Kiwirider: Gareth Morgan's ACC position

[p.dath]

I recently bought myself a copy of the September issue of Kiwirider, and it had an article in it by Gareth Morgan (chairman of MOTONZ, the organisation that gets our $30).

It is very apparently he does not uphold the views of the Woodhouse Commission that was the foundation of ACC, for he is personally suggested we should consider putting back in place a very similar scheme to what existed prior to ACC. Basically it would be like forgetting all the grief that people went though before the Woodhouse report investigated it, and then ACC was put in place to resolve. Things were *substantially* worse before ACC, which is why a Royal Commission of Inquiry was created to fix it.

I should say he is only proposing these changes for Motorcyclists.

Some things he mentions are:
* Having an excess on claims.
* Levying riders instead of bikes - so that we can charge riders who have accidents more, identify returning riders more easily, and basically make a risk assessment based on the rider rather than the bike
* Giving people the right to get private insurance

I grow so tired of the argument for the above. You only have to do a bit of research on how bad things were before ACC to realise things are currently *really* good.

So Gareth, I realise these are your personal views, but please don't push them forward. Otherwise in 20 years we'll be looking back at how good things used to be wondering what we screwed up.

[caspernz]

The overall message is personal responsibility isn't it?
Given that ACC in its current form is in essence too expensive, some form of user pays seems fair to me. You choose a risky hobby or sport, or mode of transport in our case as motorcyclists, only seems fair to pay ACC in some proportion to the risk.
What I find unfair is that if I have a commuter bike for weekdays, a tourer for trips and a dirt bike for hooning around on the weekends, then why should I pay 3 lots of ACC fees when I can only ride one at a time? So levying the rider instead of the bike gets the thumbs up from me. Hard to administer and/or police though, just like rego...:facepalm:

None of this matters, for the cynic in me reckons the outcome has already been decided, what's going on at present is just the window dressing to get us to the unveiling of the master plan :shutup::shutup:

[Katman]

I see no problem with what he's proposing.

[bogan]

Thats the same speil he had a few months ago in a newspaper right? Was a lot of discussion in another thread; he even weighed in a called us spoilt wingers or something to that effect.
Is it any wonder our $30 is up to fuck all with this pillock running the show.

[merv]

Surely only those that crash a lot and cost the rest of us money at the moment will be against any personal style of ACC cover. I would have earnt a lifetime no claim bonus long ago if it had been like that, but instead at our peak me and Mrs merv were paying ACC levies on 15 vehicles between us, costing a fortune at the time, but we rationalised the fleet before it cost the megafortune it otherwise would have today.

[Katman]

he even weighed in a called us spoilt wingers or something to that effect.


If the cap fits.....

[bogan]

Surely only those that crash a lot and cost the rest of us money at the moment will be against any personal style of ACC cover. I would have earnt a lifetime no claim bonus long ago if it had been like that, but instead at our peak me and Mrs merv were paying ACC levies on 15 vehicles between us, costing a fortune at the time, but we rationalised the fleet before it cost the megafortune it otherwise would have today.

They don't just base the levies on how often you crash, but how often people they think are like you crash. Some would have you think this means more personal responsibility, but you could be the safest 21yo 600cc male rider in the world, and still pay more than some barely awake womble on a rustbucket; I don't see how that encourages personal responsibility.
Then factor in the added costs of running a risk based insurance scheme, and chances are the lifetime cost you pay to them will be significantly more, and you'll be saddled with the highest cost when you have the least income.
The numbers look shit at the moment because we are paying both past and present claims.
Also, TPTB keep trotting out that we should pay between 1500 and 3k if it were properly assigned risk based levies, are you sure you'd be better off?

[bogan]

If the cap fits.....

Don't know about that, but one thing is for certain, the 'insult riders' cap and 'rider representative' cap should never be worn at the same time. He should remove the later, and shove the former up his arse.

[merv]

... but if this was a proper insurance scheme I would have my own personal cover based on my personal record, no one else's, and it would be way less than I pay now through rego, that I do know.

[bogan]

... but if this was a proper insurance scheme I would have my own personal cover based on my personal record, no one else's, and it would be way less than I pay now through rego, that I do know.

So what do they charge you while you establish your personal record? People taking the me-me-me approach is what got us into this mess, looking at the big picture is the only way to find the best solution.

[oldrider]

There was nothing in place before ACC ... insurance companies would not have a bar of it!

The original Woodhouse concept worked until it got choked up with debt and subsequent political interference and tinkering! :mellow:

[merv]

An insurance company could be allowed to review your existing ACC records if that's the path the gubbermint wants to take. You hardly need to build up a record if you've already lived a while.

As for newbs, sure they've got to earn it, but even they would have a record of a sort up to the time they get a motorcycle licence. First accident claim after that could whack them with a loading, what's wrong with that compared to now where we pay for all the ones that won't listen to Katman's advice?

[mashman]

I should say he is only proposing these changes for Motorcyclists.

Some things he mentions are:
* Having an excess on claims.
* Levying riders instead of bikes - so that we can charge riders who have accidents more, identify returning riders more easily, and basically make a risk assessment based on the rider rather than the bike
* Giving people the right to get private insurance

I've had a bad day, so let me start by saying, are you off your rocker Mr Morgan... believe me 4 letter word expletives where begging to be written.

An Excess on claims: Why? If people can barely manage the ACC rego payments, what good is an excess when you can't afford it? I assume that if you don't pay the excess you are politely told to suffer until you do.

Levying riders instead of bikes: I used to think this was a good idea, but it's not not even close. It is great for those who have more than 1 motorcycle, but the resulting hike in ACC levy would push many off the roads, it will simply be way too expensive to ride. And for those who say "well if you can't afford it, you can't ride", then you're gonna be shit out of luck at some point as several thousand people being pushed off the road will mean 1 thing. Higher premiums for those who are left on the road.

Giving people the right to get private insurance: that's just another way of saying privatise the motor vehicle account (if not the entire ACC). It goes hand in hand with levying the riders. Exactly the same thing will happen for cars and their drivers. Now as we are fully aware, there are more cars than there are motorcycles. So those who can afford it get insurance and what is the result for ACC? Less revenue, hmmmm that could only mean one
thing... Higher premiums.

Accept anything other than the Woodhouse principles and watch ACC vanish!

Either way we're screwed and destined to become an ACC less country. Unless of course we do something smart, like taking the entire ACC bill for the year (all accounts) and levying directly off of wages (which would cover all dangerous activities, including getting out of the wrong side of bed)... but we're too fuckin stupid to think about something like that, irrespective of the FACT that we use our "salary" to pay for ALL of our ACC levies (apart from fuel I guess).

Have these scenarios been considered Mr Organ? If so, how did the numbers look? I am laughing as I highly doubt that you brainy folk have attempted to look at ACC as anything other than a dying institution. Fuck you very much for your indulgence.

[bogan]

As for newbs, sure they've got to earn it, but even they would have a record of a sort up to the time they get a motorcycle licence. First accident claim after that could whack them with a loading, what's wrong with that compared to now where we pay for all the ones that won't listen to Katman's advice?

How many riders have more than one claim though? Most people I hear about have one accident then wise up, I guess increasing their levy could be said to pay for that previous accident rather than the risk though. Also, you're very naive if you think it is all down to your record, it would still be a no claims bonus, which only modifies the existing price for your demographic; still not seeing how it increases personal responsibility.
Of course I still wouldn't accept paying a higher premium if somebody else drove into me, would you? So there goes the no fault thing, in come the lawyers, and the overall costs go up 30% (iirc from the PWC report).

[Katman]

How many riders have more than one claim though?

Plenty.

You don't have to look too hard.

[bogan]

Plenty.

You don't have to look too hard.

Enough to cover the 30% overall increase? I very much doubt it. And of course, if a claim means your premium goes up a few k, its probably the time you stop riding and/or paying.

[Bald Eagle]

The man is a total arse wipe and unfortunately his tardme millions have got him a buy in to the old boys club. Think he should take his 'econmics' and stick them where the sun don't shine.

[Katman]

The man is a total arse wipe and unfortunately his tardme millions have got him a buy in to the old boys club.

I'm just hoping he'll sign me in as a guest.

[mashman]

I'm just hoping he'll sign me in as a guest.

They always need a boy to bugga... you'll probably be in with a shout.

[Katman]

They always need a boy to bugga... you'll probably be in with a shout.

Why should I have to shout?

They're the ones with the coin.

[mashman]

Why should I have to shout?

They're the ones with the coin.

prostitution eh... respec. You fit in well.

What these guys are proposing, meeting at our expense, is to levy those who can't afford it off the road and make ACC stretch itself to the point where it can't afford to look after us (they're already turning people away with existing and recurring injuries :facepalm:)... they'll call it choice and we'll all, well some of you, will lap it up because it suite your agenda being the serial non-crasher that you are. I guess you may as well reap the benefits, coz you deserve it, until the costs push you off the road too... but fairs fair, you'll have your choice... why should you care what the probable fallout will be.

[Katman]

prostitution eh... respec. You fit in well.


We all have habits to feed.

[Icemaestro]

Unless of course we do something smart, like taking the entire ACC bill for the year (all accounts) and levying directly off of wages (which would cover all dangerous activities, including getting out of the wrong side of bed)... but we're too fuckin stupid to think about something like that, irrespective of the FACT that we use our "salary" to pay for ALL of our ACC levies (apart from fuel I guess).

The problem with this is that 1) Would it be a fixed charge for all workers - therefore possibly turning people away from working if they have to pay 5k regardless of what job they are in, or a percentage of earnings amount, which is what happens at the moment, which then means that if people earn more, they pay more (which I'm not entirely against) but then on the flip side, people who don't work (quite a large percentage of the NZ greater population) wouldn't pay any levy - that would include ?a majority of people over 65, people under the age of 14, and a lot of rich people/rich people's family, all of who can and one may argue are more likely to hurt themselves and therefore require ACC.

[BoristheBiter]

Plenty.

You don't have to look too hard.

Pity that all my acc claims, i have a 12 book series, have either been work related or non earner account.

This is what makes his ideas a complete fail.

[mossy1200]

Are we al talking about ansurance policy that the worst riders wont even pay for.
Those who are prepaired to ride a bike with no rego wont think twice about riding without cover.
Guess they will just die on the side of the road if not insured though.

Going to cost me alot. Ill have to get a policy for my wife aswell seeing as she likes to come for a ride also.

Is it just me or will the cost of living keep going up faster than income untill we will all be sold as slave labour to a third world sweat shop.

[mashman]

The problem with this is that 1) Would it be a fixed charge for all workers - therefore possibly turning people away from working if they have to pay 5k regardless of what job they are in, or a percentage of earnings amount, which is what happens at the moment, which then means that if people earn more, they pay more (which I'm not entirely against) but then on the flip side, people who don't work (quite a large percentage of the NZ greater population) wouldn't pay any levy - that would include ?a majority of people over 65, people under the age of 14, and a lot of rich people/rich people's family, all of who can and one may argue are more likely to hurt themselves and therefore require ACC.

Very true. You're right, it would have to be a percentage of wages thing and yes there would be those who would end up not paying (the same who don't already?). I wouldn't mind paying more either, after all I have a single bike to rego each year, but it would allow those who have multiple motorcycles to be levied once as they seem to want. It would be interesting to find out how many people don't pay their rego that could and work. After all, you wouldn't be able to dodge your rego if it was straight off your wages. It would also be interesting to find out how many people who are unemployed do pay their rego... and to that end find out how close those 2 figures would be to cancelling each other out. If the total bill is $10 billion per year and there are 2 million of us working, then your figure of 5k would seem to be about right. I probably pay about a half of that, maybe a bit more, for my bike, car and earners levy etc... On the face of it it's a shitload more than I currently spend, but it would cover everyone for any sport etc...

I'd be interested to find out how much of that 5k would be offset by the employers levy, the fuel levy, any other levy that's out there and taking into account the usual surplus that's invested to cover, er, er, er, whatever that surplus goes into covering? I'd love to know what my end bill would be before signing up for a scheme proposed by a bunch of economists and political brown noses that could turn out to have quite serious downsides for plenty of people... which could, by default, lead to prices going up as more and more people leave ACC for private insurers or just stop paying for rego because it costs too much.

I wonder if that analysis has been undertaken?

[mashman]

Is it just me or will the cost of living keep going up faster than income untill we will all be sold as slave labour to a third world sweat shop.

:rofl: aye, it's just you... grab yer tin foil hat quickly. It's been happening for decades. The top earners get fuckloads of cash and then cumulative income/wealth is divided by the working population to make is seem like all of our salaries are rising (the report says so, so it must be true). That means we can afford to pay more ACC and should damn well be able to afford private insurance. You should be ashamed of yourself for thinking such stupid thoughts :blink:

[Murray]

The original Woodhouse concept worked until it got choked up with debt and subsequent political interference and tinkering! :mellow:

Sorry have I missed something here?? When was it choked up with debt, We were told it was broke but that was just more lies. It has more money than you can poke a stick at!

[oldrider]

Sorry have I missed something here?? When was it choked up with debt, We were told it was broke but that was just more lies. It has more money than you can poke a stick at!

Almost every change of government since the inception of ACC began their tenure of office claiming ACC was broke or struggling due to abusive claims etc!

That has been the main cause for the tinkering and interference but as you say, it always gets exposed to having money invested every which way!

ACC in it's original concept would be OK if it was free of political interference every three years IMHO.

[p.dath]

The overall message is personal responsibility isn't it?
Given that ACC in its current form is in essence too expensive, some form of user pays seems fair to me. You choose a risky hobby or sport, or mode of transport in our case as motorcyclists, only seems fair to pay ACC in some proportion to the risk.
What I find unfair is that if I have a commuter bike for weekdays, a tourer for trips and a dirt bike for hooning around on the weekends, then why should I pay 3 lots of ACC fees when I can only ride one at a time? So levying the rider instead of the bike gets the thumbs up from me. Hard to administer and/or police though, just like rego...:facepalm:

None of this matters, for the cynic in me reckons the outcome has already been decided, what's going on at present is just the window dressing to get us to the unveiling of the master plan :shutup::shutup:

To counter your first statement, of varying risk, Woodhouse concluded that you can not weight up just one side of the ledger, what the cost of an activity is that someone undertakes without also considering the other side of the ledger, what that person brings/pays to the community as a whole. His final conclusion after investigating it was that the cost of a scheme that considered the net contribution of an individual was so great (administration cost) that it was cheaper to go to a no-fault scheme.

Woodhouse had always recognized it would be very easy to create a scheme that was too expensive to run. He solution was always that the level of cover provided must be able to be paid for by the funds coming in. If it becomes more expensive, you reduce the level of cover to what the people can afford. Woodhouse said cuts should begin with less essential treatments, to preserve essential cover for those really in need.

[Katman]

Like I've said before, society was a very different place back when Woodhouse was a cowboy.

[p.dath]

Surely only those that crash a lot and cost the rest of us money at the moment will be against any personal style of ACC cover. I would have earnt a lifetime no claim bonus long ago if it had been like that, but instead at our peak me and Mrs merv were paying ACC levies on 15 vehicles between us, costing a fortune at the time, but we rationalised the fleet before it cost the megafortune it otherwise would have today.

Back before ACC when there was only personal income cover, it cost about 30% more than ACC. Also, which is once of the reasons why the Royal Commission was created, was that insurance companies routinely declined to payout on serious claims, forcing their clients to take them to court. However these claims often failed to complete the court process - because the people were seriously injured and unable to complete the process - or died waiting to get money to pay for the treatment they needed.

[p.dath]

... but if this was a proper insurance scheme I would have my own personal cover based on my personal record, no one else's, and it would be way less than I pay now through rego, that I do know.

History says otherwise - but alas we have to wait for the future to prove if you are correct.


There was nothing in place before ACC ... insurance companies would not have a bar of it!

The original Woodhouse concept worked until it got choked up with debt and subsequent political interference and tinkering! :mellow:

Before ACC was the "Workers Compensation Act 1967". Basically, creating a way to make private accident insurance work better. The problem was, it didn't. It worked much like how it does in the US. Everyone, apart from the insurance companies, considered it a failure, and we then moved onto ACC.


In short, we have it *really good*. We just don't recognize this.

[Katman]

In short, we have it *really good*. We just don't recognize this.

In short, we have managed to turn 'having it really good' into 'taking the piss' and we're doing a really good job of it.

[merv]

Nah, when the rego for any of my bikes was under $200 and similar to that for a car it was OK with me, but now it does piss me off when it seems I am now paying for too may miscreants just because I like bikes.

[scott411]

what gets me about his articles is the fact he is not willing to fight for the unfairness that only motorcyclists are being targeted to pay their fair share, young drivers have more ACC claims but do not have to pay more than older drivers, cyclists have a heap of ACC claims but pay nothing,

It seems like he is there to justify the increase to us,

[Flip]

He was appointed by ACC not the motorcycle community.

Mr Morgan is representing the interests of himself and the National Goverment.

[sleemanj]

The trouble is, this is a "religious argument".

On the one hand we have (left wing socially liberals) say that everybody should chip in to a consolidated fund based on their ability to do so. Those who can contribute more, should, those that can't should not be disadvantaged. This is what ACC was supposed to be.

And on the other, we have (right wing socially conservatives) say that everybody should pay their own way, if you can't afford to pay your insurance/medical, then why should they have to pay for you. This is what some want ACC to be.

Presently ACC is somewhere in the middle of the two but being dragged further towards the conservative end of the spectrum.

Then we have people's often mistaken ideas about insurance, short memories, ideal worlds, and inter-societal economic blindness ("everybody I know can afford [insert thing a group of society can't afford here] so I don't see the problem" and vice versa), put these all together and we have a complete impasse in getting an agreement.

This is why at each switch of government between left, and right simplistically, we have a change in the direction of ACC.

Gareth Morgan is right wing socially conservative, I think that in motorcyclists there are more than an expected proportion in his camp than against it (really just going by the discussions here over the years on ACC and other topics), I don't quite know why though.

Personally, I am his polar opposite, I would like to see ACC funded completely as a part of income tax just like the rest of our national expenditure is funded, add a couple of percent to income tax rates and that would probably cover it pretty well.

[MSTRS]

Gareth Morgan is right wing socially conservative, I think that in motorcyclists there are more than an expected proportion in his camp than against it (really just going by the discussions here over the years on ACC and other topics), I don't quite know why though.


Because motorcycling is no longer a poor man's sport, nor is it the poor man's choice of cheap transport.

[James Deuce]

Gareth Morgan is right wing socially conservative, I think that in motorcyclists there are more than an expected proportion in his camp than against it (really just going by the discussions here over the years on ACC and other topics), I don't quite know why though.

Because owning a motorcycle requires a certain level of income, and that level of income tends to achievable by the right-wing socially conservative. A motorcycle is a lot more expensive to run, per kilometer, than a car. Anyone who thinks they are cheap transport is barking mad.

[Howie]

that level of income tends to achievable by the right-wing socially conservative. A motorcycle is a lot more expensive to run, per kilometre, than a car. Anyone who thinks they are cheap transport is barking mad.



Interesting statements those. As Motorcycling can be a lot cheaper than a car per/km. The price per km depends on what sort of bike, and what you expect from it.

Many years ago I used a CX400E brought for not a lot as a commuter bike it was very cheap to run, Economic on fuel, change the oil regularly myself, fit touring type tyres. shaft drive so no chain maintenance etc, cheaper/free parking during the day, and 3rd party insurance. It lasted for about 6 years while supporting a young family.

Motorcycling can be cheaper per km than a car if you want it to be, it all depends on what you want out of it.

Why do we have so many scooters appearing on the roads these days if not that the cost/benefit ratio is good?

[MSTRS]

Many years ago ...

Agreed. It was cheap many years ago. Not anymore.

And scooters have never been classed as motorbikes - so they don't count.

[Howie]

Agreed. It was cheap many years ago. Not anymore.

And scooters have never been classed as motorbikes - so they don't count.

It still can be cheap, depends on how you set yourself up, and what you expect from your bike.

I know of one person who rides a early 2000's DR650 as a commuter bike, runs cheaper brand road tyres on it, and rides it probably 50-60 km per day, and that’s all he does with it. It'll probably last many more years in that role. Cheap transport from a bike is possible.

