ACC Levies - Unfair for Kiwi Bikers

[Mikeycbd]

New to biking and had my first RTA. When i filled out the ACC form at the hospital it didn't ask me who was at fault? Mmmm

I contacted ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation) to see Why don't they see who is at fault when bikes are involved? They replied... we don't, it's a 50/50 split.

OK then, so why are ACC levies higher for bikers? They said because our accidents cost more. Yeah I said but who do you think cause the greater percentage of Motobike accidents?

It is my belief that more accidents are caused by cars and thus the levies should be equally split not higher for us. So I realllllllly want people to tell me if they have been involved in an Accident and who was at fault. can you E-mail me please. I've also written to Fair Go. mikeycbd@xtra.co.nz without ACC investigating we will always pay the penalty for bad car drivers.

[MSTRS:Me]

Good luck with that. For a organisation who couldn't get out of their own way, and who have a monopoly, do you really think they will be remotely interested?
Don't mean to be harsh but that's the reality.

[idb]

For those of us who pay for more than one rego you'd think they would be extra helpful.
I haven't tested it yet..........

[davereid]

Hi Mikey, Ive been making submissions every year to ACC about this, but on my own its making no difference. Essentially its a vulnerability tax - that is to say motorcyclists are no better or worse than car drivers, but they are more vulnerable so hit em harder. And of course we all know that while we cause a good deal of our own crashes, the majority are caused by car drivers. The statistics dont seem to be recorded any more, but in the good old days the MOT used to produce a booklet "when youve got to stop use the lot" encouraging bikers to use both brakes together to improve braking performance. This booklet claimed that 65% of bike crashes were caused by cars doing illegal right turns. (Not including all the other crap they do !)
Apparently they dont record the stats anymore so just div it up 50/50.
Of course its crap... Lets Tax women a bit extra because they may get raped...

[Steam]

This booklet claimed that 65% of bike crashes were caused by cars doing illegal right turns.

Interesting stuff. Can you describe a bit more by what they meant by what I've quoted above? Thanks!

[BLACK B]

OK then, so why are ACC levies higher for bikers? They said because our accidents cost more.

Mikey, the last information I read from ACC alluded to the fact that the Levy is set to pay for the expected cost of the motorcyclists treatment. This is based on historical costs for the same. Also it is quite apparent that bike riders are more likely to be injured whatever the cause of the crash and therefore more likely to make a claim against ACC.
I believe however that the biggest cost that ACC has to meet is for sporting injuries, Rugby being very high in particular due to the popularity of the game. All motorists and employers subsidise recreationally attributed injuries.
I was in Middlemore Hospital around 9am some years back because of a broken wrist caused by a motorbike off. I was advised that I was fortunate to only have a 3 hour wait for treatment because I had beaten the Saturday sports influx by an hour.

[Grahameeboy]

Whilst I have issues with ACC at the same time it has lots of pros and I really do not see the fact that we pay more on Rego as a big issue in the whole scheme of things........sorry.

[yungatart]

If we could all have the option of not funding ACC, wouldn't the world be a wonderful place - private accident insurance - of course, if you did not have an accident in any one 12 mth period, you would be rewarded with a no claims discount, if your accident was caused by someone else, your insurance would go theirs for the costs associated with your treatment, if you binned and it was your own fault, you would pay a higher premium the next year.
All perfectly sensible and logical - unlike our current system of ACC - the "no fault" accident insurance.
Beauracracy is renowned for its lack of common sense, I wish you well in your endeavours!

[Grahameeboy]

If we could all have the option of not funding ACC, wouldn't the world be a wonderful place - private accident insurance - of course, if you did not have an accident in any one 12 mth period, you would be rewarded with a no claims discount, if your accident was caused by someone else, your insurance would go theirs for the costs associated with your treatment, if you binned and it was your own fault, you would pay a higher premium the next year.
All perfectly sensible and logical - unlike our current system of ACC - the "no fault" accident insurance.
Beauracracy is renowned for its lack of common sense, I wish you well in your endeavours!

Yeah, it should be for 'Accident' not drunk drivers in my view...I mean there is legistration to deal with Drinking and Driving and ACC is 'Legistration' which gives them red carpet treatment.....nothing against getting treatment but a crippled drunk driver is entitled to a $120,000 mobility vehicle plus the rest and a disabled child cannot......there has to be fairness and having ACC as a seperate area has it's issues.............I mean I pay taxes and ACC levies are just a form of tax but there is still disparency.

[Ixion]

,,. All motorists and employers subsidise recreationally attributed injuries.
I,,

Indirectly. Sporting injuries are paid for by the Government from general taxation.

[yungatart]

Yeah, it should be for 'Accident' not drunk drivers in my view...I mean there is legistration to deal with Drinking and Driving and ACC is 'Legistration' which gives them red carpet treatment.....nothing against getting treatment but a crippled drunk driver is entitled to a $120,000 mobility vehicle plus the rest and a disabled child cannot......there has to be fairness and having ACC as a seperate area has it's issues.............I mean I pay taxes and ACC levies are just a form of tax but there is still disparency.

I agree with you totally! The present system is very unfair, people born with disabilities get less than those whose disability is the result of an accident.
I am an accident free driver/rider, as are Mstrs and hXc, yet we get no financial recompense for that. Under a private system we would.
With 2 cars and 3 bikes to rego,and running a small business, we contribute significantly to ACC.
I would really like a bit more choice as to how we spend the money we earn.

[Grahameeboy]

Indirectly. Sporting injuries are paid for by the Government from general taxation.

Are you sure.....ACC covers this...........

[BLACK B]

Yeah, it should be for 'Accident' not drunk drivers in my view...I mean there is legistration to deal with Drinking and Driving and ACC is 'Legistration' which gives them red carpet treatment.....nothing against getting treatment but a crippled drunk driver is entitled to a $120,000 mobility vehicle plus the rest and a disabled child cannot......there has to be fairness and having ACC as a seperate area has it's issues.............I mean I pay taxes and ACC levies are just a form of tax but there is still disparency.

Do you know any drunk drivers who got hurt in the accidents they caused?
From what I've seen most get off lightly compared to their passengers and the innocent 3rd parties.
Of late though, a lot are finding temporary accomodation in prison where we continue to pay for their living expenses.

[BLACK B]

I am an accident free driver/rider, as are Mstrs and hXc, yet we get no financial recompense for that.

Were you touching wood when you typed that?

[Grahameeboy]

Do you know any drunk drivers who got hurt in the accidents they caused?
From what I've seen most get off lightly compared to their passengers and the innocent 3rd parties.
Of late though, a lot are finding temporary accomodation in prison where we continue to pay for their living expenses.

I agree but was just using this as one illustration......as for passengers are they not the author of their own misfortune getting into a car with a drunk driver???