Advertise with Kiwi Biker
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 42

Thread: Rego rebates for completing RideForever courses

  1. #16
    Join Date
    1st September 2007 - 21:01
    Bike
    1993 Yamaha FJ 1200
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    12,695
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by nerrrd View Post
    There's an 'article' about this today among the promoted stuff on the Herald website front page, ACC must be serious about it.
    This bit I find interesting ...

    ACC's chief customer officer Emma Powell says riders who have been through the programme - Ride Forever - are 23 per cent less likely to have an ACC claim (to June 2018).
    Those riders that have been riding for ten years or more should be less likely to make an ACC claim than a rider with limited experience.

    If they ARE serious ... the courses should be completed (free [or subsidized] .. ??) as part of the license process. With subsidized (at least) refresher courses every two years.
    Sweat wipes off. Road-rash doesn't.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    1st September 2007 - 21:01
    Bike
    1993 Yamaha FJ 1200
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    12,695
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by AllanB View Post
    Appears to be mixed reporting as to why or value of increases but all agree they want you to pay more.
    This bit made me laugh ... buying petrol wont make you broke. The issues behind being broke are more involved than not being able to afford the (current) price petrol.

    Owning and (legally) running a motor vehicle is a luxury many cannot afford. Yet many of them claim it should be "As of right" to do so ... as owning your own home should be (Often those making this claim are [and always will be] on a benefit).

    "Have you seen the price of petrol in New Zealand?" one person commented on Twitter, followed by the hashtag #AndThatsWhyImBroke.
    If the annual Government income from fines that are no WOF or no Licensing related ... ACC wouldn't be the only Government department "short" on funding.
    Sweat wipes off. Road-rash doesn't.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    1st September 2007 - 21:01
    Bike
    1993 Yamaha FJ 1200
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    12,695
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Katman View Post
    I'll just wait another 3 or 4 years till all my bikes qualify for vintage rego.
    And ... your Gold card ...
    Sweat wipes off. Road-rash doesn't.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    13th April 2018 - 20:36
    Bike
    ...
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    49
    It appears ACC really really want riders to do Ride Forever training.
    The "23% less likely to have an accident" statistic could be due to safer riders doing the training courses and unsafe riders not doing training because they over-rate themselves. The difficult part is convincing the bad riders they could benefit from training... a rebate might help persuade them... a little bit.

    As for ACC running out of coin - doesn't that contradict the report that ACC have reserves of $15bn-30bn?

  5. #20
    Join Date
    9th May 2008 - 21:23
    Bike
    A little yellow one
    Location
    Northern Waikato
    Posts
    2,278
    Quote Originally Posted by FJRider View Post
    Those riders that have been riding for ten years or more should be less likely to make an ACC claim than a rider with limited experience.

    If they ARE serious ... the courses should be completed (free [or subsidized] .. ??) as part of the license process. With subsidized (at least) refresher courses every two years.
    The simple version is the target group is BABs. They cost ACC more when they crash, the income replacement component being significant. Newer riders have to go thru the stricter licensing regime, so if they've done BHS & CBTA, they'll start off with better skills/knowledge than a 10 year plus rider who hasn't had training.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hoonicorn View Post
    It appears ACC really really want riders to do Ride Forever training.
    The "23% less likely to have an accident" statistic could be due to safer riders doing the training courses and unsafe riders not doing training because they over-rate themselves. The difficult part is convincing the bad riders they could benefit from training... a rebate might help persuade them... a little bit.
    Always the way, the other aspect being the stats can be argued to be off, for the same reason. The safer group who now crashes less, was more safety minded from the outset. Baby steps I suppose...
    If the words I say offend you, imagine the ones I keep to myself...

  6. #21
    Join Date
    1st September 2007 - 21:01
    Bike
    1993 Yamaha FJ 1200
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    12,695
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Berries View Post
    It may be the outcome they want but you would be wasting your time suggesting it. Clearly instead of just using the magic pill of training they could perhaps consider past claims history and reward those who have paid thousands in levies and never made a claim and/or penalise those who through their claims show quite clearly they are at a higher risk, whether they have done additional training or not, whether they have 20 years experience or not or whether their bike is over 600cc or not.

