So who is behind it all?

[IdunBrokdItAgin]

Just an open question out there to ask.

Sorry for adding another thread to an already busy forum but I think it is important when directing energies etc that the true culprits are recognised.

From lots of reading here and everywhere I have identifed three main culprits:
National Government (Nick Smith/ John Key)
ACC board (John Judge)
ACC motoring pool advisor (Automobile Association)

Now if I try and work out what their objective is (in either privatising ACC or at least causing public displease at the notion of ACC) then I, personally, come up With the following:

National Government - dislike the idea of ACC. Are very business group friendly. The privatisation of ACC would please their business contacts and may lead to a significant pool of funds which they can then access to sort out a lot of their financial conundrums (here I mean the ACC reserves which are about $11bn or so - these may become available to the government war chest if the ACC no longer needs them). They are quite happy for the public to not like the idea of ACC as it would make it easier to privatise.

ACC board John Judge - Now even though this guy obviously has his own mandate (which is pretty hard to work out) I just see him as a middle man. Has nothing to gain from ACC privatisation that I can see. Has been seen to attack Nick Smith in the press but doesn't seem to be on the side of motorbikers either.
Regardless of that though he does just come over as a puppet. I have seen this type of executive management before - people below him have the details and he only has a very high level grasp on the issues/detail. This is why he comes out so badly when challenged on the figures. He doesn't really understand them and is just repeating what he has been advised.

ACC advisors - Predominantly the Automobile Association as far as I have read - they advise the ACC on the levy setting for the motorvehicle pool.
Now these guys/ girls are supposed to provide the view of the road using public. I presonally think that they do not particularily like motorbikes, and I personally beleive it is them that put the ploy in place to whack motorbikes with larger increases than cars. I presume that this is because of the far larger backlash they expect from solely car drivers.
But, when it comes to privitisation of the ACC, I see AA being very interested in this happening. In the UK the AA is a major provider of car insurance. I am assuming that the AA here and the AA in the UK are associated so if the ACC is scrapped/ privatised or reduced then the AA would be well placed to profit from the situation (well known brand and can easily leverage of overseas operations to provide private insurance).

I must point out though that these are just the thoughts of one person. Even as I am typing this I feel like a carzy conspiracy theorist.:Punk:

I just think it is very important that efforts/ protests are directed accurately to get to the cause of the problem. It's like the art of war book. Know your enemy etc..

Everyone is gunning for Nick Smith (who I reckon will have a nervous breakdown before this all ends and be replaced with another generic minister who will be instructed to do the exact same thing) and John Judge (who I am pretty sure has a hand up his backside which operates his mouth). For me I am a bit mistrusting of the AA in all this. Why should a group who would benefit from the dissapearance of a scheme be an advisor to that same scheme?

Feel free to correct me or give your own slant on this - have I missed any significant players in this whole sneaky dirty scenario we all find ourselves in?

But for me the AA is behind the silly bike increases and the government is behind the larger issue of the ACC being privatised.

[yachtie10]

While im no fan of the AA (was a member but not any more)
Dont see how they can overly influence anyone with there own intelligence
Nick smith and John Key are the ones to make the final decision and it will be on there heads

BTW AA do insurance at the moment

[Flip]

There is a insuranance advocancy group that is pushing the goverment to sell them the ACC business. It's them that are the real villans here. There probably connections back to the BRT here as well but this is just a threoy.

[stify]

Just an open question out there to ask.

Sorry for adding another thread to an already busy forum but I think it is important when directing energies etc that the true culprits are recognised.

From lots of reading here and everywhere I have identifed three main culprits:
National Government (Nick Smith/ John Key)
ACC board (John Judge)
ACC motoring pool advisor (Automobile Association)

.


you can add a few of the many bussiness lobby groups to your list as well..came across some proposals last year and they looked very much like what was first presented by acc

[Conquiztador]

I can see strings being pulled from Oz...

[flyingcrocodile46]

Pretty interesting theory, though I think it unlikely that any one insurance company would be responsible.

I have already made some inquiries in respect to the wider insurance industry role in this. Hope to hear something in the next week or two.

