ACC - Here we go again

[onearmedbandit]

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.

The Sport and Recreation account in ACC covers off road (including racing) accident costs. Nothing to do with the levy applied to road vehicles. So you're not subsidising them at all through your registration.

[Beekeeper]

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.

Explain your logic, how does an owner who owns multiple bikes but rides one at a time for 200 hours a year not subsidise an owner who rides one 200 hours? Nonsensical, if anything you are demanding the 14 bikes in the shed pay for your single owner without any added risk.

If your argument is that biker should cover 100% of their injury costs from their levies then I am afraid you are an ideologue and dont understand how insurance works, let alone what a social contract means

[Beekeeper]

The Sport and Recreation account in ACC covers off road (including racing) accident costs. Nothing to do with the levy applied to road vehicles. So you're not subsidising them at all.

I rest my case, what about all the single riders who never venture off road or to the track? They are subsidising those who do

[onearmedbandit]

Explain your logic, how does an owner who rides multiple bike at a time for 200 hours a year subsidise an owner who rides one 200 hours? Nonsensical, if anything you are demanding the 14 bikes in the shed pay for your single owner without any added risk.

If your argument is that biker should cover 100% of their injury costs from their levies then I am afraid you are an ideologue and dont understand how insurance works, let alone what a social contract means

No that's not my argument, stop making assumptions about me and whatever ideology you may think I have (and for the record you are so wrong that it's funny, I've only spent over 20yrs in the car industry dealing with everything from sales, finance and insurance).

No one is discussing numbers of hours ridden, you are just continually trying to shape the argument to suit your ideals. The system is not perfect but I'm quite happy with how it is now, where those that can afford to have extra 'toys' pay for those extra toys. So yup they can subsidise those that only have one bike, better than those who only choose to have only one (or maybe can only afford one) subsidise those that choose to have more. If you're not happy about it, take action!

[Berries]

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.

Let’s say that your 100,000 bikes average 1,000km per year so a total of 100,000,000km is covered per year. To get the $10,000,000 required means 10c per km would cover it. So if you had the average bike you would pay $100. If you had the bike in the garage you would pay nothing (and be at zero risk of injuring yourself). If you did 10,000km you would be exposed to more risk and pay $1,000.

Amongst many other factors, surely the more km you ride the more exposed you are to an event and the more likely you will need ACC? It has nothing to do with the number of bikes in your garage and I would argue less to do with engine size than is assumed.

In the current scenario if 50% of people don’t bother registering their bike then the 50% who do would face a 100% increase in their charge to pay for the others who would still get treated by ACC funding regardless. I see that as subsidising a group. There must be a fairer way of capturing the funds that what is done now.

[onearmedbandit]

Let’s say that your 100,000 bikes average 1,000km per year so a total of 100,000,000km is covered per year. To get the $10,000,000 required means 10c per km would cover it. So if you had the average bike you would pay $100. If you had the bike in the garage you would pay nothing (and be at zero risk of injuring yourself). If you did 10,000km you would be exposed to more risk and pay $1,000.

Amongst many other factors, surely the more km you ride the more exposed you are to an event and the more likely you will need ACC? It has nothing to do with the number of bikes in your garage.

In the current scenario if 50% of people don’t bother registering their bike then the 50% who do would face a 100% increase in their charge to pay for the others who would still get treated by ACC funding regardless. I see that as subsidising a group. There must be a fairer way of capturing the funds that what is done now.

A RUC would most likely be a better way of administrating it, even better than placing it on petrol usage.

[Berries]

A RUC would most likely be a better way of administrating it, even better than placing it on petrol usage.

That was my thinking, I couldn't see how they could do it at a petrol pump.

[onearmedbandit]

That was my thinking, I couldn't see how they could do it at a petrol pump.

Neither, too many variables involved. We'd still see an increase in costs using a RUC system but it would be a more fair way of applying it (still not perfect mind you).

[Moi]

Let’s say that your 100,000 bikes average 1,000km per year so a total of 100,000,000km is covered per year. To get the $10,000,000 required means 10c per km would cover it. So if you had the average bike you would pay $100. If you had the bike in the garage you would pay nothing (and be at zero risk of injuring yourself). If you did 10,000km you would be exposed to more risk and pay $1,000.

Amongst many other factors, surely the more km you ride the more exposed you are to an event and the more likely you will need ACC? It has nothing to do with the number of bikes in your garage and I would argue less to do with engine size than is assumed.

In the current scenario if 50% of people don’t bother registering their bike then the 50% who do would face a 100% increase in their charge to pay for the others who would still get treated by ACC funding regardless. I see that as subsidising a group. There must be a fairer way of capturing the funds that what is done now.

