"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin (1706-90)
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending to much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
"Motorcycling is not inherently dangerous. It is, however, EXTREMELY unforgiving of inattention, ignorance, incompetence and stupidity!" - Anonymous
"Live to Ride, Ride to Live"
Well spotted Berries. Should have looked at my rego exemption expiry date notice from NZTA. NZ alphabet agencies are sometimes 4 letters, but when they want to be important like the yanks, or steal lots of money off us they use 3 letters like ACC or CIA.
Changing names regularly is an often used crim tactic to avoid detection & copied by govt depts.
What we really need is a good action that alot of people will commit to, The problem at the moment is people agree on a good action then only about 1% actually carry out that action
I support the efforts by bikers to ask the hard questions of ACC. For example why have a levy differential at 600cc? They would say that larger bikes go faster and are higher risk - but I'm sure people on 50+cc scooters have bad accidents and there are many many more of them on the road.
To complicate matters there are unregistered trail bikes and farm bikes which contribute plenty to the trauma statistics - but no registration and ACC levy for those.
But leaving those matters aside guys...riding a motorcycle is dangerous. In fact it's what has appealed to me since I was a little boy. Almost nobody among my acquaintances over 30 years has ridden like a Nana no matter how small the bike. Everyone enjoys riding and occasionally pushes the limits.
By contrast car drivers are mostly rational: they don't push the car to 180kph just because it can do it. At worst they get up to 130k and feel like Chris Amon/Scott Dixon. I say this because I drive a Prado at 100k and seldom get passed except by bikes.
And motorcyclists crash. I did. Various other guys I know have. Some are dead. Maybe I'm a single idiot but most of my mates over 30 years have binned and consequently been helped by ACC.
Its difficult to argue against ACC that bikes are not a higher risk.
What a load of utter twaddle. Read my sig.
Like anything in life (yes, including cars) motorcycling can be as safe as you want to make it (and you don't have to stay under the posted limit all the time either). Dont tar the rest of us just becuase you and others like you choose the dangerous end. Yes, it's a choice.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin (1706-90)
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending to much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
"Motorcycling is not inherently dangerous. It is, however, EXTREMELY unforgiving of inattention, ignorance, incompetence and stupidity!" - Anonymous
"Live to Ride, Ride to Live"
I agree with the OP - if one's job is riding a bike/scooter and you pay ACC levies in your rego - it is not fair to be billed for ACC levies as an employment obligation as well.
What I'd consider fair - bill me ACC levies as a scooterer for an occupational group - then deduct the levied amount already paid in the vehicle registration fee. Then - either put a debit or credit on my ACC account ...to make up for the diff.
The amount billed to us varies from year to year and is based (much like provisional taxation) on the amount of our earnings from two years ago...if your earnings dip under a certain threshold - you don't even get a bill from ACC. They may end up owing you back - as in my case - they billed me this year $100 for contract work I did two years ago. I don't do that much now - so I will not get a bill again unless I increase my work. I am in credit to them and they say - they will offset against future years obligations. A rort really...but they likely never thought of it when they put the mess together.
TOP QUOTE: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
The latest Listener magazine has a reply in the letters section from a Mr Paul Gimblett,Manager Motorist Injury Insurance,ACC.
In his reply to a letter sent in by a motorcyclist asking why if his private insurer can offer a discounted premium on his two motorcycles on the basis that only one is on the road at any one time then why can't ACC offer a similar discount on the levy paid by motorcycle owners.
Mr Paul Gimblett's (no doubt straight faced) reply...A key reason is that as a no-fault social-insurance scheme,ACC is required to provide appropriate help to anyone injured on the road.
We can't restrict cover to certain people or vehicles,as a private insurer can.So if the writers motorcycles were both on the road at the same time,and the second bike crashed,ACC would be obliged to assist with any resulting injuries unlike the private insurer,who would decline cover related to the second bike.
The no-fault nature of ACC,which means assistance depends simply on there being a covered injury,and not the "who,where,how" of accident itself,means injured people can get the right support quickly,thus enhancing their prospects of successful rehabilitation.It's useful to take this into account when comparing ACC cover with that offered by private insurers.
Is it me?have I missed something here?Am I paying the ACC levy to cover me or my bike now???Or is this NO-FAULT quoting fucker think we're all thick?
he knows ACC is a legalised compulsory monopoly.
Useful quote though.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks