1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. NZ.GENERAL

  • User pays for ACC

    From Gordon@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 8 22:29:27 2024
    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/530216/acc-levies-part-of-spectacularly-hard-time-for-electric-cars

    Up until now the ACC on levey on EVs has been discounted. What was the logic
    in that?

    Why should the EV owners get a discounted levey? I know they act as if they
    are entitled to a free EV and fuel for the life of the car. But adding this
    in is just insult to injury. $9.8 million dollars over 3 years.

    The are also moaning about having to pay more for the ACC. A whole $40/year extra for a car which costs twice that of a ICE powered car.

    Well done is getting things in order Minister.

    Now if the EV lobby group considers this ACC rate to be too hight, just wait for the howl as the Insurance companies start applying the rates to insure
    an EV car. Remember the fire starting potential.

    Then we have this to finish off with this

    "Corson said EV owners had no problem paying their share, but the proposal
    will leave them paying more, despite having typically newer and therefore
    safer cars."

    A newer cars safrter than old ones? Really? We have a WOF system to ensure
    all cars on the roads are safe. It is the drivers who cause the accidents, mechanical faults in older cars, which are the cause of the accidents are
    very rare, about 5% from memory.

    EVs on the other has have software which allows the car to accelerate
    without the owners input, any time, etc.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to Gordon on Wed Oct 9 17:15:26 2024
    On 8 Oct 2024 22:29:27 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/530216/acc-levies-part-of-spectacularly-hard-time-for-electric-cars

    Up until now the ACC on levey on EVs has been discounted. What was the logic >in that?

    Why should the EV owners get a discounted levey? I know they act as if they >are entitled to a free EV and fuel for the life of the car. But adding this >in is just insult to injury. $9.8 million dollars over 3 years.

    The are also moaning about having to pay more for the ACC. A whole $40/year >extra for a car which costs twice that of a ICE powered car.

    Well done is getting things in order Minister.

    Now if the EV lobby group considers this ACC rate to be too hight, just wait >for the howl as the Insurance companies start applying the rates to insure
    an EV car. Remember the fire starting potential.

    Then we have this to finish off with this

    "Corson said EV owners had no problem paying their share, but the proposal >will leave them paying more, despite having typically newer and therefore >safer cars."

    A newer cars safrter than old ones? Really? We have a WOF system to ensure >all cars on the roads are safe. It is the drivers who cause the accidents, >mechanical faults in older cars, which are the cause of the accidents are >very rare, about 5% from memory.

    EVs on the other has have software which allows the car to accelerate
    without the owners input, any time, etc.

    We will need to see the advice before we know the truth. Some is
    deliberate Green-baiting, but some EVS are heavy and can cause road
    damage more than lighter vehicles. We don't measure emissions which is increasingly out of line with other countries. These appear to be
    largely political rather than science based charges.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)