I borrowed heavily (basically plagerised) from another post elsewhere on the net on this subject (thanks Patto/Jetskier and the Duke blokes)
but see what you reckon
The Honourable
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Member for wherever (in this case Lismore)
The newly proposed categories for motorcycle CTP classes is unfair and inequitable, the changes mooted appear to have captured the good with the bad as it were and for the average motorcyclist in NSW riding a smaller capacity motorcycle is facing a 100% increase in on-road costs as a result.
Now as far as I can understand this is to help pay for the medical expenses of
those badly injured people claiming LTCS(Lifetime Care & Support Scheme) due to an injury from a motorcycle, are often unregistered, unlicensed or children.
Hence there are many claims against LTCS by those who pay nothing towards the LTCS fund.
If an unregoed car/unlicensed driver injure someone badly, it may draw from the LTCS “car” fund However, the “risk” is spread over a larger part of the population – “all regoed cars”.
There is not a huge “population” of cars that are used off-road, an unregoed car is a tiny percentage of “all cars”.
Within the “population” of cars, that small add-on payment to cover this LTCS pay-out risk is quite minimal.
However, with motorcycles, the numbers are VERY different, anecdotally 160,000 across the entire state, the risk actually needs to be spread over the ENTIRE population, not just the vehicle type.
When an injury pay-out from LTCS is deemed to have been caused by a motorcycle, the “motorcycle fund” within LTCS is charged the pay-out and the premium for motorcycle LTCS is calculated against that.
There are a large number of injuries to “un-riders” that are being paid out of your yearly Greenslip.
THAT is one big factor in why our Greenslip costs so much.
e.g.
– a 14 year old kid is razzing around the front yard on an old unrego’ed non-maintained motocross bike he bought out of the Trading Post. It has stiff suspension, dried out control cables, dodgy front end and abrupt power delivery. Suddenly, he goes out of control and at high speed, leaves his front yard and crashes into the rockery in the front yard of the house across the street. He suffers a brain injury and a spinal injury. He requires special care for the rest of his life. In the course of the crash, he has been in a “road related area”. He claims against LTCS. ONLY registered motorcyclists are paying for that claim.
Similarly, several cases of little kids riding minibikes on the street at night and colliding with parked or moving cars, fences, poles, etc.
This is actually a “whole of community” problem, yet the costs are loaded onto motorcycle LTCS, simply because these kids were injured on a motorcycle and you also ride a motorcycle, so therefore the insurance system sees “motorcycles” as the financial risk and you, as a registered motorcycle owner are required to pay for the overall community risk.
It is imbalanced and unfair.
The present system imposes undue costs upon a small sector of the community for a problem affecting a wide sector of the community – despite the fact that you are responsible and manage your risks.
OK, there is another class of claims – e.g. a cruiser rider in the Nasho runs out of cornering clearance in a bumpy curve and hits a tree and rocks, breaking his spine at C4. He struggles to stay alive and struggles again to move from quad to paraplegic. He’s paid up and this is what LTCS is for. We all pay for that one too, which may motivate us to lobby for improved rider training, better road surface in the State, or at least useful signage – in an effort to “manage the risk for all riders”. Motivation may be compassion or simply financial, they meet at the same place.
The wider community produces a number of people each year who suffer injuries requiring lifetime care.
Few families of these are able to obtain the necessary financial assistance to manage with any level of dignity Hence, the courts tend to rule in favour of giving an LTCS pay-out if at all possible “within the rules”
Now, if you are badly injured while riding on public land that is not gazetted as a “road related area” you can’t claim LTCS under the rules.
Hence you have to get by on a disabled pension with bugger all additional assistance for any special needs. The health system is appalling in this area.
The Federal proposal has merit as it spreads the community risk (and associated insurance premium) and benefits across the entire community.
As a consequence, we would see the lTCS component of our Greenslips drop in the same way that CTP dropped when LTCS took over that portion of the risk.
By making the “pool” larger, the percentage for risk goes down.
This is also a factor in CTP, which is managed on a “per insurance company experience” rather than the “overall motorcycle risk”.
The big ticket item in motorcycle CTP is from injured pillions.
The present system manages for private profit rather than public good – it does so through “dividing” methodology.
There is a suggestion the flood of cheap “pitbikes” has caused a problem?
I would suggest those who ride these around the footpaths and streets, and those who ride old worn out bikes in the parks ARE NOT MOTORCYCLISTS!!
The people writing this are motorcyclists. Do you ride on old hard cracked tyres? Do you allow your brake controls to go out of adjustment and become ineffective? Do you attempt tabletop jumps after all the oil in the forks leaked out years ago? Do you ride around moving cars on low pit bikes? NO – because you know the risks involved! You are motorcyclists. A lot of you have done a stay upright course? Those terrorising the streets on cheap imports, have they done a stay upright course? No – they are NOT MOTORCYCLISTS.
You motorcyclists are far more courteous than to ride around your local park.
I would submit the risk should be bourne by the wider community; after all, it is the wider community causing the problem, NOT MOTORCYCLISTS.
I would not drive an unregistered car; I believe the cost of CTP for a car doing 20k a year is reasonable. I do not believe the cost of CTP for a dirtbike doing less than 1k a year mostly on Forest trails is reasonable. How often do you take a pillion on your dirtbike? How often do you take passengers in your car, after all, the CTP is for these people.
So I apologise for not understanding why my 250 bike costs as much as a car to register, it must be a failing on my part.
On the subject of MCIS levy, it is a percentage of the CTP policy cost. It is about 10% higher for a bike than a car. This does not explain why the 300cc category was lowered to 226cc.
The outcomes are as listed below
100-225cc (calc came out at ~$162, roughly the same as current 0-300)
226-725cc ( $340, more for those up to 300cc, less for those between 300-725cc)
726-1025cc ( $508, same as current 300cc+)
over 1025cc ($625 on a 1200cc, up from $508)
It would be appreciated if some investigation could be done on behalf of the thousands of recreational riders in this state by our elected representatives to help explain to us why we are being singled out so pointedly and unreasonably by the current and proposed new systems.
Furthermore if a “commonsense” new category was introduced similar to the present Victorian system of “recreational Registration” whereas recreational trailriders paid a nominal fee to legally pursue their legitimate pastime on safe roadworthy trailbikes this would open a larger pool of funds to be drawn against for whatever purposes, as found in Victoria it would encourage the current llegal habits of many to join the ranks of the legal riders enjoying our pastime, as the current and proposed new categories have & will force many more into riding without any cover and the attached revenue/recompense is lost altogether
still a rip off compared to QLD single seat rego of around $250 a year
