ACC - How to get the nation's motorbike bill down

[p.dath]

I've been pondering ways we could reduce the half billions dollars ACC spends on fixing up motorbike riders who have had an accident each year.

The big problem is striking the balance between maintaining peoples freedom and enjoyment of an activity with the cost of it to the rest of the population.

For example, wearing a helmet. I bet when this was bought in there was a huge uproar, but the cost and damage to the pocket of everyone else in the nation is so great that this personal choice was removed.

Education always come up as a constant theme. Car drivers can attend safe driving courses and get recognised. Try and find a course that is actually for motorcycle riders that is recognised. There almost non-existent. Simply speaking, the market has not stepped up to fill a need that exists.

But education alone is still not enough. That's because everyone has a different risk profile, and although they may be educated about those risks, they consider that risk acceptable. However we do have the sense of a nationally acceptable risk profile - which is why we have a law saying you must wear a helmet. Even though someone personally may not want to wear a helmet, the majority of us don't want to accept the risk of them having an accident, or risk that person being hurt, or pay for the resulting harm.

I wonder if we have reached the point were another freedom needs to be removed to get that half billion we spend down, and protect more riders.

I was thinking about the different kinds of injuries, and what could be done to prevent them. One area I have settled on is that of skin grafts, re-constructive cosmetic surgery, and expenses that generally relate to the issue of insufficient protective garments having been used.
A lot of these style injuries occur because of riders using no protective clothing. You see it all the time. Riders wearing a T-shirt, non-kevlar jeans, and sneakers.

I know it would be very much opposed and despised by many, like when helmet requirements were introduced, but do you think we have reached the point where regulation needs to be introduced to enforce people using a minimum level of protective clothing?

I don't particularly know what that level should be, and don't want to start discussing the specifications of boots, leathers, cordura, or any other garment.

However, I'm starting to lean towards the idea that there should be some kind of minimum level of protection that has to be worn - and that the use of such garments needs to be regulated, like helmets. I do think this standard should be relatively low so as to be not overly expensive. Much like we have a minimum helmet standard (some helmets are quite cheap, but nothing prevents you from buying something "better").


Okay, I know this topic can be a bit hot, so I'll put on my protective flame suit for the responses that will follow.

[lanci]

I've read some of your posts in the past and thought you were a bit of a dick but I think that it's probably a good idea this mandatory safety equipment idea you've put out there... Look at high risk industries such as forestry and the like, surely the safety gear has helped lower fix up costs...

[slofox]

Compulsory wearing of helmets was introduced in the early days of my own motorbiking career. In fact there was not that much fuss kicked up over this regulation. Prior to its introduction, you were not required to wear a helmet if traveling at less than 30mph (as it was then - 50kph in modern argot.) But of course, using your head as a brake from 29mph did indeed cause some damage...A few people made a fuss over the change and there was the odd exemption allowed. But overall, compulsory helmet usage was not particularly contentious. Least, not around my neck of the woods at the time.

I think there would be more fuss over protective clothing - mainly because of the cost I expect but no doubt you would also get the personal choice advocates wailing in the wilderness.

Frankly I don't need regulation to make me wear protective gear - I am unashamedly an ATGATT nazi - at least for myself. It never ceases to amaze me that riders go out so thoroughly underdressed....

I certainly would not be opposed to some regulation of apparel when motorbiking.

[bogan]

I think more compulsory gear is a good idea. Seems like a good topic for a poll actually. Can you add one ofter the thread is started? just a list of checkbox items and whether they should be compulsory sould probly work well.

Personally i reckon it may have to be introduced as speed dependant, I reckon jeans and sneakers are fine for 50kmhr short commutes to work, (and I have fallen off at this speed wearing that), but gloves and jacket should be a must. Open road stuff should alway be all the gear; jacket, pants, boots, gloves, and helmet.

[BMWST?]

are there existing standards for gear such as jackets,pants and boots?
Perhaps there could be two levels....0-50 and 50-100

[Genestho]

As quoted in Safer Journeys Consultation Document:

" A star rating could be introduced to ensure buyers are aware of the effectiveness of different items"

[yachtie10]

Let me be the first to state I dont think we need any more dogooders telling everyone else how to live there lives
The only justification I can see is acc costs which isnt enough

Not to mention how would it be enforced
roadside stops checking labels or would it be officers discretion (another revenue exercise

I would support excluding ACC paying if insufficient gear (but that will have its own issues)

Personally I think we have lost to much freedom and we should let darwin rule (unfortunately the bleeding hearts wont agree to this as it will be unfair on the poor as they cant afford the gear etc)

One of the reasons I ride a bike is its a sort of freedom more rules isnt freedom

ps I also think people ride more carefully when the gear "wont protect them"
the saying goes want to reduce accidents, take away safety gear and mount a knife points toward the chest.

my 2c

[JMemonic]

Well thought out and dam good arguments.

I suspect the idea would be to see where the worst of the damage is and would gear help (I am a big fan of gear). My wife and I often cringe at sight of some weekend road warrior racing around town lane splitting dangerously wearing runners (or jandals) shorts and a tee shirt, we also realise that we have to pay increased levies for their "freedom".

Perhaps compulsory gear is called for but what requirements do you place on it? If you go with it must have CE certification or what ever that would rule out an awful lot of perfectly functional leather gear.

And this gear requirement must also apply to the dollies on their scooters, no more zipping around skirts/dresses etc.

[Genestho]

Let me be the first to state I dont think we need any more dogooders telling everyone else how to live there lives
The only justification I can see is acc costs which isnt enough

Lives aren't justification enough for you? At last count there were 34 fatalities based on Rider Error, (there have been more since that number was released) lack of gear does not help. There'll be no enforcement, on gear.
But rather promotion of its benefits.

[p.dath]

are there existing standards for gear such as jackets,pants and boots?
Perhaps there could be two levels....0-50 and 50-100

Let me perhaps not use the word standard, but ACC have published recommendations for wearing gear on motorcycles.

http://www.rideforever.co.nz/gear_up/index.html

[JMemonic]

Let me be the first to state I dont think we need any more dogooders telling everyone else how to live there lives
The only justification I can see is acc costs which isnt enough

It enough for me, why should I have to pay through the nose to repair some idiot who did not have the decency to were even jeans and a jacket?

ps I also think people ride more carefully when the gear "wont protect them"
the saying goes want to reduce accidents, take away safety gear and mount a knife points toward the chest.

my 2c

Oh thats right up there with loud pipes save lives on word two syllables and means male bovine excrement

[p.dath]

I think more compulsory gear is a good idea. Seems like a good topic for a poll actually. Can you add one ofter the thread is started? just a list of checkbox items and whether they should be compulsory sould probly work well.
...

Negative, I do not seem to be able to add a poll. However once enough opinion has been expressed I'll create a new thread with a poll based on the attitudes express.

[p.dath]

are there existing standards for gear such as jackets,pants and boots?
Perhaps there could be two levels....0-50 and 50-100

The idea of two levels does have some appeal, because abrasion based injuries ids obviously related to the initial speed you start sliding. But you also need to consider the difficulty level in "policing" the regulation.

[bogan]

Personally I think we have lost to much freedom and we should let darwin rule (unfortunately the bleeding hearts wont agree to this as it will be unfair on the poor as they cant afford the gear etc)

Im all for personal freedom, but the case here is the freedom of some is coming at the expense of the freedom of others, those who chose not to use the right gear, crash and claim acc, put all our rego bills up, now I can only afford to have on bike on the road instead of two, doesn't sound like freedom to me.

[Headbanger]

Jeans,T-Shirt,Runners.....AND LOUD PIPES.

Sorted.

Hell yeah!!!!