Scooters are lumped in with Motorcycles for registration purposes, if over 50cc, or capable of more than 50km/h. see
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicle/classes-standards/class.html

[James Deuce]

I'll expand on that a bit more - People who use a motorcycle as cheap transport will achieve their goal. The vast majority of motorcycle owners who ride on the road in NZ, are reasonably affluent, or are sacrificing a lot to keep a bike on the road. The shift over the last 20 years to 17" wheels and a 120/70, 180/55 pairing has done more than anything to to make motorcycling expensive, along with grippy tyre compounds. As much as you'd like to think so, you don't need that sort of rubber on the road, especially when it only last 3-4000 kms and costs the better part of $800 to replace.

If you're not into sportsbikes or sporting nakeds and sports tourers, then you're riding a particular brand of cruiser and spending a bit on other accessories. The core of motorcycling has moved from C90s being ridden to work to weekend toys that cost lots to buy, insure, run and accessorise.

Scooters and motorcycles are two different things.

[MSTRS]

I'll expand on that a bit more -

Scooters and motorcycles are two different things.

I've condensed your post a little...

Scooters are designed as small, short distance commuters and this is what they are used for. They rarely, if ever, double as one's tourer (for instance).

Pre-80s and the advent of the used jap import, all forms of 2 wheels were cheap, relatively speaking. Since then, cars have become so much cheaper, and near-enough everything involved with running a PTW has gone up exponentially. Which is where Jim and I are coming from. Motorcycling can be cheaper than 4 wheels, but it does take a very narrow choice of bike and a lot of commitment from the rider.

[Howie]

I'll expand on that a bit more - People who use a motorcycle as cheap transport will achieve their goal. The vast majority of motorcycle owners who ride on the road in NZ, are reasonably affluent, or are sacrificing a lot to keep a bike on the road.

If you're not into sportsbikes or sporting nakeds and sports tourers, then you're riding a particular brand of cruiser and spending a bit on other accessories. The core of motorcycling has moved from C90s being ridden to work to weekend toys that cost lots to buy, insure, run and accessorise.

Scooters and motorcycles are two different things.

It's interesting that you only identify with certain types of bikes/ riders.
to add to your list above there are also:

Dual purpose riders. (which can also be broken down more)
The commuting type of rider
Those who enjoy a sidecar attached.
The outright Touring type rider.
The classic bike rider(likes his bikes old)


I've condensed your post a little...

Scooters are designed as small, short distance commuters and this is what they are used for. They rarely, if ever, double as one's tourer (for instance).

Pre-80s and the advent of the used jap import, all forms of 2 wheels were cheap, relatively speaking. Since then, cars have become so much cheaper, and near-enough everything involved with running a PTW has gone up exponentially. Which is where Jim and I are coming from. Motorcycling can be cheaper than 4 wheels, but it does take a very narrow choice of bike and a lot of commitment from the rider.

Interesting comment about not touring scooters, I know of at least 2 people that have spent 2-3 weeks at a time touring the South Island going to out of the way places on larger cc scooters, and it was by choice. Don't be blinded by your own perception of what motorcycling is. It is many different things to different people. Myself for instance went from Trail rider to Road rider to touring type rider to sports bike rider to Road racing, back to touring type rider, then commuter, back to sports riding, before moving onto Dual purpose/adventure type riding over a thirty + year period.

The point I am trying to make is that in the eyes of the powers that be, they only break the ACC component down to CC level of bike, Not what sort of rider riding what sort of bike. For instance all the mid range Dual purpose bikes like the DR650, KLR650, BMW 650 etc all get put into the over 600cc bracket for ACC levies yet hardly any of them make more than 50HP and most qualify as LAMS approved bikes..

Yes we the enthusiasts differentiate on the type of riding we do, but ACC doesn't.

[BMWST?]

It's interesting that you only identify with certain types of bikes/ riders.
to add to your list above there are also:

Dual purpose riders. (which can also be broken down more)
The commuting type of rider
Those who enjoy a sidecar attached.
The outright Touring type rider.
The classic bike rider(likes his bikes old)



Interesting comment about not touring scooters, I know of at least 2 people that have spent 2-3 weeks at a time touring the South Island going to out of the way places on larger cc scooters, and it was by choice. Don't be blinded by your own perception of what motorcycling is. It is many different things to different people. Myself for instance went from Trail rider to Road rider to touring type rider to sports bike rider to Road racing, back to touring type rider, then commuter, back to sports riding, before moving onto Dual purpose/adventure type riding over a thirty + year period.

The point I am trying to make is that in the eyes of the powers that be, they only break the ACC component down to CC level of bike, Not what sort of rider riding what sort of bike. For instance all the mid range Dual purpose bikes like the DR650, KLR650, BMW 650 etc all get put into the over 600cc bracket for ACC levies yet hardly any of them make more than 50HP and most qualify as LAMS approved bikes..

Yes we the enthusiasts differentiate on the type of riding we do, but ACC doesn't.

and some older 1000 cc bikes are only 10hp more....I agree If i did more work on the gs myself i reckon it would be fairly cheap motoring.To be cheap though you have to get out tof the top hp bracket.I wonder if we could make a case for lams bikes to be classed as "250"s for acc purposes :scooter:

[James Deuce]

It's not a case of identifying with certain riders. If you want to get into the numbers battle, then farmers make road registered riders look like a bunch of try hards because the number of quads and farm bikes sold make the rest of the market look a little ill.

From a road rider's perspective, one who pays rego and therefore the ACC tax, the vast majority of road bikes I see on the road are, in volumetric order, Cruisers, Big Naked/Touring/Sportstourers, Sportsbikes 600cc and over, learner bikes with L plate proudly displayed, learners/commuters with no "L" plate displayed, DP bikes. The average car park in Wellington is 50% scooters, 15% cruiser/Euro naked, 15% sportstourer/naked and the remaining 20% split up between learner bikes and "proper" sportsbikes.

I will maintain that the majority of those bikes are not cheap to purchase or maintain. Honda are starting to get it with the NC700 series, operating costs and consumables lowered with a combination of good fuel economy (and it is only "good", particularly as '60s Brit twins made the same power and probably slightly better fuel consumption.) smaller rear tyre and car-like service intervals thanks to the half a Honda Jazz engine and a red line back in sensible territory.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Pity that all my acc claims, i have a 12 book series, have either been work related or non earner account.

This is what makes his ideas a complete fail.

I too have a long list of acc claims. I'm not proud of it, and I'm FUCKING lucky we have acc. All of mine are from racing motorcycles. I'm sure I'm hardly alone. But that's why the whole rego/licence thing is so fucked up. I don't register my race bikes, and I don't need a licence either.

[Crasherfromwayback]

And scooters have never been classed as motorbikes - so they don't count.

Not true. My TR50's/110's were scooters AND motorcycles. I could wheelie them for miles. That make's 'em motorcycles I reckon!

[scott411]

I too have a long list of acc claims. I'm not proud of it, and I'm FUCKING lucky we have acc. All of mine are from racing motorcycles. I'm sure I'm hardly alone. But that's why the whole rego thing is so fucked up. I don't register my race bikes.

your racing injuries do not come out of the motor vehicle account, they come out of the earner account the same as rugby and netball etcinjuries etc, you do pay an ACC levie on your wages, which is fixed to an amount the same as everyone else, a true no at fault system,

i to have a very long list of racing induced injuries, and a heap of surgerys etc as well, but they do not effect the price of a bike rego,

[Crasherfromwayback]

your racing injuries do not come out of the motor vehicle account, they come out of the earner account the same as rugby and netball etcinjuries etc, you do pay an ACC levie on your wages, which is fixed to an amount the same as everyone else, a true no at fault system,

i to have a very long list of racing induced injuries, and a heap of surgerys etc as well, but they do not effect the price of a bike rego,

Choice! I feel much better now!!

[MarkW]

As always - some interesting arguments in this thread.

Motorcycles can be cheap to run - but it depends on the motorcycle and the riders objectives. My main transport is, and has always been, a motorcycle. I have a car but it only gets used when the motorcycle is an unsuitable choice.

I run a Honda NTV650 - a shaft driven V twin with half fairing and fixed saddlebags. Tyre sizes are sensible and I am looking at $300 a set and 15,000km average life. Fuel use is 22km per litre. I'm old and my last motorcycle accident was in 1991 so my insurance costs are not high, I do all of my own servicing and expect a minimum of 200,000km from my current Honda before it needs major work that I can't do myself.

I also run a DRZ250 Suzuki that is street legal - and this bike is even cheaper to run than the Honda as the rego and tyres are cheaper. And every second year I go trail riding in central Otago. I now live just outside Kaitaia and ride the DRZ to Queenstown and back. The bike handles this task pretty well. Sure, I'm not able to cruise at speeds in excess of the open road limit but I choose entertaining (for me!) roads to get from one end of the country to the other.

Using a Ferrari as a commuter car will always cost more than a Suzuki Swift also used for commuting.

Up untill 2 years ago I lived in Auckland and used exactly the same motorcycles for all of my commuting. Even larger motorcycles can be relatively cheap commuters.

When I started riding in 1972 most motorcycles were used as transport first and recreation second. Many motorcyclists are now recreational only and the running costs reflect this.

I have 4 road registered motorcycles - prior to the latest set of ACC rises I always had a 650 and a 250 registered. Now I manage my registrations so that I rarely have 2 bikes registered. I know how the rules work - and use the opportunities therein to my best advantage. Registering the 650 on Friday morning for 4 or 5 days only gives me time to get to and from Hastings with ease. Rego cost is less than $20. I ALWAYS have a road registered motorcycle to ride.

Sure - riding the DRZ to Auckland for a weekend takes 30 minutes longer than doing it on the 650 but I save a reasonable amount of money in rego costs. And if you distort ACC costs the right way by saying that cheaper ACC costs mean less risk (because more risk costs more?) then I am safer cruising down SH 1 at 94kph in the pouring rain on my street legal full knobbies than I am on my LAMS 650 with good road tyres, linked braking system etc etc.

There isn't a 100% fair system - life is full of exceptions. My one and only motorcycle related ACC claim (which was simply a dose of concussion) was in 1975. A million motorcycling kilometres later and more than 30 years involved (as an extended part time job) in motorcycle training means that I have probably paid slightly more in ACC costs than I have cost ACC.

I don't like the corruptions and distortions that ACC has undergone over the last 30 years - but going back to the 1970's is probably not an option.

Motorcycling can be a high risk activity - but it doesn't have to be. If I make a mistake on a motorcycle it may hurt me. If I am in the way of someone else who makes the mistake then it will hurt me. So I ride accordingly. The person with the greatest benefit to gain in keeping me uninjured is me. So I consider that it is my responsibility to keep out of the way of those who make mistakes and to only make my mistakes where the consequences of my own stupidity won't hurt.

I accept the risks and responsibilities of riding a motorcycle. I'm totally addicted to riding and the buzz that a good ride gives me. I manage the costs of my addiction!

[Bonez]

$11 for an 4 ltr oil pack.
$300 for the bike.
$250 for a set of tyres
plus reg and wof
Motorcycling is fucken expensive alright...................

[flyingcrocodile46]

I recently bought myself a copy of the September issue of Kiwirider, and it had an article in it by Gareth Morgan (chairman of MOTONZ, the organisation that gets our $30).

It is very apparently he does not uphold the views of the Woodhouse Commission that was the foundation of ACC, for he is personally suggested we should consider putting back in place a very similar scheme to what existed prior to ACC. Basically it would be like forgetting all the grief that people went though before the Woodhouse report investigated it, and then ACC was put in place to resolve. Things were *substantially* worse before ACC, which is why a Royal Commission of Inquiry was created to fix it.

I should say he is only proposing these changes for Motorcyclists.

Some things he mentions are:
* Having an excess on claims.
* Levying riders instead of bikes - so that we can charge riders who have accidents more, identify returning riders more easily, and basically make a risk assessment based on the rider rather than the bike
* Giving people the right to get private insurance

I grow so tired of the argument for the above. You only have to do a bit of research on how bad things were before ACC to realise things are currently *really* good.

So Gareth, I realise these are your personal views, but please don't push them forward. Otherwise in 20 years we'll be looking back at how good things used to be wondering what we screwed up.


I don't think that having an excess is a good idea but the rest seems ok to me as long as other risk activities such as extreme and high risk sports, mountain climbing, shot over jets, Motocross, rugby etc are also taxed. The rest seems like positives imo.

[flyingcrocodile46]

$11 for an 4 ltr oil pack.
$300 for the bike.
$250 for a set of tyres
plus reg and wof
Motorcycling is fucken expensive alright...................

Are you using cooking oil?

[Bonez]

Are you using cooking oil?Just a decerning rider that's all ;)

Forgot to add the 500kms I did today=priceless

[mashman]

I don't think that having an excess is a good idea but the rest seems ok to me as long as other risk activities such as extreme and high risk sports, mountain climbing, shot over jets, Motocross, rugby etc are also taxed. The rest seems like positives imo.

Can't pay no play eh? Ahhhh freedom, doncha just love it.

[Voltaire]

Motorcycling probably seems expensive to owners of bikes only used on weekends and holidays, I'm currently running a $350 200 cc scooter ( classed as a motorcycle) and a 29 year year old $1100 BMW ( did 200 km of back roads on it today)
I have a car but it drinks fuel so I prefer to use the bike/scootah, cheap and cheerful :woohoo:

Hobbies are expensive.:laugh:

[BoristheBiter]

Choice! I feel much better now!!