[candor]

ACC is a signatory to the National Road Safety Committee memorandum of understanding - which is advised by and reports to the European Commission and World Bank, which funds it's transport safety research on us.

The secrecy clause in the MOU means ACC cannot consult about and has to do what it's told by NRSC, and is bound by the secrecy agreement not to tell us what that is - only OIAs outpower that.

I spent several days recently reading the NRSC advisors meeting minutes (10,000 pages) under an OIA they fought 6 mths to stop being honored - after ombudsmen etc we finally got in.
What I picked up about MCs is this

1) the targets set for toll and injury reductions require reducing mc injuries a la reducing mc use.
2) Various road safety chunks are allocated to each Govt Dept with a CEO on the NRSC
3) ACCs 2 special projects starting this year are safer vehicle tech and mc's

The World bank advisors take money from industry for their global road safety psartnerrship advice group - the one that deals with the NZ case study.. particularly from several auto manufacturers
One policy advice is for Govts to fund tv ads promoting safe car tech... hmm.
One of their policy advice was for our Govt to get a report on promoting low alcohol beer for road safety... hmmm.

Adding all this up plus the knowledge I have from talking to ACC and NZTA staff who hold a genuine belief mcs are coffins on wheels (likely due to GRSP mentors indoctrinating them) I believe they believe the way to do claims management is to force you into other transport modes.

Most of the civil servants aren't rocket scientists nor have cause to suspect stats fired at 'em. Told MCs have 16x the risk (equals drunk risk) they have likely trusted this "fact" among a whole raft of propaganda.
The world bank controller of NZ road safety is an award winning propagandist - noone can write 400 page documents that repeat BS in 500 different ways better than he can - NOONE. Civil servant must reads!

There are only about 3 key persons pulling the strings on road safety in NZ since 1995 - but the problem is that they are inbred megalomaniacs with absolute faith in the nonsenses they dream up. And unfortunately are also very credible and impressive despite their qualifications not being gold plated (BEcs circa 1960's). They have friends in high places and are imo as a psych nurse narcissists. We luckily stopped one getting Wellingtonian of the year with a letter campaign to the dom post.

[LBD]

......As in most govt...corporate....commercial decisions....Follow the money trail....$ are a powerful motivator

[YellowDog]

Just an open question out there to ask.

.............................

Good post. I have considered the same, but can't really te past the ill-advised poorly thought out stage.

I can't see the AA having such an influence however there is no other advisory body who could have any so-called expertise.

Negative advice to irradicate motorcycles and over congest the roads with cars must be coming from somewhere.

Say they restructucve everything and discover that the overload on the ACC type system is a fraction of what they have been trumpeting, will the ACC levies reduce to a more reasonable level? I don't think so.

IMO - If this all goes through, Motorcycling in NZ will be screwed forever.

[buellbabe]

Who's behind it all?

Well there are a number of conspirators and yes! make no mistake! There IS a conspiracy.

On my way to Welly for the protest I had a very interesting and eye opening convo with the cop who was riding with us (yes with us! he is a biker who happens to be a cop).

He is an older guy, has been around and has been privy to some pretty top level-behind-closed-doors stuff.

When I said to him that it feels like there is some master plan to get rid of motorbikes he said "yep there is and LAND TRANSPORT are behind it. Its their aim to have ZERO motorbikes on NZ roads by 2050".

Apparently their original plan wanted bikes gone by 2030 but they grudgingly conceded that might be a bit difficult. This cop has been in meetings and seen big posters on the walls with a picture of a bike inside a circle and yes you guessed it...a big slash across the circle...

We have got one mother of a fight on our hands people!
Its no joke to say that whats happening now is just the beginning.

[NighthawkNZ]

So who is behind it all?

the banks and bankers, the big over seas corps... the control what happens on this planet whether you like it or not... and it s all for profit so they can get richer..




On my way to Welly for the protest I had a very interesting and eye opening convo with the cop

tis ok I know at least four biker cops


We have got one mother of a fight on our hands people!
Its no joke to say that whats happening now is just the beginning.
Hense why I am wanting to start MANZ Motorcycle Assoication New Zealand. It will be a motorcycle version of AA

there is even ideas for a polictical party
http://www.bikersagainstacc.org.nz/docs/mpp.pdf

Next year was thinking of keeping my own record of both car and bike crashes... but that would be difficult without the help of the MoT

[Whynot]

http://www.grupo-utopia.com/blog/isou/Stupidity/16-dr%20evil-thumb.jpg

[Pixie]

1) the targets set for toll and injury reductions require reducing mc injuries a la reducing mc use.
2) Various road safety chunks are allocated to each Govt Dept with a CEO on the NRSC
3) ACCs 2 special projects starting this year are safer vehicle tech and mc's



Adding all this up plus the knowledge I have from talking to ACC and NZTA staff who hold a genuine belief mcs are coffins on wheels (likely due to GRSP mentors indoctrinating them) I believe they believe the way to do claims management is to force you into other transport modes.



This is exactly what I suspected

[Pixie]

There are only about 3 key persons pulling the strings on road safety in NZ since 1995 - but the problem is that they are inbred megalomaniacs with absolute faith in the nonsenses they dream up. And unfortunately are also very credible and impressive despite their qualifications not being gold plated (BEcs circa 1960's). They have friends in high places and are imo as a psych nurse narcissists. We luckily stopped one getting Wellingtonian of the year with a letter campaign to the dom post.

So who are these people?

[Indiana_Jones]

<img src="http://www.jrbooksonline.com/jew-bwa-ha-ha.gif">

-Indy

[MSTRS]

......As in most govt...corporate....commercial decisions....Follow the money trail....$ are a powerful motivator

There are several agendas going on. But the money one is a biggy. How many members of the Roundtable etc have large share portfolios? And how many of those shares are in Ins Cos? And what would you do, if you could influence the value of those shares? When the ACC system is preventing all those lovely Ins Cos from expanding their business/share value?

[flyingcrocodile46]

If what has been posted here re phasing motorcycles out was true, Motorcycle manufacturers would know about it and would be approachable for support. Not only that, they would be actively fighting such moves. Their existence would depend on it.

I just don't see who would win out of banning motorbikes. Insurance companies don't care about what they insure as long as they make a profit out of the premiums.

Sorry but I don't buy it.

[IdunBrokdItAgin]

Well I still think my original one is credible (why should the AA care about motorbikes at all) but it is very interesteing to hear about the ones re LTSA and the three mystery ego-maniacal men (malboro man must be one of them surely).

Glad this thread got everyone thinking about it. Carry on the good discussion - I still beleive that we need to fully understand the reasoning behind the ACC hikes before we can understand the privatisation issue.

The privatisation issue is bigger than just Bikers.

We need to concentrate on why they are targeting bikers, on this case the NZTA/Land Transport long term objective seems to be in line with the post from Candor (world bank report).
Also the world bank report pushing governements to advertise car saftey tech makes sense - I always wondered why they spent so much money on that stupid "Electronic Stability Control" advert. Jeez was that dumb and must have cost a truck load of cash as it was on all the time. Would have been way better spending the cash on motorcycle awareness.

So is NZTA/Land Transport really wanting to get rid of motorbikes and is this due to following the world bank study?

[The Everlasting]

If what has been posted here re phasing motorcycles out was true, Motorcycle manufacturers would know about it and would be approachable for support. Not only that, they would be actively fighting such moves. Their existence would depend on it.

I just don't see who would win out of banning motorbikes. Insurance companies don't care about what they insure as long as they make a profit out of the premiums.

Sorry but I don't buy it.



Yeah I don't buy it either,there is no way the Big Four and other manufacturers would let that happen without a huge fight.


Just a thought,the huge levy increases would surely have some impact on people buying new motorbikes? If it does,then the manufacturers will lose money at a steady rate.

[avgas]

I can see strings being pulled from Oz...
Its funny you mention that - Medicare have pretty good agreements with ACC. Won't say what in particular - but lets just say money changes hands.

[NighthawkNZ]

Yeah I don't buy it either,there is no way the Big Four and other manufacturers would let that happen without a huge fight.


Just a thought,the huge levy increases would surely have some impact on people buying new motorbikes? If it does,then the manufacturers will lose money at a steady rate.


NZ is such a small market I don't think the big 4 MC companies would even notice... But it will most definantly effect all local bike shops and related businesses.

