Rego Rises Again

[MikeL]

Hmmm I seem to recall a thread about the comparative costs of running a car and a bike, in which I got thoroughly rubbished for claiming that it costs me a lot less to keep my Toyota on the road than either of my bikes...
Well Andrew I think you've illustrated the point I was making quite convincingly. Not that I'm gloating, because I feel sorry for you and others on student loans, limited incomes and so on who might have thought that bikes were a more economical alternative. I'm in the fortunate position of having the means to indulge my expensive hobby (even if She Who Holds the Purse Strings grumbles a bit from time to time...).
I can't say the rise in ACC levy will deter me but I do bitterly resent the injustice of it. In 36 years of driving/riding I haven't cost the taxpayer a cent, and I'm going to try to keep it that way. If my car rego is subsidizing rugby players I can't see the logic of "user pays" just for motorcycles. But I'm not optimistic about the chances of reversing a trend once the bean-counters pounce on something and turn it into some sort of crusade. And yes we are a minority that can be largely disregarded from the political point of view (I don't know the figures but I suspect that any recent increase in motorycles on the road is still a long way from matching the figures from 20 or 30 years ago, as a proportion of total vehicles). I guess my philosophy is "grin and bear it" - after all, things could get a lot worse...

[twistymover]

I believe that with most accidents involving a motorcycle and another roaduser, the blame lies with the non-motorcycle user. If this is true, then the costs of these accidents should be spread fairly, ie, across the spectrum of road users. ?

[Hoon]

Glad I'm a track only rider!!  No regos, wof, tickets or insurance worries for me!!

[wari]

... anyway ... whats wrong with someone subsidising someone else ... it happens with any public service in this country all the time , health for example. It's called community spirit I think ???!!! Which I hear is a good thing.

It's impossible to work out a true "userpays" system that is 100% accurate. And if we did it would work on individuals rather than groups eh?

If income tax was going to be truly fair , we would all just get a fixed tax bill every year , no matter what we earnt.

Getting a bit philosophical here eh ...

But this ACC irks the shit outa me ... it just encourages me to rip the govt off in any way I can (I shouldn'ta said that ) in an honest way of course ... loopholes are bliss.

[wkid_one]

heh heh heh - nothing like going against the grain to spark conversation.

We are, and will continue to be, a targetted segment of the population because WE DO HAVE MORE ACCIDENTS THAT REQUIRE GOVERNMENT SUPPORT.

As for your comment about Off Roaders - this also applies to track riders as well.  Who don't pay Rego etc - yet when they crash - require ACC. 

And sorry XRNR - bike registrations are DEFINITELY on the increase - another reason for the Government and Statistics NZ to focus on the group.

At the end of the day - NZ is moving to a user pays society - and as they unfortunately can't tax Leisure Pursuits - they WILL tax the groups they can - this means bikers.

Read the documentation supporting the increases in REgo - it is an interesting read - and if you do - you will notice it is not as big a knee jerk reaction as you think.

And yes, the proportion of accidents to registrations IS DOWN...not up.

As for my accident - so what......shit I could rewind the clock - I wouldn't want it to happen, as for getting street cred - quite the fucken contrary in my eyes. 

You subsidising mine?  Rubbish - I pay my regos, petrol tax, PAYE tax etc - I pay mine own way as dictated by the government.  I also carry full medical insurance to NOT be a burden on society - this is what my shoulder was reconstructed under.

I am going to buy a jetski - as this is rife with ACC claims at the moment - bring it on - so I will see you in the ED.

I ask you a question:  If you were running a business and one group was costing you more than others, would you keep a flat line approach to cost and revenue allocation?  I know I wouldn't.  They are pricing risk to reward - NZ business has been doing this for years - I can't disagree with our government doing it. 

As for Taxing Sports - this has been discussed for years and years - and will continue to be so until an ameniable solution can be found.

In an ideal world - we would abolish ACC and have an entirely user pays society - it wouldn't bother me.  I would love to see how people would react then - sitting in a ditch w/o medical insurance and no ambulance prepared to pick them up.

Pull your heads in and realise this is the way it is going......

[SPman]

ACC should, of course be included in the fuel price. - that way, the more you use your vehicle (only one at a time) the higher the risk, the more fuel you use and the more ACC levy you pay. Then you could afford to keep several vehicles registered, because the rego would only be around $40 - 50!

It would mean, however that fuel would go up another dollar a litre, but, so what! We would then be starting to pay what they pay overseas for their fuel and might get a little more serious about economy and conservation of resources!

This is what BRONZ and some others have been arguing for for some time as a fairer method of funding, but the public would squeal like stuck pigs (and shit, they can squeal) and votes would be lost, so it wont happen. They'll just carry on sneaking more charges on fuel for "esential works', so it will go up anyway and we'll get a double whammy!

Useless Pricks! 

[MikeL]

Originally posted by SPman
We ... might get a little more serious about economy and conservation of resources!

