MAG NZ Taking Action [Archive] - Page 2

bogan

23rd December 2015, 22:22

It Really is amusing how things get twisted.

I posted a photo on the MAG Facebook page about the $18million spent on the "pink" cycle way in Auckland. All the while MSAC have $10 million of our safety levies sitting in a bank account. I post a lot of facts and figures on the page.

If anyone wants to hear the other side of the story to any rumours and bullshit posted on here then please feel free to PM me or email one of the team.

Twisted?

You posted a photo with the caption "Yep. How much? Words fail me. See you on the 13th" Why do words fail you?

And then you also have comments like

"18 bastard Mill for this ..."

"Words don't fail me. How much did cyclists pay for this extension for your hobby? Oh, thats right SFA."

"Sure looks like they rolled out the red carpet for the Lycra brigade."

"Yep, and how many people really can cycle to work as a practical option, compared to how many could motorbike to work if they weren't taxed off the road!!!!"

Be a bit more inclusive mate, which is a two-for-one tip, because people shouldn't have to get in touch with you by email or PM to hear the positives you have to say...

nzspokes

24th December 2015, 05:47

Twisted?

You posted a photo with the caption "Yep. How much? Words fail me. See you on the 13th" Why do words fail you?

And then you also have comments like

"18 bastard Mill for this ..."

"Words don't fail me. How much did cyclists pay for this extension for your hobby? Oh, thats right SFA."

"Sure looks like they rolled out the red carpet for the Lycra brigade."

"Yep, and how many people really can cycle to work as a practical option, compared to how many could motorbike to work if they weren't taxed off the road!!!!"

Be a bit more inclusive mate, which is a two-for-one tip, because people shouldn't have to get in touch with you by email or PM to hear the positives you have to say...

To me 18m seems like a bargain to get more on bicycles. And walking. For a start its less cars on the road. And it gets sedentary folk moving. It costs more than a few $$$$ to look after obese folk through the medical system. Im a little involved with a few people like this, one guy that was 150kg is now pedaling his way to health. Not all cyclists are lycra warriors.

Jin

24th December 2015, 07:23

A cycleway was built on the shore near takapuna years ago. A study sometime later looked at the use of it compared to cost. The conclusion was it would have been cheaper to buy the cyclists a Ferrari each.

bogan

24th December 2015, 07:45

To me 18m seems like a bargain to get more on bicycles. And walking. For a start its less cars on the road. And it gets sedentary folk moving. It costs more than a few $$$$ to look after obese folk through the medical system. Im a little involved with a few people like this, one guy that was 150kg is now pedaling his way to health. Not all cyclists are lycra warriors.

Exactly.

Palmy is in the process of spending 12mil to add more length to the free left turn lanes. It'll probably save up to 2 light phase waits during rush 10minutes. The point is any cunt can exclaim where they think other money would be better spent; seems more important to eductate (and yes this requires inclusion) others to see the benefits of where one wants it spent. Just like the flag debate really.

Fatt Max

26th December 2015, 09:52

swbarnett

26th December 2015, 13:57

Is the ACC levy issue a dead dog or can a motorcycle protest organisation, such as MAG make the real difference to our pockets?
Unfortunately we live in a society that likes to step on minorities. As long as motorcyclists are viewed by the rest of the public as a drain on society then nothing will change no matter how big a tantrum we throw.

It would probably be better to ignore the specific inequalities that apply to motorcycles and concentrate on fixing ACC as a whole from the inside. This will require politicians with clout and the will to use it.

Voltaire

26th December 2015, 14:32

Getting back on topic though......

Is the ACC levy issue a dead dog or can a motorcycle protest organisation, such as MAG make the real difference to our pockets?

Is there a better way of making the point rather than park ups and the like?

This is an honest question, in no way a dig (as I know some will perceive it). I'm just interested to gauge the current thinking on this among the wider biker community

I dunno, the Onehunga Club are probably happy about MAG's Hard Core protesting :facepalm:

Come on people, join in and support MAG NZ in the fight to stop unfair ACC levies. the last protest ride was big lets make this BIGGER.
This protest ride is going to be longer, starting at Silverdale's park & ride, we will be meeting there at 2pm and ready to leave by 2.30pm. The ride will leave Silverdale on the motorway and head to Greenlane then from Greenlane to the Onehunga Club, thats where the ride will end.
We would like invite you to join us after the ride up in the club where there will be a sausage sizzle, coffee and tea for a gold coin donation, all the donations will go towards the TV documentary being made called "Taken For A Ride" which is about how ACC are discriminating Motorcyclist.

The bar will also be open too.

RGVforme

26th December 2015, 16:16

Getting back on topic though......

Is the ACC levy issue a dead dog or can a motorcycle protest organisation, such as MAG make the real difference to our pockets?

Is there a better way of making the point rather than park ups and the like?

This is an honest question, in no way a dig (as I know some will perceive it). I'm just interested to gauge the current thinking on this among the wider biker community

As I sit on my front porch beer in hand and typing this looking out on one of Hawkes bays most popular day off riding routes watching riders fart past on Harleys wearing teeshirts shorts and Nazi helmets and sportbikes pulling wheelies off the intersection then shooting for the speed of light in what is clearly a built up area leading into a blind off camber 30km corner.I do find myself thinking that ACC may have a point when it comes to charging some riders the levy.Not all just some.

Until all riders and drivers change the way they think about motorbikes I don't think the issue will ever be a dead dog Fatt max and this is a very big ask.We will always have the many paying for the few.

swbarnett

26th December 2015, 16:33

We will always have the many paying for the few.
And this is exactly what ACC is supposed to be. FFS, insurance only works because of this. It and ACC are simply (supposed to be) the modern equivalent of an Amish barn raising. The whole community pitches in to help out when misfortune visits an individual.

RGVforme

27th December 2015, 14:33

And this is exactly what ACC is supposed to be. FFS, insurance only works because of this. It and ACC are simply (supposed to be) the modern equivalent of an Amish barn raising. The whole community pitches in to help out when misfortune visits an individual.

So kind of like the whole village putting in for when the village idiot hurts himself again and again and again just so when I hurt myself there is some coin for my treatment.This of course was my point.

Misfortune does tend to visit the slow of mind more often does it not?.

I do understand how and why ACC works.

caseye

27th December 2015, 18:13

It is a dead dog as far as riders on this site go as from comments I have got they would prefer to pay what they are paying now or more than see a transfer of the cost to those with a history
of at fault accidents. Maybe either having a history of being at fault or likely being at fault in the future spooks them.

Shit you'd be absolutely screwed then aye!
Go somewhere else and talk about something you might actually know a modicum about. B4 you start, you'd need to have been a founder member of the AMAG, followed by also being a founding member of the first MAG NZ, then and only then would I consider your comments as anything approaching knowledgeable or believable.
ACC's current position is not going to change anytime soon, they've got motorcyclists right where they want them ( paying through the nose, one and all) OK, those that do pay!
Frankly I object to this situation. I can see that without someone stepping to the plate, nothing will ever change. I hope this reincarnate of MAG NZ gets traction, I've not ruled out going along and riding with them, but I've had my fair share of kicks in the teeth and for now I'm quietly sitting on the fence. If I feel the urge to go along I will, if I can't contribute anything of value I will keep my peace and say nothing instead of saying something I might live to regret.
But Mrs cassina, I'm most definitely not in the mood to pay ACC's exorbitant sums in order to fix you up after so many single vehicle accidents, in this respect I would support a move to actual user pays across the board of all motor vehicle types and classes.
The thing is, it would soon become evident that a small minority of poor/bad, uninterested and basically untrainable drivers/riders are to blame for an extremely large number of motor vehicle accidents requiring the paying of ACC.

caseye

27th December 2015, 20:20

As usual, you have read into what has been said, only what you want to see/hear.
I said "actual user pays". I also said across all drivers, riders. Won't happen though.
I am not a member of any association, haven't been for some time. Even then, you can only do so much with next to nothing.Everyone has an opinion, most people won't go past voicing it, without getting so scared they run like rabbits when the boogeyman comes.
I wish MAG NZ and any and all other organisations attempting to achieve change in whatever way they can, all the luck in the world.
At least they're doing something besides flapping their gums.

bogan

27th December 2015, 21:13

Actual user pays will not work for the simple reason if someone hits you and they have no money you are stuffed/dead if you have no money either. My idea makes far more sense. I think they pay $1000 to register a vehicle in Aust. So just as a thought if you cause an accident resulting in injury your registration goes up to $1000 a year for the next 10 years.

Thank fuck you've finally understood what user pay means.

Maybe in another 5 months you'll understand why your idea is so shit.

bogan

27th December 2015, 21:33

Maybe if you ever get knocked off through the fault of someone else and get injured you will have enough time to understand why it isn't shit. My idea is not user pays but those at fault paying more. What you dont seem to get is ACC have classed all motorcyclists at fault for owning a bike and not a car and by being knocked off through the fault of someone else I am sure your thinking will change. Or you have more money than sense?

Why? in the current system that is all paid for, how is your shit idea any sort of improvement?

What you don't seem to get, is that the cost of implementing such a retarded system makes it unappealing for society as a whole. What you don't seem to get is people who crash don't think they are at risk (you are a perfect case in point crashinna); your terrible idea does nothing to reduce the number of accidents, but does increase the total burden to society for those that do happen.

swbarnett

27th December 2015, 21:43

So kind of like the whole village putting in for when the village idiot hurts himself again and again and again just so when I hurt myself there is some coin for my treatment.This of course was my point.

Misfortune does tend to visit the slow of mind more often does it not?.

I do understand how and why ACC works.
Fair enough. I didn't read this from your post (possibly me being dim).

My feeling is that I'd far rather pay repeatedly for the odd village idiot than put up with what is required to weed them out. I heard a corporate CEO once say that he'd far rather have 1% of his workforce doing nothing to earn their salary than deal with the fallout from the level of accountability and surveillance required to stop them.

RGVforme

28th December 2015, 04:59

Fair enough. I didn't read this from your post (possibly me being dim).

My feeling is that I'd far rather pay repeatedly for the odd village idiot than put up with what is required to weed them out. I heard a corporate CEO once say that he'd far rather have 1% of his workforce doing nothing to earn their salary than deal with the fallout from the level of accountability and surveillance required to stop them.

Good point.Each way someone will have to cover the cost I guess.

Perhaps a better way to cover the cost fairly and the valid point ACC has about lack of protection on motorcycles is a RUC based system like trucks?.

The bigger CC rating the more you pay thing does not make sense when it comes to being slammed into by a car but does when it comes to speed=risk=damage.

If I only ride my 650 four times a year and Timmy two toes in Auckland rides his every day to work but we both pay the same high cost in rego am i not covering his increased exposure to injury he is putting himself in just to cover myself?.

If he has to prepay for more kms to ride than I do but with the same lower base rego fee would this be a fair way to offset the difference in exposure to injury between us but still feed the coffers to cover us both to the fault of others?.

Or perhaps there is simply not enough bikes on the road doing enough kms to make this work.:wacko:

Akzle

28th December 2015, 05:56

it comes to speed=risk=damage.

except it doesnt.

Moi

28th December 2015, 07:04

... My feeling is that I'd far rather pay repeatedly for the odd village idiot ...

Unfortunately, there seems to be more than the "odd" village idiot riding bikes.

Good point.Each way someone will have to cover the cost I guess.

Perhaps a better way to cover the cost fairly and the valid point ACC has about lack of protection on motorcycles is a RUC based system like trucks?.

The bigger CC rating the more you pay thing does not make sense when it comes to being slammed into by a car but does when it comes to speed=risk=damage.

If I only ride my 650 four times a year and Timmy two toes in Auckland rides his every day to work but we both pay the same high cost in rego am i not covering his increased exposure to injury he is putting himself in just to cover myself?.

If he has to prepay for more kms to ride than I do but with the same lower base rego fee would this be a fair way to offset the difference in exposure to injury between us but still feed the coffers to cover us both to the fault of others?.

Or perhaps there is simply not enough bikes on the road doing enough kms to make this work.:wacko:

This would certainly fall within the user pays concept which has been talked about else where.

However, although the daily commuter rider is exposed to a greater chance of being involved in an accident because they are on the road more than the rider who rides occasionally, I would question whether the occasional rider is less likely to be involved in an accident. Why? The commuter is more aware and more vigilant when riding - they feel more 'at home' in the traffic - and it is possible they are less likely to be surprised by something unusual happening [but then again they might be because the ride in auto-pilot mode] than the occasional rider who has not honed their skills to the same level as the commuter. The occasional rider is, possibly, less aware and less vigilant about the traffic round them and what is happening and is taken by surprise when something unusual, or perhaps not so unusual, happens.

Whether the fees were collected through a RUC based method or through, say, a licence method which provided for non-continuous licences that could be paid for for just when it is required could be worked out if the authorities were prepared to adopt a method like this.

As has also been said else where, motorcycles are an easy target for the ACC - imagine the screams of horror if the same graduated fees were applied to motor vehicles?

nerrrd

28th December 2015, 08:00

Moi

28th December 2015, 08:35

None of these whizz-bang user-pays risk-assessment systems are ever going to be fair to everyone because there are too many variables in the real world, so there always has to be compromise (well maybe when quantum computing goes mainstream...)

Which is why the original ACC idea was the 'fairest' in my opinion - everybody pays the least amount possible regardless of risk.

But the insurance companies and their politician shareholders (of all persuasions) won't have it.

Agree, no system under the present regime of ACC will be fair, there will always be winners and losers - and those who milk the system...

Plus a big tick for the rest of your post, we have been seen off and I am sure that the original scheme would never get past the "think tank" in today's politics.

swbarnett

28th December 2015, 08:43

Perhaps a better way to cover the cost fairly and the valid point ACC has about lack of protection on motorcycles is a RUC based system like trucks?.
For my money there's only one way to fairly fund ACC and that's from the general tax take. That way we all pay pro-rata based on income.

I'm quite happy to pay my fair share to keep the general populace healthy. Helping the unfortunate recover is of benefit to all.

Big Dog

28th December 2015, 09:34

Perhaps the perceived unfairness has more to do with the slackers who actively don't pay but still collect while there are long term over payers who get denied claims?

Weekend rider who thinks ACC a rort goes for a ride on his bike that is on hold, just as he has every other weekend for the 3 years is been on hold. Smashes his pride and joy into a lamp pay pretending to be Valentino Rossi he still gets a bed in hospital on ACC. He still gets some of his recovery time funded by ACC. He still gets the best surgeons money can buy on ACC.
Meanwhile NZ is littered with self employed with long histories of paying more than most who then get denied for various claims.

I have no doubt that in my life time I will have consumed more ACC than I have paid before I go in the ground. (As related to this conversation very little in relation to motorcycle related injury vs levies collected via registration probably about even.)

This obviously means others will have the balance sheet the other way.

I don't object to paying.
I object to shirkers.
I object to being singled out when there are far more dangerous hobbies that are not.

I am in favour of making motorbikes the sane as cars and applying the deficit to fuel. You can't shirk that and it would encourage people to be more frugal with our limited resources. I am also in favour of businesses being able to offset the additional burden from their ACC charge.

Sent via tapatalk.

bogan

28th December 2015, 09:51

So you dont want those at fault bearing a greater financial burden then? Well your idea is shit. Have you never considered that fines for going over the speed limit as an example provide motivation for many to stay within it? Now applying this to those at fault with ACC could have the same effect could it not? You forget ACC already imposes fines for those at fault but so far it only applies to industrial accidents so it would hardy be as complex as you think to apply fines to those at fault in road accidents as well. Be honest you are just in fear of being at fault eh?

No, I don't. But in your system they wouldn't anyway cos they'd just register their vehicle in somebody else's name. So you'd just drive up the price for all registrations to compensate for your impotent 'at-fault' levy addition. Fucking well done you :facepalm:

Speeding fines is a rubbish example because it is the only disincentive not to speed. Having a crash is already a disincentive not to crash. And lets face it, there are far more incidents of speeding than there are crashing, so fines don't work.

I couldn't give a fuck what shit ideas ACC already does; just like I couldn't give a fuck the UK are already implementing the only remotely logical version of this crap you are spouting.

Again, you're just so far off the mark it's almost stopping being funny. I couldn't give a fuck what the financial implications for me personally are with such a scheme; this is why your arguments are consistently horrendously shit, you lack the ability to think outside yourself; it's also why you keep having so many accidents.

bogan

28th December 2015, 09:52

swbarnett

28th December 2015, 11:15

Perhaps the perceived unfairness has more to do with the slackers who actively don't pay but still collect while there are long term over payers who get denied claims?

Weekend rider who thinks ACC a rort goes for a ride on his bike that is on hold, just as he has every other weekend for the 3 years is been on hold. Smashes his pride and joy into a lamp pay pretending to be Valentino Rossi he still gets a bed in hospital on ACC. He still gets some of his recovery time funded by ACC. He still gets the best surgeons money can buy on ACC.
Meanwhile NZ is littered with self employed with long histories of paying more than most who then get denied for various claims.

I have no doubt that in my life time I will have consumed more ACC than I have paid before I go in the ground. (As related to this conversation very little in relation to motorcycle related injury vs levies collected via registration probably about even.)

This obviously means others will have the balance sheet the other way.

All of which is solved in one fell swoop if ACC where to be funded through the general tax take.

Big Dog

28th December 2015, 11:46

Yes indeed.

Sent via tapatalk.

RGVforme

28th December 2015, 12:47

except it doesnt.

So are you saying that if I go faster then I still will be increasing my stopping distance giving myself more time to react to a hazard or damaging myself less by slamming into something harder?.....Hmmm Interesting.....:facepalm:

RGVforme

28th December 2015, 13:13

If you only ride 4 times a year it could be more economical to just hire a bike. Some on here have said you can get single day registrations by filling out a special form. The risk of getting caught on 4 days a year could be worth taking too.

You are right.If I did ride four times a year it would be worth the risk.I could get caught several times with my rego on hold before the fines added up to the cost of a rego itself.

These wallet protesters making the pool of tax payers even smaller to draw from is the other reason I think this system is flawed and our regos are so high.Rego or not if they have a prang they will still get hospital treatment and 80% of their weekly wage while off work.

But like the guy who rides in jandals we cant no treat them because of a little thing called being Moral and a good human being.

Im sure I seen a statement from MAG on their FB page when the levy increased saying"Oh well more bike regos on hold this year".:no:

bogan

28th December 2015, 13:27

At least I am bright enough to come up with something unlike people like yourself who love to knock others idea but lack the brains to come up with anything of merit themselves.

Perhaps you should work on being bright enough to remember the ideas others have come up with :facepalm:

The solution is simple, minimise societal cost of accidents and healthcare by adopting socialist policies towards each, as neither are significantly correlated with societal merit by the affected individuals.

Bikemad

28th December 2015, 13:33

At least I am bright enough to come up with something unlike people like yourself who love to knock others idea but lack the brains to come up with anything of merit themselves.

what a fuckin sooky bubba diddums:crybaby:

Moi

28th December 2015, 13:43

...These wallet protesters making the pool of tax payers even smaller to draw from is the other reason I think this system is flawed and our regos are so high.Rego or not if they have a prang they will still get hospital treatment and 80% of their weekly wage while off work...

If the bike is unlicenced, as in licence on-hold, and it is being used on the road then is the WoF also "on-hold"?

Perhaps those who do ride a bike that has licence on-hold might re-think their riding if instead of being fined for having an on-hold vehicle on the road the vehicle was impounded there and then and could only be recovered upon payment of ALL licence fees owing... [naturally there may well be very a genuine reason for doing so and if that can be proved then no consequence].

Devil's advocate here: If you are not prepared to pay the costs to ride legally on the road then why should you be treated beyond emergency medical assistance. If you haven't contributed through your bike's licence to ACC and you have an accident on that bike, then you will be "fixed up" by A&E and have whatever medical treatment after that is required but you miss out on the extras such as the 80% of your wages and you then have ACC take you to court to recover the costs incurred... You have gambled and lost... no different to losing on the fourth race at Addington...

bogan

28th December 2015, 13:48

If the bike is unlicenced, as in licence on-hold, and it is being used on the road then is the WoF also "on-hold"?

Perhaps those who do ride a bike that has licence on-hold might re-think their riding if instead of being fined for having an on-hold vehicle on the road the vehicle was impounded there and then and could only be recovered upon payment of ALL licence fees owing... [naturally there may well be very a genuine reason for doing so and if that can be proved then no consequence].

Devil's advocate here: If you are not prepared to pay the costs to ride legally on the road then why should you be treated beyond emergency medical assistance. If you haven't contributed through your bike's licence to ACC and you have an accident on that bike, then you will be "fixed up" by A&E and have whatever medical treatment after that is required but you miss out on the extras such as the 80% of your wages and you then have ACC take you to court to recover the costs incurred... You have gambled and lost... no different to losing on the fourth race at Addington...

Nah, you need a wof to get a rego, not the other way around.

So what about those who are borrowing the vehicle? do they get treated beyond emergency assistance? what about those who own 7 and have only paid for 3, do they get treated when out on the other 4?

Moi

28th December 2015, 13:57

Nah, you need a wof to get a rego, not the other way around.

So what about those who are borrowing the vehicle? do they get treated beyond emergency assistance? what about those who own 7 and have only paid for 3, do they get treated when out on the other 4?

Yes, I know you need a WoF to licence a vehicle, what I am saying is that if the licence is on-hold then is the WoF expired as well...

You borrow a vehicle, as the driver / rider you need to make sure the vehicle is roadworthy before you use it... if it is unlicenced / no WoF you don't use it...

You own seven vehicles and only three are licenced then you use only those three...

If the vehicle is unlicenced you will be treated but expect to pay the price. People need to move beyond "expecting the piper to play a tune and then not pay the piper".

bogan

28th December 2015, 14:05

Yes, I know you need a WoF to licence a vehicle, what I am saying is that if the licence is on-hold then is the WoF expired as well...

You borrow a vehicle, as the driver / rider you need to make sure the vehicle is roadworthy before you use it... if it is unlicenced / no WoF you don't use it...

You own seven vehicles and only three are licenced then you use only those three...

If the vehicle is unlicenced you will be treated but expect to pay the price. People need to move beyond "expecting the piper to play a tune and then not pay the piper".

No.

Yeh, but the borrowee has paid exactly as much as the owner of a non-rego'd vehicle. Yet gets treated differently.

So it's not about a person paying for their share, it's about tax.

And that's utter bullshit, as I've just illustrated.

Moi

28th December 2015, 14:13

No.

Yeh, but the borrowee has paid exactly as much as the owner of a non-rego'd vehicle. Yet gets treated differently.

So it's not about a person paying for their share, it's about tax.

And that's utter bullshit, as I've just illustrated.

Sorry, you are going to have to explain that...

How has the borrowee paid exactly as much as the owner of the non-licenced vehicle?

And how is it bullshit?

bogan

28th December 2015, 14:21

Sorry, you are going to have to explain that...

How has the borrowee paid exactly as much as the owner of the non-licenced vehicle?

And how is it bullshit?

How much as the borrowee paid? and how much has the non-licensed vehicle owner paid? $0

It's bullshit because it's based on how many vehicles you own, not a flat fee per person. If you think paying the piper means the guy with 7 vehicles pays 7x as much as you average person, and the guy who just borrows a car pays nothing; that's what's bullshit.

Moi

28th December 2015, 16:25

How much as the borrowee paid? and how much has the non-licensed vehicle owner paid? $0

It's bullshit because it's based on how many vehicles you own, not a flat fee per person. If you think paying the piper means the guy with 7 vehicles pays 7x as much as you average person, and the guy who just borrows a car pays nothing; that's what's bullshit.

You seem to have forgotten that I am playing Devil's Advocate...

If John owns a vehicle, what is irrelevant, and decides he has had enough of paying ACC fees and so puts vehicle's licence on-hold to avoid paying ACC fees but continues to use the vehicle then has an injury accident, he will be admitted to hospital and medically attended to. Because it is an injury accident the Police may well investigate and ACC will also because it was "vehicle related". Upon discovering that he was driving a vehicle which was unlicenced, ACC continues to pay for his injury recovery and prepares a case against him to recover costs.

However, if John should loan his vehicle to Jill who then has an injury accident and is admitted to hospital and medically attended to. Because it is an injury accident the Police may well investigate and ACC will also because it was "vehicle related". Upon discovering that she was driving a vehicle which was unlicenced, ACC continues to pay for her injury recovery and prepares a case against John to recover costs, because the vehicle involved is registered to him. He can then sue his friend Jill after he has been sued by ACC to recover his costs.

So far, the only ones winning with this are ACC and the lawyers... but it is a possibility...

Now back to what you said... if neither the borrower or borrowee have paid any ACC under the present scheme they are taken care of and those who have licenced their vehicles are picking up the tab - is that fair?

Under the present system the fees are charged against vehicles and as an owner of three I pay three lots of ACC fees - is that fair?

I don't think that is fair at all but it is the present system. However, because I believe in the social contract then I am willing to accept the present system until such time it can be changed to a more fair and equitable system, whether that be a return to the original construct of ACC or a scheme which is funded through taxation. The present scheme, from my perspective, is that of an insurance policy and the fees we pay are in fact an insurance premium. However, unlike many insurance policies, I do not get a discount for not claiming against the "insurance" [ACC] nor do I see those who are claiming against it paying more for their "premium" or being sued because they had not paid any premium.

Let's look at the flat fee per person scenario - yes, has merit. So each person who holds a driver's licence will be charged an annual fee that will cover the cost of motor vehicle accidents only? Or will they be charged an annual fee that covers the cost of all accidents? The former would be fairer, the later is unfair. So what do you do to those who don't pay their annual fee? Will they still be treated? if yes, then again we are back to an unfair system where some are supported by others because they will not pay their "fair-share".

Perhaps what we have at the moment is the best of a bad deal?

Then again, we could scrap ACC and let everyone be responsible for their own accident insurance...

bogan

28th December 2015, 17:00

You seem to have forgotten that I am playing Devil's Advocate...

If John owns a vehicle, what is irrelevant, and decides he has had enough of paying ACC fees and so puts vehicle's licence on-hold to avoid paying ACC fees but continues to use the vehicle then has an injury accident, he will be admitted to hospital and medically attended to. Because it is an injury accident the Police may well investigate and ACC will also because it was "vehicle related". Upon discovering that he was driving a vehicle which was unlicenced, ACC continues to pay for his injury recovery and prepares a case against him to recover costs.

However, if John should loan his vehicle to Jill who then has an injury accident and is admitted to hospital and medically attended to. Because it is an injury accident the Police may well investigate and ACC will also because it was "vehicle related". Upon discovering that she was driving a vehicle which was unlicenced, ACC continues to pay for her injury recovery and prepares a case against John to recover costs, because the vehicle involved is registered to him. He can then sue his friend Jill after he has been sued by ACC to recover his costs.

So far, the only ones winning with this are ACC and the lawyers... but it is a possibility...

Now back to what you said... if neither the borrower or borrowee have paid any ACC under the present scheme they are taken care of and those who have licenced their vehicles are picking up the tab - is that fair?

Under the present system the fees are charged against vehicles and as an owner of three I pay three lots of ACC fees - is that fair?

I don't think that is fair at all but it is the present system. However, because I believe in the social contract then I am willing to accept the present system until such time it can be changed to a more fair and equitable system, whether that be a return to the original construct of ACC or a scheme which is funded through taxation. The present scheme, from my perspective, is that of an insurance policy and the fees we pay are in fact an insurance premium. However, unlike many insurance policies, I do not get a discount for not claiming against the "insurance" [ACC] nor do I see those who are claiming against it paying more for their "premium" or being sued because they had not paid any premium.

Let's look at the flat fee per person scenario - yes, has merit. So each person who holds a driver's licence will be charged an annual fee that will cover the cost of motor vehicle accidents only? Or will they be charged an annual fee that covers the cost of all accidents? The former would be fairer, the later is unfair. So what do you do to those who don't pay their annual fee? Will they still be treated? if yes, then again we are back to an unfair system where some are supported by others because they will not pay their "fair-share".

Perhaps what we have at the moment is the best of a bad deal?

Then again, we could scrap ACC and let everyone be responsible for their own accident insurance...

In what way is that relevant?

Not in the current system, there's no legal case made for those who have no current rego.

Nope, never said it was fair that you could opt out (albeit illegally). But simply changing the bit that is unfair while increasing the overall cost is even stupider, though some may argue from a personal point of view at least it is more fair.

And nope, nor is it fair to charge multi vehicle owners more times.

Motor vehicle account should be flat fee per license. Other accidents come from ACC general fund, which is tax generated. There's no point charging those who have accidents more, by all means feed a portion of dangerous driving tickets back into this fund; but the deterrent cost of having an accident is one's wellbeing, financial cost will always pale in comparison to that.

What we have at the moment is a the butchering of a great deal.

Which hasn't worked out all that well for countries like the US...

Big Dog

28th December 2015, 17:24

You are right.If I did ride four times a year it would be worth the risk.I could get caught several times with my rego on hold before the fines added up to the cost of a rego itself.

These wallet protesters making the pool of tax payers even smaller to draw from is the other reason I think this system is flawed and our regos are so high.Rego or not if they have a prang they will still get hospital treatment and 80% of their weekly wage while off work.

But like the guy who rides in jandals we cant no treat them because of a little thing called being Moral and a good human being.

Im sure I seen a statement from MAG on their FB page when the levy increased saying"Oh well more bike regos on hold this year".:no:
Yep. A very real cost for me was instead of three bikes registered and using the best bike for the job at hand I now only have one at a time. If I want to be able to take the DR for a spin I have to wait until the CB can go on hold and ride the DR until that is able to go back on hold.

The struggle is real.

Sent via tapatalk.