[The Everlasting]

NZ is such a small market I don't think the big 4 MC companies would even notice... But it will most definantly effect all local bike shops and related businesses.



Yeah your probably right.

Maybe we should approach some of the motorbike dealerships for added support?

Unless this has already been done...

[NighthawkNZ]

Yeah your probably right.

Maybe we should approach some of the motorbike dealerships for added support?

Unless this has already been done...

well one would hope that they will be already on our side :confused:

[kevie]

Just an open question out there to ask.

ACC motoring pool advisor (Automobile Association)

I personally think that they do not particularily like motorbikes, and I personally beleive it is them that put the ploy in place to whack motorbikes with larger increases than cars. But for me the AA is behind the silly bike increases and the government is behind the larger issue of the ACC being privatised.

I remember taking AA to task years ago (when I was a member) about one of the articles they had published stating they discourage members from owning/riding motorcycles..... I dumped my membership with them years ago and every time I reg my vehicles there or renew a licence they ask if I want AA membership and I tell them NO because of AA being anti motorcycling LOL not the answer they expect and give them the message 'discriminate against bikes and lose memberships'

[NighthawkNZ]

I remember taking AA to task years ago (when I was a member) about one of the articles they had published stating they discourage members from owning/riding motorcycles..... I dumped my membership with them years ago and every time I reg my vehicles there or renew a licence they ask if I want AA membership and I tell them NO because of AA being anti motorcycling LOL not the answer they expect and give them the message 'discriminate against bikes and lose memberships'

So how do we start Motorcycling version of AA

MANZ - Motorcycle Association New Zealand

[Ixion]

You need to tie into someone who can provide breakdown service. (90% of AA membership are members only for the breakdown service.)

Provide that and the rest follows easily

Talk to Mark at Swann, they have a break down service subsidiary

[IdunBrokdItAgin]

So it has been proven in stuff today that I was right that the AA were supporters of increasing motorbike levies. Not fair to impose levies by driver but ok to single out bikes - what a crock!

I say show your displeasure - take your business elsewhere if you are insured with them or use their breakdown service and let them know it is because of their stance on motorbikes.

Mike Noon is their top man on motoring issues (from the attached stuff article).

Linky:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3125437/ACC-Burton-clause-slammed

[NighthawkNZ]

Linky:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3125437/ACC-Burton-clause-slammed

Like you knew that all along... we won't be re-newing our AA membership...

[IdunBrokdItAgin]

Like you knew that all along... we won't be re-newing our AA membership...

Yeah I'm quite chuffed with myself right now.

I figured it out from reading the thread about the Ulysees president and the remarks made by Nick Smith.

All I did was put two and two together, and suprisingly came out with four for a change, before the AA admitted it.

:eek:

[NighthawkNZ]

Yeah I'm quite chuffed with myself right now.

I figured it out from reading the thread about the Ulysees president and the remarks made by Nick Smith.

All I did was put two and two together, and suprisingly came out with four for a change, before the AA admitted it.

:eek:

actually I also knew as well... to tell the honest truth.. AA have been anti motorcycles for years...

[NighthawkNZ]

You need to tie into someone who can provide breakdown service. (90% of AA membership are members only for the breakdown service.)

Provide that and the rest follows easily

Talk to Mark at Swann, they have a break down service subsidiary

Who is Mark Swann??


first have to come up with the policies and mandate etc...? similar to BRONZ but bit more omph and freedom of choice I guess...

[candor]

Preoccupation with AA won't help - it's not influential in the scheme and Judge, Nickster and co are only puppets.

The people or organisational heirarchy is

CEO's told what to do by National Road Safety Management Group. All NGOs like AA got kicked off influencing this by disbanding of the ICG or industry consultative group awhile ago on GRSPs advise as GRSP said only lead Govt agencies have enough investment to be stakeholders - this was due to AA advocating for real road safety not following the GRSP and world bank line 100%.

Controlling the autocratic elitist non consultative secretive NRSMG are

- Supt Cameron a floater Oz Policeman responsible for NZ / Aus safety research programs associated with Monash University MUARC research centre and Austroads (both set up by WHO and the World Bank) who regularly visits to advise next steps in collaboration with...
- Tony Bliss (ex LTSA setter upper and boss and Treasury economist) now turned lead world bank transport lender is ultimate authority/manipulator
Jeanne Breen is an important sometime advisor to both NZ NRSMG/MoT and NZ Road-pol (UN world bank global police HQ just set up in Welly)

ETSC a reputed European NGO actully has Jeanne Breen as a Director, and it advises many countries supposedly independently or via the GRSP (a road safety research and mentoring group funded by 3 or 4 auto manufacturers and Swedish International Devt Agency), which partners with Tony Bliss of the World Bank and the Directorate General of the European Commission to run 13 case studies, including NZ.

The enforcers that ensure the aboves' will is done, and can influence it too are;

- Paul Graham NZTA/MoT scientist who stunt doubles as advert manager
- Jagadish Guria; I believe ex MoT mathematician or economist and ex World Bank but now concealed at NZIER, to protect the MoT from scrutiny of our relentless OIA's
(the above 2 personas write GRSP/world bank road safety standards manuals with Mr Bliss in their spare time).
- Whatever Police Commissioner is the flavour of the day

The aim of GRSP is to apply a business partnership approach to existing government and private corporations. The GRSP programme draws together institutions such as the World Health Organisation and the United Nations, government and private corporations that are large commercial enterprises with direct or indirect interests in road safety such as 3M (road signs), Daimler Chryssler, United Distillers and BP. Corporate members of GRSP each pay an annual cash subscription of at least CHF 75,000.

They may also share the cost of advisers, for example by secondment.

NZ is a small mc market, where are mcs made and are manufacturers members of GRSP? I'd doubt it. Which country is the World Bank in, and needs it's auto industry to conquer Asia pacific of which we're part?

The buck may just stop in Washington methinks.

NZ transport strategy to 2040 supports buellbabes and my prior post - most of the rest is excerpts. http://www.transport.govt.nz/ourwork/Documents/NZTS2008.pdf

Reduce road deaths to no more than 200 per annum by 2040.
Reduce serious injuries on roads to no more than 1,500 per annum by 2040.
Increase use of public transport to seven percent of all trips by 2040 (ie from 111 million boardings in 2006/7 to more than 525 million boardings in 2040).
Increase walking, cycling and other active modes to 30 percent of total trips in urban areas by 2040.

At current rates, the total number of kilometres travelled by vehicles on roads in New Zealand is expected to increase by approximately 42 percent by 2040. Travel demand management
Travel demand management (TDM) has four objectives:
reducing the need to travel (while still • allowing people to access the services and facilities they need)
• reducing the distances people need to travel to access the same services and facilities
• achieving more efficient travel that uses less fuel, less road space and produces fewer emissions
(eg rideshare27, public transport, cycling and walking)
Push and pull measures can be used such as road user charges

Supporting traditional public transport is likely to be more cost-effective
in larger urban areas and for travel between cities. Elsewhere, less traditional forms of shared transport (such as voluntary and community transport, ridesharing and car clubs33) will need to be explored to address accessibility and social exclusion issues in a cost-effective way.

Car clubs where a group of people jointly own a car can give people access to a car on a pay-as-you-go basis. Car clubs can save users from the associated costs of sole ownership a vehicle or a second vehicle.

Confirmed in transport to 2040 - cars as next targets

"A ’road user hierarchy’ can be applied to reflect the importance attached 34. to each mode of travel, often starting with people with mobility and sensory impairments at the top, followed by pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users, powered two wheeled vehicles, commercial businesses and, lastly, car trips.
Key components that will contribute to managing travel demand include integrated planning and considering options for charging. In addition,
the government’s Digital Strategy and its support for broadband will reduce pressure on transport services by promoting teleconferencing, and telecommuting.
Bringing the services to the users, rather than vice versa, is another option – for example mobile surgical units and libraries in rural areas. This can reduce the need for people to travel or own a private car
Strategic routesfor commerce and freight will be improved

Promote travel demand management (TDM ) best-practice by building on Transit New Zealand’s TDM manual and guidance material produced by Land Transport New Zealand and local authorities

Become one of the first countries in the world to widely use electric vehicles
• This target was set in the NZES. Its rationale is based on the fact that the NZES also adopts a target that by 2025, 90 percent of electricity will come from renewable resources. This makes electric vehicles a logical choice in a low carbon transport future, provided the technology becomes available at an affordable price and the relevant distribution and charging infrastructure is available.

