Other points to consider 1. Most motorcyclists have more than one vehicle so are already paying a huge ACC levy. Consider some poor schmuk with one car and two motorbikes (it happens). He can only use one at a time but will potentially be paying over $1700 per year in ACC levies with registration alone. (Where is the equity) 2. If registration are per vehicle and meant to cover costs of vehicle and passengers, then surely a people mover with the capacity to cause injury to 7 people should face a higher fee than a motorbike which only has the potential to injure 2 people. 3. ACC stats do not show the cost per accident or the number of claims per accident for a car. They only show the cost per claim. So where 90% of motorcycle claims may be for single person injury, there is no doubt that this percentage is significantly lower for car accidents.

Good points Dave and #1. Charge the licence holder, not the vehicle. Car and motorcycle hobbyists with multiple vehicles subsidise single owners. Make an annual charge on a licence. Then again people without licences would not pay so how about a tax on income and related to whether you own a vehicle and drive. Not perfect but knifing just bike owners is a bit rich.

Getting to whether bikers cause crashes or not. Because of less protection a biker always costs ACC more so who causes it is somewhat irrelevant.

ACC has grown into a monster. It needs an overhaul from executive's fat pay right through to the people who defraud it.

As a motorcyclist who has been involved in a major accident recently because the driver "looked but didn't see anything", I am incensed that because I consume more ACC costs than the idiot who hit me in a van (he wasn't hurt at all), I have to pay more than he does. As far as I'm concerned, he authorised the spending when he hit me so he's the one who should be responsible. The government say this is not true because ACC is a no fault scheme. So be it, but there is one potential way of making those who cause accidents pay their way.

The guy who hit me was charged by the police with "careless use of a motor vehicle causing injury". The fine he got was only $500. Simply increase the fine and give it to ACC. This would be fair as the key thing about this charge is that the careless use causes injury. ACC is increasing the levy for injuries sustained whilst driving so that way the one who causes the accident gets the privilege of paying for the costs.

DANGEROUS ROADS

Wednesday: Dr Ian Robinson victim of a hit-and-run near Helensville. Killed. September 26: Greg Paterson is one of four people hit by a vehicle that fails to stop on Auckland's Tamaki Drive. Critically injured. September 18: Frank van Kampen, Kapiti Coast, knocked down by a motorist, who fails a breath-alcohol test. Killed.################# TO THINK ACC LEVY PAYERS HAVE TO KEEP PAYING FOR SUCH OBNOXIOUS DRIVING RESULTS, AS RECENT AS THE ABOVE, IS JUST HEAD IN THE SAND STUFF.IGNORING AND DENYING BAD DRIVING STANDARDS AND THE OUTCOME OF IT, IS BEYOND APPALLING.

I wish to avoid alienating the valid comments above, so simply state that levies should be equally shared by "all" road users. I am including cyclists in this as well. (contentious i know) Mt premise is simple, anybody using the national road network is consuming a service and therefore should share in the costs. As soon as you introduce propotional levises you introduce inadvertant mixed messages and accidental contradictions. I make one exception to this, "trucks"! Trucks over 8-9 tons inherantly consume these services at far greater rates than anybody else, by their shear size and weight. Accidents invlving trucks have horrendous statistics. And for the debate, even though it is touched on in the above notes,I have not metioned skills, lack thereof etc etc, as this has been a constant theme in this great forum Dave provides. Skills is a discussion all of it's own. But I recognise that skills is perhaps the glue that makes a multi-user community geal and work successfully together.

I bought a suuzuki scooter 3 years ago and in the 2 1/2 years i had it I did over 11,000km.The only drivers on highways who obeyed the law,and used basic common sense were the drivers of Heavy trucks and semi-trailers.car drivers passed so close - at 100kph or more - the air flow was dangerous and could have caused balance loss.I could put my hand out and almost touch some of these idiots .Tailgating was another thing.On a scooter or bike you have no protection and a spot of oil or emergency braking means you become a statistic !

A stupid law as i believe the motorcyclists and moped users are safer than car drivers.It is the CAUSE of bike accidents that should be looked at.Furthermore if I own 2,3,4 bikes why should I have to pay this excess on all of them ?

Levy the driver, not just the vehicle. Road users should have a sliding scale of ACC levy depending on their driving record and the risk level of their vehicle. Why should someone with a clean road users record pay the same as someone who has been caught speeding or doing burn-outs? Sure- fix ACC, but do it right Mr Key.

Look at it this way. If this goes ahead, I'll sell my street legal off-road bike and my car and buy an SUV instead.

This will make me substantially more of a hazard to other road users.

Does anybody really want that?

Whilst out on my bike today, I noticed how easy it was for me to co-exist safely with other road users relative to when I drive the car.

Apart from not knowing where to nail the rego plate; can anyone tell me why people who like to ride horses/bicycles/rugby players don't have to pay some big fee to ACC?

A huge amount of 'motorcycle' accidents are actually farm bike, quad bike and motorcross accidents involving bikes that do not need registering a motorcyle owner who goes out once a month a ride ends up paying a very high price for his occasional run on the bike, and the recreational motox and farm bike owners don't pay at all.