ACC levies for multiple bike owners

[Mikkel]

Does that solve the problem of multiple vehicle ownership? And then the people who are irresponsible and illegally don't get insurance or rego are the winners on the day, until they have an accident and injure someone, and everyone else foots the bills.

And that is different from what it is like now in exactly which way?

However, you tend to get benefits if you gather all your insurances with one company - thus you could expect to see a reduction on your premium if you ensured the entire armada with one company.

Mandatory insurance has some major drawback. Makes insurance way more expensive. And drains the economy and development hardcore.

Bullshit! Plain and simple, bullshit!

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

individual personal redgo would fix that

So would paying ACC only at the pump...

[rwh]

What about if the ACC levy was a fee paid when we renew our license on a yearly basis?

Then you have the reverse problem - if you have a licence but no vehicle, or just don't drive it very much, then you pay too much compared to someone who commutes 200km every day (or is a truck/courier/taxi driver etc)

Richard

[CookMySock]

What about if the ACC levy was a fee paid when we renew our license on a yearly basis?

if that was doable, then why not just privatise or self-insure ? A grand a year for insurance is a LOT of cash with compounding interest over my lifetime.

DB

[rwh]

No need to make it complicated, just one rate on diesel and one rate on petrol, that's the only thing you'd have to work out, how much to put on each.

And a rate for LPG. And another for CNG. And how do you levy it for those who plug into the wall socket in their garage to charge up over night?

And you still have the problem of all those uses of fuel that don't involve road use (though it does catch the dirt bikers riding unregistered vehicles)

It's not a particularly bad option, but I still think using the odometer is easier.

Richard

[kiwi cowboy]

So would paying ACC only at the pump...

while i agree up to a point but you would be paying the same acc every litre as a young stupid boyracer but if the individual was redged it could be rated on age relative to risk a bit like insurance is [gets cheeper as we get older]

[Oakie]

One ACC fee per person instead of per bike? Think it thru guys:

Say ACC needs $15 million per year to cover all bike related injuries.
There are 70000 bikes registered in NZ (just a figure plucked out of thin air)
So $15mil divided by 70,000 = $214.28 per bike

Change that to ACC levy per person instead of per bike and guess what. The cost of accidents doesn't go down but the number of contributors goes down. The sum is now
$15 mil divided by (lets say) 40000 individual bikers.
The result is an now an amount payable per person of $375 per person

Yep. It's a win for those with more than one bike but a loss for the majority of riders who only have one bike.

Swings and roundabouts. Yes, the old fella can only ride one bike at a time but he can go an have an accident every month and still be covered by ACC.

[vtec]

And that is different from what it is like now in exactly which way?

However, you tend to get benefits if you gather all your insurances with one company - thus you could expect to see a reduction on your premium if you ensured the entire armada with one company.



Bullshit! Plain and simple, bullshit!

Haha. Well reasoned argument ... nice. Insurance companies are not designed to be fair mate. They are designed to make money, the more they can make the more they will.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

while i agree up to a point but you would be paying the same acc every litre as a young stupid boyracer but if the individual was redged it could be rated on age relative to risk a bit like insurance is [gets cheeper as we get older]

and that is where your insurance comes in to play... Paying at the pump means you pay as you require to drive, ride, boat (who at present don't pay acc) mowind your lawn (ie my mate go his eye taken out by fly debre), using your chainsaw...

The more you drive the more you pay which is fair... I can only do so many kms a day...

I personally disagree with ACC full stop, and never have liked the idea especially if I pay private insurance, if I had an accident tomorrow I am sure ACC would fight to pay my bill, yet over the years I have paid over 40g to their pocket. My private insurance while they would investigate I would get the help I need quicker...

[davereid]

However, you tend to get benefits if you gather all your insurances with one company - thus you could expect to see a reduction on your premium if you ensured the entire armada with one company.

The insurance industry has made it very clear that compulsory third party insurance will be very expensive for everyone.

My insurance broker estimates $300 per year as perfect driver entry level insurance, charged per vehicle.

Currently I pay $65.

The reasons are simple.

1. Right now, you don't need it. So if its too expensive you dont buy it and it thus has found its economic level.

2. We run a knock for knock system. So, even if we are comprehensively insured with different companies, your insurer will pay your costs. Thus, if you are a good driver, you get a cheaper premium.

Under compulsory third party, this will end. Why ? as specialist hi-risk third part only insurers will arrive. They won't play the knock for knock game. They will deny liability, fight everything, and decline claims left right and center.

ie.. you are a good driver, with no claims and no points. Right now, under the knock for knock system, you get a really good premium, as your insurer is covering only you, and your real risk. If you F.Up and crash your $5000 honda into my $60,000 V8, its knock for knock - my insurer will cover my V8, the guy who insured you will cover your Honda.

Add Compulsory third party.

I insure my $60,000 V8. You insure your honda. But I'm with a company that wont play the knock for knock game. Guess what, you now have to pay for my car too.

And guess what it will be incuded in your premium.

[The Stranger:Me]

While I'm for anything to scare big nasty 4WD petrolsuckers off the roads - I'd still have to maintain that putting all levies on fuel would not be any fairer to those who own a comparatively thirsty vehicle.

Yes, it might make sense as a govermental policy to reduce emissions - but not in regards to the ACC levy.

Tricky business this stuff - but I doubt it would be possible to introduce a taxing schedule that would could not be considered unfair from one perspective or the other.
How about putting a weekly/bi-weekly/monthly/annual fee on your license? If you want to use your license you have to pay for the priviledge - some of that to ACC.

One good thing about the current system is that it isn't hugely complicated - introducing all sorts of finicky rules and excemptions would only make everything more expensive by introducing a larger bureaucratic overhead.

the scheeme which I am proposing is simpler than what we have now, so meets one of your criteria.

Which is more likely to do damage in an accident the larger vehicle or the smaller? Think of extra burden on larger vehicles as a chicken tax.

[Pedrostt500]

I was told along time ago that when a motorcycle crash victim goes to hospital, the A&E nurse who fills out the ACC form just ticks the box for motorcycle, and does not need to refeer to on road or off road, when ACC talley up the figures they asume all motor cycle accidents are on road, and this is how they crunch their numbers to figure out the ACC fee for road regerstered bikes.
This may have changed but I doubt it. Ok the system that is in place is probably the fairest, if it was distance monetored most would disconect their Tacometeres.
Maybe a system that was more personal based, Every one in NZ gets charged an ACC fee it could be quiet minimal base fee, now Every one is assesed for their Risk value of bieng in an Injury related Accident, this could be partialy age related, and also related to your History, What type of injuries and how they came about, and also if the person had injured others through their carelessness, Ie drunk driver causing an accident, causing multiple injuries and or death.
so the drunk driver or the person charged with careless use of a motorvechicle may still end up paying a higher ACC levie even though they did not cause an accident, but because they were caught and prosecuted for a dangerious driving offence.
Ok those who would pay the least personal ACC fee would be the very young, Ie under 10 yrs and the elderly Ie over 70 yrs, may be no fees for both groupes. those who would probaly pay the most personal acc fee would be those between 18yrs and 40yrs, a step down in cost for those between 40 and 50 yrs, another step down between 50 and 60 yrs, and then again between 60 and 70 yrs. now some factors that could be taken into account that could reduce the personal fee would be if they had a drivers licence or not, if they hold a drivers licence and it is squeaky clean, regardless of licence catorgories held, if the licence has been infringement free for more than 2 yrs, and if the person has not caused an injury accident to them selves or others in the previous 10 yrs, also how a person is personaly insured may also reduce their ACC fee.
How this scheme is worked, charged out, and the cost of the fees per person are worked I dont know, that is for greater minds than mine.

