ACC levy increase for Motorbikes..thoughts from one who rides with passion

Why do motorcyclist want other tax payers to subsidize the cost they incur? Your system you suggest may have looked good while you typed it out but the administrative cost would make it prohibitive.

Nowhere else in the world could you get medical and income insurance to the same level as ACC offer for the price. The cost of care for a tetraplegic could be 10-15 million over their lifetime.

If motorcyclists really want lower premiums they will start lobbying for compulsory high visibility jackets and will publicly criticize those who weave through traffic.

Lastly I loved your statement beginning “apparently” surely you do not truly believe a 4×4 would be classified as a motorbike. Have a guess what the 4 in 4×4 stands for?

Stay Safe

Migel

@Migel

I am not suggesting bikers should be subsidised by car drivers at all. What I’m saying is that 60% of motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers, yet those statistics fall to us once again making bikers look more dangerous.

I absolutely agree with your 2nd and 3rd paragraph, there are many things that can be done to reduce risk.

I doubt if 4x4s are classified as cars, do you see any at your local car dealers?

Thanks for the interest and I hope to keep safe
David.

@Migel Sanchez:

1.
The concept that other vehicle owners subsidise motorcyclists is dodgy at best.
1st it ignores the percent of accidents that are caused by those other vehicles. It’s only right there’s a loading on cars.
2nd the ACC statistics are rather wacky. Have you seen their ads? First they say they paid $62 million for motorcycle related claims. Then they say that car owners (by the way, many motorcycle owners also own cars and pay for them too) will subsidise bikes by $77 each. Multiply that $77 by the number of registered cars – and tell me where all that money is going. Don’t fall for the propoganda.
3rd ACC is supposed to be a “no fault” system, yet motorcyclists are being told it’s all their fault they happen to like riding bikes. It’s been shown that black cars are an identifiable percentage more likely than white cars to have an accident (it gets even higher at dusk). Why are owners of black cars NOT paying higher ACC fees than white cars? Why do “motorcyclists” get singled out as a group?
4th if we really care about “cross subsidisation” – why do non-rugby playing citizens help pay for rugby player accidents? My do cyclists (who have about as many accidents as motorcyclists and cost about the same) pay nothing extra in ACC fees anywhere? Are we not all subsdising them? Again, why single-out the motorcycle riders?
5th ACC has identified that 51% of the money they “need” for motorcycles is for the residual fund. This is a catch-up to get the funds for the new “fully funded” model they went to. Motorcyclists of today are being asked to pay for 4 things:
a) Current accidents. b) Future costs of current accidents. c) Future costs of accidents that occured prior to the 1999 fully funded model. d) Extra money because ACC and the Govt. stuffed up and since 1999 they didn’t actually collect enough for “fully funding”.
Try telling motorcyclists that THAT is “fair”! …when given a 300% rise in fees and most of it is due to what is essentially a change in accounting practice.
(All this while ACC actually made about a billion in PROFIT last year.)

2.
A. Some overseas studies have shown that high visibility jackets can contribute to accidents. They can cause “target fixation” among drivers.
B. Actually, most regular riders DO criticise the nuts among us. Same as most car drivers don’t like the antics of the boy racers. It is interesting that you raise this point, however, as it sounds like you lump all riders together in the same bunch of “noisy smelly bikers”. Similarly with your “weave through traffic” comment. It smells of jealousy. While some riders defintitely are nuts, such as when lane-splitting at a speed over 30 km/h faster than the cars are travelling, it has to be noted that riders are generally very very aware of what they are doing – and they know themselves and their machines better than the car drivers who complain about such things. We don’t WANT to crash!
C. I would point out that motorcyclsts DO lobby for safety improvements, but also that it is actually already the *primary job* of ACC to improve safety. Why do you think we should need to lobby ACC for safety improvements? They should already be doing all they can.
D. Why does the Government allow people to buy black cars?

3.
As with the comments above about dodgy ACC stats, the issue of 4×4′s is interesting.
A study at Hamiltons’ hospital showed that 80% of the motorcycle accidents they treated were for off-road motorcycles (unregistered – no ACC fee paid). However the ACC claims form simply had a tick-box for “motorcycle” – thus these accidents were getting recorded against those evil motorcycles and inflating the statistics. Farm bikes (whether 2 or 4 wheeled) have had a less-than-accurate classification in ACC stats.

—-

For what it’s worth, I think ACC fees should be collected by extending the RUC scheme to petrol vehicles. Then it would be related to vehicle usage (in a fairer way than via petrol tax); not vehicle ownership nor the mere holding of a drivers/riders license. Over 10 years ago they merged the RUC and motor vehicle registration databases, so I don’t think this would be “hard” to do. RUC charges are also already able to be adjusted by vehicle details (e.g. for trucks – by weight and axles) – so they could still give motorcycles an extra (but reasonable) loading for the extra risk – that most motorcyclists accept they incur.

Cheers,

@Migel -

Who pays when you break your arm playing rugby, or fall off you bicycle. What about when your relatives get older – they are much more at risk of ACC claims from fall injuries.

The cost of these far outstrip the cost of claims from motorcycles. The government I am ashamed to have voted for are doing nothing more than pushing out propoganda.

You really think car drivers will subsidise biker claims by $77 per car? 3,000,000 cars * $77 = $231m…

Hmm… The TOTAL paid in ACC claims for bikers (for new and ongoing claims going back to the BEGINNING of ACC) was less than $70m last year.

It’s not all about the money. Myself and many others will be spending MUCH more than the proposed levy increases to fight this injustice. This is the tip of the iceberg – Motorcyclist are the easy target – the only “recreational” (even though many of use use 2 wheels as essential transport) risk group that currently has a legally imposed levy.

