ACC Levy Submission

[topher]

Chap's & Chapess's:

"you are penilised because you happen to be on a motorcycle,"

I thought he meant 'penalised' but then 'penilised' is SO much more accurate.

Taxing based on usage, i.e. added on to fuel, takes the justification beyond motorcycles vs cages. It means owners of multiple vehicles get treated fairly. It does mean though that, because so many of us own multiple vehicles, the extra tax on petrol might be more than 10.5c (stated in an earlier post).

[Ixion]

Welcome to the site and an interesting post.
So we have crashes where primary responsibility is the motorcyclist and crashes where motorcyclist is a contributing factor and crashes where the car was at fault, yet none where a car was a contributing factor - wonder why that is?

But the other untold tale is that crashes which don't involve a car are usually of quite insignificant cost to ACC.
According to that data, 61% of multi vehicle crashes were caused by cars, so yay, we get to pay for it.

Eh? If you have crashes where a motorcycle is a contributing factor, then, presumably, in most cases the other contributing factor would be a car.

I'm not so sure that crashes not involving a car would be of quite insignificant cost to ACC. The main cost to ACC is personal injury, and it is quite possible for a motorcyclist to be very seriously injured in a single vehicle crash (or killed, but that catually costs much less)

[The Stranger:Me]

Eh? If you have crashes where a motorcycle is a contributing factor, then, presumably, in most cases the other contributing factor would be a car.

I'm not so sure that crashes not involving a car would be of quite insignificant cost to ACC. The main cost to ACC is personal injury, and it is quite possible for a motorcyclist to be very seriously injured in a single vehicle crash (or killed, but that catually costs much less)

Yes but they set it out in terms of primary responsibility and contributing, then proceed to lay (responsibility for payment) on the motorcyclist because they contributed. They however do not blame the car where the car contributed, again these are of course the fault of the motorcyclist.

Sure it is quite possible for someone to do serious harm to themselves in a single vehicle accident. However by far the biggest cost is in multi vehicle accidents. This way more frequently results in high ACC costs with smashed bones and hip rebuilds and long periods off of work etc etc.

[topher]

There are two main points. First is the unreasonable higher apportionment of cost loaded to motorcyclists and the second is the even more unreasonable loading on owners of multiple vehicles. Both injustices would cease if all ACC levies were collected as part of Fuel Tax.

Boat users, weed whacker users and any other fuel users can all need ACC at some time so should have no cause to bleat. I'm a boat owner and while any further costs to pursuing my varoius pleasures always piss me off, I'd rather those costs were reasonable. Collecting as a levy on fuel is less unreasonable than at registration time.

Personally, I believe in user pays. I'd like to sue anyone who breaks me and expect to be sued if my negligence or fault breaks someone else. If I'm stupid enough to break myself all by myself then it's my cost. I'd be more careful if I didn't have insurance than if I did.

[crack]

[quote=crack;796248]Chap's & Chapess's:

Chap's & Chapess's, Please read the attachment, there are so many inconsistancies.

Topher Say's.

Personally, I believe in user pays. I'd like to sue anyone who breaks me and expect to be sued if my negligence or fault breaks someone else. If I'm stupid enough to break myself all by myself then it's my cost. I'd be more careful if I didn't have insurance than if I did.

Hey I have no qualms about paying my share: ACC is asking for submissions, we get one chance to get our point across, I ask why we can not adopt SOMETHING like the AUSSIE system: Where Registration include automatic 3rd party Insurance, you get to choose from memory one of Three commercial companies offered.

Hey they don't even have WOF's in Aussie.

Just because we choose to ride a motorcycle, we get Penalised ( "Penilised")

Topher: I forgot the Parentheses ( Brackets) but glad to see you are a man of the same twisted humor.
"you are penilised because you happen to be on a motorcycle,"
I thought he meant 'penalised' but then 'penilised' is SO much more accurate.

Why can we not have an ACC levy, That aportions blame and cost's, then the individual punter would have to insure themselves against negligence.

Get right awy from the fuel thing, and the legislation with regard to my Q's in my attachments, need's to be rethought.

I do not scribe to the USER PAY SYSTEM in full as It is my personal belief that as society we have to accept some costs; shit we are taxed enough ?

If you take this User pays to the Letter, Every sports person, school kid, individual, Granny, is held liable for things out side there control , just because they happen to be there in the first place.

I go further, When I was a kid, my Dad worked, my Mum raised 4 of us.
They, Mum & Dad paid a mortgage off with 30 % of Dad's wages.

Today Mum & Dad both work, and 70% of income pays the Mortgage?.
User pays, Who is F---ing up here, what about our kids, dump them in child care, let them run riot, when they end up in one of our $480Mil, heated floor Jails, We stand back and say their choice, they pay the price?

Not too substantially diverged from the ACC issue, as one might like to think.

But hey just my OPINION.

I would love to have a Huge RALLY, something the likes this country has not seen before, and push our cause, plan it, get an appointment with the policy makers and push our cause.

I think we all agree the present system is both un equatable, & unfair.

NB: Cloud shagging NANA: Did we meet @ FL 390, Down in the galley?

[Falconer]

I would like to see WOF and reg all in one. One depends on the other anyway.But is a WOF important.I have read that mechanical failure always has been insignificant as a cause of accidents.Also vehicles normaly cause injuries when being used. So a petrol ACC levy would be my choice. No WOF required but vehicles would have to be of warrentable standards. As for boats and mowers etc complaining unfair,fishing has a reputation as being the most dangerous sport in NZ and lawn mowers, 2 stroke and sidevalve types according to a popular mechanic I read a view years back, give 30 times the amount of unburnt hydrocarbons than a modern car.

[Mikeycbd]

Well the deadline for ACC thing has passed but I've started a new thread on New Biker speak. Re acc levies and the fairness... worth a read if you have been involved in an accident yourself. Without evidence we won't get anywhere. Even the ACC said to me today it's worth a try. Cheers bikers, ride safe... 'cause there are some mad car drivers out there.

[ManDownUnder]

Rates recommended to go up, per vehicle (not fuel)... evidence attached
MDU

[fatnold]

Some good points, but BRONZ have the right idea. One ACC payment classification for all collected through an additional levy on fuel. It works for me. The heavier gas guzzling vehicles cause the most damage and therefore pay more ACC contributions. Motorcycles are generally more frugal and would therefore pay lower contributions. Many motorcyclists have a bike for toodling around on at weekends and the odd club ride. Yet they still pay the same ACC contribution as say a courier bike. Contributions by use make much more sense.