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.

SA South Australian motorbike licence cost set to double

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by alan55, Apr 28, 2012.

  1. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...st-set-to-double/story-e6frea83-1226341210236

    Copied from the above link.

    THE state's 170,000 motorbike riders face paying a government-imposed safety levy that could almost double their annual licence fees.
    Angry riders say the move is a ploy to cut the number of riders on our roads, and any funding raised must be spent exclusively on motorcycle safety initiatives.

    The Advertiser has been told the "River Murray" style annual levy would add $300 to a 10-year driver's licence fee of $370.

    A motorcycle safety levy was proposed in the South Australian Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020 to fund road safety initiatives on "high-use motorcycle routes".

    Road Safety Minister Jennifer Rankine said the Transport Department was considering licensing changes for riders and setting up a motorcycle safety fund.

    "A motorcycle licence levy is being considered as part of these proposed initiatives," Ms Rankine said. "If introduced, funds collected from the scheme would be used to improve the safety of motorcyclists."

    However, the Motorcycle Riders Association vice president Neville Gray said it could be similar to the $30 levy imposed on NZ motorcyclists.

    "There are 168,000 motorcycle licences in SA and about 48,000 registrations so licences is a much bigger area, which means we pay less," Mr Gray said.

    "It is discrimination of the highest order ... but (we) would love to have the money (for road safety).

    "People will be screaming about it but we look at it as a chance to get some money to really do things.

    "It is very much bittersweet."

    The MRA is in talks with the State Government in the hope that a yet-to-be-formed Motor Cycle Advisory Council can have control of the expected $5 million a year raised by the levy.

    "The money must go into funding motorcycle safety projects only," Mr Gray said.

    Nineteen motorcyclists were killed on SA roads last year and five have died so far this year, the latest in a horror crash yesterday involving two motorcycles and a caravan on National Highway One at Mambray Creek.

    Garage Motorcycles Strathalbyn owner and motorcycle trainer Mary-Lou Nees said the levy was a way for the Transport Department to reduce the number of licence holders and get motorcyclists off the road.

    Opposition transport spokeswoman Vicki Chapman said the Government was so desperate to rake in money it was going to raise it from ordinary motorcyclists.

    "We don't need another hypothecated fund under the guise of road safety, that's just a nonsense," Ms Chapman said
  2. I would very much like to hear comments from people interstate about this - I believe Victoria has had some experience with having a levy imposed on them for "motorcycle safety", and I'd love to hear your experiences.

    My view is that its completely ridiculous. Why should we have to pay for our own safety measures? When was the last time cyclists were asked to pay for a bike lane? When was the last time pedestrians we levied for an pedestrian overpass?

    Why should motorcylists in regional SA have to pay a levy when it is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of the levy will be spent in the Adelaide Hills? Why should all SA motorcyclists have to pay the levy when not even all Adelaide riders go into the hills, and not all of them ride the "high use" roads mentioned above?

    Let's face it - this levy will be used on roads like Gorge Road, the Mad Mile, etc - high profile roads which are already highly policed and highly avoided by the rest of us.

    What I can't believe is that the MRA is seeing this as "bittersweet"! What?! They see the potential of the government ripping off motorcyclists to pay for our own road safety improvements, which no other road user is required to? They see it as a good thing to discourage people from holding onto their motorcycle licence (due to the yearly cost), and then not taking up motorcycling later in life due to the exorbitant cost of having to re-do the training all over again, reducing participation in motorcycling?

    Does the MRA think that it's a good thing that fewer people ride? Fewer people riding means it's easier to place a wedge between us and the rest of society, easier for government to place more regulation on us, easier for them to achieve general public support because fewer people understand us.

    I really need to go for a ride!
  3. It should be pointed out that the title of this thread is incorrect (no of fence to the OP) as there is currently no cost to have a motorbike endorsement if you already have another class of licence (ie car).

    So, rather than the cost of the motorbike licence doubling, a new charge only payable by people with a motorbike class on their licence is proposed, doubling the cost of having a licence for those people.

    It's exactly the same as the government proposing that anyone with an LR, MR, HR, HC, HA licence be required to pay additional just because they went out, did additional training, testing, etc, and probably have higher driving skills than someone with a basic car only licence.

    Logic doesn't come into it.
  4. I be willing to bet that if you can get your motorcycle endorsement removed, if the introduce the levy there won't that big a gap between licenses and registrations

    While it might only be used for motorcycle safety projects, rare is the motorcycle safety project that doesn't make the road safer for drivers (well except for the ones from the TAC but they don't make the road safer for anyone).

