ACC Levies. BRONZ meeting

[Ixion]

Next BRONZ (Auckland) meeting is 21st Oct.

7:30 pm . Rockridge Road, Penrose. Place is called the Danish House. Parking out front.

Major agenda item will , of course, be ACC levies, and possible responses to them. It'd be nice to see a few more than the half dozen stalwarts there. But I'm not holding my breath.

If there is a good attendance, the Chairman will be enforcing rather more of a formal meeting process than usual, just to stop things getting out of hands.

A few ground rules for said meeting may as well be played through now:

1. We all know it's evil and unfair. No point preaching to the choir. So, no speeches along those lines. (Just because of time constraints)
2. We all know that bike accidents are caused by cagers. Or not. So unless you have evidence none of us know about, again, no preaching to the choir.
3. Personally, I'm receptive to direct action. But some degree of realism is required. So no explosives etc
4. What IS required is reasons WHY we shouldn't pay what ACC *claim* we cost. Factual. Specific. So if you know something, or you are good at crunching statistics, that might be useful.
5. If it does come to something formal, only financial paid up BRONZ members get to vote (though I wouldn't expect such formality).
6. We aren't going to convince the Government to abolish ACC, or totally change the way it operates. Politics is the art of the possible. So the chairman will cut short any discussions along such lines. Which includes philosophical debate on whether ACC should be privatised or not.

The chairman (I'm told) is a grumpy old cunt. Try not to rile him too much.

BRONZ (Wellington) does not exist . So if anyone can volunteer to coordinate matters in the capital, that might be good.

[ital916]

I do hope there will be a good turnout. Not much gets me protesting but this really grinds my gears. An increase in ACC levies was expected but not to that amount.

Is cash on the night accepted for membership?

[Mom]

I do hope there will be a good turnout. Not much gets me protesting but this really grinds my gears. An increase in ACC levies was expected but not to that amount.

Is cash on the night accepted for membership?

Actually that is a very good question, Ixion, perhaps your treasurer will want to bring his/her receipt book along :yes:

[Ixion]

[QUOTE=ital916;1129456309..
Is cash on the night accepted for membership?[/QUOTE]

Sure is .

[Mom]

Sure is .

Out of interest, what is the sub?

[Jantar]

Ixion,

Can you supply contact details, and BRONZ meeting dates for all venues around New Zealand.

I can't come up to Auckland next week for a meeting, but I will certainly go to Dunedin or Christchurch for something this important.

I will support a nationwide ride on Parliament (clogging the Wellington motorways) as a first step.

[Hiflyer]

I will support a nationwide ride on Parliament (clogging the Wellington motorways) as a first step.

Myself included :headbang:

[Devil]

This is going in my calendar.

[NighthawkNZ]

Ixion,

Can you supply contact details, and BRONZ meeting dates for all venues around New Zealand.

I can't come up to Auckland next week for a meeting, but I will certainly go to Dunedin or Christchurch for something this important.

I will support a nationwide ride on Parliament (clogging the Wellington motorways) as a first step.

I'll will probably go to a Dunedin BRONZ memeting... and would support the protest ride if I could get time of work and afford the ferry... :weep:

BRONZ Otago http://bronzotago.co.nz/

[Ixion]

$20 per person, or $30 per family. Per year.

The various regional BRONZ chapters work semi independantly, BRONZ national is just a policy and coordination thing.

BRONZ Timaru and BRONZ Otago will doubtless be considering their response, but I don't know what it is at present.

Contact details for all regions are on the BRONZ website (http://www.bronz.org.nz)

[tomobedlam]

$20 per person, or $30 per family. Per year.

BRONZ website (http://www.bronz.org.nz)

Wow that's so cheap it's not even 3% of the proposed acc levies for over 600cc bikes

[CookMySock]

Is cash on the night accepted for membership?Cash on the night is universally accepted, son. :apint:

Everywhere you go, cash on the night is the bizo. ;)

Steve

[hospitalfood]

Call you local MP in protest, leave a message if you cannot get through !

[Brian d marge]

Next BRONZ (Auckland ) meeting is 21st Oct.

7:30 pm . Rockridge Road, Penrose. Place is called the Danish House. Parking out front.

Major agenda item will , of course, be ACC levies, and possible responses to them. It'd be nice to see a few more than the half dozen stalwarts there. But I'm not holding my breath.

If there is a good attendance, the Chairman will be enforcing rather more of a formal meeting process than usual, just to stop things getting out of hands.

A few ground rules for said meeting may as well be played through now:

4. What IS required is reasons WHY we shouldn't pay what ACC *claim* we cost. Factual. Specific. So if you know something, or you are good at crunching statistics, that might be useful.

.

I cant think off one reason why we shouldn't

apart from hey this is my toy and its my right to ride .... and crash

the only plausible one I can think of is that it reduces congestion

Stephen

[Rover]

Can't make the meeting, but assuming we can't make the Government change its mind on he principal, we might be able to influence when the increase applies. 600cc seems pretty random. maybe it would be fairer if based on power to weight, or 600 cc raised to say 900cc

[GMcC]

Ixion,

Can you supply contact details, and BRONZ meeting dates for all venues around New Zealand.

I can't come up to Auckland next week for a meeting, but I will certainly go to Dunedin or Christchurch for something this important.

I will support a nationwide ride on Parliament (clogging the Wellington motorways) as a first step.

SAME !!!!
We got to nip this one real F**N early

[Hopeful Bastard]

I live in Levin and would love to know where bouts the closest meeting place is so i can participate in a protest.

At the moment, I currently dont have a bike but i am aiming at one. With this new ACC thing coming in, Pushing our levies to $500 and above, it will make it harder to find a bike for me.. :weep:


But if a protest is going to be held, Please.. Let me know as i will be more than willing to participate!

[Mom]

Watch out HERE WE COME


Hey, just a thought, you might like to consider moving to a bigger venue than you normally use.

[coppepa]

The only way we can fight the levy increases is by factual argument supported by simple statistics. This presents a face to the non biker of a responsible body of people but we have to get the interest of the public first. I have been involved with bikers rights in Europe for many years, please dont just say 'another another know all immigrant' I am a biker who wants to see his kids and grand kids enjoy my sport. The two pronged approach does work, a big demo catches the news, people love to see 100's of bikes and it starts them thinking that the way we are depicted by the press is not true.We then need to get in discussions with the politicians, find MP's who are bikers and build a relationship within all the political parties. This is not done overnight but if we are to change this agenda which I believe is aimed at getting bikes off the roads not just of NZ but across the world it is the long haul.
The big problem I see is that we need a strong and proactive biker rights organization. I have tried 3 times to join BRONZ even sent off my 20 bucks
but after many weeks wait for my application form which was sent off I have heard nothing. If the bikers leadership exhibits so much apathy god help us - in 10 years time the only bikes sold in NZ will be for riding on the beach or along a muddy beach.

RIDE SAFE

[coppepa]

Where does the bloody tag 'L plate rider' come from? I passed my test 47 years ago and have a pension from BSA - Triumph

[sleemanj]

Where does the bloody tag 'L plate rider' come from? I passed my test 47 years ago and have a pension from BSA - Triumph

Off topic, but the tag changes as you post more messages.

[Marmoot]

I might not be there, but I would be grateful if someone can raise the question of why there hasn't been any ACC levy from cyclists and horseriders.

[micklemax]

Hi all I've just seen the news and the shits are looking to put acc for big bikes to over 500 dollars. let there be war...

[The Pastor]

Can anyone give me a lift to this from the new market end of great south road and a lift home (to the north shore)?

[AD345]

We'll be there

I hope you've got plenty of parking

[MadDuck]

Can anyone give me a lift to this from the new market end of great south road and a lift home (to the north shore)?

Yep I can. Send me a PM

[Squiggles]

I shall bake cupcakes... Email has gone out to the Uni club.

[chrispy121]

The only way we can fight the levy increases is by factual argument supported by simple statistics. This presents a face to the non biker of a responsible body of people but we have to get the interest of the public first. I have been involved with bikers rights in Europe for many years, please dont just say 'another another know all immigrant' I am a biker who wants to see his kids and grand kids enjoy my sport. The two pronged approach does work, a big demo catches the news, people love to see 100's of bikes and it starts them thinking that the way we are depicted by the press is not true.We then need to get in discussions with the politicians, find MP's who are bikers and build a relationship within all the political parties. This is not done overnight but if we are to change this agenda which I believe is aimed at getting bikes off the roads not just of NZ but across the world it is the long haul.
The big problem I see is that we need a strong and proactive biker rights organization. I have tried 3 times to join BRONZ even sent off my 20 bucks
but after many weeks wait for my application form which was sent off I have heard nothing. If the bikers leadership exhibits so much apathy god help us - in 10 years time the only bikes sold in NZ will be for riding on the beach or along a muddy beach.

RIDE SAFE

sorry mate you now have to have a register bike to ride on the beach now
so you will still have to pay

[TonyB]

I will support a nationwide ride on Parliament (clogging the Wellington motorways) as a first step.

I guarantee you that when such a ride takes place, at least one fuckwitt will be caught riding dangerously, thus giving ACC, the politicians and media EXACTLY what they are looking for. Happens every time.

[86GSXR]

Lot's of good ideas going round. I'll be putting in a submission to ACC and will join a protest ride for sure. Just got to do it right!

[ROBMW]

I've been riding a bike to work for 15+ years without incident and this $500 hike in costs is insane. I'll be at the public demonstrations to oppose this. What really sucks is the ACC payouts for some criminals, suiciders and sports which are all voluntary activities. The system may have started out as a good thing but now it's abused by low lifes so it should be abolished as it's clearly buggered.

[scracha]

BRONZ going to organise a pissup in a brewery properly for once?

[Tas]

Im not sure if BRONZ is active in the Hawkes Bay and to be honest I wasn't aware of its existence until tonight. I agree with other comments regarding a factual based and coordinated response to these proposed changes. I have never taken part in any form of protest in my life but this really "rips my undies". I will attend any organised ride on parliment if there is even a remote chance to stop this proceeding. If anyone from the Bay is starting to organise anything I would appreciate some contact details.

[mahon]

Hon. Dr. Nick Smith, MP Nelson
Contact Details
Email: nick.smith@national.org.nz
Website: www.nick4nelson.co.nz
Phone: (04)817 6805 (Parliament)
Phone: (03)5472314 (Electorate) Fax 547 2315
or
E-mail nick@nick4nelson.co.nz


Cycling in a city or open road is more dangerous than motorcycling (at mercy of vehicle from behind and car doors opening, basically no protective gear, less visible, wobbly, no electric indicators or loud hooter) yet don't pay any ACC costs.
Seems like Nick Smith enjoys taking risks mountain biking according to this article - http://www.nick4nelson.co.nz/smith-welcomes-plan-to-trial-biking-on-heaphy-track.html which reads:

"Wednesday, 01 July 2009
Nelson MP Nic Smith today welcomed news the Department of Conservation was seeking public feedback on its proposal to trial mountain biking on the Heaphy Track.

"Mountain biking on the Heaphy Track has been a personal hobby horse of mine for over a decade," Nick Smith said. "This year I have been pushing hard for a change in the Kahurangi National Park Management Plan to allow for winter access for mountain biking in time for winter next year. I am delighted that DOC has included the proposal in its review of the plan.

"Twenty years ago kayaking in the Able Tasman National Park was regarded as a fringe activity. Today it injects more than $20 million a year into the Nelson region.

"Mountain biking is a growth activity in New Zealand and there is a real opportunity for tourism by allowing it on the Heaphy Track during the five-month winter visitor season and year round on the Flora Saddle to Barron Flat and Kill Devil tracks.

"I am glad that DOC is asking the public to have its say on this important issue. In my view mountain bikes need to be given a go on the Heaphy."

The hypocrisy of another politician!:mad:

[swbarnett]

I cant think off one reason why we shouldn't

apart from hey this is my toy and its my right to ride .... and crash

the only plausible one I can think of is that it reduces congestion

Stephen
Here's one:

ACC is, by their own words, a "NO FAULT" scheme. Surely charging one group more than another is atributing fault to that group?

The ONLY fair way to fund ACC (or any other Government endevour) is through income tax (both personal and company).

[motorcyclesonline.net]

There are a couple of things I'd like aired
If the Government adopts the proposed LAMS for learner approved bikes which permits bikes up to 660cc then obviously the ACC & the LTSA are not on the same page

All motorcycles should be registered - moto-x - quads - track bikes the whole lot and its not hard
These non-road bikes can all be registered as Class B or AE which is for farm machinery
The fee is $50 of which $40.80 goes to the ACC
Riders out racing, trail riding who currently crash & burn all feature in the motorcycle statistics
Another advantage of this as a Registered Motor Vehicle Trader, is that we can deal in bikes knowing that they are legally purchased & owned
A two month moratorium to get everything registered
The Police would only need to turn up to the Tarawera 100 or the Tangimoana ride this weekend where there will be 700+ riders - prove you purchased the bike after we seize it
I believe it will help reduce the trade in stolen bikes

Look forward to comments

[motorbyclist]

Firstly, a $500 ACC levy on a gsxr600 yet $750 for a vfr800 or SV650 demonstrates a serious misunderstanding on the part of the MPs behind this.

Secondly, these fees would price many off riding, and require some serious thought/saving for those who still make a saving vs. parking a car. The current fine for not having a rego is $200. A lot of people will take their chances.

Thirdly, this will do serious harm to the industry and cost a lot of jobs - can we put a price on this?




DIRTbikes: the only time I pay any acc on my dirtbike is when i get a MNZ day licence, which I've never needed to get, even to race in some instances. Farm quads cripple a lot of men but again no real rego. My understanding is this goes on road biker's tab.
How enforceable a rego on farm bikes is, however, questionable.

[motorbyclist]

"These changes are necessary because ACC's claim costs have risen by 57 per cent and its unfunded liabilities have grown from $4 billion to $13b in just four years," Dr Smith said.

How?!


He said in Parliament the previous government made numerous extensions to entitlements but did not fund the extra cost of them.


"What has happened over the last four years is that claim costs have gone up at five times the rate of inflation and if any member thinks that is sustainable without levy increases, they really are financially illiterate."

good work, Auntie Helen! :niceone:


The Government is also considering 'no claims' bonuses, experience rates, and lower levies for those with safer vehicles.

"Our objective is to secure the long-term future of ACC as an efficient and fair 24/7, no-fault insurance scheme for all New Zealanders.

No claims bonus? that would entail finding who's at fault.

perhaps we should increase the costs at the source of the new entitlements and/or retract the new entitlements altogether?

(source:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10603177
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10603117)

[2wheeljunkie]

Can't make the meeting, but assuming we can't make the Government change its mind on he principal, we might be able to influence when the increase applies. 600cc seems pretty random. maybe it would be fairer if based on power to weight, or 600 cc raised to say 900cc

power to weight ratio would make more sense than if want to bring up the cc thing; but overall still wouldnt make proper sense. Proven above a gsxr 600 is more lethal than a hornet 900. There is not correlation of speed with cc. You can kill yourself at a 100km/hr on a 250 cc.

I am ready to fight this stupid war.

[motorbyclist]

I'm sure there's some statistic that "proves" that injuries sustained hitting a car door at 50kph is somehow proportional to the cc rating of the bike and nothing else.

and that, my friends, is how laws are made :(

[motorbyclist]

Many new and existing bikers have limited gear beyond a cheap helmet, gloves, and maybe a jacket with or without armour.

That additional $250-$500 drain from bikers' wallets will only worsen the situation, raising the rider's acc claim if the unfortunate were to happen.

Heck, maybe we could re-open the debate on mandatory approved gloves/jacket? Personally I wouldn't like to see that as it'd be driving a wedge to include boots and pants, but it's still better than what they're suggesting.... (personally I like to commute in jeans for the summer lest my person overheat in slow traffic)



The worst part of all this for me? If I can't afford to ride around NZ on my holidays nor can I even commute in the only manner I've found acceptable in Auckland, upon graduating I'll be using a bit of that leftover student loan money to buy me a one way ticket overseas and receive a higher salary too....

[motorbyclist]

some research later, I've developed a better understanding of the issue:

the inner workings of ACC mandate we should pay for our own bill - regardless of the fact MoT reckons we're only responsible for half our injuries..... My bill on a 400cc bike is 4.8 times that of a cager. If you ask me, I should pay half that and cagers pay the rest. This brings the cager bill up to his own personal cost plus the 2.4 of my cost he causes spread across the vast number of cagers relative to bikers.

By my scheme I still end up paying 2.4 what the cager pays per annum - including petrol levies. Who has seen the numbers to quantify what this amount is?

either way we're screwed: ACC says It is the cost of claims in the 'group' which is the basis of the levy for the group, not who is at fault or causes the accident.

[Kwaka14]

Since I'm in the Czech republic for the next couple of years I won't be there - but I will be coming back sometime and I do not want to be paying some stupidly large fee - if you're looking for some suggestions then....

why not suggest a slightly changed approach to the levy so that maybe those who can prove they have protective gear can apply for a discount or refund based on supporting reciepts - the statistics obviously support the fact that if you are ATGATT then you are less likely to be so seriously injured - therefore less likely to cost- the other obvious benefit is it's a great incentive to have everone wearing safety gear of some sort which I'm sure would be an acc consideration?

Anyway thats all I can think of constructively off the cuff beyond what others are mentioning.

[Mystic13]

I'll come along but for the sake of a good discussion where can I find the stats that ACC are relying on.

I agree this is going to need a reasoned argument.

- I own a number of bikes. I'll be putting more on hold.
- To pull out motorcycles on stats because you can seems unfair.
- Most motorcycle riders own cars.
- Most people with sport injuries don't ride motorbikes, should that be billed to cars.
-


What I'm interested in with the stats is the;
- % of at fault injuries to road registered riders.
- % of off road riders injuries that would actually fall under car rego's as the bikes aren't road registered.
- % of scooter injuries.
- my hope is the statistics aren't defined enough to actually target motorcycle riders in this way.
- I'm interested in the collection sources for revenue for ACC. Is it just wages employment function, vehicles, truck, car, motorcycle etc. If that is the case then there are huge gaps in fair user pays.
- Ultimately we need to pull something out of the stats although on the face of it this seems a case of unfair targeting.

I haven't had one ACC claim and yet I have friends who have sport injuries that drive cars that have a string of them. They're car drivers.

You know if these motorcycle injuries are for road registered riders only and at fault claims then it'll be protest on the basis of motorcycle riders owning cars and more than one bike.

As for the fire about the over 600cc rate. It's not a hell of a lot more then the under 600cc rate. If I had to choose between a 600cc bike and a bigger one. I'd go for the bigger one. I can't be bothered with doing touring now and again on a 600cc bike.

So who knows where the stats sources are. I'm off to the rusty and can't check it out before Tuesday at best. I do want to have a good read.

[Mystic13]

To save yourself some money...

The changes come in 1-7-2010.

So when you re-register now register to as close to 1/7/10 as you can and then renew for 12 months before the price rise.

[paulj]

What pisses me is the booze factor - reputed to be a major contributor to accidents across the board - how about an ACC levy there.

I think we're shafted - would be nice to purchase a rego on a weekly basis as a sop to the shafting. Much like we purchase road user tax for diesels. Off touring the SI for a couple of weeks? Purchase 2x weeks rego.

Won't be acceptable tho - far too large a reduction in overall $take.

On on ...

[discotex]

What pisses me is the booze factor - reputed to be a major contributor to accidents across the board - how about an ACC levy there.


No offence intended but that's exactly the same faulty thought process that ACC are using to target bikes....

What about the responsible people (the majority) that drink and DON'T drive. Why should they pay a levy on alcohol to pay for the injuries cause by those that break the law?

At best you could exclude injuries caused to yourself through drink driving.

[yungatart]

From one of the other threads...

Whilst I am still outraged at this shafting, I wouln't be quite so angry if a some of my levy dollars were going to fund decent rider education/skills courses.
Perhaps if ACC were to fund these courses (out of the levy collected), and then those who attend get a rebate on their levy...food for thought?
A yearly refresher course at the beginning of spring.....

[ldcroberts]

Fairest would be if they analyzed stats for crashes and accident costs, apportioned blame for cause of accident, and charged levies based on that. If it shows that e.g. cagers cause more damage to bikers, levy them so they start improving (external air bags, i dunno, but let the responsibility fall where it lies)

[Usarka]

Fairest would be if they analyzed stats for crashes and accident costs, apportioned blame for cause of accident, and charged levies based on that. If it shows that e.g. cagers cause more damage to bikers, levy them so they start improving (external air bags, i dunno, but let the responsibility fall where it lies)
It's been done:

Most bike crashes (total) are bikers fault.

Most bike vs car crashes are car drivers fault.

[silverbak]

So far this is a nice discussion people, but wheres the action?
WHAT are we going to do about this and WHEN.

I vote for an immediate ride on Parliament this weekend.

Promoting:
- Open dialogue on banding of levies (cc groupings is a crock and bears no resemblence to the power of the bike)
- Recognising there are holes in the laws (age restrictions, no training for scooters, car licence holders can ride etc..)
- Safe riding, motorcycle community who recognise there needs change but we need proper a communication channel and negotiation time.

At the end of the day this is trying to fix a hole created from years of poor management from ACC and government. Motorcyclists are a soft target because there are (unrealistic) statistics to prove it. A motorcycle involved in an accident is a stat no matter whose fault it is. We all knew this was going to happen with the boom over the last couple of years in scooters and motorbikes. It is up to us to set the record straight and negotiate how this should operate.

In my 25 years of riding (the last 10 years in NZ) this is by far the biggest kick in the gut I have come across against my freedom to ride my bikes.

In England and Europe, riders band together and take action, we need to do the same.

Andy

[Usarka]

If the changes don't go through beware the alternatives offered by the govt. I smell a softening up in progress.....

[motorcyclesonline.net]

Regarding the off-road stuff - they could start by registering all new ones as sold by dealers
They all have 17 digit frame / vin numbers, even the Chinese ones

I traded a late model KX250F which I had no way of checking its history

Turned out it was stolen & I had to hand back to original owner $3500 lost with no recourse against the bloody thief - who we were able to track down

If bike had been registered, a car jam report would have shown it as being stolen

Bill


Firstly, a $500 ACC levy on a gsxr600 yet $750 for a vfr800 or SV650 demonstrates a serious misunderstanding on the part of the MPs behind this.

Secondly, these fees would price many off riding, and require some serious thought/saving for those who still make a saving vs. parking a car. The current fine for not having a rego is $200. A lot of people will take their chances.

Thirdly, this will do serious harm to the industry and cost a lot of jobs - can we put a price on this?




DIRTbikes: the only time I pay any acc on my dirtbike is when i get a MNZ day licence, which I've never needed to get, even to race in some instances. Farm quads cripple a lot of men but again no real rego. My understanding is this goes on road biker's tab.
How enforceable a rego on farm bikes is, however, questionable.

[motorcyclesonline.net]

This is what they are proposing in Queensland plus zero alcohol for motorcyclists


Many new and existing bikers have limited gear beyond a cheap helmet, gloves, and maybe a jacket with or without armour.

That additional $250-$500 drain from bikers' wallets will only worsen the situation, raising the rider's acc claim if the unfortunate were to happen.

Heck, maybe we could re-open the debate on mandatory approved gloves/jacket? Personally I wouldn't like to see that as it'd be driving a wedge to include boots and pants, but it's still better than what they're suggesting.... (personally I like to commute in jeans for the summer lest my person overheat in slow traffic)



The worst part of all this for me? If I can't afford to ride around NZ on my holidays nor can I even commute in the only manner I've found acceptable in Auckland, upon graduating I'll be using a bit of that leftover student loan money to buy me a one way ticket overseas and receive a higher salary too....

[motorcyclesonline.net]

What about lower levies for all riders who have attended & been signed off as being competent at rider training - like that which will be operating at Hampton Downs?
All vehicles should have 3rd party insurance as in Aus, USA & UK with a proportion going to ACC




Since I'm in the Czech republic for the next couple of years I won't be there - but I will be coming back sometime and I do not want to be paying some stupidly large fee - if you're looking for some suggestions then....

why not suggest a slightly changed approach to the levy so that maybe those who can prove they have protective gear can apply for a discount or refund based on supporting reciepts - the statistics obviously support the fact that if you are ATGATT then you are less likely to be so seriously injured - therefore less likely to cost- the other obvious benefit is it's a great incentive to have everone wearing safety gear of some sort which I'm sure would be an acc consideration?

Anyway thats all I can think of constructively off the cuff beyond what others are mentioning.

[mouldy]

Well I won't be going to Queensland then . I think a petition needs to be drafted and circulated and a mass ride to Wellington but I guess thats what the BRONZ meetings for . All arguments and points in this thread are valid but we have to get the public and pollies to agree with us .

[GerryAttrick]

I'll add my name to stop this Crock of $hit the Gummint is planning. Its time we got a bit more proactive and make them see that NZers are not going to keep taking the rubbish they hand out (and thats not just bikers).

There are plenty of ideas already - some more emotive than others.

A couple of thoughts of mine.
1. Why not add all vehicle related costs relating to ACC to fuel. That way everyone pays part of the cost. The more miles you cover the more fuel you use and the more likely you are to be involved in (not cause) an accident.
2.It also means that if you have more than one car/bike then you only pay the costs WHEN YOU ARE USING THEM. You don't pay to have a bike sitting in the shed that you use for weekend rides as well as one for commuting during the week.
3. If there is a "penalty factor" then add it to the licence cost not the vehicle and give a rebate for clean records.
4. Start collecting ACC costs from some of the other claimants sports. If personal ACC covers sport and/or cycle injuries or they are trying to get some of that back from the total tax payer base then take them out of the mix and make sports clubs & cyclists pay themselves- that would be a good one for "Treadly Smith" - wonder how many accidents on the Heaphy Track will be laid at the cyclists door. Maybe $100 charge to cycle the Heaphy Track would be a good start?? Might also have to start registering cycles and then they can pay for the costs of any accidents around Tamaki Drive they are involved in....don't worry about who is at fault - just make the cyclists pay as its their fault for wearing lycra and not leather.
5. In the event of an multi vehicle accident resulting in an ACC claim lets see ACC recover some of the treatment costs from the person who caused the accident. They can cover single vehicle accidents as they do now except maybe the amount of cover should be adjusted to reflect the circumstances. i.e if you slide off the road (car or bike) in the rain you get full cover, if you hit a power pole and you are pi$$ed then you get a significantly lower level of cover
5. We need to make sure any protest causes as much publicity (that means disruption usually) as possible. It needs to be during the week and during rush hour. A nice jaunt from Drury to Albany at 40kph or less on a Monday about 7am would be a good start and maybe a similar trip the other way at another time would also make someone wonder what was going on.

Just my 2cents worth to the mix

[motorcyclesonline.net]

I agree completely

Rick Barker, the MP for one of the seats over in Hawke Bay rides a Rocket 3

Could be a good starting point

Bill



The only way we can fight the levy increases is by factual argument supported by simple statistics. This presents a face to the non biker of a responsible body of people but we have to get the interest of the public first. I have been involved with bikers rights in Europe for many years, please dont just say 'another another know all immigrant' I am a biker who wants to see his kids and grand kids enjoy my sport. The two pronged approach does work, a big demo catches the news, people love to see 100's of bikes and it starts them thinking that the way we are depicted by the press is not true.We then need to get in discussions with the politicians, find MP's who are bikers and build a relationship within all the political parties. This is not done overnight but if we are to change this agenda which I believe is aimed at getting bikes off the roads not just of NZ but across the world it is the long haul.
The big problem I see is that we need a strong and proactive biker rights organization. I have tried 3 times to join BRONZ even sent off my 20 bucks
but after many weeks wait for my application form which was sent off I have heard nothing. If the bikers leadership exhibits so much apathy god help us - in 10 years time the only bikes sold in NZ will be for riding on the beach or along a muddy beach.

RIDE SAFE

[C&A]

Just a thought feel really sorry for the guys that own more than one bike, there was a guy on TV last night that owned 4 so thats $2000 extra a year for him and he only rides one at a time ...so if he had an accident it would only be on one of them so why is he paying 4x the accident cover ?????


If they have to do something just license the driver not the machine

[naphazoline]

..........3. Personally, I'm receptive to direct action.....

It must have been said somewhere already,but if everyone says :We wont pay", what the fuck are the authorities going do?

Fine us? We wont pay that either!
It's not like they can send everyone to prison.




[/QUOTE]4. What IS required is reasons WHY we shouldn't pay what ACC *claim* we cost......[/QUOTE]


It's extortion.

If people stick to refusing,it could count on future proposals.

If not,where's this going to take us next?





[/QUOTE]...... Politics is the art of the possible........ .[/QUOTE]


Shouldn't that be,"The art of BULLSHIT in the name of robbing people blind". ?

[RiderInBlack]

Even $500 a year is way too much. $700+ is just mad. Yep this is obviously a "Shock Ta Soften Them For What Ya Really Want Ta Slip Through"job:Oi: Have joined BRONZ today. Can't be there for the meeting, but will put my hand up for a Protest Ride Action.

Are ACC going ta increase "Boy Racer"car reg to $700 too? Now where did I put that Tuis.

[Reckless]

Can't make the meeting, but assuming we can't make the Government change its mind on he principal, we might be able to influence when the increase applies. 600cc seems pretty random. maybe it would be fairer if based on power to weight, or 600 cc raised to say 900cc

Don't wanna steal the thread but cc rating is totally flawed.
IE my mate has a VS1400 Cruiser ,the thing doesn't go that fast even flat out!!

If I had a 599cc Yamaha (or whatever) I wouldn't be registering it in the 600 to 1000cc bracket!! And Triumph have just lost the sale of a 675 to me thats for sure!!

I'll be at the meeting Xion!! Pay my subs and try and help!!

[Blackbird]

For what it's worth, I've just sent this response to the ACC consultation process. You may argue that my logic is flawed as is your right but to sit around and do nothing but whinge is unacceptable.

Dear Sirs/Mesdames,

I’d like to add my comments and recommendations to the undoubtedly large volume of feedback which will arise form yesterday’s announcements. My comments arise from the proposal to substantially increase motorcycle levies. To be perfectly honest, the increase in dollar terms is not of huge concern to me but the apparent injustice and possibly discriminatory nature of the proposal certainly is.

I have 40+ years of experience driving cars and riding motorcycles. I’m passionate enough about riding and driving to believe that you never stop learning and have put myself through a number of driving and riding courses to continually raise my skills and I’m not about to stop now. I’ve also contributed to safety-related motoring initiatives over a good many years. ACC has to make the books balance. I have no issue with that. I do however; have an issue with the methodology.

The following comments relate to the ACC proposal.

1. Raising ACC does absolutely nothing to address the root cause of motorcycle or car accidents, it is almost literally just providing more ambulances at the bottom of the cliff. As a competent driver/rider with a good history, I would be discriminated against by paying for those with a less acceptable accident record. Surely, raising the standard of driving is truly addressing the root cause, whether it be on a motorcycle or a 4-wheeled vehicle? The techniques which I learned on my advanced courses, particularly the ones concerned with situational awareness should be mandatory at the most basic level as part of tuition. The standards required to attain a licence are laughable compared with many other western countries. This really is the nub of the issue. PLEASE CONCENTRATE ON RAISING DRIVING STANDARDS LIKE MANY OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES.

2. Where does the 600cc plus capacity have a bearing on ACC payments? Irrespective of capacity, the critical factor is the competence of the rider and also the competence of the driver if there is a car/motorcycle accident. On the surface, this appears to be an arbitrary and discriminatory decision.

3. I have deep concerns with respect to the way in which road statistics are used to make a point. The way in which some so-called critical data which was presented at the national safety roadshows a few years back by a number of officials were little short of disgraceful and lacked statistical rigour – “cherry picking” was very much in evidence and there were some admissions to that effect following the roadshows. Statistics have to be correct in both identifying root cause and developing a solution.

There are other related issues which deserve comment but I’ve kept to the most important issues in the hope that due notice will be taken.

With kindest regards etc

[TonyB]

My two cents- some stuff to bring up at the meeting:

Ask ACC to provide hard data on how the figures are calculated. It has long been said that ACC lump ALL motorcycle accidents (track, dirt, farm and road) onto the road category. If this is the case it is clearly unfair and biased- the figures will be heavily skewed by clowns like me who fall off at a race track on an unregistered bike and then claim ACC. Perhaps non registered bike users should have to pay for private insurance such as that provided by Combined Insurance, and no longer be covered by ACC.

If they insist on this huge levy, perhaps road bikers can be given the option of finding another insurance company to cover them for road accidents. ACC levies on bike registrations for those people would be dropped.

Point out that asking people to pay $700+ a year is short sited and tantamount to funding the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, rather than stopping people from falling off it in the first place. It has been said that ACC data shows that 50% of payouts are for people who fall off their bikes without outside influences. If this is the case, the money would be better put towards rider training. Again, perhaps the bulk of the levy can be waived if riders take part in a regular training course.

Point out that the massive increases will have unexpected results. More people will opt not to register their bike, as the fine for not being registered is $200. Police resources will be used persecuting bikers. The fine will naturally be put up. But then people will start doing runners....leading to far more injuries.

Point out that for the majority of bikers, motorcycling is a recreational activity. Yes it involves more risk than driving a car. But so does rugby, mountainbiking, netball, road cycling, mountain climbing etc etc. As such, bikers are being unfairly singled out, as they are the only 'risky' recreational group that can be taxed directly. Human rights??

[Genestho]

*snip* Human rights??

A brief of the NZ Human Rights Act 1993 regarding Discrimination wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Human_Rights_Act_1993)

There is further info available if you follow the links

[Marmoot]

May I also draw the gentlemen's attention to my insights on how motorcycling has been viewed as "sport activity" (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?p=1129458738#post1129458738)yet been unfairly treated compared to other high ACC consumers such as netball, soccer, and rugby. We should be keen to know what the ACC has in mind to tackle the loss on these parts (will the sports people be levied, etc?).

Secondary, from road users perspective, what would be done on ACC consumptions on cyclists? Why are they not levied despite them having similar or worse injury risk to motorcyclists?

Thirdly, alcohol-related injuries. What would be done in respect to this? Will there be similar ACC levy on alcohol tax? Why is this not in the current plan?

[J-rod]

Hi everyone,

If someone can point me in the right direction to obtain raw accident data I can build some stat models for use.
Like practically everyone on this site, i've had too many accidents and many more near misses, and i'm f$%^d if i'm gonna pay for other peoples in ability to pay attention.

FYI, here is the email I sent to National Radio this morning after I nearly suck my fist through my radio:

Good Morning Jim,

On my way to work this morning I became quite angry listening to your discussion about motorcycle ACC levy increases, because I think you are missing the point.

Yes, riding a motorcycle (or as you put it a bicycle) increases your likelihood of having an accident on the road, but lets not forget that the majority of people who do the daily commute on a motorcycle, do so because it is a cheap, efficient, socially and environmentally responsible form of transport, that if employed by more of your listeners would go a very long way toward reducing vehicle emissions volumes.

With less than 50% of cars on the road carrying less than two occupants, our environmental footprint as drivers is quite shameful, and increasing the levy against those who act to reduce it is more so.

I recently went for a ride on my motorbike and was very nearly cut in half by a car and single occupant trying to scream across Mt Eden rd, I was driving in a straight line with my lights on at 2pm on a sunny Sunday afternoon and having just exited a lighted intersection, I was not speeding. Had this fool hit me, do you think it right that I be fined $700.00 for the pleasure of being scittled. I did absolutely nothing wrong.

Think for the moment of the terror that seizes a person when something like this happens..... you are not at fault, yet this situation is suddenly thrust upon you, and you must deal with it in real time, and the consequences.
As motorcyclists we live this moment on an all to regular basis which is why we: turn on our lights, wear florescent bibs, paint our bikes white and yellow, install loud exhausts and buy bright colourful; helmets... We want to be seen.
The list is endless, but we cannot change the one thing that causes the greater majority of our accidents, untrained and inattentive CAR drivers.

A fairer approach would be to introduce this penalty to the at fault party in an accident. Somehow I think you'd find accident rates would not change, but lets face it, its not about reducing accidents, its about collecting more money by way victimising a majority.... sounds familiar doesn't it.

My final shot at this discriminatory penalty is that it draws a strong resemblance to that age old argument that somehow women are responsible for rape because they dress attractively and flaunt themselves... No, the simple fact is, they came upon the wrong person at the wrong time, and have a lifetime to deal with the consequences.


If you drive a vehicle, you have a responsibility to protect others on the road, be alert, be attentive, drive to the conditions and LOOK first.

[Mikkel]

After having thought a bit about this whole issue, my recommendation for the BRONZ response would be to steer clear of a debate based upon statistics and focus on what ACC is - or more importantly what we (kiwis in general, not just motorcyclists) would like it to be.
I.e. do we want privatisation or do we want a no fault scheme? Or are we insane enough that we actually want some bastard amalgam situated at a point, somewhere half way between these two extremes, which is dictated by the whims of the current government?

Personally I'd say that the no fault scheme is a great thing and I can even sort of accept that there is an ACC levy included in road vehicle registration, but distinguishing between different vehicle types and sizes is patently ridiculous. If a levy should be extracted from road users it should be done in relation to their drivers license - as has been pointed out many times, you can not operate more than one motor vehicle at a time, even if you have ten different ones to choose from.

Ultimately it really ought be handled entirely over the taxes - it is after all something that everyone benefits from one way or the other.

Anyway, I digress - my point was to give recommendations for the BRONZ meeting so excuse my diatribe. I regards to the statistics - I would recommend abstaining from basing any statements on those since, as we all are very well aware, statistics can be presented in a way that will support almost any imaginable claim... very few people who have not had some training in dealing with statistics will be able to distinguish between bullshit and sound statistics. However, if the statement is based on fundamental values, that many people will agree with, then it is likely to have a much higher impact. That is not to say that it isn't worth going over the statistics and being aware of what is going on - if for no other reason, then to be able to call bullshit whenever ACC plays a fallacious statistics card.

[Katman]

I wish people would stop claiming that cars cause the majority of our accidents.

That sort of statement will come back and bite us in the arse when the figures are placed in front of us showing that it isn't the case.

At present it appears to be that 58% of motorcycle accidents are the fault of the motorcyclist.

Sure, this is not very far over the 50% mark - but to claim that cars are responsible for the majority of our accidents is clearly wrong.

[Marmoot]

I agree with the above poster to some degree too.

Steer clear from the debate on statistics involving motorcyclists and/or who's causing the accidents.

Focus it on the problems with ACC and why we are suddenly required to bear the cost of which we may or may not be the real cause:
- Leakage on sports: there are huge costs to people with no contribution (e.g., sports such as soccer/rugby/netball). Why is there no contribution from these?
- Leakage on transport: there are huge costs to cyclists/horseriders with no perceived contribution from them. Why is this? When they argue about cross-subsidisation, why the cyclists are never brought up?
- Mismanagement: compensation from injuries caused by crime (I mean the victims instead of the criminals). Why is there no measures to recoup the ACC cost from the criminals who cause the injuries?
- Losses from investments: why do we suddenly need to bear the ACC blowout if part of the blowout was due to bad decision in past investments?

And I agree with Katman. Stop alienating the car drivers. If anything, we should include them in our protests. The car drivers are getting shafted as well albeit less than us. Plus, their number guarantees more voice than our puny thousands. In the end, it would end in "how many votes are at stake".

[Big Dave]

Cross posted - sorry - I stuck it in the wrong thread first.

I just got off the phone with the Hon. Rick Barker. He's on board, still rides a Rocket III and will do his best to attend the BRONZ meeting on Wednesday night.

He asked me if I knew of a lawyer with an interest and any statisticians who can lend a hand. Please PM me and I'll pass it on?

He's writing a press release now and told me he wants a big ride to Wellington organised.

Beaks and number crunchers now welcome.

[Mikkel]

Cross posted - sorry - I stuck it in the wrong thread first.

I just got off the phone with the Hon. Rick Barker. He's on board, still rides a Rocket III and will do his best to attend the BRONZ meeting on Wednesday night.

He asked me if I knew of a lawyer with an interest and any statisticians who can lend a hand. Please PM me and I'll pass it on?

He's writing a press release now and told me he wants a big ride to Wellington organised.

Beaks and number crunchers now welcome.

If you want credibility - and you need that - you want to get non-motorcyclist lawyers and statisticians... (at the very least the statisticians!) How about trying to get a comment from either someone from the LTSA or an insurance company on the way that ACC has been presenting the statistics.

However, ultimately, I think you'll be making a mistake to base the campaign on statistics.

[Maha]

Even $500 a year is way too much. $700+ is just mad. Yep this is obviously a "Shock Ta Soften Them For What Ya Really Want Ta Slip Through"job:Oi: Have joined BRONZ today. Can't be there for the meeting, but will put my hand up for a Protest Ride Action.

Are ACC going ta increase "Boy Racer"car reg to $700 too? Now where did I put that Tuis.

The $500 dollar increase for the likes of us Doug is just the Levy part of the Rego right?? which brings the Levy up over $750 plus the Rego on top?

[Big Dave]

However, ultimately, I think you'll be making a mistake to base the campaign on statistics.

Depends what statistic I imagine, but I am only the messenger.

The tenor of Rick's tone was mainly the social injustice of No Fault Insurance penalising a nominated group.

[yachtie10]

Im up for helping out specially if we can get the data to see how much they are twisting the stats. I have time available so can help if needed

I will attend the bronz meeting next wednesday. hopefully we can come up with a sensible approach to this.

[joha]

I'm pretty peeved about this ACC levy "covert" non-direct tax increases
but rather than just camp outside parliment or ride up and down queen st with signs yelling.

Lets just do it like French Farmers park our tractors (bikes)on mass, on the motorways and block up the system every rush hour, every day!!!

When the increase happens;...

Thoses that can still afford to own/ride will have to combat with an increase in car drivers on the road with no insurance, no WOF and or car REG and hence probably cause or be involved in more accidents.

ACC should provide a way of opting out and allow bike riders to seek a private insurance method with another company. ie Bike insurance!?

[Mikkel]

The tenor of Rick's tone was mainly the social injustice of No Fault Insurance penalising a nominated group.

Yep, that's the angle that it should be approached from. :yes:

[chasio]

Secondary, from road users perspective, what would be done on ACC consumptions on cyclists? Why are they not levied despite them having similar or worse injury risk to motorcyclists?


Imagine the incredible bureaucracy that would be required to collect from cyclists. They'll stay in the 'too hard' basket as there is no convenient way to collect from them, i.e. the ACC has no way of knowing who they are or where to find them (apart from Tamaki and Scenic Drives on a Sunday morning carrying nothing but coffee money) and no license plates to know which vehicle is paid up and which is not.

We do cost a lot to patch up, but so do many other groups including rugby players and DIYers. But those other groups are too hard to target.

Surely they are attempting to stick it to motorcyclists because it is convenient to do so. If we want to ride on the road, we are required by law to get rego for our vehicles (like cars) and this gives the ACC a cheap and easy opportunity to hit us while we have our wallets open. And the majority of NZ voters will think that's fair because we do cost more than we pay, after all...

As others have said, the injustice lies in targetting a minority group for extra payments just because it is convenient and cost effective for ACC to do so. It makes a mockery of the 'no fault' principle on which ACC is supposedly based.

So tactically, do bikers concentrate on the no fault principle or do we just accept we are fighting a losing battle and try and make the way costs are apprortioned more reasonable and maybe get a cap on contributions for multiple bikes?

And demand more compulsory training for both drivers and riders (although that is not under the ACC remit)?

[Ixion]

I wish people would stop claiming that cars cause the majority of our accidents.

That sort of statement will come back and bite us in the arse when the figures are placed in front of us showing that it isn't the case.

At present it appears to be that 58% of motorcycle accidents are the fault of the motorcyclist.

Sure, this is not very far over the 50% mark - but to claim that cars are responsible for the majority of our accidents is clearly wrong.

Whether they do or not is irrelevant for our purpose here.

ACC is a "no fault" system. That means they don't care who CAUSED the accident. All they care about is who they are SPENDING the money on. From that point of view, if a biker is mashed up in an accident with a car, even if the car IS totally to blame, it's still the biker costing them money.

That's the way it works, and no matter whether we agree or not, there is no way on earth we are going to persuade TPTB to change it , certainly not in the time frame we have.

So arguments about who is to blame are just distracting, and are not helpful at all.

[NiggleC]

Why doesn't ACC put a levy on every registered rugby / netball player in the country - say $50 each payable with club subs?
Because they represent a far larger group of voters than motorcyclists ever will. And because BRONZ has stuttered along through no fault of its own but because of a lack of interest by motorcyclists in general we are percieved to be disorganised. Its politics pure and simple.

My opinion is that if you have an accident wearing the gear that most people on this website would wear anyway then you are covered.
If you fall off your nifty 50 (you have seen them) wearing jandals, shorts and a singlet and resemble being assaulted by a cheese grater then you pay for your treatment from the moment the ambulance leaves its base.

[Voltaire]

We just lost 4 billion dollars......
so....

Cost of injured motorists divided by amount of registered vehicles.

cost of injured motorcyclists divided by amount of registered bikes.

bikers costing more, motorists costing less...

charge bikers lots more
Charge motorists a bit more.

What about non registered activities.....

Oh thats to hard...

Nick....Nick...we're finished.

[The Stranger]

I wish people would stop claiming that cars cause the majority of our accidents.

That sort of statement will come back and bite us in the arse when the figures are placed in front of us showing that it isn't the case.

At present it appears to be that 58% of motorcycle accidents are the fault of the motorcyclist.

Sure, this is not very far over the 50% mark - but to claim that cars are responsible for the majority of our accidents is clearly wrong.

I wouldn't get too hung up on this point either way Katman.
It is supposedly a reaction to cost, not the number of accidents.
All accidents are not created equal.
Ones involving a cage tend to be the more expensive ones for ACC. Sure some single vehicle ones are bad - or fatal, but I know damn well I would rather lose it on a right hander into a farmer's paddock than head on a cage on my side of the road. The difference in ACC cost is astronomical.
Multi vehicle accidents tend to be consistently expensive for ACC due to smashed pelvi etc.

[Mom]

What about non registered activities.....

Oh thats to hard...

Nick....Nick...we're finished.


Look this is not the time to pull out the us against them card amongst ourselves. We all ride bikes, the off road unregistered riders can appreciate our pain, even if they are really pleased it is not them.

However, I think that they will understand also that it wont be too long until they find a way to get them to pay a levy too, perhaps at purchase time?

We are getting potentially hammered at the moment, the more noise we make against it the better it will be, the more time will be spent finding alternatives.

Imagine this if you will...

All player members that join a sports club, whether it be a rugby club, a football club, , a netball club, a pony club, an athletics club, a gymnastics club, a what ever you can imagine club get slammed with an ACC levy for the season to cover any potential claims that will be made to ACC for injury. Imagine the outcry!

But that is just and fair as far as I am concerned. I have ridden bikes for better than 30 years and have NEVER made a claim for cover under ACC for a bkie related injury, I have however made the odd claim for twisting a knee playing badminton etc, I once broke my cruciate ligament rounding up sheep too. Why the hell should I penalised for the misfortune of others?

[Katman]

I wouldn't get too hung up on this point either way Katman.


What worries me though is how the general public (who we surely should be trying to get on our side) might react when it comes to light that motorcyclists are talking shit by blaming the majority of their accidents on someone else.

[Vern]

Cross posted - sorry - I stuck it in the wrong thread first.

I just got off the phone with the Hon. Rick Barker. He's on board, still rides a Rocket III and will do his best to attend the BRONZ meeting on Wednesday night.

He asked me if I knew of a lawyer with an interest and any statisticians who can lend a hand. Please PM me and I'll pass it on?

He's writing a press release now and told me he wants a big ride to Wellington organised.

Beaks and number crunchers now welcome.
I am in on this as the more the better. Vern

[Voltaire]

Look this is not the time to pull out the us against them card amongst ourselves. We all ride bikes, the off road unregistered riders can appreciate our pain, even if they are really pleased it is not them.

However, I think that they will understand also that it wont be too long until they find a way to get them to pay a levy too, perhaps at purchase time?

We are getting potentially hammered at the moment, the more noise we make against it the better it will be, the more time will be spent finding alternatives.

Imagine this if you will...

All player members that join a sports club, whether it be a rugby club, a football club, , a netball club, a pony club, an athletics club, a gymnastics club, a what ever you can imagine club get slammed with an ACC levy for the season to cover any potential claims that will be made to ACC for injury. Imagine the outcry!

But that is just and fair as far as I am concerned. I have ridden bikes for better than 30 years and have NEVER made a claim for cover under ACC for a bkie related injury, I have however made the odd claim for twisting a knee playing badminton etc, I once broke my cruciate ligament rounding up sheep too. Why the hell should I penalised for the misfortune of others?

You misread my waffle...non registered activities meant activities that can't easily have $$$ attached to them as easily as vehicles.
You thought I meant dirt bikes.....but I have one of those too.
I think sports players should contribute to ACC.The reason NZ is the adventure capital of the world is other places have to have insurance to operate, EG, when I lived in Ireland the skating rink closed as it could not get insurance....we had to pay 5 euros for the kids to go on field trips.... thats user pays.
I haven't been on ACC for years....but when I'm skiing or dirt bike riding its good to know its there.....( isn't that the attitude that ACC has given us).

[jonbuoy]

The fact that NZ decision makers are still relating the overall engine capacity of the bike directly with its performance and risk shows how little they actually know and care about bikes. DR650 VS GSXR600 in the same risk bracket??:weird: A bit like the 33BHP learner limit in Europe. It seems like they view bikes as purely luxury items and not day to day transport. How about they make some efforts to reduce the road toll - safety adverts on TV before the biking season. I've never seen a speeding or fast riding informercial aimed at motorcyclists in NZ. Perfect example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH34xzIdY58

[MadDuck]

DR650 VS GSXR600 in the same risk bracket??:weird:

Yes thats how I see it. I sent an email to my local MP (Lockwood Smith) with this as my main argument. No ranting about $ or statistics just that their notion of capacity rating and risk appear flawed.

Unless of course there are numbers or statistics "somewhere" that show I am barking up the wrong tree????

[5150]

Imagine the incredible bureaucracy that would be required to collect from cyclists. They'll stay in the 'too hard' basket as there is no convenient way to collect from them, i.e. the ACC has no way of knowing who they are or where to find them (apart from Tamaki and Scenic Drives on a Sunday morning carrying nothing but coffee money) and no license plates to know which vehicle is paid up and which is not.

We do cost a lot to patch up, but so do many other groups including rugby players and DIYers. But those other groups are too hard to target.

Surely they are attempting to stick it to motorcyclists because it is convenient to do so. If we want to ride on the road, we are required by law to get rego for our vehicles (like cars) and this gives the ACC a cheap and easy opportunity to hit us while we have our wallets open. And the majority of NZ voters will think that's fair because we do cost more than we pay, after all...

As others have said, the injustice lies in targetting a minority group for extra payments just because it is convenient and cost effective for ACC to do so. It makes a mockery of the 'no fault' principle on which ACC is supposedly based.

So tactically, do bikers concentrate on the no fault principle or do we just accept we are fighting a losing battle and try and make the way costs are apprortioned more reasonable and maybe get a cap on contributions for multiple bikes?

And demand more compulsory training for both drivers and riders (although that is not under the ACC remit)?



EASY. Do what they do in some eastern countries. Rego bicycles as well. Back where i come from, you needed license to ride a push bike. Kids were learning to respect road rules from young age.

[That looks like fun]

http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycle-Crash-Factsheet.pdf
Makes for sobering reading. The facts are against us unfortunatly. Which means we still have choices but we have limited them with our own actions.
(we being bikers as a collective which is how ACC is treating us).
ACC funds tied to licence fees?
The right to opt out of ACC at registration time by providing proof of private Insurance? (My favorite as then those who need the most pay the most)
ACC funding included as petrol Tax?
ACC by Horse power?
ACC funded by Carvers legal defense fund?

How much will ACC be asked to shell out for riders on the Coro loop and Forgotten Highway this year?
We all have the potential to fall of and get hurt, matter of fact I am pretty darn good at it. So we all need some form of Insurance be it ACC or something else
Time to stop claiming innocence and find methods to ensure that we get to keep our toys and can still play with them :2thumbsup

[cs363]

EASY. Do what they do in some eastern countries. Rego bicycles as well. Back where i come from, you needed license to ride a push bike. Kids were learning to respect road rules from young age.

It's not just Eastern countries, many states in the US require bicycle licencing as do some European countries. When you look at the cost to ACC of bicycle accidents (http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/20-sport-claims/IS0800367) this probably stacks up here...

[howdamnhard]

Thanks for the heads up Ixion, I'll be there.

[Mort]

I can't attend as its too far away but I would hope Bronz acts on this outrage PUBLICALLY with a show of protest and LEGALLY with a challenge to the inequalities of these proposals.

[Maki]

"4. What IS required is reasons WHY we shouldn't pay what ACC *claim* we cost. Factual. Specific. So if you know something, or you are good at crunching statistics, that might be useful."

The reason is that we are being singled out as a group and unfairly discriminated against. This could well be in breach of international law and of UN resolutions. Any biker lawyers should look into that.

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/20-sport-claims/IS0800367

The fact is that in 2007-07/2008-06 push bike claims cost $10,447,000 while motorcycle claims cost $7,227,000 proves this. Making motorcyclists pay through the nose for their sport while others pay nothing is unfair and to me it is a clear violation of human rights. Netball costs $11,496,000

Further, rugby in it's various forms cost a total of $57,183,000 during the same period. Feel free to check these numbers at the acc site.

The fact that motorcyclists have been singled out as a target above other groups that cost ACC more can not be interpretet as anything other than illegal discrimination that has to stop. We should not be paying a cent more for our ACC attached to our rego than other road users, car drivers. the system is already grossly unfair as it is but the National plan goes above and beyond that into the realm of the criminal.

Kind regards...

[mahon]

If we allow these increased ACC costs to go ahead many businesses will suffer, adversely effecting everyone in the economy:
motorcycle rental and tourism companies (NZ is a very popular destination)
NZ Post (posties) and other mail service courier riders
pizza deliveries
mechanics
retail shops
dispatch riders
police
traffic wardens
lifeguard beach patrols
farm bikes registered to travel between rural properties
students - scooters use just 2/3litres of fuel to travel 100km therefore students borrow less and stay out of debt (and hopefully remain in NZ after attaining a degree)!

UK uses fast-bikes to transport organs for emergency transplants, not sure about NZ. Richard Branson has a motorcycle taxi service in London - Virgin Limobike (Piaggio tilting tree-wheeled scooters are used in Moscow) – these options could become viable here with population growth.

Fewer motorised bicycles on the road will result in increased congestion, parking woes, wear and tear of the road infrastructure, further pressure on public transport (more strikes) and increased pollution.
A motorcycle requires around 10 barrels of oil to manufacture whereas an average car around 65! The engines of vehicles stuck in winter traffic don’t reach normal operating temperatures therefore are very inefficient – catalytic converters don’t operate as intended therefore release many toxins and burn too much fuel.

An after-work ride for many people is the only way to release the build-up of stress and enjoy the childhood sensation of riding a bicycle downhill – taking this pleasure away (with an increase in ACC cost) will result in more cases of clinical depression and potentially suicide.

If someone could estimate the cost of this on the economy, perhaps the government will see their error.

[TonyB]

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/20-sport-claims/IS0800367

The fact is that in 2007-07/2008-06 push bike claims cost $10,447,000 while motorcycle claims cost $7,227,000 proves this. Making motorcyclists pay through the nose for their sport while others pay nothing is unfair and to me it is a clear violation of human rights. Netball costs $11,496,000

Further, rugby in it's various forms cost a total of $57,183,000 during the same period. Feel free to check these numbers at the acc site.


Not picking on you personally, but if people are going to be using ACC figures, they'd better be damn sure they know what the data means.
http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/2-all-entitlement-claims/IS0800020 Scroll down to Driving/Passenger Motorcycle- $62,545,000

[Maki]

Not picking on you personally, but if people are going to be using ACC figures, they'd better be damn sure they know what the data means.
http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/2-all-entitlement-claims/IS0800020 Scroll down to Driving/Passenger Motorcycle- $62,545,000

Thanks Tony.

[cs363]

Not picking on you personally, but if people are going to be using ACC figures, they'd better be damn sure they know what the data means.
http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/2-all-entitlement-claims/IS0800020 Scroll down to Driving/Passenger Motorcycle- $62,545,000

At the top of that page it says 'This section includes accidents that do not involve a motor vehicle (for example cycle only accidents).'

Now I'm confused.... In fact the whole statistics section of ACC's site is bloody confusing (probably on purpose, like most bloody Govt. websites)

From your post you obviously have a better understanding of ACC's statistics, could you explain to us dweebs?

[avgas]

I have personal health insurance - in theory i should be able to pay the meager reg fee and provide my receipt for my personal health insurance for my rego.
I noticed this is not an option - so my alternative is to "take the bike off the road" according to LTSA, and forge a fake rego for it.
SCAN, EDIT, PRINT, LAMINATE - all for less than $500

[naphazoline]

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/stati...aims/IS0800367

So many of the other activities listed are WAY more costly then Motorcyling.

Rugby,Netball,and Horse riding are right up there.

[ROBMW]

There are some really good threads on this subject but whichever way you look at it, the ACC system is managed by a bunch of useless overpaid bureaucrats and the most effective way to be heard is through collective voice. I agree the system is flawed, unfair and bikers are an easy target because of their relatively small numbers. With this in mind, it is important that all road users stick together to protest the hike in levies and suggest, either diplomatically or forcefully, that the government have a bit of a re-think. They must see sense and work to reduce ACC expenditure (STOP paying out for accidents to criminals, tourists, sports people, families of those who choose to commit suicide, other non-payers etc) and even out the areas of income (payment from cyclists, horseriders, sports clubs).
About a decade ago when I lived in the UK the labour government increased fuel levies to an all time high resulting in British farmers and truck drivers launching a dramatic campaign of direct action to protest the fuel duty. Their campaign followed a similar one by farmers, truckers, and fishermen in France, which had resulted in concessions from the French government. The UK protesters blockaded fuel refineries and distribution depots and, within days, created a fuel crisis that paralysed CI sectors and brought the country to a virtual halt.
My involvement was riding my XTZ 750 at idle and in bottom gear of the fast lane of the M1 for several hours a day with the truckies and other motorists all around doing the same which caused massive gridlock. It was an eerie and exciting time especially seeing the huge queues of vehicles trying to access the last remaining fuel pump at the local station, like something out of Mad Max. Eventually the government backed down as they were totally unprepared for this amount of direct action. Admittedly the fuel companies had a major hand in it as well for various reasons but the main point is that the government will have to listen if enough people get together and protest.

[chasio]

It's not just Eastern countries, many states in the US require bicycle licencing as do some European countries. When you look at the cost to ACC of bicycle accidents (http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/20-sport-claims/IS0800367) this probably stacks up here...

That would certainly put a lot more people off ever riding a bike. I know many will disagree with me, but I actually believe that would be a bad thing (puts hard hat on) due to the overall health benefits and associated long term health care cost reductions of a fitter populace.

Overall, though, either they need to find a way to target all groups fairly (cyclists, horse riders, rugby players etc. - plenty of ideas above) or stop persecuting the crap out of bikers. No?

[--gt--]

Personally, I would like to see a something proportional to use. May not be so fair for safe riders that use their bikes every day, but there are a lot of us that only use a weekend here and there.

If a rego could be done for shorter periods, i.e 1 month (or why not buy a 1 day registration online) then people can pay more proportionally for use.

So my proposal would be:

1) Registrations in short periods. 1 month at a time.

2) Remind them that 42% (read but don’t quote me) of bike accidents are caused by other motorists, so take that off the proposed amount. (Add it to cars and trucks if they like)

3) Prove they are charging Road Bike users for the cost of offroad bikes, which is unfair, so the level should be reduced accordingly for this round of implementations.

4) When ACC has a mechanism to charge a fair amount for offroad bikes and other sports participants, i.e cycles, rugby, horse riding and the like, then come back to Roadbike users, we will gladly pay our fair share. But they cannot apply this UNFAIRLY to one minority group until they can do for all.

[RantyDave]

I'm a little slow coming up to speed on all this, but having lightly scatted across the thread I believe I have a different approach and one that may be worth pursuing.

The proposed levy increases won't work. Motorcycling is already a borderline affordable activity for many of us and when push comes to shove the first thing to go is insurance, followed by registration. Trebling the registration cost is going to lead to an increase in unregistered bikes; runners from the police; and subsequently a rise in the number of accidents which, you may have noticed, the ACC will have to pay for. ACC will, in essence, be digging it's own grave not to mention the social cost of deliberately raising the number of accidents involving motorcyclists. Besides, ACC's website lists the organisation's number one priority as preventing injury and this hardly seems a step in the right direction.

Something like that, anyway.

I also wonder if what they *really* want is a political impetus to reduce what is covered under ACC. Something interesting to note is that the chairman of the board (of ACC) is one John Judge - appointed only in March. Now, he was previously the chairman of a bank and appears to have been bringing a rather more adult approach to ACC's balance sheet and in the process has made a nasty discovery....

ACC currently has a future liability of nearly twenty four billion dollars (http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/acc039s-liability-grows-48-billion-12-months/5/26766), thirteen billion dollars more than they actually have. Observe the words "future liability" - it's not that ACC is broke, it's just that if they fulfil their promises, they will be. Indeed:


Historically the focus has been on current costs rather than the long-term cost implications of accidents. That's at the root of our problem.

ACC need to, pretty much, halve this future liability and without the figures at hand I imagine this boils down to no longer supporting the worst long term cases. People with spinal injuries, for instance. In fact with the situation how it is, I imagine that someone giving up motorcycling (and hence no longer paying their ACC levy) is actually a net win for ACC. Perhaps the thing that ACC would like the most is to be able to provide some statute of limitation as to how long they have to continue to pay out post-crash.

Oh, here we go:


Mr Judge said that ACC had begun implementing wide-ranging measures aimed at reducing external cost pressure and improving rehabilitation performance. For example: improving the way we manage claims negotiating better value for money and outcomes from health professionals being tougher on the extent and duration of ACC support, such as weekly compensation ensuring we're not providing more or less than we are legally required to provide encouraging more personal responsibility for "getting-back-on-your-feet" after an injury reducing administrative costs

To be quite frank, fighting this levy increase may be a question of accepting that there will be a loss of protection from ACC. Sometimes, if you want to get something out of someone, you have to ask yourself what you can do for them ... and ACC are currently in deep deep shit.

Dave

Edit: The Mrs is studying accounting and points out that insurance companies never have enough money to pay for their future liabilities. The same way that banks have a liquidity ratio. Hmmm.

[cs363]

That would certainly put a lot more people off ever riding a bike. I know many will disagree with me, but I actually believe that would be a bad thing (puts hard hat on) due to the overall health benefits and associated long term health care cost reductions of a fitter populace.

Overall, though, either they need to find a way to target all groups fairly (cyclists, horse riders, rugby players etc. - plenty of ideas above) or stop persecuting the crap out of bikers. No?

No disagreement on the health benefits, but I really do think it's about time cyclists started to take some responsibility for themselves.
generalising here for a minute, but how many times do you see cyclists riding 3 , 4 or more abreast, running red lights and stop signs and generally flouting the law? Helmets are supposed to be compulsory for them but I still see cyclists every day not wearing them or even worse riding with them hanging off the handlebars. And then on top of all the irresponsible riding they wear nothing more protective than a thin layer of lycra and then expect our ACC levies to pay for their accident care. And they bleat like crazy about other road users who are actually paying for the damn roads.
I think if they are going to use the road then like all other road users they need to pay for the privilege and abide by the same rules.

I know there are many responsible cyclists, but there are a sizable bunch who act in the manner I've described and if it's good enough for the ACC to tar all motorcyclists with the same brush, then I can bloody well do it to cyclists.... :msn-wink:

[RantyDave]

the government will have to listen if enough people get together and protest.
They won't, though. This is why motorcyclists are getting it in the neck. Which do you think would be easier to raise the political impetus for: Taxing bikers; Taxing sports; Taxing DIY.

If we, as a nation, accept a reduction in the coverage of ACC then all this shit goes away. More to the point the people who pick up spinal injuries playing rugby get to share the pain - pun intended.

Dave

[grotto]

I don't know any Rockridge Road

[magpie]

"2. We all know that bike accidents are caused by cagers. Or not. So unless you have evidence none of us know about, again, no preaching to the choir."

I seem to recall John Baker (John Baker Insurance) saying at one of the Ulysses AGM's that 40% of the claims he paid out on motorbikes were sva's (single vehicle accidents). 40%!!!!!!

[RantyDave]

Having thought about this for a minute I have one final thought:

This is not about us, it's about doing us first so they can do the big problems later against a background of "well, bikers lost XYZ, you're going to lose it too".

Dave

[Katman]

"2. We all know that bike accidents are caused by cagers. Or not. So unless you have evidence none of us know about, again, no preaching to the choir."



That is the one issue that I fear will hamper BRONZ's handling of this issue.

Let's hope those words were just Ixion's and not BRONZ's.

[ldcroberts]

Ok, my crack at explaining what it shows - it shows the total cost for all on road accidents 2007/8 as $351m.

Then it breaks down as to what the injured person was doing at the time - whether in a car, truck, bike, walking, etc. Motorcycling accounts for $63m.

If I'm reading this right, then if say you were to instead get all motorcyclists to sign up for a private insurance to cover their own costs, then that insurance would cost each person exactly the same as ACC are suggesting. However such a system would have an advantage that it covers a person rather than a vehicle - which is fairer to multiple vehicle owners. The present registration system could allow for this with the addition of a special type of multi-vehicle registration to a person - which could easily be policed because if a cop pulls a vehicle over they just need to match the drivers license with the rego. But then nobody else would be allowed to drive your car/bike of course, unless you procured an extra dispensation for such named drivers.

Another big difference in this case is that most (3rd party) insurance companies apportion blame so you cover other people you injure - or other people cover you - which would change the numbers once you account for who causes the accident - however ACC is a personal insurance (1st party) only for yourself whether you caused the accident or not. A 3rd party system would have the advantage that it could tax alcohol, cellphones, fatty foods, and other accident factors.

So I guess what we really want to happen is that the ACC spend for motorcyclists goes down - i.e. fewer people make claims while on the road on a motorcycle. The only way this will happen is if there are fewer accidents or if they are less severe. Everybody wins when that happens.

The high cost of accidents being passed on to everybody is actually making people aware that it's too much - but ACC isn't the bad guy, they are just doing their job and pointing it out. We need to look at why the accidents are occurring and take that up with various agencies - not ACC however as I expect they are just doing their job.

So we need to reduce accidents, the costs associated with them will come down by themselves.

The alternative is to get a big monster truck with massive car climbing wheels, and drive it around maiming people - their ACC levies go up, but yours will be fine. That would be quickly outlawed I'm sure (probably by a different department - not ACC if I understand this correctly), then perhaps cars could be outlawed by the same principle.

[Ms Piggy]

BRONZ (Wellington) does not exist . So if anyone can volunteer to coordinate matters in the capital, that might be good.

Has WIMA made a statement? They seem to be alive and well in Wellington - I'm not a member...anyone here?

[cs363]

Seeing as everyone in NZ has the potential to benefit from ACC, would linking it to the IRD and making it part of the overall tax take be an option? At least that way they could spread the payment burden over nearly all the population? Fair and equal payments for all....

Just thinking aloud over a late night drink... :)

[Pussy]

Just thinking aloud over a late night drink... :)

Horlicks? :)

[cs363]

Horlicks? :)

Nah, not into paying for sex....

[oldguy]

What i don't under stand is why from 600cc+ you pay a higher levy? you can get just as serious injures on a motor scouter, the cost of rehabilitation would be the same.
The thing is on the bigger bikes, serious accidents usually end in death, no long term cost there.

On a side note, it has just cost me $372.32 to reg my Pajero of that, $279.09 is ACC levy.

add the bike reg F**K Im screwed. most motorcyclist also have cars so we end up paying twice which is where I find its not fare.

[crash harry]

No disagreement on the health benefits, but I really do think it's about time cyclists started to take some responsibility for themselves.
generalising here for a minute, but how many times do you see cyclists riding 3 , 4 or more abreast, running red lights and stop signs and generally flouting the law?

Not very often actually - and I suspect neither do you. In much the same way as all the discussions on sites like stuff.co.nz have comments saying "How many times do you see motorcyclists speeding at 120km/h between lanes of stopped traffic and scraping down the side of cars?" Not often either. I see a fair number of cyclists and motorcyclists in my daily commute, most are just trying to get to/from work with a minimum of hassle, but it's the 1 in 1000 that's misbehaving that sticks out in your mind.

Trying to deflect the argument onto someone else is counter productive. Personally I think that there is only a partial win available here for us anyway, but it will be worse if we don't even take that.

We can challenge the statistics, I'm pretty sure that they won't stand up to careful and insightful analysis. The numbers that have been presented are essentially useless, they've already been analysed and collated. If we can access the raw data there should be a lot of different ways of presenting it to support a lot of different arguments, depending on how you cut the stats.

Even if that (or another line of reasoning) works, I suspect we will only be playing into the hands of the ACC in any case. They don't really expect us to swallow this, this is the softener. I can see two alternatives here:
1) They are using us to deflect the increase that is going onto car registrations - the media are largely ignoring the comparatively small increase in automotive registrations and focussing on the large increase in bike regos.
2) They're trying to make ACC so expensive that we'll practically be begging them to privatise it in a few years.

I'm sure that this is not at all about balancing ACCs books, it's about politics.

Anyway, BRONZ membership form filled out and in an envelope, to be sent off first thing in the morning!

[crash harry]

That is the one issue that I fear will hamper BRONZ's handling of this issue.

Let's hope those words were just Ixion's and not BRONZ's.

He did say "or not".

I read that as saying that we shouldn't even be going there in the discussions. The issue of who causes the accidents is totally irrelevant and discussing it is not helpful.

[outlawtorn]

The best thing we can do is get together and support each other in raising our voice against the government, so get to the next BRONZ meeting in Auckland, show your support, give us your thoughts.

Get your mates, mum and anyone else who supports motorbiking and be at the meeting! :2thumbsup

[choppedxs]

All the other major non national parties are saying that national is making this whole ACC deficit up and I believe them (anyone remember the leaked conversations in National meetings where they said they were going to get rid of ACC - hell it was someone where I worked that recorded and released them . I told everyone I knew not to vote National if they wanted to keep ACC and free health care for accidents but no the anitsmacking bill screwed labour too much (even though National voted for it to) . Its pretty obvious that National is anti ACC and always has been. They tried to kill it in 1999 and 10 years on they are trying it on again. ACC kicks arse as a system. All of you saying we should have private insurance need your head read. Go to USA to see how it works - watch the movie SICKO - even CUBA has a better health care system then USA. All of you bitchin about the increase because you can't afford it are working and middle class ie not rich and they are the ones that get raped by private insurance companies - why do you think Obama is trying to change their system - its because it is shit and normal people get screwed - no worries if you are rich as you can pay for high insurance premiums and high ACC levies for that matter. So don't be fooled into getting rid of ACC - privatise it and you get the clusterfuck that is private power companies who keep hiking the price and lowing the amount of service (not to mention the multitude of other services that have been privatised so we get fucked more and more by big business (but they care about us don't they??).

Also - what makes you think an insurance company is going to cover you - according to the stats you are 16x more likely to have an injury then a car so what insurance company is going to insure you! If they do it is going to cost heaps. In the US they have dedicated teams that sole purpose is to screw you out of insurance payouts (oh you have two fucked eyes - well we are only going to pay to fix one as you only need one to function effectively - don't laugh this is a real case). Insurance companies here have already got these teams starting up - they get paid based on the number of people they can screw out of payouts. You can't vote out big business when you get fucked over.

ACC is fine the way it is with a few adjustments (ie stop paying out visitors to our country, criminals, welfare etc - I mean go to any other country and try to get free health care when on holiday - dream on what a bunch of mugs we are! Look out for people that live here first - if you can afford to come here to visit then you can pay some sort of ACC levee when you come in - are millions of visitors into NZ - charge them $50 each and you don't need to screw bikers (citizens) anymore).

The other thing that pisses me off is all these posts saying what about bikes, soccer, rugby etc etc why not make them pay as well - thats just what the govt wants! I don't know about you but I do other things as well as riding my motorbike and I am not that keen on getting arse raped in all my other activities as well. I agree that we need to protest this crazy increase in ACC levies but lets not give the govt and media a whole bunch of ammo to fuck the rest of sports as well. We will end up sitting at home watching tv as it will be to expensive to do anything else.

Any way that is my ramble. I hate National! John Key is rich fuckwit who made his money arse raping people the same way he trying to arse rape us! He has a whole bunch of rich insurance buddies who are all sitting around reading our posts going ha ha look at them all saying lets privatise health care - suckers!

I do agree with the posts regarding ACC levees that cover the person not the vehicle. This should be bought up in the media a lot more. This is double dipping at its worst.
OK... I'm spent

[jeffs]

The real truth is lobbying anyone to see our side is a waste of time. Unless you ride a bike, no one gives a hoot.
We have all been down this path so many times, with Public initiated referendums, its about time we all understood
how little the people who make the rules listen. There is only one way positive action.

If you want to take positive action, don't go riding on mass down the motorway or some other major road, blocking the road for the commuter traffic.
We need the public on our side not against us. Pissing of commuters will only increase the accident rate
by making car drivers think of us as the enemy, it will lead to people closing gaps to teach us a lessons, or
even worse. We will loose all sympathy to our plight, and our voice will never be heard.

You need highly visible, positive action that does not piss off a car driver with a 1 tone weapon, wanting to get even for delaying their morning run by an hour. It need to be one that has a cost to the law makers, and puts no one in danger. It needs to be one that reduces the chance of some dumb ass
rider crashing through stupid riding on the event, proving the ACC's point.

I suggest we start by very slow riding in close circles around the bus depots, in such a way as it makes it impossible for buses to
get out. Hit the commuter, but not the one driving the car. This will have several effects. It show the people that we don't want to be in
our cars adding to the congestion. Getting us off our bikes, wont make us move to public transport. If you hold up the cars, people
may move to public transport, which is exactly one of their plans. Given the latest bus problems, such a thing would get good news cover

Remember though, the best possible outcome if some one does listen, is not removing the ACC increases, just reducing them. There is
nothing anyone can do to stop ACC increasing the levies. Acc are broke ( a completely different debate ), but an extra $500, come on get real !!

[Hopeful Bastard]

OR you could just write up a sign and slap it on the back of your bike?

I have Ball Bearings. You have Windows. BACK OFF!


That way, Those that do get too close as you are slowly travelling down their route, Have been warned and find out the hard way :headbang:

[Oxy]

I'm pretty upset by the proposed changes too, and emailed the following to John Key. What are your thoughts?

I have given serious consideration to the impending ACC levy increases and would like to submit my thoughts for your consideration.



· Not all people who have drivers licences own vehicles, yet they are still able to drive, therefore they escape paying levies, but are just as much a liability. In fact, in some cases they may be more of a liability because their driving experience may be less.

· Some people own more than one vehicle, but can only drive one at a time, so they are being penalised by the ACC levy.

· I feel that the huge increase in large motorcycle levies is unjust as some of the small bikes have more speed and less stability on the road than some of the larger bikes. Also, large bikes are more expensive and are therefore more likely to be ridden by experienced and more mature motorcyclists.



I do understand the situation ACC is in, but can I suggest that an annual levy placed on the drivers licence would be more fair. This should not depend on the vehicles that a person has, but rather I feel that it would be more appropriate for the younger people to pay a higher levy, and perhaps those who have had accidents could pay more. This would be consistent with insurance policies.



I ride a brand new Triumph Thunderbird (1600cc). I am a careful rider and my wife and I enjoy outings together on our bikes. She rides a 250cc Yamaha Star. The potential $500 increase in levies has left me having to deal with attitudes that I did not think I possessed. I am a mild mannered man with a sense of humour, but honestly, with the thought of my main recreation costing so much more, it is a very bitter pill to swallow.

[chasio]

We need the public on our side not against us. Pissing of commuters will only increase the accident rate by making car drivers think of us as the enemy, it will lead to people closing gaps to teach us a lessons, or even worse. We will loose all sympathy to our plight, and our voice will never be heard.

I totally agree with you on the principle that we need to get the public on side. We are a minority group and without public support we are stuffed. Antagonizing motorists won't help our cause at all.


This is not about us, it's about doing us first so they can do the big problems later against a background of "well, bikers lost XYZ, you're going to lose it too".

And therefore I believe that we could use the 'thin end of the wedge' argument to get some people onside. If our message is: cyclists, rugby players, netballers: you had better stick with us or you'll be next then we are giving people a 'what's in it for me' reason to support us.

In other words, if we can explain to people that the government is allowing ACC to abandon its principle of no fault and to target groups for more money simply because it is expedient to do so, they may just have a reason to support us.

Sadly I cannot make the initial meeting due to a community commitment, but the above is pretty much what I'd want to say. I will sign up for BRONZ (been meaning to since I did RRRS a while back) and will support action and initiatives designed to highlight the injustice and to try and gain support for us as a group.

[Ms Piggy]

Has WIMA made a statement? They seem to be alive and well in Wellington - I'm not a member...anyone here?

I've sent a message to the Wellington WIMA representative: Carol Spaulding asking if they will be organising a meeting. http://www.wima.org.nz/pages/Contact.php

Anyone else hear of anything in Wellington?

[ldcroberts]

I agree with the idea of changing the ACC fee's to drivers license holders rather than vehicles - after all, the vehicles aren't covered by it.

Every six months, you pay a fee depending on what vehicle classes you will drive in that period.

The only difficulty is how to police it - it's very easy to check whether a car is registered whenever it is parked in a public area.

How do you check whether a driver has paid a registration - only police can do that when they are pulled over or at a checkpoint. However if you assume most people will be honest then it should work out.

[TonyB]

At the top of that page it says 'This section includes accidents that do not involve a motor vehicle (for example cycle only accidents).'

Now I'm confused.... In fact the whole statistics section of ACC's site is bloody confusing (probably on purpose, like most bloody Govt. websites)

From your post you obviously have a better understanding of ACC's statistics, could you explain to us dweebs?

:lol:nah I don't understand it any more than you do. Thats why we need someone who does. Turning up with the wrong set of figures or misinterpreting them will only make bikers look like uneducated fools, and any points we put forward will be ignored.

[Kflasher]

Next BRONZ (Auckland ) meeting is 21st Oct.

[B]

1. We all know it's evil and unfair...

Please post as much notice you can if a protest ride (liken to the truck crawl) is to be organized.
I would love to bring Auckland or Wellington to a stand still… or both.

[purple]

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

[Azalrac]

I have seen on an Internet Poll that 80% of about 20000 votes supports us. That is a huge amount of public support which I find very heartening. It is also indicative of the fact that although there is a hardcore group who dont like us we have a surprisingly good rapport with the wider public. With this in mind action that impacts on other road users is not going to help us.

I would like to suggest that we target protest action at ACC Offices and National Party MP's offices around the country. This will allow us to hit those who we need to, avoid alienating the public and getting the support of ACC's wide range of enemies who are numerous.

[davereid]

OK. I'm a bit worried that BRONZ haven't seen fit to organise a special meeting, as I hoped this would be seen as serious enough to warrant one.

But it is a group of volunteers, all donating their time and resources freely, and they have been doing so for many years while I played on my bike without contributing.

And I know some of the Auckland BRONZ people, and I have a lot of respect for them, and their abilities.

So - I'd like to suggest that BRONZ are the focal point of what we do.

Rather than us all going off in angry, uncoordinated, different directions !

Can I suggest to the Mods that we have a "Read Only" BRONZ forum?.

The idea is that we can see what BRONZ is proposing by way of action, without us having to read 498 pages of pissed off bikers venting ?

P.S. If I can be of assistance to BRONZ in the Horowhenua area, just PM me or email me {username} at xtra etc.

[RiderInBlack]

The $500 dollar increase for the likes of us Doug is just the Levy part of the Rego right?? which brings the Levy up over $750 plus the Rego on top?
No the total Rego for over 600cc would be $781.12 (see attached ACC PDF page 32 on).
In a bit of shock here cause My Bike rego cost $267.21 on 15/04/09. Next year will be $430.54 ($287.02 for petrol car). If the proposal goes through in 2010/2011, it will be $781.12 for over 600cc bikes and $546.78 for 600cc&under ($390.56 for petrol car). Their other proposal is ta up the tax on petrol to 12.87cents/litre but the rego will still be $735.16 for over 600cc bikes. 600cc&under would be $500.82 and petrol cars $237.37. Yes bikes are getting screwed over badly.

[Azalrac]

Better that people vent here than at the meetings which have to be much more constrained. Its also good to hear what others think.

[Maha]

No the total Rego for over 600cc would be $781.12 (see attached ACC PDF page 32 on).
In a bit of shock here cause My Bike rego cost $267.21 on 15/04/09. Next year will be $430.54 ($287.02 for petrol car). If the proposal goes through in 2010/2011, it will be $781.12 for over 600cc bikes and $546.78 for 600cc&under ($390.56 for petrol car). Their other proposal is ta up the tax on petrol to 12.87cents/litre but the rego will still be $735.16 for over 600cc bikes. 600cc&under would be $500.82 and petrol cars $237.37. Yes bikes are getting screwed over badly.

Around the $1300 mark as we have two bikes here, mine at 1300cc and the Yamaha at 600cc, but if I get in early enough it wont effect me till late next year, mines due in Dec' anyway.

[Big Dave]

OK. I'm a bit worried that BRONZ haven't seen fit to organise a special meeting, as I hoped this would be seen as serious enough to warrant one.

? - there is a meeting on Wednesday coming and the agenda and 'rules' for the meeting have been posted.

[RiderInBlack]

All the other major non national parties are saying that national is making this whole ACC deficit up and I believe them (anyone remember the leaked conversations in National meetings where they said they were going to get rid of ACC - hell it was someone where I worked that recorded and released them . I told everyone I knew not to vote National if they wanted to keep ACC and free health care for accidents but no the anitsmacking bill screwed labour too much (even though National voted for it to) . Its pretty obvious that National is anti ACC and always has been. They tried to kill it in 1999 and 10 years on they are trying it on again. Now that is something that I believe the Nat would be upto. As I said before this is more likely to be a smoke-screen for what they really are upto. Never trust Pollies:buggerd:

[roy.nz]

If acc put the acc the levy up they can expect to loose more money because so many people wont be paying, cos its cheaper to get a ticket 4 times for not having rego.
ACC you are a bunch of cocks!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jester67]

I haven't read the whole thread so forgive me if this has been discussed. What will go down well is if a solution is offered... so rather than slam the occasional/safe riders why not ditch the ACC levy completely and move towards a user pays environment for bike crashes? Make insurance mandatory and make it also cover accident/injury related costs. This puts risk assessment back where it should be (with the experts in the insurance companies) in a competitive environment (rather than the ACC monopoly) with safe riders getting small premiums and spotty faced teenagers on firebreathing 250cc 2 strokes getting nailed?

Don't get me started on rugby / soccer / netball - maybe the clubs should be charged and the costs get passed onto members through their fees?

[ozrobo]

im there with bells on its just not right

[Skyryder]

The best protest is the one that tells you local National MP that due to Nick Smith they just lost your vote. I'm just about to send an email to David Carter on this as soon as I'm off this site.

Bottomline on this unless your local MP sees his future in doubt then he will continue to support Smith. This is something that can be done immediatly and in the short term is the most effective means of protesting these charges.

Skyryder

[MyGSXF]

Have you seen this already?? :wait:

http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motor%20vehicle%20crashes%202008_Section%202%20Cas ualties%20and%20crashes.pdf

[TonyB]

Here you go, looks like this guy is the man to crunch the numbers, or at least offer advice- see attached PDF

[raster]

I think some of you may be onto something here with the smokescreen, I don't want ACC privatised. It's working OK just needs fine tuning.

No Claims refund/bonus would be a good idea I think and not just for how much people spend on safety features in new cars etc.
I'ts the Driver/riders that ultumately cause the accident and some riders are just as stupid as car drivers.

Please we don't want to go like america, the only winners are the rich and lawyers!

I believe the increasing the levies will not bring in more money, people just wont pay them, only reg for half the year which will be no increase in income and possibly decrease.
= increase in illegal activities.

The company I was working for previously uped their chargout rate, the income actually went down as people were more aware of the costs and started complaining or not paying their bills.

my 2c

See you at the BRONZ meeting, may have to be downstairs this time.

[raster]

interesting to see in the LTSA stats there is very little difference with the ages of motocycle riders unlike the spike 15-25 of car drivers.

[scumdog]

I totally agree with you on the principle that we need to get the public on side. We are a minority group and without public support we are stuffed. Antagonizing motorists won't help our cause at all.



And therefore I believe that we could use the 'thin end of the wedge' argument to get some people onside. If our message is: cyclists, rugby players, netballers: you had better stick with us or you'll be next then we are giving people a 'what's in it for me' reason to support us.



Yep, next the number-crunchers will figure 4X4 type vehicles cause more serious injuries to occupants of cars they crash into, ergo they should pay more ACC levy to pay for said increase of injuries....
Or that grey coloured cars are involved in more injury crashes than any other colour, ergo all grey coloured cars should pay a higher ACC levy etc etc...

Or put an ACC levy on hunters - and a higher levy on those using calibres that have been most commonly used in accidental shootings...

[ManDownUnder]

The best protest is the one that tells you local National MP that due to Nick Smith they just lost your vote. I'm just about to send an email to David Carter on this as soon as I'm off this site.


you voted.... National???? :gob:
:dodge::dodge::dodge:


:chase:

[Ixion]

Here you go, looks like this guy is the man to crunch the numbers, or at least offer advice- see attached PDF

I'm in contact with him. And with Helen Murdoch (who is a biker).

Mr Lamb is giving an interview to TVNZ on the subject.

[Ixion]

He did say "or not".

I read that as saying that we shouldn't even be going there in the discussions. The issue of who causes the accidents is totally irrelevant and discussing it is not helpful.

Correct. It's a pointless argument at present. ACC don't care who caused a crash, only who cost them money.

[Eng_dave]

Being yet another Pom over here just wondering how much more is Southern Cross to the proposed hike? Also would ACC fee be non aplicable to those with private health insurance, so we aren't being a drain on the finances of the country. Plus I do think that sport related injuries would far outway those of Motorcycle accidents. Considering this countrys love affair with rugby. I know in the uk they were thinking of adding a tax to Alcohol due to the amount of drunk idiots who hurt themself. Just food for thought.

Oh and count me in on the disscusion and any protest rides.

PS anyone on facebook and that shit, put it as your status to get the cagers out there aware of what we are going through.

[Ixion]

I don't know any Rockridge Road

Nope, Rockridge Rd it is (there is a Rockfield Rd too, very confusing)

Map attached

[Eng_dave]

OH and according to there own Stats only 9.2% of all traffic related injuries in 2008 were from motorcycles and 13.7% of deaths. So why are they singling us out to pay for the rest.

[Ixion]

At the top of that page it says 'This section includes accidents that do not involve a motor vehicle (for example cycle only accidents).'

Now I'm confused.... In fact the whole statistics section of ACC's site is bloody confusing (probably on purpose, like most bloody Govt. websites)

From your post you obviously have a better understanding of ACC's statistics, could you explain to us dweebs?

This section shows claims met from the motor vehicle account. Any claim where a motor vehicle is involved are paid from this account (that's unfair in itself, but probably not to us). So, if a cycle and car collide, the injuries to the cyclist are paid from this account. That's why there are sections on pedestrians and cyclists in the motor vehicle accounts.

But, if no motor vehicle is involved (ie the cyclist just falls off), then the claim is paid from the general account (not funded from regos)

[Ixion]

Not picking on you personally, but if people are going to be using ACC figures, they'd better be damn sure they know what the data means.
http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/2-all-entitlement-claims/IS0800020 Scroll down to Driving/Passenger Motorcycle- $62,545,000


Correct. That shows the cost of ON ROAD motorcycle crashes. The other one, the $7mill, is the cost of injuries involving a motorcycle, but not on a public road (eg someone crashes at Paeroa races)

[Azalrac]

I suspect that there may be Bill of Right arguments that can be used to try and thwart this nastiness. I also note that National does not have the numbers. I think that Maori Party is a safe bet but ACT is the wild card. Fishing and Hunting and Gun Right groups are linked to ACT and they may help us convince ACT to go against the oppressor.

[Expert]

Has some one already brought up bringing in compulsory third party insurance to replace the flawed acc system for vehicles?
Acc is a socialist ideal and everyone knows socialism is flawed. This was bound to happen.
The only fair system is highest user, or the highest drain on the system pays the most.

[abcontractors]

I'm sure if every bike owner in the country put his/her foot down the government would have to act. Doe's anyone think an organised bike ride around the country would voice our distain for the ACC?

[scumdog]

Has some one already brought up bringing in compulsory third party insurance to replace the flawed acc system for vehicles?
Acc is a socialist ideal and everyone knows socialism is flawed. This was bound to happen.
The only fair system is highest user, or the highest drain on the system pays the most.

My take on third party insurance is that it only covers the PROPERTY of the other party.

If you somehow included it to cover INJURY to the other party how are you going to cover for the situation where due to your speed you speared off the road at a great rate of knots into a tree and mangled yourself??

The tree won't have third party insurance.....<_<

[R-Soul]

This is what I wrote to my North Shore councillor. a few valid points. They are trying to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.

Dear Wayne

If National persists with the planned motorcycle ACC levy increases, it will definitely lose my vote. This issue has been a massive stab in the back especially for North Shore people. We do not have the option of bicycling into the city as there are no lanes (or even plans for a bicycle lane clip on) on the harbour bridge. The Ferries and busses are slow and expensive, and inconvenient to use if you need to travel during the day as well. And parking in the city is ludicrously expensive (while motorbikes can generally park free). Further, the winds encountered over the harbour bridge are not conducive to smaller and less stable motorbikes.

Motorcyclists traditionally pride themselves as being
- thinking people who realise that they did not have to lug a ton and a half of metal and four armchairs with them wherever they go, instead preferring to leave a small traffic and congestion footprint;
- environmentalists who leave a relatively small pollution footprint;
- supportive of the general trend to try and minimise fuel usage (and hence offshore fuel payments) in support of NZ’s financial health;

We have in the past made use of the incentives given by government to use the bus lanes, in the interests if safety and reduced travel time.

Now after we have adapted to the governments incentives, made life better for others (while in return taking on added liabilities of reduced safety weather protection) and in effect are behaving as model citizens, the ACC wants to turn our lifestyles upside down and lay our investments to waste? And not to a small degree either!

The proposed increase is adjudged according to arbitrary rules and has not been well thought out. Relating ACC payouts to engine size is arbitrary and disingenuous (frankly lazy), as some smaller capacity bikes are a lot more powerful than larger ones.

Further, it makes no sense that a “no-fault” insurance scheme is doing just that – adjudging fault at the door of the motorcyclists!! The blame for high levels of injuries of motorcyclists can at least partially also be laid at the feet of poor car drivers. Why should we be penalised financially for their ineptitude? The idea that it is only the motorcyclists that are being singled out for punishment is infuriating: Can you imagine the outcry if all rugby players were singled out in the same way because they are the next most expensive ACC payout?

A more dramatic and extremist argument would be that if less cars were on the road, the entire system would be safer for bikes. Therefore all cars should be taxed so hard that they all turn to bikes. But this is simply not realistic.

If the ACC wants to reduce the payouts for accidents, the government should put in schemes that deal with the main causes of the accidents. I have looked at the stats on LTNZ’s website and there appear to be three main problem areas:
- Riders losing control of their bikes
- The effect of speed, alcohol and drugs.
- Bikes not being seen by cars

A significant proportion (35%) of motorbike accidents are because of the rider losing control of their own bike and/or head on collisions. This can be remedied by requiring compulsory attendance to medium and advanced level training and refresher courses (preferably at a local track). Most riders will actually welcome this, since most would actually like to do this, but cannot afford it, and compulsory attendance will mean larger classes, and reduced costs for such courses.

39% of bike injuries occur at intersections- presumably because bikes are not seen by cars. This can be at least helped by requiring compulsory wearing of high visibility jackets by motorcyclists, or large reflectors to be attached to bikes.

Alcohol, drugs and speed are associated with about half of all motorcycle (and car) accidents. If any particular group is to be targeted, these abusers should be it. Currently vehicle rego’s cannot be paid without attending to outstanding fines or other offences. I propose this: ACC levies can be increased or decreased on a sliding system (like the current points system) depending on the number of recent speeding fines and/or alcohol related offences.
This system would do more to hit the root cause of injuries than arbitrarily penalising all motorcyclists for the recklessness of a small percentage of them. Also, the alcohol legal limit for motorbikes can (quite justifiably and reasonably) be reduced to zero – I know for a fact that I would not want to be riding any bike after even one beer. Further, fines for alcohol related offences can (justifiably) be increased by an ACC levy.

Simply hammering the motorcycle riders with increased costs will result in many not being able to afford the cost of running one, meaning increased congestion, reduced fuel savings for NZ, and a VERY unimpressed voting public. Some might prefer just to ride illegally, reasoning that they can be caught three times in a year before it is the same cost as paying the registration costs.

I hope that you will put forward my suggestions to your party as a much more reasonable and useful alternative to the frankly, badly thought out alternative you have planned. Don’t let the ACC levy issue be the equivalent of the Labour anti-smacking bill.

This proposal by National smacks of laziness and lacks forethought and an understanding of your voter’s day to day realities. Something we would have expected from Labour actually. I hope that adding my voice and suggestions to the growing clamour will help focus National’s willingness to focus on the real issues.

Best regards,

[R-Soul]

and before anybody bitches about high vis jackets, and not drinking, think of teh alternative. At least my proposals address the real problems. :Playnice:

Besiodes, compulsory track days twice a year are hardly unbearable...


:2thumbsup

[cs363]

This section shows claims met from the motor vehicle account. Any claim where a motor vehicle is involved are paid from this account (that's unfair in itself, but probably not to us). So, if a cycle and car collide, the injuries to the cyclist are paid from this account. That's why there are sections on pedestrians and cyclists in the motor vehicle accounts.

But, if no motor vehicle is involved (ie the cyclist just falls off), then the claim is paid from the general account (not funded from regos)


Correct. That shows the cost of ON ROAD motorcycle crashes. The other one, the $7mill, is the cost of injuries involving a motorcycle, but not on a public road (eg someone crashes at Paeroa races)

Thanks for clarifying that Ixion, why do government departments seem to love having the worst possible websites? Obfuscation seems to a prominent pastime in the public service. I don't think I've ever found a government webiste that is either easy to navigate or easy to understand at first glance.

[jeffs]

Ok Some real numbers. Using data from 2006 from ACC and LTSA.

Read to the bottom before you hit the roof.

Cost per accident to ACC
ACC claims for cars = $208,343,000 in 2006. number of claims to ACC = 8529

$208,343,000 / 8529 = $24,427 Ave cost per car/pass claim

ACC claims for motorbikes/scooters = $62,545,000 in 2006.
number of claims to ACC = 3174

$62,545,000 / 3174 = $19,705 Ave cost per claim Bike/pass

So cost per accident is less than car.

But how many cars compared to bikes.

Cars registered in 2006 = 206,084
Bikes registered in 2006 = 17,248

Number of accidents requiring ACC as a percentage of registered vehicles.

cars 8529 / 206,084 = 0.041 = 4%
bikes 3174 / 17248 = 0.184 = 18.4 %

ACC cost by vehicle type.
Cost of claim / number of registered vehicle
car $208,343,000 / 206084 = $1010
bike $62,545,000 / 17248 = $3636

So here is the problem. Due to economy of scale it costs ACC over 3 times as much per bike revenue over car. even though the cost per claim is lower.

Hence one possible reason why our levies have been hiked so high.


BUT !!!!! what about the 60% of bike accidents that are caused by cars hitting bikes.

ACC is a no fault system, so if a car hits a bike, then surely it is not the bikes fault. So let's crunch the numbers again. Base on ACC claim of a no fault system.


$62,545,000 - 60% = $25,020,000
cost to ACC per bike due to bikes caused accident.
$25,020,000 / 17248 = $ 1450

tRemember form above the cost per car claim was $1010
So bikes are about 150% of the cost per car

If ACC is really a user pays system then bike reg should be 150% of a car reg. Isn't that what it is already ???

So why the hike in reg.

easy
1. it's easier to price bikes off the road than educate car drivers to stop hitting them.

2. Bikes make up less than 8% of registrations. so that's 92% less people to piss off when you hike the costs.

I would like ACC to explain their maths in raising the reg costs to 3 times that of cars. I suspect the answer is simple.
they had my 6 year old do their analisys.


http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/statistics/motor-vehicle-registration/docs/2007.pdf

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/2-all-entitlement-claims/IS0800020

[cs363]

:lol:nah I don't understand it any more than you do. Thats why we need someone who does. Turning up with the wrong set of figures or misinterpreting them will only make bikers look like uneducated fools, and any points we put forward will be ignored.

:lol: At least you're honest! :niceone:

Thankfully Ixion cleared that one up for us :)

[aewilliam]

Wouldn't mind getting confirmation that gang members will also be getting their regos checked. Not that an extra $500+/bike will be hurting their net profits from P sales.

Wouldn't mind the option of private insurance.

I'm up for action in protest...get a rolling block on the motorways in Auckland & Wellington and wherever to create the congestion that biking has the potential to reduce.

But as others have said, alienating the car drivers who we kinda want to be on our side as well (esp cos their ACC levies are also going up too...) isnt great...

What happened to the planned increase in truck fuel levies? Did they go ahead? bugger can't remember...
Anyways, there were the rolling truck blocks on motorways that occurred...wonder how much effect those had if the change didnt go ahead?

[Kwakajack]

Ixion,

Can you supply contact details, and BRONZ meeting dates for all venues around New Zealand.

I can't come up to Auckland next week for a meeting, but I will certainly go to Dunedin or Christchurch for something this important.

I will support a nationwide ride on Parliament (clogging the Wellington motorways) as a first step.
Dunedin's meeting is at the St Kilda Tavern on the 29th of October.
Start time is 7:30.

Also note, submission on the levies is November 10!! So get organised to submit as a general citizen!

[Kwakajack]

I'm sure if every bike owner in the country put his/her foot down the government would have to act. Doe's anyone think an organised bike ride around the country would voice our distain for the ACC?
Good luck mate, I would so applaud such a move and happily participate but you are playing against political apathy which NZ is riddled with. Those of us that actively debate the problem are those who are not politically apathetic and we are in the minority I keep discovering.

[Kwakajack]

Ok Some real numbers. Using data from 2006 from ACC and LTSA.

Read to the bottom before you hit the roof.

Cost per accident to ACC
ACC claims for cars = $208,343,000 in 2006. number of claims to ACC = 8529

$208,343,000 / 8529 = $24,427 Ave cost per car/pass claim

ACC claims for motorbikes/scooters = $62,545,000 in 2006.
number of claims to ACC = 3174

$62,545,000 / 3174 = $19,705 Ave cost per claim Bike/pass

So cost per accident is less than car.

But how many cars compared to bikes.

Cars registered in 2006 = 206,084
Bikes registered in 2006 = 17,248

Number of accidents requiring ACC as a percentage of registered vehicles.

cars 8529 / 206,084 = 0.041 = 4%
bikes 3174 / 17248 = 0.184 = 18.4 %

ACC cost by vehicle type.
Cost of claim / number of registered vehicle
car $208,343,000 / 206084 = $1010
bike $62,545,000 / 17248 = $3636

So here is the problem. Due to economy of scale it costs ACC over 3 times as much per bike revenue over car. even though the cost per claim is lower.

Hence one possible reason why our levies have been hiked so high.


BUT !!!!! what about the 60% of bike accidents that are caused by cars hitting bikes.

ACC is a no fault system, so if a car hits a bike, then surely it is not the bikes fault. So let's crunch the numbers again. Base on ACC claim of a no fault system.


$62,545,000 - 60% = $25,020,000
cost to ACC per bike due to bikes caused accident.
$25,020,000 / 17248 = $ 1450

tRemember form above the cost per car claim was $1010
So bikes are about 150% of the cost per car

If ACC is really a user pays system then bike reg should be 150% of a car reg. Isn't that what it is already ???

So why the hike in reg.

easy
1. it's easier to price bikes off the road than educate car drivers to stop hitting them.

2. Bikes make up less than 8% of registrations. so that's 92% less people to piss off when you hike the costs.

I would like ACC to explain their maths in raising the reg costs to 3 times that of cars. I suspect the answer is simple.
they had my 6 year old do their analisys.


http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/statistics/motor-vehicle-registration/docs/2007.pdf

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/2-all-entitlement-claims/IS0800020


The question now is, how to effectively, and politically savvy way to voice our displeasure and ensure that the massive hike in rego costs is nothing more than a white elephant.

Ideas are welcome . . . . . twitter and such places has worked in UK and Europe to change political views and force action, may not be such a good idea here so what else is there, organise ALL the motorcycling population into protests, of what form?? A large politically powerful ally would be a good thing here . . . but where and who??

[KeyboardRider]

I haven't read the whole thread so forgive me if this has been discussed. What will go down well is if a solution is offered... so rather than slam the occasional/safe riders why not ditch the ACC levy completely and move towards a user pays environment for bike crashes? Make insurance mandatory and make it also cover accident/injury related costs. This puts risk assessment back where it should be (with the experts in the insurance companies) in a competitive environment (rather than the ACC monopoly) with safe riders getting small premiums and spotty faced teenagers on firebreathing 250cc 2 strokes getting nailed?

Don't get me started on rugby / soccer / netball - maybe the clubs should be charged and the costs get passed onto members through their fees?

Hey Jester,
Something for you and for other people that think privatization can be a good move. I don’t know what your perspective is, however I speak from experience in another country where this is the way things are done. It has to do with “creative accountancy”, read and weep:

In a far, far away country, somewhere in the Middle East, between all the Camels and Pyramids, there was once (not so long ago) a “Civil Servant” that worked for the Treasury… However, one day a few years back, he had this “brilliant” idea – “let the insurance companies deal with all motorized insurance issues, as they are good with that stuff. We will just set the rates”. And so it was done (note that the equivalent to the ACC Levy in Israel is called Compulsory Insurance, and every vehicle is required to have one by law).

The first thing all insurance companies in Israel did was to open collectively a new company called The Pool. This company was to insure all the “troublesome” cases (because, if you recall – this is a compulsory insurance by the law). A Pool insured driver (no matter how many traffic offences, claims, or licence banning etc.) just has to pay 25% on top of the regular rate.
From that moment onwards, they could individually refuse to insure people and send them off to the Pool. Oh, and they went through their papers and decided that all motorcyclists (no matter if they never claimed a cent, had no traffic violation etc) go to the Pool as well. Why? Because they are only causing loses for them. Now, motorcyclists were not as fortunate as other road Hooligans. They got their very own “special” rate + a 25% “bonus” (this currently is based on a cc rating, and stands on about NZ$2000 for a 200+cc bike).

Now, another thing about the Pool, as one can see – it was designed to be in constant deficit, so at the end of every year, insurance companies can present the treasury with “The Alarming Figures”, have a nice meeting and go away with a promise for increased rates (for 2008 the Pools’ deficit stood on an equivalent of NZ$80 million). However, every year they “forget” to show the other side – the individual profits each company makes out of these insurance policies (for 2008 it stood on NZ$280 million in total).

And now, the person in charge of setting the rates in the Treasury has something personal against bikes. He aims to raise the rates to something like NZ$4-5k per annum. His claim is that each sector should cover itself (sounds familiar?).

So what is common to Israel and NZ in that sense? Well, the guys in charge in both places like to play with the numbers and ignore facts, like who’s fault are motorcycle accidents and in what percentage, and claim motorcyclists have to cover themselves as a sector, whereas motorcyclists insist on a fairer division of costs.

My conclusion is: leave it as it is, as it is way better than a private business that is profit oriented.

And don’t think it cannot happen here in NZ if private companies take over.

Best,
KBD.

[steelrider]

check my stats an overview of what is available on the net.

[Oxy]

I agree with the idea of changing the ACC fee's to drivers license holders rather than vehicles - after all, the vehicles aren't covered by it.

Every six months, you pay a fee depending on what vehicle classes you will drive in that period.

The only difficulty is how to police it - it's very easy to check whether a car is registered whenever it is parked in a public area.

How do you check whether a driver has paid a registration - only police can do that when they are pulled over or at a checkpoint. However if you assume most people will be honest then it should work out.

It wouldn't be that hard to police. A database is easy enough to set up that shows who's paid and who hasn't.

[jeffs]

Forget everything I wrote in my previous stats reply.

My numbers are bollux. Thanks to the great ltsa web site the numbers I used are for vehicles newly registered in 2006. Not new registrations + existing registrations as the wording implies. I will keep digging to find the total numbers of vehicles registered and on the road in NZ.

[naphazoline]

.... ACC don't care who caused a crash, only who cost them money.

If that was the case,why aren't they taxing rugby,and netball players,and horse riders,along with a whole lot of other activities listed as more costly on their statistics site?

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/2-all-entitlement-claims/IS0800020

[Big Dog]

Somebody has proabably already posted this but I could not find it so here goes my repost on the subject.
http://www.acc.co.nz/for-business/levy-consultation/index.htm

[ldcroberts]

163 car drivers killed.
203 others killed (motorcyclists 48, cyclists 10, pedestrians 31, passengers 105, etc)

Interesting how few car drivers get killed compared to how many accidents they cause. Perhaps they should make cars less safe for the driver to make them think a little more.

[TonyB]

Can I suggest to the Mods that we have a "Read Only" BRONZ forum?.

The idea is that we can see what BRONZ is proposing by way of action, without us having to read 498 pages of pissed off bikers venting ?
Bloody good idea. There is so much posting going on at the moment its impossible to keep track.

[izzyc]

I have thought seriously about this acc shit. I think that it should be a user pays system..instead of increasing rego's how about increasing the fuel price by 5-10 cents per litre??NOW I KNOW YOU MIGHT THINK IM MAD BUT! ! ! the govt is picking on bikes/cars in rego's but statistically the most accidents happen on a skifield or a rugby field yet these guys dont pay levies...however if they drive to their particular sport/passion then they do pay [in their fuel]..im a sales rep who drives approx 1500 k's per week and yet my rego is the same as the little old lady who might drive to the supermarket once a week...why should she pay the same amount of rego as me???not really fair on her is it?,basically NZers need fuel to do what they do..how about all the boaties or motocross riders that pay NO acc levies for their choosen hobby??? if there was a fuel increase to cover the acc levies then it wont matter what your hobby/sport/lifestyle is...you pay a little more to do it..this way the govt would actually make more to cover acc rather than more bikers not paying rego at all...sure as hell i wont pay that figure! ! ! ! but i wont mind paying more in my fuel cost to do what i want to do? ! ? ! ? ! does it make sense? ? ?

[anton]

hi guy im new to this site just got my bike a week ago found my new passion and the government just had to kill the buzz for all of bikers, jsut a few adeas:

1. if anyone knows any DJs on radio or any people working there that can give us some publicity please get them involved.

2. as for protesting i agree we should keep it clean and legal, we need to show people that we not bad guys like most cagers tend to judge us, we want to appear as just ordinary people with passion for bikes and riding, hell we might even play the "green card" since bikes are much more inviromentaly cleaner(and new zealand is so anal about the environment)

3. petioning the government is another option we can get involved many people" our friends and families and co-workers will give us a great number of signatures we also can ask people from streets to sign for us, students can get signatures from unis there lots of anti-gornment folks in the student bars,
we need to get on facebook start a group of opposition of such outrageous charges increase, we need to get simpathy from everyone and they do simpisise with us we just do not have their official say in that, we need to get everyone or most of them anyway side with us, we need numbers not an angry mob but a mob with a big sign that says ""NO"""

4. they increase the charges by 250-700 dollars for that kind money you can get your own personal health insuarance and not make any claims against acc if they want to make us pay for our injuries then we should tell them to atleast exclude people from additional charges if they have a health insuarance

if i mentioned someone's ideas here please forgive me i meant no disrespect to fellow bikers

[sinfull]

Did you see Key on the news saying, awww crikey that Rodney hyde has some good ideas, yes we will think about opening ACC up to privatisation (competition) !
And you still think we can stop this by talking !!
How far is he up the Maori parties arse, awww wait, could it be that he gave in on the .... What was that he gave them not just a day or so ago ? Crikey He gave Maori TV the world cup !!!
Obvious he has Acts vote, where is he with the Maori party ?
Last nights parliment sitting was just a handshake come piss up !!
The legislation allowing them to change the ACC levies will pass !
I'm packing my slingshot !!!

I say once more Bulls, See ya's on the bridge on labour monday Arvo at 4pm !
Have ya banner saying " No to ACC Levy hikes, No to privatisation, or, Hello Americanisation !!!
T shirts and banners welcome !
I will see all you other Davids there, i'll bring My slingshot !!!
__________________

[NighthawkNZ]

The question now is, how to effectively, and politically savvy way to voice our displeasure and ensure that the massive hike in rego costs is nothing more than a white elephant.

Present the case to the media first but make sure the fact are correct and not hear say or myth...

We may not like the truth... which is some of us as in bikers are our own worse enemy

[sinfull]

Present the case to the media first but make sure the fact are correct and not hear say or myth...

We may not like the truth... which is some of us as in bikers are our own worse enemy
I am my own worst enemy, because i procastinate !!
It has come to the fore that the facts our friend in parliment is spoutin are incorrect and exagerated !
Stat facts over his faulse statements and it's done !

But lets wait !!!

[popelli]

actions speak louder than words

just refuse to pay the levy and remove the rego plate and continue riding

[dipshit]

This is what I wrote to my North Shore councillor. a few valid points. They are trying to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.


If the powers at be have been receiving piles of inane letters like this talking absolute shit... no wonder they think motorcyclists are a bunch of idiots.

Please people stop writing retarded crap like this and sending it to the politicians!

(edit: Sorry, i got your post crossed with...
Ok Some real numbers. Using data from 2006 from ACC and LTSA. thinking this was a letter sent to a politician. Yours wasn't quite that bad)

[Big Dave]

I gather from this article that we should be getting well acquainted with our ACT and Maori party members. Champions of fair play as they are.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10603740

[Genestho]

I gather from this article that we should be getting well acquainted with our ACT and Maori party members. Champions of fair play as they are.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10603740


Yea but http://www.3news.co.nz/Rodney-Hide-says-privatisation-of-ACC-will-give-a-better-deal/tabid/419/articleID/125654/cat/67/Default.aspx

ACT leader Rodney Hide says the problems with ACC are "structural" and he favours privatisation.
(here it comes)

[Latch]

I have taken the liberty of making changes to the Wiki page regarding the ACC levy to more clearly structure our arguments.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/wiki/2009_ACC_levy_proposal

Having lived in other countries, I am convinced that the ACC is a Very Good Thing™ for New Zealand generally, and for anyone involved in sports as dangerous as ours. You may disagree, but try to be pragmatic - are you likely to be able to change this institution whilst arguing against this particular levy - I think not.

Now successive governments need to make the ACC work financially, and I also doubt we can change National's intention to increase funding by this levy. I suggest therefore, that we accept National wants to charge us for the burden our sport represents, and put our best effort into ensuring the levy is at least applied fairly.

I've spent a lot of time trying to summarize other writers' posts and to be as clear as possible, but if you can improve meaning, you absolutely should do so. You should also add your own arguments.

If you are unfamiliar with Wiki usage, you are encouraged to read the guidelines (on the site itself, left hand menu) and be bold - we are able to undo errors. Your object is to improve the document as a whole, which means respecting and improving others' arguments as well as your own.

It is very important that we present clear, well-reasoned arguments (or otherwise persuade Winston Peters to support our cause, since he seems to have made a career out of ignoring clear and well-reasoned arguments ;) ) To this end, the wiki might summarize our position, and enable our organizers to clearly express the opinion of our community to political leaders.

(I have not entered into the whole off-road debate, and I'm not sure it's relevant since clearly, National are seeking to make this charge to road users.)


Cheers!


L@

[RiderInBlack]

Now that was an interesting read:
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/first-...ture-a-crisis/ (http://www.thestandard.org.nz/first-manufacture-a-crisis/)
Thank for the link Ms Piggy (posted here http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1129465346&postcount=27) .

Taking that to be true, then there is no real justification to raise the ACC lieves as much that fast.

[Dean]

Anyone in hibiscus coast or northshore want to meet up ride out to it, can I just hang round outside cant afford the door fee.lol

[Maha]

Anyone in hibiscus coast or northshore want to meet up ride out to it, can I just hang round outside cant afford the door fee.lol

We are going down to the BRONZ meeting Dean, we could meet you at Silverdale BP if you want?

[Mom]

can I just hang round outside cant afford the door fee.lol

There is no door charge mate. This is a public meeting anyone can attend. You just cant vote if you are not a financial member is all.

[danb]

Has anyone setup a Petition website yet??
If not I can rig one up.

[Ixion]

Yes, someone did . Search for epetition or e-petition, I think

[RiderInBlack]

Yes, someone did . Search for epetition or e-petition, I thinkhttp://www.ipetitions.com/petition/nzbikers_vs_acc/?e

[Tenere05]

So why we being ripped off by the government yet again? Well for one we're totally laid back Kiwis, yep she'll be right! And now we pay the price yet again, and we all know they will drop the cost a few bucks and we'll all pat ourselves on the back and think we've won a victory. So what can we do? Well first of all if you ride a bike off road pay for own broken fucking back, don't let me pay because we both just happen to ride bikes! Seriously though what the fuck is fair about me dropping my MX Bike and the tour rider picking up the bill. Here's a great idea, lets leave all our road bikes in the shed the year the change comes out, don't register them, you'll still have to massive bill from off road and MX injuries to pay but fuck all coming from the bikers, seriously put you money where your mouth is and take it away from them, spend some on the bike, give it that rebuild of re-paint you thought about, soon the bastards will want you back on the road - maybe we should stop being the tough looking but seriously ball free bunch we have become. If the levy comes in as planned this is one Kiwi who will take his bike and somewhere bikes are welcome, er i think that is everywhere apart from here. Good luck with the fight, I will join the rallies but with a smarmy arsed primeminister like ours we will be paying!

[Clean_up]

anyone else from the shore going to the meeting on wed night? If so, how bout we meet up at the mobil on northcote road and head in?

[mahon]

“The Government had not predetermined the appropriate increase per cc rating and encouraged people to have their say before submissions closed on November 10.” - http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/78353/discussion-needed-over-motorcycle-increases-says-smith

Therefore:

Nick Smith: Email: nick.smith@national.org.nz Website: www.nick4nelson.co.nz
Phone: (04)817 6805 (Parliament)
Phone: (03)5472314 (Electorate)
Fax 547 2315
or E-mail nick@nick4nelson.co.nz,

John Key: Email: john.key@national.org.nz
Website: www.johnkey.co.nz
Phone: (04)817 6800 (Parliament)
Phone: (09)4122496 (Electorate)

Opposition (who’s support National needs):
Hon Rodney Hide Phone: 04 817 6823 Email: rodney.hide@act.org.nz

Maori party : http://www.maoriparty.org/index.php?pag=cms&id=117&p=contact-us.html

Safe riding

[Kflasher]

Next BRONZ (Auckland ) meeting is 21st Oct.

[B]. Not sure if this is any help: http://www.accfutures.org.nz/assets/downloads/CoalitionOpenLetterFinal.pdf

[Mom]

I wonder if the powers that be are even registering our ire?

A few more of these articles and they might be starting to think a bit more :D

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10604235

Nice quote of stats there young Squiggles :yes:

[DidJit]

I don't like the word 'plot' in the headline — dismissive and disrespectful IMHO. 'Plan' would have been a better choice of word.

[RiderInBlack]

I wonder if the powers that be are even registering our ire?

A few more of these articles and they might be starting to think a bit more :D

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10604235

Nice quote of stats there young Squiggles :yes:We will really have to challange this "18 more times" bit. From acticle:
Although the Ministry of Transport says the risk of death or injury for motorcyclists is more than 18 times higher than for car drivers travelling over equal distances, according to its national survey, Mr Dodge said average medical costs were lower.

This "bikes are 16 times more dangerous than cars" figure keeps being quoted.

On MoT figures for number of car crashes versus number of bike crashes, it's wrong, the correct number is about 3 x.

But ACC claim the figure is based on a "survey of kilometres travelled". But can provide no further backing

Have you any indication of provenance for this 16 x figure? And of the methodology used to determine the kilometres travelled? (which I suspect will be decidedly shonky)
Now 3 times sound more to the facts. Have we hard Stats ta back this?

[ital916]

If the parking is full is there alternative parking areas around the "danish house"? Never been to the area before. Also assuming we can dump our gear somewhere inside? Im expecting a BIG turnout.

[Ixion]

We will really have to challange this "18 more times" bit. From acticle:
Although the Ministry of Transport says the risk of death or injury for motorcyclists is more than 18 times higher than for car drivers travelling over equal distances, according to its national survey, Mr Dodge said average medical costs were lower.

Now 3 times sound more to the facts. Have we hard Stats ta back this?

See this thread (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=110393)(posts 18 onward or thereabouts) for blowing up of the spurious 16x claim . I'm still working on shredding it some more.

We have hard stats (MoT) to back up the 3x figure

[Mysty]

is this open for everybody (with a bike) :2thumbsup
or must you be a member

[Ixion]

Open to all (with or without bike), . If anything comes to a formal vote (unlikely), you have to be a financial member to vote. But anyone can attend

[R-Soul]

A more dramatic and extremist argument would be that if less cars were on the road, the entire system would be safer for bikes. Therefore all cars should be taxed so hard that they all turn to bikes. But this is simply not realistic.

If the govt. really wants to reduce the payouts for accidents, they should put in schemes that deal with the main causes of the accidents. I have looked at the stats on LTNZ’s website and there appear to be three main problem areas:
- Riders losing control of their bikes
- The effect of speed, alcohol and drugs.
- Bikes not being seen by cars

A significant proportion (35%) of motorbike accidents are because of the rider losing control of their own bike and/or head on collisions. This can be remedied by requiring compulsory attendance to medium and advanced level training and refresher courses (preferably at a local track). Most riders will actually welcome this, since most would actually like to do this, but cannot afford it, and compulsory attendance will mean larger classes, and reduced costs for such courses.

39% of bike injuries occur at intersections- presumably because bikes are not seen by cars. This can be at least helped by requiring compulsory wearing of high visibility jackets by motorcyclists, or large reflectors to be attached to bikes.

Alcohol, drugs and speed are associated with about half of all motorcycle (and car) accidents. If any particular group is to be targeted, these abusers should be it. Currently vehicle rego’s cannot be paid without attending to outstanding fines or other offences. I propose this: ACC levies can be increased or decreased on a sliding system (like the current points system) depending on the number of recent speeding fines and/or alcohol related offences.

This system would do more to hit the root cause of injuries than arbitrarily penalising all motorcyclists for the recklessness of a small percentage of them. Also, the alcohol legal limit for motorbikes can (quite justifiably and reasonably) be reduced to zero – I know for a fact that I would not want to be riding any bike after even one beer. Further, fines for alcohol related offences can (justifiably) be increased by an ACC levy.


:oi-grr:

[R-Soul]

anyone else from the shore going to the meeting on wed night? If so, how bout we meet up at the mobil on northcote road and head in?

Sure- what time? The meeting is at 7:30pm, so around 6:30pm- give us time to park as well.

PS have a look at this site - it makes a lot of sense...

http://www.thestandard.org.nz/first-manufacture-a-crisis/

[Mystic13]

I thought from earlier posts we could become members on the night.

Is that correct?

[Mystic13]

Where can we get stats on the total number of motorcycles registered and the total over 600cc. I'd like to see the stats of % of motorcycles over 600cc compared to the % of ACC costs for these bikes and the percentage of incidents for these bikes.

[TerminalAddict]

I thought from earlier posts we could become members on the night.

Is that correct?

word from Les Misérables is that tomorrow (today) will be too busy.

They'll likely take names and email and contact you later

[Kwakajack]

I have thought seriously about this acc shit. I think that it should be a user pays system..instead of increasing rego's how about increasing the fuel price by 5-10 cents per litre??NOW I KNOW YOU MIGHT THINK IM MAD BUT! ! ! the govt is picking on bikes/cars in rego's but statistically the most accidents happen on a skifield or a rugby field yet these guys dont pay levies...however if they drive to their particular sport/passion then they do pay [in their fuel]..im a sales rep who drives approx 1500 k's per week and yet my rego is the same as the little old lady who might drive to the supermarket once a week...why should she pay the same amount of rego as me???not really fair on her is it?,basically NZers need fuel to do what they do..how about all the boaties or motocross riders that pay NO acc levies for their choosen hobby??? if there was a fuel increase to cover the acc levies then it wont matter what your hobby/sport/lifestyle is...you pay a little more to do it..this way the govt would actually make more to cover acc rather than more bikers not paying rego at all...sure as hell i wont pay that figure! ! ! ! but i wont mind paying more in my fuel cost to do what i want to do? ! ? ! ? ! does it make sense? ? ?

This is something BRONZ as a national organisation has been pushing for for some years now. So there are plenty of like minded motorcyclists out there

[buellbabe]

Quick question...
There are gonna be a LOT of bikers AND bikes at this meeting...is anyone gonna be doing security for all our pride&joy machines parked outside?

When I used to go to HOG meetings we all just dropped a gold coin in a hat at the door to pay the guy who would stay outside to keep an eye on the bikes...

I do know where the Danish Society house is and just cos its in an industrial area doesn't mean the parking is secure...Am I just paranoid?

[Mom]

Where can we get stats on the total number of motorcycles registered and the total over 600cc. I'd like to see the stats of % of motorcycles over 600cc compared to the % of ACC costs for these bikes and the percentage of incidents for these bikes.

Have a look in here, I did some research on this a while ago :yes:

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=92937

[Kwakajack]

Next BRONZ Otago meeting is October 29

[Pixie]

39% of bike injuries occur at intersections- presumably because bikes are not seen by cars. This can be at least helped by requiring compulsory wearing of high visibility jackets by motorcyclists, or large reflectors to be attached to bikes.



The problem is not lack of visibility,it is that the mindset of drivers does not register bikes.They are looking for things that will hurt them ,like Freightliners fr'instance.
All the dayglo shit under the sun will not change this fact.

[Katman]

The problem is not lack of visibility,it is that the mindset of drivers does not register bikes.They are looking for things that will hurt them ,like Freightliners fr'instance.
All the dayglo shit under the sun will not change this fact.

And that's why there needs to be a greater education of motorcyclists to improve their ability to compensate for the lack of ability in others.

Motorcyclists seem to like considering themselves the elite of road-users but all too often they fail to show it.

[buellbabe]

Yep I agree and said the same thing in another thread. The average car driver just doesn't register anything smaller than another car...
And there is also the minsetof "oh they are small and nimble so they can get out of the way"..."they" being us the biker. How many of you have had direct eye contact with a driver and then they have still gone ahead and moved into the space you are already occupying?

I know that I have had that happen quite a few times.

[cs363]

The problem is not lack of visibility,it is that the mindset of drivers does not register bikes.They are looking for things that will hurt them ,like Freightliners fr'instance.
All the dayglo shit under the sun will not change this fact.

To be honest, there's a large group of people out there that are either blind or plain stupid. On many occasions I've travelled with mates in large trucks (Freightliners with semi-trailers) and people still pull out in front of them, so what chance does a motorcycle have?
What Katman says about motorcyclists having to compensate for the shortcomings of other road users from pedestrians up is dead right, it's a matter of survival. If you don't ride like everyone is out to kill you, theres a good chance you'll end up as a statistic.
At least in my opinion - formed from over 30 years of riding and driving all manner of vehicles both here and overseas.

[Kwakajack]

To be honest, there's a large group of people out there that are either blind or plain stupid. On many occasions I've travelled with mates in large trucks (Freightliners with semi-trailers) and people still pull out in front of them, so what chance does a motorcycle have?
What Katman says about motorcyclists having to compensate for the shortcomings of other road users from pedestrians up is dead right, it's a matter of survival. If you don't ride like everyone is out to kill you, theres a good chance you'll end up as a statistic.
At least in my opinion - formed from over 30 years of riding and driving all manner of vehicles both here and overseas.

Thoroughly agree, hands down. I suffered my first accident as a learner rider as a result of a distracted car driver not looking at oncoming traffic. I have been lucky ever since.

Bright helmet, bright bike, and loud (though not illegally loud) exhaust. Avoiding town at peak times helps too I have discovered, if at all possible.

Rider training through the Ride Right course run by BRONZ Otago and Otago Motorcycle Club helped me keep my wits about me, get on these courses whenever they are offered!!! Its a step the government refuses to take so we must voluntarily instead!

[Mystic13]

re these sorts of comments...

- the mindset of drivers does not register bikes

- education of motorcyclists to improve their ability to compensate for the lack of ability in others.

-The average car driver just doesn't register anything smaller than another car...

- And there is also the minsetof "oh they are small and nimble so they can get out of the way"

These assumptions about car drivers forget some basic facts.

What riders often forget is spacial awareness. Car drivers drive at a certain speed with a certain level of acceleration. Bikes accelerate at speeds many of these drivers cannot begin to comprehend. Additionally we can arrive from spaces and directions that they normally wouldn't expect. Often we scare the shit out of car drivers. You may know what it's like as a rider when a bike shoots past and close to you that you didn't see. A car in a flow of traffic with cars coming the other way doesn't expect a motorcycle to whizz past their door.

Car drivers will often say things like "they came out of nowhere" or "I didn't see them" and they're right because in reality that is pretty much what has happened.

While motorcyclists ride with a heightened state of awareness they need to be aware that other road users don't have that same level. It would be like having someone running trhough a crowded city. The pedestrians wouldn't be expecting that kind of speed and while the runner may see them and take evasive action and have everything under control for the pedestrian it's not a normal event, they move and as a result there is a collision. They just didn't have the presence to respond to this rare occurrance.

I feel riders need to be aware that they are performing way outside of what many car drivers are able to comprehend. I remember what it was like for my daughter moving from 50 k roads to busy roads and then the open road when she learnt to drive. There is a clear step between cars and motorcycles.

And this has what to do with ACC levies?

[Okey Dokey]

If the powers at be have been receiving piles of inane letters like this talking absolute shit... no wonder they think motorcyclists are a bunch of idiots.

Please people stop writing retarded crap like this and sending it to the politicians!

(edit: Sorry, i got your post crossed with... thinking this was a letter sent to a politician. Yours wasn't quite that bad)

BUT don't discourage people from writng at all. Everyone can have a say and let the polis know they are unhappy. Not everyone is expected to have stats at their fingertips, I am sure. Just a few sentences saying it is unfair, and that ACC could try other options (no longer covering tourists, encouraging better driver training, remembering that the point of ACC is that everyone collectively contributes- and maybe they need to look at groups who claim while contributing nothing, etc)

We can all vote and that is what concerns politicians. Everyone has a voice and they should use it to the best of their abilities. Please do write and make a submission!

[Ixion]

I thought from earlier posts we could become members on the night.

Is that correct?


We'll happily sign you up on the night. It would be an enormous help if you could predownload and fill in a membership form (from http://www.bronz.org.nz) .

We only have cash payment available on the night, and we only have one Treasurer. So if there are too many people to cope with we may just have to take names and addresses and bill you later

[Ixion]

I've told the media there will be bikes and bikers to Africa. Don't let us down folks.

[NighthawkNZ]

Interestingly enough if we add all bike claims and all car claims 208,305,000 + 62,523,000 = 270,828,000 total car and motorcycle claim

Then add the 2 current fleets together 130,213 + 2,788,938 = 2,919,151 fleet

270,828,000 / 2,919,151 = $92.78 levy required by each vehicle (this would lower again if all motorised vehicles were added, ie trucks and utility)

Show the fees are way to high and if lower alot more would actually register their vehicle if it was around the actual costs

so we are already paying too much in our levies. the hikes are just to get it fully funded

[buellbabe]

I've told the media there will be bikes and bikers to Africa. Don't let us down folks.

No worries...bringing a posse...

[jsw]

This is about targeting an easy to get at group. I am a Paramedic and I can tell you that over the last winter season I have seen many more sports injuries than any of the motorcycle/motor sport injuries. But how could we tax our "National Sport" and it sister netball. Boy would there be an outcry then.

Surley the solution is to actually pass some of the cost onto all sporting groups with a small leavy rather than the easily taxed group who have no choice but to pay their TAX our annual registration.

Dont just ring you MP email them too!

[NighthawkNZ]

T
Surley the solution is to actually pass some of the cost onto all sporting groups with a small leavy rather than the easily taxed group who have no choice but to pay their TAX our annual registration.

Dont just ring you MP email them too!

Supposedly that comes out of the the ACC paid via PAYE, but so should every thing we do as citizen including motorcycling

[Mom]

I've told the media there will be bikes and bikers to Africa. Don't let us down folks.

I have a sneaking suspicion this will be standing room only :yes:

[R-Soul]

The problem is not lack of visibility,it is that the mindset of drivers does not register bikes.They are looking for things that will hurt them ,like Freightliners fr'instance.
All the dayglo shit under the sun will not change this fact.

With all due respect, thats nonsense. There have been many studies done that show that riders wearing hugh vis clothing are less likely to be in accidents. What you are more concerned about is looking idiotic.

If it made law, it wont look so stupid. Me personally, I want to stay alive AND pay less ACC.

[R-Soul]

Yep I agree and said the same thing in another thread. The average car driver just doesn't register anything smaller than another car...
And there is also the minsetof "oh they are small and nimble so they can get out of the way"..."they" being us the biker. How many of you have had direct eye contact with a driver and then they have still gone ahead and moved into the space you are already occupying?

I know that I have had that happen quite a few times.

That is when the protected knuckles on bike gloves become very useful for making dents in their bonnet.... there is just no excuse for that!
:Playnice:

[sinfull]

That is when the protected knuckles on bike gloves become very useful for making dents in their bonnet.... there is just no excuse for that!
:Playnice: Now that comment just proves your full of shit !

[R-Soul]

While motorcyclists ride with a heightened state of awareness they need to be aware that other road users don't have that same level. It would be like having someone running trhough a crowded city. The pedestrians wouldn't be expecting that kind of speed and while the runner may see them and take evasive action and have everything under control for the pedestrian it's not a normal event, they move and as a result there is a collision. They just didn't have the presence to respond to this rare occurrance.

I feel riders need to be aware that they are performing way outside of what many car drivers are able to comprehend. I remember what it was like for my daughter moving from 50 k roads to busy roads and then the open road when she learnt to drive. There is a clear step between cars and motorcycles.

And this has what to do with ACC levies?


This relates to my point that the governemnt are trying to charge those having accidents with the moral high ground as if its somehow our fault. Like we went out to try and hurt ourselves. If they rather focussed on some decent steps to prevent accidents (like the compulsory courses mentioned above, or linking ACC levies to speeding offences) then they would not need to shell out so much! But dont punish the victims!

[R-Soul]

I have a sneaking suspicion this will be standing room only :yes:

I havea sneaky suspicion you should have booked out Vector arena...

[R-Soul]

Now that comment just proves your full of shit !

Why's that?

[phred]

Show the fees are way to high and if lower alot more would actually register their vehicle if it was around the actual costs

so we are already paying too much in our levies. the hikes are just to get it fully funded

Whole exercise is all about privatising ACC. Publish a HUGE price hike then reluctantly accept the peepuls recommendation to privatise the scheme and then we can all bend over and get raped by the insurance companies. Pretty soon we will be back to going to court to sue each other and then the costs will really begin to get out of control.

[Ferkletastic]

Whole exercise is all about privatising ACC. Publish a HUGE price hike then reluctantly accept the peepuls recommendation to privatise the scheme and then we can all bend over and get raped by the insurance companies. Pretty soon we will be back to going to court to sue each other and then the costs will really begin to get out of control.

What he said. It's the classic bait and switch. National knows that after last time they can't just privatise. So they're doing their best to make ACC look as bad as possible until the public happily allows privatisation.

[NighthawkNZ]

What he said. It's the classic bait and switch. National knows that after last time they can't just privatise. So they're doing their best to make ACC look as bad as possible until the public happily allows privatisation.

If it does go private and open to competition

if their is competition then they would have to drop the levy in fuel

[klingon]

Quick question...
There are gonna be a LOT of bikers AND bikes at this meeting...is anyone gonna be doing security for all our pride&joy machines parked outside?

When I used to go to HOG meetings we all just dropped a gold coin in a hat at the door to pay the guy who would stay outside to keep an eye on the bikes...

I do know where the Danish Society house is and just cos its in an industrial area doesn't mean the parking is secure...Am I just paranoid?

Good idea - someone could do security for a gold coin donation, then add the gold coins to the fighting fund!

The only trouble is... none of us will want to be outside when all the action's happening inside! :oi-grr:

[Little Miss Trouble]

might be a little late but I will be there for sure

[Mom]

might be a little late but I will be there for sure

Dont worry, we will all turn and stare at you :devil2:

[Mom]

Good idea - someone could do security for a gold coin donation, then add the gold coins to the fighting fund!

The only trouble is... none of us will want to be outside when all the action's happening inside! :oi-grr:

You know something, I have a feeling that there will be people outside because so many are going to turn up we wont all fit inside :sunny:

[swbarnett]

With all due respect, thats nonsense. There have been many studies done that show that riders wearing hugh vis clothing are less likely to be in accidents. What you are more concerned about is looking idiotic.

If it made law, it wont look so stupid. Me personally, I want to stay alive AND pay less ACC.
Correlation does not mean causation. It is entirely probable that yes, riders that wear high vis vests have fewer accidents. This is most likely because they are safer riders to begin with. Putting a high vis vest on a someone does not magically turn them in to a better rider.

[NighthawkNZ]

Correlation does not mean causation. It is entirely probable that yes, riders that wear high vis vests have fewer accidents. This is most likely because they are safer riders to begin with. Putting a high vis vest on a someone does not magically turn them in to a better rider.

lets all wear hi vis, make all vehicles cars truck drive round on high beam during the day. Paint all cars hivis yellow or orange just so every one can see every one ???




yes a pt

[davereid]

It is entirely probable that yes, riders that wear high vis vests have fewer accidents.

IMHO, often we drive automatically, using the primitive part of the brain that was programmed by nature to recognise, without apparent thought, danger, threats and prey.

Often, as a motorcyclist, we are not seen.

I think this is because the driver has switched to automatic mode, and we don't pass the trigger point to "danger", so we are not handed on to the conscious part of the brain.

There is no doubt about it, HI-Vis works.

But.. it may just be that, for just a split second a drivers brain says "COP", and registers a danger.


Of course, once we all wear 'em that wont happen, we will be back to status quo !

So, please dont wear the gear, but don't laugh to loud at me if I do !

[Balding Eagle]

Getting back to the thread.

One of the founding ideas of ACC was to prevent people being sued for all sorts of things including negligence in the event of an accident. (No fault cover so to speak.) Knowing that 60% of bike accidents are caused by cars it is reasonable to assume that prior to ACC, a bike rider could sue the pants off a car driver when that driver was the cause of an accident. The claim for damages would include medical costs and loss of income - both things that ACC now covers.

On this logic it is quite obvious that 60% of the costs that are attributed to bikes should in fact be covered by the car registration because it is the car driver who would have worn the costs previously.

An argument to be put forward to the polly tishins.

[Squiggles]

Alternatively its worth supporting the existing level of cross subsidisation of riders by drivers... as is being done with pushies and pedestrians, for we offer other benefits (congestion etc)

[Voltaire]

IMHO, often we drive automatically, using the primitive part of the brain that was programmed by nature to recognise, without apparent thought, danger, threats and prey.

Often, as a motorcyclist, we are not seen.




However ...( in David Attenborough voice) the lesser spotted Police Motorcycle in its striking array of blue , red and yellow catches the motorists eye and fear of the flashing blue and red dominates for a few moments until the motorist passes the danger.....

[Ixion]

Trucks subsidise cars, just doesn't show up because trucks aren't separated in the levy system

[davereid]

Trucks subsidise cars, just doesn't show up because trucks aren't separated in the levy system

Of course. The larger vehicle almost always comes off better in a multiple vehicle crash.

Smaller vehicles are always less afe in a crash, and are always subsidised by larger ones. Its just that the motorcycle is the smallest of all.

[NighthawkNZ]

The best I could work out was 7.2 times more likely to make an ACC claim. (won't show my math yet as I am working on other things)

as for accidents... not all accidents made by cars make an ACC claim.

My co worker has been involved in 3 accidents in 2 years... statisitically speaking won't be long before he hits a bike as the current fleet show 21 cars per bike (or something like that)

[terbang]

I wont throw this off topic, but Im up here in Saudi Arabia chatting to my wife Rachel via Skype and Campbel live has an interview with BRONZ. Rachey turns the TV up and faces her lappy towards it. Not a bad picture and I watched it all live. Good to see ya again Les and very well spoken too. Wishing I was there of course, but never the less supportuing the cause.
Cheers Bruce

[NighthawkNZ]

Of course. The larger vehicle almost always comes off better in a multiple vehicle crash.

Smaller vehicles are always less afe in a crash, and are always subsidised by larger ones. Its just that the motorcycle is the smallest of all.

so we can argue since they cause more damage they sould pay higher ACC levies...

Ah but we are a no fault no blame system (Only when we want it to be) if we want a no faults then motorcycles should not pay any more than the truck or car or van...

208,305,000 + 62,523,000 = 270,828,000 total car and motorcycle claim (not counting trucks and utility commercial vehicles etc)
130,213 + 2,788,938 = 2,919,151 fleet
270,828,000 / 2,919,151 = $92.78 levy required by each vehicle at present car is $168 and a bike is $253



You do the math

[Drunken Monkey]

...Knowing that 60% of bike accidents are caused by cars ...

and there we go again, no wonder why katman keeps throwing wobblies. 60% OF 2 VEHICLE ACCIDENTS INVOLVING A MOTORCYCLE and a car are caused by the car. The reality is most motorcycle accidents ARE SINGLE VEHICLE ACCIDENTS. There numbers are right there, in fact being thrust in our faces from thread to thread at the moment, and people still can't see them! OMG!!!!!!