Manifesto

[Ixion]

OK. So were're all going down to Wellington. Cos we're opposed to the levies.

So, what do we want? What's our posiiton

We need a manifesto


A manifesto is a public declaration of principles and intentions, often political in nature


So, what are our principles and intentions

And before we go ANY further let's be clear. here, we are ONLY talking about intentions (and I guess principles) about LEVIES.

This manifesto will form the basis of what we say at parliament and what we say to the Minister. It is essential that we work through it NOW because when we confront the media and the Minister we must all "be singing from the same song sheet". We must speak (nay, roar) with one voice.

Privatise/don't privatise ; ACC versus insurance etc aren't part of this remit

Because this thread is bound to turn into a train wreck I've set up (another!) social group , called (duh) MANIFESTO. In there I will rpeserve the sane and meaningful bits from this thread. If I've set it up right (:rofl:) anyone should be able to view it, not post in it

So, lets hear it.. Just give me the points, I'll stitch them together.

I'll start with a few.



The principles of the Woodhouse report should be preserved and respected
The ACC scheme was never intended to be a user pays scheme in which those who allegedly incur specific costs must, as a group, also meet those costs in full. The scheme is intended to draw upon the overall resources of the community to ensure that those who suffer an accident do not find themselves disadvantaged .
Saying that motor cyclists must pay much more than presently because they are ‘responsible’ for their accidents not only breaches the principal behind the scheme, it also re-introduces the notion of fault into the scheme when it was set up in the first place to avoid it.
Motorcyclists should not be discriminated against because of their transport choices.
Those who choose motorcycles instead of cars make a positive social and environmental contribution. motorcycles use less fuel, have a smaller footprint, cause less emission, congestion and pollution
ACC should be requried, as public policy to take account of social and environmental benefits whn setting levies and accept a responsibility for promoting those
There is no justification for treating a (small) subgroup of private passenger vehicles differently to othrs. Motorcycles should be in the same classification group as cars (nb this leaves us with an issue re mopeds). And pay the same levies
The present method of allocating costs is manifestly unjust to motorcyclists, who must pay whether they are in the right or in the wrong. No other group in society is expected to pay for the privilege of being injured
The present method of levying vehicle registrations causes unjustifiable anomalies and injustice, not only to motorcyclists but to anyone who has more than one vehicle but drives only one at a time. Fairer, alternative collection methods should be introduced as soon as possible
ACC is not in financial crisis and is not broke. The "crisis" is an artificially engendered one to give spurious justification for actions that the Government could not otherwise justify
The statistical data produced by ACC to justify their claims is slanted, distorted and incomplete, and does not present a fair and unbiased viewpoint. This one sided presentation is unacceptable from a government organisation.
There is no justification, statistical or otherwise , for different levy rates on different capacities of motorcycles. The figures put forward by ACC to justify this are fundamentally flawed and do not support their case. (NB this leaves us with the moped problem again)


Please add more. But keep them to the point - LEVIES is what we are focused on. Not redesigning ACC , castigating politcal parties and such like

Keep your eye on the ball. focus. it's all about the levies.

Mr Hitcher, your input would be invaluable here.

[scumdog]

Dunno how to put it but I feel this is the thin edge of the wedge re the levy - will it stop at motorbikes?

Or if they get away with it will the Govt find other sectors to load up levy-wise, i.e. passenger vans because they have potential to injury many more than one car, 4X4 vehicles because they more severely injure others on cycles/motorbikes/smaller cars - as well as the pedestrians they hit....enough rambling from me..

[phred]

The ACC scheme was never intended to be a user pays scheme in which those who allegedly incur specific costs must, as a group, also meet those costs in full. The scheme is intended to draw upon the overall resources of the community to ensure that those who suffer an accident do not find themselves disadvantaged .


Nice Summary Mr Ixion.
My levied 10 cents worth is to add that the ACC scheme was promulgated on the basis that If all of society benefited from the scheme then all of society was equally burdened with the cost of the scheme.

There is a clause in the woodhouse report that can be quoted. If you want me to locate it again let me know.

[Jantar]

The statistical data produced by ACC to justify their claims is slanted and distorted, and does not present a fair and unbiased viewpoint. This one sided presentation is unacceptable form a government organisation.

Add in the word "incomplete" to make it:
The statistical data produced by ACC to justify their claims is slanted, distorted and incomplete, and does not present a fair and unbiased viewpoint. This one sided presentation is unacceptable from a government organisation.

[Ixion]

Amended .

[slofox]

Mopeds: Just class all motorised forms of transport in the same way. i.e. one bin for all and one levy for all.

[yachtie10]

OK.

