Gareth Morgan in the Herald on ACC levies for bikers

[Bytor]

"In fact research we've done at the Motorcycle Safety Advisory Council indicates that the risk of serious and expensive injury on a motorcycle is around 45 times higher per person-kilometre travelled as it is for occupants of other vehicles."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10818457

:corn:

[Tigadee]

Doesn't that statement support high ACC levies then? That since the risk is higher, then motorbikes should be paying higher ACC than other vehicles? :scratch:

[Swoop]

Was just reading that before conming on here.

The comments are entertaining...

[bogan]

Of course Sir Owen has always seen ACC as part of the social welfare vote not as an insurance scheme.

And that's the heart of the matter, which has apparently been decided to move to the later while we were watching something else.

Though considering it's Sir Owen, and Mr Gareth, I know which one I'd rather listen to :rolleyes:


The risk figure is bollocks and irrelevant anyway, nobody pays either insurance or ACC on a per km basis. If you ever needed proof that MOTOTNZ are just an ACC propaganda machine, them running those figures instead of per bike risk provides it.

[Ocean1]

Returning riders are a greater injury risk?

Don't think so, by far the highest risk category is learners, then anyone under 25.

[Murray]

Though considering it's Sir Owen, and Mr Gareth, I know which one I'd rather listen to :rolleyes:

Be assured MR Gareth is working on it

[The Lone Rider]

Who the fuck is Gareth Morgan, and why should anyone listen to him?

[Swoop]

Who the fuck is Gareth Morgan, and why should anyone listen to him?
Because he has a big moustache and people with authority have moustaches and odd opinions.
Exhibit A: Policemen.
Exhibit B: Sue Bradford.

[Devil]

Sound reasonable. I'm all for levy'ing the rider and not the bike. Plus allowances for competence, training and staying accident free.
Although the notion of being personally responsible for your actions i'm sure will scare a few off...

[The Lone Rider]

staying accident free.

No doubt ACC will be using my accident in January to wave around and say "See see.. look how much this costs."

While it might have been a bumper nudge and swearing when in a car, on a bike it was ass to the grass and permanent disability in my right arm.

Nevermind the fact that the driver of the car was ticketed on the spot by the police, for what he did that caused me to crash.

Why should I lose an ACC no claims for an accident that was proven to not have anything to do with me other than I was the victim?

[bogan]

No doubt ACC will be using my accident in January to wave around and say "See see.. look how much this costs."

While it might have been a bumper nudge and swearing when in a car, on a bike it was ass to the grass and permanent disability in my right arm.

Nevermind the fact that the driver of the car was ticketed on the spot by the police, for what he did that caused me to crash.

Why should I lose an ACC no claims for an accident that was proven to not have anything to do with me other than I was the victim?

and here's where the blocks start to tumble. We have a no fault system when it comes to individual accidents, so why should my premiums go up, when some numpty drove into me? Cue the end of no fault, enter the lawyers and larger overheads.

[HenryDorsetCase]

And that's the heart of the matter, which has apparently been decided to move to the later while we were watching something else.

Though considering it's Sir Owen, and Mr Gareth, I know which one I'd rather listen to :rolleyes:


The risk figure is bollocks and irrelevant anyway, nobody pays either insurance or ACC on a per km basis. If you ever needed proof that MOTOTNZ are just an ACC propaganda machine, them running those figures instead of per bike risk provides it.

Its Owen WOODHOUSE NOT OWEN GLENN!

Biiiiiig difference!

[HenryDorsetCase]

The conclusion I reached, once I got to grips with what was happening in the motorcycling injury scene and what is driving ACC's bills in this area, is that it's pretty obvious that the levy should be charged per rider - say through an annual rider licence renewal fee"

I agree with this.

Make it happen big boy. I've got the chequebook ready to sign. Serious: over 45y.o. riding for years and only ride on sunny sundays pretty much: I reckon my levy will be a shitload less than the squids.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Who is Brent Hutchison?

[bogan]

Who is Brent Hutchison?

aka Stoney round these parts

[Crasherfromwayback]

Who is Brent Hutchison?

Stoney. But not sure if he's still here.

[mashman]

Levy the person eh... what a novel idea, I'm all for it. I will ride for 1 day per year and on that day I will crash and fuck my hands up. ACC will pay for a nice nurse to service my needs and I'll get a salary at the same time.

How many ACC levy's do we pay off of our salaries? Hows about a single ACC levy collected at source? It'll cover cyclists, sporting injuries, rock climbing etc... all of those people who do "dangerous" things that don't pay a licence fee for the activity. A licence fee for an activity :facepalm:, sounds like more admin costs to me.

Simplify the lot and base it on the idea that anyone can get injured irrespective of activity (as ACC no doubt once was). Take the required levy costs from our salary (the income stream for every ACC cost). Done, easy and should costs rise in future, no single group gets hammered with a large increase, fair! Lower admin costs being one upside.

[Tigadee]

It'll cover cyclists, sporting injuries, rock climbing etc...

..., base jumping... :rolleyes: (After reading the front page of today's Herald.)

[mashman]

..., base jumping... :rolleyes: (After reading the front page of today's Herald.)

heh heh, never saw the story... did he live? Either way he gets the same entitlements as if he had slipped on the path at his house... doesn't he?

[HenryDorsetCase]

heh heh, never saw the story... did he live? Either way he gets the same entitlements as if he had slipped on the path at his house... doesn't he?

No, he didnt live. Also he did it in fucking Sweden or somewhere so it is completely irrelevant for present purposes.

[HenryDorsetCase]

actually base jumping/wingsuit flying is a lot like motorbike riding. Perceived by others as insanely dangerous, but not so to the participants (rightly or wrongly). Consequences of a cock up (yours or someone elses) more than likely fatal. Nice scenery. If you dont impact it at high velocity.

also, super hot women:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberta_Mancino

LhmzmOwkRuM

[Oscar]

Stoney. But not sure if he's still here.

He carries on like a complete knob here - how the fuck did he get on the council?

[MisterE]

Well, I guess the Herald article answers the question once and for all. I especially liked the stats

- 45 times more likely to crash per kilometre. Could G-dog have picked a single more inflammatory and one-sided stat than this.
- 31% of all accidents are rider error. Um, doesn't that mean that 69% accidents are the fault of some idiot in a tintop who forgot to pack their seeing eye dog?

Way to go Mr G. If we target all those lemmings who are obviously intentionally throwing themselves under the wheels of those cars just for the sheer hell of it I confidently predict we could reduce ACC cost by a whopping 2-3%


Of course, the real kicker is that we (motorcyclists) paid for this crap. If I was registering my bike these days I'd want my money back.

[MisterE]

The MotoNZ website allows you to place your feedback directly on their homepage. I've done so already and would encourage all of you to do the same

http://www.motonz.co.nz

[gammaguy]

i agree with almost every point Mr Morgan Makes

As usual its a brave govt indeed that will introduce policies that-shock!- reward individual excellence and dilligence and punish stupidity and lack of skills.

I wont be holding my breath...

[Oblivion]

I'd like to see the process of them making these statistics.

[Katman]

- 31% of all accidents are rider error. Um, doesn't that mean that 69% accidents are the fault of some idiot in a tintop who forgot to pack their seeing eye dog?


Um, no. It means 31% of motorcycle accidents we manage all by ourselves.

We are also responsible for about half the multi-vehicle accidents that make up that other 69%.

Back to Comprehension 101 with you.

[imdying]

The guy needs to be face fucked with a chainsaw.

I'm glad he's older than me... statistically I have a good chance of living longer than him and therefore getting a chance to piss on his grave. Or spit on his widow. Or both. Both at the same time would be the ideal.... great, another funeral to go to...

[HenryDorsetCase]

Um, no. It means 31% of motorcycle accidents we manage all by ourselves.

We are also responsible for about half the multi-vehicle accidents that make up that other 69%.

Back to Comprehension 101 with you.

source please?

[Katman]

source please?

Been linked to many, many times on here before.

Someone with greater enthusiasm should be along shortly to provide a link.

[gammaguy]

No, he didnt live. Also he did it in fucking Sweden or somewhere so it is completely irrelevant for present purposes.


which was nice of him as it is far cheaper to die than to be a drooling vegetable for the rest of your what passes for life

[MisterE]

...and while we are on the subject of the stats that mr morgan likes so much. Where are the stats that demonstrate moving to a privatised insurance system saves lives?

[HenryDorsetCase]

Been linked to many, many times on here before.

Someone with greater enthusiasm should be along shortly to provide a link.

OK, what evs.

I thought I had a fairly good handle on the stats from Morgans Kiwirider columns and such but that particular one didnt resonate with me.

[HenryDorsetCase]

...and while we are on the subject of the stats that mr morgan likes so much. Where are the stats that demonstrate moving to a privatised insurance system saves lives?

Its not about lives, its all about the money, honey.

[MisterE]

Um, no. It means 31% of motorcycle accidents we manage all by ourselves.

We are also responsible for about half the multi-vehicle accidents that make up that other 69%.

Back to Comprehension 101 with you.

Okay. So keen to get your opinion on the undeniably true and ridiculously inflammable stat "45 times more likely to crash per kilometre"

There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics.

Or let's look at it from the other perspective. Say Gareth wasn't intentionally hanging motorcyclists out to dry to push a right wing "sel it all" agenda. What stats could he have used to push something that might have a remote chance of actually saving lives? My beef here isn't with the numbers it's with how he has used the numbers to push an agenda that has no value whatsoever for the people who he is purporting to represent. Don't tell me you actually believe that privatising ACC is the magic bullet answer to reducing the road toll.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Um, no. It means 31% of motorcycle accidents we manage all by ourselves.

We are also responsible for about half the multi-vehicle accidents that make up that other 69%.

Back to Comprehension 101 with you.

You're a real winner (as in Charlie Sheen).

http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcyclist-crash-statistics-2011-%281%29.pdf


In 2010, 50 motorcyclists died and a further 1,300 were injured in road crashes. This was 13 percent of all deaths and 9 percent of all reported injuries on our roads.

The first two of these tell the story.


Single vehicle motorcyclist solely at fault. 31%
Single vehicle no motorcyclist fault identified 2%
Multi vehicle (subjective opinion) motorcyclist primary responsibility 24%.
Multi vehicle motorcyclist some responsibility 7%.
Multi vehicle no motorcyclist fault identified 37%.



For more serious crashes, the motorcyclist is more likely to have the primary responsibility4 for the crash. The motorcycle rider has the primary responsibility for 68 percent of fatal motorcycle crashes, but the comparable figure for minor injury crashes is 50 percent.

This isn't a good look

Of motorcyclists involved in fatal crashes, 22 percent are affected by alcohol/drugs; 32 percent are travelling too fast for the conditions; and 44 percent are travelling too fast for the conditions and/or are affected by alcohol/drugs.

Page 69 of the historical data shows that ACC's move is much akin to shutting the door after the horse has bolted.
http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motor-Vehicle-Crashes-2009-Motorcycle-casualties-and-crashes.pdf
In the 50's we were running around 480 accidents (and injuries) per 10000 registered bikes with the 60's at around 400, 70's at around 300, 80's & 90's around 270 and the naughties at about 130 (half of the previous two decades average????

Page 70 shows 55% crash injuries occur to under 40 year olds. Although according to later (ACC levy weighted surveys) this has reversed???

Interestingly the google search for "NZ motorcycle accident statistics" returned no results (that I could identify) for off road accidents and injuries.

http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=NZ%20motorcycle%20accident%20statistics&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np


I strongly suspect that many if not all off road injury accidents (involving unregistered non targeted levy paying activities) are being lumped in with all of the above statistics. Until evidence of such records are provided I don't see my opinion changing.

But overall the proposed changes are better not worse (than current) imo.

[Katman]

My beef here isn't with the numbers it's with how he has used the numbers to push an agenda that has no value whatsoever for the people who he is purporting to represent.

Convincing us to crash less often seems like a pretty good agenda to me.

[rustic101]

Well I've just added my 5c to his debate on the MOTONZ site. If you can't beat them (god knows I'd love too) try and join them and influence from within.... Some questions are rhetorical but it would be nice to have answers.



Just registered my Bikes and Ute again and I was insulted further by receiving a flyer on motonz in the licence lables. So I have a few questions for the MOTONZ Chair or Council Members.




How are individuals selected to serve on the committee, or who appoints the Council members? There is not one member on this council that represents me!




When are the next round of elections/nominations/appointments?




How do I or other individuals express an interest in being nominated/selected/appointed?




Will MOTONZ open their books and be transparent around their outputs/funding/assets and expenditure?




What value added products/services/processes or procedures have motonz introduced or are introducing that are not already provided by other Agencies.




Further insult was added to my intelligence today when I read the majority of dribble in the Herald by Dr Morgan who portrays himself as an opinionated expert in motorcycling his opinions were extremely biased, manipulated and showed the true Political aspirations he has/holds or seeks. His views or opinions do not reflect those of mine or from what I understand thousands of other riders and vehicle owners.




Look forward to the response.

[Katman]

Further insult was added to my intelligence today.....

Surely you jest.

[Bald Eagle]

As I understand it Mr Morgan is by profession an economist ( nobody has yet succesfully explained what they do ) who had the good fortunate to make a shit load of $$$ by investing in his sons business and ride a motorbike a bit.

He somehow managed to get appointed to motonz and given the job of spending our $30 safety levy.

The MSAC now seem to be populated by political yes people and hiding behind the Ministers portfolios.

as rustic so pointedly asked when are they going to disclose to the people they purport to represent what they have been / are doing with all that lovely money. I have the strong feeling they have just become a little sub-department of ACC pending it's sale as an insurance company to Shonkey's investment mates.

Rant over of to drink more.... it seems to help with the voices.

[rustic101]

Surely you jest.

I'm jovial but never in jest...

[Parlane]

Convincing us to crash less often seems like a pretty good agenda to me.

I fell down the stairs....

Or the one where you say it was sex related and they write it down in some coded anonymous form.

[Katman]

I fell down the stairs....

Or the one where you say it was sex related and they write it down in some coded anonymous form.

Herpes is still herpes no matter how it's written on the form.

[Parlane]

Herpes is still herpes no matter how it's written on the form.

Who would rub herpes on a form!?

[bogan]

He also fails to understand the 'it'll never happen to me accident type', which I would guess as being the largest part. Sure they would pay more after the fact, but the change of levy structure will do nothing for the accident rate. Excepting stopping some getting into riding, and forcing others to hang up there boots. Personally, I'll just 'hang up' my rego.

[bogan]

Who would rub herpes on a form!?

Depends if Gareth will be reading it :whistle:

[Ocean1]

If Gareth reckons we should pay according to the level of risk involved in our activities then how come my earner levies are income based. And how come my diesel van costs twice as much to register as my car.

If there's a common thread running through the whole ACC levies structure it's one of broadly categarising activities associated with income streams and taxing them accordingly. Same as every other tax rort. Sick of it. The more effort they put into aligning the various tax categories with revenue streams so as to skim as much as possible from any given activity the more effort I put into making godamn sure they get as little as possible.

Fuckem.

[tzrmike]

Last month, one of my workmates broke his ankle while shit-faced, he stepped off a deck. 4 weeks off work, 3 paid for by ACC. Levies recieved by ACC? Zero directly, but he's covered because of his income based levy. If I'm trimming the hedge at home and cut my finger off, or fall off a scaffold, I'm covered, so why should it be different for using a motor vehicle? If you work, you earn income, which has an ACC levy deducted. If you don't work, you don't have income, so you don't pay an earner's levy, so you don't get compo from ACC. I think that is the crux of the problem, ACC is being used to fund much more than just income protection, AND is being used to provide services to non-earmers.

[The_Duke]

The only ACC claim I've ever had to make in 17 years of riding was a badly sprained ankle I got trying to be a hero on the old man's unregistered dirt bike..

I'm guessing I'm not the only one.... and it begs the question: Why didn't Dr Pancake-Face do more research into the the distortion that off-road bike incidents make on our ACC stats??

[sleemanj]

ACC is being used to fund much more than just income protection, AND is being used to provide services to non-earmers.

Err, because

1. ACC is not just about income protection. It's about fixing you up as best we can. If that means subsidising or providing income, then good, but it also means paying your surgeon, paying for that helicopter rescue, paying for your physio, and those crutches....

2. In the vast majority of cases, non earners were once, or will be in future, earners. And even if they are not (tourists, invalids, elderly, perpetually unemployed), an amount of the money they spend paying you to be employed gets to the ACC as a levy to cover their activities (not to mention the ACC's investment returns).

Do you suggest that the instant you lose your job you cease to be covered by ACC?!?! Sorry you broke your leg granny, but since you don't work, here's a bill for $5000. Oh hai tourists, yes we know you pump millions of dollars into our economy, but anyway here's your gargantuan bill for the medical care since somebody bowled you over crossing the street.

The cost to our society of providing UNIVERSAL coverage under ACC pales in comparison with the advantages to both the individual and society of doing so.

NZ is a country with a strong history of socialised medical care and ACC is a part of that, if you don't like it, the US is only a 12 hour flight to the north, you better take your cheque (check) book though.

[tzrmike]

The point I'm making is that the Health System should be fixing me, paying my surgeon, providing physical therapy, not the ACC which should be solely for providing income protection. So, if you are a non-earner you get health care, but if you are an earner, you get health care and partial income. Now, I understand this is in effect what happens at the moment, BUT because the medical costs of accidents of both earners and non-earners, as well as the income support for earners are being loaded against ACC, this balloons the liability of ACC, rather than the Health System.

What's the real answer? Don't know. If the cost of accidents is removed from ACC and passed to the Health System, it would probably collapse in a heap of finanicial mis-management, or the government will jack taxes higher to pay for it (and probably leave ACC levies where they are anyway.) As an earner you pay twice anyway, tax and levy, so we're never going be better off.

You don't have to fly for 12 hours either, to see a country whose balls are held in a insurance vice, just pop across the ditch.

[Motig]

If Gareth could tell me what the advantage for me would be under his hypothetical regime I might be interested but he gives no details of anything in that regard. The main thing his scheme seems to be advocating is basically the elimination of the no faults ACC scheme we have at present which using our old favorite the good old USA as an example would be a disaster. What would this personal motorcycle levy cost? no idea and of course nor does he but I'd just about guarantee the lower waged sector of the motorcycle community would be the worst affected. At least with the present ACC thru registration you have the opportunity if your a softy like me to lessen your ACC levy by having your rego on hold over winter months, that wouldn't be possible under his idea. A rebate if the person opts out having wages covered by his 'personal levy' well what are you going to survive on if something happens? You'd have to have income insurance and I'm pretty sure that would be way more than the present ACC levy, no savings there then. So until I see an advantage of Gareths scheme over the present ACC model, I'm opting firmly for the present scheme.
Perhaps the easiest way to bring motorcycle levies down would be to have all recreational and farm use quads, farmbikes, offroad bikes etc forced to pay rego just like roadbike users. It would take a while but if all new vehicles were required to pay rego as soon as they were brought and renew it every year as everybody else has to it would be a start.
Has Gareth got shares in an insurance company? I'm wondering :cool:

[tbs]

Just wondering here. Is the advisory council's brief just to look into the ACC levies and registration (sorry, licensing) costs, or are they supposed to be looking at ways to lower the motorcycle accident rate? I ask, because while I agree in theory with the license the rider not the bike approach, I don't agree with the rest of this user pays attitude. It either places too much burden on user groups that are easy to tax, such as road motorcyclists, or it further opens the door for targeted revenue collection across a whole range of activities.

I'd be happy with a high personal license fee as long as I could bring it down significantly by going to high quality, fully subsidized rider training programs. We know that rider error is a huge part of the problem with motorcycle injury and death, so let's target that specifically. If they need to use high licensing fees to push riders into doing the training, then I personally don't have a problem with that. I also think you should be able to show high speed machine control before getting your learner license, as I believe the biggest part of the problem is bad riding technique. I think riders should be made to do a full two day course covering theory and practical riding at a track, with high standards for pass rates The restricted and full license tests should be carried out on road by proper motorcycle instructors who can actually analyze technique.

I know many will disagree, but here's the reasoning behind my thinking. I got my license less than two years ago. I proved I could pootle around a car park with a speed limit of 20km/h. No problem. What I did have a problem with, was that I had absolutely no clue how to ride properly at road speeds. Of course I did learn, but a lot of the technique I have comes from having watched the Twist of the Wrist DVD, gone to a Prorider day, and attending SASS, and doing track days..... all at my cost (except SASS). Oh, and 20 odd years riding and racing mountain bikes helped too. And while I believe track days are great for learning machine control, I have to admit I am nowhere near as confident riding on the road, and I would describe my road technique as mediocre at best.

Look at Grantman's thread on the noobie forum as an example. Left to his own devices, he developed bad habits and a bad mind set, and became the classic example of all that motorcyclists do wrong. He could virtually be the poster child for my recommendations.

I have to go do some work now, so that I can pay my ACC levies.....

Discuss.

[GTRMAN]

Just wondering here. Is the advisory council's brief just to look into the ACC levies and registration (sorry, licensing) costs, or are they supposed to be looking at ways to lower the motorcycle accident rate? I ask, because while I agree in theory with the license the rider not the bike approach, I don't agree with the rest of this user pays attitude. It either places too much burden on user groups that are easy to tax, such as road motorcyclists, or it further opens the door for targeted revenue collection across a whole range of activities.

I'd be happy with a high personal license fee as long as I could bring it down significantly by going to high quality, fully subsidized rider training programs. We know that rider error is a huge part of the problem with motorcycle injury and death, so let's target that specifically. If they need to use high licensing fees to push riders into doing the training, then I personally don't have a problem with that. I also think you should be able to show high speed machine control before getting your learner license, as I believe the biggest part of the problem is bad riding technique. I think riders should be made to do a full two day course covering theory and practical riding at a track, with high standards for pass rates The restricted and full license tests should be carried out on road by proper motorcycle instructors who can actually analyze technique.

I know many will disagree, but here's the reasoning behind my thinking. I got my license less than two years ago. I proved I could pootle around a car park with a speed limit of 20km/h. No problem. What I did have a problem with, was that I had absolutely no clue how to ride properly at road speeds. Of course I did learn, but a lot of the technique I have comes from having watched the Twist of the Wrist DVD, gone to a Prorider day, and attending SASS, and doing track days..... all at my cost (except SASS). Oh, and 20 odd years riding and racing mountain bikes helped too. And while I believe track days are great for learning machine control, I have to admit I am nowhere near as confident riding on the road, and I would describe my road technique as mediocre at best.

Look at Grantman's thread on the noobie forum as an example. Left to his own devices, he developed bad habits and a bad mind set, and became the classic example of all that motorcyclists do wrong. He could virtually be the poster child for my recommendations.

I have to go do some work now, so that I can pay my ACC levies.....

Discuss.


Well it does make sense that if every rider is trained and assessed in competence at a much higher skill level then the number of accidents (should say rider caused accidents) would decrease.

[jellywrestler]

Is the advisory council's brief just to look into the ACC levies and registration (sorry, licensing) costs, or are they supposed to be looking at ways to lower the motorcycle accident rate?
Not at all, As a motorcyclist with over 33 years on the road i've seen some stupid hazards some of which are an easy fix. I took the time to put in TWO submissions to MOTONZ and didn't get one single word of reply from them.
When i did email them to check some months later they told me they got my submissions, not a single word other than a confirmation.
It seems to me that MOTONZ are simply about a good old get together for a tray of lamingtons and a pot of tea...

[MisterE]

Convincing us to crash less often seems like a pretty good agenda to me.

Agreed. If it works. Let's start with the following...


Consequences are extremely important for explaining risky behaviours, like speeding,
because these behaviours are typically followed by soon and certain positive
consequences (rewards), while the negative consequences (penalties) are generally
uncertain and not very likely at the short term. Indeed, and luckily, crashes due to
speeding are relatively rare events and only a small percentage of total speed violations
are fined. So, speeding often goes unpunished. Driving safely, conversely, offers little
reward to the individual driver. Because of this specific alignment of consequences,
speeding is a highly common phenomenon, proving hard to curtail (Fuller, 1991).

Start with the research carried out by B F Skinner. It doesn't work. It's never worked. There is not one single piece of credible research demonstrating that this approach works. Which is why our self confessed "numbers man" has failed miserably to talk numbers.

[GrayWolf]

Err, because

1. ACC is not just about income protection. It's about fixing you up as best we can. If that means subsidising or providing income, then good, but it also means paying your surgeon, paying for that helicopter rescue, paying for your physio, and those crutches....

2. In the vast majority of cases, non earners were once, or will be in future, earners. And even if they are not (tourists, invalids, elderly, perpetually unemployed), an amount of the money they spend paying you to be employed gets to the ACC as a levy to cover their activities (not to mention the ACC's investment returns).

Do you suggest that the instant you lose your job you cease to be covered by ACC?!?! Sorry you broke your leg granny, but since you don't work, here's a bill for $5000. Oh hai tourists, yes we know you pump millions of dollars into our economy, but anyway here's your gargantuan bill for the medical care since somebody bowled you over crossing the street.

The cost to our society of providing UNIVERSAL coverage under ACC pales in comparison with the advantages to both the individual and society of doing so.

NZ is a country with a strong history of socialised medical care and ACC is a part of that, if you don't like it, the US is only a 12 hour flight to the north, you better take your cheque (check) book though.

Agree with the above overall, however, (isnt there always an 'however'?) accepting ACC is a 'global panacea' for all in the event of an accident, and is funded by our contributions. We (those who work) pay an ACC levy, our employers pay an ACC levy, we buy a vehicle(s) and pay an ACC levy.... I would and do willingly agree and accept the notion of benifit for an accident outside the workplace being covered. Anyone could get bowled by a car, fall over, trip, etc etc. Where there is a serious inequality is in the fact Motorcyclists have been singled out as 'high risk' users of the service and 'taxed' accordingly as they are x45 times more likely to be injured. So using that premise, play rugby, netball, football, hockey, horse riding, mountain biking..... they are all at 'high risk' of injury when compared to a pedestrian walking along the pavement... About time ACC also hit their pockets to contribute.... and lets not get me started on performance cars!!!

[duckonin]

Err, because

1. it also means paying your surgeon, paying for that helicopter rescue, paying for your physio, and those crutches....
.

Those above are the very souce of ripping off ACC with BIG bills. Most professionals love the thought ACC is paying the bill, and hike the price to their biggest advantage.

You could make your own list but here are a few more .Optometrists, GP'S, Motorcycle trainers, Chiropraters plus many more.:mad: These are the morons helping themselves big time to the 'unlimited purse' to make sure they are more than 'WELL' paid. Yep just wright out the chit,submit it and presto another house on the waterways at Pauanui.

We in turn pay more for levies to keep those above in lavish lifestyles. Try and get a Surgeon to help you if you are not on ACC or private insurance, ha ha happy waiting JACK...:msn-wink:

[duckonin]

Not at all, As a motorcyclist with over 33 years on the road i've seen some stupid hazards some of which are an easy fix. I took the time to put in TWO submissions to MOTONZ and didn't get one single word of reply from them.
When i did email them to check some months later they told me they got my submissions, not a single word other than a confirmation.
It seems to me that MOTONZ are simply about a good old get together for a tray of lamingtons and a pot of tea...

Same here.. I did not even get a confirmation so I figured why waste my time again. A waste of another thirty dollars of my money..:weep:

[HenryDorsetCase]

Lamingtons? Yes please!

[Flip]

.... and lets not get me started on performance cars!!!

The problem is there is no way to collect tax on recreational activities. Whats the matter with performance cars anyway?

[mashman]

The problem is there is no way to collect tax on recreational activities. Whats the matter with performance cars anyway?

Yes there is:

The person has the injury.
The person may do 1 or more "dangerous" actvities.
The person is covered by ACC.
ACC is supposed to be a 1 size fits all approach to keeping us "looked after".
The person pays multiple ACC levies OUT OF 1 SALARY.

Find the total bill for the year. Using the ACC calculator that I assume they have on the IRD database, play with the % ACC per $ of income feature until you get the total bill for the year. Voila, job done, time for tea, biccies and hot tead biccie blowjobs.. we may even save some cash on ACC Admin :shit:.

Simple yes? It catches everyone for everything, no more oh he should pay this because if his shoe lace comes undone he'll nearly maybe possibly potentially probably almost die according to this reporting I have in front of me :facepalm:. Is it profitable to keep such a simple thing complicated?

[mashman]

ACC says low rates drive up cost of future claims (http://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/acc-says-low-rates-drive-203818266.html;_ylt=ArypSfqDJ6Pvl.sEqincRe5SK5NG;_ ylu=X3oDMTN2aWFiMWFpBG1pdANUb3BTdG9yeSBQaG90byBOZX dzRlAEcGtnAzNkNTY5YzEwLWJhYTQtMzhiNC04MjAxLTc3YTg4 ZTdlMzJkOQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDdG9wX3N0b3J5BHZlcgNkMDJiZG IyMC1jYWQ3LTExZTEtYmZmZi02MWZkODdkNTYyY2I-;_ylg=X3oDMTFpbDZ1ZjI2BGludGwDbnoEbGFuZwNlbi1uegRw c3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3).. .

Would the above have anything to do with the new estimate in regards to our risk and liability?

[Swoop]

As I understand it Mr Morgan is by profession an economist ( nobody has yet succesfully explained what they do )
An economist is the same as a weather forecaster.
They "guess" for a living, much like a gambler.

The results are normally the same, some times they guess correctly and other times they get it astronomically wrong. The culpability of these people is zero. Nada. You never hear of economists' being made redundant.
All you will hear is "there is no way in hell we could have seen ""that"" coming!", and they walk away scott free.

They should all bugger off and become full-time professional moustache growers and join the circus. A real one. One that isn't in an office.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Leaving aside the ad hominem attacks on Gareth Morgan (some of which are particularly stupid, hurtful and above all ignorant) and dealing with the point:

One way to ensure that "recreational" activities which cause injury and are petrol powered is to levy ACC on fuel. That takes away that whole onroad/ofroad argument and the need to suffer this death by a thousand cuts which is what this, and all the other proposals do in my view.

Of course the non petrol powered sporting injuries then come under the microscope, but better to lump mountain biking and base jumping in with thugby and netball because there is zero political will to change entitlements there.

But what evs. You guys whinging on the internet, that'll fix it, right?

Now, where's my lamington. And I drink coffee. Norwegian Blackened Blood coffee.

[avgas]

I am done with ACC and I am done with Gareth Morgan.
I no longer people preaching to me they are my friends, then stabbing me in the back.

Bring back the scumbags who tell you to your face they are going to rip you off. Privatize the fucker.
Lets make it honest robbery - not the delusional good cop bad cop routine we have now. Its a fucking joke.

[Tigadee]

http://www.motorweb.co.nz/pub/infograph/road-fatalities

According to this, we (i.e. bikers) share the same fatality rate as pedestrians...

[Crasherfromwayback]

The problem is there is no way to collect tax on recreational activities. Whats the matter with performance cars anyway?

Yes there is. Petrol should be $4.00 a litre. Sorted. Farmers fucking themselves on quads, jet skiers, moto-xers...we all pay. Mum driving the car in reverse over someone...you name it.

[oneofsix]

yeah but are pedestrians hunted like this?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/7260197/Hoons-run-scooter-rider-off-road
:mad:

They have to put up with the careless and thoughtless like bikers but not actively hunted down like this lass was.
Wonder if she was checked out by a medic and is now another ACC stat. The article doesn't really say.

[pete376403]

While on ACC in general - interesting analysis of the "financial crisis" Smith was pushing;
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/7254734/Govt-should-make-its-ACC-intentions-clear

[sleemanj]

One way to ensure that "recreational" activities which cause injury and are petrol powered is to levy ACC on fuel.

But why? Why do we have to levy ACC on anything other than income as part of taxation?

Why do we have to say "you had a motor vehicle accident, so your costs will be paid by motor vehiclists", or indeed "you are a dairy worker, so you will pay more ACC than an office worker", why can it not just be "you had an accident, so your costs will be paid by all of society".



One flat percentage of income levy added to personal and company taxes, adjusted annually. Set at whatever level it needs to be to cover the expected costs.

[pete376403]

But why? Why do we have to levy ACC on anything other than income as part of taxation?

Why do we have to say "you had a motor vehicle accident, so your costs will be paid by motor vehiclists", or indeed "you are a dairy worker, so you will pay more ACC than an office worker", why can it not just be "you had an accident, so your costs will be paid by all of society".



One flat percentage of income levy added to personal and company taxes, adjusted annually. Set at whatever level it needs to be to cover the expected costs.

Isn't that the original Woodhouse formula? But various Governments just can't resist tinkering

[tigertim20]

Doesn't that statement support high ACC levies then? That since the risk is higher, then motorbikes should be paying higher ACC than other vehicles? :scratch:

thats not the fucking point.
ACC is a NO FAULT SYSTEM.

how about we charge black people more tax because they are a higher risk of heart disease and a number of other medical issues that ultimately chew up dollars?

[MrKiwi]

And that's the heart of the matter, which has apparently been decided to move to the later while we were watching something else.

Though considering it's Sir Owen, and Mr Gareth, I know which one I'd rather listen to :rolleyes:


The risk figure is bollocks and irrelevant anyway, nobody pays either insurance or ACC on a per km basis. If you ever needed proof that MOTOTNZ are just an ACC propaganda machine, them running those figures instead of per bike risk provides it.

Although to be fair to the Council the views in that article are those of Gareth Morgan and are not necessarily shared by others on the Council, hence why it was not released under the Council's name. I think the discussion should be had, however, I for one agree with some of what he argues and not on others. Whether I agree with Gareth or not does not mean I should run him down, or those on the Council. Agree to disagree, play the ball not the man.

[bogan]

Although to be fair to the Council the views in that article are those of Gareth Morgan and are not necessarily shared by others on the Council, hence why it was not released under the Council's name. I think the discussion should be had, however, I for one agree with some of what he argues and not on others.

A good rule of thumb, if you are part of a group dealing with a particular issue, don't make an individual statement on a similar issue. It's not fucking rocket science.

I hope you do have the discussion, tbh I find it hard to believe it hasn't yet come up; I also hope you allow the motorcyclists you claim to represent to influence the outcome.

[flyingcrocodile46]

But why? Why do we have to levy ACC on anything other than income as part of taxation?

Why do we have to say "you had a motor vehicle accident, so your costs will be paid by motor vehiclists", or indeed "you are a dairy worker, so you will pay more ACC than an office worker", why can it not just be "you had an accident, so your costs will be paid by all of society".



One flat percentage of income levy added to personal and company taxes, adjusted annually. Set at whatever level it needs to be to cover the expected costs.

Because you can't do away with the ever increasing selection of indirect taxation increases (under whatever label) without offseting their loss by increasing the tax take on personal income and company taxes. If we did away with all of societies separate taxes and levies like Rates, GST, ACC taxes, petrol taxes, alcohol taxes, tobacco taxes, road user taxes, etc etc our maximum personal income tax rates would have to be increased from 33% up to 80% and that would drive the best of us overseas where people aren't forced to bear the same level of burden to get by in life (i.e Oz).

At present if you are paying 33% plus all the other levies and taxes it totals up to well over 50% and that is fucking sickening. Why does a single income earner with 3 or more dependents get forced to support them and theirs (4 people) on less than half his fucking money. It is fucking bullshit.

http://www.victoria.ac.nz/sacl/about/events/past-conferences/6ahic/publications/6AHIC-36_FINAL_paper.pdf

The above link is to a very interesting read about the start of PAYE back in 58. The PAYE rate was only 15% and if you had a family of 3 to support you only paid half that rate. The creation of a funding mechanism to feed a welfare society. We have since let PC type concerns overule common sense and drive unaffordable increases in expenditure to provide more and more and more and more "essential services":rolleyes: as part of our welfare society and similarly increased expenditure on social amenities. The list of things that are regarded as "essential" has grown from food, water, clothing, shelter, cooking and cleaning facilities to now include things that weren't even available back in 58. Now you can get subsidies to pay for your mortgage on your appreciating assets from tax paid by people who have no similar assets, allowances to buy new fangled washing machines,TV's and PC's (for the children's education) luxurious upholstered lounge suites and innersprung beds and an unimaginable variety of exotic fruit and veges THAT SOMEONE ELSE GETS PAID TO GROW.. etc etc. :mad:

[MrKiwi]

A good rule of thumb, if you are part of a group dealing with a particular issue, don't make an individual statement on a similar issue. It's not fucking rocket science.

I hope you do have the discussion, tbh I find it hard to believe it hasn't yet come up; I also hope you allow the motorcyclists you claim to represent to influence the outcome.

We've had "some discussion" but it is left unfinished. I regularly talk with a range of motorcyclists. Some like the ideas Gareth has advocated others don't. In the end I, along with others, was interested at least in having a debate on the ideas to gauge people's reactions past our immediate contacts and we agreed we did not need to have a shared view for that discussion. However, it has been put out by Gareth, not the Council albeit the Council is following the comments (reaction). However, I take your point.

Even though I don't often comment in this forum, I am regularly popping in to gauge peoples views. I can't say I agree with some of what I read, but quite a lot of it is interesting, sometimes entertaining and sometimes I wonder why people write what they do? But as I say, I am reading and keeping abreast of views expressed here.

[gammaguy]

Yes there is. Petrol should be $4.00 a litre. Sorted. Farmers fucking themselves on quads, jet skiers, moto-xers...we all pay. Mum driving the car in reverse over someone...you name it.

too sensible mate

we all know that ACC is a very very political issue,and mr Key is unlikely to upset his farming buddies(WHO ALL GET DISCOUNTED PETROL IN THE FIRST PLACE) that put him where he is today

much better to make those filthy greasy bikers pay for their pleasure.

Unfair?you bet,but since when did politics and fairness share a bed.

[GrayWolf]

The problem is there is no way to collect tax on recreational activities. Whats the matter with performance cars anyway?

Yes there is,,, levy the clubs themselves. They charge membership fees, so the levy is passed on in the membership costs,,, just like our rego' is used to reap the fruit of our labours.

[oneofsix]

Yes there is,,, levy the clubs themselves. They charge membership fees, so the levy is passed on in the membership costs,,, just like our rego' is used to reap the fruit of our labours.

And they do. That's how they collect fugby levies etc. Not sure about horse riding though and that is rumoured to be the recreational activity that costs ACC the most.

[HenryDorsetCase]

And they do. That's how they collect fugby levies etc. Not sure about horse riding though and that is rumoured to be the recreational activity that costs ACC the most.

What we need is someone who knows about statistics to have a look at ACC's published data. Because they do publish data. A statistician, an actuary, or perhaps an economist. Actually an economist would be good because they cantry and model and predict effects based on the stats, and try and explain them.

Then all the different groups (rugby players, netballers, motorbike riders (on and off road) and horse riders can whine and bitch and point the finger one at the other, while smug fucker Key and his lumpy minions erode our hard won system some more. Good going!

[oneofsix]

What we need is someone who knows about statistics to have a look at ACC's published data. Because they do publish data. A statistician, an actuary, or perhaps an economist. Actually an economist would be good because they cantry and model and predict effects based on the stats, and try and explain them.

Then all the different groups (rugby players, netballers, motorbike riders (on and off road) and horse riders can whine and bitch and point the finger one at the other, while smug fucker Key and his lumpy minions erode our hard won system some more. Good going!

Carry on, as you were then. :lol:

And then when we are all fat fuckers like me but also unfit we can complain about the cost to the health system and why people don't get out and play sport etc. Umm as I already said, carry on as we were then.

[Swoop]

rugby players, netballers, motorbike riders (on and off road) and horse riders...

They are all (guess what) individuals.

Mr Morgan's proposal to tax the individual rather than the motorcycle, is sensible. However it needs to be applied equally across every spectrum of society to be fair. Having the individual pay for their ACC levy does make sense as we can only injure ourselves doing one thing at a time (can't get injured on three bikes, a car and at work all at the same time, can we?).

Taxing the individal would mean a massive decrease to ACC as they wouldn't be able to double dip (or triple dip, etc) as they do now with multiple registrations and wage payments, so it would be a hefty price increase for some & a saving for others.
The good thing is that the net traps some who are in the non-acc zone, like cyclists and dirtbike riders, BASE jumpers, etc.

[GrayWolf]

We've had "some discussion" but it is left unfinished. I regularly talk with a range of motorcyclists. Some like the ideas Gareth has advocated others don't. In the end I, along with others, was interested at least in having a debate on the ideas to gauge people's reactions past our immediate contacts and we agreed we did not need to have a shared view for that discussion. However, it has been put out by Gareth, not the Council albeit the Council is following the comments (reaction). However, I take your point.

Even though I don't often comment in this forum, I am regularly popping in to gauge peoples views. I can't say I agree with some of what I read, but quite a lot of it is interesting, sometimes entertaining and sometimes I wonder why people write what they do? But as I say, I am reading and keeping abreast of views expressed here.

Hello MrKiwi,
Firstly a brief history of myself.. started riding in 1974 and been a full time motorcyclist ever since. Lived in Uk (London) till 32, then moved to NZ. Rode in UK, Europe and here. Passed IAM in the UK, and also did some extra training with the old RAC/ACU scheme's.

OK I'll bite! There has been 'discussion' in the council? Firstly what most here see I feel, is a lack of 'transparency' in these discussions. Mr. Stoney (Brent) aside, there is very little 'feedback' from Motonz, said Council etc. What I have seen over many years is frequent attempts to legislate 'protection' at motorcyclists. THAT is the crux of many of the ill feelings, legislated AT, rather than for or with. The recent Uni survey here, for Hi-vis, when they synopsis-ed their findings it was basically to display we are just downright 'ANTI' Hi-vis, rather than considering many valid points raised against. As I have mentioned here a few times, I was in the UK when Peter Bottomley attempted the ill researched and ill-fated compulsory leg protectors. The research was based on a BMW on an anti skid frame with boxer cylinders removed, against a Morris marina car... no research into drop, pointed 'nosed' vehicles, let alone vans, trucks, etc etc. There was also much concern from the Surgeons as to possible massive knee trauma being caused by the ACTUAL leg protectors.
The UK Police in the 1980's were using diffused beam 'day riding lights' As I no longer live there i cant comment if that is still the case. It has been researched as to the effect of headlights affecting distance judgement for drivers when assessing approach speed and distance for overtaking/junctions. Yet we are not allowed to use diffused light 'day lights' but compulsory headlights!
Now as to Hi-vis..
I work in an industy where Hi-vis is a requirement (safety critical work environment). We have track workers who can appear ANYWHERE along a line and can be working under ITD (individual train detection). This means they have no 'safety area' designated by warning boards and stop boards for drivers to observe. They rely on their own alertness and the train drivers alertness. Track workers wear orange, drivers, train crew wear yellow hi-vis when on the 'ballast" (tracks). If my train breaks down or develops a fault I may well as the Locomotive Engineer HAVE to go on the track (double line) to remedy a fault, or 'cut out' the air supply to a faulty brake, replace a burst air hose etc. This has an inbuilt 'knowledge' by the colour WHO is in view trackside. So I have a respect and agreed knowledge of hi'vis clothing ability to be noticed at a distance. HOWEVER, we are being asked to wear (it is inevitable I feel with the current lack of 'fight' shown by groups like MotoNZ) Hi-vis as a safety aid to help prevent injury, make us conspicuous when approaching junctions, turns, head on traffic etc. Simply put MrKiwi total BOLLOX. When I am approaching a track crew or platform, or train crew who are behind/beside a strong light at dusk/dawn/night what I see is the REFLECTIVE striping not the Hi-vis. Also I can assure you if they are BEHIND a strong light in the DAY the hi'vis is far less effective. Now if you relate this to a motorcycle? the rider is seated, the headlight is approximately 'hip height' and these days a powerful halogen type beam. You do NOT see hi-vis at any distance in this situation, rather it is only noticable effectively at close range, this really 'negates' the idea of Hi-vis getting peoples attention at a distance. NOW if I am following a motorcyclist? Yes I have to agree I can see Hi-vis quite reasonably.
So MrKiwi, my challenge to MotoNZ, the Council is this.. if you really DO intend to represent Motorcyclists as a whole, it's time to start to advocate EFFECTIVE measures for safety. Start to be seen to PUSH at the Govt, to subsidise? organise? Rider training similar to the systems being produced in the UK. My RAC/ACU and IAM had a Police Motorcyclist in attendance, instructing... we have some IAM qualified instructors in NZ. As much as it is not generally accepted or agreed, stepped licensing similar to Europe, with either a time per step, test or passing an improved level of riding skill (Star rider in London in the 1980 had a bronze/silver/gold skill system in place) before advancing to more powerful machinery. Looking at the age of those on the MotoNZ webpage, most of those people would be very aware of the massive increase of power/performance compared to the 'superbikes' of our youth. We all know EGO, and a over confident attitude to ability is often the driving force to "can never have too much power"... "I can ride a 1000cc hypersports bloody well on the back roads" etc... yet reality is only a very small percent of folks have that level of 'talent' to ride a high power bike 'effectively' in safety and control.. Unless NZ really is populated by Aaron Slight clones.
I am sure you have read comments here from members who have commented about a lack of response to inquiries and suggestions, that in itself should give a headsup as to how MotoNZ is perceived by its 'customers' and as a part of our rego pays for MotoNZ, we really ARE the customer.
Thanks for reading this,
and I will await your response with interest,
yours, GW

[bogan]

A most excellent post GrayWolf, but here is where you went off the rails (so to speak)


I am sure you have read comments here from members who have commented about a lack of response to inquiries and suggestions, that in itself should give a headsup as to how MotoNZ is perceived by its 'customers' and as a part of our rego pays for MotoNZ, we really ARE the customer.

We aren't seen as their customer, just a cash cow, bet it would be a lot different if we could opt out of paying them though... probably the only feedback that would get through to the economist.

[Paul in NZ]

There are a few things I just don't get out of these stats.

Apparently we are 45 times (per km traveled) to have an injury related accident. Yet in all my years riding I have never made an ACC claim related to riding motorcycles. I know a few others in this situation as well. So I must assume that there are some people out there that are serial serious crashers of motorcycles....

Mr Morgans ideas have some merit but I think everyone should get a couple of get out of jail free cards. If after that you don't mend your ways or at least attend advanced training and continue crashing the bike, your fees need to go up.

Or something along those lines???

[Katman]

So I must assume that there are some people out there that are serial serious crashers of motorcycles....



A fairly safe assumption Paul.

[Paul in NZ]

A fairly safe assumption Paul.

Wow - how can they afford it?? Physically and materially....

[oneofsix]

There are a few things I just don't get out of these stats.

Apparently we are 45 times (per km traveled) to have an injury related accident. Yet in all my years riding I have never made an ACC claim related to riding motorcycles. I know a few others in this situation as well. So I must assume that there are some people out there that are serial serious crashers of motorcycles....

Mr Morgans ideas have some merit but I think everyone should get a couple of get out of jail free cards. If after that you don't mend your ways or at least attend advanced training and continue crashing the bike, your fees need to go up.

Or something along those lines???

Your problem would most likely be with the stats. How do they determine the ks travelled, especially with so many riders having more than one bike?

[bogan]

Apparently we are 45 times (per km traveled) to have an injury related accident. Yet in all my years riding I have never made an ACC claim related to riding motorcycles. I know a few others in this situation as well. So I must assume that there are some people out there that are serial serious crashers of motorcycles....

If you got look into the stats Gareth used to get those shonky figures, you're probably recorded as having at least one crash ;)

Per vehicle it is 3.5x more likely
Per km it used to be 16x, then 18x, then 20x, now its 45x, I better get some riding in before we have to crash twice for every km we ride!

[bogan]

Your problem would most likely be with the stats. How do they determine the ks travelled, especially with so many riders having more than one bike?

Pretty sure it is recorded at wof inspections...

[avgas]

Although to be fair to the Council the views in that article are those of Gareth Morgan and are not necessarily shared by others on the Council, hence why it was not released under the Council's name. I think the discussion should be had, however, I for one agree with some of what he argues and not on others. Whether I agree with Gareth or not does not mean I should run him down, or those on the Council. Agree to disagree, play the ball not the man.
Remind me again why we have a paid council? Or do you not get paid if you disagree with GM?

[oneofsix]

Pretty sure it is recorded at wof inspections...

They can only do it per road bike. I see the possibilities of gaps in the stats, do all the bikes have the same details, do they realise that Joe H Blog, Joe Blog and J Blog are all the same person? Also my cage racks up lots of Ks without my in it whereas my bike only racks up ks without me when its getting its WoF.
:doh: step back from the keyboard :facepalm:

If you mean averaging then there is hardly a cage that isn't subject to WoF but that are many bikes that aren't.

[avgas]

We aren't seen as their customer, just a cash cow, bet it would be a lot different if we could opt out of paying them though... probably the only feedback that would get through to the economist.
Lol that could actually work. Have a protest saying that we should have an "Opt-In" re: MotoNZ.

[GarethMorgan]

After reading some of the comments both here and on other sites I feel there are a few misconceptions out there. Here is a follow up article... http://garethsworld.com/motorbike-riders-need-to-get-real/

[The Lone Rider]

I thought the council members were banned from posting on Kiwibiker? Or be banned from the council.

[Katman]

Here is a follow up article... http://garethsworld.com/motorbike-riders-need-to-get-real/

Totally agree.

[bogan]

After reading some of the comments both here and on other sites I feel there are a few misconceptions out there. Here is a follow up article... http://garethsworld.com/motorbike-riders-need-to-get-real/

Care to comment on why you keep using the per/km risk, when injuries happen on a per rider basis?

Also, how sure are you that motorcycling is miles more risky per individual than other sports? Have the horsists been survneighed?

[bogan]

Lol that could actually work. Have a protest saying that we should have an "Opt-In" re: MotoNZ.

It would certainly bring some accountability back...

[Bald Eagle]

So we are 'penalised' because of our choice of transport mode based on some doubtful statistics. While people who engage in other higher risk activities escape payment.

Seems to me it's more about here's a group that can easily be identified and charged rather than address the large number of other activities simply because there's no mechanism for collection.

After all as you said "The principle is that those engaging in higher risk activities should pay more of its costs."

I would also dispute that motorcycling is a high risk activity. It is my transport mode of choice. Rather the 'consequences of a misadventure are high cost" would seem to be the truer statement.

[bogan]

Totally agree.

I agree in that a lot of bikers (lets just round it up to ALL bikers to be on the safe side) need to put some time in to improve their roadcraft (not that it was directly addressed in his blog).

I don't agree that over-taxation is an effective way to achieve this. How is putting out obviously scaremongering figure going to get bikers to listen? How is charging us more going to allow us to buy better gear? or afford roadcraft training?

[Bald Eagle]

I agree in that a lot of bikers (lets just round it up to ALL bikers to be on the safe side) need to put some time in to improve their roadcraft (not that it was directly addressed in his blog).

I don't agree that over-taxation is an effective way to achieve this. How is putting out obviously scaremongering figure going to get bikers to listen? How is charging us more going to allow us to buy better gear? or afford roadcraft training?


The political masters believe the stick gets better results from the jonkey, and they can then eat the carrots themselves.

[Swoop]

I must assume that there are some people out there that are serial serious crashers of motorcycles...
I believe they are referred to as "GSXR riders".

Care to comment on why you keep using the per/km risk, when injuries happen on a per rider basis?
Very true. There are a few around here who have never made an ACC claim for a motorcycle related "event".

[Voltaire]

I booked my wife into an ACC paid for scooter refresher course.....the 2 people who turned up got good value for money. Message ACC gets is no one is really that interested.
My wife is not keen on riding around Auckland and I don't blame her as the standard of driving is so poor.

[Murray]

After reading some of the comments both here and on other sites I feel there are a few misconceptions out there. Here is a follow up article... http://garethsworld.com/motorbike-riders-need-to-get-real/

Do you get your figures from the same people that told us ACC was broke???

Anyone with common sense can manipulate figures any way they like. Even Nick Smith did it and he's got no sense at all!!

[HenryDorsetCase]

I'm with Gareth.

A sensible proposal based on the facts.

All you people talking about dodgy statistics, and using anecdotal evidence as the basis for your arguments need to do the same due diligence, and put up some convinincing counter proposals.

Or consider the point at which you will be priced off the road: is it $528 p.a.? is it $1000 p.a.? Is it $2000 p.a.? $5000?

[MrKiwi]

I thought the council members were banned from posting on Kiwibiker? Or be banned from the council.

We've never been prevented from commenting on here, but we have been held accountable for what we say and the agreed protocals within the Council, which is normal practice for appointment to any board, council or advisory body.

[Katman]

I don't agree that over-taxation is an effective way to achieve this.

Yeah, perhaps we should just ask motorcyclists nicely to up their game.

That's bound to work.

[MrKiwi]

After reading some of the comments both here and on other sites I feel there are a few misconceptions out there. Here is a follow up article... http://garethsworld.com/motorbike-riders-need-to-get-real/


An excellent explanation of the no fault system...

[Paul in NZ]

After reading some of the comments both here and on other sites I feel there are a few misconceptions out there. Here is a follow up article... http://garethsworld.com/motorbike-riders-need-to-get-real/

Erm - darn.... Gareth much kudos for leaping into the tigers, erm, lion, ah, bear, no fluffy kitten pit. Please resist the temptation to blog anything though...

While I agree with you in principle I still think there needs to be a couple of freebies chucked in. Just for the sake of fairness.

Given the stats people quote AND the number of people I know who never ever or very seldom ever experience any major trauma on a motorcycle the problem must lay with a few who repeatedly cost heaps. Is it possible to see any figure featuring incidence of repeat claims? Surely its those who won't change that we should really target cost recovery at?

Personally I'd take the whole concept further into a social WoF. Pay your taxes, don't commit crimes, raise your kids properly and earn a discount on your ACC or extra retirement income or summat. Encourage people to participate in society?

[Paul in NZ]

I'm with Gareth.

A sensible proposal based on the facts.

All you people talking about dodgy statistics, and using anecdotal evidence as the basis for your arguments need to do the same due diligence, and put up some convinincing counter proposals.

Or consider the point at which you will be priced off the road: is it $528 p.a.? is it $1000 p.a.? Is it $2000 p.a.? $5000?

Its hard when you don't have the data I whine....

$1000pa in a lump sum would probably see me off.... (good riddance they all cry)

[Swoop]

All you people talking about dodgy statistics, and using anecdotal evidence as the basis for your arguments need to do the same due diligence, and put up some convinincing counter proposals.
OK. Bike licence since 1979 and NO ACC claims from motorcycling. Where is my fucking refund or rebate?

Counter proposal? Already doing it by not paying for rego, which is obviously just getting more beaureaucrats parking their fat arses on the governmental gravy train.

[Bald Eagle]

When the penalty for non-compliance exceeds the cost of compliance, then compliance becomes the preferred option... maybe.

[tbs]

Hi Gareth, and welcome to Kiwibiker.
I personally hope you will stick around and talk to us, although I imagine you will have to weather a fair few personal attacks. This is Kiwibiker afterall.

I'm pasting in the final paragraph from the link you provided:

All of this is commonsense and if we’re serious about reducing the levy costs we’re having to pay for on-road riding injuries, we should be demanding these changes. Shagging round with road design, conspicuity of rider and bike, and roadside ads to tell motorists to look out for the motorcycle – is the sort of fiddling about that occurred while Rome burned.

I think we ALL agree with this and a lot of us are very happy to hear it from you. I think there has been a growing concern that you were using your role on the advisory council as a platform for a political agenda, and baring this in mind, publishing your thoughts on our ACC levies under your own name probably came across as more politically motivated than you intended.

So while I hopefully have your attention, I would love to hear your thoughts on the ability level of the average motorcyclist in New Zealand, and how that level can be significantly improved. Soon after I bought my first bike I attended a training course with Pro-rider, and I was very surprised to see how many seasoned and confident riders on the course were riding with terrible technique. Poor technique, poor machine control, poor road-craft, poor understanding of the physics involved, and very little understanding of our own weaknesses.... I submit would these account for a huge number of injuries, both single vehicle and where others are involved.
My big concern is that there is so much more involved in safely controlling a motorcycle than a car, and yet there is no requirement, or really any incentive to learn properly. It sounds like you want to use ACC levies as the incentive, but I suggest the whole licensing system needs to be radically re-assessed to produce competent riders int he first place.

Looking forward to your further contributions.

Blair Shallard.

[Ocean1]

When the penalty for non-compliance exceeds the cost of compliance, then compliance becomes the preferred option... maybe.

Quite the opposite in fact.

When either the rules deviate from socially accepted behaviour or the penalties exceed a certain level then a majority of people ignore both.

You can find out why if you can be bothered but there's enough evidence that we're already beyond that point. I'd suggest further restrictions or higher penalties will simply be ignored by everyone rather than the current simple majority.

[bogan]

All you people talking about dodgy statistics, and using anecdotal evidence as the basis for your arguments need to do the same due diligence, and put up some convinincing counter proposals.

Did that over a year ago, even used data everyone could get access to and look through if they wanted. We didn't use the per km stuff because the figures were rare, and not very transparent, even less transparent are the ACC costs; any coincidence the least transparent figures are the favourites for TPTB?
However, summary was 3.5x more likely to have an accident on a per vehicle basis (closest we could get to a per rider figure). The counter proposals were (and still are);

levy on petrol

levy on license (but without all this insurancy bullshit, a single charge rate for everybody, or by vehicle classes if necessary)

recombine the ACC accounts and have it all on income tax (re-jigger benefit payouts to suit)

[GrayWolf]

After reading some of the comments both here and on other sites I feel there are a few misconceptions out there. Here is a follow up article... http://garethsworld.com/motorbike-riders-need-to-get-real/

Thank you for the follow up Gareth, and; thank you for having the 'nuts' to front up in KB, which I guess from reading, you've realised can be a 'Zoo' where anything from 'tame to downright maneater' replies occur towards posts/individuals.
Yes I agree there is an elevated risk when riding a Motorcycle, however I do object strongly to my mode of transport being referred to as an 'high risk activity'. It IS NOT an activity, I ride a Motorcycle every day as transport.. I don't even own a car, by choice. (OK, I admit wifey does though:cool:)
Yes I see stupid behaviour by both riders and car drivers during my rides to work often.
EXAMPLE: yesterday on the way to work, 3 lane road, I was in middle lane and was going to move to the right as I was approaching a slower moving vehicle. (yes a little over 100kph I will admit) there was a vehicle to my right which as I indicated, I noticed it closing the gap when I performed a rear observation.... Yup, spotty dickhead in his battered Wrex with his bimbo in the passenger seat, deciding to 'go the motorbike', drew level with me, then sat at the same speed, throttle blipping etc. I had to slow down to leave a braking gap between myself and the slower moving vehicle in my lane.
Now according to the statistics I am X45 times more likely to be injured... and ACC pay regardless of fault so I am in a high risk category. Lets say I accept the fact I am in a 'higher risk group'. Now if a worker is killed or seriously injured OSH will investigate and penalise/prosecute those to blame. Had I been taken off my bike yesterday, quite possibly I would have been severely injured and a Police investigation would ensue. Once fault was established.. Here is where I have always advocated compulsory insurance ... the spotty brats insurance would have to cough up, he then gets an increased premium, or refusal to insure. My ACC costs would be 'recoverable' to some extent. There is I guess the crux of my arguement, ACC may operate 'no fault' but the Police, legal system, OSH and insurance companies do.. so those ACC costs can be mitigated to an extent for the 'victim'.
The same 'model' will also work in reverse for the 'Rossi wannabe's' as well as the ' boy racers'.
I certainly am not the type to put myself in the firing line, as yourself has done, and I will always applaud those who do. What maybe I would like to see is yourself or MotoNZ start to publish some good facts; research like the one conducted in Holland a while ago showing how increasing motorcycle use even by 10% on a heavily congested road reduced tailbacks and travel times even for the car drivers. As much as there are accident statistics, we need some of the good oil spread about as to the benefits bikes do have on city congestion, road wear, etc.
Really all the statistics I have seen you use are doom and gloom ones.......How about a bit of sunshine for the group who fund MotoNZ?

[Flip]

What cost would get me off my modern (sic) bike?

I would probably not ride if the fixed total cost PA was about $5k. So far I currently spend about 0.8k on insurance, say 0.8k on R+M, 0.53 on reg.

If riding a modern gets too expensive I would just pop over to the US and bring back a WLA or the UK and/or bring back a Norton cafe racer and ride around on this.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I am on record as saying my preferred option is fuel levy in terms of "pay as you go"

The good news is that soon only rich people such as Gareth and myself will be able to afford to ride on the road, all you hoi polloi can go ride dirt bikes or play rugby or something.

Oh yeah, Ima start base jumping. Sounds like fun

[HenryDorsetCase]

One interesting part of the responses here is that it is fairly obvious MOTONZ is tasked with dealing with riders as a class of road user, and thats what all the palaver about statistics (and yes, I've heard about statistics and damn lies).

EVERY SINGLE response from you guys is "me" "me" "me", "I" "I" "I".

very enlightening. Sure, thats what people do, and how people are: we dont really give a shit about others, its all about me. But if you are specifically tasked with looking at a bigger picture, why would you be specifially blamed for that? Its hilarious.

Meh, whatevs. I'ma go crack open a bottle of Bollinger to wash my motorbike with.

[caseye]

An excellent explanation of the no fault system...

With at least one notable exception.
That being that until recently all car and motorcyclists were levied ACC on pretty much the same level, it depended on vehicle size and weight as to what was charged, but there was NOT a separate levy on each class dependant on the risk of having to repay at a higher level when and if a driver/rider came to grief.
This is what has happened and it is this that we as motorcyclists abhor!
All of this under the guise of making the playing field level so that all motorists were charged fairly. Read, prepared for the next step, which did happen ( remember we! said "who's next") Increases in diesel rego's (happening again soon, weight going to be the big leveler and pretty much everyone with a diesel car to pay shit loads more.Yet again.
Increases in car rego's though not too much cause Joe Bloggs can't afford much more.
ACC was a, No fault, Accident Compensation Corporation, not a NZ registered Insurance company to be sold by the govt of the day at their whim after changing it about,so it made a profit!
This is the crux of the matter, it has been made to make a profit so it can be sold! At our and every other motorists expense. Deny that Gareth.

MOTO NZ members we at grass roots want to know what you! are actually doing for us, Not Nick dipshit ,US! I know . he's long gone, same difference.
You have our money at your fingertips, we'd like a say in how it's spent,I realise that you lot have been put in charge of that and that as far as the Govt is concerned, in you, they have us covered.

Currently for me personally, heres the bottom line.

Not one of you on that council have been put forward by us, our only representative has been removed for simply being outspoken and perhaps having our (Bikers) interests too close to his heart and being seen as someone that govt could not get into line.
OUR Perception so far, of what has become MOTO NZ is that we see nothing of any consequence coming from you and all we do see/hear is regurgitated facts and figures that the Govt spouted to all and sundry when they hit us with 500% increases because it was our fault we cost so much to rehabilitate.

Hi Viz bloody vests, road signs urging motorcyclists to look out, BS Guys total and utter BS.
heres one or two ideas.

Educate car drivers licence applicants about motorcyclists and of course cyclists make sure that they get a comprehensive test on and about how to spot US and push bikers, pedestrians, make sure that no one is allowed to sit a test with an interpreter ( They cheat and we get sub standard drivers on our roads)

Move dangerous road side furniture away from the roadways.

Make roading contractors Totally Responsible for leaving dangerous gear, equipment, materials on the roads which cause accidents. Lets not forget that there are many unexplained deaths where no one is left alive to say what happened because until it was too late they had no idea there was a problem ahead.IE: loose metal, tar strips that haven't set,tar that never goes firm ( too watered/turps ed down).
Charge them directly for the cost of repairs and rehabilitation It could and should be done in my opinion.

If we have to have wire rope barriers, lets get them covered with plastics that stop the ropes and the steel poles supporting them from ripping a lone rider apart if they do have the misfortune to come off.This would also assist in cars etc simply sliding along them and not catching and cartwheeling or worse as they still do! going over the top and into the other sides lanes.

Make sure that ACC makes it compulsory for all motorcycle licence applicants to attend paid for ( free, you know)riding courses before they get let loose on their own on the road with no supervision.

I've listed one or two things I'd like to see some action on, I have in the past spoken with road engineers who agree that the simple expedient of moving stuff back away from the road would save more lives motorcyclists included.

My biggest gripe, you guys seem to be doing the govt's work, against us, not for us.Change that perception and I'd be prepared to listen and more.

PS. Yes motorcyclists as a group could significantly improve our accident rates and rehabilitation costs, but it'll never happen while we see our money cossetted in your organisations hands and hear nothing but diatribe about Hi Viz and higher levies.
Get some positive incentives from the govt for us, no one else, lets us see what you guys can actually do to help us and then perhaps the mood will change.

Work with us and for us and it will happen.

[oneofsix]

One interesting part of the responses here is that it is fairly obvious MOTONZ is tasked with dealing with riders as a class of road user, and thats what all the palaver about statistics (and yes, I've heard about statistics and damn lies).

EVERY SINGLE response from you guys is "me" "me" "me", "I" "I" "I".

very enlightening. Sure, thats what people do, and how people are: we dont really give a shit about others, its all about me. But if you are specifically tasked with looking at a bigger picture, why would you be specifially blamed for that? Its hilarious.

Meh, whatevs. I'ma go crack open a bottle of Bollinger to wash my motorbike with.

How does that Bollinger go a chain de-greaser? Didn't think it was even any good for washing as it leaves everything sticky.

Not everyone is about me or I, some actual argue for the wider community but it is assumed they are arguing for themselves.

[Bald Eagle]

I suspect the $30 levy is already missing in the ACC general account and only exists as a 'nominal ledger entry' in some accounts.

I don't expect to see any of it spent to improve anything. MSAC / MOTONZ another quango spending our money.

[Murray]

The good news is that soon only rich people such as Gareth and myself will be able to afford to ride on the road, all you hoi polloi can go ride dirt bikes or play rugby or something.


I think this "hoi pollloi" (me) will go and buy a cheap car with cheap registration and going looking for rich tossers on bikes to knock over.

Doesnt matter if its my fault according to yours and Mr GM's logic. Still a cost against Bikers

[Lucyloo]

"Not one of you on that council have been put forward by us, our only representative has been removed for simply being outspoken and perhaps having our (Bikers) interests too close to his heart and being seen as someone that govt could not get into line.
OUR Perception so far, of what has become MOTO NZ is that we see nothing of any consequence coming from you and all we do see/hear is regurgitated facts and figures that the Govt spouted to all and sundry when they hit us with 500% increases because it was our fault we cost so much to rehabilitate."

Hear, hear! As far as I can ascertain there is not one person on the council or whatever they are called that was voted on by "the motorcyclists" of NZ. We were never consulted about having to pay an additional $30 for these unvoted people to represent us either.

Would someone please explain to me how these people even came to be our so called "representatives" and why, if there was going to be such a council, did we not have the opportunity to nominate and vote for the people that we want to represent us?

It seems to me that the council is just a mouthpiece for ACC and is gearing us up for the inevitable process of changing ACC into a private insurance company.


Lisa Shelley

[oneofsix]

Cagers have a rep on the council but as you say the only rep that came from a bike group was drummed out cause he told us what was happening and what he thought of it. Does make it sound like they don't like outspoken bikers, doesn't it?

[MrKiwi]

With at least one notable exception.
That being that until recently all car and motorcyclists were levied ACC on pretty much the same level, it depended on vehicle size and weight as to what was charged, but there was NOT a separate levy on each class dependant on the risk of having to repay at a higher level when and if a driver/rider came to grief.
This is what has happened and it is this that we as motorcyclists abhor!
All of this under the guise of making the playing field level so that all motorists were charged fairly. Read, prepared for the next step, which did happen ( remember we! said "who's next") Increases in diesel rego's (happening again soon, weight going to be the big leveler and pretty much everyone with a diesel car to pay shit loads more.Yet again.
Increases in car rego's though not too much cause Joe Bloggs can't afford much more.
ACC was a, No fault, Accident Compensation Corporation, not a NZ registered Insurance company to be sold by the govt of the day at their whim after changing it about,so it made a profit!
This is the crux of the matter, it has been made to make a profit so it can be sold! At our and every other motorists expense. Deny that Gareth.

MOTO NZ members we at grass roots want to know what you! are actually doing for us, Not Nick dipshit ,US! I know . he's long gone, same difference.
You have our money at your fingertips, we'd like a say in how it's spent,I realise that you lot have been put in charge of that and that as far as the Govt is concerned, in you, they have us covered.

Currently for me personally, heres the bottom line.

Not one of you on that council have been put forward by us, our only representative has been removed for simply being outspoken and perhaps having our (Bikers) interests too close to his heart and being seen as someone that govt could not get into line.
OUR Perception so far, of what has become MOTO NZ is that we see nothing of any consequence coming from you and all we do see/hear is regurgitated facts and figures that the Govt spouted to all and sundry when they hit us with 500% increases because it was our fault we cost so much to rehabilitate.

Hi Viz bloody vests, road signs urging motorcyclists to look out, BS Guys total and utter BS.
heres one or two ideas.

Educate car drivers licence applicants about motorcyclists and of course cyclists make sure that they get a comprehensive test on and about how to spot US and push bikers, pedestrians, make sure that no one is allowed to sit a test with an interpreter ( They cheat and we get sub standard drivers on our roads)

Move dangerous road side furniture away from the roadways.

Make roading contractors Totally Responsible for leaving dangerous gear, equipment, materials on the roads which cause accidents. Lets not forget that there are many unexplained deaths where no one is left alive to say what happened because until it was too late they had no idea there was a problem ahead.IE: loose metal, tar strips that haven't set,tar that never goes firm ( too watered/turps ed down).
Charge them directly for the cost of repairs and rehabilitation It could and should be done in my opinion.

If we have to have wire rope barriers, lets get them covered with plastics that stop the ropes and the steel poles supporting them from ripping a lone rider apart if they do have the misfortune to come off.This would also assist in cars etc simply sliding along them and not catching and cartwheeling or worse as they still do! going over the top and into the other sides lanes.

Make sure that ACC makes it compulsory for all motorcycle licence applicants to attend paid for ( free, you know)riding courses before they get let loose on their own on the road with no supervision.

I've listed one or two things I'd like to see some action on, I have in the past spoken with road engineers who agree that the simple expedient of moving stuff back away from the road would save more lives motorcyclists included.

My biggest gripe, you guys seem to be doing the govt's work, against us, not for us.Change that perception and I'd be prepared to listen and more.

PS. Yes motorcyclists as a group could significantly improve our accident rates and rehabilitation costs, but it'll never happen while we see our money cossetted in your organisations hands and hear nothing but diatribe about Hi Viz and higher levies.
Get some positive incentives from the govt for us, no one else, lets us see what you guys can actually do to help us and then perhaps the mood will change.

Work with us and for us and it will happen.

Caseye thanks for those comments I appreciate the time and motive for making them, although I don't agree we are working against you, we are bikers wanting to improve our safety outcome but its obvious the perception of our work is not always that. None of us are on the Council for fun, and often it is not fun, especially when it is easy for many to hide behind a keyboard and poke the borax, but I knew what I was getting into when I allowed my name to go foward.

Many of the ideas you list above are on our radar and are being actively worked on. Some of the ideas requires the Council to work with various government agencies which means sometimes the pace we go at is not as fast as we would like but when we need their input into projects we become captured by the pace they can go at.

As Gareth points out in his response, and I agree with, he is not defending the no fault system, he is explaining how it is applied. On that basis he is, in my view, correct. You are also correct that it changed and collectively many have a problem of moving away from the old way of setting the levy to a risk based approach. In that light Gareth's article is a thoughtful contribution to a wider discussion, even though I personally might not agree with all the points he makes. It is worth discussing the merits or not of those views.

[Flip]

"Not one of you on that council have been put forward by us, our only representative has been removed for simply being outspoken and perhaps having our (Bikers) interests too close to his heart and being seen as someone that govt could not get into line.
OUR Perception so far, of what has become MOTO NZ is that we see nothing of any consequence coming from you and all we do see/hear is regurgitated facts and figures that the Govt spouted to all and sundry when they hit us with 500% increases because it was our fault we cost so much to rehabilitate."

Hear, hear! As far as I can ascertain there is not one person on the council or whatever they are called that was voted on by "the motorcyclists" of NZ. We were never consulted about having to pay an additional $30 for these unvoted people to represent us either.

Would someone please explain to me how these people even came to be our so called "representatives" and why, if there was going to be such a council, did we not have the opportunity to nominate and vote for the people that we want to represent us?

It seems to me that the council is just a mouthpiece for ACC and is gearing us up for the inevitable process of changing ACC into a private insurance company.


Lisa Shelley

I also believe the National goverment is getting ready to sell off ACC, some thing to do with 14 billion dollars worth of ACC assets. One thing they will have to do is flick off all the unproffitable parts like ACC cover for MC.

[caseye]

Thanks for the prompt response MrKiwi. I do hope to hear from Gareth re this too.
I also don't necessarily agree with all that has gone on.
I can appreciate your dilemma when asked to go on the council. I do appreciate that there are issues which need to be discussed and others that you and MOTO NZ have to go only as fast as the organisations you are dealing with.
The biggest thing that is wrong between MOTO NZ and us bikers ( not necessarily represented in their entirety by us KB'ers I might add) is that until very recently we have had no dialog with you directly.
Yes many of us have tried and gone to your web site etc and registered, ask anyone here and they will tell you that so far they've received little or no response to their questions inputs from MOTO NZ from tier own site.
I am aware that some of what i have spoken of is on the table with MOTO NZ but most motorcyclists are not.
Can I suggest that you guys do post up a bit of a blurb with what you are ACTUALLY looking at doing, so we can yell at you and go poo poo, you know what I'm saying, information is knowledge being happier that you lot are attempting to represent us properly would be a good start.

[oneofsix]

collectively many have a problem of moving away from the old way of setting the levy to a risk based approach. .

Yeah risk based smells of insurance, smells of sell off.

Instead of risk based what about benefit based, for example;
1/ lower congestion as proved in recent studies congestion disappears if as little as 10% of cagers switch to bikes,
2/ fitter population, all that shivering must be good for something.
3/ less parking required. Oh hold on that means less parking buildings, less demand and therefore whilst it benefits the people it doesn't benefit the profiteers. :oi-grr:

The reason it wasn't initially risk based was because it recognised that the victim of the risk wasn't necessarily the cause and that others benefited from the risk.

[Katman]

Not one of you on that council have been put forward by us, our only representative has been removed for simply being outspoken and perhaps having our (Bikers) interests too close to his heart and being seen as someone that govt could not get into line.


Brent never represented me and I'm sure there are many other motorcyclists who feel the same way.

His ego lost him his spot on the council.

[oneofsix]

Brent never represented me and I'm sure there's many motorcyclists who feel the same way.

His ego lost him his spot on the council.

He was the only representative from a motorcycle group. But you are right he wasn't put there by that group however what lost him the place was that he reported back to that group and the wider biking community. You might call it ego that he wouldn't bow down and let them tell him not to report back others may call it guts or honour.

But your and his egos duking it out on KB has been amusing.

[Katman]

He was the only representative from a motorcycle group.

Clearly you have no idea who is on the council.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Whatever. Whats the best chain cleaner: Bollinger or Moet & Chandon?

[caseye]

I like what oneofsix has written and I find myself pretty much agreeing with it, however I couldn't just hit reply with quote.
STONEY could not be said to have represented anyone who did not want to be represented.You are right, he did not represent you, nor anyone else who didn't want him to.
But he did come from our ranks and that was the first good thing.
Ego gets in the way plenty,as we all know.
You have a particular message here in KB land, I agree with that message 100%, I've said this before and I'll say it again and again until the numbskulls get it through their thick heads that if they'd just think for a split second before doing the dumb shit that we'd all be better off.
Back on track,Katman, if MOTO NZ are prepared to talk/interact here with as many as 16000 motorcyclists I'm prepared to listen, you?
Yep, there's not as many active on our threads as that but it is by default the biggest single group of motorcyclists in the country and it spans all other organisations.
Must be a good place to start.
MrKiwi G,M, Input from us could be useful, if we put it forward and if it is to be acted on can you guys tell us?

[GTRMAN]

First of all, a thank you to both Mr Kiwi and Mr Morgan for showing up on this forum, it is never pleasant to be in the line of fire.

All the members of the MOTONZ council were appointed by government to represent a cross section of the motorcycling society. This seems fair in concept, though in practice they are not duty bound to represent the views of anyone but themselves. No disrespect intended but you were not appointed by 'the people' and so you are not beholding to the wishes of the 'people'

What measures are being put in place to ensure transparency of intent and action? If you are working on initiatives with other agencies then what are they? where is a published timeline and set of goals?

Given that there is a WHOLE bunch of 'you don't represent me' sentiment shown, is there a plan to create elected positions on the MOTONZ council? People elected by the 'people' to represent the 'people'

We all, hopefully, want the same thing, motorcyclists to ride safely, in a safe environment and as an end goal to factor less in the accident statistics. This is a worthy cause in and of itself. The problem is that this goal has been intermingled with the political posturing and tampering with the ACC system, both in how it collects revenue and how it meters out benefits. In the past the system worked, now it would appear to be broken.

MOTONZ has been tasked with motorcycle safety, focus on that, be vocal in HOW you are going to change things, let us have a voice.

[avgas]

Totally agree.
Yeah - but would you call it value for money?

My $180 could have been spent putting safer equipment on me or my motorbike.

[Scuba_Steve]

Really all the statistics I have seen you use are doom and gloom ones.......How about a bit of sunshine for the group who fund MotoNZ?

How is that supposed to support the raping of biker finances???


Clearly you have no idea who is on the council.

Isn't that an issue in itself, we have these nameless, faceless (bar Gareth) "representatives" of bikers (none of which I have found to represent me) doing what only appears to be anti-bike research, on funds raped from bikers.

[avgas]

The good news is that soon only rich people such as Gareth and myself will be able to afford to ride on the road, all you hoi polloi can go ride dirt bikes or play rugby or something.
Not entirely true. One could simply steal your bike and go for a ride. Where do you live?

[Usarka]

Were dirt bike accident stats included in gareths analysis?

[avgas]

Brent never represented me and I'm sure there are many other motorcyclists who feel the same way.

His ego lost him his spot on the council.
I thought that was an entry requirement to get on it?

[Katman]

Isn't that an issue in itself, we have these nameless, faceless (bar Gareth) "representatives" of bikers (none of which I have found to represent me) doing what only appears to be anti-bike research, on funds raped from bikers.

Here you go.

http://motonz.org.nz/about-moto-nz/council-members/

Does your mum still wipe your arse for you?

[HenryDorsetCase]

How is that supposed to support the raping of biker finances???



Isn't that an issue in itself, we have these nameless, faceless (bar Gareth) "representatives" of bikers (none of which I have found to represent me) doing what only appears to be anti-bike research, on funds raped from bikers.

bullshit.

For the Flying Spaghetti Monster's sake, if and when you get a rego renewal you get a little colour flyer thing with their damn pictures in it. Sure GM is front and centre, but they are ALL dressed in bike gear, carrying helmets and standing in front of their bikes!

and its on their site.

What do you people expect: they come visiting your house to introduce themselves? then you'd bleat about invasion of privacy or something.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Not entirely true. One could simply steal your bike and go for a ride. Where do you live?

behind that big electric fence: hear the dogs barking and the sentry guns whining as their auto target acquisition works? thats me.

HQDy-5IQvuU

Weyland-Yutani make fine weapons

[Bald Eagle]

"when you get a rego renewal you get a little colour flyer thing with their damn pictures in it."

Wasn't no pretty flyer in my tax demand when NZ Post delivered it.

[Ixion]

How is that supposed to support the raping of biker finances???



Isn't that an issue in itself, we have these nameless, faceless (bar Gareth) "representatives" of bikers (none of which I have found to represent me) doing what only appears to be anti-bike research, on funds raped from bikers.

You misunderstand the nature of MotoNZ. It is not , and never was , intended to represent motorcyclists. Mr Kiwi is nominated by the AA, an organisation on record as advocating that motorcycles should be made illegal (refer to Mr Jim2 for original source). The AA certainly does not represent motorcyclists, in fact it is the inveterate enemy of motorcyclists.

MotoNZ , in fact, represents ACC. And , as such, it will faithfully follow the party line. Members who do not, will be removed. And it is simple parroting the same falsehoods that have been repeated since 2009 (or before). The $3500 is the same one that was conclusively debunked in 2009 . The "45 times more dangerous" is straight from the AA. They originally claimed "80 times". When challenged, admitted they made the figure up. The correct ratio of risk was established in 2009 , from ACCs own figures , as between 3 and 4 times . Which, hardly surprisingly, agrees with the figure reached by Mr Bogan, by an independent route.

All this is already recorded on this site and can be reviewed by anyone who wants to do a search . Or just read the 2009 era posts in the "Biker politics and law" sub forum.

The article in the Herald is no different to the motorcycle-hating advertisements placed by ACC in 2009. Except that, presumably, they didn't have to pay for this one.

ACC wants motorcycles off the road. Full stop, end of story. MotoNZ is simply one of the tools they are using for that purpose.

[HenryDorsetCase]

"when you get a rego renewal you get a little colour flyer thing with their damn pictures in it."

Wasn't no pretty flyer in my tax demand when NZ Post delivered it.

Maybe I am just special. Thats probably it.

[Katman]

Blah, blah, blah....

And you've clearly shown in the past that you couldn't interpret figures if your life depended on it.

[MrKiwi]

[QUOTE=Ixion;1130355970]You misunderstand the nature of MotoNZ. It is not , and never was , intended to represent motorcyclists. Mr Kiwi is nominated by the AA, an organisation on record as advocating that motorcycles should be made illegal (refer to Mr Jim2 for original source). The AA certainly does not represent motorcyclists, in fact it is the inveterate enemy of motorcyclists.

Sorry I have to correct this.

The AA nominated me as an AA member (of which there are a lot) who is a motorcyclist and who has a back ground and interest in road safety, particularly for motorcyclists. Having been appointed I am not there as a representative reporting to or representing their views, I am, like all Council members, appointed because of my experience and skills I can bring to the Council's brief. There's no magic or mystery behind this, our briefs are on the MotoNZ website as are our terms of reference.

Also to address another myth, not said by you but by some others, I have never been an employee of the AA. The AA is a club, and it has district committees and a national committee (called district councils of the AA and a national council of the AA). I was, until earlier this year on the Wellington Committee of the AA but I am no longer. I, like about 14,000 other bikers, am still a member of the AA.

The AA represents the views of its members and the National Council of the AA know I am a strong advocate of motorcyclists and that I do take a different view to some of their advocacy to ensure us motorcyclists are heard. Wish me well...

[caseye]

I wish you well MrKiwi.

[Murray]

I wish you well MrKiwi.

Get back on your crutches you crawler

See you Saturday

[avgas]

The AA represents the views of its members and the National Council of the AA know I am a strong advocate of motorcyclists and that I do take a different view to some of their advocacy to ensure us motorcyclists are heard. Wish me well...
Heard where?

[Shadowjack]

Whatever. Whats the best chain cleaner: Bollinger or Moet & Chandon?

Sheesh.
Laphroaig...

[Berries]

In fact research we've done at the Motorcycle Safety Advisory Council indicates that the risk of serious and expensive injury on a motorcycle is around 45 times higher per person-kilometre travelled as it is for occupants of other vehicles.


The principle is that those engaging in higher risk activities should pay more of its costs. And remember – as I showed in the series of articles written on http://motonz.org.nz/ – the chance of injury per person kilometre from on-road riding is up to 40 times as high.
At this rate of improvement we will be getting a rebate in a couple of weeks.

[MrKiwi]

Heard where?

I have discussions with the AA policy team and I'm known for robustly representing views of motorcyclists.

[mashman]

I am yet to see any real world safety measures put forwards by any agency. All I see is that 78% of all serious road injuries are car related (from memory based on NZTA crash data 2009)... that's vehicles that have actually crashed. Expecting me to believe that I am safer in a car is not going to happen. Go ahead and look at it from your vehicle type perspective, I won't. If 78% of the ACTUAL serious injuries are to do with cars, then doesn't common sense dictate that the more dangerous vehicle is the car in terms of total road users? and they have many many many more safety features than motorcyclists. I'll feel safer on my bike thanks! Motorcycles do not have the road to themselves, why should they be singled out for multi-category bias? Because money dictates that they should be held accountable. Did someone mention no fault?

To that end what are the chances of seeing the formula that is used to calculate motorcycle risk? I have a sneaky feeling that the greatest weighting will be to do with the crash stats of cars. Lots of them and you hardly see one without a dent or ding. Still, I'd like to see the formula.

[Bald Eagle]

Unfortunately there are a number of things we can't change;

1. We are socially unacceptable
2. We are an easy target politically because of 1. above
3. We are easy to collect revenue from as the mechanisim is already in place.
4. Too many of us ride like total dick heads and reinforce the stereotype from 1. above.


The only one we can change is 4.

[flyingcrocodile46]

I am, like all Council members, appointed because of my experience and skills I can bring to the Council's brief. There's no magic or mystery behind this, our briefs are on the MotoNZ website as are our terms of reference.

Too many words and not enough comprehension on the part of the average kiwibiker for that little gem to carry any weight around here.

Many don't appear to realise the limitations within which the council members must work, and the very limited potential of the council as a tool by which their 'bigger' ideas can be voiced to an audience which is both capable of listening and reacting in a meaningful way (not counting fluffers).

I know. Small steps must be taken before you can run, but MotoNZ are severely hobbled and in all likelihood the only sign of any running we will see, is from the area at the top of the legs.........





as a result of all those lamingtons.;)

[flyingcrocodile46]

Unfortunately there are a number of things we can't change;

1. We are socially unacceptable
2. We are an easy target politically because of 1. above
3. We are easy to collect revenue from as the mechanisim is already in place.
4. Too many of us ride like total dick heads and reinforce the stereotype from 1. above.


The only one we can change is 4.

That is the simple truth and fact is the only best place to start is with the single biggest cause of injury accidents. The 31% of us who can't stay upright and on our own side of the roads. Facts is facts and like it or not that is what is happening.

[flyingcrocodile46]

So while I hopefully have your attention, I would love to hear your thoughts on the ability level of the average motorcyclist in New Zealand, and how that level can be significantly improved. Soon after I bought my first bike I attended a training course with Pro-rider, and I was very surprised to see how many seasoned and confident riders on the course were riding with terrible technique. Poor technique, poor machine control, poor road-craft, poor understanding of the physics involved, and very little understanding of our own weaknesses.... I submit would these account for a huge number of injuries, both single vehicle and where others are involved.
My big concern is that there is so much more involved in safely controlling a motorcycle than a car, and yet there is no requirement, or really any incentive to learn properly. It sounds like you want to use ACC levies as the incentive, but I suggest the whole licensing system needs to be radically re-assessed to produce competent riders int he first place.

Looking forward to your further contributions.

Blair Shallard.

Top shit. We need to learn how to ride properly before being allowed on the road. The skills and concentration levels required to ride a motorcycle are significantly greater than that required to drive in an amoured armchair on 4 wheels.

[bogan]

I have discussions with the AA policy team and I'm known for robustly representing views of motorcyclists.

Does that mean the AA know you for representing our views? or we do? Cos if it is the former, I don't think cager's views on good representation for us mean a lot...


Top shit. We need to learn how to ride properly before being allowed on the road. The skills and concentration levels required to ride a motorcycle are significantly greater than that required to drive in an amoured armchair on 4 wheels.

Agreed with the first bit, not so sure about the second, it's just that cars are a lot more forgiving of cock-ups, does that mean users should be less worried about making them? All road users would benefit from extra skills, license test difficulty reforms across the board would get my backing! Biker only reform, not too sure, seems like targeting, but would be a step in the right direction, would probably back it provided the campaign was more about education than discouragement.

[flyingcrocodile46]

After reading some of the comments both here and on other sites I feel there are a few misconceptions out there. Here is a follow up article... http://garethsworld.com/motorbike-riders-need-to-get-real/

In direct response to Gareth Morgan,

Thank you for your enlightening and moderated thoughts (I understand you don't tolerate fools gladly).

I actually don't disagree with either the logic (and for the most part) the basis of calculation for the levy increase. I also accept that the targeting of bikers over other high risk activities is more likely a simple matter of expediency in respect cost of the application and collection of similar levies, rather than because we smell bad.;)

To complete my understanding and acceptance of the basis for the justification for and calculation of the levy I would ask clarification of only one simple statistical fact used in the calculation. That is the apparent lack of evidence to support the theory that the motorcyclist injury accident statistics do not include injury accidents statistics for off road sporting activities (such a track racing, motorcrossing etc). Surly with all the statistics that ACC have collected, they should have a separate set of figures for injury accidents for non road registered motorcycles?? As costs associated with those accidents are not supposed to be met by road bike riders but rather by the earner levy.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Agreed with the first bit, not so sure about the second, it's just that cars are a lot more forgiving of cock-ups, does that mean users should be less worried about making them? All road users would benefit from extra skills, license test difficulty reforms across the board would get my backing! Biker only reform, not too sure, seems like targeting, but would be a step in the right direction, would probably back it provided the campaign was more about education than discouragement.

For me a part of the driver is the difference in significance of the consequences but the real driver is simply that full control of bikes really does require a truckload lot more rider input and awareness (of the subtly of inputs) than that required of a car driver to achieve a similar level of control over a car. But yes, car drivers need to be subjected to increased education of awareness of the environment (incl bikes) outside the confines of their insulated cage interior.

[caseye]

Croc, you go to hospital in an ambo with a helmet it's automatically recorded as a "motorcycle accident" No matter the attire of the person concerned.
I can vouch for this from personal experience when the wife was taken to Muddlemoore after those pricks left car parts all through the Hunua gorge.One of which took her and her beautiful little cruiser out right behind me, where I could see and hear her hitting the road.

It was recorded as a single vehicle (motorcycle) accident, I asked the nurse filling out the form if she had ever been asked/requested to make it clear what sort of motorcycle was involved and where the accident occurred.

Her reply, "NO, never", far as we are aware its a bike accident that's how it goes down on the ACC report.
No effort to distinguish has ever been made as far as these A & E specialists are concerned.
Gareth? care to tell us how you guys get your information disseminated when we can't?

[Kickaha]

It was recorded as a single vehicle (motorcycle) accident, I asked the nurse filling out the form if she had ever been asked/requested to make it clear what sort of motorcycle was involved and where the accident occurred.

I asked my Doctor when I was getting treatment for a racing accident and although it was recorded as a motorcycle accident it was also recorded as happening "at a place for recreation" rather than "on the road"

[caseye]

Trust you to bring balance to this bun fight! .
Well I'm glad that happened for you, but I was asking a senior A&E nurse who worked long hours and who saw lots of "helmets" that's what she told me at the time.
I had no reason to not believe her and a lot of reasons to want to know as at that time I was heavily involved in stirring this whole mess along.

[MrKiwi]

In direct response to Gareth Morgan,

Thank you for your enlightening and moderated thoughts (I understand you don't tolerate fools gladly).

I actually don't disagree with either the logic (and for the most part) the basis of calculation for the levy increase. I also accept that the targeting of bikers over other high risk activities is more likely a simple matter of expediency in respect cost of the application and collection of similar levies, rather than because we smell bad.;)

To complete my understanding and acceptance of the basis for the justification for and calculation of the levy I would ask clarification of only one simple statistical fact used in the calculation. That is the apparent lack of evidence to support the theory that the motorcyclist injury accident statistics do not include injury accidents statistics for off road sporting activities (such a track racing, motorcrossing etc). Surly with all the statistics that ACC have collected, they should have a separate set of figures for injury accidents for non road registered motorcycles?? As costs associated with those costs are not supposed to be met by road bike riders but rather by the earner levy.

Only road based accidents are included in the stats, farm accidents and off road are not included. But wait, I hear some say nonsense. So let me amend my statement, off road accidents where known are not included in the stats. The trouble is there is likely to be some pollution of the stats with incorrect reporting by doctors and patients. I'm not sure that pollution runs to any more than a few percentage points and as such the relativities of the analysis done by Gareth in his article hold true, in my view. I have some familiarity with the Mot/NZTA statistics (Crash Analysis System) and a reasonable understanding of the ACC stats, having had to work with them in my professional day job.

[Swoop]

Would someone please explain to me how these people even came to be our so called "representatives" and why
They are a quango organisation that was formed to divert attention from the government. Supposedly appeasing bikers and pretending to do "something" (make up statistics, pretend to be "representing us" to other faceless departments and organisations while getting to play with a few NZ Roubles) under the banner of "representing all bikers".

[flyingcrocodile46]

Only road based accidents are included in the stats, farm accidents and off road are not included. But wait, I hear some say nonsense. So let me amend my statement, off road accidents where known are not included in the stats. The trouble is there is likely to be some pollution of the stats with incorrect reporting by doctors and patients. I'm not sure that pollution runs to any more than a few percentage points and as such the relativities of the analysis done by Gareth in his article hold true, in my view. I have some familiarity with the Mot/NZTA statistics (Crash Analysis System) and a reasonable understanding of the ACC stats, having had to work with them in my professional day job.

Thank you MrKiwi. I have heard much the same thing said before and have spent quite some time checking statistics over the preceding years, but I can't find any evidence that off road accidents have been identified and recorded in any other category. I find it difficult to believe that the statisticians who compiled the data from accident and hospital reports would have simply have disregarded the cost cause records and tossed them to one side (not counted them in somewhere). Such a scenario is very unlikely. Ergo no separate record of accounting strongly suggests that they were counted as part of the closest catergory (road bikes)

This question has been raised (incl directly with Nick Smith who undertook to clarify the issue) since the protest in Wgtn and has still not been satisfactorily answered. Therefore the credibility of the claim is dubious in my view and as such undermines any justification for the levy increase.

[MrKiwi]

Thank you MrKiwi. I have heard much the same thing said before and have spent quite some time checking statistics over the preceding years, but I can't find any evidence that off road accidents have been identified and recorded in any other category. I find it difficult to believe that the statisticians who compiled the data from accident and hospital reports would have simply have disregarded the cost cause records and tossed them to one side (not counted them in somewhere). Such a scenario is very unlikely. Ergo no separate record of accounting strongly suggests that they were counted as part of the closest catergory (road bikes)

This question has been raised (incl directly with Nick Smith who undertook to clarify the issue) since the protest in Wgtn and has still not been satisfactorily answered. Therefore the credibility of the claim is dubious in my view and as such undermines any justification for the levy increase.

Hold on, that's not quite what I said? To try and clarify. Off road stats where known are included in other categories. Only road stats are included in the vehicle account other than for a minor amount of assumed pollution of the stats. Any database of any sort has some pollution. Where the accidents are reported as recreational or farm they are included in the non-worker (recreational) and farm in the worker account.

[rocketman1]

"In fact research we've done at the Motorcycle Safety Advisory Council indicates that the risk of serious and expensive injury on a motorcycle is around 45 times higher per person-kilometre travelled as it is for occupants of other vehicles."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10818457

:corn:

Read the article by Gareth Morgan, well written, totally agree, me thinks it may take a bit of admin $ to administer a scheme where the rider is licenced not the bike.
But at the end of the day this thinking could apply to alot of things in life where the user should pay, ie not the asset.
I own 4 cars and 3 motorbikes, the whole family use them, this way mainly for insurance purposes, so it would suit me to only licence just myself.
It would seem unfair that I should just register myself for all these vehicles, when others are using them, how would that work?
Hey the cars dont cost much , Im not that rich.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Hold on, that's not quite what I said? To try and clarify. Off road stats where known are included in other categories. Only road stats are included in the vehicle account other than for a minor amount of assumed pollution of the stats. Any database of any sort has some pollution. Where the accidents are reported as recreational or farm they are included in the non-worker (recreational) and farm in the worker account.

Surely a sport by sport comparison exists that can verify that claim. In the absence of such a record and unless you compiled the stats from the raw data yourself, how could you possibly know that?

[tnarg]

Here is a place to start looking. Stats a bit old. There used to be a better section that broke down the stats a bit better but can't find it now.
http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/index.htm

[Berries]

I have some familiarity with the Mot/NZTA statistics (Crash Analysis System).
I'd say I am pretty familiar with CAS. From experience I am aware that if someone decides to take their MX bike out for a quick thrash on the local roads and loops it, or a farmer on his Big Bear/AG/quad whatever gets twatted while crossing between paddocks, the actual crash report will define them as motorbikes because that is what they are. If that classification then gets entered in to CAS, which happens, the data will always be there and it will always be classed as a motorbike. Any simple analysis on vehicle types is then polluted. Some of these bikes will correctly be classed as 'Other' when entered in to CAS, but I am afraid that unless the data is looked at closely it won't be accurate, if you are looking at on road crashes involving road registered bikes. For the majority of use that CAS gets this distinction isn't important, an on road crash is an on road crash regardless of whether the bike is legal. It all comes down to what the data is being used for.

Considering the differential levies on engine size I should now rant about the inaccuracy of that part of the database and all the CBR 1250 learner bikes out there, and my dream bike the GSXR 7500, but that would take it off topic. The concern often raised regarding the ACC database is that when someone who crashes their MX bike while having a day out in the boonies eventually makes their way to A&E to get stitched up and, because they have had a motorcycle accident, are recorded as having a motorcycle accident, this impacts on that particular bucket of funds. I have no idea how prevalent this is, but I do know that I see many more motocross bikes on the back of utes and trailers each weekend than I do bikes on the road during an average week.

[bogan]

Here's part of a comment from the motonz site I feel is worth reposting:


The problem here is that the chairman is an economist "I’m an economist after all, so I turn to the numbers when there’s an argument raging and the different sides are all wound up." (http://motonz.org.nz/join-the-debate/past-debates/)
What we need is a SAFETY SPECIALIST running the Motorcycle SAFETY Council. You can't make people safer by charging them more, but you can cost the ACC less by reducing injuries. The chairman's toolbox is equipped primarily with economic tools so why is it a surprise when he goes there for answers. Round hole square peg. Some of his suggestions in the Herald are effectively useless and out of touch except to make the ACC happy. It's not his fault, they are his tools and you can only use the tools you've got. If I wanted economic advise I'd go to him in an instant, if I wanted stitches I'd go to a hospital, but it has now become apparent why I wouldn't go to an economist for safety advise/legislation. I don't mean to be personal and I don't want a war, but when stupid things are said publicly that effect me personally (and I'm paying for it) then I think a review of his position is appropriate.

Hit it bang on I think.

[MrKiwi]

Surely a sport by sport comparison exists that can verify that claim. In the absence of such a record and unless you compiled the stats from the raw data yourself, how could you possibly know that?

It is there, buried. Recreational motorbiking is broken down into three groups, sports, dirt and motocross (although I am going on memory for these so will check them and come back to you with the correct classifications.

[nerrrd]

Apologies, I haven't managed to read this whole thread so this may be off-topic somewhat, given a lot of the argument seems to be centred around this or that statistic.

These are my thoughts: private mobility is a good thing, in fact it's integral to the way the society we're living in has evolved. Private motorists aren't being targeted depending on the relative safety levels of the car they drive, their costs are averaged out whether they're in a 20 year old Daihatsu mini car or the latest Volvo. This makes sense as it means the widest possible choice of vehicles for the largest possible number, regardless of the "risks" involved.

I don't understand why private motorcyclists cannot be included in this equation. It makes more sense to me than endlessly dicking around with statistics, but hey, I'm not an economist.

Nobody plans to have an accident. It's not possible to account for everything. Improve skills by making the licensing requirements much, much harder, whether for cars or bikes - that's the ambulance at the top of the cliff, isn't it?

Or we could all just take the bus, I guess that would be safest for everyone...

[MrKiwi]

I'd say I am pretty familiar with CAS. From experience I am aware that if someone decides to take their MX bike out for a quick thrash on the local roads and loops it, or a farmer on his Big Bear/AG/quad whatever gets twatted while crossing between paddocks, the actual crash report will define them as motorbikes because that is what they are. If that classification then gets entered in to CAS, which happens, the data will always be there and it will always be classed as a motorbike. Any simple analysis on vehicle types is then polluted. Some of these bikes will correctly be classed as 'Other' when entered in to CAS, but I am afraid that unless the data is looked at closely it won't be accurate, if you are looking at on road crashes involving road registered bikes. For the majority of use that CAS gets this distinction isn't important, an on road crash is an on road crash regardless of whether the bike is legal. It all comes down to what the data is being used for.

Considering the differential levies on engine size I should now rant about the inaccuracy of that part of the database and all the CBR 1250 learner bikes out there, and my dream bike the GSXR 7500, but that would take it off topic. The concern often raised regarding the ACC database is that when someone who crashes their MX bike while having a day out in the boonies eventually makes their way to A&E to get stitched up and, because they have had a motorcycle accident, are recorded as having a motorcycle accident, this impacts on that particular bucket of funds. I have no idea how prevalent this is, but I do know that I see many more motocross bikes on the back of utes and trailers each weekend than I do bikes on the road during an average week.

And I am very familiar with CAS. There is the odd mistake on data entry which remains unless detected and corrected. Some of the engine sizes are incorrect, Dr Lamb picked on some of these in his analysis of multiple vehicles crashes when he went back to the raw data. I myself have done the same when working with CAS for several years.

From an ACC perspective, my understanding is if a farm bike has an accident on the road then it is a road accident and sheeted home against the vehicle account, so the location of the accident becomes important for the database entry point. If a farm bike accident happens on the farm then it is entered into the worker account, not the road user account.

I come back the general statement that no database of any sort is 100% accurate. However, they analysis done by Gareth and published on the MotoNZ website (his four article series) has a high degree of care taken in its preparation and the relativities in the outcomes are accurate enough for us to have some confidence in the results. We can argue til the cows come home about the accuracy but at the end of the day the general story is not going to change. I haven't any more to add than that.

[Flip]

I only have two things to say to motonz, firstly you are only representing the interest of ACC to the motorcycling community not the other was around, secondly seriously FUCK OFF we are not interested.

[Fatt Max]

My $0.02 cos nobody listens to me anyway......cos I is fat....

All I can say is I have emailed this 'representative' council 3 times on various issues and have heard nothing, not even an acknowledgement. I was all for giving this a go, realising that its a two pronged advance, ie sort our own 'house' out and at the same time ensure those charged with our best interests deliver what we ask for.

Now I see it really is a body of individuals acting on behalf of the Government with no real focus on representing us at all. The national media is a tool they can use to push their agenda over the line cos lets face it, NZ media may as well be a 100% government department (have you seen the film 'Brazil')

Just my opinion, but as I have been told so many times 'what the fuck do I know'.

Aha, microwave has pinged, pie is ready........

[flyingcrocodile46]

trust us, we checked. We can argue til the cows come home about the accuracy but at the end of the day the general story is not going to change. I haven't any more to add than that.

Is this the hobbles or lamingtons talking now ;)

[Flip]

I would be ashamed of myself if I was a member of motonz at this stage, you are going to remembered with infamy by the larger motorcycle community for what you are doing to the sport you seem believe you are representing.

[rustic101]

Sweet Jesus there are some arse kissers around. This is for The Chair of MOTONZ.

My five cents worth, without throwing statistical information into the mix.

I’ve read the Dr’s blog and am still not impressed by the ACC mouth Piece. Look, you either run with the hares or hunt with the hounds, you can’t do both Dr Morgan. Your appointment was purely a Political one as is the nature and function of the MSAC. Is this statement representative of you or is it the view of MOTNZ, perhaps ACC?


“Shagging round with road design, conspicuity of rider and bike, and roadside ads to tell motorists to look out for the motorcycle – is the sort of fiddling about that occurred while Rome burned.”

Either way I’m sure Police/NZTA and MoT would strongly disagree. They have contributed a lot and spent thousands working on a little number called ‘Safer Journeys’. Now I may be wrong but I’m sure this work is directed to contribute to rider and other road user’s safety. I find the statement you made very disrespectful of those Agencies efforts and potentially undermines it.

As I see it the Levies are a side issue, they are here, and we need to accept that (for now). A greater issue for me is the ineffectiveness of the MOTONZ Council and their outputs and management.

A few direct questions for Dr Morgan. Some of these questions are rhetorical but have been unanswered officially:



When will MOTONZ be fronted and managed by a Safety Expert with knowledge and experience?
How are individuals selected to serve on the committee, or who appoints the Council members?
When are the next round of elections/nominations/appointments?
How do I or other individuals express an interest in being nominated/selected/appointed?
Will MOTONZ open their books and be transparent around their outputs/funding/assets and expenditure?
What value added products/services/processes or procedures have MOTONZ introduced or are introducing that are not already provided by other Agencies.
When will MOTONZ sort our their Communications?
Would you fire the coach of the soccer team you co-own and coach them yourself?


