Kerre McIvor: That's right - sting those who can least afford it

Even new cars are known to be involved in crashes. Photo / Duncan Brown

What utterly specious reasoning from ACC, which claims levies on private motor vehicles will mean safer cars and fewer crashes.

The corporation is looking into using a system that will charge those who own safer (modern) cars lower fees each year than owners of less safe (older) cars. Do they really think the owner of a perfectly safe and sound 10-year-old Toyota Corolla that has never and will never break down will upgrade their vehicle for the sake of saving $100?

Buying a car is the most uneconomic purchase you will ever make. The moment you drive it off the yard, it starts to lose money.

Most people buy a car to get from A to B. Accordingly, you buy what you can afford. People on low incomes tend to buy old clunkers because that's all they can afford.

They're not driving unsafe old dungers because they want to. It's not as if they have a spare $20,000 sitting in an old Milo tin for flash new wheels.

Unlock all articles by subscribing to this international offer

All Access Weekly

Herald Premium, Viva Premium, The Listener & BusinessDesk

Pay just

$15.75

$2

per week ongoing

See all offers

Already a subscriber? Sign in here

To those who say "if you can't afford a decent car and you can't afford the charges associated with being on the road, don't drive", how are people supposed to get to work without a car?

In the absence of decent public transport, and given that many people on low incomes do shift work, they need a car, even if it's held together with number eight wire.

ACC penalising them for driving old clunkers won't help them get into a better car.