ACC - Should wearing safety gear be a legal requirement? [Archive]

p.dath

7th September 2009, 22:21

The is a poll for an existing thread:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=107044

Here is a re-post of the first article:
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.

SMOKEU

7th September 2009, 22:55

nosebleed

7th September 2009, 22:58

Sorry I've kind of lost what it is your asking.
The cost of Road accidents is covered by the levies in our registration
The cost of Workplace accidents is covered by levies in our salaries

Past-times however, are not covered by levies anywhere and they must surely make up a large percentage of ACC costs.
Cyclists also require skin-grafts and surgeries. Rugby players incur a myriad of injuries.
Off-roaders (bikes and 4wd's) also have injuries, Snowboarders, horse riding etc etc etc

There has always been a shortfall in ACC, which until recently has been managed with some very shrewd investments (brokers have been known to follow the lead of those investing the ACC portfolio)
It follows therefore that the main reason there is a shortfall is that like investments by just about everyone else around the world, investments by ACC have turned sour.

So unless there is there a quid pro quo agreement that when motorcycle injuries reduce this will be reflected in a reduction of our ACC levies, I don't see why there should be this movement to further regulation.

Squiggles

7th September 2009, 23:01

Where would you draw the line ultimately? Legislation is a dangerous path to head down... Safety gear followed by visi vests then limiting power output or setting special speed limits (70k's for all bikes?)... ban bikes from roads where there are lots of crashes? (Already done elsewhere in the world)

A star rating would be good as it gives the chance for an informed decision...

p.dath

7th September 2009, 23:14

...
Past-times however, are not covered by levies anywhere and they must surely make up a large percentage of ACC costs.
Cyclists also require skin-grafts and surgeries. Rugby players incur a myriad of injuries.
Off-roaders (bikes and 4wd's) also have injuries, Snowboarders, horse riding etc etc etc
...

"Past time" injuries are funded from the "Earner's Account", which you pay for in workplace levies. It's quite separate from road accidents. It's detailed here:

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/overview-of-acc/how-were-funded/index.htm

ducatilover

7th September 2009, 23:15

Wear leather more, it's sexy :whistle:

p.dath

7th September 2009, 23:17

... limiting power output ...

They are currently looking at an increased ACC levy for bikes of 600cc and over, because the injuries occurring from these bikes are more serious and costing ACC more than those on smaller bikes. It's detailed in the Safer Journeys discussion paper.

I can't tell you why. I was surprised by the statistic. Perhaps there are a lot of mature riders who return to riding, by a big bike, and have nastier accidents.

p.dath

7th September 2009, 23:21

...There has always been a shortfall in ACC, which until recently has been managed with some very shrewd investments
...
It follows therefore that the main reason there is a shortfall is that like investments by just about everyone else around the world, investments by ACC have turned sour.

I guess I should also point out that in 1999 ACC funding was fundamentally changed.

Up to 1999 ACC had to collect enough money to pay for its running for just that year.

From 2000 onwards they funding was changed so that they had to collect enough money to pay for the injuries that occurred during the year - and not when the treatment occurred. So if an accident is likely to take 30 years of pay outs, they had to collect all 30 years in the year the accident occurred.

Can you see how we also developed this shortfall on paper ...

SMOKEU

7th September 2009, 23:32

They are currently looking at an increased ACC levy for bikes of 600cc and over, because the injuries occurring from these bikes are more serious and costing ACC more than those on smaller bikes. It's detailed in the Safer Journeys discussion paper.

I can't tell you why. I was surprised by the statistic. Perhaps there are a lot of mature riders who return to riding, by a big bike, and have nastier accidents.

Going by those statistics, then people on litre bikes are more likely to kill themselves than on a 500cc bike which won't cost ACC anything (unless there is a 3rd party which is injured in the crash).

p.dath

7th September 2009, 23:37

Going by those statistics, then people on litre bikes are more likely to kill themselves than on a 500cc bike which won't cost ACC anything (unless there is a 3rd party which is injured in the crash).

Negative. The average cost of someone dying is far greater than someone being seriously injured.
A lot of those who die don't just die. They use some incredibly expensive resources and then die.

I don't quite recall which report it was in. Something like a name like "Social Cost of Injuries".

MarkH

7th September 2009, 23:48

The Stranger

7th September 2009, 23:52

"Past time" injuries are funded from the "Earner's Account", which you pay for in workplace levies. It's quite separate from road accidents. It's detailed here:

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/overview-of-acc/how-were-funded/index.htm

Well yes and no. That's the way it should be.
However, as motorcycles are soooo bad we get our own check box on the ACC form the doctor fills out. Should you have an accident on a motorcycle off road and go to a quack and he hears the word motorcycle he ticks the motorcycle box (why wouldn't he?) - thus putting the cost on those wot ride road bikes (MV account) - where as it should be on the eraners account. Then they divide the costs by the number of registered motorcycles and determine we are real expensive to insure.

And yes ACC (well certain representitives) are aware of and have acknowledged this anomoly.

NighthawkNZ

7th September 2009, 23:52

They are currently looking at an increased ACC levy for bikes of 600cc and over, because the injuries occurring from these bikes are more serious and costing ACC more than those on smaller bikes.

And that's the biggest load of bull shit crap I have seen and heard for a long time... If you believe that you and buying into their bullshit

p.dath

7th September 2009, 23:54

Well yes and no. That's the way it should be.
However, as motorcycles are soooo bad we get our own check box on the ACC form the doctor fills out. Should you have an accident on a motorcycle off road and go to a quack and he hears the word motorcycle he ticks the motorcycle box (why wouldn't he?) - thus putting the cost on those wot ride road bikes (MV account) - where as it should be on the eraners account. Then they divide the costs by the number of registered motorcycles and determine we are real expensive to insure.

And yes ACC (well certain representitives) are aware of and have acknowledged this anomoly.

Don't they also note on that same form weather it was a road accident or not?

Pedrostt500

7th September 2009, 23:57

The last thing we need in the world of motorcycles is more beauracrats dictating to us what where when and how, the beauracrats will want to exstract their pound of flesh for getting involved, and it will not be in the average Kiwi motorcyclists best intrests that they get involved, how much of the ACC fee collected of NZ road REG motorcyclists gets burned up in beauracratic fees, my geuss is about half of it.

If you are serious about making a difference to Motorcyclists Saftey then the answer is education of all road users, regardless of what they ride or drive. We know one of the major groups that realy could do with some Motorcycle Education is the older rider returning to the fold, they last rode a honda XL 185 in 1983, now they are back with avengence, with the latest, $25k European tarseal burning go faster bike that the sales man could flog him. yep he will have good gear with what ever brand name splattered all over it, but it will not give him the knoledge of realy how much the industry has changed in 30 yrs, and how much bikes have advanced in the same period of time.

If the NZ motorcycle industry and riding comunity wish to bring down the costs of accidents, then self regulation will do far more than impossed regulations by any Government, and would cost a hell of alot less.

p.dath

7th September 2009, 23:57

And that's the biggest load of bull shit crap I have seen and heard for a long time... If you believe that you and buying into their bullshit

That's what the statistics are currently indicating. Those people on bigger bikes that have an accident require more expensive treatment.

When I think of an extreme case if seems reasonable. Those on a 50cc scooter are probably going to require cheaper treatments than those on 1000cc bikes. The probability of surviving a 50km/h accident is much higher than a 100km/h accident.

What's your reasoning for thinking it is wrong?

p.dath

8th September 2009, 00:05

...how much of the ACC fee collected of NZ road REG motorcyclists gets burned up in beauracratic fees, my geuss is about half of it.
...
If you are serious about making a difference to Motorcyclists Saftey then the answer is education of all road users, regardless of what they ride or drive.
...
If the NZ motorcycle industry and riding comunity wish to bring down the costs of accidents, then self regulation will do far more than impossed regulations by any Government, and would cost a hell of alot less.

I would be interested to know the cost of running ACC, but I doubt its more than 10%. Probably much less.

The problem with education is that it only teaches the risk - and then only to those that want to be educated. Some people accept the risk at the expense of others.
The other problem is, even if I give you a fist full of cash, its almost impossible to find places that teach defensive riding skills. Plenty of courses for car drivers. Motorcyclists miss out. It seems the training providers don't feel that such a market exists - and why is that? Probably because insufficient people are wanting to do defensive riding courses.

So what do you want to do about those who don't want to be educated? Make them go to "school"?

I would have to conclude from your last statement that the motorcycle industry does not wish to bring down the cost of accidents, or that self regulation has not worked, because the cost of ACC is not reducing.

Pedrostt500

8th September 2009, 00:05

Don't they also note on that same form weather it was a road accident or not?

I'm certain the answer to that is no, it is all lumped together under the one heading, and when ACC gets that bit of paper they traet all motorcycle Accidents as road Accidents.

mstriumph

8th September 2009, 02:38

too many laws already

personally i'm dead against removing any more freedoms ...

Elysium

8th September 2009, 04:58

I can see a vast amount of female scooter owners deciding that it's better off with a car then carry all that bulky gear around.

James Deuce

8th September 2009, 06:16

Oi dath. Stop it.

Join BRONZ and piss them off instead of us.

People have gone into this in greater granularity than you have and they need man power, so go join a lobby group (BRONZ, or Ulysses - if you're old enough) with an understanding of how Government works.

A poll on KB does nothing. Especially one written by what looks like a Referedum expert - Ask fact-seeking questions, don't imply an emotive response when there is no need to. It's rude.

Go do some real work and stop wasting time here.

James Deuce

8th September 2009, 06:18

I would be interested to know the cost of running ACC, but I doubt its more than 10%. Probably much less.

The problem with education is that it only teaches the risk - and then only to those that want to be educated. Some people accept the risk at the expense of others.
The other problem is, even if I give you a fist full of cash, its almost impossible to find places that teach defensive riding skills. Plenty of courses for car drivers. Motorcyclists miss out. It seems the training providers don't feel that such a market exists - and why is that? Probably because insufficient people are wanting to do defensive riding courses.

So what do you want to do about those who don't want to be educated? Make them go to "school"?

I would have to conclude from your last statement that the motorcycle industry does not wish to bring down the cost of accidents, or that self regulation has not worked, because the cost of ACC is not reducing.

And the problem with your attitude is the incredibly rude assumption that we're all too thick to make up our own minds, to evaluate the available information and come to a decision that suits our own needs.

You should be an MP, preferably a Labour one, because they think we're too thick to look after ourselves too.

Take the flame proof suit off. The retardant bit is the only part that seems to be working.

scracha

8th September 2009, 06:39

So what do you want to do about those who don't want to be educated? Make them go to "school"?

Yeah. There's this thing called a "drivers license". You make people go to "school" before giving them one.

Why not do a teensy weensy bit of research on how other countries do things before posting more daft polls?

Usarka

8th September 2009, 07:01

Did the question get answered about how many of the riders in these accident's were wearing substandard gear?

ps - acc kiss my arse.

NighthawkNZ

8th September 2009, 07:15

That's what the statistics are currently indicating. Those people on bigger bikes that have an accident require more expensive treatment.

When I think of an extreme case if seems reasonable. Those on a 50cc scooter are probably going to require cheaper treatments than those on 1000cc bikes. The probability of surviving a 50km/h accident is much higher than a 100km/h accident.

What's your reasoning for thinking it is wrong?

I could make the stats look like anything I want to make them look like as well... Go hit a brick wall at a 100kph on a 250cc (or any bike under the 600cc range), then go and do the same thing on a 1000cc at 100kph then tell me just because you rode the 1000 you will require more expensive treatment...

The main reason the stats show there is more so called accidents is because there are more bikes on the road in the suggested size range... (and then you get gits on here suggesting a newbie just getting full should upgrade from a 250 -1000cc and wonder why accident rates are up... hmmm take so responsibility )

If well all rode 250's, it show that 250's should be band as they are the major cause ...

Well for a start its not the bike... its the rider

scracha

8th September 2009, 07:22

Who's more likely to have an accident....these guys or the folks with the regular gear?
DSK5fmGnXi0

Headbanger

8th September 2009, 07:55

Usarka

8th September 2009, 08:16

bogan

8th September 2009, 15:34

how am i sposed to vote on this when you havent even defined what a basic level of safety gear is?

Im all for getting people to wear more gear, but from the comments here, maybe legislation is not the best way to go about achieving that, rider education is probably a better idea. Get the govt to trial a mandatory 5 day skills and theory course for new rider, and follow thier accident rates, hopefully they would be less than the nations average, thus reducing the social and treatment costs, therefor paying for the mandatory course in the first place.

red675

8th September 2009, 15:39

better suggestion:

scrap the ACC, which having been a soft touch in the past now plays hard ball like the worst of the insurance companies when it comes to settling claims

then maybe we could sue people who let us down

vifferman

8th September 2009, 15:52

You know what I think? You should learn to use the multi-quote function, and multi-quote your replies. Or are you trying to boost your post count? You seem to be here, there, and everywhere, imparting important information to us less-learned motorbicyclists.
Here's what you do: you click once on the ' ' (double quote symbol) at the bottom right (just to the right of the "Quote" button) of each of the posts you want to reply to, then you click the "Post Reply" and all the posts you have clicked will be collated into one window, in the order you clicked them. Then you can edit them and add your comments in the appropriate places before posting your reply.

The Stranger

8th September 2009, 15:57

Get the govt to trial a mandatory 5 day skills and theory course for new rider, and follow thier accident rates, hopefully they would be less than the nations average, thus reducing the social and treatment costs, therefor paying for the mandatory course in the first place.

It's been tried - though 2 X 1 day courses, one for Learner to restricted and restricted to full. You had to have been over 25, have your basic handling and held a full car license for 2yrs to qualify if I recall correctly.
Not sure of the results, but it was scrapped.
May have shown little or no benefit? but there was a lot of objection to the charges and some politics too.

avgas

8th September 2009, 16:00

I actually selected the bottom item.
I always wear my safety gear.
Confused?

Well think of it like this, I like riding. I'm not an idiot. However there is a stereotype with motorcyclist. There was a guy named Darwin. The world is overpopulated.

Join the dots. Basically means more for me.

Argyle

8th September 2009, 16:01

Helmet should be constantly on if you are riding a moped, motorcycle etc.

For a moped i don't think it is necessary to wear leather etc.

For a motorcycle you should ALWAYS wear protective gear and always wear back Armour!

All kiwis should be forced to do a theoretical test and practical test to gain any kind of bike license.
There should be three kind of categories:

125cc, 16years old, 18KW at the most.
600cc, 18years old, 33kw at the most.
full license XXXXcc, 21years old

All practical tests should consist of two parts, one there you do a "circuit" and prove that you can handle your bike, brake testing in 50kmh, 70kmh and 100kmh.
Second part a test in traffic.

No one is allowed to drive a bike on their car license except a moped.

NighthawkNZ

8th September 2009, 16:15

No one is allowed to drive a bike on their car license except a moped.

You are not allowed to do that now... and I read somewhere that a substantial percentage of accidents involving bikes were bikers that did not have a licence, and or breaking their restrictions of their licence...

and yet well all get punished for that with higher ACC

Do I get a no claims bonus is 25 years of rider I have never claimed ACC?

The Stranger

8th September 2009, 16:15

The Stranger

8th September 2009, 16:17

Do I get a no claims bonus is 25 years of rider I have never claimed ACC?

Yes, you just need to sell your motorcycle to collect it.

Drew

8th September 2009, 16:21

I'm self employed, and think that with what I pay in a year, I could invest it well enough to keep all my medical bills paid now. Why should we pay extra ACC with our registration at all?

Swoop

8th September 2009, 16:24

No. Fuck off.

That applies to any gubbinment retards.

davereid

8th September 2009, 17:09

Fuck off x 2.

I don't give a flying fuck about the cost of ACC.

Nanny wankers forced the system on me, use force to make sure I pay for it, then cry foul when I want to dangerous stuff just for fun.

They bleat "its unfair on me, cos I wear WankWank boots and you wear Jandals."

You can't apease Nanny wankers either. They always want to target "the most dangerous thing".

Of course, once they have done that, they want to target the next most dangerous thing.

I will choose my own pleasures thank you, and choose my own risk profile.

I'm gonna grab the bourbon bottle, and have a few sips. I'll take the quad for a hoon later without my precious ATGATT, and then I'll come home and have unprotected sex.

And just to give the finger the full rotation, I'll ride down the country road I live on tomorrow without my helmet, enjoying the sights and smells of the country, risking the ACC mans dollars, just because I feel like it.

Madness

8th September 2009, 17:14

Fuck off X3

And bring back lump sum payouts!

Kickaha

8th September 2009, 17:53

Moped riders should be encouraged to wear more safety gear, after all they pay fuckall ACC on their rego, they often wear no more safety gear than a cheap helmet and they don't usually know how to ride as well as the average motorcyclist. 50kmh is still fast enough to do serious damage.

And how many moped riders are represented in the ACC statistics and what do they cost in ACC compared to Motorcycle riders, bugger all I would guess, anyone got any figures for them or are they like just off road riders just a convenient group to blame?

I can't tell you why. I was surprised by the statistic. Perhaps there are a lot of mature riders who return to riding, by a big bike, and have nastier accidents.

Or perhaps they do more miles than 600cc down bike owners, or perhaps to many learners upgrade to bigger bikes which are beyond their skill level etc etc etc

Grahameeboy

8th September 2009, 17:58

Well yes and no. That's the way it should be.
However, as motorcycles are soooo bad we get our own check box on the ACC form the doctor fills out. Should you have an accident on a motorcycle off road and go to a quack and he hears the word motorcycle he ticks the motorcycle box (why wouldn't he?) - thus putting the cost on those wot ride road bikes (MV account) - where as it should be on the eraners account. Then they divide the costs by the number of registered motorcycles and determine we are real expensive to insure.

And yes ACC (well certain representitives) are aware of and have acknowledged this anomoly.

Its funny that they categorise injuries even though it is suppose to be no blame and because they think we are "to blame" they charge us more.

I think we are a high risk so fair enough like Insurance (which is what ACC is to a point) the levy should reflect this..to a point.

Grahameeboy

8th September 2009, 17:59

Grahameeboy

8th September 2009, 18:03

I'm self employed, and think that with what I pay in a year, I could invest it well enough to keep all my medical bills paid now. Why should we pay extra ACC with our registration at all?

The problem as I see it is that ACC is a National Health fund source....if we took away ACC there would then be a shortfall in National Health resources etc etc and you would have to change the Law to allow injury claims which then raised the issue of who from...if Insurer's then it would become non fault compensation which would not be a bad thing but then premiums would go up etc....lump sums a good idea for most injuries...whiplash etc but long term is a different issue but in theory less expensive because you would get the compensation in advance so using the multiples factor.

With me?

BiK3RChiK

8th September 2009, 18:14

NO! Who has never jumped on their bike to pootle down the road, round the block, nip out for something, and not put all their gear on bar maybe gloves as well as their lawfully required helmet? I know I have.... The last thing we need is more bureaucratic BS to wade through!

gatch

8th September 2009, 18:26

I don't like the idea of forcing people to wear gear, more emphasis should be placed into preventing the accident from happening, ie driver education.

Me thinks this would save way more cash than making it illegal to ride without being cocooned in bubble wrap..

NighthawkNZ

8th September 2009, 18:32

Me thinks this would save way more cash than making it illegal to ride without being cocooned in bubble wrap..

:crybaby:gotta have bubble wrap :crybaby:

Drew

8th September 2009, 18:33

The system the way it is, I can stop paying ACC now. I dont have to have another insurer either.

I have to provide a lengthy written out plan, on what will happen should I get hurt at work, and how I'd pay for shit.

Were I to get that sorted, I'm still covered for injury outside of work.

Flethcers do this now, so how do their staff still get ACC when they get injured outside of work?

ManDownUnder

8th September 2009, 18:38

James Deuce

8th September 2009, 18:45

This hobby horse is starting to look like a llama.

Pedrostt500

8th September 2009, 18:54

This hobby horse is starting to look like a llama.

So thats one of them sheep with a long neck and long legs.

p.dath

8th September 2009, 19:05

Its funny that they categorise injuries even though it is suppose to be no blame and because they think we are "to blame" they charge us more.

I think we are a high risk so fair enough like Insurance (which is what ACC is to a point) the levy should reflect this..to a point.

No blame means they pay for your medical care even if your at fault.

The stats are used to determine how much each activity is costing for medical cover, and those people that participate in those activities pay there share.

Motorcyclists are currently not paying their share.

p.dath

8th September 2009, 19:07

...
Or... we could perhaps focus on educating people to the dangers they expose themselves to... and leaving them free to make an informed choice, on the basis they accept the legal, financial and physical consequences.

I ask again - are you planning on forcing education on people? What if they don't want to be educated to the risks you perceive?

So it seems we are now arguing what to force on people, rather than if we should make them do something.

bogan

8th September 2009, 19:15

I ask again - are you planning on forcing education on people? What if they don't want to be educated to the risks you perceive?

So it seems we are now arguing what to force on people, rather than if we should make them do something.

They are doomed, darwin says we'll be better off for it too. Something needs to be done for rider education though, theres bugger all about even for people who want (and would pay) for such things.

MarkH

8th September 2009, 20:43

Who has never jumped on their bike to pootle down the road, round the block, nip out for something, and not put all their gear on bar maybe gloves as well as their lawfully required helmet?

Me!! But it has been MY choice to don the jacket, gloves & boots! I don't need the government to say that I can't think for myself and they will tell me what to do and what not to do. I am happy to follow ATGATT, but by my choice.

Should bike riders wear decent safety gear? Yes!

Should wearing safety gear be legislated by our eternally incompetent government? No!

Grahameeboy

8th September 2009, 20:45

No blame means they pay for your medical care even if your at fault.

The stats are used to determine how much each activity is costing for medical cover, and those people that participate in those activities pay there share.

Motorcyclists are currently not paying their share.

Mmmm....re-read my post.........

Grahameeboy

8th September 2009, 20:46

p.dath

8th September 2009, 21:15

Then are dumb...............

re: not taking up free education

So then if we have a group of people not taking up free education, not wearing safety gear, and having accidents, what should we do?

Nothing, and accept the higher ACC premium from a failure to achieve reduced costs to ACC, or some form of regulation?

e,g. If your convicted of some driving charge (say careless driving or worse) 3 times you have compulsory "re-education" before you get your licence back? Doesn't help after the accident has happened of course.
e,g. Regulate that they wear safety gear, so they can be removed from the road (very un-popular according to the poll)?
e,g. Just accept it as the cost of freedom, and be dammed pleased we have the choice?

James Deuce

8th September 2009, 21:20

I suppose you're one of those people who thinks licensing gun owners reduces the likelihood of firearms offences?

ManDownUnder

8th September 2009, 21:24

I ask again - are you planning on forcing education on people? What if they don't want to be educated to the risks you perceive?

So it seems we are now arguing what to force on people, rather than if we should make them do something.

Nope - I'm proposing the option to understand the risks because they/we'll be paying the price of the damage...

Ducky848

8th September 2009, 21:26

They are currently looking at an increased ACC levy for bikes of 600cc and over, because the injuries occurring from these bikes are more serious and costing ACC more than those on smaller bikes. It's detailed in the Safer Journeys discussion paper.

I can't tell you why. I was surprised by the statistic. Perhaps there are a lot of mature riders who return to riding, by a big bike, and have nastier accidents.

I find riding a litre bike attracts even more lunatics to drive into me...maybe its that whole relativity theory fucking with us...

Grahameeboy

8th September 2009, 21:27

re: not taking up free education

So then if we have a group of people not taking up free education, not wearing safety gear, and having accidents, what should we do?

Nothing, and accept the higher ACC premium from a failure to achieve reduced costs to ACC, or some form of regulation?

e,g. If your convicted of some driving charge (say careless driving or worse) 3 times you have compulsory "re-education" before you get your licence back? Doesn't help after the accident has happened of course.
e,g. Regulate that they wear safety gear, so they can be removed from the road (very un-popular according to the poll)?
e,g. Just accept it as the cost of freedom, and be dammed pleased we have the choice?

They have to accept a reduced level of ACC compensation...

Should we have the choice when it does not just affect us...say you don't wear a back protector and suffer spinal injuries which affects your wife and kids future...

Why should the Govt bail us out for making our own stupid choice...

p.dath

8th September 2009, 21:28

I suppose you're one of those people who thinks licensing gun owners reduces the likelihood of firearms offences?

Umm, don't know much about guns or gun licensing, or the results or issues of licensing, and not likely to take an interest in it. Not something I have any passion about.

But I'm guessing you feel Government regulation of gun owners (or any other personal pursuit for that matter) should not occur for the same reason that you think that the Government should not regulate motorcycle riders?

Grahameeboy

8th September 2009, 21:28

Nope - I'm proposing the option to understand the risks because they/we'll be paying the price of the damage...

Yep..it's that simple folks....why are we any different to car drivers having to wear a seat belt

Mekk

8th September 2009, 23:47

Why would you want to get in the way of natural selection?

The Stranger

9th September 2009, 00:32

I suppose you're one of those people who thinks licensing gun owners reduces the likelihood of firearms offences?

Bloody stupid idea isn't it.
Ban them completely instead.

James Deuce

9th September 2009, 06:15

StoneY

9th September 2009, 07:14

Negative. The average cost of someone dying is far greater than someone being seriously injured.
A lot of those who die don't just die. They use some incredibly expensive resources and then die.

I don't quite recall which report it was in. Something like a name like "Social Cost of Injuries".

Do you have a fuckin life dude
Who the fuck reads every .govt website report out there- I dont and I was in govt service for 4 years

Your posts are just whinging-nothing else- get a fuckin life or go out for a fuckin ride for gods sake

StoneY

9th September 2009, 07:16

Umm, don't know much about guns or gun licensing, or the results or issues of licensing, and not likely to take an interest in it.

MY god finally a subject the mighty p.dath has no opinion on
WOW!

NighthawkNZ

9th September 2009, 08:07

for the same reason that you think that the Government should not regulate motorcycle riders?

Tell us do you truly want to be regulated, and be honest with yourself... You need to stand back and see what you yourself are saying and wanting. Are you truly wanting the gooberment to regulate you as a motorcyclist. A personal hobby for most, something that is for enjoyment...

Its about personal and freedom of choice, what I and any other biker wears when out riding. We all know the risks, well all know that it hurts if you do fall off, we all know it costs money to fix you... so simple put, don't fall off... Get taught how to handle the bike better, and defensively...to avoid the situation in the first place... oh wait a loop of more education

I'm am ATGATT always have been, but being told I must wear XYZ approved gear is over the top. The more you regulate people the more you will find people will rebel.

All our importers will have to have all the gear tested to meet these new standards, who passes and fail. you would have to go get the gear you wear now tested, that you have been wearing for the last 4 or 5 years hope it passes else you have another bill to pay, the test and new gear. How often do we have to get our gear checked, once a year, every time we go for a ride like the do at a race meet, then as asked before how is it regulated and priced to you.

It may save money for ACC but that money saved won't go on better roads, or driver education it will most likely go on regulating you.

There are already regulations in place for on the learning side, and you have in through out your life... you must go to school from the age of 5. To start teaching you the tools of what you need to know in life. Maybe they need to start teach in the later years when the kids are just below the driving age more about driving, the dangers the safety, the stupid, the dangers, of drink driver, modding your car (or bike) without proper guidelines teaching them what not to do... start teaching them younger, prepair them better for when the do start to get behind the wheel. Start teaching road safety as soon as they start play with matchbox cars in the sand pit...

Make the learning side of getting the license better than what is and a bit tougher on the younger ones getting a license, be tougher on the law and penalties if the break the restrictions of the license. Make them be responsible for their actions. (and not just money)

Be more realistic with the restrictions....

No alcohol levels while driving... zero, nada, zip
HP rating and restriction (both cage and bike)
No pillion or passengers.
No open road driving or riding for period of time (might only be a month or 3). Then a reduced speed on open road (but more than 70) period of time probably up to 90kph (this way you technically are not being pushed of the road by Kenworth trucks.)
Must have L or a R plate showing.
Sit a defensive driving and or riding course and test in between learner and restricted. None of this to reduce time on your learners. and an advanced defensive driving course and test between restricted & full.

The last one has added to courses before they can get their full without over regulating.

As for bikers and gear and clothing, educate and recommend. Be heaver on the law when caught tailgating, drink driving if caught more than once loss of license, caught again... day in court, and dangerous driving.

ACC doesn't pay if you have broken these restrictions (taking responsibility for your actions)

James Deuce

9th September 2009, 08:14

I'm am ATGATT always have been, but being told I must wear XYZ approved gear is over the top. The more you regulate people the more you will find people will rebel.

Not only that, Mr Dath seems to think that a law will mean that people will obey.

He still hasn't responded to the comment about a fair proportion of big bike injury accidents being attributed to riders either without a license or lacking the appropriate class 6 license to be riding a big bike in the first place.

vifferman

9th September 2009, 11:47

Oh God yes it should be. Everything should be of the highest rating, full cover from head to toe, one piece, body armour, sliders and steel capped/reinforced boots. We need to extend the reach of the legislation to include bicycles, skateboards, in fact anyone that faces the prospect of abrading themselves against the ground at any speed able to draw blood.
Everyone should have to wear full safety gear at all times, even when in bed (in case they roll out and hurt themselves, or get up to have a whizz in the night and fall over the cat).
FFS - life has a 100% mortality rate! Get over it.
My cousin died when he tripped on the wharf and hit his head. My mother broke a couple of ribs when she tripped over an ant or summat and fell. Lucky :confused: for her, when she was examined, they found out she had breast cancer, so she had to have radical surgery and 6 weeks of chemo.
My grandma fell over in her kitchen and broke her hip.
My mother-in-law fell backwards in the garden (just standing there!), and fuckt her back and fractured her scaphoid.
I fell over in the gargre, and had more damage than I've EVER had in a bike accident: cracked my eyebrow, got 6 stitches in my eye, two black eyes, wrecked my rotator cuff, and had to have months of physio, which gave me arthritis.

OTOH, I wrote off my first bike at 65-70km/h, when I t-boned a car, wearing jandals, no gloves, jeans, and an open-faced helmet. Got some fairly minor abrasions and contusions, and 9 stitches in my right knee. Fuck all really.

We already suffer from over-regulation, and too many rules and laws. We definitely don't need any more.

The Stranger

9th September 2009, 14:42

Everyone should have to wear full safety gear at all times, even when in bed (in case they roll out and hurt themselves, or get up to have a whizz in the night and fall over the cat).
FFS - life has a 100% mortality rate! Get over it.
My cousin died when he tripped on the wharf and hit his head. My mother broke a couple of ribs when she tripped over an ant or summat and fell. Lucky :confused: for her, when she was examined, they found out she had breast cancer, so she had to have radical surgery and 6 weeks of chemo.
My grandma fell over in her kitchen and broke her hip.
My mother-in-law fell backwards in the garden (just standing there!), and fuckt her back and fractured her scaphoid.
I fell over in the gargre, and had more damage than I've EVER had in a bike accident: cracked my eyebrow, got 6 stitches in my eye, two black eyes, wrecked my rotator cuff, and had to have months of physio, which gave me arthritis.

Do you hate your parents for passing on the fall over gene?

Swoop

9th September 2009, 15:19

Umm, don't know much about guns or gun licensing, or the results or issues of licensing, and not likely to take an interest in it. Not something I have any passion about.

But I'm guessing you feel Government regulation of gun owners (or any other personal pursuit for that matter) should not occur for the same reason that you think that the Government should not regulate motorcycle riders?
The point is that even though our government has "policies" in place that say you MUST do xyz... some people do not follow that process. Hence we have unlicenced road-users, etc, etc.

Even though we are required to comply with something, dosen't mean that we all do that.

Some of us use our own initiative and common sense, while others may choose to be part of the sheeple. Individual choice is a wonderful thing.

p.dath

9th September 2009, 15:43

Tell us do you truly want to be regulated

We are already regulated. We have to wear helmets, ride on the left hand side of a marked road, get a WOF and rego for on-road use, etc. Do you want all existing regulations repealed (I know James would :) ).

Its about personal and freedom of choice
...
so simple put, don't fall off... Get taught how to handle the bike better, and defensively...to avoid the situation in the first place... oh wait a loop of more education

Do you really feel that any motorcycle accident happened because the person wanted it to? Its called an accident because, well, it was unplanned. No one really wants to get seriously hurt.

I'm am ATGATT always have been, but being told I must wear XYZ approved gear is over the top. The more you regulate people the more you will find people will rebel.

I don't notice anyone rebelling against the helmet law. I'm sure there are a few, but I certainly don't notice them.

Would you advocated that helmet regulation be repealed for the same reason?

All our importers will have to have all the gear tested to meet these new standards, who passes and fail.

What new standard? In my original post I said a basic level of safety. In the poll I didn't even mention a standard. If we did have to enforce an actual standard I would suggest we borrow someone else's, such as the European's.
In one of the original posts I suggested garments that covered the skin (refer to the poll for more info), and suggested that anything tougher requirements be considered maybe 3 years later to see if any impact could be felt.

It may save money for ACC but that money saved won't go on better roads, or driver education it will most likely go on regulating you.

I agree that we do want the most bang for our buck. Transit NZ do a lot of work upgrading NZ roads all the time. It's really expensive, and only a little bit can be done each year. A one of regulatory change should be much cheaper.

BUT I concede - the poll clearly shows about half the rider population is dead against any further regulatory requirements and would rather continue to pay what they do now for the freedom they currently enjoy. I'm amongst the 1/3 minority that would like tougher regulations to reduce the medical cost of injuries, and what I have to pay.

There are already regulations in place for on the learning side, and you have in through out your life... you must go to school from the age of 5. To start teaching you the tools of what you need to know in life. Maybe they need to start teach in the later years when the kids are just below the driving age more about driving, the dangers the safety, the stupid, the dangers, of drink driver, modding your car (or bike)

Alas, no matter how much education you offer, even for free, some people just wont take it up, or will learn the risk but accept it.

Make the learning side of getting the license better than what is and a bit tougher on the younger ones getting a license

You want to tighten regulations on getting a licence, but leave them unchanged as soon as you have said licence (said tounge in cheek)?

[LIST]
No alcohol levels while driving... zero, nada, zip
HP rating and restriction (both cage and bike)
No pillion or passengers.

Strongly agree with the above.

ACC doesn't pay if you have broken these restrictions (taking responsibility for your actions)
[/QUOTE]

Being a no-fault system, having conditional ACC would never fly. But perhaps if we bring back competition to ACC those who can't get insurance anywhere else will use ACC, and those that can will get cheaper private insurance.

p.dath

9th September 2009, 15:48

Not only that, Mr Dath seems to think that a law will mean that people will obey.

Haha. If all people "obeyed" then laws wouldn't need penalties or enforcement. So I guess using that logic then the regulation would also need a penalty of sufficient magnitude so as to make people want to comply.

But even I'm not keen on stiff penalties for minor issues. The law should be flexible enough to realise everyone makes mistakes.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws or regulations. What it does do is give Police another "tool" to help protect the safety of everyone.

He still hasn't responded to the comment about a fair proportion of big bike injury accidents being attributed to riders either without a license or lacking the appropriate class 6 license to be riding a big bike in the first place.

Sorry James, I must have missed that post. I haven't seen any info about that, but lets pretend its 10% of riders. The ACC levy is taken against the bike, not the rider.
How does the licence status of the accident victim affect the cost of ACC?

no_8wire

9th September 2009, 16:32

p.dath

9th September 2009, 16:35

Because those that are willing to break the conditions of their license, or ride with out one, (i.e big bike accidents) would more than likely have the same level of respect for any new law that sets standards for their clothing as their license. i.e none...

Basically saying that to those most at risk these changes you propose will not affect them at all.

I'm not so sure. It's pretty easy spotting a rider in a t-shirt on the road ...

EDIT: I've not seen any stats to suggest those without a licence require more expensive medical care than those with who have an accident. Lots of very experienced track riders have no licence ...

davereid

9th September 2009, 17:56

We are already regulated. We have to wear helmets, ride on the left hand side of a marked road, get a WOF and rego for on-road use, etc. Do you want all existing regulations repealed (I know James would :) ).
I don't notice anyone rebelling against the helmet law. I'm sure there are a few, but I certainly don't notice them.

Would you advocated that helmet regulation be repealed for the same reason?

Some rules are co-operative. Thats when no one is disadvantaged, like agreeing that we will drive on the left, and stop at intersections. These are good laws.

Helmet laws dont fall in this group. Thats because its my head, not yours, or the Kings.

I will, and do advocate for the end of helmet laws, sorry you havent noticed, should we meet face to face, thats something I will correct, and I'm sure you will remember.

Ive already published the data here, demonstrating the spectacular ineffectiveness of helmets so many times that the KB computer now rejects my chart !. (Although its never been refuted.)

You argue that because, (against my will), you have elected to take my money (by force) and use it to give me medical care.

Then when you discover that I get enjoyment from riding a motorcycle, and more enjoyment from riding it without a helmet, that you have the right to make me wear a helmet. Most likely by bashing me over the head with a baton because I dont co-operate. (thats a great way to prove you care)

I don't want to have an accident that kills me or maims me.

But, I enjoy lots of things, that really, arent that safe.

I love the taste, colour, smell, texture of the world. Sometimes that means riding a motorcycle, some times it means no helmet or no condom, because it my life, and I dont need you bashing me up because its not as safe as your world.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For those who taste, touch and enjoy, today, Helmetless I rode the length of Koputaroa Rd. 14km of country life. I felt the wind, its only 15deg today, but I saw the little valley I live in. New calves, and lambs, tractors flat out setting up, I imagine for the new potatoes, speeding along at 45 on my moped.

Cursing those who would make me safe by beating me up.

Still. If the weathers nice, I'll do it tomorrow.

vifferman

9th September 2009, 18:32

Do you hate your parents for passing on the fall over gene?
No, because they didn't - my mum fell over because she's old. I fell over because (a) I'm a dork, and (b) socks are not approved by ACC for safe transit while using a Pajero bumper bar as a shortcut while carrying an armful of tools.
Fuck ACC.
And fuck people who whenever something happens say, "There should be a law against that!" Or, "The Gummint should do summat!"

James Deuce

9th September 2009, 18:34

p.dath

9th September 2009, 18:35

Some rules are co-operative. Thats when no one is disadvantaged, like agreeing that we will drive on the left, and stop at intersections. These are good laws.

Helmet laws dont fall in this group. Thats because its my head, not yours, or the Kings.
...

Ahh, but ACC is co-operative. We all pool our funds together for the befit of the common good to help those who have an accident. The idea is the same, that ACC should dis-advantage no-one.

But wouldn't you call it a dis-advantage that more money was being taken out of your pocket for the co-operative common good, to help those that take risks that the majority of us would not like to take?

Unless of course, your a non-helmet wearing T-shirt wearing rider, who is likely to benefit greatly from ACC after your next [unplanned] accident. Because the cost of covering that bill would be far greater than the ACC premium you pay.
Nothing personal to your view. Just those with higher risk profiles are subsidised by those with lower risk profiles.

Of course, no one plans to have an accident. ACC is a compulsory insurance after all.

James Deuce

9th September 2009, 20:55

Sorry James, I must have missed that post. I haven't seen any info about that, but lets pretend its 10% of riders. The ACC levy is taken against the bike, not the rider.
How does the licence status of the accident victim affect the cost of ACC?

It effects ACC because they have to pay to fix, rehabilitate or bury the rider.

11% of riders between 2003 and 2007 injured or killed in motorcycle accidents were not licensed at the time of the accident and a further 7% had an unknown status. I rang about this and it essentially meant that the rider held a license on the old "lifetime" license scheme but it hadn't carried over onto the new photo id, essentially rendering them unlicensed in regard to class 6.

So overall, 18% of riders killed or injured during that period were either unlicensed or riding a motorcycle that didn't meet the restrictions of the Class 6 license they held.

Another quote from the MoT: "Despite the rule that learner and restricted licence holders are not permitted to ride motorcycles of greater than 250 cc engine capacity, ten percent of riders on learner licences, and 19 percent of riders on restricted licences, were riding bikes of over 250 cc at the time of their crashes."

The levy may well be against the bike's rego, but the bike is either written off or repaired by an insurance company or pribately repaired or abandonded. The person's injuries and rehab (or funeral) are contributed to by ACC. The issue is fixing the person.

http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycle-Crash-Factsheet.pdf

MarkH

9th September 2009, 21:02

Ahh, but ACC is co-operative. We all pool our funds together for the befit of the common good to help those who have an accident. The idea is the same, that ACC should dis-advantage no-one.

But wouldn't you call it a dis-advantage that more money was being taken out of your pocket for the co-operative common good, to help those that take risks that the majority of us would not like to take?

Are you referring to every one of the following:
Skydiving
Bungy Jumping
Rugby
Motor Racing
Motorcycle riding
Fishing
Skateboarding
Mountain Biking
And many more activities that often lead to injury?

I don't agree with your idea of banning all these things - put me down as dissenting!

James Deuce

9th September 2009, 21:06

Haha. If all people "obeyed" then laws wouldn't need penalties or enforcement. So I guess using that logic then the regulation would also need a penalty of sufficient magnitude so as to make people want to comply.

No, no, no.

Capital punishment does not stop murder. Why would the threat of a fine for skipping approved motorcyle gear stop people from riding a scooter in jandals, t-shirt and shorts? Did you know, for instance, that some women who ride scooters deliberately buy a helmet a couple of sizes too big to try and avoid helmet hair? Harry Hurt, and Motorcyclist determined in some wide ranging tests (I posted a link to part one of the report in some thread recently) that a helmet that was too big was worse than no helmet at all. Are you going to suggest that people are fined for ill fitting helmets? Jackets that are too big to locate armour over joints? Gloves with fingers that are too long or short?

The fit of safety gear is more important than the price or the brand, provided it really does meet things like CE standards for armour, and ECE or AUS standards for helmets.

The legislative burden in NZ is so steep that the courts can't keep up and Rob "Himmler" Pope is suggesting turning the average cop into Judge Dredd.

The point I'm trying to make is: The people who ride motorcycles in gear that you view as inadequate are unlikely to heed pointless regulations about motorcycle safety equipment written by people with no knowledge of what comprises quality motorcyclist protection.

I'm fairly certain you might not be as well informed as you think you are, given your repeated misapprehensions about motorcycle dynamics and drive mechanisms, and the revelatory nature some of your posts take about basic fundamentals around riding a motorcycle that are covered in any basic handling skills class.

James Deuce

9th September 2009, 21:08

Are you referring to every one of the following:
Skydiving
Bungy Jumping
Rugby
Motor Racing
Motorcycle riding
Fishing
Skateboarding
Mountain Biking
And many more activities that often lead to injury?

I don't agree with your idea of banning all these things - put me down as dissenting!

There's no point arguing. I really do think we're dealing with a bored Labour ex-MP.

yachtie10

9th September 2009, 22:11

BUT I concede - the poll clearly shows about half the rider population is dead against any further regulatory requirements and would rather continue to pay what they do now for the freedom they currently enjoy. I'm amongst the 1/3 minority that would like tougher regulations to reduce the medical cost of injuries, and what I have to pay.

"Lies dammed lies and statistics" seems to be relevant

I see it as 59+22 / 59+22+36+8 = 64.8

See how statistics can be interpreted the way you want and I didnt even manipulate how the data was gathered

My point is you keep quoting statistics you dont seem to understand (I dont pretend to but I certainly don't think they are strictly ethically used)

p.dath

9th September 2009, 22:14

Are you referring to every one of the following:
Skydiving
Bungy Jumping
Rugby
Motor Racing
Motorcycle riding
Fishing
Skateboarding
Mountain Biking
And many more activities that often lead to injury?

I don't agree with your idea of banning all these things - put me down as dissenting!

Ahh but they don't have seperate ACC levies targeting them like road bikes do.

YellowDog

9th September 2009, 22:17

The Stranger

9th September 2009, 22:23

Are you referring to every one of the following:
Skydiving
Bungy Jumping
Rugby
Motor Racing
Motorcycle riding
Fishing
Skateboarding
Mountain Biking

Fishing? Extreme fishing perhaps.
Can you really lump fising in with that lot?

The Stranger

9th September 2009, 22:26

Ahh but they don't have seperate ACC levies targeting them like road bikes do.

Wouldn't it be simpler to do away with the motorcycle classification then?
I know what, we could call it a "no blame" system - instead of the present "no blame except motorcycle" system we currently have.

NighthawkNZ

9th September 2009, 22:36

Fishing? Extreme fishing perhaps.
Can you really lump fising in with that lot?

There have been a few that have been washed of the rocks, I know i some one that got a fish hook in his eye standing a bit close behind some one casting... 8 year slipped and on the wharf and falls into drink knocking his head on the way... should I continue or is that enough examples ;)

Boaties doing the recreational fishing only pay acc via fuel.

AlpinePossum

9th September 2009, 22:38

Negative. The average cost of someone dying is far greater than someone being seriously injured.
A lot of those who die don't just die. They use some incredibly expensive resources and then die.

Don't blame the bikeys for that. Blame the docs.

Message to all Docs. If you're going to go to desperate measures to save my life... which if you perhaps succeed is going to leave me brain damaged and crippled, do me a BIG favour... dose me Good with painkillers and go to the pub and have a drink in my memory instead.

Thanks.

MarkH

9th September 2009, 23:00

Fishing? Extreme fishing perhaps.
Can you really lump fising in with that lot?

No, standard fishing. Clearly you are not familiar with the fatality rate associated with fishing - hint: boats, water, open sea, etc.

In terms of fatalities fishing is one of the most dangerous sports in NZ.

In the US of A Cheerleading is near the top of the list of dangerous sports, both for deaths & for injuries.

Better not forget horse riding - another sport with a high injury rate (it put superman in a wheel chair).

The Stranger

9th September 2009, 23:03

should I continue or is that enough examples ;)

No that's not enough, please continue, I'm really not convinced still.
The point is not that anyone has died or been injured, people have died eating a ham sandwich after all, my point was the cost to ACC - the topic of this thread - or are you suggesting we should ban ham sandwiches too?

MarkH

9th September 2009, 23:09

Ahh but they don't have seperate ACC levies targeting them like road bikes do.

So we all pay for the injuries in those dangerous activities then and the participants aren't paying a decent share of the costs. At least us motorcyclists pay a nice big chunk of ACC levy each year to put towards the cost of the payouts. What to horse riders pay?

I think that it just makes a lot of sense to ban some of the worst high-risk activities that cost a lot of money each year in ACC payouts. I suggest we start with Rugby then move on to horse riding and then carry on from there. I sure that no one would have any great objection to this idea.

MarkH

9th September 2009, 23:22

If we banned fishing then we should also ban swimming & surfing - plenty die each year from those activities too.

Hmmm, the list of stuff to ban might get a bit long. Here's a better idea - why doesn't the government make up a list of approved activities, if what you want to do isn't on the list then you aren't allowed to do it. I am sure everyone will realise that this is fair & reasonable, after all the government is just looking after our safety!

avgas

9th September 2009, 23:45

Ban breathing.
More people die doing that every year than anything else on the planet.

slofox

9th September 2009, 23:57

"Life is a sexually transmitted disease curable only by death.."

It all gets to the point where nobody is allowed to do anything because it might kill or injure them...the only reason things like the cancer rate are increasing is because there is nothing much else that kills people any more - antibiotics et al...same for "accidental death". I would never have lived long enough to learn motorbiking without the intervention of modern medical science. So now I can die by accidental death instead of peritonitis, some 50 odd years later.

The death rate will always be 1.0.

NighthawkNZ

10th September 2009, 00:03

Ban breathing.
More people die doing that every year than anything else on the planet.

Don't forget eating, death via chocking and eating healthy food

oh and sleep death by not waking up

davereid

10th September 2009, 07:41

If ACC is expected to pick up the tab for medical bills after a bin, then they should be able to stipulate some conditions of their cover (like every other insurance policy).

Wearing speedos and a smile won't be enough.

Of course. Except for the fact that ACC is compulsory. I cant choose another insurer with rules that meet my needs.

On the bright side, even if I don't pay my ACC, I'm stoned, speeding, on the worng side of the road, and I crash into a bus full of safety experts I'll get my payout.

How cool is that ? Full cover, even if I don't pay the bill, and I ignore all the conditions in the policy !

Usarka

10th September 2009, 07:46

or are you suggesting we should ban ham sandwiches too?
banned in israel.......

even if I don't pay my ACC, I'm stoned, speeding, on the worng side of the road, and I crash into a bus full of safety experts I'll get my payout.

Not if it just results in a head injury, then you've got years of shitfighting on your hands!

The Stranger

10th September 2009, 08:59

If we banned fishing then we should also ban swimming & surfing - plenty die each year from those activities too.

I should know better than to pose an obviously rhetorical question on KB, there will always be one who will answer it.

MarkH

10th September 2009, 10:58

I should know better than to pose an obviously rhetorical question on KB, there will always be one who will answer it.

Ummm, that post of mine you quoted - that wasn't an answer to anyone's question. I had mentioned fishing in a previous post and what you quoted was a follow on from that where I was adding swimming & surfing to the list of stuff to ban.

Back to the topic:
Really the point I have been trying to make is that shit loads of stuff is dangerous (including daily activities like crossing the road) and that trying to legislate every last detail of NZers lives just isn't going to work. I don't need my riding gear regulated - I'll wear what I think is sensible and I'll accept that it will never be enough in a bad accident. Life is risk, deal with it!

The Stranger

10th September 2009, 11:06

MarkH

10th September 2009, 11:23

You're such a daredevil Mark - what a rebel.

That's so true! In fact I have already crossed the road several times today - I get a thrill out of taking risks, the nanny state be damned!

p.dath

10th September 2009, 11:53

Back to the topic:
Really the point I have been trying to make is that shit loads of stuff is dangerous (including daily activities like crossing the road) and that trying to legislate every last detail of NZers lives just isn't going to work. I don't need my riding gear regulated - I'll wear what I think is sensible and I'll accept that it will never be enough in a bad accident. Life is risk, deal with it!

The catch is, most of those other activities don't wring up a half billion dollar medical bill on the cash register at ACC.

Also their is a concept of a national risk profile. As a nation, we find it acceptable to cross the road, going skiing, fishing etc.

As a nation we don't find it acceptable to drink/drive [anymore!].

The trick is determining where the magic line of risk is that as a nation we are no longer prepared to accept.

Usarka

10th September 2009, 12:15

The catch is, most of those other activities don't wring up a half billion dollar medical bill on the cash register at ACC.

Check the ACC costs for bicycle accidents.....or "home handyman" type accidents.

p.dath

10th September 2009, 12:31

Check the ACC costs for bicycle accidents.....or "home handyman" type accidents.

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/media-centre/ABA00053#P87_8049

For the period 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008:
Cycling, number of new claims = 1064, $10m
Motorsports, number of new claims = 1260, $18m

Hardly compares to the $500 million for motorcycle accidents, does it.

James Deuce

10th September 2009, 12:37

Check the ACC costs for bicycle accidents.....or "home handyman" type accidents.
From: http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/4-all-non-work-other-claims/IS0800067

Add 3 zeroes to the end of the figures.

<table style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 476pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="633"><col style="width: 89pt;" width="118"> <col style="width: 122pt;" width="162"> <col style="width: 138pt;" width="184"> <col style="width: 127pt;" width="169"> <tbody><tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21"> <td class="xl63" style="height: 15.75pt; width: 89pt;" width="118" height="21">Recreation or Sporting Activity</td> <td class="xl66" style="border-left: medium none; width: 122pt;" width="162">
</td> <td class="xl68" style="width: 138pt;" width="184">
</td> <td class="xl69" style="width: 127pt;" width="169">
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl67" style="height: 15pt;" height="20">
</td> <td class="xl67" style="border-left: medium none;">Number of New Claims</td> <td class="xl67" style="border-left: medium none;">Number of Active Claims</td> <td class="xl67" style="border-left: medium none;">Cost of Claims ($000)</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="border-top: medium none; height: 15pt;" height="20">2007-07/2008-06</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;">21,686</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;">27,884</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;">218,200</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

Walking or Running was $189,000,000

In total the non-work related, non-motor vehicle related cost of accidents and fatalities was $888,308,000 for July 2007 to June 2008.

ACC's stats are not well collated. The categories are designed to highlight certain areas and lump things like bicycles into categories that aren't explicitly related to the cost of bicycle related accidents and deaths.

ACC are fundamentally crying wolf. We're an easy target to pick on because they have specifically separated statistics about motorcycles out of the general mix to justify charging us more for the privilege of riding a motorcycle. They have a point in that it costs them nearly $500 per registered motorcycle, but remember that 18% of riders involved in accidents aren't holding the relevant Class 6 license and you have an argument that the point of sale needs to be regulated, and that woul deventually have the effect of reducing injuries and fatalities from riders buying a motorcycle they aren't legally entitled to ride - most likely, it will punish bike shops and private sellers for helping an idiot fulfill their destiny. At the moment anyone can buy any motor vehicle in NZ. You don't have to have a license to own one.

