ACC justice for bikers - towards a smarter approach?

[aum108]

When trying to influence the political process, it's very tempting to jump up and down and complain about injustice. But if the government can't clearly see the prospect of major vote loss, it will just dig its heels in and ignore the complaints.

The only way for lobbying to work is to show the government how to get more of what it wants, in ways that give us more of what we want.

If we're going to get any justice out of ACC (or at least mitigate the current injustice) we need to work smarter and play the government against its own wants.

So what does the government want?

Increase ACC revenues without pissing off *too* many people
Decrease ACC payouts without pissing off *too* many people
Make the accident insurance market appealing for private insurers (by making ACC a bitch and easier to compete against)
Be seen to be promoting safety and reducing injuries and deaths
Put more financial responsibilities on the individual, less on the state


So then, the problem is how to help the government to get more of what it wants in a way that gives bikers more of what they want (ie, fairer premiums). How do we do this? There are some ways:

Expose the current system as financially and mathematically flawed - it is costing the government (and thus the taxpayer) money
Promote a system of ACC excesses for owners of vehicles deemed to be at-fault in accidents - 10-500% surcharge per year for 2-10 years
Promote more stringent driver/rider testing and relicensing - eg high-intensity simulator tests
Use current insurance data to set ACC bike premiums which vary according to brand/model, region, owner age/gender etc


Example - Joe Sixpack cage driver drifts over highway centre line going round a corner and takes out Harry on his Harley because he "didn't see him".

Under the old system, Harry spends 6 months in the spinal unit learning to walk again, while Joe Sixpack pays a modest fine, cops a few demerits, and in 2 years is scot-free.

Under the new system, Harry is still in the spinal unit, but Joe Sixpack is now paying $1000/year for the next 10 years to keep his cage registered. He also has to spend some hours in the cage simulator, looking out for bikes all over the place. He whines to his friends, and more and more cage drivers start looking out for bikes. Meanwhile, Harry is rehabilitated and back on his Harley. He and his mates are paying lower premiums. And ACC is showing healthier finances. Everybody wins. (Except for the f---tards, that is :bleh:)

Thoughts anyone?

Cheers
a

[MSTRS]

There only needs to be one hole in an argument for the whole thing to be ignored as valid.
Your hole is you assume that a vehicle only ever has one owner/driver.
Until levies go on licences (heaven forbid) then you need to look at other ways of arguing the injustices of the current system.

[MSTRS]

Now, me, I would argue that putting levies on fuel at the pump would be more equitable and go a long way towards stopping the use of unregistered vehicles, since the actual rego fee (without ACC) is only about $50.

The other, most equitable, argument is for a return to the Woodhouse principle. Every vehicle pays the same fee. Since every motorist contributes to the risk-pool, either in injuring themselves, or someone else. And for most motorists, the fee they pay ACC in their rego is never used by them personally. So everyone covers everyone. No risk-rating differences are needed, which is where the inequities lie.

[Scuba_Steve]

think the biggest problem is your still single focused, ACC is more than just vehicles, which is why I say stop taking it from everywhere & put it exclusively in GST. This way everyone pays in a fair, no-fault way.

[aum108]

Your hole is you assume that a vehicle only ever has one owner/driver.
I've allowed for that. If we have a regime where vehicle owners are financially rewarded or punished according to how their vehicles are used, they're going to be more careful about who they allow to use their vehicles.

The Woodhouse principle has some pros and cons. But who wants to pay more because of idiots who getting pissed, wrap their boy racer machines round trees, and run up 7 figure medical and rehabilitation bills?

I'm given to wondering what is so bad about levies on licenses. Maybe splitting the difference and finding something half way between Woodhouse and offender pays.

[p.dath]

...

Expose the current system as financially and mathematically flawed - it is costing the government (and thus the taxpayer) money
Promote a system of ACC excesses for owners of vehicles deemed to be at-fault in accidents - 10-500% surcharge per year for 2-10 years
Promote more stringent driver/rider testing and relicensing - eg high-intensity simulator tests
Use current insurance data to set ACC bike premiums which vary according to brand/model, region, owner age/gender etc

...


I don't want to disuade you, but you need to learn more about where ACC came from and the problem it was trying to solve to understand where it needs to go. I would suggest starting with the Woodhouse report. It's comprehensive, and was what ACC was founded on. Once you understand the problem ACC was trying to solve, you'll understand why about half of what you are suggesting will not take us in the right direction.

You can find an online copy here:
http://www.library.auckland.ac.nz/data/woodhouse/


What you are effectively proposing is a change to the American system (except you've not given the right to sue back - but effectively done the same by making the person causing injury pay the Government) - pretty much recognised as the worst system in the developed world.

[aum108]

think the biggest problem is your still single focused, ACC is more than just vehicles, which is why I say stop taking it from everywhere & put it exclusively in GST. This way everyone pays in a fair, no-fault way.

I admit there's huge appeal in just spreading the charge evenly.

But it's well proven that when people face no significant personal consequences for unsafe conduct, they will tend to behave less safely. And vice versa.

The system must have incentives/disincentives for safe/unsafe decisions.

[MSTRS]

...who wants to pay more because of idiots who getting pissed, wrap their boy racer machines round trees, and run up 7 figure medical and rehabilitation bills?
...
Nobody. That's who.
But who wants to pay more because some bikers refuse to gear up, and perhaps suffer worse injuries in an off?
Good luck getting consensus on that...



I'm given to wondering what is so bad about levies on licenses. Maybe splitting the difference and finding something half way between Woodhouse and offender pays.
Trouble with putting it on licences, is it leads to exactly what we have now...a lot of motorists, and in particular bikers, saying "Fuck it. I have to be caught x times before it's worth the expense."
And the other main argument is that it penalises those who drive/ride infrequently.

Forget 'splitting it' any which way. We have that now, anyway, with some on fuel (petrol only, mind) and the rest on rego.

[MSTRS]

But it's well proven that when people face no significant personal consequences for unsafe conduct, they will tend to behave less safely. And vice versa.

The system must have incentives/disincentives for safe/unsafe decisions.

I blame the PC world we live in. Littlies don't learn that it hurts to fall out of a tree, when they aren't allowed to climb them. Which leads to a whole lot of (newby) drivers/riders not realising the painful consequences of a crash. More so, riders, as we are still as vulnerable as ever to personal injury, whilst cagers have better and better safety equipment to avoid injury. Plus no-one ever got hurt doing GTA, eh?

[davereid]

Now, me, I would argue that putting levies on fuel at the pump would be more equitable and go a long way towards stopping the use of unregistered vehicles, since the actual rego fee (without ACC) is only about $50.

This excellent idea will be ignored.

(1) Because government wants to be able to "introduce competition' (ie help big business make a profit from) ACC. It cant do that if the levy is collected at the pump. It needs to be able to invoice individuals.

(2) They will try and blur it by saying hhmmph what about electric vehicles. This of course is crap. We will all have smart meters soon, so the levy could be applied 'at the pump" but this will be ignored.

(3) I have asked ACC via an OIA to tell me the cost of collection via fuel levy compared to via registration, or indeed invoicing. They declined to answer. (This will be addressed in the new year)

How it will have to be headed for privatization to occur.

ACC will first have to start to invoice you directly. you will get a 'green slip" (or more likely electronically done) authority to licence your vehicle.

They will send different vehicle types and users different invoices.

The petrol levy we already have will be retained - they will say its to cover those that never insure.

You will then get the option of buying you 'green slip" from private insurers.

It is likely that somewhere in this scenario, compulsory third party insurance will be thrown in. This appeals to those who don't know the facts, and is likely to get widespread support from the uninformed.

[pzkpfw]

... Example - Joe Sixpack cage driver drifts over highway centre line going round a corner and takes out Harry on his Harley because he "didn't see him".

Under the old system, Harry spends 6 months in the spinal unit learning to walk again, while Joe Sixpack pays a modest fine, cops a few demerits, and in 2 years is scot-free.

