Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

VIC $50 levy is discriminatory

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by mickdundee, Sep 9, 2005.

  1. Given that we are being discrimanted against simply because of our mode of transportation, i'm still wondering why we can't take the fight to VCAT or someone similar and get this tax quashed?

    Can someone elighten me please?

  2. because we (the population of riders) can never get organised enough? :) And those that can get organised - there are too few of them.
  3. Take it up with the vilification board if you think you are being vilified.
    I really get annoyed with the "discrimination" tag.
    It isn't about discrimination, it's about collecting another form of revenue.
    Can we lose this whole us vs them discrimination mentality?
    Then we may be taken more seriously.
  4. Yah... organising motorcyclists has been described as "like herding cats".

    Personally I reckon It's harder than that...
  5. Maybe we can fight speeding tickets based on the arugment that it's discriminating against people because of their speed. :LOL:
  6. Or......
    Racial discrimination because of their black boots!
    :roll: :LOL:
  7. You asked this question a few times in the past, and your still not enligtened?
    Quite simply, as smee says it's not discrimination!
  8. Their argument is that it is good for us...

    Some one tried to fight the lables on cigarete packs... lol
  9. Forgive my Sandgroper ignorance, but what $50 levy are you guys talking about?
  10. It's a Victorian thing, see here for details: Safety Levy

  11. OOOOhhh....harsh. We have got a $50 levy too, but it applies to all vehicles, not just bikes.
  12. sounds like your politicians are applying logic, time to burn them at the stake before the sky falls in. :p

    you don’t see probationary drivers getting hit with a rego tax because they make up the bulk of accidents, as for a bike tax i’m sorry but it does seem discriminatory to me as a fair percentage of bike related ‘accidents’ occur because a car didn’t indicate/pulled out without a head-check/ran a red light etc, so why aren’t they financially responsible as well :?:
  13. yep, I'm with smee, we're not being discriminated against, and we'll get more done if we lose this 'victim' mentality.
    we are transport users, and therefore targets for greedy governments of all strata of taxation income.....
    and if you smoke and drink as well, well, they've got you THREE ways!!!
  14. The TAC pays for it.
    Motorcyclists always come off second best.
    As I have stated earlier it isnt discrimination it's blatant revenue raising and running arouns screaming we are being discriminated against is not only counterproductive but also laughable.
  15. OH please, Slyfox, while-ever we have people on this site posting stuff about dragging their knees round Reefton and stuff, we will NEVER convince people that most motorcycle accidents are NOT at least partly contributed to by the rider!

    The CONSEQUENCES of a motorcyle accident are usually more serious to the pilot, but there is little difference between the contributory factors in a car/motorcyle accident than in a car/car accident.

    We ALWAYS claim that it was 100% the driver's fault, and sometimes it is, but never as often as claimed.
  16. The $50 levy is not discriminatory in the sense of the word which we would like to use. Unfortunately, the government taxes goods, services and income based on differnetial criteria every day - tax brackets are a good example, people who earn more are charged more. Levies are no different, building permits issued for domestic use constructions are subject to an extra levy over commercial construction to cover the collapse of HIH. We are levied at the airport to cover the collapse of Ansett and to cover fuel prices. Rather than arguing discrimination, I'd be looking at investigating how the funds are actually spent. If acute and rehab care for riders is an order of magnitude higher than other road users, then a $50 levy to cover our medical bills is OK with me. I don't know if this is the case.

    However, if the government insists on breaking down costs, motorcyclists should then be given a rego discount over other vehicles for the lower wear and tear we incur on roads - $50 less sounds fair.
  17. Either that, or stop pretending that part of the registration fee IS to cover wear and tear on the roads! They won't break this nexus, because then they won't be able to slug the poor trucking industry for squillions based on the same dubious pretext.
  18. i doubt the vast majority of riders head down to reefton every other week-end like a lot of netriders seem too, we're a section of the riding community that considers riding to be a primary passion, many riders simply enjoy the advantages of commuting to work on a bike, the increased number of scooters on the roads adds to the trend. i don't know too many vespa riders walking around with worn out knee sliders, do you? :p

    the TAC comment is a valid point, however it makes more sense to me for the majority to soak up the costs of the few, isn't that the point of the TAC? the majority of transit users pay for the minority who are injured, why don't the majority of transit users pay for the minority who are less skilled/more at risk on the road because of their vehicle choice?
  19. Maybe, but what about the costs of hospitalising for injuries etc?
    As a group we are over represented so per capita we actually do cost more to nurse back to health than car drivers.
    Truck drivers being the least likely to get injured considering the size of their rig.
    TAC does not cover damage to roads just to people and our CTP which is the largest component of registration has nothing to do with road wear and tear.
    In fact registration costs less for a bike than for a car, even with the $50 levy.
  20. As a non-Victorian I am not really qualfied to hold an opinion here, but I would pay $50 a year extra just for the priviledge of parking on the pavement. Here it costs us $50 every time we are caught doing it.