When all 110,000 or so bikers are priced off the road (it will be cheaper to drive my gas-guzzling, carbon-belching 3 litre 8 seater people carrier to work in rush hour than my much more economic motorcycle) – where will the ACC go then?

Who is the next risk group that must be user pays?

Rugby Players?
Cyclists?
Old People?
You?

Get your facts in line – it’s certainly not all about grumpy bikers (in fact the biggest hike will be a 400% increase for MOPEDS)

http://bit.ly/1bqYBQ http://bit.ly/WJNN5

There are some interesting facts and ideas coming out here. I hope you all make submissions as elequently as you do in this site.

Tell your friends, get motivated only a few days to go. Can someone please identify the site where we actually make those submissions, I found it a bit confusing when had a look a few days ago. Thanks David C

Submissions information can be found at the ACC site…

http://www.acc.co.nz/for-business/levy-consultation/consultation-process/levy-consultation-2010-2011/index.htm#P2_311

I’ve put mine in. This whole levies increase targeted at motorcyclists is a sham. Especially for a no-fault accident compensation system.

Lets look at some basic facts.

The original poster seemed to either make up figures or pass on figures he had heard. Neither of these lead to solid discussion. “the number of accidents caused by car drivers (around 60% I believe)”. Frankly what you beleive is unimportant the figure is close to the exact opposite. A third of accidents do not even involve another vehicle.

The figures are clear that the ammount collected is less that the ammount spent in the year. As ACC is also moving towards a full funded model where the levies cover the costs of the injury in the future also the cost for everything have gone up. The government has extended the period to swicth to the fully funded model to make the transition easier.

What ACC is saying is under the current system it is a $77 subsidy form each driver not to meet the costs of injury treatment this year but the cost of treating the injuries of this year for the rest of the life of those injured. With the technological advancements being made more and more motorcyclists are being kept alive for longer and this is factored in to the actuarial calculations.This is basically the same as going door to door and making each driver to buy you a new pair a leather chaps.

On the issue of classifying injuries there is on an ACC 45 as to where the accident happened. If you state farm or bush then this will be classified accordingly, if to write state highway 1 the same will happen.

Motorcyclists are 19 time more likely to have an accident than a car driver, if they have an accident it is more likely to injure them and if they are injured they are more likely to need very costly care. If you choose a more dangerous form of transport you should expect to pay for the increased risk.

@matthijis I look forward to see the new improved motorcyclist behavior on the roads. Couldn’t find the study you found on high viz. Studies I have seen actually say white is the best colour. Think if every rider was twice as safe the levy would halve.

@Steve Could you please post your calculations showing how you feel it will be cheaper to drive and park a people mover than a motorcycle. You have either made this up or are terrible at maths. I would be interested to see your calculations.

@David you can make your submissions here: http://acc.co.nz/news/PRD_CTRB118214

At the next rally perhaps you could all get together and decide how you are going to thank the other drivers for subsidizing you lifestyle up until now and to a lesser extend ongoing.Perhaps a big banner on the motorway saying “Thanks Car Driver – From Motorcyclists”

.

@Migel

Thank you for the opportunity to show my calculation.

I drive 16km each way to work every day – for about 250 days per year. 32*250 = 8000km

My 8 Seater Toyota Estima fuel efficiency is ~ 11 litres/100km
My Honda CBR1100xx fuel efficiency is ~7.3 litres/100km

for 8000 km fuel used is:
Car 80 * 11 = 880 litres
Bike 80 * 7.3 = 584 litres

I therefore use 800-584= 216 litres of fuel less on the bike.

At current fuel price (91 – used in both) of $1.65 per litre this equates to 216*1.65= $356.40

So I’l needlessly burn over 200 litres of fuel per year sat in traffic – yet still I’ll be paying less.

My employment contract includes a car park – so I pay no more (or less) whatever vehicle I drive. But you raise an interesting point – should new zealanders all abandon their bikes because it’s cheaper to drive a car, there will be anywhere up to 110,000 LESS car park spaces – what would that do to parking prices I wonder? (Maybe by not using as many parks, motorcyclists are not only helping the planet but subsidising parking prices for car drivers?)

Now Mr Sanchez, I invite you to share your calculation data for the rest of us:

- $77 per car driver per year
- 19 times more likely to have an accident (please factor in that motorcycles generally travel less kms than cars and quote a study that’s relevant to the current MZ motorycle fleet).

as for your point about transport choices – if I choose to walk to work, or cycle, I am statistically placing my self at similar high risk who pays for that? For that matter, I could choose to skateboard, pogo-stick, fly a hangglider, microlight, light plane, or helicopter to work…. yet still I wouldn’t have to pay ACC levies on that mode of transport – who would pay? how? I know I’d still be covered if I injured myself though…. such is the point of a no-fault scheme.

And just a point about the who 60% thing – the truth is that 60% (ish) of crashes that involve another vehicle ARE the fault of the other party. The 30 or so % of crashes where no other part was involved is accepted – though are you implying a single vehicle crash is always the fault of the driver? Whilst there certainly are a reasonable proportion of at fault accidents (as there are with cars too) the environment (gravel, diesel spills, line painting, tar seal flashing (shiny roads)) present a much greater hazard to bikers than other road users – shame our roads couldn’t be as well maintained as many other countries!

Main point is – there’s no ACC financial crisis at all – the urgency is manufactured. Bikes are the easy target here – Who’s next? If the government DOES want to move ACC to a fully user pays model – it certainly can’t and won’t stop at the bikes.

Looks like my point was made

Steve

When I emailed my MP I did not know about the risk profile ,that makes more sense now ,I might send another email to her,although she is national so is towing the company (ACC)line.Thanks for that info David