Demerit points hiked for unlicensed vehicles

[mossy1200]

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

Yes but the acc content of the registration is a service providing rider injury related costs. Since there is one rider when you pay more than once its not a user pays system since there is still only one user. Also a person with a motorcycle licence but no motorcycle is free to ride a bike that he/she doesnt own and be covered cost free.

[bsasuper]

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

Why is that?, are zee germans coming

[Scuba_Steve]

Why is that?, are zee germans coming

No worse then that, America's taking over

[mossy1200]

Mossy possible solution.

Create a new licence class called 6mx
Anyone that does not have a class 6 licence needs a 6mx licence to ride a recreational offroad bike calculated to cover the shortfall of revenue lost by one user one acc levy costs. Due to the fact there is many off road users this wouldnt be a high figure and would be the same as needing fishing licence to fish the rivers. Ok I accept some wont get one but if the punishment for riding without is loss of vehicle most will. Most that ride mx will travel with them on trailers and vans so can be checked during transit and mx parks etc. Also ownership papers based on chasis number that can be changed using 6mx licence only which will help prevent theft of unregistered bikes.

Just a idea.

[bogan]

Mossy possible solution.

Create a new licence class called 6mx
Anyone that does not have a class 6 licence needs a 6mx licence to ride a recreational offroad bike calculated to cover the shortfall of revenue lost by one user one acc levy costs. Due to the fact there is many off road users this wouldnt be a high figure and would be the same as needing fishing licence to fish the rivers. Ok I accept some wont get one but if the punishment for riding without is loss of vehicle most will. Most that ride mx will travel with them on trailers and vans so can be checked during transit and mx parks etc. Also ownership papers based on chasis number that can be changed using 6mx licence only which will help prevent theft of unregistered bikes.

Just a idea.

I'll be outa here if things ever get that draconian!

ACC is only ever going to work if people (and govt) realise levy equality is a better option than risk based levies. Risk based levies just make way for a privatised insurance system.

[GrayWolf]

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.


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.

I agree 250% that the means of collecting revenue is wrong, but like any Govt, they will always find the way to extract maximum revenue from the maximum amount of people they collect from. Another damn good example is the IRD. (I overpaid $1100 in tax, my rebate? was $900. Yes they 'taxed' my rebate as income. Any other 'business' if they overcharged then deducted a percentage to keep from any overpayment? Would either be quickly out of business or in court).
However we are discussing ACC and Registration. I can accept that some people see the injustice of paying several times for 'one service'. We have 4 vehicles registered so I can feel that pain, and hey I can only drive one vehicle at a time, so why should I have to insure each individual vehicle? It's my/our choice to own 4 vehicles and we accept that it will 'cost us' for that privilege.

The reason I quoted the Poll Tax in the UK, was that Govts worldwide WILL put in place 'unjust' taxes and the only way to get them lifted once in place IS civil disorder. KB'rs taking to the street? Sadly even if every motorcyclist did, it likely would not be 'enough' bodies to make it happen. What maybe we do need is for the general M/cycling population to 'revolt' against those who allow us to carry them.
I/we also dislike intensely paying 4 lots of ACC levy for 2 people but to remain legal I don't have a choice. What I find amusing is there are several on here who obviously dislike it so much they break the law... Yet are any of them out there debating with politicians? Are they out there getting petitions signed? Or lobbying parliament? Nope, they are quite content to let others carry the load (pay) for them.

[BMWST?]

Here we go again 10% are happy to let 90% pay for them and come up with unregistered users that dont crash dont cost meaning registered users that dont crash fund unregistered users that do crash. If only that 10% that dont pay stood up and signed away their right to medical care and income while not able to work.
The only user I feel bad for is the one that has several bikes and can only ride one at a time. If we payed acc on our licence rather than our bikes idd be happy. LOBY FOR THAT perhaps.
If you lose your licence by swapping plates or riding while registration on hold thats bad luck. If your doing it and complain about random checks on motorcyclists as a minority group you choose to do it and getting caught is your problem.

al thay will do is make single vehicle owners subsidize multi vehicle owners...fixed number of bikes,and fixed number of licenses.... one is divided by the other

[mossy1200]

I'll be outa here if things ever get that draconian!