Big Dog

28th December 2015, 17:31

You have just thought of the ultimate protest if every motorcyclist in the country put their reg on hold for a year. The masses are not brave enough to go through with it though.
Except for some this is a way of life not a hobby.
Realistically the reduction in key metrics would mean ACC were jumping for joy not pissed about this change.
Realistic result would be another hike they would blame on reduction in revenue.

Sent via tapatalk.

Moi

28th December 2015, 17:35

In what way is that relevant?

Not in the current system, there's no legal case made for those who have no current rego. - #1

Nope, never said it was fair that you could opt out (albeit illegally). But simply changing the bit that is unfair while increasing the overall cost is even stupider, though some may argue from a personal point of view at least it is more fair. - #2

And nope, nor is it fair to charge multi vehicle owners more times.

Motor vehicle account should be flat fee per license. Other accidents come from ACC general fund, which is tax generated. There's no point charging those who have accidents more, by all means feed a portion of dangerous driving tickets back into this fund; but the deterrent cost of having an accident is one's wellbeing, financial cost will always pale in comparison to that. #3

What we have at the moment is a the butchering of a great deal. #4

Which hasn't worked out all that well for countries like the US...

1. In relation to the present ACC scheme then it is not relevant, however as devil's advocate it raises a concept that could be a reality if the political will was there for such a system.

2. Very true, but perhaps as part of the discussion about ACC then that aspect could be included within the discussion...

3. I would whole-heartedly agree with you on that...

4. Started sometime in the mid-1990s...

Akzle

28th December 2015, 17:44

So are you saying that if I go faster then I still will be increasing my stopping distance giving myself more time to react to a hazard or damaging myself less by slamming into something harder?.....Hmmm Interesting.....:facepalm:

i didnt say that at all. Jackass. You extrapolate like bogan.

bogan

28th December 2015, 17:48

1. In relation to the present ACC scheme then it is not relevant, however as devil's advocate it raises a concept that could be a reality if the political will was there for such a system.

2. Very true, but perhaps as part of the discussion about ACC then that aspect could be included within the discussion...

3. I would whole-heartedly agree with you on that...

4. Started sometime in the mid-1990s...

Indeed, so it's another downside to such a fault based system...

It has been here.

Swoop

28th December 2015, 19:44

Is there a better way of making the point rather than park ups and the like?
Yup.

when it comes to speed=risk=damage.
Good to see that you are following the propaganda about "speed kills". :facepalm:

RGVforme

28th December 2015, 20:18

i didnt say that at all. Jackass. You extrapolate like bogan.

Name calling aside you do understand the concept of a question mark don't you???.It is sometimes used at the end of a sentence when asking if this is what someone ment.I checked back and I had used one.:baby:

At the risk of being subjected to more get fuckery that seems to be rife on this site I remain curious.

Ill dumb it down a bit for you......What did you mean?......:confused:

RGVforme

28th December 2015, 20:22

Yup.

Good to see that you are following the propaganda about "speed kills". :facepalm:

Do let us all know how that works out for you.:laugh:

So if yes is your answer to the better way of making the point question then what is it?.Or have I missed that part?.

Please feel free to join the others on here that have pulled their fingers out of their bums stuck to the topic and voiced their ideas in the hope we might collectively as a group come up with one that may just work or at the least point out to the current protesters and ACC why their way perhaps simply is not.

You never know who's reading this forum do you.

There are some good points so far.:niceone:

Isn't that the reason why we are here? (Well apart from the trolls with hard on's for name calling that is :spanking:).....

Akzle

28th December 2015, 20:46

Name calling aside you do understand the concept of a question mark don't you???.It is sometimes used at the end of a sentence when asking if this is what someone ment.I checked back and I had used one.:baby:

At the risk of being subjected to more get fuckery that seems to be rife on this site I remain curious.

Ill dumb it down a bit for you......What did you mean?......:confused:

quite simply. I meant what i said. (funny that)

speed≠risk≠damage

jackass.

RGVforme

28th December 2015, 21:16

quite simply. I meant what i said. (funny that)

speed≠risk≠damage

jackass.

Oh dear im afraid you lost me on that one.Nevermind.:rolleyes:.....

RGVforme

28th December 2015, 21:33

Except for some this is a way of life not a hobby.
Realistically the reduction in key metrics would mean ACC were jumping for joy not pissed about this change.
Realistic result would be another hike they would blame on reduction in revenue.

Sent via tapatalk.

Two good reasons why a blanket rego on hold for 12 months protest would not work.
This and every biker who took a ride would get pulled over to be checked once the word got out.Leading to fines and a very big piss off for us getting stopped all the time.

FJRider

28th December 2015, 21:51

quite simply. I meant what i said. (funny that)

speed≠risk≠damage

jackass.

Oh dear im afraid you lost me on that one.Nevermind.:rolleyes:.....

The faster you go ... the bigger (risk of) a mess ... :innocent:

swbarnett

28th December 2015, 21:55

The faster you go ... the bigger (risk of) a mess ... :innocent:
WRONG!

The faster you HIT, yes. Going faster does not increase the risk of a mess without the hit. Going faster does not increase the risk of a hit if you're still riding to the conditions.

RGVforme

28th December 2015, 22:33

WRONG!

The faster you HIT, yes. Going faster does not increase the risk of a mess without the hit. Going faster does not increase the risk of a hit if you're still riding to the conditions.

Now were getting somewhere.

The key point here is "Riding to the conditions".

People not riding to the conditions/wearing the right gear(The village idiot) was part of my complete post that this tiny piece... 'speed=risk=damage'.... was drawn out by some womble then reposted all alone by itself.
Placed back into its correct context it starts to make sense I think.

You can go 200kms in a dead line on an empty closed road and be fine.
Try and do it tipping it into a 80km wet corner OR the middle of town in rush hour and hello smash time.

I tip my hat to you there SW.My hope in finding intelligent life on planet KB is restored:not:

Big Dog

28th December 2015, 23:39

But how would they go about a hike if no one paid untiil the charges were made fairer? Such a protest would possibly
work in another country though as a lot of Kiwis just accept bull shit with the latest example of an increase and not a dropping
of Emissions Taxes.
Derp.
Do you not see? ACC as an organisation would benefit more than we would from hanging up the helmet for a year.

None so blind as those who will not see.

Sent via tapatalk.

Voltaire

29th December 2015, 07:18

The Police use " The faster you go the bigger the mess" as a simple message that the majority can understand.

AS for ACC and all being lumped in to the same two boxes, under 600cc and over 600cc..... I think the message there is we no longer wish to have motorcycles on the road.

isn't that the approach they take with Cigarettes and alcohol, raise the tax to change the habits?

Time for a real concerning issue: Coffee, is it really worth $4.50 a cup?, can you really pay off you mortgage years earlier by not drinking it?, are non coffee drinkers debt free?

bogan

29th December 2015, 07:23

are non coffee drinkers debt free?

nope :no: :weep:

TheDemonLord

29th December 2015, 08:20

The more G forces you experiance, the Bigger the Mess.

We need G-force enforcement.

Ocean1

29th December 2015, 08:45

Two good reasons why a blanket rego on hold for 12 months protest would not work.
This and every biker who took a ride would get pulled over to be checked once the word got out.Leading to fines and a very big piss off for us getting stopped all the time.

Someone told me that ACC gained less income the year after the changes to rego charges.

Haven't checked to see if that's the case but there's certainly a point in market pricing where people simply stop paying. And if the service is as tenuously linked to prices as is the case here, (and as has been demonstrated in some cases the cost/price relationship is actually inverse) then most will see no problem at all in continuing to ride their motorcycles.

And in reality if 100% of riders simply stopped paying there's no way they'd continue fining them, they'd recognise that civil disobedience at that level means they'd simply got the policy wrong.

PrincessBandit

29th December 2015, 09:32

The more G forces you experiance, the Bigger the Mess.

We need G-force enforcement.

Given the round and round the mulberry bush this topic gets, I'm going to be completely off topic and say to "g-force enforcement " : yes! I want to see guinea pigs out road side with super powers to avoid becoming roadkill while being able to halt all riders out g-ing themselves on 2 wheels :yes:https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=g+force+movie&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-nz&client=safari#imgrc=v7DdtpOgk4xjKM%3A

TheDemonLord

29th December 2015, 09:43

Given the round and round the mulberry bush this topic gets, I'm going to be completely off topic and say to "g-force enforcement "

I completely misread that as 'G-Spot Enforcement'

And then my mind went wandering off on that theme and I didn't read the rest of what you wrote.

James Deuce

29th December 2015, 09:49

Fuck these guys are a bunch of wankers.

Also I'd like to know how they consider the ACC levy "unfair". I hate paying it as much as the next guy, but motorcyclists are statistically extremely expensive. Wouldn't it be more unfair for people who don't ride to subsidise our hobby?
You subsidise DIYers far more than they subsidise motorcyclists.

It still boggles my mind that people don't get the point of ACC. It's only been around for 40 years.

I hope like fuck some other hobby of yours, like cross-stitch gets targeted for an arbitrary increase due to unreasonable levels of tetanus infection among cross-stitchers.

James Deuce

29th December 2015, 09:51

S
And in reality if 100% of riders simply stopped paying there's no way they'd continue fining them, they'd recognise that civil disobedience at that level means they'd simply got the policy wrong.
No "they" wouldn't.

They'd retrospectively make levy non-payment a criminal offence with substantial jail time as a penalty. After sitting in urgency and only gathering the minimum for a quorum.

Because after all, people who don't pay their bills in NZ are drug users. The PM said so.

Bass

29th December 2015, 10:04

You subsidise DIYers far more than they subsidise motorcyclists.

It still boggles my mind that people don't get the point of ACC. It's only been around for 40 years.

I hope like fuck some other hobby of yours, like cross-stitch gets targeted for an arbitrary increase due to unreasonable levels of tetanus infection among cross-stitchers.

I don't always agree with you but you do have a knack of getting to the heart of the matter.

For my own part, I could never find any logical justification for risk-rating ANY of the contributors to ACC funding when there are so many groups who are large consumers of ACC funds but are not contributors at all.

I don't have too much problem with the way ACC was originally set up - it wasn't especially fair but was pragmatic and good enough. It's how it has been bastardised since that I don't like.

swbarnett

29th December 2015, 10:37

The Police use " The faster you go the bigger the mess" as a simple message that the majority can understand.
The trouble is that this message is blatantly wrong. it is not supported by basic physics. If it were true then the universe would be one big dust cloud as anything that got up any kind of speed would spontaneously disintegrate. In fact, even the dust would spontaneously disintegrate into ever smaller particles.

re non coffee drinkers debt free?
No, we spend our money on Coke* instead.

*The liquid kind.

Big Dog

29th December 2015, 11:57

The more G forces you experiance, the Bigger the Mess.

We need G-force enforcement.
That would be retrospective policing. Do you prefer retrospective or proactive?

What about other fucknuckles driving poorly around your progeny? Should they also be retrospectively policed?

Gs are incredibly subjective and difficult to measure.
Speed is easy to measure and constant in that 90kmph is always 40kmph higher than 50kmph.

Ergo policy is to target those likely (by the laws of averages and past data) to convert the relatively harmless speed into other more devastating forces, actions and reactions.
Do you prefer this or for them to wait until Mr 4x4 punts into a people mover so they can say here's a ticket for transferring in excess of 70gs to another vehicle?
They couldn't do it preemptively because Gs transferred is an equation contributed to by speed, mass, spèd and mass of opposing object, resilience of the two objects, directionality and many other variables.

No doubt you are going to say I am going all straw man on you but seriously if not speed then what measurable constant or variable can we use?

Sent via tapatalk.

TheDemonLord

29th December 2015, 12:23

That would be retrospective policing. Do you prefer retrospective or proactive?

What about other fucknuckles driving poorly around your progeny? Should they also be retrospectively policed?

Gs are incredibly subjective and difficult to measure.
Speed is easy to measure and constant in that 90kmph is always 40kmph higher than 50kmph.

Ergo policy is to target those likely (by the laws of averages and past data) to convert the relatively harmless speed into other more devastating forces, actions and reactions.
Do you prefer this or for them to wait until Mr 4x4 punts into a people mover so they can say here's a ticket for transferring in excess of 70gs to another vehicle?
They couldn't do it preemptively because Gs transferred is an equation contributed to by speed, mass, spèd and mass of opposing object, resilience of the two objects, directionality and many other variables.

No doubt you are going to say I am going all straw man on you but seriously if not speed then what measurable constant or variable can we use?

Sent via tapatalk.

I'm actually going to say that I was being facetious....

Big Dog

29th December 2015, 12:35

I'm actually going to say that I was being facetious....
Poo.

Sent via tapatalk.

Fatt Max

29th December 2015, 12:53

Is there anyone out there from the MAG commitee who wishes to comment on what your group sees as the issues and how you as a group are working towards your goal?

swbarnett

29th December 2015, 12:59

That would be retrospective policing. Do you prefer retrospective or proactive?
Retrospective is always preferable. It's pretty arrogant of anyone to say that they know the mind and skills of any given driver/rider better than they do.

At the very least a near-miss is required to draw any conclusions. Speed alone is certainly not enough.

Oh, and while I think of it, velocity is far more important than speed in determining the likely "mess" that will result from any given collision.

Big Dog

29th December 2015, 13:31

Retrospective is always preferable. It's pretty arrogant of anyone to say that they know the mind and skills of any given driver/rider better than they do.

At the very least a near-miss is required to draw any conclusions. Speed alone is certainly not enough.

Oh, and while I think of it, velocity is far more important than speed in determining the likely "mess" that will result from any given collision.
The only means they have of judging your driving is observing your ability to remain within the laws of the land you agreed to observe when you got a licences.

Retrospective policing is to late to influence people's behaviour,only punish them for having already ducked up.

Sent via tapatalk.

swbarnett

29th December 2015, 13:56

The only means they have of judging your driving is observing your ability to remain within the laws of the land you agreed to observe when you got a licences.
Staying within the law is no judgement of driving ability. Especially when a number of said laws are fundamentally flawed.

Retrospective policing is to late to influence people's behaviour,only punish them for having already ducked up.
Retrospective policing has a far better chance of moderating behaviour than pro-active policing. If the driver caused an accident then the driver is more likely to take it on the chin and say "shit, won't do that again". Pro-active policing will more often than not illicit the "fuck you, I know what I'm doing" response.

Swoop

29th December 2015, 14:04

So if yes is your answer to the better way of making the point question then what is it?.Or have I missed that part?.
The same that I have been doing for three(?)+ years now. Since you're new here, I'll repeat the message.
I can only operate one vehicle at a time, so one of my vehicles is regoed.
The rest = no.
W.o.F'ed = yes.
Insured = yes.

You might have missed several other vital viewpoints of mine:
Ride to the conditions. "speed limit signs" are not part of this process.
Licencing standards are too low. People are taught how to pass a test, not being taught how to "drive".
Katman shouldn't be allowed out in public, or on the interdweeb, without the supervision of a psychiatric doctor.
Katman's cock does not need to be sucked by me, no matter how many times he asks.

