Demerit points hiked for unlicensed vehicles

[Silage]

So this discussion started over a year ago (that driving a vehicle with Reg on hold/no reg would result in a lower fine but demerits and that the license plate may have to be handed in) and after browsing all zillion posts, I am unclear if it this has passed into law.

Also, I put my 1200 Reg on hold (note is called License exemption by NZTA) 3 weeks ago with no hint of handing in the plate. Mind you I did use the online site (here) so it would be quite difficult to enforce!! I don't ride ma bike when its reg is on hold and I can't see any reason to pay ACC etc when it is not being used. I have had two other bikes (XL125 and XR200) continuously on hold for over 14 years (ie renewed 14 times) as they were road legal/registered but have only been used off road and I didn't want to have to re-license them if I ever wanted to.

It would be dumb to require handing in of plates because (as mentioned above) it would create a catch22 with needing a wof before re-licensing but not being able to get a wof with no license plate. Are they really that dumb?

[swbarnett]

The cost of non compliance to myself my family and thousands of others is simply not a starter.
Sorry.

Doesn't this just say it all! Our comfort is more important to us than our freedom. Pretty soon we won't have either.

[FJRider]

So this discussion started over a year ago (that driving a vehicle with Reg on hold/no reg would result in a lower fine but demerits and that the license plate may have to be handed in) and after browsing all zillion posts, I am unclear if it this has passed into law.

Also, I put my 1200 Reg on hold (note is called License exemption by NZTA) 3 weeks ago with no hint of handing in the plate. Mind you I did use the online site (here) so it would be quite difficult to enforce!! I don't ride ma bike when its reg is on hold and I can't see any reason to pay ACC etc when it is not being used. I have had two other bikes (XL125 and XR200) continuously on hold for over 14 years (ie renewed 14 times) as they were road legal/registered but have only been used off road and I didn't want to have to re-license them if I ever wanted to.

It would be dumb to require handing in of plates because (as mentioned above) it would create a catch22 with needing a wof before re-licensing but not being able to get a wof with no license plate. Are they really that dumb?

As I understand ... $150 for no Reg. (or WoF) and 20 demerits now.

As Scumdog said ... only the habitual persons caught abusing the "On Hold" system would be likely to get "asked" to hand the plates in. The point at the moment ... it is written into Legislation now ... with option of enforcement and reason easier later.

With a vehicle found with no reg or WoF ... (nor had any for some time) impounding the vehicle may be a simpler solution. And the more expensive option for those getting caught.

The more the system is abused ... the more the screws will be tightened ...

[awa355]

Increase of points for no rego?, what a great idea.Remember that anyone who thinks its sticking it to the government by driving unlicensed, is giving the middle digit to everyone else who pays rego too.They are driving around, maybe past the school that my kids go to, maybe past me every day, and if they have a accident the people who pay rego have to cover his ACC costs, no rego goes hand in hand with no WOF, hence why I dont want to see these vehicles driving past any schools etc.

Unregistered cars, themselves, rarely cause accidents. It's usually the driver who does that.

[Ocean1]

If you dont like the system move overseas or sell your bike or take the risk that you get your licence lost. Complaining on KB about how hard done we all are isnt changing anything.

You fuck off overseas. I'll just stay here and insist that no arsehole or group thereoff is going to take me for a stupid fucking mark.

I pay way above average costs in ACC levies, somewhere in the top couple of percent of private contributors, so don't tall me I'm not paying my share. If I happen to have a couple of vehicles not currently producing revenue for ACC then I'd suggest they let it slide, because if they get all tough about it they'll end up getting nothing at all.

[mossy1200]

You fuck off overseas. I'll just stay here and insist that no arsehole or group thereoff is going to take me for a stupid fucking mark.

I pay way above average costs in ACC levies, somewhere in the top couple of percent of private contributors, so don't tall me I'm not paying my share. If I happen to have a couple of vehicles not currently producing revenue for ACC then I'd suggest they let it slide, because if they get all tough about it they'll end up getting nothing at all.

Nah. I think ill stay. Im happy to pay my way so why would someone want me gone. You do what you like but dont cry about the outcome since you like to operate above the line that average Joe operates at. I just dont like the whiners that like to push limits and complain about the outcome.

[Ocean1]

You do what you like but dont cry about the outcome since you like to operate above the line that average Joe operates at.

No tears here dude. Simply pointing out that there's a limit to how many times more than average I'm prepared to pay for what, in my case amounts to substantially less service than average.

[mossy1200]

No tears here dude. Simply pointing out that there's a limit to how many times more than average I'm prepared to pay for what amounts to substantially less service than average.

