Well bikers are screwed - ACC levy

[The Everlasting]

As everyone else has said already....it does indeed suck,I bought my scooter only 2 months ago,for the reason that it's much cheaper to run than a car...well until now anyway.....

[PrincessBandit]

Just topically at the mo (on TV3 news) - boaties. Ad campaign starting tomorrow aimed at getting boaties to wear lifejackets all the time; do boat owners have ACC levies? (I'm ignorant here, never having owned a boat).

[jono035]

Just topically at the mo (on TV3 news) - boaties. Ad campaign starting tomorrow aimed at getting boaties to wear lifejackets all the time; do boat owners have ACC levies? (I'm ignorant here, never having owned a boat).

None of my boating family members do... That said, that may not necessarily actually mean anything

Most of the cost involved in any of that would be coastguard stuff though I would think... I'm not familiar with how that is all funded, anyone here know?

[PrincessBandit]

sorry if repost, but just saw this on the interdweeb:

"Motorcycle accidents are creating escalating costs and New Zealand needs to decide who will pay, ACC Minister Nick Smith says in the face of anger from motorcyclists over incrasing levies.
Motor vehicle levies are set to rise from $287 to $317.80 under changes flagged by ACC yesterday. The increase will be collected in increased registration fees and petrol tax.
Moped owners face a jump in the licence portion of the ACC levy from $58.97 to $257.58 in 2010/11.
All petrol powered motorcycles currently pay $252.69.
The portion for motorcycles under 125cc will increase by $5, for 126-600cc it will increase to $511.43, and for those over 601cc it will rise by $493.08 to $745.77.
Non-petrol powered motorcycles also face significant increases.
Motorcyclists are unhappy with the changes.
Phil Garrett, director of Street and Sport Motorcycles in Christchurch, said most accidents involving motorcycles were caused by another vehicle.
Motorcyclists would rise up against the changes, he said.
Labour MP Rick Barker said the rise would prejudice motorcyclists.
"They will probably have to go to the bank manager to ride their bikes if Nick Smith has his way to try to afford the levies."
The ranking of motorcycles by cc rating did no take into account the relative power of a motorcycle - a 650cc vintage motorcycle would cost more than a 250cc modern one which was capable of doing more than 200km/hour, Mr Barker said.
It also did not take into account people who own more than one motorcycle.
"They can only ride one at a time," he said.
"How is it fair that a motorcyclist is knocked off their bike by a car and then they are charged much higher levies for the experience. That means the victim pays."
The changes were a plan to drive motorcycles off the road, Mr Barker said.
However, Dr Smith said there was a social trend of middle age baby boomers buying motorcycles and accidents costs were increasing too.
"The claim that it is cars that cause the accidents does not negate the debate... the cost of other motorcycle accidents far exceeds the proposed levy.
"I was at first quite taken aback at the size of the proposed increase but even more surprised at the actual claim's costs to ACC of motorcycle accidents"
The Government had not predetermined the appropriate increase per cc rating and encouraged people to have their say before submissions closed on November 10.
ACC said that in 2008/09 it paid more than $62 million for accidents involving motorcycles. It collected $12.3m in levies from motorcyclists in the same period.
NZPA"

[PrincessBandit]

mods feel free to infract if I've doubled (or tripled) up on other posts - so many to wade through!

[dipshit]

sorry if repost, but just saw this on the interdweeb:

Sadly our counterargument - "Phil Garrett, director of Street and Sport Motorcycles in Christchurch, said most accidents involving motorcycles were caused by another vehicle."... is incorrect.

All this does is to prove to the wider public that motorcyclists are irresponsible of their own behaviour... thus we will get everything we deserve without sympathy.

[Madmax]

plate turned around
and remounted so it flys behind the bike

[Ixion]

Sadly our counterargument - "Phil Garrett, director of Street and Sport Motorcycles in Christchurch, said most accidents involving motorcycles were caused by another vehicle."... is incorrect.

All this does is to prove to the wider public that motorcyclists are irresponsible of their own behaviour... thus we will get everything we deserve without sympathy.

Your logic is lunatic. Even if Mr Garrett is incorrect, the general public won't know that. And the figures are so arguable either way that only those (like you!) with an ingrained hatred of motorcyclists would react thus.

Mr Garretts argument is probably irrelevant, because of the no-fault thing, but that's a different matter entirely .

(BTW , you don't happen to work for the AA , do you)

[cs363]

Whilst not denying that we do have way too many single vehicle accidents (that better education and training would reduce, rather than hitting people in the pocket) there does seem to some truth to the argument that a reasonable proportion of accidents are caused by other vehicles, at least according to this researcher (who presumably knows what they're talking about , seeing as this is what they do all day:

Lamb said analysis of Ministry of Transport crash data showed 67 per cent of motorcycle accidents involved other drivers, and 60 per cent of those crashes were caused by the other driver

Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/archived-stuf...ike-levy-logic

[dipshit]

Your logic is lunatic. Even if Mr Garrett is incorrect, the general public won't know that. And the figures are so arguable either way that only those (like you!) with an ingrained hatred of motorcyclists would react thus.

He is incorrect. No amount of burying your head in the sand will change that. And you don't think the politicians will do any research on the matter for a counterargument..??? I am sure they will put their findings out for the public to see as well to save face. The media have already been running articles along those lines anyhow.

And even if BRONZ and the bike industry manages to pull the wool over everybody's eyes once again... you are only going to create another generation of motorcyclists that believe your bullshit as well and continue to hit the roads thinking their shit doesn't stink and its all the car drivers fault. Nothing will change or improve until the next time the authorities decide to do something about it themselves.

[dipshit]

Lamb said analysis of Ministry of Transport crash data showed 67 per cent of motorcycle accidents involved other drivers, and 60 per cent of those crashes were caused by the other driver[/url]

Yes, but this is not news to anybody.

Out of multiple vehicle accidents it is 60% cars fault, 40% rider fault. A bit over half of multiple vehicle accidents with bikes was not the rider's fault. A good portion of them are though. And then you still have all the single vehicle motorcycle accidents on top of that. Have a look at it in pie graph on p 7 for visualisation. http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...-Factsheet.pdf

Only about 40% of all motorcycle accidents can solely be blamed on car drivers. This is quite different to "most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers." People who say that are talking shit and are living in fantasyland.

[cs363]

Only about 40% of all the motorcycle accidents can solely be blamed on car drivers. This is quite different to "most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers" People who say that are talking shit and are living in fantasyland.

Not arguing with that at all, hence my carefully worded post

I would go further too and say that many of the car versus bike accidents, whilst caused by an error on the car drivers fault (for example, pulling out in front of a bike) could be prevented by good defensive driving techniques, if taught as part of the licencing procedure.
I once saw a BBC documentary many years ago about road accidents and a high ranking Police officer that was the head of the accident investigation unit (or some-such) said something to the effect that almost all road accidents were avoidable.
Situational awareness is something that is sadly lacking in most drivers and riders.

[Ixion]

In fact the problem we have from an ACC aspect is not the number of crashes , or who's to blame . It's that we get hurt more.

In a non ACC world if a bike and a car collide, usually the biker gets hurt a lot worse than the car driver (yes, I know there are exceptions, I've seen thos epictures too).

So, if in our non ACC world, Car A collides with Bike X, and car A is to blame, then Biker X sues car driver A (or his insurance company does), and collects much money.

Whereas if Bike Y collides with car B, and Biker Y is to blame car B driver is probably unhurt. So he doesn't sue at all. (Biker Y is hurt of course , but being to blame can't sue anyone)

So, in a non ACC world , if cars and bikes were equally to blame for crashes, car drivers insurance companies would still end up paying out a lot more money than bikers. The insurance companies would say "We pay out a lot of money on account of car drivers, why can't they be like bikers, who cost us very little (in third party claims anyway)

But, our ACC system reverses this.

When Car A collides with Bike X, ACC don't care who is to blame. All they know is that Biker X has cost them money . And when Bike Y collides with car B , guess what , it's the biker that costs ACC again.

So, ACC say "We are paying out far too much money to bikers, why cna't they be like car drivers" . And , being bean oriented, they decide that they need to charge us more.

[dipshit]

Not arguing with that at all, hence my carefully worded post

We cannot afford to have idiots standing up in public and telling the media "waaaa... it's all the car drivers fault"

BRONZ have been doing it for years. So much so that even the majority of motorcyclists believe their bullshit.

And look where we are now.

[Winston001]

In fact the problem we have from an ACC aspect is not the number of crashes , or who's to blame . It's that we get hurt more.

In a non ACC world if a bike and a car collide, usually the biker gets hurt a lot worse than the car driver (yes, I know there are exceptions, I've seen thos epictures too).

So, if in our non ACC world, Car A collides with Bike X, and car A is to blame, then Biker X sues car driver A (or his insurance company does), and collects much money.

Whereas if Bike Y collides with car B, and Biker Y is to blame car B driver is probably unhurt. So he doesn't sue at all. (Biker Y is hurt of course , but being to blame can't sue anyone)

So, in a non ACC world , if cars and bikes were equally to blame for crashes, car drivers insurance companies would still end up paying out a lot more money than bikers. The insurance companies would say "We pay out a lot of money on account of car drivers, why can't they be like bikers, who cost us very little (in third party claims anyway)

But, our ACC system reverses this.

When Car A collides with Bike X, ACC don't care who is to blame. All they know is that Biker X has cost them money . And when Bike Y collides with car B , guess what , it's the biker that costs ACC again.

So, ACC say "We are paying out far too much money to bikers, why cna't they be like car drivers" . And , being bean oriented, they decide that they need to charge us more.

Mmmmm........good post Ix but only half the story. The other side is that the injured at-fault motorcyclist still has to be hospitalised, recuperated, and compensated for lost earnings. If we assume a free healthcare system, the other costs will be covered by insurance held by the motorcyclist.

Yes there will be motorcyclists who don't insure, but in a social democracy they are going to be picked up by the taxpayer. The high human cost of motorcycle accidents is unavoidable - it gets paid one way or another.