Important message for all bikers to read - They are trying to ban you!

[Pixie]

From another thread:

Posted by 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.


Posted by 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.

[scumdog]

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.

THAT is the kind of thing I'd love to get more info on/see!:yeah:

Wanky shiney-bummed pen-pushers deciding how THEY would like to run OUR lives for their own agenda!!

[huff3r]

All i can say is good luck to them. They arent keeping me off a bike on the road!

[gtr boy]

had a quick read through your post
dont think it will ever happen myself...........
but if things get expensive and more expensive like its going to be from this acc at the mo i will just take my number plate off and ride like the devils on my tail......:devil2:........or get a trailer plate..........

[Sidewinder]

fuck acc who cares now get over it

[h211]

Hmm thats interesting. The movie Surrogates comes to mind...

[AllanB]

Typical of pen-pushers - what they need is some foresight - don't BAN motorcycles just redesign them to be more suitable to save costs - here's a fine example of what we could all be riding.

[AllanB]

On a slightly more serious note ... :niceone:

If you believe a certain number of world experts by 2050 it will not be motorcycles they need to worry about but how the heck they are fuelling any form of transport!

When the expensive stuff runs low surely a simple economical motorcycle engine will be encouraged by Governments around the world.

[MarkH]

On a slightly more serious note ... :niceone:

If you believe a certain number of world experts by 2050 it will not be motorcycles they need to worry about but how the heck they are fuelling any form of transport!

When the expensive stuff runs low surely a simple economical motorcycle engine will be encouraged by Governments around the world.

No matter what powers the vehicle this would be true!

If battery powered then less power is needed to recharge the batteries on a motorcycle/scooter than on a car.
If Ethanol powered then less crops need to be grown, therefore requiring less land that could otherwise be used to grow food, for running bikes vs cars.
Even currently the world supply of fuel oil will be used up more slowly by bikes than by cars.

Basically 200KG of motorcycle takes less fuel to move from one place to another than 1500KG or more of car/van/SUV. Considering how many cars are driving around with a single occupant the waste should be obvious. The heroes of the energy crisis should definitely be the motorcyclists! My scooter required less resources than a Prius to build and transport to NZ and it uses less fuel, less parking space and contributes less to congestion on Auckland's roads. So just how environmentally friendly are those fuckin' hybrids?

[Pixie]

Typical of pen-pushers - what they need is some foresight - don't BAN motorcycles just redesign them to be more suitable to save costs - here's a fine example of what we could all be riding.

The combination of a foresight and a rearsight lined up on their foreheads would do the trick

[jeffs]

At least there is a silver lining. By 2050 I will be dead, either by bike ( if ACC stats are correct ) or old age if my doctor is right.

With levy increases it seems to be getting very expensive to die young, and with an aging population, too expensive for the government to have me live until i'm old.

Don't you love going through life, and constantly feeling like we are all ( the people ) nothing more that an Inconvenience ? :)

[Creeping Death]

Hahahaaaa...I went to the protest on an unwarrented,unregestered bike!
I win!
Lol!:eek5:

[Molly]

That makes interesting reading but governments come and go as does the latest folk devil. Most politicians couldn't find their arse with both hands so I'm not overly concerned about any long-term agenda they may or may not have. Most can't see beyond their next expenses fraud.

Motorcycling is just too enjoyable to ever die. Can I get a <i><b>'Hell Yeah!'</i></b>?

[Dadpole]

But where do the black helicopters fit in?

[dipshit]

That makes interesting reading but governments come and go as does the latest folk devil. Most politicians couldn't find their arse with both hands so I'm not overly concerned about any long-term agenda they may or may not have. Most can't see beyond their next expenses fraud.

What's politicians got to do with it..?? They aren't the ones that come up with major policy directions for all of the reasons you brought up.

[SPORK]

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...

Here, let me show you my perpetual motion device and my proof of reptillians controlling the white house.

[Devil]

Mildly concerning

[Badjelly]

I think the 16x risk figure is likely to be pretty accurate. So, if (and I say if!) you think safety trumps all other considerations, reducing motorcycle use is clearly a good idea. And bicycle use, obviously. And as for those mountain bikes! But I digress...

So I don't think the bureaucrats are stupid or even wrong about the facts. I just disagree with their priorities.

[pzkpfw]

I think the 16x risk figure is likely to be pretty accurate.

It's based on multiplying the motorcycle crash rate (which is higher than cars on a crashes-per-vehicle basis) by a factor that takes into account that bikes tend to do fewer kilometres.

i.e. the bike crash rate is multiplied by about 4, because they do on average 4 times less k's than cars. (My figures here are for illustration only.)

As subjective opinion is that it's the weekend warriors who crash most, this 16x figure is unfair on the "hard core" riders who do do many k's.


