ACC Levies. BRONZ meeting

[ROBMW]

I've been riding a bike to work for 15+ years without incident and this $500 hike in costs is insane. I'll be at the public demonstrations to oppose this. What really sucks is the ACC payouts for some criminals, suiciders and sports which are all voluntary activities. The system may have started out as a good thing but now it's abused by low lifes so it should be abolished as it's clearly buggered.

[scracha]

BRONZ going to organise a pissup in a brewery properly for once?

[Tas]

Im not sure if BRONZ is active in the Hawkes Bay and to be honest I wasn't aware of its existence until tonight. I agree with other comments regarding a factual based and coordinated response to these proposed changes. I have never taken part in any form of protest in my life but this really "rips my undies". I will attend any organised ride on parliment if there is even a remote chance to stop this proceeding. If anyone from the Bay is starting to organise anything I would appreciate some contact details.

[mahon]

Hon. Dr. Nick Smith, MP Nelson
Contact Details
Email: nick.smith@national.org.nz
Website: www.nick4nelson.co.nz
Phone: (04)817 6805 (Parliament)
Phone: (03)5472314 (Electorate) Fax 547 2315
or
E-mail nick@nick4nelson.co.nz


Cycling in a city or open road is more dangerous than motorcycling (at mercy of vehicle from behind and car doors opening, basically no protective gear, less visible, wobbly, no electric indicators or loud hooter) yet don't pay any ACC costs.
Seems like Nick Smith enjoys taking risks mountain biking according to this article - http://www.nick4nelson.co.nz/smith-w...phy-track.html which reads:

"Wednesday, 01 July 2009
Nelson MP Nic Smith today welcomed news the Department of Conservation was seeking public feedback on its proposal to trial mountain biking on the Heaphy Track.

"Mountain biking on the Heaphy Track has been a personal hobby horse of mine for over a decade," Nick Smith said. "This year I have been pushing hard for a change in the Kahurangi National Park Management Plan to allow for winter access for mountain biking in time for winter next year. I am delighted that DOC has included the proposal in its review of the plan.

"Twenty years ago kayaking in the Able Tasman National Park was regarded as a fringe activity. Today it injects more than $20 million a year into the Nelson region.

"Mountain biking is a growth activity in New Zealand and there is a real opportunity for tourism by allowing it on the Heaphy Track during the five-month winter visitor season and year round on the Flora Saddle to Barron Flat and Kill Devil tracks.

"I am glad that DOC is asking the public to have its say on this important issue. In my view mountain bikes need to be given a go on the Heaphy."

The hypocrisy of another politician!

[swbarnett]

I cant think off one reason why we shouldn't

apart from hey this is my toy and its my right to ride .... and crash

the only plausible one I can think of is that it reduces congestion

Stephen

Here's one:

ACC is, by their own words, a "NO FAULT" scheme. Surely charging one group more than another is atributing fault to that group?

The ONLY fair way to fund ACC (or any other Government endevour) is through income tax (both personal and company).

[motorcyclesonline.net]

There are a couple of things I'd like aired
If the Government adopts the proposed LAMS for learner approved bikes which permits bikes up to 660cc then obviously the ACC & the LTSA are not on the same page

All motorcycles should be registered - moto-x - quads - track bikes the whole lot and its not hard
These non-road bikes can all be registered as Class B or AE which is for farm machinery
The fee is $50 of which $40.80 goes to the ACC
Riders out racing, trail riding who currently crash & burn all feature in the motorcycle statistics
Another advantage of this as a Registered Motor Vehicle Trader, is that we can deal in bikes knowing that they are legally purchased & owned
A two month moratorium to get everything registered
The Police would only need to turn up to the Tarawera 100 or the Tangimoana ride this weekend where there will be 700+ riders - prove you purchased the bike after we seize it
I believe it will help reduce the trade in stolen bikes

Look forward to comments

[motorbyclist]

Firstly, a $500 ACC levy on a gsxr600 yet $750 for a vfr800 or SV650 demonstrates a serious misunderstanding on the part of the MPs behind this.

Secondly, these fees would price many off riding, and require some serious thought/saving for those who still make a saving vs. parking a car. The current fine for not having a rego is $200. A lot of people will take their chances.

Thirdly, this will do serious harm to the industry and cost a lot of jobs - can we put a price on this?




DIRTbikes: the only time I pay any acc on my dirtbike is when i get a MNZ day licence, which I've never needed to get, even to race in some instances. Farm quads cripple a lot of men but again no real rego. My understanding is this goes on road biker's tab.
How enforceable a rego on farm bikes is, however, questionable.

[motorbyclist]

"These changes are necessary because ACC's claim costs have risen by 57 per cent and its unfunded liabilities have grown from $4 billion to $13b in just four years," Dr Smith said.

How?!

He said in Parliament the previous government made numerous extensions to entitlements but did not fund the extra cost of them.

"What has happened over the last four years is that claim costs have gone up at five times the rate of inflation and if any member thinks that is sustainable without levy increases, they really are financially illiterate."

good work, Auntie Helen!

The Government is also considering 'no claims' bonuses, experience rates, and lower levies for those with safer vehicles.

"Our objective is to secure the long-term future of ACC as an efficient and fair 24/7, no-fault insurance scheme for all New Zealanders.

No claims bonus? that would entail finding who's at fault.

perhaps we should increase the costs at the source of the new entitlements and/or retract the new entitlements altogether?

(source:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10603177
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10603117)

[2wheeljunkie]

Can't make the meeting, but assuming we can't make the Government change its mind on he principal, we might be able to influence when the increase applies. 600cc seems pretty random. maybe it would be fairer if based on power to weight, or 600 cc raised to say 900cc

power to weight ratio would make more sense than if want to bring up the cc thing; but overall still wouldnt make proper sense. Proven above a gsxr 600 is more lethal than a hornet 900. There is not correlation of speed with cc. You can kill yourself at a 100km/hr on a 250 cc.

I am ready to fight this stupid war.

[motorbyclist]

I'm sure there's some statistic that "proves" that injuries sustained hitting a car door at 50kph is somehow proportional to the cc rating of the bike and nothing else.

and that, my friends, is how laws are made

[motorbyclist]

Many new and existing bikers have limited gear beyond a cheap helmet, gloves, and maybe a jacket with or without armour.

That additional $250-$500 drain from bikers' wallets will only worsen the situation, raising the rider's acc claim if the unfortunate were to happen.

Heck, maybe we could re-open the debate on mandatory approved gloves/jacket? Personally I wouldn't like to see that as it'd be driving a wedge to include boots and pants, but it's still better than what they're suggesting.... (personally I like to commute in jeans for the summer lest my person overheat in slow traffic)



The worst part of all this for me? If I can't afford to ride around NZ on my holidays nor can I even commute in the only manner I've found acceptable in Auckland, upon graduating I'll be using a bit of that leftover student loan money to buy me a one way ticket overseas and receive a higher salary too....

[motorbyclist]

some research later, I've developed a better understanding of the issue:

the inner workings of ACC mandate we should pay for our own bill - regardless of the fact MoT reckons we're only responsible for half our injuries..... My bill on a 400cc bike is 4.8 times that of a cager. If you ask me, I should pay half that and cagers pay the rest. This brings the cager bill up to his own personal cost plus the 2.4 of my cost he causes spread across the vast number of cagers relative to bikers.

By my scheme I still end up paying 2.4 what the cager pays per annum - including petrol levies. Who has seen the numbers to quantify what this amount is?

either way we're screwed: ACC says It is the cost of claims in the 'group' which is the basis of the levy for the group, not who is at fault or causes the accident.

[Kwaka14]

Since I'm in the Czech republic for the next couple of years I won't be there - but I will be coming back sometime and I do not want to be paying some stupidly large fee - if you're looking for some suggestions then....

why not suggest a slightly changed approach to the levy so that maybe those who can prove they have protective gear can apply for a discount or refund based on supporting reciepts - the statistics obviously support the fact that if you are ATGATT then you are less likely to be so seriously injured - therefore less likely to cost- the other obvious benefit is it's a great incentive to have everone wearing safety gear of some sort which I'm sure would be an acc consideration?

Anyway thats all I can think of constructively off the cuff beyond what others are mentioning.

[Mystic13]

I'll come along but for the sake of a good discussion where can I find the stats that ACC are relying on.

I agree this is going to need a reasoned argument.

- I own a number of bikes. I'll be putting more on hold.
- To pull out motorcycles on stats because you can seems unfair.
- Most motorcycle riders own cars.
- Most people with sport injuries don't ride motorbikes, should that be billed to cars.
-


What I'm interested in with the stats is the;
- % of at fault injuries to road registered riders.
- % of off road riders injuries that would actually fall under car rego's as the bikes aren't road registered.
- % of scooter injuries.
- my hope is the statistics aren't defined enough to actually target motorcycle riders in this way.
- I'm interested in the collection sources for revenue for ACC. Is it just wages employment function, vehicles, truck, car, motorcycle etc. If that is the case then there are huge gaps in fair user pays.
- Ultimately we need to pull something out of the stats although on the face of it this seems a case of unfair targeting.

I haven't had one ACC claim and yet I have friends who have sport injuries that drive cars that have a string of them. They're car drivers.

You know if these motorcycle injuries are for road registered riders only and at fault claims then it'll be protest on the basis of motorcycle riders owning cars and more than one bike.

As for the fire about the over 600cc rate. It's not a hell of a lot more then the under 600cc rate. If I had to choose between a 600cc bike and a bigger one. I'd go for the bigger one. I can't be bothered with doing touring now and again on a 600cc bike.

So who knows where the stats sources are. I'm off to the rusty and can't check it out before Tuesday at best. I do want to have a good read.

[Mystic13]

To save yourself some money...

The changes come in 1-7-2010.

So when you re-register now register to as close to 1/7/10 as you can and then renew for 12 months before the price rise.