As you and another have implied, ACC isn't perfect but it's a damn sight better than what happens in other countries and there's no way I'd like to see it scraped in favour of something else.

But, that doesn't mean it can't be improved and your idea of mileage based ACC levy seems much fairer than the present levy system. It could be made to work with little effort, even if done electronically and without some label on the bike. It might even appeal to those who support 'user-pays'...

[Moi]

... We'd still see an increase in costs using a RUC system but it would be a more fair way of applying it (still not perfect mind you).

Perhaps not perfect, but better than the present system which seems like a sledge-hammer approach to knocking a thumb tack into the wall.

[Beekeeper]

No that's not my argument, stop making assumptions about me and whatever ideology you may think I have (and for the record you are so wrong that it's funny, I've only spent over 20yrs in the car industry dealing with everything from sales, finance and insurance).

No one is discussing numbers of hours ridden, you are just continually trying to shape the argument to suit your ideals. The system is not perfect but I'm quite happy with how it is now, where those that can afford to have extra 'toys' pay for those extra toys. So yup they can subsidise those that only have one bike, better than those who only choose to have only one (or maybe can only afford one) subsidise those that choose to have more. If you're not happy about it, take action!

I am sure you understand the mechanics of insurance but you still miss the my point about fairness and of ACC which is all about sharing the costs across all of society. I dont mind paying more tax because I get benefits in some other way, but if you cant see that paying ACC levies on a shed full of parked bikes is unfair then there is no point in further discussion with you and by ideologue you reveal your inability to expand the definition of fairness beyond a very narrow interpretation.

Why should I pay an elevated acc fee if I own more than one bike? No reason except its easy to administer. To call them toys is to denigrate people for their passion, you dont have to be wealthy to have multiple bikes and you still havent explained why I should subsidise your acc just because I own more bikes. You are happy because you are not paying your share and that doesnt mean we are all supportive of your conceited attitude.

As for action, when I read the uninformed comments for people arguing for the status quo then I wonder if it's worth it. I remember when they put the fees up in the 90's frenzy of right wing reforms, it was clearly an anti motorcyclist fee justified by whatever numbers they pulled out of their arse. Look to Rugby or other sporting injuries as evidence of double standards as to fee paying but no one is asking players to register and pay up.

This is a biker forum, so my question is does it serve our interests when stealth taxes are imposed by nameless members of the party because hoping we dont notice. If the fee was the same as a car, meh... but its not and for that matter one of the reasons ACC was implemented was to create a no fault environment. That means we save everyone a huge amount of money not pursuing civil cases against the cunts who run us down every single day.

[onearmedbandit]

Why should I pay an elevated acc fee if I own more than one bike? No reason except its easy to administer. To call them toys is to denigrate people for their passion, you dont have to be wealthy to have multiple bikes and you still havent explained why I should subsidise your acc just because I own more bikes. You are happy because you are not paying your share and that doesnt mean we are all supportive of your conceited attitude.

I own two bikes so I also subsidise someone who owns only one. Maybe I don't own as many as you, but that doesn't mean I have a 'conceited attitude'. I'm not degenerating anyone's passion, that's your interpretation of what I mean by 'toy'. Another assumption.

Anyway, moving on, I like berries idea of a km based levy system, would be a much fairer way of applying it than either the current method or the method you are suggesting. So I'm not really interested in arguing this with you any further. Current system sucks, your proposal is just as bad, I'm now swayed to a km traveled based levy.

[jellywrestler]

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

All I pointed out is it's a waste of time turning up at ACC with that weak statement and expecting them not to laugh at you, what's your plan?

Or are you are incapable of creative thinking and actually like getting rammed in the arse by the govt.

I ran a dealer plate for over twenty years, found a niche that suited me, cost me $40 for some business cards to validate it and loved it
The maths don't work any more, as many bikes are over fourty years old, now they must have a warrant, prior to that I did a check sheet prior to riding.
I've literally saved many many thousands of bucks over that twenty years, and you can sell the old plates on trade me too

[jellywrestler]

I rest my case, what about all the single riders who never venture off road or to the track? They are subsidising those who do

I haven't filled out an accident form for decades but it used to ask whether you were on a registered bike on a public road

[SaferRides]

Some interesting discussion, but it all misses the point. The ACC scheme was originally set up on the basis that the public of NZ would give up their right to sue for damages in exchange for comprehensive, no fault accident cover. The present situation with motorcyclists specifically targeted to pay more for cover than any other high risk group is the antithesis of what was originally intended.

Our mistake was to give into this and pay the exorbitant registration fees. Motorcyclists putting their rego on hold are in some way a continuing protest against the excessive rego cost for daring to own a motorcycle.

Disclaimer: I've had a few Friday night drinks!

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk