Time to set the Club up for Historic Registration

[Bozo]

Despite the best efforts of desert raiding club members there are old motorcycles that survive to be 25 years old to meet the minimum requirements for concessional registration.

Western Australia has 122,995 registered motorcycles in 2014 having grown from 87,044 in 2009, a massive increase of 41.3% over 5 years.
The average age of WA registered motorcycles is 10.4 years and is getting older reflecting an interest in preserving old motorcycles.

21.2% of registered motorcycles in WA were built before 1999. This is 26,035 motorcycles.

The Council of Motoring Clubs WA reports that clubs affiliated with it have 1,100 concessional licensed historic motorcycles.

There would be more than 5,000 bikes that would qualify for concessional registration in WA, many of them BMWs.

We would need to do some minor modifications to our Club Rules, get a member qualified as a scrutineer and affiliate with the Council of Motoring Clubs WA.

Not a lot to do to save members a lot of money on full registration.

[wightman]

Yes, this is true. It would not be difficult. People will have to endure the ignominy of placing a "historic" sticker or plate, either below or above the registration plate

[Swampy]

Yes, this is true. It would not be difficult. People will have to endure the ignominy of placing a "historic" sticker or plate, either below or above the registration plate

Yes John and a lot of members would even qualify to wear "Historic Stickers" as name tags too

Swampy

[Bozo]

Swampy

To qualify for the historic sticker you still have to meet manufacturers specifications. No alterations that were not part of the original model allowed.

Some of our members were fully faired at birth but are now bald as a badger. Hip joints, pacemakers, additional lenses and ceramic modification...how many would pass scrutineering as being original. Some members are now injected when they were originally normally aspirated. Some have discs that moved to new and troublesome locations. Many now have trouble muffling their exhaust and are way out of specification on kerb weight.

Lets just focus on the bikes

Bozo

[Swampy]

Well said Bozo but I guess what you are really saying is that "You would'nt qualify either??

Swampy

[goodguy]

Nice if this could be achieved.

[BillB]

This issue has come about as result of the State government proposing to increase vehicle licence costs by quite considerable amounts to cover the cost of the State government Compensation Scheme. If you have multiple vehicles each vehicle licence fee is going to go up considerably. Veteran bikes are only part of this push to raise the revenue to pay for the costs of this scheme. If you own multiple modern bikes and cars you are going to be slugged.

As a club maybe we should also be thinking of another approach from the club. I would suggest a petition of members and others to target those that have put together this policy to push for the levy to be added to the drivers licence instead of multiple vehicle licences to cover the cost of State Govt compensation insurance.

This levy should be added to a drivers licence whereby that person driving the vehicle is insured for accident compensation. It should be a one only payment as only one vehicle can be driven at a time by that licence holder.

Why owning multiple vehicles and being slugged multiple insurance levi's has anything to do with a compensation claim on a accident which can only be caused by operating one of the multiple owned vehicles, I don't understand.

Surely each individual vehicle licence can only be functioning on our roads when the driver is utilising that vehicle one at a time and that individual can't be operating multiple vehicles at the same time so why is the proposed compensation levy added to each of the multiple vehicle licences.

We should be trying to fight this ridiculous and unfair money grab and actively make those that have come up with this plan aware that it is completely unfair to be adding charges to multiple owned vehicles to cover the costs of the State Accident Compensation Scheme.

They should be made aware that it is fairer to put the financial cost on a individual drivers licence instead.

Actively target your local member........

Anyone interested in getting a petition up and running?

Bill

[Colin Della]

Agreed

[bully1]

A petition from 250 club members vs the billions of dollars of state revenue......somehow I don't like your chances.

I already pay in excess of 15k in rego fees annually, I believe that the new fee should be attached to your licence not your rego, generally I can only use 1 vehicle at a time ( I know my ass is pretty big but I can't spread it too far ) , the government has unfortunately looked at the way to achieve maximum gain.

[Colin Della]

Unfortunately Bully's points are right .

[_Wilks]

Also need to remember that the Govt advisers will have a target total revenue figure in mind. It can be achieved by either dividing by the number of vehicles (current system) or by dividing by the number of registered drivers. Give it a minutes thought and you should be able to work out which method will have less political backlash.

Of greater concern for me is the discussion that there will be a planned review of the scheme after 12 months of operation. If there is a review, one potential outcome is to 'weight' the levy to reflect something closer to a user pays model (which is always a politicians favourite model). Under that model, the levy may be increased (or weighted) for a particular vehicle type if that vehicle results in an typically higher average claim. If that scenario ever eventuates we will definitely need to get our petition pens ready.

[nickschober]

can someone explain why its not compulsory to have any form of motor vehicle insurance ????

[bill9117]

[quote="_Wilks"]Also need to remember that the Govt advisers will have a target total revenue figure in mind. It can be achieved by either dividing by the number of vehicles (current system) or by dividing by the number of registered drivers. Give it a minutes thought and you should be able to work out which method will have less political implications

Somehow I think most of this targeted revenue will go into general revenue to solve budget deficiencies. The govt no fault insurance compensation fund surely doesn't require the sort of income stream multiple vehicle licences would
generate.
A small increase on an individual's drivers licence with maybe different differential rates for the various user groups that seem to generate different compo usage and costs on the scheme could be calculated as a fair alternative and be charged accordingly . But to try and load up those that enjoy having numerous vehicles because they enjoy their motorcycling,car driving to pay for this scheme is just unfair and those being targeted should rise and be heard......
Logically using their reasoning they should also be targeting cyclists, gopher drivers and pedestrians who also use our roads and can be compo recipients