DOM POST says - bikers should pay

[davereid]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/3076262/Editorial-Bikers-should-pay-but-lets-be-fair

Editorial: Bikers should pay but let's be fair

OPINION: There's nothing like the feel of the wind on the face or the thrum of the tyres on the road to make a biker feel alive. There's nothing like the throb of 5000 engines to remind a politician of his mortality.

In the wake of Tuesday's "Bikoi" to Parliament, ACC Minister Nick Smith and Prime Minister John Key have become converts to the unfairness of the levy increases proposed by ACC to cover the increasing cost of motorbike injuries. Both say it is unlikely the proposed increases of up to $493.08 a motorcycle will be fully implemented.

The Key Government is nothing if not responsive to public opinion. However, the principle underpinning the proposed increases is sound.

Motorcycling is a dangerous activity. According to ACC, bikers are 16 times more likely to make an ACC claim than other road users. According to Dr Smith, compensation claims for motorcycle accidents have increased almost fivefold over the past decade. It is a decade during which there has been a massive increase in the number of large bikes ridden by older owners, and the change in the makeup of bike users is reflected in accident data.

Bikers dispute the way ACC and the minister interpret the statistics and point out that the official figures make no distinction between accidents caused by bikers and accidents involving bikers caused by other road users. They have a point.

However, there is no disputing the fact that a motorcyclist who hits a lamp-post with only clothing for protection is likely to do a great deal more damage to him or herself than the driver of a modern car equipped with crumple zones and airbags.

Motorcyclists should not be required to foot the bill for injuries caused by other road users, but they should collectively meet the costs of accidents for which they are responsible. It is not reasonable to expect those who use vehicles as a means of getting from one place to another to underwrite the expenses of those who use powerful motorbikes as recreational toys.

Some biker groups have argued that, if their premiums are risk-rated, so should be those of others who engage in risky activity, such as mountain climbers, rugby players and netballers. But there is a difference. Mountain climbers and sportspeople are engaging in activities that improve the general fitness of the population and provide a health benefit that offsets the cost of broken bones. Riding a motorbike is not an inherently healthy activity.

Motorcycle premiums should be increased; however, the increases should be fair. Surely it is not beyond the wit of ACC and biker organisations to establish the true cost of motorcycle accidents and to devise a formula that apportions cost according to responsibility?

Bikers should not have to bear the cost of crashes caused by careless motorists. But neither should they expect other road users to subsidise their pleasures.

[Str8 Jacket]

Interesting, well written editorial.

Everyone is welcome to their opinion but as long as we continue to stand as a collective then those 'others' won't be heard as clearly....

[yungatart]

It would be nice if the Dom Post would print the facts in the matter and give the public the correct information, from which they could form their own opinion.
In an ideal world, eh?

[Shaun]

ACC Statistics

I do NOT know if this is 100% True? Maybe some one on here does

I have been told, that any time some one has an ACC claim, that becomes 1 statistic, then when that same person needs more medical or finacuall help, it turns into the 2nd statistic, and so on and so on, IS that why the statistics have grown so much in the last 9 years?

[st00ji]

well written? that is horrendous. sports players shouldnt pay because their activities are inherently healthy? thats almost as laughable as bikes getting let off this ACC hike business because of a smaller carbon footprint or other nonsense.

NO FAULT BITCHES

how hard is it to understand? im honestly shocked by the number of people i've spoken to who dont realise what this means

[Taz]

It seems the Dominion Post is owned or sponsored by the government. Their Journalists are probably to scared to bite the hand that feeds them. What a crap 2nd rate newspaper anyway.

[zahria]

well written? that is horrendous. sports players shouldnt pay because their activities are inherently healthy? thats almost as laughable as bikes getting let off this ACC hike business because of a smaller carbon footprint or other nonsense.

NO FAULT BITCHES

how hard is it to understand? im honestly shocked by the number of people i've spoken to who dont realise what this means

Agree with you.
However, the article was written as a nicely worded lecture so show how unreasonable we will be when the protest escalates.
Factually, well, the facts quoted are not the facts I have heard, the figures quoted came from Nick Smith and his Bullshit spin doctors.

[MSTRS]

OPINION: There's nothing like the feel of the wind on the face or the thrum of the tyres on the road to make a biker feel alive...

.... Mountain climbers and sportspeople are engaging in activities that improve the general fitness of the population and provide a health benefit that offsets the cost of broken bones. Riding a motorbike is not an inherently healthy activity.

Motorcycle premiums should be increased ...

But neither should they expect other road users to subsidise their pleasures.

The editor is entitled to his opinion. But most of his opinion is shaped by the propaganda that abounds (not coming from us, is it?)
As far as 'healthy' is concerned, has it escaped this drongo's notice that mountain climbers do it for the thrill? Very little to do with 'healthy'. And what is healthy, anyway? Mental/physical are just as important. Besides there's different kinds of fitness, aren't there?
And what's this 'premiums' bit? ACC is not insurance. This crap fucks me off no end. Terminology can be an insidiously dangerous thing.
And why should my employee levies subsidise that mountain climber?

And no right of reply available. Prick.

[Trudes]

well written? that is horrendous. sports players shouldnt pay because their activities are inherently healthy? thats almost as laughable as bikes getting let off this ACC hike business because of a smaller carbon footprint or other nonsense.

NO FAULT BITCHES

how hard is it to understand? im honestly shocked by the number of people i've spoken to who dont realise what this means

I agree, they are trying to cloud the general public's vision with numbers and stats etc, saying we're moaning that it's not us it's the other guy etc, when really the real issue here is that ACC is meant to be based on a no fault basis scheme, so all their stats and numbers and blame game is fucked really, it's not the real issue.

[Maki]

"Riding a motorbike is not an inherently healthy activity." A lot more healthy than thugby.

When will they get it into their thick heads that most bikers ALSO HAVE CARS AND PAY THE ACC LEVY ON THEM. This nonsense about "other" road users paying the bill for bikers has got to stop. Bikers are already paying.

[davereid]

I find the article interesting, particularly because it makes such a weak case for mountain climbers etc.

By bringing up the "healthy" idea, it introduces the concept of the greater social good.

Bikes of course score well here. Even fuel guzzling superbikes manage fuel economy equal or better than cars, and most bikes do waaay better than cars, particularly when the carbon footprint of actually building the vehicle is considered.

We create less congestion, and operate at high passenger efficiency levels - better than public transport and cars by miles.

While the tone of the article is a loss for us, the weakness of the message against us is most certainly a win.

[Okey Dokey]

Riding a motorbike not healthy? I read that years ago Aaron Slight was on a tv show where contestants from different sports were pitted against one another to find the fittest. He beat all the rugby, etc types, and only a pair of tri-athletes came ahead of him!

That's in addition to the psychological benefits.

Hate to see that 16x figure yet again.

[cheshirecat]

A recent Japanese study found that motorcycling increased intelligence, mental ability etc on a survey of middle aged men.
One could argue the converse with rugby.
Will try and dig it out.

[Kennif]

This was a terrible editorial. IMO just part of the demonising of motorcyclists. The suggestion that its ok to have no levies on mountain climbers and sportspeople because their pursuits are inherently healthy is just such nonsense. No recognition of the use of motorcycles as commuter vehicles.
Heres the quote:

"It is not reasonable to expect those who use vehicles as a means of getting from one place to another to underwrite the expenses of those who use powerful motorbikes as recreational toys."

Sorry - that is just arrogant arrant nonsense. There has been a huge upsurge of ridersusingmotorbikes forcommuting. And good on them too!

Prof Lamb was on National Radio yesterday afternoon - now that is a man who really does have the facts and figures at his fingertips. From memory (and it is failing I know but I am an old fart) he made two really important points:
1. Motorcycle levies make up 0.03% of the $$$ collected as levies by ACC (So increasing the levies will not make financial sense - just send a political message)
2. Despite their poor investment practices, ACC still have $11Billion (yes eleven BILLION) in reserves.

The interview is available on the National Radio website as a podcast. Well worth downloading and listening to.

The bottom line is - if we allow ACC to apply the fault policy across the board (as they already do with employer levies) then they stop running a compensation scheme and they start an insurance scheme. The litigation will begin right there. The lawyers will love it.

[Headbanger]

Bikers should not have to bear the cost of crashes caused by careless motorists. But neither should they expect other road users to subsidise their pleasures


Sweet, I guess that means the rego on my 2 cars will be reduced, as well as a reduction in all the other hidden fees ACC use.

And of course, to follow the logic through, I won't have to pay for anybody sporting injuries, household accidents or work injuries.

Now we are going to stop subsidizing everyone else I'll be getting a good sized refund then.




Wait, I forgot, Its only Bikers getting arse fucked.

[Laxi]

It seems the Dominion Post is owned or sponsored by the government. Their Journalists are probably to scared to bite the hand that feeds them. What a crap 2nd rate newspaper anyway.

you have to wonder:crazy: they have been "unsuportive" from the start to say the least, one sided editing & havn't seen any actual comparisons in ACC stats reported in the dom post, they seem to just take nick the pricks word for it:angry2:

[cheshirecat]

Here is link (http://www.motocrossactionmag.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=news&mod=News&mid=9A02E3B96F2A415ABC72CB5F516B4C10&tier=3&nid=3E73232A9A4D4C7FBCAFD927BE88B14D)

Oh Japanese study of why we are more intelligent for riding

[cheshirecat]

you have to wonder:crazy: they have been "unsuportive" from the start to say the least, one sided editing & havn't seen any actual comparisons in ACC stats reported in the dom post, they seem to just take nick the pricks word for it:angry2:

I met a senior staff member once and even he admited the paper wasn't up to much
it's really jounaled by 12 year olds

[Okey Dokey]

you have to wonder:crazy: they have been "unsuportive" from the start to say the least, one sided editing & havn't seen any actual comparisons in ACC stats reported in the dom post, they seem to just take nick the pricks word for it:angry2:

It can be quite discouraging, can't it? Everything he says seems to get printed, yet opposing views struggle to be heard.

[Babelfish]

I agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion...unless they're a fucktard, looking to fill up a bit of paper with drivel, which this was. No new information, no insightful comment, just rambling without sifting through the options...like Mr Smith did.

Just another example of a paper happy to print shite.

[MSTRS]

Send a letter. I have...
Editorial on motorcycle levies

Is it possible for the editor to have an original thought? Yes. It is possible. Is it likely? No.
Is it possible for an editor, or journalist, to actually do some research, instead of parroting the lies and spin coming from the Dishonourable Nick? Yes. It is possible. Is it likely. It would seem not.
I am disgusted that, once again, the facts are being ignored. Apart from the inane repeating of Nick's spin, it seems that all we get to see or hear in the media is that 'motorcyclists are upset'. We are much more than that. We have done the research that proves the lies. We want the public to be given the opportunity to see all the facts for themselves. NZ needs to know what is really going on. Because they are next

[mikeey01]

I've read some rubbish in my time, this I put in that pile, it's complete crap.

I wonder if it was written by a ten year old or someone whom they actually pay?

[mikeey01]

Send a letter. I have...

Ditto

There is enough mis-information, smoke screens, general rubbish and bad articles out there by others already without and to be honest nothing short of rubbish journalism like this!

If you honestly want to comment on something like this then may I suggest one researches before they write?

Take a look at the bigger picture, back off from the current focus on biker levies and look at it all again, now this story up till now has been left un-told.
National and ACT makes no secret it wants to privatise ACC, National is for business and all opportunities for.
So how does one create that want and desire, a feeling perhaps that ACC should be privatised? increase levies? hike employer premiums? It's got to start somewhere.

Up till now not one of the figures presented add up, the maths does not make sense, ACC's own figures presented on the web do not add up, the reasons and reasoning behind it may well do. Still ACC philosophy is no fault, or are we on our way back to user pays again?

Young man, get real, get a life and do your job properly. The standard of modern journalism these days leaves me wanting for a degree of un-biased fact based not copy and paste rubbish.

[Okey Dokey]

Well done MSTRS. I'm a bit tired of the "angry biker" tag, too. What I feel is righteous indignation!

[Pixie]

Quote :"Some biker groups have argued that, if their premiums are risk-rated, so should be those of others who engage in risky activity, such as mountain climbers, rugby players and netballers. But there is a difference. Mountain climbers and sportspeople are engaging in activities that improve the general fitness of the population and provide a health benefit that offsets the cost of broken bones. Riding a motorbike is not an inherently healthy activity."


Bike Magazine commissioned a physiologist to measure the energy expenditure of a person riding a motorcycle.
Using a CO2 baseline and a heart rate monitor,the following conclusions were arrived at:
A normal commute type ride equates to a brisk walk.
Anything more "enthusiastic" requires proportionally greater exertion.
So it does improve the general fitness of the participant.

Someone please include this any letter to the Editor of the Dom you may submit.

[Okey Dokey]

Great work, Pixie!:rockon:

[Conquiztador]

They want us to get angry? Perhaps it is what we should do...

[FROSTY]

ACC Statistics

I do NOT know if this is 100% True? Maybe some one on here does

I have been told, that any time some one has an ACC claim, that becomes 1 statistic, then when that same person needs more medical or finacuall help, it turns into the 2nd statistic, and so on and so on, IS that why the statistics have grown so much in the last 9 years?
I can tell you for a FACT when I crashed atTaupo I was entered into 3 SEPERATE hospital data bases as a bike accident. First Taupo then Middlemore then North shore.
That was a reflection of the idiocy of the hospital system

[FROSTY]

Well done MSTRS. I'm a bit tired of the "angry biker" tag, too. What I feel is righteous indignation!
NO NO NO--Not angry biker--angry BIKIE. its so much more nasty doncha see :argh:

[vifferman]

According to a physiotherapist I was going to for several months for a non-motorcycling injury, motorcycling is more healthy than driving a car, and he recommended that patients with back injuries continued to ride rather than drive as the posture is generally better, and you use more muscles than sitting in your motorised armchair. This same physio is now an advisor (or manager, or somesuch) for ACC. He is (or at least, was) a biker himself.

[Pixie]

NO NO NO--Not angry biker--angry BIKIE. its so much more nasty doncha see :argh:

At least he's not an angry beaver

[BMWST?]

they have opened the door a crack themselves....so modern cars with crumple zones and airbags...what about older cars without,or vans,or SUV.....
they will be getting a blast from me tonight...

[bogan]

perhaps each newspaper article that prints such lies should be meet with a gang of bikers protesting outside thier offices at high noon the same day. Who's keen?

[gwigs]

perhaps each newspaper article that prints such lies should be meet with a gang of bikers protesting outside thier offices at high noon the same day. Who's keen?

I,m not sure about this,it could look like bullyboy tactics form us and they are allowed to print their view,even if it is BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT !!!

[bogan]

I,m not sure about this,it could look like bullyboy tactics form us and they are allowed to print their view,even if it is BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT !!!

spose it would, but we would not be protesting them expressing thier view, merely them using incorrect facts:angry2:. We gotta dispute the stats somehow I reckon

[PuppetMaster]

I for one will no longer be purchasing this useless paper, unless I run out of toilet paper.

[FastBikeGear]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/3076262/Editorial-Bikers-should-pay-but-lets-be-fair
.

This article wasn't written by the editor. Editors hardly ever write editorials becasue they are too busy doing the things editors really do.

The article was written by Nick Venter. While he writes some of the editorials and some other stuff, I don't think he has much if anything to do with letters to the editor. If you want to write a rebuttal you should send it to the 'letters to the editor section' letters@dompost.co.nz

Nick has given us the perfect opportunity to write letters to the editor and having done an editorial on the subject - they kind of have an obligation to print our responses.

Nick didn't research this article. He used what was put in front of him by the ACC. He told me that someone from one of the biker groups should put some clear, concise and irrefutable numbers in front of him that dispute the ACC numbers. I contacted BRONZ to let them know that I would like to arrange an interview between their spokes person and Nick Venter prior to this article being written. This opportunity was not pursued.


I sent the following letter to the editor today in response to the article

You expressed the concerns of many of us in your recent editorial when you stated "Bikers should not have to bear the cost of crashes caused by careless motorists."
I have some comments on the following quotes from the editorial.

"However, there is no disputing the fact that a motorcyclist who hits a lamp-post with only clothing for protection is likely to do a great deal more damage to him or herself than the driver of a modern car equipped with crumple zones and airbags."

Surprisingly as the following ACC's statistics show this is not an indisputable fact or even a fact. The cost per motorcycle injury claim was actually less than the claim per car driver in 2006, 2007 and 2008!

In 2008 there were:

852,928 ACC claims from car occupants with a total cost of just over $208 million equating to $24,427 per claim.

3,174 ACC entitlement claims from motorcyclists with a total cost of $62.5 million equating to just $19,705 per claim

[Data Source supplied for verification by Suzanne Carty (in charge of letters to the editor) http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/2-all-entitlement-claims/IS0800020]

"Motorcyclists should not be required to foot the bill for injuries caused by other road users, but they should collectively meet the costs of accidents for which they are responsible"

So will drivers be paying lawyers to prove they weren't at fault? With the scrapping of ACC's no-fault principals as suggested by the editor, will we now be opening the way for civil litigation?

"It is not reasonable to expect those who use vehicles as a means of getting from one place to another to underwrite the expenses of those who use powerful motorbikes as recreational toys."

Perhaps the editor means for the word 'powerful' to be the key in determining when a vehicle is used as a "powerful recreational toy" as opposed as a tool to drive to the sports ground? Perhaps all cars that have unnecessary 6 and 8 cylinder engines instead of four cylinders will be classed as "powerful recreational toys".

"Some biker groups have argued that, if their premiums are risk-rated, so should be those of others who engage in risky activity, such as mountain climbers, rugby players, etc. But there is a difference. Mountain climbers and sports people are engaging in activities that improve the general fitness of the population and provide a health benefit that offsets the cost of broken bones. Riding a motorbike is not an inherently healthy activity."

In the future, all colonised worlds will be required to carry the following health warning "Caution: Global warming may be harmful to your health". Motorbikes have a smaller global foot print, use less resources, mined and smeltered raw materials, take less room to park in crowded CBDs and use up less of N.Z.s limited overseas funds to purchase and fuel.

"Surely it is not beyond the wit of ACC and biker organisations to establish the true cost of motorcycle accidents and to devise a formula that apportions cost according to responsibility?"

I am confident that Nick Smith, has half what you say is required, (wit).

[modboy]

This just went to Nick's inbox.

***********
Hi Nick,

It's been a while since I've read such poorly informed dribble.

You have completely missed the point. ACC is not an insurance company - it is a no fault compensation scheme. Or at least that's what it was set up to be, I guess the government want to change that, but that is a different matter.

It was set up like this because when an old lady falls over and breaks her hip ACC foots the bill which was made possible by contributions from all of us. By your logic little old ladies "should collectively meet the costs of accidents for which they are responsible" therefore we should slap them with an ACC levy.

OK, following this, we should slap levys on all unsuspecting groups who are collectively responsible for ACC payouts - school kids on scooters, skateboarders, rugby and netball players, people that use vending machines, trampers and climbers, off road trail bike riders and cyclists - not to mention old people who fall over and break hips. To argue that some of these activities are "healthy pursuits" and some are not is a normative argument - irrelevant at worse, highly relative at best.

But to get back to the point - we don't attibute risk to these other activities Nick because ACC is supposed to be a NO FAULT compensation scheme provided by a government in a country that cares about peoples welfare and wants to avoid the kinds of litigation that goes on in the US over someone slipping on a banana skin.

Look, if they wanna make it an insurance scheme fine - then lets equitably charge EVERYONE according to the risk they represent. But also then you need to open the door for me to sue the arsehole in an SUV (powerful recreational toys) that made a right turn in front of me causing my accident. Why don't you do an editorial about how many idiots in those things reverse over their toddlers. But then, yea, where do you stop.

More balance please !!

Cheers
Steve McKinlay

[Drogen Omen]

all i can say is what the fuck was that editor smoking at the time he wrote this bullshit and why have the cops not drug tested him yet???

[MSTRS]

The article was written by Nick Venter. His email address at the Dominion Post is nick.venter@dompos.co.nz. While he writes some of the editorials and some other stuff, I don't think he has much if anything to do with letters to the editor.

Try nick.venter@dompost.co.nz

I have been given to understand that you used to ride a motorcycle, without injury. I also understand that you are a keen sportsman, who has suffered expensive knee injury in the pursuit of your playing rugby. Will you now be printing your support for introduction of hefty levies to cover these currently un-levied activities?

[mashman]

ACC Statistics

I do NOT know if this is 100% True? Maybe some one on here does

I have been told, that any time some one has an ACC claim, that becomes 1 statistic, then when that same person needs more medical or finacuall help, it turns into the 2nd statistic, and so on and so on, IS that why the statistics have grown so much in the last 9 years?

True, ACC even splatter it all over their website:

"For privacy reasons, if the number of claims reported is between 1 and 3 actual claims, this is displayed as ‘≤3’ claims"

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/ABA00066

[Bald Eagle]

This just sent as well

"Hello Nick

I take issue with your editorial regarding this issue. I am a rider of a 700cc motorbike. You state "Motorcycling is a dangerous activity." I would suggest that driving any type of vehicle on New Zealand roads is a dangerous activity, as is being a pedestrian, or a rugby player.

Your statement that "It is not reasonable to expect those who use vehicles as a means of getting from one place to another to underwrite the expenses of those who use powerful motorbikes as recreational toys." is offensive and presumptuous.

My motorcycle is not a recreational toy. It is my daily transport between my residence in Paraparaumu and my employment in Wellington CBD. It is an economical alternative to an unreliable public transport service.In no sense of the word is it a toy

• noun 1 an object for a child to play with, typically a model or miniature replica of something. 2 a gadget or machine regarded as providing amusement for an adult. 3 <gg>before another noun</gg> (of a breed or variety of dog) much smaller than is normal for the breed. • verb (toy with) 1 consider casually or indecisively. 2 move or handle absent-mindedly or nervously. 3 eat or drink in an unenthusiastic or restrained way.


ACC is intended to be a no fault system. If you remove the universal protection and start applying risk metrics to fee setting, then we should be returned the right to litigation against those who injure us by whatever method or in whatever context, work play or travel.

[modboy]

" ... but they should collectively meet the costs of accidents for which they are responsible "

yea, cos we are responsible for all those accidents !

[Winston001]

Objectively it's a fair editorial - if you aren't a biker. So the way to deal with this is to throw facts back. Angry emotional letters to the editor might get printed but they won't make a lot of difference.

Journalists like stories. That's what they need to fill the news each day. They also love conflict with politicians. Calling Nick Smith an arse might feel good but there ain't any story to go with that.

So the strategy we need to adopt is to feed journalists with contrasting facts. Facts taken from ACC's own data and other sources which undermine the ACC position. We will get a lot more coverage and sympathy if we put forward embarrassing points which the journalists can put to the Minister.

The media can be brought on-side but to do that, someone needs to write press releases. I guess that's BRONZ but anyone here with the patience could add to the pile. :yes:

[centaurus]

The idiot that wrote the editorial "forgot" to mention a few very well known things:
1. Nobody's sponsoring us. Most of us have cars anyway so we are paying at least two ACC levies - for a car and for a bike (some of us for more than one bike) so we are already paying more than we should. We are actually sponsoring others at the moment.
2. It is well known that bikers are much better at spotting and avoiding trouble so the risk of hitting the lamp post is much smaller for a bike than for a car.
3. How thick is his skull that he still hasn't got the concept of compensation as opposed to insurance. Biking is very beneficial for the whole community as a whole in more than one way, but even without considering that, what part of "no fault compensation" doesn't he understand?

Reading the article, it is obvious this is an editorial "payed" by the nats. They propose a big increase, we scream, they still go ahead with the increase but make it a bit smaller and at the end the newspaper calls it "the party is listening to the public".

These politicians can't even be original. They use the same old tactics used for generations. They are pathetic.

[MSTRS]

Objectively it's a fair editorial - if you aren't a biker. So the way to deal with this is to throw facts back. Angry emotional letters to the editor might get printed but they won't make a lot of difference.

Journalists like stories. That's what they need to fill the news each day. They also love conflict with politicians. Calling Nick Smith an arse might feel good but there ain't any story to go with that.

So the strategy we need to adopt is to feed journalists with contrasting facts. Facts taken from ACC's own data and other sources which undermine the ACC position. We will get a lot more coverage and sympathy if we put forward embarrassing points which the journalists can put to the Minister.

The media can be brought on-side but to do that, someone needs to write press releases. I guess that's BRONZ but anyone here with the patience could add to the pile. :yes:

Sorry mate, but don't you think a lot of us have been doing just that? Not a single word have I seen printed as a result. But still the media trot out the old lies from Nick the Dick and ACC.

[Dave Lobster]

I'm not sure about this. It could look like bullyboy tactics from us

Perfectly legal to do, if you're a maori.

[modboy]

Perfectly legal to do, if you're a maori.

...and, I would imagine completely socially acceptable if you're a "white motha-fucker" too.

[Dave Lobster]

...and, I would imagine completely socially acceptable if you're a "white motha-fucker" too.

No no.. you're thinking of land raping there. ;)

[Indiana_Jones]

It is not reasonable to expect those who use vehicles as a means of getting from one place to another to underwrite the expenses of those who use powerful motorbikes as recreational toys.



Oh yea, my recreational toy....

That being my only transport in the world.

Cunt.

-Indy

[riffer]

No no.. you're thinking of land raping there. ;)


No, no that's only the traillies do that.

[StoneY]

well written? that is horrendous. sports players shouldnt pay because their activities are inherently healthy? thats almost as laughable as bikes getting let off this ACC hike business because of a smaller carbon footprint or other nonsense.

NO FAULT BITCHES

how hard is it to understand? im honestly shocked by the number of people i've spoken to who dont realise what this means

Anyway as far as that goes I have lost KILOS riding my bike, its a solid all body workout!!!!

[FastBikeGear]

Objectively it's a fair editorial - if you aren't a biker. So the way to deal with this is to throw facts back. Angry emotional letters to the editor might get printed but they won't make a lot of difference.

Journalists like stories. That's what they need to fill the news each day. They also love conflict with politicians. Calling Nick Smith an arse might feel good but there ain't any story to go with that.

So the strategy we need to adopt is to feed journalists with contrasting facts. Facts taken from ACC's own data and other sources which undermine the ACC position. We will get a lot more coverage and sympathy if we put forward embarrassing points which the journalists can put to the Minister.

The media can be brought on-side but to do that, someone needs to write press releases. I guess that's BRONZ but anyone here with the patience could add to the pile. :yes:


What he said!

If you are writing a letter to the editor for the Dominion Post please note the following rules that I was directed to after I sent mine in http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/print-edition/1525334/Rules-for-submitting-letters-to-The-Dominion-Post

Rules for Letters to the Editor of the Dominion Post.-

* Our e-mail address is letters@dompost.co.nz. Please do not send attachments.

* Our fax number is (04) 474-0350.

* Or send your letter to: Letters to the Editor, PO Box 1297, Wellington. Please write or type on one side of the paper only.

* Letters must include the writer's full name, verifiable home address, and daytime phone number. PO Box numbers are not acceptable.

* Letters should not exceed 200 words and should be exclusive.

* Letters will be edited for clarity and length.

[GOONR]

What he said!

If you are writing a letter to the editor for teh dominion post please note the following that I was directed to after I sent mine in http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/print-edition/1525334/Rules-for-submitting-letters-to-The-Dominion-Post

Rules for Letters to the Editor of the Dominion Post.-

* Our e-mail address is letters@dompost.co.nz. Please do not send attachments.

* Our fax number is (04) 474-0350.

* Or send your letter to: Letters to the Editor, PO Box 1297, Wellington. Please write or type on one side of the paper only.

* Letters must include the writer's full name, verifiable home address, and daytime phone number. PO Box numbers are not acceptable.

* Letters should not exceed 200 words and should be exclusive.

* Letters will be edited for clarity and length.

Now you tell me... I'm off to shorten my email now :argh:

[Winston001]

Sorry mate, but don't you think a lot of us have been doing just that? Not a single word have I seen printed as a result. But still the media trot out the old lies from Nick the Dick and ACC.

Fair comment. I do realise battling for media attention is frustrating.


Now you tell me... I'm off to shorten my email now :argh:

Yep, short and sweet is always best. Think about how you respond to long posts on KB. If they aren't broken up into logical paragraphs they often don't get read.

[XP@]

Response to the editorial

Having read your article with interest, There are some parts which are mis-leading to the general i.e. non-motorcycling population:

"However, there is no disputing the fact that a motorcyclist who hits a lamp-post with only clothing for protection is likely to do a great deal more damage to him or herself than the driver of a modern car equipped with crumple zones and airbags."
The dispute here is that motorcyclists do not wear "only clothing". Many of us spend thousands of dollars on state of the art protective apparail helmets being compulsory are not just a hat. We also choose to wear state of the art protective suits covering 100% of our body. These often cost thousands of dollars, even for the cheapest entry level kit you would not get much change out of $1000. It is even possible to buy jackets with airbags but they are have not had the push & development that car airbags have had.
Granted some riders decide not to wear the full gear, these are frowned upon by the AGATT (all the gear all the time) crowd that make up a big majority. It is also no worse than a car occupant who decided not to put on their seat belt, hit a lamp post without your seat belt in the average NZ car and you are also in a bad shape.


"Riding a motorbike is not an inherently healthy activity"
It is healthy: mental and physical exercise, falling off a motorcycle is sometimes not healthy, personally I have not experienced this side in my 20 years and 500,000+ kms of riding. Many bikers also partake in other sports to keep themselves healthier - for me yoga and tai-chi have been favourites, these are probably some of the safer pastimes.
The sports you mention are probably healthier until you get too rough or fall over, in which case the same applies you still stand a good chance of getting hurt.

"Motorcycle premiums should be increased; however, the increases should be fair. Surely it is not beyond the wit of ACC and biker organisations to establish the true cost of motorcycle accidents and to devise a formula that apportions cost according to responsibility?"
For the sake of the country, not just bikers we want to keep the original aims of ACC alive. $500 or $5 increase is irrelevant it is the slippery slope we will head down if the principles get changed.

Should V8 owners pay more?
Should Aucklanders pay more?
Should Old people pay more?
Should Parents of kids pay more?
Should YOU pay more?


Yes, there is a cost and it needs to be recovered I do not paying my share, as long as it is fair. There are too many risky pursuits which are not paying for it to be fair to pick on one. ACC and the Government are using Motorcyclists as a smoke screen for the rest of the increases in premiums and decreases in benefits. They knew we would shout loud enough to cover the rest of the noise.

[JohnR]

The editor is entitled to his opinion. But most of his opinion is shaped by the propaganda that abounds (not coming from us, is it?)
As far as 'healthy' is concerned, has it escaped this drongo's notice that mountain climbers do it for the thrill? Very little to do with 'healthy'. And what is healthy, anyway? Mental/physical are just as important. Besides there's different kinds of fitness, aren't there?
And what's this 'premiums' bit? ACC is not insurance. This crap fucks me off no end. Terminology can be an insidiously dangerous thing.
And why should my employee levies subsidise that mountain climber?

And no right of reply available. Prick.

You do have a right of reply...it's called "Letters to the Editor"

[JohnR]

You do have a right of reply...it's called "Letters to the Editor"

Should've read the whole thread...:Oops:

[AD345]

Letter sent (my first ever to a paper):

To the editor,
The egalitarian “fair go” spirit of New Zealand has its embodiment in the founding principles of ACC. We all chip in to cover the cost of accidental injury to any of us. Pretty simple.
The home handyman who runs a nail through his palm, the schoolchild who falls from a piece of gym equipment, the grandmother who slips on the pavement – all are entitled to have their injuries treated without an inquiry as to blame or liability. A more caring and unique piece of legislation cannot be found anywhere else in the world. It is something we are all rightly proud of and it helps define who we are and how we view our world.

It is under threat. A particularly insidious method of attack has been chosen, namely to put the citizens of this country against each other whilst telling them “it’s for your own good”. ACC has 11 billion dollars in reserves and 2 weeks ago paid a 700 million dollar dividend to the Government. It has never been more flush with cash and its investment arm regularly out-performs that of merchant banks while taking care of our money.
So what is the reward for those who have achieved so much and us who fund it? The board was sacked and staffed with Government cronies and the funders (you and I) have been told to front up with more cash, a LOT more cash, “cos it’s broke”.
The refrain from the bikers at Parliament is easily understood in this light and two serious questions are now raised.

“Why are more people not protesting the rape of our identity?”

“After the motorcyclists, who’s next?”

Regards
AD345

[danielle]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/3076262/Editorial-Bikers-should-pay-but-lets-be-fair


Motorcyclists should not be required to foot the bill for injuries caused by other road users, but they should collectively meet the costs of accidents for which they are responsible. It is not reasonable to expect those who use vehicles as a means of getting from one place to another to underwrite the expenses of those who use powerful motorbikes as recreational toys.



Lets be honest, if we foot the bill for only, only
accidents that are completly our responsibilty we wont be paying very much..... i hate the assumption that we all just use our motorcycles as "toys".

Ignorance really....

[Winston001]

Letter sent (my first ever to a paper):

To the editor,
The egalitarian “fair go” spirit of New Zealand has its embodiment in the founding principles of ACC. We all chip in to cover the cost of accidental injury to any of us. Pretty simple.
The home handyman who runs a nail through his palm, the schoolchild who falls from a piece of gym equipment, the grandmother who slips on the pavement – all are entitled to have their injuries treated without an inquiry as to blame or liability. A more caring and unique piece of legislation cannot be found anywhere else in the world. It is something we are all rightly proud of and it helps define who we are and how we view our world.

It is under threat. A particularly insidious method of attack has been chosen, namely to put the citizens of this country against each other whilst telling them “it’s for your own good”. ACC has 11 billion dollars in reserves and 2 weeks ago paid a 700 million dollar dividend to the Government. It has never been more flush with cash and its investment arm regularly out-performs that of merchant banks while taking care of our money.
So what is the reward for those who have achieved so much and us who fund it? The board was sacked and staffed with Government cronies and the funders (you and I) have been told to front up with more cash, a LOT more cash, “cos it’s broke”.
The refrain from the bikers at Parliament is easily understood in this light and two serious questions are now raised.

“Why are more people not protesting the rape of our identity?”

“After the motorcyclists, who’s next?”

Regards
AD345

What an excellent letter....which lets itself down as soon as you use the word "cronies". Most of what is written is very very good. May I suggest leaving out emotive terms such as cronies and rape because they distract from the strong message being sent.

Also the "rape of our identity" question doesn't gel with the rest and is unnecessary.

Well constructed intelligent letters like this printed in newspapers up and down the country will keep this issue alive.

[AD345]

What an excellent letter....which lets itself down as soon as you use the word "cronies". Most of what is written is very very good. May I suggest leaving out emotive terms such as cronies and rape because they distract from the strong message being sent.

Also the "rape of our identity" question doesn't gel with the rest and is unnecessary.

Well constructed intelligent letters like this printed in newspapers up and down the country will keep this issue alive.

Thanks

I did think about those words and the questions and decided that the letter needed some "wake up!' lines in it.

"Cronies" can, I think, stand pretty close examination. It is scarcely credible that the new board would come out with the "it's broke" and "more cash needed" lines immediately on arrival and neatly fitting in with the stated aims of the new Govt. just from pure coincidence.

The "rape of our identity" line is extremely emotive and deliberately so. Right up there with our "fair go" attitude is one of apathy, which we cunningly disguise as "she'll be right". So I poked - hard.

We'll see if it gets published.

[NighthawkNZ]

We'll see if it gets published.

After its been edited and twisted and could mean anything... it may ;)

[MSTRS]

You do have a right of reply...it's called "Letters to the Editor"

I actually meant that there was no 'comment' section on that net page. Like many of us, I have written a letter, but they are not obliged to print any of them, so anyone reading that editorial page won't necessarily get an opposing view to read.

[FastBikeGear]

I actually meant that there was no 'comment' section on that net page. Like many of us, I have written a letter, but they are not obliged to print any of them, so anyone reading that editorial page won't necessarily get an opposing view to read.

Yes there is an 'ad feedback' link at the bottom of the on-line article.

Whoops silly me I didn't notice that 'ad' had only one 'd' and they are actually looking for advertising!

[peasea]

Dear Nick.
I have read the editorial you wrote regarding motorcycles, motorcyclists and ACC levies.

The figures you quote are the same inaccurate figures offered by ACC and parroted by Nick Smith and his ilk. I think you KNOW they are inaccurate and have simply chosen to take a cheap shot at bikers simply because you are not capable of reasoned, balanced and informed journalism. (Something the mainstream media is renowned for unfortunately.)

ACC was designed as a no-fault system, which means that if I decide to ride a motorcycle (which I do) then should I have an accident I am covered. The same applies to those who choose to play sport, however it would appear that rugby players (just as an example) are not required to contribute to the fund, which I find most curious. There are many dangerous sports played on a daily basis in New Zealand and every weekend the A&E's around the nation bristle with injuries incurred while playing them.

Why should motor vehicle owners (bikers included) subsidise this moronic activity?

I am not against being fit or undertaking healthy activities (I walk many kilometres a day and eat healthy food) but you can certainly keep fit without breaking or dislocating bones with monotonous regularity as so many sports players do. The sooner sports clubs are levied the better.

Your editorial was nothing short of amateurish diatribe and simply highlights the depths the gutter press will stoop to in order to make an ill-informed point. If it were not so sad it would be funny. I have no idea what you are paid Mr. Venter but it is way too much and your work indicates a cheap show of political puppetry.

Yours, with the utmost sincerity

blah blah.........

[Tink]

What an excellent letter....which lets itself down as soon as you use the word "cronies". Most of what is written is very very good. May I suggest leaving out emotive terms such as cronies and rape because they distract from the strong message being sent.

Also the "rape of our identity" question doesn't gel with the rest and is unnecessary.

Well constructed intelligent letters like this printed in newspapers up and down the country will keep this issue alive.

Remind me to call you Winston when I start writing my assignments ;)

Do tell me "how often" is ACC audited ??

[Winston001]

Remind me to call you Winston when I start writing my assignments ;)

Do tell me "how often" is ACC audited ??

LOL I'm sure you don't need any help, enjoy the studying.

As for ACC, I guess they are subject to Audit Department oversight but I really don't know.

[Tink]

LOL I'm sure you don't need any help, enjoy the studying.

As for ACC, I guess they are subject to Audit Department oversight but I really don't know.

Nice... "oversight".... I think you might be right there... just on a quick note... my application is in to Waikato Uni.. fingers crossed. :)

[Pedrostt500]

The whole artical is a fishing exspedition, they are Fishing for a Knee Jerk reaction from the Motor Cycle Comunity.
No body fucked up seriuosly enough on the Bikeoi, for the Government or ACC to point the finger and call us all Morons, so now they have to fish for a reaction.

[pete376403]

And still parroting the "16 times more likely..." line, even though that has been thoroughly demolished.

[nothingflash]

The editor is entitled to his opinion. But most of his opinion is shaped by the propaganda that abounds (not coming from us, is it?)
As far as 'healthy' is concerned, has it escaped this drongo's notice that mountain climbers do it for the thrill? Very little to do with 'healthy'. And what is healthy, anyway? Mental/physical are just as important. Besides there's different kinds of fitness, aren't there?
And what's this 'premiums' bit? ACC is not insurance. This crap fucks me off no end. Terminology can be an insidiously dangerous thing.
And why should my employee levies subsidise that mountain climber?

And no right of reply available. Prick.

Yep he's entitled to his opinion alright. It's just a shame we don't share the same "advantage" he does of being able to tell the general naive public a crock of shit in a widely circulated and well read newspaper as he does. "If the editor chap said it it must be true". he could tell the general NZ public the moon is made of blue cheese - there's gonna be people that believe it because it was in the paper!

[rustic101]

Interesting, well written editorial.

Everyone is welcome to their opinion but as long as we continue to stand as a collective then those 'others' won't be heard as clearly....

arseholes everybody has one lol

[pete376403]

My reply - bet it won't be published.
Dear Mr Venter,
Yes it is interesting to see the backpedalling from Smith and Key regarding the proposed ACC levy increase. Especially Smith and his weaselling “don’t blame me, the ACC board proposed it” when knowing full well that this is the board that he installed to carry out his, and the National party’s agenda of privatising ACC.

Anyway, weasel words are about all one expects from Smith and co, they are, after all, National party politicians, it’s what they do.

However one really expects better from a writer of the Dompost editoral – as a journalist you are meant to research your article, not just copy verbatim the (misleading) statements of ACC without doing a little bit of fact checking. You repeated the now disproven statement about “bikers 16 times more likely to make an ACC claim...” without a bit of research into where this statement came from.

Professor Charles Lamb of Lincoln University totally demolished the ACCs spin on this, and other misleading “facts” about the state of ACC.

Did the Dompost have reporters at the protest at Parliament? Did they take notes?

You also describe ACC levies as premiums. When did ACC change its status to an Insurance company?

I also understand that you did for some time ride a motorcycle yourself. And during that time you never had a claim against ACC. But during the period you were actively involved in playing rugby, is it not true that you were a regular customer of ACC services – none of which you paid for other than through normal taxation?

While I realise that, unlike ACC, most motorcyclists are not in the position to purchase quarter page advertisements in your paper, I would sincerely hope that this would not influence the papers position on this issue.

Yours, etc

[ready4whatever]

Riding a motorbike is not an inherently healthy activity

Yeah cause breaking your neck in rugby is so healthy. fuckin dickhead. Riding from auckland to welly in one go i'd like to see a hiker do

[NighthawkNZ]

Yeah cause breaking your neck in rugby is so healthy.
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.1 (Win32)"><style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } --> </style>
I don't count boxing as a sports accident (ACC paid $800,000) when they are purposely trying to knock each other out...???

[ready4whatever]

I don't count boxing as a sports accident (ACC paid $800,000) when they are purposely trying to knock each other out...???

Yeah thats no accident. WTF

[zahria]

some letters are best written, but never posted...

[koba]

It was a bit interesting that the opinion piece was not credited in the paper.

I also noted the "Interview" with John Key on the facinng page that was really a a flimsy essay by JK (or one of his staff) that read like a campagin ad.

It had a few 'interesting' comments like the reference to the tax cuts national have bought us?!!?

I wonder how that fits into the electoral finance picture?

The DOM POST seems to be working hard to retain readers with a flash new look and free trials but perhaps they have neglected integrity of content in this pursuit. no, wait, it's been shit for ages.

[scissorhands]

Good for wiping your arse with, and that all.

[ready4whatever]

I also noted the "Interview" with John Key on the facinng page that was really a a flimsy essay by JK (or one of his staff) that read like a campagin ad.

It had a few 'interesting' comments like the reference to the tax cuts national have bought us?!!?




Yeah. and does anybody else think John Key is a stupid twit? honestly he sounds so basic he never says anything smart. He always refers everything to 'New Zealanders', "Thats not good for new zealanders, bla bla bla". he doesnt sound like somebody who really knows what they talk about. im no gem either, but im not the primeminister

[koba]

Good for wiping your arse with, and that all.

I said somthing along those lines to a printer mate once and he said "Oh no! don't do that! you should see the chemicals in it!"


Yeah. and does anybody else think John Key is a stupid twit? honestly he sounds so basic he never says anything smart. He always refers everything to 'New Zealanders', "Thats not good for new zealanders, bla bla bla". he doesnt sound like somebody who really knows what they talk about. im no gem either, but im not the primeminister

The National Party have a fine press team, I think it is quite deliberate how we only get those kind of soundbytes.

[Deano]

<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.1 (Win32)"><style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } --> </style>
I don't count boxing as a sports accident (ACC paid $800,000) when they are purposely trying to knock each other out...???

And union and league players aren't trying to hurt each other when they tackle or hit up their opponents ?

Keep it real.

Go rugby eh - http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/3080833/Richie-McCaws-burning-desire

[NighthawkNZ]

Recombine all the accounts. Drop evey single levy they have for collecting ACC so instantly every one gets a PAY rise since that levy is no longer in your PAYE. No levy on rego or fuel.

Put an ACC levy on GST to compensate there solved. Its on petrol, booze bikes, cars, bike gear, oil, tyres, vehicle seriving and covers paper cuts, the tourists, cyclists & bikers, workers, kids with their pocket money, covers boaties, mowing your lawn and sport players, it covers chocking on a chicking bone, or my auntie breaking her hip last year.

All business have to is up GST the IRD goons do the rest. I would be a truly community funded compensation schem and become very hard to privatise, it would then mean there would be no finger pointing at who paid what and how much as you would not be able to work it out.

GST is still 12.5% and the levy say 2.5%. ACC only needs 5 billion a year to operate and save some money, this would generate around 10 billion a year. ACC would be fully funded on time if not sooner and the levy could be then lowered to 1%. Business can only reclaim GST but not the levy. Which at the end of the day is being paid by the end user as per. Business and business owners are also end users and have to buy personal stuff as well and covers them.

We could still put the levy on all traffic infringements, and a flat fee levy on all vehicles being sold, which can then be used for better driver and rider educations.

[NordieBoy]

However, there is no disputing the fact that a motorcyclist who hits a lamp-post with only clothing for protection is likely to do a great deal more damage to him or herself than the driver of a modern car equipped with crumple zones and airbags.

So the width of the vehicle should be taken into account in the ACC charges?


It is not reasonable to expect those who use vehicles as a means of getting from one place to another to underwrite the expenses of those who use powerful motorbikes as recreational toys.

Cool. So as I use a motorbike for work "as a means of getting from one place to another" I should pay less again - Score :D


Riding a motorbike is not an inherently healthy activity.

:lol:

The ones who motorbike as a sport and do get health benefits don't pay ACC anyway.

[davereid]

Recombine all the accounts. Drop evey single levy they have for collecting ACC so instantly every one gets a PAY rise since that levy is no longer in your PAYE. No levy on rego or fuel.