Under the new system, Harry is still in the spinal unit, but Joe Sixpack is now paying $1000/year for the next 10 years to keep his cage registered. He also has to spend some hours in the cage simulator, looking out for bikes all over the place. He whines to his friends, and more and more cage drivers start looking out for bikes. Meanwhile, Harry is rehabilitated and back on his Harley. He and his mates are paying lower premiums. And ACC is showing healthier finances. Everybody wins. (Except for the f---tards, that is :bleh:)

Thoughts anyone?

Cheers
a

While "we" like to rage against the car drivers, a significant proportion of motorcycle accidents are the fault of the rider. If your Harry crashes his own Harley, is he going to be paying $1000 per year for the next ten years? Will that be taken out of the invalids benefit he now receives?

(
Me, I'm all for - we all pay more or less the same ACC and we all receive the same "cover". Simple. Same as how people who do/play (insert name of activity here) get ACC benefits while doing something I don't, even though they are not paying more ACC fees for the privilege.

Method of collection is the main question. Petrol seems good at first sniff. At least it's more closely related to actual use on the road. An owner of multiple motorcycles is only paying for the one being used at one time. Even if one is loaned to a mate, that still pays ACC via it's own petrol use. Driver/rider on the road more k's pays more, but that seems fair-ish. And in a subtle way may encourages fuel efficiency. (Like "fat tax"; there are people who claim taxation can force behaviour, I'm not so sure, but it's an argument that might help get ACC onto petrol...).
)

I do like your idea that someone causing an accident gets made to do some remedial education. Perhaps make that "user pays". i.e. the numpties (of whatever vehicle type) who cause an accident (their own or anothers) get told they have to go to night classes for re-training, and sting them by making them pay for it.

[p.dath]

Now, me, I would argue that putting levies on fuel at the pump would be more equitable and go a long way towards stopping the use of unregistered vehicles...

We already have ACC levies on petrol at the pump. The Government has looked at shifting the levy to be 100% on petrol at the pump, but decided against at, and stayed with the current split (some on petrol, some on your rego).

[Scuba_Steve]

I admit there's huge appeal in just spreading the charge evenly.

But it's well proven that when people face no significant personal consequences for unsafe conduct, they will tend to behave less safely. And vice versa.

The system must have incentives/disincentives for safe/unsafe decisions.

but then it's some of those "unsafe" decisions that has brought NZ glory (again I'm talking broader than just general road). Some of NZ's greatest moments have come from "stupid" actions & I for 1 would like to see that continue.

Leave the insurance companies to penalize bad drivers, raising vehicle licences is only going to have less people pay for them, case in point bikes at current.

[MSTRS]

Me, I'm all for - we all pay more or less the same ACC and we all receive the same "cover". Simple. Same as how people who do/play (insert name of activity here) get ACC benefits while doing something I don't, even though they are not paying more ACC fees for the privilege.

If you're talking ACC on earnings, paid by the earner, then Woodhouse still applies. Everyone pays $x/$100 earned for cover of 'leisure' injuries. Those who earn more, pay more. Doesn't matter (almost) what one does for fun, it's all covered for the same amount. What annoys me though, is Joe Bloggs can go ride his dirtbike and his wage payments cover him (yes, he'll pay a small amount in his fuel). I ride my Gsxr for fun, but because it's on the road, I pay twice. Yet Joe Bloggs is much more likely to hurt himself than I am.


We already have ACC levies on petrol at the pump. The Government has looked at shifting the levy to be 100% on petrol at the pump, but decided against at, and stayed with the current split (some on petrol, some on your rego).

I know. 09.9c/lt.
I didn't know the govt had looked at/discounted a complete shift to fuel. I'm picking that Davereid is right...

[Brian d marge]

I admit there's huge appeal in just spreading the charge evenly.

But it's well proven that when people face no significant personal consequences for unsafe conduct, they will tend to behave less safely. And vice versa.

