We have been pushing it hard in Central Otago!

[Monstaman]

ODT interviewed me and put my mad photo to print.

http://www.odt.co.nz/your-town/wanaka/78575/anger-motorcycle-club

Being the President of the Wanaka Motorcycle Club I have instigated a lot of submissions with our 55 members putting in their own as well as mine and the submission on behalf of the WMC.

We have our monthly meeting tonight with the hot topic of ACC so we expect more to come from that.

Thanks to fello KBers for info, Parliament emails and contacts as well as a much broader base of information which is making it worth while.

Keep it all going gents as it will be worth while !!!:headbang:

[Mom]

Keep it all going gents as it will be worth while !!!:headbang:


And ladies ;)

Top effort that man :2thumbsup

[Monstaman]

And ladies ;)


..Duh .. .sorry Mom, absolutely the ladies too!! :headbang:

Every submission and bit of noise will make a huge difference.

[dipshit]

What makes you think that most motorcycle accidents are caused by other motorists?

Did you bother to find out the facts before talking to the media...???

[NighthawkNZ]

What makes you think that most motorcycle accidents are caused by other motorists?

Did you bother to find out the facts before talking to the media...???

mis-conspeption around 50% of bike accidents involved with another vehicle
67% of those are the other vehicles fault...

But going by that 43% or accidents recorded in in Auckand and ChCh did not even record the size of the bike let alone get all the data correct then there is margin of error... both ways

[Monstaman]

What makes you think that most motorcycle accidents are caused by other motorists?

Did you bother to find out the facts before talking to the media...???

Yes I did, based on fact...You,.. What have you done to promote M/C ing?

Nicer reply this time too, I see the mods deleted your nasty shots calling me a fuckwit.

[dipshit]

Yes I did, based on fact...You,.. What have you done to promote M/C ing?


What facts? It wasn't just something you read on a BRONZ web page was it?

Show me your backing for the claim?

Or are you like this other "genius" that thinks the statistics would back his claim. But didn't actually bother to find out first.
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/78163/cars-cause-most-crashes-rider

[k2w3]

Ha! You sound like that fellow on the TV ad "Save me from these geniuses".

[PirateJafa]

Yes I did, based on fact...You,.. What have you done to promote M/C ing?

He gets angry and abusive on the internet a lot.

But actually doing something that would have a benefit to motorcycling would involve some work and effort, which - needless to say - rules him out.

Edit: Oh, the Tall Poppy syndrome is one of the things that makes New Zealand such a... "nice" place to live. :rolleyes:

[YellowDog]

Nice work Monstaman.

I have heard a number of bikers contributing to the Newtalk ZB phone ins too.

Is Mr Dipshit in favour of the proposed hike in the ACC contribution on our Regos?

[NighthawkNZ]

Is Mr Dipshit in favour of the proposed hike in the ACC contribution on our Regos?

apparently so...

[Monstaman]

Or are you like this other "genius"]

You're a winner eh, just carry on like you seem to do in all threads contributing nothing but BS and anger and standing up to your name which you do well.

How do people like you make it into the gene pool and more to the point how do we eject you from it!

Happy trolling L... go bug someone who cares.

PirateJafa, YellowDog and NighthawkNZ, cheers for the props lets hope the good work get us somewhere in the system

[Winston001]

Is Mr Dipshit in favour of the proposed hike in the ACC contribution on our Regos?

No, he's simply trying to warn us assertions that cars cause most bike accidents are not supported by the data. It's a statement which appears daily on this forum but from my reading of MOT and ACC stats, its wrong.

There are two problems with making an ill-founded submission:

1. Your whole submission, which may otherwise contain excellent points, is tainted by one incorrect statement. Accordingly it will be of little influence.

2. Blaming car drivers for motorcycle accidents pits one group of road users against another. And who comprises the vast majority? And what group will most MPs fall into......? :girlfight: Basically its an argument which won't gain much sympathy.

[Ronin]

What facts? It wasn't just something you read on a BRONZ web page was it?

Show me your backing for the claim?

Or are you like this other "genius" that thinks the statistics would back his claim. But didn't actually bother to find out first.
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/78163/cars-cause-most-crashes-rider

Seriously, were you hugged enough as a child? :hug:

[dipshit]

Seriously, i am utterly convinced your average motorcyclist is as thick as two planks.

What I am doing, is *NOT* writing to my local newspaper going - "waaaaa, it's all the car drivers fault, waaaa."... and making all motorcyclists look like a bunch of fuckwits.

Please, with your limited intelligence - do not write a load of whingeing bullshit in which you have no idea what you are talking about to any form of media. You lot are more than likely doing more harm than good in the long run

And I fully realise most of you will be to thick to grasp this.

[dipshit]

No, he's simply trying to warn us assertions that cars cause most bike accidents are not supported by the data. It's a statement which appears daily on this forum but from my reading of MOT and ACC stats, its wrong.

There are two problems with making an ill-founded submission:

1. Your whole submission, which may otherwise contain excellent points, is tainted by one incorrect statement. Accordingly it will be of little influence.

2. Blaming car drivers for motorcycle accidents pits one group of road users against another. And who comprises the vast majority? And what group will most MPs fall into......? :girlfight: Basically its an argument which won't gain much sympathy.

Thank you. Precisely.

[StoneY]

Well done Monstaman and the WMC members

You guys rock
Keep up the GREAT work

[YellowDog]

No, he's simply trying to warn us assertions that cars cause most bike accidents are not supported by the data. It's a statement which appears daily on this forum but from my reading of MOT and ACC stats, its wrong.

There are two problems with making an ill-founded submission:

1. Your whole submission, which may otherwise contain excellent points, is tainted by one incorrect statement. Accordingly it will be of little influence.

2. Blaming car drivers for motorcycle accidents pits one group of road users against another. And who comprises the vast majority? And what group will most MPs fall into......? :girlfight: Basically its an argument which won't gain much sympathy.
Dipshit's destructive assertions serve no purpose other than annoy people trying to do a good job.

Whereas your own personal comments are constructive and may help others further this cause.

My own personal veiw of this problem is one of standards and eduction. Road usage in general is of a very low standard and in my opinion, this is contributing significantly towards the problem.

The government stance does nothing to address the problem and seems very happy with the number of deaths on the roads. It just wants more money to fund this acceptable situation.

My opinion is that the situation is unacceptable. If car drivers were stopped and fined for hogging the outside lane at a slow speed, then they would be less likely to do it. The same goes for not indicating 3 seconds before the manouevre and not stopping at stop signs etc. etc. etc.
(the same goes for bikers) There are a many examples, but the way to address the situation is by making it tougher to pass a test and get a licence. Just raise the bar and it will feed through. The fixation on 'Speed Kills' is ignorant and short sighted. It is driving or riding poorly that kills and it isn't the same thing. If you were to go to Germany and see the considerably higher general standard of driving, you would understand what I mean.

Now as for allowing an inexperienced motorcyclist to learn on a 250cc bike; get real! Surely it should be related to power and not cc?

IMO - No way should anyone be allowed to ride a 250cc bike solo after just a Basic Handling Test. It is just complete madness. Pass your test and then try and learn not to kill yourself; which is ineffect what happens. No offence to anyone on here and it is great that they ask however:

"Why do I get scared over 80kph"

"What is countersteering"

These are the sort of questions I observe with absolute horror. Surely proving proficiency should be over a period of time and require several tests. When I learnt to ride in the 1970s, the local authority ran a 10 week course. This was before taking a basic handling test and designed to reduce motorcycle road deaths.

The point of my post is to say that I don't believe that idiots we have in power really have a clue as to what the problem is or how to start addressing it.

I would suggest that understanding the problem should come first.

[NighthawkNZ]

First off the simple fact is ACC aint broke nor is it broken and loosing money, last year it made a profit. It also has nothing to do with the number of claims being made... steady at $1.7 billion (http://acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=37025&dDocName=PRD_CTRB118047&allowInterrupt=1) for the last 2 years

ACC is making enough money and was even able to put 1 billion into more investments. The ‘crisis’ is just modelling changes for a bookkeeping exercise that has no effect other than to make levies higher now so they won’t have to be as high later (apparently).

If they extend the deadline to be fully funded then no changes need to be made... The debt they are going on about is no where as bad as it they make it out to be But it’s basically just a book-keeping/cost-spreading exercise (most of ACC’s assets are actually government bonds, so the government (Treasury) owes itself (ACC) money).

Most NZer's don't care if ACC is a fully funded or pay as you go system... But they are feeling it in the pocket as we are making those savings in the bank to become fully funded.

[Ronin]

Seriously, I am utterly convinced your average motorcyclist is as thick as two planks.

What I am *NOT* doing is writing to my local newspaper going - "waaaaa, it's all the car drivers fault, waaaa."... and making all motorcyclists look like a bunch of fuckwits.

Please, with your limited intelligence - do not write a load of whingeing bullshit in which you have no idea what you are talking about to any form of media. You lot are more than likely doing more harm than good in the long run

And I fully realise most of you will be to thick to grasp this.

Sorry, we may have limited intelligence but grammar is still important.

Now, about that lack of hugs. :hug:

[gatch]

Firstly, good work and thankyou for drawing attention to the issue.

Secondly however I agree with some of the previous posts, blaming automobile pilots for majority of bike crashes is IMO not a fanastic idea, or boy racers (really they are fuck all..), pushing the carbon footprint aspect may be more effective, also questioning the use of flawed statistics that the government is basing their conclusions on, the number of single occupant cars on the road, the ridiculousness of paying $700 buck per bike if you own more than one bike etc.

But anyway, thanks again, I'll be riding to parliament hopefully next month.. Hopefully they will take notice aye.

[davereid]

What makes you think that most motorcycle accidents are caused by other motorists?

The reason these figures are very popular is as a result of the worlds two largest motorcycle safety studies, the HURT report, and the MAIDs report.

These reports were done to international standards, and the authors submitted the raw data for peer review. In the eyes of many, this makes the data more factual, than figures produced by our own authorities, who have a reputation for "making things up", and wont release the raw data for review.

The HURT and MAIDs reports found a very close correlation, even though they were decades apart, and on different continents.

Key findings :

75% of accidents were a collision between a car and a bike, and 66% of those accidents were caused by the car violating the right of way

In other words,
- 66% of car v bike is the car drivers fault
- At least 49.5% of all accidents were the fault of a car driver
- slightly under 3% of accidents were caused by vehicle defects
- 2% of accidents were caused by road defects
- 1% was caused by animals

Thats why.

[Winston001]

First off the simple fact is ACC aint broke nor is it broken and loosing money, last year it made a profit. It also has nothing to do with the number of claims being made... steady at $1.7 billion (http://acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=37025&dDocName=PRD_CTRB118047&allowInterrupt=1) for the last 2 years

ACC is making enough money and was even able to put 1 billion into more investments. The ‘crisis’ is just modelling changes for a bookkeeping exercise that has no effect other than to make levies higher now so they won’t have to be as high later (apparently).

If they extend the deadline to be fully funded then no changes need to be made... The debt they are going on about is no where as bad as it they make it out to be But it’s basically just a book-keeping/cost-spreading exercise (most of ACC’s assets are actually government bonds, so the government (Treasury) owes itself (ACC) money).

Most NZer's don't care if ACC is a fully funded or pay as you go system... But they are feeling it in the pocket as we are making those savings in the bank to become fully funded.

Mmmmm.......but if the government of the day - and remember full funding was introduced by Labour - decides it is broke, then we have an uphill battle persuading MPs otherwise.

Plus fully funding ACC claims is sensible. The idea is to have enough in kitty to cover longterm payments for people who have permanent disabilities. The alternative is to raise levies each year and as we can see right now, that's a whole kettle of fish.

[NighthawkNZ]

Mmmmm.......but if the government of the day - and remember full funding was introduced by Labour - decides it is broke, then we have an uphill battle persuading MPs otherwise.

Plus fully funding ACC claims is sensible. The idea is to have enough in kitty to cover longterm payments for people who have permanent disabilities. The alternative is to raise levies each year and as we can see right now, that's a whole kettle of fish.

I agree the idea of fully funding ACC is good, but the recession is biting the average pocket, if the extend the 2014 deadlind it will ease the pain.

1999 we start the transission to become fully funded (yes Labour) and we are nearly there but the recession also hit some of the investments which means the they didn't make as much return as predicted.

The Scheme’s claim liability (the future cost of existing claims) now stands at $23.8 billion – against current net assets (the money ACC has ‘in the bank’ to cover those future costs) of $11 billion.

Again at the end of the day ACC is not broke and or loosing money

[Winston001]

The reason these figures are very popular is as a result of the worlds two largest motorcycle safety studies, the HURT report, and the MAIDs report.

These reports were done to international standards, and the authors submitted the raw data for peer review. In the eyes of many, this makes the data more factual, than figures produced by our own authorities, who have a reputation for "making things up", and wont release the raw data for review.

The HURT and MAIDs reports found a very close correlation, even though they were decades apart, and on different continents.

Key findings :

75% of accidents were a collision between a car and a bike, and 66% of those accidents were caused by the car violating the right of way

In other words,
- 66% of car v bike is the car drivers fault
- At least 49.5% of all accidents were the fault of a car driver
- slightly under 3% of accidents were caused by vehicle defects
- 2% of accidents were caused by road defects
- 1% was caused by animals

Thats why.

Good stuff and the kind of data we need. I still think it'll be largely ignored because these studies didn't take place in NZ and the ACC and MOT data is going to be preferred.

Plus it requires bikers to blame car drivers.......

Plus it begs the obvious question - just remove motorcycles. They are clearly dangerous. :wacko: Trust me, I've heard plenty of people say that lately......

[gatch]

I've heard plenty of people say that lately......

They need to be burned in public.

Alternatively tarred and feathered..

[NighthawkNZ]

trust me, I've heard plenty of people say that lately......

Well you should have stayed on your bike... would have been easier on every one you know...

But we are human and humans make mistakes and have accidents

[Monstaman]

The reason these figures are very popular is as a result of the worlds two largest motorcycle safety studies, the HURT report, and the MAIDs report.

These reports were done to international standards, and the authors submitted the raw data for peer review. In the eyes of many, this makes the data more factual, than figures produced by our own authorities, who have a reputation for "making things up", and wont release the raw data for review.

The HURT and MAIDs reports found a very close correlation, even though they were decades apart, and on different continents.

Key findings :

75% of accidents were a collision between a car and a bike, and 66% of those accidents were caused by the car violating the right of way

In other words,
- 66% of car v bike is the car drivers fault
- At least 49.5% of all accidents were the fault of a car driver
- slightly under 3% of accidents were caused by vehicle defects
- 2% of accidents were caused by road defects
- 1% was caused by animals

Thats why.

Great info that is and hopefully they will take notice of those findings.

The other aspect is reducing the ACC liability to excluding injury while doing crime or in prison, non residents who are none tax payers, we are heading to China on Saturday and we have to cover for our on med insurance so why should we cover overseas people here in NZ.

Many arguments I suppose, hopefully it will be mediated into something normal and other sports within the system may find themselves paying a levy for the contact sports, i.e. snowboarding, skiing, mountain biking, rugby etc.

[dipshit]

Great info that is and hopefully they will take notice of those findings.

So you think the government will base policy off a study done in 1976 in the USA over our current NZ road statistics..??? :wacko:

[davereid]

Great info that is and hopefully they will take notice of those findings.

Sadly, these facts have been known for years... they just choose to make up their own data, and we are stuck with that.

However, any motorcyclist claiming that 2/3rds of collisions are the car drivers fault, can point at very good source data.

Which is way more than ACC can do.

P.S. I have the full HURT report as a PDF if required.

[davereid]

So you think the government will base policy off a study done in 1976 in the USA over our current NZ road statistics..??? :wacko:

No.

But proper investigation of their own data would almost certainly produce the same results.

Thats why they don't publish the raw data.

However, your claim that anyone attibuting blame to the motorist is "bullshitting" is, at best "bullshit".

[dipshit]

However, any motorcyclist claiming that 2/3rds of collisions are the car drivers fault, can point at very good source data.

That is 60% of the multiple vehicle accidents. Of all multiple and single vehicle motorcycle accidents, car drivers are to blame for 40% of all motorcycle accidents. Hardly "most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers"

[davereid]

That is 60% of the multiple vehicle accidents. Of all multiple and single vehicle motorcycle accidents, car drivers are to blame for 40% of all motorcycle accidents. Hardly "most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers"

I'll help you through this, its not that hard.

75% of biker crashes are multiple vehicle. Thats easy.

66% of those are caused by the car driver.

OK, so 66% of all collisions are the car drivers fault.

But looking at ALL crashes, not just collisions :

Thats 0.75 x 0.66 = 49.5%, so almost most accidents are caused by car drivers, just by considering the multiple vehicle accidents.

But car drivers are implicated in single vehicle crashes as well.

10.9% of motorcycle only accidents listed a car violating the motorcyclists right-of-way as the cause.

It just means that the bike managed to avoid hitting the car, but still crashed.

[Monstaman]

Hardly "most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers"

Are you still here?, must be past your bedtime dipshit or is kindy having a late session.

You pick on one sentence and rape it and you are incorrect, take in the bigger picture with ALL the info.

I am not sure if you are amazing or amusing but it is good to larf at you either way, carry on this is fun, you could get a job as a broken record with your (lack of) IQ, the rest of the guys put great info for discussion but your post really come to nothing..... again.

Are you sure you don't wonna whine somewhere else as I am sure there are others who would like to larf at you too.

[dipshit]

I'll help you through this, its not that hard.

Going by an overseas study is irrelevant for our statistics.

What plays a big role in what results you get is how much of a urban/rural split there is. Demographics that have larger urban areas have more of the car vs bike accidents. More open road rural areas have more of the single vehicle motorcycle accidents.

Comparing highly populated European or US statistics will not necessarily be the same as NZ.

[dipshit]

Sadly, these facts have been known for years... they just choose to make up their own data, and we are stuck with that.

If dumb as fuck motorcyclists keep harping on to the media that "most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers" ... then it will be us motorcyclists that will lose credibility.

[Mikkel]

Seriously, i am utterly convinced your average motorcyclist is as thick as two planks.

What I am doing, is *NOT* writing to my local newspaper going - "waaaaa, it's all the car drivers fault, waaaa."... and making all motorcyclists look like a bunch of fuckwits.

Please, with your limited intelligence - do not write a load of whingeing bullshit in which you have no idea what you are talking about to any form of media. You lot are more than likely doing more harm than good in the long run

And I fully realise most of you will be to thick to grasp this.

While I agree with your point, in principle, I must admit I am amazed that, with your above-average intelligence, you fail to grasp that by throwing abuse at other members you are, in fact, undermining your own credibility.


I'll help you through this, its not that hard.

75% of biker crashes are multiple vehicle. Thats easy.

66% of those are caused by the car driver.

OK, so 66% of all collisions are the car drivers fault.

But looking at ALL crashes, not just collisions :

Thats 0.75 x 0.66 = 49.5%, so almost most accidents are caused by car drivers, just by considering the multiple vehicle accidents.

The truth would be to say that statistically 49.5% of all motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers.

Which could easily be reformulated to say - not even half of all motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers.

You gotta love statistics - you can pretty much support whatever foregone conclusions you have by only altering your approach a tiny wee smidgeon.

[dipshit]

While I agree with your point, in principle, I must admit I am amazed that, with your above-average intelligence, you fail to grasp that by throwing abuse at other members you are, in fact, undermining your own credibility.

Oh how tragic. Is the big tough motorcyclist going to cry..??




The truth would be to say that statistically 49.5% of all motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers.

And that is his overseas study. In NZ it is more like 40% of all motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers.

At least tell the media that a big portion (40%) of motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers. Do not bullshit them with "most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers"

[davereid]

The HURT report IS old, it was done overseas, but it has never been discredited. The full data set is provided, there is no fiddling of figures, its just simple factual data.

Later studies have found the same as the HURT report, within a few percentage points.

And, if you can, please point me to referenced data that shows any other trend.

Even ACC have used the 66% figure in their own literature. I an searching my archives for a copy of the ACC booklet "Whe you've got to stop use the lot" - attempting to get bikers to use the front brake which used the 66% figure. I'll publish a scan if I can find the bloody booklet in my disorganised filing pile.

Lets go through it again - most can do it in their head, but get yourself a calculator if your head hurts.

75% of all accidents involve a collision.

66% of collisions are caused by car drivers.

In 11% of crashes where a collision does not occur, the motorcyclist fell off because a car driver violated his right-of-way.

That passes the 50% figure by a safe margin.

If you have an intelligent argument, and you can quote some facts that are not produced by an interest group that wont reveal how it got its data then I'll look at it.

Otherwise, really, I can't be interested in your raves.

The traditional art of propaganda, based on saying lies over and over and over really loudly doesnt work anymore. The internet means those who are interested can soon find the real facts.

And just repeating the bullshit mantra, just makes you look more and more foolish.

[Mikkel]

Oh how tragic. Is the big tough motorcyclist going to cry..??

I don't know - do you usually cry yourself to sleep at night? I wouldn't be too surprised. But please, don't just write about it here - go start a blog. There's hardly enough negative emos around tainting the internet with their pathetic whinging as it is.


And that is his overseas study. In NZ it is more like 40% of all motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers.

At least tell the media that a big portion (40%) of motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers. Do not bullshit them with "most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers"

And in which ways does motorcycling in NZ differ from motorcycling overseas? It's not like we only "educate" the car drivers in this country...

Ultimately all these statistics are irrelevant. After all, if ACC is a no-fault scheme then it can't possibly be relevant who suffers the injury.
Besides, I don't know which part of "...I agree with you point, in principle." that you failed to grasp. However, you missed the point I was trying to get across, namely that depending upon what bias you apply in presenting statistics you can viably support vastly differing conclusions.

[dipshit]

The HURT report IS old, it was done overseas, but it has never been discredited.

But it is not the New Zealand road toll though isn't it.

Maybe you could find a 1968 Japanese study that showed x amount of motorcycle accidents were caused by car drivers too. So what..?? Talk about grasping at straws. :oi-grr:

Here is what more relevant to us here and now... http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycle-Crash-Factsheet.pdf

[dipshit]

And in which ways does motorcycling in NZ differ from motorcycling overseas? It's not like we only "educate" the car drivers in this country...

WTF..?!?!?

There will be differences from country to country because of population densities, urban/rural mix, and laws and law enforcement and other such variations.

Or would you think a country like Singapore is going to have very similar statistics to the Isle of Man, say...?

[Ixion]

And that is his overseas study. In NZ it is more like 40% of all motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers.



But, how many car accidents are caused by motorcycles ? b

[Monstaman]

"waaaaa, it's all the car drivers fault, waaaa."... .


. Hardly "most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers"


"most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers"


"most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers"


B motorcycle accidents were caused by car drivers too.

Brokenfuckenrecord, dipshit which you openily admit even by name you have to take out first for place for a single sentence whinger award.

Never met anyone like you (and hopefully won't), honesty I don't know of a septic tank big enough for your shit and dribble, all these guys put in good credible info and you do is shoot them down.

Obviously EVERYONE else on this forum is wrong and we are grateful for your input .. really :zzzz: :buggerd:

[Mikkel]

WTF..?!?!?

There will be differences from country to country because of population densities, urban/rural mix, and laws and law enforcement and other such variations.

Or would you think a country like Singapore is going to have very similar statistics to the Isle of Man, say...?

It was an honest question really. You make fair points that the geography of NZ is not comparable to many other countries and that the laws are different. But in which way would the fact that the HURT report was done in USA between 1976 and 1981 affect the results in comparison to NZ.

We can look at the population density - USA: 31/km², NZ: 16.1/km². Urban/rural mix is a bit harder to quantify, but USA has got some even more sparsely populated places than NZ and vastly more urbanised areas than NZ - so in regards to diversity they would certainly be our equal in that regard. Dunno about the law, they drive on the right - and I suppose that's the biggest difference... not at all that important in my experience.
If we consider the licensing systems, I am of the understanding that USA is one of the few western countries where they have a licensing system that is comparably undemanding to the one we have here. Start driving at 16 and 15 respectively, IIRC.

All in all, I think it's reasonable to propose that the findings of the HURT report are most likely more in tune with NZ than most other western countries.

As for time, I can't really comment - but others have claimed that the findings have been ratified again and again over the years.

[dipshit]

So, you got a reference to "most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers" in New Zealand yet?

You did say this to the press, so you must have some idea what you were talking about, yes..?

[davereid]

So, you got a reference to "most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers" in New Zealand yet?

You are the one who cant find ANY data to support your argument. You keep on saying it is 40%.

Go on then. Either present your data or fuck off.

[dipshit]

HURT report was done in USA between 1976 and 1981 affect the results in comparison to NZ.

We can look at the population density - USA: 31/km², NZ: 16.1/km². Urban/rural mix is a bit harder to quantify,

The survey was conducted in the Los Angeles basin area only. (and roads leading into the surrounding hills) The survey started in 1976 and looked at accidents over a two-year period and was published in 1981.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurt_Report

I don't know how populated the Los Angeles basin was in the late 70's, but today it looks to be an extremely heavily populated area (http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA03348.jpg). So you basically have a survey that was conducted in a large metropolitan area. This will naturally show more car vs bike accidents than what you would see over NZ as a whole.

[dipshit]

You are the one who cant find ANY data to support your argument. You keep on saying it is 40%.

Go on then. Either present your data or fuck off.


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

[Mikkel]

The survey was conducted in the Los Angeles basin area only. (and roads leading into the surrounding hills) The survey started in 1976 and looked at accidents over a two-year period and was published in 1981.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurt_Report

I don't know how populated the Los Angeles basin was in the late 70's, but today it looks to be an extremely heavily populated area (http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA03348.jpg). So you basically have a survey that was conducted in a large metropolitan area. This will naturally show more car vs bike accidents than what you would see over NZ as a whole.

That is a fair point. I went to the wikipedia page for the Hurt report - but only took the country and years from it.

Nonetheless, are you not willing to concede that the statistics are largely irrelevant as far as ACC, as a no-fault scheme, and the current registration levy increase goes? That the real issue at hand lies at a much more fundamental level...
We are in full agreement that motorcyclists presenting non-factual statistics to support our cause, aren't helping at all - but it's understandable insofar that unfairness is bound to invoke strong feelings.

[dipshit]

Nonetheless, are you not willing to concede that the statistics are largely irrelevant as far as ACC, as a no-fault scheme, and the current registration levy increase goes? That the real issue at hand lies at a much more fundamental level...

No. It is no surprise to me that this is happening. I have been trying to say many times in the past that precisely something like this will happen if our statistics continue the way they are.

They are relevant to the problem at hand.

[Mikkel]

No. It is no surprise to me that this is happening. I have been trying to say many times in the past that precisely something like this will happen if our statistics continue the way they are.

They are relevant to the problem at hand.

Fair enough. In that case, what do you suppose is the reasoning behind misrepresenting the statistics as ACC appear to be doing?

If the statistics were indeed, unambiguously, showing that motorcyclists were a huge burden to ACC - there should be no failings to be found in the information imparted by ACC in regards to the proposed ACC levy increase.

And even if there were no debating the statistics, it still doesn't harmonise with ACC being a no-fault scheme. Fair enough if we drop ACC and go for something somewhat more "american" - but is that what we want, it sure as hell isn't what I want.

[Winston001]

And even if there were no debating the statistics, it still doesn't harmonise with ACC being a no-fault scheme.

With respect the "no fault" means no blame. Not "no risk". High risk occupations pay high ACC levies. They propose extending that calculation to motorvehicles viz. motorcycles.

[NighthawkNZ]

With respect the "no fault" means no blame. Not "no risk". High risk occupations pay high ACC levies. They propose extending that calculation to motorvehicles viz. motorcycles.

so... then the arguement comes down we are all subsidising pedisrians, cyclists, kids, teenagers & adults that play local club sport.

Targeting motorcyclists with this hike goes against everything ACC stands for. Sir Owen Woodhouse one of the founders of ACC says it breaches the principles of the scheme.

All the ACC i contribute, PAYE, rego, fuel etc, is to cover me as citizen no matter what I do... Most bikers also own cars, many own multiple cars, and bikes, we pay ACC via petrol as well as PAYE, which would be very difficult to calculate what the full levy's of ACC a biker actually pays. The general public don't really care that only X amount of dollars was collected and we are spending XY amount, we all know that, that is not the only ACC that person or group of persons have paid. The average New Zealander doesn't care about semantics of what pile the money comes from especially if the person or group has put money into all the piles.

Because I don't play sports, or any other high risk activity other than motorcycling according to ACC, then I shouldn't have to pay as much in my PAYE, because also don't have any kids I should, have to paye as much as those that do...

The high risk arguement can go in circles...

[FJRider]

With respect the "no fault" means no blame. Not "no risk". High risk occupations pay high ACC levies. They propose extending that calculation to motorvehicles viz. motorcycles.

With respect of high risk occupations paying high ACC levies, they may well do. But I think what is raising the ire of some, is that some high risk "activities" are not subject to any ACC levies. Not through (any form of) registration, nor included in attached fees included in the purchase price of equipment needed for those "high risk" activities.
Extending that calculation to motorvehicles viz motorcycles ... is seemed to be merely the easy way to gather extra revenue. Without the need for change in leglislation. Just the Ministers approval for the fees increase.

Well thats how I see it.

[Jantar]

The survey was conducted in the Los Angeles basin area only. (and roads leading into the surrounding hills) The survey started in 1976 and looked at accidents over a two-year period and was published in 1981.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurt_Report

I don't know how populated the Los Angeles basin was in the late 70's, but today it looks to be an extremely heavily populated area (http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA03348.jpg). So you basically have a survey that was conducted in a large metropolitan area. This will naturally show more car vs bike accidents than what you would see over NZ as a whole.

The Maids report was conducted in Europe. Different time frame, different countries (pl), different vehicle types etc, but came up with very similar results to the Hurt report. It is the New Zealand "facts" that are out of step with the rest of the world.

http://www.maids-study.eu/


MAIDS : Motorcycle Accidents In Depth Study
MAIDS is the most comprehensive in-depth data currently available for Powered Two-Wheelers (PTWs) accidents in Europe. The investigation was conducted during 3 years on 921 accidents from 5 countries using the OECD common research methodology

[davereid]

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

Thanks for finding some data.

Here is the pie chart from your link.

It shows some interesting stuff.. actually a very close fit to the HURT report

71% of crashes were collisions, (HURT Report 75%)

They have added a section "single vehicle, no rider fault indentified" at 3%. We don't know what this is, as its not spelled out. It may be the cases in which a motorcyclist crashes after his right of way is violated, without hitting another vehicle.

If this is the case it takes us to 74% - not bad correlation really !

In 65% of collisions the motorcyclist was not primarily responsible (HURT Report 66%).

The 7% concept "not primarily responsible" muddies the waters a bit, but we have to assume it refers to situations where the biker had not allowed him self sufficient time to stop in the amount of clear road, or when the biker was speeding, or (surprisingly) the 23% of crashes where the biker was impaired by drugs or alcohol.

So I conceed that modern N.Z. figures dont support the claim that "Most" Motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers" as we can only reach 48%.

Nonetheless, its still entirely accurate to claim that in 2/3rds of collisions the car driver is at fault, and that the most common cause of motorcyclist crashes is car driver error.

[Mikkel]

With respect the "no fault" means no blame. Not "no risk". High risk occupations pay high ACC levies. They propose extending that calculation to motorvehicles viz. motorcycles.

Who pays the ACC levy for workers? As I understand it, it's the employer. If something goes tits up at work it would be the employer who could be held liable for whatever personal injuries might result. As such the levy is extracted from the party that could potentially be held liable for the accident.

In parallel, if you were subject to physical injury as a result of a motorvehicle accident, and there was no ACC, the injured could sue the resposible party for damages.

Ultimately, extracting the ACC levy based upon who suffers the injury as opposed to who causes the injury is beyond reason and fairness.

[dipshit]

So I conceed that modern N.Z. figures dont support the claim that "Most" Motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers" as we can only reach 48%.

And that's only if you add the 'partial responsibility' and 'no rider fault identified'. Otherwise it is 39%.



Nonetheless, its still entirely accurate to claim that in 2/3rds of collisions the car driver is at fault

2/3rds is a bit of a stretch from a 60% 40% split.



and that the most common cause of motorcyclist crashes is car driver error.

The most common cause of a motorcycle crash is rider error. You have 51% rider error before even adding the 7% 'partial responsibility'. Whether you run wide on a corner and crash into a tree or crash into an oncoming car is largely academic.

[davereid]

And that's only if you add the 'partial responsibility' and 'no rider fault identified'. Otherwise it is 39%.

Why would you blame bikers when "no rider fault identified" ?
And as I pointed out, the "partial responsibility" is not spelled out, you may find that not having your headlight on puts you in this category.



2/3rds is a bit of a stretch from a 60% 40% split.


But its not far from 65%.



The most common cause of a motorcycle crash is rider error. You have 51% rider error before even adding the 7% 'partial responsibility'. Whether you run wide on a corner and crash into a tree or crash into an oncoming car is largely academic.

..think of it this way..

Almost 100% of car crashes are caused by car drivers. We are responsible for only 50% of our crashes...

[pzkpfw]

Almost 100% of car crashes are caused by car drivers. We are responsible for only 50% of our crashes...

The stats are hurting my head.

What's the "Multi vehicle primary responsibility 25%" mean in the pie chart?

Isn't (at least some of this) bike vs car accidents (with bike at fault)?

[davereid]

Yeah, we are actually arguing over very small percentage points, err with no real advantage in the outcome for us as bikers either way.

But yes, in 25% of motorcycle collisions the motorcyclist is primarily at fault.

Its not correct to assume that the biker is responsible for 25% of car crashes.

Say there are 100 collisions, 96 involve only cars, and 4 involve bikes.

96 are totally the fault of a car driver - must be cos he hit another car.
1 is primarily the fault of a motorcyclist
3 are primarily the fault of the car driver who crashed into a biker.

So, in this example 100% of car v car accidents are the car drivers fault, 99% of all accidents are the car drivers fault, and 25% of the motorcyclists accidents are the motorcyclists fault.

Those figures on the pie chart apply only to motorcycle crashes, not all crashes !

[pzkpfw]

Those figures on the pie chart apply only to motorcycle crashes, not all crashes !

Insert facepalm smiley here.

Thanks. I will slink off now...

[dipshit]

What's the "Multi vehicle primary responsibility 25%" mean in the pie chart?

That is 25% of all motorcycle crashes are a motorcycle hitting a car and being the one at fault.

[mikeey01]

That is 25% of all motorcycle crashes are a motorcycle hitting a car and being the one at fault.

Could this be included in those stats?
bike lost control into car etc i.e. wet/gravel / oil on road?

I can't help but think the raw data when viewed may show data entry errors such as this one or others.

[NighthawkNZ]

Could this be included in those stats?
bike lost control into car etc i.e. wet/gravel / oil on road?.

would still be rider error...

[davereid]

Insert facepalm smiley here.Thanks. I will slink off now...

Haha.. no need to slink off. Its a deliberate data manipulation technique used by statisticians to make a particular group look good, or bad as required by the spin doctor.

Cos the other way to look at it is..

Say there are 100 collisions, 96 involve only cars, and 4 involve bikes.

96 are totally the fault of a car driver - must be cos he hit another car.
1 is primarily the fault of a motorcyclist
3 are primarily the fault of the car driver who crashed into a biker.

99% primarily the cars fault
1% primarily the motorcyclists fault


I could argue that

96 car v car crashes = 192 cars that crashed
4 car v bike crashes = 4 more cars and 4 bikes.

Now my sample has 196 cars and 4 bikes..

I can redo my stats to show much better figures for cars..

I can say 200 crashes
99 car drivers prosecuted ie 49.5% of car drivers doing illegal stuff
1 biker out of 4 = 25% of bikers doing illegal stuff

Now I have halved your impression of how bad the car driver is, and made the biker look 25x worse.

Thats why figures from ACC and NZTA that are not supplied with raw data should be treated with extreme caution.

[dipshit]

Could this be included in those stats?
bike lost control into car etc i.e. wet/gravel / oil on road?

I can't help but think the raw data when viewed may show data entry errors such as this one or others.


I have no doubt they are. If a bike runs wide on a corner and smacks head-on into an oncoming car, i am sure that would be classed as a multi-vehicle accident.

Why would you think of that as an error in the stats...???

[dipshit]

would still be rider error...

He's just doing the typical motorcyclist thing. If he can't blame a car driver then the next best thing is to blame the road.

[dipshit]

Thats why figures from ACC and NZTA that are not supplied with raw data should be treated with extreme caution.

And even more so from any motorcyclists talking to the media.

[NighthawkNZ]

He's just doing the typical motorcyclist thing. If he can't blame a car driver then the next best thing is to blame the road.

Not always, I have hit newy sealed road on a 100kph corner on state hwy 1, there was no signs no indication that it was there till I hit it... and yes I nearly had an off, It just looked like a normal piece of road, and I couldn't tell that there was grit till I was on it...

The road crew were just packing up the signs as I hit it, and could see one of them actually laughing as he watched me gain control... Got to the rally we were going to, and heard that there was an off on the same piece of road...

If the signs were still there I would not have hit it at 100kph and would have had some warning...

[dipshit]

So Monstaman, found any NZ data that shows "most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers" yet..???

[Monstaman]

And even more so from any motorcyclists talking to the media.

Broken record


So Monstaman, found any NZ data that shows "most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers" yet..???

Broken record.

Other than this reply I am not even going bother responding to you as you will only want to shoot it down with shit again and quite frankly I can't be fucked with you, it would seem that anyone who says anything you don't agree with is totally wrong .. g o o d on ya!! :violin:.

[Winston001]

so... then the arguement comes down we are all subsidising pedisrians, cyclists, kids, teenagers & adults that play local club sport.

All the ACC i contribute, PAYE, rego, fuel etc, is to cover me as citizen no matter what I do...




With respect of high risk occupations paying high ACC levies, they may well do. But I think what is raising the ire of some, is that some high risk "activities" are not subject to any ACC levies.


Who pays the ACC levy for workers? As I understand it, it's the employer. If something goes tits up at work it would be the employer who could be held liable for whatever personal injuries might result.

Ultimately, extracting the ACC levy based upon who suffers the injury as opposed to who causes the injury is beyond reason and fairness.

Very good points chaps which I agree with in essence. We - the NZ working public - do subsidise non-work ACC claims. Falls in the shower, sports etc. That's what we pay the earner premium for. Its 0.5c/$ in of your PAYE tax. It probably needs to rise.

The average claimant also subsidises non-work claims too in the sense that they get no wages comp for the first week.

Employers pay a levy calculated on the job risk so they bear a disproportionate cost of ACC. There are no exceptions for stupid workers or accidents caused by other people. The employer pays whatever - no fault remember?

However an employer with a bad accident record does not pay an extra levy. So Mikkel, in the ACC sense the employer isn't held liable.

That doesn't mean an OSH prosecution can't happen but thats nothing to do with ACC.

The core problem is ACC has a motorvehicle account. So far as I know this goes back to the very beginning in 1972. Arguably it shouldn't exist and all ACC money should come from employers and the earner premium. Sorry lads but I cannot see that happening.

Finally as much as it irritates me to see sporting injuries get a free ride, I cannot for the life of me construct a simple method to tax sport. If you impose it on gear, the retailer suddenly needs a new accounting system to cope. Tax teams....?? Yeah right. Who'd play?

[NighthawkNZ]

the retailer suddenly needs a new accounting system to cope. Tax teams....?? Yeah right. Who'd play?

no they don't? retail systems could easily coupe and add the extra levy fee on and the software doing the accounts out the back is even easier to setup

[Winston001]

no they don't? retail systems could easily coupe and add the extra levy fee on and the software doing the accounts out the back is even easier to setup

Dale - you are looking at this from the perspective of someone comfortable with numbers, computers and programs.

I can remember the nightmare introduction of GST and the work generated for accountants. Not only would shops have to learn to differentiate between goods, they'd have more tax returns to do too.

Certainly it could be done but it isn't desirable. Simple is best.

[Monstaman]

Very good points Winston001 and as NighthawkNZ it probably wouldn't be hard to implement a system with today technology.

As a keen mountain biker and kayaker as well I would not begrudge having some sort of levy on all new goods bought off the showroom floor for the first time, this would apply to bikes, tennis rackets, rugby boots, kayaks etc i.e. all the non levied sports which contribute to the ACC bill.

Sounds simple, probably not but to spread the cost over many other sports and hobbies than carry injury statistic would make sense to me.

Big start would be to take ACC payments away from crims, non residents etc as well.

[NighthawkNZ]

I can remember the nightmare introduction of GST and the work generated for accountants. Not only would shops have to learn to differentiate between goods, they'd have more tax returns to do too.

Software has come a long way since then... most its just a click of a button to add a new levy... on to th eaccount etc


thing is I can see that they will introduce something like this... as they need to generate that extra cash to become fully funded

[Winston001]

Software has come a long way since then... most its just a click of a button to add a new levy... on to th eaccount etc


thing is I can see that they will introduce something like this... as they need to generate that extra cash to become fully funded

Yes but the simple answer is increase the Earner Premium which comes with PAYE. Its politically difficult cos it looks like extra tax.

Really the best answer would be to reduce spending. I can't help but agree with those who say ACC created physiotherapy as a new medical profession. Not that physio is bad, but its a feel-good therapy a lot of the time.....

[NighthawkNZ]

Yes but the simple answer is increase the Earner Premium which comes with PAYE. Its politically difficult cos it looks like extra tax.

Really the best answer would be to reduce spending. I can't help but agree with those who say ACC created physiotherapy as a new medical profession. Not that physio is bad, but its a feel-good therapy a lot of the time.....

so I pay more to cover sports players which I don't play... I would rather my ACC in my PAYE cover me riding my bike... which it should

[Mikkel]

Employers pay a levy calculated on the job risk so they bear a disproportionate cost of ACC. There are no exceptions for stupid workers or accidents caused by other people. The employer pays whatever - no fault remember?

However an employer with a bad accident record does not pay an extra levy. So Mikkel, in the ACC sense the employer isn't held liable.

Of course not, the point of ACC, to a large degree, is to prevent any claims be made against an employer in the case of a work-related injury.

My point is, IF there was no ACC and some guy suffered a work-related injury he could possible hold his employer responsible and file a lawsuit for damages. As it is, the employer pays their levy in order to, amongst other issues, keep their back free of potential repercussions arising from work-related injuries occurring at their business.

If we compare this to the current state of affairs within the pulverising life of motor transportation we must notice the following: If one were to suffer an injury caused by the incompetence of another roaduser you could, in the case that there was no ACC, take that person to court and sue for damages. However, the levy extracted from motorists does neither reflect the likelihood nor potential of said motorist causing injury to themselves and third parties - rather how likely they are to suffer injury caused by themselves or third parties. As such you are, not to put too fine a point on details, taxing the victims instead of the criminals.

The inherent unfairness of this is what bugs me more than anything.

After all, if we aren't going to fault whoever causes an incident - how the fuck, pardon my french, can it be reasonable to fault who suffers it. And while we do recognise risk factors as far as work-related injuries goes - we do send the bill in the appropriate direction, namely the employers and not the workers. Imagine what would happen if they changed the rules so that you would pay a varying percentage of you income to reflect the risk-factor of your occupation... all hell would break loose!

[dipshit]

Other than this reply I am not even going bother responding to you as you will only want to shoot it down with shit again and quite frankly I can't be fucked with you, it would seem that anyone who says anything you don't agree with is totally wrong .. g o o d on ya!! .


So that would be a 'no' then.

[Winston001]

so I pay more to cover sports players which I don't play... I would rather my ACC in my PAYE cover me riding my bike... which it should

You already pay - and have done for decades - for the DPB which I don't think you are likely to access....:jerry: And numerous other welfare benefits. Thats just the price of living in a community. Neither you or I would want to see sports injured people on street corners begging for help.....:eek:

[NighthawkNZ]

You already pay - and have done for decades - for the DPB which I don't think you are likely to access....:jerry: And numerous other welfare benefits. Thats just the price of living in a community. Neither you or I would want to see sports injured people on street corners begging for help.....:eek:

and thats the whole point of the cross subsidising... yet they ACC don't want to cross subsidise motorcyclists...

[duckonin]

What makes you think that most motorcycle accidents are caused by other motorists?

Did you bother to find out the facts before talking to the media...???
Are you actually alive.?.That is eyes wide open!!!
Do we all have to believe the media print or talk the truth ?:done:

[Winston001]

If we compare this to the current state of affairs within the pulverising life of motor transportation we must notice the following: If one were to suffer an injury caused by the incompetence of another roaduser you could, in the case that there was no ACC, take that person to court and sue for damages. However, the levy extracted from motorists does neither reflect the likelihood nor potential of said motorist causing injury to themselves and third parties - rather how likely they are to suffer injury caused by themselves or third parties. As such you are, not to put too fine a point on details, taxing the victims instead of the criminals.

The inherent unfairness of this is what bugs me more than anything.

After all, if we aren't going to fault whoever causes an incident - how the fuck, pardon my french, can it be reasonable to fault who suffers it.....

Forgive me, I enjoy a good argument. :D

Firstly motor-vehicle and work accidents do not exist in a miraculous "no fault" zone. The Police and the Labour Department are very zealous about prosecuting persons at fault - be it a third party driver or an employer (OSH).

So if your accident is caused by a car driver - the one you want to sue - that person will be prosecuted by the police. Thus there are consequences for fault - but they don't involve you having to privately sue.

Secondly, the motorvehicle ACC fund has covered current claims but its the longterm funding which is at issue. Within the fund, motorcyclists appear to pay less than their fair share.

Yes I know thats debatable but objectively it looks a fair point - which we can show is wrong - if it is.

I have to say that in choosing to ride a m/c I know I'm unprotected compared with people in cars. I accept that risk. But is it fair to expect car owners to cover my extra risk?




Indubitably.......YES!! :done: One for all and all for one.

[FJRider]

The motorvehicle ACC fund has covered current claims but its the longterm funding which is at issue. Within the fund, motorcyclists appear to pay less than their fair share.

I have to say that in choosing to ride a m/c I know I'm unprotected compared with people in cars. I accept that risk. But is it fair to expect car owners to cover my extra risk?



The majority of motorcyclist's (... not all of them I know) own a car too. So they are already paying an ACC levy twice. Many owning more than one. In effect paying two or three (or more) [times] the levy's of car owners already. I for one, would like to know what percentage of motorcyclist's actually own more than one motorcycle. It seems the assumption is that car or bike owners only have ONE vehicle.

[dipshit]

Are you actually alive.?.That is eyes wide open!!!
Do we all have to believe the media print or talk the truth ?:done:

Well yes if we want the credibility to poke holes in the ACC figures.

And if our number one argument to get off the price hike is "most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers" simply isn't true, then what is the chance of succeeding..???

The general public will think we are a bunch whingeing hypocrites when they find out that most motorcycle accidents aren't caused by car drivers. Any credibility and sympathy we may have from the general public could be lost.

[Ixion]

and thats the whole point of the cross subsidising... yet they ACC don't want to cross subsidise motorcyclists...

That is the essential point, isn't it.

You either accept the Woodhouse principles, or you accept user pays. But the ACC want to have a bob each way. Woodhouse for most but user pays for motorcyclists.

[Winston001]

That is the essential point, isn't it.

You either accept the Woodhouse principles, or you accept user pays. But the ACC want to have a bob each way. Woodhouse for most but user pays for motorcyclists.

Well no. As has been pointed out several times, ACC employment levies are calculated on risk. Just because it hasn't happened in the past doesn't obviate differential motorvehicle levies now.

[NighthawkNZ]

Well no. As has been pointed out several times, ACC employment levies are calculated on risk. Just because it hasn't happened in the past doesn't obviate differential motorvehicle levies now.

So why do I have to subsidise Athletics $1,033,000, Badminton $961,000, Basketball $3,715,000, Boxing $813,000, Bungey Jumping $62,000, Cycling $10,447,000, Kick-boxing $148,000, Mountaineering $969,000 Parachute jumping $553,000, Skateboarding $3,027,000, Skiing $8,004,000, Netball $11,496,000 Roller Skating $396,000, Rollerblading $89,000, Water Skiing $2,872,000. The list goes on.

I do not do any of these sports... they actually have a higher risk of injuiry... notice the above does mention not have the rugby or league... and they are up round 50mil and 40mil

ACC paid $439,507,000 for injury claims that resulted from an accident at home. Should there be an ACC levy based on the size of your house or family? and or the number of children you have?I mean where does it stop.

This is just a circular arguement errr discussion.

At the end of the day ACC isn't going broke... it made more than enough 4.5b to cover claims at 1.7b and that has been steady for the last couple of years. It now has 11b in the bank, and banked 1b last year... the system as it is is working and no changes need to be made at all it should be Status Quo. So what if we are not fully funded by 2014... i don't care if it takes another 20years.

There will always be cross subsidising hell we are all subsidising cyclists... but they are covered by the ACC from PAYE , but out of those 567active claims how many are kids... then the circular arguement parents should pay more for the riskof their kids.

If you target one group target them all... anfd put a levy on it... so then what is the point of my PAYE levy. Which also covers me for anything I do as a citizn, including, driving, riding, or snowboarding...

There is no way to work out how much motorcyclists pay truly pay to ACC and the average New Zealander doesn't care about the semantics of what pile the money comes from especially if the person or group has put money into all the piles.

[NighthawkNZ]

You have kept taking the shots at cyclists. You are now on ignore.

Please feel free to kill my southern rider profile too as I will not be back.


meh... what ever... good on yah...

[Winston001]

So why do I have to subsidise Athletics $1,033,000, Badminton $961,000, Basketball $3,715,000, Boxing $813,000, Bungey Jumping $62,000, Cycling $10,447,000, Kick-boxing $148,000, Mountaineering $969,000 Parachute jumping $553,000, Skateboarding $3,027,000, Skiing $8,004,000, Netball $11,496,000 Roller Skating $396,000, Rollerblading $89,000, Water Skiing $2,872,000. The list goes on.

Because there is a simple existing structure to collect work related levies. PAYE, and annual invoices to employers. There is no equivalent structure to grab sports/home levies.


At the end of the day ACC isn't going broke... it made more than enough 4.5b to cover claims at 1.7b and that has been steady for the last couple of years. So what if we are not fully dunded by 2014... i don't care if it takes another 20 years.


Fair point and its certainly a valid argument - except it looks like no-one in Parliament thinks that way.

I know you are just letting out your frustrations :D and many others will agree with you. :mobile:

[NighthawkNZ]

Because there is a simple existing structure to collect work related levies. PAYE, and annual invoices to employers. There is no equivalent structure to grab sports/home levies.

My PAYE still covers me for riding a motorcycle last year it was around 2g + 252 from rego + fuel..

As I have said before there will never be a fair system unless we drop every levy we pay at present and introduce a levy for being HUMAN, and even that won't be fair. ;)

[dipshit]

So why do I have to subsidise Athletics $1,033,000, Badminton... blah blah blah...

You sound like a 5 year-old that is going "waaaaa... Timmy got more ice cream than me.... waaaaa"

Give it a rest.

[NighthawkNZ]

You sound like a 5 year-old that is going "waaaaa... Timmy got more ice cream than me.... waaaaa"

Give it a rest.

been saying the same thing about you as well...

[davereid]

You either accept the Woodhouse principles, or you accept user pays. But the ACC want to have a bob each way. Woodhouse for most but user pays for motorcyclists.

Absolutely.

ACC use the word "Risk". But they don't actually apply it. If they did, drivers that do low mileages, or have an excellent driving record would pay less than drivers who crash all the time.

When ACC use the word "risk" they mean they have divided up ACC accounts, into smaller user groups, and they can see that some of those user groups cost more than others.

This leads them to assert that this group has higher "risk", and therefore that group should be charged a higer premium.

But the "charge those to whom the costs lie" argument is actually an argument for the abolition of the ACC system.

As bikers, our problem is not one of "subsidy", "fairness", or "risk". Our problem is that we are separately accounted for, as a small group.

Lets say for example, that we kept on reducing the size of the group we account for, so we can charge "fairer and fairer" premiums, based on "Risk", or at least the account cost for that subset of account holders.

Lets reduce it to a size of 1, the individual.

Then we can charge a really fair premium, with no subsidy from anyone.

You fall over, you get hurt, we fix you, and we charge all the costs of your fix up. (Plus heaps for our management of it.)

Of course, then you dont actually have insurance, do you !