Compulsory Injury Prevention Fund. Good or bad?

[Ixion]

This is sort of spun off from the ACC protest action, but it's broader than just ACC. So I've put it here.

Nick Smith was talking up a scheme similar to one they have in Victoria.

This is a blurb about the Victorian scheme.



In October 2002 the Victorian Government introduced a $50 motorcycle safety premium with the express purpose that all the moneys collected (excluding Duties and GST) would be fully dedicated to a special rider safety projects fund. None of these funds are used by the TAC to support its separately funded motorcycle safety programs and campaigns, including its promotional and information activities. The Victorian Motorcycle Advisory Council advises the Government on the distribution of the funds between four priority areas:


rider and driver education
engineering and technology
enforcement
enhanced data and analysis.


However, my understanding (which may be defective, correction is welcomed) is that the Nickster was thinking more like several hundred dollars, and for the fund to be part of ACC.

Which invites the challenge that it would just be a levy in disguise.

However the aims of the Victorian fund, IF PROPERLY CARRIED OUT (that's a big 'if') are commendable.

So , what think you (I personally am ambivalent - the ideas a good one, but I suspect in practice it would become a rort)

Good points :

Rider and driver education always has to be good (so long as the educators know what they are talking about, too often they don't).

Bad points

It's really just a levy hike in disguise.
It wouldn't be considered part of ACC "income" from motorcycles. So they'd want us to pay yet more
It might (the cynical may think 'will') become a slush fund , with all the money going on overheads, junkets and meaningless gestures
It becomes yet another differentiator between cars and bikes at ACC, and becomes a reason not to abolish the separate classification . Though we could argue that ALL vehicles should pay it
Why should we pay extra to try to educate car drivers to drive competently


Poll coming . Finally got there . Sorry. Blurdy bosses. Bugger. No it's not. I can't add a poll now. Damn and blast

[mashman]

Good

Motorcyclists "could" seen as concerned road users if the government doesn't take credit for the idea that you guys have already pout forward to him!


Bad

Why the hell is the fee exclusive the extra costs of Duty & GST when it's a safety initiative... surely it should be tax free to get as much as possible for any campaign that they try to push

[Headbanger]

Its bad. its just smoke and mirrors, More tax, More bloated bureaucratic bullshit, and over paid staff.

If they want to raise the standard of riding, Make it much much harder to get a lisence, Make a training course compulsory (and a follow up course after a year) and let the motorcycle industry set up the run the training courses.

Fucked if I'm going to be paying more and more each and every year to those cunts.

[ManDownUnder]

Given the the majority of motorcycle accidents are cause not by themselves I suggest the ducation be broader than targetting motorcyclists and thereby include all drivers.

Spreads the costs, spreads the education and does us all a lot more good.

Longer term benefits will be seen so the costs of the scheme will come from ACC future savings.

IF Motorcyclists only are lumbered with this it will improve a few situations, having the most marked effect on those minority of accidents where no other vehicle is involved and not produce enough savings to make the education self funding.

Govt needs to aim big on this (i.e. put it in place for all license holders) if they are going to do it - or not bother

[ManDownUnder]

... and to be blunt - the $50/year figure - albeit an Australian one - sounds remarkably close to the reduction in ACC levy just mooted...

[allycatz]

Nick Smith is already convinced all accidents are riders faults and he cant even quote truthfully the enhanced statistics supplied to him now.

[Headbanger]

Nick smith doesn't give a fuck whose at fault, he just sees a way to raise money and is doing what he has to to get it.

[bogan]

Good in theory, but no fucking way would i want the dis(hon) nick smith or his cronies taking any part in it, must be completely seperate from any acc collection otherwise they would just smoke and mirrors that shit into the main acc pot. And as MDU says, its not only us they need to target, so why should the money be gathered only from motorcyclists?

[crazyhorse]

Why not just push shit up hill. Cause thats what we're doing with idiots like him around. He aint gonna budge. :shutup:

[Headbanger]

How about, Instead of a compulsory injury prevention fund (TAX).....we burn some buildings down instead?

Sounds like a much better use of my time and money.

[MSTRS]

The idea (of a safety initiative/program) is great. The trouble starts when we are 'asked to pay for it'. Who honestly believes any extra from us will go into safety? I don't believe a word the man says anymore. And his (recent) history says he has no morals, no shame and no intention of doing the right thing.

[mashman]

I thought the idea behind this was to show that we're making an effort to help "new" riders pickup the open road skills that they won't get in the city and vice versa! It might be better to have a mentoring programme. It'll be a damn site cheaper (i'm sure there's a thread on the subject) and questions can be asked directly. If ya like you can be a certified mentor. Maybe follow a police bike around for the day, stand on a corner and watch the traffic and how it behaves... there's a thousand and 1 ideas and some have to be better than others... Or there could be a combination of all... $50 just won't cut it, how many new riders are there per year?

Just a little peer education, tis what i did for a friend of mine and he said it helped him a lot, picking lines, brakign points, just getting used to speed in general! there must be something, but i doubt $50 will cut it as mentioned by others!

[MarkH]

I think it is a great idea and I would fully support paying $50 per year and have the money well used for making everyone safer IF that is what would be done with the money. The trouble is with the 'if' part (and really it should have been bigger, but that was the biggest font size available). If there were training courses available for free for any rider or driver that was interested (paid for by this $50) and if there were an option to go on these safer driving courses to replace or reduce license suspensions and/or fines (thus encouraging more drivers to go learn to be safer) then it would be a very good thing.

But how the fuck can we trust the government to do sensible things with our money? So far there is no evidence that they can or will be sensible about anything!

[NighthawkNZ]

get rid of the monetory system... don't need it...

[mashman]

get rid of the monetory system... don't need it...

ha ha ha ha... shhhh not here

[Ixion]

Given the the majority of motorcycle accidents are cause not by themselves I suggest the ducation be broader than targetting motorcyclists and thereby include all drivers.



So, if we had an organisation who's primary function was injury prevention -- oh, wait whats that organisation that the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and compensation Act created ?

The only reason Victoria did it as a separate levy was because they have private insurance who didn't want to know.

Injury prevention is what ACC is supposed to be about.

[Squiggles]

I imagine they burn most of their safety money in admin as it is, probably going to be no different. Why is our version of the prevention arm so useless? I await the commercials
e.g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mz8d7hUIPY

It should already exist, no it shouldnt be part of an increase unless its across the board on all vehicles.

[mashman]

Les, I have a question (quelle surprise): Will any new safety initiatives, risk mitigation, be taken into account when recalculating our ACC Levy?

[StoneY]

Again the thread has drifted, cant you people all just answer a simple question?

Is it a good idea?
Hell yes

Should it be part of our ACC
I believe yes

Does it justify the current proposed levys
HELL NO
and we all know why so cut the bullshit and just answer Les's question

[Headbanger]

and we all know why so cut the bullshit and just answer Les's question

Your a mod?

Nope.

Discussion is a good thing, It illustrates the feelings of the community far better then a one word answer.

Trying to ban discussion and the sharing of viewpoints=Bad.

Trying to ban discussion on a discussion board, in a thread that invites discussion=Silly