidents two of which were caused by drivers that broke the law and knocked me off of my bike, and caused serious injuries to me and a lot of damage to my bike, which was off of the road in the first accident for 7 months, and the second accident for 5 months. the first accident was caused by a driver who ran a red light and hit me in the back at 60 plus kmph, and was witnessed, the second accident was a driver who did a u-turn in font of me who, stated that he did not see me but he saw the car behind me ?, this accident was witnessed by the police.

i suffer from mental problems as a result of an accident and i can no longer drive a car or van as i suffer from severe claustrophobia and i am physically sick, this cost of over $700 a year is going to take my only transport away, i will not be able to sell my bike as no one will want to pay the high costs of registration that will go with it. i beg that you reconsider the costs that you are about o put on us as motorcyclists as it is really excessive.

i look forward to your reply

David O`Neill

[Molly]

I'd like to submit a letter of my own. Exactly who are we addressing this to? Maybe I'll ask in 'General'.

Edit. Sent this:


Good morning.

Re: ACC increases

I own several motorcycles and ride for relaxation. My favourite of these is a large and somewhat lumbering Harley Davidson. The bikes are my passion I suppose and the three-thousand or so kilometres per year I do are confined to sunny weekends, occasional summer evenings and social events. Indeed, I would recommend riding as a welcome distraction from the sometimes stressful working day.

Though I can think of no less a risk to themselves or others than my forty-something frame pootling around the countryside I today find these three-thousand kilometres are about to cost me an additional $500 per year in ACC fees per bike owned. By any measure this is an unfair, unbalanced and ill-considered increase. I might point out that I am only able to ride one bike at a time so my risk is no greater if I own one or twenty bikes (though, quite unfairly, my ACC contribution varies proportionately).

Could I ask you to please use your position to voice the anger felt today by thousands of motorcyclists who feel this increase is grossly unfair? Today we feel like a minority group who have been bullied and attacked by an oafish and ignorant authority.

Thank you.

[duckonin]

I can't quite remember the details behind this one when I read it, but I think accidents on 600cc and above bikes tended to be more severe (probably because higher speed was involved) as opposed to the number of accidents being higher.

Mine is 800 but not that fast, so why me?? one would say!!, the other point is it goes fast enough to kill, but then doesn't have to be fast at all...

[DMCD]

I can't quite remember the details behind this one when I read it, but I think accidents on 600cc and above bikes tended to be more severe (probably because higher speed was involved) as opposed to the number of accidents being higher.

Hang on..

An RS250 has the same power as my 790cc and about 120 less kg's wouldnt that make it a faster bike?

[StoneY]

DMOUSE I wont 'quote' ya mate as it would blow this out

Bloody well said my man - nicely written and great pionts
Bling for you bro

[StoneY]

I can't quite remember the details behind this one when I read it, but I think accidents on 600cc and above bikes tended to be more severe (probably because higher speed was involved) as opposed to the number of accidents being higher.

Godamn man, just when I think I super hate your dribble, you actually say something worthwhile!!!!

Thats the shit bro- its that the injuries are worse, often coz the 'off' occurs on a major highway at speed
Big bikes actually crash LESS - just ruin more bodies

[DMCD]

Its another example of the ill-informed ignorant scattergun approach government often takes and they can in this case because bikers are not a big enough community for them to be concerned about.

Its the stupid assumption that cc rating = speed that gets me, we see the same kind of nonsense and ignorance in the telecommunications industry, some narrow minded twat who knows nothing about the subject gets an idea into there heads and it becomes law.

[Rhubarb]

Not if ACC was done via the petrol at the pump

What about purchasing ACC miles? (Similar to Road User Charges for diesel vehicles).

Those of us who are fair weather weekend riders would be charged for the miles we ride.

The more you ride, the more you pay. SIMPLE and FAIR !

[p.dath]

...
This is a typical meathead N.Zer problem creating rather than problem solving response which stops sensible things like the forementioned idea and GST being removed from fruit and veges......

Easy workable solution.....buisinesses don't get the refund.....

Is that just too easy or should I get into politics?

It is easy to say, but how easy is it to implement. What defines a company?

Is a 3 man entity operating from home with 2 bikes trading commercially with no company registrarion going to get the refund?
Is a 10 man entity operating from a premise with 4 bikes trading commercially with no company registration going to get the refund?
What about a partnership?
What about sole traders?
What about holding companies that don't trade?
What about commercial trusts (as opposed to person trusts - which look the same to an external entity)?

Can you see how complex the legislation would start becoming?

[Molly]

(And who are you calling a pie-eater?)

You've not met me, have you... ?

[MarkyMark]

Not if ACC was done by petrol at the pump

This would unfairly penalise drivers of big fuel inefficient vehicles and let bikes continue to be subsidised by other road users.

Personally, I think this would be a great idea but you can see why it's going to meet a lot of resistance.

[peasea]

[QUOTE=Molly;1129457577]I'd like to submit a letter of my own. Exactly who are we addressing this to? Maybe I'll ask in 'General'.

Edit. Sent this:


QUOTE]

I put this together today, I thought the date for submissions was October 2nd, but that was to the Minister of Transport, not ACC. This is for ACC, see how we go. Anyone is welcome to cut and paste it, add your own details at the top etc...

ACC levies submission

To Whom It May Concern:

The proposed increase in ACC levies for motorcycles is excessive and needs to be reviewed immediately.

While it is generally accepted that some sort of increase is necessary the amount suggested is unacceptable. Many accidents involving motorcycles are caused by operators of other vehicles and for motorcyclists to be called upon to pay for others’ mistakes is grossly unfair. The ACC scheme is touted as being a ‘no-fault’ system yet ACC singles out motorcyclists as being ‘high risk’. Motorists who are proven to cause motorcycle accidents should, in fact, have their levies increased.

Furthermore, many large displacement motorcycles are not used for commuting on a daily basis, greatly reducing their on-road time and therefore reducing their ‘risk factor’. Sports injuries cost New Zealand millions of dollars every year but there would appear to be little financial input from players who might need medical treatment and lengthy, costly rehabilitation.

Motorcycles relieve traffic congestion and produce a smaller carbon footprint than automobiles; in a time when it is important for people to make every effort to reduce emissions motorcycle usage should be encouraged, rather than having it discouraged through excessive levying. The proposal to increase the ACC levy to the level suggested could push many riders into automobiles, which would be a major leap backward in terms of traffic congestion and air quality.

If the New Zealand Government is serious about reducing emissions and relieving traffic congestion then its support for motorcycle usage is imperative. However, the ACC levy proposal is counter-productive to this and should be reviewed forthwith.

Yours etc………