Response from the AA

[p.dath]

I got this email from the senior policy analyst at the AA today, Mark Stockdale, MStockdale@aa.co.nz.


Dear Philip, thank you for your comments on ACC. I can understand your concern about the increasing registration levies for motorcycles. Our role at the AA is with regard to motoring policy and advocacy and I can give you an overview of the AA’s position on the levy increases and advise that the AA has made submissions to both ACC, and the Parliamentary select committee reviewing associated legislation. We have also met with the Minister of ACC, and ACC (twice) to outline our views.

According to ACC’s consultation document the ACC account is in a mess and severely underfunded. Subsequent legislative amendments have changed the design of the scheme from the Woodhouse era and under the current model ACC must account for future costs of current claims. That means ACC calculates it has a deficit of $13 billion, which must be paid off within the next 5-10 years, hence levies for all account classes are increasing. The AA’s submissions focussed on getting the best outcome for motorists under the scheme as it is currently designed; the wider principles of the scheme are not under review by the current National Government.

However, the consultation documents reveal that motorcycles and mopeds are not covering their ACC claim costs (by a large margin) and so are being subsidised by other vehicle classes, this is not new but the ACC annual costs for motorcycles have increased to around $60m for past and present claims against around $12m collected per year. The ACC consultation document says that even if the proposed increases occur in full then passenger vehicles would still be subsidising motorcycles by $77.65 each. The question is, is this fair?

When we analysed serious and fatal accidents involving motorcycles between 2003-2008, the police determined riders to be at fault in 85% of cases. Common crash causes were loss of control on bends or crossing/turning.

For these various reasons the AA supported an increase in ACC levies for the motorcycle class than for passenger vehicles. The AA is also concerned that the current low registration fee for motorcycles (proportional to ACC cost and risk of injury) sends a poor signal to new riders of their risk in taking up riding and is not a good signal.

BUT: We have advised that the AA is concerned that the increases proposed by the ACC board for motorcycles were too large and will for many be unaffordable and will likely lead to an unwanted increase in unregistered motorcycles and mopeds. Our submission proposed a lower increase and/or for this to be phased in over time (i.e. a number of years).

We also said to the Minister and ACC that there needed to be increased support for motorcycle training, particularly for new riders and that ACC has a vested interest in supporting this as they are paying for the crash costs. The Minister’s announcement last Thursday on the final, lower, levies and $3m fund for motorcycle safety appear to reflect these concerns.

For copies of our submissions on the levies and the legislation review, see: http://www.aa.co.nz/about/submissions/Pages/2009-AA-submissions-to-Government.aspx

Regarding the AA Auckland district council AGM, these are usually held in February and the exact date and details will be advertised in the Saturday NZ Herald at least 4 weeks prior. The AGM for the NZAA is to be held in Hamilton on 25 March; a public notice with the details will also be published in the national daily newspapers at least 14 days prior to the meeting. To contact the AA Auckland District Council, you would be best to forward your concerns to the regional manager, Stephen McLellan smclellan@aa.co.nz and ask them to be raised at the next meeting.

[p.dath]

This was my response:


To say that ACC accounts is in a mess would be to pre-support that ACC needs to be pre-funded. I put it to you that this accounting policy change made by the most recent Labour Government is not in the best interests of ACC or those it aims to protect, and that there is in fact nothing wrong with the ACC accounts.

Let me direct your attention to the University of Auckland’s business school which analyses the case for pre-funding, and comes to the conclusion that there is no need for it.
http://www.business.auckland.ac.nz/Portals/4/Research/ResearchCentresGroups/RPRC%20commentary/PC2009-2-TheRationaleForPre-fundingACCrevisedFfinal1811.pdf
In an interview with Owen Woodhouse, frequently considered to be the founder of ACC due to his significant input into its creation, Owen Woodhouse suggested that having everyone pay for the care off all those injured in a calendar year for all the care they would need for the rest of their life would be like having someone turn up to school and on their very first day asking them for payment for the entire rest of the their education. How could they possible know what that was going to cost?

Pre-funding is most commonly used in the insurance industry, because in insurance you do need to account for the cost of future claims made by current customers. However ACC is not an insurance scheme. It never has been. It is a compensation scheme that was created to replace the Works Compensation Act. Prior to ACC there was significant incentive for insurance companies to not pay out on claims, which frequently resulted in very expensive court action.
The Woodhouse report (Woodhouse himself having been a supreme court justice) noted that often substantial amounts of compensation were used up in legal fees.

So I put it to the AA that it should not be so much backing a change in levies, but a return to the original Woodhouse principles.


Once you drop the pretence of ACC being insurance, and accept (as per the current legislation) that it is a compensation scheme, then you comes back to the original Woodhouse principles that the community (aka, all users) should contribute equally. This is because there is no “risk” in a no-fault scheme. All that merely needs to be done is to collect sufficient funds from everyone to cover the compensation that is required to be paid out (plus a reserve so that the scheme has a buffer in bad times).


I note you make reference that the Police claim 85% of motorcyclists where at fault in accidents. ACC’s only figures are closer to 46%, but ACC only consider injury accidents that require an ACC pay out. If you were to try and attribute risk, and I’m not suggesting you do, then it is clear car owners should be paying for around 54% of the cost of motorcycle accidents.

However, this is not about car or motorcycle users, it’s not about pitching one group of ACC users against another – it’s about the premise that pre-funding is required. ACC currently has an operating surplus of around $900m – it most certainly is not in any financial crisis. The much publicised crisis is nothing more than a PR exercise based around accounting principles.


The AA has generated a lot of distrust among the motorcycling fraternity. I would have to say a lot of AA members have cancelled their insurance and membership over this issue. Having been a long term member of the AA I would like to take a different tact, which I’ll be encouraging other members to adopt.

I intend to get a large group of motorcycling members to attend their district meetings, and make our desires known to the local district councillors. We also intend to quiz those standing for re-election, and I feel we’ll hold a big enough voting block to be able to affect the outcome of any voting, should more people stand for election than seats available.

I’ll also be re-enforcing the very first rule in the AA’s constitution:
“To promote an organisation or association of persons who own motor vehicles or are otherwise interested in motoring.”

So as senior policy analyst, I encourage you to support those interested in motoring, and a return to the original Woodhouse principles. They are as valid today as when the original study was done.

[bogan]

would pay to point out that as a motoring advocay group (or whatever it is they claim to be) they should be able (and obliged) to fact check the figures, such as the complete BS $77 dollar one, especially if such a figure has been repeatedly disputed.

[StoneY]

Well done Phil

Green bling comin your way man
Times like this I bet its a issue of pride to be the site weenie

Excellent post mate, well bloody done
As Bogan points out, the disputed and often proven to be BS 77$ maybe needed to be addressed but really well written reply

Brent

[MSTRS]

This was my response:

Pity you put 'Labour' in there...it was actually the last National Government that introduced the pre-funding (or fully funded) model, and privatised the work account. When Labour took power at the end of '99, they reversed the privatising, but left the motoring account as is.
I'm not blowing a political trumpet, but accuracy is essential when dealing with this sort of stuff. :sweatdrop

[Naki Rat]

It would seem the AA is just as willing as the media and others to swallow the statistical BS that ACC and National are spooning out over this issue.
Definitely worth considering motorcyclists taking up membership of AA in force and block voting these pillocks into line :angry2:

[p.dath]

Pity you put 'Labour' in there...it was actually the last National Government that introduced the pre-funding (or fully funded) model, and privatised the work account.

Oops, I think your right. It was introduced in 1998 by the National Government. The following Labour Government then just increased the levies to speed up the full funding.

[p.dath]

It would seem the AA is just as willing as the media and others to swallow the statistical BS that ACC and National are spooning out over this issue.
Definitely worth considering motorcyclists taking up membership of AA in force and block voting these pillocks into line :angry2:

I was tossing up putting forward a motion for a constitutional change, so they are forced to be advocates for "motorcyclists", rather than the broader term "motorists" as it says now.

I think they are probably breaking their own constitutional rules. However if AA members express to their regional directors their opinions, then they are likely to take the views to their AGM, and it can become new policy.

And that would truly be a change made from within, using a positive approach.

[StoneY]

I have already suggested AA centers and offices as a valid passive protest target

Imagine if 30 bikers all arrive at once and ask loads of stupid questions, fill in forms to 'join' suddenly realise AA is not pro biker, tear form up and leave

Duration of event 1 hour, stacking up all other customers, LOL

Oh, the images it creates

Anyway, I cancelled 6 insurance policies with AA last month, and when my mebership expires it wil not be renewed, after 8 years of my loyalty has been tossed back in my face

[p.dath]

Anyway, I cancelled 6 insurance policies with AA last month, and when my mebership expires it wil not be renewed, after 8 years of my loyalty has been tossed back in my face

How about you attend one last AA meeting while your still a member, just so you can vote against anyone being elected that doesn't support motorcyclists?

The regional meetings happen in February.

Or you could give your proxy to someone who can attend.

[Swoop]

It is pleasant to see that the AA has just followed the position of ACC.
ACC: "Here, have some propaganda which is backed up with some vague, innaccurate figures".
AA: "Why thank you. The AA will now take this as gospel and proceed with this wonderful knowledge".


:ar15:

[ukusa]

a great letter pdath, well done. It reads well & gets many points through that seem to have gone right over (or through ?) the heads of those at the AA.

One thing not mentioned in either letter is the discrimination in the new rates caused by the cc ratings. I can't see the AA ever agreeing with a cc based car levy, so why have they been quiet on this issue regarding bikes?
They should know as much as anyone that cc ratings are not the be-all and end-all of vehicle speed. 600cc for bikes is not a "BIG BIKE", and in many cases a smaller sport bike will out run a 1200cc or larger cruiser when it comes to speed.
As far as I'm concerned, the open road speed limit is 100kph, so any bike that can break this (which is obviously most) should all be in the same catagory

[p.dath]

a great letter pdath, well done. It reads well & gets many points through that seem to have gone right over (or through ?) the heads of those at the AA.

