What I still don't understand is...

[neels]

why if I am riding my motorcycle off road and deviate from my intended course and hit a tree, it is covered by general ACC levies paid by all wage earners,

but

if I am riding my motorcycle on road and deviate from my intended course and hit a tree, ACC want it to be covered entirely by other road motorcyclists.

Given that both situations are the same except for their location, why the difference?

Will we soon be registering pedestrians to cover the cost of when they injure themselves on public footpaths, and covering their injuries on their own driveway under general ACC?

[mashman]

why if I am riding my motorcycle off road and deviate from my intended course and hit a tree, it is covered by general ACC levies paid by all wage earners,

but

if I am riding my motorcycle on road and deviate from my intended course and hit a tree, ACC want it to be covered entirely by other road motorcyclists.

Given that both situations are the same except for their location, why the difference?


Not being nasty like, but are you 100% certain that that's what happens...

[Nasty]

why if I am riding my motorcycle off road and deviate from my intended course and hit a tree, it is covered by general ACC levies paid by all wage earners,

but

if I am riding my motorcycle on road and deviate from my intended course and hit a tree, ACC want it to be covered entirely by other road motorcyclists.

Given that both situations are the same except for their location, why the difference?

Will we soon be registering pedestrians to cover the cost of when they injure themselves on public footpaths, and covering their injuries on their own driveway under general ACC?

There is an error here ... if you are off roading it comes from the general fund it shouldn't come from the wage fund as you are not working on the bike - and it is not a registered motorvehicle ... if you are on-roading it comes from the motoring fund - due to the fact that is where not only registration portion of ACC goes, but the fuel levy as well.

[neels]

Well, according to this, which was posted in another thread, yes

http://static.stuff.co.nz/files/QuestionsandAnswers.pdf


12. Do ACC’s motorcycle accident costs unfairly include off-road accidents
and the costs of accidents caused by other motorists?
Off-road motorcycle accidents are not included in the analysis and are charged
against the Work Account (if the driver was working, for example on a farm), the
Earners’ Account (for a working person who was riding for recreation) or the Non-
Earners’ Account (for a non-working person).

[Nasty]

Well, according to this, which was posted in another thread, yes

http://static.stuff.co.nz/files/QuestionsandAnswers.pdf

In other words my summary was correct?

and the answer I gave answered your question?

[NighthawkNZ]

There is an error here ... if you are off roading it comes from the general fund it shouldn't come from the wage fund as you are not working on the bike - and it is not a registered motorvehicle ... if you are on-roading it comes from the motoring fund - due to the fact that is where not only registration portion of ACC goes, but the fuel levy as well.

The wage fund is the general fund... it comes from your PAYE and covers you for anything you do as a citizen


the employers fund is the workers account and covers work related accidents

Traffic account is as we know the road account

[neels]

and the answer I gave answered your question?No, you have explained the how, but not the why. And the earners fund is funded by wage earners, not employers, for non work related accidents.

So what I really want to know is, why are road accidents singled out as separately funded from all other accidents. Why is there not an ACC levy on homes, via rates for example, because a large percentage of claims result from accidents at home?

[NighthawkNZ]

So what I really want to know is, why are road accidents singled out as separately funded from all other accidents. Why is there not an ACC levy on homes, via rates for example, because a large percentage of claims result from accidents at home?

because it is easy money for them and the can sell the account to private insurers..

Personally th eaccounts need to be rejoined, and the drop all levies, PAYE, rego, fuel and bump gst to compensate then every one pays

And it would be very difficult to say how much some one has paid, and become impossible to sell...

[Farab]

Just maybe back tracking a little, but how are the ACC stats made up? Is a motorcycle accident, whether it happened on an off road unregistered bike or a registered bike, still counted as a bike accident?

[Ixion]

No, you have explained the how, but not the why. And the earners fund is funded by wage earners, not employers, for non work related accidents.

So what I really want to know is, why are road accidents singled out as separately funded from all other accidents. Why is there not an ACC levy on homes, via rates for example, because a large percentage of claims result from accidents at home?

There is no logical reason. It is simply an historic inheritance. Before ACC, we had compulsory third party insurance (yes just like people keep talking about). So drivers and riders paid this . When ACC started and they needed to fund it, the temptation to say "Well, people are already paying X pounds in insurance premiums. Presumably they won't bitch too much, maybe not even notice if they have to keep paying that. So let us keep that on as a funding stream" was too great. So, they did. Simple as that


(homes are different because there was never a legal requirement to insure them. It was an offence not to have your vehicle insured )

[mashman]

Well, according to this, which was posted in another thread, yes

http://static.stuff.co.nz/files/QuestionsandAnswers.pdf

Does the document also list the margin for error? So again are you 100% sure that that's what happens? It's already been commented on that some claims have been associated with the wrong account

[neels]

Does the document also list the margin for error? So again are you 100% sure that that's what happens? I'm 100% sure, minus a small margin of error.

[mashman]

I'm 100% sure, minus a small margin of error.

:laugh::laugh: we just seem to be swallowing documentation as if it's gospel... no real questioning of the information that's been used to derive the "ambiguous" statements being given to the public! I'm 100% sure that's the problem, but could be wrong :msn-wink: