Petition to align New Zealand motorcycle ACC levy structures to LAMS

[Madness]

Why not buy a bike smaller than 600cc to learn on if you want to pay lower Reg?

What if you're 1.9 metres tall and weigh 220kg? A DR650 could be the ideal LAMS-approved learner for someone fitting that description.

I think you'll find that the intent behind the introduction of the LAMS system was to give learners more choice than either a 250 , a 250 or a 250. The issue being addressed in this petition is in my mind simply pointing out a discrepancy in the current licensing rules. It makes perfect sense to align LAMS with licensing brackets. Besides, I want to buy a 650.

[Luckylegs]

quoted from the 2nd to last page of the doc referenced

"that larger and more powerful bikes have a greater cost risk"

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all...andAnswers.pdf

Im sure someone might be along to tell me my piss poor use of the english language is causing the issue, but I read that as Larger bikes and more powerful bikes (IE two types of bikes, not one that is both large and powerful) are the issue.

In my opinion this is reinforced by the rest of that paragraph (below) which states the bigger the bike (not the faster the bike) the harder the fall and the cost of the accidents, not the frequency. If they are talking about the cost of an accident, they are talking about the amount spent presumably due to the nature of the injurues (allowing of course for james duices good point about the salaries etc of certain bike riders.). Now the types if injuries causd by a 1000CBR and a lams bike have nothing to do with the extra horsepower of the CBR. It has to do with the fact that if you fall off em youve got a fair way down to the ground and if either of them fuckers hits you or lands on you its gonna hurt a lot.

...Its not bad enough that the government split bikers, now bikers want to do it to bikers too. Hmmm, whatever, lams bike riders are just as likely to be travelling at the same speeds when accidents happen (bikes go fast)

[mossy1200]

You can crash half a dozen MT07 riders to the average Harley Davidson rider because mt07 riders are comparatively cheap to rehabilitate. CEOs and board chairmen cost ACC a fuckload more than retail assistants and insurance clerks to get back to work.

Explained. Thanks.

[mossy1200]

When you fill out a accident acc form at A&E does it ask what type of bike you were riding?
How do they get the data on what size bikes are costing the most?

[Madness]

I understand ... I think ... I found ...

I don't care.

[mossy1200]

They perhaps just get the data from the registration database which would be pretty accurate if you only owned 1 bike.

Idd say its more likely they don't give a fuck but feel justified charging an extra big bike premium tax.

[Madness]

Idd say its more likely they don't give a fuck but feel justified charging an extra big bike premium tax.

With the LAMS system I'd say they just followed the Aussie model without any data analysis at all.

[James Deuce]

When you fill out a accident acc form at A&E does it ask what type of bike you were riding?
How do they get the data on what size bikes are costing the most?

From the cop who turns up to the accident.

From the insurance companies who write the bikes off.

They can also collect earning data related to the rider from the Insurance company and your employer once you go on ACC. None of this is mysterious. The reasoning behind the mooted massive increases prior to the Bikoi was based entirely on the fact that the demographic of motorcycling had almost completely inverted when compared to the last time there were that many active motorcycle registrations. It wasn't apprentices and process workers riding bikes any more it had turned almost entirely into a leisure pursuit undertaken by the moderately to fantastically wealthy. Tracy Watkins (John Key's press secretary) erected a "Biking is blue collar pursuit" smoke screen whihc I tried to combat but I only had a captive and friendly audience.

Now that we've recovered from the GFC (largely) motorcycle registrations have rocketed up and the crash/injury/death rate per 100,000km is plummeting. The whole premise of the higher levies is non-existent and the whole "born again middle aged rider" premise is so massively over-hyped it is hugely insulting. There are nowhere near as many BABs as they make out. Most of the middle aged riders they point at have been doing it their whole lives with small breaks for life reasons every now and then. The biggest crashy demographic is, has always been, and will always be, young male learners. A DR650 is way easier to ride and ride well in a variety of situations than an RGV250. As is an ER650. As is an NK650. And so on, and so on.

The bureaucratic Idiocracy still think 750cc motorcycles are "big" bikes. Casssina's examples of adequate leaner bikes are utterly invalid. Part of the resoning behind the LAMS laws was to get rid of the vast array of poorly maintained and difficult to live with 250s and 400s that were 20 years past their use by date. A Street Triple is much easier to ride slowly and tour on than a KR1S. Modern 750cc motorcycles are a piece of wee to ride. They're not cammy, flexi-framed, poor-handling pieces of cheap crap made from scrap of an indeterminate origin with bizzare geometry. Whoever was going on about "big" bikes earlier in the thread has missed the point. Some non-motorcycling dunderhead has decided that motorcycle cc rating = physical size and "danger level", but some clever wag somewhere needs to be thanked for establishing the power-weight paradigm that has enabled LAMS.

There is no clear formula for determining the perfect learner bike. Motorcycles are individually appealing for varied reasons. Motorcycling isn't magic. It requires practice, an open mind and the ability to be strongly self-critical. It is not life-affirming until you've been doing it for a long time, and you've given up all pretense of special abilities and sorted out what it is you're doing it for.

[Luckylegs]

Blah, blah blah james deuce sermon blah!...

In your not so humble opinion eh?

...I'm probaby the person who has supposedly missed the point but I cant quite figure out from your post how. My point was that my non lams bike over 600cc should be charged no more than someones lams bike over 600cc as they have exactly the same injury potential. So... do I agree with the fact that over 600cc bikes (lams or not) should be charged more than <600?... No, but they are and as long as they are I see no justification for one particular type of bike to be charged less.

How would you justify a dr650 being less likely to cause injury than a zx636 or triumph 675 @ 100km/h... Im genuinely interested.

[James Deuce]

In your not so humble opinion eh?

...I'm probaby the person who has supposedly missed the point but I cant quite figure out from your post how. My point was that my non lams bike over 600cc should be charged no more than someones lams bike over 600cc as they have exactly the same injury potential. So... do I agree with the fact that over 600cc bikes (lams or not) should be charged more than <600?... No, but they are and as long as they are I see no justification for one particular type of bike to be charged less.

How would you justify a dr650 being less likely to cause injury than a zx636 or triumph 675 @ 100km/h... Im genuinely interested.

They don't though. Power to weight determines the dynamic potential of any motorcycle.I don't understand where you're coming with with that argument nor the bit about my "opinion". My lecture is is distilled from the years of research people like Charlie Lamb did and my own subsequent research over the last few years. ACC's argument and the stats do not match up. ACCs claims about their financial position were a fiction. Their investment portfolio has exceeded 1 billion dollars.

I don't get what you are trying to say, especially as learners aren't supposed to be riding non-LAMS bikes. I can guarantee that DR650 riders get hurt a lot less severely and a lot less often than Daytona 675 riders. Crashing at 100kmh is seldom the issue. Serious accidents usually take place either at a lot lower speeds or massively higher speeds. If 100kmh is the boogeyman then we shoul djust ban motorcycling. Anything that can do 100kmh is equally dangerous? I don't belive so. I sincerely believe that a bike with gentle, predictable reactions to braking, weight transfer, and acceleration are much easier to ride than ZXR636 or a Daytona 675. The relatively extreme riding positions of modern sportsbikes are designed for managing body weight distribution and aerodynamics at the race track, not seeing over commuter traffic or looking through a partially obscured bend or maintaining a degree of all day comfort so your riding performance doesn't deteriorate dangerously towards the end of a day out.

It wasn't you I was talking about. Chill.

[FJRider]

Signed, good luck - I ride a GSX650FU and would love to pay lower registration fees.

Buy a smaller bike and learn to ride it properly.

[FJRider]

But I would think not many experienced riders would buy a Lams bike over 600cc because it was more capable than a non Lams bike over 600cc.

No ... they buy them because they are cheaper ... "Classic status" ... almost ...

Maybe someone could post who has bought a Lams bike over 600cc because they like it better than non Lams bikes over 600cc and explain why nothing lower in cc would be any good.

Cheap power ... lower revving ... more torque ... did I mention cheaper .. ???

[Luckylegs]

They don't though. Power to weight determines the dynamic potential of any motorcycle.I don't understand where you're coming with with that argument nor the bit about my "opinion". My lecture is is distilled from the years of research people like Charlie Lamb did and my own subsequent research over the last few years. ACC's argument and the stats do not match up. ACCs claims about their financial position were a fiction. Their investment portfolio has exceeded 1 billion dollars.

I don't get what you are trying to say, especially as learners aren't supposed to be riding non-LAMS bikes. I can guarantee that DR650 riders get hurt a lot less severely and a lot less often than Daytona 675 riders. Crashing at 100kmh is seldom the issue. Serious accidents usually take place either at a lot lower speeds or massively higher speeds. If 100kmh is the boogeyman then we shoul djust ban motorcycling. Anything that can do 100kmh is equally dangerous? I don't belive so. I sincerely believe that a bike with gentle, predictable reactions to braking, weight transfer, and acceleration are much easier to ride than ZXR636 or a Daytona 675. The relatively extreme riding positions of modern sportsbikes are designed for managing body weight distribution and aerodynamics at the race track, not seeing over commuter traffic or looking through a partially obscured bend or maintaining a degree of all day comfort so your riding performance doesn't deteriorate dangerously towards the end of a day out.

It wasn't you I was talking about. Chill.

I realise where your lecture came from, I was frankly being a cnut cos It really just sounded like the same stuff reguritated again and not entirely relevant to this particular thread. Again, I was being a dick earlier and it may very wel have been more relevant than I gave it credit.

In regards to my point. It was made very (very) specifically in regards to the acc document that the OP posted a link to and in particular what I considered to be the implication that it was more concerned with the dimensional size and weight of the bike and not the power. In other words I opined that it read like they were suggesting that injuries caused from an accident involving a bigger heavier bike (absolutely without regard to what caused the accident) were more likely to cost more than one involving a smaller/lighter bike). This may or may not be the case but presuming it is then you cannot split lams and non lams bikes as lams bikes of the same cc rating are not inherantly lighter.

Maybe its another badly written document, maybe I just read too much into what it said... could be.

[Luckylegs]

Do you agree with me then that the lower down riding position on sports bikes restricts your peripheral vision when commuting then?

Fuck off dumbarse. You already have a thread dedciated to your special blend of stupidy and closed mindedness....

THIS ONES MINE!!!

[pritch]

THIS ONES MINE!!!

All yours.