ACC campaign, are we barking up the wrong tree?

[Highlander]

Yes, but presumably (and hopefully) you wouldn't all be crashing simultaneously?

That prospect isn't worth dwelling on.

Perhaps your situation adds to an earlier suggestion by someone about having the ACC levy linked to your drivers licence rather than the vehicle registration?

Certainly does, either that or private insurance (granted, the whole concept of ACC is to get away from that). That way we (all users) could get recognition for not making claims and / or doing training to prevent the likely hood of making a claim.

[cs363]

That prospect isn't worth dwelling on.

No offence - that was a tongue in cheek remark.

Certainly does, either that or private insurance (granted, the whole concept of ACC is to get away from that). That way we (all users) could get recognition for not making claims and / or doing training to prevent the likely hood of making a claim.

The more I think about it, the more the drivers licence thing makes sense - especially if you consider the situation of a licenced driver who doesn't own their own vehicle but drives other peoples. I would imagine there's quite a few people in that boat, especially kids driving parents vehicles who are unfortunately in that age group who are over-represented in the accident statistics.

[Highlander]

No offence - that was a tongue in cheek remark.

No offence taken. I was agreeing whole heartedly.

[Ooky]

just print a rego plate of the plates website laminate it and whack it on the back cheaper to get acouple of no rego fines then pay the rego

[monkeymcbean]

the problems:
1. Massive infrastructure and heavily padded with high income earners.
2. High risk sports have no premiums.
3. We fund all overseas visitor accidents. A single skier here on holiday who earns a huge income can holiday here and cost the "kiwi" 100's of thousands of dollars. We don't get this treatment overseas but need insurance when we travel... Why the hell not visitors here.
4. Motorcyle accidents... Cover all off road incidents, farmbikes, motocross, trials... You name it.
5. We a;ready pay for our cars, the wife's car, our own car, our own bike or bikes. Other road users like cyclists pay nothing but get injured heaps as well.

The list goes on.

The average kiwi is working longer, harder and for less. We are in a recession, no wage increases, minimal tax cut, finding it harder to get by.

Most over 600cc owners have done it tough. Helped their kids get started without government grants, worked bloody hard to be able to afford a motorbike to enjoy some pleasure while young enough and now we are getting screwed left right and centre. We pay tax, we work harder, we pay more acc tax, we work harder, then we get screwed on the few pleasure left in life.

Screwed to the point that dealers will have to close down, owners of bikes will have to sell them.. For how much?

So it goes on.

It is time to rise as one voice and tell the piglets in animal farm that enough is enough. They have feed too long at the trough of convenience. They have sucked at the public trough too long and have got too fat to realise what it's like for the average worker.

They give themselves increases every year and tell us to tighten our belts and then we find out more and more purks they get and the list gets bigger.

I'm just a tad angry you might gather.

here is another excellent submission

[DogBreath]

Yes I have a serious alternative. Rate the levies on exposure to risk. I ride about 2500km per year, and pay the same rego as someone who clocks up 25000km. They have 10 times the exposure to risk than me but I pay the same levy. Admittedly they also have 10 times the riding experience, so maybe the risk to them is only (say) 5 times mine.
This ruling would force me to rethink how I manage my rego, perhaps only register the bike for the summer, when I use it most, put it on hold while I'm away or committed to the car.

[Highlander]

Yes I have a serious alternative. Rate the levies on exposure to risk. I ride about 2500km per year, and pay the same rego as someone who clocks up 25000km. They have 10 times the exposure to risk than me but I pay the same levy. Admittedly they also have 10 times the riding experience, so maybe the risk to them is only (say) 5 times mine.
This ruling would force me to rethink how I manage my rego, perhaps only register the bike for the summer, when I use it most, put it on hold while I'm away or committed to the car.

All vehicles on the road buy mileage like Diesels do?

[Mort]

Bad bad bad just listen to us POM's on this one. You think ACC is expensive he he think again. In 1992 i was a 23 year old police officer with a no claims since i was 16. My insurance then 3rd party of course was 650 pounds. It is much worse now. We have a good system here but are small population wise with few insurers. I am with AA at the moment and they do not cover my bikes as a group so i have to insure separately. You can bet compulsory insurance will suck big time.
Looks like its going to suck any way.

Now the NZ govt wants $1750 (£815) to tax my bikes plus $950 (£414) in insurance. I'd rather be in the UK - at least you get a no claims discount.

[DogBreath]

All vehicles on the road buy mileage like Diesels do?

Yup, something like that.
And why the hell can't the graduated license be HP (or kW) instead of cc, ffs. Damn stupid.
(sorry, OT there)

[swbarnett]

So can somebody explain to me rationaly WHY we shouldn't be paying higher levies?

Because it's a "NO FAULT" scheme. No one individual should be paying any more than another.

[Winston001]

Because it's a "NO FAULT" scheme. No one individual should be paying any more than another.

The "no fault" relates to the cause of the accident leading to a claim. No faffing around trying to find someone else to blame for personal injury - which is the system in the USA.

ACC levies vary wildly from one individual to another. Check out the levy for an office worker vs a shearer, or a builder, or a forestry worker.

[Highlander]

Now the NZ govt wants $1750 (£815) to tax my bikes plus $950 (£414) in insurance. I'd rather be in the UK - at least you get a no claims discount.

Actually it is entirely up to you weather or not to insure your bikes. If you do, the Govt only wants the GST portion of your insurance bill.

[Winston001]

What bothers me is I suspect sports injuries drain ACC at a high rate but there is no levy attached. While I was in hospital two other patients arrived, both snowboard injuries and both fairly serious. But no direct ACC charge on them.

The trouble is I don't see how any government could impose levies on sport. How would it be assessed? Collected? A group of school kids decide to have a quick game of rugby and someone's teeth get knocked out. No team, no club, just kids.

[HTFU]

This came out at the start of the year (who knows how accurate the stats ACC gathers are).

"Last year, 51 people were killed on motorcycles and two people died on mopeds.

ACC paid out $64 million to 1395 motorcycle and scooter accident victims during 2008, $8 million more than in 2007.

More than 230 people were injured last year on mopeds."

I thought there would have been more scooter accidents in relation to motorcycle and even though ACC is lumping them together, scooters are only 10.5 million of the 64 million paid out to motorbike accidents.

There goes my submission arguing that it is the untrained-car licensed-scooter riders that are making us licensed bike riders look bad.

Be interesting to see the number of Kiwibikers who made a claim last year as a bike statistic and contributed to the 64 million and what % of those claims were the riders fault or that of another party. (poll time)

[The Stranger:Me]

I see everyone's all up in arms about this, and I can see why. Massive increases are hard to swallow, it hurts. But it's really simple maths. (Fuck this is going to make me unpopular)

ACC is running at a HUGE deficite. Massive. Something has to be done, a number of changes have been suggested by the government.

They've obviously worked out motorcycles cost more to rehabilitate and suffer worse injuries than other road users. And riders of bigger bikes suffer more than riders of small bikes.

So can somebody explain to me rationaly WHY we shouldn't be paying higher levies?

I'm also beginning to think riders of race bikes and dirt bikes should have to pay a levy for each visit to the track or trail. This could potentially lower the road bikes rates at the same time.

I must say, always the cool head there Jimmy. You should be in politics.

I'll try.
For a start we are the only group outside of industry that is singled out for special treatment. ACC was no fault. Sure you have used ACC, as has many a rugby player, are they lining up to pay? So lets have some consistency here, it's user pays or it's no fault.

If I smoke I pay huge tax to the govt. Not sure of the figures, but that was a move taken over many years toward user pays. Fair enough we say, if I kill myself with smoke then why shouldn't I pay for my health care, it's my choice after all.

In our case frequently enough someone else kills us - and we pay. It's inequitable. The cagers should be subsidising us for their share of the carnage.

So if it's no fault then make it no fault, if it is a fault system then make it so, leave the costs on the cagers to cover their 50% (round figures).


Another issue stems from the way ACC is set up.
If I go and rip down a mountain side on a bicycle and head butt a tree, that's not a problem. Why should it be, we have a no fault system and the govt sees this as all dandy because I was partaking in a recreational activity.

I don't go flying down mountains on bicycles for recreation, but i do ride a motorcycle for recreation. Much - if not most of my motorcycle riding is for recreation. If I bin it on a recreational ride, well guess what. That is very bad, evil infact. Now how does this differ to the bicyclist? None, why aren't I funded from the recreational fund? Just because i choose the road for my recreation I am discriminated against.

Motorcyclsts are unique in using the road for recreation (OK not entirely, but none others use it to anywhere near the same degree) Why isn't our recreation funded from the recreation fund? That's where a huge portion of the cost properly lies.


Yet another issue is this. I have 2 bikes and a car. I only ever ride one or drive the car. Now ok, if we are going to have consumer pays, make it consumer pays across the board AND user pays once. Again, it is inequitable to have some users paying once and some paying 3 times - that's not user pays, it's user pays and pays and pays.