Demerit points hiked for unlicensed vehicles

[StoneY]

I find it hard to believe you are all surprised. It was always coming.

I'd rather see them add demerit points for lack of warrants - after all a lack of a WOF can mean a vehicle may be dangerous to the user and others on the road. Rego is apiece of paper only.

Exactly, and as the Demerits are meant to be for issues genuinely affecting safety this is a logical idea, Demerits for WOF and not for Reg issue's is the way it should be

As I said earlier in the thread, this drive on revenue collecting is getting pathetic........ if this is an attempt to buffer the bikes placed on exemption, just up the bloody fine for riding when on exemption ffs, and aim that fine revenue at the MSL to boost it, simple!
The fines in place for breaching the rules are sufficient, and do not need demerits added, its just over doing it and causing more work for the cops, work they shouldnt have to do.

Those in thread comparing us to UK etc, if you think its so wonderful there (which it aint) bugger off and live there, this is NZ and I for one am getting pretty annoyed with the cost of trying to enjoy a decent, freedom filled lifestyle here.

[rastuscat]

one word = speedohealer


You can calibrate it to run at 10% of the actual speed...so could show like 5km/h instead of 50 or something (just so you have some idea how fast you are actualy going)

Just disconnect it. Then use your GPS for speed.

[Scuba_Steve]

I find it hard to believe you are all surprised. It was always coming.

I'd rather see them add demerit points for lack of warrants - after all a lack of a WOF can mean a vehicle may be dangerous to the user and others on the road. Rego is apiece of paper only.

I would hardly call a WOF more than a sticker, especially if from VTNZ I would rather see WOF's abolished, but that's an argument been done many times before & suited for another thread

[riffer]

I think the fairest option is going to be a levy on petrol. This will then collect ACC from offroaders, chainsaw and lawnmower and other petrol-powered appliances which currently don't pay.

As for relicensing, if this is done at the same time as you get your warrant, the administration costs go way lower, so you could be looking at as little as $20-30 a year in licensing.

I'd certainly be prepared to pay an extra $0.15 a litre in gas for the removal of the motor vehicle levy.

Big problems I can see with this model are the complaints from those who do huge kms like taxis, couriers, truck drivers, etc.

[cold comfort]

People do have problems with rating property.Each year there is talk of a better way of raising local body funds.Why,for example,should two properties pay different amounts for the same services merely because one is valued at a higher level by the vagaries of the property market?

Don't get me started on rates. I had a "lifestyle" block in Canterbury which i was paying rates to two different local bodies for services i didn't get! The bus service ended 6km away,i supplied my own water, no rubbish collection etc-but i still had to pay for them! In Dunedin we are now paying rates for vanity projects we didn't want at the expense of basic services. Just because we pay unreasonable levies doesn't make it right or palatable.

[MSTRS:Me]

I'd certainly be prepared to pay an extra $0.15 a litre in gas for the removal of the motor vehicle levy.

Big problems I can see with this model are the complaints from those who do huge kms like taxis, couriers, truck drivers, etc.

No system will ever keep everyone happy.
But it could be said that as things are, these people are on the road longer, exposed to 'risk' much more, pay the same (basically) as everyone else does, and therefore those of us who do a fraction of the kms are subsidising them.
I've heard that justification used before...

[Swoop]

That sounds okay in theory, but, You couldn't apply it to cars towing trailers etc,

Why? The rego plate on the back of the car simply gets moved onto the trailer and it it treated as "one vehicle".

The scheme will never take off though. TPTB will have a heart attack if it is suggested that each driver's licence comes with one set of plates which can get moved around.

[riffer]

No system will ever keep everyone happy.
But it could be said that as things are, these people are on the road longer, exposed to 'risk' much more, pay the same (basically) as everyone else does, and therefore those of us who do a fraction of the kms are subsidising them.

You're signing from my songsheet mate.

[bogan]

No system will ever keep everyone happy.
But it could be said that as things are, these people are on the road longer, exposed to 'risk' much more, pay the same (basically) as everyone else does, and therefore those of us who do a fraction of the kms are subsidising them.
I've heard that justification used before...

Imo, risk isn't vehicle numbers, it isn't vehicle type, it isn't kms traveled, it is the ability of the person behind the wheel or bars. It is impossible to bureaucratically evaluate that, so it should be one flat rate for all.

However I am not opposed to fuel levies or acc miles, as I see it as paying more for something you use more often, not paying more for more risk. But I would prefer it on the license, hell we could even have every 5 years and when you pay for your license you get to go on a roadcraft course! 'Fix' (even though it isn't broken) ACC through accident reduction rather than a big money grab

[DougieNZ]

The "fuel tax" advocates on here are forgetting a few things.

1. The govt are not going to introduce any scheme which gathers them less revenue. At the moment they are collecting money from old Mrs Jones that parks her car in the garamge most of the year with a weekly trip to the shops. A tank of fuel lasts her 3 months. Very littkle fuel tax revenue is collected there.

2. So the fuel tax will need to be significant to make up for the above lost revenue.

3. So who will pay the most fuel tax? Heavy users of vehicles. People who drive for their PROFESSION. Taking trucks out of the debate (road user charges apply) - Taxi drivers/travelling salesmen/people providing services etc etc

4. So what will they do when their fuel costs go through the roof?

5. I know! they WILL PASS IT ON TO US CONSUMERS!

So whichever way you look at the merrry go round the end result is the same. I would rather just pay my registration than see prices in other areas going through the roof.

[Cheesy]

I think the fairest option is going to be a levy on petrol. This will then collect ACC from offroaders, chainsaw and lawnmower and other petrol-powered appliances which currently don't pay.

As for relicensing, if this is done at the same time as you get your warrant, the administration costs go way lower, so you could be looking at as little as $20-30 a year in licensing.

I'd certainly be prepared to pay an extra $0.15 a litre in gas for the removal of the motor vehicle levy.

Big problems I can see with this model are the complaints from those who do huge kms like taxis, couriers, truck drivers, etc.

They could adjust the earner premiums for driving related industries to compensate for for the increase due to fuel use

[MSTRS:Me]

The "fuel tax" advocates on here are forgetting a few things.

1. The govt are not going to introduce any scheme which gathers them less revenue. At the moment they are collecting money from old Mrs Jones that parks her car in the garamge most of the year with a weekly trip to the shops. A tank of fuel lasts her 3 months. Very littkle fuel tax revenue is collected there.

2. So the fuel tax will need to be significant to make up for the above lost revenue.

3. So who will pay the most fuel tax? Heavy users of vehicles. People who drive for their PROFESSION. Taking trucks out of the debate (road user charges apply) - Taxi drivers/travelling salesmen/people providing services etc etc

4. So what will they do when their fuel costs go through the roof?

5. I know! they WILL PASS IT ON TO US CONSUMERS!

So whichever way you look at the merrry go round the end result is the same. I would rather just pay my registration than see prices in other areas going through the roof.

Me? I'm forgetting nothing...

I never said fuel-based levies were fair. But it is fairER than any other system of collection.
None of us is happy with the bullshit risk-based method...the safest rider on the road presents far less risk to himself and others, compared to Joe Halfasleep in his new Merc with 75 airbags etc.
However, if risk is part of the equation, then exposure to risk is covered by RUC or fuel based...
Has to be much fairer than any other way.

[p.dath]

The "fuel tax" advocates on here are forgetting a few things.

1. The govt are not going to introduce any scheme which gathers them less revenue. At the moment they are collecting money from old Mrs Jones that parks her car in the garamge most of the year with a weekly trip to the shops. A tank of fuel lasts her 3 months. Very littkle fuel tax revenue is collected there.

You don't seem to understand we need to collect a certain amount to fund ACC. Lets pretend it is $700m. If the ACC levy is removed from re-licencing and added to fuel $700m still needs to be collected. All that happens is the cost of the ACC gets redistributed from those paying per vehicle to those who use the road the most.
Note that there is already an ACC levy on Petrol. We are merely saying we want 100% of the levy on Petrol.

2. So the fuel tax will need to be significant to make up for the above lost revenue.

If I recall correctly, it needs to increase by about 15 cents per litre to raise the same amount as is currently being generated through re-licencing.

3. So who will pay the most fuel tax? Heavy users of vehicles. People who drive for their PROFESSION. Taking trucks out of the debate (road user charges apply) - Taxi drivers/travelling salesmen/people providing services etc etc

Correct. Heavy users of the roading network with the most exposure will pay the most.

4. So what will they do when their fuel costs go through the roof?

It is self regulating. If less people drive, then less ACC would be collected, and you would expect less accidents to happen.

5. I know! they WILL PASS IT ON TO US CONSUMERS!

Well consumers buy petrol, so if petrol goes up in price of course consumers will pay more. What's your point?

So whichever way you look at the merrry go round the end result is the same. I would rather just pay my registration than see prices in other areas going through the roof.

Correct, the same amount of ACC needs to be collected. HOWEVER, when ACC is funded via 100% via petrol:
* It is very hard to evade paying. If no one evades paying then more people are splitting the $700m bill, and the cost per person could reduce.
* Very cheap to collect (already paying to collect it).
* Everyone gets charged exactly the same amount per km of road they use - so very fair.

If you drive the "average" number of km's that other motorists do, they your net costs for the year would not change. If you have several vehicles but only use one, your cost would drop. If your a Granddad and only drive once every three months your costs would come down. If you drive all day every day your costs would go way up.

[Subike]

That could well work depending on what the fine is for disconnecting the speedo cable and if the police were out enforcing random checks.

Have fun when disconnecting the "cable" on some new cars, Its now called "fly by wire" not a cable.
Also on many automatic vehicles if you disconnect the speedo cable, the gearbox stops working......bugger!
There are other things that make tampering with the milage on modern cars a fools errand.
Putting the ACC levey on fuel is the fairest, ok, there is the granny who drives once a mth, as opposed to the 1000k per day professonal driver... proportional risk IMO
The up side of ACC on fuel is, lawnmowers, boats, dirt bikes, get to contribute to the ACC account, and these three consume a large proportion of that account.
The .. handing in of the reg plates if vehicle is not uesd......mmm what about personalised plates? You own the plate, for life.
As for those with criminal minds, borrowing the front plate off of somebody elses car is something that already happens, this will just increase. This is already used for fuel thieft.
Demerit points for non registration is wrong big time, registration is not a saftey issue just a compliancy issue. Watch out that ciggy smoking in cars incurrs 30 demerit points..........same with eating while driving.........where will it stop.

[Scuba_Steve]

* Everyone gets charged exactly the same amount per km of road they use - so very fair.

Not doing too bad till here, your not telling me a 10l V10 Dodge Viper is gonna cost the same per km as a 1.3l 4cyl Mazda 323 are you?
Or a GSXR1000 is gonna cost the same per km as a Scorpio?