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.

NSW Greenslips - 300cc and more!

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by galahs, Nov 25, 2007.

?
  1. YES - Power to Weight is a better system

    100.0%
  2. NO - Engine Capacity is a better system

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. I would like to raise an issue that I believe is unfair for owners of
    certain Learner Approved Motorcycle Scheme (LAMS) approved
    motorcycles.

    As you would be aware, new rules introduced on the 6th September 2002,
    to allow Learners and Provisional license holders to ride certain
    motorbikes that had a power to weight ratio of less than 150kw per
    tonne and with an engine capacity below 650cc. This replaced the
    previous restriction that only allowed bikes with an engine
    displacement of 250cc or less.

    I congratulate that move as I believe it is a sensible update, as
    limiting engine performance is more crucial than limiting engine size.
    However I believe the GreenSlip laws should be modified to reflect
    this change.

    Currently there are two categories of GreenSlips for Motorcycles.

    Under 300cc and Over 300cc

    The price difference between the categories is very substantial often
    up to 3 times as much for riding a larger capacity bike.

    I would suggest the categories be changed so that the two categories
    are "LAMS compliant" and "Non LAMS Compliant"

    This would mean bikes are classified on Power output not just engine capacity.







    In the current system the owner of a Suzuki GS500 pays an equal amount
    as an owner of a Kawasaki ZX10R that has 4 times the power.
    On the opposite side of the scale, there are many 250cc motorbikes
    that exceed larger capacity LAMS approved motorcycles peak power. Yet
    they get a heavily reduced GreenSlip price for falling under the 300cc
    category.

    For reference on a recent enquiry of GreenSlip prices I was quoted:

    BIKE MODEL - ENGINE CAPACITY - PEAK POWER - WEIGHT - GREENSLIP PRICE

    SUZUKI GS500 - 487cc - 30kw - 180kg = $405

    KAWASAKI ZX10R - 998cc - 121kw - 175kg = $405

    HONDA CBR-250RR - 250cc - 34kw - 160kg = $147



    As can be seen, Engine capacity is not the best way of judging a bikes
    performance and hence GreenSlip prices.


    I hope common sense prevails and the NSW GreenSlip pricing categories
    will be reviewed and modified to reflect the sensible changes made
    with the introduction of LAMS.
     
     Top
  2. I hope common sense prevails and Greenslip prices are reduced for ALL motorcycles, considering:

    - motorcycle CTP is 105% of typical pricing for a car.

    - the majority of motorcycle accidents are single-vehicle, at-fault; the rider does not claim off their own CTP in an at-fault accident.

    - 2 vehicle accidents involving a motorcycle and another type of vehicle where the rider is at-fault, VERY rarely result in injuries against the party not riding a motorcycle which could be claimed off the rider's CTP.

    - 2 vehicle accidents where the rider isn't at fault, usually result in a claim against the larger vehicles owner's CTP; not the rider's.

    - If the argument is increased cost through chosen vulnerability the system is unfair as bicyclists do not have to pay registration or CTP yet are allowed to ride on the road. Also, buses and large trucks pay MORE for their CTP, presumably as their mass raises the potential for damage and injury in the event of an accident.


    The NSW Greenslip system fails to be fair or competitive in far more respects than cc vs power:weight.
     
     Top
  3. why on earth would you assume that it should be?
     
     Top
  4. Because when I need to purchase something I do not think the people selling it should have gotten together prior and decided to all load their margins by 100%, stick to the plan, and shaft the consumer.


    Why if I didn't know any better... I'd say there were laws supposed to prevent that sort of thing.
     
     Top
  5. Just wait. There will be new catagories for registration.

    They will be based on emissions and you will pay big bucks for 2-stroke or anything above probably a 400cc.

    Thanks ruddy boy.
     
     Top
  6. hardly - the taxation system in this country is highly geared towards property owners and not renters. Do you think this should be made fairer as well?

    BTW, the insurers all have to have their premiums passed by the MAA or which ever the heck body deals with these things - they are the real group you ought to be screaming at.
     
     Top
  7. and Rudd being federal, and registration being state are linked how exactly?

    Also combined with the state differences - SA has number of cylinders, nsw is capacity, qld by IQ of the rider etc
     
     Top
  8. I dont get how they work out these greenslip prices

    my 250cc 158kg 34kw is cheap

    then my 2200cc is about double the price (its a car)

    then a 400cc 179 kg 30kw is more than the 2200cc 1500kg 105kw

    now which of those has most chance of killing other people than the driver

    whoever worked out this formula should start making one up on how a black hole forms
     
     Top
  9. Wow, old thread rez... but I must have missed this:

    Since when is Tax a 'service' that is provided to us?
    What a total non-example.
    If tax were a simple requirement we had to fulfil, and we could pay it to anyone we choose - then we'd pay tax to the person who demands the least.
    Which, of course, is not the case, nor will it ever be the case.

    The MAA may set guidelines, I guess. But as far minimums go, hah! my CTP's were all snuck onto a big company's fleet arrangement by a friend of mine. I pay around HALF of the typical premium due.
    So, presuming the MAA sets a minimum - insurance companies are gouging everyone for about 100% above the minimum; and from all the price comparisons I've done, they don't seem interested in being the slightest bit competitive with each other.

    Plus, golden rule: All insurance companies are bastards.
     
     Top
  10. err - tax is always a service - hospitals and education for instance are a service. Same for taking your garbage away or building and maintaining roads. Tax is paid on fuel, income etc - anything that needs to be redistributed. Same way in fact as premiums for all drivers are redistributed to those who are injured. Do you also complain that one doctor charges more than another?

    big deal - many of us have been using guys like AON to do the same for years.

    coles and wollies don't seem interested in being the slightest bit interested in competition either. So what's your point other than being angry and unwilling to do anything about it?

    people don't seem to complain about medicare - they'd probably complain a whole lot more without it.
     
     Top
  11. So
    "Insurance companies can do whatever they like, be thankful you have oxygen?"

    Our paying of tax isn't a service, it's a requirement. If you REALLY want to use the tax analogy properly, we go to the next step where the government spends it. They tender, and GIVE THE BUSINESS TO THE MOST COMPETITIVE TENDER.
    They are required to get multiple quotes, because of the dangers of an uncompetitive market: ie. people getting screwed on prices.

    Of course, I'm leaving bribery and backdoor deals out of this.

    The service of insurance is [meant to be] a competitive market.
    I do not believe it is.
    In that way, I judge the conduct of such companies to be wanting or not without question.

    Coles and Woollies? sheesh, from insurance to tax to government spending to major supermarkets and healthcare... what a tangled web.
    The problem with comparing directly to those is that they provide different services or quality of service.
    For the record, I'm not happy about Coles and Woollies pushing the little guys out, then getting us to pay more for less unless we are prepared to travel.
    BUT CTP policies are all the same. They are mandatory for registered vehicles, fulfil minimum requirements - it's not like one is worth more money coz it comes in a prettier package. The only thing to compare is the price... and for the average bloke, that's all the same [and too high].

    Angry and unwilling to do anything about it?
    I've voted with my wallet. I buy cheap policies through Allianz. I've written to my local member about this same issue and gotten the expected less-than-satisfactory response.


    Medicare? wha?
    lawd help me...
     
     Top
  12. why the opinion that all services are optional?

    TAC and medicare are just state run insurance companies. Then in nsw you have GIO which, funnily enough, even has government in the title.

    The nsw system isn't really unfair given that the premiums are available for everyone to see. It requires you to do more legwork to get the best deal, and you might be able to use a broker to get group discounts (like aon), but this isn't any different to any other kind of insurance like home and contents or health.

    The reason it is compulsory is because of a big history of people being injured on the roads and someone in gov't making a decision that road users shouldn't be an unusual one sided burden on the healthcare system. It isn't setup to make a profit. THat it does is a side effect. We know this because the victorian state run system called TAC returns a tidy profit every year instead of adjusting premiums lower. It isn't any better than the nsw system in terms of taking premiums from you.

    you mean like the vic gov't gets multiple tenders for what it does with your premium? bwahahaha

    umm - insurance is just risk sharing amongst many. Where in the definition (either state run or privatised) is there anything to do with competition?

    absolutely you should only buy this type of policy by price. So where is the private company thing here causing you grief? Because the premiums are different to another state? Or just because there is variation between companies in nsw? You aren't forced to take anything but the lowest premium. And it is hardly my fault if someone else is too lazy to do the research and just renews the same policy every year.

    just another insurance company.

    I also believe that the CTP policies are all cleared by the MAA (ie the gov't in the same way as vic's TAC premiums are no doubt charged). There is no maximum or uncompetitive practice as you are trying to make out. The reason you can get a quote from all of them on the maa greenslips site is because they are all required to submit costs ahead of time. THe prices aren't calculated on the fly, nor does the maa comparison site trawl the insurance company websites for numbers each time you ask for a costing. THe prices are fixed in the same way that TAC premiums are fixed. You just have more choice in nsw as to which one you pick.

    Unless you want to dive off on some conspiracy theory that someone in gov't has a secret paper detailing how many drivers will choose which company to insure with, it is probably MORE competitive than ANY of the state run systems in Australia. Choice = competition. A single state run system = no choice = no competition. That the costs are different is comparing apples and oranges like expecting the smallest emptiest state to have equivalent road trauma costs as the largest and most populated one.

    if you really cared instead of just venting vitriol, you'd stop insuring vehicles in nsw or you'd setup/lobby for etc a state run system in nsw to handle CTP policies and claims.
     
     Top
  13. It should be worked out according to the accident and injury rate of the vehicles involved, and the drivers/riders.
    That way the people in 4 wheel drives who like to drive over other people because they know they are safe could be charged an increased fee both for driving a vehicle incredibly dangerous to everyone else, as well as for each accident they have been in.
    Also as far as I know despite enormous growth in motorcycle users the accident rate has been said to be falling slightly each year as a % value (partly attributed to the L/P's courses) which means that since accidents involving the injury of other people are a very low % of the overall accidents our greenslip prices should fall greatly.

    The great increase in greenslip prices lately is a bit strange, did anyone see one of the current pollies on the news saying how "over the last 5 years greenslip prices have fallen" or something equally false?
    I've been paying bike greenslips for 2 years and car for 4 years, and I'm getting older with no at fault accidents (probably not relevant) but my greenslip has increased greatly each year.

    The issue with using a P:W ratio to determine greenslips is that older more experienced riders more likely to have a more powerful bike are then punished....
    I think we can all agree on the figures that motorcycle at fault accidents leading to another parties injury are a very small %, and as such a general greenslip costing should be created because no logic on earth could make it any more expensive than it is now.
     
     Top
  14. It is different. You say how right there.

    You are confusing the wonderful ideal that is shared community risk and a safety net we should all be thankful for with love for companies who's loyalties lie with shareholders first and then engage in illegal price-fixing.

    Yes. Entirely true for our 'at-fault' system.
     
     Top
  15. I gotta agree with Ktulu on this thing.

    It's not at all competative between the major of companies. You've only got to enter your details here to see that.

    http://prices.maa.nsw.gov.au/index.html

    The variation between most companies premuims is so small its amazing. I could almost feel this invisible insurance company rep trying to bend me over for a reaming when I selected the over 300 cc motorcycle box on the form. :cry:
     
     Top
  16. Ahh no. We already have an emission tax. It is called petrol tax and it should be higher in my mind and used to subsidies public transport, but that is getting OT.
     
     Top
  17. CTP is a funny thing, and while it is controlled by private industry and not really all that heavily regulated (Compared to Queensland's CTP) it'll be an absolute rip-off.

    Does anybody here want to post up QLD (government regulated) CTP motorbike costs compared to NSW? You'll all have a heart attack.

    Anyway, CTP will always be more expensive for larger bikes. This is due to a number of factors, but one interesting one is the assumption that it's more likely to carry a pillion.

    I think a lot of people here, with comments on petrol tax and emissions etc are getting pretty confused about what CTP does and is meant to do.

    MCIS levy is where the rip-off is.
     
     Top
  18. Actually it is slightly cheaper (even with the levy) but we get an awful lot more for our money. Full no fault insurance - including loss of income.

    And with the extra "catastrophic injury" stuff in NSW (which is no fault) expect to see it rise significantly each year up there for the next 3 years (especially for larger bikes).

    On the original topic - I have raised the subject of registration categories with VicRoads and they think it's a logical approach - but it needs an interagency approach including the TAC since the actual rego is minimal compared to the TAC premium.
     
     Top