It is said that those who cannot afford the latest, greatest and safest cars (except Mustangs, Jeeps and Fiat Pandas) are paying an unfair higher price for registration and I agree with that. The change is to make the burden more fair.

I'll end up paying more, but agree it will make the burden fairer.

Under current system people are being penalized for not being able to afford a more expensive car.

I don't agree it is fairer.

If you are in a safer car, ACC are less likely to incur costs or, of they do, the costs are likely to be lower.

I don't regard people's ability to pay as relevant to the equation. 

Where is the government's proof that the current system (barely 2 years old) does not result in lower ACC costs for those in safer cars and that therefore it is not fair their ACC cost should fall - which is the only aspect of fairness relevant?

MikeB4:

It is said that those who cannot afford the latest, greatest and safest cars (except Mustangs, Jeeps and Fiat Pandas) are paying an unfair higher price for registration and I agree with that. The change is to make the burden more fair.

rugrat:

I'll end up paying more, but agree it will make the burden fairer.

Under current system people are being penalized for not being able to afford a more expensive car.

 

Geektastic: I see the safety based system, introduced at great expense no doubt, is being binned for no good reason at all.

I'm pleased to see it go. The new system was fundamentally flawed. It wasn't based on safety, it was based on crash statistics.

As someone who drives a cheap car with a high safety rating, I was being penalised because of other users of similar vehicles - corporate fleets and rental companies. My two year old car went from having the lowest ACC levy one year, to the highest the next!

TwoSeven:

rugrat:

 

I'll end up paying more, but agree it will make the burden fairer.

 

 

 

Under current system people are being penalized for not being able to afford a more expensive car.

 

 

 

 

 

For the sake of argument - why ?

Why what? I was assuming a more expensive car would have higher safely in a crash, the $1500 car post though blew that out the water.

I don't think a extra $30 or so a year is going to influence what car people buy, at the higher end cost of cars, if there are cars at lower prices that get the lowest ACC, then it could.

If there are $1500 cars that get the full benefit then current system is fine, but if it's only more expensive cars it is penalizing people on lower incomes in my view. Guess it depends on the view if it should be user pays in all situations, or if there are some situations where costs should be averaged more.

Geektastic: They'd be better off basing the cost on emissions.

and when do you measure those?

half of the 2 year old diesels have more visible emissions than a well maintained 1990 corolla

Geektastic:

 

I don't agree it is fairer.

 

 

 

If you are in a safer car, ACC are less likely to incur costs or, of they do, the costs are likely to be lower.

 

 

 

I don't regard people's ability to pay as relevant to the equation. 

 

 

 

Where is the government's proof that the current system (barely 2 years old) does not result in lower ACC costs for those in safer cars and that therefore it is not fair their ACC cost should fall - which is the only aspect of fairness relevant?

 

Driving a modern expensive car with lots of airbags etc does not make a driver better, and does not stop a bad driver causing injury. Being well off does not make a good driver.

This will even it out in my house - an old Nissan and an equally old Volvo - the Nissan being a LOT more expensive to register than the Volvo, due to the perceived safety of my Swedish Brick...

That being said, my wife's Nissan hatchback (1.5l CVT) is capable of far less speed than my brick, which has a 5cyl turbocharged 2.5l engine...

So if they get it right this time, it's not that big a deal for me, but I can understand the frustration for those that feel that it may just add to the cost of car ownership. 

Phased out due to equity concerns.

Meanwhile, the fuel taxes which hit those with older, less efficient engines continue to increase year on year. No one seemed to care about the equity argument then, did they?