MarkH

10th September 2009, 12:44

The catch is, most of those other activities don't wring up a half billion dollar medical bill on the cash register at ACC.

Half a billion? Can you back that figure up?

From a quick google:
http://www.kiwirider.co.nz/acc/acclevy.html
"Riders don’t pay the full cost of their injury care. Last year, we paid more than $62 million to care for people injured while on their motorcycles, while we collected only $12.3 million in motorcycle levies."

Of course they now collect a bit more in levies as they have put up the price. But if $62M is right then how do you get the half billion dollar medical bill you mention?

http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=4111&mode=threaded
"Rugby injuries are costing the country millions of dollars, but are generally less serious than they used to be.
In the past three years, the bill for injuries has been $105 million, with the increasing cost blamed on growing player numbers."

$105M over the last 3 years = $35M per year? But Rugby players aren't paying an ACC Levy on their sport. And they don't need to play rugby to get to work & back each day. Banning Rugby would save enough to pay over half the motorcycle bill!

I have now sold my car, the only motor vehicle I own has just 2 wheels and without it I can't earn any money. It uses half as much petrol as the economical car (1500cc EFI Manual) I sold 2 days ago did - therefore puts out about half the greenhouse gas emissions. Yes there is more risk to life & limb - but I save time and money on commuting around Auckland and I am prepared to take the risk.

Should the other motorists share the cost of injuries to motorcyclists? Well, since they are responsible for a significant number of injuries to motorcyclists each year then yes they should!

p.dath

10th September 2009, 12:48

Half a billion? Can you back that figure up?...

As James would say, statistics ...

Anyway, the current discussion paper, Safer Journeys:
http://www.transport.govt.nz/saferjourneys/Documents/SaferJourneys_FULL_Final_ISBN.pdf
"The total social cost of crashes involving motorcyclists in 2008 was $586.62 million."

I smell something fishy here with the words "social cost".

MarkH

10th September 2009, 12:50

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/media-centre/ABA00053#P87_8049

Hardly compares to the $500 million for motorcycle accidents, does it.

Whoa - from the link you just posted:
"Road crash injuries

In 2007/08 ACC dealt with 14,768 claims for road crash injuries. 6,077 of those were new claims, while 8,691 were from people who were still coping with older road crash injuries. The total cost of road crash injuries for that year was $336.1 million."

If the total cost of road crash injuries is $336m and you have stated that M/cycle accidents cost $500M in medical bills then you are suggesting that the cost of car/van/truck related injuries is negative $164M?

I call BULLSHIT!

p.dath

10th September 2009, 12:52

From: http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/4-all-non-work-other-claims/IS0800067

Add 3 zeroes to the end of the figures.

...

Do you think that $218 million includes off road motorcycle accidents?

vifferman

10th September 2009, 12:52

Half a billion? Can you back that figure up?

As James would say, statistics ...

"There are lies, damned lies, and the complete and utter bullshit manipulation that is statisitics".

p.dath

10th September 2009, 12:55

Whoa - from the link you just posted:
"Road crash injuries

In 2007/08 ACC dealt with 14,768 claims for road crash injuries. 6,077 of those were new claims, while 8,691 were from people who were still coping with older road crash injuries. The total cost of road crash injuries for that year was $336.1 million."

If the total cost of road crash injuries is $336m and you have stated that M/cycle accidents cost $500M in medical bills then you are suggesting that the cost of car/van/truck related injuries is negative $164M?

I call BULLSHIT!

You are right. The $500m "social cost" they quote obviously had some kind of fudge factor built into it, which doesn't stack up.

I have been mislead by the reported figure.

James Deuce

10th September 2009, 12:56

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/media-centre/ABA00053#P87_8049

For the period 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008:
Cycling, number of new claims = 1064, $10m
Motorsports, number of new claims = 1260, $18m

Hardly compares to the $500 million for motorcycle accidents, does it.

That's competitive cycling accidents relating to a sporting event, not riding your pushie to work and being muntered by a non-indicating bus type accident.

Part of presenting your case is learning to read stats and understandning that they are designed to misinform.

MarkH

10th September 2009, 13:01

The catch is, most of those other activities don't wring up a half billion dollar medical bill on the cash register at ACC.

As James would say, statistics ...

Anyway, the current discussion paper, Safer Journeys:
http://www.transport.govt.nz/saferjourneys/Documents/SaferJourneys_FULL_Final_ISBN.pdf
"The total social cost of crashes involving motorcyclists in 2008 was $586.62 million."

I smell something fishy here with the words "social cost".

I smell something fishy here with your claims!

The total social cost may be $586M, but that doesn't equal your claimed "half billion dollar medical bill".

Also:
Have you read the thread title? We are all discussing the ACC cost and you are dishonestly jumping into the total social cost to justify your arguments. ACC costs are not the same as social costs. Do even know what sort of factors are taken into account to work out the social costs? Hint: A fuck load more than the medical bill.

"Sport and leisure injuries

Almost 26,500 New Zealanders were injured playing sport, and 108 died as a result of their injuries in 2007/08."

That sounds like more deaths (I think) & more injuries than we have from motorcycle crashes - so it is likely to lead to a higher social cost as well. Motorcyclists pay an ACC levy on their rego & on their petrol - what are the people that play sports paying?

p.dath

10th September 2009, 13:19

...
Have you read the thread title? We are all discussing the ACC cost and you are dishonestly jumping into the total social cost to justify your arguments.

Yes, I did read the thread title. You might like to check who the author was. :)

"Sport and leisure injuries

Almost 26,500 New Zealanders were injured playing sport, and 108 died as a result of their injuries in 2007/08."

That sounds like more deaths (I think) & more injuries than we have from motorcycle crashes - so it is likely to lead to a higher social cost as well. Motorcyclists pay an ACC levy on their rego & on their petrol - what are the people that play sports paying?

The information I have suggest you are correct about their being more deaths from sporting accidents.

http://www.transport.govt.nz/saferjourneys/Documents/SaferJourneys_FULL_Final_ISBN.pdf
"In 2008, 50 motorcyclists were killed, 456 were seriously injured and a further 940 suffered minor injures. This equates to 14 percent of all road deaths and 18 percent of all serious injuries."

MarkH

10th September 2009, 13:38

Yes, I did read the thread title. You might like to check who the author was. :)

I am well aware of who the thread starter is and would therefore have thought you should have been less likely to confuse the ACC costs with the much wider social costs.

Maybe others here picked up on the irony I was alluding to? The fact that you as the thread starter have been repeatedly arguing something other than what your thread is about!

How's this for an idea if you want government regulation:
Mandate what safety gear every participant of each sport must wear. (mouth guard, neck brace, pads, etc.) If this goes over well then move on to motorcyclists after that. That way we wont be bothered by legislation in my lifetime!

The Stranger

10th September 2009, 19:25

You are right. The $500m "social cost" they quote obviously had some kind of fudge factor built into it, which doesn't stack up.

I have been mislead by the reported figure.

Well there's a fucken surprise. The govt fudging figures for their own ends, who'd have thought eh. Small wonder we are unable to get our hands on the data used to produce the motorcycle crash stats and ACC stats.
The govt have refused to release it to BRONZ.

Check out the social cost of second hand smoke (http://www.liberalvalues.org.nz/index.php?action=view_article&article_id=79). Apparently it's a third of GDP each year. Thank christ they banned smoking in the work place cause now we are all reaping the vast financial benefits - well either that, the govt is keeping it from us or it was bullshit.
I know which one I'd bet on.