ACC justice for bikers - towards a smarter approach?

[aum108]

When trying to influence the political process, it's very tempting to jump up and down and complain about injustice. But if the government can't clearly see the prospect of major vote loss, it will just dig its heels in and ignore the complaints.

The only way for lobbying to work is to show the government how to get more of what it wants, in ways that give us more of what we want.

If we're going to get any justice out of ACC (or at least mitigate the current injustice) we need to work smarter and play the government against its own wants.

So what does the government want?

• Increase ACC revenues without pissing off *too* many people
• Decrease ACC payouts without pissing off *too* many people
• Make the accident insurance market appealing for private insurers (by making ACC a bitch and easier to compete against)
• Be seen to be promoting safety and reducing injuries and deaths
• Put more financial responsibilities on the individual, less on the state

So then, the problem is how to help the government to get more of what it wants in a way that gives bikers more of what they want (ie, fairer premiums). How do we do this? There are some ways:

• Expose the current system as financially and mathematically flawed - it is costing the government (and thus the taxpayer) money
• Promote a system of ACC excesses for owners of vehicles deemed to be at-fault in accidents - 10-500% surcharge per year for 2-10 years
• Promote more stringent driver/rider testing and relicensing - eg high-intensity simulator tests
• Use current insurance data to set ACC bike premiums which vary according to brand/model, region, owner age/gender etc

Example - Joe Sixpack cage driver drifts over highway centre line going round a corner and takes out Harry on his Harley because he "didn't see him".

Under the old system, Harry spends 6 months in the spinal unit learning to walk again, while Joe Sixpack pays a modest fine, cops a few demerits, and in 2 years is scot-free.

Under the new system, Harry is still in the spinal unit, but Joe Sixpack is now paying $1000/year for the next 10 years to keep his cage registered. He also has to spend some hours in the cage simulator, looking out for bikes all over the place. He whines to his friends, and more and more cage drivers start looking out for bikes. Meanwhile, Harry is rehabilitated and back on his Harley. He and his mates are paying lower premiums. And ACC is showing healthier finances. Everybody wins. (Except for the f---tards, that is )

Thoughts anyone?

Cheers
a

[MSTRS:Me]

There only needs to be one hole in an argument for the whole thing to be ignored as valid.
Your hole is you assume that a vehicle only ever has one owner/driver.
Until levies go on licences (heaven forbid) then you need to look at other ways of arguing the injustices of the current system.

[MSTRS:Me]

Now, me, I would argue that putting levies on fuel at the pump would be more equitable and go a long way towards stopping the use of unregistered vehicles, since the actual rego fee (without ACC) is only about $50.

The other, most equitable, argument is for a return to the Woodhouse principle. Every vehicle pays the same fee. Since every motorist contributes to the risk-pool, either in injuring themselves, or someone else. And for most motorists, the fee they pay ACC in their rego is never used by them personally. So everyone covers everyone. No risk-rating differences are needed, which is where the inequities lie.

[Scuba_Steve]

think the biggest problem is your still single focused, ACC is more than just vehicles, which is why I say stop taking it from everywhere & put it exclusively in GST. This way everyone pays in a fair, no-fault way.

[aum108]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Your hole is you assume that a vehicle only ever has one owner/driver.

I've allowed for that. If we have a regime where vehicle owners are financially rewarded or punished according to how their vehicles are used, they're going to be more careful about who they allow to use their vehicles.

The Woodhouse principle has some pros and cons. But who wants to pay more because of idiots who getting pissed, wrap their boy racer machines round trees, and run up 7 figure medical and rehabilitation bills?

I'm given to wondering what is so bad about levies on licenses. Maybe splitting the difference and finding something half way between Woodhouse and offender pays.

[p.dath]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

...

• Expose the current system as financially and mathematically flawed - it is costing the government (and thus the taxpayer) money
• Promote a system of ACC excesses for owners of vehicles deemed to be at-fault in accidents - 10-500% surcharge per year for 2-10 years
• Promote more stringent driver/rider testing and relicensing - eg high-intensity simulator tests
• Use current insurance data to set ACC bike premiums which vary according to brand/model, region, owner age/gender etc

...

I don't want to disuade you, but you need to learn more about where ACC came from and the problem it was trying to solve to understand where it needs to go. I would suggest starting with the Woodhouse report. It's comprehensive, and was what ACC was founded on. Once you understand the problem ACC was trying to solve, you'll understand why about half of what you are suggesting will not take us in the right direction.

You can find an online copy here:
http://www.library.auckland.ac.nz/data/woodhouse/


What you are effectively proposing is a change to the American system (except you've not given the right to sue back - but effectively done the same by making the person causing injury pay the Government) - pretty much recognised as the worst system in the developed world.

[aum108]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

think the biggest problem is your still single focused, ACC is more than just vehicles, which is why I say stop taking it from everywhere & put it exclusively in GST. This way everyone pays in a fair, no-fault way.

I admit there's huge appeal in just spreading the charge evenly.

But it's well proven that when people face no significant personal consequences for unsafe conduct, they will tend to behave less safely. And vice versa.

The system must have incentives/disincentives for safe/unsafe decisions.

[MSTRS:Me]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

...who wants to pay more because of idiots who getting pissed, wrap their boy racer machines round trees, and run up 7 figure medical and rehabilitation bills?
...

Nobody. That's who.
But who wants to pay more because some bikers refuse to gear up, and perhaps suffer worse injuries in an off?
Good luck getting consensus on that...

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm given to wondering what is so bad about levies on licenses. Maybe splitting the difference and finding something half way between Woodhouse and offender pays.

Trouble with putting it on licences, is it leads to exactly what we have now...a lot of motorists, and in particular bikers, saying "Fuck it. I have to be caught x times before it's worth the expense."
And the other main argument is that it penalises those who drive/ride infrequently.

Forget 'splitting it' any which way. We have that now, anyway, with some on fuel (petrol only, mind) and the rest on rego.

[MSTRS:Me]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But it's well proven that when people face no significant personal consequences for unsafe conduct, they will tend to behave less safely. And vice versa.

The system must have incentives/disincentives for safe/unsafe decisions.

I blame the PC world we live in. Littlies don't learn that it hurts to fall out of a tree, when they aren't allowed to climb them. Which leads to a whole lot of (newby) drivers/riders not realising the painful consequences of a crash. More so, riders, as we are still as vulnerable as ever to personal injury, whilst cagers have better and better safety equipment to avoid injury. Plus no-one ever got hurt doing GTA, eh?

[davereid]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Now, me, I would argue that putting levies on fuel at the pump would be more equitable and go a long way towards stopping the use of unregistered vehicles, since the actual rego fee (without ACC) is only about $50.

This excellent idea will be ignored.

(1) Because government wants to be able to "introduce competition' (ie help big business make a profit from) ACC. It cant do that if the levy is collected at the pump. It needs to be able to invoice individuals.

(2) They will try and blur it by saying hhmmph what about electric vehicles. This of course is crap. We will all have smart meters soon, so the levy could be applied 'at the pump" but this will be ignored.

(3) I have asked ACC via an OIA to tell me the cost of collection via fuel levy compared to via registration, or indeed invoicing. They declined to answer. (This will be addressed in the new year)

How it will have to be headed for privatization to occur.

ACC will first have to start to invoice you directly. you will get a 'green slip" (or more likely electronically done) authority to licence your vehicle.

They will send different vehicle types and users different invoices.

The petrol levy we already have will be retained - they will say its to cover those that never insure.

You will then get the option of buying you 'green slip" from private insurers.

It is likely that somewhere in this scenario, compulsory third party insurance will be thrown in. This appeals to those who don't know the facts, and is likely to get widespread support from the uninformed.

[pzkpfw]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

... Example - Joe Sixpack cage driver drifts over highway centre line going round a corner and takes out Harry on his Harley because he "didn't see him".

Under the old system, Harry spends 6 months in the spinal unit learning to walk again, while Joe Sixpack pays a modest fine, cops a few demerits, and in 2 years is scot-free.

Under the new system, Harry is still in the spinal unit, but Joe Sixpack is now paying $1000/year for the next 10 years to keep his cage registered. He also has to spend some hours in the cage simulator, looking out for bikes all over the place. He whines to his friends, and more and more cage drivers start looking out for bikes. Meanwhile, Harry is rehabilitated and back on his Harley. He and his mates are paying lower premiums. And ACC is showing healthier finances. Everybody wins. (Except for the f---tards, that is )

Thoughts anyone?

Cheers
a

While "we" like to rage against the car drivers, a significant proportion of motorcycle accidents are the fault of the rider. If your Harry crashes his own Harley, is he going to be paying $1000 per year for the next ten years? Will that be taken out of the invalids benefit he now receives?

(
Me, I'm all for - we all pay more or less the same ACC and we all receive the same "cover". Simple. Same as how people who do/play (insert name of activity here) get ACC benefits while doing something I don't, even though they are not paying more ACC fees for the privilege.

Method of collection is the main question. Petrol seems good at first sniff. At least it's more closely related to actual use on the road. An owner of multiple motorcycles is only paying for the one being used at one time. Even if one is loaned to a mate, that still pays ACC via it's own petrol use. Driver/rider on the road more k's pays more, but that seems fair-ish. And in a subtle way may encourages fuel efficiency. (Like "fat tax"; there are people who claim taxation can force behaviour, I'm not so sure, but it's an argument that might help get ACC onto petrol...).
)

I do like your idea that someone causing an accident gets made to do some remedial education. Perhaps make that "user pays". i.e. the numpties (of whatever vehicle type) who cause an accident (their own or anothers) get told they have to go to night classes for re-training, and sting them by making them pay for it.

[p.dath]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Now, me, I would argue that putting levies on fuel at the pump would be more equitable and go a long way towards stopping the use of unregistered vehicles...

We already have ACC levies on petrol at the pump. The Government has looked at shifting the levy to be 100% on petrol at the pump, but decided against at, and stayed with the current split (some on petrol, some on your rego).

[Scuba_Steve]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I admit there's huge appeal in just spreading the charge evenly.

But it's well proven that when people face no significant personal consequences for unsafe conduct, they will tend to behave less safely. And vice versa.

The system must have incentives/disincentives for safe/unsafe decisions.

but then it's some of those "unsafe" decisions that has brought NZ glory (again I'm talking broader than just general road). Some of NZ's greatest moments have come from "stupid" actions & I for 1 would like to see that continue.

Leave the insurance companies to penalize bad drivers, raising vehicle licences is only going to have less people pay for them, case in point bikes at current.

[MSTRS:Me]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Me, I'm all for - we all pay more or less the same ACC and we all receive the same "cover". Simple. Same as how people who do/play (insert name of activity here) get ACC benefits while doing something I don't, even though they are not paying more ACC fees for the privilege.

If you're talking ACC on earnings, paid by the earner, then Woodhouse still applies. Everyone pays $x/$100 earned for cover of 'leisure' injuries. Those who earn more, pay more. Doesn't matter (almost) what one does for fun, it's all covered for the same amount. What annoys me though, is Joe Bloggs can go ride his dirtbike and his wage payments cover him (yes, he'll pay a small amount in his fuel). I ride my Gsxr for fun, but because it's on the road, I pay twice. Yet Joe Bloggs is much more likely to hurt himself than I am.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

We already have ACC levies on petrol at the pump. The Government has looked at shifting the levy to be 100% on petrol at the pump, but decided against at, and stayed with the current split (some on petrol, some on your rego).

I know. 09.9c/lt.
I didn't know the govt had looked at/discounted a complete shift to fuel. I'm picking that Davereid is right...

[Brian d'marge]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I admit there's huge appeal in just spreading the charge evenly.

But it's well proven that when people face no significant personal consequences for unsafe conduct, they will tend to behave less safely. And vice versa.

The system must have incentives/disincentives for safe/unsafe decisions.

punishment, its a very puritanical western way of thinking,
I'm not going into why... the acc went up, suffice to say that the nz government has acted quite prudently, and I suspect a treasury or some thing like that, decision based on pressure from an outside influence.
anyway the original nz wood house was a nz first, friggen good and a world leader....and didnt need to change
now I agree with your opinion that if there is no fault people do become lazy in decision making and should be given a kick up the arse ... but I feel by education...
ie screw up and you go to drivers training for a friggen long time, and at a time when it is most inconvenient ....miss one lesson and get added two more......
who pays for the education ..... why the guilty party maybe, the amount of subsidy should be decided by the court,,,,or mutual agreement ....
we do need that punishment, but behind that we need firm education ...
oh and a good old fashioned hanging......( if it was good enough for my grand pappy its good enough for me)

unfortuantly, NZ biker Nil, American corporates 2, ..........

stephen