Rego costs ridiculous

[scumdog]

As I said in an earlier post, It cost me around $24 per ride on average (at 2 per month), and it doesn't matter if I do 2kms or 200kms on that ride.

So ride more then!

[p.dath]

Bollocks! I could easily afford to own another 5 x $2K vehicles, doesn't mean I could afford the 5 x regos.

It sounds to me like you just said you can't afford to own 5 motorbikes, because you can't afford to keep them road legal.

[scumdog]

It sounds to me like you just said you can't afford to own 5 motorbikes, because you can't afford to keep them road legal.

Sorta like "I can't afford to own 5 motorbikes because of the cost of tyres" (or any other cost associated with running a vehicle)??

[Maha]

Bollocks! I could easily afford to own another 5 x $2K vehicles, doesn't mean I could afford the 5 x regos. 10 grand on vehicles doesn't make me a millionaire!
Loving to ride means fuck all when there is a growing class of people who also love to ride but can't afford to ride. People seem to be giving it (riding) away in droves because of the costs. But I suppose that was the ultimate aim of the new costs - to push riders away from riding to lower the road toll, rather than to encourage, educate & train riders young & old.
I gather you wouldn't have a problem if rego went up to $1000/year or more because you love to ride?
As I said in an earlier post, It cost me around $24 per ride on average (at 2 per month), and it doesn't matter if I do 2kms or 200kms on that ride.

''I could easily afford to own another 5 x $2K vehicles''

But you still pay/ride right?

Theres more to it when those out there say that ''cant afford it to rego their bikes''...
General cost of living/down turn in work/unforeseen expenses/multi vehicle ownership etc
The rego increase on their bike is but a portion of the pie.
I stopped smoking 18 months ago, the $4K that I used spend on smokes now enables me to do more with my bike. Keeping it legal does not hinder me at all.
We have two vehicles and two bikes, did have three bikes but sold one, two of us cant ride three, another expense gone.

[YellowDog]

What other country in the world would you consider has a successfully working private accident scheme? I don't know of one. They all have major issues. Far worse than ACC.

Did you know that NZ used to operate private accident insurance before ACC came in? It was a disaster. That's why they changed it. Something like 30% of all claim pay outs were consumed in legal fees. The actual claim pay out ratio was also very low, because in many cases the insurance companies challenged it in court, and the injured person wasn't in a state or position to force the insurance company to do the pay out - or they desperately needed money to feed their family and had to accept any offer made.




Did you see the study the Government did into compulsory insurance about two years ago? They found the insurance rate was already something like 95%. The remainder of those without insurance - couldn't get insurance. They were mostly repeat drink drivers and the like.

So they found that introducing compulsory insurance would make almost no difference to the number of insured vehicles on the road - but it was going to make everyone's insurance go up due to compliance costs.
So the idea was dropped - who wants to make more for exactly what we have now?



When ACC was introduced it was considerably cheaper than the private accident insurance that existed.
Also remember that if no company wants to insurance someone on a motorbike, then suddenly using a motorbike in your scheme would become illegal.



Because what you suggest is close to what we previously had in NZ, and it was far far worse.

Thanks for the responses. I am not at all convinced by your counter arguments. What happened before has little relevance other than to provide experience and lessons learnt.

A Health Service of any kind costs a lot of money to run. NZ is fortunate to have a strong private health infrastructure that is hugely profitable. This thread is about how much of the high running costs should be contributed to by motorcyclists. My argument is saying that the rego levy could be reduced considerably if we had compulsory insurance for all vehicles so that the medical treatment portion of any claim would no longer be the responsibility of ACC.

You seem to have some perceived dependency issues that you are associating with motor insurance and ACC. I believe that there should be a relationship of some kind, but it does need to be clearly defined. NZ 'NOW' has a private health scheme that is ideal for insurance companies to use in the event of one of their policy holders becoming injured as a result of a motor accident. At what stage ACC does or does not get involved needs to be established.

Your stats in favour of non-compulsory motor insurance make a stronger argument in favour of having it. Stats = slanted bullshit to emphasise a point. Uninsurable road users wouldn’t be able to use the road. And your problem with this is ? Perhaps you just enjoy the element of danger. How much of the present level of death and carnage can be attributed to your 5%? Why should we all be paying for them? Let their prospective insurance companies pay for it! Yes prices will increase, but ACC premiums will decrease. IMO - Making it harder to get on the road would be a good thing. The results of it being too easy to legally use the roads makes a poor reflection in NZ's accident stats. If drink drivers were more concerned over having the privilege of being able to legally use NZ roads removed; then maybe they would be less likely to offend.

If driving your vehicle badly and crashing meant that your insurance renewal was x 3 for the renewal, perhaps you would see more careful drivers on the road. The threat of pricing you off the road may have a positive influence for all. When I was 17, it cost me around $2000 to get my $1200 vehicle road legal. I didn't want to crash at any cost. When I was 45, I drove a sports coupe, two motorcycles, and a pickup on one insurance policy only. If I had to pay an ACC levy for each of these vehicles that I owned, I would have been priced off the road.

Regarding your concern over certain motorcycles becoming uninsurable is nonsense. Everything is insurable, but the higher the risk, the higher the price. Perhaps some motorcycles should be for track usage only. The insurance market is highly competitive and there are many players. It is about risk and not about unfounded preconceptions. If a vehicle is uninsurable, then it shouldn't be on the road. There are insurance and safety standards and manufacturers are bound to comply with if they want to sell their vehicles. Insurance companies want to make money too and hence any policy cost will be a reflection of the driver’s history.
No accidents and no convictions = cheap insurance.

[Badgerclarke]

Just got the renewals through for the car and bike, oh my God. It's $287 for the Corolla wagon and $582 for the CB1000r!! That's fucked up.

[ukusa]

It sounds to me like you just said you can't afford to own 5 motorbikes, because you can't afford to keep them road legal.

It's more the point that I shouldn't have to keep them road legal when they sit in the garage waiting for a nice day to ride. If I owned a dozen bikes, is it really fair that I pay $7K per year just for that privilege? Am I more likely to end up on ACC just because I own that many bikes?
The rego system seems to be designed to reduce the number of legal riders and increase the number of illegal riders.

[ukusa]

So ride more then!

Would love to, but work & weather & wife can put the brakes on that dream. My couple of rides a month will have to suffice for now.

[p.dath]

Your stats in favour of non-compulsory motor insurance make a stronger argument in favour of having it. Stats = slanted bullshit to emphasise a point. Uninsurable road users wouldn’t be able to use the road. And your problem with this is ?

I don't think you understand. Most of the current road users who don't have insurance - can't get insurance because they can't legally drive/ride. They are already disqualified drivers, or have had their licence removed.

They are already ignoring the law. Creating another law will just add another one to the list for them to ignore.

The current regulatory framework already provides the Police and courts with the ability to remove them from the roads - except it doesn't seem to get enforced that well - of which I feel the courts are substantially to blame.

You say all stats are bullshit. All I hear so far is you suggesting ideas - that have already been tried - and failed. How about coming up with a new twist? Have you read about the old schemes? If you want, I could post you to a link to read about them (Auckland Uni's online services has a great report), and why ACC was bought in to fundamentally address the issues.

Also note that ACC wasn't bought in as the first fix. They did try fixing up the private insurance system several times first.

Perhaps you just enjoy the element of danger. How much of the present level of death and carnage can be attributed to your 5%? Why should we all be paying for them? Let their prospective insurance companies pay for it!

Once again, they will continue to drive without insurance, as they do now. They will continue not paying, and we as a society have to pick up the difference. Creating another law for them to ignore will make no difference.

Yes prices will increase, but ACC premiums will decrease.

Costs reduced by about 30% when ACC was introduced and private insurance as removed. Of course introducing private insurance again will reduce the cost of ACC (there would be no need for it at all), but I believe it will be like the prior days, and the cost of that insurance will be greater. Remember, private insurers will be aiming to to provide what ACC does now, plus make a profit.

IMO - Making it harder to get on the road would be a good thing. The results of it being too easy to legally use the roads makes a poor reflection in NZ's accident stats. If drink drivers were more concerned over having the privilege of being able to legally use NZ roads removed; then maybe they would be less likely to offend.

100% agree with you there. I like the German model here. However it is so strict we would have riots if NZ tried to bring it in.

If driving your vehicle badly and crashing meant that your insurance renewal was x 3 for the renewal, perhaps you would see more careful drivers on the road.

Ignoring private medical/accident insurance, which is what we have been discussing, and returning to just ordinary vehicle insurance - this is what already happens. If you have an accident the cost to get insurance again is greater.

Regarding your concern over certain motorcycles becoming uninsurable is nonsense. Everything is insurable, but the higher the risk, the higher the price. Perhaps some motorcycles should be for track usage only. The insurance market is highly competitive and there are many players. It is about risk and not about unfounded preconceptions. If a vehicle is uninsurable, then it shouldn't be on the road.

I guess I don't have a hard as line as you do. I feel there is a social cost of having a vehicle that needs to be weighed up against the social cost of accidents.

[imdying]

Compulsory insurance would not remove the ACC levy on vehicle registrations (although one expects it would be lowered a good amount at introduction to lure us in).

They would retain it as a way to fund motox accidents, pedestrian related accidents, horse riding and farming accidents etc etc...

To think that they would drop a taxation system that already has the infrastructure in place is a little naive.

[jasonu]

Just got the renewals through for the car and bike, oh my God. It's $287 for the Corolla wagon and $582 for the CB1000r!! That's fucked up.

Is that renewals for rego or renewals for insurance? 6 months worth or a year?

[Badgerclarke]

Both annual rego renewals, I'd like to know what the justification is for that difference. The car gets used every day and the bike sits in the garage most of the time so it's a bitter pill to swallow.

Is it based on the perception that motorcycle riders are more likely to cost the government money via ACC claims? If so then we'll continue to pay through the nose from what I've seen. Followed a group of what looked like mature riders on Saturday from Whiford to Howick and in that short journey I observed overtaking on double lines on a bend, lack of indication, lack of lane discipline at a roundabout and poor merging.

Now that doesn't bother me...good luck to em if that's how they want to ride but I guess these are the same observations that the powers that be are making around the country.

[RDJ]

Compulsory insurance would not remove the ACC levy on vehicle registrations...<> to think that they would drop a taxation system that already has the infrastructure in place is a little naive.

An excellent point that bears emphasis. As someone said somewhere else, true immortality is a government program funded by taxpayers. We think it's bad now because we're paying a large amount of money to a single recipient. Oh, it can get worse...

[YellowDog]

I don't think you understand.......................

If introducing the madatory need to have insurance would make no difference at all, then there is no reason not to introduce it. Those without it won't get the associated private first grade medical assistance in the event of a motor accident. ACC would no longer be able to multiply their so called and claimed motorcycle rider related demands (that's the unhelmetted farm bike boys out for a start). Motor (not medical) insurance companies would adjust their premiums for burdonsome policy holders accordingly.

You seem to be in favour of teenagers in super power vehicles having no financial deterent and still being able to hoon down our streets. I am not. A policy of mandatory insurance would go a long way towards addressing this serious issue, as they could not get insurance and cops could pick up these easy tagets without having to look for a needle in a haystack. It's what cops do best.

Your reference to past tried and failed schemes is meaningless. Learn from the past and implement something that will work. ACC can still do what it does, but not have the burdon they claim to be overly excessive.

Most developed countries have madatory insurance and the policy picks up the associated accident related medical tab. Why not do what others have done successfully. This has nothing at all to do with other countries public health scheme.

What we have is not good and it is time to implement a far more appropriate and fairer system.

[imdying]

You seem to be in favour of teenagers in super power vehicles having no financial deterent and still being able to hoon down our streets. I am not. A policy of mandatory insurance would go a long way towards addressing this serious issue, as they could not get insurance and cops could pick up these easy tagets without having to look for a needle in a haystack. It's what cops do best.

Ahahahahaahahaha....

Hands up who rolled (or went through a fence, or took out a lamp post, or jumped high enough to grind the undercarriage) a 1.3L Ford Escort (or the equivalent underpowered $500 piece of shite) in their youth?


Wow, that's a lot of hands

And, those of you that didn't... what did you do when you had a slow piece of shit $500 car? Make it louder or paint it something ugly to draw attention? Really? Most of you... goodness!

Finally.... does the UK have compulsory insurance? And do they have a problem with Chavs in riced up Novas? If the answers are yes, then Chewbacca must live on Endor, and you must acquit...