New ACC motorcycle levies confirmed

**caseye** · 11th December 2009, 15:21

Originally Posted by GOONR

I think you are spot on. I walked into work with my 'who's next' T shirt on and all I got was a 'good on ya, you don't need the T shirt any more'

I hope you told em all that Oh yes I/we do it;ll be your turn next, give us $50.00 and I'll get you on as well.
I've also had peole say to me, hey you guys and gilrs did some good, are you quitting the rides?
When I say No, they do a bit of a double take.They know me well enought to know I've got more to say and when I've finished they've gone, uh huh,Shit that stinks.
Keep up the good work.
Public support is still strong and will get stronger,as more of them realise what Motorcyclists DID Do for them as well.

**glegge** · 11th December 2009, 15:24

Do we need a new shirt/slogan? or shill i keep wearing the one i have already got and have been wearing every single day since just before bikoi when it arrived..?

**Nasty** · 11th December 2009, 15:39

Originally Posted by glegge

Do we need a new shirt/slogan? or shill i keep wearing the one i have already got and have been wearing every single day since just before bikoi when it arrived..?

Why would you need a new one ... it has the right message don't it? That hasn't changed.

**rottiguy** · 11th December 2009, 20:05

Just heard the AA on the radio today saying that a fuel levy would be a fairer way of charging for ACC, as users would pay and the more driving you did ( supposedly more km on the road = more risk ), the more you would pay.
Has someone from the bikers rights groups or clubs tried to get the AA to publicly announce the CC rating method and disproportionate bike levy is wrong ?. The AA carry a lot of weight in the lobby department. I think unless we get bolshie and/or target ACC directly, we are screwed

**bogan** · 11th December 2009, 20:13

Originally Posted by rottiguy

Just heard the AA on the radio today saying that a fuel levy would be a fairer way of charging for ACC, as users would pay and the more driving you did ( supposedly more km on the road = more risk ), the more you would pay.
Has someone from the bikers rights groups or clubs tried to get the AA to publicly announce the CC rating method and disproportionate bike levy is wrong ?. The AA carry a lot of weight in the lobby department. I think unless we get bolshie and/or target ACC directly, we are screwed

the AA are anti bikes, and have been quoted as saying the increases are justified as we are more at risk (or something to that effect), hmmmm, maybe thats cos AA also do insurance

**crazyhorse** · 11th December 2009, 20:22

Well, I'd like to know how a bike over 600cc is going to cause any rider more damage than a bike less than 600cc

.........and don't say speed! Because I know plenty of smaller bikes that go fairly quick around the corners etc, faster than some bigger bikes.

**bogan** · 11th December 2009, 20:29

Originally Posted by crazyhorse

Well, I'd like to know how a bike over 600cc is going to cause any rider more damage than a bike less than 600cc

.........and don't say speed! Because I know plenty of smaller bikes that go fairly quick around the corners etc, faster than some bigger bikes.

the only explanation i can think of is the income compensation, higher earners generally have bigger bikes I spose. Fucking BS that is though, introduces and income bias into the system which must be paid regardless of the individuals income.

**crazyhorse** · 11th December 2009, 20:35

Originally Posted by bogan

the only explanation i can think of is the income compensation, higher earners generally have bigger bikes I spose. Fucking BS that is though, introduces and income bias into the system which must be paid regardless of the individuals income.

Now that appears to be a load of crap for sure

**Grumpy** · 11th December 2009, 20:48

Originally Posted by cowboyz

news on the rock radio station was how motorcycle levies have been reduced and car owners will make up the difference with a rise. I couldnt believe what I was hearing.. Anyone listen to the rock? Damn shocking reporting.

Heard it on the radio and then read it in the paper. The newspaper article said the same, that bikers were getting a reprieve and car owners were going to have to make it up. Then next paragraph the Ulysses spokesman is quoted as saying it is a victory for motorcyclists.

It certainly made him sound like a smug bastard. I some how think that these guys are reporting as it's given to them.

Come on folks. All I see is that we just got the shit kicked out of us by the spin doctors in Wellington. This isn't a victory. Too many more of those sorts of articles and any public support we have is going to dwindle.