ACC is only ever going to work if people (and govt) realise levy equality is a better option than risk based levies. Risk based levies just make way for a privatised insurance system.

So your all for no acc levy on vehicles and equal acc premiums for all based on every tax payer paying a equal share. Idd go for that seeing as every person every day has a likelyhood of getting injured being sky diving,crossing the road,falling over or riding a bike but it just doesnt seem likely that will happen.

[BMWST?]

So your all for no acc levy on vehicles and equal acc premiums for all based on every tax payer paying a equal share. Idd go for that seeing as every person every day has a likelyhood of getting injured being sky diving,crossing the road,falling over or riding a bike but it just doesnt seem likely that will happen.

thats different,most of us pay an acc levy through our worlplace.The motor acc levy is seperate

[mossy1200]

thats different,most of us pay an acc levy through our worlplace.The motor acc levy is seperate

Yes but the average required could be added to your tax payed as a seperate item to cover all recreational activities outside the workplace seeing as being a passenger in a vehicle is just as dangerous as being the owner operator etc.

[Ocean1]

So your all for no acc levy on vehicles and equal acc premiums for all based on every tax payer paying a equal share.

It's what the original deal was.

I wouldn't mind massively overpaying my share of ACC levies, but they take with both hands. Not only do I pay many times my share but if and when I ever damage myself they not only fail to compensate me in proportion to my levies, or indeed even an average level but they actually pay me considerably less.

Enough. If they didn't bleed me white I'd have the wherewithall to take care of myself. As it stands they can get fucked, I'll take a leaf from their book and pay that amount that represents the least cost to me.

[BMWST?]

Yes but the average required could be added to your tax payed as a seperate item to cover all recreational activities outside the workplace seeing as being a passenger in a vehicle is just as dangerous as being the owner operator etc.

there are many ways the whole system could be reformed but momentum rules

[GrayWolf]

So your all for no acc levy on vehicles and equal acc premiums for all based on every tax payer paying a equal share. Idd go for that seeing as every person every day has a likelyhood of getting injured being sky diving,crossing the road,falling over or riding a bike but it just doesnt seem likely that will happen.

thats different,most of us pay an acc levy through our worlplace.The motor acc levy is seperate

Ahhh the motor ACC levy is 'seperate', but it goes into the general 'slush' fund for payments. Now lets look at the LARGEST user of ACC funds, SPORT injuries.. just think of the money available for ACC to fund treatment if ALL sports teams and participants actually had to pay a levy, after all there is a high risk of serious injury in most contact sports. We have seen a number of fatalities or players left disabled (even schoolchildren). I can just picture the outcry over that one being put in place. So our levy isnt just subsidising other road users or motorcyclists...

[bogan]

So your all for no acc levy on vehicles and equal acc premiums for all based on every tax payer paying a equal share. Idd go for that seeing as every person every day has a likelyhood of getting injured being sky diving,crossing the road,falling over or riding a bike but it just doesnt seem likely that will happen.

Yup, would save a bit on admin too!

[mossy1200]

Ahhh the motor ACC levy is 'seperate', but it goes into the general 'slush' fund for payments. Now lets look at the LARGEST user of ACC funds, SPORT injuries.. just think of the money available for ACC to fund treatment if ALL sports teams and participants actually had to pay a levy, after all there is a high risk of serious injury in most contact sports. We have seen a number of fatalities or players left disabled (even schoolchildren). I can just picture the outcry over that one being put in place. So our levy isnt just subsidising other road users or motorcyclists...

So the issue is acc is treating road users like insurance policy holders rather than providing their function taking into account all risks taken by every person every day. This we all knew but whats the solution??????