The present method of allocating costs is manifestly unjust to motorcyclists, who must pay whether they are in the right or in the wrong. No other group in society is expected to pay for the privilege of being injured



You may want to reword this as Car drivers currently are in the same boat


Good start though

[MSTRS]

Think you've covered it...but, I would have said:-
Statistically, motorcycles are insignificant in number, and the moped class is even more so, but their contribution in terms of cost benefit in emissions and impact on the roading/parking infrastructure is almost incalculable.

[davereid]

Dunno how to put it but I feel this is the thin edge of the wedge re the levy - will it stop at motorbikes?

http://www.3news.co.nz/Drivers-of-older-cars-may-pay-more-in-ACC-levies---Smith/tabid/419/articleID/111086/cat/907/Default.aspx

Friday, 3 July 2009 - 12:01pm


Wellington, July 3 NZPA - Plans to make motorists who drive older cars pay more in ACC levies than those in newer, safer cars will simply penalise the poor, a motoring commentator says.

ACC Minister Nick Smith said yesterday an ACC review would look at whether linking the levy to safety ratings of cars would help reduce the annual $336 million cost of road crashes.

Vehicle registration could be matched with a car's make and year and linked to a safety rating and a discount or extra premium.

Dr Smith said he had not made a decision about the change and the financial incentive might be difficult to introduce as New Zealand had a relatively old fleet and not everyone could afford to upgrade to a newer, safer car.

Clive Matthew-Wilson, editor of the Dog and Lemon Car Guide, said today that people bought old cars because they had little money.

"Penalising poor people for having little money is something that only someone in Treasury could dream up."

He said the simplest way to ensure that poor people drove safer cars was to ensure that government departments bought the safest cars in their class.

"That way, in five or 10 years time when these same cars are bought by poor people, the poor people will be driving safer vehicles."

Mr Matthew-Wilson said the Government was also ignoring proven ways to lower the road toll, such as upgrading the seatbelts in older vehicles, and most importantly of all, ensuring that all cars had automatic headlights.

Countries where cars drive with their headlights on at all times had a significantly lower road toll.

Other things being considered in Dr Smith's review were drivers paying levies according to their accident and infringement records, and shifting more of the ACC road levy from registration fees to fuel so those who drive more pay more.

Labour ACC spokesman David Parker said he would oppose a system that saw better-off drivers pay less because they could afford better cars.

[Brian d marge]

Mopeds: Just class all motorised forms of transport in the same way. i.e. one bin for all and one levy for all.agreed with this

All motering users one price CARS could go Down a llittle and mopeds up or Mopeds up

One levy to rule them all

Stephen

also Ixon your summery was spot on Though would it need ( the main thrust a bit simpler , Say Acc is a no fault , or one from the top of your list

Stephen

[MSTRS]

Can you paraphrase from these two (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1129493842&postcount=32) posts?

[Marmoot]

Saying that motor cyclists must pay much more than presently because they are ‘responsible’ for their accidents not only breaches the principal behind the scheme, it also re-introduces the notion of fault into the scheme when it was set up in the first place to avoid it.



Saying that motor cyclists must pay much more than presently because they are ‘responsible’ for their accidents not only breaches the principal behind the scheme, it is also analogous to taxing certain races (Pacific Islands? Maori?) just because they are overrepresented in the welfare recipient list.

[StoneY]

You people are all smarter than this angry wee ginga.
Keep it comin, great stuff here

:yes:

[Hitcher]

Does anybody have any contacts amongst the ranks of the organised treadly riders? Given that they have been signalled as the the next target for ACC (number plates and WOFs for treadlies, FFS!), they should be very interested in this manifesto and in joining their powered two-wheeled brethren in protest at Parliament on 17 November. While I know some people who pedal, I have no contact with those who may be politically active.

[MSTRS]

Um, wasn't that a pisstake thread?

[AD345]

OK. So were're all going down to Wellington. Cos we're opposed to the levies.

So, what do we want? What's our posiiton

We need a manifesto


So, what are our principles and intentions

And before we go ANY further let's be clear. here, we are ONLY talking about intentions (and I guess principles) about LEVIES.

This manifesto will form the basis of what we say at parliament and what we say to the Minister. It is essential that we work through it NOW because when we confront the media and the Minister we must all "be singing from the same song sheet". We must speak (nay, roar) with one voice.

Privatise/don't privatise ; ACC versus insurance etc aren't part of this remit

Because this thread is bound to turn into a train wreck I've set up (another!) social group , called (duh) MANIFESTO. In there I will rpeserve the sane and meaningful bits from this thread. If I've set it up right (:rofl:) anyone should be able to view it, not post in it

So, lets hear it.. Just give me the points, I'll stitch them together.

I'll start with a few.