The system must have incentives/disincentives for safe/unsafe decisions.
punishment, its a very puritanical western way of thinking,
I'm not going into why... the acc went up, suffice to say that the nz government has acted quite prudently, and I suspect a treasury or some thing like that, decision based on pressure from an outside influence.
anyway the original nz wood house was a nz first, friggen good and a world leader....and didnt need to change
now I agree with your opinion that if there is no fault people do become lazy in decision making and should be given a kick up the arse ... but I feel by education...
ie screw up and you go to drivers training for a friggen long time, and at a time when it is most inconvenient ....miss one lesson and get added two more......
who pays for the education ..... why the guilty party maybe, the amount of subsidy should be decided by the court,,,,or mutual agreement ....
we do need that punishment, but behind that we need firm education ...
oh and a good old fashioned hanging......( if it was good enough for my grand pappy its good enough for me)

unfortuantly, NZ biker Nil, American corporates 2, ..........

stephen

[schrodingers cat]

Just a couple of observations.

1. We place a lot of faith in education. Some is good, more must be better.
Some people are geared to learn and see value in it. Many see no need.
Things in NZ are pretty easy all told. No need to try too hard.
Deciding to fix all problems with 'education' is actaully exporting the problem.

2. All credit to those who are lobbying and trying to achieve equitable outcomes.
When it comes to voting, of all the issues you need to make a decision on, is this THE ONE?

More strategy required methinks

[Hitcher]

We've done all of these arguments to death. Not since the Bikoi have we been heard. We won't me, because the Gummint has set up a body to manage the relationship with bikers -- the Motorcycle Safety Advisory Council. What a great name, and headed by Gareth Morgan too.

This new Council is really on to it. Its members believe that the answer to all of these problems dogging bikers is the mandatory wearing of fluoro jackets. That just shows how dumb the rest of us are who marched on Parliament. Here we were worried about dodgy statistics and misinterpretation of recorded data from reported accidents, not to mention equity issues and natural justice. If we'd sat down and had a longer think, we would have spotted the reality that the answer was for all of us to wear fluoro vests.

Give it up, people. We're fucked. We had a great shot at this and got out manoeuvered by some clever politicians and their advisers.

[caspernz]

Just a couple of observations.

1. We place a lot of faith in education. Some is good, more must be better.
Some people are geared to learn and see value in it. Many see no need.
Things in NZ are pretty easy all told. No need to try too hard.
Deciding to fix all problems with 'education' is actaully exporting the problem.

2. All credit to those who are lobbying and trying to achieve equitable outcomes.
When it comes to voting, of all the issues you need to make a decision on, is this THE ONE?

More strategy required methinks

Not to deride any previous posters on the ACC subject, but there's merit in the second to last line above....:2thumbsup

[Brian d marge]

Just a couple of observations.

1. We place a lot of faith in education. Some is good, more must be better.
Some people are geared to learn and see value in it. Many see no need.
Things in NZ are pretty easy all told. No need to try too hard.
Deciding to fix all problems with 'education' is actaully exporting the problem.

2. All credit to those who are lobbying and trying to achieve equitable outcomes.
When it comes to voting, of all the issues you need to make a decision on, is this THE ONE?

More strategy required methinks

why is it exported .......the problem that is

Stephen

[Brian d marge]

We've done all of these arguments to death. Not since the Bikoi have we been heard. We won't me, because the Gummint has set up a body to manage the relationship with bikers -- the Motorcycle Safety Advisory Council. What a great name, and headed by Gareth Morgan too.

This new Council is really on to it. Its members believe that the answer to all of these problems dogging bikers is the mandatory wearing of fluoro jackets. That just shows how dumb the rest of us are who marched on Parliament. Here we were worried about dodgy statistics and misinterpretation of recorded data from reported accidents, not to mention equity issues and natural justice. If we'd sat down and had a longer think, we would have spotted the reality that the answer was for all of us to wear fluoro vests.

Give it up, people. We're fucked. We had a great shot at this and got out manoeuvered by some clever politicians and their advisers.

no, you were out manoeuvred , because at 0.0000000005 % of the population AND the fact that most nz apostrophe s are apathetic, its a dead cert that the rules are to be changed
the little surrender monies have bigger balls than most kiwis
still mustn't grumble eh, its a bit of a bother, but what can one do ....
stephen

[Brian407]

Question... Are overseas tourists using rental cars on NZ roads entitled to ACC ?? Given that they pay levies at the pump just like us.

Like many here, and around the country, I own multiple vehicles, and pay multiple fees, so ealier this year i wrote to Nick Smith and Stephen Joyce on the matter of levies on the licence rather than the vehicle.

The following (in part) is Nick Smiths reply (Joyce didnt bother)


The Government is mindful of the need to be fair, while collecting sufficient levy payments to cover the cost of injuries now and for the lifetime of motor vehicle claims, Every approach has its advantages and disadvantages for different levy payers. Even though you can only drive one vehicle at a time, this does not rule out the possibility that others may have access to these vehicles when you are not using them. The motor vehicle levy you pay covers not only you as a driver, but also anyone else who may drive your vehicle, and any passengers and other road users, in the event of an accident. The levy goes into the Motor Vehicle Account which funds all accidents that occur on a public road. If your passenger is injured in a crash, the levy that you paid on that vehicle essentially provides funds to cover their injury-related costs as well as your own.

The current levy system, where part of the levy is collected through petrol sales and is consequently linked to the distance travelled, also reduces the total levy that would otherwise be payable by a person, such as yourself, who owns multiple vehicles.

The Accident Compensation Amendment Act 2010 allows ACC to look into using other types of approach in the future, such as charging a levy or providing discounts based on such factors as the age of the vehicle or the injury history of the owner. This Govemment's current ACC work programme also includes exploring wider reform options in the Motor Vehicle Account and we will be looking to further that programme of work this year.

You have made a choice to own several vehicles, and the licensing requirements are well known. In the same way, if you own more than one property, there is no rebate on the rates and other charges on those you are not currently occupying. Unlike property costs, though, you are able to register your vehicle for part of a year. That way, if the vehicle is not going to be used for an extensive period, you can avoid some levy costs. The minimum period of exemption is three months and the maximum period is 12 months. There is no charge for exemptions and they can be granted by phoning the New Zealand Transport Agency's customer service on 0800 108 809. Exemptions can be extended indefinitely. However, you would need to re-register your exempt vehicle prior to using it again on public roads.

Thank you again for writing to me. I hope my reply has addressed your concerns.

Yours sincerely

Hon Dr Nick Smith
Minister for ACC

Read into it what you want, but for me it's nothing more than a steaming pile of dogshit from a patronising prat.

Couple of glaring points come to mind.

1. The comment about my other vehicles being available to other users while i'm not... well, helllooo.... presumably these people would have a licence too, and therfore be paying a levy as well, as would other road users.... and

2. (and this one caught me by suprise) the comment about my levies also paying for any passenger injuries in the event of an accident.... in this day of User Pays maybe we should be charging our passengers to cover their share of the levy.... :killingme

[Brian d marge]

Question... Are overseas tourists using rental cars on NZ roads entitled to ACC ?? Given that they pay levies at the pump just like us.

Like many here, and around the country, I own multiple vehicles, and pay multiple fees, so ealier this year i wrote to Nick Smith and Stephen Joyce on the matter of levies on the licence rather than the vehicle.

The following (in part) is Nick Smiths reply (Joyce didnt bother)



Read into it what you want, but for me it's nothing more than a steaming pile of dogshit from a patronising prat.

Couple of glaring points come to mind.

1. The comment about my other vehicles being available to other users while i'm not... well, helllooo.... presumably these people would have a licence too, and therfore be paying a levy as well, as would other road users.... and

2. (and this one caught me by suprise) the comment about my levies also paying for any passenger injuries in the event of an accident.... in this day of User Pays maybe we should be charging our passengers to cover their share of the levy.... :killingme
actually I'm not sure, me as a new Zealand citizen, can get acc but not a community service card....
and have received acc
I think go back to the original wood house principles for your answer

stephen

[Berries]

But who wants to pay more because of idiots who getting pissed, wrap their boy racer machines round trees, and run up 7 figure medical and rehabilitation bills?
But who wants to pay more because some people ride those two wheeled death traps instead of safer cars?

I'm all for ditching ACC and having personal insurance myself, that's what I grew up with in the UK. My annual insurance premiums went down as I gained more experience, and age, and if I didn't make a claim obviously. The opposite is true here. I'm older, more experienced and still claim free yet my 'premium' goes up due to other fuckwits on the road.