I never claimed the system was good and MY opinion is since you can only ride one at a time why pay more than one acc levy seeing as the levy is for personal injury and personal income security. Being only one rider involved yet multiple charges thats "user pays more often than once". But if you go sign over a bike as not in use then get caught riding it then you cant complain. Since the $200 fine wasnt detering people then they add a larger penalty(penalty points). Maybe its the people that keep telling everyone that they break the rules that indicate the system needs be altered so the result is changed penalties.

The one thing that gets me is that when you voice an opinion on this topic always someone else needs to go all out and quote justice and liberty. You have your opinion and thats cool and I have mine. If everyone had the same opinion we wouldnt need to talk to each other.
Try lighten up a little.

Yes if I could afford to pay more than one bike rego and one car rego idd have more vehicles but I cant afford it so I dont have more bikes.
I made my choice because it was mine to make but it means I dont need worry about penalty points and $150 fines and thats the way ill play the game.
If and when I have A-more money spare or B-acc premium on licence not vehicle ill concider keeping more bikes.

[GrayWolf]

No tears here dude. Simply pointing out that there's a limit to how many times more than average I'm prepared to pay for what, in my case amounts to substantially less service than average.

What is quite possible, and is fact. When the Govt in the UK introduced the poll tax to replace 'rates' on houses they made a few law changes as well that really didnt go down well. Most highlighted one was, that the registered owner of the house was responsible for ensuring that the poll tax was paid by all people over 18 living in the property.. So you were made responsible for another person's debt. Now as I am sure those who are old enough here will likely remember the country went into civil disorder over the Poll Tax. For 2 years the system asked the individual to pay about 2/3 the amount that the old rates system set. So a house with 4 adults? Nice little earner son!!
BECAUSE (and this IS recorded fact) there were so many who refused to pay the govt actually increased the tax and openly stated it was doing so BECAUSE of the loss of revenue due to non payers.... at that point the 'paying' ones had enough.

I agree with Mossy why should I pay my Rego (even if I really dont like paying that amount) to fund the likes of you and others who WHEN they do have an accident are still getting a service they are not paying for. Just like the poll tax non payers who 'cost us nothing' Their bins were still emptied, they received sewage services, their street was cleaned, had use of public libraries etc etc,,,,

So yup if you dont want to pay your Rego? Then man up, sign a legal agreement that you absolve ACC of any costs involved in your rehab and loss of earnings.... When you are prepared to do that, which I can almost guarantee you wont. With of course a lot of 'valid reasoning' behind it. Only then are you in a justifiable position to refuse or challenge paying what we have to pay if we wish to remain 'law abiding'.
Now if you want a 'valid' reason for me paying the exorbitant amount? I am a shift worker and I work IN the public transport industry... so I need a vehicle to get to work, to allow others to travel to work.... No vehicle? certainly no buses running at 3am when I sometimes 'clock on'.

[yachtie10]

What is quite possible, and is fact. When the Govt in the UK introduced the poll tax to replace 'rates' on houses they made a few law changes as well that really didnt go down well. Most highlighted one was, that the registered owner of the house was responsible for ensuring that the poll tax was paid by all people over 18 living in the property.. So you were made responsible for another person's debt. Now as I am sure those who are old enough here will likely remember the country went into civil disorder over the Poll Tax. For 2 years the system asked the individual to pay about 2/3 the amount that the old rates system set. So a house with 4 adults? Nice little earner son!!
BECAUSE (and this IS recorded fact) there were so many who refused to pay the govt actually increased the tax and openly stated it was doing so BECAUSE of the loss of revenue due to non payers.... at that point the 'paying' ones had enough.

I agree with Mossy why should I pay my Rego (even if I really dont like paying that amount) to fund the likes of you and others who WHEN they do have an accident are still getting a service they are not paying for. Just like the poll tax non payers who 'cost us nothing' Their bins were still emptied, they received sewage services, their street was cleaned, had use of public libraries etc etc,,,,

So yup if you dont want to pay your Rego? Then man up, sign a legal agreement that you absolve ACC of any costs involved in your rehab and loss of earnings.... When you are prepared to do that, which I can almost guarantee you wont. With of course a lot of 'valid reasoning' behind it. Only then are you in a justifiable position to refuse or challenge paying what we have to pay if we wish to remain 'law abiding'.
Now if you want a 'valid' reason for me paying the exorbitant amount? I am a shift worker and I work IN the public transport industry... so I need a vehicle to get to work, to allow others to travel to work.... No vehicle? certainly no buses running at 3am when I sometimes 'clock on'.

