Stop bitching and use your brains...

[Sanx]

How could they justify calculating risk by K's travelled when they the charge on the basis of vehicles owned/time.

There's no proof that's how they do it. It's speculation. And measuring accidents per million vehicle kilometres is an accepted method.

An earlier comment that I think stand further attention is the idea that the quote $62m may well include injuries still being paid for. I wonder how much of that money is accrued to riders who have payed a motorcycle levey in the past 12 months

Irrelevant, as all other other costs as given by the ACC include ongoing payments.

[Clockwork]

It comes back to the logic that costs should lie where they fall, They're claming wer're a high risk/cost group but your research indicates that at this point in time we are not. If its valid to exclude other road users from subsidisings bike, why should today's riders be expected to subsidise earlier claimants?

[dipshit]

How could they justify calculating risk by K's travelled when they the charge on the basis of vehicles owned/time.

It's not calculating risk and charging on on k's travelled... it's noting how many accidents vs k's travelled.

[Clockwork]

It's not calculating risk and charging on on k's travelled... it's noting how many accidents vs k's travelled.

Sure.... Ok, but they're not proposing to levey on that basis! So, if they want to cite "fairness" as grounds for their levies then they need to stop misrepresenting the stats they use to justify them.

I've never claimed despite all the K's I do. (commuter) On that basis my levey should be really low! but now they want me to pay a share of all motorcylists costs based on the number of vehicles I have rather than risk I personally represent and tell me they need to do it this way becasue its fairer to the those non riders.

[sasfmj]

come on every one sign the petition !!!!!

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/MRACCLPH

and spread the work about it lets fill it up !!!!!!!

[dipshit]

I've never claimed despite all the K's I do. (commuter) On that basis my levey should be really low! but now they want me to pay a share of all motorcylists costs based on the number of vehicles I have rather than risk I personally represent and tell me they need to do it this way becasue its fairer to the those non riders.

It's a state fund pool... not personal insurance. Of course they are not going to evaluate you personally to charge you your vehicle registration.

[BMWST?]

Sure.... Ok, but they're not proposing to levey on that basis! So, if they want to cite "fairness" as grounds for their levies then they need to stop misrepresenting the stats they use to justify them.

I've never claimed despite all the K's I do. (commuter) On that basis my levey should be really low! but now they want me to pay a share of all motorcylists costs based on the number of vehicles I have rather than risk I personally represent and tell me they need to do it this way becasue its fairer to the those non riders.

its because its the only way "they"(in actual fact they is also us) can do it.cost is x.didvide d by bike b = Z.If they did it by rider the total x remains the same,the number of riders is less so the levy would be even more......SUggest how else they can do it,and dont forget we get to pay the bill for that too.The only other way I can think is each motorcycle license holder gets to pay a portion of X.So maybe the ACC levy should be charged per license holder rather than per vehicle.

[StoneY]

There's no proof that's how they do it. It's speculation. And measuring accidents per million vehicle kilometres is an accepted method.


Irrelevant, as all other other costs as given by the ACC include ongoing payments.

Tell me something...your so full of how this is or should or has been done, what the fuck does an Aussie know about our system?
Or were you part of the so called brain drain? (proving it was more of a asshole migration if you were tbh)

Please enlighten us

[Shiny side up]

here are my thoughts that I am sending through the local MP... if anyone can add some TRUE stats to it, it would help:

To load the cost of ACC levies on to motorcycle registration is a serious injustice as it fails to recognise 3 man points. The proportion of injuries sustained on unregistered off road bikes, the number of injuries cased to riders by other road users or poor road design and the tax contribution registered motorcycles already make compared to the roading resources they use.

Huge numbers of motorcycles are not registered, usually because they are use solely off road. There does not seem to be any differentiation, by ACC, between injuries on registered and unregistered motorcycles. The probability of getting injured in a weekends off road riding is probably higher than the probability of injury for a year of road riding. Putting the ACC cost of motorcycle related injuries onto those that have a registered and “Warrant of Fitness” compliant motorcycle, is grossly unjust.

In my years of riding most of the accidents and near misses I have had have been caused by others. Car drivers failing to look and giving abuse when they are tooted at to bring their attention to the situation. Poor and dangerous design of elements around roads like cheese grater crash barriers and large painted areas, or inconsiderate roading contractors like the one that left black sand on the road after changing the road markings.
The fact that it is the motorcyclist that gets hurt by these situations, is not justification for making the motorcyclists pay. No other group of people are expected to pay a higher ACC levy based on the probability that they are going to be a victim of someone else’s stupidity, aggression, carelessness or thoughtlessness. If this mentality of making a victim pay the ACC cost is carried through then low visibility coloured cars should be more expensive to register and trucks should be cheaper. Truck drivers are seldom injured in accidents unlike the drivers of the cars they collide with.
Motorcyclist that are not careful are not motorcyclists for long and I have yet to hear of a motorcyclist crashing in to a car while texting or taking out a group of police cars while making a U turn.

Motorcycles are taxed at the same rate as cars in fuel tax, the registrations cost are similar and some cars use less fuel some bikes. Motorcycles use less roading resources than cars. Any given roadway can allow the passage of more motorcycles than cars in a given time. Bikes require less parking room than cars. Bike cause less wear in road surfaces than other vehicles. Yet bikes contribute a similar amount in fuel tax and registration to cars. If the ACC levy is to be increased because of a perceived expense to ACC then the roading tax should be reduced to reflect the lower road requirements resulting in the registration cost being unchanged.

[Sanx]

Tell me something...your so full of how this is or should or has been done, what the fuck does an Aussie know about our system?
Or were you part of the so called brain drain? (proving it was more of a asshole migration if you were tbh)

Born in England. Lived in Auckland for eight years. Moved to Australia in 2008.

And your bright ideas are?

[Clockwork]

As you start to move away from the collective cost/responsibility model and start to target groups you just start introducing further inequity and the only point at which fainess can be achieved is by assesing risk at an individual level. Once you perfect that you may as well not bother with insurance! Until you perfect it you probably shouldn't start!

Don't quote statistics based on risk per km travelled if you're not able/willing to charge on that basis! Don't pick out one group and say they should be excluded from the collective because of undue costs, if you're not prepared to do the same for all/any other groups that are being in some fashion subsidised by others.

Hopefully I've made myself clear.

[MSTRS:Me]

...*misguided prejudices*...

Please enlighten us

Yes, please do. Sanx has spent a lot of time researching and thinking about this subject. Can you say the same about yourself?

[Coldrider]

Tell me something...your so full of how this is or should or has been done, what the fuck does an Aussie know about our system?
Or were you part of the so called brain drain? (proving it was more of a asshole migration if you were tbh)

Please enlighten us

What the...?
Gate crash SANXs thread, I notice out of app 83 ACC threads, as at 3pm, most have gone to custard and been abandoned.

[yungatart]

Tell me something...your so full of how this is or should or has been done, what the fuck does an Aussie know about our system?
Or were you part of the so called brain drain? (proving it was more of a asshole migration if you were tbh)

Please enlighten us

You obviously are a relative newby to this site. Sanx is an extremely well respected member of KB...has been for ages. The fact that he left these shores does not mean he doesn't care or have an opinion to voice.
I for one, am grateful for his wise posts. You would do well to emuulate him....

[Reckless]

Me to Sanx!
never meet you or even chatted with you on KB but thanx for the time you spent and important points you raised!!

Bugger off Stoney we will take help from wherever!
Aussies ain't so bad (unless your building a retaining wall that is!) LOL!!!