McJim's argument against raising ACC levies for motorcycles

[newbould]

(a lone rider riding in circles around Invercargill is not going to score any political points!).

I disagree! I think it would hit the national news. you would get an interview and be able to explain our point of view (as in your original post) in clear unemotional terms. I know a few very photogenic roundabouts in Invercargill. In fact maybe every town in NZ should have its own lonesome biker protest. after all it is a very individual past-time we partake

[McJim]

I disagree! I think it would hit the national news. you would get an interview and be able to explain our point of view (as in your original post) in clear unemotional terms. I know a few very photogenic roundabouts in Invercargill. In fact maybe every town in NZ should have its own lonesome biker protest. after all it is a very individual past-time we partake

Only if I ride like this
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/at...3&d=1159001008

[FJRider]

"Well," he said, taking another decent slurp of suds, "I reckon they could bring back annual license renewals (not that this was ever the case, but I decided not to interject and correct him)

Actually I do recall, with the little green licence book we used to have, being able to get little stickers when you renewed you licence ... 1-5 year periods, each period sticker a different colour.

Passenger service (Bus etc) had to (and still do) renew each year. With a medical certificate too.

but a good yarn none the less ....

[munster]

Only if I ride like this
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/at...3&d=1159001008

Pffft. Who said Honda's where gay?

[McJim]

Pffft. Who said Honda's where gay?

Pucker up big boy....

[pzkpfw]

Not at all. Just pointing out that the lower income family + motorcycle isn't the norm.

Umm, I wasn't saying anything in particular about "lower income family + motorcycle".

My point was about how a family with just one vehicle (whether car, bike or scooter...) would pay multiple fees IF they went with the charge per person-license versus charge per vehicle-license idea, as noted in Hitchers post.

Thus it's just as "unfair" as in the case at present, of one person with multiple vehicles.


This is why I think the charge needs to be per vehicle-usage.

(One person with multiple bikes? A family sharing one car? No issue, either way. They would all just get charged for the time a vehicle is on the road.)

[pzkpfw]

So then they could charge even more for motorbikes coz motorbikes is dangerous and bite people.

Yeah, whatever. Just trying to be realistic.

We already pay more than cars. Were we arranging protest rides last year?

Call me defeatest, but I don't think we'll push them all the way back to a flat fee that's the same for cars and bikes.

(Anyone who thinks the current actions will do more than limit the increases is dreaming.)

So I was just pointing out that the RUC system already allows some "discrimination", thus might be palatable to them that make the rules.

[McJim]

This is why I think the charge needs to be per vehicle-usage.

The devil's in the detail as always innit?

What needs to be sought is a balance between the fair and the workable. How do you efectively measure vehicle use?
Fuel? but that varies from vehicle to vehicle and has no correlation to the risk of injury.
Mileage - a Road User Charge which funds ACC? I bet the truckies would love that.

ACC and the government have to agree on a proxy that is fair and equitable and workable that they can apply to something to fund the ACC system. I cannot yet think of an answer to this.

[monkeymcbean]

Sorry Mcjim but I think JD's right.
I think the ultimate goal is to get us off the road by whatever means. I'm not disagreeing with your point, as a scenario it makes perfect sense as to what may transpire with the future of on road motorcycling but I honestly believe if we all gave up tomorrow we wouldn't be given a second thought by the powers that be, job done as far as they're concerned.

This same sentiment is expressed in overseas bike magazines, I just think the Politicians there like here just do not know how to deal with us as a group and from a safety point of view riding around on the roads.
"The opinion from a psychological researcher in 'bike' mag is how counter productive the focus on speed is, 'the one size fits all approach is his biggest criticism.' If you've been riding fast for 30 years and never had a problem...youll switch off.
Road safety messages have to get alot more sopisticated, purely psychological giving riders a framework for deciding what is and isn't acceptable"
Excerts from: Bike mag. sept 09 'Rupert Paul' column

Errrr i may have digressed

[McJim]

Why would National want to alienate motorcyclists though. As has been pointed out before there are some 480,000 motorcycle licence holders in New Zealand and 75% of them are over 40. We are talking Nationals voting heartland here.

Are they mad or are they stuck in the 70s thinking that we are all still a bunch of young hoons?

[pzkpfw]

The devil's in the detail as always innit?

What needs to be sought is a balance between the fair and the workable. How do you efectively measure vehicle use?
Fuel? but that varies from vehicle to vehicle and has no correlation to the risk of injury.
Mileage - a Road User Charge which funds ACC? I bet the truckies would love that.

Truckies already deal with RUC, so no change for them.

While ACC fees might get added to existing RUC licenses (i.e. for diesel vehicles) it would then be taken away from the yearly license. It'd have to be balanced so as not to affect them badly.

..and since RUC fees are assesed by vehicle type and other details, they could be tailored to suit.

A RUC license is paid for kilometers to be travelled.

[Hitcher]

This is why I think the charge needs to be per vehicle-usage.

Why? Vehicles themselves are intrinsically safe. They only become a hazard once an operator is added. It's a similar argument to licensing gun owners rather than guns.

[James Deuce]

Umm, I wasn't saying anything in particular about "lower income family + motorcycle".

My point was about how a family with just one vehicle (whether car, bike or scooter...) would pay multiple fees IF they went with the charge per person-license versus charge per vehicle-license idea, as noted in Hitchers post.

Thus it's just as "unfair" as in the case at present, of one person with multiple vehicles.


This is why I think the charge needs to be per vehicle-usage.

(One person with multiple bikes? A family sharing one car? No issue, either way. They would all just get charged for the time a vehicle is on the road.)

No they wouldn't. They'd pay a levy on their license. That everyone else paid, irrespective of vehicle ownership, to cover the potential of an injury accident while. In fact it's fairer because it means you're contributing to ACC if you are simply a passenger.

From general observation, the lesser the income, the more vehicles a family owns. If you get my drift.

[pzkpfw]

Why? Vehicles themselves are intrinsically safe. They only become a hazard once an operator is added.

Yeah, and if you don't use the vehicle, it's very safe in your garage and you won't be paying fees for it.

[pzkpfw]

From general observation, the lesser the income, the more vehicles a family owns. If you get my drift.

...but a car up on blocks killing grass should be pretty safe from accidents!


(The passenger coverage issue is a good one. Do car ACC fees cover them currently? Would that not also be able to be factored into the car-usage-fee-via-RUC I counter proposed? [I guess that'd be unfair to people who NEVER have passengers, but no system would be perfect...])