ACC whinge

**cold comfort** · 14th March 2009, 18:44

Iff ACC are so bloody short of cash WHY are we coughing up for jap/ Yank snowboarders/ mountain climbers to be choppered out and be operated on at the NZ taxpayers expense? Also suicide "attempts" are also under ACC (ostensibly so the Ambo service gets paid). Is there not some sort of lack of users pays, if not outright inequity?

**AD345** · 14th March 2009, 18:50

Whinge is right

It's an insurance premium. Like most insurance premiums the vast bulk of payers never make claims that cover their premium.

Otherwise it don't work.

Given that ACC is levied across a very wide cross section of the population the individual premiums are, in fact, quite low. So low, in fact, that there is a 1.5 billion dollar shortfall. We should be paying up towards $1000 per bike per year

and that would STILL be fucking cheap.

Riding a bike is a choice - not a necessity. There is no rational reason for choosing a bike over any other form of tranpsort other than "I want to".

Get over yourselves.

**Molly** · 14th March 2009, 19:53

AD. I think you missed my point. I don't begrudge paying the f'kin' levy. I just begrudge paying it on every bike I own.

I ride whenever I get the chance and that won't change because I own one or ten bikes. There's no justification for my being charged a separate levy on each bike (or car for that matter). The risk simply isn't proportional to the number of vehicles owned.

**AD345** · 14th March 2009, 20:39

Originally Posted by Molly

AD. I think you missed my point. I don't begrudge paying the f'kin' levy. I just begrudge paying it on every bike I own.

I ride whenever I get the chance and that won't change because I own one or ten bikes. There's no justification for my being charged a separate levy on each bike (or car for that matter). The risk simply isn't proportional to the number of vehicles owned.

yeah - I did kinda slip straight into rant mode didn't I?

I do see your point but you're talking about portable personal insurance. Given that ACC covers a multitude of sins it would be a very brave govt. that tried to raise a levy on the individual. The last attempt was the poll tax in the UK - that didn't go down very well. Trying to administer a scheme which kept track of every licensed individual and the number and type of vehicles they owned in order to asses varying degrees of levy would likely raise the costs of the scheme by several orders of magnitude.

Levying by road - registered vehicle is relatively simple with (one hopes) comensurate administration expenses.

It's not necessarily "fair" all of the time - but thats life.

**MaxB** · 14th March 2009, 20:53

Originally Posted by AD345

Whinge is right
Riding a bike is a choice - not a necessity. There is no rational reason for choosing a bike over any other form of tranpsort other than "I want to".

Get over yourselves.

Tell that to the young people at my work on thier 35km/l scooters 'cos they have no other options. Bus passes, trains, cars are all out of reach to these types.

Go to third world countries and see how necessary bikes like Honda Cubs are. We are only a few infrastructure collapses and financial wipeouts from becoming one.

**AD345** · 14th March 2009, 21:33

Originally Posted by MaxB

Tell that to the young people at my work on thier 35km/l scooters 'cos they have no other options. Bus passes, trains, cars are all out of reach to these types.

Go to third world countries and see how necessary bikes like Honda Cubs are. We are only a few infrastructure collapses and financial wipeouts from becoming one.

Send them round - I'll tell them. They ARE making a choice.

Doomongerers notwithstanding we are not a Third World country - and we are not likely to become so in my or your lifetimes

**klingon** · 14th March 2009, 21:55

Originally Posted by AD345

...
Riding a bike is a choice - not a necessity. There is no rational reason for choosing a bike over any other form of tranpsort other than "I want to"...

or "it's a cheap and practical way to get around the city that saves me time and money. It is cheaper and faster than walking, riding a pushbike, public transport or driving a car."

But yeah, apart from that there's no other reason.

**rwh** · 14th March 2009, 22:05

Originally Posted by AD345

I do see your point but you're talking about portable personal insurance. Given that ACC covers a multitude of sins it would be a very brave govt. that tried to raise a levy on the individual.

And that doesn't make it any fairer either, since there are many people who don't drive - even if they have licences.

The claim that 'I have several bikes and obviously can't ride more than one at a time' isn't perfectly logical either, since you can easily lend them to your mates, so they could all get ridden at once.

There's no way that will suit everybody.

Richard

**AD345** · 14th March 2009, 22:33

Originally Posted by klingon

or "it's a cheap and practical way to get around the city that saves me time and money. It is cheaper and faster than walking, riding a pushbike, public transport or driving a car."

But yeah, apart from that there's no other reason.

There's a few myths in there I reckon.

Cheaper?

How much public transport could you pay for from the money that has gone on:
Buying the bike
Buying the gear
Buying the extra flouro gear
Insuring the bike
Servicing the bike - including tyres
Registering the bike
"Personalising" the bike (we all do)
last and least - the petrol for the bike

More practical?

Most don't work in what they wear to ride, especially in inclement weather.
Limited luggage capacity (very).

faster?

Yeah - probably for inner city commuting.

I understand all the reasons for buying and riding bikes - its what I do too. But I don't kid myself that it is anything other than personal choice

**klingon** · 14th March 2009, 22:45

Well if, like me, buying a bike allowed you to get rid of your car - then you save all the money you would have spent on registering, maintaining etc etc...

