Royal Commission recommend ACC levy on drivers licences

[p.dath]

While doing some research on the history of ACC for the Wiki (for those who are really bored http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/wiki/ACC) I discovered an interesting finding by the Royal Commission that was not implemented.

The original Royal Commission recommended putting an ACC levy on driver licences, and specifically mentioned that it didn't think putting levies on vehicle registrations was fair, as the Royal Commission felt that the drivers of vehicles should be responsible for the cost of accident compensation and not the vehicle owners.

I have to say, even though the Royal Commission was back in the 1960's - I think they got it right.

[BMWST?]

While doing some research on the history of ACC for the Wiki (for those who are really bored http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/wiki/ACC) I discovered an interesting finding by the Royal Commission that was not implemented.

The original Royal Commission recommended putting an ACC levy on driver licences, and specifically mentioned that it didn't think putting levies on vehicle registrations was fair, as the Royal Commission felt that the drivers of vehicles should be responsible for the cost of accident compensation and not the vehicle owners.

I have to say, even though the Royal Commission was back in the 1960's - I think they got it right.

they prolly did but the levy will be significantly higher...and how do you deal with the people who have a motorcycle license but no bike(or visa versa)

[p.dath]

they prolly did but the levy will be significantly higher...and how do you deal with the people who have a motorcycle license but no bike(or visa versa)

The Royal Commission made no distinction between what class of licence you have. There was no concept of motorbike riders paying for their accidents, cars for theirs, etc. There was no concept of blame or fault.

They proposed a flat fee on driver licences to cover all motor vehicle accidents (including motorbikes).

But I guess if you had any kind of drivers licence, but never drove any form of motorised transport you would be disadvantaged. But I wonder how many people actually have a drivers licences but never use it.

Still seems ok to me. Basically if you are a driver then you take some responsibility for any kind of motorised vehicle accident.

[scissorhands]

I like fuel tax better.

The more you drive the more you pay. Mind you, its probably the 5km a week drongoes that have the most accidents.

Should be calculated from a mixed component INCLUDING driver/rider accident and offence history.

[huff3r]

I like fuel tax better.

The more you drive the more you pay. Mind you, its probably the 5km a week drongoes that have the most accidents.

Should be calculated from a mixed component INCLUDING driver/rider accident and offence history.

That would indeed be "user pays". Not the point. It's supposed to be a no-fault compensation scheme, thats the whole reason we are protesting! Everyone should pay the same, regardless of what they do in terms of dangerous activities.

[Hanne]

I like fuel tax better.

The more you drive the more you pay. Mind you, its probably the 5km a week drongoes that have the most accidents.

Should be calculated from a mixed component INCLUDING driver/rider accident and offence history.

This sounds an awful lot like INSURANCE to me.
And ‘it is not a function of the Corporation or any Crown entity subsidiary of the Corporation to provide insurance’ (ACC Act , S262).

Thanks for digging up this info in Post one...

I would definately support a change to fuel levies.
Also worth looking at ERC (Earnings Related Costs) - bigger bike accident cost more because the riders earn more, simple. Look at income tax to even things out there.

[candor]

Series of damage control steps is covered here - MCs in firing line first
http://www.trafinz.org.nz/Conference...an%20White.pdf
This is the lady who affirmed in 2005 existence of the worlds worst road safety policy - the greatest enforceable risk policy - which has destroyed ACC

Above link states ACC system unsustainable. There is no doubt whatsoever this is mainly due to the road safety experiment run by the ex LTSA cronies now puppeteering the NRSC. Seriously they deserve a firing squad.

Proposed damage control steps
1. Target motorcyclists and improve vehicle tech
2. Continuing large levy increases
3. New team to get em back working
4. Bill to force people back to work at min wage job if capable ='S DEMISE OF ACCIDENT INSURANCE - mortgagee sale anyone? And no right to sue that darn drunk driver for consequential damages!
5. New risk ratings to allow appropriate charges
6. Purchase outcomes not products
7. Come up with a new sort of schemer after consultation and the current review completed.
8. Pass bill to allow levelling out of current unaffordable bill over longer period - buys time only but by 2014 need a radically altered scheme (if road safety disaster continues on worsening trajectory - tripled ACC bill since 02).

None of this looks at the fundaments of what is broken ie road safety / prevention is so dysfunctional and anti evidence based its an international scandal.

