PDA

View Full Version : One line ideas for submissions etc.



MSTRS
15th October 2009, 10:14
We have a resources sticky. We don't have a dedicated 'answers' thread.
Please keep discussion out - just give your reason/s for/against increases. Or how to fairly levy NZers.

MSTRS
15th October 2009, 10:14
ACC covers injury to the person. So levy the person, not the vehicles they own. I can only use one vehicle at a time. What would be wrong with paying a seperate annual fee to ACC which I keep in my pocket, and covers me for any vehicle I use?

ACC is supposed to be a no-fault system of 'insurance' - and still touted as such - yet it is clearly 'user pays'. But the biggest users (Horse riders, cyclists, rugby {and other contact sport} players), etc pay little-to-no more than the average man in the street does out of his/her wages. What about hooking into them?

NSW, Australia is apparently looking at a sliding scale of cover, dependent on the amount of protective gear bikers (choose to) wear.

I have a history of NOT crashing and being hurt, why should I pay the same as Joe Squid who spends 2 months every year in hospital etc?

Find a way of levying race/dirt bikes.

CC based levies are based on false assumptions as to potential risk of engine size.

Levy across the board on petrol. All users of engines will then be contributing fairly, based on the amount they use. Use more = exposed to risk more.

Privatise, and give me the choice.

slofox
15th October 2009, 11:49
Keep ACC but allow private as an "instead of".

MSTRS
15th October 2009, 11:53
More bikers will only rego over summer, go on hold the rest of the year and risk riding from time to time, so the potential take will be less.

BuckBuck#1
15th October 2009, 12:34
Here is the conclusion to my submission.

By providing Motorcycle Use Category Classification and also Recognition Of Additional Skills Training And Development Qualifications motorcyclists can decide when they want to ride, and at their choice and discretion graduate their riding skill. When to ride and at what skill level should be recognized and rewarded by a realistic and balanced scale of ACC levy/s.

Full submission at blogg.

MSTRS
15th October 2009, 17:48
The bikers that have been seriously injured or died through their own stupidity are of the same ilk as ‘boy racers’. But responsible car drivers are not being asked to pay extra for that section of car drivers.

MSTRS
16th October 2009, 08:17
All road users should pay the same amount. The likelihood of a car causing injury to a biker is about the same as a biker being at fault. Since everyone is subsidising everyone else, the levy should be across the board.

Neon
16th October 2009, 08:40
ACC covers injury to the person. So levy the person, not the vehicles they own. I can only use one vehicle at a time. What would be wrong with paying a seperate annual fee to ACC which I keep in my pocket, and covers me for any vehicle I use?

No matter what the device is for extracting levies, it will never be perfect. The beauracrats know this, and vehicle registrations are a convenient and easily policed strategy. Lots of people have suggested the idea of levying drivers directly. The problems with this are substantial: 1) the logistics of collecting money from individual drivers (think about why we ended up with PAYE income tax). 2) the amount required for claims does not change but the pool of payers is now smaller (fewer licensed drivers than vehicles on the road. You do the math). 3) People who hold a drivers' licence may not be active drivers. If the proposal were to levy based on classes of license those with Class 1 through 6 who were not using those classes would be stung badly.


ACC is supposed to be a no-fault system of 'insurance' - and still touted as such - yet it is clearly 'user pays'. But the biggest users (Horse riders, cyclists, rugby {and other contact sport} players), etc pay little-to-no more than the average man in the street does out of his/her wages. What about hooking into them?

Yes agreed. ACC was designed originally primarily as a tool to ensure the wellbeing of the wider community. Endless tinkering by neo-liberals has ensured that it will cannot function effectively in this way. I understand the sentiment about horse riding/cycling/sport, but there just isn't any rational and workable way of levying these activities. Registering a motorcycle is just too convenient a method of funds extraction. To levy everyone individually would be a return to private insurance and the right to sue, and people seem to have very short memories when it comes to how much they would actually benefit under this system (I'd go be a lawyer for sure!).


NSW, Australia is apparently looking at a sliding scale of cover, dependent on the amount of protective gear bikers (choose to) wear.

Again nice idea but completely unworkable. What level of gear is appropriate, under what conditions? how do you know how good the gear is or whether it was being worn at the time of accident?


I have a history of NOT crashing and being hurt, why should I pay the same as Joe Squid who spends 2 months every year in hospital etc?

Because that is what ACC was designed for in the first place. To spread the costs of individual misfortune across the community in a way that is fair to everyone in the interests of long term social development. :buggerd:


Find a way of levying race/dirt bikes.

CC based levies are based on false assumptions as to potential risk of engine size. Have you any statistics to suggest this would be viable? How would you do it?


Levy across the board on petrol. All users of engines will then be contributing fairly, based on the amount they use. Use more = exposed to risk more.

Privatise, and give me the choice.

This is a good concept, but not something the govt will entertain as prices are inflationary and income cannot be guaranteed.

Take a look at yours and others experiences with insurance companies generally to date, and imagine going through that shit while fucked up in hospital. Imagine waiting around for months while your insurer attempts to prove fault, then pays out as little as possible and jacks your premiums in the process. Remember the dual objectives of commercial insurers - minimise liability and maximise profit. :Pokey:

motnick
16th October 2009, 08:40
I am writing to express my concern at the proposed increases. I feel that although there appears to be some justification to the increases, the whole picture has not been considered and the proposed increases are both unfair, and unjustified.

The proposal aims to make owners of larger motorcycles pay double that of smaller bikes. I question the logic behind this decision.
Leaner riders (those most likely to cause their own accident) are limited to 250cc. This rating does not necessarily mean a slower bike, a range of 250cc motorcycles are capable of speeds in excess of 200kph. In the hands of a learner (perhaps a young male with an innate desire to test the limits), 200kph on NZ roads is ludicrous.
Riders of mopeds are perhaps more likely to be either learners, or part-time riders. Part-time, learner and other inexperienced riders are more likely to crash than full-time riders.
The majority of riders of large bikes are older, more experienced, and are more likely to make safer decisions whilst riding.
The majority of riders of large bikes are more likely to ALWAYS wear full safety gear when riding. Many people ride mopeds with only a helmet for safety. At 50kph a rider in flimsy clothing could easily be seriously hurt (gravel rash). A rider in full gear will be more likely to walk away.
Motorcyclists already pay significantly more to insure their bikes. How much extra tax revenue does this produce?
Before this proposal is seriously considered, I believe that there must be research into the facts. There are many questions which must be answered before a decision is made.

1. The ACC Chairman states "ACC paid more than $62 million for motorcycle riders but collected only $12.3 million in levies from them." I ask how does the Chairman know this? The current system charges by the vehicle, yet makes no allowance for people owning more than one vehicle at a time. The first questions which should be answered are; how many motorcycle owners also own a car, truck, etc.? So in reality, how much ACC levies are actually being paid by motorcyclists through their combined vehicle registrations? Multiple vehicle owners effectively pay ACC levies more than once(can only drive one vehicle at a time), effectively meaning more than one insurance policy, is this entirely legal? ACC only pay out once regardless of how many vehicles a person registers.

Many motorcycles are only registered during the warmer seasons and not used all the time. Yet most cars are registered all year around. Has this been taken into account when calculating the comparisons?

2. What are the significant contributing factors into motorcycle crashes in NZ?

Assuming the results are similar to that of studies undertaken in other countries, then;

3. Should the cost of injuries to motorcyclists be measured by cause, or merely by common factors (i.e. the current proposal is saying that the common factor is the motorcycle, therefore all motorcyclists pay)? This seems to be an overly simplistic reaction to incomplete data. I point out that the current proposal aims to make motorcyclists financially accountable for the risk, without considering the causes. This is comparable to requiring all dinkers of alcohol to cover all the costs associated with accidents caused by driving under the influence.

I also point out that according to at least one reputable study ( http://www.ct.gov/dot/LIB/dot/Documents/dhighwaysafety/CTDOT_Hurt.pdf ), 75% of motorcycle crashes involve another vehicle, with approximately 66% of these accidents being the driver of a passenger vehicle being fully at fault, (plus a small % attributed to vehilce failure, animals and road hazzards). This seems to make the existing system unfair in favour of car drivers, and the current proposal will make this more unfair.

4. Of those 25% of motorcycle riders who crashed alone, how many crashed through reckless or dangerous riding? Logic would indicate that it is the majority. I would be interested to know the experts' theories as to what would happen to the road toll if those reckless motorcycle crashes had been car crahes instead? Motorcyles crashing seldom cause physical harm to innocent people, can the same be said of car crashes? I have never see a motorcycle on the news for crashing through a house, can the same be said for cars?

5. How many motorcyles currently use the cities motorways regularily? Increasing the costs of motorcycle riding will discourage motorcycle riding, which will have a corrosponding increase in car use. Will this significantly increase congestion on the motorways? Traffic congestion is a known risk factor in causing drivers to make dangerous driving decisions. Will increasing Motorcyle ACC levies cause more crashes and deaths?

6. If the reasoning that Motorcycles cost more then should pay more is implemented, then it shuold be implemented completely. Motorcycles cause almost zero damage to the roads, therefore there should no cost to motorcyclists to maintain the roads.

7. Systems designed on a punitive approach to addressing nationwide concerns (as this is) have time and again proven innefectual in changing behaviours. Instead, approaches designed to show rewards are always more effective. There are many, many encouraging ideas to change the risk factors for motorcyclists, these should be researched and considered by appropriate authorities as soon as possible.

8. I am aware of the arguement that when a motorcyle crashes, the injuries are more serious and the medical costs for the rider are more expensive than for car drivers/passengers, however, this point should be weighed against the following points.
Cars can have multiple passengers, many small vans have ten to twelve seats. Motorcycles usually carry the rider alone, two people maximum.
Many, many other activities and areas of NZ culture have similar increased cost factors when compared to safer pursuits. Some examples; Super Stock car racing is more dangerous than mini-Stock racing, Rugby Union is more dangerous than tough Rugby, Netball is more dangerous than folk dancing, Rugby League is more dangerous than knitting. If ACC wishes to drastically alter the costs for all dangerous activites, then it should be a system wide alteration, with each person paying only for those risk factors which they undertake.
Sking is a very dangerous activity, yet if our country were to discourage skiing through drastic increases in costs, our tourism industry would suffer. Compaprably, many NZers ride motorcycles due to the lower running costs, if that option is taken away, many would not be able to access work or school with such ease, thereby damaging some sectors includng education.
New Zealand has a proud history and a good reputaiton in various motorcycle sports. The Brittan. Worlds fastest indian. Hugh Anderson, Josh Coppins and various members of the Crusty Demons, and more. Discouraging motorcycle riding will damage our countries ability to produce champion motorcyclists.
In summary, this proposal is an over reaction to under researched data. Before a change of this magnitude is implemented, research should be based on factual proven information. To implement this proposal is effectively punishing all motorcyclists for the riding behaviour of what could turn out to be very few motocyclists.

With notice I am available to present my submission in person, and would be willing to undertake further consultation with relevant groups including NZ biker communities, ACC ministers, Accident reponse agencies and others.

nick

NighthawkNZ
16th October 2009, 08:41
We have a resources sticky. We don't have a dedicated 'answers' thread.
Please keep discussion out - just give your reason/s for/against increases. Or how to fairly levy NZers.

http://www.southernrider.co.nz/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9640&p=18434#p18434

ManDownUnder
16th October 2009, 09:08
Why should I pay more to subsidise an insurance and remove responsibilty for drunk drivers damage to motorcyclists? Or bad drivers?

Let's call a spade a spade. It's not a levy, it's a tax.

MSTRS
16th October 2009, 09:09
... nice idea but completely unworkable.....

Who gives a rip about 'workable'? It's just ideas. And I did say 'No discussion'...

ManDownUnder
16th October 2009, 09:09
I heard on the radio the basic maths demonstrates that bikers already ay more in ACC than is paid out anyway.

I.e. regos x nn bikes = $$ACC levies collected, vs a significantly less amount paid out.

Can anyone back that up?

MSTRS
16th October 2009, 09:12
Maybe the minimum hold period should be reduced to 1 month. Or regos can be purchased based on mileage.

Neon
16th October 2009, 09:26
Who gives a rip about 'workable'? It's just ideas. And I did say 'No discussion'...

So you did. My bad.

NighthawkNZ
16th October 2009, 09:33
I heard on the radio the basic maths demonstrates that bikers already ay more in ACC than is paid out anyway.

I.e. regos x nn bikes = $$ACC levies collected, vs a significantly less amount paid out.

Can anyone back that up?

its not just bike rego's many bikers have cars as well some 2 or 3... then PAYE ACC which covers anything you do privately including riding a motorcycle, plus ACc from fuel... which they can't calculate ammount bikers paye via fuel and PAYE

MSTRS
18th October 2009, 11:31
So cars subsidise bikes by ($70 I've seen)? Most bikers own cars too...