I've never felt guilty about how much I have cost the ACC as I have always worked and always paid rego.
Pus most of the surgery I have had has been with private insurance.

[Crasherfromwayback]

I've never felt guilty about how much I have cost the ACC as I have always worked and always paid rego.
Pus most of the surgery I have had has been with private insurance.

I have never been unemployed in my life either, so have paid plenty of tax.

[BoristheBiter]

I have never been unemployed in my life either, so have paid plenty of tax.

That's the thing, this is how it was designed.
Yes some pay more than others and some use it more than others, but it still works out in the end.
The problem is when too much is lumped onto one group.

That been said when a biker does go down there will usually be a massive bill associated with it.

I'm more than happy to pay my way but it seems that there are some that aren't.

[swbarnett]

Personally, I am his polar opposite, I would like to see ACC funded completely as a part of income tax just like the rest of our national expenditure is funded, add a couple of percent to income tax rates and that would probably cover it pretty well.
Exactly, this is the only fair way to apportion the cost. Afterall, a healthy, contributing, member of society is of benifit to us all.

[swbarnett]

And scooters have never been classed as motorbikes - so they don't count.
They certainly count in the accident statistics.

[Voltaire]

I'll play Devils Advocate.... why should everyone contribute to people who come off their expensive overpowered play things. I had a ride on a 100 HP bike in the weekend and if I was the Govt I'd be taxing them way high.

Whats so special about the 1967 Wood house report that makes it relevant in 2012? Gone are the days of youth riding to work on small bikes and ACC covering their wages when off work due to injury.... Seems odd to me how everyone is for making same sex marriages legal yet ACC is not to be changed....oh and lets do away with Christmas too, as hardly any one goes to church now....and Easter... .....oh no can't do that is it involves money......:innocent:
I lived in the UK for several years and had no problem with private cover, but here everyone expects things for free off the Govt. Think how much tax you pay.....it doesn't really go very far.

[swbarnett]

I'll play Devils Advocate.... why should everyone contribute to people who come off their expensive overpowered play things.
Simple, because EVERYONE benifts.

What kind of world would you rather livbe in, one where everybody, regardless of financial circumstance has the opportunity for a fulfilling life or one where this is only open to the rich?

The whole point of ACC is based around the concept of a public good. This is where, although it may not be immediately apparent, the whole of society benifits, so the whole of society should pay.

Greed is the overriding motovator today. I would far rather live in a gregarious society where we all look after each other to the benifit of all.

[oldrider]

I'll play Devils Advocate.... why should everyone contribute to people who come off their expensive overpowered play things. I had a ride on a 100 HP bike in the weekend and if I was the Govt I'd be taxing them way high.

Whats so special about the 1967 Wood house report that makes it relevant in 2012? Gone are the days of youth riding to work on small bikes and ACC covering their wages when off work due to injury.... Seems odd to me how everyone is for making same sex marriages legal yet ACC is not to be changed....oh and lets do away with Christmas too, as hardly any one goes to church now....and Easter... .....oh no can't do that is it involves money......:innocent:
I lived in the UK for several years and had no problem with private cover, but here everyone expects things for free off the Govt. Think how much tax you pay.....it doesn't really go very far.

Have you actually read the Woodhouse report?

Yes private individual accident insurance would be better and probably cheaper than than the current ACC bullshit which is neither one nor the other!

You pay through the nose now and don't have the right to suit to get your money back from those that cause you injury or damage!

It's a shambles now and gets used as a political football every three years. :mellow:

[Voltaire]

Have you actually read the Woodhouse report?


NO, I don't have the attention span or memory retention to read long reports.....does Woodhouse have a Wiki I can read in a few minutes?
But it was written in the 60's thats a long long long time ago....:innocent:

[oldrider]

NO, I don't have the attention span or memory retention to read long reports.....does Woodhouse have a Wiki I can read in a few minutes?
But it was written in the 60's thats a long long long time ago....:innocent:

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

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/overview-of-acc/introduction-to-acc/ABA00004

Just Google if you need more information there is stacks of it there. :yes:

[p.dath]

I'll play Devils Advocate.... why should everyone contribute to people who come off their expensive overpowered play things. I had a ride on a 100 HP bike in the weekend and if I was the Govt I'd be taxing them way high.

Because prior to the Woodhouse reform, when this was the case, you *were* paying more.


Whats so special about the 1967 Wood house report that makes it relevant in 2012?

Touche. What makes you feel the Woodhouse report is no longer relevant? Perhaps we should have another royal commission of inquiry, now that 40 years has passed, to look at the whole issue again. But I a suspect a return to the system of private insurance, like in the United States, would be a huge step backwards - unless you somehow think theie system of sue and be sued is better. I don't think that the guy with the most expensive lawyer who wins results in a fair system.

[mashman]

I lived in the UK for several years and had no problem with private cover, but here everyone expects things for free off the Govt. Think how much tax you pay.....it doesn't really go very far.

Did you ever work out how much of your salary was your NHS contribution/levy?

[merv]

The problem I have is this loading of risky ventures business. If it really should be what Woodhouse reckoned, then why isn't every man woman and child effectively costed at exactly the same amount?

This is why I'd prefer insurance on me personally because I know, based on my track record, I'm a low risk.

I only started thinking this when they bumped my fees up when I'd done nothing wrong to cause that. Why are there different employment categories, higher fees on motorcycles etc if it was meant to be the caring society looking after all? They have already screwed it so badly it is so far off the original concept. If that isn't fixed I'll continue to argue for the personal insurance option.

[oldrider]

When you get something for free ... it just means that someone else is paying for it!

Socialists think that it is the rich bastards that pay and that they deserve to pay because they can afford it!

Hardly a balanced attitude but it is the most predominant one in this country at least until "they" are included on the rich list by public institutions like ACC! :mellow:

[p.dath]

The problem I have is this loading of risky ventures business. If it really should be what Woodhouse reckoned, then why isn't every man woman and child effectively costed at exactly the same amount?

Ahh, politicians.

Woodhouse did propose that every man and woman be costed at the same amount. However just before passing the bill into law - the politicians changed it to introduce that risk scale.

FYI, the riskiest occupation at the time was a top dressing pilot. Woodhouse used it as an example. This occupation was very expensive when they crashed - but they bought a huge value (to then then mostly) rural economy. Woodhouse said you can't consider only the cost to the community that a person represents without also considering the financial gain they bring. You have to consider both sides of the equation.




This is why I'd prefer insurance on me personally because I know, based on my track record, I'm a low risk.


Lets say we went down that track, and all those with risky - but important - occupations were taxed by ACC for all they could pay. Why would they stay? They wouldn't. They'd bugger off. Eventually we'd be left with a pool of people not prepared to risk doing anything because of the cost.

[BoristheBiter]

Lets say we went down that track, and all those with risky - but important - occupations were taxed by ACC for all they could pay. Why would they stay? They wouldn't. They'd bugger off. Eventually we'd be left with a pool of people not prepared to risk doing anything because of the cost.

If they were important jobs the cost would be passed onto the end user.

[phill-k]

As always - some interesting arguments in this thread.

Motorcycles can be cheap to run - but it depends on the motorcycle and the riders objectives. My main transport is, and has always been, a motorcycle. I have a car but it only gets used when the motorcycle is an unsuitable choice.

I run a Honda NTV650 - a shaft driven V twin with half fairing and fixed saddlebags. Tyre sizes are sensible and I am looking at $300 a set and 15,000km average life. Fuel use is 22km per litre. I'm old and my last motorcycle accident was in 1991 so my insurance costs are not high, I do all of my own servicing and expect a minimum of 200,000km from my current Honda before it needs major work that I can't do myself.

I also run a DRZ250 Suzuki that is street legal - and this bike is even cheaper to run than the Honda as the rego and tyres are cheaper. And every second year I go trail riding in central Otago. I now live just outside Kaitaia and ride the DRZ to Queenstown and back. The bike handles this task pretty well. Sure, I'm not able to cruise at speeds in excess of the open road limit but I choose entertaining (for me!) roads to get from one end of the country to the other.

Using a Ferrari as a commuter car will always cost more than a Suzuki Swift also used for commuting.

Up untill 2 years ago I lived in Auckland and used exactly the same motorcycles for all of my commuting. Even larger motorcycles can be relatively cheap commuters.

When I started riding in 1972 most motorcycles were used as transport first and recreation second. Many motorcyclists are now recreational only and the running costs reflect this.

I have 4 road registered motorcycles - prior to the latest set of ACC rises I always had a 650 and a 250 registered. Now I manage my registrations so that I rarely have 2 bikes registered. I know how the rules work - and use the opportunities therein to my best advantage. Registering the 650 on Friday morning for 4 or 5 days only gives me time to get to and from Hastings with ease. Rego cost is less than $20. I ALWAYS have a road registered motorcycle to ride.

Sure - riding the DRZ to Auckland for a weekend takes 30 minutes longer than doing it on the 650 but I save a reasonable amount of money in rego costs. And if you distort ACC costs the right way by saying that cheaper ACC costs mean less risk (because more risk costs more?) then I am safer cruising down SH 1 at 94kph in the pouring rain on my street legal full knobbies than I am on my LAMS 650 with good road tyres, linked braking system etc etc.

There isn't a 100% fair system - life is full of exceptions. My one and only motorcycle related ACC claim (which was simply a dose of concussion) was in 1975. A million motorcycling kilometres later and more than 30 years involved (as an extended part time job) in motorcycle training means that I have probably paid slightly more in ACC costs than I have cost ACC.

I don't like the corruptions and distortions that ACC has undergone over the last 30 years - but going back to the 1970's is probably not an option.

Motorcycling can be a high risk activity - but it doesn't have to be. If I make a mistake on a motorcycle it may hurt me. If I am in the way of someone else who makes the mistake then it will hurt me. So I ride accordingly. The person with the greatest benefit to gain in keeping me uninjured is me. So I consider that it is my responsibility to keep out of the way of those who make mistakes and to only make my mistakes where the consequences of my own stupidity won't hurt.

I accept the risks and responsibilities of riding a motorcycle. I'm totally addicted to riding and the buzz that a good ride gives me. I manage the costs of my addiction!

Bloody good post

[phill-k]

But who on here knows or is asking what exactly our $30 ACC has given to Morgan and his cronies is achieving other than their first little junket to Melbourne

[Paul in NZ]

But who on here knows or is asking what exactly our $30 ACC has given to Morgan and his cronies is achieving other than their first little junket to Melbourne

Who cares?? Or more exactly where you honestly expecting anything other than a diminishing of your freedoms or a push to make motorcycling more expensive and elitist for the chosen few? The way its headed it will be stock factory bikes only of a limited type and capacity unless you can afford the certificates and extra tax...

[Bald Eagle]

You didn't seriously expect it to achieve anything did you? It was just a political sop for the noisy bikers ...and it worked they went away

Sent from my MB525 using Tapatalk 2

[bogan]

But who on here knows or is asking what exactly our $30 ACC has given to Morgan and his cronies is achieving other than their first little junket to Melbourne

I've been asking (response is on one of the other threads somewhere), but its as everyone knows, they are up to fuck all. Questions generally take a few weeks and get a pretty standard we are working on it and will have an update soon response; which would be fine if they were actually working on it, and actually did make and update :pinch:

[oneofsix]

You didn't seriously expect it to achieve anything did you? It was just a political sop for the noisy bikers ...and it worked they went away

Sent from my MB525 using Tapatalk 2

tut tut BE that's not fair. We haven't gone away but as they have "given" us this "sop" we have to prove its usability otherwise they will say we are just a bunch of noisy bikers. Can I take it you are willing to help make more noise if it proves to be a sop?

:yes:

[Bald Eagle]

tut tut BE that's not fair. We haven't gone away but as they have "given" us this "sop" we have to prove its usability otherwise they will say we are just a bunch of noisy bikers. Can I take it you are willing to help make more noise if it proves to be a sop?

:yes:

Yes

Sent from my MB525 using Tapatalk 2

[BoristheBiter]

You didn't seriously expect it to achieve anything did you? It was just a political sop for the noisy bikers ...and it worked they went away

Sent from my MB525 using Tapatalk 2

The one I feel sorry for is StoneY.
Everyone told him, well I did, what was going to happen but he just held onto the fact that it was going to do some good but I guess he found out what we all ready knew it was a pile of bollocks to shut us up.

But thumbs up to him at least he tried.

[oneofsix]

The one I feel sorry for is StoneY.
Everyone told him, well I did, what was going to happen but he just held onto the fact that it was going to do some good but I guess he found out what we all ready knew it was a pile of bollocks to shut us up.

But thumbs up to him at least he tried.

I feel sorry for StoneY because, knowing it was most likely to be political bullocks, he dived in to try and get it to work, got right royally shafted as part of their attempt to discredit BRONZ and bikers in general, and then some KBers jumped in boots and all to kick whilst he was hurting.

[Berries]

To be fair, he was a ginga.

[cheshirecat]

... but if this was a proper insurance scheme I would have my own personal cover based on my personal record, no one else's, and it would be way less than I pay now through rego, that I do know.

same plus 10

[geoffm]

Back before ACC when there was only personal income cover, it cost about 30% more than ACC. Also, which is once of the reasons why the Royal Commission was created, was that insurance companies routinely declined to payout on serious claims, forcing their clients to take them to court. However these claims often failed to complete the court process - because the people were seriously injured and unable to complete the process - or died waiting to get money to pay for the treatment they needed.

True - except everyone I know who can afford it has medical insurance and disability insurance - because ACC won't provide what was promised if it is needed. ACC is the worst combination of private insurance and social welfare, and doesn't do either well.

[oldrider]

One of ACC's biggest reasons to avoid payment is "age degeneration" of the accident victim!

This is happening more and more but one thing you don't get as you age is a degeneration of the ACC fee's that you pay!

My older brother got really smashed up in an accident and ACC refuses to cover any of the cost towards his limb reconstruction!

Their reason is that he has just grown old and there is a lot of degeneration involved. FFS!

[Conquiztador]

One of ACC's biggest reasons to avoid payment is "age degeneration" of the accident victim!

This is happening more and more but one thing you don't get as you age is a degeneration of the ACC fee's that you pay!

My older brother got really smashed up in an accident and ACC refuses to cover any of the cost towards his limb reconstruction!

Their reason is that he has just grown old and there is a lot of degeneration involved. FFS!

Was this after National came in to power and started the work to prepare ACC for sale to their mates in the insurance industry?

[pete376403]

One of ACC's biggest reasons to avoid payment is "age degeneration" of the accident victim!

This is happening more and more but one thing you don't get as you age is a degeneration of the ACC fee's that you pay!

My older brother got really smashed up in an accident and ACC refuses to cover any of the cost towards his limb reconstruction!

Their reason is that he has just grown old and there is a lot of degeneration involved. FFS!
Did he get examined by one of ACCs Hitman Squad?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10833828

[mikeey01]

Who the fuck pulled Mr Morgans chain?
He's made some good investments over the years and made a stack of cash. This does not make him the all knowledgeable god on motorcycle safety, make recommendation and the like.
I'm surprised they even print his dribble outside of an adventure ride.

Get back in your hole you twat.

[MrKiwi]

Who the fuck pulled Mr Morgans chain?
He's made some good investments over the years and made a stack of cash. This does not make him the all knowledgeable god on motorcycle safety, make recommendation and the like.
I'm surprised they even print his dribble outside of an adventure ride.

Get back in your hole you twat.

Whether we agree with his article/comments/views or not doesn't mean we should call him names! Gareth has spent some time thinking, researching and analysing the data before coming to his views and his contribution is worthy of debate. The fact that I have analysed the same data and come to quite different views doesn't mean I should run him into the ground and neither should you. It would be better if we could play the game not the man.

[MSTRS]

... his contribution is worthy of debate. ...

Oh, we used to dream of being able to 'debate' things with the man. But alas, we all know that he does not allow debate.
And for that alone he deserves the aforementioned title...

[MrKiwi]

Oh, we used to dream of being able to 'debate' things with the man. But alas, we all know that he does not allow debate.
And for that alone he deserves the aforementioned title...

I wasn't necessarily referring to debating things with the man himself, but debating the issues he raises among us without necessarily resorting to name calling. Debunk what he says, I'm just not into debunking anyone personally for their views.

[swbarnett]

I wasn't necessarily referring to debating things with the man himself, but debating the issues he raises among us without necessarily resorting to name calling. Debunk what he says, I'm just not into debunking anyone personally for their views.
It's not the fact that he holds said views that gets him called a twat. It's the fact that he's not willing to enter into debate over them. This makes him a religious zealot in my book.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Who the fuck pulled Mr Morgans chain?
He's made some good investments over the years and made a stack of cash. This does not make him the all knowledgeable god on motorcycle safety, make recommendation and the like.
I'm surprised they even print his dribble outside of an adventure ride.

Get back in your hole you twat.


It's not the fact that he holds said views that gets him called a twat. It's the fact that he's not willing to enter into debate over them. This makes him a religious zealot in my book.

I'm joining the club.

[tri boy]

I was crossing the Kahdung Lah when G Morgan was tossing off over spread sheets.
He is a wanker with an agenda, and that makes him fair target in the riders real world. MHO

[RDJ]

You didn't seriously expect it to achieve anything did you?

What you said, sir. That manouevre was simply the ol' "two birds with one stone" ploy: pay lip service to a pretence of consultation and involvement, and steal some more money from riders to be redirected to someone's agenda.

[RDJ]

NO, I don't have the attention span or memory retention to read long reports.....does Woodhouse have a Wiki I can read in a few minutes?
But it was written in the 60's thats a long long long time ago....:innocent:

The Woodhouse report rewards careful reading. As for the fact it was written decades ago, that's not an argument against its application; saying it is, is much like saying the Magna Carta was written quite a few centuries ago so it embodies principles now irrelevant. The essence of the Woodhouse report is no fault compensation, so that regardless of how your accident happened, whether caused by yourself or by other people, you didn't have to rely upon the "legal lottery" of applying for compensation through the courts. One can disagree with that precept; but Justice Woodhouse's arguments remain timely and well reasoned.

[MSTRS]

,.... but Justice Woodhouse's arguments remain timely and well reasoned.

Of course. But that isn't stopping the fecking pollies (who know better :killingme ) from dealing the death of a thousand cuts to the whole wonderful idea.

[Ocean1]

Of course. But that isn't stopping the fecking pollies (who know better :killingme ) from dealing the death of a thousand cuts to the whole wonderful idea.

It's got me fukt how the original intent's remained reasonably intact for 45 years. At the time, having instituted a mandatory scheme I gave it no more than 5 before they got their fingers in the till.

[MSTRS]

It's got me fukt how the original intent's remained reasonably intact for 45 years. At the time, having instituted a mandatory scheme I gave it no more than 5 before they got their fingers in the till.

True, that. Think we're nearing the end game now.

[pete376403]

It's got me fukt how the original intent's remained reasonably intact for 45 years. At the time, having instituted a mandatory scheme I gave it no more than 5 before they got their fingers in the till.

Possibly because up till now, the pollies, despite their incompetence, have been primarily trying to do what is best for New Zealand.

The current "leadership" seems to more about currying favour with world financiers. (yeah, I'm a conspiracy theorist)

[RDJ]

Possibly because up till now, the pollies, despite their incompetence, have been primarily trying to do what is best for New Zealand.

The current "leadership" seems to more about currying favour with world financiers. (yeah, I'm a conspiracy theorist)

Personally I think they are following the "I dunno what to do so I will do what I know" politician's agenda. When we have socialist lawyer univeristy professors in power we get socialist lawyer uni prof incompetence. When we have capitalist banker uni graduates in pwer we get c*b*u*g incompetence... they are not efficient enough to be effective conspirators...

[Conquiztador]

Are we trying to debate what keeps the politicians wanting to do their work??? I thought all knew that they are in it for one reason only: To hoover up as much as possible for them selves before they are voted out.

And as the writing is on the wall for Key and his assembly we will, in their last bit of being in power, see decisions that will create positive ripples for their wallets after they are ousted, made without any consideration given to how it will affect the ones they are supposedly there to care for.