New ACC levies

Page 1 / 2
rpvr, Jul 1, 7:23pm
Interesting to note that ACC has admitted to putting some vehicles in the wrong category and will be refunding people who have paid too much. I think the Nissan Skyline was the model mentioned.
But it does surprise me that some models which are virtually the same can fall into different categories. For example, the Toyota Ist, Echo, Vitz, Will, Platz and Funcargo are essentially the same mechanically, but with different body styles. Does the body style in these models affect the safety rating? Using 2002 models of the above as an example, the Vitz, Echo and Platz fall into band 2, the Ist and Will in band 3, and the Funcargo in band 4, which is the cheapest. So the Funcargo is safer than the others? Really?
gunhand, Jul 1, 7:34pm
I don't think that you are at risk any more or less in any of those cars. It's just that some seem to be involved in a lot more accidents causing injury. Thats how I took that bit of TV anyway. If that is correct it's a bit silly. If 20 echos are sold and 15 are involved in prangs and only 1 Funcargo is sold and not involved in any crash well of course it would seem an echos is more dangerous by share numbers alone.
But why are they involved in so many accidents? Share numbers of them? makes sence. Its a bit like BMW or Merc's being involved in more accidents in the UK than Vauxhall Monaro's are. Well of course they are as there is only a few Monaro's over there and thousands of the other.
Thats my take on it, lol.
mm12345, Jul 1, 7:47pm
The whole scheme is nuts - as it's bound to be complex and subject to dispute about validity of data, models, etc etc. They should have left it all alone. It wouldn't surprise me though - if ACC / Government are intent on this route of extending some kind of "user pays" incentive/penalty system to non-commercial activity, that skiers, rugby players, cyclists, stiletto wearers are going to cop it, and they'll whack a tax on bananas - but a discount on cane toads because their skins aren't slippery.
franc123, Jul 1, 8:02pm
The incompetence, lack of automotive knowledge and common sense these bureaucrats we pay sizeable salaries to gets more amusing by the day. I would not be at all surprised if it gets scrapped shortly before its even properly implemented, it smells of a nutty scheme being trialled in a small guinea pig nation like NZ to see if it would work, and its formed a messy mix when combined with the Govts desire to penalise older vehicle owners in a market that probably has more differing spec cars on the road than anywhere else on the planet.
mm12345, Jul 1, 8:22pm
The reality is that as there's part ACC funding through fuel excise, and that older cars tend to use more fuel, they were part way there to "incentivise" updating the fleet anyway. It wasn't needed. Some shiny-arse seat warmers who devised the scheme knew that they were going to build a little empire - and that's what we'll end up with - at a cost and inconvenience to all.
franc123, Jul 1, 8:43pm
Most of it should be collected off the fuel, that way the fees can't be avoided. Posting silly reminder notices and windscreen labels all over the country at huge expense is a ludicrously inefficient way to collect revenue in the 21st century, it should have all been dumped when the licensing system was reviewed.
lugee, Jul 1, 9:14pm
"Penalise older vehicle owners." This comes up a lot but I don't think it is so. I have a mid 90's vehicle which I paid $1500 for which is in the 2nd best levy bracket and is higher up than many 2000's and even some 2010's vehicles.
mardyyy, Jul 2, 6:19pm
Only a government body could come up with a system like this. At least Insurnance companies charge more if you have an accident, rate you on where you live and a whole lot of other things based on a lot of stats. ACC it is safety of car only. Unfair in the extreme. If you are going to charge based on risk factors it should be at least ones that are proven in some way to reflect something like the risk and take into account a few relevant factors not one that is not a true risk assessment. May as we have chosen the car colour as a way of rating the ACC levy on rego or thrown a dart at a board. Idiocy
mardyyy, Jul 2, 6:22pm
I believe there is an agenda driven by the desire to get rid of old cars but it is a pathetic disguise it has been dressed in. You are correct.
fast4motion, Jul 2, 6:29pm
I think LTNZ should have the ability to accept payment at the older more expensive rate. Then everybody who objects to the new ACC levies could stage a protest by refusing to take the discount, and instead pay the old amount. I wonder how many complainers would take that option?
mack77, Jul 2, 7:19pm
Well it's not based only on how safe your car is in a crash but is also dependant on the extent of injuries that your vehicle will cause to a pedestrian or the driver of the other car that is involved in the crash.

Not withstanding the problem of putting some cars in the incorrect category (which hopefully they will sort out) I support the basic principles behind the scheme i.e. make the owners/drivers of the cars that cause the highest cost to ACC in the way of injuries to themselves or other people pay the highest levy. The downside of the scheme is that if you are a really good and safe driver (of which there are very few in this country as the crash statistics show) of a very "dangerous" vehicle, you still have to pay a high ACC levy. The only way out of that problem is to buy a vehicle that is rated as "group 4" by ACC; and it doesn't have to be a late model vehicle. Some old vehicles in "group 4" are: Toyota Crown 1989, Landrover Discovery 1989, Honda Legend 1992, Peugeot 306 1993, Honda CRV 1997, Subaru Legacy 1999, Toyota Caldina 1999, Holden Astra 1999, and heaps of them between 1999 and 2005. Most of the ones mentioned above hold the same rating for many years of production e.g. Toyota Crown 1989 to 2015!
I don't have so much of a problem with the new system, because I always choose a car with the highest safety rating that I can afford; rather than the colour of it's paint.
gunhand, Jul 2, 7:24pm
So a 1989 Toyota Crown is as safe as a 2015 car with more safety features than there is alphabet to categorize them? Yea, theres problems for sure.
mack77, Jul 2, 7:44pm
Well if Monash University's analysis of all the crash data for NZ and Australian car crashes is correct, then the answer is yes; but remember that the rating that ACC give is also dependant on how dangerous your car is to pedestrians and/or to the drivers of other cars that are involved in the crash.
mack77, Jul 2, 7:52pm
Be aware that the main point that determines how safe a car is in a crash is it's structural design. The next most important safety feature is seat belts, if they are being worn. Airbags are next on the list. All the other safety features like ABS brakes and electronic stability control don't change the safety rating of the vehicle as far as Monash University and NZ ACC are concerned because they stop it from being involved in a crash and therefore it doesn't feature in their crash analysis.
gunhand, Jul 2, 8:03pm
So if say (hypothetically of course) there is 200000 brand new large mercs that have 1999999 crashes (the hows and whys don't matter it seems) and only one 1974 falcon that dosent crash. ever, Does that make the new merc a class 1 in their eyes? and the Falcon a class 4?
After all they are saying it goes on number of crashes and types of vehicle involved.
supernova2, Jul 2, 9:09pm
So what sort of crazy system have they got to cope with brand new 2015 models. Presumably there are no crash stats for completely new design models? How on earth can you rate a car for safety when it crashes into say a building? Should it be the fault of the building as it wasn't designed with crumple zones? What about cars that hit trains? And on it goes.

The only way you can rate a car is to use something like its NCAP rating, you simply cant try to factor in stupid things like the number of accidents, damage to peds etc.
mack77, Jul 2, 9:10pm
It doesn't depend on the no. of crashes for any specific vehicle type but only on the risk of death or injury to the driver of the vehicle involved.
So if you're going to be the driver of a car that is involved in a crash which is the best car to be in? Answer: the one that has the highest "used car safety rating" as determined by looking at the ratings on "www:nzta.govt.rightcar&q-
uot; etc. This is not the only factor that ACC uses in "grouping" cars into bands. They also take into account the risk of death or injury to pedestrians or the people in the other vehicle involved in the crash.
As "thejazzpianoma" points out in another thread an old Fiat Multipla is one of the best cars to have if you want to pay the lowest ACC levy. Unfortunately in my opinion, if you're only thinking of your own wellbeing then the safest car, that is involved in a crash, to be the driver of, is one with a top "used car safety rating" and a high mass, but of course not many of these heavy weight SUV's are in the top group of ACC's list because they cause so much damage to the people in the vehicles that they are involved in crashes with.
franc123, Jul 2, 9:16pm
They have freely admitted that they don't have accurate lab test results most pre 2005 cars. That says it all for how scientific these levy band scores have been put together.
mack77, Jul 2, 9:23pm
I thought that it was based on the actual death/injury results to the drivers of vehicles, as recorded in all crashes in NZ and Australia since 1987 and analysed by Monash University in Melbourne.
brapbrap8, Jul 2, 9:37pm
Cars 3 years old or newer are put into bands based on their ANCAP scores.
This is certainly far from perfect, as ANCAP testing is not a very accurate way of predicting vehicle safety, and misleads the public in my opinion.
E.g a 5 star rated super mini is a far less safe vehicle than a 5 star rated SUV in head on collisions due to the way that it only compares vehicles against over vehicles of similar size.
It also has flaws because large vehicles automatically recieve perfect scores for side impact without even being tested as it is assumed they will be safe in a side impact.
mardyyy, Jul 3, 3:50pm
So as you drive a safe car you get the best deal so you are ok with it. It could b much cheaper again if ACC used other factors that also affect the accident rate and cost. Again like insurers do. If you are going to charge based on stats at least use as many as you can go make it as fair as you can. If not make it the same for all.
franc123, Jul 3, 3:58pm
Damn right. With respect to insurance premiums, one of the most important factors, amazingly enough, is your age and record as a driver. Anyone who is a regular watcher of shows like Serious Crash Unit will tell you that overwhelmingly its the driver that is to blame, you have a poor record you pay a high price or you dont get cover at all, and rightly so.
fast4motion, Jul 3, 4:15pm
And what if somebody else drives the car? Do you want named drivers on the registration papers, and then expect that to be policed?
noswalg, Jul 3, 4:30pm
I'm fine with paying $150p.a for my 02 Subaru, I think thats fair, but not while it's sitting in my driveway largely unused due to riding my bike everyday to try and get the most out of the $600p.a I pay for that. Levies at the pump with a decent non road user rebate system in place is the only fair way to tax, but then when has the Government ever been interested in fair taxes!
franc123, Jul 3, 4:50pm
For what reason? If you apply the levy, or at least a portion of the levy to the driver it does not matter what they are driving.