ACC - Here we go again

[nerrrd]

Or not coming off hold at all. Ride the thing and take a chance on being stopped. Make sure the bike is warranted and safe and dont ride like twat to avoid attention. Penalty for unreg bike is a lot less than reg cost.

OK for those living in the countryside, but not wanting to buy into any local conspiracy theories I imagine in the main centres they're working towards a lot more camera surveillance and automation for this kind of thing. Already experienced not being able to get a warrant when my bike wasn't registered (or it might have been the other way around) a few years ago.

Next thing will be a front facing number plate to make it easier for the cameras...

[neels]

Or not coming off hold at all. Ride the thing and take a chance on being stopped. Make sure the bike is warranted and safe and dont ride like twat to avoid attention. Penalty for unreg bike is a lot less than reg cost.

I believe that's why they added the demerit points, with discussion at the time about the fact that previously they had only been applied to safety related offences rather failure to pay a fee, the economics were such that you had a couple of strikes before you were were worse off than having paid.

It's intriguing that they're still focused on engine size, which puts a 35hp DR650 in the same category as a 120hp GSXR750. Perhaps there could be consideration of the fact that if a bike is low risk enough to be LAMS approved this could be reflected in the acc levy applied?

[SaferRides]

OK for those living in the countryside, but not wanting to buy into any local conspiracy theories I imagine in the main centres they're working towards a lot more camera surveillance and automation for this kind of thing. Already experienced not being able to get a warrant when my bike wasn't registered (or it might have been the other way around) a few years ago.

Next thing will be a front facing number plate to make it easier for the cameras...

The police have copped a lot of grief over their use of cameras for minor offences, so I expect they are treading carefully at the moment.

Before Covid, I did hear of the occasional person being pulled over for not complying with learner conditions. But otherwise the chances of getting a letter in the post for no rego are pretty slim in Auckland, unless you get a parking ticket from a warden. AT are now using car-mounted cameras for parking offences, so the chances of being ticketed are even lower.

My experience at licence checkpoints is the police normally just wave you through. I have been breath tested once wearing a full face helmet, but they didn't even look at the bike.

It's interesting riding with no rego. I'm definitely more compliant with speed limits!

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[pete376403]

I have the same. I just get thoroughly pissed off paying through the nose for arseholes on any size bike that contribute to the statistics. All well and good them posting the engine size breakdowns vs claims on their website but that tells us basically nothing.

What about bike type?
Rider experience?
Riding currency?
Claim history?
Licence history?
Weight of chrome?

ACC has its place but IMO it does not work for motor vehicles. Jumping from an RF900 to a CBR600RRRRRR hardly lowers the risk profile which is what they imply. Sold my 2016 non-ABS GSXR750 a few years ago and now they are going to lower the levy by nearly 15 percent. Yeah, that makes perfect sense if you are concerned about injury prevention. My issue is that bike engine size is not an ideal determinant for likelihood of making an ACC claim.

Don't start me on cars. How does my Nissan Skyline GTR Mugen Duff Duff Gazoo GTI have the same ACC levy component as my Daewoo Snugglebug?

I have previously done research into make, model and engine size when it comes to motorcycle involvement, posted on here at various times over the years. I think I might have to update it, not that it will make a difference. Consultation is just a sham.

The (previous) 600 cutoff was just ridiculous Somehow my 49 (on a really good day) HP KLR650 was considered more dangerous than a 117 HP R6 (599.8 cc so safe). Now we are going to be on an equal ACC footing

[pete376403]

OK for those living in the countryside, but not wanting to buy into any local conspiracy theories I imagine in the main centres they're working towards a lot more camera surveillance and automation for this kind of thing. Already experienced not being able to get a warrant when my bike wasn't registered (or it might have been the other way around) a few years ago.

Next thing will be a front facing number plate to make it easier for the cameras...

It is the other way around - cant register without a WoF

[Berries]

Looking at the stats, if they put Harleys in the agricultural category where they should be rather than the motor vehicle fund the >1000cc category would disappear as a risk.

i jest, but it is surprising how many people riding Harleys who crash don't have a motorbike licence, or are disqualified. Guessing a few of these outlaws won't have rego either......... And that's the rub. People who don't pay their rego will still get treated due to the way ACC works so in the end the levy goes up so the ones who do pay subsidise those who don't. Eventually it must reach a tipping point where those who have always paid in the past just think fuck it, why should I subsidise everyone else, and stop paying. And so it goes up again.

Time for an overhaul of ACC I think.

[Pixie]

ahh well lots will be leaving them on hold........ how often do you see a policeman ???/

Not often
I have had one fine for not being registered since the last ACC increase . When was that? 2010?
$200 fine against $7500 rego for 15 years Bargain!

I actually got a fine for doing 100kmh in a newly changed 80 kmh zone and the cop looked at my expired rego label but did not add that to the ticket

On the other hand ,some say the rego label is so secure that the text on it could not possibly be partially erased and the expiry date changed.


What I do recall from that time was that ACC said that when the levy increase achieved self funded status , the levy would be reduced . Well that was a gigantic load of bovine shite , wasn't it?

[R650R]

I believe that's why they added the demerit points, with discussion at the time about the fact that previously they had only been applied to safety related offences rather failure to pay a fee, the economics were such that you had a couple of strikes before you were were worse off than having paid.

It's intriguing that they're still focused on engine size, which puts a 35hp DR650 in the same category as a 120hp GSXR750. Perhaps there could be consideration of the fact that if a bike is low risk enough to be LAMS approved this could be reflected in the acc levy applied?

If you look at how some people ride in the adventure scene… At a guess I’d say they are perhaps a surprisingly large part of the claim pool? Anyone have data??? A lot of people are in the adventure scene now that sports bikes are out of fashion and even low dpeed crashes regardless of bike size often seem to result in broken ankles and helicopter rides due to the awkward nature of falling on steep terrain etc.

[Moi]

Let's just have a look at a few figures...

Annual Licence Fee for a motorbike = $24.50 -> that's 47c a week.

Proposed ACC Levy for a bike over 751cc = $485.98 -> that's $9.35 a week

So far, $9.82 a week plus the other few licence incidental costs which come to about $2 a week including GST.

That's $12 a week...


If your bike is a "need-to-have", then you just need to budget for that cost along with the others costs involved with running a bike.

If your bike is a "nice-to-have", then you have to accept that the above amount is part of the cost of the "nice-to-have" toy.

Now for those who think they could just put the bike's licence 'on-hold' and still ride it, I think ACC should seriously consider taking those riders to court to recover the costs involved with the rider's initial medical care and any other in-hospital medical care plus any other costs that ACC have paid for to get the rider back on their feet. Why should they bludge off the system?

I guess that last paragraph is not going down well with some, tough!

Also, if you consider the ACC levy is too steep, try finding a private accident insurance that covers you riding your bike to the same standard as that provided by ACC. And if you do find one, see how much a week that cover will cost you - doubt you get it for under $10 a week.

[nerrrd]

Is ACC just overlooking the power-to-weight ratio that's required for LAMs bikes?

Approved motorcycles must have a power–to-weight ratio of not more than 150kw per tonne

It's not obvious on the website, but this is a requirement on the application form for LAMs approval – which presumably all the manufacturers have to complete. I don't think an R6 would meet this requirement, however your average policeman might just look at the cc rating and say all good, on your way.

So it's not quite as blunt as it seems.

[rastuscat]

Is ACC just overlooking the power-to-weight ratio that's required for LAMs bikes?



It's not obvious on the website, but this is a requirement on the application form for LAMs approval – which presumably all the manufacturers have to complete. I don't think an R6 would meet this requirement, however your average policeman might just look at the cc rating and say all good, on your way.

So it's not quite as blunt as it seems.

10 years after the LAMS rule was introduced my guess is less than 30% of cops have any idea what a LAMS bike looks like.

Every cop is expected to be a specialist in everything, which simply isn't possible.

[pete376403]

Let's just have a look at a few figures...

Annual Licence Fee for a motorbike = $24.50 -> that's 47c a week.

Proposed ACC Levy for a bike over 751cc = $485.98 -> that's $9.35 a week

So far, $9.82 a week plus the other few licence incidental costs which come to about $2 a week including GST.

That's $12 a week...


If your bike is a "need-to-have", then you just need to budget for that cost along with the others costs involved with running a bike.

If your bike is a "nice-to-have", then you have to accept that the above amount is part of the cost of the "nice-to-have" toy.

Now for those who think they could just put the bike's licence 'on-hold' and still ride it, I think ACC should seriously consider taking those riders to court to recover the costs involved with the rider's initial medical care and any other in-hospital medical care plus any other costs that ACC have paid for to get the rider back on their feet. Why should they bludge off the system?

I guess that last paragraph is not going down well with some, tough!

Also, if you consider the ACC levy is too steep, try finding a private accident insurance that covers you riding your bike to the same standard as that provided by ACC. And if you do find one, see how much a week that cover will cost you - doubt you get it for under $10 a week.

Which is all well and good but would you have the same applied to other "risky" pastimes? Rugby players? Horse riders? This has been hashed out before but it remains the same - the essential fairness that was the driver of ACC has been subverted over the years. Break you leg (or your neck) on a game of rugby or falling off a horse? You get fixed at no cost. Do the same on a bike - you're going to pay - before you do it or even if you never do it

[jellywrestler]

10 years after the LAMS rule was introduced my guess is less than 30% of cops have any idea what a LAMS bike looks like.

Every cop is expected to be a specialist in everything, which simply isn't possible.

so why doesn't the system show whether it's lams then so when they check rego and warrant it's also flagged?

[Moi]

Which is all well and good but would you have the same applied to other "risky" pastimes? Rugby players? Horse riders? This has been hashed out before but it remains the same - the essential fairness that was the driver of ACC has been subverted over the years. Break you leg (or your neck) on a game of rugby or falling off a horse? You get fixed at no cost. Do the same on a bike - you're going to pay - before you do it or even if you never do it

What happens in other "risky" pastimes is not what we're discussing. The moaning is about the ACC levy applied to the licence fee when we licence a bike. Yes, we could spend a great deal of time debating the fairness or not of the system and I agree it's not fair.

However, what we have is what we have and we either live with it and accept that one of the rules of playing the game of riding a bike is "you shall pay an ACC levy with your licence fee" or we change it. I don't see it changing. What I do see is some who don't want to play by the rules of riding a bike and appear to have an entitled belief that they don't need to pay the levy. It would be like saying "I want to play football but I don't like that particular rule so I'm not playing by that rule."

It's simply, these are the rules and if you want to play follow the rules and if you don't then go away...

[Beekeeper]

ACC levies on motorcyclists are unfair, particularly if you own multiple bikes for the simple reason you can only ride one bike at a time.
If you had private insurance (and we dont want that, ACC is a very good system) your person is insured, even if you owned 10 bikes the premium is the same. the second point is that we are sucked into the userpays bullshit and take it lying down, apart from there being a social contract implied in ACC to benefit all of society fairly, what about the car drivers who cause a significant amount of bike accidents?


What we need is a national body with some political clout to act on our behalf so these clowns running the show get the message they work for us, btw ACC year in and year out ACC has a massive surplus of cash sloshing about, if there is a such an organisation who are they because I've never heard of them?