ACC calls for “greater awareness of motorcyclists”

**idleidolidyll** · 13th June 2007, 08:30

My question, after seeing the article on TV3, is this:
"Given that it is now acknowledged that most motorcycle accidents are not the fault of motorcyclists, why the fuck is the ACC penalising us with massively high ACC levies in our registration?"

A further question:
"If the accident rate is largely attributable to pitifully incompetant road works, when is the LTSA going to penalise criminally negligent road works that are obviously costing life and limb?"

**idleidolidyll** · 13th June 2007, 08:32

Originally Posted by awful-truth

Not quite... your equation spreads the $52 million across 1/4 of motorcycles, not 1/4 of the $52M across all 43 000 motorcycles.

43000 bikes?

the TV news article stated there were some 75,000 registered motorcycles.

who's right?

**MotoGirl** · 13th June 2007, 08:41

What rips my nightie is that we're subsidising people who don't even contribute to the ACC pool.

I heard statistics recently that said horse riding and mountain biking were some of the top recreational activities that result in ACC claims. Neither of these groups (directly) pay ACC levies. You don't register a mountain bike, yet you get paid out for hurting yourself on one - how the hell is this fair?

Instead of targeting motorcyclists (once again...) maybe they should target people who use the funds but don't contribute to them?

Bleet little lamb, bleet...

**riffer** · 13th June 2007, 08:56

How do you propose they levy mountainbikers?

Or people who want to ride their own horse privately on their own property, in the absence of any riding club?

They aren't levied because its a difficult system to implement.

If you have a child that falls off their bicycle, would you prefer if A&E charges you as they have no "accident insurance". As part of our socialist society, we accept the fact that some will subsidise others.

Motorcyclists pay high ACC levies because, like it or not, there is an element of "user-pays" in ACC and, as it's a no-fault system, user-pays is the only way to administer it.

Of course, we did have competition for work levies, but the incoming Labour government was pretty quick to get rid of that. I can't help but wonder if a private system would be better. Unfortunately, I don't believe it would be so.

I'm just very grateful that we have ACC.

**Albino** · 13th June 2007, 08:59

MotoGirl, maybe an an even bigger bleat should be about the bikers amongst us who ride dedicated off-road bikes (farmers, mototcross etc) and have injuries. They don't pay any ACC levies AND they also add to the general "motorcycle" injury statistics which get reported in the news and contribute to your higher levies.

**Grahameeboy** · 13th June 2007, 08:59

Originally Posted by MotoGirl

What rips my nightie is that we're subsidising people who don't even contribute to the ACC pool.

I heard statistics recently that said horse riding and mountain biking were some of the top recreational activities that result in ACC claims. Neither of these groups (directly) pay ACC levies. You don't register a mountain bike, yet you get paid out for hurting yourself on one - how the hell is this fair?

Instead of targeting motorcyclists (once again...) maybe they should target people who use the funds but don't contribute to them?

Bleet little lamb, bleet...

True but would be hard to register horses and mountain bikes plus the riders would need the use of a car to get to where they ride so they are actually paying ACC.

Remember ACC is a pool which we pay into and pays for non motor accidents too.

I mean it could get to the level of saying that pedestrians should be registered....slightly tongue in cheek I know but most people pay ACC in one shape or form.

**MSTRS:Me** · 13th June 2007, 09:02

Originally Posted by Sam I Am

And change the oh so fucking stupid give way rules !!!
The amount of times i have nearly been taken out by cars that overtake a car that had stopped to give way for me when they were turning left.... the mind boggles....

It certainly does. You appear to think that you are exempt from the rules....

**Grahameeboy** · 13th June 2007, 09:07

Originally Posted by MSTRS

It certainly does. You appear to think that you are exempt from the rules....

I agree Rules and Laws should be abided by eh?

**MotoGirl** · 13th June 2007, 09:10

Originally Posted by riffer

Motorcyclists pay high ACC levies because, like it or not, there is an element of "user-pays" in ACC and, as it's a no-fault system, user-pays is the only way to administer it.

I'm not suggesting that we actually charge the farmer who rounds up his sheep on horseback. I'm simply pointing out that the government carry on about motorcyclists using a large portion of the ACC funds, yet we're not the only ones using them.

**MacD** · 13th June 2007, 09:13

Originally Posted by idleidolidyll

43000 bikes?

the TV news article stated there were some 75,000 registered motorcycles.

who's right?

The latest figures for motorvehicle registration (June 2006) on the LTSA website list:

motorcycles: 43513
mopeds: 14171
combined: 57684

So it looks like the TV report was incorrect.

As a number of other have pointed out, the ACC isn't targeting motorcyclists, its targeting drivers as it recognises that motorcyclists aren't at fault in the majority of intersection accidents (by the way this is not true for open road accidents, where most are of the "single vehicle, lost control on a corner" type).

The media, both print and TV, have misrepresented the campaign. Then again, dropping a motorcycle from a great height doesn't actually convey the message very well. Why didn't they drive a car into a motorcycle if that's what the campaign is about?

Also, ACC operates separate funds for different types of accident. There is a separate motor vehicle fund, so work-related, rugby, mountain biking etc accidents don't affect that fund. As Riffer pointed out, motorcyclist ACC costs are subsidised by other vehicle users at present, which is why ACC proposed increasing the m/c levy some years ago. Given that ACC recognises that motorcyclists are not primarily at fault in a significant number of these accidents that seems fair, however doesn't sit well with the no fault concept of ACC.

What would be interesting to know is how much does private personal & 3rd party injury insurance cost for motorcyclists in countries like Australia, the UK and USA? That would be a useful comparison with our current ACC fees. Any Aussies like to comment?

**craigs288** · 13th June 2007, 09:16

Originally Posted by McJim

FFS can no one see sense?

BAN CARS - we'll all be safer.

But if you ban cars, who will buy petrol and give the government millions in petrol levies and road taxes.
What could the government do to recover that massive loss other than raise income tax and maybe increase GST.
You have to realise they are never going to allow any loss of income.

And there is only one place the government gets money from - YOUR POCKET