If the govt was willing to look at the broader picture rather than choosing easy targets, it would consider encouraging motorcycle use for both more efficient fuel usage and alleviation of congestion. If you took every 10th single-occupant car on Auckland roads and replaced it with a bike or scooter, and even allowing for a slightly higher accident/injury rate and consequent ACC costs, I think the savings in fuel consumption and productivity would result in a net economic benefit. But tunnel vision and short-term expediency will ensure that common sense and lateral thinking will remain off the agenda.

[wkid_one]

Originally posted by SPman
ACC should, of course be included in the fuel price. - that way, the more you use your vehicle (only one at a time) the higher the risk, the more fuel you use and the more ACC levy you pay. 

Rubbish, this discounts fuel efficiency and displacement from the equation - bikes are higher risk but use less petrol per km than other modes of transport - plus they tend to be used a toys in the weekend - which creates a disproportionate ratio of petrol tax to accidents.  Scenario - Mr Weekend Warrior going out on his FXGSXRZ500 fills up with 11L of gas and heads out for a hoon after 6 weekends of poor weather - versus Mr Responsible driving a 3L Maxima to Kataia for the weekend fills up with 40L of gas for the trip - WHO is statistically more likely to have the accident.  By LEE's own argument - the car driver is subsidising the Motorcyclist.  We are quick to want equality - so long as it doesn't hurt us in the back pocket - if it does someone else however, we are quick to turn a blind eye.

However, taxing at registration is also useless - as you can have your bike registered for 6months of the year and barely ride it due to it being in the middle of winter.

Easiest way is to pay as you use - that way - those who don't use it, don't pay. DO away with ACC - and make everyone have medical insurance - therefore the INsurance company can deem what a risk you are and adjust premiums accordingly. 

[wkid_one]

Originally posted by MikeL
If the govt was willing to look at the broader picture rather than choosing easy targets, it would consider encouraging motorcycle use for both more efficient fuel usage and alleviation of congestion. If you took every 10th single-occupant car on Auckland roads and replaced it with a bike or scooter, and even allowing for a slightly higher accident/injury rate and consequent ACC costs, I think the savings in fuel consumption and productivity would result in a net economic benefit. But tunnel vision and short-term expediency will ensure that common sense and lateral thinking will remain off the agenda.

The biggest saving would be from reducing the numbers of single occupant cars on the road in peak hour traffic by getting people to car pool.  And, increasing emission standards.  The ACC costs per accident of a bike and a car are greater than 'slightly'.  

As for fuel consumption - we would be better to do away with fossil fuels full stop and use alternate energy sources thereby reducing fuel consumption entirely.  PLUS:  if you ever rode a VTR - you would know - bikes being more fuel efficient is a generalisation - NOT a rule.

I struggle to see how converting more motorcyclists would great an economic benefit?   Maybe to the shops that service motorcycles, insurance companies and government coffers - but NOT to the average person.  It may have an environmental benefit - but hardly economic.

[wkid_one]

SP - same argument applies to RUC - why tax this seperately?  How many people out there don't have up to date RUC?  As a petrol driver - I pay my RUC as part of my pump price and therefore have no choice to NOT pay - yet diesel drivers ARE given the choice of whether to pay or not - regardless of their road useage

Also, taxing petrol wouldn't be such a bad idea - if the money collected actually went back in to roading infrastructure and quality.

[wkid_one]

Originally posted by HO-Hoon
Glad I'm a track only rider!!  No regos, wof, tickets or insurance worries for me!!

I'm with HO here!!!!

Then, of course, if I do I have accident on the track - it is still going to effect registrations tho.....but not mine

[merv]

I'm registering 4 cars, trailer and two bikes. I'd prefer to see the ACC charge on my licence (damn I can only ride or drive one vehicle at a time) and it should operate like an individual insurance policy with cheaper premiums if you've had no claims.

34 years and no claims I have well and truly subsidised Wkid. I hope you are grateful boy.

[merv]

Originally posted by Motu
You're getting to be a right pain w'kid - go and play with ya new toy eh.

Agreed, and I'm getting sick of seeing his goddamn oversized signature attachment too when its repeated so often.

[merv]

Originally posted by MikeL
Hmmm I seem to recall a thread about the comparative costs of running a car and a bike, in which I got thoroughly rubbished for claiming that it costs me a lot less to keep my Toyota on the road than either of my bikes...

I was the one who said on a per km basis I have always treated my bikes as toys and not transport, because click up the km's and they'll cost more to run than a cheap car. I quoted prices of tyres and the like but then the argument went off onto relative performance etc, but my main point was around using a bike as basic transport commuting which was a sure way in my opinion to have the bucks fly out of your wallet.

[XRNR]

wickid,
See a trend here?

At 31 March 2000 2001 2002
Motorcycles 41,234 40,079 39,862

http://www.stats.govt.nz/domino/exte...s+-+Industries
Source: Land Transport Safety Authority.

Wasn't even going back anywhere near where I was thinking off!