    It's just a disgraceful attempt to take advantage of a minority group because they don't think we have the numbers or influence to stop it.
  5. welcome to beigetoria...YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED
    • Like Like x 1
  6. This is what really concerns me. A mate of mine has three young kids and used his old beemer to commute. He lost the joy and sold his bike. He misses it, and will most likely get another in a few years time when the kids are a little older. But if this comes in, and money's a bit tight, and it's $300 odd he doesn't need to spend at renewal time, he might drop the bike endorsement. Then in five years time he thinks of getting his licence again. But now it's well over $1000 to redo the (frankly useless for a returning rider) licencing course, a year on an overpriced lams bike before he can really get back into the style of riding he used to enjoy, which wasn't boy racer stuff by the way. So is he going to bother?

    If not, one less bike on the road. One less murdercycle. One less potential insurance payout for the government. The government hates us anyway. For them it's all good. For us it's all bad.

    Be afraid people.
  7. As MOS said the Victorian experience is that the money has been siPhoned off into general road improvement programs and wrapped up in motorcycle safety rhetoric. The list of Victorian Safety levy projects are available HERE

    Many projects are signage improvements, hardly motorcycle specific. Some are improvements to road surfaces to improve grip for motorcycles, also a benefit to cage drivers. In fact you are hard pressed to find any supposed motorcycle project that is not of benefit to the general road users as well.

    You will have a hard time resisting this in SA but you should make it harder for them to spend the money. Lobby your local members in rider areas to make all projects require the approval of your peak Motorcycle advocacy group. Is that MRASA, not sure?

    By requiring the oversight of a motorcycle specific group you may be able to prevent the road authorities using it as their personal slush fund.
  8. This plus lowering Bull Creek speed limit.
    Since when did Victoria make SA policies?
  9. I think the question here is where does the car safety (ie. "road" safety) money come from, and is it being divided into car, bike, truck etc. in proportion to the number of vehicles registered in each category.

    If all that general money is not being used for bike safety even though part of it comes from riders, why not?
  10. One of the comments on the article, surprisingly it was the only negative-motorcycle one I read. Even cagers with no bike license were chiming in.

    I'm assuming he means 'Temporary'.
  11. What a CROCK.

    When and where do we protest for best results?

    I guess they will use the money to buy these:


    So they can make more money.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Give him a break, his education was only tempery
  13. Can't say I'm surprised. In fact I was waiting for something like this to rear its head, and it has, and I'm not surprised, and yes it will happen, and less people will ride bikes.
  14. i am SO FRICKING PISSED about this suggestion.

    Now don't get me wrong, i'd LOVE for more money to be spent on motorcycle safetly. but my issue with this 'levy' is I can garruntee the cash won't be spent on making it actually safer to ride my bike. They won't spend the money on improving road conditions, on extra rider training, on subsidising the cost of protective clothing, on repairing damaged roads, on widening roads, on advertising & promoting to car drivers that they need to pay attention & look out for bike riders. No. Instead I'd say its a good bet the cash will be spent on adverts that say 'don't treat the road like a race track' and 'pay attention at intersections cause cars don't look for you'

    Cyclists don't pay registration, insurance, or licensing yet there are heaps of adverts everywhere reminding car drivers to 'share the road' with cyclists because they're 'vulnerable road users'. I pay rego, insurance and licensing, and yet the govt wants even MORE money from me to 'improve safety'. Are they going to make 'share the road' adverts involving bikes? are they going to dedicate part of the car licensing process explaining to car drivers to check their fricking blind spot before changing lanes in case there is a rider there? I'd say its a sure bet the cash will be spent on speed cameras on road i like to ride and they'll claim they're 'improving safety'.
    • Like Like x 2
  15. This is ridiculous. I am sad to say that both my wife and i are in the situation where we have our bike licenses but no bikes. We chose to have a family and my wife didn't feel comfortable for us to ride whilst the kiddies are young. Another little on the way soon. Then when they are older, new bikes and we are back on the road.

    HOWEVER, this will be a bullet to those dreams. Being on one wage i'm not sure we could afford the additional levy and would need to look at removing the motorcycle part from our license.

    I would feel more comfortable paying if it was going to be used for motorcycle safety, but i don't feel confident that it would occur. What a disgrace.

    Fingers crossed this does not pass.
  16. I'm sure that a reduction in the number of dormant riders is something the SA Govt will be happy to see.

    Once you hand in your licence it's harder to get back on the bike, and that's something that would bring big smiles to the faces of safetycrats the world over.

    Not that I don't support voluntary refresher courses for those getting back into riding after a break, maybe dealers could even throw in a free refresher day with new bike purchases if they learn that someone has been not riding for a while...
  17. There's nothing on the MRA SA website about the issue. What's the word?
  18. the position of the MRASA (as far as I can tell) is this:

    the MRA SA oppose the levy, but don't feel it's up to them to fight it, it's up to all riders, and those that think the MRA should do something should buy an MRA membership.

    (or at least thats what one MRA member and ex counsellor posted on another riding forum)