To confirm my theory of mc extinction policy regardless of the whodunnit you would need to maybe explore above "suspect" documents and also see the recommendations NRSC makes to the Transport Minister regarding the package for the 2020 road safety strategy, including the underlying assumptions about life savings of each recommended intervention package (of the perhaps 3 options) by road user type. This info will be under legal privilege until the 2020 strategy is announced later this month.

The future appears to be car travel only for the elite, car pools and public transport or walk it for the rest. We're going back in time - or maybe becoming a remote Polynesian Island again. Over motorised and too ready to skip here and there is how they see us. Gas companies can still make their money by just upping prices.

[flyingcrocodile46]

So it has been proven in stuff today that I was right that the AA were supporters of increasing motorbike levies. Not fair to impose levies by driver but ok to single out bikes - what a crock!

I say show your displeasure - take your business elsewhere if you are insured with them or use their breakdown service and let them know it is because of their stance on motorbikes.

Mike Noon is their top man on motoring issues (from the attached stuff article).

Linky:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3125437/ACC-Burton-clause-slammed

Why are the AA defending the rights of criminals? Are they motorists or even AA members? The meddling cock smokers will be getting an earful from me in future.

[rob 0]

jonkey & ass said,

"ACC is here to stay but the employer fund is to be privatised"


to do this an insurance company will only pay out for accidents that happen at work
not your rugby accidentat the weekend

this means cheeper rates for the biusenesses ,(say 1/3 $)

so where do acc get the money to pay for the rugby accident,
easy , from us the people of NZ by charging rugby clubs an ACC levy per person

the same with your ski lift passes and push bike rego's
the list is endless and all valid "risk" groups
what a huge cash cow

so do you think our wages will go up???

nither do I

there is one simple anwser -- stop future funding of ACC and dont privatise any of it

go back 20 years and the acc worked properly, untill natonal saw the potential cash involved

the future funding is a political "choise" from the natonal government in 1999
it is a leading cause of the $4b loss
but do you think government will give the $11b assets back to acc

not likely,

acc will need all the money it can get if it looses the employer fund,but thats OK ,

joe public will pay !!!

[Ixion]

...
Confirmed in transport to 2040 - cars as next targets

"A ’road user hierarchy’ can be applied to reflect the importance attached 34. to each mode of travel, often starting with people with mobility and sensory impairments at the top, followed by pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users, powered two wheeled vehicles, commercial businesses and, lastly, car trips.


That doesn't support your argument. It shows powered two wheelers as a preferred transport option after cyclists and public transport (never going to get ahead of those two in bureaucrat desireability stakes)

[flyingcrocodile46]

Who is Mark Swann??


That was Mark at Swann (as in Swann Insurance)

hth

[Pedrostt500]

Yeah I don't buy it either,there is no way the Big Four and other manufacturers would let that happen without a huge fight.


Just a thought,the huge levy increases would surely have some impact on people buying new motorbikes? If it does,then the manufacturers will lose money at a steady rate.

The Big Four are probably less worried than yopu may think, Bothe Honda and Suzuki also build cars, Kawasaki has the heavy industry side of the company, Yamaha still make musical instruments, generators and are probably tied into other industry, it would probably be more American and smaller European manufacturers that need to worry about this.

[pete376403]

Yamaha ... are probably tied into other industry,.
They do complicated, limited run castings for Toyota, among others. (Cylinder heads for example)

They make helicopters too. http://www.gizmag.com/go/2440/

[ST4s]

Like you knew that all along... we won't be re-newing our AA membership...

Just remember that AA is an insurance company first, an insurance company second, and an insurance company third - the whole "membership / association" thing is just a marketing strategy for the insurance business.

Have a look at their support for speed cameras if you want to see how they advocate for "members" interests.

So, if you're insured, canceling policies may help.Canceling membership may get the point across to some staff, but not to the organisation itself.