Talked to ACC advisors today, who told me of huge amounts of good advice received over the years that has been ignored. One fundament ignored is that they only look at how to whittle down accounts.

All other insurers factor in methods to prevent injury with equal emphasis. A consequence of the no fault history and inability to distinguish drivers from each other (happens with 3rd party schemes) except as groups eg cars / mcs. It is easier to incentivise safer behaviour reducing injury when there is personal cost to being a risky traffic offending coot.

ACC wants a fair scheme but its data management systems only go by vehicle type ='s problem. We must join the rest of the world and overcome this if the scheme is to be reconfigured to address risk taking ie fault, bad driving record etc rather than just exposure risk to injury.

In summary - the MC targeting is an emergency wallet raid, and similar will hit other road users later. But still the emergency is only being temporarily held off as the blow out is THAT BAD that even after levy raises the ACC is still unsustainable.

A new plan is needed stan for implementation 2014. It may not therefore be this govts problem.

I say that instead of buying time and pissing round, consult the major changes needeed now and bite the bullet. ACC has been advised whats needed by Canadian experts among others and ignored that advice.

Necessary is a removal of the Woodhouse principles sooner than later.
Necessary is addresing the cause of the main blow out - road safety balls ups, recommended has been a far greater focus on road surrfaces etc. The recommendatiioons did not first come from bikers - but from Internat consultants - repeatedly ignored. Because ACC is contractedto the stink GER experiment - obsession with booze and speed that is utterly unproductive.

Motor vehicle account 2002 2 bill - 2008 6 bill. MV account responsible for forecast rapidly increasing liabilities up to 2014 that will at that date make scheme continuation impossible - unless the radical changes not yet dreamt of or put out there changes occur.

Labour has created this crisis through dogged negligence. Many road safety and other groups have frequently bought the situation and solutions to its attention, but it wilfully persisted on its course. Even today its successor has Police and other flunkies defending the insane road safety policies productive of the mass injury and blood letting.

We will be working at Candor to have those who have defrauded the public, incidentally destroying ACC bought to Justice and hopefully imprisoned. Its not just about the money, this blowout reprsents unnecessary deaths and cripplings. Knowingly wrought.

DON'T RESOLVE TO PAY MORE - RESOLVE TO REDUCE ACCIDENTS LIKE ANY OTHER FIRST WORLD PEOPLE

[scissorhands]

Nothing wrong with discouraging road traffic offences in repeat offenders by the threat of higher ACC levies. Sounds like good incentive to me.

[avgas]

err last time i checked most ACC claims were made off the road....... so no your logic is wrong and I'm too tired sugar coat it

[scissorhands]

Yeah...okay. One for all and all for one. The Three Musketeers it is.

[davereid]

I would definately support a change to fuel levies.

Fuel levies would cost about 11.5c per litre to fund ACCs current costs- not much really, but possibly being ignored by government as it does not target us!

Plus, they intend to raid that particular money box for emissions taxes, so no point breaking it now, its needed next year.

Also worth looking at ERC (Earnings Related Costs) - bigger bike accident cost more because the riders earn more, simple. Look at income tax to even things out there.

Thats the funny thing about the "subsidy" argument - you know, car drivers subsidise bikers.

The biggest subsidy is actually from poor people to rich.

We all pay the same vehicle rego.

But when ACC chairman Mr Judge crashes into me, I get ERC of 80% of my modest wage, Mr Judge gets 80% of his $750,000 wage.

[scissorhands]

But when ACC chairman Mr Judge crashes into me, I get ERC of 80% of my modest wage, Mr Judge gets 80% of his $750,000 wage.

Thats how it works in nature. The bigger and stronger you are the more benefits you have.

'To those that have, more will be given. T those who have not, even what little they have, will be taken away.....'

It aint right tho

[p.dath]

Fuel levies would cost about 11.5c per litre to fund ACCs current costs- not much really, but possibly being ignored by government as it does not target us!

It would target cars much more, since they consume far more fuel.

[Jizah]

I got my drivers licence when I was 17 for the sole purpose of using it for ID. I still haven't learnt to drive. It wasn't until 5 years later that I started riding a motorbike. I would have been pretty unhappy to be paying any ACC levy in those 5 years...

[TygerTung]

Not necessary , my 2 stroke is pretty thirsty!