Burn Parliament.
We need a good old fashioned lynching.
Iiimbecile-baiting since 2007
Burn Parliament.
We need a good old fashioned lynching.
Fair weather rider
I'm probably repeating something said a million times...Originally Posted by White trash
Yes, there is cross-subsidization. But then the fuel taxes motorcyclists pay cross-subsidize the wear and tear caused by heavier road users. My motorcycle uses say, half the fuel that my car does, but weighs about 1/10th. Likewise, we all subsidize bicycle users and rugby players. We subsidize foreigners who injure themselves here.
It goes on, far beyond ACC. I have a job, but I subsidize people without jobs via the benefit system. I live in Christchurch, but I subsidize roading in Invercargill and power lines in Auckland, and you guys subsidise our television transmitters. I don't overeat, but I subsidise the heart disease of people who do. It's our society, we all live in it, and we all support each other via the apparatus of government at some point or another. If you want to remove cross-subsidization then remove it all. If you want to go user pays, then do it properly. Not just "some users pay".
Also, the rating system used buy ACC is retarded. My 250 puts out more power than a KLR 650, yet the KLR owner would have to pay more ACC. It's like power divided by weight is too hard for ACC to work out. So no. We're not barking up the wrong tree.
Tearing Choppa a new A'Hole
God you're a fucken arsehole.
Vote David Bain for MNZ president
Hardcore Biker
Right you are, if their line is to be followed.
However, the figures available do not neccesarily stack up to this. Where are the figures for annual cost to ACC of injurys to motorcyclists where primary responsibility for the crash was identified to lie with the motorcyclist? They simply don't exist. What we have is a blanket $XXM for all claims for motorcyclists and $XXM collected in levies from motorcycle licences. We have no way of determining culpability with the statistics they're giving.
Statements being made like "motorcyclists are 16x more likely to crash" are throw away claims deliberately over-simplified to be easily swallowed by the mindless minions who conclude that motorcyclists should be paying 16x as much, despite no actual correlation to cost.
Unexpected Spanish inquisition
Not if the levy was linked to the drivers licence. That way, you drive or ride - you pay. The problem with the current system is it's linked to vehicle registration which often has no bearing on who actually drives the vehicle.
Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes. After that, who cares? ...He's a mile away and you've got his shoes
Highway Biker
Can`t believe ,the people on here defending Huge rate increases!Butt kissers!I knew something was up,when they started saying 70% of accident are cause by motorcycles.That`s not been my experience,2 colision in 25yrs,both times the car came from a hiden from view postion,and just didn`t look.I wonder if people who walk to work,should pay more acc,when some loon runs people over on the foot path,or outside a party!I`ve drive cars ,trucks, motorbikes.And in general car drives are of,the lowest standard(Largest voting BlocK).Your average Truck driver is alot better.But thats not statistic`s, that seat of the pants experience.Anyway,whoever causes the accident should pay more!!
Tearing Choppa a new A'Hole
Ummmm, where are these bastards defending huge rate increases?
Vote David Bain for MNZ president
Unexpected Spanish inquisition
Be fair, he said Butt Kissers.
The thread for people born out of wedlock and defending huge rate increases can be found elsewhere, using the search facility.
Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes. After that, who cares? ...He's a mile away and you've got his shoes
Scooter boy
hope no one minds me posting this here the other thread seems dead. Here are my thoughts that I am sending via the local MP. If anyone can add some accurate stats to it it would be helpful
To load the cost of ACC levies on to motorcycle registration is a serious injustice as it fails to recognise 3 man points. The proportion of injuries sustained on unregistered off road bikes, the number of injuries cased to riders by other road users or poor road design and the tax contribution registered motorcycles already make compared to the roading resources they use.
Huge numbers of motorcycles are not registered, usually because they are use solely off road. There does not seem to be any differentiation, by ACC, between injuries on registered and unregistered motorcycles. The probability of getting injured in a weekends off road riding is probably higher than the probability of injury for a year of road riding. Putting the ACC cost of motorcycle related injuries onto those that have a registered and “Warrant of Fitness” compliant motorcycle, is grossly unjust.
In my years of riding most of the accidents and near misses I have had have been caused by others. Car drivers failing to look and giving abuse when they are tooted at to bring their attention to the situation. Poor and dangerous design of elements around roads like cheese grater crash barriers and large painted areas, or inconsiderate roading contractors like the one that left black sand on the road after changing the road markings.
The fact that it is the motorcyclist that gets hurt by these situations, is not justification for making the motorcyclists pay. No other group of people are expected to pay a higher ACC levy based on the probability that they are going to be a victim of someone else’s stupidity, aggression, carelessness or thoughtlessness. If this mentality of making a victim pay the ACC cost is carried through then low visibility coloured cars should be more expensive to register and trucks should be cheaper. Truck drivers are seldom injured in accidents unlike the drivers of the cars they collide with.
Motorcyclist that are not careful are not motorcyclists for long and I have yet to hear of a motorcyclist crashing in to a car while texting or taking out a group of police cars while making a U turn.
Motorcycles are taxed at the same rate as cars in fuel tax, the registrations cost are similar and some cars use less fuel some bikes. Motorcycles use less roading resources than cars. Any given roadway can allow the passage of more motorcycles than cars in a given time. Bikes require less parking room than cars. Bike cause less wear in road surfaces than other vehicles. Yet bikes contribute a similar amount in fuel tax and registration to cars.
Making motorcyclist pay these huge registration costs will force many back into cars that will then join the traffic congestion and crawl along the roads with one person in them and demand that more motorways be built to accommodate them. Encouraging more people on to two wheels would be cheaper than building more and more roads and would make for drivers that were a lot more aware of the conditions around them.
If the ACC levy is to be increased because of a perceived expense to ACC then the roading tax should be reduced to reflect the lower road requirements resulting in the registration cost being unchanged.
Self lubricating tool.....
Why can't we be like Fuji..... and have a "coo de ta" every now and agian to keep the pollies on there toes lol
any members here in the army.... my need your jeepit comes with a gun?
DUCATI ------- A real bike in a sea of shit!
Forum whore
Aaaah, it's all a cunning plan......... that's when they hit everyone with a "congestion tax"!Making motorcyclist pay these huge registration costs will force many back into cars that will then join the traffic congestion and crawl along the roads with one person in them and demand that more motorways be built to accommodate them
Anyway, ACC isn’t losing money. Its revenues were $4.5 billion – $1.5 billion more than it spent on claims this year. $500 million of that extra is operating costs,the other $1 billion was added to ACC’s investments but changes to predictions of the future costs of current claims pushed out that target even further – by $5.7 billion. So, getting to being fully funded is $4.8 billion further away than it was before.
There’s no actual crisis. Despite Nick Smith’s hysterics over ‘increased costs’, the cost of new claims isn’t rising (steady at $1.7 billion for the last 2 years). ACC is making enough money. The ‘crisis’ is just modelling changes for a bookkeeping exercise that has no effect other than to make levies higher now so they won’t have to be as high later.
“- He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.”
L-Plate Rider
Acc got 25% more in this year than they spent (according to TV1 news last night). the deficit is in their invertments and where they want to be with this. What you pay to Acc now pays for the injuries of past years included in this. what will they get in next year? more than 25% more than they spend next year. in 20 years time? probably similar. So, where is the real problem? let's campain for reduced Acc levies.
Hardcore Biker
Its important to think of Politics as 99% power & 1% ethics. The ethics of ACC levies can be argued `rationally' from every conceivable angle to the full range of logical conclusions. This is about power: Road motorcyclists will get shafted if they let this pass without serious mobililisation as a united interest group.
Forum whore
That was the whole idea of the exercise. Once the CA deficit is topped up, levies should then be in line to fall quite a bit.
“- He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.”
Forum whore
Taxes (levies) never fall, only go up. Any supposed tax cut is always offset by an increase in another tax.
it's not a bad thing till you throw a KLR into the mix.
those cheap ass bitches can do anything with ductape.
(PostalDave on ADVrider)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks