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 Registration proposal to impact motorcyclists

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by NofC, Jun 9, 2014.

  1. http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/media-releases/time-change-our-90-year-old-rego-system

    The proposal is to link the specifics of a vehicle with its rego fees. I read it as bringing rego in line with some of the criteria used by private insurers to calculate insurance premiums.

    "Road crashes cost the NSW community more than $5 billion per year, so initiatives geared at encouraging motorists to choose safer vehicles will help to lower these costs."

    The bike-related examples in the piece include bikes with ABS, and bikes with lower power-to-weight ratios.

    While I'm always in favour of rego becoming cheaper, it does make me wonder if this slippery slope presents a trap for motorcyclists, in particular. I can see the criteria being tweaked over time in ways that are not necessarily in the best interests of the broader motorcycling community. One of the net effects would seem to be a strong pricing incentive to buy a bike with ABS, which would make this legislation by fiat, effectively.

    Not trying to make this an ABS debate btw, just one of the consequences that leaped out for me.

    My other concern is that it seems to be an example of technology being prioritised as a method to reduce injuries and fatalities, rather than increased driver and rider education.

    The link to comment on the proposal is http://vehicleregistration.engagementhq.com/ . Submissions are open until July 24th.

    This is one I will be making a point of offering some feedback on, but I want to ponder a bit first. So, if you're inclined to share your own thoughts, please feel free.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. will they really make any of the rego's cheaper?? (apart from caravans).. more likely to penalise and make more expensive the "non-preferred" options?
    with the focus on revenue, it's hard to imagine them digging into their pockets to "makes the roads safer"

    my "registration fee" for both car and bike are both $60.. (although "motor vehicle tax" is $270 vs $57)
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Yeah, I fear you've hit the nail on the head, there. The proposal is incredibly non-specific as it stands, and now that I think about it, it doesn't say anything about bikes being any cheaper, just "incentives" for purchasing "safer" bikes.
  4. Yet they dramatically increased the CTP for the 250cc category and claimed it was because that category was seriously over represented - as a result bikes in the 600-725cc range became cheaper.

    In other systems where the 'clean' aspect comes in for rego costs, bikes usually do pretty well.
  5. "Road crashes cost the NSW community more than $5 billion per year, so initiatives geared at encouraging motorists to choose safer vehicles will help to lower these costs."

    Uh, what? Stopped reading there, so sorry if I repeat what has been said but I seriously wish Australian governments, both state and federal, would stop with band-aid fixes.

    Safer cars ≠ safer roads.
    I'm of the view point that the "safety features" we mostly see these days do NOTHING more than give a false sense of security. ABS/Traction control I completely understand, as well as the stability control that stops a car from spinning out when doing quick, sudden evasive maneuvers.
    What happens when all cars get an automatic blind spot checker though? Drivers suddenly become reliant on that technology and become complacent doing a job that a VERY quick headcheck can do for them. Same can be said for the technology that stops a car automatically from running up the rear end of someone. Good technology, but it has negative effects to a drivers attitude.

    Prime example would be soccer mums. Why do they buy big towering SUV's? If you ask them, most will say "I want to feel safe!"
    But how many of them drive as though they have intent of doing damage to others? If they no longer worry about injury because they're in some big gigantic cage why would they then worry about how their driving might affect others?

    What we need is education. Police officers who pull people over and inform them of a danger that they may have caused for others, and I'm not talking about fining people for going 5km/h over the speed limit. Re-education for people who have a suspended license, instead of just allowing them to wait months before getting it back. Better education for newer drivers, including mandatory curriculum's through the school system.

    There's so many things that can be done to improve road safety, and yet often governments take the most illogical options to do so.
    With that said though, Victoria still seems behind NSW in terms of making change. We're still pushing for motorcycle filtering laws, after all.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. People rely on the beeper thing when they reverse...heard this story yesterday...
    A daughter of one of the people I was talking to, was reversing, didn't realise she had reversed over a motorbike because the warning beeper thing (sorry don't know what it is called as my car doesn't have one - I just use my eyes!) didn't come on....
    So the mr Lumberjack is correct when stating that people will rely on technology more than their eyesight!!!
  7. Not sure if everyone realises that the proposal is to charge $75 dollars for high-powered motorcycle (>300kw/tonne).

    Funny because the scientific paper they quote clearly states that "it is not clear whether the results are related to the riding habits of the riders that choose the most powerful bikes available or whether the high risk is due to the properties of the bikes themselves" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20146148)

    At any rate I would encourage people to make a submission here - http://vehicleregistration.engagementhq.com/vehicle-registration-initiatives-vri because otherwise this nanny-state fee will probably fly under the radar.

  8. #8 oldcorollas, Jun 9, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2014
  9. Does it matter?
  10. So they failed in their bid to discourage motorcycles through CTPs so they, then hammer us through rego.

    Initial cost is not high but, like all surreptitious legislation, that will change over time.

    CTP already accounts for the safety of the vehicle. This is double accounting. Rego should be based on vehicle weight. It currently is and really it should be a steeper curve.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  11. My 2c. Its change for the sake of change. The price signals they purport to create already exist: insurance premiums price safety features, and fuel consumption prices emissions. Both of which are already taxed extra by the state government.
    An extra $30 a year on rego is a trivial price signal compared to insurance and fuel, the change is unlikely to have the effect the proponents claim.

    IOW, the government would spend lots of OUR money implementing a change that does not deliver a benefit just to be seen to do something (at the behest of rent seekers). There are better things to spend our money on.
  12. When has any government introduced a change in legislation that would reduce their revenue take?

    I think you may have your answer then as to the way this proposal may head...
  13. the GST?

    oh wait, that unexpextedly raised more money then they thought :D
  14. other countries have graduated rego based on environmental impact. We are proposing one based on the lack of understanding of road safety issues. Why am I not surprised.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Environmental impact or safety have nothing to do with real reasoning behind. Which is simple: some group of people (motorcyclists in this case) can be charged extra with no negative impact from political point of view.
    There is no significant pro-motorcycle lobby. That's it. We silently swallow what is thrown at us. So why would they stop.