One thing not mentioned in either letter is the discrimination in the new rates caused by the cc ratings. I can't see the AA ever agreeing with a cc based car levy, so why have they been quiet on this issue regarding bikes?
They should know as much as anyone that cc ratings are not the be-all and end-all of vehicle speed. 600cc for bikes is not a "BIG BIKE", and in many cases a smaller sport bike will out run a 1200cc or larger cruiser when it comes to speed.
As far as I'm concerned, the open road speed limit is 100kph, so any bike that can break this (which is obviously most) should all be in the same catagory

Ixion posted a good break down of accidents by engine size, and found there was no statistical correlation between the two.

Your no more likely to have an accident riding a 100cc bike as you are ride a 2000cc bike.

[Waxxa]

excellent reply p.dath.

bloody brillant....:niceone:

[yachtie10]

Well done phil
I think their letter reads as having a them and us attitude
so good luck with trying to change from within
my membership has lapsed and im not prepared to pay them for the right to vote. Good luck though ill help if I can

[yachtie10]

For those who wish for an alternative to the AA
https://www.journeyon.co.nz/ is an option
It is run differently as it is per vehicle not per person (will suit some not others)
If you sign up online and put BRONZ in as promotional code you will get a 10% discount and BRONZ will get a $15 donation
I rang and talked to Nick Baker (0800 963000) about people with multiple vehicles and he said he is prepared to discount significantly for this scenario just give him a ring

Seems like a win win to me
Tell AA to phuck off and raise some money for BRONZ

[StoneY]

Good shit Yachtie

Will be calling them, and soon

[p.dath]

For those who wish for an alternative to the AA
https://www.journeyon.co.nz/ is an option
It is run differently as it is per vehicle not per person (will suit some not others)
If you sign up online and put BRONZ in as promotional code you will get a 10% discount and BRONZ will get a $15 donation
I rang and talked to Nick Baker (0800 963000) about people with multiple vehicles and he said he is prepared to discount significantly for this scenario just give him a ring

Seems like a win win to me
Tell AA to phuck off and raise some money for BRONZ

Do they actually do it themselves, or sub-contract it out to someone like the AA?

[yachtie10]

They tell me they do it themselves but I assume they must use contractors for the out of the way places
its part of star insurance but is independent i.e you dont need to insure with them

I didnt organise this just found out about it
not sure why BRONZ hasnt publicised it

[BMWST?]

Do they actually do it themselves, or sub-contract it out to someone like the AA?

bloody good wrok there mate.I am not 100 percent sure you should have been quite so open about "our scheme"

[p.dath]

I've had this further resonse from the AA:


Hi Philip. Thanks for your comments on full-funding and the original principles of ACC. As you are probably aware, ACC’s consultation was not reviewing the principles of the scheme, and our submission sought to represent the interests of the reasonable motorist and seek the best outcome under the current funding principles. However, Parliament are considering (and likely to pass) legislation which postpones the deadline for full-funding for 5 years and we were supportive of that although, again, the principle itself was not under review. We understand that full-funding is supported by both Labour and National so there is not likely to be support for repeal, it was introduced on several grounds including inter-generational equity and to avoid significant increases in levies in certain years when funds were short which was experienced in the mid-1980s and mid-1990s as the University of Auckland’s paper notes.

We appreciate your interest in wanting to meet with the AA Auckland district council, and while local districts have input into the formulation of AA policy, this is developed by the policy unit led by Mike Noon, General Manager Motoring Affairs (mnoon@aa.co.nz, ph. 931-9999). He regularly visits Auckland and so in the first instance you might prefer to meet with him or myself to discuss your views, and for us to explain the AA’s rationale to date and options going forward.

Please contact either of us if you’d like to arrange a meeting at a suitable time (after our office re-opens on 11 January).

[CrAzYMoFo]

+1 for sending out and questioning the AA

even if there position is a bit BS thoe

[bogan]

I've had this further resonse from the AA:

translation: we at the AA also sell insurance, we support National's agenda to privatize ACC as It means more money for us. Heres some BS excuse which we hope you will beleive and continue to use our services ..... blah blah blah.

Hey AA :finger: fuck you! Automobile advocates only when It doesnt clash with your own agendas.

[p.dath]

My response to the AA:


Did you know that in the 2008 period ACC collected $437 million for the motor vehicle account, and paid out $341 million? Yet ACC only put forward the question for consultation of how much everyone’s levies should be increased by. ACC had already decided on the conclusion, and the submission process was structured in such a way that supportive submissions were sought. To be honest, even if there had been no submission process the outcome is likely to have been unchanged. It was really just a formality.
http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/8-motor-vehicle-account/IS0800143

Considering ACC had around a $96 million surplus in the motor vehicle account, I ask you, would a reasonable motorist support increasing the levies for all motor vehicle account users? Does an increase in levies, for an account that has an operating surplus, really in the interest of AA members?

Note that $341 million is the sum of all claims *involving* motor vehicles, even if a motor vehicle was not at fault. Obviously because ACC is a no-fault system. As a result, you’ll see non-motorists included in those figures. For example, cyclists made up around $12.5 million. So if a cyclist hit a stationary car, injury the driver, then that gets included. That’s why it is important to remember when looking at figures from ACC to bear in mind they have been collected from the context of compensation, and not that of insurance (where you have to take the view of one party being at fault).

I would not concur that both major parties are in favour of full funding, especially Labour at this point in time. Let me direct your attention to the parliamentary Hansards:
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/a/c/d/49HansD_20091022_00000036-Questions-for-Oral-Answer-Questions-to-Ministers.htm
Hon David Cunliffe made these comments to Hon Bill English:
“Can he confirm that in the last year the accident compensation scheme made a cash surplus of around $2 billion, and that the only reason he is able to make the trumped-up claim of a crisis is, firstly, because the new chairman has marching orders to read every number according to the most conservative assumptions, and, secondly, because it is an ideological agenda of this Government to create a crisis in order to prepare the Accident Compensation Corporation for sale?”
David Cunliffe goes on to ask if the Government supports pre-funding superannuation. Should you need to pay for your retirement in the year of your birth?
We don’t pre-fund roading, or any other system within Government. Why should ACC be a special case?

The famous PWC report also came to the conclusion the ACC was not in “trouble”. It did note that forward liability under the “current accounting” principles. The issue is strictly a paper affair.

You mention the special case of inter-generational equity; in the long term (approximately one generation), the ongoing cost of ACC will be the same with or without pre-funding. As I said, we don’t pre-fund any other area of Government spending. If you were to adopt the view of inter-generational equity, then you would need to change the entire basis of Government revenue collection. There is no reason for ACC to be a special case.

When Woodhouse originally wrote his report he did an excellent job. But one area he did not provide sufficient information on was how large the reserve fund should be. This resulted in the events in the mid-80’s and mid-90’s that you have noted, where the reserve was allowed to run down. The size of the reserve needs to be large enough to survive a disaster or a generational recession. Different Governments had different views on the size of the reserve, which resulted in the roller coaster. It was by no means an indication that the system was broken. I have not researched this area personally, but I would think a reserve of around 24 months should be enough to cover most major disasters, and significant recessions.


And thank you, I would like to take up the opportunity to meet with Mike Noon after his return from his holidays during one of his visits to Auckland.

[pete376403]

Jeez Phil, you're making them think. Fight fair, will ya?

[p.dath]

Jeez Phil, you're making them think. Fight fair, will ya?

I was careful in this response not to mention the world "motorcycle". Hopefully this will divert their attention way from it appearing to be an issue with motorcyclists (which ACC has tried to create), back to that of being a "community" issue of how we find ACC, and the need (or lack thereof) for pre-funding.

[Okey Dokey]

Great thread, great letters, GREAT WORK! What an uphill battle we have on all fronts...thanks for the inspiration to carry on the fight for our ACC:sunny:

[p.dath]

I wrote to the AA requesting the AGM minutes. The most important bit to be is at the beginning. It says there was 120 members present.

This means if we got 100 bikers present we would be able to significantly altering any voting. For example, we could ask counsellors standing for election there views, and simply not vote into power anyone who does not support our cause.

There is also a reasonably chance we could make constitutional changes, forcing the AA to support motorcyclists.

[p.dath]

Below is a further response from the AA I have received. It is an invitation to meet with the AA's senior policy analyst and the General Manager of motoring affairs during the next couple of weeks in Auckland.

I think I should take up this opportunity, as these appear to be key decision makers within the AA.

Would perhaps someone from BRONZ care to join me? I think I know quite a few of the key points, but it would be great to have someone who knew the facts really well.


Hi Phillip,

Thanks for your email, I am back on Deck on the 11th and likely to be in Auckland the following week, so I will be in contact in the new year and let’s see if we can get together.

Plenty to discus and I would be pleased to test where we get to with the Minister Nick Smith following.

Kind regards

Mike


CC Mark, do you think you could arrange to be in Auckland as well?, tie in with a meeting with jack at technical maybe? , cheers m

[Ixion]

Meeting opened at 6pm. Closed at 6:35. Definately a rubber stamp. Which makes them easy to roll.

But anything controversial will have to be advised ahead of time.

The best approach, if the numbers are there , is to move a motion of no confidence in the chair of the meeting, immediately it opens.

[p.dath]

Meeting opened at 6pm. Closed at 6:35. Definately a rubber stamp. Which makes them easy to roll.

I've got the procedure for having items added to the agenda. I was thinking about adding a constitutional change, but that requires a lot of votes.

I could also have added to the agenda that the AA adopts the same view towards motorcyclists as it does towards car users, and gives them their full support. I could also try something simpler such as "advocate against an increase separate motorcycle ACC levies" or the like. Doesn't require as many votes, and would effect a policy change from the top.

[rwh]

I wrote to the AA requesting the AGM minutes. The most important bit to be is at the beginning. It says there was 120 members present.

This means if we got 100 bikers present we would be able to significantly altering any voting. For example, we could ask counsellors standing for election there views, and simply not vote into power anyone who does not support our cause.

There is also a reasonably chance we could make constitutional changes, forcing the AA to support motorcyclists.

It doesn't mention whether any proxies were held by those present. Do you know if the rules allow for that?