**drummer** · 11th December 2009, 23:42

Originally Posted by crazyhorse

Well, I'd like to know how a bike over 600cc is going to cause any rider more damage than a bike less than 600

Quote Nick Smith.. coz they are heavier... hes never even seen a Bike let alone ridden one.... his crazy ansers at THAT meeting are still just that... crazy!

Peter

**crazyhorse** · 12th December 2009, 05:23

Originally Posted by drummer

Quote Nick Smith.. coz they are heavier... hes never even seen a Bike let alone ridden one.... his crazy ansers at THAT meeting are still just that... crazy!

Peter

Perhaps I should make him get on the back and take the fella for a ride............although I do have a big bike, so that would throw that one out the window.

**McJim** · 12th December 2009, 20:22

Originally Posted by crazyhorse

Well, I'd like to know how a bike over 600cc is going to cause any rider more damage than a bike less than 600cc

.........and don't say speed! Because I know plenty of smaller bikes that go fairly quick around the corners etc, faster than some bigger bikes.

It's not the size of the bike but rather the mentality that feels it requires a larger more powerful bike that causes the accidents and injuries isn't it?

I ride a sub 600cc air cooled twin because it's all I actually need on the open road.

**James Deuce** · 12th December 2009, 21:57

Originally Posted by McJim

It's not the size of the bike but rather the mentality that feels it requires a larger more powerful bike that causes the accidents and injuries isn't it?

I ride a sub 600cc air cooled twin because it's all I actually need on the open road.

Now I think you're a lovely chap and all, but you say this so often, in fact with boring repetitiveness, that I'm starting to wondering if you're not trying to convince yourself out loud.

Mentality? There's isn't a car sold new in NZ that can't exceed the speed limit by 50%. So they're all mentalists too. Need? Need? What's the point of living in a consumer society if you're going to base all your purchasing decisions on "need".

The rest of us would go broke.

You like your asthmatic 1930s-tech Ducati. Fair enough. I'm happy to potter about with a vastly more capable vehicle under my bottom because I can. In fact, I'm about to purchase an outrageous "toy" simply because someone said it might be bad for me. That those people were voted into power because NZers perceived their freedom to enjoy themselves under threat from hairy lipped, no-nonsense, feminist overladies (doesn't have the same ring as "overlord", does it?) makes it all the more sweet that I can thumb my metaphorical nose at two diametrically opposed political elements at the same time. Those that want to stop me doing it at all and those who want to stop me doing it at all.

It might even annoy someone's granny, and then I'm three times happier than any Kiwi non-motorcyclist. I might even take up smoking. I'll also eat too many sweets, gargle the fat I ring out of the paper wrapping the sausage and chips I'm going to have for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and drink so much alcohol on New Year's Eve that I'll still be semi-comatose come Lent.

Because I can.

**Mikkel** · 12th December 2009, 22:01

Originally Posted by James Deuce

Now I think you're a lovely chap and all, but you say this so often, in fact with boring repetitiveness, that I'm starting to wondering if you're not trying to convince yourself out loud.

Mentality? There's isn't a car sold new in NZ that can't exceed the speed limit by 50%. So they're all mentalists too. Need? Need? What's the point of living in a consumer society if you're going to base all your purchasing decisions on "need".

The rest of us would go broke.

You like your asthmatic 1930s-tech Ducati. Fair enough. I'm happy to potter about with a vastly more capable vehicle under my bottom because I can. In fact, I'm about to purchase an outrageous "toy" simply because someone said it might be bad for me. That those people were voted into power because NZers perceived their freedom to enjoy themselves under threat from hairy lipped, no-nonsense, feminist overladies (doesn't have the same ring as "overlord", does it?) makes it all the more sweet that I can thumb my metaphorical nose at two diametrically opposed political elements at the same time. Those that want to stop me doing it at all and those who want to stop me doing it at all.

It might even annoy someone's granny, and then I'm three times happier than any Kiwi non-motorcyclist. I might even take up smoking. I'll also eat too many sweets, gargle the fat I ring out of the paper wrapping the sausage and chips I'm going to have for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and drink so much alcohol on New Year's Eve that I'll still be semi-comatose come Lent.

Because I can.

So you are buying the Harley?