Danger time

[FROSTY]

Im sure the deep thinkers amoungst you have already thought this through.
Now is quite a danger tiime from the point of view of public sympathy.
If ACC or the gubbinment comes back with an offer of say $400 for 12 months rego on a bike then BIKERS can be made to look like the bad guys by not accepting.
I know it aint right but ya see what i mean

[twotyred]

that's the plan,always has been...

[YellowDog]

Im sure the deep thinkers amoungst you have already thought this through.
Now is quite a danger tiime from the point of view of public sympathy.
If ACC or the gubbinment comes back with an offer of say $400 for 12 months rego on a bike then BIKERS can be made to look like the bad guys by not accepting.
I know it aint right but ya see what i mean
This is my understanding:

If you own 3 1000cc bikes, then $400 is still totally unreasonable. The point of the increase is that is was designed to cover increased ACC liabilities.

You can only ride one bike at a time and hence the method of raising the extra cash is flawed and unfair on individuals.

We also argue that the amount of ACC claims that have been apportioned to motorcyclists is not accurate.

Hence even at the present level, the charging system is unfair and we are therefore asking for a review with the actual facts.

To maintain public sympathy, we need to get our arguament right and then stick to it.

[Jizah]

that's the plan,always has been...

I agree with this.

[Big Dave]

<object width="320" height="265"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YqabpJlKc2k&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YqabpJlKc2k&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="320" height="265"></embed></object>

[Corse1]

This is my understanding:

To maintain public sympathy, we need to get our arguament right and then
stick to it.



:stupid: Totally agree

[Kiwi Graham]

Its important that any future action is accompanied by flyers giving reasons for it. Otherwise we are just a load of trouble makers hindering innocent citizens with unreasonable actions.

[Trudes]

Im sure the deep thinkers amoungst you have already thought this through.
Now is quite a danger tiime from the point of view of public sympathy.
If ACC or the gubbinment comes back with an offer of say $400 for 12 months rego on a bike then BIKERS can be made to look like the bad guys by not accepting.
I know it aint right but ya see what i mean

That's kinda what I was getting at yesterday before I got told to shhhhhh.
I think of other things I spend $400 a year on and they mean a shit load less to me than keeping my bike legal with a rego on it.
I get that it's not right, fair or parity, but at the end of the day, it's not totally unreasonable.

[FROSTY]

If you own 3 1000cc bikes, then $400 is still totally unreasonable. The point of the increase is that is was designed to cover increased ACC liabilities.
Public prospective here. "he can afford 3 bikes then he can afford 3 registrations"

Keep in mind it aint my mindset its the public mindset.

[Maha]

I'd be happy with a $30 increase, just like the car rego.
So one car/one van and two bikes = $120 extra per year....yeah thats cool.

[Oakie]

Should we perhaps gets one of our mathematical wizz-kids to take apart the info that is available from ACC and try to come up with a figure that we think is appropriate. That could then be our goal and one we could publicise. (It may even be that the figure arrived at could be less than we presently pay.) Lets not just be reactive to them ... lets get on the front foot and make them react to us. Any economists here?.

[YellowDog]

Its important that any future action is accompanied by flyers giving reasons for it. Otherwise we are just a load of trouble makers hindering innocent citizens with unreasonable actions.
This has to be pretty key to the campaign.

A simple flyer with 5 key bullet points that are easily understandable to Joe Public.

[Pedrostt500]

I,ve posted this else where on here,

If we were to contact every affected group, that the Government and ACC have decided to step on, and with each of these groups we hold a Nation Wide protest all timed for a set date and time in every major centre in New Zealand.
Because like Motorcyclists each of these groups a small in there own right, but combined are a Major Chunk of the New Zealand public.
So for Wellington we would March down Lampton Quay to Parliment from Civic Square.
The timing would be in the first week that Parliament reconvens for the New Year.

[NONONO]

That's kinda what I was getting at yesterday before I got told to shhhhhh.
I think of other things I spend $400 a year on and they mean a shit load less to me than keeping my bike legal with a rego on it.
I get that it's not right, fair or parity, but at the end of the day, it's not totally unreasonable.

Re look at the Ixion's first post in the Manifesto thread.
I do not believe it would be unreasonable for Snow Planet to expect a $250 indemnity from every customer, but they don't.
I don't think it would be unreasonable for Bungee jumps to have an extra $250 extra charge, just in case.
Is it unreasonable to ask women wearing high heels to fork out an extra few dollars to ACC for the possible treatment of ankle injuries?
I suppose the above would not be fair, or parity, but not totally unreasonable.
We should not pay one cent more than any other road users.
In fact ACC owe us a refund.

[Trudes]

Make sure you all keep turning up to all the protests and annoying your MPs and telling anybody and everybody you come across about it then. :)

[mashman]

This is straight from the "How to read ACC statistics" page on their website

Categories with fewer than three claims

For privacy reasons, if the number of claims reported is between 1 and 3 actual claims, this is displayed as ‘≤3’ claims. (Are our payments also calculated this way... the figures could be out by as much as a factor of 3)


Presenting cost of claims

Costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000, and percentages to the nearest 0.1%. Costs less than $500 are reported as ‘<$500’. (WTF)

so the final total could be really quite wrong if these statistical analysis parameters are used. I am no expert, but have written shitloads of reports before and these parameters could cause be used very badly.

i'd say in this instance you've got carte blanche to come up with any figures you deem fit!

[scissorhands]

No increase!!

[XP@]

It is not so much the money, it is philosophy!
Don't get caught up in that!

Even a $5 difference for a bike with a different cc rating is a change in principal and should be fought tooth and nail! If they suceed in that change the door or possibly floodgates will be opened.

We need to remember we are fighting to keep ACC as it was intended, not just to save ourselves a couple of $' this year.

[Naki Rat]

This is straight from the "How to read ACC statistics" page on their website

Categories with fewer than three claims

For privacy reasons, if the number of claims reported is between 1 and 3 actual claims, this is displayed as ‘≤3’ claims. (Are our payments also calculated this way... the figures could be out by as much as a factor of 3)


Presenting cost of claims

Costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000, and percentages to the nearest 0.1%. Costs less than $500 are reported as ‘<$500’. (WTF)

so the final total could be really quite wrong if these statistical analysis parameters are used. I am no expert, but have written shitloads of reports before and these parameters could cause be used very badly.

i'd say in this instance you've got carte blanche to come up with any figures you deem fit!

The statistics collected in the past have been recorded for totally different reasons than the purposes they are now being used for. Bookkeeping for a compensation scheme is a world away from the number crunching required to turn the same into a commercially answerable insurance company.

The way the statistics are being interpretted is an absolute nonsense, and we are being screwed in the process :buggerd:

[AD345]

but at the end of the day, it's not totally unreasonable.

Yes it is

it IS totally unreasonable.

We may be 20 years late in waking up to what has been done to ACC but "better late than never" is still valid.

ANY specific targeting of risk by way of an incresed levy for ANYONE is game over for ACC and game on for a brave new world of privatised insurance