Richard

[Squiggles]

How evil... :devil2:

So when do they usually hold AGM's?

[p.dath]

It doesn't mention whether any proxies were held by those present. Do you know if the rules allow for that?

Richard

Yes, proxies are allowed.

[p.dath]

How evil... :devil2:

So when do they usually hold AGM's?

End of February. Has to be advertised before hand.

[Nick from the nick]

Ok I know its not really going to make a difference but how many of use have private health cover (i do southen cross) and yes it covers me if i do bin the bike, oh yes and not only that i also have full cover on my insurance so that covers not only me but anyone or anything i might damage/hurt/kill if i do bin the bike. So just a simple question as i'm paying for all this cover else where will i be allowed discount on my share of this BS$77 figure if not sod it i'll cancel everything and rely on ACC. It could be worth asking the AA what their views are on private health cover and insurance as surely if you have both you'll not be needing ACC so why do i have to pay the levy

[jeffs]

Ok I know its not really going to make a difference but how many of use have private health cover (i do southen cross) and yes it covers me if i do bin the bike, oh yes and not only that i also have full cover on my insurance so that covers not only me but anyone or anything i might damage/hurt/kill if i do bin the bike. So just a simple question as i'm paying for all this cover else where will i be allowed discount on my share of this BS$77 figure if not sod it i'll cancel everything and rely on ACC. It could be worth asking the AA what their views are on private health cover and insurance as surely if you have both you'll not be needing ACC so why do i have to pay the levy


Sucks doesn't it :(

ACC is like a big get out of jail free card for other insurance companies collecting your money.



End of February. Has to be advertised before hand.


I for one would like yo be informed of the date of the AGM ( when you know it ). I have cancelled my insurance with the AA, but have still kept my membership so I can heckal at the AGM :)

[p.dath]

Ok I know its not really going to make a difference but how many of use have private health cover (i do southen cross) and yes it covers me if i do bin the bike, oh yes and not only that i also have full cover on my insurance so that covers not only me but anyone or anything i might damage/hurt/kill if i do bin the bike. So just a simple question as i'm paying for all this cover else where will i be allowed discount on my share of this BS$77 figure if not sod it i'll cancel everything and rely on ACC. It could be worth asking the AA what their views are on private health cover and insurance as surely if you have both you'll not be needing ACC so why do i have to pay the levy

No medical insurance in NZ covers you for the ACC "portion" of the accident. They only pay for what ACC doesn't. If ACC pays for the whole lot, they pay you nothing.

The difference with private cover is that instead of waiting 12 months to get an operation to correct an issue, you can usually go to a private hospital and get it down straight away.

[White trash]

Mr Dath, much as I think you're a complete numpty for previous comments you've made on other issues, I've gotta say you've certainly got the bull by the horns on this one.

Good on ya man, keep it up. Fricken fantastic work sir.

[FLUB]

I just love a cunning plan :2thumbsup My AA membership is current and if your plan goes ahead you can count on my presence and my vote at the AGM. Well done.

[p.dath]

For those that have been following this thread, the two most senior policy advisors for the AA are flying from Wellington to Auckland to meet with me next Thursday (21/1/2010). These were the actual people that decided for the AA to support increasing motorcycle ACC levies.

I'm keenly looking forward to meeting with them. I don't know how open they are, but hopefully I'll at least manage to sow some seeds of doubt in their mind about their blatant and total trust in what ACC tell them. I'm hoping to turn their viewpoint from being a car versus bike issue, to being a motorist versus ACC issue. I'm hoping to make then supportive of all motorists.
I know I'm probably a dreamer - but if no one actually talks to them and asks questions of them then there is no chance of change.

I'm guessing they probably haven't met with too many actual motorcycle members face to face.

I have also got a meeting with the Auckland District Area Manager the same day. I'm going to see his opinion on motorcyclists and ACC first. I'm expecting a negative reaction. Then I'm planning on discussing the mechanics of the upcoming elections, and putting forward that I may actively vote and seek proxies of other motorcycle riders to vote against any councillor standing for election who is not supportive of all motorists.
The district councils have input into the overall board, so my shaping who stands at the grass roots I'm hoping we might be able to "shape" the AA.

I'm also still seriously considering putting forward a motion at the AGM that the AA actively support motorcyclists and other motorists in a positive and supportive manner when developing policy, and that the board take sufficient steps to ensure this outcome.
I would need about 100 motorcyclist AA members (or their proxies) to come along to the AGM to be confident of voting in this motion.

Once again, probably dreaming. But even if it just gives them a hell of a fright (an uprising within the membership) I can't see anything bad happening.

[bogan]

good on ya, hope next thurs goes well. With regard to the proxies, what the procedure for giving a proxy? as I have some family who are AA (im not) who may like to give a proxy vote for bikers.

[mister.koz]

Nice one dude, attacking it like a rottie with a bone.

I wonder how all of these high people in high places will feel when they realise that the statistics and policy jargon they have been parroting is wrong...

Perhaps that's an angle "How do you feel about putting your hand of your heart and parroting false information to the country?"

I am an aa member and i have insurance with them, i am in hams and would like to support if i can.

[p.dath]

The best approach, if the numbers are there , is to move a motion of no confidence in the chair of the meeting, immediately it opens.

Forgive my ignorance. What would the effect be if such a motion was carried?

[jeffs]

For those that have been following this thread, the two most senior policy advisors for the AA are flying from Wellington to Auckland to meet with me next Thursday (21/1/2010). These were the actual people that decided for the AA to support increasing motorcycle ACC levies.
.



In you meeting will you be discussing the fact that the UK AA advicate for bikers, and their insurance arm recognise that the car on bike rate is approx 80% ( more cars in the uk).

Quote: Simon Douglas, director of AA Insurance, says: "Tragically, 80% of all motorcycle accidents are the fault of road users other than the motor cyclist. For car and commercial vehicle drivers it's very easy to miss seeing an approaching motorbike, especially in congested areas."

I for one have moved my insurance away from AA, and at the time of moving it advised that their stance on bikes was the reason.

Funny though, the new insurance company I am with use the AA for breakdown recovery as part of my insurance. LOL

[p.dath]

In you meeting will you be discussing the fact that the UK AA advicate for bikers, and their insurance arm recognise that the car on bike rate is approx 80% ( more cars in the uk).

I'm probably going to try and avoid a discussion that pitches motorcyclists against car drivers. I don't want to develop a them versus us attitude. I want a unifying discussion so that they represent all motorists equally against the ACC increases. I want the AA to fight the Government, not us!

[jeffs]

I'm probably going to try and avoid a discussion that pitches motorcyclists against car drivers. I don't want to develop a them versus us attitude. I want a unifying discussion so that they represent all motorists equally against the ACC increases. I want the AA to fight the Government, not us!

I do understand, but it is better to be armed when in your meeting. This may be your agenda, but if AA are "Flying in 2 people", they will have there own agenda.

Just do not loose sight of the facts

AA have already been very active in lobbying for the shift of ACC levies to be moved onto bikes, or you would not require to have a meeting.

AA are primarily funded by cars, to them it is better to loose the bikes than the cars.

AA are reading this thread.

So " Hello AA :) "

[Ixion]

Forgive my ignorance. What would the effect be if such a motion was carried?

Well, it depends on how experienced the chairman is. A very experienced chairman will handle it correcttly. But usually (almost always) the chairman panics, because he has never experienced such a motion. The end result is that the meeting either falls apart or, the party that moved the motion get to elect a new chairman (depending on numbers). If you have enough numbers to carry the motion, then you get to chair the meeting (or appoint the chair). if your motion is defeated - though often trhe chairman doesn't even know how to put such a motion to the vote- , you have crippled the existing chairman . At the very elast you have made an absoltely unmistakable statement.

Of course, it is folly to make such a motion unless you have strong backing, enough to carry it, or at least come close. Which can be tricky if there are proxies. But, most proxies simply go for appointing "the chairman of the meeting" as their proxy. And the chairman can't vote, or vote his proxies, in a motion of no confidence in himself . So such a motion can be a good tactic if you are faced with a meeting where you will always be outvoted by proxies.

[p.dath]

I had my meeting this morning with the senior policy analyst and the general manager of motoring affairs this morning. I have to say I entered the meeting expecting that I would achieve nothing. I thought the AA would be firmly entrenched in their position.

I'm happy to say I walked away with a positive attitude, as I feel I have actually given them pause for thought, and they indicated they were going to working on some of the issues I have raised.

I started the meeting by saying I was not a representative of the motorcycling community, but that the view I hold is also held by a lot of others in the motorcycling community. I told them that the motorcycling community was disappointed with the response from the AA, and felt the policy choices by the AA had acted against the motorcycling community.

The meeting lasted for an hour, and that was pretty much solid talking by both parties. I'll try and summarise the major bits. So much was talked about. They bought up lots of numbers, but luckily I had studied up the prior two nights on a lot of the statistics released by ACC. I was able to counter a lot of the numbers mentioned, or at least cast doubt on them. Weather they believed me or not, by the end of the meeting I think I gave them considerable pause for thought on information that has been released by ACC.

I spoke for sometime on the Woodhouse report, and the community values. I think I have almost completely turned them on the issue of pre-funding. They told me they were meeting with Nick Smith (ACC minister) tomorrow, and would talk to him about the continued need for pre-funding. They said they had invited someone from Ulysses to the meeting, and would like to invite another motorycycle related group along, but weren't sure who to approach. So if someone from BRONZ is interested in attending ministerial meetings in Wellington along with the AA and Ulyses, put your hand up and I'll put you in contact with the right people.
Now your probably thinking they are just going to mention this to the minister. I'm pretty confident they are going to take it further, and I think there is a very good chance this will become a formal policy of the AA (it has to go before the national board before this can happen). Expect to see some press on this issue during 2010.

I spoke to them about how I felt there the costs of ACC should be shared equally by all. I said the risk assessment system should be dropped. Anything that looks like insurance should be gotten rid of. They said that the risk assessment is enshrined in law now, and that it would be difficult to change. They were reluctant on this one, but said if they could get pre-funding dropped, then they would take another look at this one.
I did point out that if pre-funding was dropped then all motorists could have an ACC cut immediately.

We spoke a lot about taxes, enforcement, education. I said I personally opposed solutions where the Government tried to tax a problem out of existence (tickets, fees, etc). They already have the same view. I said I was very much in favour of education to solve issues instead. They told me they held the same view, and had already been working on the issue with the Government. They are pushing the Government to offer subsidised advanced rider/driver training courses. I told them with regard to rider training, that it is unlikely that a commercial operator could make money from it, and hence I didn't think we would get many people entering the market. I suggested to them that perhaps the AA (being a non-profit group) could consider offering nation wide rider training. They didn't say no, but weren't keen on it, but are going to take it under advisement. I say put your money where your mouth is if your preaching it ... haha.


I spoke to them about the AGM in March, and asked them how they feel if I made some motions that forced the AA to adopt policies, such as a return to the Woodhouse principles. He didn't look so happy about this idea, but said if such a motion was made and carried by the members at the AGM then they would abide by it.

He said three of the AA districts already want a return to the Woodhouse principles. If a few more districts come on board then they would probably adopt the policy (which also means all motorists paying the same equal share of ACC).

I spoke about collection of ACC levies. The AA is of the opinion that the fees should be mostly levied against Petrol, and a tiny bit against the rego. I'm happy with that.

I told them I would be in further contact to ask about their progress on the issues I have mentioned.


So much was talked about. If more comes back to my memory I'll make some other posts. I think that was all the major bits.

[MSTRS]

Well done. That sounds very encouraging. I especially like the bit about some districts already calling for a return to Woodhouse.
Of course, the cynical view would be that 'they' had their fingers crossed behind their backs...

[Pedrostt500]

Well done, though I do have a feeling of skeptsisium about their, saying / doing much or anything at all on the behalf of motorcyclists.
I would rather see Motorcycle Clubs, be certified to do advanced rider training courses than the AA, ie at least the Motorcycle clubs have a genuine interest, where in my mind the AAs intrest is doubtful at best.
As for another representitve for their meeting PM Stoney or Nasty, though this may be to short a notice.

[kb_SF1]

Excellent result and good report, you are to be congratulated on your reasoned approach and ability to put the case directly to those who have some influence on the decision makers.
Your plan to raise issues and motions at AGMs will have got their attention and to have 2 people fly up to meet with you instead you have ing to go and meet them shows how serious the AA are taking you and the issues you have raidsed.
Please keep us informed, a good news story is alway welcome.:woohoo:

[caseye]

pdath you deserve high praise for what you have already achieved, largely on your own.
Now i'd like to say to all KB'ers and those who are intereseted enough, It's time to get off our collective backsides and get behind this and other iniatives actioned by ordinary folk such as pdath.
Not to take anything away from BRONZ, and all the other tireless people who have got us this far in the fight against unfair ACC Levies and a total undermnining of the ACC's fundamental core business. Accident Compensation
Iixion of BRONZ suggested sometime ago that as many KB'ers and motorcyclists as can, should join/rejoin the AA with the intention of fighting their apparent anti motorcycle ideas with our own people installed in the top echelons of the AA.
From what pdath has come back to us with after his meeting with top level AA officials it would seem that this is not an unachieveable goal.
I recently rejoined the AA, my wife a new biker is also a full 20 plus year member , we know other motorcyclists who are members.We will be doing whatever we can to help pdath take his case further from now on.
I/we will continue to do everything else we can too with regards to their continued fight against ACC and National.

[jeffs]

So much was talked about. If more comes back to my memory I'll make some other posts. I think that was all the major bits.




Good work pdath

In your talk was there any acknowledgment that AA NZ accepted the main incident rate was Car on bike ? Whoever's statistic you use it is still over 50%

Unless they are willing to acknowledge this, like the UK have, they will not push for Car driver education.

Bike Rider education is very important, but it must be in conjunction with car driver education, or you will not substantially reduce accident rates.

I am not denying that bikes have accidents that do not involve cars, and a lot of those are very high profile.
But only focusing on rider education, and that rider education may have poor take up, means that if the accident rate does not reduce nothing changes.

[p.dath]

Good work pdath

In your talk was there any acknowledgment that AA NZ accepted the main incident rate was Car on bike ? Whoever's statistic you use it is still over 50%

They have a different number, but I only devoted about 30s of the discussion to the number itself. They do accept that cars are responsible for a large number of the accidents.

I also told them that the average ACC bill for a motorbike accident is less than a car accident, and reminded them if they are doing comparisons they need to take this lower cost into account.


Unless they are willing to acknowledge this, like the UK have, they will not push for Car driver education.

Funny you should say that. They spoke about the UK system a bit, and definately favour that model.

They said their vision is to have 5 star riders/drivers on 5 star machines on 5 star roads. And when they formulate policy it is towards achieving those three aims.

They are very pro driver/rider education. They feel there should be an education program *after* someone gets their learner licence. They also feel there should be advanced driver/rider programs that people can attend. They gave me some figures (from the UK I think) that showed people who had attended additonal advanced training had lower accident rates.

[p.dath]

I would rather see Motorcycle Clubs, be certified to do advanced rider training courses than the AA, ie at least the Motorcycle clubs have a genuine interest, where in my mind the AAs intrest is doubtful at best.

Funnily enough, that is exactly what the AA thought. They consider that motorcycle clubs would be better positioned to offer advanced courses of real value.

Pragmatically, do you think 50 motorcycle clubs across NZ would approach the Government in a unified manner to get funding approved for their courses - or a single nationwide body with the AA who employes their own political lobyists?
That is what I put to the AA. I think that unless the AA starts the ball rolling on this one it wont happen. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to communicate with (say) 50 clubs, versus one organisation.

Perhaps if Motorcycling NZ got into the picture - but they are very racing focused, which is bound to give the Government shivers (racing group running road rider training!).

[MSTRS]

They are very pro driver/rider education. They feel there should be an education program *after* someone gets their learner licence. They also feel there should be advanced driver/rider programs that people can attend. They gave me some figures (from the UK I think) that showed people who had attended additonal advanced training had lower accident rates.

This is good. But why haven't they thrown those figures at TPTB, who claim Advanced driver training is bad?

[FastBikeGear]

P.dath brilliant work!

[p.dath]

This is good. But why haven't they thrown those figures at TPTB, who claim Advanced driver training is bad?

I don't know if they have or haven't. We talked about a lot of things at the meeting, but I primarily wanted to talk about ACC, so I didn't let them dwell on other subjects too much.

You might be interested to know that the AA isn't happy with the quality of NZ roads either, and in particular tar bleed. Alas I told them we didn't have time to discuss the quality of roading in NZ as we might be there for the rest of the day.

[MSTRS]

... the AA isn't happy with the quality of NZ roads either...

Is anyone? :shit:
Seems their concerns are not diametrically opposed to our own...

[p.dath]

Is anyone? :shit:
Seems their concerns are not diametrically opposed to our own...

Yes, I suspect I may have started a ball rolling by simply talking to them.

[duckonin]

I do understand, but it is better to be armed when in your meeting. This may be your agenda, but if AA are "Flying in 2 people", they will have there own agenda.

Just do not loose sight of the facts

AA have already been very active in lobbying for the shift of ACC levies to be moved onto bikes, or you would not require to have a meeting.

AA are primarily funded by cars, to them it is better to loose the bikes than the cars.

AA are reading this thread.

So " Hello AA :) "

Yes but most bike riders have cars, and confusion sets in when the biggest number of accidents and injurys are created or caused by motor vehicles so why would AA take a stance against bikes?..

[jeffs]

Yes but most bike riders have cars, and confusion sets in when the biggest number of accidents and injurys are created or caused by motor vehicles so why would AA take a stance against bikes?..

Because the world is a big screwed up place, full of people with personal agendas :) Sucks doesn't it :(

AA's view is simple.

ACC want to increase the money they charge car drivers, AA think that this is partly due to Car levies subsidizing bike accidents. So if you stop subsidizing bikes, AA naively seem to think ACC levies would be reduced on cars.

The fact that cars in part knock bikers off is a factor best ignored if you only advocate for cars as AA do at this time.

So the sum is simple, for both the AA and ACC. If there are no bikes there are no bikers to knock off.


Pdath is attempting to educate AA about the real world :) The one were a lot of their members ride bikes, and don't like AA's stance.

[Berries]

....was there any acknowledgment that AA NZ accepted the main incident rate was Car on bike ? Whoever's statistic you use it is still over 50%

.........Bike Rider education is very important, but it must be in conjunction with car driver education, or you will not substantially reduce accident rates.

The crash rate will never reduce unless we get our own house in order and stop pushing the blame on to car drivers. Yes, they may be the cause of a number of bike crashes, but how many of them could have been avoided by the rider ? Lots in my opinion. Never seen that 50% stat before, where's that from ?

Soory for butting in, nice work p.dath.


They said their vision is to have 5 star riders/drivers on 5 star machines on 5 star roads.
That's taken directly from the Safer Journeys/2020 proposals, although misses the fourth one - 5 star roads with 5 star speed limits, pointing to a return to speed zoning and the introduction of lower speed limits on both urban and rural roads.

[jeffs]

The crash rate will never reduce unless we get our own house in order and stop pushing the blame on to car drivers. Yes, they may be the cause of a number of bike crashes, but how many of them could have been avoided by the rider ? Lots in my opinion. Never seen that 50% stat before, where's that from ?



Interesting, this seems to be quite a common thread in kiwi biker.

A lot of people on this site seem to think the only way of reducing bike crash rates is to train the bike riders.

Well, education of bikers will reduce the crash rate, and its a bloody good start. But if you believe that by education, a biker will be able to avoid all accidents, then sorry you are wrong ( and I don't believe that is what you really do think :) )

You are right 50% is a silly made up number, AA's own figures in the UK state the rate at 80%. FACT look at their UK WEB SITE. Unfortunately you will find no similar statment on the NZ AA site.

I used this low 50% just to make a point, as the real number is not collected in the ACC stats.

If we used the UK stats then training riders would reduce the accident rates, but training car drivers would have a greater effect.

This is not pushing blaim on cars, this is just maths :)

[p.dath]

That's taken directly from the Safer Journeys/2020 proposals, although misses the fourth one - 5 star roads with 5 star speed limits, pointing to a return to speed zoning and the introduction of lower speed limits on both urban and rural roads.

Funny you should mention speed limits, as we discussed that briefly as well. The AA thinks there should be changes in this area as well. I don't recall the specifics of that conversation (I really just wanted to discuss ACC), but the jist of it is they feel the focus on using speed to achieve safety on somes roads wont achieve the desired outcome, leads to the use of inappropriate ticketing (aka, trying to tax a problem out of existance), and that some roads could have high speed limits.

They pointed to the recent survey that found the average speed on open roads was now 94km/h (could be wrong, but close to that), and say that even though the average speed has been reduced the accident rate has not.

They said you also need to look at driver education and roading (aka tar bleed, engineering, etc) - and not just consider speed on its own.

Don't quote me on this, but I think that was the jist of what they were saying. As I say, I mostly wanted to discuss ACC, so didn't dwell on the subject.

[p.dath]

That's taken directly from the Safer Journeys/2020 proposals, although misses the fourth one - 5 star roads with 5 star speed limits, pointing to a return to speed zoning and the introduction of lower speed limits on both urban and rural roads.

Funny you should mention speed limits, as we discussed that briefly as well. The AA thinks there should be changes in this area as well. I don't recall the specifics of that conversation (I really just wanted to discuss ACC), but the jist of it is they feel the focus on using speed to achieve safety on somes roads wont achieve the desired outcome, leads to the use of inappropriate ticketing (aka, trying to tax a problem out of existance), and that some roads could have high speed limits.

They pointed to the recent survey that found the average speed on open roads was now 94km/h (could be wrong, but close to that), and say that even though the average speed has been reduced the accident rate has not.

They said you also need to look at driver education and roading (aka tar bleed, engineering, etc) - and not just consider speed on its own.

Don't quote me on this, but I think that was the jist of what they were saying. As I say, I mostly wanted to discuss ACC, so didn't dwell on the subject.

[p.dath]

The crash rate will never reduce unless we get our own house in order and stop pushing the blame on to car drivers. Yes, they may be the cause of a number of bike crashes, but how many of them could have been avoided by the rider ? Lots in my opinion. Never seen that 50% stat before, where's that from ?

When speaking with the AA I was careful not to use arguments that attribute blame. That's how we got into this problem in the first place, because ACC managed to pitch one group of users against another.

And funnily enough, what is best for bikers is actually best for all road users (and the AA *does* like an outcome which is better for everyone).
For example, going back to the Woodhouse principles (and dropping pre-funding) results in the ACC and engine classificatoin fee being dropped - but it also means *every* road user gets an immediate ACC fee cut. How can they say no to that?

I told the AA we need to drop the "what's best for me" attitude, which is how me got into the "what's best for car drivers" (which is to screw over bikers) issue, and consider what's best for the community - as in all road users. It's the community that pays for the road network for the communities benefit.
I think they like this viewpoint. It's broad, and results in the best outcome for all AA members - not just the car users. And when they get some disgruntled car driver ringing up, it's something you can explain easily as well.

The AA also pointed out that their membership consists of not only car drivers, but also bikers, cyclists, truck drivers, pedestrians - all manner of road users. Once again, I think this is why they liked the community view of things I put to them.

[p.dath]

You are right 50% is a silly made up number, AA's own figures in the UK state the rate at 80%.

They mentioned this number in the meeting as well. I told them, in the context of ACC, not to focus on just the accident rates. I said what makes the difference if the cost of the accidents to ACC - as opposed to the number of accidents (number of accidents on its own is a misleading statistic in the context of ACC).

The fact of the matter is that motorcycle accidents are cheaper on average than car accidents. This means that although we have a higher accident rate, the effect is not as high as it might seem on ACC.

[Pedrostt500]

Funnily enough, that is exactly what the AA thought. They consider that motorcycle clubs would be better positioned to offer advanced courses of real value.

Pragmatically, do you think 50 motorcycle clubs across NZ would approach the Government in a unified manner to get funding approved for their courses - or a single nationwide body with the AA who employes their own political lobyists?
That is what I put to the AA. I think that unless the AA starts the ball rolling on this one it wont happen. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to communicate with (say) 50 clubs, versus one organisation.

Perhaps if Motorcycling NZ got into the picture - but they are very racing focused, which is bound to give the Government shivers (racing group running road rider training!).

My thinking was more in the line of Motorcycle Clubs like HOG, Ulysseys, WIMA, & even BRONZ, being able to have riding instructors with in their clubs, who can offer riding training / education, Not nessisarily the likes of the racing clubs though the would be the best in the lines of an advanced riders course, so I wouldn't count them out.

[p.dath]

My thinking was more in the line of Motorcycle Clubs like HOG, Ulysseys, WIMA, & even BRONZ, being able to have riding instructors with in their clubs, who can offer riding training / education, Not nessisarily the likes of the racing clubs though the would be the best in the lines of an advanced riders course, so I wouldn't count them out.

Yeah, I think that might work. If the Government only has half a dozen entities to deal with. I know Ulysseys attended the ACC meeting with the AA. I would say the more groups that join in those meeting and band together, the more likely the outcome would be.

[Conquiztador]

Yeah, I think that might work. If the Government only has half a dozen entities to deal with. I know Ulysseys attended the ACC meeting with the AA. I would say the more groups that join in those meeting and band together, the more likely the outcome would be.

What the Government does when it comes up with a job they need done is to tender it out. You can subscribe to the mailouts. If they wanted someone to run rider/driver education they would have to tender it out. It is then open for all and anyone to reply to the tender and try to win it.

[p.dath]

For those following my AA thread; I've had some more communications from the AA. This one is probably more interesting than most, as it signals to me some intent.

They are still being very cautious, but I think they are starting to make the right sounds. They haven't fully committed to abolishing pre-funding, but I think they are now seriously investigating the effects of pre-funding, and personally I think some more research in this area might be a good thing. Nothing like having some numbers when talking to Government.


...although as we have indicated we are meeting with both National and Labour to ascertain their position and to signal that the AA would like the debate opened up as to whether full-funding is appropriate.

We have meetings arranged with Nick Smith on 18 February and David Parker on 24 February to discuss this, and we will also be meeting with ACC to gather data on cost projections of future annual motor vehicle levies under a pay-as-you-go funding model versus full-funding. We are interested in understanding what the future levies will be as the scheme matures and the liabilities ACC have identified fall due, as in the short term there is no doubt a move away from full-funding will reduce ACC levies as you suggest, but we have not seen any data on long-term levy projections under either model. One of the flaws in the ACC levy consultation is they only project liabilities and necessary income over a 10-year period (although they estimate lifetime claim costs), which means we have no idea how much income they need to collect annually, either under full-funding or pay-go, beyond that 10 year period and it would be prudent to model this to compare annual motor vehicle levies under both scenarios not just in the medium term but longer term as claim costs are expected to continue rising. Under the full-funding model levies were expected to fall once the deadline was met (now some time after 2019), so it will be interesting to track this against levies under pay-as-you-go which will be more likely to continue rising, albeit off a smaller base.

[p.dath]

This is the major part of my reply:


I’m sure your researchers are very good, but please make sure when looking at the long term future costs they consider the distribution of the aging population (I’ve had this discussion many times before with people).
If you look at the accident statistics you’ll see that those over the age of about 55 are less prominently figured. So I expect that as the baby boomer generation move into this age bracket, you’ll find the actual number of accidents start to reduce, and hence the financial cost of ACC. However I personally “guess” that this group of users will continue to own registered vehicles, so the motor vehicle account is not likely to suffer a sudden reduction in income. So less expenses, same income.

[p.dath]

This is the major part of my reply:


I’m sure your researchers are very good, but please make sure when looking at the long term future costs they consider the distribution of the aging population (I’ve had this discussion many times before with people).
If you look at the accident statistics you’ll see that those over the age of about 55 are less prominently figured. So I expect that as the baby boomer generation move into this age bracket, you’ll find the actual number of accidents start to reduce, and hence the financial cost of ACC. However I personally “guess” that this group of users will continue to own registered vehicles, so the motor vehicle account is not likely to suffer a sudden reduction in income. So less expenses, same income.

[oldrider]

I had my meeting this morning with the senior policy analyst and the general manager of motoring affairs this morning. I have to say I entered the meeting expecting that I would achieve nothing. I thought the AA would be firmly entrenched in their position.

I'm happy to say I walked away with a positive attitude, as I feel I have actually given them pause for thought, and they indicated they were going to working on some of the issues I have raised.

I started the meeting by saying I was not a representative of the motorcycling community, but that the view I hold is also held by a lot of others in the motorcycling community. I told them that the motorcycling community was disappointed with the response from the AA, and felt the policy choices by the AA had acted against the motorcycling community.

The meeting lasted for an hour, and that was pretty much solid talking by both parties. I'll try and summarise the major bits. So much was talked about. They bought up lots of numbers, but luckily I had studied up the prior two nights on a lot of the statistics released by ACC. I was able to counter a lot of the numbers mentioned, or at least cast doubt on them. Weather they believed me or not, by the end of the meeting I think I gave them considerable pause for thought on information that has been released by ACC.

I spoke for sometime on the Woodhouse report, and the community values. I think I have almost completely turned them on the issue of pre-funding. They told me they were meeting with Nick Smith (ACC minister) tomorrow, and would talk to him about the continued need for pre-funding. They said they had invited someone from Ulysses to the meeting, and would like to invite another motorycycle related group along, but weren't sure who to approach. So if someone from BRONZ is interested in attending ministerial meetings in Wellington along with the AA and Ulyses, put your hand up and I'll put you in contact with the right people.
Now your probably thinking they are just going to mention this to the minister. I'm pretty confident they are going to take it further, and I think there is a very good chance this will become a formal policy of the AA (it has to go before the national board before this can happen). Expect to see some press on this issue during 2010.

I spoke to them about how I felt there the costs of ACC should be shared equally by all. I said the risk assessment system should be dropped. Anything that looks like insurance should be gotten rid of. They said that the risk assessment is enshrined in law now, and that it would be difficult to change. They were reluctant on this one, but said if they could get pre-funding dropped, then they would take another look at this one.
I did point out that if pre-funding was dropped then all motorists could have an ACC cut immediately.

We spoke a lot about taxes, enforcement, education. I said I personally opposed solutions where the Government tried to tax a problem out of existence (tickets, fees, etc). They already have the same view. I said I was very much in favour of education to solve issues instead. They told me they held the same view, and had already been working on the issue with the Government. They are pushing the Government to offer subsidised advanced rider/driver training courses. I told them with regard to rider training, that it is unlikely that a commercial operator could make money from it, and hence I didn't think we would get many people entering the market. I suggested to them that perhaps the AA (being a non-profit group) could consider offering nation wide rider training. They didn't say no, but weren't keen on it, but are going to take it under advisement. I say put your money where your mouth is if your preaching it ... haha.


I spoke to them about the AGM in March, and asked them how they feel if I made some motions that forced the AA to adopt policies, such as a return to the Woodhouse principles. He didn't look so happy about this idea, but said if such a motion was made and carried by the members at the AGM then they would abide by it.

He said three of the AA districts already want a return to the Woodhouse principles. If a few more districts come on board then they would probably adopt the policy (which also means all motorists paying the same equal share of ACC).

I spoke about collection of ACC levies. The AA is of the opinion that the fees should be mostly levied against Petrol, and a tiny bit against the rego. I'm happy with that.

I told them I would be in further contact to ask about their progress on the issues I have mentioned.


So much was talked about. If more comes back to my memory I'll make some other posts. I think that was all the major bits.

p.dath, you are earning my respect (whatever that may be worth) with the work that you are doing on our behalf with the AA and with very good feedback as well!

AA spokesman "Mike Noone" appears to me to be a one man anti motorcycle zealot and is the driver behind most of the attitudes expressed by AA.

Is this guy Noone really speaking for the AA?

Or has he just been using AA to advance his own agenda's? Perhaps it a question you could put to them!

Maybe this guy Noone needs some media focus to flush out that his "personal" agendas are actually harming the AA as an organisation!

Keep up the good work.

[p.dath]

AA spokesman "Mike Noone" appears to me to be a one man anti motorcycle zealot and is the driver behind most of the attitudes expressed by AA.

Is this guy Noone really speaking for the AA?

Basically the national board sets the policy for the AA, and they get their feedback from the district boards. Three district boards have already requested a return to the original Woodhouse principles. If more people attend the district meetings and ask their boards to also support it, then all of a sudden the AA will adopt that policy.
Mike and Mark then turn that into policy and try and make it happen. After meeting with the two of them I would not describe them as anti-motorcycle. I would say that perhaps they based a lot of decisions on info they got from ACC (and ACC painted a terrifying picture - and they had no reason to doubt ACC), and now that I have met with them they are now taking a step back, taking a look at the big picture, and starting to ask questions.

Hence they are now commissioning their own research into the pre-funding ACC issue (which has a direct result on motorcycle fees). Which means rather than listening to ACC they will now be actually looking into the issue themselves.

So it may not happen overnight, but I have a positive feeling something will happen. I am in full support of them conducting their own independent research into the issue. I suspect that the result will be a shift in policy from the AA. I would also be good to have numbers from someone else about the pre-funding decision to use.

[FatHead]

P.dath You Rock. I am so glad we have someone of your magnitude working for us in this. I am a 20+ year member of AA and have used their services for both Car and Bike problems and been happy with the service. I will remain a member and if required provide you my proxy vote to hit one of these meetings with the artillery you need. Go man GO

[caseye]

p.dath, remind us all when that meeting is, up here, so those of us who are both members of AA and bike riders can organise ourselves and go to it with you.Long may the dialogue continue with the AA members you have already spoken with.

[p.dath]

The Auckland District meeting is on the 22nd of February 2009 at 5:15pm at the AA Centre on 419 Great South Road, Penrose.

I don't intend to make any motions at this meeting, but in the general business section I want to raise the issue of opposing ACC pre-funding. There are 17 districts in the AA, and 3 currently support a return to the Woodhouse principles. I don't know if the Auckland region is one of them, but I intend to ask them.

Also two new councillors will be elected. At this stage, I am waiting to see if more than 2 people will stand for those positions. If so, I intend on asking them their positions. I only intend to vote for those supportive of a return to the Woodhouse principles.


The main AGM is in March (date unknown to me yet). After much deliberation I am current thinking I will not raise a motion, but will be attending. I was originally going to raise a motion to force a change in the AA policy - however after my meeting with the policy unit, they are now starting a research project into pre-funding. I fully expect that the research will find that their is no benefit to pre-funding, and that it should be abandoned.

I would prefer the AA came to this conclusion independently. If I make them adopt the policy then perhaps the research wont proceed.

I have seen no one perform a comprehensive investigation into ACC pre-funding (as in the effect over 50 years). It will make a very strong case if someone like the AA approach the Government with facts and numbers in hand - facts and numbers that even ACC don't have. The other thing is that will will provide some initial numbers by someone other than ACC - who few in our community trust.

The AA have also sent me a "progress" update, saying they have now met with National, Labour and the minister for ACC (Nick) and asked them their policies about this, and told them they would like a debate opened up as to weather NZ should continue with pre-funding.
The AA are being cautious, and still not openly supportive of a return to the Woodhouse principles, but I find the new research they say they are doing plus the fact they are openly telling people in positions of power they want the issue opened up to debate to be very encouraging.

[Lucyloo]

The Auckland District meeting is on the 23rd of February 2009 at 5:15pm at the AA Centre on 419 Great South Road, Penrose.


Are all AA members able to attend this meeting if they wish?
L.

[p.dath]

The Auckland District meeting is on the 23rd of February 2009 at 5:15pm at the AA Centre on 419 Great South Road, Penrose.


Are all AA members able to attend this meeting if they wish?
L.

Anyone who is a personal member of the Auckland district.

[Ixion]

Calendared.

[p.dath]

The Auckland District meeting is on the 23rd of February 2009 at 5:15pm at the AA Centre on 419 Great South Road, Penrose.

CORRECTION CORRECTION CORRECTION

The meeting is on the Monday the 22nd of February, not the 23rd.

[Lucyloo]

Great. I'll be there then.

[yachtie10]

Thanks for this work Phil
I would attend If i was still a memeber
Just to add my 2 cents
Prefunding is not a big issue to me but returning to original princeples is
Dont want to start a big debate in this thread just thought id mention it
Happy to help if I can

[jeffs]

http://www.aa.co.nz/about/issues/road-safety/Pages/Motorcyclists-and-motorists.aspx

XXXXXXXXXXXXX QUOTE FROM THE AA's Own website XXXXXXXXXXXXX

And its will posted !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So what has f***G changed ? ?????????????


A higher and fairer ACC levy for motorcyclists

The AA is opposed to the continuing cross-subsidisation of motorcycle/moped injuries by other vehicle owners.

Motorcyclists should pay a higher ACC levy that is closer to the actual amount of injury compensation they claim each year. Currently around 80 percent of the cost of motorcycle/moped injuries is funded by motorists and owners of other vehicles. More than 40 percent of motorbike crashes are single vehicle, and the costs for these should be fully covered by motorcyclists.

[jeffs]

Are you saying you will not raise the issue of the AA's public stance on lobbying for the increase of motorbike levies ? And the only question you will raise in the general principle of returning to the woodhouse principles ?

If this is the case, irrespective of any meetings you have has with the AA, I believe it is naive that given that they have not publicly retracted their stance, they would do so without any pressure applied.

If I can make it to the meeting I will, but I stand for the fact as an AA member I expect to have them protect me and my rights as a fee paying biker. Divide and condor is how we ended up being singled out in the first place, and this is what the AA did.

http://www.aa.co.nz/about/issues/road-safety/Pages/Motorcyclists-and-motorists.aspx

XXXXXXXXXXXXX QUOTE FROM THE AA's Own website XXXXXXXXXXXXX

And its will posted !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So what has f***G changed ? ?????????????


A higher and fairer ACC levy for motorcyclists

The AA is opposed to the continuing cross-subsidisation of motorcycle/moped injuries by other vehicle owners.

Motorcyclists should pay a higher ACC levy that is closer to the actual amount of injury compensation they claim each year. Currently around 80 percent of the cost of motorcycle/moped injuries is funded by motorists and owners of other vehicles. More than 40 percent of motorbike crashes are single vehicle, and the costs for these should be fully covered by motorcyclists.


--------------------------------------------------

The above Newzealand AA statement is in complete contradiction to the AA UK who understand that a lot of bikes get hit by cars.

Quote.
"Simon Douglas, director of AA Insurance, says: "Tragically, 80% of all
motorcycle accidents are the fault of road users other than the motor
cyclist. For car and commercial vehicle drivers it's very easy to miss
seeing an approaching motorbike, especially in congested areas."
http://www.theaa.com/insurance/news/born-again-motorbikers.html.

[jeffs]

Double post, I must still be angry with the AA :(

[caseye]

You must be.
p,dath has meet with some AA officials, they have indicated their willingnes to talk to him as a representative of motorcyclists (I'm guessing here, as a KB member, more so than a single rider) They have spoken at length with him already and have notified him of the progress they have made in looking into the things they discussed.
From what p.dath has told us so far, there does seem to be some positive things coming orm the initial discussions.
One step at a time and we may well see real change, for the moment though the current AA policy makers/press releasers will continue to make dicks of themselves.
Frustration makes us do lots of silly things, be frustrated with the AA, but please, let Phil keep at these guys and Do attend the Auckland AA AGM and support him and us there in person.
To everyone else who I'm sure are following this thread with interest, if you are not an AA Member, go sign up, a large physical presence of obviously motorcycle riders at their AGM will demonstrate to them that we mean business and we are prepared to come into their space and create change.
Keep up the good work p.dath.

