ACC proposals on motorcycle levies

[Berries]

HaHa, There ya go Rob, how about we nominate you as our official KB spokesperson

Akzle and Cassina would be a match made in heaven.

[bogan]

Akzle and Cassina would be a match made in heaven.

...and a fantastic case for mandatory sterilisation.

[bogan]

Anyone who dies as a result of being at fault becomes "paid up" as they impose little or any future cost on the health system.

So, if you kill somebody your rego doesn't go up either? only for maimings? how wonderful...

If everyone knew in advance their registration would double or more if they caused a crash in a year we may actually find the roads becoming safer too.

Some of us actually see debilitating head injuries as bad things in themselves regardless of costs incurred; just in general aren't so plebby that reducing additional cost is a higher priority than our health and wellbeing.

[Akzle]

Akzle and Cassina would be a match made in heaven.

far queue cant. Far queue.

[bogan]

Since you dont pay anything at all you have really wasted your time debating. If you come off through your own fault there needs to be a mechanisim to make you pay as you are nothing but a freeloader but I bet you would have no hesitation in paying if they brought in a policy of those without evidence of current ACC cover for the type of vehicle they have, not getting medical attention. I dont actually think there has been a black and white limitation on the sort of submissions ACC have been seeking but from looking at what they are thinking it is little more than juggling the fees (slightly) paid by different ccs of bike. Lets hope they will look outside the square and embrace ideas beyond just juggling fees charged for different ccs as all that will do is increase the market for some bikes and reduce it for others while doing nothing to improve safety as my proposal would.

Pay it on my car and commercial vehicles, and my workplace levy, and my earners levy... I'm not going to come off through my own fault anyway, cos I really don't want to.

Like I said, it's cute you think you're debating, but we're just having a laugh at your self delusion.

Do you have a proposal? you just keep muttering about how you, personally, pay too much since your myriad of crashes have all been somebody elses fault (especially the ones where nobody else was present); and that those who's fault it was (which was whom again?) should pay more

[bogan]

If you kill someone through your own fault you pay through court action being taken against you and there would certainly be nothing wrong with the court imposing a higher ACC premium on you as well as further punishment.

What court action? this isn't US and we can't sue people for accidents like that (it's one of the reasons ACC came into being).

[bogan]

You may as well say everyone who has put in a submission is deluded too. There is always the possibility something on your bike could fail causing you to crash or a bit of gravel/wet road/animal and you would be free loading would you not for seeking medical attention if you crashed as a result of any of those 4 things? What you may perhaps like is a registration for the person and not their vehicles and some of the submissions have proposed exactly that. I would agree with that too but i think we would be dreaming to think it could ever happen as the income ACC gets would drop substantially. Those at fault would have to make up the substantial shortfall which you dont want. So that would be deluded to you too eh?

No, their's often make sense.

Not my fault though, so why should I pay? (by your logic this is, in case you didn't get that) This is why your ideas are terrible, you have to keep changing shit to come up with something that is even remotely workable, which is still far worse than the current system, not to mention how it used to be. BTW, you see that list of other payment sources they get from me, that means it isn't free

A change to per person would necessitate an increase from the per vehicle amount. It's idiotic to think that number would stay the same and you and the other at-faulters would have to make up the shortfall.

[TheDemonLord]

What you may perhaps like is a registration for the person and not their vehicles and some of the submissions have proposed exactly that. I would agree with that too but i think we would be dreaming to think it could ever happen as the income ACC gets would drop substantially.

*profit would drop

[bogan]

So you dont believe court action can be taken against you for killing anyone through you own fault? In NZ its taken by the police for your information. You should do a google search of some cases.
The only difference between NZ and the States is you dont loose your house if you are prosecuted. I thinnk generally speaking fines can be up to $20,000, 12 months loss of license and perhaps jail time if you
dont have the money to pay.

Police do for criminal things. Ie, criminal negligence causing death.

Now this next bit (the distinction between at fault, and criminaly negligent) is important, see if you can figure it out, eh sport!

[bogan]

You are making things up by claiming that I said those not at fault should pay nothing as what they do pay for is the odd accident they have due to the 4 things and maybe a few more eg medical that I mentioned in my other post.
You are under no more obligation to pay ACC for your vehicles and I am guessing the reason why you pay it for them is because you drive them more than ride your bike making the chance of being caught far greater. I dont think you would get off a ticket on your bike by saying what you pay on your other vehicles is sufficiant to cover the bike too. What would you actually say if you were caught on your bike?

You work on that distinction and get back to us eh...

No, the reason I pay it for them is to pay my share.

I'd say exactly that, then pay the fine or get compliance; it really doesn't bother me.

[bogan]

On the road they mean the same thing as I have yet to read of a case of a motorist being found at fault casing death and not being prosecuted have you?

Absolutely, hundreds of them, each year. Have another go at that distinction, eh sport.

Its legally not your share though is it? (by the way they would think about it)

And this is relevant how?

[Jin]

If everyone knew in advance their registration would double or more if they caused a crash in a year we may actually find the roads becoming safer too.

Do you know someone who is happy to crash because they think registration is cheap? Or are you referring to yourself?

[Bikemad]

Plenty of people speed because they consider the fine not high enough so would they still consider risky behaviour if their registration went up as well?

what a crock of shit......you really think people stop to consider the consequences and possible fines incurred before speeding.........fuck that belongs in the stupid quote thread for sure......
Ask yourself this.......would they still consider risky behaviour if there was the possibility they might pay the ultimate price.......you know........DYING
seems they do eh sherlock.........so i strongly doubt the idea of rego going up will make any difference at all........

[bogan]

Plenty of people speed because they consider the fine not high enough so would they still consider risky behaviour if their registration went up as well?

Changing the idea again? If you're putting rego up on a vehicle basis for speeding fines, that's gonna fuck with resale real good; assuming said info is made available and aquired buy the buyer, otherwise there'll be some pretty fucked off buyers.

[98tls]

On the road they mean the same thing as I have yet to read of a case of a motorist being found at fault casing death and not being prosecuted have you?

Within an hours ride from where you are at most there must be a cliff for fucks sake take a ride eh your shits annoying.