RUC for bikes is a dumb idea. Had to giggle when the post popped up on Facebook.
For me I'd say an annual licence fee for those who wish to have the class 6? That way it's the same for multiple bike owners, ditto for commuters and fair weather riders only. Discount for those of us who have done recognized extra training of course. But then we'd also have to resolve the unlicensed rider/unregistered bike issue, to level the playing field.
If I'm to believe the various bits of info I've seen on the ACC component of bike rego, then the ACC component should be higher than it is now in order to recover costs, but then this in itself is already wrong in the spirit of the ACC original intent isn't it?
I'd support it if it was an Inverse RUC - ie the Less you rode, the more you paid....
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
You guess right, but not because of my situation. I hadn't actually thought about my impact on ACC until this thread, but I haven't supported the idea of appropriating blame and basing ACC levies ever since I heard the idea.
FYI - my 'ACC bill' comes from one very serious accident many years ago, not that that should matter.
"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"
WRONG! The whole point of ACC is to provide help for the unforunate WITHOUT fault; discriminating against NOONE. Charging based on history (or whatever group you happen to belong to) runs directly counter to the core principles of ACC.
The whole of society benifits from all of us being able to persue our chosen pasttime; no matter what the health bill of that pasttime turns out to be.
"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"
"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"
ACC is a "NO FAULT" scheme ... assistance for medical help regardless of actual fault of the injured persons. For them to charge a rate depending on actual amount of guilt in the accident is hypocritical at the very least ...
Charging a fee dependent on the known/believed risk is at the least ... a bit dodgy ... a point few seem to grasp.
When life throws you a curve ... Lean into it ...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks