Over a beer the other evening with a swiss travleler my partner and i have befriended I thought id ask him how it works there.

He pays 4percent for the government compulsery system and 400 hundred nzd per month to the private skeem that is also compulsery.

Sounds adam sight dearer than here.

And in hearing th eprices from other country(especially america) it all sounds very very expensive.

Sounds to me that it would be cheaper for all parties invilved to pay increased levies intot he existing state enterprise……….

Yeah but most reef-fish aren’t as politically aware as your average ten year old.

“ACC is a taxpayer funded scheme. Therefore it is organised however the taxpayers like it.” Then why are there levies in car registration? I wish a government would be so honest and just admit it is a tax and get rid of the “levie”. The ACC levie seems to have been used as a tax by stealth.

Can I just claim that there are some inefficiencies in the system that transfers the will of the taxpayer into laws and regulations

Surprised train is higher than bus must include all the Indians who sit on the roof I guess.

I wish a government would be so honest and just admit it is a tax and get rid of the “levie”. The ACC levie seems to have been used as a tax by stealth.

“Bicyclist should either have an odometer connected to their wheels like a truck, pay road user tax with their tyres, or have toll booths introduced on cycle lanes.” – I agree. Although all those options are impractical as cyclists don’t always use roads, serious accidents are probably reduced in cycle lanes. As cycling is considered a hobby it probably fits in better with their personal levies they pay with cycling being an associated risk that increases premiums.

Personally, I think the most fair way to collect ACC for road users is to incorporate it into compulsory 3rd party insurance. At least this way levies are based on risk.

Here are the international fatality rates btw

Deaths per billion kilometres
Air…………….0.05
Bus…………….0.4
Rail……………0.6
Van…………..1.2
Water………..2.6
Car……………3.1
Bicycle……….44.6
Foot………….54.2
Motorcycle…108.9

Bugger me!
If we’re going to load up cyclists, then we’d also better hit the walkers as well!

On that note, as walking is so unsafe, I’m gonna get a jet-pack to get around the house – that should keep the ACC happy.
Although I sense that noise control may become involved when I go for my 2 am constitutional.

Sonny Blount – So you would rather see turbo’s pay more in car registration? Old cars with less safety features pay more in car registraion? Male car owners pay more in car registration? 18-25 year olds pay more in car registration? Every other group statistically more likely to crash pay more?

Or would you rather ban all these groups from driving or ban all vehicles statistically more likely to crash?

Make it much, much more difficult to get a licence than it is today. And regular renewals.

The motorcylcist doesn’t get this opportunity with ACC.

And I agree that they should. And I also agree with you regarding user pays for the amount somebody drives through the registration period. Petrol tax is the simplist way to do this at the moment I believe.

Bicyclists should either have an odometer connected to their wheels like a truck, pay road user tax with their tyres, or have toll booths introduced on cycle lanes.

I have previously commuted by bicycle, it doesn’t suit at the moment though.

ACC is a universal, no faults, accident compensaction scheme. Therefore, fees should either be completely standard across the board, or invidually assessed and underwritten and operated like a proper insurance scheme.

ACC is a taxpayer funded scheme. Therefore it is organised however the taxpayers like it.

I know, and its great because these drivers are individually assessed with driving history, use of car etc taken into account. The motorcylcist doesn’t get this opportunity with ACC.

Or would you rather ban all these groups from driving or ban all vehicles statistically more likely to crash?

In a fee/levy based model, you cannot set different fees to different groups without unfairly punnishing sensible people who use their vehicles sensibly.

Why not take this further and assign levies based on things like car models, car age, engine size? A WRX, or mitzi evo is probably more likely to cause an accident than a motorbike.

Insurance companies already do this. Is anybody complaining? (besides the 21yo Evo owners)

Here are the international fatality rates btw

Deaths per billion kilometres
Air…………….0.05
Bus…………….0.4
Rail……………0.6
Van…………..1.2
Water………..2.6
Car……………3.1
Bicycle……….44.6
Foot………….54.2
Motorcycle…108.9

Quite simply, a car sharing the road with other cars is quite safe. When other vehicles attempt to share the roading network paid for by motorists, fatalities result. Not that I have a problem sharing the road with motorcyclists, more so the bludging from motorists of bicyclists.

Or even better, make all cars pay road milage fees and get rid of both petrol tax and car registration fees. This way, the people who use the roads more and are more likely to be in a road accident will pay more.

I read an example of a hobby motorcyclist who rides his bike approximately 700 km’s a year. Now he will have to pay about $1 for every km he drives just for registration… totally f$%king rediculous. It just shows that JK is making an already unfair system much more unfair.

If accidents have an equal chance of occuring to all drivers and fault has to be apportioned to one party in an accident. Any vehicle should be to blame 50% of the time and another vehicle 50% of the time. The 50% of the time the other vehicle is to blame, should be proportional to the likelihood of encountering that vehicle type ( if 90% of vehicles are cars, and 10% are trucks then for a car 95% of crashes will be caused by a car and 5% by a truck, for a truck 55% of crashes will be caused by trucks and 45% by cars)

If the numbers I saw a wee while ago which I recall as 52% cars, 48% motorcylces, then there is a very small skew towards the other vehicle being to blame in motorcyle accidents. But it is by no means large, 48% of motorcycle crashes are still caused by motorcycles.

If ACC is to be a flat rate for all, then certain needlessley dangerous activities need to be banned. As a car driver paying a flat ACC rate, it is in my interest if motorcylces are banned from NZ roads if they pay the same ACC as car drivers.

This is not what I would like to see happen. I believe if pushbikers were charged for the cost of their activity, motorcyclist levies could remain where they are, and car levies could reduce slightly.

You have completely and arrogantly missed the point. It is completely unfair for ACC levies to be divied up by whether the car has two wheels or four wheels only. This is a case of JK and the nats picking on a single minority of road users. They have chosen one single disputable statistic to base the levies on. Why not take this further and assign levies based on things like car models, car age, engine size? A WRX, or mitzi evo is probably more likely to cause an accident than a motorbike.

ACC is a universal, no faults, accident compensaction scheme. Therefore, fees should either be completely standard across the board, or invidually assessed and underwritten and operated like a proper insurance scheme.

For the record, I have no problems with BAD DRIVERS being asked to pay more in levies based on risk. I do have an issue with SINGLE groups being made to pay higher levies based on a SINGLE category.

Just to correct a couple more of your inanities.

* One person generally rides a bike, a car often has 3 or 4 or more people within it, so the risk increases

The costs of the accidents are considered in the statistics. If 4 people are injured in a car crash, then 4 peoples hospital bills are added to the stats for costs of car crashes.

* A motor cyclist often doesn’t use their bike as the primary means of transportation

Accident statistics are accident statistics. If what you say is true, and motorcyclists started using their vehicles more, the accidents stats would probably go up, and eventually the levies would go up more.

For the record, I don’t have a problem with motorcyclists being asked to pay an appropriate cost for the risks of the activity. But I think they are being attacked as the low hanging fruit. Pushbikers should be the first to pay for their accidents, but their vehicles don’t need to be registeredso it is harder to get money off them.

I also believe that a safe motorcyclist should reap the benefit of a good track record, but government schemes don’t allow this. Responsible people should offer the savings they make to the benefit of the irresponsible people according to the socialist model.

I agree that the right to sue comes with a lot of collateral cost to society. It erodes trust and people will become scared to help was each other.

“Can you collection Mary from kindi for me today?”
– “Sorry, I’m not covered to have other children in the car.”

Everyone has heard people dying after accidents in the US as no one wants to offer help lest they be blamed if the person does not recover.

The last time I visited the in-laws in the US, we left our daughter there and went away for a few days. My father-in-law wrote up a little document with passport numbers etc which we both had to sign in case they had to take her to the doctor or hospital. Without that letter he was concerned that they would refuse to treat her or be suspicious of where the child came from.

Lovely society.