(And as ACC should be worrying about paying for crashes (after worrying about preventing them) they should focus on the number of crashes that actually happen - not the number that MIGHT happen if we all rode more k's.)

[Badjelly]

I think the 16x risk figure is likely to be pretty accurate.


It's based on multiplying the motorcycle crash rate (which is higher than cars on a crashes-per-vehicle basis) by a factor that takes into account that bikes tend to do fewer kilometres.

There are various figures around but motorcyclists tend to suffer serious injury or death at a rate 16-30 times that of car occupants per kilometre travelled, but only 4 times on a per-vehicle basis. There's a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle) on this and there are some NZ figures in a fact sheet that I've mislaid.

The per vehicle figure is arguably relevant for ACC levies but if I'm thinking of taking a trip by car vs bike the per-kilometre figure is more relevant. (If you want to think about risk, that is.)

Riding a bike is more dangerous, in general, than driving a car. Cope with it or quit.


As subjective opinion is that it's the weekend warriors who crash most, this 16x figure is unfair on the "hard core" riders who do do many k's.

Maybe. I don't think subjective opinion counts for much (except my opinion of course).

[Bald Eagle]

There are various figures around but motorcyclists tend to suffer serious injury or death at a rate 16-30 times that of car occupants per kilometre travelled, but only 4 times on a per-vehicle basis. There's a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle) on this and there are some NZ figures in a fact sheet that I've mislaid.

The per vehicle figure is arguably relevant for ACC levies but if I'm thinking of taking a trip by car vs bike the per-kilometre figure is more relevant. (If you want to think about risk, that is.)

Riding a bike is more dangerous, in general, than driving a car. Cope with it or quit.



Maybe. I don't think subjective opinion counts for much (except my opinion of course).

It's not the numbers that are the concern, and they can be manipulated in all sorts of ways.
The core principal of a social compensation environemtn where we all contribute equitably and all benefit from the global safety net is what's at stake here.
The motorbike levy is contrary to that principal and also directly discriminates because of my lifestyle choice.

[jeffs]

There's a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle) on this

God we are not now using wikipedia to come up with numbers now ?

I understand that Wikipedia is used by lots of people as reference sources, but its a do it your self encyclopedia.

Any one can post numbers or facts in Wikipedia.

Don't get fooled by things, just because they are on the internet.

Please :)

[pzkpfw]

There are various figures around but motorcyclists tend to suffer serious injury or death at a rate 16-30 times that of car occupants per kilometre travelled, but only 4 times on a per-vehicle basis. There's a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle) on this and there are some NZ figures in a fact sheet that I've mislaid.

Um, why bother echoing my own numbers back at me?


The per vehicle figure is arguably relevant for ACC levies but if I'm thinking of taking a trip by car vs bike the per-kilometre figure is more relevant. (If you want to think about risk, that is.)

We are talking about ACC though aren't we? i.e. not whether you plan to use your bike or car.


Riding a bike is more dangerous, in general, than driving a car. Cope with it or quit.

Did you read my post? Where did I imply a bike wasn't more dangerous?


Maybe. I don't think subjective opinion counts for much (except my opinion of course).

All I was doing was pointing out that the multiplication of risk based on kilometres is possibly naive, and maybe is unbalances the stats - when compared to individuals within the population. Do you think I should just take the 16-30 times figure at face value? Do you?

[Badjelly]

Um, why bother echoing my own numbers back at me?

Misunderstood what you were getting at. Peace, bro.

[peasea]

The sky is falling etc etc.

[BikerDazz]

There are other parties having a battle royale with ACC too.
Those involved with counselling victims of sex abuse have been well shafted (no pun intended!).

I understand that changes were dropped on them without consultation, in spite of having regualr contact on other matters. When the parties effected kicked up a stink there was a delay put in place to allow consultation, however what came back was apparently not consultation but dictation on what the intended changes are to be.

It has been reported that attempts to have consultation with the minister were ignored.

I think that the Govt is tring to slash expenditure in whatever ways they can (as they do) and if you voted National then you can't complain.

I'm looking forward to getting rid of the bastards at the next election - if only the Left could get their shit together!

[Conquiztador]

Important message for all bikers to read - They are trying to ban you
............... ....................

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.

I can not comment on your statements, but nothing surprises me re all this. When anyone with a little common sense has a look at the ACC figures that are being fed the plebs, it should be clear that it is all BS. Does not add up. Not even close to. So clearly there is something else driving this.

And I do not believe it has anything to do with injuries or deaths. Personally I have a much bigger conspiracy theory that I sbuscribe to:

- Oil companies have for many years been buying up any new technology that some inventor has come up with. And then buried it.
- Battery cars and hybrids are becoming better, and there is not much they can do about it.
- Motorbikes and scooters are getting more economical.
- There is a big drive to stop pollution and there is not much stopping that movement now.
- If everyone did drive Remuera Tractors there would be a higher demand for oil...
- Wars are supported on weak grounds in areas where there is oil, and the ones supported are the ones who subscribe to the oil copany's homelands.

The oil companies can se that there is not far to go. But they are hell bent of milking it until the last drop before it dies. So getting rid of motorbikes that use little oil is a good short term plan as long as they can be replaced with big cars.

Their time is running out. But until then it is all go and nothing is taboo.

So add the NZ ACC increases for bikes to that.

Think about it: If you were the CEO of a oil producing company, your job (and bonus) is reliant on selling more and more. Come up with innovative ideas and you get a medal.

So yep, we have a fight on our hands allright.

But the upside to all this is that our earth is starting to give up. It can not sustain what we are doing to it. Our planet is not able to fix what we do to her anymore. And our time is running out. If the plan is to get rid of bikes by 2050 I predict that it will be one of mankinds smaller problems in 40 years.

I predict that the Mad Max vision (as in the movie) is the future.

[pritch]

I predict that the Mad Max vision (as in the movie) is the future.

Selfish I know, but then at my age what happens in forty years won't be of much interest to me...

As for there being signs in Parliament suggestive of banning bikes, that's not a new idea. True or not, there are people in Parliament that would be happy to see bikes done away with. As with firearms, they don't own a bike, nobody they know owns a bike, therefore nobody needs a bike. Lets get rid of the anti-social things. "If it saves just one life it's worth it."
Blah blah blah etcetera.

Reformers just love to get stuck into things that don't effect them. The only defence we have against this is to occasionally remind them that we do actually have a significant number of votes. Votes which they need. Hopefully the more pragmatic influences can then restrain the reformers...

[Pixie]

The relative safety of vehicles is irrelevant.
Because of road safety fanaticism,their aim is to have us all travelling robotic electric commuter pods with no control by the occupants.

The human race is quickly becoming adventureless and afraid,and it will be the species' demise.

[Pixie]

Selfish I know, but then at my age what happens in forty years won't be of much interest to me...

As for there being signs in Parliament suggestive of banning bikes, that's not a new idea. True or not, there are people in Parliament that would be happy to see bikes done away with. As with firearms, they don't own a bike, nobody they know owns a bike, therefore nobody needs a bike. Lets get rid of the anti-social things. "If it saves just one life it's worth it."
Blah blah blah etcetera.

Reformers just love to get stuck into things that don't effect them. The only defence we have against this is to occasionally remind them that we do actually have a significant number of votes. Votes which they need. Hopefully the more pragmatic influences can then restrain the reformers...

These people are not parliamentarians.They run the govt.departments and do not get voted in or out.

[Nonbeliever]

when are they going to make smoking ilegal?

How much does that cost the health services in this country?

I saw on a tv ad the other night that one person dies in NZ of 2nd hand smoke every day!! That would be like a motorcyclist killing someone every day, wouldnt it?

when are they going to make drinking alcohol ilegal?....etc etc

[bogan]

The relative safety of vehicles is irrelevant.
Because of road safety fanaticism,their aim is to have us all travelling robotic electric commuter pods with no control by the occupants.

The human race is quickly becoming adventureless and afraid,and it will be the species' demise.

exactly, survival is not enough, one must actually live a little! As for zero bikes by 2050, fuck that, wont happen with me in the country. And by then I plan to have converted at least another 10 people to bikes, what do ya think of that mr gubbermint :finger:

[oldrider]

Sadly I have now taken personal direct action to combat the ACC levy increase for my motorcycle!

Yes, I have opened another account with my bank in order to be sure I have saved the $750:00 to pay the levy and registration cost when it is due!

All things considered, I believe that is the only way I will be able to continue to use my motorcycle as my primary means of transport!

By the time we pay for all of the other increases in our day to day costs out of our National Super, our personal super and our interest (Tui) on our savings, I still may not even have enough to register my bike then!

Every one of these increases are without "real" basis and nothing less than "theft" by extortion!

Extort: Obtain (money, promise, etc.) by violence,intimidation, or persistent demands, etc! (Perfect description of Taxation)

Actions made publicly acceptable through majority support given by stupid uninformed voters who elect successive governments in NZ!

Governments that don't even attempt to disguise their illegal intentions and even blatantly announce extortion "increases" in advance!

These voters in NZ even believe they live in a democratic society! :lol:

I will continue to ride my motorcycle until I am either mentally or physically unable to do so, come hell or high water! :ride:

Thought for the day: The older I get, the less time they can hold me in jail for retribution! :devil2: The temptation grows by the hour! :headbang: