ACC have published the new motor vehicle levies and they make interesting reading.

ACC have gone through and assigned a rating system from L1 to L4 for most vehicles, L1 being the most expensive and L4 being the least. If yours is not defined then the levy works on a year of manufacture basis. L1 for older vehicles and graduating though to the cheapest L4 for newer vehicles.

The reason I’m writing this is I disagree with some of the assertions in the NZ Herald article. ACC have done this review based on claims risk from actual injury data not vehicle safety. Injury’s drive ACC’s costs, not vehicle safety. Yes safer vehicles generally means less injuries and less ACC cost, but that doesn’t always translate directly from vehicle safety testing.

Where there is evidence that a particular vehicle is involved in accidents causing injury then they get a higher rating. If it is a new vehicle and there is no accident data then ACC rely on the safety rating of the vehicle to establish the levy.

The assertion in the Herald article that the Nissan Caravan 2001-2011 should pay higher levies based on it’s safety rating is likely a statement of not understanding the risk. While I cannot disagree with the safety rating of this particular vehicle, maybe the owners of this vehicle are safer drivers?

I say this as the ACC levy is a reflection of accident injury costs, the Nissan Caravan 2001 – 2011 is likely not well represented in accident data, thus the lower risk rating, in spite of it’s safety rating. If you look at the Nissan Caravan for 2012 to current it attracts the highest vehicle registration levy of L1, not because of safety record but likely due to safety testing as there is probably not enough accident stats.

If we look at a vehicle that is more at the other end of the scale, we find something similar with the Audi TT. While not as extreme as the Nissan Caravan, the Audi TT 1999-2011 gets a lower levy than the 2012 to current model does. The newer models typically being safer than the old ones based of crash testing. This car being a sports car generally has a higher chance of injury than the family Volvo, but early models clearly aren’t reflected in accident stats. Where as the newer Audi TT is penalised due to it not being as well safety rated as the family Volvo.

You could also argue so what. If you can afford the new Audi TT you can afford a slightly higher levy, well maybe, but that is not the point. The point is ACC have rated your vehicle based on its actual safety performance, not its crash testing performance, crash testing is secondary.

If you are not paying an L4 levy on your vehicle then you might want to look at the real reason why.

Is it because you have a new model and it has not been long enough to establish accident history? Then you might want to check the crash testing on it because its likely not as good as another new vehicle which has better crash testing.

Is it because your vehicle is involved in accidents more often? If so, is this a reflection of the driving habits of the typical owner?

Not casting dispersions on boy racers, they can be in any vehicle. What I’m meaning is the use of the vehicle. Surprisingly the Nissan Patrol gets rated heavily, is this due to highway accidents or off road accidents where this vehicle is often used? Similar story with the Suzuki range of off road vehicles too.

Understanding risk is about understanding the reality. To say that a new vehicle is safer because of testing, and it should be rated lower but ignore that it falls into a category where the occupants get hurt more often, doesn’t accurately reflect the real risk.

In fact, it hides the data people need to know to make better-informed decisions. It is not the vehicle that solely determines the injury risk. Vehicle + Driver + Activity = Outcome

4 x 4 off road vehicle + inexperienced off road driver + sand dune = high injury risk.

Nissan Caravan full of trade materials + 45 year old painter + commuting to work = low injury risk

Risk is relative, without all the information you are still guessing.

The NZ Herald story referred to is here and the ACC Document with individual vehicle levy information is here. The update for 2016 to 2017 is here