Not sure what your on about
mainly as Ocean clearly states he pays his fair share of ACC levies on vehicles
and also your example of poll tax is ridiculous as what happened to the poll tax? It was removed after the public had had enough and got off there asses and made such a fuss it was removed
Pity Kiwis are so apathetic it will never happen in NZ

[Berries]

BECAUSE (and this IS recorded fact) there were so many who refused to pay the govt actually increased the tax and openly stated it was doing so BECAUSE of the loss of revenue due to non payers.... at that point the 'paying' ones had enough.

Ah the poll tax riots. I remember popping out a of a tube station right in to the middle of a pitched battle not even knowing there was a demonstration on. Things is, that was aimed at the general population, not some minority group that the majority couldn't care less about.

Imagine the response if all the members of KB decided to riot in the street.

So yup if you dont want to pay your Rego? Then man up, sign a legal agreement that you absolve ACC of any costs involved in your rehab and loss of earnings.... When you are prepared to do that, which I can almost guarantee you wont. With of course a lot of 'valid reasoning' behind it. Only then are you in a justifiable position to refuse or challenge paying what we have to pay if we wish to remain 'law abiding'.

I have one bike and pay my rego. I have an issue with someone who only has one bike, doesn't pay their rego and still rides it. This person is being subsidised by me if they crash. I have no problem whatsoever with someone who has two bikes putting one of them on hold and riding it.

The method of collection for ACC is wrong. If I buy a second bike my ACC costs will double. My risk of a claim has not changed at all. That is bollocks. If I ride 500km a year or 50,000km my ACC charge is the same yet my exposure has changed dramatically. ACC levy per vehicle is a simplistic method of gathering revenue that is quite clearly not right. Until it changes you will get people who think it is unfair, because it bloody well is.

[St_Gabriel]

Just for another point of view in regards to the continual argument about paying a cost on the user and not the vehicle,


Simple maths, if for saying sake there is 5000 bike owners and 8000 bikes on the road. The ACC con requires that they raise they raise $16000 to cover costs.
Current system: $20 a bike ($16000/8000 bikes)
Proposed user charge system: $32 a user ($16000/5000 users)


Why should I, as a single bike owner, subsidise owners (to the tune of a 60% increase) who wish to have a choice of bikes to ride, and don't want to pay for the privilege? Actually, now that I put it up, I would love to know what the actual cost comparison would be.


I dont know the correct answer but I know that a fuel surcharge with ACC removed from registration would not solve the problem as the more someone drives/rides, the more they would pay but the more that people drive/ride, the safer and more skilled you would expect them to be. Just look at the accident rate for trucks v's the number of kilometres travelled but under this system they would be the most penalised.

[davereid]

No tears here dude. Simply pointing out that there's a limit to how many times more than average I'm prepared to pay for what, in my case amounts to substantially less service than average.

Same view here. I pay ACC over and over and over. I even pay for people that don't work in or visit my business in case they trip over a curb outside.

If I thought that ACC on my motorcycle represented good value I would pay. But I don't think it represents value at all, and so I don't pay it.

Yes, there is the possibility of being caught, and being fined or getting demerits. But I have 3 motorcycles on the road, no registration on any of them, and have yet to get a ticket, in spite of using one for regular 100km commutes and for more than 4 years.

When they make my motorcycle $230 a year same as my car I'll pay it.

In the mean time I will factor the risk of being caught as my decider, and so far its pretty much zero.

[bogan]

Why should I, as a single bike owner, subsidise owners (to the tune of a 60% increase) who wish to have a choice of bikes to ride, and don't want to pay for the privilege? Actually, now that I put it up, I would love to know what the actual cost comparison would be.

Why should I, as a triple vehilce owner, subsidise owners (to the tune of a 300% increase) who have the same 'paper' risk as me?

And tbh, it was the motonz safety tax that tipped me over the edge. If those guys do something worthwhile with the money I might start paying a bike rego again, but I won't support an anti-motorcycle campaign paid for by motorcycle safety funds!

[St_Gabriel]

Why should I, as a triple vehilce owner, subsidise owners (to the tune of a 300% increase) who have the same 'paper' risk as me?

But the choice to own more than one bike is solely yours? If I want to ride a bike, I must own one, If I want to ride multiple bikes then that is my cross to bear. It comes as no surprise that the rego cost is in place before the purchase of multiple bikes. I have paid 3 lots of rego on vehicles (bike and two cars) before, but solved that by selling one.

There is no simple solution, every case has a down side and I am not particularly pushing any one line.

FWIW My bike is currently on hold due to not riding much in winter but had the rego not been so exorbitant, it would have remained registered all year round. WOF (which really means nothing) will be kept up to date regardless. This is my own form of protest and bike will remain on hold for 4 or 5 months.

*awaits the flaming about being a fair weather rider