Scottie841 Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Ok that aside, I found some figures. In ACC's Injury Statistics 2008 report (http://tr.im/BV1k) ACC details claims against the Motor Vehicles account - the virtual pool that gets claimed upon whenever a road-registered vehicle is involved in an accident. The report gives statistics for the number of new claims, the number of active claims and the cost of those claims. As the report breaks down the claims by vehicle type, it's easy to compare the cost of claims: Cyclists: - 567 active claims - $12,573,000 - $22,174 per claim Pedestrians: - 1115 active claims - $24,494,000 - $21,967 per claim Car Occupants: - 8525 active claims - $208,305,000 - $24,434 per claim Motorcyclists: - 3173 active claims - $62,523,000 - $19,704 per claim And how does that work out for how many bikes against how many cars? One bike for ever 50 cars and you get a $4,166,000 if you compare against how many rego’s are paid. Yes I did just assume that here are 50 cars per bike but should show how silly the figures are in this form Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smidey Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 anyway, back to the topic. A classic car has lower rego rates if it is aged before a certain year, motorbikes don't have the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos & Siran Posted October 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 I'm not entirely sure to be honest, that hadn't really occurred to me. I think you're all missing the point, If motorcyclists cost more to insure than I'll happily pay more, but $800?, god that's about a 6th of what I was looking at paying for a bike. It seems the Gov is finding more and more ways to make revenue but the average wage stays the same. Even the simple pleasures in life like riding a bike on a sunny Sunday morning is denied the average Joe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morcs Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 anyway, back to the topic. A classic car has lower rego rates if it is aged before a certain year, motorbikes don't have the same? They do, has to be 40 years or over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whetu Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 Haha no, I hate them too. You hate me?! I ride a 250cc motorbike to work every day - I sold my car so it's my only form of transport. I chose to replace my car with a bike because it is more cost effective, reduces congestion on the roads, and is more environmentally friendly than driving a car. I am a very cautious rider, but unfortunately had an ACC claim within the first six months of owning my bike, after being hit by a car from behind. I stopped at a stop sign and the car behind me drove straight through the sign (and me). OK, I agree I was injured more badly than if I had been driving a car when the other car hit me, but I was much better off (in all my protective gear, which I wear every day) than if I had been a pedestrian or a cyclist. Under the proposed new ACC levies I will be paying something like $500 just for the ACC portion of my bike's registration, plus the rest. It seems to me I am being penalised for the actions of careless car drivers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smidey Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 yes you are right, it is kinda like being penalised for someone elses mistake but the fact is the way you choose to commute creates alot more cost for ACC than if you were in a car. Its the same for 16 to 25 year old drivers & their insurance providers, they simply cost more to cover as they have more crashes so the insurer must charge more for that group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whetu Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 yes you are right, it is kinda like being penalised for someone elses mistake but the fact is the way you choose to commute creates alot more cost for ACC than if you were in a car. Its the same for 16 to 25 year old drivers & their insurance providers, they simply cost more to cover as they have more crashes so the insurer must charge more for that group. Pedestrians and cyclists cost ACC a lot more when they get hit by cars. Their choice of commuting method must be the most dangerous - they don't even have airbags and side impact beams! So they should be charged the most by ACC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smidey Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 Pedestrians and cyclists cost ACC a lot more when they get hit by cars. Their choice of commuting method must be the most dangerous - they don't even have airbags and side impact beams! So they should be charged the most by ACC. you are correct but fail to see that motor cyclists have more accidents than pedestrians. The reason the bike rego is higher than all the rest is the % of bike riders that claim is alot higher than the % of other transport users. there were almost 3 times the amount of bikers claiming than pedestrians. car accidents caused 8525 claims from 2 million vehicles (guessing the number but must be something like that), 3173 bikers claimed out of the total amount of bikes which is alot less which means they contribute alot less into the ACC funds so need to pay more to pay their way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suphew Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 claimed upon whenever a road-registered vehicle is involved in an accident That's the other thing that's skewing those numbers. Personally I have seen many more pedestrian and cyclist accidents than motorbike accidents. How often do cyclists fall over themselves, or potholes, road markings etc etc. What about adding an ACC levy to new push bike purchases, and a levy to shoes. Although that would disadvantage white upper middle class woman who could claim that although they own over 200 pairs of shoes they don't actually ever walk anywhere in them, that's what the X5 is for. :lol: This new thing they are looking at bringing in about no ACC when committing a crime is going to be interesting. I wonder how many people have thought it through. You think about burglars cutting themselves climbing out windows, etc, but speeding is a crime, how often is speed involved in car accidents, none of those people will get ACC, not stopping at a red light, if you rear end someone, come 1 November if you have an accident while talking on your cell phone and driving, no ACC Regarding private insurance and user pays, although I have insurance, I really don't want to live in a country where you can be bleeding out on the front step and there is a guard asking to see your insurance papers before he lets you in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 Define "Crime"? Misdemeanor or felony? Criminal or traffic offenses? Will you not get ACC if you're rear ended in a car while your computer is at home downloading an episode of Stargate Universe? What about if you hit a patch of ice and crash? "Sustained loss of traction" is also a crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 It seems to me I am being penalised for the actions of careless car drivers. I pay a huge amount of tax that goes towards educating other peoples children, building and running hospitals I will never use, supporting community groups, arts, musicians and sports teams that are of no benefit to me, and a whole host of other things. What you are complaining about is the big downside of any socialism, its simply a redistribution of wealth and more often than not those who contribute the most benefit the least... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanmin4304 Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 It is an urban myth that most taxes are paid by the hard working capitalistic rich. In fact they employ people with a phD in tax avoidance and the taxes are mainly paid by the majority----- hard working workers who can't afford tax avoidance. There are two truths in life: One is that the last thing you will do is die and the other is that you will pay tax the whole time you are here. With that in mind I am happy to make peace with both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 It is an urban myth that most taxes are paid by the hard working capitalistic rich. In fact they employ people with a phD in tax avoidance and the taxes are mainly paid by the majority----- hard working workers who can't afford tax avoidance. My partner is an accountant who does a lot of tax planning, and yes the whole purpose of it is to pay less tax, but the savings are usually fairly minor in comparison to the total bill. A "hard working" couple like her and I are still going to pay far less tax between us than an individual earning $500k PA regardless of how good his accountant is (unless he's breaking the law). I know what you're getting at though, but I wasn't implying that its the "capitalistic rich" who pay all the tax. What I was getting at is that with our current "state funded until you can afford user pays" health care system, people from the "capitalistic rich" down to the middle class working families who have to carefully budget to afford their health insurance premiums all contribute more to the system than they take out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suphew Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 Personally I have spent time in countries where people including children sit on the side of the road with bleeding stumps etc begging for food. I'd rather have a "state funded until you can afford user pays" health care system any day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanmin4304 Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 I am also a believer in not wanting to live in a counrtry where there is an anteroom at the entrance to A&E where you stay after a severe accident while they check to see if you have insurance. There are plenty of things that can be improved in our health system but I don't think we should try to copy the american dream. The same applies to ACC levies---if you can't afford the registration on a big bike, get an eco friendly car. A friend of German ancestry was telling me years ago that to live in Berlin and own a car is very expensive. It is relatively cheap to buy your Mercedes but very very expensive to register it and even more expensive to get the carpark off the road that you must have before you can register it. The carpark is often a lot more expensive than the car. We are not doing too badly I think, and I am happy with my little jap car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 I agree that the US healthcare system isn't the way we should be heading, but that also doesn't mean we should be complacent about our own system. Kiwi's seem to have this belief that "doing ok" is good enough, and never strive for excellence. We [especially the lefties that seem to make so much noise about comparably trivial issues like nightschool funding being cut] should be up in arms about the fact that we supposedly have a public healthcare system yet the majority of NZers still rely on private health insurance because the public system is so rubbish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanmin4304 Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 Unless we take steps to improve the public health system we will end up with the american dream and anterooms outside A&E.It is a falacy to believe that private is always better than public. If the money spent on private insurance, including the profit for the Insurance company was put into the public system it would probably do away with the need for the private system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 If the money spent on private insurance, including the profit for the Insurance company was put into the public system it would probably do away with the need for the private system. And if the government sorted its mess out and stopped wasting such vast quantities of our money on frivolous stuff we'd probably be able to afford it on our current level of taxation... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.