    Consultation my arse.
    It is irrelevant how many motorcyclists actually have accidents ... and/or ... make a claim (OR NOT). ACC base their policy around motorcyclists being "MORE AT RISK" of having a motorcycle related injury. This means that regardless of fault (with ACC's NO fault policy) a clean accident record means little. We can be involved in an accident that could not be predicted nor avoided. But ... we are more at risk of injury if we are involved in an accident. Which is basically true.


    Personally ... I would be more supportive of removal of GST or import taxes/duties of ALL motorcycle related safety clothing and equipment. That would do more to reduce injuries than many might think.
    Sweat wipes off. Road-rash doesn't.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    1st September 2007 - 21:01
    Bike
    1993 Yamaha FJ 1200
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    12,695
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by caspernz View Post
    The simple version is the target group is BABs. They cost ACC more when they crash, the income replacement component being significant. Newer riders have to go thru the stricter licensing regime, so if they've done BHS & CBTA, they'll start off with better skills/knowledge than a 10 year plus rider who hasn't had training.
    Some of the BAB's know their skill levels are down but figure (hope) they'll come back to them in time. Some (most ???) do not believe ANY deterioration in THEIR abilities has occurred. Both groups do generally know the value and importance of insurance though ...

    Learner riders generally think their ability is greater than it is. Especially after they pass their full ... but seldom know the value (and importance) of insurance ...

    Quote Originally Posted by caspernz View Post
    Always the way, the other aspect being the stats can be argued to be off, for the same reason. The safer group who now crashes less, was more safety minded from the outset. Baby steps I suppose...
    Statistic's are only of value to those that compile them. If you ask the right questions ... you'll always get the answers you want.

    The safer group is irrelevant ... the "More at risk of injury" is the motorcyclists "monkey" on our backs ...
    Sweat wipes off. Road-rash doesn't.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    1st September 2007 - 21:01
    Bike
    1993 Yamaha FJ 1200
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    12,695
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by rastuscat View Post
    Talked to a local dealer yesterday.

    Bloke came in last week and bought a new Gixxer thou. He wrote it off 5 days later doing wheelies.

    As long as there are dickheads like that riding bikes, we will continue to be targeted like we are.
    There are more dickheads driving cars like that that than dickhead motorcyclists ... I'd prefer to see the courts deal with them more seriously than they do (wet bus tickets all round). An out of control car has more potential to do more injury/harm than an out of control motorcycle ...

    Maybe it's just lack of (interest/ability) in the enforcement ...
    Sweat wipes off. Road-rash doesn't.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    10th January 2018 - 23:42
    Bike
    hypermotoard
    Location
    auckland
    Posts
    1

    my feedback

    I realize I'm preaching to the converted here, but this the diatribe I posted as feedback on the ACC site :

    Let me start by saying I am in favour of safety training for motorcycles, subsidised or not. I would of benefited I'm sure, when I started riding 38 years ago. Since I got my licence I have never been more than a month without a motorcycle - I currently have 8.

    The incentive you offer is to complete a course and receive a subsidy is laughable. Spend $100 on courses get $100 off for two years on ONE motorcycle? The course you propose I do should help me be safe on ANY bike I ride, not just one on which I choose to claim the rebate. Which brings up the point, why if I own multiple bikes do I have to pay multiple ACC levies? I can only ride one at a time. I have at least 2 bikes registered at any one time, all attract maximum levies. I'm paying a minimum $1100+ a year, over $2200 if I choose to have only half my bikes registered. Motorcycle riders should attract the ACC fees, not their motorcycles.

    Your statistics with regard to the courses and subsequent risk are ambiguous and disingenious. A rider who volunteers to do a safety course is by definition a safer rider - (s)he is actively seeking additional tools to remain safe. The ones that do attend a course are likely to be close to the 23% less likely to have an accident, course attendance or not.

    Your target demographic is wrong, so very wrong. NEW, INEXPERIENCED riders should be attending the courses ahead of 10 year veterans. That's not to say more experienced riders would not benefit from training, but how many young riders will be seriously injured or die because you choose not to include them in your safety incentive. Young riders would also be more appreciative of a break on their ACC levies as it would be more likely they have less disposable income than an older rider.

    The ACC operates on a no-fault premise, you clearly state this on your own website but your levy on motorcycles clearly flies in the face of that doctrine. You deem motorcyclists to be at fault because they own a motorcycle. Guilty, not until proven innocent, just guilty.

    We as motorcycle riders use the roads alongside cars - who incidentally can carry up to 5 or six people - one of whom pays a small (by comparison) ACC levy. Those car passengers, along with other road users such as horse riders, cyclists, pedestrians (there are no footpaths where I live) all pay no ACC levy, yet receive full benefit of the system if involved in an accident.

    Finally, the government should be encouraging motorcycling, not creating barriers to prevent young men and women getting on two wheels. Bikes are fun, economical and reduce congestion. They make the riders, as car drivers, more aware and safer when they do drive a car. I don't have any dodgy statistics to back that up, but it sure makes sense.

    Stop ripping me off.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    5th December 2009 - 12:32
    Bike
    A red one
    Location
    Te Mosgiel
    Posts
    2,609
    Quote Originally Posted by FJRider View Post
    ACC base their policy around motorcyclists being "MORE AT RISK" of having a motorcycle related injury.
    Pretty hard to argue with that logic. I have heard that netball players are more at risk of having a netball related injury.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    20th June 2011 - 20:27
    Bike
    BMW XChallenge, GSXR1250fa, Tuono 1100
    Location
    Glen Eden
    Posts
    9,497
    Quote Originally Posted by ripping View Post

    Your target demographic is wrong, so very wrong. NEW, INEXPERIENCED riders should be attending the courses ahead of 10 year veterans. That's not to say more experienced riders would not benefit from training, but how many young riders will be seriously injured or die because you choose not to include them in your safety incentive. Young riders would also be more appreciative of a break on their ACC levies as it would be more likely they have less disposable income than an older rider.


    Stop ripping me off.
    Couldnt be more wrong. You old farts never went through CBTA. Most of you think you are riding gods and are perfect.

    Its you lot that are ripping me off having stupid and expensive accidents.
    Quote Originally Posted by Katman View Post
    but once again you proved me wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by cassina View Post
    I was hit by one such driver while remaining in the view of their mirror.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    20th June 2011 - 20:27
    Bike
    BMW XChallenge, GSXR1250fa, Tuono 1100
    Location
    Glen Eden
    Posts
    9,497
    Quote Originally Posted by FJRider View Post
    And ... your Gold card ...
    That vintage rego thing is bullshit. They should be paying the same or more as they dont have ABS etc. And its normally old untrained guys riding them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Katman View Post
    but once again you proved me wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by cassina View Post
    I was hit by one such driver while remaining in the view of their mirror.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    15th February 2005 - 15:34
    Bike
    Katanasaurus Rex
    Location
    The Gates of Delirium
    Posts
    8,714
    Quote Originally Posted by nzspokes View Post
    That vintage rego thing is bullshit.
    It's great.

    I think it's something like $54 for a full years rego.
    Quote Originally Posted by husaberk View Post
    Oh I must really irk you to be repeatedly proven to be a total utter moron in public.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    20th January 2008 - 17:29
    Bike
    1972 Norton Commando
    Location
    Auckland NZ's Epicentre
    Posts
    3,195
    Quote Originally Posted by nzspokes View Post
    That vintage rego thing is bullshit. They should be paying the same or more as they dont have ABS etc. And its normally old untrained guys riding them.
    That's funny, never seem to see them come up at crashed auctions..... they are generally the ones with ABS.

    Most of my old bikes are pretty hard to go out and replace, have average handling and brakes so I tend to ride accordingly.




    Quote Originally Posted by Katman View Post
    It's great.

    I think it's something like $54 for a full years rego.
    Yes just over a hundy a year to keep my R90s, Thunderbird and Commando on the road. Lemans in 2020 so will give that a spruce up soon.
    DeMyer's Laws - an argument that consists primarily of rambling quotes isn't worth bothering with.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    1st September 2007 - 21:01
    Bike
    1993 Yamaha FJ 1200
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    12,695
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by nzspokes View Post
    That vintage rego thing is bullshit. They should be paying the same or more as they dont have ABS etc. And its normally old untrained guys riding them.
    Don't worry about that ... ABS will soon be on some of the bikes with vintage rego. And the old untrained guys will be dead ... some sooner than others ...
    Sweat wipes off. Road-rash doesn't.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •