ACC Levies

[dpex]

Why is it that a bike is more expensive to rego than a car?

Simple. The ACC lvey is higher because we bikers are more likely to be involved in a crash requiring ACC to part with some funds.

So far the logic stands up....Bikers/crashes/pay-out.

However, stats show that 85%+ of all bike collisions are caused by drivers of 'other' vehicles.

And so, ACC are asserting that just being a biker is reason enough to up the levy because we are more likely to claim. The issue of 'fault' seems to have been entirely missed from this assertion.

Why don't ACC charge car-drivers more lest they should, by their poor driving, cause an ACC claim from a biker whom they hit because....'I just didn't see ya!'

But ACC don't apply this reason. They simply assert that bikers are more likely to claim so they up the fees.

So why don't they up the fees on every Indian or Asian owned dairy, liquor store, hot-bread-shop, or pertrol station, on the basis that the staff in such places are far more likely to get shot, stabbed, bludgeoned and beaten than those nice 'terribly' folk who run boutique bullshit shops in Parnell? It's not the fault of the Indians or Asians that the ungodly attack them. So why is it our fault that the idiots attack us?

But that's the way this bunch of Nanny-state cretins think, isn't it?

Remember how, after the Indian guy was shot after he gave the arseholes the money, the Gov coming out with a plan to 'limit' the number of liquor outlets and their trading times....Like it was the fault of the store-owners and that the ungodly were out and about.

And so it is with we bikers. The arseholes cause the claims 85% of the time, so why are we penalised? Just because we exist? Yes.

Do we minimize polution and parking issues? Are we better for the environment? Do we lessen the impact on the balance of trade on account of our bikes are way cheaper than a basic car, and we use way-less gas?

The answers to each Q is a declaratory 'YES'. But the bastards sting us for the incompetence of those who can't drive properly, stink up the environment, take up vast amounts of land to park their cars, and generally cause fiscal mayhem.

This ACC extra levy is a bullshit!

I recommend a 10,000 biker rally to Wellington, to protest. I'd be prepared to pilly an Indian Dairy owner, just to make the point. He can carry a placard asserting......

STOP THESE FUCKERS
FROM KILLING US

[dpex]

Why is it that a bike is more expensive to rego than a car?

Simple. The ACC lvey is higher because we bikers are more likely to be involved in a crash requiring ACC to part with some funds.

So far the logic stands up....Bikers/crashes/pay-out.

However, stats show that 85%+ of all bike collisions are caused by drivers of 'other' vehicles.

And so, ACC are asserting that just being a biker is reason enough to up the levy because we are more likely to claim. The issue of 'fault' seems to have been entirely missed from this assertion.

Why don't ACC charge car-drivers more lest they should, by their poor driving, cause an ACC claim from a biker whom they hit because....'I just didn't see ya!'

But ACC don't apply this reason. They simply assert that bikers are more likely to claim so they up the fees.

So why don't they up the fees on every Indian or Asian owned dairy, liquor store, hot-bread-shop, or pertrol station, on the basis that the staff in such places are far more likely to get shot, stabbed, bludgeoned and beaten than those nice 'terribly' folk who run boutique bullshit shops in Parnell? It's not the fault of the Indians or Asians that the ungodly attack them. So why is it our fault that the idiots attack us?

But that's the way this bunch of Nanny-state cretins think, isn't it?

Remember how, after the Indian guy was shot after he gave the arseholes the money, the Gov coming out with a plan to 'limit' the number of liquor outlets and their trading times....Like it was the fault of the store-owners and that the ungodly were out and about.

And so it is with we bikers. The arseholes cause the claims 85% of the time, so why are we penalised? Just because we exist? Yes.

Do we minimize polution and parking issues? Are we better for the environment? Do we lessen the impact on the balance of trade on account of our bikes are way cheaper than a basic car, and we use way-less gas?

The answers to each Q is a declaratory 'YES'. But the bastards sting us for the incompetence of those who can't drive properly, stink up the environment, take up vast amounts of land to park their cars, and generally cause fiscal mayhem.

This ACC extra levy is a bullshit!

I recommend a 10,000 biker rally to Wellington, to protest. I'd be prepared to pilly an Indian Dairy owner, just to make the point. He can carry a placard asserting......

STOP THESE FUCKERS
FROM KILLING US

[cs363]

You're forgetting the fact that you are dealing with the Gummint....therefore logic and fairness do not apply.



(Not that I disagree with any of the points you make )

[cs363]

You're forgetting the fact that you are dealing with the Gummint....therefore logic and fairness do not apply.



(Not that I disagree with any of the points you make )

[Hitcher]

Repost.

Write to your MP and to the Ministers of Transport and ACC. There is a coterie of policy analysts in Wellington with a very fixed world view, as evidenced by a number of "injustices" inflicted on motorcyclists, cheesecutter barriers included.

Remember that we are a minority in the universe of New Zealand road users, and tribal in a fragmented bitchy non-constructive way.

It's election year. If you can't get an opposition political party interested in this issue now, it's never going to happen.

[AllanB]

You make good points.


We should all write to our ACC minister making the same point - I understand you do not need a stamp to post to your government. Someone will confirm this.

There is one point you missed - since Suzuki's crash more often than other bikes they should pay higher ACC levies.

[Oakie]

However, stats show that 85%+ of all bike collisions are caused by drivers of 'other' vehicles.

And so, ACC are asserting that just being a biker is reason enough to up the levy because we are more likely to claim. The issue of 'fault' seems to have been entirely missed from this assertion.

The whole philosophy under-pinning the scheme is that it's a 'no fault - no blame' system. The idea of 'fault' hasn't been missed. It's been deliberately removed from the equation. You get hurt ... you get compensated regardless of if it was due to your own idiocy or someone else's.

[dipshit]

However, stats show that 85%+ of all bike collisions are caused by drivers of 'other' vehicles.

They do not. Stats showed that 38% of bike accidents were caused by other vehicles in NZ during 2002 - 2006 period.

[Drum]

I think it's fair that we pay more.

What's not fair is when you wave at another rider and they don't wave back!

[reofix]

asian dairy owners do pay more... so do people who live in high crime areas ... so do people who happen to be young and male ... pay it and get over it

[vinnieh]

Ha, funny. I came to this forum just now for the sole reason to bitch about how much it costs to get a bike on the road.

I only have my car license, and now I have found out that to get my MC Learners, I have to fork out $120. Then, to get my restricted, another $87.90. Finally, to get my full, it costs $115.10. That's $320 all up, which I think is a ridiculous amount of money to pay for the right to ride a motorbike on the road.

But not only that, it costs $267.21 per year per bike for rego! That is an insane cost for something that should be promoted for all the reasons stated by OP. Motorbikes are a million times greener than cars. People are encouraged to run a car instead of a bike simply because it's cheaper.

And if motorcyclists are so dangerous, why the crap aren't bicyclists charged an arm and a leg for THEIR right to be on the road? Don't get me wrong, I don't think they should be charged (even though they are a pain in the arse a lot of the time: think 3 cyclists riding abreast like I saw today ).

But according the the way LTSA thinks, why do they get off scot-free?

So much for green NZ; there are NO incentives for people to adopt greener lifestyles in this country. I bet half the ACC fee is down to a bloated system, they probably employ a room full of jokers at huge cost just to answer the letters that pissed off bike-riders send in.

I am definitely voting National, even for the sole reason that they want to cap the amount of bureaucrats. I am pissed because I'm a student and I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place cause I can't afford to run a car and I can't afford to get my license and have to keep registering a motorbike at some astronomical cost.

Fuck the stupid LTSA and ACC in their stupid arses. Can't wait for some competition in the accident compensation market when National gets in.

[FJRider]

The cause of accidents is not the issue. User pays... so the majority of the claimaints pay, thats motorcyclists...two three or four wheeled one's. Old Joe Retired on his lifestyle block, drives his four wheeler into the ditch, without a helmet...thats a motorcycle accident too. It matters little that no rego or ACC fees were paid by him.
Statistics then prove "motorcyclists" are more prone to accidents...simple ehh...

[MaxB]

I remember reading somewhere that all claims involving bikes are included in our levy. This includes off-road and farm bike accidents on bikes that are unregistered. How fair is that?

Talking about fair, try running your own business and dealing with the ACC day to day. They stopped being value for money years ago.

[steved]

asian dairy owners do pay more... so do people who live in high crime areas ... so do people who happen to be young and male ... pay it and get over it

They don't pay higher ACC levies, higher standard insurance premiums maybe.

[steved]

I only have my car license, and now I have found out that to get my MC Learners, I have to fork out $120. Then, to get my restricted, another $87.90. Finally, to get my full, it costs $115.10. That's $320 all up, which I think is a ridiculous amount of money to pay for the right to ride a motorbike on the road.

But not only that, it costs $267.21 per year per bike for rego! That is an insane cost for something that should be promoted for all the reasons stated by OP. Motorbikes are a million times greener than cars. People are encouraged to run a car instead of a bike simply because it's cheaper.

And if motorcyclists are so dangerous, why the crap aren't bicyclists charged an arm and a leg for THEIR right to be on the road? Don't get me wrong, I don't think they should be charged (even though they are a pain in the arse a lot of the time: think 3 cyclists riding abreast like I saw today ).

But according the the way LTSA thinks, why do they get off scot-free?

So much for green NZ; there are NO incentives for people to adopt greener lifestyles in this country. I bet half the ACC fee is down to a bloated system, they probably employ a room full of jokers at huge cost just to answer the letters that pissed off bike-riders send in.

I am definitely voting National, even for the sole reason that they want to cap the amount of bureaucrats. I am pissed because I'm a student and I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place cause I can't afford to run a car and I can't afford to get my license and have to keep registering a motorbike at some astronomical cost.

Fuck the stupid LTSA and ACC in their stupid arses. Can't wait for some competition in the accident compensation market when National gets in.

Harden up. Riding a bike is an ungodly privilege and worth every penny. Why do you think motorbikes are greener than cars? They consume almost the same amount of fuel as a car, more tires, more oil, greater emissions.

Go National!