dpex
14th July 2010, 20:49
Here's my letter to Nick Smith.
Take from it wat you will but go at him. The point I make is valid and he knows it because he's agreed to apply it to business.
Dear Sir,
You have revealed what appears to be a genuine understanding of the unfairness of ACC levies in your latest announcement of what is to be more or less a no-claims bonus for business is a definite step in the right direction. Well done.
Clearly, you have come to understand that a group, per se, cannot be a defined target for levy settings. In fact it is individuals within a specific group which can be targeted. Ergo, some forestry operators are way less safe than others. And some burger-flippers are way less safe than others.
And so it is with motorists. Identified as a group one could argue they represent a significant claminant group. But the group, per se, cannot be identified. Only the individual claimants.
In my case I can assert I have never been involved in a road accident (either fault or non-fault) during the last 45 years of driving. And period includes the period up till about 1980ish when driving, pissed as a fiddler's bitch was accepted as the norm. A condition, may I add, in which I have driven many, many times prior to the institution of the DIC campaign. And still no accidents.
Whether I am a good driver or just plain damned lucky is a moot point. Let's assume a bit of each. And of course, one must accept that the many close-calls, over the years, have been a combination of my lack and the lack of others. But they remain as only close-calls.
It seems to me that 45 years of driving/riding, including God knows how many close-calls, and zero ACC motorist claims, suggests I should be rewarded for my good behaviour so long as I maintain it.
If I maintain my accident-free record for the following 12 months, surely it follows that I should be entitled to a discount on the ACC fees I pay on my motorcycle, my car, and my van; only one of which I can use at any one time.
I would be quite prepared to have my ACC fees doubled, tripled or more if, during the following 12 months I was involved in an accident which required medical attention at ACC's expense....on all three of my vehicles.
That alone would prove a useful incentive to maintain my clean record. Although, I must say I maintain my clean record because I really quite dislike being physically impoverished.
I get insurance at the least possible cost because I've never made a claim. Why can I not get the same treatment from the ACC regime, as you are proposing for business?
Remember; the 'target' groups (drivers/bikers, et al) do not represent me as regards my driving history. I represent me.
I would hasten to add that the foregoing suggestion of an ACC no-claims bonus be applied only to road use of my vehicles.
By that I mean when I race my motorcycle, or ride my dirt-bike, or ride my bycycle and crash, then all bets are off.
Mind you; at the moment, my racing motorcycle, my dirt-bike and my bicycle are not subject of specific ACC levies.
Take from it wat you will but go at him. The point I make is valid and he knows it because he's agreed to apply it to business.
Dear Sir,
You have revealed what appears to be a genuine understanding of the unfairness of ACC levies in your latest announcement of what is to be more or less a no-claims bonus for business is a definite step in the right direction. Well done.
Clearly, you have come to understand that a group, per se, cannot be a defined target for levy settings. In fact it is individuals within a specific group which can be targeted. Ergo, some forestry operators are way less safe than others. And some burger-flippers are way less safe than others.
And so it is with motorists. Identified as a group one could argue they represent a significant claminant group. But the group, per se, cannot be identified. Only the individual claimants.
In my case I can assert I have never been involved in a road accident (either fault or non-fault) during the last 45 years of driving. And period includes the period up till about 1980ish when driving, pissed as a fiddler's bitch was accepted as the norm. A condition, may I add, in which I have driven many, many times prior to the institution of the DIC campaign. And still no accidents.
Whether I am a good driver or just plain damned lucky is a moot point. Let's assume a bit of each. And of course, one must accept that the many close-calls, over the years, have been a combination of my lack and the lack of others. But they remain as only close-calls.
It seems to me that 45 years of driving/riding, including God knows how many close-calls, and zero ACC motorist claims, suggests I should be rewarded for my good behaviour so long as I maintain it.
If I maintain my accident-free record for the following 12 months, surely it follows that I should be entitled to a discount on the ACC fees I pay on my motorcycle, my car, and my van; only one of which I can use at any one time.
I would be quite prepared to have my ACC fees doubled, tripled or more if, during the following 12 months I was involved in an accident which required medical attention at ACC's expense....on all three of my vehicles.
That alone would prove a useful incentive to maintain my clean record. Although, I must say I maintain my clean record because I really quite dislike being physically impoverished.
I get insurance at the least possible cost because I've never made a claim. Why can I not get the same treatment from the ACC regime, as you are proposing for business?
Remember; the 'target' groups (drivers/bikers, et al) do not represent me as regards my driving history. I represent me.
I would hasten to add that the foregoing suggestion of an ACC no-claims bonus be applied only to road use of my vehicles.
By that I mean when I race my motorcycle, or ride my dirt-bike, or ride my bycycle and crash, then all bets are off.
Mind you; at the moment, my racing motorcycle, my dirt-bike and my bicycle are not subject of specific ACC levies.