ACC payouts are greater to the wealthy than to the poor - the Earnings Related Compensation ERC is based on 80% of your wage.

So when you have an accident, there a proportion of the claim that is for the medical stuff, (which on average will be independant of income) and a proportion that covers ERC.

How about we dump the ERC - if you want income insurance go get it. If you dont get it and you have an accident, your ACC ERC is a fixed amount - say the same as a sickness benefit.

[Hawkeye]

Unfortunatly, as has been said by others here, if it is in the papers, it must be true. So I'm a believer. I read it in the paper so it must be true. :puke:


In some ways, I hate this 'angry biker' tag that I am being labelled with. I am an angry father of 3 who just happens to commute on a bike (every day) and am pissed at being singled out by this inept government.
I am protesting for my rights of access to a 'no blame' compensation scheme that is currently being twisted into a 'blame motorbikes' insurance scheme.

I have 2 cars and 2 bikes. So using their logic, I should be paying nothing extra. Each extra $77 I pay for my 2 cars goes against the $77 that car drivers are subsidising for my 2 bikes. I know 5 year olds that can do that maths. $77 - $77 = $0 . Not rocket science is it.

Maybe I should become a journalist or a politician. No sorry, I would fail the aptitude test.

1+1 = 2. Bugger failed!

4-5 weeks ago, the dom post tried to get more readers by delivering their rag free for 2 weeks to most households in the region (or at least in mine). For 2 weeks, I picked it up and put it straight into the place it belonged, the trash. It did not get opened once.

[NighthawkNZ]

And union and league players aren't trying to hurt each other when they tackle or hit up their opponents ?

Keep it real.

never said they weren't :scratch:

[Kennif]

Put an ACC levy on GST to compensate there solved. Its on petrol, booze bikes, cars, bike gear, oil, tyres, vehicle seriving and covers paper cuts, the tourists, cyclists & bikers, workers, kids with their pocket money, covers boaties, mowing your lawn and sport players, it covers chocking on a chicking bone, or my auntie breaking her hip last year.

Yes BUT the impact on inflation would be enormous. Our exports would immediately become more expensive, imports become less expensive, balance of payments would go screwy, mortgage interest rates would rise making first homes less affordable and we head down that trail again.

A GST %age raise may be part of the answer but I think we have to face the fact that this will have no easy single answer.

[k2w3]

My easy answer is say "fuck 'em" and move back to England. Oh shit. That's rooted too.

[FastBikeGear]

And union and league players aren't trying to hurt each other when they tackle or hit up their opponents ?

Keep it real.

Go rugby eh - http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/3080833/Richie-McCaws-burning-desire

Brilliant link Deano. It would seem that the dom post has some inconsistencies inwhat's healthy and what's not. I would love to see you point this out in a letter to the editor.

It's almost as if the Dom Post realised on the afternoon after the BIKEOI that they had missed the best story of the month and panicked after they saw the response form the public.

Shit we haven't been following this and we don't know the back ground and the story is much bigger than we realised...shit it effects every New Zealander...and the changes go much wider than motorbike leveies. I know lets write a piece this afternoon...now wheres that press release from ACC for some background 'facts' are there it is...16 x more likely...hmm lets print that!....it's guaranteed to provoke a response and get us into the game.

Regardless the dom post are the most influential paper in the country - let's use them as a conduit to talk to their readers. Let's flood their letters-to-the-editor department and make sure all of their readers know where the ACC is going with our compensation scheme.

If you want your letter printed don't attack the dom post - attack what they said. There's a subtle difference.

If you are writing a letter to the editor for the Dominion Post, please note the following rules that I was directed to after I sent mine in. If you don't follow the rules you won't get printed and we can't use them to reach their readership.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post...-Dominion-Post

Rules for Letters to the Editor of the Dominion Post.-

* Our e-mail address is letters@dompost.co.nz. Please do not send attachments.

* Our fax number is (04) 474-0350.

* Or send your letter to: Letters to the Editor, PO Box 1297, Wellington. Please write or type on one side of the paper only.

* Letters must include the writer's full name, verifiable home address, and daytime phone number. PO Box numbers are not acceptable.

* Letters should not exceed 200 words and should be exclusive.

* Letters will be edited for clarity and length.

[Winston001]

I have 2 cars and 2 bikes. So using their logic, I should be paying nothing extra. Each extra $77 I pay for my 2 cars goes against the $77 that car drivers are subsidising for my 2 bikes. I know 5 year olds that can do that maths. $77 - $77 = $0 . Not rocket science is it.

.

Mmmm.....I can think of several families with multiple vehicles and multiple drivers. One example - 5 vehicles all owned and insured by the dad and driven by mum, dad, and three teenagers. Simply paying the registration doesn't mean you are the sole user.

[Spratt]

I should like to strangle the writer of the Editorial for being such a biased and uninformed git! Sure they're trying to stir things up but come on.

I sent in my 2 cents worth, but this is the 3rd letter i've sent them and none published so far - still better to say something than nothing. :shutup:

Dear Editor

I refer to the Editorial - Bikers should pay but let's be fair

Did Minister Smith pen this Editorial himself, as it is full of the same “bulls**t” he was shouted down for at Tuesday’s Bikoi protest! For a start, the statistics noted in the Editorial are incorrect; by way of example, the risk of having a motorcycle accident has actually seen a three fold decrease over the past 50 years.

Almost all motorcycle riders wear protective equipment, not ‘clothing’. It is fair to say that greater injury will occur if this equipment is not used, but the same can be said for any motor vehicle, witness the recent death of two teenagers who were sitting on couches without seatbelts in the back of a van.

The argument that other ‘risky activities’ are inherently healthy so therefore beneficial to society is a joke! These activities are undertaken for the excitement and risk involved, not for ‘healthy exercise’. The majority of motorcyclists, myself included, use their bike for general transport, not as a ‘recreational toy’.

ACC is meant to be a socially equitable, no-fault system, singling out one group of society is contrary to this basic principle. If the proposed levy increase is adopted this time, as they chanted at the protest, “who’s next”!

[Winston001]

Good letter. I do suggest there is no purpose in attacking the editor or the paper - we need the media on our side. If I wasn't a biker I'd have read that editorial as being well balanced. It's pretty low key compared with the ACC press releases.

[Winston001]

Put an ACC levy on GST to compensate there solved.

GST is still 12.5% and the levy say 2.5%...... Business can only reclaim GST but not the levy.



Good ideas NH. Tell me - I've just bought an office chair for $289. How do I handle that in my GST return?

Also if the ACC component cannot be deducted by anyone, then there is a huge multiplier effect as 2.5% is added to every invoice from the manufacturer upwards.

[MSTRS]

Good ideas NH. Tell me - I've just bought an office chair for $289. How do I handle that in my GST return?

Also if the ACC component cannot be deducted by anyone, then there is a huge multiplier effect as 2.5% is added to every invoice from the manufacturer upwards.

You can't deduct it as a cost. That's the whole point. Levies need not be sourced from anywhere else. That means that every time a product/service is onsold, ACC get paid. The various 'steps' ensure that all people and processes involved since the last 2.5% levy was paid, have now paid their share of the fund.
You may see that as double dipping by ACC...but it's not. They double/triple dip now

[dipshit]

"However, there is no disputing the fact that a motorcyclist who hits a lamp-post with only clothing for protection is likely to do a great deal more damage to him or herself than the driver of a modern car equipped with crumple zones and airbags."

Surprisingly as the following ACC's statistics show this is not an indisputable fact or even a fact. The cost per motorcycle injury claim was actually less than the claim per car driver in 2006, 2007 and 2008!

In 2008 there were:

852,928 ACC claims from car occupants with a total cost of just over $208 million equating to $24,427 per claim.

3,174 ACC entitlement claims from motorcyclists with a total cost of $62.5 million equating to just $19,705 per claim

The average cost per claim does no such thing. Drive off the end of the road and go through a farmer's fence in a car then do the same on your bike and tell me the difference.

The average cost per claim for a motorcycle being lower simply reflects the large amount of minor injuries. Two cars have a fender bender around town - nobody gets hurt. A motorcyclists has a small incident around town and an ambulance is called and taken to hospital for a checkup etc.

The average claim being a bit lower still doesn't negate the small number of motorcycles making 1/4 to a 3rd of the claims that car drivers do.

If editors of newspapers keep getting nonsensical garbage from motorcyclists like what is common in KB land - then no wonder they aren't publishing it.

[MSTRS]

If editors of newspapers keep getting nonsensical garbage from motorcyclists like what is common in KB land - then no wonder they aren't publishing it.

I don't think any of us have lied to the media. Unlike Smith et al. Presenting something in such a way as to make it look good is spin doctoring, and we can legitimately do that too.
If I say bikers cost less per claim than cars, that is a proveable truth. I don't have to say that 1335/100,000 are hurt, compared to 8500/2,500,000.

[bogan]

I don't think any of us have lied to the media. Unlike Smith et al. Presenting something in such a way as to make it look good is spin doctoring, and we can legitimately do that too.
If I say bikers cost less per claim than cars, that is a proveable truth. I don't have to say that 1335/100,000 are hurt, compared to 8500/2,500,000.

Exactly, and as shown above it is EASILY proven that bikes do cost less PER claim than other private passenger vehicles. It is also easily proven that bikes crash more often, making the cost per registered bike higher than cars.

The point is we gotta dispute nick's myths any and all ways possible, and even more importantly, show the public that this isnt just about bikes, its about national trying to remove the no fault system from acc, and I'm betting heaps of the public are against that, I'm also betting national knows this too which is why they are trying to put this through using the anti-biker opinion a lot of kiwis seem to have.

[Winston001]

I don't think any of us have lied to the media. Unlike Smith et al. Presenting something in such a way as to make it look good is spin doctoring, and we can legitimately do that too.
If I say bikers cost less per claim than cars, that is a proveable truth. I don't have to say that 1335/100,000 are hurt, compared to 8500/2,500,000.

Agreed. It's legitimate to use the opposing party's statistics against them. Let them find any logical holes.

What is important however is to show how our figures are reached. We can't just say "the cost of bike accidents is lower" and expect them to somehow find out how that is calculated. Gotta have facts.

[MSTRS]

What is important however is to show how our figures are reached. We can't just say "the cost of bike accidents is lower" and expect them to somehow find out how that is calculated. Gotta have facts.

Not sure that is necessary. If we know the figures, we can discuss with those who want to know more. The rest are happy to read 'we cost less'.

[koba]

And union and league players aren't trying to hurt each other when they tackle or hit up their opponents ?

Keep it real.

Go rugby eh - http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/3080833/Richie-McCaws-burning-desire

If I was a Journo I would also look into how taking Creatine as a suppliment might effect such tests...

[FastBikeGear]

.
The average cost per claim for a motorcycle being lower simply reflects the large amount of minor injuries. Two cars have a fender bender around town - nobody gets hurt. A motorcyclists has a small incident around town and an ambulance is called and taken to hospital for a checkup etc.
.

Dipshit I think that you are making an assumption here.

But first things first what matters to ACC is the cost and their stats do show that per claim we cost less.

Back to the assumption. There are many plausible reasons why the average motorcycle claim could be less and your speculative guess could be right but there are other explanations i.e.


Motorcyclists are on average younger than car drivers and heal and recover quicker.

Motorcyclists are a hardier breed and shrug off and work through injurys that the softer folk need months of physio and other pampering.

Car drivers get different types of injuries (e.g. whiplash) that take longer to recover from.

Motorcyclists are on average from a lower economic group and earn less hence loss of earnings claims are lower for motorcyclists.

etc, etc


However as said before what matters to ACC is the cost and their stats do show that per claim we cost less.

So I think the stats I have quoted are what matters and the average costs per claim are indisputable. What's more Keigh Mclea will probably tell us that they have probably been audited by Price Waterhouse.

[dpex]

Bikers should not have to bear the cost of crashes caused by careless motorists. But neither should they expect other road users to subsidise their pleasures.[/QUOTE]

'Eh? So what's it suggesting? That one of the 66% of bikers taken out by cagers should get an ACC refund?

Jesus H Christ! I've met toadstools with a better grip on reality than this opinionator.

Maybe we should arrange to blockade the Dom Post.

[dpex]

However, there is no disputing the fact that a motorcyclist who hits a lamp-post with only clothing for protection is likely to do a great deal more damage to him or herself than the driver of a modern car equipped with crumple zones and airbags.

This is priceless; in as much as it highlights the complete ignorance of the opinionator.

What happens when a cyclist hits a lamppost, dressed in Lycra and no undies....to show off his nethers!? This being the self same cyclist who pays no extra ACC levy.

Oh yeah. I forgot, Cycling is healthy even when you hit a lamppost.

Yup. I reckon it's time we did a five-thousand visit to the Dom's doorsteps.

[FastBikeGear]

What happens when a cyclist hits a lamppost, dressed in Lycra and no undies....to show off his nethers!? This being the self same cyclist who pays no extra ACC levy.

Oh yeah. I forgot, Cycling is healthy even when you hit a lamppost.

Yup. I reckon it's time we did a five-thousand visit to the Dom's doorsteps.

Perhaps we should just send them lots of clips and photos of healthy activity injuries. After his healthy rugby playing youth Nick doesn't get around the tennis court as well as he might.

[dipshit]

So I think the stats I have quoted are what matters and the average costs per claim are indisputable.

Not if a small section of road users are costing a significantly large portion of the payouts. The average motorcyclist costing 3.5 times what the average car driver costs is what they are worried about.

Having a lot more claims per registered vehicle (even if on average they cost less) is what the problem is.

[dipshit]

'Eh? So what's it suggesting? That one of the 66% of bikers taken out by cagers should get an ACC refund?

40% of motorcycle accidents can be blamed on car drivers.

[StoneY]

40% of motorcycle accidents can be blamed on car drivers.

You try telling Professor Charlie Lamb that dude
Speech available right here, Nix Myth.... BUSTED as is your misinformed take on the statistics
http://kiwiridermagazine.blogspot.co...sions-and.html

The good Prof is no dumb ranting web whore, he is a PHD and a respected world authority in marketing and analysis
:cool:

[specter]

im not 1 to write big rants.. but im just pointing out
* we are footing the acc bill for having powerful recreational toys!
- how about the tens of thousands of boy racers who drive barely legal cars, in a racy manner and have a high disrespect for the law, having illegal meetings every week and are on the news at least twice weekly for accidents...

just a thought :cool:

plus drivers have the chance to injure between 1 and 10 (vans) people per car-compared to our mere 2

[dipshit]

You try telling Professor Charlie Lamb that dude

He was saying 66% of car vs bike accidents was the car driver's fault. (the other 44% of multivehicle accidents being the motorcyclist's fault)

Then there is all the single vehicle motorcycle accidents.

Overall, 40% of motorcycle accidents can be blamed on car drivers.

[koba]

how about the tens of thousands of boy racers who drive barely legal cars, in a racy manner and have a high disrespect for the law, having illegal meetings every week and are on the news at least twice weekly for accidents...


Bad call to start talking shit about boy racers when we are all pissed about "them" talking shit about us.

[specter]

Bad call to start talking shit about boy racers when we are all pissed about "them" talking shit about us.

im just saying tht y dont they foot the bill also for being "HIGH RISK"

[mashman]

im just saying tht y dont they foot the bill also for being "HIGH RISK"

because if every citizen wants a first class health service, then everyone has to pay the same (it may be that the bludgers get away with it, but one step at a time :dodge:)... dickheads and accidents will both appear once in a while, but that's the point! we're all covered by each other!

[RavenR44]

Sent a letter to the editor via the email addy. 200 words Ed Zachary, and pointed out that whatever the perceived 'health benefit' might be, it's easily trumped by the inherent danger in many sports.

And reminded the editor of the ACC's supposed 'no fault' nature (as I'm sure many others have).

Not that I believe for one minute that it'll get published. And even if it did, I have no doubt that it'd be edited to give an opposite slant to my intent.

Still, I'd rather respond than do nothing.

[Jiminy]

He was saying 66% of car vs bike accidents was the car driver's fault. (the other 44% of multivehicle accidents being the motorcyclist's fault)

Then there is all the single vehicle motorcycle accidents.

Overall, 40% of motorcycle accidents can be blamed on car drivers.

That would be 34% caused by motorcyclists. And the number of single vehicle motorcycle accidents is about 25%, so 66% of 75% still makes about 50%. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

[bogan]

Not if a small section of road users are costing a significantly large portion of the payouts. The average motorcyclist costing 3.5 times what the average car driver costs is what they are worried about.

Having a lot more claims per registered vehicle (even if on average they cost less) is what the problem is.


He was saying 66% of car vs bike accidents was the car driver's fault. (the other 44% of multivehicle accidents being the motorcyclist's fault)

Then there is all the single vehicle motorcycle accidents.

Overall, 40% of motorcycle accidents can be blamed on car drivers.

combine those figures, 3.5x more cost, but 40% of that cost can be sent to car drivers, so we would only pay 2.1x as much as car drivers in a risk/fault based insurance scheme. Firstly the current car levy cost is more than the true cost of car ACC. Secondly, thats not how acc works, either acc scraps the no fault/risk policy across the board, or rejects the proposed levy, those are the only two non-discrimanatory options they have, and I for one will not stop protesting until one of these things happens. Obviously I'd prefer ACC went back to the way it was, Its a great system, but unfotunately national has other plans.

[koba]

im just saying tht y dont they foot the bill also for being "HIGH RISK"

Becuse no one should be singled out as higher risk, as per the original (and sound) concept of ACC.

I think they would have trouble gathering statistics on such a proposal, I have never seen the "Boy racer" box to tick on a rego form.

If you are being attacked by the govt for being a purple person does it make sense to you to employ "But that guy is blue, he should be attacked too" as a defence? No! you say "Oi, stop picking on us coloureds".

[koba]

Obviously I'd prefer ACC went back to the way it was, Its a great system, but unfotunately national has other plans.

+1 :2thumbsup

Aye! Bastards!

[bogan]

Becuse no one should be singled out as higher risk, as per the original (and sound) concept of ACC.

I think they would have trouble gathering statistics on such a proposal, I have never seen the "Boy racer" box to tick on a rego form.

If you are being attacked by the govt for being a purple person does it make sense to you to employ "But that guy is blue, he should be attacked too" as a defence? No! you say "Oi, stop picking on us coloureds".

yes, but if there are only a few purple people, you can gather support by illustrating that blues and greens and..... will be next.

