TAC writeoffs in Oz [Archive] - Kiwi Biker forums

rastuscat

11th February 2010, 09:27

Miscreant

11th February 2010, 10:21

Chatted to a bloke from Oz recently. They don't have ACC, but they have a thing that provides insurance cover for injuries in crashes. Anyway, whatever.

He tells me that if you ride a bike without gloves and crash, suffering hand injuries, they refuse to cover the cost of the hand injuries due to them being your own damn fault.

Now, that's what I call personal accountability. Odd that we spend a lot of time expecting govt depts to be more and more accountable, when we continue to cause damage to ourselves (and yes, sometimes it's other peoples fault too, I'm well aware of that) and then expect the govt to pay.

Actually, it's not the govt who pays, it's the mug taxpayer.:woohoo:

Just my rant.

I don't get it. Why stop at wearing gloves? Why not stop paying if they aren't the best gloves available. Or better still. If they weren't riding a bike they probaly wouldn't have fallen off at all.
So they should stop paying for anyone riding a motorcycle as those thing are the ultimate in personal irresponsibility.
Makes good sense to me.

The Pastor

11th February 2010, 10:26

I don't get it. Why stop at wearing gloves? Why not stop paying if they aren't the best gloves available. Or better still. If they weren't riding a bike they probaly wouldn't have fallen off at all.
So they should stop paying for anyone riding a motorcycle as those thing are the ultimate in personal irresponsibility.
Makes good sense to me.

yeah if the gloves are more than 1 month old too, cos you know they degrade in sunlight.

MSTRS

11th February 2010, 10:29

I don't get it. Why stop at wearing gloves? Why not stop paying if they aren't the best gloves available.

Bugger off.
It's the fact that a rider doesn't take reasonable steps to protect themselves with gear that is the problem. I'd agree with ACC if they introduced a policy of diminishing cover amount dependent on gear worn. That is to say...no gloves=no cover for hand injury...nice cool t-shirt=no cover for upper body grazes etc.

Ixion

11th February 2010, 10:32

He tells me that if you ride a bike and crash, suffering injuries, they refuse to cover the cost of the injuries due to them being your own damn fault

It's the fact that a rider doesn't take reasonable steps to protect themselves by not riding those dangerous motorcycles that is the problem.

Not really the quotes, but the inevitable result. Since motorcycling is known to be more dangerous than driving a car, why should ACC be expected to cover the cost of injuries that are the injured person's own damn fault for delibertely doing something they know is dangerous.

Now that's what I call personal responsibility.

Going to be lonely out on the roads.

saxet

11th February 2010, 10:34

I have noticed alot of people riding without gloves of late. I can only assume they don't like themselves and their hands.

mashman

11th February 2010, 10:34

Yup and those guys that get shitfaced at the weekend and fuck up theirs and other peoples weekends... or perhaps the old, they're always falling over themselves, get rid of the old, especially if they have a recurring injury. Perhaps the emergency services should only attend any incidents that involve potential death, because death looks bad on the statistics... What if the guy can't afford to get his hands fixed? It's all going to be up to some insurance officer to decide, well a claims officer...

This is what will happen if ACC is privatised/sold/replaced with an insurance system... and I don't like it at all!

MSTRS

11th February 2010, 10:37

I suppose some of the posters in here refuse to wear a seatbelt when in a cage, due to it being against their principles of freedom of choice?
What happened to the choice of those who do wear one, having to contribute to fixing up the more serious injuries likely for the above?

mashman

11th February 2010, 10:38

Bugger off.
It's the fact that a rider doesn't take reasonable steps to protect themselves with gear that is the problem. I'd agree with ACC if they introduced a policy of diminishing cover amount dependent on gear worn. That is to say...no gloves=no cover for hand injury...nice cool t-shirt=no cover for upper body grazes etc.

Sorry. I gotta disagree with you there. Whilst the responsible thing to do is prescribe to ATGATT, what's the difference between a motorcycle crash and a bicycle crash??? they don't need to wear full body armour, and depending on the level of rider fitness they could well be both travelling at 50kph. How would you explain to the motorcyclist that you can't have your injuries treated because you weren't wearing gloves and yet the bicyclist next to you is getting treated... it just doesn't work!

MSTRS

11th February 2010, 10:44

Fair point. If my attitude seems unfair, well - ACC started it...

mashman

11th February 2010, 10:47

Fair point. If my attitude seems unfair, well - ACC started it...

ha ha ha, quickly, steal their lunch money!

tis just the potential "unfairness" that stops me from leaping aboard the good ship it's your own fault...

Ixion

11th February 2010, 11:00

Fair point. If my attitude seems unfair, well - ACC started it...

And yet you advocate the exact position that ACC use to put our levies up?

Motorcyclists' injuries cost more than we contribute, say ACC. Why should other road users have " to contribute to fixing up the more serious injuries likely for the above", they ask.

If you buy into the Woodhouse concept, then "it's your own fault, so you miss out" has no place.

Ixion

11th February 2010, 11:02

If a rider comes off on a corner and is injured, it's certainly his "own damn fault" . So, presumably, no ACC for him either ?

MSTRS

11th February 2010, 11:16

And yet you advocate the exact position that ACC use to put our levies up?

Motorcyclists' injuries cost more than we contribute, say ACC. Why should other road users have " to contribute to fixing up the more serious injuries likely for the above", they ask.

If you buy into the Woodhouse concept, then "it's your own fault, so you miss out" has no place.

No...I simply mean that riders should take all reasonable steps to protect themselves with 'proper' gear. The type, or severity, of injury in a subsequent off will like as not be determined by the gear worn. If a rider 'refuses' to wear, say, gloves, and suffers hand injuries as a result, then they should also suffer the responsibility of paying for that injury. Personal choice shouldn't come with a price tag picked up by others.
I do draw the line at the gear stage, though. Not paying for m/c injuries is a step too far.

Ixion

11th February 2010, 11:20

No...I simply mean that riders should take all reasonable steps to protect themselves with 'proper' gear. The type, or severity, of injury in a subsequent off will like as not be determined by the gear worn. If a rider 'refuses' to wear, say, gloves, and suffers hand injuries as a result, then they should also suffer the responsibility of paying for that injury. Personal choice shouldn't come with a price tag picked up by others.
I do draw the line at the gear stage, though. Not paying for m/c injuries is a step too far.

Why? Once you accept the principle the extension seems inevitable. If a person "refuses" to drive a nice safe car and suffers injury as a result "then they should also suffer the responsibility of paying for that injury. Personal choice shouldn't come with a price tag picked up by others". Your choice to ride a dangerous motorcycle, instead of driving a safe car (that provides the same transport capability, and more) is a personal choice . " Personal choice shouldn't come with a price tag picked up by others". Exactly what ACC said.

MSTRS

11th February 2010, 11:25

So - it's too much to expect that riders take some extra steps to protect their bodies? And not pay for the privilege of their personal choice of what they wear?

p.dath

11th February 2010, 11:44

No...I simply mean that riders should take all reasonable steps to protect themselves with 'proper' gear. The type, or severity, of injury in a subsequent off will like as not be determined by the gear worn. If a rider 'refuses' to wear, say, gloves, and suffers hand injuries as a result, then they should also suffer the responsibility of paying for that injury. Personal choice shouldn't come with a price tag picked up by others.
I do draw the line at the gear stage, though. Not paying for m/c injuries is a step too far.

I guess you also need to contrast that Australia has an "insurance" scheme, while NZ has a "compensation" scheme. So these comparisons aren't that valid.

In Australia if you are insuring against personal hand injuries, then of course the insurance company is going to consider what was done to mitigate that risk. They may refuse to insure you if you don't meet certain criteria, or perhaps adjust your excess.

In NZ you present at Hosipital for treatment. ACC pays for that (or rather "compensates" you) for that treatment. There is no risk to consider.

Do you see the fine difference? It is because of this difference everyone road user should be paying the same ACC fee, and co-incidentally, the same reason that pre-funding should be dropped.

p.dath

11th February 2010, 11:53

So - it's too much to expect that riders take some extra steps to protect their bodies? And not pay for the privilege of their personal choice of what they wear?

Ahh personal choice. I would like to think we could educate riders about the risk of riding completely stark naked, tell them about impacts and abrasion resistance, and then let them decide what extra steps they need to take to protect their bodies. I'd also like to educate them on empathy, and the impact their decisions have not only on their own personal safety, but the impacts of failure on their family, friends and other road users. Sometimes we'd all like to do something, but don't, because we realise it will hurt those who we love.

Personally, I'm pro ATGATT. But some riders feel that a pair of shorts, jandals and a T-shirt provides the protection that their naked body requires. I don't agree, but do I have the right to enforce my ideology on them? I think not.

But there is a fine line, where doing absolutely nothing becomes fatally reckless. So we do have some legislation, such as you must wear helmets. I personally think there is huge evidence about the life saving qualities of Helmets (and let me cite the example of Texas and what happened there when they made helmet use optional). For me, it's the "life saving" bit combined with the activity having a high probability of death that says we have reached the point of legislation being needed. Hence I support the mandatory wearing of helmets.

MSTRS

11th February 2010, 11:53

I guess you also need to contrast that Australia has an "insurance" scheme, while NZ has a "compensation" scheme. So these comparisons aren't that valid.

In Australia if you are insuring against personal hand injuries, then of course the insurance company is going to consider what was done to mitigate that risk. They may refuse to insure you if you don't meet certain criteria, or perhaps adjust your excess.

In NZ you present at Hosipital for treatment. ACC pays for that (or rather "compensates" you) for that treatment. There is no risk to consider.

Do you see the fine difference? It is because of this difference everyone road user should be paying the same ACC fee, and co-incidentally, the same reason that pre-funding should be dropped.

In 1973, you were injured, presented yourself to A+E and were treated/fixed, no cost to you...the hospital paid from their general taxation allocation.
Then - If your injuries were someone else's fault, you sued them for loss of income/cost of modifying your home etc. This process was often/mostly not ideal, so we got ACC. And all was well again in Godzone.
Then the bludgers/politicians started in on their thing...and we got to where we are now.
Returning to the Woodhouse principles is the only thing that will stop NZ going back to pre-1974 days. But realistically, some things have gone too far to change back. And taking personal responsibility is one of them.
IMHO.

mashman

11th February 2010, 11:58

So - it's too much to expect that riders take some extra steps to protect their bodies? And not pay for the privilege of their personal choice of what they wear?

Nope, absolutely not, but personally, i wouldn't condone the punishement you're talking about, it's a slippery slope that one... Something a little less extreme maybe, like a kick in the bollocks, or a removal of bike for a month, public flogging, anything that would make them "pay" for and remember their mistake...

p.dath

11th February 2010, 12:04

Returning to the Woodhouse principles is the only thing that will stop NZ going back to pre-1974 days. But realistically, some things have gone too far to change back. And taking personal responsibility is one of them.
IMHO.

Let me put my rose coloured glasses on, that helps me to only see good.

Things haven't not gone too far. All we need to do is abandon pre-funding, and consequently, risk ratings.

There has always been a need for personal responsibility. I don't honestly think any person would like to spend 8 months recovering from a severe gravel rash injury. And people need to take personal responsibility if they don't want this to happen (or any other of a zillion injuries).

I suspect a lot of our issue is education. If new riders got to see a human body stripped of 80% of its flesh from gravel; if they got to see the gravel being scrubbed out, and the pain and suffering that followed; if they got to see a foot rotated off the leg because of a lack of boots; do you perhaps think they might make different decisions?

I guess if I had to some it up - you can only reasonably expect people to exercise personal responsibility if they know the risks for their actions that they have to take responsibility for.

MSTRS

11th February 2010, 12:06

MSTRS

11th February 2010, 12:10

I guess if I had to sum it up - you can only reasonably expect people to exercise personal responsibility if they know the risks for their actions that they have to take responsibility for.

Fair enough too...for teenagers.

p.dath

11th February 2010, 12:12

One assumes that they will be paying in extra levels of pain. And perhaps will learn from that in the future. But the rest of 'us' shouldn't have to provide to coin to cover the cost of what they 'could' have avoided? Perhaps we should...once. But not for repeats...

Well, you can only have a fatality once. And from all the posts I have read on here, those that ave non fatal injuries the first time never want a second time to happen. :)

Pascal

11th February 2010, 12:14

p.dath

11th February 2010, 12:21

Can I just pay for my own cover, please? No ACC and I would not expect them to treat me or any of my family for free. We'd like to talk to our Insurance brokers and get them to cover our costs, then they can charge me whatever they think is a reasonable fee given the level of risk I'm willing to put myself to. And yeah, I'd expect then to pay more because I'm on a bike, but I'd also expect to pay less than some because I am ATGATT and do take the appropriate safety courses.

I'd much rather accept responsibility for myself and mine, rather than having to accept responsibility for a bunch of other people.

That's what NZ used to have, and it was havoc, which is why a royal commission of inquiry was commissioned to resolve that issue. The inquiry created what was known as the Woodhouse Report. It was very comprehensive, and surveyed the world looking for solutions. I'd suggest you take a read if you want to know how severe the problems were at the time.

The resulting solution was the creation of ACC, which even now, is considered a world leading solution. I guess we don't know how good we really have it - till you look outside your own forest of trees and see how bad some other people have it.

If you want an example of what private accident insurance is like, check out the USA. And then ask yourself how come Barrack Obama is currently looking at the NZ model of doing things.

Pascal

11th February 2010, 12:32

If you want an example of what private accident insurance is like, check out the USA. And then ask yourself how come Barrack Obama is currently looking at the NZ model of doing things.

I've only been in NZ for the last ... oh ... 10 years or so roughly so yes, I haven't got the depth of historical knowledge about details like that. Have heard about Woodhouse though :p

I don't disagree with ACC. I simply want the choice to go my own way.

p.dath

11th February 2010, 12:49

I've only been in NZ for the last ... oh ... 10 years or so roughly so yes, I haven't got the depth of historical knowledge about details like that. Have heard about Woodhouse though :p

I don't disagree with ACC. I simply want the choice to go my own way.

Alas one of the five principles of the Woodhouse report is that as the community is the benefactor of ACC then all in the community must contribute equally.

Another one of the five principles is that the scheme must be administrationally efficent (aka, not waste money running it). Woodhouse did look at the possibility of differential premiums, but concluded that the administrative cost exceeded the benefit, and hence violated the administrative efficiency principle.
No point introducing something that saves 10% of users money, and everyone else has to pay the accountants more to track it.

MSTRS

11th February 2010, 12:51

I don't disagree with ACC. I simply want the choice to go my own way.

The whole point of ACC (under Woodhouse) was that it took away our choice/s. It's strength lay in the fact that everybody was treated equally. But not any more.
We want it back.
And I think that we, as individuals, owe a duty of care to the other contributors to minimise whatever risk we choose to subject ourselves to. Such as gearing-up, when riding...

Ixion

11th February 2010, 16:44

So - it's too much to expect that riders take some extra steps to protect their bodies? And not pay for the privilege of their personal choice of what they wear?

Not necessarily. But you CAN'T have that with a Woodhouse scheme. Woodhouse depends absolutely on being "no fault". As soon as you say "if you do / don't do X then you have no cover" then you have to revert to an insurance scheme.

Consider. You say that if I don't wear gloves , I don't get cover for hand injuries. But, then, I am sitting on my scooter at the lights, minding my own business. And a drunken millionaire driver running from the cops plows into the back of me. My hands are injured. No ACC. You had better believe that I am going to be DEMANDING the right to sue that guy. And indeed, I can. ACC Act is clear - if there is no ACC cover , I regain the right to sue. So, you and me (as well as millionaire drunk) are going to need private third party cover. As well as private first party cover, to cover those hand injuries (which means that my insurance company will ALSO be demanding the right to sue) . At this point, ACC becomes irrelevant. No point in it .

So, over to you. Choose Woodhouse. Or choose insurance. But you can't have both

MSTRS

11th February 2010, 17:05

So, over to you. Choose Woodhouse. Or choose insurance. But you can't have both

*stamps feet in disgust*
But...but...but...
I still don't think it's right that someone can (knowingly) not take reasonable steps to protect their body, but still expect the rest of us to pay the extra costs that may entail.

mashman

11th February 2010, 17:23

*stamps feet in disgust*
But...but...but...
I still don't think it's right that someone can (knowingly) not take reasonable steps to protect their body, but still expect the rest of us to pay the extra costs that may entail.

Because that's the community way to do it. All for one, one for all etc...

Miscreant

11th February 2010, 23:53

I do draw the line at the gear stage, though. Not paying for m/c injuries is a step too far.
So why should it be your line? Why not my line, or the AAs line or ACCs line.
Thanks, but I prefer my line, because if I yield, some other bastard is going to impose theirs on me. You might find you don't like theirs.

p.dath

12th February 2010, 06:59

So why should it be your line? Why not my line, or the AAs line or ACCs line.
Thanks, but I prefer my line, because if I yield, some other bastard is going to impose theirs on me. You might find you don't like theirs.

The roading network is provided by the community of NZ for the use of the community of NZ. So it should be the communities line.

Pascal

12th February 2010, 07:05

Because that's the community way to do it. All for one, one for all etc...

Did you mean Communist? The community way would not be by force :p

Ixion

12th February 2010, 09:38

Did you mean Communist?

You called ?

mashman

12th February 2010, 10:24

Did you mean Communist? The community way would not be by force :p

heh! you can label it how you like. Personally i was thinking more along the lines of a hybrid... socialism and communism... anything that can level the playing field that doesn't involve capitalism and the associated trappings... profit for profit sake hampers human development, communication, breeds mistrust and by default the the notion of a global community goes right out of the window. Shit we're a species that's been around for thousands upon thousands of years... perhaps it's time that we acted like it, grew the fuck up and stopped the pursuit of individual gain at the expense of the "faceless" masses.

Pissing in the wind always kept my legs warm on a cold day...

Pascal

12th February 2010, 10:31

You called ?

Yes, but it was the wrong number. I was looking for a busty brunette.

heh! you can label it how you like. Personally i was thinking more along the lines of a hybrid... socialism and communism... anything that can level the playing field that doesn't involve capitalism and the associated trappings... profit for profit sake hampers human development, communication, breeds mistrust and by default the the notion of a global community goes right out of the window. Shit we're a species that's been around for thousands upon thousands of years... perhaps it's time that we acted like it, grew the fuck up and stopped the pursuit of individual gain at the expense of the "faceless" masses. .

Really? Damn. Then wouldn't you kill off individual responsibility, creativity, the drive to create and improve and all the competitive attributes that have driven humanity to the heights it has reached thus far?

mashman

12th February 2010, 11:40

Yes, but it was the wrong number. I was looking for a busty brunette.

Who says he isn't!!!

Really? Damn. Then wouldn't you kill off individual responsibility, creativity, the drive to create and improve and all the competitive attributes that have driven humanity to the heights it has reached thus far?

"Then wouldn't you kill off individual responsibility" - already being done from what i can tell, think laws.

"creativity" - already being hampered... how do you think you end up with 15 vacuums on the market (where the best one would actually do)... only to be replaced by another 15 next year, but with a single "upgrade" in technology that they could have put in in the previous version... Go on, tell me that doesn't happen.

"the drive to create and improve and all the competitive attributes that have driven humanity to the heights it has reached thus far" I somehow doubt we'll lose our competitive edge... you'll still be able to be the best if you want... as for the drive of humanity, we have massive issues on this planet that need resolving... Africa, terrorism, politicians, poverty, over population to name but a few... you really think we'll just stop caring enough to better our lot?

Technology is still exceptionally young... unfortunately it's expensive too... and the world only has a finite amount of money!

All of the reasons you have laid out would only benefit from a change in the direction of humanity... no?

MSTRS

12th February 2010, 11:42

That all boils down to one word...'War'.
In all it's shapes and sizes, war is what drives human endeavour.

Pascal

12th February 2010, 12:06

All of the reasons you have laid out would only benefit from a change in the direction of humanity... no?

I don't think so. When you remove personal improvement as a driving force, how many people would continue to strive for it? How far ahead of the technology wave were the "communist" countries in the 80s? How much of what we see today was developed there?

mashman

12th February 2010, 12:14

I don't think so. When you remove personal improvement as a driving force, how many people would continue to strive for it? How far ahead of the technology wave were the "communist" countries in the 80s? How much of what we see today was developed there?

I didn't mention removing personal improvement did i? Why would anyone want personal improvement to never exist? Look we do this all the time, improve that is, hence the reason why people have hobbies... they don't get paid for them (not all the time anyway), some create art from recycled materials, some try to govern the country part-time, some send rockets into space etc... and i can't see that stopping... moreover I could see the "enthusiast" lifted to the heights of the "experts", or at least being consulted, instead of them being shat upon because they're not "qualified"...

Pascal

12th February 2010, 12:19

I didn't mention removing personal improvement did i? Why would anyone want personal improvement to never exist? Look we do this all the time, improve that is, hence the reason why people have hobbies... they don't get paid for them (not all the time anyway),

No, I did. I've lumped improving your life style, setting financial goals, material gratification, etc. as part of "personal improvement" as you're improving your personal situation in the world.

So, in this ideal world you're envisaging, how would we decide who gets to ride a shmexy Aprillia and who gets to ride a 250cc Virago? Or does everybody get an Aprillia and Viragos' cease to exist?

sleemanj

12th February 2010, 12:23

The other thing to consider with "no personal responsibility = no compensation" is the COST to society of such.

The most obvious is that if somebody is not compensated so they can get the injury properly treated, they will likely be a less productive member of society after that injury than before, or at least have less potential to be productive.

Simple example: young student riding his scooter gloveless bins and screws up his hands, ACC says no gloves, no pay, now this student instead of having the potential to be a world leading surgeon if that is what they had intended, is now perhaps limited to far less aspirational goal (if we take into account the preferences of the student for jobs).

Taking this further, unless we want to have a large number of poverty stricken people living on the streets, we end up with a continual rise in unemployment benefit recipients when these people who have been badly injured but couldn't afford to get themselves properly fixed are then unable to work, ever.

If we add in as Ixion points out the inevitable lawsuits, the money to pay for lawsuits doesn't come out of thin air - there is a net transferral of wealth to accident lawyers, this also is a fairly unpleasant cost to society (just look at the US where they really do have "ambulance chasing" laywers, literally - that's got to be right up there amongst the seriously farked up ways in which a society can treat it's unjured).

Put simply, while our gut instinct is "if you were stupid, well your own fault isn't it", the reality is that the economic and social cost to society is simply always going to be HIGHER with that thinking, than with an efficient no-fault compensation scheme.

Pascal

12th February 2010, 12:27

Put simply, while our gut instinct is "if you were stupid, well your own fault isn't it", the reality is that the economic and social cost to society is simply always going to be HIGHER with that thinking, than with an efficient no-fault compensation scheme.

So it boils down to paying for other people to do stupid things because it's cheaper?