[kiwi cowboy]

I was told along time ago that when a motorcycle crash victim goes to hospital, the A&E nurse who fills out the ACC form just ticks the box for motorcycle, and does not need to refeer to on road or off road, when ACC talley up the figures they asume all motor cycle accidents are on road, and this is how they crunch their numbers to figure out the ACC fee for road regerstered bikes.
This may have changed but I doubt it. Ok the system that is in place is probably the fairest, if it was distance monetored most would disconect their Tacometeres.
Maybe a system that was more personal based, Every one in NZ gets charged an ACC fee it could be quiet minimal base fee, now Every one is assesed for their Risk value of bieng in an Injury related Accident, this could be partialy age related, and also related to your History, What type of injuries and how they came about, and also if the person had injured others through their carelessness, Ie drunk driver causing an accident, causing multiple injuries and or death.
so the drunk driver or the person charged with careless use of a motorvechicle may still end up paying a higher ACC levie even though they did not cause an accident, but because they were caught and prosecuted for a dangerious driving offence.
Ok those who would pay the least personal ACC fee would be the very young, Ie under 10 yrs and the elderly Ie over 70 yrs, may be no fees for both groupes. those who would probaly pay the most personal acc fee would be those between 18yrs and 40yrs, a step down in cost for those between 40 and 50 yrs, another step down between 50 and 60 yrs, and then again between 60 and 70 yrs. now some factors that could be taken into account that could reduce the personal fee would be if they had a drivers licence or not, if they hold a drivers licence and it is squeaky clean, regardless of licence catorgories held, if the licence has been infringement free for more than 2 yrs, and if the person has not caused an injury accident to them selves or others in the previous 10 yrs, also how a person is personaly insured may also reduce their ACC fee.
How this scheme is worked, charged out, and the cost of the fees per person are worked I dont know, that is for greater minds than mine.

that is whot ive been trying to say in preveious posts. bling sent

[Mikkel]

Insurance companies are not designed to be fair mate. They are designed to make money, the more they can make the more they will.

And in which way are they then different from any other company you could think of? Or, let's say, the government for that matter?

The insurance industry has made it very clear that compulsory third party insurance will be very expensive for everyone.

If a bill is passed to make 3rd party insurance compulsory - hopefully the government will realise that they either 1) need to put regulations into place that will dictate what service the insurance companies are required to provide if they are to be considered fit to meet the compulsory insurance or 2) make sure that the market is completely free to regulate itself (effectively preventing monopolies and shady price regulating deals behind the scenes).

Do not underestimate the force of free market forces - most of what you see around you has been created due to exactly these forces.

If you crash into a $200,000 porsche today with a 3rd party insurance and are found to be at fault - your insurance is still required to pay for all the costs involved less your excess.
That is not going to change by making 3rd party insurance compulsory. The difference is that with compulsory insurance - the guy who crashes into your $200,000 porsche is bound to have 3rd party cover, so in the case he is found to be at fault there will be an insurance company to compensate you instead of you having to have goons chase up the money for you.

Obviously, if the 3rd party insurance was to cover the ACC levy as well - premiums are bound to go up.

All that said - I'd happily pay twice the 3rd party premium I'm paying now to know that everyone else on the road are insured.

Which is more likely to do damage in an accident the larger vehicle or the smaller? Think of extra burden on larger vehicles as a chicken tax.

Definitely - there's no arguing against more inertia -> more momentum -> more bang.

However, the accident has to occur one way or the other - I'm just saying that a brand new Porsche Cayenne is likely to have better handling characteristics than an '83 toyota corolla that hasn't seen a decent service for 10 years, running tyres with a minimum tread and inconsisten tyre pressures. I'd rather not be hit at all than be hit by something "not too terribly large" anything weighing more than 50 kgs travelling at more than 30 km/h is going to leave some sort of mess. (If you don't trust me, try walking into a wall at 6 km/h.)

[Mully]

I was told along time ago that when a motorcycle crash victim goes to hospital, the A&E nurse who fills out the ACC form just ticks the box for motorcycle, and does not need to refeer to on road or off road, when ACC talley up the figures they asume all motor cycle accidents are on road, and this is how they crunch their numbers to figure out the ACC fee for road regerstered bikes.

They also do this for scooters (mopeds) which do not require bike licences.

Helps them chastise the nasty dangerous motorcycle riders for costing them so much in care.