ACC protest movement dead?

[MSTRS:Me]

After hearing that ACC plans to look at risk-rating of cars, I have written another Letter to Ed.

About this time last year motorcyclists learned of massive ACC increases planned for their bike registrations. The “Who’s Next?” campaign was quickly initiated, but few were listening, nor were ACC or Govt answering that one.
Despite a scaling-back of the increase, motorcyclists were still hit with a big rise, a rise that was dependent on the engine size of their bikes. More on that later. Yet still they asked “Who’s Next?”. Nobody was listening. Until the owners of diesel-powered vehicles got their rego demands, that is. That got the attention of quite a few of you, along with some letters to this paper, grumbling about the rise. Think it’s all over now? Think again. RadioNZ reports last Friday 24/7, and I quote, “The Accident Compensation Corporation says legislative changes made earlier this year could allow it to charge motor vehicle levies according to risk and is looking at how this might be put in place.”
This means that owners of older cars without all the safety features of airbags, side intrusion beams, ABS, traction control, etc could be in line for massive increases on their regos. Or owners of more powerful cars, or convertibles, or sub-compacts.
You see, ACC maintain that bigger-engined motorcycles carry a greater risk and they are moving to apply that thinking to every vehicle. The truth about bigger-engined motorcycles is that their owners generally earn more than those of smaller bikes, so the Earnings Compensation in the event of injury is higher. Ironically, those car owners who earn more usually own ‘better’ cars, so they may get a discount on their rego. Which penalises those who can’t afford a new car.
“Who’s Next?” indeed.

[MSTRS:Me]

Well that letter got the attention of no less than a senior manager at ACC, who came out swinging. Trouble is he fell over cos he had both feet in his mouth...

[MSTRS:Me]

I believe he got his arse handed to him...

Re letter (Peter Wood, ACC)
We should all be disturbed by his response to my letter of last week, particularly by it's condescending tone and assumptions over older persons and boy racers. Nor could he get my name right. He also seems to have trouble understanding my intent.
As a motorcyclist, of course I am unhappy about those levies. That fight continues, but right now other sections of the motoring public face their own challenges over levies, and my letter was to draw attention to that issue.

In previous letters, I have warned of the impending loss of ACC as we know it, in terms of it becoming just another insurance company. Readers will have noticed PW’s title. Yet the new model for ACC is not insurance either. Insurance implies individual tailoring of a policy and choice of cover-type. Being risk-based on entire demographics, but ignoring fault and individuals, simply moves the inequities of the scheme in a new direction.

His so-called facts have all been debunked before, but his claims that older drivers can afford ‘better’ cars, and boy racers can’t, is another sad joke. What does age have to do with ability to afford? The term 'boy racer' is to do with behaviour, not the vehicle. And anyone who operates a vehicle is not necessarily the person who pays the registration.
As for fair? Risk mitigation through safety features is a poor substitute for driver behaviour. Vehicles packed with modern safety features are just as likely to cause injury to those not in that vehicle, such as the biker that the inattentive driver didn’t take care to notice. Pigeon-holing people according to their vehicle is totally inequitable. How does PW propose to know what anyone’s driving is like based on the vehicle to which a number plate is attached? What about bikers who protect themselves with good, expensive gear? Will cyclists soon be paying to use the road? I predict that soon there will be talk of levies being based on the number of seats in your vehicle – the more you can transport, the more you can injure.

Yet congratulations must go to recognising that reducing crashes is the way to go. Better drivers/riders through appropriate training. That is something we should all get behind. No matter what vehicle type we operate. Strangely enough, it was motorcyclists that got ACC onto this strategy.

[Scuba_Steve]

My initial question is WHY? should the "old" person pay less than a "boy racer" & that be fair? last I checked it WASN'T a "boy racer" that drove 2km da wrong way up Wellington highway, it WASN'T a "boy racer" who drove the wrong way up Auckland motorway until a 6 vehicle crash with fatalities etc. etc.

[MSTRS:Me]

Indeed. Just yesterday, here in Napier, a 78yo woman driver bowled and killed an 83yo pedestrian.
Dangerous things, these old people. Big risk...better charge them more, eh?

[Scuba_Steve]

Indeed. Just yesterday, here in Napier, a 78yo woman driver bowled and killed an 83yo pedestrian.
Dangerous things, these old people. Big risk...better charge them more, eh?

Damm Giggity, also if I remember correctly old people cost more to repair too. Time for ACC to start their 'Geriatric Tax' lol

[MSTRS:Me]

Not if you kill 'em...

In March this year, a 93yo pedestrian was bowled and killed right outside HB Hospital. The driver was texting at the time. He was young, tho, so must have been a boy racer, eh?

[davereid]

...Time for ACC to start their 'Geriatric Tax' lol

Actually they sort of do.

As I commented in another thread, its actually Nana who cops it the most from ACC levies.

Nanas little run-about costs her a full two weeks of her years income to register. She pays that for a small number of km, mostly at low speeds, around town.

As Nana is on the old age pension, should she have a crash, she is not eligible for income related compensation.

Compare that to her next door neighbour. The self employed guy. His Holden V6 costs him the same to register, (or less if Nanas car is a diesel.)

He gets the GST back, and a 38% tax-back due to his 38% marginal tax rate, so in fact he paid half price. His rego represents less than a day of his income, yet should he bend the car, he is eligible for millions of dollars in earnings related compensation.

If Peter Wood wants a fair system, he could start somewhere other than bashing bikers !

[MSTRS:Me]

If Peter Wood wants a fair system, he could start somewhere other than bashing bikers !

And old people.
In real terms, I guess no system of levying can be fair, but surely the fairest must be all on fuel?
Great post!

[Scuba_Steve]

And old people.
In real terms, I guess no system of levying can be fair, but surely the fairest must be all on fuel?
Great post!

Nope I want all vehicles to have RUC's and all vehicle tax contained within the RUC's this way you pay for what you use and should you have multiple vehicles (like most of us) your ONLY paying for the one being used at the time. This would also free us from paying road tax on generators, weed eaters, lawn mowers, home-made napalm etc. etc. etc.

[MSTRS:Me]

How many kms are you forced to buy as a minimum?
I guess boaties would become the big anomaly with levy on fuel...but they pay 9.9c/l now.

[MAG-NZ Inc]

Well that letter got the attention of no less than a senior manager at ACC, who came out swinging. Trouble is he fell over cos he had both feet in his mouth...

I am looking forward to his response to my letter. Is it possible for you to post it here too?

We may even encourage a few more people to write a little letter, from small things larger ones grow and all that.

[MSTRS:Me]

Here is the printed format of both responses

[Scuba_Steve]

How many kms are you forced to buy as a minimum?
I guess boaties would become the big anomaly with levy on fuel...but they pay 9.9c/l now.

1000km seems fair it doesn't time expire and that incl everything, ACC, RUC's, vehicle licensing etc. Petrol would just be petrol & GST.

[MSTRS:Me]

How many diesels are out there running around with no credit on their RUC? People being what they are, will just abuse the small amount of trust put in them to purchase RUC.
Better to have it on fuel. Drive-offs are easier to catch up with.