DOM POST says - bikers should pay

[Pixie]

NO NO NO--Not angry biker--angry BIKIE. its so much more nasty doncha see

At least he's not an angry beaver

[BMWST?]

they have opened the door a crack themselves....so modern cars with crumple zones and airbags...what about older cars without,or vans,or SUV.....
they will be getting a blast from me tonight...

[bogan]

perhaps each newspaper article that prints such lies should be meet with a gang of bikers protesting outside thier offices at high noon the same day. Who's keen?

[gwigs]

perhaps each newspaper article that prints such lies should be meet with a gang of bikers protesting outside thier offices at high noon the same day. Who's keen?

I,m not sure about this,it could look like bullyboy tactics form us and they are allowed to print their view,even if it is BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT !!!

[bogan]

I,m not sure about this,it could look like bullyboy tactics form us and they are allowed to print their view,even if it is BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT !!!

spose it would, but we would not be protesting them expressing thier view, merely them using incorrect facts. We gotta dispute the stats somehow I reckon

[PuppetMaster]

I for one will no longer be purchasing this useless paper, unless I run out of toilet paper.

[FastBikeGear]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post...t-lets-be-fair
.

This article wasn't written by the editor. Editors hardly ever write editorials becasue they are too busy doing the things editors really do.

The article was written by Nick Venter. While he writes some of the editorials and some other stuff, I don't think he has much if anything to do with letters to the editor. If you want to write a rebuttal you should send it to the 'letters to the editor section' letters@dompost.co.nz

Nick has given us the perfect opportunity to write letters to the editor and having done an editorial on the subject - they kind of have an obligation to print our responses.

Nick didn't research this article. He used what was put in front of him by the ACC. He told me that someone from one of the biker groups should put some clear, concise and irrefutable numbers in front of him that dispute the ACC numbers. I contacted BRONZ to let them know that I would like to arrange an interview between their spokes person and Nick Venter prior to this article being written. This opportunity was not pursued.


I sent the following letter to the editor today in response to the article

You expressed the concerns of many of us in your recent editorial when you stated "Bikers should not have to bear the cost of crashes caused by careless motorists."
I have some comments on the following quotes from the editorial.

"However, there is no disputing the fact that a motorcyclist who hits a lamp-post with only clothing for protection is likely to do a great deal more damage to him or herself than the driver of a modern car equipped with crumple zones and airbags."

Surprisingly as the following ACC's statistics show this is not an indisputable fact or even a fact. The cost per motorcycle injury claim was actually less than the claim per car driver in 2006, 2007 and 2008!

In 2008 there were:

852,928 ACC claims from car occupants with a total cost of just over $208 million equating to $24,427 per claim.

3,174 ACC entitlement claims from motorcyclists with a total cost of $62.5 million equating to just $19,705 per claim

[Data Source supplied for verification by Suzanne Carty (in charge of letters to the editor) http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/stati...aims/IS0800020]

"Motorcyclists should not be required to foot the bill for injuries caused by other road users, but they should collectively meet the costs of accidents for which they are responsible"

So will drivers be paying lawyers to prove they weren't at fault? With the scrapping of ACC's no-fault principals as suggested by the editor, will we now be opening the way for civil litigation?

"It is not reasonable to expect those who use vehicles as a means of getting from one place to another to underwrite the expenses of those who use powerful motorbikes as recreational toys."

Perhaps the editor means for the word 'powerful' to be the key in determining when a vehicle is used as a "powerful recreational toy" as opposed as a tool to drive to the sports ground? Perhaps all cars that have unnecessary 6 and 8 cylinder engines instead of four cylinders will be classed as "powerful recreational toys".

"Some biker groups have argued that, if their premiums are risk-rated, so should be those of others who engage in risky activity, such as mountain climbers, rugby players, etc. But there is a difference. Mountain climbers and sports people are engaging in activities that improve the general fitness of the population and provide a health benefit that offsets the cost of broken bones. Riding a motorbike is not an inherently healthy activity."

In the future, all colonised worlds will be required to carry the following health warning "Caution: Global warming may be harmful to your health". Motorbikes have a smaller global foot print, use less resources, mined and smeltered raw materials, take less room to park in crowded CBDs and use up less of N.Z.s limited overseas funds to purchase and fuel.

"Surely it is not beyond the wit of ACC and biker organisations to establish the true cost of motorcycle accidents and to devise a formula that apportions cost according to responsibility?"

I am confident that Nick Smith, has half what you say is required, (wit).

[modboy]

This just went to Nick's inbox.

***********
Hi Nick,

It's been a while since I've read such poorly informed dribble.

You have completely missed the point. ACC is not an insurance company - it is a no fault compensation scheme. Or at least that's what it was set up to be, I guess the government want to change that, but that is a different matter.

It was set up like this because when an old lady falls over and breaks her hip ACC foots the bill which was made possible by contributions from all of us. By your logic little old ladies "should collectively meet the costs of accidents for which they are responsible" therefore we should slap them with an ACC levy.

OK, following this, we should slap levys on all unsuspecting groups who are collectively responsible for ACC payouts - school kids on scooters, skateboarders, rugby and netball players, people that use vending machines, trampers and climbers, off road trail bike riders and cyclists - not to mention old people who fall over and break hips. To argue that some of these activities are "healthy pursuits" and some are not is a normative argument - irrelevant at worse, highly relative at best.

But to get back to the point - we don't attibute risk to these other activities Nick because ACC is supposed to be a NO FAULT compensation scheme provided by a government in a country that cares about peoples welfare and wants to avoid the kinds of litigation that goes on in the US over someone slipping on a banana skin.

Look, if they wanna make it an insurance scheme fine - then lets equitably charge EVERYONE according to the risk they represent. But also then you need to open the door for me to sue the arsehole in an SUV (powerful recreational toys) that made a right turn in front of me causing my accident. Why don't you do an editorial about how many idiots in those things reverse over their toddlers. But then, yea, where do you stop.

More balance please !!

Cheers
Steve McKinlay

[Drogen Omen]

all i can say is what the fuck was that editor smoking at the time he wrote this bullshit and why have the cops not drug tested him yet???

[MSTRS:Me]

The article was written by Nick Venter. His email address at the Dominion Post is nick.venter@dompos.co.nz. While he writes some of the editorials and some other stuff, I don't think he has much if anything to do with letters to the editor.

Try nick.venter@dompost.co.nz

I have been given to understand that you used to ride a motorcycle, without injury. I also understand that you are a keen sportsman, who has suffered expensive knee injury in the pursuit of your playing rugby. Will you now be printing your support for introduction of hefty levies to cover these currently un-levied activities?

[mashman]

ACC Statistics

I do NOT know if this is 100% True? Maybe some one on here does

I have been told, that any time some one has an ACC claim, that becomes 1 statistic, then when that same person needs more medical or finacuall help, it turns into the 2nd statistic, and so on and so on, IS that why the statistics have grown so much in the last 9 years?

True, ACC even splatter it all over their website:

"For privacy reasons, if the number of claims reported is between 1 and 3 actual claims, this is displayed as ‘≤3’ claims"

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/ABA00066

[Bald Eagle]

This just sent as well

"Hello Nick

I take issue with your editorial regarding this issue. I am a rider of a 700cc motorbike. You state "Motorcycling is a dangerous activity." I would suggest that driving any type of vehicle on New Zealand roads is a dangerous activity, as is being a pedestrian, or a rugby player.

Your statement that "It is not reasonable to expect those who use vehicles as a means of getting from one place to another to underwrite the expenses of those who use powerful motorbikes as recreational toys." is offensive and presumptuous.

My motorcycle is not a recreational toy. It is my daily transport between my residence in Paraparaumu and my employment in Wellington CBD. It is an economical alternative to an unreliable public transport service.In no sense of the word is it a toy

• noun 1 an object for a child to play with, typically a model or miniature replica of something. 2 a gadget or machine regarded as providing amusement for an adult. 3 before another noun (of a breed or variety of dog) much smaller than is normal for the breed. • verb (toy with) 1 consider casually or indecisively. 2 move or handle absent-mindedly or nervously. 3 eat or drink in an unenthusiastic or restrained way.


ACC is intended to be a no fault system. If you remove the universal protection and start applying risk metrics to fee setting, then we should be returned the right to litigation against those who injure us by whatever method or in whatever context, work play or travel.

[modboy]

" ... but they should collectively meet the costs of accidents for which they are responsible "

yea, cos we are responsible for all those accidents !

[Winston001]

Objectively it's a fair editorial - if you aren't a biker. So the way to deal with this is to throw facts back. Angry emotional letters to the editor might get printed but they won't make a lot of difference.

Journalists like stories. That's what they need to fill the news each day. They also love conflict with politicians. Calling Nick Smith an arse might feel good but there ain't any story to go with that.

So the strategy we need to adopt is to feed journalists with contrasting facts. Facts taken from ACC's own data and other sources which undermine the ACC position. We will get a lot more coverage and sympathy if we put forward embarrassing points which the journalists can put to the Minister.

The media can be brought on-side but to do that, someone needs to write press releases. I guess that's BRONZ but anyone here with the patience could add to the pile.

[centaurus]

The idiot that wrote the editorial "forgot" to mention a few very well known things:
1. Nobody's sponsoring us. Most of us have cars anyway so we are paying at least two ACC levies - for a car and for a bike (some of us for more than one bike) so we are already paying more than we should. We are actually sponsoring others at the moment.
2. It is well known that bikers are much better at spotting and avoiding trouble so the risk of hitting the lamp post is much smaller for a bike than for a car.
3. How thick is his skull that he still hasn't got the concept of compensation as opposed to insurance. Biking is very beneficial for the whole community as a whole in more than one way, but even without considering that, what part of "no fault compensation" doesn't he understand?

Reading the article, it is obvious this is an editorial "payed" by the nats. They propose a big increase, we scream, they still go ahead with the increase but make it a bit smaller and at the end the newspaper calls it "the party is listening to the public".

These politicians can't even be original. They use the same old tactics used for generations. They are pathetic.