Also in my case I would need to take at least two buses and two hours to get from home to work (each way) and the fare would be around $10 a time.

My bike wasn't expensive to buy and isn't expensive to maintain. The gear was cheap (mostly on special, second hand, or bought with gift vouchers that I requested for Xmas and birthday presents).

And then there is the fuel saving! Huge!

So yeah. For me I definitely chose to get a bike as a cheap and practical form of transport. Since then I have become very fond of the bike and the lifestyle that goes with it, but that is an unexpected secondary benefit.

**AD345** · 14th March 2009, 23:06

Originally Posted by klingon

Well if, like me, buying a bike allowed you to get rid of your car - then you save all the money you would have spent on registering, maintaining etc etc...

Also in my case I would need to take at least two buses and two hours to get from home to work (each way) and the fare would be around $10 a time.

My bike wasn't expensive to buy and isn't expensive to maintain. The gear was cheap (mostly on special, second hand, or bought with gift vouchers that I requested for Xmas and birthday presents).

And then there is the fuel saving! Huge!

So yeah. For me I definitely chose to get a bike as a cheap and practical form of transport. Since then I have become very fond of the bike and the lifestyle that goes with it, but that is an unexpected secondary benefit.

Ok lets have a look then

Although you chose the bike over a car - that doesn't remove the costs from the equation when comparing against public transport.

So:

Buying the gear
lets say $800 over a year
Buying the extra flouro gear
lets say $100
Insuring the bike
lets say $500
Servicing the bike - including tyres
lets say 1 tyre and a well maintained bike over a year = $1100
Registering the bike
we'll call it an even $200
"Personalising" the bike (we all do)
lets say another $500
last and least - the petrol for the bike
lets say $20 per week

Now - you're gonna have to go to work for 46 weeks a year (52 weeks minus 4 weeks holiday and 11 public holidays.) At $20 per day for public transport that 20 x 5 x 46 = $4600 to take the bus

Ze bike is 800 + 100 + 500 + 1100 + 200 + 500 + (20 x 46) = $4120

So - Klingon beat AD335 - Victory is hers!

But, Im comfortable that Im conservative in my cost estimates - it wouldn't take much to blow them out - PLUS I didn't include the original purchase price of the bike. That would actually be a saving AGAINST the bike

Its going to be a while and some cautious riding before those savings really start to kick in.

Its way more fun though

cos thats what ya chose

**MaxB** · 14th March 2009, 23:28

Originally Posted by AD345

There's a few myths in there I reckon.

Cheaper?

How much public transport could you pay for from the money that has gone on:
Buying the bike
Buying the gear
Buying the extra flouro gear
Insuring the bike
Servicing the bike - including tyres
Registering the bike
"Personalising" the bike (we all do)
last and least - the petrol for the bike

More practical?

Most don't work in what they wear to ride, especially in inclement weather.
Limited luggage capacity (very).

faster?

Yeah - probably for inner city commuting.

I understand all the reasons for buying and riding bikes - its what I do too. But I don't kid myself that it is anything other than personal choice

It may be personal choice but people on low incomes have very limited choices.

Time for some facts. The student kid my daughter works with gave me his running costs from his home to Auckand city.

Costs for the first 2 years averaged $47.30/week for everything while he paid off the 100cc commuter bike, gear and consumables. His petrol cost was $22/week and that includes social trips.

Now the bike has been paid for his costs are down to $35/week.

A 10 trip train/bus ticket is $51.50. Neither comes within 2k of his rent reduced house. And it is dead money, at least with the scooter he has an asset albeit not a very good one.

So exactly what other alternatives does this guy have?

**AD345** · 15th March 2009, 06:43

Originally Posted by MaxB

It may be personal choice but people on low incomes have very limited choices.

Time for some facts. The student kid my daughter works with gave me his running costs from his home to Auckand city.

Costs for the first 2 years averaged $47.30/week for everything while he paid off the 100cc commuter bike, gear and consumables. His petrol cost was $22/week and that includes social trips.

Now the bike has been paid for his costs are down to $35/week.

A 10 trip train/bus ticket is $51.50. Neither comes within 2k of his rent reduced house. And it is dead money, at least with the scooter he has an asset albeit not a very good one.

So exactly what other alternatives does this guy have?

You know Max - you may have a (tiny) point.

To all the scooter riders out there - hard luck.

I was thinking and writing about actual bikes as the vast majority of people on this site (including alllll the posters to this thread) ride bikes and not scooters. The post you quoted was in reply to Klingon and her Volty.

Im sure you feel all warm inside knowing that you were able to find this $35 per week paragon of thrift and hold them up as a shining example to humble the arrogant AD345and his sweeping generalisations.

I am in awe.

**Road Guardian** · 15th March 2009, 07:39

Originally Posted by Crazy Steve

How about, try never claiming Acc ever...

But yet continuously paying and paying....

Always riding with FULL Gear...and when seeing peeps riding in shorts and tee shirt....Wondering why I'm paying when they make a mistake.....

Surley I should only pay for my Own Mistakes ? ?

Crazy Steve, you are spot on the mark there!!!!!

Did you know that every time someone is involved in a car accident and gets transported to a hospital (from small cuts/bruises to fractures), wam bam, up goes our ACC levies on vehicles again. Funny how plain old common sense could stop things like this from happening.