[koba]

yes, but if there are only a few purple people, you can gather support by illustrating that blues and greens and..... will be next.

Yep! <blueblueblueblue>

[Kennif]

He was saying 66% of car vs bike accidents was the car driver's fault. (the other 44% of multivehicle accidents being the motorcyclist's fault).

Ummmmm ... 66% + 44% = 110%? :confused:
Thats the trouble with statistics.

What did Mark Twain say "Lies, damn lies and statistics?"

[Subike]

Ummmmm ... 66% + 44% = 110%? :confused:
Thats the trouble with statistics.

What did Mark Twain say "Lies, damn lies and statistics?"

this is where I see that a lot of us make the error,
66% of all the accidents between cars and bikes....not the total of all bike accidents.
the figures refer only to a section of the accidents as you can see.
50% of the accedents for bikes where no other vehicle is involed are caused by.....
20% of bike accedents involve more than one bike................pluss the car
18.5% of bike accedents are due to road conditions.......but involve speed,
It depends upon what angle you want to look at it, like they say statistics can be missleading if you have an agender.
The dominions agender is to sell papers,
The non bike riding public want fuel for arguments in disussing this matter,
The dominion gave them this, It sells.

[slofox]

Sent the editor a letter of my own. As follows:

Dear Editor

In your editorial of 19 November, regarding ACC levies on motorcycles, you make two statements that I would take you to task over. Viz:

1. "Mountain climbers and sportspeople are engaging in activities that improve the general fitness of the population and provide a health benefit that offsets the cost of broken bones."

2. "But neither should (motorcyclists) expect other road users to subsidise their pleasures."

The first statement suggests you believe no good is produced from riding a motorcycle. My bike goes three times as far on a litre of petrol as does my station wagon and it occupies less space on the roads. Is this not in the public good? Producing less congestion and a smaller carbon footprint surely has some merit. How often are we chided for driving around solo in a car capable of carrying four or more people? Riding a bike solves this problem for one.

The second statement suggests you believe motorcycles are ridden only for pleasure. Wrong. Many people have a motorcycle as their only means of transport. Whilst I love to ride and do indeed ride for pleasure at times, a major factor in my using a motorcycle is to reduce my fuel bill. Which it does - see above.

I hope you will take these factors into account in future discussions of ACC levies.

[FastBikeGear]

Not if a small section of road users are costing a significantly large portion of the payouts. The average motorcyclist costing 3.5 times what the average car driver costs is what they are worried about.

No, what they are saying is our accidents cost more per accident and we are 16 times more likely to have an accident, which is totally misleading. I've done a lot of marketing over the years and if I said this in an advertisement a competitor or client could have a field day under a number of different acts.

The reality is that we claim less per accident and we are only (appox) 3 times more likely to have an accident.

If Nicks Smiths figure of $745.00 ACC levy for a 600CC machine was calculated from us being 16 times more likely to have an accident then the levy is probably fair enough. (provided of course that New Zealanders to abandon the no-fault principles).

However if we can show that we are only 3 times more likely to have an accident then surely our "premium" should be recalculated as follows $745/(16/3)=$139.60!

[FastBikeGear]

either acc scraps the no fault/risk policy across the board, or rejects the proposed levy, those are the only two non-discrimanatory options they have

That's very nicely put!

[modboy]

Good one slofox and everyone else that's written a letter to the editor.

Here is another issue. Who the hell is it for anyone to be making normative distinctions about what is "good" for the general public and what is not. For fucks sake - riding my bike contributes to my health simply because I enjoy it, I also enjoy climbing mountains and tramping and skateboarding and cycling - these are also risk based activities.

Shit, we should levy skateboarders - didn't think of that, antisocial tagging underclass that we are.

This editorial was written by some fucking doo-gooder with an undercurrent that comes straight out of the 50s, lets ban rock n' roll while we are at it...
Bloody anti-social bikies - lets tax the mofos off the road. Tim Pankhurst lives just round the corner from me, I might give him a blast with the debaffled arrow tomorrow :Punk:




</end rant>

[AD345]

Letter sent (my first ever to a paper):

To the editor,
The egalitarian “fair go” spirit of New Zealand has its embodiment in the founding principles of ACC. We all chip in to cover the cost of accidental injury to any of us. Pretty simple.
The home handyman who runs a nail through his palm, the schoolchild who falls from a piece of gym equipment, the grandmother who slips on the pavement – all are entitled to have their injuries treated without an inquiry as to blame or liability. A more caring and unique piece of legislation cannot be found anywhere else in the world. It is something we are all rightly proud of and it helps define who we are and how we view our world.

It is under threat. A particularly insidious method of attack has been chosen, namely to put the citizens of this country against each other whilst telling them “it’s for your own good”. ACC has 11 billion dollars in reserves and 2 weeks ago paid a 700 million dollar dividend to the Government. It has never been more flush with cash and its investment arm regularly out-performs that of merchant banks while taking care of our money.
So what is the reward for those who have achieved so much and us who fund it? The board was sacked and staffed with Government cronies and the funders (you and I) have been told to front up with more cash, a LOT more cash, “cos it’s broke”.
The refrain from the bikers at Parliament is easily understood in this light and two serious questions are now raised.

“Why are more people not protesting the rape of our identity?”

“After the motorcyclists, who’s next?”

Regards
AD345


What an excellent letter....which lets itself down as soon as you use the word "cronies". Most of what is written is very very good. May I suggest leaving out emotive terms such as cronies and rape because they distract from the strong message being sent.

Also the "rape of our identity" question doesn't gel with the rest and is unnecessary.

Well constructed intelligent letters like this printed in newspapers up and down the country will keep this issue alive.

Well, after all that I decided to follow Winstons advice and re-sent the letter with those phrases removed.

I got published

they did abridge it - but lookee what the final result was:


New Zealand's egalitarian "fair go" spirit is embodied in the founding principles of ACC. We all chip in to cover the cost of accidental injury to any of us.

The law is caring and unique. It's something we're all rightly proud of and it helps define who we are and how we view our world.

It's under threat. Citizens are being pitted against each other while being told it's for their own good.

ACC has $11 billion in reserves and, two weeks ago, paid a $700 million dividend to the Government. ACC has never been more flush with cash and its investment arm regularly outperforms those of merchant banks, while taking care of our money.

So what's the reward for those who have achieved so much and those who fund it? The board was sacked and replaced with government cronies, and the funders - you and I - have been told to front up with a lot more cash, because it's broke.

The refrain from bikers at Parliament last week is easily understood in this light. Two serious questions are now raised: why are more people not protesting about the rape of our identity and, after motorcyclists, who's next?

[FastBikeGear]

Well, after all that I decided to follow Winstons advice and re-sent the letter with those phrases removed.

I got published

they did abridge it - but lookee what the final result was:


New Zealand's egalitarian "fair go" spirit is embodied in the founding principles of ACC. We all chip in to cover the cost of accidental injury to any of us.

The law is caring and unique. It's something we're all rightly proud of and it helps define who we are and how we view our world.

It's under threat. Citizens are being pitted against each other while being told it's for their own good.

ACC has $11 billion in reserves and, two weeks ago, paid a $700 million dividend to the Government. ACC has never been more flush with cash and its investment arm regularly outperforms those of merchant banks, while taking care of our money.

So what's the reward for those who have achieved so much and those who fund it? The board was sacked and replaced with government cronies, and the funders - you and I - have been told to front up with a lot more cash, because it's broke.

The refrain from bikers at Parliament last week is easily understood in this light. Two serious questions are now raised: why are more people not protesting about the rape of our identity and, after motorcyclists, who's next?


You are truly a god!

All heil AD345!

[FastBikeGear]

AD345 just sent me this link.

Check it out (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/)

Three great letters!

Nick Smith place one advert in the dominion post.

In one paper ACC levy protestors out numbered him 3 to 1!

[Jantar]

He was saying 66% of car vs bike accidents was the car driver's fault. (the other 44% of multivehicle accidents being the motorcyclist's fault)

Then there is all the single vehicle motorcycle accidents.

Overall, 40% of motorcycle accidents can be blamed on car drivers.

Mmmm 66% + 44% = 110%

Try saying 66% of car vs bike accidents was the car driver's fault. (the other 34% of multivehicle accidents being the motorcyclist's fault)

Overall, 48% of motorcycle accidents can be blamed on car drivers

[Winston001]

Well, after all that I decided to follow Winstons advice and re-sent the letter with those phrases removed.

I got published

they did abridge it - but lookee what the final result was:


New Zealand's egalitarian "fair go" spirit is embodied in the founding principles of ACC. We all chip in to cover the cost of accidental injury to any of us.

The law is caring and unique. It's something we're all rightly proud of and it helps define who we are and how we view our world.

It's under threat. Citizens are being pitted against each other while being told it's for their own good.

ACC has $11 billion in reserves and, two weeks ago, paid a $700 million dividend to the Government. ACC has never been more flush with cash and its investment arm regularly outperforms those of merchant banks, while taking care of our money.

So what's the reward for those who have achieved so much and those who fund it? The board was sacked and replaced with government cronies, and the funders - you and I - have been told to front up with a lot more cash, because it's broke.

The refrain from bikers at Parliament last week is easily understood in this light. Two serious questions are now raised: why are more people not protesting about the rape of our identity and, after motorcyclists, who's next?


I'm really chuffed you had that published. :2thumbsup Well written and to the point.