The unpopular view

[AD345]

Using unpopular in the sense that this view does not seem to be either the majority one being expressed nor will it sit well with some of those views that ARE being expressed. Nonetheless....

I will be joining in with the protest activities and contributing where I can in other areas. I am, however, doing so for reasons other than those expressed by some.
I'm not outraged by an apparent targeting of my favourite form of recreation.
I'm not hell bent on proving that motorcycling is just as valid a means of transportation as a car.
I could not give 2 shits about my carbon footprint either on my bike, or not.
I spend not one second raging about "other motorcyclists" giving "us" a bad name with their behaviour. Nor do I subscribe to the absurd view that levy hikes are a response to such behaviour.

Thats an excuse - not a reason.

There is only one reason that I am protesting:

The Government is betraying its citizens and breaking (explicitly breaking) a social compact that was formed 34 years ago and is intrinsic to the identity of this nation.

ACC is NOT an insurance scheme. For those morons that keep rabbiting on about comparisons to private insurance - learn what it means to be a citizen of this country you twats.

ACC is a 24/7 NO FAULT accident COMPENSATION scheme set in place so that the citizens of New Zealand should not be financially disadvantaged in the event of injury. In return for universal coverage of this compensation we forwent the ability to sue anyone who might have been deemed to have been liable for the injury

THAT'S IT

FULL STOP

This is only marginally about bikes, basically they are doing it to us because they think that they can.

For me this protest is to show the goverment that they cannot.

Don't ask me to be polite

Don't ask me to be "responsible"

Especially don't ask me to justify my recreational pasttime

I'm a citizen amd I'm fucked off

I'm going to stay fucked off until this gets fixed and I will do whatever I think is necessary to remind those in elected positions that they are there to carry out the duties of their office in the service of the citizenry.

[Katman]

ACC is a 24/7 NO FAULT accident COMPENSATION scheme set in place so that the citizens of New Zealand should not be financially disadvantaged in the event of injury.


It is a scheme whereby I'm being expected to pay more to fix up habitual idiots.

That's why I'm protesting.

[AD345]

It is a scheme whereby I'm expected to pay more to fix up habitual idiots.

That's why I'm protesting.

You seem to have missed a couple of pertinent words there - let me show you them:

NO FAULT

Hope that helps




In a more serious vein - the "no fault" part of the ACC scheme is intrinsic to its existance and the single biggest reason that it came into existence.

Protest THAT

[Katman]

You seem to have missed a couple of pertinent words there - let me show you them:

NO FAULT

Hope that helps



Exactly - it's not my fault that idiots can't stay upright.

[ducatilover]

It is a scheme whereby I'm being expected to pay more to fix up habitual idiots.

That's why I'm protesting.

:Police: I agree with you Katman.

But I also agree with AD345
I have been covered by ACC myself, not in compensation for loss of wages [which I should have been entitled to but never received] But I have been covered with my treatment and operations for the crash I had in 2005, I am still undergoing treatment for these injuries and may be for a very long time. I am happy to pay my ACC levies, but, I think they are being fucking ridiculous about it, as AD345 said, they are doing it because they think they can.

[Winston001]

Y

NO FAULT

Hope that helps




In a more serious vein - the "no fault" part of the ACC scheme is intrinsic to its existance and the single biggest reason that it came into existence.



Good stuff and I'm pleased to see a robust alternative view on the issue.

"No Fault" means "No Blame" in the compensation/damages sense. However it does not mean "No Risk".

So.......if you choose a risky occupation then you pay more ACC. The problem arises in the context of non-work injuries. At present there is no distinction or levy imposed for high risk activities.

Personally I'm happy for that to continue and support the protest actions. :Punk:

[short-circuit]

It is a scheme whereby I'm being expected to pay more to fix up habitual idiots.

That's why I'm protesting.

Irrevelant and erroneous sorry Katman.


And AD345 I agree wholeheartedly with your position. The fact that as a motorcyclist these changes impact on me in a more immediate way does make it a slightly more bitter pill to swallow however.

[Katman]

Irrevelant and erroneous sorry Katman.




Irrelevant - yes

Erroneous - no

[FJRider]

It is a scheme whereby I'm being expected to pay more to fix up habitual idiots.

That's why I'm protesting.

It is good to find a motorcyclist that never has ... and never will need the assistance of ACC in the course of his motorcycling activities ... :jerry::jerry::jerry:

[Katman]

It is good to find a motorcyclist that never has ... and never will need the assistance of ACC in the course of his motorcycling activities ... :jerry::jerry::jerry:

Where did I say that?

I have no problem paying a levy on the off-chance that I have an accident.

But to increase my levy when I haven't claimed off ACC for over 20 years is morally unjust.

[FJRider]

Exactly - it's not my fault that idiots can't stay upright.

So ... on the "off chance" you "can't stay upright" ... that would instantly make you "an idiot" ????

How many crashes will it take to be described as "habitual" ???

[Katman]

So ... on the "off chance" you "can't stay upright" ... that would instantly make you "an idiot" ????

I'll back my chances of staying upright.


How many crashes will it take to be described as "habitual" ???

Don't know. How many have you had?

[Grahameeboy]

It is a scheme whereby I'm being expected to pay more to fix up habitual idiots.

That's why I'm protesting.

Not everyone who needs fixing up is an idiot KTM...important to remember

[Grahameeboy]

I'll back my chances of staying upright.



Well they are looking at coffins sunk upright to save space....

[Katman]

Not everyone who needs fixing up is an idiot KTM...important to remember

I never said they were.

[Grahameeboy]

Where did I say that?

I have no problem paying a levy on the off-chance that I have an accident.

But to increase my levy when I haven't claimed off ACC for over 20 years is morally unjust.

So you don't insured your home, contents etc.....

[Grahameeboy]

I never said they were.

"It is a scheme whereby I'm being expected to pay more to fix up habitual idiots.

That's why I'm protesting."

It must be very subtle which is unlike you Sir

[Katman]

"It is a scheme whereby I'm being expected to pay more to fix up habitual idiots.

That's why I'm protesting."

It must be very subtle which is unlike you Sir

Not subtle at all Graham.

I'm happy for my levy to go towards fixing those who are injured when they are not primarily at fault or when an accident occurs which wasn't a result of stupidity.

I begrudge paying to fix up those who ride irresponsibly and/or don't learn from their stupid mistakes.

[Grahameeboy]

Not subtle at all Graham.

I'm happy for my levy to go towards fixing those who are injured when they are not primarily at fault or when an accident occurs which wasn't a result of stupidity.

I begrudge paying to fix up those who ride irresponsibly and/or don't learn from their mistakes.

I see....I cannot take that view...it's the smokers argument reversed..we pay more in taxes so should get equal treatment...

[Ixion]

"No Fault" means "No Blame" in the compensation/damages sense. However it does not mean "No Risk".

So.......if you choose a risky occupation then you pay more ACC. The problem arises in the context of non-work injuries. At present there is no distinction or levy imposed for high risk activities.

Personally I'm happy for that to continue and support the protest actions. :Punk:

Yes, risky occupations do pay more.

But I believe I can distinguish the two cases of occupational (workplace) levies and road user levies.

In the case of workplace levies *all* workplaces are assessed for risk, and their levies adjusted accordingly. In the case of road user levies *only* motorcycles are singled out.

If the ACC were to assess the risk factor for *all* road users (including cyclists and pedestrians) , and charge accordingly, I would consider that fair on an insurance basis. Of course, I would then expect that, like any other insurance scheme, they would offer people like me , who have never claimed, a no claims bonus. Oh, and return to me the right to sue those whose negligence or default harms me.

But that's NOT the case. Only motorcyclists are singled out. And moreover, the basis upon which the risk loadings are made in workplace levies is very open and transparent and contestable. That assigning higher levies to motorcycles certainly is not.

At a higher level though, I would still object to setting road users levies by a risk factor, since , as I noted above , that would , in fact, be turn ACC into an insurance scheme. Which it is not and never was supposed to be.

And, as it is the National government are tryi ng to have a bob each way. Treat motorcyclists as if it were an insurance scheme, and leave it as a compensations cheme for everyone else

[FJRider]

I'll back my chances of staying upright.

I take that as a yes ...




Don't know. How many have you had?

Another "Don't know" reply from you, to a question I've asked you. Thats getting to be seen as habbitual ...

And I've had two requiring (qualifying for) ACC assistance ... in the time ACC has been in existance. Prior to that, my OWN health insurance covered me. And still does.

[Grahameeboy]

Yes, risky occupations do pay more.

But I believe I can distinguish the two cases of occupational (workplace) levies and road user levies.

In the case of workplace levies *all* workplaces are assessed for risk, and their levies adjusted accordingly. In the case of road user levies *only* motorcycles are singled out.

If the ACC were to assess the risk factor for *all* road users (including cyclists and pedestrians) , and charge accordingly, I would consider that fair on an insurance basis. Of course, I would then expect that, like any other insurance scheme, they would offer people like me , who have never claimed, a no claims bonus. Oh, and return to me the right to sue those whose negligence or default harms me.

But that's NOT the case. Only motorcyclists are singled out. And moreover, the basis upon which the risk loadings are made in workplace levies is very open and transparent and contestable. That assigning higher levies to motorcycles certainly is not.

At a higher level though, I would still object to setting road users levies by a risk factor, since , as I noted above , that would , in fact, be turn ACC into an insurance scheme. Which it is not and never was supposed to be.

And, as it is the National government are tryi ng to have a bob each way. Treat motorcyclists as if it were an insurance scheme, and leave it as a compensations cheme for everyone else

It is better than an insurance scheme....

[Grahameeboy]

I take that as a yes ...




This is how he stays upright

[Katman]

So you don't insured your home, contents etc.....

I don't recall our insurance company ever saying "Hey, you haven't claimed in 20 years - we're tripling your premium".

[Grahameeboy]

I don't recall our insurance company saying "Hey, you haven't claimed in 20 years - we're tripling your premium".

No but you will find that your premium has more than that in 20 years but premiums do go up because of the general claims experience...NZI have just announced the 3rd rate rise and higher standard excesses this year for people who have no claims because of the whole experience.

[NighthawkNZ]

No but you will find that your premium has more than that in 20 years but premiums do go up because of the general claims experience...NZI have just announced the 3rd rate rise and higher standard excesses this year for people who have no claims because of the whole experience.

but ACC isn't insurance

[Grahameeboy]

but ACC isn't insurance

The reality is that it is.........it's an underwritten fund....but my point was replying to KTM's point about Insurance

[FJRider]

The Government is betraying its citizens and breaking (explicitly breaking) a social compact that was formed 34 years ago and is intrinsic to the identity of this nation.

ACC is a 24/7 NO FAULT accident COMPENSATION scheme set in place so that the citizens of New Zealand should not be financially disadvantaged in the event of injury. In return for universal coverage of this compensation we forwent the ability to sue anyone who might have been deemed to have been liable for the injury

This is only marginally about bikes, basically they are doing it to us because they think that they can.

For me this protest is to show the goverment that they cannot.

As much as I agree with most of what you said, and why. There seem to be a few points I must disagree with.

Never have I seen, at the time of the original implmentation of ACC compensation being made available, that levys/fee's would not rise. EVER.

No fault is all persons in the event of an accident, are eligible for compensation. Not ... those in high risk activities would not be expected to pay a higher levy for that privilege.

As I understand it, under the current system/laws, the Goverment Legally can. And only requires the ministers signature to make it happen. The political repercussions of such an action however, are another story.

My personal dislike of the proposal, is based more what I percieve as an unfair method of determining from who, and how those extra fees are gained ...

This is not the first time the ACC levy has gone up in recent years, with little more than a murmur of protest.

The precedent was set then.

[FJRider]

This is how he stays upright

A pussy in a helmet .... apt ... :lol:

[NighthawkNZ]

Because the have seperated the accounts into seperate accounts it makes it look a lot worse than it really is... It was never intended to operate that way

[FJRider]

but ACC isn't insurance

At least not as much as most people assume/believe a "Health" insurance company should be. Because a "health" insurance Company it is not.

[short-circuit]

Irrelevant - yes

Erroneous - no

Your first point was erroneous as well. As far as ACC goes you're not paying for other people's fuck ups in the same way that you do with inflated insurance premiums. As stated earlier - ACC is not an insurance scheme, it is a universal accident compensation scheme.

[Katman]

Your first point was erroneous as well. As far as ACC goes you're not paying for other people's fuck ups in the same way that you do with inflated insurance premiums. As stated earlier - ACC is not an insurance scheme, it is a universal accident compensation scheme.

The whole reason that ACC have decided to target motorcyclists stems from the fact that we are over-represented in the accident figures and they feel that they'll be able to count on public support for going after us.

So in that respect, I'm right.

The idiots have fucked it up for the rest of us.

[AD345]

As much as I agree with most of what you said, and why. There seem to be a few points I must disagree with.

Never have I seen, at the time of the original implmentation of ACC compensation being made available, that levys/fee's would not rise. EVER.

No fault is all persons in the event of an accident, are eligible for compensation. Not ... those in high risk activities would not be expected to pay a higher levy for that privilege.

As I understand it, under the current system/laws, the Goverment Legally can. And only requires the ministers signature to make it happen. The political repercussions of such an action however, are another story.

My personal dislike of the proposal, is based more what I percieve as an unfair method of determining from who, and how those extra fees are gained ...

This is not the first time the ACC levy has gone up in recent years, with little more than a murmur of protest.

The precedent was set then.


Good stuff and I'm pleased to see a robust alternative view on the issue.

"No Fault" means "No Blame" in the compensation/damages sense. However it does not mean "No Risk".

So.......if you choose a risky occupation then you pay more ACC. The problem arises in the context of non-work injuries. At present there is no distinction or levy imposed for high risk activities.

Personally I'm happy for that to continue and support the protest actions. :Punk:


Excellent points from both of you around risk.

However, on this point, I must plead a certain amount of past hypocrisy because I believe that we are now reaping what we have sown.

ACC as a universal compensation scheme was never intended to have risk profile. INSURANCE schemes have risk profiles, COMPENSATIOn schemes don't. The funding for ACC should have always reflected its payments. Universal payments should mean universal levying.

As the poem goes (hugely abridged):

When they came for timber workers
I did nothing for I am not a timber worker

When they came for farmers
I did nothing for I am not a farmer

Now they have come for me.....

After an excellent meal (Only Seafood in Pahia serves the best seafood chowder I have ever had - and I've had it in New England, Fishermans Wharf in San Francisco and with Jaques Cousteau at Lombardos in Fremantle.........but I digress) and some thought I now realise that, for me at least, this is going to be the start of probably a long campaign.

ACC has strayed too far from it's original course. It is time to bring it back to the core idea.

Motorcyclists first

[FJRider]

The whole reason that ACC have decided to target motorcyclists stems from the fact that we are over-represented in the accident figures and they feel that they'll be able to count on public support for going after us.

So in that respect, I'm right.

The idiots have fucked it up for the rest of us.

ACC may believe they have public support ... and they may well have (well a majority of the public if it means THEY dont have to pay more) :chase:

The Minister (in/and the political party that approves it) may not be as fortunate. :eek:

you cant be right .... its not right that you could be right. :shifty:

The idiots are those that approved assistance to those that should not have been allowed. They put ACC in the position it is in. :doh:

Not motorcyclists as a whole. :Punk:

[98tls]

Excellent points from both of you around risk.

However, on this point, I must plead a certain amount of past hypocrisy because I believe that we are now reaping what we have sown.

ACC as a universal compensation scheme was never intended to have risk profile. INSURANCE schemes have risk profiles, COMPENSATIOn schemes don't. The funding for ACC should have always reflected its payments. Universal payments should mean universal levying.

As the poem goes (hugely abridged):

When they came for timber workers
I did nothing for I am not a timber worker

When they came for farmers
I did nothing for I am not a farmer

Now they have come for me.....

After an excellent meal (Only Seafood in Pahia serves the best seafood chowder I have ever had - and I've had it in New England, Fishermans Wharf in San Francisco and with Jaques Cousteau at Lombardos in Fremantle.........but I digress) and some thought I now realise that, for me at least, this is going to be the start of probably a long campaign.

ACC has strayed too far from it's original course. It is time to bring it back to the core idea.

Motorcyclists first I wholeheartedly agree mate but sadly ACC is a lowly number of many things that have strayed far off course,so far in my 47 years ive yet to see evidence of money growing on trees so here we go embarking on robbing Peter to pay Paul.To cut a long story short i can only surmise if said robbing would be necessary if in order to gain parliamentary position the various candidates hadnt sent us to welfare-nana statedom.No doubt there will be a couple of hundy cut from the proposed levy to shut us up but then they will just move on to the next group of donators whoever they may be.

[Ixion]

ACC may believe they have public support ... and they may well have (well a majority of the public if it means THEY dont have to pay more) :chase:

The Minister (in/and the political party that approves it) may not be as fortunate. :eek:

..

No. I don't believe they do have public support. Of course, most of the public don't really care very much one way or the other. but, insofar as they support one side or other, they support us.

I'm sure that ACC expected to have public support. "Time those 1%ers were taxed off the road" "why should you subsidise tattooed troublemakers " etc.

Hasn't worked out that way.

The buzz I hear is (remembering again that it's not an excited buzz) that we are being picked on and the levy is a "kick in the teeth".

[FJRider]

ACC as a universal compensation scheme was never intended to have risk profile.

Just as motorcycles were never intended (originally) to be a "hobby" activity.

I remember when sex was safe and motorcycles were dangerous. Now ... even Big Mac's are dangerous ... apparently ...



After an excellent meal (Only Seafood in Pahia serves the best seafood chowder I have ever had - and I've had it in New England, Fishermans Wharf in San Francisco and with Jaques Cousteau at Lombardos in Fremantle.........but I digress) and some thought I now realise that, for me at least, this is going to be the start of probably a long campaign.

Try the chowder at "Fluers" in Moraki.... its good, and I dont even like sea food. (but I digress)



ACC has strayed too far from it's original course. It is time to bring it back to the core idea.

Motorcyclists first

I think every goverment that has been in power since the introduction of ACC, has changed it in some manner.

Motorcyclists CAN ... but WILL they ???

[NighthawkNZ]

Motorcyclists CAN ... but WILL they ???


thats what I am fighting for anyhow...

[AD345]

I think every goverment that has been in power since the introduction of ACC, has changed it in some manner.

Motorcyclists CAN ... but WILL they ???

Therein lies the rub.

When I was at the BRONZ meeting the other night there were too many motions and too many people wanting a chnce to vent for any sort of prolonged discussion about broader issues. (that's not a criticism of a very well run meeting BTW) Being a smoker I was out one side and able to just say a few things to people there, nothing dramatic or earthshattering, just some home truths about what ACC is, was and should be.

As a collective group we are finding out a lot more about ACC with every passing day. I daresay that most people reading this forum have learn't SOMETHING that they either did not know before or had forgotten - I know I have.

It is my hope that this sudden rise in knowledge, more than any protest ride, will lead on to more questioning of the powers-that-be around ACC and what it means.

IMO the best thing to come out of this will be informed discussion on a fundamental part of NZ society.

If evrry motorcyclist can tell just 2 other people something they didn't already know about ACC ........

who knows?

[FJRider]

No. I don't believe they do have public support. Of course, most of the public don't really care very much one way or the other. but, insofar as they support one side or other, they support us.

I'm sure that ACC expected to have public support. "Time those 1%ers were taxed off the road" "why should you subsidise tattooed troublemakers " etc.

Hasn't worked out that way.

The buzz I hear is (remembering again that it's not an excited buzz) that we are being picked on and the levy is a "kick in the teeth".

No doubt many will feel sorry for us, if it comes down to us or them paying the extra to make up a shortfall though ... which way would you expect them to lean.

The levy may have seemed an easy option for those that believe they can, but I'm guessing it is being discussed a lot higher up the political foodchain, than ACC management ever believed it would/could be.

[Brian d marge]

Good stuff and I'm pleased to see a robust alternative view on the issue.

"No Fault" means "No Blame" in the compensation/damages sense. However it does not mean "No Risk".

So.......if you choose a risky occupation then you pay more ACC. The problem arises in the context of non-work injuries. At present there is no distinction or levy imposed for high risk activities.

Personally I'm happy for that to continue and support the protest actions. :Punk:

Sorry but,,,,,snippy snip...

The second event which forged New Zealand’s present
workers’ compensation system was the experience of soldiers
returning from World War One. During that war 45% of
New Zealand men of military age served in the armed forces
and nearly 17,000 were killed. The survivors returned to
find little preparation for their rehabilitation. Housing and
satisfactory employment were difficult to obtain, and war
pensions for disabled veterans, widows and orphans were well
below the basic wage.16

and.........

First, in the national interest, and as a matter of national
obligation, the community must protect all citizens
(including the self-employed) and the housewives who
sustain them from the burden of sudden individual losses
when their ability to contribute to the general welfare by
their work has been interrupted by physical incapacity.
The Brunner Mine disaster had a galvanizing effect on the debate about workers’ compensation. In the Legislative Council debate on the Workers Compensation for Accidents Act 1900, Hon John MacGregor raised the concept of the worker as an ‘industrial soldier’: The artisan and the mechanic is like the soldier, in that both run a risk of death or horrid maiming, and that in the interests of others – of the community at large.
The soldier has his pension, the industrial soldier should have his. The employer can insure his building against destruction by fire,his machinery against depreciation, and insurance forms a charge on the industry, one of the costs of production. Why should not the workman insure the only instrument of production he possesses – namely his life and limbs – against destruction by exploding firedamp, or unfenced machinery,from depreciation by lead poisoning or phossy jaw
‘Phossy jaw’ is a deadly
occupational hazard l for those who work with white phosphorus without safeguards. Chronic exposure to
white phosphorus vapour caused the jawbone to rot away and
ultimately could lead to organ failure and death.


sooooo.......... “Everyone was to be looked after – it was the community’s responsibility to do it. Beneath the idea lurked a definitely collectivist set of values”.

Lots more but

So you can see the risk factor was also included , just as a solder risks his life so does a mine worker for the common good of the community

Katmans argument is sound , the cost of the Scheme is over burdened by knobs who think they are Rossi and have the road craft of an Afghani peasant

The Alternative argument is possibly the most sound argument i have heard so far
the government has broken its agreement with the people AS LAID DOWN IN THE ACT ,

I will make ixon aware of this

Stephen

[Brian d marge]

Using unpopular in the sense that this view does not seem to be either the majority one being expressed nor will it sit well with some of those views that ARE being expressed. Nonetheless....

I will be joining in with the protest activities and contributing where I can in other areas. I am, however, doing so for reasons other than those expressed by some.
I'm not outraged by an apparent targeting of my favourite form of recreation.
I'm not hell bent on proving that motorcycling is just as valid a means of transportation as a car.
I could not give 2 shits about my carbon footprint either on my bike, or not.
I spend not one second raging about "other motorcyclists" giving "us" a bad name with their behaviour. Nor do I subscribe to the absurd view that levy hikes are a response to such behaviour.

Thats an excuse - not a reason.

There is only one reason that I am protesting:

The Government is betraying its citizens and breaking (explicitly breaking) a social compact that was formed 34 years ago and is intrinsic to the identity of this nation.

ACC is NOT an insurance scheme. For those morons that keep rabbiting on about comparisons to private insurance - learn what it means to be a citizen of this country you twats.

ACC is a 24/7 NO FAULT accident COMPENSATION scheme set in place so that the citizens of New Zealand should not be financially disadvantaged in the event of injury. In return for universal coverage of this compensation we forwent the ability to sue anyone who might have been deemed to have been liable for the injury

THAT'S IT

FULL STOP

This is only marginally about bikes, basically they are doing it to us because they think that they can.

For me this protest is to show the goverment that they cannot.

Don't ask me to be polite

Don't ask me to be "responsible"

Especially don't ask me to justify my recreational pasttime

I'm a citizen amd I'm fucked off

I'm going to stay fucked off until this gets fixed and I will do whatever I think is necessary to remind those in elected positions that they are there to carry out the duties of their office in the service of the citizenry.

and to this I add +1

Stephen

[Pedrostt500]

Sorry but,,,,,snippy snip...

The second event which forged New Zealand’s present
workers’ compensation system was the experience of soldiers
returning from World War One. During that war 45% of
New Zealand men of military age served in the armed forces
and nearly 17,000 were killed. The survivors returned to
find little preparation for their rehabilitation. Housing and
satisfactory employment were difficult to obtain, and war
pensions for disabled veterans, widows and orphans were well
below the basic wage.16

and.........

First, in the national interest, and as a matter of national
obligation, the community must protect all citizens
(including the self-employed) and the housewives who
sustain them from the burden of sudden individual losses
when their ability to contribute to the general welfare by
their work has been interrupted by physical incapacity.
The Brunner Mine disaster had a galvanizing effect on the debate about workers’ compensation. In the Legislative Council debate on the Workers Compensation for Accidents Act 1900, Hon John MacGregor raised the concept of the worker as an ‘industrial soldier’: The artisan and the mechanic is like the soldier, in that both run a risk of death or horrid maiming, and that in the interests of others – of the community at large.
The soldier has his pension, the industrial soldier should have his. The employer can insure his building against destruction by fire,his machinery against depreciation, and insurance forms a charge on the industry, one of the costs of production. Why should not the workman insure the only instrument of production he possesses – namely his life and limbs – against destruction by exploding firedamp, or unfenced machinery,from depreciation by lead poisoning or phossy jaw
‘Phossy jaw’ is a deadly
occupational hazard l for those who work with white phosphorus without safeguards. Chronic exposure to
white phosphorus vapour caused the jawbone to rot away and
ultimately could lead to organ failure and death.


sooooo.......... “Everyone was to be looked after – it was the community’s responsibility to do it. Beneath the idea lurked a definitely collectivist set of values”.

Lots more but

So you can see the risk factor was also included , just as a solder risks his life so does a mine worker for the common good of the community

Katmans argument is sound , the cost of the Scheme is over burdened by knobs who think they are Rossi and have the road craft of an Afghani peasant

The Alternative argument is possibly the most sound argument i have heard so far
the government has broken its agreement with the people AS LAID DOWN IN THE ACT ,

I will make ixon aware of this

Stephen


Well said, I have learnt more about ACC over the last couple of weeks than I have over the last 26yrs of my working life, thank you all who have contributed to my Education on ACC.
I think that, ACC and the Government thought that Bikers were just a Greasey bunch of Neanderthals, that the Public wouldn't care less about, the times have changed, Motorcycling in all its forms cuts accross a greater cross section of the comunity, we have plenty of bright people, to crunch the numbers, and add up the statistics, but we need to remeber that the Nos and statistics, is some ones life.
This is going to be a long fight, ACC and the Government are not going to roll over easily, because a few thousand bikers protest at Parliment, this fight will go on long past the 17th of November.
We have to be clear why we are protesting the ACC levy hikes, and why and what we want changed.
The things I'd like to see changed is ACC take a bigger part in Driver / Rider education, Prevention is better than the cure, & probably costs less.
The reason I,m taking 2 days off work is to protest against the fact that ACC and the Government, have decided to single out an activity that I enjoy for unfair treatment, by corrupting and distorting the facts about the risks of my choosen activity.
My understanding is ACC is a right for every New Zealand Citizen, to assist with the costs of treatment, and recouperation, after an accident, with out applying blame.

[Ixion]

No doubt many will feel sorry for us, if it comes down to us or them paying the extra to make up a shortfall though ... which way would you expect them to lean.

The levy may have seemed an easy option for those that believe they can, but I'm guessing it is being discussed a lot higher up the political foodchain, than ACC management ever believed it would/could be.

I'm thinking that there is a middle ground.

Firstly ACC is not broke. far from it. The claims that it is "in trouble" are an artificially created crisis. Assume a 20% rate of inflation and a 1% return on investments and you can make the figures into anything you want.

And in a couple of years when, surprise, inflation is less than assumed, and returns greater, ACC makes a massive surplus, which the government promptly hand over to their mates in the insurance companies.

In reality THERE IS NO NEED FOR MASSIVE HIKES. For anyone.

Longer term, motorcyclists DO have to get their shit together. No matte rhow the figures are shuffled the plain reality is that we are falling of our bikes far too often. And as I don't, you must be falling off a shit load.

How we deal with that I don't know.

[Katman]

How we deal with that I don't know.

For a start we could become far more vocally intolerant of those motorcyclists who consider it their right to treat the road as a racetrack. The way that biker down threads are treated as glowing epitaphs for an individual, regardless of how stupidly they may have meet their demise indicate that many of us have far too great an acceptance of irresponsible riding.

[Brian d marge]

.
This is going to be a long fight, ACC and the Government are not going to roll over easily, because a few thousand bikers protest at Parliment, this fight will go on long past the 17th of November.
We have to be clear why we are protesting the ACC levy hikes, and why and what we want changed.
The things I'd like to see changed is ACC take a bigger part in Driver / Rider education, Prevention is better than the cure, & probably costs less.
.

Did you ever get pissed off with those adverts on TV , Speeding tax and all those seemingly pointless ideas introduced by the

Nanny state___?????

Some where funded by Acc , but them the reasons why

they did try to educate

Stephen


http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/3000214/ACC-pulls-fall-plan-support

[FJRider]

I'm thinking that there is a middle ground.

In reality THERE IS NO NEED FOR MASSIVE HIKES. For anyone.

Longer term, motorcyclists DO have to get their shit together. No matte rhow the figures are shuffled the plain reality is that we are falling of our bikes far too often. And as I don't, you must be falling off a shit load.

How we deal with that I don't know.

I'm hoping there is a middle ground ...

and... I dont believe there is either.

It never fails to supprise me of the "First Off Syndrome" that many bikers display. After getting lucky for some (often many) years, the first meeting of the tarmac with their body, gets their thought processes on reality mode. The previous "it can't/wont happen to me cause I'm careful/good" theory goes out the window. Those that continue riding usually do so with a lot more care...for a while anyway.

[Pedrostt500]

[QUOTE=Brian d'marge;1129480033]Did you ever get pissed off with those adverts on TV , Speeding tax and all those seemingly pointless ideas introduced by the

Nanny state___?????

Some where funded by Acc , but them the reasons why

they did try to educate

Stephen


http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/3000214/ACC-pulls-fall-plan-support[/QUOTE

The thing with Education is it is an exercise at building a fence at the top of the Cliff, rather than parking the Ambulance at the bottom, But the fence will not stop those who wish to climb over the fence to see why the fence was put there, and finding they require the Ambulance. Nanny State maybe.

[Pedrostt500]

I'm hoping there is a middle ground ...

and... I dont believe there is either.

It never fails to supprise me of the "First Off Syndrome" that many bikers display. After getting lucky for some (often many) years, the first meeting of the tarmac with their body, gets their thought processes on reality mode. The previous "it can't/wont happen to me cause I'm careful/good" theory goes out the window. Those that continue riding usually do so with a lot more care...for a while anyway.

We do most of our learning by Exsperiance, we learn what Hot means by burning ourselves, We learn that the Law of the land may catch us some times, We learn that when we break the laws of Physics, on a Motorcycle we come off second best to the tarmac, I have learnt about the laws of physics the hard way.

[dipshit]

We do most of our learning by Exsperiance,

Except for things that can kill you quick smart. i.e.. flying an aeroplane, using a firearm, going to war, piloting a submarine. You don't always have the luxury of learning from your mistakes (because you can die if you make one) so training becomes the key.

[Brian d marge]

[QUOTE=Brian d'marge;1129480033]Did you ever get pissed off with those adverts on TV , Speeding tax and all those seemingly pointless ideas introduced by the

Nanny state___?????

Some where funded by Acc , but them the reasons why

they did try to educate

Stephen


http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/3000214/ACC-pulls-fall-plan-support[/QUOTE

The thing with Education is it is an exercise at building a fence at the top of the Cliff, rather than parking the Ambulance at the bottom, But the fence will not stop those who wish to climb over the fence to see why the fence was put there, and finding they require the Ambulance. Nanny State maybe.

Where are the parents ......

an idiot tax ,,,????

Stephen

[craisin]

mmm high risk idiot levy

[Dave_G]

[QUOTE=Ixion;1129480021]I'm thinking that there is a middle ground.


Longer term, motorcyclists DO have to get their shit together. No matte rhow the figures are shuffled the plain reality is that we are falling of our bikes far too often. And as I don't, you must be falling off a shit load.

Exactly. And how many times have you posted on here supporting the "rights" for people to ride how they like, when they like wearing or not wearing suitable safety equipment because its their individual right to do whatever the hell they like? More than once form what I've read.

When you start hearing and reading the media stating that its the way bikes are being ridden (i.e. its the idiots at the controls) that makes them a menace and dangerous then you have a problem with public perception. Those who post here regularly and push a message of greater personal responsibility by individual riders are consistently rubbished (e.g. the Katman person) and yet the very things he or she has said many times are the very things that cost motorcyclists support when its most needed. The reality is we are in a minority politically, a relatively small fringe element when the votes are counted. Those who might support us wont as they have bigger issues to confront, e.g. unemployment etc. and they remember the 1 idiot they saw today and not the other 15 who rode sensibly.

[NighthawkNZ]

a good article
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/personal-finance/news/article.cfm?c_id=12&objectid=10605395


To read Sir Owen is to understand how far we've strayed from many of the principles on which ACC was built. Like community responsibility, which goes against the idea that you should levy one section of the community more heavily than others, as proposed by the current government. Sir Owen held that as we all benefit from risky activities, we should all bear the cost equally.

[Mikkel]

Good stuff and I'm pleased to see a robust alternative view on the issue.

"No Fault" means "No Blame" in the compensation/damages sense. However it does not mean "No Risk".

So.......if you choose a risky occupation then you pay more ACC. The problem arises in the context of non-work injuries. At present there is no distinction or levy imposed for high risk activities.

Personally I'm happy for that to continue and support the protest actions. :Punk:

You keep on bringing the not a "no risk" but a "no fault" scheme to the fore. In regards to risk assessment of workplaces - the employer (i.e. the representative of the workplace and thus the risk associated with it) pays the inflated ACC levy that goes with a higher risk assessment. The proposed ACC levy increase for motorcyclists effectively corresponds to applying the burden of an increases ACC levy upon the worker who is employed at a high-risk workplace.


But that's NOT the case. Only motorcyclists are singled out. And moreover, the basis upon which the risk loadings are made in workplace levies is very open and transparent and contestable. That assigning higher levies to motorcycles certainly is not.

Indeed, not to mention the statement from the ACC report, which you used on Close-up, about wanting to provide a stable and predictable levy environment.


Imagine if you got told by your home insurance provider that your premium would be up by >200% next year. You'd first assume that a mistake had been made, then you would get frustrated and then you would find another insurance company. ...except there wouldn't be any.

[terbang]

Except for things that can kill you quick smart. i.e.. flying an aeroplane,

Yeah right, more hype and misconceptions. More get killed in cars.

[dipshit]

Yeah right, more hype and misconceptions. More get killed in cars.

Ok, since you seem to be a typical motorcyclists ( :weird: ) i shall explain this nice and simply.

If you make a mistake while flying an aeroplane for example, it could turn into a monumental cock-up. You may not end up 'learning from your mistakes'.

[terbang]

Ok, since you seem to be a typical motorcyclists ( :weird: ) i shall explain this nice and simply.

If you make a mistake while flying an aeroplane for example, it could turn into a monumental cock-up. You may not end up 'learning from your mistakes'.

Sir, you couldn't sound any more simple.
Make a mistake drinking your morning coffee and it may be your last as well. Some would also call that a monumental cock up.
So whats your point?
I have been a motorcyclist and an aviator/coffee drinker for over 1/4 of a century and whilst there are some similaritys, believe me the cultures are vastly different.
Stay on track with Motorcycles and ACC.

So I still say hype and misconception.

[FJRider]

We do most of our learning by Exsperiance, we learn what Hot means by burning ourselves, We learn that the Law of the land may catch us some times, We learn that when we break the laws of Physics, on a Motorcycle we come off second best to the tarmac, I have learnt about the laws of physics the hard way.

The laws of physics is what keeps us intact. The crucial one is the law of opposite and equal reaction, to each action. :sunny:

or even shorter ...

There is ... a reaction to each action. (story of my life) :innocent:

The rules of mass and inertia need study... <_<

[mctshirt]

How we deal with that I don't know.

A good old fashioned witch hunt that ends up with someone getting burned on a cross?

[Ixion]

Yes yes, that's all very well, but it's *catching* the witches that is the problem.

And the old fashioned way is stake, surrounded by faggotts. I can't abide these new fangled changes.

And the old way had the advantage that it meant that once the faggotts were burned, there were a lot of Hondas going spare that the righteous could claim.

[Pedrostt500]

The laws of physics is what keeps us intact. The crucial one is the law of opposite and equal reaction, to each action. :sunny:

or even shorter ...

There is ... a reaction to each action. (story of my life) :innocent:

The rules of mass and inertia need study... <_<


I always enjoyed studying Hydraulics ......................... At the Pub.

[FJRider]

I always enjoyed studying Hydraulics ......................... At the Pub.

tried that ... just turned into a irrigation assignment :crybaby:

Hydraulics is better practiced in the bedroom ... or any room for that matter .... :calm:

[veny]

a good article
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/personal-finance/news/article.cfm?c_id=12&objectid=10605395

It is.

According to a June 2008 report by Merrill Lynch Australia, Australian insurance companies could expect to make $200 million a year if ACC was opened up to private insurers.


Didn't the ACC numbers get cooked & checked over in OZ?
I smell a rat.

[ital916]

For a start we could become far more vocally intolerant of those motorcyclists who consider it their right to treat the road as a racetrack. The way that biker down threads are treated as glowing epitaphs for an individual, regardless of how stupidly they may have meet their demise indicate that many of us have far too great an acceptance of irresponsible riding.

You should know, better than anyone that, that cant be done. Not here anyway. In person, it can be suggested to motorcyclists who may or may not take it onboard but any such vocal suggestion on this site will merely lead to the thread/post being sent to pd and never being read.

[Brian d marge]

You should know, better than anyone that, that cant be done. Not here anyway. In person, it can be suggested to motorcyclists who may or may not take it onboard but any such vocal suggestion on this site will merely lead to the thread/post being sent to pd and never being read.

yws I agree

I have been banging on about this for years

but

99% fail to separate roadcraft and Riding ability

pushing sh1t up hill until Cpt Numbnuts makes that distinction

Stephen

[Katman]

You should know, better than anyone that, that cant be done. Not here anyway. In person, it can be suggested to motorcyclists who may or may not take it onboard but any such vocal suggestion on this site will merely lead to the thread/post being sent to pd and never being read.

As I've said before, it's all about peer pressure.

It's certainly had an effect on drink driving. I don't see why it can't work for irresponsible riding.

[ital916]

As I've said before, it's all about peer pressure.

It's certainly had an effect on drink driving. I don't see why it can't work for irresponsible riding.

Becuase with drink driving, everyone knows it is wrong. With irresponisible riding only the public seems to think shit is wrong. The motorcyclists think that they're just going for a pootle through the goddamn park.

I would compare it to how some motherfuckers always trying to iceskate uphill. It aint impossible, just really difficult.

Im with you on this one. Whether we see a result though is going to be....

[Katman]

Becuase with drink driving, everyone knows it is wrong. With irresponisible riding only the public seems to think shit is wrong.

I think you'll find there's more and more motorcyclists beginning to realise that things have gotta change.

[ital916]

I think you'll find there's more and more motorcyclists beginning to realise that things have gotta change.

Too little, too late. It shouldnt have to take levy increases to all of a sudden create a sense of repsonsibility or to make people think "hey, we might have to be sensible". Say the levies do get canned, I reckon a large percentage of motorcyclists will think, "well now that thats over" and go back to riding like pricks.

[Katman]

Say the levies do get canned, I reckon a large percentage of motorcyclists will think, "well now that thats over" and go back to riding like pricks.

I fear you may be right.

Lets hope you're wrong.

[SARGE]

You seem to have missed a couple of pertinent words there - let me show you them:

NO FAULT

Hope that helps




In a more serious vein - the "no fault" part of the ACC scheme is intrinsic to its existance and the single biggest reason that it came into existence.

Protest THAT

Sorry AD .. not a dig here bro .. but doesnt absolving the citizenry of FAULT also absolve them of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?..


i say drag in the lawyers and let the circus begin...

[jafar]

Sorry AD .. not a dig here bro .. but doesnt absolving the citizenry of FAULT also absolve them of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?..


i say drag in the lawyers and let the circus begin...

Your right to a point, the scheme was brought in to compensate those who had an accident & make them financially & medically able to get through the post trauma times & back on their feet.
In the OLD DAYS. If you were knocked off you bike by a wealthy person you could sue & claim your damages but if it was an unemployed bum then you were wasting your time suing but your claim would be just as relevent to you... ACC leveled the playing field in the respect that you were covered regardless of who caused the accident.

[Coldrider]

Your right to a point, the scheme was brought in to compensate those who had an accident & make them financially & medically able to get through the post trauma times & back on their feet.
In the OLD DAYS. If you were knocked off you bike by a wealthy person you could sue & claim your damages but if it was an unemployed bum then you were wasting your time suing but your claim would be just as relevent to you... ACC leveled the playing field in the respect that you were covered regardless of who caused the accident.Under the proposed levies motorcyclists are suing themselves.

[jafar]

Under the proposed levies motorcyclists are suing themselves.

Wrong ! Under the proposed levies we are being charged for all the damages incurred to people who have been injured while on a motorcycle regardless of fault. We are locked into an "insurance" policy that we can't opt out of unless we decide to take up another form of recreation & or transport.:argh:

[Coldrider]

Wrong ! Under the proposed levies we are being charged for all the damages incurred to people who have been injured while on a motorcycle regardless of fault.And how is this not like suing yourself with the proposed increases ?

[jafar]

And how is this not like suing yourself with the proposed increases ?

We can't sue the muppets that incurred the cost to begin with & we can't get a better deal elsewhere because we are locked in .... :angry2:

[Mikkel]

We do most of our learning by Exsperiance, we learn what Hot means by burning ourselves, We learn that the Law of the land may catch us some times, We learn that when we break the laws of Physics, on a Motorcycle we come off second best to the tarmac, I have learnt about the laws of physics the hard way.

We don't break the laws of physics - the laws of physics break us!


The rules of mass and inertia need study... <_<

Classical mechanics 101 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics), happy reading.

[Hinny]

It is a scheme whereby I'm being expected to pay more to fix up habitual idiots.

That's why I'm protesting.

ACC apparently took in in excess of $1bn than it paid out last year.
Its fund managers were very successful returning in excess of 20% pa.
ACC has a lot of cash.
You are not being asked to pay more to fix up habitual idiots.

It is crying poor in response to an instruction to become a fully funded scheme on the one hand and by increasing levies as an attractive money spinner for future private competitor's schemes on the other.

It's a political rort.