ACC whinge

[sharknet]

Here's my 10c worth...

If you own more than one bike and/or car, (which I have to do, as moving my two kids around on the bike is not that easy) you pay two ACC levies.

As it has been pointed out, you can only ride/drive one at a time so...

Put the ACC levy on the drivers licence, make it a yearly renewal. The onus is then on every licenced driver to be paid up.

As vehicles get registered yearly (or six monthly) and each vehicle needs to be registered TO someone, it would be easy for the LTSA to check the ACC componment. No ACC, no rego.

For those who do not own cars, a similar system of notification to say a power bill would need to apply.

As it stands, putting the ACC component on fuel hurts all those who never use a road, as pointed out before.

As for the pathetic public transport in Auckland, who wants to spend three hours EACH way, and in my case over $30 per day on a train/bus..?

I ride a bike because 1. I enjoy it, 2. I only have so much time in the day and 3. In my own little way I am easing the traffic congestion.

I don't save all that much in fuel, the diesel truck I have actually costs about 10% more to run than the bike, what I can't (and won't) do is waste the precious little time I have left after work sitting in traffic. The bike helps there, but as I ride every day, sometimes I really miss the roof and the heater.

[rosie631]

I agree with sharknet. Excellent idea

[rwh]

Here's my 10c worth...

If you own more than one bike and/or car, (which I have to do, as moving my two kids around on the bike is not that easy) you pay two ACC levies.

As it has been pointed out, you can only ride/drive one at a time so...

Put the ACC levy on the drivers licence, make it a yearly renewal. The onus is then on every licenced driver to be paid up.

Just as a driver with 2 vehicles can only drive one at a time, so a couple with one car between them can only drive one at a time. It's exactly the same - except I'm betting there are more shared vehicles out there than single people with more than one.

And in either case, there are exceptions - you can lend a vehicle to someone else while you drive the other, and the couple can borrow one.

As vehicles get registered yearly (or six monthly) and each vehicle needs to be registered TO someone, it would be easy for the LTSA to check the ACC componment. No ACC, no rego.

Not necessarily to a natural person, or a person who has a licence. Companies can own them, and you could have one that you need to get a chauffer to drive.

For those who do not own cars, a similar system of notification to say a power bill would need to apply.

I don't follow that bit

As it stands, putting the ACC component on fuel hurts all those who never use a road, as pointed out before.

Most of the non-road uses of fuel I can think of aren't much less risky, if at all.

The system (either the current one or the fuel tax idea) is approximately fair enough, IMHO. Any attempt to make it fairer will make it more complex and more expensive for everyone in the long run.

And anyway, as someone else pointed out - insurance, which ACC is, works by sharing everything out. To make it perfectly fair, you'd just have to leave people to die on the roadside, because they couldn't afford the medical bills.

Richard

[Benjiboi]

I ride a bike to work each day, since it is such a short trip its cost me around $20 a fortnight (depending on current fuel prices).

In my car the same trip costs around $70 a week and takes roughly 20mins longer.

Huge savings on fuel are good for my pocket and the environment.

[rosie631]

..I say get rid of ACC altogether. They have blown their budget so all our fees go up so they have more money to waste. I have worked out what I pay in ACC levies on my vehicles and I'm damn sure I could find private accident cover for a hell of a lot less than I'm paying these arseholes