FastBikeGear
11th December 2009, 10:17
So how do you score us so far, out of 12 against the BRONZ 12 point manifesto?
Here's the 12 point list from the BRONZ manifesto thread.
The principles of the Woodhouse report should be preserved and respected
The ACC scheme was never intended to be a user pays scheme in which those who allegedly incur specific costs must, as a group, also meet those costs in full. The scheme is intended to draw upon the overall resources of the community to ensure that those who suffer an accident do not find themselves disadvantaged.
Saying that motor cyclists must pay much more than presently because they are ‘responsible’ for their accidents not only breaches the principal behind the scheme, it also re-introduces the notion of fault into the scheme when it was set up in the first place to avoid it.
Motorcyclists should not be discriminated against because of their transport choices.
Those who choose motorcycles instead of cars make a positive social and environmental contribution. motorcycles use less fuel, have a smaller footprint, cause less emission, congestion and pollution
ACC should be requried, as public policy to take account of social and environmental benefits whn setting levies and accept a responsibility for promoting those
There is no justification for treating a (small) subgroup of private passenger vehicles differently to othrs. Motorcycles should be in the same classification group as cars (nb this leaves us with an issue re mopeds). And pay the same levies
The present method of allocating costs is manifestly unjust to motorcyclists, who must pay whether they are in the right or in the wrong. No other group in society is expected to pay for the privilege of being injured
The present method of levying vehicle registrations causes unjustifiable anomalies and injustice, not only to motorcyclists but to anyone who has more than one vehicle but drives only one at a time. Fairer, alternative collection methods should be introduced as soon as possible
ACC is not in financial crisis and is not broke. The "crisis" is an artificially engendered one to give spurious justification for actions that the Government could not otherwise justify
The statistical data produced by ACC to justify their claims is slanted, distorted and incomplete, and does not present a fair and unbiased viewpoint. This one sided presentation is unacceptable from a government organisation.
There is no justification, statistical or otherwise , for different levy rates on different capacities of motorcycles. The figures put forward by ACC to justify this are fundamentally flawed and do not support their case. (NB this leaves us with the moped problem again)
Here's the 12 point list from the BRONZ manifesto thread.
The principles of the Woodhouse report should be preserved and respected
The ACC scheme was never intended to be a user pays scheme in which those who allegedly incur specific costs must, as a group, also meet those costs in full. The scheme is intended to draw upon the overall resources of the community to ensure that those who suffer an accident do not find themselves disadvantaged.
Saying that motor cyclists must pay much more than presently because they are ‘responsible’ for their accidents not only breaches the principal behind the scheme, it also re-introduces the notion of fault into the scheme when it was set up in the first place to avoid it.
Motorcyclists should not be discriminated against because of their transport choices.
Those who choose motorcycles instead of cars make a positive social and environmental contribution. motorcycles use less fuel, have a smaller footprint, cause less emission, congestion and pollution
ACC should be requried, as public policy to take account of social and environmental benefits whn setting levies and accept a responsibility for promoting those
There is no justification for treating a (small) subgroup of private passenger vehicles differently to othrs. Motorcycles should be in the same classification group as cars (nb this leaves us with an issue re mopeds). And pay the same levies
The present method of allocating costs is manifestly unjust to motorcyclists, who must pay whether they are in the right or in the wrong. No other group in society is expected to pay for the privilege of being injured
The present method of levying vehicle registrations causes unjustifiable anomalies and injustice, not only to motorcyclists but to anyone who has more than one vehicle but drives only one at a time. Fairer, alternative collection methods should be introduced as soon as possible
ACC is not in financial crisis and is not broke. The "crisis" is an artificially engendered one to give spurious justification for actions that the Government could not otherwise justify
The statistical data produced by ACC to justify their claims is slanted, distorted and incomplete, and does not present a fair and unbiased viewpoint. This one sided presentation is unacceptable from a government organisation.
There is no justification, statistical or otherwise , for different levy rates on different capacities of motorcycles. The figures put forward by ACC to justify this are fundamentally flawed and do not support their case. (NB this leaves us with the moped problem again)