PDA

View Full Version : ACC - How to get the nation's motorbike bill down



p.dath
5th September 2009, 15:02
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
5th September 2009, 15:21
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
5th September 2009, 15:39
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
5th September 2009, 15:51
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?
5th September 2009, 15:59
are there existing standards for gear such as jackets,pants and boots?
Perhaps there could be two levels....0-50 and 50-100

Genestho
5th September 2009, 16:03
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
5th September 2009, 16:08
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
5th September 2009, 16:10
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
5th September 2009, 16:10
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
5th September 2009, 16:12
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
5th September 2009, 16:14
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
5th September 2009, 16:14
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
5th September 2009, 16:15
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
5th September 2009, 16:17
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
5th September 2009, 16:17
Jeans,T-Shirt,Runners.....AND LOUD PIPES.

Sorted.

Hell yeah!!!!

AllanB
5th September 2009, 16:19
I've advocated for a long time that ACC should not pay out if you were not wearing suitable gear. As to how far this goes would be the stickler - ie would there be a NZ standard for bike gear? Lets hope not - it would probably insist on gay-glow jackets.

I figure if you are riding in the following 'gear' then tough titties regarding ACC funding a payout.

no gloves
shorts
T-shirts or exposed arms (but heck Bubba no one will see my cool new tatt then....) ie you need a strong jacket.
jandals or any form of open footwear
skirts

You get the drift.


And tassels - I'm pretty sure they are really dangerous ......

bogan
5th September 2009, 16:21
I've advocated for a long time that ACC should not pay out if you were not wearing suitable gear. As to how far this goes would be the stickler - ie would there be a NZ standard for bike gear? Lets hope not - it would probably insist on gay-glow jackets.

I figure if you are riding in the following 'gear' then tough titties regarding ACC funding a payout.

no gloves
shorts
T-shirts or exposed arms (but heck Bubba no one will see my cool new tatt then....) ie you need a strong jacket.
jandals or any form of open footwear
skirts

You get the drift.


And tassels - I'm pretty sure they are really dangerous ......

Excellent idea, and acc payouts is possibly the easiest way of policing it

Big Dave
5th September 2009, 16:21
I vehemently oppose any impost on personal choice.

p.dath
5th September 2009, 16:21
...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....

I would like any such regulation to stipulate a standard that is still affordable.

My initial thoughts are that anything regulated should only specify some form of basic abrasion resistance initially. Then review it in, say, three years. If it is not enough at that time, tighten it up.
But my thrust is not so much what that standard should be, but that I think we have reached the point in time that we do need some regulated enforced standard. Them some expert can go away, analyse the data, and suggest the best solution for a minimum gear standard.

I think it should work like helmets. Basically you wouldn't be allowed to sell garments unless they met the standard (so the onus was on the seller).

For example, I can walk into a bike shop and buy a helmet for road use, and don't need to bother checking if it is NZ compliant or not - but I know regulation states that they can only sell compliant helmets.
I want the same ease when buying garments.

cheesemethod
5th September 2009, 16:28
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

Good info there, but way too much for a new rider not to feel totally daunted by that. Wouldn't just telling them to go and get proper jacket/pants/boots/gloves from a MC shop be a better start? Sure, they might not end up with the absolute best gear, but if it's sold at a motorcycle shop then it should be motorcycle gear, therefore suitable for a new rider?

Do bike shops get that serious about pushing noobs into the right gear when they buy their first bike?


I vehemently oppose any impost on personal choice.

Yes, but you don't get to choose how much tax you pay, so it's a loose/loose situation.

AllanB
5th September 2009, 16:29
I vehemently oppose any impost on personal choice.

We lost that option decades ago Dave - you can hardly take a shit now with out someone measuring it and taxing you if it is 'oversize' .......

Big Dave
5th September 2009, 16:30
We lost that option decades ago Dave - you can hardly take a shit now with out someone measuring it and taxing you if it is 'oversize' .......

Educate, train, suggest.
I vehemently oppose any impost on personal choice.

Kickaha
5th September 2009, 16:35
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.

And how many of those are there compared to the weekend warriors having single bike accidents while wearing all the gear and crashing and claiming ACC

I reckon the first group (non gear wearers) would be in far the minority

Big Dave
5th September 2009, 16:38
While we're at it - lets limit motorcycles to 250cc. That will keep accident costs down too.

And all clothing worn on a bike must be yellow.

Subike
5th September 2009, 16:39
I agree that wearing the right gear isimportant .
I also agree that you have the personal choice to do this and to remove that personal choice with a law that demands we wear a minimum of xyz gear would be wrong, and very dificult to police.
But then they introduced the seat belt law for cages that reduced injuries. Just as the helmet law has also reduced injuries.
Both laws we accept without much difficulty.
If there was one thing that could be changed, it would have to be something that was reasonable to all. Easy to police, and reduce the injury ratio for motorcyclists, even by a small margin
As previously suggested quality jackets gloves and pants are available ,
But at a cost and an almost impossible way of being policed .
But not so boots.
Just as we can see helmets, we can see boots.
If a law was passed that a min foot requirement were boots.
Not jandles, sandshoes, or any type of footwear that was below the ankle in its construction.
""Gumboots being the only "boot" that would not be compliant.as most are slip ons and have little more protection than sandshoes." debateable""
Then such a requrement would be easy to police, just like a seatbelt, a quick look and compliance is obvious.
Boots need not be over exspensive either, std work boots start at around $50up to $1000? for a top of the line riding boots.
Just with helmets, personal choice and budjet depicts what you wear.
I think that we would all agree the wearing boots would reduce injurys , The flow on from this would be riders wearing full pants because who wants to wear shorts with boots.
So it does not need to be a huge change to make a saving, just a small change,
This would leed in time to a more responcible attitude by riders in general.

Jantar
5th September 2009, 16:41
I have made a suggestion on the Safer Journeys website that I intend to formalise into a submission along the lines of - spend money on proper gear and have reduced ACC levies as a result.

The idea would be that when you buy new motorcycling safety gear (jacket, gloves etc) that you take your receipt along at rego time and receive a discount on the ACC levy portion of 10% of the amount you have spent on gear. eg, buy a $300 jacket and receive $30 discount on ACC levies.

There would need to be a cap on the discount, and that could be when the motorcyle portion of ACC levy is the same as for car owners.

This should encourage people to replace gear more often, or to purchase slightly better gear than they otherwise would. Rather than compulsion, it is encouragement, and may have more backing than outright compulsion.

Big Dave
5th September 2009, 16:43
Rather than compulsion, it is encouragement, and may have more backing than outright compulsion.

Now that makes sense.

AllanB
5th September 2009, 16:45
Educate, train, suggest.

The big G appears to totally ignore any suggestion of this action relating to vehicle licensing and training.

Presumably it's just too much bother and much easier to just write new law(s).

A smart Government in these troubled times would look at setting this up - they could rabbit on about all the new jobs the training schemes would make and quietly count the extra income from the GST on rider/driver training. If fact if they were really smart we would all have to do a refresher course every X years.

Would you pass dear KB members?

Would I gets points off for changing songs on my i-pod while I drive?

AllanB
5th September 2009, 16:47
The idea would be that when you buy new motorcycling safety gear (jacket, gloves etc) that you take your receipt along at rego time and receive a discount on the ACC levy portion of 10% of the amount you have spent on gear. eg, buy a $300 jacket and receive $30 discount on ACC levies.


Fark me with a big stick - that is an excellent idea.

Big Dave
5th September 2009, 16:47
Would you pass dear KB members?


On one wheel.

yachtie10
5th September 2009, 16:52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jantar View Post
Rather than compulsion, it is encouragement, and may have more backing than outright compulsion.

Now that makes sense.

totally agree

PirateJafa
5th September 2009, 18:09
are there existing standards for gear such as jackets,pants and boots?
Perhaps there could be two levels....0-50 and 50-100

But I have to travel though a short 60km/h zone on my commute.

Yet I occasionally dare to just wear jeans?

Think of the children, Mr. Pirate, oh the humanity!




One of the stupidest ideas post on KB in, oh, nearly a whole week.

Paul in NZ
5th September 2009, 18:45
How about a sliding rego content scale. Cause an accident and it goes up, go 5 years without an acc claim (M/C related) and you get a discount. Too many claims (blame attributed to you) and rego goes through the roof.

James Deuce
5th September 2009, 18:51
Good grief.

If you think ACC is expensive now, just wait until you have to pay for "authorised" gear from a list of approved safety equipment.

You've heard of market forces right? That $899 helmet or jacket you're wearing will retail for thousands. Captive markets and monopolies. Great idea.

How about, instead of being a bunch whiny crybabies, you simply decide what your minimum specs for gear are, wear that and stop with the narrow minded bigoted lectures? When people ask you what you wear on a bike, quietly and politely explain what you wear and why, without calling other people who don't do it the same way you do idiots.

People crash (and die) for two reasons:

1. Most Common cause of accidents is small penis syndrome. Stop riding like tiny little dicks!
2. Very, very rare: Unforeseen, unplanned, unpredictable events. Just a hint - gravel mid-corner is not unpredictable, even when it isn't sign posted. People emerging from side roads or driveways with little or no warning is neither unforeseen nor unpredictable.

Stop whinging about what people do or don't wear or how they ride. Tell them directly the same way you post here and see how that works out for you.

ACC Levies will never drop. They only go in one direction. Don't want them to go up? Don't bloody crash on the road.

Headbanger
5th September 2009, 19:00
Good grief.

If you think ACC is expensive now, just wait until you have to pay for "authorised" gear from a list of approved safety equipment.

You've heard of market forces right? That $899 helmet or jacket you're wearing will retail for thousands. Captive markets and monopolies. Great idea.

How about, instead of being a bunch whiny crybabies, you simply decide what your minimum specs for gear are, wear that and stop with the narrow minded bigoted lectures? When people ask you what you wear on a bike, quietly and politely explain what you wear and why, without calling other people who don't do it the same way you do idiots.

People crash (and die) for two reasons:

1. Most Common cause of accidents is small penis syndrome. Stop riding like tiny little dicks!
2. Very, very rare: Unforeseen, unplanned, unpredictable events. Just a hint - gravel mid-corner is not unpredictable, even when it isn't sign posted. People emerging from side roads or driveways with little or no warning is neither unforeseen nor unpredictable.

Stop whinging about what people do or don't wear or how they ride. Tell them directly the same way you post here and see how that works out for you.

ACC Levies will never drop. They only go in one direction. Don't want them to go up? Don't bloody crash on the road.

Fuckin excellent.:2thumbsup

JATZ
5th September 2009, 19:10
Don't want them to go up? Don't bloody crash on the road.

Yebut.......MotoX riders wearing all the right gear and riding unregisitered bikes still crash and hurt themselves. How much of the ACC levee goes towards fixing them up ? Also....+1 for Jantars idea

Just something I've been wondering ?

Genestho
5th September 2009, 19:12
Good grief.

If you think ACC is expensive now, just wait until you have to pay for "authorised" gear from a list of approved safety equipment.

You've heard of market forces right? That $899 helmet or jacket you're wearing will retail for thousands. Captive markets and monopolies. Great idea.

How about, instead of being a bunch whiny crybabies, you simply decide what your minimum specs for gear are, wear that and stop with the narrow minded bigoted lectures? When people ask you what you wear on a bike, quietly and politely explain what you wear and why, without calling other people who don't do it the same way you do idiots.

People crash (and die) for two reasons:

1. Most Common cause of accidents is small penis syndrome. Stop riding like tiny little dicks!
2. Very, very rare: Unforeseen, unplanned, unpredictable events. Just a hint - gravel mid-corner is not unpredictable, even when it isn't sign posted. People emerging from side roads or driveways with little or no warning is neither unforeseen nor unpredictable.

Stop whinging about what people do or don't wear or how they ride. Tell them directly the same way you post here and see how that works out for you.

ACC Levies will never drop. They only go in one direction. Don't want them to go up? Don't bloody crash on the road.
:laugh: That sounds like the Biker version of "what a wonderful world"

Teeeheeee, JD, may I use "ACC Levies will never drop. They only go in one direction. Don't want them to go up? Don't bloody crash on the road." as resource for a poster? :lol:

rainman
5th September 2009, 19:22
While we're at it - lets limit motorcycles to 250cc. That will keep accident costs down too.

And get rid of all those go-too-fast sporties, while you're at it... :dodge:


when you buy new motorcycling safety gear (jacket, gloves etc) that you take your receipt along at rego time and receive a discount on the ACC levy portion of 10% of the amount you have spent on gear. eg, buy a $300 jacket and receive $30 discount on ACC levies.

Good intentions, but I think it would just put up safety gear prices by 10%.


How about a sliding rego content scale. Cause an accident and it goes up, go 5 years without an acc claim (M/C related) and you get a discount. Too many claims (blame attributed to you) and rego goes through the roof.

Now I like that.


You've heard of market forces right? That $899 helmet or jacket you're wearing will retail for thousands. Captive markets and monopolies. Great idea.


Yup, that's about it.



People crash (and die) for two reasons:

1. Most Common cause of accidents is small penis syndrome. Stop riding like tiny little dicks!
2. Very, very rare: Unforeseen, unplanned, unpredictable events. Just a hint - gravel mid-corner is not unpredictable, even when it isn't sign posted. People emerging from side roads or driveways with little or no warning is neither unforeseen nor unpredictable.

Stop whinging about what people do or don't wear or how they ride. Tell them directly the same way you post here and see how that works out for you.

ACC Levies will never drop. They only go in one direction. Don't want them to go up? Don't bloody crash on the road.

Please stop it James, I'm agreeing with you far too much. I might end up thinking you're sensible. :)

James Deuce
5th September 2009, 19:27
Yebut.......MotoX riders wearing all the right gear and riding unregisitered bikes still crash and hurt themselves. How much of the ACC levee goes towards fixing them up ? Also....+1 for Jantars idea

Just something I've been wondering ?
No one (ACC and LTNZ or whatever it's called) cares about offroad accidents. Recreational injuries are an accepted part of a physically active and healthy population.

On road accidents are subject to scrutiny in minute detail, and analysis to support the premise of removing motorcycles from the road.

p.dath
5th September 2009, 19:49
...
If you think ACC is expensive now, just wait until you have to pay for "authorised" gear from a list of approved safety equipment.

You've heard of market forces right? That $899 helmet or jacket you're wearing will retail for thousands. Captive markets and monopolies. Great idea.
.

Demand for safety gear will only increase for that sector of the market which currently does not have safety gear. Generally supply increase to meet demand, and certainly will in a normal supply and demand economy like ours.

So there may be a short term price increase until supply picks up, but I don't relistically think you could expect prices to increase "just because".


Do you really feel you pay more for your helmet because it is a legal requirement to have one? And lets pretend that you do - is that any reason why we shouldn't have it a mandated law?
Any potential small one off increase in the cost of your helmet/gear purchase is more than likely going to be offset in savings (or reduce increases) in ACC.

Certainly suggest a $900 item will increase to several thousand dollars is nothing more than scare mongering.


How about, instead of being a bunch whiny crybabies, you simply decide what your minimum specs for gear are, wear that and stop with the narrow minded bigoted lectures? When people ask you what you wear on a bike, quietly and politely explain what you wear and why, without calling other people who don't do it the same way you do idiots.


The issue is those that don't choose to wear safety gear, the minority, cause us, the majority, to pay more for our ACC premiums. We, the majority, don't want to pay for those people who choose to wear no safety gear to recover from accidents.

If you use emotive speech when you complain about people being cry babies then you may get emotive speech back. I haven't seen anyone call anyone on this thread an idiot. Could be wrong.


1. Most Common cause of accidents is small penis syndrome. Stop riding like tiny little dicks!


The problem is that they wont stop riding in dangerous manners. And that leads to the problem of everyone else paying increased ACC premiums. If they wont stop voluntarily taking a risk the majority don't wish to accept, then that only leaves regulation.


ACC Levies will never drop. They only go in one direction. Don't want them to go up? Don't bloody crash on the road.

How about we work on abating further increases then? It would be good if motorcycle ACC costs could fall percentage wise to match the number of motorcyclists on the road so that our group was not over represented in the accident statistics.

Pedrostt500
5th September 2009, 19:53
To my understanding when some one is brought into hospital with an injury from a motorcycle accident, Cause of accident is ticked as motorcycle accident, this does not define between an on road accident or an off road accident, and keep in mind fataities happen in off road accidents as well, the only motor cycling groups that pays an acc levey are farmers and road motorcyclists.
How you charge the weekend off road warrior an acc levey I dont know.

p.dath
5th September 2009, 19:55
To my understanding when some one is brought into hospital with an injury from a motorcycle accident, Cause of accident is ticked as motorcycle accident, this does not define between an on road accident or an off road accident, and keep in mind fataities happen in off road accidents as well, the only motor cycling groups that pays an acc levey are farmers and road motorcyclists.
How you charge the weekend off road warrior an acc levey I dont know.

I think the idea is recreational accidents (off road, soccer, rugby, etc) are covered by your work place ACC levy.

Max Preload
5th September 2009, 19:58
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.

Funny you should say something like that - "cost to the rest of the population".

I've just received my annual Coastguard membership renewal for $95. I think it was $80 last year. It's not much, but ever since they started doing unlimited callouts per member instead of limiting it to 3 per annum as previously, the price has been rising. I feel this is because there are people out there who are not maintaining their boats as they should (I often listen to the VHF at home and have noticed a steady increase in these type of calls) and I as I object to subsidising the actions of fuckwits, I'm seriously considering not renewing. It's exactly the reason I don't have motorvehicle insurance too - everyone pays more because there are clowns out there writing off new bikes regular as clockwork and I'll be damned if I'm paying for it.

p.dath
5th September 2009, 20:04
Funny you should say something like that - "cost to the rest of the population".

I've just received my annual Coastguard membership renewal for $95. I think it was $80 last year. It's not much, but ever since they started doing unlimited callouts per member instead of limiting it to 3 per annum as previously, the price has been rising.


I don't know anything about the coastguard. If it is a membership, how did the rule change occurr? Was it something the membership voted on?


It's exactly the reason I don't have motorvehicle insurance too - everyone pays more because there are clowns out there writing off new bikes regular as clockwork and I'll be damned if I'm paying for it.

Not even third party? Brave man. What if the 1 in 1000 happens and you crash into a really expensive car, and end up oweing $100k or something?

The private insurance market is pretty competitive (ACC has no competition so ...). Usuaully if they spot one sector causing more accidents they charge them more. If one sector is accident free they usually charge less.

James Deuce
5th September 2009, 20:07
Long winded rant about how I'm wrong

Helmets are a poor example. There is a lot of competition and relatively high demand, and very large markets everywhere except NZ. Once you create a minimum standard for motorcycle apparel you will HAVE to certify equipment to a NZ standard and that will mean that a large number of items will have to be evaluated. NZ Standards simply does not have the resource to do that, so you'll either end up with a market the same as it is now effectively unregulated so long as it meets particular standards set in particular countries, or a very truncated list of stuff that ACC, NZTA and Standards NZ have approved. The smaller the list, the more expensive each item will be. You have an over inflated idea of how many motoryclicts there are in NZ. We do not weild the economic power to stop ACC raising levies, let alone being considered as serious transport.

You're overstating the case about how individual choice impacts your ACC costs. At the moment you are getting a 50% subsidy from ACC. All they want to do is get us to pay for what we cost them.

There is only one way to fix that: Individual Personal Responsibility.

The last thing we need as a group is a collective apparel contract designed for lowest common denominator.

You are supposed to be paying nearly $500/annum for your ACC levy. ACC have repeatedly stated that it is their intention to legislate motorcycling in NZ out of existence. Your argument directly plays into their mindset. Like most NZers you seem to think that what the Government tells you, what the media relays, is the global picture. It is not. Most motorcyclists are not the idiots you think they are and they certainly do not need to be told what to wear when riding a motorcycle.

Look after your own perceived issues and you will do motorcycling a service. Try to mandate how everybody else does it and you simply help the propaganda machine that says we are incapable of sorting our own shit out and have to be babied.

CookMySock
5th September 2009, 20:09
I would support excluding ACC paying if insufficient gear. Ditto, or at least reduced coverage.


Personally I think we have lost to much freedom and we should let darwin ruleYeah but you and I have to pay for their idiocy.


more rules isnt freedomSometimes it is, especially when those rules protect you and guarantee your freedom. I'd love to have many more bikes, and have the choice of riding whichever took my fancy, but because of the high costs to ACC I am unable. Those are someone elses actions, and my consequences. In this case, more rules might actually enable me, not restrict me.

Steve

Jantar
5th September 2009, 20:16
JD, I think you have jumped to a conclusion that is not envisioned or intended. In the submission I shall prepare I shall simply mention motorcycle riding gear (with examples). I shall not be recommending any minimum standard. So that if someone spends $150 on HardAs kevlar jeans rather than $600 on top of the line leather trous they get a $15 reduction on ACC levies rather than a $60 reduction.

As long as the receipt they produce lists the product as "Motorcycle Trousers" that would be sufficient. The idea is to save injuries, not to increase beauracracy.

MacD
5th September 2009, 20:18
The issue is those that don't choose to wear safety gear, the minority, cause us, the majority, to pay more for our ACC premiums.

What proof do you have for this statement? Most accidents causing serious injury or death occur on the open road and are single vehicle accidents, primarily lost control on a corner. These statistics are available from the LTNZ or whatever they're called now. Were these people not wearing protective gear? I suspect a lot of them were trussed up like MotoGP riders.

Protective gear is not magic. You cannot beat the laws of physics (now who said that?). It is very good at reducing abrasion injuries, at best it can redistribute the force of an impact, but if you slow from 100km/h to 0 km/h when you hit a tree or something similar, no gear can save you from the internal injuries.

I'm with J2 on this one, if you want to reduce the cost of ACC, stop falling off on corners on the open road.

On another note, Standards are not all that they seem. They are the result of a highly political process and in some cases it could even be argued that they are used for protecting industry from competition, rather than protecting the end user, and yes, I have sat on Standards committees.

Pedrostt500
5th September 2009, 20:18
I think the idea is recreational accidents (off road, soccer, rugby, etc) are covered by your work place ACC levy.

But when some one rocks into an A&E with a motorcycle accident victim the nurse just ticks one box, then ACC tally up the years no of motorcycle accidents, and lumps them all together, hence the ACC component of you REG hikes up each year, as ACC only give an over all tally of motorcycle accidents, and does not defer between on road off road, work off road ie Farmers, or work on road ie Posties & traffic cops motorcycle.

What we need from ACC is a better break down of the Statistics, wich may require better information gathering, by ACC. It will not change the overall ACC bill but will bring better understanding, and better ability to know wich groups that should be targeted for training / education.

Max Preload
5th September 2009, 20:20
I don't know anything about the coastguard. If it is a membership, how did the rule change occurr? Was it something the membership voted on?

Not too sure how it came about but it happened about 3 years ago.


Not even third party? Brave man. What if the 1 in 1000 happens and you crash into a really expensive car, and end up oweing $100k or something?

Statistically highly unlikely - have you seen how cheap most cars are?. Besides you could end up in the exact same situation even if you think you are covered. I don't buy lotto either, for pretty much the same reason.

Big Dave
5th September 2009, 20:21
I think I need to put this more subtly and succinctly.

Some Govt knob telling me what clothing I must wear on a motorcycle can get fucked.

Trust me - I'm a professional.

Kickaha
5th September 2009, 20:21
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.

Ban Motorcycling

Max Preload
5th September 2009, 20:22
But when some one rocks into an A&E with a motorcycle accident victim the nurse just ticks one box, then ACC tally up the years no of motorcycle accidents, and lumps them all together, hence the ACC component of you REG hikes up each year, as ACC only give an over all tally of motorcycle accidents, and does not defer between on road off road, work off road ie Farmers, or work on road ie Posties & traffic cops motorcycle.

No. Part of the questionaire asks if the accident involved a road registered vehicle. At least it did when I fell off my bicycle while doing stunts earlier this year... :whistle:

Genestho
5th September 2009, 20:23
Again, Safer Journeys Consultation paper, presented to the public at MOT:

"Carry out more crash reduction studies and make these more targeted"

Don't take this the wrong way, but you could be spending the same amount of time reading the paper, and seeing what is actually in there, making a submssion, over at MOT, and actually contributing, versus just talking about it on KB!
No offence intended!

If you're not into all the blah blah blah here's the summary (http://www.transport.govt.nz/saferjourneys/Documents/Safer%20Journeys%20SummaryGuide_ISBN.pdf)

If you want targeted crash stats, go for gold!

James Deuce
5th September 2009, 20:26
JD, I think you have jumped to a conclusion that is not envisioned or intended. In the submission I shall prepare I shall simply mention motorcycle riding gear (with examples). I shall not be recommending any minimum standard. So that if someone spends $150 on HardAs kevlar jeans rather than $600 on top of the line leather trous they get a $15 reduction on ACC levies rather than a $60 reduction.

As long as the receipt they produce lists the product as "Motorcycle Trousers" that would be sufficient. The idea is to save injuries, not to increase beauracracy.
It's an excellent idea, as is the one Paul in NZ posited.

It won't happen though. Both ideas foster continued motorcycling at their core. ACC are not interested in that at all.

One thing though, you will increase bureacracy with both ideas which will add costs, probably at the rego level. You will need, at minimum, an understanding at a bureaucratic level about what constitues motorcycle safety apparel and that will mean manufacturers submitting gear for approval. You can't step around that approach once a government bureaucracy is involved.

Remember the goal isn't to make motorcycling safer. ACC want us off the road, period.

Jonno.
5th September 2009, 20:30
So that if someone spends $150 on HardAs kevlar jeans rather than $600 on top of the line leather trous they get a $15 reduction on ACC levies rather than a $60 reduction.
I don't think people would spend $150 on a jacket to save $15, especially people on scooters who think don't need it.

James Deuce
5th September 2009, 20:32
You may have missed it Mr Dath, but one of the most consistent thread themes on KB is: I saw someone doing or wearing something on a motorcycle that I can't/won't/wouldn't myself, so they are an idiot and I shall rant about them and it will be a righteous rant, and yea, verily I shall smote them should I ever be so foully unfortunate as to meet them.

You OP is simply a polite extension of that philosophy. One of the fantastic things about motorcycling the low ratio of idiots compared to just about any other activity I can think of. Idiots get weeded out rapidly. Just because someone can stunt, is happy in Draggin jeans, leather jacket, open face helmet and ankle boots, and happens to be able to get from point A to point B quicker than you, doesn't give you the right to determine that they need protecting from themselves.

Where does it stop? Cotton underpants because they don't melt into the skin like nylon ones? Wool socks only because they prevent chill blains in cold weather?

Pedrostt500
5th September 2009, 20:33
It's an excellent idea, as is the one Paul in NZ posited.

It won't happen though. Both ideas foster continued motorcycling at their core. ACC are not interested in that at all.

One thing though, you will increase bureacracy with both ideas which will add costs, probably at the rego level. You will need, at minimum, and understanding at a bureaucratic level about what constitues motorcycle safety apparel and that will mean manufacturers submitting gear for approval. You can't step around that approach once a government bureaucracy is involved.

Remember the goal isn't to make motorcycling safer. ACC want us off the road, period.

Have to agree with you on this statement, particurly the last sentence, some heads of ACC over the years have publicly stated this.

CookMySock
5th September 2009, 20:34
Most accidents causing serious injury or death [are] primarily "lost control on a corner." [...] I suspect a lot of them were trussed up like MotoGP riders.

[...] if you want to reduce the cost of ACC, stop falling off on corners on the open road.So what is the solution for that? Stop racing on public roads? But how? Punish people heavily for it? Free trackdays?

Even the boyracers could get in on the free trackday stuff.. I'm sure they'd love that. Everyone says thats what they need - a place to race and play up. Maybe bikers are the same.

Steve

CookMySock
5th September 2009, 20:35
Some Govt knob telling me what clothing I must wear on a motorcycle can get fucked.What difference would it make to you? You wear full gear anyway... Why the angst?

Steve

p.dath
5th September 2009, 20:38
JD, I think you have jumped to a conclusion that is not envisioned or intended. In the submission I shall prepare I shall simply mention motorcycle riding gear (with examples). I shall not be recommending any minimum standard. So that if someone spends $150 on HardAs kevlar jeans rather than $600 on top of the line leather trous they get a $15 reduction on ACC levies rather than a $60 reduction.

As long as the receipt they produce lists the product as "Motorcycle Trousers" that would be sufficient. The idea is to save injuries, not to increase beauracracy.

There is one big danger you need to consider with this Jantar. ACC is a not for profit Government agency.

So lets say ACC issues $10 million in credits, and in the first years achieves an $2 million saving. That means all the other motorcyclists will have their ACC premium increased by 8 million to pay the short fall.

Big Dave
5th September 2009, 20:39
What difference would it make to you? You wear full gear anyway... Why the angst?

Steve

How often do 'they' get it right?

I wear appropriate gear. That isn't always the full kit on a stinkin' hot summer's day. Maybe I'd go armour underneath a tee - eg for pootling around town. But I decide, pay my taxes and carry my own private health insurance. I have no desire to be dictated to because of some dick on a scooter in Jandals.

Education, training and incentives are a very good idea and I'd do what I can to help.

p.dath
5th September 2009, 20:40
What proof do you have for this statement? Most accidents causing serious injury or death occur on the open road and are single vehicle accidents, primarily lost control on a corner. These statistics are available from the LTNZ or whatever they're called now. Were these people not wearing protective gear? I suspect a lot of them were trussed up like MotoGP riders...

If you refer to my first post, I was not talking about these kinds of accidents. I was talking about abarasion based accidents - the kind were wearing safety gear makes a big difference.

p.dath
5th September 2009, 20:44
I think I need to put this more subtly and succinctly.

Some Govt knob telling me what clothing I must wear on a motorcycle can get fucked.

Trust me - I'm a professional.

They already tell you what helmet to wear ...
They tell you what standard you bike has to reach before you can take it on a road ...
They tell you how much your allowed to drink before riding ...

And you pay them to do it - I'm just trying to reduce how much we are paying. :)

It seems your happy with what you pay them, you just want less talk from "them". haha.

AllanB
5th September 2009, 20:48
Remember the goal isn't to make motorcycling safer. ACC want us off the road, period.



Hmm. So lets just imagine that motorcycle injuries are no longer covered by ACC. However they give you the right to sue another party if they caused the accident.

I wonder how the statistics would look?

Probably find that we do ourselves more damage than secondary parties.

FJRider
5th September 2009, 20:49
If ACC's motorcycle statistics were based solely on road registered motorcycles, involved in accidents on the road. Some input by ACC on what should be seen as required garments for the purpose, would be seen as acceptable.
Sadly this is not the case. Mr lifestyle block owner, on his 175 cc four wheeler, crossing the road to the other half of his property. In his t-shirt and jeans ... mid-summer. Is not going to put "proper" motorcycling gear on for 20 minutes of sheep moving/feeding . Nor is the farmer going to put the gear on to go round the farm in.... and spend the day in. Yet these people are included in ACC statistics regarding motorcycle accidents.

Big Dave
5th September 2009, 20:50
And it was more pun than angst DB.

p.dath
5th September 2009, 20:51
Hmm. So lets just imagine that motorcycle injuries are no longer covered by ACC. However they give you the right to sue another party if they caused the accident.
...

Lets never do that. That is the US system, and it is far worse than ours.

Lets stick with our ACC no fault system. While we all complain, it isn't that bad.

Very happy to work on reducing the cost of accident care and what we pay though!

Genestho
5th September 2009, 20:52
According to the Social cost of crashes and Injuries paper, each Minor Injury still on average costs the taxpayer $61.000, each serious $563.000, each fatal 3,211.000. Work out 34 Motorcycling ALONE - fatals in a year, and I don't think the year is done yet.

Loss of life/ Permanent Disability
Loss of output (Temporary disability)
Medical
-Hospital/Medical
-Emergency/Pre hospital
-Follow on

Legal and Court
Property Damage

(And that was 2007 prices)
Personally, I really don't think you can put a true price on a loss of life, particularly from contributing members of society.

Pedrostt500
5th September 2009, 20:55
So what is the solution for that? Stop racing on public roads? But how? Punish people heavily for it? Free trackdays?

Even the boyracers could get in on the free trackday stuff.. I'm sure they'd love that. Everyone says thats what they need - a place to race and play up. Maybe bikers are the same.

Steve

I don't think the problem is how fast you are going, its how you stop that is the defining factor, one of my worst accidents was at 20 kmh, dropping the front wheel into a pot hole, and collecting my kidneys on the mirrors as I went over the handel bars, Pissed Blood for a week after that one. Ive dropped bikes many times faster than that and walked away with only a few scratches.

Big Dave
5th September 2009, 22:01
I could see a proposal to a gear manufacturer where they pay a 'rebate' towards your ACC levy for using their products.

FJRider
5th September 2009, 23:47
I could see a proposal to a gear manufacturer where they pay a 'rebate' towards your ACC levy for using their products.

Or ACC listing "reccomended" or "acceptable" gear manufacturers...

sleemanj
6th September 2009, 00:38
Cost based rebate won't fly IMHO, because it would mean that ACC is specifically saying "this gear which costs $900 is better than that gear which costs $100", when that is not only possibly an incorrect statement, but also ACC has no way of knowing from just a receipt (or even visual inspection).

Secondly, how long does this rebate remain in play, just one registration period? Hardly worth it. More than that, well how does ACC know you still have the gear.

Of course, having gear and wearing it are two different things. And secondly of course, how does the NZ Post person who is printing your reg label know that this receipt they are being shown is actually genuine. What about second hand gear, is the gear you bought second hand but almost like new not as good as if you'd bought it for $200 off the shop floor?

ACC not paying out when gear not worn also won't fly IMHO, because what happens when some dirt poor guy comes to A&E, with no gear. Hospital going to say "oh, sorry, you'll have to leave, ACC not going to pay your bill".

No way that will work in New Zealand, not to mention it would set a dangerous precedent - how about things like trampers who get lost without gear do we say "oh, too bad, we're not looking for you", hunters who get accidentally shot but weren't wearing high vis do we say "oh sorry, you'll have to die or pay better let us know quick eh"... you see where it's going.

I think that the both of these ideas are go-no-where.

You could perhaps require at a most basic level the wearing of "gear" in addition to the current helmet laws. Gloves, upper body covering (jacket) with sleeves to your wrists, full leg trousers, boots which extend above the ankle. Placing any further requirement on the nature of the gear than that would be far too complicated and expensive for everybody concerned, especialy the tax payer who would have to pay to develop and police the certifications.

In conclusion, ACC & Government should be putting money into prevention of accidents in the first place, not ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff, and that means continued and expanded support of qualified and organised rider training establishments.

There is one other option. Allow competition for ACC. Rider specific accident insurance, if ACC really is overcharging, then that's the way to go.

Big Dave
6th September 2009, 00:44
I wasn't thinking that complicated.

Buy Jacket A and they send you a cheque for $X towards levy.

Message not messenger.

p.dath
6th September 2009, 14:40
I could see a proposal to a gear manufacturer where they pay a 'rebate' towards your ACC levy for using their products.

Rather than paying you a rebate, why not just reduce the cost of their product in the first place - much less paper work.

And for the same reason why they wouldn't just reduce their prices in the first place is also the same reason they wouldn't pay a rebate.

p.dath
6th September 2009, 14:42
Cost based rebate won't fly IMHO
...
You could perhaps require at a most basic level the wearing of "gear" in addition to the current helmet laws. Gloves, upper body covering (jacket) with sleeves to your wrists, full leg trousers, boots which extend above the ankle. Placing any further requirement on the nature of the gear than that would be far too complicated and expensive for everybody concerned, especialy the tax payer who would have to pay to develop and police the certifications.
...
There is one other option. Allow competition for ACC. Rider specific accident insurance, if ACC really is overcharging, then that's the way to go.

I agree with everything you say.
If gear was to be mandated, I also think the mandate should initially be simple. It can always be reviewed at a later point in time.

Plus it will be much easier to enforce this way. Does the person have a jacket on covering their arms to their wrists or not? Pretty straight forward. Ditto the other things.

Big Dave
6th September 2009, 14:54
Rather than paying you a rebate, why not just reduce the cost of their product in the first place - much less paper work.

And for the same reason why they wouldn't just reduce their prices in the first place is also the same reason they wouldn't pay a rebate.


It's called marketing.

Jantar
6th September 2009, 15:06
I agree with everything you say.
If gear was to be mandated, I also think the mandate should initially be simple. ...
While do generally wear ATGATT I would be the first to rebel if it should be made compulsory. As motorcyclists we already object to being told how to ride, where to ride, when to ride etc. Why should we then invite even more laws that we can get pinged for?

Much better to educate and encourage than to legislate and punish.

p.dath
6th September 2009, 15:50
While do generally wear ATGATT I would be the first to rebel if it should be made compulsory. As motorcyclists we already object to being told how to ride, where to ride, when to ride etc. Why should we then invite even more laws that we can get pinged for?

Much better to educate and encourage than to legislate and punish.

Because despite being educated we still managed to have sufficient accidents that it costs the nation half a billion dollars to fix us back up again.

Refer to my first post. As I said, even if you educate people so they understand the risk they will still choose to take the risk of not wearing appropriate gear. No amount of additional education will change the problem.

Smoking is similar. A lot of those who smoke know the risks, but choose to accept them and continue smoking. It doesn't mean those who smoke are stupid. It just means they choose to accept the risk.
Luckily with smoking we can at least collect additional tax for those that accept the risk and choose to continue.

The problem is that the risk motorcyclists take cost us a substantial amount of money - half a billion. Could I have some of that back in my pocket please. I can, how? By reducing the cost of motorcycle accidents due to people wearing in-appropriate gear.

I thought you were advocating the use of gear and a rebate ...

Jonno.
6th September 2009, 16:15
I'm curious James, what is your opinion on white helmets?

Jantar
6th September 2009, 16:18
....I thought you were advocating the use of gear and a rebate ...

I am. That is one reason I am anti compulsion. Wearing the correct gear won't prevent accidents and it is far better to get people to wear ATGATT if they believe it is in their best interests than if its just because its law.

My first priority as far as reducing ACC costs is to prevent accidents from happening in the first place. My second priority is to educate riders as to what gear is appropriate for the type of riding.

One issue with the appropriate type of gear was taught to me in no uncertain terms followin my crash in outback Aussie. The sugeon claimed that where the muscles had torn off my shoulder was exactly where the hard armour was. He could even see the shape of the armour in the bruising. He commented that without the armour I would have broken bones, but that would have been easily repairable and I'd be back to a normal life in months. Instead it was major soft tissue damage that is permanent. So for low speed riding in soft conditions its no more hard armour for me.

p.dath
6th September 2009, 17:13
I am. That is one reason I am anti compulsion. Wearing the correct gear won't prevent accidents and it is far better to get people to wear ATGATT if they believe it is in their best interests than if its just because its law.
...

So if ACC pays out $10m in rebates, and saves $2m in accidents, there will be a shortfall of $8m. That means everyone's ACC premiums (including those already with good gear) will go up by a net $8m.

How do you intend to address that issue?

James Deuce
6th September 2009, 17:51
I'm curious James, what is your opinion on white helmets?

The impression of white is obtained by three summations of light intensity across the visible spectrum.

But that's not important right now.

If perchance you mean, "are they more visible?", I would have to say, "only to motorcyclists". We're keyed to pick up visual stimuli relating to motorcycles because we like them. Even the ones we don't like.

Relying on the findings of someone else's study to make you feel more visible is a mugs game. They can't see you, they don't see you, they won't see you.

James Deuce
6th September 2009, 17:57
Because despite being educated we still managed to have sufficient accidents that it costs the nation half a billion dollars to fix us back up again.

.

You've already bought and paid for the propaganda that says that all motorcyclists are idiots and can't be relied upon to look after themselves. You're wrong. ACC is wrong. NZTA is wrong. Most motorcyclists (not scroterists or communters) are intensely interested in their hobby/lifestyle/reason for getting up in the morning, and motorcycle apparel has never been as capable as it is right now. Most motorcyclists I know are pretty commited to providing themselves with a level of protection appropriate for the type of ride they are about to go on. It's why I like motorcyclists. As a rule they aren't dumb.

ACC levies are not going to go down. They will go up until we meet the cost of motorcycling to ACC. That's roughly $500 a year at present.

That figure will reduce only if more people take up motorcycling and less of them have injury and fatal accidents as a percentage of the whole.

So the only way to address the issue is to encourage more people onto bikes and encourage those people to take their ego out of the equation when riding a bike.

The biggest issue facing you on the road at the moment is what goes on in your head while you are riding. MOst motorcycle accidents are single vehicle. mid-corner incidents. Stop falling off.

The second biggest issue is the inability of politicians to admit that NZ driver training is non-existent and two vehicle MVAs are variously reported as being between 50 and 75% the fault of the other driver/rider. Teach people to actively scan for motorcycles and how to pick them out of the background and you have the potential to reduce accidents stats by about 40%. Teach motorcyclists that riding a bike on the road isn't about maximising lean angle and grip and you have the potential to reduce accidents by 50%. I know which one I'd target. You have to understand the logic behind the stance that ACC take about motorcyclists.

It's not the gear we wear. It's the attitude we take with us on the road.

bogan
6th September 2009, 18:07
It's not the gear we wear. It's the attitude we take with us on the road.

I agree that the attitude is a bigger factor, but more people in decent gear cant do any harm either, why not target both?

p.dath
6th September 2009, 18:08
You've already bought and paid for the propaganda that says that all motorcyclists are idiots and can't be relied upon to look after themselves. You're wrong. ACC is wrong. NZTA is wrong. Most motorcyclists (not scroterists or communters) are intensely interested in their hobby/lifestyle/reason for getting up in the morning, and motorcycle apparel has never been as capable as it is right now.

ACC levies are not going to go down. They will go up until we meet the cost of motorcycling to ACC. That's roughly $500 a year at present.

That figure will reduce only if more people take up motorcycling and less of them have injury and fatal accidents as a percentage of the whole.

So the only way to address the issue is to encourage more people onto bikes and encourage those people to take their ego out of the equation when riding a bike.

The biggest issue facing you on the road at the moment is what goes on in your head while you are riding. MOst motorcycle accidents are single vehicle. mid-corner incidents. Stop falling off.

The second biggest issue is the inability of politicians to admit that NZ driver training is non-existent and two vehicle MVAs are variously reported as being between 50 and 75% the fault of the other driver/rider. Teach people to actively scan for motorcycles and how to pick them out of the background and you have the potential to reduce accidents stats by about 40%. Teach motorcyclists that riding a bike on the road isn't about maximising lean angle and grip and you have the potential to reduce accidents by 50%. I know which one I'd target. You have to understand the logic behind the stance that ACC take about motorcyclists.

It's not the gear we wear. It's the attitude we take with us on the road.

I guess we are going to have a permanent difference of opinion here.

Nothing you have said addresses the issue of people not wearing motorcycle safety gear. Are you proposing those people not wearing motorcycle safety gear have no or little effect on the ACC bill?

I do agree that if there are more motorcyclists and the percentage of them having accidents is less than it is now the ACC bill per person will go down.
However may I suggest that if no one additional becomes a motorcyclist, and then percentage of riders having accidents reduces, then the bill will also reduce.

So in effect, if we reduce the percentage of accidents per rider we'll reduce the ACC spend.

James Deuce
6th September 2009, 18:15
Nothing you have said addresses the issue of people not wearing motorcycle safety gear. Are you proposing those people not wearing motorcycle safety gear have no or little effect on the ACC bill?



Yes it did. You're not reading what I'm saying clearly. Most motorcyclists wear gear that is appropriate for the level of risk they are prepared to accept. The gear they wear is vastly better (and cheaper) than what was available 20 years ago.

For some reason, you, along with the legislators that matter, have decided that not wearing appropriate gear is the major cause of motorcyclist injuries. It's not. People who don't wear decent gear some of the time are generally speaking using two wheeled appliances as transport.

Decent gear can only do so much. Both the riding buddies who have died in the last 5 years would have had the same outcome if they'd been naked. One of them spent thousands on Alpinestars gear. Head-on accidents at speed tend to not go well for motorcyclists. Both accidents had more to do with the attitudes of the riders than their attitude toward gear. In fact, I would rate both those riders as having an exemplary attitude toward decent riding gear.

Big Dave
6th September 2009, 18:17
Enough with the 'we'.

p.dath
6th September 2009, 18:19
... Most motorcyclists wear gear that is appropriate for the level of risk they are prepared to accept. The gear they wear is vastly better (and cheaper) than what was available 20 years ago.

100% agree.


For some reason, you, along with the legislators that matter, have decided that not wearing appropriate gear is the major cause of motorcyclist injuries. It's not. People who don't wear decent gear some of the time are generally speaking using two wheeled appliances as transport.

Ok, I see where you are coming from. I also agree, it is not the major cause. I believe that the majority of riders do in fact where some kind of motorcycle safety gear.
However abrasion based injuries tend to result in long expensive procedures to rectify the damage. A prior poster listed the cost of minor injuries as $61k. Imagine if we prevented just 1000 of these injuries.
I'm trying to target those injury costs [relating to riders who do not wear safety gear]

AD345
6th September 2009, 18:21
Dear Lord

Please save me from people who want to save me from myself.

Thanks

AD345


PS: if you could do something about the All Blacks backline that would be nice too

Kickaha
6th September 2009, 18:29
I'm trying to target those injury costs [relating to riders who do not wear safety gear]

Do you have any evidence to suggest the majority of acc claims are spent on these people?

If not they aren't the ones who should be targeted

popelli
6th September 2009, 19:00
the entire problem of acc is its no fault basis

if individuals who routinely caused accidents had higher premiums it would be simple

however the no fault basis of accounting costs on the basis of what class the victim is and levying charges based upon incidence rather than cause is a fundamental error in logic

also the logic of acc per vehicle rather than per licence holder also is wrong, some people have collections of vehicles of which they can only use one at a time yet they pay multiple acc levys

Usarka
6th September 2009, 19:01
the entire problem of acc is its no fault basis


If it's a no-fault system why do bikers pay higher levies?

p.dath
6th September 2009, 19:06
If it's a no-fault system why do bikers pay higher levies?

No-fault means it doesn't matter who caused the accident, you'll get treated in hospital.

Because bikes have a dis-proportionately higher number of claims.

popelli
6th September 2009, 19:23
No-fault means it doesn't matter who caused the accident, you'll get treated in hospital.

Because bikes have a dis-proportionately higher number of claims.

you have begged the question, if its a no fault system why are bikers singled out to pay more?

if you are looking at the higher number of claims then you should be looking at the cause of the problem not the effect

bogan
6th September 2009, 19:41
you have begged the question, if its a no fault system why are bikers singled out to pay more?

if you are looking at the higher number of claims then you should be looking at the cause of the problem not the effect

no fault per incident is perhaps a better term. Looking at the cause is a good idea, sounds like p.dath had looked into that a bit and decided gear is a good place to start, not the main cause, but easier to solve perhaps.

p.dath
6th September 2009, 20:02
...sounds like p.dath had looked into that a bit and decided gear is a good place to start, not the main cause, but easier to solve perhaps.

+1. Exactly. Needs someone much smarter than me to solve the other issues.

Big Dave
6th September 2009, 20:09
but easier to solve perhaps.

Nah. Just easy to make up rules a lot of us don't want.

bogan
6th September 2009, 20:33
Nah. Just easy to make up rules a lot of us don't want.

perhaps its time for that poll discussed on the first page?

dmouse
6th September 2009, 20:54
in my eyes and i might be cross eyed here but, ACC pays out lots of money to people that should not really be getting anything at all, besides a trip to court and a stiff sentance. where do i get this from, well just think about it for a minute, ACC pays out whether or not the party was guilty or not, what i mean here is that the person involed, was like a few years ago a person trying to break out of jail, fell and broke both legs and got a payout from ACC for $15,000 is that fair ??. i have been to loads of bike rallies and runs, the amount of people that i have spoken to that do not have a bike licence is really frightening, i do not think they would deserve cover from ACC, in fact in my books anyone commiting an offence be it driving with no wof or reg, or licence or breach of any laws should not qualify instant cover. its a great system but its no good if it bleeds everyone dry in the process.
as for regulating what gear you can wear is no good, as there would be so many options open to abuse, and who would police it ?, or would we have fashion police might be good if they were female only :2thumbsup

NighthawkNZ
6th September 2009, 21:06
Nothing you have said addresses the issue of people not wearing motorcycle safety gear. Are you proposing those people not wearing motorcycle safety gear have no or little effect on the ACC bill?



Only if they have an accident and claim ACC... if they have no accident and don't claim ACC then they have no effect

Big Dave
6th September 2009, 21:15
perhaps its time for that poll discussed on the first page?

Nah - I don't think KB is indicative.
A lot of the people I'm talking the liberty of typing for don't even have computers. But I can tell you exactly how they feel.

bogan
6th September 2009, 22:24
Nah - I don't think KB is indicative.
A lot of the people I'm talking the liberty of typing for don't even have computers. But I can tell you exactly how they feel.

haha, lucky us, how ever would we manage without you!

Big Dave
6th September 2009, 22:27
haha, lucky us, how ever would we manage without you!

If you send $99.95 for my new book I can make you outrageously hip too. :-)

p.dath
7th September 2009, 08:11
Only if they have an accident and claim ACC... if they have no accident and don't claim ACC then they have no effect

In the Safer Journeys document I think it said motorcycle riders were 18 times more likely to have an accident than a cage driver.

They might not have an accident 999 times. But that 1 in a thousand event could result in a massive ACC bill.
It was said previously, a minor accident costs about $61k, a serious accident costs a bit over $500k.

Pixie
7th September 2009, 08:13
They already tell you what helmet to wear ...
They tell you what standard you bike has to reach before you can take it on a road ...
They tell you how much your allowed to drink before riding ...

And you pay them to do it - I'm just trying to reduce how much we are paying. :)

It seems your happy with what you pay them, you just want less talk from "them". haha.

Can ACC and get some competition into the personal insurance industry

Pixie
7th September 2009, 08:15
Lets never do that. That is the US system, and it is far worse than ours.

Lets stick with our ACC no fault system. While we all complain, it isn't that bad.

Very happy to work on reducing the cost of accident care and what we pay though!

You've fallen for the bullshit like 99% of other kiwis

MarkH
7th September 2009, 10:00
What difference would it make to you? You wear full gear anyway... Why the angst?

Steve

I agree with Big Dave - legislation for gear has the potential to be expensive and a thoroughly fucked up thing.

If they legislate and say that I MUST wear a jacket with a NZ safety rating then what do I do with my current leather jacket with hard armour? I like my jacket and I paid a lot of money to buy it - I don't want to be told that I can't wear it because it doesn't have the new rating that they just made up!

The same applies to my gloves (2 pairs - summer & winter), my boots (2 pairs), my leather pants, my back protector & my Dragin' jeans.

You could say that the Government should bring in a new law, but not fuck it up. But that is like saying I should buy a Lotto ticket, but not one that doesn't win the 1st division powerball. If they bring in a new law then the odds are that they WILL fuck it up!

Genestho
7th September 2009, 10:29
I support Encouraging wearing the Gear, and Education.

I believe that would prevent some injuries, particularly scooterists, which are part of statistics for Motorcyclists.

Addressing this, I will be ticking that box in three "Safer Journey's" submissions with three groups, along with better targeted crash stat's.

I wouldn't support legislation.

From what I see, there will be no legislation, merely promotion of the idea of wearing the right gear.

Unless people are lobbying hard for legislation? If there is, I haven't heard of it, myself (could be wrong)

I'd be so bold as to suggest, I can't see legislation introduced addressing this, for many reasons.

Jantar
7th September 2009, 10:43
...It was said previously, a minor accident costs about $61k, a serious accident costs a bit over $500k.
That is Social Cost, not ACC cost. You will need to get an economist to explain Social Cost as I haven't see a robust definition for it.

Genestho
7th September 2009, 10:56
That is Social Cost, not ACC cost. You will need to get an economist to explain Social Cost as I haven't see a robust definition for it.

This is the willingness to pay based value of statistical life.

Questions and Answers relating to Social Costs Paper (http://www.transport.govt.nz/ourwork/Land/landsafety/QuestionsandAnswers-SocialCostofRoadCrashesandInjuriesreport/)

2006, 07 and 08 Reports (http://www.transport.govt.nz/ourwork/Land/landsafety/TheSocialCostofRoadCrashesandInjuries/)

"The average value of a loss of life is estimated by the amount of money that the members of the New Zealand population would be willing to pay for a safety improvement that results in the expected avoidance of one premature death. It is a measure of the pain, suffering and loss of life component of the social cost.

The value of statistical life (VOSL) was established at $2 million in 1991, following a willingness to pay (WTP) survey carried out during 1989/1990. It is indexed to average hourly earnings (ordinary time) to express the value in current prices. The same VOSL has been used in all safety evaluations across all three transport modes (road, maritime and aviation), as decided by the Government in 1991 (NZ Gazette notice 4983).

Medical costs can be further broken down into emergency costs, medical/hospital treatment costs and follow-on costs. Legal costs include crash investigation, imprisonment and court costs."

Big Dave
7th September 2009, 11:01
Where there's a Will there's a Solicitor.

Genestho
7th September 2009, 11:03
Where there's a Will there's a Solicitor.



:lol: boomtish. I'm out of bling! Some heading your way in 24 hours!!

MarkH
7th September 2009, 12:58
Where there's a Will there's a Solicitor.

Where there's a will - I want to be in it!

Kickaha
7th September 2009, 17:41
They might not have an accident 999 times. But that 1 in a thousand event could result in a massive ACC bill.


Could isn't the same as will

Hitcher
7th September 2009, 18:05
I present as Exhibit A in this discussion, the most litigious nation on Earth: the United States of America. Unlike New Zealand, the land of the free and the home of the brave doesn't have a no-fault accident compensation scheme.

The ground is just as hard in the US and heads just as soft as they are in New Zealand. Granted, some of their roads are better than ours and their car drivers remarkably well behaved in terms of how they treat motorcyclists.

But, if some of the comments made earlier in this thread were to have credence, then every American biker would be seen decked out in some uber-fluoro-inflatable-reflective-kevlar-bulletproof-buttplug-integrated-fuck-off-noddy protective apparel. Not so. Many American bikers think that Dot Snell is the deputy Governor of Arkansas.

From memory fewer than 10 states in that Great Nation have compulsory helmet laws, and the trend in recent years has been for helmet-wearing states to relax their requirements, rather than the opposite.

Make of that what you will.

NighthawkNZ
7th September 2009, 23:36
But, if some of the comments made earlier in this thread were to have credence, then every American biker would be seen decked out in some uber-fluoro-inflatable-reflective-kevlar-bulletproof-buttplug-integrated-fuck-off-noddy protective apparel.


Don't forget the bubble wrap... gotta have bubble wrap...

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what we the people say... they will just make it law any way... Look at the smacking law 87% said no and they don't have to change a thing if they don't want too... is that democracy?

p.dath
7th September 2009, 23:39
I've created a poll for this thread:

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=107219

p.dath
7th September 2009, 23:42
I present as Exhibit A in this discussion, the most litigious nation on Earth: the United States of America. Unlike New Zealand, the land of the free and the home of the brave doesn't have a no-fault accident compensation scheme.

The ground is just as hard in the US and heads just as soft as they are in New Zealand. Granted, some of their roads are better than ours and their car drivers remarkably well behaved in terms of how they treat motorcyclists.

But, if some of the comments made earlier in this thread were to have credence, then every American biker would be seen decked out in some uber-fluoro-inflatable-reflective-kevlar-bulletproof-buttplug-integrated-fuck-off-noddy protective apparel. Not so. Many American bikers think that Dot Snell is the deputy Governor of Arkansas.

From memory fewer than 10 states in that Great Nation have compulsory helmet laws, and the trend in recent years has been for helmet-wearing states to relax their requirements, rather than the opposite.

Make of that what you will.

They also have incredibly expensive private medical insurance, and you pretty much have to have private liability insurance as well.

I have a doctor living in my street. I think they said there insurance premium for being a doctor in the US was $320k per annum - because of the high likelihood of being sued.

So as long as you don't mind paying drastically higher insurance, then you can have more freedoms.

p.dath
7th September 2009, 23:43
I present as Exhibit A in this discussion...

What's exhibit B? :)

scracha
8th September 2009, 06:22
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.

With all due respect, I've heard the "but if it saves one life" argument far too often. If we applied this rule to everything then the speed limit would be 50Kmph and motorcycling would be banned*



skirts

So I couldn't ride in my national dress? Besides, imagine never again seeing a fit mini skirted burd on the back of a sportsbike.

As many intelligent peeps have stated, better education/training of drivers and riders would reduce ACC costs far more than 'compulsory motorcycle gear' or lower speed limits.



*as would sex.....far too dangerous.

p.dath
8th September 2009, 09:24
...As many intelligent peeps have stated, better education/training of drivers and riders would reduce ACC costs far more than 'compulsory motorcycle gear' or lower speed limits....

So you would be happy to attend compulsory education/training? I bet if we had voluntary education/training most people wouldn't go.

So if you offer education and no one goes, you might as well not bother.


ps. Comment was made in jest.

p.dath
8th September 2009, 09:27
pps. Should we also legalise murder, but provide education courses to teach people it is wrong? And just what are we going to do about those people who just keep murdering others - even though they know it is wrong?

Or is murder somehow wrong, but not wearing safety gear is okay? And what are we going to do about those riders who hurt themselves (and our pockets) by not wearing gear - even though they know they really should have been wearing gear?

Genestho
8th September 2009, 09:28
*as would sex.....far too dangerous.

OH Gawd no! Don't even suggest banning of sex! You never know who's watching!!!! Haha.

I'll quote you good sir...as you have it in a nutshell ...

"As many intelligent peeps have stated, better education/training of drivers and riders would reduce ACC costs far more than 'compulsory motorcycle gear' or lower speed limits."

I'm of the opinion that the public would fare better being educated and better trained, better licensing system, also the benefits of ATGATT, given the ability to think for themselves on this one, rather than forced to think!
I would never support legislation on compulsary ATGATT, or lowering speed limits.

Wish me luck, I have an ACC meeting to attend in an hour ;)

NighthawkNZ
8th September 2009, 09:35
pps. Should we also legalise murder, but provide education courses to teach people it is wrong? And just what are we going to do about those people who just keep murdering others - even though they know it is wrong?

make every one walk round with bullet proof and stab proof vest or a suite of armour... its called the band aid effect, fixes the after effect or the immediate problem but not the core issue.

and don't forget the bubble wrap, gotta have bubble wrap

Better training of drivers (all) at the young age when they are sitting the license, and then show them what happpens when you fuck up on the road, make them feel what it feels like have an impact even at 30kph (which is easily done) and if they want to feel the 50kph up to them... doesn't take much inteligences from that to imagine a 100kph or a head on which equates to 200kph

Genestho
8th September 2009, 09:51
pps. Should we also legalise murder, but provide education courses to teach people it is wrong? And just what are we going to do about those people who just keep murdering others - even though they know it is wrong?

Or is murder somehow wrong, but not wearing safety gear is okay? And what are we going to do about those riders who hurt themselves (and our pockets) by not wearing gear - even though they know they really should have been wearing gear?

Generally speaking - Murderers generally have deep psychological problems, and can't be taught morals. A taking of a life on purpose, if proven to be murder, is completely different to this subject.

I think...the general population has morals, and they know right from wrong.

If you suggest wearing ATGATT because picking gravel out of your arse for months, or the loss of a nose is not nice, or sheering your ankle flat, I'd suggest people will think for themselves - "no I want to avoid picking gravel out of my arse, I like my nose, I like how I walk because I have ankles" vs I tell you to wear ATGATT because I said you should.

On a high CC engine, gear won't do alot of if you hit something solid, I know this.
I also know ATGATT would do something to protect you, if you slide, at low speed.

Genestho
8th September 2009, 09:53
then show them what happpens when you fuck up on the road, make them feel what it feels like have an impact even at 30kph (which is easily done) and if they want to feel the 50kph up to them... doesn't take much inteligences from that to imagine a 100kph or a head on which equates to 200kph
YES! I've looked mildly into simulators! Kids are blown away by visuals

p.dath
8th September 2009, 10:05
Actually I like that idea of simulators! That would be a lot of fun to learn on.

bogan
8th September 2009, 10:13
easy, get a ladder, drop people off it at different heights to simulate different speeds. Probably start by dropping people onto some soggy ground, maybe move up to gravel, or a slope to simulate the skidding along the ground a bit, start with a drop with safety gear, then perform one without.

Subike
8th September 2009, 11:17
YES! I've looked mildly into simulators! Kids are blown away by visuals

Simulators, why has nobody pushed these as a min requirement for driving anything.
Look at the air industry, the tec is there ,how many comercial pilots have to spend hours in these things before they are allowed to pilot a passenger jet?
How could it be any different for the road.

1 Google has produced a road map on line for basically every where in this nation, so you can "see" the road from a drivers seating position.
2 Playstaion has proved that quality simulations can be had for all motor sport, hence professional drivers use their games to practice race tracks like Bathurst.
3 the air industryalready has flight simulators that give very realistic simulations, including accidents. Could older models be converted to simulate road conditions?
4 A high majority of todays people are very fimiliar with computor driven simulations and ENJOY using them. Personal involment on an exciting, stimulating level.

so we combine these togeather,build simulators for each teating station, loaded with the road conditions for the area it is bassed in and then use it not only as a driving education tool, but also a teachng tool to see if a person is able to drive in saftly on the road.
A test drive in a simulator could throw many probable accident senarios at a learner in safty, they fail, they dont drive on the street.
If they are afraid of failing in a simulator, they are destend to fail on the street.
Oh the cost? heaps Im sure for the set up of this.
But apart from updates of the computor programme, possibly a lot less than the ACC cost per year for the accedents caused by bad drivers who should not ever have a licence.
The saving? Every person could be tested at any time to see if they are a fit and able driver, in saftey, on a level playing field.The saving would be lives for sure.

This is only a brief idea of what could be done to lower the road incident ratio in NZ. But one that is real, would be taken on board by a lot of people, and can also be ENJOYABLE for the participant.
Put fun into the equasion, and people will get involved.
Made it hard line , like forcing clothing laws, people will fight against it.
We naturally like excitment and run from supression.
ACC reduction can only realy be bought about by good education that excites and gets people involved.

allycatz
8th September 2009, 11:51
While 32 deaths on motorcycles is 32 too many, it is only a proportion of the total of all vehicle crashes. Its a bit like saying that 46% drunk drivers cause accidents but that leaves 54% who should of known better cos they were sober. I wonder if the govt. targets mb's cos its largely an optional ownership and secondary to owning a cage. Bikes arnt cheap, so the rider could be deemed to be paying a penalty for an expensive hobby. A bit like cops cruising Remuera for traffic violations cos its llikely to be paid for, unlike a boy racer from Otara.

scracha
8th September 2009, 12:47
So you would be happy to attend compulsory education/training? I bet if we had voluntary education/training most people wouldn't go.


Well if it were compulsory then would it matter whether I were happy to attend or not?


I bet if there were more free driver/rider education/training then most people would happily attend.

p.dath
8th September 2009, 13:08
...I bet if there were more free driver/rider education/training then most people would happily attend.

I bet the exact opposite. That even if free education/training for motorcycle safety existed, than the majority (as in, more than 50%) of riders would not attend.

For example, how many new riders have been to existing free training in there area - such as NASS that's on every Wednesday?

Squiggles
8th September 2009, 13:16
IFor example, how many new riders have been to existing free training in there area - such as NASS that's on every Wednesday?

:lol:

A better example would be RRRS, although it costs $50 for the day.

bogan
8th September 2009, 13:23
I bet if there were more free driver/rider education/training then most people would happily attend.

I think a decent number would go along, and it would make a difference, i'd go at least. But the people who go would probably already be safety consious, and a little less likely to have an off while riding in the first place.

javawocky
8th September 2009, 15:13
what a verbose thread :argue:

Anyway - how much money would be saved if bikes were permitted to travel down the bus lain instead of running the gauntlet through dorkland traffic?

If this has been asked before, sorry :calm:

NighthawkNZ
8th September 2009, 15:34
I think a decent number would go along, and it would make a difference, i'd go at least. But the people who go would probably already be safety consious, and a little less likely to have an off while riding in the first place.


I would... and have happily been riding non stop for 25 years, and I am sure there is more to learn and a good refresher... free is good. ;)

means I can drink more beer before the ride home :crazy:

grbaker
8th September 2009, 16:05
Actually I like that idea of simulators! That would be a lot of fun to learn on.

Dude, kids sitting in the back of the wifes car going "broom, broom" are in simulators... they are doing what is required to learn to ride a motorbike... imagine and think.

Next step in the 'simulation' was a grass padock and a small bike with the instructions 'ride this until you learn how not to crash it'.

btw the bit "In the Safer Journeys document I think it said motorcycle riders were 18 times more likely to have an accident than a cage driver." sounds bollocks, like they only count 'certain' accidents... I may see 4 car dings on the motorway a week and no motorbike crash not .. umm.. (4*18=4*10+4*8=umm=40+24=64) ..64... I would notice 64.

p.dath
8th September 2009, 16:59
...btw the bit "In the Safer Journeys document I think it said motorcycle riders were 18 times more likely to have an accident than a cage driver." sounds bollocks, like they only count 'certain' accidents... I may see 4 car dings on the motorway a week and no motorbike crash not .. umm.. (4*18=4*10+4*8=umm=40+24=64) ..64... I would notice 64.

My personal guess is that it is pro-rated to the number of riders as compared to drivers.
You'd have to look at the raw accidents numbers to check. I thikn most of the numbers were exposed in the document.

Hitcher
8th September 2009, 18:13
pps. Should we also legalise murder, but provide education courses to teach people it is wrong? And just what are we going to do about those people who just keep murdering others - even though they know it is wrong?

Or is murder somehow wrong, but not wearing safety gear is okay? And what are we going to do about those riders who hurt themselves (and our pockets) by not wearing gear - even though they know they really should have been wearing gear?

Are you serious or just pretending to be a twat for the purposes of provoking sensitive souls like me?

SixPackBack
8th September 2009, 19:29
Are you serious or just pretending to be a twat for the purposes of provoking sensitive souls like me?

Nope. Self serving twat covers it.

MarkH
8th September 2009, 20:46
:lol:

A better example would be RRRS, although it costs $50 for the day.

I voluntarily handed over the $50 and was glad of what I learnt and the stuff it got me to think about while riding. I think this sort of course should be encouraged and even offer a reduction in minimum period of learners/restricted for the people that do this sort of course - it is way more useful than the defensive driving course.

jetboy
9th September 2009, 13:01
I bet if we had voluntary education/training most people wouldn't go.


ProRider (www.prorider.co.nz)
Ride Right Ride Safe (http://www.rrrs.org.nz/)
BRONZ (http://www.bronz.org.nz/)
...the list goes on


On the topic of the thread though, I was suprised to note (through the licensing system) that helmets are the only legal item of gear required when operating a motorcycle.
I don't necessarily think a law change is required, but when I binned it (twice now) the gear I was wearing saved me from some serious injury. I'd go as far as saying that if I wasn't wearing decent pants with armoured knee protectors in one of my crashes I'd have a seriously busted left leg...possibly useless below the knee.

Plus, there must be a reason for all those ATGATT threads!

scracha
9th September 2009, 16:49
now) the gear I was wearing saved me from some serious injury. I'd go as far as saying that if I wasn't wearing decent pants with armoured knee protectors in one of my crashes I'd have a seriously busted left leg...possibly useless below the knee.


So if you wear decent gear, you get dumb hillbilly bubba bikers coming up to you in pubs saying shit like "bro, you planning on crashing or something"?

"no buddy, but I didn't plan on the last arsehole pulling out in front of me either"

jetboy
10th September 2009, 08:34
So if you wear decent gear, you get dumb hillbilly bubba bikers coming up to you in pubs saying shit like "bro, you planning on crashing or something"?

"no buddy, but I didn't plan on the last arsehole pulling out in front of me either"
I'm not sure I follow you...
...but I simply ment that although I don't necessarily believe a law change is required I think that ATGATT is a pretty good motto to stand by, especially now that I have experienced a crash.

Morcs
10th September 2009, 10:23
Im sick of paying my ACC levies so unlicensed, untrained dirt riders can go wrap themselves around tree trunks.

License dirt bike riders and make em pay rego.
Give them rego plates too, may reduce them getting stolen...

TuonoTom
10th September 2009, 10:34
I agree with p.dath here, it should be illegal to ride in anything less than an Alpinestars two piece suit, none of this 1 tonne rubbish.