ACC cost balancing

MW Marc Whinery Public Seen by 127

ACC sets levies according to the government, not actuary tables.

ACC should set a $20 per day levy on car rentals to those without an NZ license.

Also, ACC should look at traffic costs, not just crash costs.

Note, helmets are required. The studies I've seen show that unhelmeted motorcycle riders cost less (they don't need medical care if they crash, they need a coroner). So a helmet law isn't about cost savings, but about protecting people from themselves.

Why can't we expand this to other areas. Rather than the ACC drop on cars in July, with an ACC increase on motorbikes (done a few years ago) that will result in worse traffic as motorbikes are comparitively more expensive, leading to worse traffic, which causes more crahses;

Wouldn't it make sense (if ACC is optimized for cost) to optimize ACC for the lowest total costs, rather than appropraiteing cost as practical in a manner that increases total cost?

I submit that if ACC dropped all levies on motorbikes, and replaced the lost revenue with an increase on other vehicles (like cars), that the net result would be lower costs for ACC, as more motorbikes would be used in places that reduce the total traffic load, and results in a lower crash rate for everyone.


Marc Whinery Wed 25 Feb 2015 9:09PM

And yes, I have a conflict of interest. I ride a motorbike every day. I didn't buy it because I love them. I bought it because it is stupid not to.

At the time I bought it, I would have had to pay $300/mo for parking, and a bus would be a 2km walk to and from the nearest bus stop (let me know what cost you put on your time, to add to the bus fare cost), not to mention the $10 per trip cost of the bus.

So, for less cost (and greater speed) than using my existing car, or taking the bus, I could buy a new motorbike and use that. Yes, buying a new motorbike and all the costs associated with it is cheaper than taking the bus.

I'm not a pro-motorbike zealot. I'm a rational person who made a financial decision that has paid off well. I laugh at all the transportation plans. So far, I haven't seen one that is either cheaper or faster than buying a new motorbike for a daily commute into the city. Both the bus and a car are more expensive and slower than buying a new motorbike to take the trip on, including all running costs, and all other costs.

And, if 25% of drivers switched to motorbikes, then $80,000,000,000 could be saved on the transportation plan. I just want to save money. Mine and yours.


Colin England Thu 26 Feb 2015 3:39AM

Motorbikes are a better option than cars but buses are still the better option than motorbikes. This is because:

  1. You'd still use less resources building a bus than building all those motorbikes
  2. All those resources used in building the bus are used most of the time whereas all the resources used to make the motorcycles are only used 4% of the time
  3. I'm sure that the bus would still use less fuel than a lot motorbikes
  4. You don't need to set aside a large amount of land for unproductive parking

When you start thinking in terms of resources used you start to realise just how disconnected from reality our monetary system is.


Marc Whinery Thu 26 Feb 2015 8:40AM

  1. resources should have a retail cost that mimics the value of the resources used. A bus costs a lot to build. http://publictransport.about.com/od/Transit_Vehicles/a/How-Much-Does-A-Bus-Cost-To-Purchase-And-Operate.htm $300k USD is the number given there, and I have no numbers for the NZ operators. But $300k would buy 40+ of my motorbike.

3 a bus uses something around 20x the fuel of a motorbike, maybe worse.

4 motorbikes don't need space to park. At work, there's a non-space that can't be used by a car because of the placement of a support. We get 6 bikes in there. Scraps are all around.

motorbikes beat buses in every way. If we changed the rules slightly to encourage bikes, we'd have no traffic problems. But the reality is that the environemntalists hate personal vehicles of all kind. And the pro-road pavers wouldn't want a motorbike, so they want to hold back those who have one.

Isn't Wellington trying to make traffic worse with less bike parking, and introducing fees? That'll move people off bikes, but everyone I know who has a bike will, if they don't want to use the bike, drive a car. They may hope people will take the buses, but a car is still easier than a bus. For me, a car would be quicker and cheaper than the bus. That and the diesel buses usually leave me ill. I have chemical sensitivity to smells, and the buses are full of noxious fumes. I've not taken the wellington electric buses. I always walked when I was there (aside from an initial cab ride in from the airport).

The only solution I've seen that beats something like a motorbike is Personal Rapid Transit. But again, it feels like the environmentalists hate it because it leaves transport choice in the hands of the people, not a centrally decided dictatorship. And the road people don't like it because it replaces roads.

Yet, aside from "it's a new idea" I've never seen anyone come up with any valid argument against it. Cheaper and faster than a motorbike.