[Big Col]

p.dath THANKYOU.

[p.dath]

Are you saying you will not raise the issue of the AA's public stance on lobbying for the increase of motorbike levies ? And the only question you will raise in the general principle of returning to the woodhouse principles ?

One of the founding Woodhouse principles is that the road network is a community network, and ACC should be funded equally by all road users. We as a country have moved away from the Woodhouse principles, introduced pre-funding, and that has bought about this risk rating concept.

The AA up to recently has not questioned the need for pre-funding or a return to the Woodhouse principles, and they are now doing this (and already 3 of the 17 districts are now wanting a return to the Woodhouse principles - and you can convert the rest by turning up to the meetings and telling them what you want as a member).

Should they determine through their research that pre-funding should go, and we should return to the original Woodhouse principles, then that knocks down a whole decks of cards. It also means there should be no risk assessment, separate classification of motorcycle cc ratings, etc.

So I'm only concentrating on the foundation of the issue. Everything else is a distraction at this point in time.

[jeffs]

So I'm only concentrating on the foundation of the issue. Everything else is a distraction at this point in time.

I think what you are doing is great, and good on you, but I see this differently.

AA are still publicly pushing for a greater rise in motor bike levies. This has not changed !!!!!

Until they pull their web page doing so, it is all talk.

Ignore this and you run the risk of missing the annual opportunity of voicing the AA paying bikers view.


Yes keep doing what you are doing, but it is not the only way.

Promises of looking in to change, is not a promise of change.

[Jonno.]

Hey mate, what are you doing?

The AA isn't going to change it's website with the drop of a hat.

Awesome work p.dath.

[jeffs]

Hey mate, what are you doing?

The AA isn't going to change it's website with the drop of a hat.

.

Here is what I am doing :)

I pay to be an AA member, as a member I have the right to ask them to remove the link ( listen to me or not it is my right ). If you believe the information on the link is correct,
then please by all means feel free to pay higher ACC levies.

I am in no way contradicting p.daths stand, and nor will my request stop d.path following his path.

But a lot of people stood up and protested ACC proclaiming the same facts, why is it wrong to ask the AA to also stop.

I do not pay for being a user of KB, so I can not demand anything of people on this site.

A lot of people seem to have forgotten that one of the main groups originally lobbying for the increase in ACC charges for motorbikes was the AA. It was with their help that the ACC believed they had the popular backing of the public.

[MisterE]

Have to hand it to d.path. This is great work. Getting the AA to do an about turn on bike levies will be a slap in the face for National on this issue.

If we really want to get the AA behind us I'd suggest our best course of action is to ensure that a proposal to return to the Woodhouse principles is passed at the next AGM.

You mentioned that 3 of the 17 districts are already committed to a return to the woodhouse principles. It seems fairly logical from here. What do we need to do to get more of the other districts on board and how do we ensure that the three who are already committed remain committed?

I live in Rodney district. If you can give me some more information about how the district structure works and how I can influence prior to the March AGM I am all go. I'll PM you separately with some contact details as I'd like to get a bit more information from you on this.

Can I suggest that anyone else who is behind d.path on this start on the same path. If we can get the right information to the right people this could work.

[p.dath]

For the Auckland District there are two positions up for election, and only two nominations. So their wont be a vote (I was hoping to be able to quizz those standing for election so that they are keenly aware there ability to get elected is affected by their attitude to motorcyclists).

However I intend to raise as a matter of general business (as it is officially referred to in the meeting agenda) the issue of ACC and pre-funding, and that I want the Auckland District to support a return to the founding principles of ACC. I'll probably raise this issue formally via email with the committee prior to the meeting, to avoid any procedural objections (not that I expect any issues).
Just a reminder not to expect anything big from a District Meeting. Districts individually don't have much of an impact. But the more districts that sing the same song the more likely policy will be influenced.
This wont be like a light bulb, where you can flick a switch and have a huge change in outcome.

The last date to raise a motion for the national AGM (motions have to be raised 30 days in advance) - where the real decisions get made, appears to be February 25th. I'm in the process of having this confirmed.

[p.dath]

Just had confirmation that the national AGM is being held on Thursday the 25th of March 2010 in Hamilton at the Sky City Hotel at 6.10pm.

Any motions have to be received 30 days prior to this.

[p.dath]

This is the map of AA districts in NZ.

[phred]

Just had confirmation that the national AGM is being held on Thursday the 25th of March 2010 in Hamilton at the Sky City Hotel at 6.10pm.

Any motions have to be received 30 days prior to this.

So without reading the whole thread to find out...As a paid up member of the AA I can attend the afore mentioned AGM in Hamilton and stick in my 10 cents worth in support of your motions correct?

[p.dath]

So without reading the whole thread to find out...As a paid up member of the AA I can attend the afore mentioned AGM in Hamilton and stick in my 10 cents worth in support of your motions correct?

Correct, but not sure there will be a need for a motion. However I am highly likely to attend. The AA have started saying to the political parties and ACC that it's time to question the need for pre-funding. They are also starting to research the long term effects, which will probably lead them to the conclusion that their is no need for pre-funding.

[oldrider]

Correct, but not sure there will be a need for a motion. However I am highly likely to attend. The AA have started saying to the political parties and ACC that it's time to question the need for pre-funding. They are also starting to research the long term effects, which will probably lead them to the conclusion that their is no need for pre-funding.

I still believe Tony Noone is the (dare I say it, so un-PC) the nigger in the wood pile!

I think he is the driver rather than the driven on this AA campaign against motorcycles.

Keep your eye on him P.dath, he (Noone) speaks with false teeth! :shifty: Keep up the good work. :niceone:

[Ixion]

It needs mention that the AA's anti-motorcycle campaign is not limited to the ACC issue. They prompted Transit to move to charge motorcycles tolls on the Nortern Tollway thingy, and every time there is a quote in the press from an AA spokesdriod it will have a putdown or sneer against bikes. It's not just ACC, they ahve a general ban-motorcycles agenda.

[What?]

It needs mention that the AA's anti-motorcycle campaign is not limited to the ACC issue..

All the more reason to attend the meetings. AA's position won't change unless driven by it's members.

[p.dath]

It needs mention that the AA's anti-motorcycle campaign is not limited to the ACC issue. They prompted Transit to move to charge motorcycles tolls on the Nortern Tollway thingy, and every time there is a quote in the press from an AA spokesdriod it will have a putdown or sneer against bikes. It's not just ACC, they ahve a general ban-motorcycles agenda.

I agree with you Ixion.

I've actually sent a bunch of other communications to them as well with regard to some of the press they have released, but didn't feel it was worthy of creating more threads about. I only wanted to focus on the ACC issue, as I think it is the biggest. And it affects more than just motorcylists. I have much stronger feelings about ACC because of the way they have brought the changes about (actually, I've completely U-turned on this issue from my original position because of comments you made which turned out to be true!).

I primarily want to use the AA as a tool to bring about "corrective" changes at ACC. But they are like a supertanker. They have been going full speed in one direction, and it's hard to turn them around. But I've been talking to the chief navigator, and I hope I think I have sown sufficient doubt into their mind to make them question the direction they are going in.
By no means are they won over. And they certainly aren't coming out in support of motorcylists at this stage. But I take the signs that they organised meetings with National and Labour and ACC (and even invited Ulyses along) and have said they want a debate on pre-funding of ACC to be opened up, and are now looking at doing their own independent research on the issue as recognition that perhaps the ACC system we have now is not as good as the original system that was introduced. I'm really only expecting one outcome from their research, which will almost certainly bind them to a specific outcome.

Personally I'm not getting my hopes up yet, but given time I'm hoping for an improvement. Maybe with more motrcylists showing up at district meetings and the AGM will send them a signal that the membership wants a change.

[p.dath]

p,dath has meet with some AA officials, they have indicated their willingnes to talk to him as a representative of motorcyclists (I'm guessing here, as a KB member, more so than a single rider)

This comment has bothered me for a while, so let me address it. While KB does have a membership, it is not a club or association. There are no elected representatives for those members.
But I do use KB to guage peoples feelings and thoughts. :)

When I speak or write to people I usually say I am a "concerned motorcyclist" or that I represent myself personally but that I believe my view to be held by many other motorcyclists.

[oldrider]

It needs mention that the AA's anti-motorcycle campaign is not limited to the ACC issue. They prompted Transit to move to charge motorcycles tolls on the Nortern Tollway thingy, and every time there is a quote in the press from an AA spokesdriod it will have a putdown or sneer against bikes. It's not just ACC, they ahve a general ban-motorcycles agenda.

Is it possible to retrieve and chronicle AA press releases, quotes etc and challenge them on their "measured" attack on motorcycles and motorcyclists?

If it is possible then can it be done and presented as a direct challenge at one or some of these meetings?

I feel these so called pillars of the AA and New Zealand motoring world need to be exposed publicly for exactly what they represent!

[Ixion]

I agree with you Ixion.

I've actually sent a bunch of other communications to them as well with regard to some of the press they have released, but didn't feel it was worthy of creating more threads about. I only wanted to focus on the ACC issue, as I think it is the biggest. And it affects more than just motorcylists. I have much stronger feelings about ACC because of the way they have brought the changes about (actually, I've completely U-turned on this issue from my original position because of comments you made which turned out to be true!).

I primarily want to use the AA as a tool to bring about "corrective" changes at ACC. But they are like a supertanker. They have been going full speed in one direction, and it's hard to turn them around. But I've been talking to the chief navigator, and I hope I think I have sown sufficient doubt into their mind to make them question the direction they are going in.
By no means are they won over. And they certainly aren't coming out in support of motorcylists at this stage. But I take the signs that they organised meetings with National and Labour and ACC (and even invited Ulyses along) and have said they want a debate on pre-funding of ACC to be opened up, and are now looking at doing their own independent research on the issue as recognition that perhaps the ACC system we have now is not as good as the original system that was introduced. I'm really only expecting one outcome from their research, which will almost certainly bind them to a specific outcome.

