BRONZ submission - draft

[candor]

Check e-ml. Send not sub in haste while tired... work more thru lunch then send on deadline! Impressive efforts KB.

[Pixie]

This submission should not just be wasted on ACC.
We should try to get it published as an article by in a major newspaper.
Can we get this done "as a right of reply" to the ACC ads

[Marmoot]

Saying that some users of the scheme must pay more than others because the former are “responsible” for costing the scheme more than the latter , is contrary to the foundation principles of the scheme and it also re-introduces the notion of fault into the scheme when it was set up in the first place to avoid it.

Thanks I see what you did there.
Let my name be in the anals of the history.

In a serious note, I assume copies will also be submitted to major newspapers and TV?

[Ixion]

Ixion some great points well made as always.

You make some comment on wanting the ACC to stop trying to be an insurance company and stick to the no fault Woodhouse principles and then you say....

"If I ride a Yamaha for 10000 kilometres a year I incur a certain risk of injury. And I, like every other motorcyclist am prepared to pay my fair contribution toward the cost of any injury consequent to that risk."

Do you want the Woodhouse principles or are you willing to accept and insurance style risk/premium business model for ACC? It seems a bit contradictory.

"Likewise again, failure to require diesel vehicles to have non return vales in their fuel lines" I think you could consider changing "fuel lines" "fuel filler necks".

Ixion, many thanks for the incredible efforts you have put into this campaign so far.

vales?

Yith. I anguished long over that phrase.

What I want to say is that motorcyclists are of course willing to pay their share. We are not intending to bludge off others. But we should not be specifically targeted to pay more.

Suggestions for revision are invited on that clause

[Marmoot]

And I, like every other motorcyclist , am prepared to pay my fair contribution toward the cost of any injury consequent to that risk.

I agree this sentence is contradictory to the intent of the letter, and it also would "give ACC guys ideas". You don't want to give them ideas.

I vote for deleting the sentence.

[motorbyclist]

remove it. I'm not prepared to pay my fair share if they reckon it's upwards of $500. The scooter population aren't even prepared to take basic safety measures such as wearing gloves, despite having a compartment to store them in.

[Ixion]

Final version, winging its way through cyberspace.

Various typos corrected, some comments amended, and a new (and potentially rather important ) section 11 added.

(nobody picked up the really bad error - where I said "there is correlation", but meant "there is no correlation" !)

[Ozzie]

nice mate, very well written.

[XP@]

Is there any reason why the submission does not include the "off-road" factor?
I understood that the off road bikes could not be extracted from their statistics.

Looking at the numbers it could explain why there is a really high cost for the 51 - 125cc class (after all who rides a bike that size on the road?) search on trademe and the answer is plain. The vast majority of bikes in this class are off roaders which are not registered for the road. The only genuine road bikes in this class are Japanese 1980's 125cc commuters.

Riders of these bikes will be young and untrained (or worse trained by family and friends: ref Hurt report). This would explain the accident rate double that of the highest class of road bikes.

[Ixion]

Because ACC simply deny it. We have our doubts but no explicit evidence to prove that off roaders end up in the wrong account.

If anyone can point me to such evidence I would be delighted to include it.

(there are quite a few 125cc and 80cc scooters)

[Squiggles]

section 11 added.

that theres' some good shit

[motorbyclist]

section 8

In fact the accident rate in 2008 was LOWER than that of 1998 and HALF that of 1998

the table also has two 1988s on it... and no 1998

I also made the point that as a proportion of crashes, the smaller bike component of the pre-1999 fleet will further throw the relativity figures.

[XP@]

Because ACC simply deny it. We have our doubts but no explicit evidence to prove that off roaders end up in the wrong account.

If anyone can point me to such evidence I would be delighted to include it.

(there are quite a few 125cc and 80cc scooters)

the 51-125 cc group is a stasticical anomily which should raise a question anyway

Do we have by engine size and age?
If we do and it shows riders < 15 year old then we have them.
If we do not have this informaiton then where the bloody hell is it?

[StoneY]

I said it before, and saying it again

Ixion for PM

The Angry Biker Party gets my vote!!!!!!! (just as legit as the Maori party I say)

Nice work Les, any dailies been asked to publish it yet?

[Ixion]

section 8


the table also has two 1988s on it... and no 1998

I also made the point that as a proportion of crashes, the smaller bike component of the pre-1999 fleet will further throw the relativity figures.

Oops. Fixed