The principles of the Woodhouse report should be preserved and respected
The ACC scheme was never intended to be a user pays scheme in which those who allegedly incur specific costs must, as a group, also meet those costs in full. The scheme is intended to draw upon the overall resources of the community to ensure that those who suffer an accident do not find themselves disadvantaged .
Saying that motor cyclists must pay much more than presently because they are ‘responsible’ for their accidents not only breaches the principal behind the scheme, it also re-introduces the notion of fault into the scheme when it was set up in the first place to avoid it.
Motorcyclists should not be discriminated against because of their transport choices.
Those who choose motorcycles instead of cars make a positive social and environmental contribution. motorcycles use less fuel, have a smaller footprint, cause less emission, congestion and pollution
ACC should be requried, as public policy to take account of social and environmental benefits whn setting levies and accept a responsibility for promoting those
There is no justification for treating a (small) subgroup of private passenger vehicles differently to othrs. Motorcycles should be in the same classification group as cars (nb this leaves us with an issue re mopeds). And pay the same levies
The present method of allocating costs is manifestly unjust to motorcyclists, who must pay whether they are in the right or in the wrong. No other group in society is expected to pay for the privilege of being injured
The present method of levying vehicle registrations causes unjustifiable anomalies and injustice, not only to motorcyclists but to anyone who has more than one vehicle but drives only one at a time. Fairer, alternative collection methods should be introduced as soon as possible
ACC is not in financial crisis and is not broke. The "crisis" is an artificially engendered one to give spurious justification for actions that the Government could not otherwise justify
The statistical data produced by ACC to justify their claims is slanted, distorted and incomplete, and does not present a fair and unbiased viewpoint. This one sided presentation is unacceptable from a government organisation.
There is no justification, statistical or otherwise , for different levy rates on different capacities of motorcycles. The figures put forward by ACC to justify this are fundamentally flawed and do not support their case. (NB this leaves us with the moped problem again)


Please add more. But keep them to the point - LEVIES is what we are focused on. Not redesigning ACC , castigating politcal parties and such like

Keep your eye on the ball. focus. it's all about the levies.

Mr Hitcher, your input would be invaluable here.

I like it - good work. Get a copy of Howard Mansells submission* - he expands a little on some of those points.






*I have a copy if you PM me your email addy

[StoneY]

Does anybody have any contacts amongst the ranks of the organised treadly riders?

No such thing...seen the way they ride in groups? (sorry cyclists couldnt resist)


Um, wasn't that a pisstake thread?

Confirmed, yes it was, back to the Manifesto

[idleidolidyll]

Dunno how to put it but I feel this is the thin edge of the wedge re the levy - will it stop at motorbikes?

Or if they get away with it will the Govt find other sectors to load up levy-wise, i.e. passenger vans because they have potential to injury many more than one car, 4X4 vehicles because they more severely injure others on cycles/motorbikes/smaller cars - as well as the pedestrians they hit....enough rambling from me..

It aint often I agree with you scumdog but you are 100% correct.

No it wont stop at us and that's because its NOT about the levies: its about ACT and the National parties trying to destroy ACC so the Aussies can own another piece of NZ.
The obvious aim is too make ACC so expensive the private rates will look like a good deal.

You are right; it WILL be extended and not just to other motorists: this is the first step in their war against all social welfare in NZ.

If we don't raise a stink and aim it directly at the political parties driving these rises, we will achieve bugger all.

BRONZ must be full of right wingers afraid to admit THEIR party or parties are screwing us over.

[triumphnz]

The premise that as motorcyclists we pay a single tax eg on our motorcycles being how nick smith and acc have come up with this short fall is wrong, I would say from my observations the majority of motorcyclists own cars even multiple cars as i do.Conclusion the tax levy that we pay as motorcyclists is in fact double if not more than acc and nick has come up with.You can not say that motorcyclists pay only so much when you are not taking in to account their total contribution as a tax paying motorist.

[Big Dave]

BRONZ must be full of right wingers afraid to admit THEIR party or parties are screwing us over.


Bwahahahah! That's just gold Mike! Like I voted. Will next time though.

[idleidolidyll]

Bwahahahah! That's just gold Mike! Like I voted. Will next time though.

I can't think of any other sensible reason why BRONZ should leave the people who are driving this levy rise in peace.

To believe this is only about levies and it is the ACC who are our opponent is naieve in extremis

[Big Dave]

I believe I'll have another drink.

[AD345]

I believe I'll have another drink.

Amen</10char>

[idleidolidyll]

I believe I'll have another drink.
OK, is THAT why BRONZ came up with this "don't blame National/ACT thing?

Balme the drink not the politicians?

[zahria]

The premise that as motorcyclists we pay a single tax eg on our motorcycles being how nick smith and acc have come up with this short fall is wrong, I would say from my observations the majority of motorcyclists own cars even multiple cars as i do.Conclusion the tax levy that we pay as motorcyclists is in fact double if not more than acc and nick has come up with.You can not say that motorcyclists pay only so much when you are not taking in to account their total contribution as a tax paying motorist.

I fully agree, I'm not the only one with 2 cars and a bike.

[idleidolidyll]

I fully agree, I'm not the only one with 2 cars and a bike.

wifey and i have 4 bikes, 2 cars and 6 bicycles: we seem to be paying 3x what we should be

the most dangerous are the bicycles and of course we pay nothing to ride those even though I've broken my back in a cycle crash and taxpayers spent maybe $50k on spinal surgery and rehabilitation.
The only claims I've made on ACC through motorbikes have been from MX crashes or racing crashes and of course neither of those pay ACC levies either.

Mind you, as i've said before; attacking cyclists or other groups is dumb, we are all gonna be targeted in the end

ACC levies should come out of income tax or fuel tax; we should attack the political parties driving these increases not the ACC who do as they are told. Of course we should point out the inequalities and injustices but ignoring the smirking monkeys in the background will get us nothing but a 'discount'.

It seems my viewpoint is not that of BRONZ. However, given that BRONZ has posted this 'manifesto' on KB; they have opened it up to the general biking public and should pay due attention to all views whether or not these are in accord with their own.
In the end though, BRONZ only represents its own members: it is not the defacto representative of all bikers. BRONZ will do what its members want regardless of any suggestions or views of non members.

[NighthawkNZ]

Mind you, as i've said before; attacking cyclists or other groups is dumb, we are all gonna be targeted in the end.

I actually agree, but it is showing the anomalies in the system has and if you target one group then target all or none, and at present it should be none as there is more than enough money being collected to met the claims

<style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } --> </style>

The ACC levy's that I pay from all forms of collection bike registration, PAYE and fuel now, is to cover ME for anything I do as a citizen including riding my motorcycle.They cross subsidise every one else except motorcyclists.

[PhantasmNZ]

The sinister part of the cost of different motorcycle cc capacities is that generally those that ride larger bikes, are older, and earn more. Accidents on larger capacity machines cost more - not because they are faster, or more dangerous - but because their owners earn more.

At 80% of salaries paid out OF COURSE bigger more expensive bikes and their riders cost ACC more. teenagers on 125-250s earning $15 an hour don't cost the same to ACC when their off work to the 50 something BAB on a harley earning $100k plus.

Unfortunately for us as bikers, as we grow up and earn more, generally we upgrade to 'bigger' (not faster) bikes. Statistically owners off bigger bikes earn more (so cost more if they crash)
o
Ironically, owners of new cages (who ALSO cost ACC more when they crash) are set to pay LESS for their new car rego under new proposals

If ACC could run numbers on car cost as they do with bikes (as generally more cc's=more $) - we might learn all the beemer, merc, lexus, porsche + owners are a 'bigger risk'

(obviously we'd have to shorten the point :) )

EDIT: Why do owners of more expensive cars get to pay less, and owners of more expensive bkes have to pay more

[SARGE]

I believe I'll have another drink.

aint you on program fatass?

[Big Dave]

aint you on program fatass?


Aye - Lost 12kgs.

[SARGE]

Aye - Lost 12kgs.

you didnt cut your hair i hope?..

[Big Dave]

you didnt cut your hair i hope?..

What are ya - a cop?

[PhantasmNZ]

I think we also need to agree on what constitutes success at the end of the day as well. From day one I've believed the main aim is to driver through a smaller (eg $300) increase - but to get it past us, have said they want $500. When we've finished our protests, and made our point, Nick Smith will stand there and say - "Ok, we're a good government, we listen to our people and we're only going to charge a $300 increase."

what will it take to make us go away?

If we all agree $500 is too much - what compromise will make us happy - because in the end that's what we're likely to be faced with.

[SARGE]

What are ya - a cop?



im a undercover agent for the FBI and i been sent down here to in-fil-trate the Ku Klux Klan


name that tune BD ...

[Big Dave]

I know 2 things - we are off topic - and Devil went down to Georgia was a better song.

[yungatart]

I think we also need to agree on what constitutes success at the end of the day as well. From day one I've believed the main aim is to driver through a smaller (eg $300) increase - but to get it past us, have said they want $500. When we've finished our protests, and made our point, Nick Smith will stand there and say - "Ok, we're a good government, we listen to our people and we're only going to charge a $300 increase."

what will it take to make us go away?

If we all agree $500 is too much - what compromise will make us happy - because in the end that's what we're likely to be faced with.

I reckon parity with cars is the go...and not a penny more!