Personally I'm not getting my hopes up yet, but given time I'm hoping for an improvement. Maybe with more motrcylists showing up at district meetings and the AGM will send them a signal that the membership wants a change.

I agree, and I think a two pronged attack is in order. On the one hand, even though AA are anti-motorcycle (and not likely to change soon) it is in their own interests to support a change to the prefunding model 9well, the interests of their members, anyway, which is not quite teh same thing). So we can usefully prod them in that direction, because they have more clout to help bring it about than we do, and within that narrow context , we both want the same thing. If my enemy wants something that will also benefit me, it is worth supporting him, strictly on that issue.

The other prong has to be to pin them down on their general anti-motorcycling attitude. (in fact, it sometimes seems to be anti-motorist in general). And demand that they change, or at least explicitly admit that they do not represent motorcyclists , and that they are in fact diametrically opposed to motorcyclists interests. because at present the government (and ACC), not unnaturally think that AA represent us.

So I envisage a good cop - bad cop approach. See the next but one BRONZ column in Kiwirider.

[What?]

Sometimes I wonder if the AA knows what it's own agenda is. For example, in one edition of their magazine you find comments inferring that all vehicles older than 5 or 10 years should be off the roads (not safe, y'see...) as well as an article about someone who is in love with his Austin Westminster (or somesuch).
Of course, it could be some sort of admission that they do not represent their membership.

[caseye]

This comment has bothered me for a while, so let me address it. While KB does have a membership, it is not a club or association. There are no elected representatives for those members.
But I do use KB to guage peoples feelings and thoughts. :)

When I speak or write to people I usually say I am a "concerned motorcyclist" or that I represent myself personally but that I believe my view to be held by many other motorcyclists.

Didn't mean it to disturb you there p.dath.Good points though.KB can and most definitely should be used as a gauge of bikers concerns etc all the while not being a club/group,association .

[Pixie]

I have emailed all the lazy arse bikers I know asking them to provide their proxies.

I expect fuck all response

[p.dath]

I had a little poke today asking me what I'm doing at the moment with regard to the AA. I only tend to post the more important things.

The Auckland AA District meeting is this Monday (22/2/2010). I plan to go along, and have "warned" the council I would like to address them. Below is what I have said to the AA Auckland District secretary.


Hi Stephen.

I plan to attend the meeting this Monday. There may be half a dozen other motorcyclist AA members with me. It will all be very friendly. :-)

Anyway, I'd like 5 minutes to address the Auckland District Council in the general section of the business to speak about ACC and pre-funding, how it affects all motorists, and to request their consideration and support for a return to the original Woodhouse principles.

3 of the AA districts are supporting a return to the original Woodhouse principles, and I would like the Auckland District to join those ranks. I've spoken with Mike Moon and Mark Stockdale on the issue, and they are investigating it further at this point in time, but the more Districts that make noise about this matter the better.

Half a dozen motorcyclists will be attending, as motorcyclists initially wore most of the press on the issue. But as I said, this is an issue for all road users, and I'll be speaking to the council from that viewpoint.

[BMWST?]

It needs mention that the AA's anti-motorcycle campaign is not limited to the ACC issue. They prompted Transit to move to charge motorcycles tolls on the Nortern Tollway thingy, and every time there is a quote in the press from an AA spokesdriod it will have a putdown or sneer against bikes. It's not just ACC, they ahve a general ban-motorcycles agenda.
that may be so ,but if every motorcyclist whi is also an AA member stasrts to make a noise about these issues they will perhaps reconsider their position.They prolly think that "bikers" dont belong to the AA.

[caseye]

Hey there p.dath, I know you've posted it before but could you just tell us where and when, I want to be there to stand up with you.

[p.dath]

Hey there p.dath, I know you've posted it before but could you just tell us where and when, I want to be there to stand up with you.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/115064-Response-from-the-AA?p=1129635770#post1129635770


The Auckland District meeting is on the 22nd of February 2009 at 5:15pm at the AA Centre on 419 Great South Road, Penrose.


There you go. :)

[Lucyloo]

Just bumping this thread - the meeting is tonight for anyone that can attend.
L

[p.dath]

Just bumping this thread - the meeting is tonight for anyone that can attend.
L

I'll be wearing my work clothes, so dark coloured trousers with a black style t-shirt with an "IFM" logo on the front. Come say Hi if your a biker.

UPDATE:
The secretary tells me that
The meeting room is at the northern corner of the building.
They have said that the chairman will invite me to speak during the general business section of the meeting (which is near the end).

[Lucyloo]

I'll be there.
See you soon! :-)

[Waxxa]

I'm not an AA member p.dath but if you want some bikes sitting outside to help your statement I would be more than happy to park up...

[Ixion]

We are here. Where are y'all ?

[Squiggles]

We are here. Where are y'all ?

Trapped at work, vote for me

[Ixion]

Well, that was an hour in apathy central. Though as we could only muster 4 bikers, we can't talk.

No voting, it was all jacked up in advance. Two positions, two candidates- the same ones as retired!

The majority of advertising in the AA magazine is for stff like adult nappies, stair lifts, pills for arthritic hips and personal blood pressure monitors (not kidding). Based on the AA Auckland district council, I'd say the advertisers have got their market sussed.

[phred]

We are here. Where are y'all ?

So just fouind the date and time and place for the meeting. Fech! While I been looking for this info I coulda been there!

[p.dath]

The meeting today (22/2/2010) at the Auckland District AGM went as well as I expected (wasn't expecting much ...). The AA districts are primarily responsible for issues in their area rather than national issues, but each district has one councillor that is on the national council. This is why each district only has a small impact on AA policy.

I got 5 minutes to speak, so I stuck solely to the issue of ACC and pre-funding.

I succeeded in raising awareness of the issue with them. One of the councillors works in insurance and agreed there was no need for full pre-funding, which was a pleasant surprise (was thinking he was going to crucify me since he worked in the industry). Another councillor believed the myth that ACC is in dire financial straits, and I think he now understands why this is not the case.
Everyone was friendly enough. Most councillors seemed open to what I was saying.

Hopefully they'll go away and discuss it further behind closed doors. If the only thing they do is start asking why we have pre-funding, then the time would have been worthwhile. The more people who work for the AA that ask this question the greater the chance of getting the snow ball rolling.

[caseye]

Good work there p.dath.We were received cordially and with an openness that surprsied me.
After their in house business they invited Phil to take the floor.
He spoke to them primarily about the need to return the Auckland District of the AA's stance to one of backing a return to the Woodhouse princiipals and for asking the National council to back a call for the cancelling of the need to prefund the ACC.
In the main I think Phils words were meet with an open mind cetrtainly one or two members of the Auckland AA council were in agreement with Phil quite openly, one of these an Insurance Actuary.
p.dath has already done a lot of work on the AA's higher ups and he held his own well today, I'm glad I made the effort to go and support him.
FYI the Auckland District of the AA has a membership of 250,000.BUT NOT ONE OF THEM turned out to thier districts AGM, worse than KB'ers.
KB I suspect has quite a few paid up members of this district and of cousre many others, we need to become more proactive within our respective AA district councils and lets see if we can't open the door from within.

[p.dath]

Want to know something hilarious I just thought of.

Based on the poor turn out at the AGM, I could probably motion at the national AGM to transform the AA into NZ's largest motorcycle club ... now wouldn't that be hilarious.

[jeffs]

I am very sorry for being unable to turn up to yesterdays meeting ( as I said I would ), but I have been very busy in the last few days due to my company being taken over, and the issues to me there outweighed the meeting.

At least some turned up, and I do feel pained that I was unable to be on of them.

Thanks from a bike commuter for finding the time Phil.

[Lucyloo]

Thanks for letting us know about the meeting last night Phil and for the work you have done and are doing with the AA.
I have to admit that the meeting last night was the oddest AGM that I have ever been to - and I have attended a few. I don't think that they have ever had any members of the public turn up before and the fact that we had to leave after Phil had said his piece as the rest of the meeting was "closed" was unusual.
Anyway, I'm glad we went. At least now they know that there are some AA members that ride motorcycles and that have opinions.
I agree with Phil that if we really wanted to there would be an opportunity at the national AGM to have a bit of fun!
Thanks again Phil for your continued work.
L.

[Ixion]

Just occured to me. If that was an AGM, where was the treasurer's report ? That's the one thing that CANNOT legally be absent from the public part of an AGM. (and yes, holding ANY part of an AGM in camera is very unusual indeed).

And what is the quorum at those meetings I wonder?

Maybe I might go find their constitution and have a read.

[oldrider]

Well done you guy's!

Exceptionally well done P.dath, I think you have achieved more than all of the other actions combined!

The AA appears to be running on empty, a bit like BRONZ was before Ixion and Co gave it all a kick start again.

I am a bit surprised at the apathy of the Auckland KB members in support (or lack of) for Phil at the meeting.

That could actually be to advantage, if you get a big muster at the next meeting and give Phil the support to weave his magic and transform the AA to a bike club! :niceone:

[caseye]

Now wouldn't that be something! Great idea there oldrider.
Ixion, another good point, I;ve charied a few AGM's over the years and you are spot on with the treasurers report having to be read out during the public phase.
Hamilton could be very interesting, Phil, go on man put an amendment to them at the main AGM that the AA will represent all motorists equally irrespective of vehicle type.
I will be there too.

[caseye]

Now wouldn't that be something! Great idea there oldrider.
Ixion, another good point, I;ve charied a few AGM's over the years and you are spot on with the treasurers report having to be read out during the public phase.
Hamilton could be very interesting, Phil, go on man put an amendment to them at the main AGM that the AA will represent all motorists equally irrespective of vehicle type.
I will be there too.

[Usarka]

I am a bit surprised at the apathy of the Auckland KB members in support (or lack of) for Phil at the meeting.


Unfortuantely Auckland is the maori word for apathy.

[oldrider]

Unfortuantely Auckland is the maori word for apathy.

Auckland should change it's motto from "City of sails" to "City of indecision".

Indecision has always been Auckland's stand out feature! It's what they do best up there! :mellow: