Chance of a lifetime: YOU can decide on the message that will unite all bikers

[The Lone Rider]

Thanks to those who have come up with ideas relating to the initial question/issue/posting.

To the rest; what part of trying to come up with a slogan/message/vision to unite bikers did you find hard???

Point being: I was not wanting to start yet again a thread with arguing re ACC, why we can not agree on things, why we should just pull our pants down and die etc.

Please use your brain/knowledge/experience and give this your best shot!

Please...

Our bikes. Our Freedom. Our Choice.

[MSTRS:Me]

I would like to see the ACC paid once per driver, an annual licence fee that covers the ACC & have the Levies removed from the rego altogether. In theory it would be a fairer system.

Not even close to being fair.
How many of 'us' argue that paying a huge levy when they ride their bike once a month throughout the year is unfair. They can't use the 'onhold' function because of the 3 month minimum period. So they grouch (understandable) or they simply put on hold and ride any way (even more understandable).
Do you think that old Mrs Jones who uses her Demio to pop into town for the groceries once a fortnight will thank the change to on licence?? Especially when she sees the guy next door do enough miles to wear out his car every 2 years? She knows that he pays the same annual fee on his licence. (It's only different to on vehicle in that it would be new, and therefore a change, and that would cause her to think a bit more about the whole levy thing)
Beware the family of four who share a car (rare, but does happen) - they are likely to tar'n'feather the person who brought such a change about. Currently they pay $350 for the one car and split it between them...on licence means that will prolly become $350 each.
Mind you, anyone who owns multiple vehicles especially large capacity motorcycles (who could that be?) - well, those people would be calling on the pope to grant a living sainthood...

I'd run with this as a base idea and I saw another post that said something something like "one levy for all".
I'd be right behind this as an initiative.
This way we take every other road user with us and suddenly the voter base is huge.

What an astounding enlightened system that would be.
Wait a minute...

The point I'm making is, all attempts to make what we had 'fairer' have simply increased the inequities. And any more attempts to do the same will not fix anything.

If we truly want fair, than it must all go onto fuel. Sucks to be the person who has a turbo V8 and does 50,000kms a year.

But I think what we all really want, if we use a powered vehicle, is to simply pay the same amount as everyone else does. Just like it used to be.

[jafar]

Not even close to being fair.
How many of 'us' argue that paying a huge levy when they ride their bike once a month throughout the year is unfair. They can't use the 'onhold' function because of the 3 month minimum period. So they grouch (understandable) or they simply put on hold and ride any way (even more understandable).
Do you think that old Mrs Jones who uses her Demio to pop into town for the groceries once a fortnight will thank the change to on licence?? Especially when she sees the guy next door do enough miles to wear out his car every 2 years? She knows that he pays the same annual fee on his licence. (It's only different to on vehicle in that it would be new, and therefore a change, and that would cause her to think a bit more about the whole levy thing)
Beware the family of four who share a car (rare, but does happen) - they are likely to tar'n'feather the person who brought such a change about. Currently they pay $350 for the one car and split it between them...on licence means that will prolly become $350 each.
Mind you, anyone who owns multiple vehicles especially large capacity motorcycles (who could that be?) - well, those people would be calling on the pope to grant a living sainthood...



What an astounding enlightened system that would be.
Wait a minute...

The point I'm making is, all attempts to make what we had 'fairer' have simply increased the inequities. And any more attempts to do the same will not fix anything.

If we truly want fair, than it must all go onto fuel. Sucks to be the person who has a turbo V8 and does 50,000kms a year.

But I think what we all really want, if we use a powered vehicle, is to simply pay the same amount as everyone else does. Just like it used to be.

I can't see a problem with tacking the ACC to driver licences , you have licence therefore you drive, here is your annual fee for using the nations roads. If you don't want to drive then don't pay the fee. Might mean some are paying a bit more & others a bit less.

ACC is already loaded into fuel, the rego bit is a "top up" . Add to that employer & employee premiums. ACC have at least 4 income streams coming from every person that has a job & a licence. If the licence is levyed then it would stay @ 4 , not how it is now with multiple vehicle owners being penalised for having more than one road registered vehicle.

[oneofsix]

I can't see a problem with tacking the ACC to driver licences , you have licence therefore you drive, here is your annual fee for using the nations roads. If you don't want to drive then don't pay the fee. Might mean some are paying a bit more & others a bit less.

I see a couple of problems. Lots of peoples have the licence and don't drive or ride but need to retain the licence until they can again. Lots of people drive or ride without the correct licence.

[MSTRS:Me]

I can't see a problem with tacking the ACC to driver licences , you have licence therefore you drive, here is your annual fee for using the nations roads. If you don't want to drive then don't pay the fee. Might mean some are paying a bit more & others a bit less.

ACC is already loaded into fuel, the rego bit is a "top up" . Add to that employer & employee premiums. ACC have at least 4 income streams coming from every person that has a job & a licence. If the licence is levyed then it would stay @ 4 , not how it is now with multiple vehicle owners being penalised for having more than one road registered vehicle.

Yea I know some is on fuel now...I mean all of it on fuel. If you are using fuel, you are on the road (presumably) so you're getting the benefit of the cover. If it is on vehicles (as now) or on licences, there is the inequity of you pay whether you use or not, the on-hold is too restrictive with the 3 month minimum and because there are likely more vehicles than licences the licence method of levying would entail an increase for everyone. ACC wants X$ no matter how they get it, so it's spread amongst the pool of users. There are plenty of people out there with a licence who seldom drive, so many of them would simply let their licence go, further reducing the pool of potential payers.

I see a couple of problems. Lots of peoples have the licence and don't drive or ride but need to retain the licence until they can again. Lots of people drive or ride without the correct licence.

Or any licence at all.

[oneofsix]

Yea I know some is on fuel now...I mean all of it on fuel. If you are using fuel, you are on the road (presumably) so you're getting the benefit of the cover. If it is on vehicles (as now) or on licences, there is the inequity of you pay whether you use or not, the on-hold is too restrictive with the 3 month minimum and because there are likely more vehicles than licences the licence method of levying would entail an increase for everyone. ACC wants X$ no matter how they get it, so it's spread amongst the pool of users. There are plenty of people out there with a licence who seldom drive, so many of them would simply let their licence go, further reducing the pool of potential payers.



Or any licence at all.

I object to the road tax on fuel scam due to paying the road tax when mowing the lawns or running the chainsaw etc, talking local authority road tax btw not the supposed roading fund that disappears into the general govt. fund. But with ACC I guess if it uses petroleum then it is an injury risk so not as much of a rip off.

[jafar]

I see a couple of problems. Lots of peoples have the licence and don't drive or ride but need to retain the licence until they can again. Lots of people drive or ride without the correct licence.

Those that choose to keep a licence would do so anyway , if they are not driving then it is up to them to decide IF it is worth the $$$$ to keep it current.
If someone is driving/riding on the wrong class of licence, so what? So long as the annual fee is paid up then they would still be covered for ACC. The would probably still ping them for wrong class as they do now.

Yea I know some is on fuel now...I mean all of it on fuel. If you are using fuel, you are on the road (presumably) so you're getting the benefit of the cover. If it is on vehicles (as now) or on licences, there is the inequity of you pay whether you use or not, the on-hold is too restrictive with the 3 month minimum and because there are likely more vehicles than licences the licence method of levying would entail an increase for everyone. ACC wants X$ no matter how they get it, so it's spread amongst the pool of users. There are plenty of people out there with a licence who seldom drive, so many of them would simply let their licence go, further reducing the pool of potential payers.

Or any licence at all.

Your theory fails in a few areas, someone riding a scooter will be paying less than someone who is driving a V8 due to their lower fuel usage per km, but the cost of fixing the scooter rider would be the same or more than the cost of fixing the V8 driver in a similar speed crash.

I'm the 1st to agree that the on-hold system is too restrictive, but it is what it is & if you want to use it then it is up to you to work it to your advantage.

[MSTRS:Me]

But with ACC I guess if it uses petroleum then it is an injury risk so not as much of a rip off.

Plus full cover through fuel gets all the boaties. And, best of all, the offroaders would finally pay more of their share. Let's face it, we know that a substantial number of injury claims from dirtbikers are paid out of the road fund...
The claim form asks "Was a vehicle involved" or something like that.

[avgas]

I see a couple of problems. Lots of peoples have the licence and don't drive or ride but need to retain the licence until they can again. Lots of people drive or ride without the correct licence.

The freeloader theory can be applied to all govt based systems. So do you believe it should be privatized? (ACC)

[James Deuce]

I object to the road tax on fuel scam due to paying the road tax when mowing the lawns or running the chainsaw etc, talking local authority road tax btw not the supposed roading fund that disappears into the general govt. fund. But with ACC I guess if it uses petroleum then it is an injury risk so not as much of a rip off.

Pffft! The biggest cost to ACC is people mowing the lawn, cleaning the gutters, and tripping in the shower.

Object all you want. I'd like to offset the cost of owning a bike by adding ACC levies to Home and Contents insurance. I think $1.5 billion a year fixing up dickheads who can't mow their lawn without chopping a finger off is far worse than what motorcyclists cost the country.

[MSTRS:Me]

Your theory fails in a few areas, someone riding a scooter will be paying less than someone who is driving a V8 due to their lower fuel usage per km, but the cost of fixing the scooter rider would be the same or more than the cost of fixing the V8 driver in a similar speed crash.

No mate, my theory doesn't fail, it just highlights another form of inequity. Still fairer for 'most' people tho.
I do understand that as a truckie, you'd be wallet-raped by fuel based, and as a multiple owner of 'big' bikes you'd be laughing with a licence-based levy.
Even with what we used to have (one levy, all the same, no matter what sort of vehicle) there were winners and losers, with some people 'forced' into subsidising others.
The only advantage I can see with licence-based is that those who have the crashes can be more easily targetted, whilst those that manage to not bend themselves may be eligible for some form of no-claim rebate.

[jafar]

The freeloader theory can be applied to all govt based systems. So do you believe it should be privatized? (ACC)

I don't see how privatizing ACC would do us any favours. That would mean more $$ going to corporations & less staying here in NZ

Making the road account one instead of breaking it up into groups & applying the levy based on type is where it has gone wrong. Basing the charge on the licence would give the ability to charge all licence holders the levy . You can only drive one thing @ a time, so why have a system that penalizes people for having more than one mode of transport ?

[MSTRS:Me]

Pffft! The biggest cost to ACC is people mowing the lawn, cleaning the gutters, and tripping in the shower.

Object all you want. I'd like to offset the cost of owning a bike by adding ACC levies to Home and Contents insurance. I think $1.5 billion a year fixing up dickheads who can't mow their lawn without chopping a finger off is far worse than what motorcyclists cost the country.

Agreed. But the $2/100 on what we earn goes into the fund that covers such injuries. OK, through the govt we all pay that premium for kids and beneficiaries, but still...
And how many people do not have (and don't need) H+C insurance?

[MSTRS:Me]

Making the road account one instead of breaking it up into groups & applying the levy based on type is where it has gone wrong.

Too bloody right.

Basing the charge on the licence would give the ability to charge all licence holders the levy . You can only drive one thing @ a time, so why have a system that penalizes people for having more than one mode of transport ?

True. But every single vehicle owner would be mightily upset when their levy goes up to compensate for the loss in levvies from multiple vehicles. Why should they subsidise those who choose to own more than one?

It's a conundrum, whatever system of levying is applied.

[jafar]

No mate, my theory doesn't fail, it just highlights another form of inequity. Still fairer for 'most' people tho.
I do understand that as a truckie, you'd be wallet-raped by fuel based, and as a multiple owner of 'big' bikes you'd be laughing with a licence-based levy.
Even with what we used to have (one levy, all the same, no matter what sort of vehicle) there were winners and losers, with some people 'forced' into subsidising others.
The only advantage I can see with licence-based is that those who have the crashes can be more easily targetted, whilst those that manage to not bend themselves may be eligible for some form of no-claim rebate.

Yes as a truckie I do tend to spend a bit more on fuel than most, mind you I work for a supermarket chain & we all know who is paying for the cost increases in the end

2 bikes & 2 cars. I must be barking bloody

I object to having to pay my hard earned $$ to fix up idiots that can't drive/ride & have the cost of that going up because I happen to have the same type of vehicle as they used to injure themselves with... to make it worse, the ACC figures take no account of WHO was @ fault in a crash, just what kind of vehicle was involved. If they were trying to be even a little bit fair then they would take that information on board & change the levy accordingly.

By placing the levy on the licence those with no claims over a period of time could get a "no claims" discount, the same as insurance companies give, while those that are constantly injuring themselves could have their premiums increased due to the costs they have caused.