[Bald Eagle]

I think we also need to agree on what constitutes success at the end of the day as well. From day one I've believed the main aim is to driver through a smaller (eg $300) increase - but to get it past us, have said they want $500. When we've finished our protests, and made our point, Nick Smith will stand there and say - "Ok, we're a good government, we listen to our people and we're only going to charge a $300 increase."

what will it take to make us go away?

If we all agree $500 is too much - what compromise will make us happy - because in the end that's what we're likely to be faced with.


I reckon parity with cars is the go...and not a penny more!

As well as parity with cars, what we really want is a return to a no fault COMPENSATION scheme not a fully funded INSURANCE scheme. That's probably too much of an ask until after the revolution so I'll settle for the same relative percentage increase as applied to cars without the engine capacity weighting.

[pzkpfw]

To me, a realistic "best result" expectation would be for bikes to get the same percentage increase as the cars are getting. (Same price for all bikes).

(edit: oh. Same as "Bald Eagle" said).


"Parity" (paying the same as cars) is less realistic as it not only halts the big increase but reverses the situation we already have. Essentially we'd be asking for the cars to get an increase and us not to. That isn't going to happen.

Even bigger stuff, like changing the whole way ACC fees are gathered is going to take a lot more work over a long time.

[Mystic13]

Ixion re-word these however you think but I didn't see these points.


- The collection of statistics for motorcycle injuries doesn't specify whether the injury was incurred on a road registered motorcycle or not and it is likely that road registered users are being asked to contribute for others. (Because there is no specific figure you could just as easily say we estimate 50% of motorcycle injuries are for riders of non-registered motorcycles - it can't be proved. Dr Keith has said that they determine which bikes are road rego'd from the information written about the accident - as a motorcycle rider I can imagine what was written and would bet that most non road rego'd injuries are being applied to roadies.)

- in excess of 99% of road registered users own a car and as such the two premiums combined mean they are already paying significantly higher. ACC have ignored this fact.

[Ixion]

2nd one (more than one vehicle) is the ninth point. I'll add the other one.

[PhantasmNZ]

Ixion re-word these however you think but I didn't see these points.


- The collection of statistics for motorcycle injuries doesn't specify whether the injury was incurred on a road registered motorcycle or not and it is likely that road registered users are being asked to contribute for others. <snip>.

Have we determined there is still confusion over whether farmbikes and quads are included in the stats? Thought it had been stated these were specifically excluded? (not that I trust the numbers of course...)

[Ixion]

They are SUPPOSED to be specifically excluded. Subject to unknown error at the point of inital data capture .

[PhantasmNZ]

Thanks Ixion - Your example in the radio interview tonight answered that one just nicely - Cheers!

[Clockwork]

Is it worth pointing out that those wire-rope barriers which Motocyclists almost unanimously oppose, while saving the ACC money on car related claims would probably have exactly the opposite effect on a motorcycle claim.

[StoneY]

Is it worth pointing out that those wire-rope barriers which Motocyclists almost unanimously oppose, while saving the ACC money on car related claims would probably have exactly the opposite effect on a motorcycle claim.

Yep. it would but not meccesarilly in our manifesto, but its a good chance for one of the front men out front to point that out on the day

[phred]

As well as parity with cars, what we really want is a return to a no fault COMPENSATION scheme not a fully funded INSURANCE scheme. That's probably too much of an ask until after the revolution so I'll settle for the same relative percentage increase as applied to cars without the engine capacity weighting.

+1
I say bring on the Revolution

[choppedxs]

Is it worth mentioning that with a rise in levy most bikers will only reg their bike for summer months therefore reducing the amount of money the ACC will collect anyway. It will also result in fewer people registering their extra bikes as they currently do so less money again. Not to mention those who cannot afford the rise and will ride without rego, any tickets they incur will go to the police and the ACC will see none of it.

[NighthawkNZ]

Is it worth mentioning that with a rise in levy most bikers will only reg their bike for summer months therefore reducing the amount of money the ACC will collect anyway. It will also result in fewer people registering their extra bikes as they currently do so less money again. Not to mention those who cannot afford the rise and will ride without rego, any tickets they incur will go to the police and the ACC will see none of it.

I put all that in my submission and document... it ended up 8 page attachment plus that email submission which was seperate...

[Ixion]

Manifesto is a statement of principles. The effects of the levy changes are a matter for submissions.

Ideally a manifesto is not specific to a single issue - it should last for years.

Tamworth manifesto of 1834 is still pretty much the statement of UK Conservative principles.

[Ixion]

Bumpity.

I think the orde rof the pints could be improved .

[Hitcher]

Is what's outlined in Post #1 now the definitive version?

[Ixion]

Moved the points around to give a more logical flow. Content unchanged

Unless someone has a very good reason nbot, I propose to run with this

Note that the reordering also means that the first 8 are specific to the levy issue while the rest are a "springboard" for broader future action



The principles of the Woodhouse report should be preserved and respected
ACC is not in financial crisis and is not broke. The "crisis" is an artificially engendered one to give spurious justification for actions that the Government could not otherwise justify
Motorcyclists should not be discriminated against because of their transport choices.
The ACC scheme was never intended to be a user pays scheme in which those who allegedly incur specific costs must, as a group, also meet those costs in full. The scheme is intended to draw upon the overall resources of the community to ensure that those who suffer an accident do not find themselves disadvantaged .
Saying that motor cyclists must pay much more than presently because they are ‘responsible’ for their accidents not only breaches the principal behind the scheme, it also re-introduces the notion of fault into the scheme when it was set up in the first place to avoid it.
There is no justification for treating a (small) subgroup of private passenger vehicles differently to others. Motorcycles should be in the same classification group as cars . And pay the same levies
The statistical data produced by ACC to justify their claims is slanted, distorted and incomplete, and does not present a fair and unbiased viewpoint. This one sided presentation is unacceptable from a government organisation.
There is no justification, statistical or otherwise , for different levy rates on different capacities of motorcycles. The figures put forward by ACC to justify this are fundamentally flawed and do not support their case.
Those who choose motorcycles instead of cars make a positive social and environmental contribution. motorcycles use less fuel, have a smaller footprint, cause less emission, congestion and pollution
ACC should be requried, as public policy to take account of social and environmental benefits when setting levies and accept a responsibility for promoting those
The present method of allocating costs is manifestly unjust to motorcyclists, who must pay whether they are in the right or in the wrong. No other group in society is expected to pay for the privilege of being injured
The present method of levying vehicle registrations causes unjustifiable anomalies and injustice, not only to motorcyclists but to anyone who has more than one vehicle but drives only one at a time. Fairer, alternative collection methods should be introduced as soon as possible

[scissorhands]

Mopeds: Just class all motorised forms of transport in the same way. i.e. one bin for all and one levy for all.

Mopeds have been a low cost bike class for the poor and students. To do away with this reduced registration would leave the door open in the future, and weaken the biking public's position. Many people start on scooters before moving on and becoming bikers. Biker population/numbers/strength relies heavily on this class.

Where I live most bikes on the road are scooters. That presence is important. Bikers may be tempted to use scooters as bait to defend their own interests. This may seem a good idea and tempting to burn those faggy scooterists....

To leave scooters out in the cold in negotiations would come back to bite bikers on the bum re ACC and the long term effect would weaken bike culture, overall, by a large reduction in riding numbers. And ethically a cheap class for workers and students should exist

Its like managing an ecosystem, take away one species and what will happen to the others?

Also looking forward, electric mopeds have a fantastic future for our cities unless big oil has its way. Ethically and environmentally, this class should remain.

[Clockwork]

Earnings related compensation should be drawn from the earner account NOT Road User Account?

[MSTRS]

Apparently not. If injury was sustained through a vehicle ALL compensation comes from that account.

[Ixion]

I too am a bit uncomfortable about the moped issue. Sort of seems like throwing them to the wolves.

On the other hand, of all the ACC proposals , that one is probably most justified.

When the moped class was introduced mopeds were exactly that. Bicycles with an auxiliary motor, and pedals. Which were needed on any slight hill.
Nowadays , a "moped" is really a 50cc motorbike.

[NighthawkNZ]

Earnings related compensation should be drawn from the earner account NOT Road User Account?


Apparently not. If injury was sustained through a vehicle ALL compensation comes from that account.

Which is why ACC was never designed to have seperate accounts and just have the one huge pool to draw the funds from...

[Macktheknife]

Moved the points around to give a more logical flow. Content unchanged

Unless someone has a very good reason nbot, I propose to run with this

Note that the reordering also means that the first 8 are specific to the levy issue while the rest are a "springboard" for broader future action



The principles of the Woodhouse report should be preserved and respected
ACC is not in financial crisis and is not broke. The "crisis" is an artificially engendered one to give spurious justification for actions that the Government could not otherwise justify
Motorcyclists should not be discriminated against because of their transport choices.
The ACC scheme was never intended to be a user pays scheme in which those who allegedly incur specific costs must, as a group, also meet those costs in full. The scheme is intended to draw upon the overall resources of the community to ensure that those who suffer an accident do not find themselves disadvantaged .
Saying that motor cyclists must pay much more than presently because they are ‘responsible’ for their accidents not only breaches the principal behind the scheme, it also re-introduces the notion of fault into the scheme when it was set up in the first place to avoid it.
There is no justification for treating a (small) subgroup of private passenger vehicles differently to others. Motorcycles should be in the same classification group as cars . And pay the same levies
The statistical data produced by ACC to justify their claims is slanted, distorted and incomplete, and does not present a fair and unbiased viewpoint. This one sided presentation is unacceptable from a government organisation.
There is no justification, statistical or otherwise , for different levy rates on different capacities of motorcycles. The figures put forward by ACC to justify this are fundamentally flawed and do not support their case.
Those who choose motorcycles instead of cars make a positive social and environmental contribution. motorcycles use less fuel, have a smaller footprint, cause less emission, congestion and pollution
ACC should be requried, as public policy to take account of social and environmental benefits when setting levies and accept a responsibility for promoting those
The present method of allocating costs is manifestly unjust to motorcyclists, who must pay whether they are in the right or in the wrong. No other group in society is expected to pay for the privilege of being injured
The present method of levying vehicle registrations causes unjustifiable anomalies and injustice, not only to motorcyclists but to anyone who has more than one vehicle but drives only one at a time. Fairer, alternative collection methods should be introduced as soon as possible


Ixion and BRONZ, some thoughts for you....

Point 3:No-one should be discriminated against for their transport choices.
Remember, it is not just motorcyclists who will be targeted, it is just us this time. Making a political statement that is inclusive of others, makes it more likely to be supported by those not in the 'motorcyclist' part of society. This puts the emphasis on the actual 'wrong' in the concept not on the victim of the result.

Points 4, 5 and 6 seem to be saying very much the same thing, in slightly different ways. Basically, condense the key information and use the rest as supporting information.
Perhaps something like,
Raising levies against any one group in society is ignoring the 'no fault' nature of the scheme and unfairly penalises people who may have limited resources and finances.

Point 9, perhaps include the term 'carbon footprint' to make it clearer that the environmental impact is reduced? (that may be a little too semantic.)

Point 10, sorry I just don't think that is workable. how will this be measured and enacted? what would be the social and environmental benefits of sports players or truck drivers? This will lead to placing different levies against groups with lower social and economic benefits, which I thought we were not in favour of? Besides, promoting social benefits is not really part of ACC's mission.

Point 11, it is also unjust towards all road users, even the un-injured ones. Perhaps making it clear that the concept of 'user pays' is already flawed when rugby players and other sports injuries are not charged anything at all but they make up a huge part of the costs of the scheme. Why should motorists of any type be subsidising them? Why target just one group that already pays significantly more than others for the 'service' of ACC.

Point 12, I agree, and while they are at it they should put a charge on all other users of the scheme. Sports players, divers, skiers, mountain climbers, and anyone else that ends up costing the scheme without contributing to it.
The point here is that the LOGIC is wrong, the justification for raising the levies against motorcycles is the costs they incur relative to other motorists. ACC claims it's not fair to expect others to pay for motorcyclists extra costs. My answer would be, why not? All motorists pay for the costs of the other injuries in areas where there are no levies like sports, so what is the difference? There isn't one, it is not fair to anyone, but ACC still do it.
As for the mopeds/scooters, if we are saying that no group should be targeted for paying more, we kind of have to accept all groups paying the same amount is reasonable, that would have to include scooter/mopeds. (sorry guys)

My 2c.
Finally, good luck and thanks to everyone who is working to do something about it.

[scissorhands]

I too am a bit uncomfortable about the moped issue. Sort of seems like throwing them to the wolves.

On the other hand, of all the ACC proposals , that one is probably most justified.

When the moped class was introduced mopeds were exactly that. Bicycles with an auxiliary motor, and pedals. Which were needed on any slight hill.
Nowadays , a "moped" is really a 50cc motorbike.

Most mopeds only do 55km/hr. Letting them go will weaken bikers numbers and strength now and in the future. To divide here would be a mistake. Strong numbers on bikes is good? no? especially at times like now?

Environmentally we are on the verge of 200kg electric 3 wheel 2 person bubbles and electric mopeds. The big oil/insurance jackels should not be allowed leverage via differing points of view between biking sub cultures.

Could be like shooting yourself in the foot.

[idleidolidyll]

[QUOTE=Ixion;1129497493]Manifesto is a statement of principles. QUOTE]

Indeed it is.

How about this principle:

Unsignposted roadworks, or the dangerous results of 'finished' roadworks, which put single track vehicle users at lethal risk, are criminally negligent.

here's another:

A Government which raises the health cover charges for a section of road users whose accident rate is largely due to the dangerous work of companies, and the careless driving of other motorists; is guilty of fascism and is anti democratic.

Once more: The outrageous rates rises did not happen under Labour. Phil Goff stood in front of us at our rally in Auckland and said they would not happen with Labour in power. The Government didn't even respect us enough to show up
Obviously the rates rise is a decision based on specfic party policy and attacking the messenger (ACC Corp) instead of the instigator (National Govt), is ignorant or negligent.

[idleidolidyll]

Moved the points around to give a more logical flow. Content unchanged


I won't requote the whole thing.

I generally like what's there and apart from argueing ad infinitum with regard to the specific wording; the statements as presented are a very good basis for protest in the time available. Well done to all who participated and continue to participate.

My only concern is that the actions taken to combat this violent policy must be aimed directly at those responsible and not their messengers; and that extremely disruptive but legal action WILL be used if the Government does not throw this bill out the window.

I will not settle for a 'mere' 50% or 100% increase instead of 300%, this unfair policy must be completely reversed.

[StoneY]

My only concern is that the actions taken to combat this violent policy must be aimed directly at those responsible and not their messengers; and that extremely disruptive but legal action WILL be used if the Government does not throw this bill out the window.


Violent what?????

No one, either Govt or BIKEOI has yet condoned any violence
Can I assume you meant 'VILE policy', because rest assured anyone acting 'violent' at the BIKEOI will be very sorry come the next morning

[peasea]

Violent what?????

No one, either Govt or BIKEOI has yet condoned any violence
Can I assume you meant 'VILE policy', because rest assured anyone acting 'violent' at the BIKEOI will be very sorry come the next morning

Possibly 'virulent'?

[scissorhands]

Splinter groups and panic merchants fucking things up for everyone else need to chill out, maybe have a wank and a nap or something

The central body here is doing all it can and it aint too bad

[idleidolidyll]

Violent what?????

No one, either Govt or BIKEOI has yet condoned any violence
Can I assume you meant 'VILE policy', because rest assured anyone acting 'violent' at the BIKEOI will be very sorry come the next morning

its a figure of speech

pouncing on a word out of context is just plain silly

BTW: please insert your threat in the dark hole it belongs

words are a common form of violence; that's why we have anti hate speech legislation.........or do we Hone?

Please take your straw man elsewhere, i never advocated hitting old ladies over the head or kicking off car mirrors

[StoneY]

Possibly 'virulent'?

Woluld have been a better word to use most definitely



BTW: please insert your threat in the dark hole it belongs



What threat?
Heavy police presence buddy, violence a very bad choice of terminology
Cells in Wellington are no friendly space to be, and as I stated ANYONE, if you take that to mean you that's your issue not mine

[SARGE]

because rest assured anyone acting 'violent' at the BIKEOI will be very sorry come the next morning

although the KB Sinn Vroom Bounty on Stupid (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=111564) still stands


long as its away from the media .. :Oops:

[BMWST?]

i think we also need to agree on what constitutes success at the end of the day as well. From day one i've believed the main aim is to driver through a smaller (eg $300) increase - but to get it past us, have said they want $500. When we've finished our protests, and made our point, nick smith will stand there and say - "ok, we're a good government, we listen to our people and we're only going to charge a $300 increase."

what will it take to make us go away?

If we all agree $500 is too much - what compromise will make us happy - because in the end that's what we're likely to be faced with.

no compromise all private motor vehicles pay the same acc levy

[NighthawkNZ]

no compromise all private motor vehicles pay the same acc levy

yup... and a better fair way of collecting the levies (which for me would probably be more expensive than now...) :doh:

[BMWST?]

yup... and a better fair way of collecting the levies (which for me would probably be more expensive than now...) :doh:

yes i think the multi vehicle brigade seem to think it will somehow be cheaper....???same number of dollars to collect,fewer to pay it....

[SARGE]

yes i think the multi vehicle brigade seem to think it will somehow be cheaper....???same number of dollars to collect,fewer to pay it....

just go buy a personalized plate .. register your car and swap over as needed ...

[peasea]

just go buy a personalized plate .. register your car and swap over as needed ...

I checked today; FCKACC is still available.

[SARGE]

I checked today; FCKACC is still available.

yea .. saw that ..

what would happen if 3000 people printed that out ?

and taped it over their plate?

and rode to wellington...

[peasea]

yea .. saw that ..

what would happen if 3000 people printed that out ?

and taped it over their plate?

and rode to wellington...

I'm surprised right-size decals aren't online yet.

[StoneY]

peasea, you comin up on the day m8?

[sinned]

I checked today; FCKACC is still available.


yea .. saw that ..

what would happen if 3000 people printed that out ?

and taped it over their plate?

and rode to wellington...


I'm surprised right-size decals aren't online yet.

So is there someone who can provide the graphic at the correct size?
Who can provide the graphic on a backing on Monday?

[SARGE]

ahh yea .. civil disobedience ... love it

[StoneY]

Last few details ironed out and Final Information sticky now edited

Good luck on the ride here, looking forward to seeing you all
Stay safe, bee seen, be here on Tuesday

Osu