Ducati Monster Forum

Anyone reading this in Tas can now ditch their rego label as of today. We have moved into the 21 century.

Confirmation here:
http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/registration_information/important_changes_to_vehicle_registration (http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/registration_information/important_changes_to_vehicle_registration)

That will tidy up the rear end of the bike.  [thumbsup]

Congratulations!  [wine] Definitely a good thing.
Same is happening here in NSW soon...which explains why my local bike store was selling Rego Roll Holders for $10 each a while back - down from $60... I knew something must be "up"...

Now, if they'd just abolish TOLLS for bikes, and sell CTP Insurance to cover the DRIVER/RIDER instead of every single vehicle...I dunno about anyone else, but I can't ride my Monster and drive my stinking car (a rare but  necessary evil) at the same time...

SA has had it for a while - welcome to the 21st Century.  Dont have to worry about that silly rego label holder anymore.

Too bloody right!

I have had a similar, ongoing argument with the NRMA (and their roadside service) for many years.

i'd vote for that! 7 rego's to pay here......

Same here in Tas. Injury insurance premium is part of vehicle rego. You pay the premium for every vehicle, even though you can only use one at a time.

Should be part of your licence fee, not vehicle rego.

Greetings from 1956 (VIC)................  :-\

Here in victoria, they are still dishing out fines for obscured rego labels, or 'hidden' labels.

As if they cant check the rego number on their incar computer systems.

As above, hello from 1956. UnfortunTely for us mexicans

Us banana benders are still cleaning up behind the horse too with rego labels but we now have "chip" licenses similar to credit cards! Useless bits of kit they are!

And the facial recognition pictures on the Drivers Licence, Passport, Firearms Licence and High Risk Work Licence.

..yep, that's OUTRAGEOUS - has anybody ever tried to do anything about it? That's 7 x (roughly) $350 in CTP - about $2500 in insurance, when you can only ride one bike at a time... duplicating basic Rego, may be fair enough - but the CTP duplication is ridiculous.

If it's good enough for QBE to sell me "Single Rider" comprehensive insurance, it should be good enough for CTP to offer the same option i.e. I'm the only person who is going to ride the bike, and it's not covered if I let some other schmuck get on it.

I vote for annual licence renewal with CTP included in that... I'm yet to hear ONE good reason why not.

It's State-sponsored THEFT! Grrrrr...

I am in no way arguing against your logic (we have 7 regos between the two of us as well) ... but I suspect all of the following will get an airing in reply - so get your logical arguments sorted for these too:

• green slips are calculated on a number of factors which vary (rightly or wrongly) not only by rider/driver but also by vehicle, including but not limited to ...
• age of the vehicle
• address
• driving record
• GST status
• whether you carry a pillion :o [roll]
• engine capacity
• type of vehicle
• age of rider/driver
• driving record
• etc, etc

Some of these will apply differently depending on what you are riding/driving ... so they will argue it is not possible to change the system.

Most of these are complete bullshit for the calculation anyway and most if not all could be included in your individual licensing/registration costs ... for example:

• age of the vehicle - bullshit
• address - bullshit
• driving record - easier to apply to the individual anyway
• GST status - sort it out through company tax bullshit
• whether you carry a pillion :o [roll] - BULLSHIT
• engine capacity - apply a limit to the individual if they must, but mostly bullshit as no different to licensing
• type of vehicle - this is a tough one but easiest to incorporate with the registration, so your argument for separate rego for each vehicle is valid, somewhat unfortunately
• age of rider/driver - bullshit
• etc, etc - I pre-empt their argument with a counter argument ... bullshit

But of course we, the consumer, would be deprived of the incalculable (I may have just made that up) benefit provided by the insurance cartel via competition [laugh]

Now look what you've started Techno [cheeky]

Thanks for your interest in this, Betty. Clearly it is a bugbear of mine - and I only own TWO vehicles! None of those 'factors' preclude a licence-based system, however. The 'other' argument - that the overall cost would rise if multiple vehicle owners only paid a single CTP insurance, is nonsense too. This would constitute an admission that multiple vehicle owners are "subsidising" other people's CTP cover. Bad.  >:(

• age of the vehicle

- vehicles don't cause crashes - DRIVERS do. Except maybe those stupid cars with 'parking sensors'...if you need a 'parking sensor' you shouldn't be allowed a licence, IMHO.

• address

- yep - you need one of these to have a licence too. In fact, what happens when someone from a "high risk address" (chortle, splutter) takes my car or bike for a spin....?

• driving record

- as you say - perfect for a licence based CTP system

• GST status

- not relevant in any way whatsoever.

• whether you carry a pillion :o [roll]

No CTP insurer has EVER asked me if I intend to carry a pillion or not. They could easily just assume that all riders do at some point...

• engine capacity

- so, just assume that you will be riding the highest capacity engine your licence allows for. It'd still be cheaper than paying SEVEN CTP insurances....or even TWO....

• type of vehicle

- as I said, when is the last time a vehicle caused a crash? Again, I'd be happy for them to assume that it is the most "high risk" vehicle - what bollocks...Either way, it'd be cheaper and make more sense than paying two PERSONAL INJURY INSURANCE fees...

• age of rider/driver

- perfect for licence based system

• driving record

- perfect for licence based system

• etc, etc

- for etc, etc read revenue, revenue, revenue....
[/list]

A person can only operate one vehicle at a time. It is the person who constitutes the "risk" factor on the road. CTP insurance should be a pre-requisite of licence renewal, not vehicle registration, and should cover the individual for whatever vehicle they happen to be operating at the time.

End of bleat!  >:(

Had the same argument with the NRMA. They were saying it is unfair that a family of 12 should have to pay individually when they are all using the same car.

My counter argument was that the piece of shit they were 'driving' around was less likely to be properly maintained and may be over-used and abused. Certainly not the pride in ownership and care that a well-maintained fleet of seven may have from an 'enthusiast'. They were pandering to the wrong customer base.

Perhaps your system may actually improve conditions on the road as everybody can individually effect what they pay via their record ... rather than jumping in Grandma's car with her cheap insurance (actually free for everyone but Grandma).

Of course this will lead to more unlicensed drivers on the road as it just becomes too expensive to pay your licensing costs.

Now THAT'S an argument I hadn't considered before, and a reasonable point too. How many family's of 12 manage to share a car...? Maybe husband and wife and (for a short time), a kid or two on their P's?
Did the same NRMA spokesperson think that it was "fair" to pay $2500 in CTP insurance when you spend the same time on the road and present the same potential cost liability as 12 people paying $350-400....?

I know we are preaching to the converted...but nothing will change if nobody DOES anything about it...