bdspider Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Potential for less motorcycles on the road = Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Agreed Romeo! This stinks! My partner and I have three bikes between us (1000c for him, 250cc for me and a 600cc track bike- all Kwakas ) so its gonna hit us hard. There are several things that the govt can do to bring down bikers cost on the system- A: FIX OUR ROADS, shingle on a corner to a motorcyclist can mean death, in a car you just carry on as per normal. Parts of the road often have much less adhesion from wear and this changes without warning, in the wet its often down to skill or quick thinking to avoid a potential slide. B: TIN TOPS, people in cars dont see us, or dont want to see us, I could wear five grands worth of gear and still come off worse than the person in their $200 heap. C: SCOOTERS and mopeds, are not bikes, are not warrented or registered, have alot of young inexperienced skool kids riding them and they come under this group? These people wont spend the $1000 on a possibly life saving helmet like most serious bikers and when their head gets crushed by what probably offers the protection of a cardboard box they complain? Please. Overall I say good luck, if by the small chance this happens, we will own three unregistered vehicles. you have just list several reasons why bike should pay more :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smidey Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 at the end of the day, motorcyclists in this country as a group cost more to fix & longer to rehabilitate from injuries whether it was their fault or not simply because of being on a bike. I grew up on bikes as did all my dads side of the family, they were bikies around Chch. two of my cousins are amputies & my uncle has spent years on ACC from bike injuries & i choose not to ride on the road as i see it too risky by looking at my family. Thats my choice & therefore i don't have to pay for that directly but those who choose to need to help with the costs created by this pleasure. I am sure that if you are injured (i hope you never are) you will appreciate the services you will recieve to fix your injuries but that does come at a cost. & for the multiple rego's, we all pay rego's on multiple cars whether we drive them or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morcs Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 So you are using 1 of them for activities that have a high chance of you getting hurt and needing ACC and 2 of them that have a slightly increased risk of needing ACC (compared with a car that has air bags and safety stuff)? If you are using something that is less safe and statistically more likely to injure you then why should you not may more for that? Would you support my earlier comment about needing private insurance depending on individual’s activities and removing ACC? I disagree with your point. High performance bikes tend to be safer if in the hands of an experienced rider - they turn better, better suspension, better brakes etc.. The only two bikes I have never crashed/dropped in any way, minor or major, have been the two most powerful. I have private medial insurance btw, so I dont rape the ACC funds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morcs Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Potential for less motorcycles on the road = Whys that? Your not a boy racer are you? Embrassed about your $50k car being beaten easily of the lights by a $5k bike? :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos & Siran Posted October 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Whys that? Your not a boy racer are you? Embrassed about your $50k car being beaten easily of the lights by a $5k bike? :lol: and half the cc's :bounce: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 I have not, and expect I never will see a car driver fall off his car at a stoplight... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smidey Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 I have not, and expect I never will see a car driver fall off his car at a stoplight... i have seen that, this guy was so hammered he literally fell out of his car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Ok, sober guy fall off his car... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 you have just list several reasons why bike should pay more :roll: What about the rugby players? Cyclists (on road and off)? Or the fatsos that just sit at home drinking beer and eating chips in front of the TV? They could all be considered high risk and currently pay ACC levys that aren't based on the dangerous nature of their activities. How about we put an ACC levy on booze to cover all the drunks who injure themselves? I presume you're suggesting a fully privatised user-pays system and not an unfair state-funded system where certain people are raped to cover shortfalls in funding that only exist on paper because someone decided ACC needs its own tax rather than just being paid for out of the general coffers... If you are using something that is less safe and statistically more likely to injure you then why should you not may more for that? Quite simply because nobody else pays ACC levys based on how likely they are to require treatment. Perhaps we should apply this whole "user pays" thing to our system. You could say I'd be due a huge tax cut because I don't have kids, don't smoke, exercise regularly and am european... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottie841 Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Perhaps we should apply this whole "user pays" thing to our system. You could say I'd be due a huge tax cut because I don't have kids, don't smoke, exercise regularly and am european... Yes a user pays system would be much better! also they could put speed limiters on bikes (and cars) so they can not exceeded 120km/h and then there would be a whole lot less speed related accidents. Why do you need to be able to travel at 250mk/h or higher? They could do what the new Skyline has and have GPS that knows if you are on a road and limit the speed. Then when you get to a track the speed limiter is removed so you can still race it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smidey Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Quite simply because nobody else pays ACC levys based on how likely they are to require treatment. Perhaps we should apply this whole "user pays" thing to our system. You could say I'd be due a huge tax cut because I don't have kids, don't smoke, exercise regularly and am european... Charges are based on the stats, builders pay heaps were as my office pays less so it is relevant to sectors. You could say I'd be due a huge tax cut because I don't have kids, don't smoke, exercise regularly and am european... those are health considerations not injury & yes they should refund some tax but those will discount your health insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Yes David, I would like a user pays system Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Charges are based on the stats, builders pay heaps were as my office pays less so it is relevant to sectors. True, some sectors are charged more based on risk, but not all. I'd love to know what a professional rugby player pays in ACC levys, I wonder if its proportional to the risk of them requiring time off due to injury..... Scotty, I think you're on the right track, but the best system would be to have a black box recorder in every vehicle so if you're involved in a crash they can see how you have been driving, and if you were speeding, indicating, headlights on etc at the time of the accident. People would probably think twice about driving over the limit if they knew that if they had an accident while breaking the law their insurance and medical cover would all be void and they'd be left with a massive bill for all the costs incurred... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morcs Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 a tick box when we pay rego im cool with, tick the box if you want ACC cover (and you pay for it) or dont tick the box, dont get ACC cover, and dont pay for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suphew Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Personally, it's the cost of running government based things that that annoys me, not the exact place the money is coming from. After all while the cost is there it is going to need to be paid for. Would anyone be happier if there were no ACC levies and our income tax was 10% higher? Also like most systems in NZ it is unfair, routed by some and not given fairly by others. There was a lady on the radio during the week, who took her daughter to the doctor to have a splinter removed. The nurse did it and it took less than 5 minutes. She paid about $20 at the time, then had a call from ACC about 'her claim', she asked them what the doctor had charged ACC and found he made almost $90 for the 5 minutes work his nurse had done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suphew Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 True, some sectors are charged more based on risk, but not all. I'd love to know what a professional rugby player pays in ACC levys, I wonder if its proportional to the risk of them requiring time off due to injury..... Scotty, I think you're on the right track, but the best system would be to have a black box recorder in every vehicle so if you're involved in a crash they can see how you have been driving, and if you were speeding, indicating, headlights on etc at the time of the accident. People would probably think twice about driving over the limit if they knew that if they had an accident while breaking the law their insurance and medical cover would all be void and they'd be left with a massive bill for all the costs incurred... I have a friend that recons they should remove the airbags from cars and put a hand gun in the steering wheel. If you have an accident you know you are going to die, would stop stupid drivers over night (one way or the other). I heard that cars with anti lock breaks are more likely to have accidents, for some reason people think ABS is going to stop the car faster and better than being a competent driver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottie841 Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 I heard that cars with anti lock breaks are more likely to have accidents, for some reason people think ABS is going to stop the car faster and better than being a competent driver. I would agree with that but you need to take in to account the fact the there are a lot more cars with ABS than without so it is like saying you are more likley to get shot in the head by a mad man then getting bit by a snake in NZ. I can say that cars with 4 tires are more likley to have a crash than cars with 3 tires based on stats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix44 Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 :lol: i refuse to believe your bike costs only 5k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdspider Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Whys that? Your not a boy racer are you? Embrassed about your $50k car being beaten easily of the lights by a $5k bike? :lol: Haha no, I hate them too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morcs Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 :lol: i refuse to believe your bike costs only 5k It didnt, but I once had a bike that cost me a mere $6000 of which I saw a top speed of 280kph on the track, and genuine 10 second runs at meremere. how much would a car need to cost to get comparitive performance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smidey Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 It didnt, but I once had a bike that cost me a mere $6000 of which I saw a top speed of 280kph on the track, and genuine 10 second runs at meremere. how much would a car need to cost to get comparitive performance! you cant compare performance between cars & bikes just like you cant compare the safety of each in a crash. Cars are slower but which one would you want to be piloting in a crash with another car? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cricketman Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 I agree that some sectors should pay more for ACC, But some sectors certainly should not. I also think that in some areas ACC is too lax with its "throw away" money, and others theyre tighter than a ducks arse. Example: My mother used to work for Whakatane hospital at the front desk of ED. People would come in off the street and say they had a headache. she would then have to fill out an ACC form, put it in the computer, and dish out 2 panadol. I recently (last year) broke the bones in my hand. Went to Tauranga ED, as I would in Whakatane. After waiting 3 hours to just see the triage nurse, She informs me that she is not sure its broken, it may be, but I'd have to go to a private institution such as accident and healthcare, and hands me a brochure. consult $80, X-ray $60, plus bandages/cast equipment/materials if it as broken. What.... The..... Flounder.... ACC in my mind should be made, like the dentist etc, available for people at the tough points of thier lives. Kids under, say, 20? and the elderly, and for those groups it should be free for all, anything that they might need. Inbetween? only major trauma and the like. The rest? GP's are trained (at least should be!) to deal with a hell of alot more than what they currently do. even broken bones, stitches, etc. And the people should have to have medical insurance! there is no excuse not to! the money youd save in ACC levies, coupled with the extra competition between insurance companies would mean that you could probably, in most cases, get off cheaper than what we are already. With less work to do, ACC themselves may find that they are not as big as organisation, and then thier wages go down too. = less to pay again. All the time, everyone else is winning away merrily, safe in the knowledge that they are covered. And knowing EXACTLY what they are covered for. ACC cover differs between areas, and there is no actual way to know if your injury would be covered or not, until its too late and then you get bent over by ACC. What it would also mean is that levies could be taken out of petrol/user charges/ rego etc , as a fair whack of the population could rise against and say that they are not recieving the benifits. Oh, and to finish my example, my hand WAS broken in 2 places, i drove to Whakatane the next day and had it checked. All of this would have been unneccessary had I held proper health insurance, and ACC was doing its job across the board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottie841 Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 It didnt, but I once had a bike that cost me a mere $6000 of which I saw a top speed of 280kph on the track, and genuine 10 second runs at meremere. how much would a car need to cost to get comparitive performance! For those speeds you need to spend about $3K on a 1976 Toyota supra and $1K making it go faster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morcs 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 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.