McJim's argument against raising ACC levies for motorcycles

**McJim** · 29th October 2009, 17:07

Thought about this sensibly and long and hard.

The purpose of the increased levies is to fill a deficit in the ACC coffers and is to fund future motorcycle accident compensation claims.

However the increase in the levies is so huge that it will precipitate a change in behaviour. Many motorcyclists will sell their bikes altogether and move to cars thus reducing the income from this avenue. Many others will simply register their bikes for 3 months per year choosing not to ride except in summer. A few will continue to ride but not pay. The combination of these groups will cause the revenue to fall far short of required income. In addition to this there will be an increase in motorcycle injuries due to riders no longer riding all year round. their skills will become rusty and their reactions slow. they will crash more in the summer than before.

The combination of lost revenue and increased burden will push ACC further into the red.

Q.E.D.

Feel free to incorporate this into your submissions. I am working with a planning professional to compile a compelling submission against these levies.

**JMemonic** · 29th October 2009, 17:10

Far to logical for the dimwit bureaucrats to understand.

**James Deuce** · 29th October 2009, 18:09

Umm, that's actually THE plan.

The argument then becomes that it is too expensive for the Government to condone the use of motorcycles as transport and subsequently bans them.

**martybabe** · 29th October 2009, 18:23

Sorry Mcjim but I think JD's right.
I think the ultimate goal is to get us off the road by whatever means. I'm not disagreeing with your point, as a scenario it makes perfect sense as to what may transpire with the future of on road motorcycling but I honestly believe if we all gave up tomorrow we wouldn't be given a second thought by the powers that be, job done as far as they're concerned.

**Hitcher** · 29th October 2009, 18:25

On Saturday, the magnificent Mrs H and I were sitting in the sun in front of Greytown's White Swan, sipping shandies (as you do) and trading banter with the locals. After about seven seconds, one of them braved to broach the subject of ACC levies, presumably to get a rise out of my fair self.

"So what do you think should happen," I asked.

"Well," he said, sliding his hat back a bit and taking a decent draught of his ale, "Funny that you should ask.

"I reckon that ACC should collect its levies on driver licenses, rather than vehicle registrations," he mused.

"And how would that work then," I enquired.

"Well," he said, taking another decent slurp of suds, "I reckon they could bring back annual license renewals (not that this was ever the case, but I decided not to interject and correct him), charge $40 for a license and an additional $5 for every demerit point on your account."

He then paused for another sip of beer before adding "That would provide a meaningful incentive for people to be safer drivers, as well as raising shitloads of cash".

One could not argue with his thesis. It is both brilliant and simple. It probably has some obvious flaws, but I have not yet figured out what they may be. It's certainly way cheaper for motorcyclists (unless one has multitudinous demerits accrued) than the current option, and only discriminates against drivers on the basis of their lawfulness, rather than on the type of vehicle they own.

Given that his beer glass was now empty, I bought him a refill.

**pzkpfw** · 29th October 2009, 19:06

The counter to that one, from the ACC, is that it is unfair to lower-income families. Kind of the reverse of the case where one person owns multiple bikes and has to pay multiple rego fees.

In this case, the family might all have licenses, and therefore all have to pay the fees - but they share just one car between them.

I don't have any idea of the difference between:
1 person with multiple vehicles, and
Multiple people with one vehicle.

(So personally, i think they need to extend RUC to petrol vehicles. That way the charge relates to the vehicle and its use. It could even be tailored to vehilce type like RUC is with truck weight and axles configuration. Years ago motor-reg unified their registration and RUC databases, so I don't think this is particularly hard to do.)

**James Deuce** · 29th October 2009, 19:08

Lower income families can't afford bikes.

A 125cc scooter and a helmet costs more than a Toyota Levin and is dearer to register.

**pzkpfw** · 29th October 2009, 19:24

Originally Posted by James Deuce

Lower income families can't afford bikes.

A 125cc scooter and a helmet costs more than a Toyota Levin and is dearer to register.

So you are suggesting motorcycle ACC fees be collected via driver (rider) licecse but fees for cars still be collected by vehcile license?

Seems to me the "charge ACC by license" renewal ideas mean that ALL such fees be collected that way. Bit of a 'mare to do it differently just for bikes. And some people own multiple cars just like some own multiple bikes, so would want the same kind of deal.

**Mully** · 29th October 2009, 19:27

Originally Posted by James Deuce

Umm, that's actually THE plan.

The argument then becomes that it is too expensive for the Government to condone the use of motorcycles as transport and subsequently bans them.

Bingo. And this was one of the points in my e-mails to John Banks and Len Brown seeking their positions on the increase, given the very real possibility of forcing riders off bikes and, in the majority, into cars.

As an unhappy user of Auckland's rail system today, I would suspect very few would move to public transport.

**davereid** · 29th October 2009, 19:32

They wont be collecting mine except as fines.

I'll take my $850 and keep on riding without rego until my fines reach break even, then I'll stop riding till the next year.

BUT, if I dont get a fine in any year, or dont pass the $850, then I'll have an even bigger war chest.

And I will try and arrange to pay my fines off too, not just pay them in one hit like I have to do with ACC.

The government might still get the money, if its very lucky, and stops me a lot.

But ACC wont.

**James Deuce** · 29th October 2009, 19:55

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

So you are suggesting motorcycle ACC fees be collected via driver (rider) licecse but fees for cars still be collected by vehcile license?

Not at all. Just pointing out that the lower income family + motorcycle isn't the norm.

**SARGE** · 29th October 2009, 20:01

Originally Posted by McJim

Thought about this sensibly and long and hard.

Feel free to incorporate this into your submissions. I am working with a planning professional to compile a compelling submission against these levies.

i thought you were gonna say

"because SARGE will go apeshit and start blowing shit up"

cuz i WILL ya know ..

**newbould** · 29th October 2009, 20:07

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

(So personally, i think they need to extend RUC to petrol vehicles. That way the charge relates to the vehicle and its use. It could even be tailored to vehilce type like RUC is with truck weight and axles configuration. Years ago motor-reg unified their registration and RUC databases, so I don't think this is particularly hard to do.)

So then they could charge even more for motorbikes coz motorbikes is dangerous and bite people. they should have an ID chip implanted in them so they donb't bite so much - or is that dogs. Oh I'm so confused. My brain hurts.

**McJim** · 29th October 2009, 20:12

Originally Posted by James Deuce

Umm, that's actually THE plan.

My bad then J II. I kept seeing threads along the lines of "Attack the pedestrians! Attack the cyclists! Attack wee Jimmy fae doon oor street who disnae wash his undies!" rather than a concerted "Aha - I see your problem....this isn't actually going to achieve it's stated objectives" Which is the tack I have taken. I therefore assumed that being nasty, unpleasant and irritating was the plan (which is always the best way to get your opponent to dig their heels in for the long haul)

I hope everyone realises that this is something that should happen in conjunction with the protests etc. I, for example do not have the means to get to any meaningful protests (a lone rider riding in circles around Invercargill is not going to score any political points!) and must therefore protest in my own way. I just got tired of trawling vitriol in the other threads and though I had best voice my opinion in the forlorn hope that someone els may freely use my reasoning to assist in the compilation of a winning submission.

**James Deuce** · 29th October 2009, 20:14

Originally Posted by McJim

My bad then J II. I kept seeing threads along the lines of "Attack the pedestrians! Attack the cyclists! Attack wee Jimmy fae doon oor street who disnae wash his undies!" rather than a concerted "Aha - I see your problem....this isn't actually going to achieve it's stated objectives" Which is the tack I have taken. I therefore assumed that being nasty, unpleasant and irritating was the plan (which is always the best way to get your opponent to dig their heels in for the long haul)

I hope everyone realises that this is something that should happen in conjunction with the protests etc. I, for example do not have the means to get to any meaningful protests (a lone rider riding in circles around Invercargill is not going to score any political points!) and must therefore protest in my own way. I just got tired of trawling vitriol in the other threads and though I had best voice my opinion in the forlorn hope that someone els may freely use my reasoning to assist in the compilation of a winning submission.

I understand your frustration.