Dr Morgan. By making inflammatory statements in the mass media such as you have, regardless if they are your personal opinions or not, you are the Chair of MOTONZ. It is my belief you have crossed the line and are in direct conflict with what other Agencies and professional bodies are undertaking. These statements you make also do not reflect the greater majority or Motorcyclists.

What you have done (successfully) is reinforce to the general public that riders are a higher risk than they actually are. ACC no doubt will be happy with your claims as its reinforcing their rational to gouge like a wounded bull.

MOTONZ, if operated and managed better could achieve so much more added value for the individuals it represents!!!

The question that remains and came from the original champaign - Who's Next???

Road safety is every road users responsibility! If by, shagging around with road design, conspicuity of rider and bike, and roadside ads to tell motorists to look out for the motorcycle, is not achieving a higher profile and reducing fatalities or injuries of riders and other road users, then you had better get some wood to throw on the fire and help Rome burn

[Motig]

Actually this whole debate doesn't matter to me. All I'm interested in is the cost because as I said in an earlier post at least with the current system you can opt out for short periods to bring the cost down. If it became compulsory to have to pay for a full year that would be it - goodbye motorcycle, I just would not be able to justify the cost when most of my riding is in summertime. Sort of pertaining to what I'm talking about-ACC would love a system where you had to pay a full years levy because if the posters on Kiwibiker are to be believed full registrations for the year must have fallen drastically and would be hitting their income target. You can do all the safety courses in the world, have a flashing lighthouse mounted on your bike but like the education system knows not everyone is going to be a rocket scientist. Mind you I've always felt that before anybody got their car/bike license they should spend a 6 months on a scooter, that would make them much more aware of their surroundings and self preservation. But otherwise (sorry mr dorset) its all about ME.

[Crasherfromwayback]

"Next, some have suggested that if the accident is the fault of a car say then it’s unfair to have levied the motorcyclist in the way I suggest. That is confused logic. The levy amount reflects the risk of the activity not who causes the accidents. Generally speaking if two cars collide the passengers don’t get injured as much as motorcyclists do in a car vs motorcycle situation. So no matter who causes the injury to the motorcyclist, the activity of motorcycling is more risky, and with that the injury bill is higher".

So Gareth...are you happy to pay a huge amount more for driving your car on our roads as compared to a Logging truck? Because I can tell you now who's gonna come off second best no matter who's at fault.

[Paul in NZ]

What breaks my heart about this is what its done to motorcyclists. These sorts of things tear communities like ours apart and cause rifts that will never heal. Its a damn shame and quite possibly not even really needed, its just becoming an exercise in wielding power and while I'd like to think it's not deliberate - I worry that its not.

This coupled with an ever increasing legal disincentive to modify, change or do anything to a vehicle has almost altered the whole experience to a point where I'm not even sure I want a motorcycle some days.

I hate feeling like that.

I've now gotten to the point where as soon as someone quotes a number or statistic in this context I just assume they are lying. Some of the numbers are just so unbelievable that they must be challenged and yet, as always they are backed up by such complex machinations and (unreliable) number gathering that it would take an army of auditors a lifetimes to un pick it all.

Its just plain bollocks...

Yes - without doubt it costs a lot to repair some people but modern medicine does cost a lot.

My feeling is still that nothing is being done to identify those that seem to have a habit of writing off bikes. I sit in wonder when I hear of people (even here) who have had incident after incident yet still consider themselves competent riders?? Surely its easy to track these time bombs down? I suppose in our modern society we can't do that? It seems easier just to wipe out an entire sector instead.

[MrKiwi]

I only have two things to say to motonz, firstly you are only representing the interest of ACC to the motorcycling community not the other was around, secondly seriously FUCK OFF we are not interested.

I'm not going anywhere...

[MrKiwi]

Is this the hobbles or lamingtons talking now ;)

If you are going to quote me please quote as I wrote, changing them and implying I wrote them is not acceptable. You can ask is this what I meant.

[MrKiwi]

Sweet Jesus there are some arse kissers around. This is for The Chair of MOTONZ.

My five cents worth, without throwing statistical information into the mix.

I’ve read the Dr’s blog and am still not impressed by the ACC mouth Piece. Look, you either run with the hares or hunt with the hounds, you can’t do both Dr Morgan. Your appointment was purely a Political one as is the nature and function of the MSAC. Is this statement representative of you or is it the view of MOTNZ, perhaps ACC?

“Shagging round with road design, conspicuity of rider and bike, and roadside ads to tell motorists to look out for the motorcycle – is the sort of fiddling about that occurred while Rome burned.”

Either way I’m sure Police/NZTA and MoT would strongly disagree. They have contributed a lot and spent thousands working on a little number called ‘Safer Journeys’. Now I may be wrong but I’m sure this work is directed to contribute to rider and other road user’s safety. I find the statement you made very disrespectful of those Agencies efforts and potentially undermines it.

As I see it the Levies are a side issue, they are here, and we need to accept that (for now). A greater issue for me is the ineffectiveness of the MOTONZ Council and their outputs and management.

A few direct questions for Dr Morgan. Some of these questions are rhetorical but have been unanswered officially:



When will MOTONZ be fronted and managed by a Safety Expert with knowledge and experience?
How are individuals selected to serve on the committee, or who appoints the Council members?
When are the next round of elections/nominations/appointments?
How do I or other individuals express an interest in being nominated/selected/appointed?
Will MOTONZ open their books and be transparent around their outputs/funding/assets and expenditure?
What value added products/services/processes or procedures have MOTONZ introduced or are introducing that are not already provided by other Agencies.
When will MOTONZ sort our their Communications?
Would you fire the coach of the soccer team you co-own and coach them yourself?


Dr Morgan. By making inflammatory statements in the mass media such as you have, regardless if they are your personal opinions or not, you are the Chair of MOTONZ. It is my belief you have crossed the line and are in direct conflict with what other Agencies and professional bodies are undertaking. These statements you make also do not reflect the greater majority or Motorcyclists.

What you have done (successfully) is reinforce to the general public that riders are a higher risk than they actually are. ACC no doubt will be happy with your claims as its reinforcing their rational to gouge like a wounded bull.

MOTONZ, if operated and managed better could achieve so much more added value for the individuals it represents!!!

The question that remains and came from the original champaign - Who's Next???

Road safety is every road users responsibility! If by, shagging around with road design, conspicuity of rider and bike, and roadside ads to tell motorists to look out for the motorcycle, is not achieving a higher profile and reducing fatalities or injuries of riders and other road users, then you had better get some wood to throw on the fire and help Rome burn

This is one area where there is some difference of opinion:
- just because someone is on the Council does not mean they can't express an opinion in their own name and right as an ordinary citizen so long as those views do not bring the Council in disrepute.
- The article is not put out by the Council
- I for one don't under estimate the value of making our roads safer for motorcyclists. You might expect me to say that since I was heavily involved in the creation of the safer journeys road safety strategy and therein lies why I agree with some of what Gareth says and not other bits to the point that in our personal discussions on his views Gareth suggested I was being irrational. To be fair, I might have been just a tad!
- However, I have huge respect for his effort to lift the level of debate even if I don't agree with all the points he makes, and I don't. I'm not sure quite a few people on this forum know how to lift the level of debate, it's more how to run it into the ground - just saying! However, your post above, I can understand and appreciate your views.

[Katman]

secondly seriously FUCK OFF we are not interested.

Who the fuck are you to speak for me?

[Katman]

My feeling is still that nothing is being done to identify those that seem to have a habit of writing off bikes. I sit in wonder when I hear of people (even here) who have had incident after incident yet still consider themselves competent riders?? Surely its easy to track these time bombs down? I suppose in our modern society we can't do that? It seems easier just to wipe out an entire sector instead.

By and large I believe that is what Gareth is suggesting - rewarding those that make the effort to avoid crashing and penalising those that ride in a manner that make them an accident waiting to happen.

[bogan]

This is one area where there is some difference of opinion:
- just because someone is on the Council does not mean they can't express an opinion in their own name and right as an ordinary citizen so long as those views do not bring the Council in disrepute.

And you don't consider the very recent remarks made by the chairman to bring the Council in disrepute? Have you been reading the thread or comments made on your own site? Or is it just another case of motorcyclists having the 'wrong' (different) opinions so they can be discounted?

[Paul in NZ]

By and large I believe that is what Gareth is suggesting - rewarding those that make the effort to avoid crashing and penalising those that ride in a manner that make them an accident waiting to happen.

I get that but I can't quite see how we can do it yet... (fairly) I mean I know one poor beggar who has been left permanently disabled after getting cleared out (with malice) by a drunk driver while he was sitting at a red light. Sure he was on his motorcycle but.... You could hardly ping him for that.

[bogan]

By and large I believe that is what Gareth is suggesting - rewarding those that make the effort to avoid crashing and penalising those that ride in a manner that make them an accident waiting to happen.

Already being done, those who avoid crashing have to pay less for repairs, have bikes in better nick, and don't get injured. Those who don't make the effort, find the opposite. I'm still struggling to see how adding extra cost for those who crash, will change the 'it'll never happen to me (again)' mindset?


"Next, some have suggested that if the accident is the fault of a car say then it’s unfair to have levied the motorcyclist in the way I suggest. That is confused logic. The levy amount reflects the risk of the activity not who causes the accidents. Generally speaking if two cars collide the passengers don’t get injured as much as motorcyclists do in a car vs motorcycle situation. So no matter who causes the injury to the motorcyclist, the activity of motorcycling is more risky, and with that the injury bill is higher".

So Gareth...are you happy to pay a huge amount more for driving your car on our roads as compared to a Logging truck? Because I can tell you now who's gonna come off second best no matter who's at fault.

Yeh, bit strange that, wasn't there some cop over in Europe who got in a bit of trouble for suggesting it was the victims problem as well? Bit more rapey than crashey, but the same logic applies.

[Katman]

And you don't consider the very recent remarks made by the chairman to bring the Council in disrepute? Have you been reading the thread or comments made on your own site? Or is it just another case of motorcyclists having the 'wrong' (different) opinions so they can be discounted?

And of course, your comments couldn't possibly be read as a display of bitterness at your failure to raise an army under your own flag, could it? :whistle:

[bogan]

And of course, your comments couldn't possibly be read as a display of bitterness at your failure to raise an army under your own flag, could it? :whistle:

I think past experience has given me far more insight than bitterness, the later is simply a waste of time/effort that benefits nobody.

... and at least bikers could opt out of supporting us! Pity they did, but I'd rather have no support than forced support.

[oneofsix]

I get that but I can't quite see how we can do it yet... (fairly) I mean I know one poor beggar who has been left permanently disabled after getting cleared out (with malice) by a drunk driver while he was sitting at a red light. Sure he was on his motorcycle but.... You could hardly ping him for that.


Then there was the girl in Nelson knocked off her scooter by hoons, should she be penalised by ACC as well as the hoons?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/7260197/Hoons-run-scooter-rider-off-road
(Physical injuries nothing like those of Paul's post admittedly.)

Saw a hi-vis rider, riding in typical hi-vis cautious style, nearly smeared up the guardrail in the gorge the other evening, showing bad shit happens to even careful riders.

Get away frothe insurance and literation and blame models. They only provide false hope. Real change comes from co-operation, shared risk and benefit.

[Katman]

Get away frothe insurance and literation and blame models. They only provide false hope. Real change comes from co-operation, shared risk and benefit.

Our current system has done little more than help create a society where accountability is a dirty word.

While we continue with a system that allows people to have a "fuck you jack, I'll ride however I like and not give a fuck how my actions impact on you" attitude, we'll continue to see no improvement.

[avgas]

I have discussions with the AA policy team and I'm known for robustly representing views of motorcyclists.
Good for you.
Sorry for asking this - but what exactly have you delivered to the motorcycling community through these talks?

- Does the AA now fight for motorcyclists?
- Are there special motorcycle based premiums with the AA?
- Does the AA offer helpful roadside assistance to motorcyclist?

Hence I re-ask the question : "be heard where?" and add a "was it worth it?"

If a motorcyclist bleets about motorcycles to the AA - does anybody hear it?

[oldrider]

If a motorcyclist bleets about motorcycles to the AA - does anybody hear it?

"NO"

They only pause for breath, long enough to give themselves time to think up another negative motorcycle related comment! :mad:

[Murray]

And of course, your comments couldn't possibly be read as a display of bitterness at your failure to raise an army under your own flag, could it? :whistle:


I think past experience has given me far more insight than bitterness, the later is simply a waste of time/effort that benefits nobody.


Well said Bogan and perhaps you could add and look to the future and not dredge up and condemn the past as some seem prone to do!!!

[Voltaire]

Just wondering..... are the stats higher for motorcycles used as recreational vehicles ( ie the weekend) than daily transport?

I think I am more at risk on my daily commute than on the open road, my bikes are all under 60HP without fairings so they give the illusion of speed without having to do it...

I have been using a Hi Viz vest for the last year but car drivers are so intent of getting to work/home , texting, phoning, yakking or listening to whatever passes as music in their nice overpowered metal boxes that they are oblivious to other road users.

Personally the best rider training I have had was the California Superbike School and the AMCC Art days, some bucket racing to give an appreciation of pain and a bit of dirt bike riding to teach balance and control skills.

All your Hi Viz vests, signs saying watch for bikes, and TV adds are a woftam.

Make riding a scooter for 6 months part of getting a car licence, teach the cagers a bit of courtesy for other road users.

[Scuba_Steve]

"Next, some have suggested that if the accident is the fault of a car say then it’s unfair to have levied the motorcyclist in the way I suggest. That is confused logic. The levy amount reflects the risk of the activity not who causes the accidents. Generally speaking if two cars collide the passengers don’t get injured as much as motorcyclists do in a car vs motorcycle situation. So no matter who causes the injury to the motorcyclist, the activity of motorcycling is more risky, and with that the injury bill is higher".

So Gareth...are you happy to pay a huge amount more for driving your car on our roads as compared to a Logging truck? Because I can tell you now who's gonna come off second best no matter who's at fault.

Wasn't the next step to charge the trucks more ACC because of the damage they can do to others... but wait isn't that going against the whole "justification" for increasing bike levies :blink:



What breaks my heart about this is what its done to motorcyclists. These sorts of things tear communities like ours apart and cause rifts that will never heal. Its a damn shame and quite possibly not even really needed, its just becoming an exercise in wielding power and while I'd like to think it's not deliberate - I worry that its not.


Same successful tactic as always... Divide & conquer



Already being done, those who avoid crashing have to pay less for repairs, have bikes in better nick, and don't get injured. Those who don't make the effort, find the opposite. I'm still struggling to see how adding extra cost for those who crash, will change the 'it'll never happen to me (again)' mindset?


It's one of these "great" ideas, up there with fining the people who don't pay fines :wacko:



Our current system has done little more than help create a society where accountability is a dirty word.

While we continue with a system that allows people to have a "fuck you jack, I'll ride however I like and not give a fuck how my actions impact on you" attitude, we'll continue to see no improvement.

No insurance (what they're trying to turn ACC into) creates a "society where accountability is a dirty word." Insurance forces you not to take accountability.

As for the ""fuck you jack, I'll ride however I like and not give a fuck how my actions impact on you" attitude" you speak of, if you think insurance like system is going to change that. You're stupider than you appear. Next you'll be telling me America has no boy racers, all their bikers are ATGATT, & there is no drink driving over there cause after all they have an insurance system so all this would be abolished as per your argument.

[Crasherfromwayback]

but wait isn't that going against the whole "justification" for increasing bike levies :blink:
.

Sure is. Odd.

[Katman]

No insurance (what they're trying to turn ACC into) creates a "society where accountability is a dirty word." Insurance forces you not to take accountability.

As for the ""fuck you jack, I'll ride however I like and not give a fuck how my actions impact on you" attitude" you speak of, if you think insurance like system is going to change that. You're stupider than you appear. Next you'll be telling me America has no boy racers, all their bikers are ATGATT, & there is no drink driving over there cause after all they have an insurance system so all this would be abolished as per your argument.

No, having a system that allows people to crash time and time again with no repercussions to themselves is what creates a lack of accountability.

In an insurance system if you don't learn from your mistakes you'll soon find yourself uninsurable.

[Paul in NZ]

No, having a system that allows people to crash time and time again with no repercussions to themselves is what creates a lack of accountability.

In an insurance system if you don't learn from your mistakes you'll soon find yourself uninsurable.

That I can agree with.

[Crasherfromwayback]

No, having a system that allows people to crash time and time again with no repercussions to themselves is what creates a lack of accountability.

.

I'm not so sure about that. Surely most motorcyclists know that falling off hurts like fuck. Doubt too many of them actually think there are no repercussions at all.

[Scuba_Steve]

I'm not so sure about that. Surely most motorcyclists know that falling off hurts like fuck. Doubt too many of them actually think there are no repercussions at all.

yea fuck the cost, it's the hurting that stops be from doing it. Money comes, money goes. Pain can last along time

[Crasherfromwayback]

Pain can last along time

Yeah I learnt that one not long into my riding years.

[Katman]

It's a shame that we've become a society too stupid to learn from the mistakes of others though.

[Scuba_Steve]

It's a shame that we've become a society too stupid to learn from the mistakes of others though.

That's not society that's humans!

[Murray]

It's a shame that we've become a society too stupid to learn from the mistakes of others though.

And in some cases fail to learn from their own mistakes

[Katman]

Take Grantman for example.

Who couldn't have foreseen that one coming?

[Voltaire]

And in some cases fail to learn from their own mistakes

Don't worry the next generation will be 50 metre apartment dwellers glued to a screen, working in mind numbing jobs thanks to the edukation sistem we have.....the rest will go to OZ.

There are far more important things going on than " oh no my bike is expensive to register" :lol:

[Murray]

There are far more important things going on than " oh no my bike is expensive to register" :lol:

Yeah, like when will BFTP ride again?? and why does none of the group seem interested in the classic bike show 04 August.???

Maybe more will get into older bikes as registration is way cheaper for 40 year old bikes. Could be the way to go!!!!

[Voltaire]

Yeah, like when will BFTP ride again?? and why does none of the group seem interested in the classic bike show 04 August.???

Maybe more will get into older bikes as registration is way cheaper for 40 year old bikes. Could be the way to go!!!!

Dunno, I ride every day but since I have got into a bit of classic racing, buckets and ART days road riding has sort of lost its appeal.

As for the Classic Bike show, polished garage queens don't do it for me, if they had an area for bikes that are actually used and a swap meet I'd be more interested....if I want to see classic bikes I can see them at Puke and HD actually being ridden

I keep my Norton registered all year as its only $117.00, and on the lookout for a cheap 1973 BMW as you could easily run one every day and they can be made to go quite well : whistle:

[HenryDorsetCase]

Then there was the girl in Nelson knocked off her scooter by hoons, should she be penalised by ACC as well as the hoons?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/7260197/Hoons-run-scooter-rider-off-road
(Physical injuries nothing like those of Paul's post admittedly.)

Saw a hi-vis rider, riding in typical hi-vis cautious style, nearly smeared up the guardrail in the gorge the other evening, showing bad shit happens to even careful riders.

Get away frothe insurance and literation and blame models. They only provide false hope. Real change comes from co-operation, shared risk and benefit.

confused thinking. the word "penalised" is the clue there

the confusion seems to be between criminal sanction, (that is the "hoons" get punished and the no fault scheme which pays the injured rider a part of her salary while she recovers and her medial costs of that recovery. Read Morgan's thing again.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Take Grantman for example.

Who couldn't have foreseen that one coming?

the best thing was the new username and attempt to sell teh bike.....

[bogan]

It's a shame that we've become a society too stupid to learn from the mistakes of others though.

It is, though nobody has yet put forward a theory as to how generalised risk based levies will cause this to happen though? A far more powerful tool is rider/driver aptitude testing. I guess those who are responsible for the difficulty of the test see the road toll as acceptable payment for the right of personal transportation.

[avgas]

Take Grantman for example.

Who couldn't have foreseen that one coming?
Not him :lol: Smacked him in the fucken face :killingme

If only our mums had slapped us more when we were younger. Then we could have avoided all of this and join the foreign legion.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Take Grantman for example.

Who couldn't have foreseen that one coming?

What did I miss?

[bogan]

Not him :lol: Smacked him in the fucken face :killingme

If only our mums had slapped us more when we were younger. Then we could have avoided all of this and join the foreign legion.

There was another guy too recently, where he posted up the crash vid, a few months after starting a thread asking for wheelie tips, or was it the same guy?

[GarethMorgan]

More thoughts on comments from here and other places... http://garethsworld.com/park-up-emotion/

[Murray]

What did I miss?

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/132965-Progression-of-a-total-motorcycle-noob

Read the whole thing

But I believe he is still on here and still using the same name. Praise the Lord

[GTRMAN]

What did I miss?

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/132965-Progression-of-a-total-motorcycle-noob

This

[avgas]

More thoughts on comments from here and other places... http://garethsworld.com/park-up-emotion/
Just a quick guess - but I can imagine you have never read "The Fountainhead".

Shame really as what you have said in the post echo's the sentiment of Ellsworth Toohey, re:
Council of American Writers, the Council of American Builders, and the Council of American Artists.


:eek5:

[Scuba_Steve]

More thoughts on comments from here and other places... http://garethsworld.com/park-up-emotion/

Well 1st thing I noticed is you finally came out & said it (in different words), MOTO NZ is a bunch of :tugger: nothing more than an attempt to make the rape more palatable to bikers.

Change your false & misleading name! MOTO NZ "Motorcyclists Own The Options - Helping all kinds of riders"
You said it right there in point 1 & 2, Motorbikes ain't your interest & you sure as hell ain't "helping All kinds of riders", ACC is your interest. MOTONZ is nothing more than an ACC battyboy making your organizations name both false & misleading. Get it changed!

And everyone is subsidized, so stop with the "if we payed full" sh*t. If everyone paid full no-one could afford to do anything. ACC's got more money than it currently needs & unless you're a totally worthless economist you know this. The only reason for increases is privatization something that should NEVER be allowed to happen.

[bogan]

More thoughts on comments from here and other places... http://garethsworld.com/park-up-emotion/

I think it is you who is confused by the technicalities of the no fault system. While no-fault technically means what you describe, the mandate for no-fault came from the people (I forget the proper word for this), it only works in a socialist system, where people pay more according to their means, than their risk. Obviously, as you have seen, the people will no longer be happy with the 'no fault' aspect if we are charged more for being victims.
I'd also like to add, instead of insulting bikers by inflating the accident stats and telling us to get real, or get a grip. Maybe you should do your job on the MOTONZ, and attempt to reduce the road toll. Failing that, step down and give somebody with the requisite skills a chance, we would like to see value for our money. I mean seriously, your articles read like they were written by 13 year olds, the 'agree with me or you're an idiot' tone only shows you in a bad light.

[Crasherfromwayback]

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/132965-Progression-of-a-total-motorcycle-noob

This

Oh dear. Never nice to see someone get badly hurt as unsurprising as it may be.

[Lucyloo]

"Thinking that the Motorcycle Safety Advisory Council is a lobby group for motorcyclists. It is nothing of the sort –it is a group of riders who are appointed by the Minister of ACC to provide advice as to how to get the motorcyclist injury rate down."

I didn't ask for it and it doesn't represent me so why then why do I have to pay for it?

[caseye]

http://garethsworld.com/park-up-emotion/

Yep, read it and agree whole heartedly that many motorcyclists think that MOTO NZ is an organisation set up "for them".
When patently we know it is NOT.
it is set up to help the ACC's rape of our levies seem fairer by making it look like they care and have given motorcyclists something to do.
Correct me if I'm wrong Gareth.
About the risk assessment being changed years ago to reflect motorcyclists extra risk.
Crap Gareth, it happened in 2009 when they cried ACC is broke and people who cost us more to fix are from now on going to pay more, because that's fair!
The Govt of the day ( Nat's) made it look like they were finally bring bikes into line with other road users, when in fact what they were doing was making us the first target, if they got us dried out over a barrel the rest would be easy.They played on the general public's dislike of a minority of bikers who have always been fools and idiots and sold the whole country a pup!.
Now here we are.
This is KB, a dangerous place at any time, you and Mrkiwi have come here ostensibly to see if you can get us to help you.
In reality you are here bashing us and telling us we need to get our injury rate down.
OK, I can live with that and don't disagree that, that would be a good start.
But don't for one moment think that we are all going to go off spouting that Gareth and the MOtONZ council are right, that the figures are correct because we too have done our homework and we know the lies and mistruths are multiplying and that addition is being aided by you guys.
You mention things that this council of yours is doing, all of it has been started years ago by bike organisations and council engineers and roading officials who gave a damn, nothing that you have come up with , at least to date is new and acceptable.
If there is new and exciting stuff that might make us a happier bunch, please, feel free to tell us.
Give us a spiel about Hi Viz and recommend it be done and God help you Gareth Morgan, it does nothing except add cost to an already expensive mode of transport.
Oh, yes while I'm at it.
Bikes are for you ( your adventures make wonderful reading your charity's aided and funded by riding around the world are duly noted) and I'd wager most if not all of the MOTIO NZ council are a play thing, something to be dragged out of the garage everytime it's not raining and you have nothing else to do except go for a ride.
Well , News Flash, many of us here have and do rely on our bikes for daily transport, every day regardless of weather or traffic conditions.
For most of us a bike is NOT a luxury, for most of us our salary's are not in the 6 figure bracket, yet this seems to be the slant from you and Govt when they speak of us publicly.
Change just that and I'd be a little more inclined to listen.

Make car(oh and Truck drivers who cant see headlights at 75 meters) drivers aware of bikes, make the govt some recommendations that others haven't already done and perhaps we'll tolerate you're being there to spend "our" bloody thieved $30.00 each, on each and every bike we own.
Stop them from making year long rego compulsory as I'm sure they are about to do.
Make a damned difference that we can see works and we'll help.
Stop telling us we're idiots and don't know what to do.
Make govt see that given the right incentives Bikers will clean up their own backyard.
But to do that you guys need to be disbanded and the Govt needs to put the funds and the assistance of each and every roading contractor and council in the hands of a duly elected national group of actual motorcyclists.
People who don't live in glass bowls on mountain tops, who do know what it's like to ride on NZ's shit roads with other motorists who know they can run us off the road and won't get caught.
There you go a reasoned and non derogatory response.

[HenryDorsetCase]

OK, TV has ruined my attention span. There's an internet full of boobies out there and they won't look at themselves.

[bogan]

"Thinking that the Motorcycle Safety Advisory Council is a lobby group for motorcyclists. It is nothing of the sort –it is a group of riders who are appointed by the Minister of ACC to provide advice as to how to get the motorcyclist injury rate down."

I didn't ask for it and it doesn't represent me so why then why do I have to pay for it?

Worse than that, if they are only providing advice (I actually thought they were there to use and manage the $30 levy), your $30 will just be going into ACC's general funds.

A good part of me thinks Gareth is just sick of doing fuck-all on the council, and this is him falling on his sword. Actually, stepping on his peers to climb up a notch in JK's books is probably a more apt evaluation.

[Katman]

Fuck this place is full of retards.

[The Pastor]

fuck this place is full of retards.

you called?

[bogan]

Looks like an admin on the MOTONZ site has spat the dummy and disabled comments there, maybe they got tired of listening to our priorites :crazy::killingme

If I still paid bike rego I'd be really annoyed I think :motu:

[Katman]

Stop telling us we're idiots and don't know what to do.


I think you're doing the job for him quite nicely Mark.

[Scuba_Steve]

OK, TV has ruined my attention span. There's an internet full of boobies out there and they won't look at themselves.

Don't worry I'm on it

http://gossiponthis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/nakedman.jpg

[Katman]

If all you pillocks bitching about your thirty fucking dollars put as much effort into figuring out ways to reduce our crash stats we'd have had the problem solved long ago.

[bogan]

If all you pillocks bitching about your thirty fucking dollars put as much effort into reducing our crash stats we'd have had the problem solved long ago.

Don't forget it is 30 per bike, per year. Maybe we just lack guidance into how best to effect such a change. They should make some organisation to figure this stuff out for us right? :shifty:

[HenryDorsetCase]

Don't forget it is 30 per bike, per year. Maybe we just lack guidance into how best to effect such a change. They should make some organisation to figure this stuff out for us right? :shifty:

I heard they have lamingtons. They arent cheap.

[flyingcrocodile46]

I think it is you who is confused by the technicalities of the no fault system. While no-fault technically means what you describe, the mandate for no-fault came from the people (I forget the proper word for this), it only works in a socialist system, where people pay more according to their means, than their risk. Obviously, as you have seen, the people will no longer be happy with the 'no fault' aspect if we are charged more for being victims.
I'd also like to add, instead of insulting bikers by inflating the accident stats and telling us to get real, or get a grip. Maybe you should do your job on the MOTONZ, and attempt to reduce the road toll. Failing that, step down and give somebody with the requisite skills a chance, we would like to see value for our money. I mean seriously, your articles read like they were written by 13 year olds, the 'agree with me or you're an idiot' tone only shows you in a bad light.


http://garethsworld.com/park-up-emotion/

Yep, read it and agree whole heartedly that many motorcyclists think that MOTO NZ is an organisation set up "for them".
When patently we know it is NOT.
it is set up to help the ACC's rape of our levies seem fairer by making it look like they care and have given motorcyclists something to do.
Correct me if I'm wrong Gareth.
About the risk assessment being changed years ago to reflect motorcyclists extra risk.
Crap Gareth, it happened in 2009 when they cried ACC is broke and people who cost us more to fix are from now on going to pay more, because that's fair!
The Govt of the day ( Nat's) made it look like they were finally bring bikes into line with other road users, when in fact what they were doing was making us the first target, if they got us dried out over a barrel the rest would be easy.They played on the general public's dislike of a minority of bikers who have always been fools and idiots and sold the whole country a pup!.
Now here we are.
This is KB, a dangerous place at any time, you and Mrkiwi have come here ostensibly to see if you can get us to help you.
In reality you are here bashing us and telling us we need to get our injury rate down.
OK, I can live with that and don't disagree that, that would be a good start.
But don't for one moment think that we are all going to go off spouting that Gareth and the MOtONZ council are right, that the figures are correct because we too have done our homework and we know the lies and mistruths are multiplying and that addition is being aided by you guys.
You mention things that this council of yours is doing, all of it has been started years ago by bike organisations and council engineers and roading officials who gave a damn, nothing that you have come up with , at least to date is new and acceptable.
If there is new and exciting stuff that might make us a happier bunch, please, feel free to tell us.
Give us a spiel about Hi Viz and recommend it be done and God help you Gareth Morgan, it does nothing except add cost to an already expensive mode of transport.
Oh, yes while I'm at it.
Bikes are for you ( your adventures make wonderful reading your charity's aided and funded by riding around the world are duly noted) and I'd wager most if not all of the MOTIO NZ council are a play thing, something to be dragged out of the garage everytime it's not raining and you have nothing else to do except go for a ride.
Well , News Flash, many of us here have and do rely on our bikes for daily transport, every day regardless of weather or traffic conditions.
For most of us a bike is NOT a luxury, for most of us our salary's are not in the 6 figure bracket, yet this seems to be the slant from you and Govt when they speak of us publicly.
Change just that and I'd be a little more inclined to listen.

Make car(oh and Truck drivers who cant see headlights at 75 meters) drivers aware of bikes, make the govt some recommendations that others haven't already done and perhaps we'll tolerate you're being there to spend "our" bloody thieved $30.00 each, on each and every bike we own.
Stop them from making year long rego compulsory as I'm sure they are about to do.
Make a damned difference that we can see works and we'll help.
Stop telling us we're idiots and don't know what to do.
Make govt see that given the right incentives Bikers will clean up their own backyard.
But to do that you guys need to be disbanded and the Govt needs to put the funds and the assistance of each and every roading contractor and council in the hands of a duly elected national group of actual motorcyclists.
People who don't live in glass bowls on mountain tops, who do know what it's like to ride on NZ's shit roads with other motorists who know they can run us off the road and won't get caught.
There you go a reasoned and non derogatory response.


Bloody good posts from both of you. The best I have seen on the subject. Well done:clap:



I think you're doing the job for him quite nicely Mark.

No dickwad. You don't think at all. You thought - you made up your mind - then closed it.
You're as much use to your own cause as steam is to shit.

[MrKiwi]

http://garethsworld.com/park-up-emotion/

...
This is KB, a dangerous place at any time, you and Mrkiwi have come here ostensibly to see if you can get us to help you.
In reality you are here bashing us and telling us we need to get our injury rate down.
....

Where is it that I'm bashing you?

[Katman]

You're as much use to your own cause as steam is to shit.

I'm good at attracting flies.

[caseye]

Ain't that the truth! LOL play nice now fella's.

[tri boy]

Ok, it's about time a stoopid ol slow rider explained things real simple to those that "think" they have a handle on this ACC/Rego levy thing.

Fact. I have six bikes that used to get registered all year, every year, because it was a reasonable cost in relation to the amount of use/ pleasure they supplied.

Fact. Idiots down in the nations capital got out of control re charges to rego.

Fact. I stopped paying rego, (but still ride).

Fact. They have missed out on any contribution from myself, and I am picking hundreds, if not thousands of others.

Fact. I will not pay them any rego fees until they correct the mistake they made.

Fact.Being in a govt dept, or on an elected committee does not always mean you have common sense.

[scumdog]

The Gov't don't give a fat rats arse if every motorbike disappeared overnight.

Binning riders cost too much to fix up and it doesn't matter WHO causes the crash - at a given speed a rider normally wrecks himself more than a car-driver does at that speed.

That's the reality folks, enjoy your ride.

[scumdog]

Ok, it's about time a stoopid ol slow rider explained things real simple to those that "think" they have a handle on this ACC/Rego levy thing.

Fact. I have six bikes that used to get registered all year, every year, because it was a reasonable cost in relation to the amount of use/ pleasure they supplied.

Fact. Idiots down in the nations capital got out of control re charges to rego.

Fact. I stopped paying rego, (but still ride).

Fact. They have missed out on any contribution from myself, and I am picking hundreds, if not thousands of others.

Fact. I will not pay them any rego fees until they correct the mistake they made.

Fact.Being in a govt dept, or on an elected committee does not always mean you have common sense.

Fact. I will pay for any hospital bill I incur while arsing off my bike.

[tri boy]

Thats a crock scumdog, and you know it.
Anyway, in thirty odd years of riding, I personally have cost the NZ medical system zilch, narda, nil.
Sheesh, coppa's.

[scumdog]

Thats a crock scumdog, and you know it.
Anyway, in thirty odd years of riding, I personally have cost the NZ medical system zilch, narda, nil.
Sheesh, coppa's.


It's getting it in writing that you'll NEVER cost them anything that's the tricky bit.

And I was a freezing worker for longer than I've been a plod - thar's where i learned my cynicism, tact and subtleness...