ACC - Here we go again

[Berries]

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.

Like it or not we have ACC. I don't mind paying more than a car driver for that ‘cover', I accept that in any kind of incident I am far less protected and far more likely to suffer serious injuries with life-long consequences than if I was wrapped inside a car.

What I object to is being targeted further by the size of bike I ride when I have seen no evidence whatsoever that I am more at risk on my S1000 than some 20 year old on an FZR250. So bikes over 1000cc make up a significant share of the claims. Could that be because they make up a significant share of the bikes on the road? I have not seen anything to suggest that this is not the case. Age, experience and blood alcohol level would appear to be much more likely determinants based on my involvement in crash data over the years. [Am working on a review of 2023 injury data but 574 DSI crashes involving motorbikes will take a few days to look at]. If ACC are going to base the levy on some idea of risk then they should do it properly.

I also object to the way the funds are collected because it allows people to opt out. Not only does this add to the burden to the riders who do pay but those who refuse to pay still get cover. That’s fucked up. There are other ways to collect the money that could be directly linked to the km's that you cover and thus the exposure you face on the road.

This would also stop penalising riders with more than one bike who can only possibly ride one of them at a time. I would love a multi bike garage so I can pull out a little enduro bike on those shitty cold and wet days but unfortunately the ACC funding model encourages me to just have one bike which inadvertently increases my risk on those shitty days.

As I said, an overhaul is needed otherwise income will drop further as more people opt out. Nothing will change however, they are just advertising the foregone conclusion as they did last time.

[jellywrestler]

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.

that's simply the dumbest argument ever put forward, others can ride one of your bikes at the same time, just like your cars. How do grown ups even think that this is a plausible thing.
My partners name is on two cars here, many times we drive both of her cars at the same time, is that even legal??

[jellywrestler]

This would also stop penalising riders with more than one bike who can only possibly ride one of them at a time.

another one? You mentioned a system where people could 'opt out' so what's stopping me being the registered owner of all the bikes in the house and when
me my wife and three kids get pulled up on a ride telling the cop he's lying cause I can only possibly ride one at a time?

[Berries]

another one? You mentioned a system where people could 'opt out' so what's stopping me being the registered owner of all the bikes in the house and when
me my wife and three kids get pulled up on a ride telling the cop he's lying cause I can only possibly ride one at a time?

Fucks sake, you know what I meant. There must be a better way of collecting the money than through vehicle registration was my point.

[jellywrestler]

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.

they don't give a fuck about us, just look at the $30 charge on rego for the safety fund or whatever it is called, been piling up for years and yet it is still being taxed on us. Motorcyclists may grizzle and pretty much every single one does but collectively we don't get tigether in any sort of number to even be noticed, and a just part of the ever increasing whingers around.
Maybe if we used the term racist we'd get noticed, of culturally inappropriate of something?

[Beekeeper]

that's simply the dumbest argument ever put forward, others can ride one of your bikes at the same time, just like your cars. How do grown ups even think that this is a plausible thing.
My partners name is on two cars here, many times we drive both of her cars at the same time, is that even legal??

Stop being a knob and whose side are you on anyway? Sounds like you really drank the neo liberal user pays kool aid. I have multiple biker mates who own between 1 (rare) to as many as 15 bikes, like everytime they ride do they ask the general public to join them on the other bikes? Everyone pays ACC one way or another, as a business person I pay shitloads and never use it, do you really think that paying full acc fees on that 2nd or third bike is fair?

All that shows is that you are incapable of creative thinking and actually like getting rammed in the arse by the govt.

[onearmedbandit]

I've heard the 'can only ride one bike at a time' argument, but here is where it falls flat. Let's say ACC needs $10,000,000 a year to cover costs that it wants to recoup from ACC levies on motorcycling. For ease of numbers we'll say there are 100,000 motorcycles 'registered'. So they need to collect $100 per motorcycle registered. Now lets look at that if we did it by owners. Obviously there isn't 100,000 owners, maybe there are 30,000 owners. Now they need to collect $333 from all registered owners. So for those that only own one bike their levy has just risen considerably to subsidise those that choose to own more than one bike. One could argue that choosing to own more than one bike is your choice, so you should pay for that choice, not be subsidised by those that own only one.

[jellywrestler]

Stop being a knob and whose side are you on anyway? .

So it's sides now? i've got more than 20 road bikes, and been listening to this same regurgitated thing for decades, and no one has come up with an answer, what about the sidecar that carries two passengers and two on the bike, why aren't you whingeing with them getting away with it all?

maybe you should try facebook if you want likes??

[Beekeeper]

I've heard the 'can only ride one bike at a time' argument, but here is where it falls flat. Let's say ACC needs $10,000,000 a year to cover costs that it wants to recoup from ACC levies on motorcycling. For ease of numbers we'll say there are 100,000 motorcycles 'registered'. So they need to collect $100 per motorcycle registered. Now lets look at that if we did it by owners. Obviously there isn't 100,000 owners, maybe there are 30,000 owners. Now they need to collect $333 from all registered owners. So for those that only own one bike their levy has just risen considerably to subsidise those that choose to own more than one bike. One could argue that choosing to own more than one bike is your choice, so you should pay for that choice, not be subsidised by those that own only one.

ACC is insurance, they collect levies from everyone in various ways to cover the whole group, but in terms of fairness shouldnt they collect $10 more from car rego to cover the main cause of accidents?

This is where your argument falls down, we like high risk recreational activities but no one pays for Rugby do they?

Quote from ACC

"Rugby is by far our most dangerous - and expensive - sport. The latest statistics released by ACC show a quarter of new sport and recreation claims are for rugby-related injuries."s

So who pays? when Bozo Bill and Mullet Murray bash their heads together on Saturday and end up paralysed? There are no levies on rugby balls or Jerseys, and I am sure the clubs pay sweet FA. Where does the money come from, clearly from the general pool.

[onearmedbandit]

ACC is insurance, they collect levies from everyone in various ways to cover the whole group, but in terms of fairness shouldnt they collect $10 more from car rego to cover the main cause of accidents?

This is where your argument falls down, we like high risk recreational activities but no one pays for Rugby do they?

Quote from ACC

"Rugby is by far our most dangerous - and expensive - sport. The latest statistics released by ACC show a quarter of new sport and recreation claims are for rugby-related injuries."s

So who pays? when Bozo Bill and Mullet Murray bash their heads together on Saturday and end up paralysed? There are no levies on rugby balls or Jerseys, and I am sure the clubs pay sweet FA. Where does the money come from, clearly from the general pool.

We're not discussing 'other activities'. You haven't countered my post with anything that about why someone with 1 bike should subsidise someone with 15, because in your scenario that's exactly what will happen.

[Beekeeper]

So it's sides now? i've got more than 20 road bikes, and been listening to this same regurgitated thing for decades, and no one has come up with an answer, what about the sidecar that carries two passengers and two on the bike, why aren't you whingeing with them getting away with it all?

maybe you should try facebook if you want likes??

As I said whose side are you on here, people who pay $400 more for each bike they own or for some ideological argument? ACC is not strapped for cash, it has an embarrassment of riches because it has overcharged for its services

[Beekeeper]

We're not discussing 'other activities'. You haven't countered my post with anything that about why someone with 1 bike should subsidise someone with 15, because in your scenario that's exactly what will happen.

We are discussing principles are we not? User pays- ok fine, clearly you think rugby is not subsidised from the general pool. Owners with multiple bikes are clearly subsiding those who own one so how is that fair?

[onearmedbandit]

We are discussing principles are we not? User pays- ok fine, clearly you think rugby is not subsidised from the general pool. Owners with multiple bikes are clearly subsiding those who own one so how is that fair?

Because that's your choice to own more than one. Don't like it? Sell some then, that'll save you a lot of money right there. That's better than having someone who relies on their single motorcycle for their transport having to subsidise someone choosing to own 15. And stop making assumptions about what I think about rugby and ACC when I haven't even spoken on the matter.

[Beekeeper]

In fact if your argument holds water then you should be demanding ACC levies from unregistered bikes such as my track bike or someone mx bike. No one ever crashed off road and required acc care.. yeah right... So I am subsidising them which I dont mind at all btw.

[onearmedbandit]

For the record I own two 1000cc bikes and a car, that's my choice to own multiple vehicles and I make that choice knowing there are costs associated with that decision. I don't expect someone who is in a less fortunate position than me subsidise my choices.