Different person + different bike = different risk. Same ACC levy? Shite.

[Brian d marge]

But who wants to pay more because some people ride those two wheeled death traps instead of safer cars?

I'm all for ditching ACC and having personal insurance myself, that's what I grew up with in the UK. My annual insurance premiums went down as I gained more experience, and age, and if I didn't make a claim obviously. The opposite is true here. I'm older, more experienced and still claim free yet my 'premium' goes up due to other fuckwits on the road.

Different person + different bike = different risk. Same ACC levy? Shite.
no u didnt u had the NHS

if you screwed up in a car, 12 quid a week from your pay would have seen you right

insurance and ACC are different

Stephen

[GrayWolf]

This excellent idea will be ignored.

(1) Because government wants to be able to "introduce competition' (ie help big business make a profit from) ACC. It cant do that if the levy is collected at the pump. It needs to be able to invoice individuals.

ACC will first have to start to invoice you directly. you will get a 'green slip" (or more likely electronically done) authority to licence your vehicle.

The petrol levy we already have will be retained - they will say its to cover those that never insure.
It is likely that somewhere in this scenario, compulsory third party insurance will be thrown in. This appeals to those who don't know the facts, and is likely to get widespread support from the uninformed.

I agree with the likelyhood that the levy on petrol will stay, if it is not funding 'ACC' style insurance it will disappear into the 'slush fund' just like the massive 'road tax' collected does in the UK, if it was all spent on road maintanance as it should be?

What I do not understand is why you claim the 'uninformed' will approve of compulsory 3rd party insurance?
Having come to NZ from the UK where it is a criminal offence to not have insurance, I was somewhat aghast when I discovered I could drive here without it. 3rd party at least protects the person you collide with from loss if it is your fault. How can that be considered a bad thing? Would you like to be T boned by an unisured driver who is on the dole? Maybe get your insurance excess paid back at $5 a week, and you still lose your no claims bonus. Which of course even if you have been accident free for 10-20 years unlike a car driver, you will not have any 'protection' of previous history to keep your no claim bonus. So next year your insurance will no longer have a 60% discount for no claims.





Use current insurance data to set ACC bike premiums which vary according to brand/model, region, owner age/gender etc

That sadly is a flawed system. The idea is great, but the insurance bracketing for bike completely discounts many highly relevant factors. A car can be insured by its CC rating, but also it's 'type' turbo, non turbo, V6, V8, GT, GTi etc. Motorcycles are simply insured by CC rating. oh its a 1500, thats powerful! Well no, a sprot 500cc has more horsepower and is faster, but you'll pay more for the 1500. No logical areuement will disuade then insurance companies from this 'ill sighted' method. I gather that Europe has classes of vehicles that from my limited reading considers, size, performance, type (saloon, coupe, station wagon) cost of repairs, age, value..and then puts the vehicle into a grouping. So all vehicles in that group incour a similar cost. Then I gather age of driver, experience, insurance history etc are factored into the equation.


Example - Joe Sixpack cage driver drifts over highway centre line going round a corner and takes out Harry on his Harley because he "didn't see him".

Under the old system, Harry spends 6 months in the spinal unit learning to walk again, while Joe Sixpack pays a modest fine, cops a few demerits, and in 2 years is scot-free.

I think everyone would agree that the 'punishment' needs to be commensurate with the offence/inattention




no, you were out manoeuvred , because at 0.0000000005 % of the population AND the fact that most nz apostrophe s are apathetic, its a dead cert that the rules are to be changed
the little surrender monies have bigger balls than most kiwis
still mustn't grumble eh, its a bit of a bother, but what can one do ....
stephen

Same as the European/UK bikers did over leg protectors... get the colective asses out of the whinging corner and make the complete m/cycling voice heard..... if they beat that then, you can beat hi vis vests here... What we need is to give the Govt a real and viable alternative. I suggested this elsewhere a while ago... daylights..... now in the era of hi power LED's that could well be a highly possible alternative. As dylights give diffused, rather than a beam of light.

[schrodingers cat]

why is it exported .......the problem that is

Stephen

Because 'someone else' will need to fix it