ACC levies...to increase again

[James Deuce]

You're forgetting, governments may change, but bureaucrats always remain the same.

No they don't actually. A large number of bureaucrats are employed by political parties, and if the role of their minister changes they do lose their job.

As for the number of bins, generally the cost related aspect of biker-bins is minimal to nothing compared to the cost of car vs bike. Don't believe me just go though all the recent bins and see just how few actually resulted in injuries. So it still doesn't sit. But it wont change either, like speeders we are an easy target to apportion blame on.

The cost of injuries for motorcyclists is MUCH higher overall and proportionally greater than for any other motor vehicle user of the ACC system. It does sit. If you are injured in an injury bike accident it usually results in fractures, which are expensive to treat and rehabilitate, soft tissue injuries which are even more expensive and complex to treat, and organ damage which no one wants. Yes there are a large number of non-injury or minor injury bins, but they still get added to the stats if police or insurance are involved, and it is all just grist to the mill for legislation that hurts us motorcyclists, and anti-motorcycling groups in general.

Denial is not a long term survival technique for motorcycling.

[F5 Dave]

What DHunt brings up is valid. Most motorcyclists these days also have a car so we are paying several ACC levies (I have 2 bikes & one Van). How is this fair? I understand in France they place the fees per driver not per vehicle.

It isn’t always fair to go entirely user pays. Imagine if there was a levy on playing Rugby? the uproar would be hilarious.

[Mongoose]

No they don't actually. A large number of bureaucrats are employed but they still get added to the stats if police or insurance are involved, and it is all just grist to the mill for legislation that hurts us motorcyclists, and anti-motorcycling groups in general.

Denial is not a long term survival technique for motorcycling.

Not forgetting of course that the word MOTORCYCLE is used not just for road use but ALL things that can be discrbed in that way. Farm Quads, Trail Bikes etc

[scumdog]

M/C bins with max. of two on board, reg. of said M/C pays one lot of ACC which will cover both parties if they are injured.

Cager vs cager, four in each cage, reg of said cages pays two lots of ACC levies which will cover all eight people involved if they are injured, WTF???!

And ACC says it has to be "fair" - yeah right!!!!

[NordieBoy]

ACC is a no fault organisation. Irrespective of the cause of your injuries, their job is to ensure your eventual rehabilitation.

Motorcyclists cost more to repair, according to stats from many countries, not just NZ, so we pay more.

You will struggle to find an LTSA, ACC, or NZ Stats analyst that has the balls to attribute blame in MVAs. Bear in mind that a good chunk of Motorcycle accidents are single vehicle, i.e. rider error. You'll see that reflected in the stats you get back, and I believe you see that trend reflected in the "bins" reflected on this site. Maybe 1 in 10 KB bins involve another vehicle.

And the reason diesel car owners pay more acc than petrol car owners?

[marty]

$12 bucks of petrol for 90 odd Km on the RG, show me a normal car less economic than that!!!

$24 LPG for 280kms in my V6 sedan. oh and i just got a letter from rockgas advising that LPG is dropping 3.3 cents per litre

[jrandom]

No they don't actually. A large number of bureaucrats are employed by political parties, and if the role of their minister changes they do lose their job.

Indeed, Jim... Hacker?

usually results in fractures

Har har! (Nelson style)

[Edit: Oops. Biker gods gonna get me *good* now.]

organ damage

Arrrrrgh! Me pipes!

Denial is not a long term survival technique for motorcycling.

Apart from the "wasn't there, never saw it, me bike can't even GO that fast, yer 'onour" flavour, of course.

[James Deuce]

And the reason diesel car owners pay more acc than petrol car owners?

The same reason why we do - because the Govt. says so.

[DEATH_INC.]

At the mo,my 4wd (deseasil)costs more to rego than my bike.....
My turbo sucks more gas than most cars(or aircraft for that matter),can I get a cheaper petrol levy?
You know what has more deaths per year than bikes???Pleasure boats.....with no rego's( at least in last years figures...)
Maybe a blockade of the harbour bridge like the french farmers do would get some attention......in the morning rush hour.

[Mongoose]

At the mo,my 4wd (deseasil)costs more to rego than my bike.....
My turbo sucks more gas than most cars(or aircraft for that matter),can I get a cheaper petrol levy?
You know what has more deaths per year than bikes???Pleasure boats.....with no rego's( at least in last years figures...)
Maybe a blockade of the harbour bridge like the french farmers do would get some attention......in the morning rush hour.

Boating may have caused more deaths, but they are cheaper to mend than broken bodies so hardly a fair comparison. That is the sort of stat. that the Gov uses to confuse an issue.

[TwoSeven]

why dont they make push bike riders pay for their own injuries as well then - who pays for fixing up those beggers.

[James Deuce]

why dont they make push bike riders pay for their own injuries as well then - who pays for fixing up those beggers.

The ACC Levy that comes out of your pay packet.

[Pwalo]

The ACC Levy that comes out of your pay packet.

Come on Jim, you're not suggesting that we pay ACC in more than one form now are you?

You cynical so and so.

[Deano]

Here is the response to my query at the LTSA re: motorcycle crashes and where the 'fault' of the accident lies. Appears to be more 50/50 in terms of apportioning blame, excluding the lone vehicle accidents where it is most likely to be the lone vehicles fault (naturally).

"Using data for 1999 to 2003 for fatal and injury crashes, I found that:

* For motorcycle only crashes, the motor cycle was at fault for 60 out of 65 fatal crashes and 858 out of 958 injury crashes.
* For motorcycle vs another party crashes, the motor cycle was PRIMARILY at fault (the motorcyclst was completely at fault for the crash, no blame on the other vehicle(s) in the crash) for 57 fatal crashes and 955 injury crashes and PARTLY at fault (The motor cyclist and other other vehicle(s) were both at fault for the crash) for 13 fatal crashes and 308 injury crashes out of 125 fatal crashes and 2668 injury crashes.

It pays to context fault this way, since vehicle only crashes tend to have the vehicle at fault in nearly all instances but this is not always the case with crashes involving 2 or more vehicles. I wouldn't add them together since it may distort the 'at fault' picture one is trying to convey.

I hope this helps,

Stephen Evans"

I have amended my letter accordingly, but still suggesting 50/50 is not evidence enough to make motorcyclists pay higher levies.

[Milky]

You're right, but you aren't going to win too many friends.

Milky doesnt... need... friends

*rocks quietly in a corner*