PDA

View Full Version : Harold quite sympathetic



Ixion
18th October 2009, 11:59
Quite sympatetic treatment in today's Harold Editorial

(Highlighting is mine)


By far the biggest change proposed is a steep increase in the ACC levy component of registration for motorcycles, which is now $252.69.
The levy on riders of mid-sized bikes (with engine capacities of between 126cc and 599cc would more than double to $511.43, and for riders of big machines (600cc and over) almost treble to $745.77.
The tiny mopeds which have proliferated since petrol price rises of the past few years go from around $60 to more than $250 - a more-than-fourfold increase. Motorcycles of less than $125cc get off lightly, with an increase of only a few dollars.
These figures assume that the target date for so-called full funding, by which ACC takes in enough each year to cover the ongoing future costs of claims received in that year, will not be postponed from 2014 to 2019.
If it is postponed, the increases will be mitigated and, in the case of small motorcycles, the levy will actually fall. But plainly the impact on ACC's finances of injuries to motorcyclists is insupportable without change.
The riders themselves point to official figures showing that more than half of accidents in which they are involved are the fault of car drivers.
In a no-fault system where entitlements to treatment are based on need, not blame, that cannot be regarded as a complete argument: the fiscal risk of motorcycling rises in proportion to the number of motorcycles, and it is idle to suggest that someone other than motorcyclists should bear the cost.
But it does point to the larger problem which needs to be addressed: in the 35 years since ACC was established, so many bits have been carved off and clipped on that it bears little resemblance to the original design.
Anomalies abound: people who work in dangerous jobs pay more in earner levies than people who work in offices, but rugby league forwards incur no more expense by way of premium payment than those whose leisure preference is macrame.


Just what Mr Smith does not want - more publicity

Ixion
18th October 2009, 12:05
And a quote from Kerre Woodham's column. She's probably about as main stream general public as it gets


And I do feel sorry for motorcyclists - if the system is going towards user pays, surely the sale of alcohol must have a massive ACC levy attached to it to help pay for the huge costs associated with alcohol-related injury


Not sure about the alcohol bit. But the "feel sorry" sums it up, and that's what we can capitalise on.

jrandom
18th October 2009, 12:07
... the "feel sorry" sums it up, and that's what we can capitalise on.

Can I still do a burnout on the steps of Parliament?

sinfull
18th October 2009, 12:12
Quite sympatetic treatment in today's Harold Editorial

(Highlighting is mine)


Just what Mr Smith does not want - more publicity
Has anybody split the MX, farm, off road portion off the stats that the MP and ACC are using as the resoning behind this yet ?
Have seen the bicycle stats and not that we can use it as an arguement but the off road side of things could come in very handy for media publications !

Katman
18th October 2009, 12:12
The riders themselves point to official figures showing that more than half of accidents in which they are involved are the fault of car drivers.

And when the figures are placed in front of us (and worse - the general public) showing that this is not the case then we will be made to look stupid.

sinfull
18th October 2009, 12:18
The riders themselves point to official figures showing that more than half of accidents in which they are involved are the fault of car drivers.

And when the figures are placed in front of us showing that this is not the case then we will be made to look stupid.And that is a mute arguement with the no blame system anyway so we need to find a better one ! Correct ?

cheesemethod
18th October 2009, 12:18
The riders themselves point to official figures showing that more than half of accidents in which they are involved are the fault of car drivers.

And when the figures are placed in front of us (and worse - the general public) showing that this is not the case then we will be made to look stupid.

Do you have those figures?

Katman
18th October 2009, 12:24
And that is a mute arguement with the no blame system anyway so we need to find a better one ! Correct ?

That may well be true Bill but I fear those words will be used in an attempt to derail our efforts.

sinfull
18th October 2009, 12:25
That may well be true Bill but those words will be used to derail our efforts. True that !
Why they should not be used !

bogan
18th October 2009, 12:31
So its a no fault system meaning all bikers accidents are biker pays? to me that sounds like biker fault. Or is it just that we decide to partake in a more risky activity so we should pay more, which sounds like user pays. Doesnt make sense to me, but ill stop using these stats (with discussions with mates collegues etc, I aint gonna be talking to media :no:) as it sounds like a no go area.

GOONR
18th October 2009, 12:39
Extract from TVNZ (http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/motorcyclists-protest-acc-levies-3080571)

"We have motorcar drivers still subsidising the cost of motorcycle injuries by $77 a head. So this is a fairness and equity issue," says Jan White, ACC Chief Executive.

If this is a "fairness and equity issue" why aren't sports players etc being hit as well.

Katman
18th October 2009, 12:48
Do you have those figures?

The general concensus at the moment seems to be that 58% of motorcycle related accidents are the fault of the motorcyclist.

Pedrostt500
18th October 2009, 12:51
Extract from TVNZ (http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/motorcyclists-protest-acc-levies-3080571)

"We have motorcar drivers still subsidising the cost of motorcycle injuries by $77 a head. So this is a fairness and equity issue," says Jan White, ACC Chief Executive.

If this is a "fairness and equity issue" why aren't sports players etc being hit as well.

So the fact that I own a Ute as well as a bike means I subsidise myself.

GOONR
18th October 2009, 12:53
So the fact that I own a Ute as well as a bike means I subsidise myself.Same and as I don't play rugby etc I'm subsidising the people that do.

Blackbird
18th October 2009, 12:55
I'm really quite worried about over-use of statistics to try and present a logical case. In the Bronz post, I attached my letter to the consultative process and it's worth re-posting the first point here:

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.

I'm scared that if we argue about the fine points of statistics, we'll lose sight of the real issues where we can probably get some traction.

MSTRS
18th October 2009, 12:56
The general concensus at the moment seems to be that 58% of motorcycle related accidents are the fault of the motorcyclist.

It is definitely somewhere between 50 - 58%. Trouble is, it's easy to apportion blame to the car driver part of the stats (IDSY?) but harder to be certain how much blame rests entirely on the bikers. Not downplaying the part played by simple dumb behaviour, but an inherently unstable mode of transport is notoriously prone to shit often beyond the control of the rider. Kanga and 2 mates on SH5 is a prime example.

bogan
18th October 2009, 12:57
So the fact that I own a Ute as well as a bike means I subsidise myself.

I subsidize myself too, if ya know what I mean:blip::blip::blip::blip:

Can anyone point me to where the 58% comes from, i'll add it to the wiki page

Katman
18th October 2009, 13:00
I'm scared that if we argue about the fine points of statistics, we'll lose sight of the real issues where we can probably get some traction.

I agree to a point, but you can be well assured that ACC will be arming themselves with statistics.

For us to have any credibility we have to stop trundling out the old "most of our accidents are the cagers fault" line.

riffer
18th October 2009, 13:05
I agree to a point, but you can be well assured that ACC will be arming themselves with statistics.

For us to have any credibility we have to stop trundling out the old "most of our accidents are the cagers fault" line.

Probably better to try saying that a large percentage of motorcycle crashes are due to factors out of their control.

Don't forget that a number of us have also fallen off due to road conditions as well. Would you like me to include a number of pictures of road repairs in the Wellington area I would consider to be hazardous to motorcyclists?

Having said that, I would tend to agree that the majority of accidents involving motorcyclists don't involve a car.

But a substantial amount do. If 42% of car accidents were due to speeding, do you think it would be something worth discussing? I would speculate that TPTB would say it was the MAJOR factor.

rebyl
18th October 2009, 13:13
I'm really quite worried about over-use of statistics to try and present a logical case. In the Bronz post, I attached my letter to the consultative process and it's worth re-posting the first point here:

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.

I'm scared that if we argue about the fine points of statistics, we'll lose sight of the real issues where we can probably get some traction.

This really is the main problem...I issue Basic Skills certs and the standard really does need to be lifted. Also more Advanced Riding courses need to be made available...especially to the newer riders:2thumbsup

Katman
18th October 2009, 13:13
It is imperative that BRONZ obtain all information regarding motorcycle accidents from ACC so that an independant study can be done to see what costs are attributable to those not paying registration.

The Stranger mentioned in another thread that last time BRONZ attempted to get this information it was going to cost about $10,000 through the Official Information Act.

If that is the case then we need to think of ways of getting together $10,000 to place at BRONZ's disposal.

Ixion
18th October 2009, 13:26
Can I still do a burnout on the steps of Parliament?

Oh yes, with you, they'll feel sorry for you no matter what

Maki
18th October 2009, 13:34
So its a no fault system meaning all bikers accidents are biker pays? to me that sounds like biker fault. Or is it just that we decide to partake in a more risky activity so we should pay more, which sounds like user pays. Doesnt make sense to me, but ill stop using these stats (with discussions with mates collegues etc, I aint gonna be talking to media :no:) as it sounds like a no go area.

Its no fault as long as they like you. If they don't like you it's your fault and you have to pay. They like rugby players, skiers, adventure tourists, horseback riders, runners, netball players, basketball players, skateboarders, etc. etc. They don't like bikers and therefore bikers have to pay.

It really is that arbitrary and that unfair and we should NOT accept it. I consider the unfairness of this a violation of basic human rights. Everyone should have the right to be treated fairly and not be discriminated against.

peasea
18th October 2009, 14:21
I agree to a point, but you can be well assured that ACC will be arming themselves with statistics.

For us to have any credibility we have to stop trundling out the old "most of our accidents are the cagers fault" line.

Quite right, milking the "but our machines are more environmentally friendly etc" line might do some good. The Greens will be getting letter from me along those lines and they already oppose Nick Smith's proposals. (If I'm correct.)

I have also read that the Maori party is also opposed; another letter.........