The faster you go ... the bigger (risk of) a mess ...
"The faster you go, the sooner you get there".

RGVforme

29th December 2015, 14:25

The same that I have been doing for three(?)+ years now. Since you're new here, I'll repeat the message.
I can only operate one vehicle at a time, so one of my vehicles is regoed.
The rest = no.
W.o.F'ed = yes.
Insured = yes.

You might have missed several other vital viewpoints of mine:
Ride to the conditions. "speed limit signs" are not part of this process.
Licencing standards are too low. People are taught how to pass a test, not being taught how to "drive".
Katman shouldn't be allowed out in public, or on the interdweeb, without the supervision of a psychiatric doctor.
Katman's cock does not need to be sucked by me, no matter how many times he asks.

"The faster you go, the sooner you get there".

Ahhh yes i see thank you.I did miss those very good points due to this thread being very busy.

Good your still standing your ground on the whole cock sucking thing there lol:niceone:

Big Dog

29th December 2015, 14:27

Staying within the law is no judgement of driving ability. Especially when a number of said laws are fundamentally flawed.

Retrospective policing has a far better chance of moderating behaviour than pro-active policing. If the driver caused an accident then the driver is more likely to take it on the chin and say "shit, won't do that again". Pro-active policing will more often than not illicit the "fuck you, I know what I'm doing" response.
It is reasonably difficult to be subjective and honest when assessing your own riding.
Most will lean towards over rating their ability. I am fairly sure if you took a pole over 3/4 of males think they are better than the average male driver.

Sent via tapatalk.

RGVforme

29th December 2015, 14:52

Is there anyone out there from the MAG commitee who wishes to comment on what your group sees as the issues and how you as a group are working towards your goal?

Yes please.Im sure their whole point was finding different and better ways to connect with riders to get their message out there and support up.It would be a shame if they don't realize that in order to do this they may be subjected to criticism have to explain themselves and change their modus operandi to evolve also.

Or god forbid come up with a better way to fairly fund the ACC levy and suggest that to the govt instead of just
Moaning about how unfair it is alone.

Or is MAG just another blind lead my way is the only way not matter if its working or not protest group?.:(

swbarnett

29th December 2015, 14:54

"The faster you go, the sooner you get there".
Could be the opposite i.e. "The faster you go, the more fun you have so the longer the route."

RGVforme

29th December 2015, 16:24

They would also benefit if those at fault in crashes were all ordered off the road too. So there are otherways of keeping
revenue up besides picking on bikers. They just lack the ability to think outside the square which some on here have a problem with too.

I fail to see how they would also benefit apart from the initial one off at fault fine.The person wont need to rego or wof a car/bike if they cant use it for the next year or however long due to suspension.
Something you have to work quite hard at getting with the present system.

The same reason they don't lock you up the first time for driving drunk perhaps even though doing so increases your risk of being at fault in a crash quite a bit in the eyes of the law and common sense.Not to mention the whole dying or hurting yourself or others minor point they always bleet on about.Lol

Far more money in fines to be made from the stupid by letting them go again and again while the smart learn the first time.

Ocean1

29th December 2015, 17:58

No "they" wouldn't.

They'd retrospectively make levy non-payment a criminal offence with substantial jail time as a penalty. After sitting in urgency and only gathering the minimum for a quorum.

Because after all, people who don't pay their bills in NZ are drug users. The PM said so.

Don't sound very likely.

Let's face it, risk of having to patch them up is only the No2 reason bikers are so substantially pinged. The main reason is the risk of having to pay their wages, and that they're a bunch of high earners.

Rich pricks. Always a politically safe target.

Moi

29th December 2015, 18:05

... main reason is the risk of having to pay their wages, and that they're a bunch of high earners.

Rich pricks...

Are you sure?

The way some are moaning about what it costs to have a tyre fitted I do wonder...

Big Dog

29th December 2015, 18:56

Are you sure?

The way some are moaning about what it costs to have a tyre fitted I do wonder...
The key to getting rich seems to be having shorter arms than you are able to make your pockets deep.

Sent via tapatalk.

RGVforme

29th December 2015, 19:06

What you have to remember is there is new people and vehicles being licensed/registered everyday. So its not like ACC will miss the money with someone being ordered off the road for being at fault. Safer roads may result too with a greater incentive to drive/ride cautiously resulting in a lower number of claims.

New vehicle rego numbers Vs fines issued for driving infringements over a year and the money that results in.

Me thinks there may be quite a difference between these two figures.

Moi

29th December 2015, 19:31

The key to getting rich seems to be having shorter arms than you are able to make your pockets deep.

Sent via tapatalk.

Some know the "cost of everything and the value of nothing"...

bogan

29th December 2015, 21:05

Fatt Max

31st December 2015, 08:56

bogan

31st December 2015, 10:22

What you dont seem to get is not all motorcycle accidents are caused as a result of the motorcyclists own fault. The learning experience for many involves buying a car. So you
want all motorcyclists who come off for any reason to not be allowed to ride again?

Completely wrong 0/10. Please re-read and try again. This time things like answering direct questions should help.

Fatt Max

31st December 2015, 11:00

Maybe they dont want to comment on here due to a lot of posters prefering the current fee to any change eg those at fault being the ones who end up paying more instead.

Oh that's right, MAG get upset if you express an opinion especially if it contains naughty wordsis on Facebook. If you are not liking their status updates or buying coffee you are not part of the in crowd.

Surely heated argument and debate is at the core of any protest group. It was when the AAG were around. Still, we can't have the poor committee upset now can we

Madness

31st December 2015, 11:19

This thread is like the Christmas gift that just keeps on giving.

RGVforme

31st December 2015, 12:09

This thread is like the Christmas gift that just keeps on giving.

Like Christmas if you only get to come once a year might as well make it a good bastard.:corn:

Credit due right or wrong he has stuck to his point like a curry based skid mark in your undies.:ar15:

Fatt Max

31st December 2015, 13:37

This thread is like the Christmas gift that just keeps on giving.

And you sir, are a cunt

nzspokes

31st December 2015, 14:05

This thread is like the Christmas gift that just keeps on giving.

That is rather funny.

Big Dog

31st December 2015, 14:37

Maybe they dont want to comment on here due to a lot of posters prefering the current fee to any change eg those at fault being the ones who end up paying more instead.
I don't see anyone liking the status quo regarding price.
I do see a few who don't see the value in continuing the method that have had so little impact. Opportunity has passed for these methods to continue without change.

Sent via tapatalk.

James Deuce

31st December 2015, 15:36

Don't sound very likely.

Let's face it, risk of having to patch them up is only the No2 reason bikers are so substantially pinged. The main reason is the risk of having to pay their wages, and that they're a bunch of high earners.

Rich pricks. Always a politically safe target.
So are horse owners and riders. Fucking ping them. They cost ACC MORE than motorcyclists and there are LESS of them.

Also anyone over 70 with stairs, linoleum, or a tiled floor in their house needs to have their ACC levy raised about 4000%.

BMWST?

31st December 2015, 16:07

What you dont seem to get is not all motorcycle accidents are caused as a result of the motorcyclists own fault. The learning experience for many involves buying a car. So you
want all motorcyclists who come off for any reason to not be allowed to ride again?
so do you propose that your scheme charges those AT FAULT a higher levy?Would tht also include the other motorist at fault?

RGVforme

31st December 2015, 16:14

I don't see anyone liking the status quo regarding price.
I do see a few who don't see the value in continuing the method that have had so little impact. Opportunity has passed for these methods to continue without change.

Sent via tapatalk.

Yep seen little bang for my buck apart form cheap CBTA courses now.This suited me that has always struggled with the whole classroom testy stuff having been taught mostly by looking over a shoulder and being shown

MSAC input for one.The group waved as a banner when the Levy was contested in the first place.

I emailed them some ideas/Suggestions and questioned what they infact did as I had not seen much evidence of their good work and 4 months later got the stock "Thanks for that" reply.

Suspected MSAC is just an e mail address and some person in an office somewhere.

I understand that the levy is there as an ambo at the base of a cliff deal mostly but think more prevention would of course be better.

More motorcycle awareness content for learner car drivers in tests.
Subsidised (spelling?) good qual riding gear for learners or full Class 6 born agains on passing a CBTA refresh course/licence stage may be a start. I think there is always time for change if it is wanted for the right reasons by the right people for long enough:headbang:

Ocean1

31st December 2015, 16:34

So are horse owners and riders. Fucking ping them. They cost ACC MORE than motorcyclists and there are LESS of them.

Also anyone over 70 with stairs, linoleum, or a tiled floor in their house needs to have their ACC levy raised about 4000%.

And, as 'er indoors was known to point out when is was her budget being abused: rugby players.

And, as I pointed out at the time: all those lazy, sedentary pricks that sit around all day doing fuck all.

Here's a novel idea: Why don't we forget all the bullshit finger pointing and targeted taxes and just pay for it from the consolidated fund?

Still no lawyers, though.

Madness

31st December 2015, 16:35

And you sir, are a cunt

I'd appreciate it very much if you could please refrain from calling me sir.

I guess if there is fault on both sides they both are charged a higher levy based on degree of fault.

Your crackpot scheme would cost more to administer than would pay out for claims. Twat.

Moi

31st December 2015, 17:11

so do you propose that your scheme charges those AT FAULT a higher levy? Would that also include the other motorist at fault?

Why not? If we consider the present ACC system to be akin to an insurance policy, then under an insurance policy you pay more if you make a claim... so if you make a claim against ACC you pay more... quite how to administer that for the workplace is another question...

And, as 'er indoors was known to point out when is was her budget being abused: rugby players.

And, as I pointed out at the time: all those lazy, sedentary pricks that sit around all day doing fuck all.

Here's a novel idea: Why don't we forget all the bullshit finger pointing and targeted taxes and just pay for it from the consolidated fund?

Still no lawyers, though.

Do rugby clubs pay a levy? I presume the 'professional' teams pay levies...

Would be an excellent solution, though the lawyers might not think so...

Your crackpot scheme would cost more to administer than would pay out for claims. Twat.

Why?

Don't insurance companies operate that way? Don't remember hearing of an insurance company not making a profit?

Just saying...

Ocean1

31st December 2015, 18:26

Why not? If we consider the present ACC system to be akin to an insurance policy, then under an insurance policy you pay more if you make a claim... so if you make a claim against ACC you pay more... quite how to administer that for the workplace is another question...

ACC is not an insurance policy. Most of the current unrest stems from attempts to make it so.

Do rugby clubs pay a levy? I presume the 'professional' teams pay levies...

They do. It's worked through the national sport admin who levy clubs, who tack it onto club annual fees. Similar to most sports.

Would that we could declare ourselves a sport and pay a similar pittance.

Would be an excellent solution, though the lawyers might not think so...

The driver behind ACC was the view of the American litigation based system some local squabbles of the time afforded. The consensus was "let's nip this hideous waste of money in the bud and include a "no fault" clause in the new accident compensation system.

The US spends much more than NZ on health care in general, and gets less for it's dollar than we do. That's due to roughly 30% of health spending going to legal costs, and a further 20% to various other non-health-specific services like professional indemnity insurance.

Why?

Don't insurance companies operate that way? Don't remember hearing of an insurance company not making a profit?

Just saying...

And right back into lawyer country. Turns out spending most of your health budget on health rather legal and insurance costs gets you better value. Go figure.

Big Dog

31st December 2015, 18:42

They can not think up a fairer system which I have done so indirectly i consider their stance as being happy with the status quo.
Self love is not real love.
Neither is your approval of your own system actual approval.

To say you have come up with a fairer system is to say it had been peer reviewed and noone will be disadvantaged.
To label your suggestion as fairer is asinine because got have not:
* Provided for how this would be administered without additional cost.
* Shown how fault would be deigned,
what of both parties carry some blame?
* Would it not be simpler to put a no claims bonus on registration given systems to apply this already exist? Like no ACC claims (not respective of blame ) from an mva in 2 years gets you 60% off your ACC levy portion of registration?
* Is it fair that car registration has gone down? How many people would be disadvantaged putting that back up?

Your proposal is more a starting point for a wider discussion than a solution.
Should there now be an annual tariff on mobiles because humans are stupid? http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/us-death-prompts-warning-around-cellphone-use-2015123018

Or should we as a collective go back to taking from the tax pool? Or would that disadvantage those who choose to not use motorised transport...

No, not apathy. Lacking in other options that in the end are not just selfish desire to offload the risk of my chosen lifestyle into the pockets of others.

I don't protest the cost. I protest the unfair application of the tariff given claims this is a no fault system.

Either way I am not sufficiently narcissistic to say I have the answer.

Sent via tapatalk.

Big Dog

31st December 2015, 18:49

But whatever it cost it would be funded by those at fault. You are just frightened of being at fault and paying more yourself which is the sole reason why so many on this site knock my idea.
I have mentioned that the higher levies on those at fault will act as an incentive to drive safer too.
Actually the reason I object to your proposal is it would tax our newer drivers into not learning because of a fear of trying new things and failing.

We were all first time riders once.
Most of us when finance was a struggle.

Sent via tapatalk.

swbarnett

31st December 2015, 20:02

Or should we as a collective go back to taking from the tax pool?
Definitely. Only fair way that I can see. We all pay according to what we can afford (i.e. based on income).

Or would that disadvantage those who choose to not use motorised transport...
It wouldn't if we merge all the accounts into one.

...offload the risk of my chosen lifestyle into the pockets of others.
This is the definition of both insurance and ACC. One of the cornerstones of a caring community is that we all pay our fair share to support the individuals within that community. Thus allowing all to live the life they choose and achieve a greater level of fulfillment.

FJRider

31st December 2015, 20:15

What you dont seem to get is not all motorcycle accidents are caused as a result of the motorcyclists own fault. The learning experience for many involves buying a car. So you
want all motorcyclists who come off for any reason to not be allowed to ride again?

When you hit your next dog when riding your motorcycle ... what happens if it's the dogs fault ... ???? Who pays the .. ??? (the dog or the dog owner ??)

Madness

31st December 2015, 20:25

You are just frightened of being at fault and paying more yourself which is the sole reason why so many on this site knock my idea.

I'm not frightened of being at fault in an accident and having to pay a higher ACC premium as a result at all, thanks all the same cuntface.

I'm frightened that some retard politician (like Peter Dunne) will tinker with ACC along the lines of your poorly thought out plan and fuck what is an excellent scheme as it stands.

I think you'll find the sole reason why so many on this site knock your idea is actually because like most of your ideas, it's pretty shit.

Bikemad

31st December 2015, 20:46

Idealy it would be the dog owner as it was with 1 dog I hit. It is illegal for dog owners to let their dogs run wild on the street so no law change would be necessary there.

what if the dog is a stray and/or is not chipped/tagged and no one claims ownership of said dog......who pays?

Bikemad

31st December 2015, 20:59

The problem is some of us think the current system is pretty shit and it lumps safe and unsafe motorists in the same boat. If you dont mind paying more if you are found at fault why do you
not like the idea of paying less if you are not? You have an odd sense of logic cuntface!!

from what i have gleened from this thread........YOU.....seem to be the only one who thinks the current system is shit.......while i might agree it is somewhat expensive for motorcyclists......it is a pretty good system which i have had the pleasure or misfortune depending on ones perspective of using from time to time.
your second statement about paying less if you are not found at fault doesn't even make sense..........no one is at fault until post incident......we are ALL at risk however which is the basis of the current system........

Bikemad

31st December 2015, 21:04

and as for safe/unsafe motorists.......whats the criteria for determining that........so after a crash if it is my fault......do i have to backpay ACC contributions....because it could be argued that i was just masquerading as a safe motorist....or is it only going to go up after the crash........assuming i survive of course...........and if i do how long before i am deemed to be a safe motorist again........do i need to pass a test or something.......whats the criteria that says i'm a safe driver once again...........

Madness

31st December 2015, 21:22

The problem is some of us think the current system is pretty shit and it lumps safe and unsafe motorists in the same boat. If you dont mind paying more if you are found at fault why do you
not like the idea of paying less if you are not? You have an odd sense of logic cuntface!!

So if I'm a good boy and don't claim ACC I get to pay less? What if the cost of determining my lesser rate of contribution and subsequent cost of administering a unique account, relative to my profile, is higher than the money saved from my non-claim?

Back to the dog scenario for a moment. Are you suggesting the owner of the dog that ran out causing an accident would subsequently pay a higher ACC contribution or pay for the cost of the victims medical treatment, rehabilitation and loss of earnings?

MadDuck

31st December 2015, 22:06

Great to see some debate on this subject. Not so great that the MAG commitee have not contributed either in a point of view or a summary of what action they are proposing to take
I assume they are too busy blowing smoke up each other's arses on Facebook where all the happy people live
Oooohhhhh, sounds like cyber bullying doesn't it? On Facebook it does but KB is where you can at least express an opinion, good bad or abusive
Come on MAG, grow some balls and jump in to this debate, let those you profess to represent hear what you are doing

Hahahaha. Cheers Mark. I for one have been working and riding and having a life. Sorry I did not respond immediately - read that as fuck you :P. Only reason I bother with KB these days is because I like to hang out at the track with one of the guys here. Occasionally I see a thread kind of worth looking at.

I am the only member of the committee that has a KB log in and these days- and you know it! Oh and we dont represent you anymore...apparently.

Bikemad

31st December 2015, 22:42

My statement about paying less was if you get through a year and are free of fault with any claim you pay less than those who are. For example when you insure your car and get through the year with zero or a no fault claim you get a no claims bonus or do not have to pay an excess if the other person is found at fault. Why not apply this sort of thinking to ACC is what I am saying. If you are injured through the carelessness of another motorist who is paying say $175 for registration/ACC while if you have a big bike you pay about $550 reg/ACC maybe then you will get an undersatnding of where I am coming from.

i sort of understand where you are coming from but you dont seem to understand that your "idea" is totally impractable and too subjective and expensive to implement
as has been explained to you countless time we have a NO fault system......you pay according to perceived risk and possible/probable costs asscociated from injuries sustained from the worst outcome of said risk........it's your choice if you want to take that risk.......user pays effectively
and please go back a couple of posts and answer the questions about what the dogs owner would have to pay.....

Akzle

31st December 2015, 22:54

They can not think up a fairer system which I have done so indirectly i consider their stance as being happy with the status quo.

you're a fucken thick cunt.

Moi

31st December 2015, 23:11

ACC is not an insurance policy. Most of the current unrest stems from attempts to make it so.

I agree, it is not an insurance company, however the changes made in the early 2000s appeared to have been made to make it appear to be an insurance compnay so it could be sold off. Heaven helpus if it did become a fully-blown insurance scheme...

They do. It's worked through the national sport admin who levy clubs, who tack it onto club annual fees. Similar to most sports.

That's good to know. I had looked but was unable to find that info... can't have looked hard enough.

Would that we could declare ourselves a sport and pay a similar pittance.

I consider my riding to be a hobby, don't sports people consider they are involved in a 'hobby' - OK, slightly cynical...

The driver behind ACC was the view of the American litigation based system some local squabbles of the time afforded. The consensus was "let's nip this hideous waste of money in the bud and include a "no fault" clause in the new accident compensation system.

I remember when ACC first started and there was an accident on the Queenstown gondola which involved some tourists, the ACC scheme meant they were treated and there was not need for them to sue anyone... So the original scheme and the present, as I see them not as the same scheme, both removed any reason to sue. I believe that the original, although not perfect, was a far more pragmatic solution than the current scheme...

The US spends much more than NZ on health care in general, and gets less for it's dollar than we do. That's due to roughly 30% of health spending going to legal costs, and a further 20% to various other non-health-specific services like professional indemnity insurance.

And right back into lawyer country. Turns out spending most of your health budget on health rather legal and insurance costs gets you better value. Go figure.

One of those little conundrums of life...

I believe that the present ACC scheme is not a better iteration of the original...

Akzle

1st January 2016, 05:37

bogan

1st January 2016, 07:24

Hahahaha. Cheers Mark. I for one have been working and riding and having a life. Sorry I did not respond immediately - read that as fuck you :P. Only reason I bother with KB these days is because I like to hang out at the track with one of the guys here. Occasionally I see a thread kind of worth looking at.

I am the only member of the committee that has a KB log in and these days- and you know it! Oh and we dont represent you anymore...apparently.

You posted that at 11pm on NYE, glass houses on that having a life thing :bleh:

TBBH, MAG looks like it's going the slacktivism route with the niche FB representation etc. A pity, but with the slackness bikers often exhibit on such issues, perhaps not undeserved.

Bikemad

1st January 2016, 08:43

I mentioned some posts back that large penalties for neglegence/at fault accidents are already in place and happen. Its just that they only apply to industrial accidents so dont give me bullshit that a similar punishment for those at fault can not be applied to motor vehicle accidents. If it was as expensive as you claim to administer there would be no penalties for those at fault in industrial accidents either now would there?

oh good grief.......i notice you avoided the dog question again.........
what if a drunk decides to jaywalk in front of you making you swerve to avoid and you crash........he keeps walking and isn't identified.....and an independent witness seems to think you may have been going a little over the speed limit although you actually weren't........who pays?
at the moment most non death accidents aren't investigated.......people get payed out and/or repaired............with your system ALL incidents would have to be fully investigated which would incur huge costs for 1... investigaters 2...road closures 3....future litigation and arguement re said investigation.....and who will these investigaters be.........where do they come from?..........as you have all the answers just how much do you think it will cost to administer?

BMWST?

1st January 2016, 09:01

Bikemad

1st January 2016, 09:20

Its odd you can not see how applying industrial ACC law to the road would not make sense. By punishing motorists at fault in the same way why do you not think it would create a better safety culture as that is the purpose of industrial safety prosecutions is it not?

so clearly you did not read BMWs statement correctly........a better safety culture is a byproduct of ensuring employers do all they can to ensure the safety of their workers and not exploit them for extra profits.
what do you do for a job......please tell me it's not in finance or education

Madness

1st January 2016, 09:26

We're wasting our bandwidth on this fucker. Red rep the cunt and move on I say.

BMWST?

1st January 2016, 09:43

Its odd you can not see how applying industrial ACC law to the road would not make sense. By punishing motorists at fault in the same way why do you not think it would create a better safety culture as that is the purpose of industrial safety prosecutions is it not?
industrial health and safety has nothing to do with ACC.OHS or workplace NZ(or whatever) administer it.Any benefit to ACC is not the intent.Your system would be hugely expensive,very slow,(some kind of court case for every accident?) and as i already said is against one of the whole principles of ACC.Your system may as well get rid of ACC and go back to a purely private insurance based system which would than need to be compulsory

Bikemad

1st January 2016, 10:29

So you by your response are happy with everything that is being done to promote safer roads then? I bet if you were injured by someone found at fault you would think differently expecially if you were paying the top level of bike registration and they were paying only a car reg.

ever heard the saying ....ya cant please all the people all of the time..........
your responses seem to entail putting words in other peoples mouths instead of answering the questions or addressing the pitfalls put to you regarding your idea............while not everyone is entirely happy about the cost of the current system it is still way better than your idea........the fact not one person has supported you with this idea should tell you it's a lemon
now go back and answer my questions in post 393 if you can

Akzle

1st January 2016, 10:38

If the fault is the deceased the claim then goes on their estate. If you hit a dog one day that will make you a fuckwit too by your own definition eh?

yes. If i hit anything i'd be a fuckwit. Which is why i dont.

You really are too stupid to live.

GrayWolf

1st January 2016, 11:28

Good point.Each way someone will have to cover the cost I guess.

Perhaps a better way to cover the cost fairly and the valid point ACC has about lack of protection on motorcycles is a RUC based system like trucks?.

The bigger CC rating the more you pay thing does not make sense when it comes to being slammed into by a car but does when it comes to speed=risk=damage.

If I only ride my 650 four times a year and Timmy two toes in Auckland rides his every day to work but we both pay the same high cost in rego am i not covering his increased exposure to injury he is putting himself in just to cover myself?.

If he has to prepay for more kms to ride than I do but with the same lower base rego fee would this be a fair way to offset the difference in exposure to injury between us but still feed the coffers to cover us both to the fault of others?.

Or perhaps there is simply not enough bikes on the road doing enough kms to make this work.:wacko:

So, just because you ride your bike 4 times a year, you feel your risk is less? {using your example}. Why should I, as a 'motorcycle as transport rider', riding every day, fund you for riding Sunday afternoons, in summer, for a few hours pretending to be a 'one piece leather wearing' Valentino Rossi, or a Sonny Barger, wearing t shirt, jerry helmet etc? My 'risk' is higher than either of those?? Have you ever followed a 'Sonny Barger' wannabe, on his 'hands higher than head' apehangered, rear end wobbling, overloud 1%er mobile' over the Rimutaka's? Or 'Valentino' who has probably done a few 'track days', {whose hyperpenisextension CBGSRR does around 3-5,000km's a year} KNOWS how to ride, because of said track days, as he carves the best 'race line' engine screaming between corners, knee and arse hanging off the side of the bike.
Yup my risk is definitely higher isnt it? :killingme:killingme:killingme

Big Dog

1st January 2016, 11:44

Something missing from the discussion any digression from a no fault to a fault based system will also have a flow on effect to how our insurance is paid out.
For a fault to be laid means an investigation or an admission of fault. Some insurance policies I have read include an out clause that they will not pay out on an accident you admitted fault on. The companies when questioned about this always say it is to protect them if ACC ever goes to fault based application or ceases to exist.

Sent via tapatalk.

pritch

1st January 2016, 13:18

Is there anyone out there from the MAG commitee who wishes to comment on what your group sees as the issues and how you as a group are working towards your goal?

I hope you get an answer to this. The few "pro motorcycling" groups I have seen rapidly turn into anti cycling groups. The cause is already lost because the idiots can't maintain focus. Keep their eyes on the prize, so to speak. What cyclists are doing - or not doing - f'rinstance paying ACC levies, is completely irrelevant to motorcycling.

These groups seem in desperate need of people with an IQ above room temperature and who can actually remember what they are supposed to be doing.
Any of them who even mentions cyclists should be immediately booted into touch.

Bikemad

1st January 2016, 13:34

The only pitfalls with my idea fall on those found at fault everyone else benefits. You obviously don't believe in the idea of improving behaviour by putting in place an incentive to improve. Road accidents will continue on the up without change and its only when you are affected maybe that you will think differently.

there you go again......putting words in my mouth or telling me what i do or do not believe while still not answering any of the questions put to you......like who is going to pay for all the investigations into ascertaining who is or is not at fault........assuming you are going to try and attribute blame to someone you must remember they are entitled to defend any such action....and even if they lose they are entitled to an appeal of said decision........one last time.......WHO PAYS?.......HOW LONG DO YOU EXPECT THAT PROCESS WILL TAKE?........don't forget all of these expenses have to be paid for by someone above and beyond the original costs of the incident......presumably by the taxpayer one way or another....so who benefits.....apart from some ambulance chasing lawyers....do tell
and give us the name of at least one other person who thinks your idea has any merit.........ya mum doesn't count
and how the hell is your idea an incentive to improve........are you saying i drive without due care and dillagence?..........how the fuck would you know......as has been said to you before the possibility of death is the biggest incentive to drive sensibly.......is it not
and i have been involved in accidents before.......some my fault some not......"and its only when you are affected maybe that you will think differently"....why would i think differently..........please explain this
so how about answering the questions asked of you instead of ending you responses with the wanky all knowing condescending remarks you have been making......come on genius
the way i see it it's......Cassinas idea :1(cassina)...........the current system:everyone else(everyone else)

Bikemad

1st January 2016, 15:04

Who do you think pays for investigations now Santa Claus? It will be exactly the same people doing exactly the same being paid from the same source. Did you think motor accidents were not investigated now because there is "no such thing as fault" according to ACC? me thinks you are a muppet!!

oh dear.....getting abusive now eh......
at present only serious injury and death incidents are investigated........under your genius scheme EVERY incident would require investigation would it not?
please now answer the other questions if you can..........the one about the dog owners......and the one about the drunk stepping infront of you etc........and we are still waiting for you to supply one....just one other person who thinks your idea has any merit.......go on.....just one
you also haven't told us exactly who benefits under your scheme...........or why my thinking will change post accident.........c'mon do tell

Akzle

1st January 2016, 16:13

bikemad>cassina.

/thread

RGVforme

1st January 2016, 16:31

The only pitfalls with my idea fall on those found at fault everyone else benefits. You obviously don't believe in the idea of improving behaviour by putting in place an incentive to improve. Road accidents will continue on the up without change and its only when you are affected maybe that you will think differently.

The other pitfall I see with your idea is that there is already a system in place to charge the person at fault more in the case of a motor vehicle crash.

This of course is being found at fault and charged by the police.This is my incentive to improve be more cautious next time.
If I don't then next time the fines are more or I get locked up ect ect.

Your way of recovering costs is based on assumption.I had a crash 6 months ago that was my fault therefore I am a muppet on the road who wont learn my lesson will prob do it again so must continue to pay more for my rego.

The current system is based on assessment of the situation at the time.Because anyone can go 6 years without having a crash but don't give way at that sign one day because your a bit sleepy and boom your at fault so will be charged more at the time.

The ACC levy is a blanket insurance like system that covers the outcome of a accident not matter if your at fault or not.Stuff that may happen anyway.Injury loss of work income ect.
This does a very good job of covering anyone for accidents anyone can have where no one is at fault also.Ie being struck by lighting.

Your idea is a good one don't get me wrong.But its already in place just not in a form your choosing to see thus would not apply when it comes as an idea for reducing the levy in a motorcycle rego.:Pokey:

Bikemad

1st January 2016, 17:38

How many investigations take place would depend on a willingness of one of the parties at an accident to admit fault and it is something insurance companies want to know is it not? If you read you insurance policy it will likely say never admit fault at the time of an accident and if fault is not admitted an investigation must take place must it not? I remember with one of my accidents I had to threaten to take the cop to the police complaints authority as I was getting sick of waiting for the outcome of the investigation or maybe as you think the cop did not consider it serious enough to investigate. So if you push for an investigation where the other party has not admitted fault they will do it.

good god....english is my first language but whats written above doesn't really compute sorry.........you are talking about doing investigations at accidents so you can charge whoever was at fault more for their rego in the future..........correct?.......cops do not always attend non injury accidents.....correct?..........not everyone on the roads have insurance.....correct?........i suppose there was meant to be a point to your ramblings above but fucked if i can see it............now have a crack at the other questions i asked earlier.....i won't hold my breath for an answer though

RGVforme

1st January 2016, 17:41

How many investigations take place would depend on a willingness of one of the parties at an accident to admit fault and it is something insurance companies want to know is it not? If you read you insurance policy it will likely say never admit fault at the time of an accident and if fault is not admitted an investigation must take place must it not? I remember with one of my accidents I had to threaten to take the cop to the police complaints authority as I was getting sick of waiting for the outcome of the investigation or maybe as you think the cop did not consider it serious enough to investigate. So if you push for an investigation where the other party has not admitted fault they will do it.

In fact an insurance company will always do an investigation if one party or both have insurance.If someone admits fault this just makes their job quicker and easier so is promoted.Better still if backed up by the cops.

This may be because not everyone tells the truth perhaps.

"One of my accidents" ???? :facepalm: :brick:

Bikemad

1st January 2016, 17:55

Niether does your ramble compute with me so I wont waste my time trying to decipher it.

and still you won't or should i say can't answer my earlier questions.........
but i must say congratulations are in order........in a sea of otherwise sensible discussion and debate you stand alone as a shining beacon of stubborness and unwillingness to comprehend or acknowledge reason and evidence to the contrary of the wiseness of your obviously flawed scheme.......well done you

RGVforme

1st January 2016, 18:15

But when making an insurance claim dont insurance companies require proof of police involvement which I would assume to prove the claim is not fraudulent? I can't see the insurance company doing as good a job as investigating as the police as the most critical details when making an investigation are obtained at the scene and in my case I was not in a well enough state to even ring the police let alone an insurance company. So if you are in an accident that is not too bad but the other party will not admit fault do you call your insurance company out to the accident scene and take photos and interview any witnesses instead?

No they don't in the case of a minor crash where no one is hurt.
Prob frees the police up to do other minor stuff like fight crime ect I guess.
The one minor crash i did have involved no police was not my fault and the other driver argued this.We both had insurance.

Went through the whole drawing a nice little picture on paper of what went down along with the location time ect.I Was asked to take photos of the damage to my car and let our insurance companys fight it out.

I won by the way so jobs tidy.

Im sure an insurance company dealing with the number of crash claims they do would be just as apt at finding out who is at fault as the police when it comes to minor claims.Prob better at spotting a case of fraud than a beat cop also.

Akzle

1st January 2016, 18:25

"One of my accidents" ???? :facepalm: :brick:

qed .

And he's never been at fault. Of course.

FJRider

1st January 2016, 18:28

But when making an insurance claim dont insurance companies require proof of police involvement which I would assume to prove the claim is not fraudulent?

Reporting an accident :If you are involved in a accident while driving, and you are not badly injured, the first thing you must do is stop and check to see if anyone is hurt, and provide assistance.

If someone is hurt, you must tell a police officer as soon as possible and no later than 24 hours after the crash.

If no one is hurt, you must give your name, address and vehicle registration (and, if asked, the name and address of the owner of the vehicle you are driving, if it isn't your vehicle) as soon as possible but no later than 48 hours after the crash to:

(a) the owner or driver of any other vehicle that has been damaged
(b) the owner of any property that has been damaged.

If you can't find these people, you must tell a police officer as soon as possible and no later than 60 hours after the crash.

If your vehicle is insured, tell your insurance company as soon as possible after the crash.

So ... Police are not always required to be involved. But if the accident was not your fault (in your opinion) you can make a complaint to Police. They may choose to pursue the matter (or not). But it may be helpful to your claim if Police charge another person for causing your accident. The Insurance Company may pursue the guilty person for recovery of their costs ...

Big Dog

1st January 2016, 18:36

Once again a thread has evolved into the world vs cassina with cassina selectively responding...

Once again I call troll and suggest we selectively respond to cassina.

Sent via tapatalk.

RGVforme

1st January 2016, 18:39

I guess in situations of non injury thats where you can get by with photographic evidence in lieu of calling the police but if you did not have your camera on you, you would be stuffed and this would explain the popularity of dash cams maybe. There is no gurantee photographic evidence would be sufficiant in every case though and having witness statements obtained by the police would carry more weight if the photogrphic evidence is questionable.

I didn't have my camera on me at the time.Photos were of the damage location on my car taken in my drive at home.

Dash cams are the item to have in cases like this and will often stop a twat in his/her tracks when they are arguing fault when you point out that you have one and it was rolling.
Yes police involvement is always better to add weight to your argument but only if your the one not at fault.
The last thing a guilty person wants to see it the cops coming lol.

By jove I think you've got it....:2thumbsup

Bikemad

1st January 2016, 19:00

I guess in situations of non injury thats where you can get by with photographic evidence in lieu of calling the police but if you did not have your camera on you, you would be stuffed and this would explain the popularity of dash cams maybe. There is no gurantee photographic evidence would be sufficiant in every case though and having witness statements obtained by the police would carry more weight if the photogrphic evidence is questionable.

so now answer my question about you swerving to avoid a drunk who stumbled into your path..........you crash.....the drunk leaves and is not identified...the police have a witness that says he thinks you were speeding and as a result the police deem you were also at fault......would you be happy to pay more for your next rego fee?
simple question really....give it a go

Akzle

1st January 2016, 19:04

Once again I call troll

rly?

i call fuckwit.

Big Dog

1st January 2016, 19:17

rly?

i call fuckwit.
There is a certain degree of brain function required to breathe.
Cassina is still posting. Ergo still alive.
Ipso facto not as stupid as you suggest.

Sent via tapatalk.

nzspokes

2nd January 2016, 06:35

Hahahaha. Cheers Mark. I for one have been working and riding and having a life. Sorry I did not respond immediately - read that as fuck you :P. Only reason I bother with KB these days is because I like to hang out at the track with one of the guys here. Occasionally I see a thread kind of worth looking at.

I am the only member of the committee that has a KB log in and these days- and you know it! Oh and we dont represent you anymore...apparently.

One wonders why he has not responded in quick fashion?

Voltaire

2nd January 2016, 06:45

Once again a thread has evolved into the world vs cassina with cassina selectively responding...

Once again I call troll and suggest we selectively respond to cassina.

Sent via tapatalk.

I find not wasting key strokes on KB sad sacks works for me :msn-wink:

RGVforme

5th January 2016, 17:55

MAG may have another thing to protest about if that sideburned git from dog and lemon guide gets his way.

To do this of course they may need to leave Devonport and god forbid head off the motorway onto actual state highways.:eek5:

Not that I think either is going to happen but I heard him( the dog and lemon chap) suggest on one news tonight that median strips up the middle of all main roads and fences down the each side would help stop the number of crashes we have.

Perhaps the best they could get to interview 5 days into the new year.
Have see interviews with this chap before and he does strike me as a bit vague and alternative.

Would be a bugger if so though and up a bikers chance of surviving an off or going wide when hashing a corner just to bash into one of these along the same lines of the 'cheese cutters'.:oi-grr:

RGVforme

5th January 2016, 18:28

But if you get it wrong when cornering hitting a car going the other way will be no less deadly. I see in parts of ChCh and down Queenstown way they have started putting cheap plastic orange dividing poles between the lanes which would be interesting to know how effective they are at preventing people crossing the centre line. I could see these poles being introduced in a big way if they are proved effective as they would be substantially cheaper than concrete barriers.

Yep on the car point somewhat but a barrier would be there all the time cars are not.

Plastic poles hmm interesting.<_<

Duncan74

5th January 2016, 18:42

If you came off and hit the orange posts then they would jsut fold and you'd go through. Wouldn't want to ride through them, but depending on the bike, lean angle and luck you may get away with it. They aren't to stop someone going through them like the wire ropes, but to stop people cutting the corners for no good reason. Also means that if there is a breakdown then the posts can be ripped up in an instant and allow two narrow lanes of traffic.

Finally, they don't need big wide terminating blocks, so can start / finish anywhere unlike the barriers. So a wire rope stops people turnng right out of their drive which can be a problem in some areas where there's no roundabout or other safe opportunity to u turn a sensible distance away.

Gremlin

5th January 2016, 18:47

Yep on the car point somewhat but a barrier would be there all the time cars are not.

Plastic poles hmm interesting.<_<
Some plastic poles caught my eye today... https://goo.gl/maps/WMto9HsnA5R2

Just how bad are drivers that we need to go this far? Actually, nevermind, I've seen drivers half in the cycle lane plenty of times :facepalm:

Duncan74

5th January 2016, 19:06

Just how bad are drivers that we need to go this far? Actually, nevermind, I've seen drivers half in the cycle lane plenty of times :facepalm:

Around here then even the tapers are fair game at on / off ramps. Honestly I think those are needed in a lot of places to stop the dicks in utes, anything with a rotary engine and any german SUV from pushing in 3m from the turn.

in the tourist hotspots to start off with.

A personal view here, is that whilst in some specific locations then the big issues may be with tourist drivers, these locations are the minority accross NZ. The general weaving in/out of shoulders and cutting of corners is being done by 'nz drivers'. Either that or those tourists are getting darn tricky and tending to be driving logo covered utes at 530am whilst wearing hi-viz vests turning into industrial areas.

RGVforme

5th January 2016, 19:22

Around here then even the tapers are fair game at on / off ramps. Honestly I think those are needed in a lot of places to stop the dicks in utes, anything with a rotary engine and any german SUV from pushing in 3m from the turn.

A personal view here, is that whilst in some specific locations then the big issues may be with tourist drivers, these locations are the minority accross NZ. The general weaving in/out of shoulders and cutting of corners is being done by 'nz drivers'. Either that or those tourists are getting darn tricky and tending to be driving logo covered utes at 530am whilst wearing hi-viz vests turning into industrial areas.

Agree here The tourist wrong side of the road thing is good for grabbing news headlines atm.Take a ride on most state highways and rural roads to see corner cutting and center line huggers abound.Townies and farmers.
Hawkes bay drivers are the worst very noticeable difference when riding outside the bay.

Still think that chap on the news was plucking out his bum for the sake of something to say.Less head on crashes yes but lower crash rates over all bollocks.Just another hard object for bad driver to run into.

Moi

5th January 2016, 20:02

There 'd be no need for plastic poles on corners and similar places if NZ taught people to drive rather than the three "S"s...

... Start

... Steer

... Stop

I'd happily support MAG if they lobbied for a more comprehensive driving / riding training

... and we might see a lowered ACC levy as well as a lowered road toll.

Duncan74

5th January 2016, 20:16

Moi

5th January 2016, 20:29

The ACC funded ride forever and the money they are spending on hotspots such as the coromandel are good examples of positive approaches I'd suggest. Ie paying to seal back into farmers access ways to stop gravel getting onto the road on bends. Doesn't grab the headlines as well as 'tourist in hire car not as excellent as all of us superdriver kiwis are' though.

Agree that these are good initiatives. However, they could be seen as ambulance at the bottom of the cliff solutions - it could be argued that better riders, in this instance, might see that gravel fan across the road and so adjust their riding to accommodate it. The two you mentioned are of most benefit to riders than drivers - yes, hitting gravel mid-corner in a car is not pleasant but far less of an issue than doing so on two wheels.

Somehow NZ drivers and riders need to move from the "I'm a superdriver / rider" mentality to "I'm an average driver / rider who could do with a bit of on-going training".

[But this might be problematic as it may reflect badly on their imagined penile size...]

Duncan74

5th January 2016, 20:40

Agree that these are good initiatives. However, they could be seen as ambulance at the bottom of the cliff solutions - it could be argued that better riders, in this instance, might see that gravel fan across the road and so adjust their riding to accommodate it. The two you mentioned are of most benefit to riders than drivers - yes, hitting gravel mid-corner in a car is not pleasant but far less of an issue than doing so on two wheels.

Somehow NZ drivers and riders need to move from the "I'm a superdriver / rider" mentality to "I'm an average driver / rider who could do with a bit of on-going training".

[But this might be problematic as it may reflect badly on their imagined penile size...]

Well, the ride forever I think is about the proactive education, althgouh of course does nothing for the drivers. As is frequently quoted, 75% of NZ drivers rate themselves better than average..... One of the peculiarities of the NZ ACC system that negates the need for mandatory insurance is that it fails to provide any incentive for people to be good drivers. Where insurance is compulsary, then there is a significant incentive to be more careful, or where the premiums are getting too high, then to undertake advanced driving courses to benefit from discounts on the insurance.

Perhaps this could help, if drivers received rebates to ACC contributions by attending 'drive forever' courses. However, in the short term then any discounts woud need to be offset by increases to others. Also rego and acc is levied on vehicles, not drivers. (intereting point, I pay 2 lots of bike ACC contribution, so do I get to go on 4 ride forever courses a year? ;) ) And also the type of people that would voluntarly go on a drive forever are potentially the ones least likely to be those in most need.

Moi

5th January 2016, 21:53

Well, the ride forever I think is about the proactive education, although of course does nothing for the drivers. As is frequently quoted, 75% of NZ drivers rate themselves better than average..... One of the peculiarities of the NZ ACC system that negates the need for mandatory insurance is that it fails to provide any incentive for people to be good drivers. Where insurance is compulsory, then there is a significant incentive to be more careful, or where the premiums are getting too high, then to undertake advanced driving courses to benefit from discounts on the insurance.

Perhaps this could help, if drivers received rebates to ACC contributions by attending 'drive forever' courses. However, in the short term then any discounts would need to be offset by increases to others. Also rego and ACC is levied on vehicles, not drivers. (interesting point, I pay 2 lots of bike ACC contribution, so do I get to go on 4 ride forever courses a year? ;) ) And also the type of people that would voluntarily go on a drive forever are potentially the ones least likely to be those in most need.

Agree that the Ride Forever courses are great and are proactive... but it is an interesting question: Why not for drivers? I'm sure ACC would say that drivers cost us less to fix than bikers...

The idea of insurance type levies / fees increases and rebates raises the question: "Do we need a 'conversation' about that?" I believe it is one that needs to be had. Nothing may change as a result of that conversation but then something might. However, without that conversation we will never know.

Berries

5th January 2016, 23:41

I agree with you that ACC fails to provide an incentive for people to be safer drivers but when I suggested that those who ride safely pay less and those who are at fault in accidents pay more no one on this site who replyed to my suggestion wanted that. So to sum up some on this site are just too spooked into being found at fault to want things to change in a way that may go against them. Some have also said creating an incentive system would be too expensive. So not only are they spooked about being found at fault they dont want road safety improved because it will cost too much bringing in an incentive scheme.
:brick:
(Apparently that smiley is now called the cassina)

You are talking about half a dozen people max. You should stop referring to what someone somewhere on some forum once said and actually post something with some content.

For me I think it is unfair that if I own two bikes I have to pay twice. I can only ride one at the time so the risk to the ACC is the same however many bikes I own. If this ridiculous rule did not exist perhaps I would ride a 'safer' bike at times instead of being forced to ride a widow maker every day. But I am fucked if I am paying $521.51pa or whatever for that luxury so ACC lose out and so do I.

I accept that motorcyclists on average will cost more to fix up than car drivers due to the protection that four wheels and a cage provides. I am therefore not that concerned about the fact that two wheels cost more than four. Incentives? With 20+ years clean insurance/crash history I should be be discounted to some extent compared to someone with the same years of experience and five crashes (regardless of 'fault') and certainly compared with some 19 year old on an R1. And that is where ACC falls over. It is partly risked based but only on vehicles and not rider/driver experience/history. I would hazard a guess that it is the person not the vehicle that is the greater risk to the ACC.

To summarise, fuck them. But I don't see how taking over car parking spaces in a town centre will do anything whatsoever to further the cause, whatever the cause is.

Akzle

6th January 2016, 05:29

nzspokes

6th January 2016, 07:29

None have been my fault that have required an ACC claim. Sorry to disapoint you.

Which is the core of the problem. Riders always believing they did nothing wrong.

nzspokes

6th January 2016, 07:34

So are you "Mr Perfect" rider eh sport?
And Bingo. There is the attitude that kills people. Never wrong.

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

Akzle

6th January 2016, 09:07

None have been my fault that have required an ACC claim. Sorry to disapoint you.

i never qualified it with "required an acc claim"

simply.
1) How many accidents have you been in?

2) how many, in you mr perfect estimation, were your fault?

You disappoint me every day you choose not to kill yourself, so dont worry about that.

Madness

6th January 2016, 09:28

Which is the core of the problem. Riders always believing they did nothing wrong.

It'll be those pesky side-stand springs, eh?

rambaldi

6th January 2016, 11:27

It'll be those pesky side-stand springs, eh?

Nah, it was all the previous owner.

pritch

6th January 2016, 11:38

Which is the core of the problem. Riders always believing they did nothing wrong.

Queue Katman?

nzspokes

6th January 2016, 14:17

It'll be those pesky side-stand springs, eh?

Yerp.:killingme

caseye

6th January 2016, 18:16

None have been my fault that have required an ACC claim. Sorry to disapoint you.

Really?, seriously, 7 from memory, 2 with cars involved, one of which was the car driver's fault, but when questioned further, you claimed you'd seen them but couldn't stop or avoid them, therefore, you really didn't do a good job of being a rider and making sure you don't get tangled up with other vehicles.
2 or was it 3 with dogs running onto the road in front of you, please, you expect us to believe that not once, twice but 3 times you weren't expecting a dog to run out at you?
At least 1 maybe two involving icy roads, again, it happened so fast you couldn't react in time.
Each and every instance one of a rider believing they were better than they are and thinking it won't happen to me.
not once have you ever suggested that after seeing dogs on the side fo the road these days you slow up a little, swing a bit wider, not once have we heard that these days on icy roads you look for the warm tracks.

You have learnt nothing from riding in circumstances where most people never have a repeat of such an event.

No one here or anywhere else is a perfect rider, many do get involved in accidents by no fault of their own, but most having had that sort of experience make a habit of avoiding similar events by remembering what happened and placing themselves and their machines in different places or being a bit faster or slower so as not to be in THAT spot again.
If you stopped, took a breath, before you posted you might actually learn something, no one here wants you to crash,we'd all much rather you learn't from you experiences and were able to report productively that you'd avoided an incident and were feeling safer for having the knowledge to avoid a similar thing happening again. Truly, we would.

You don't deserve this, but, happy new year cassina.
Try to learn from the mistakes you/we all make.
is that clear enough?

bogan

6th January 2016, 18:25

At least 1 maybe two involving icy roads, again, it happened so fast you couldn't react in time.

Must have been one hell of a cold 'snap' then!

RGVforme

6th January 2016, 19:00

Well, the ride forever I think is about the proactive education, althgouh of course does nothing for the drivers. As is frequently quoted, 75% of NZ drivers rate themselves better than average..... One of the peculiarities of the NZ ACC system that negates the need for mandatory insurance is that it fails to provide any incentive for people to be good drivers. Where insurance is compulsary, then there is a significant incentive to be more careful, or where the premiums are getting too high, then to undertake advanced driving courses to benefit from discounts on the insurance.

Perhaps this could help, if drivers received rebates to ACC contributions by attending 'drive forever' courses. However, in the short term then any discounts woud need to be offset by increases to others. Also rego and acc is levied on vehicles, not drivers. (intereting point, I pay 2 lots of bike ACC contribution, so do I get to go on 4 ride forever courses a year? ;) ) And also the type of people that would voluntarly go on a drive forever are potentially the ones least likely to be those in most need.

A good point on insurance regos and a sad fact all compiled into one here.:2thumbsup

The incentive should be we all hope not killing or hurting anyone else or ourselves while driving not saving us money or getting a fine by being a good alert driver.

But put a horror blood thirsty crash Ad on TV at 6pm(at a time to be the most cost effective and seen by the most people) to bring home the message of carnage and the emotional result of a crash and have the moaners and cotton wool police jumping on their computers and E mailing the broadcasting commission about the gore and time frame it was shown!.

Then they wonder why hitting people in the wallet is just not working ie the 4kmh base limit that I now see is being bantered about by the media as perhaps full time thing.:no: and shun off those who cry foul that its a cash gathering tactic by the law itself instead.:crazy:

Put you mum or sisters face in the very few crash ads on TV and see if that makes you take more care while riding or driving more than a days wages or $5 a week from your benny from WINZ.

Swoop

6th January 2016, 19:53

To do this of course they may need to leave Devonport ...

Well, that will occupy most of January.
An absolute shithole of a place because of it's single road in/out. And the locals who NIMBY'd an alternative road which would alleviate the congestion into the place.

RGVforme

6th January 2016, 20:01

Well, that will occupy most of January.
An absolute shithole of a place because of it's single road in/out. And the locals who NIMBY'd an alternative road which would alleviate the congestion into the place.

Hahaha :nya:

Sounds the perfect road to hold a protest ride to a place where people are more concerned about what happens in they own backyard than anything else.:weird:

Go the..... stupor...city....

bogan

6th January 2016, 21:01

bogan

6th January 2016, 21:31

I bet all the familes of people killed by hitting wandering stock/dogs would love to give you a piece of their mind muppet.

I bet you they'd wished their loved one recognised their own deficiency and stopped riding.

I also know people who have had their beloved pets killed by muppets like you, any guesses what they'd like to say to you?

RGVforme

6th January 2016, 21:37

It could be argued that the best learners are those who give up riding to avoid the same thing happening again. I agree with you when you have come to grief as a result of your own fault it does become a learning experience but if its as a result of someone/thing else its a bit of a lotto in my opinion hense why so many give up riding after being a victim of someone elses stupidity.

Wow I must of had two many beers is cassina agreeing with someone??.:eek:.

If you two would like to be alone just let us know!.lol.

My own views I would never let anyone let alone a stranger through an act of their own stupidity have that much power over me and my emotions as to stop me doing something that I enjoy that gives me happiness.Almost taking my life or not.

Learners who give up though fault of their own or others will always be left wondering what if?

Live you life in fear of the "lotto results" not being in your favor because of what you have experienced is not living at all its a mere existence in fear of what others may do to you again or may do to you.

nzspokes

6th January 2016, 21:42

I bet all the familes of people killed by hitting wandering stock/dogs would love to give you a piece of their mind muppet.

How many dogs have you killed now?

J.A.W.

6th January 2016, 21:48

I bet you they'd wished their loved one recognised their own deficiency and stopped riding.

I also know people who have had their beloved pets killed by muppets like you, any guesses what they'd like to say to you?

My guess would be..

"Sorry, I lost control of my stupid bloody animal/robot & unlawfully allowed it run out into your way & to crash in to you - on the public thoroughfare,
& I will - of course compensate you for the damages done, for which I am quite properly legally & morally responsible/liable.."

Yeah, that'll 'bout do it, I reckon..

bogan

6th January 2016, 21:59

J.A.W.

6th January 2016, 22:08

Public thoroughfare? These happen on driveways and farm tracks too. They also happen with kids. Liable?

Well duh..

If you are "in charge" of said machine/animal/minor, then of course, - you are properly liable for their whereabouts & conduct...

J.A.W.

6th January 2016, 22:08

RGVforme

6th January 2016, 22:12

My guess would be..

"Sorry, I lost control of my stupid bloody animal/robot & unlawfully allowed it run out into your way & to crash in to you - on the public thoroughfare,
& I will - of course compensate you for the damages done, for which I am quite properly legally & morally responsible/liable.."

Yeah, that'll 'bout do it, I reckon..

Funny... That was exactly how the conversation went with the farmer owner of the straying dog after I cleaned her up as she popped up out of a roadside drain into the path of the car I was in doing 100kms on the open road at the time.(Only time I hit a dog by the way lol) before he told me he took full responsibility as she "Strayed to the boys place across the road all the time" and had liability insurance to cover the damage to my car.:brick:

Farken lucky I was not on the DR at the time.....we both might have made it or not.

Big dog old car repair cost Wrote the car off....lol.

bogan

6th January 2016, 22:12

Well duh..

If you are "in charge" of said machine/animal/minor, then of course, - you are properly liable for their whereabouts, welfare & conduct...
Just as the motorist is properly liable to drive/ride in a safe manner.

And for some, that can only be achieved by putting their licence back in the cereal box...

bogan

6th January 2016, 22:24

But I was legally in the right place and the dogs were not so its the owners own silly fault if you ask me.
Nobody asks you for shit, yet it still spews forth.

Stop trying to hide behind the 'technically not my fault' facade. The inability to avoid incident was your fault, only the dogs being the in the area was the owners fault.

Big Dog

6th January 2016, 22:29

Funny... That was exactly how the conversation went with the farmer owner of the straying dog after I cleaned her up as she popped up out of a roadside drain into the path of the car I was in doing 100kms on the open road at the time.(Only time I hit a dog by the way lol) before he told me he took full responsibility as she "Strayed to the boys place across the road all the time" and had liability insurance to cover the damage to my car.:brick:

Farken lucky I was not on the DR at the time.....we both might have made it or not.

Big dog old car repair cost Wrote the car off....lol.
There's a fair few people who refer to Dr's as dog rooters.

Sent via tapatalk.

RGVforme

6th January 2016, 22:38

But I was legally in the right place and the dogs were not so its the owners own silly fault if you ask me.

So if you were on a nice straight piece of road with 200meters plus good visual going 50kms with no on coming traffic and seen a dog sitting in the middle of your lane not moving you would prob hit it not go around because it was your "Legal right" and it was the "Owners own silly fault" it was there?.:oi-grr:.

Prob the dogs fault too for not having a good grasp of the road rules I guess FFS.:facepalm:

It comes down to pure circumstances and the choices we make during these are always going to be different because we are all different people.

RGVforme

6th January 2016, 22:49

There's a fair few people who refer to Dr's as dog rooters.

Sent via tapatalk.

Lol funny enough (I heard) a term originally coined by Farmers in the NZ because of the large and fast nature of the bike 200 and 600/650 engines being unsuitable for farm use that would "Root" their working dogs running behind trying to keep up.:Punk:

swbarnett

7th January 2016, 12:25

the dogs fault too for not having a good grasp of the road rules I guess FFS.:facepalm:
This seems to be what this brainless twit is "thinking". With this attitude I would've at the very least taken out a dog myself a couple of months back. The reason I didn't is a combination of good situational awareness and defensive riding. Coming past a line of trees close to the road I moved close to the center line "just in case". This gave me the room to accellerate away and avoid the dog that came at me from behind the trees.

Cassina probably would've continued on in the left wheel track and now be complaining about yet another homicidal dog.

RGVforme

7th January 2016, 12:54

This seems to be what this brainless twit is "thinking". With this attitude I would've at the very least taken out a dog myself a couple of months back. The reason I didn't is a combination of good situational awareness and defensive riding. Coming past a line of trees close to the road I moved close to the center line "just in case". This gave me the room to accellerate away and avoid the dog that came at me from behind the trees.

Cassina probably would've continued on in the left wheel track and now be complaining about yet another homicidal dog.

That's the milk and nuts of it there mate.

Having the skills time and awareness to avoid a crash but choosing not to because that 'Guy' who blew that stop sign out into the front of you was legally wrong is a rather concerning thought pattern along with cassinas fixation with others being at fault.

Im calling PTSD here for this person from having too many crashes.:weird:

Madness

7th January 2016, 14:30

Cassina, under your scheme will I pay a lower ACC levy through my vehicle registration if my dog is slow moving as opposed to say, a Greyhound? What if my dog only has 3 legs and a rash in the groin area?

swbarnett

7th January 2016, 15:31

Cassina, stop worrying about who's at fault and worry about who's responsible.

And in case I have to spell it out, there's only one person responsible for your safety and that's YOU!

Tazz

7th January 2016, 16:15

Keep your dog restrained by a leash and you will be paying less ACC but let it roam the street and there is a risk you will be paying more. Its that simple.

Hmm there is some merit here.

I think I'd feel safer on the street if I knew you were at home restrained by a leash.

:bleh:

Akzle

7th January 2016, 16:21

Some dogs run out faster than others and I think you have just got lucky in coming across slow moving dogs you can swerve or brake to avoid. You may find this may not always
be the case.

you may notice sw didn't mention swerving or braking.
Those are usually the options left to fuckwits who aren't aware of whats happening in front of them.

But you probably didnt notice. because youre fucking retarded.

pritch

7th January 2016, 16:35

Cassina probably would've continued on in the left wheel track and now be complaining about yet another homicidal dog.

I don't usually read her posts, Cassina comprises one half of my ignore list. Do you think she even knows that if contact with a small(ish) animal is inevitable you have to release the brakes before impact?

To assist the left brainers among us, I would consider most dog breeds small(ish). A large animal might be a horse which would require a different technique. (If your technique with large animals works please let us all know what you did?)

Do you think she has heard about target fixation? It would seem that if something appears in front of her she feels the only option is to hit it.

On balance, just as well she's only in favour of riding slow really.

In the unlikely event there is actually a sensible answer, if someone could quote her please? :whistle:

Berries

7th January 2016, 16:40

In the unlikely event there is actually a sensible answer, if someone could quote her please?

I wondered why you never responded to this one -

Now that pritch, he's one I would like to go for a ride with.

:doctor:

J.A.W.

7th January 2016, 17:28

I wondered why you never responded to this one -

Yeah the ol' Fe-ometer goes into the red zone when dicks who bleat on about 'ignore' lists - still seem to have a hard-on for our resident Cassandra.. But then again she does have a thing about dogs running out in front of her - to spill their guts for a prophesy..

Maybe bagging her makes her desirable/doable, to some of you brave interweb warriors - kinda like taking on Medusa?
( though she might best be a double bagger, just in case you went soft & she felt it best to give you a bit of sexy-eye, to get you rock hard again.. L.O.L...

bogan

7th January 2016, 17:35

Some dogs run out faster than others and I think you have just got lucky in coming across slow moving dogs you can swerve or brake to avoid. You may find this may not always
be the case.

Which is why you ride defensively, otherwise all you can avoid is a senile three legged daschund.

Regardless of how many excuses you make, you still fucked up, and fucked up again in the same situation; you need to learn to learn.

swbarnett

7th January 2016, 17:45

I don't usually read her posts, Cassina comprises one half of my ignore list.
Like you I've "almost" stopped reading them.

Do you think she even knows that if contact with a small(ish) animal is inevitable you have to release the brakes before impact?
I doubt it. Given that they seem to have a total lack of any desire to learn anything.

I would consider most dog breeds small(ish).
Most indeed. You should see my friend's dog. On all fours their head is almost level with my chest and she's still only a pup.

A large animal might be a horse which would require a different technique. (If your technique with large animals works please let us all know what you did?)
Same technique as with any large, immovable object - avoid at almost all costs. Pretty unlikely to find one of these running out like a dog in NZ though, given that they're all herbivores. More likely to treat you like a predator and run the other way.

Do you think she has heard about target fixation?
Probably experienced it first hand but still doesn't understand.

nzspokes

7th January 2016, 18:09

Keep your dog restrained by a leash and you will be paying less ACC but let it roam the street and there is a risk you will be paying more. Its that simple.

So you are a dog hater as well?

No dogs should not be restrained. Property's should be fenced.

Ocean1

7th January 2016, 18:13

(If your technique with large animals works please let us all know what you did?)

Jump. :yes:

Akzle

7th January 2016, 18:20

A large animal might be a horse which would require a different technique. (If your technique with large animals works please let us all know what you did?)

bin it. lowside.

RGVforme

7th January 2016, 19:57

Yeah the ol' Fe-ometer goes into the red zone when dicks who bleat on about 'ignore' lists - still seem to have a hard-on for our resident Cassandra.. But then again she does have a thing about dogs running out in front of her - to spill their guts for a prophesy..

Maybe bagging her makes her desirable/doable, to some of you brave interweb warriors - kinda like taking on Medusa?
( though she might best be a double bagger, just in case you went soft & she felt it best to give you a bit of sexy-eye, to get you rock hard again.. L.O.L...

Pure entertainment on my part.You just never know what cassina is going to come out with next.:shifty:

Credit due sticks to the guns right or wrong remains unmoved....:girlfight:

Big Dog

7th January 2016, 20:12

I don't usually read her posts, Cassina comprises one half of my ignore list. Do you think she even knows that if contact with a small(ish) animal is inevitable you have to release the brakes before impact?

To assist the left brainers among us, I would consider most dog breeds small(ish). A large animal might be a horse which would require a different technique. (If your technique with large animals works please let us all know what you did?)

Do you think she has heard about target fixation? It would seem that if something appears in front of her she feels the only option is to hit it.

On balance, just as well she's only in favour of riding slow really.

In the unlikely event there is actually a sensible answer, if someone could quote her please? :whistle:
Most of what I have read indicates a small animal is one whose shoulder blades are equal to or lower than the top of the front wheel. Taller goes up. Shorter goes down.

Strategy for any large animal you can't ride around is to aim for its arse. If you can't miss it, that gives the animal the best chance of missing you.

Everything I have read either shrugs it's shoulders or gives an answer similar to: brake as long and hard as you can drop enough gears to launch hard, in the moment before impact release the brake and give it a fair amount of throttle.
Not sure of the logic and not keen to try it.

Sent via tapatalk.

pritch

7th January 2016, 20:28

I wondered why you never responded to this one -

God almighty! I never saw that. Seriously scary. The other day I was warned new meds could interfere with my sleep patterns. They weren't wrong.
Now that.
Fuck! I'll be lucky to get any sleep at all.

I see now that the other half of my ignore list has put in an appearance. The ignore function is conducive to calm contemplation of the meaning of life, the universe, and anything else that takes your fancy. I recommend it. Tomorrow is the eleventh anniversary of my joining KB. In that time I have had precisely two people on ignore. Congratulations, you two may indeed consider yourselves "special". :whistle:

pritch

7th January 2016, 20:42

Strategy for any large animal you can't ride around is to aim for its arse.

That'd be plan A for most. Akzle's plan to go under would be an alternative option.

Horses are dangerous things though. Big teeth at the sharp end and big hooves at the blunt end.
The horsey set will no doubt enjoy a good laugh at that comment. Some of them, no doubt, from their hospital beds.

J.A.W.

7th January 2016, 20:45

God almighty! I never saw that. Seriously scary. The other day I was warned new meds could interfere with my sleep patterns. They weren't wrong.
Now that.
Fuck! I'll be lucky to get any sleep at all.

I see now that the other half of my ignore list has put in an appearance. The ignore function is conducive to calm contemplation of the meaning of life, the universe, and anything else that takes your fancy. I recommend it. Tomorrow is the eleventh anniversary of my joining KB. In that time I have had precisely two people on ignore. Congratulations, you two may indeed consider yourselves "special". :whistle:

Wow, I am so grateful to have been granted the fabulous, rarely gifted imprimatur of the mighty.. Cassina!

Oh, wait.. its not her at all!

Bummer, its just some other bitch-on type, - who evidently can't even stick to his own lame undertakin's.. L.O.L..

Now, back to the far more savoury subject of roadkill..

Akzle

7th January 2016, 20:54

That'd be plan A for most. Akzle's plan to go under would be an alternative option.

Horses are dangerous things though. Teeth at the sharp end and big hooves at the blunt end.
The horsey set will no doubt enjoy a good laugh at that comment. Some of them, no doubt, from their hospital beds.

no. Bike goes under. You slide off somewhere els.

The problem with animules big enough to go under is that you dont want to skittle them on top of yourself, unless you can benchpress a fucking cow.

Flip

7th January 2016, 21:03

Cassina and Axel have both been on my ignore list for years.

I will help to organise another protest, as I did with COM and the other big one in Wellington a few years ago. I only have one modern bike these days, everything else on 2 wheels is a vintage.

pritch

7th January 2016, 21:08

no. Bike goes under. You slide off somewhere els.

Maybe getting off topic but hey? We don't always get a lot of say where we're actually going sans bike

The recommended option if a solid obstacle (car?) appears and is unavoidable is to stand up on the pegs just before impact. You may snap both femurs on the bars but you should (hopefully) be launched over the car rather then burying your head in it.

If that sounds radical watch the stuntmen in the movies, you can sometimes see them starting to stand.

A horse might be a bit tall for that technique. There'd be the risk you could launch yourself up its arse.

Big Dog

7th January 2016, 21:23

Police academy comes to mind.

Sent via tapatalk.

WristTwister

7th January 2016, 21:58

At the risk of sounding unpopular, I think insurance companies have it right.:Pokey: Your payments are based on your risk. New riders pay more, restricted pay less, full pay the lowest - same as car drivers. Although levies don't need to be based on your licence, it could be number of years riding or rider training). If you have an accident and you are at fault, you go back to paying the higher rate again - at least temporarily.

Also we need more rider awareness, for all the extra money ACC collects from motorcyclists they don't seem to advertise for our safety on tv "Look left, look right, look bike" - prevention is in their logo after all.

Jin

8th January 2016, 10:06

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pobCoKFEfXk

GrayWolf

8th January 2016, 10:08

That's the milk and nuts of it there mate.

Having the skills time and awareness to avoid a crash but choosing not to because that 'Guy' who blew that stop sign out into the front of you was legally wrong is a rather concerning thought pattern along with cassinas fixation with others being at fault.

Im calling PTSD here for this person from having too many crashes.:weird:

As much as it pains meto 'defend' cassina, in this case I think you and barnett are actually being a tad harsh. :pinch: I very recently took out a cat on the bike. At night, poorly lit road and it was 'under/beside? a parked car' then obviously decided to shoot out and run across the road. I had ZERO time to react, brake, or avoid. All I could do was NOT hit the front brake hard, and ran over it squarely, both wheels. It was dead on impact, thankfully.
I ride 'wide' of parked vehicles as much as possible, but under the circumstances there was bugger all I could do by the time the cat came into peripheral view in the headlight.

Akzle

8th January 2016, 11:06

J.A.W.

8th January 2016, 11:42

cat≠dog.

Plus. Its a cat. Noone gives a fuck about cat.

Plus. Have you done it 7 times?

If its an owned/kept animal that collides with you, there are legal obligations to stop & attempt to report the matter..

Ferals, possums, stoats however..

& as for "its a cat. No one gives a fuck about a cat." - I guess there are parts of the world where you wouldn't want to hit a big-as (~200Kg) cat on your bike..

GrayWolf

8th January 2016, 12:34

cat≠dog.

Plus. Its a cat. Noone gives a fuck about cat.

Plus. Have you done it 7 times?

Lemme see since 1974, blackbird strike doing 90mph {indicated} on an RD250 :laugh: at least 2 squirrels, 2/3 cats, possum {on a canam, avoid hitting one if poss, they are solid and do damage to bodywork} a duck..........

RGVforme

8th January 2016, 13:43

As much as it pains meto 'defend' cassina, in this case I think you and barnett are actually being a tad harsh. :pinch: I very recently took out a cat on the bike. At night, poorly lit road and it was 'under/beside? a parked car' then obviously decided to shoot out and run across the road. I had ZERO time to react, brake, or avoid. All I could do was NOT hit the front brake hard, and ran over it squarely, both wheels. It was dead on impact, thankfully.
I ride 'wide' of parked vehicles as much as possible, but under the circumstances there was bugger all I could do by the time the cat came into peripheral view in the headlight.

I understand your point....and also that sometimes you just cant avoid hitting something due to the situation.
The "Its you or the possum" Tv ad comes to mind here looking at the other posts also.

Its looks to me like you perhaps ride/drive defensively doing all you can to avoid being struck by someone or something to avoid a collision until there is no option left but to strike whatever it is in your path.

It get the impression that cassina from previous posts she rides/drives inevitably.Im going to be struck or am going to collide into something/someone in my path no matter what I do more than likely at the fault of others.

I could be wrong in both cases.But I also post back towards cassina in case I am right in the hopes to change even slightly what I see as a very dangerous mindset when it comes to being on our roads.
Perhaps saving the lives of a few dogs in the process also.
Or have my own mind changed by a statement that rings true. Waiting waiting.

bluninja

8th January 2016, 14:24

Most indeed. You should see my friend's dog. On all fours their head is almost level with my chest and she's still only a pup.

Where does the pups head come to when you stand up?

(sorry; I chose not to resist the urge)

bluninja

8th January 2016, 14:27

Tomorrow is the eleventh anniversary of my joining KB. In that time I have had precisely two people on ignore. Congratulations, you two may indeed consider yourselves "special". :whistle:

Happy anniversary.

swbarnett

8th January 2016, 15:12

Where does the pups head come to when you stand up?

(sorry; I chose not to resist the urge)
Wise choice. Gave me a chuckle.

If this dog were to rise up on it's hind legs I think it may well hit the ceiling.

swbarnett

8th January 2016, 15:19

Moi

8th January 2016, 16:14

Some seem to hold to the maxim "it is my right-of-way" and so drive / ride accordingly...

It's the same as "why don't you do the speed limit?" - there can be a number of reasons why not, I guess they are just not aware of what is happening round them...

When I learnt to drive it was drummed in... "you may have the right-of-way, but is it worth insisting on it and having an accident?" And I still drive / ride with that thought in the back of my mind... does mean a few have said "you drive / ride like a nana"... Doesn't mean I am not assertive of my position, just not aggressive about it...

Just saying...

Big Dog

8th January 2016, 17:21

I'll just leave this here for those who think vegan animals are not a risk.
http://i.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/75725838/Motorcyclist-killed-after-a-collision-with-a-truck-north-of-Awakino

Sent via tapatalk.

eldog

8th January 2016, 17:35

I'll just leave this here for those who think vegan animals are not a risk.

Recently a duck crossed in front of me, reached the opposite side of road, then turned around and ran back across the lane into mine to attack me, I saw the oncoming attacker and took evasive action, still the duck came unfortunately it hadn't attended the latest physics course regarding momentum...... The duck became permanently light headed. I checked the bike it was ok.

J.A.W.

8th January 2016, 17:43

Delete duplicate post.

J.A.W.

8th January 2016, 17:44

Recently a duck crossed in front of me, reached the opposite side of road, then turned around and ran back across the lane into mine to attack me, I saw the oncoming attacker and took evasive action, still the duck came unfortunately it hadn't attended the latest physics course regarding momentum...... The duck became permanently light headed. I checked the bike it was ok.

So, did you stop & offer to make the duck confit-able?

& where did you send the bill?

eldog

8th January 2016, 17:49

So, did you stop & offer to make the duck confit-able?

& where did you send the bill?

Nah, just duck down and duck bill soup.
It was already chilled out and lying on the road.

Maybe I should have taken it to check if it had had a heart and safety briefing and if it had any drug or alcohol problems.
It didn't have any coordination problems as it tracked me each time I tried to evade it. It's didn't have a hi vis vest.

J.A.W.

8th January 2016, 18:03

Nah, just duck down and duck bill soup.
It was already chilled out and lying on the road.

Maybe I should have taken it to check if it had had a heart and safety briefing and if it had any drug or alcohol problems.
It didn't have any coordination problems as it tracked me each time I tried to evade it. It's didn't have a hi vis vest.

I wonder why it didn't, ah, duck..

Suicidal mayhaps?

My missus once ( literally) collected ( killed it & bagged it) a big juicy pheasant out on the road, & it was delicious, esp' with no shot-pellets to pick out..

I was out for a ride recently & a companion hit a fat bunny, & I might've stopped if he'd knocked its block clean off..
..but he'd spread its guts around, & I reckoned it was just a wee bit too mucky - to tuck into my riding jacket..

Berries

8th January 2016, 22:47

My missus.........
Comedy gold right there.

RGVforme

23rd February 2016, 02:32

OMG I see MAG had decided to grace the outer colonies with a ride to Hamilton on March 13th :eek5:

So excited at finding out that life exists south of the Bombays they even spelt poor Huntly with an E on their FB page.:no:(Not that im one to judge lol)

An epic 5 hour day planned that's going to take a few flat white soys.

Could be worth a ride over to see how these Auckland types are going about getting this idea off the ground.

Better be fast though they are only there for an hour for lunch. :bye:

nzspokes

23rd February 2016, 05:34

Voltaire

23rd February 2016, 05:47

How about they park outside the ACC ministers office and throw dildo's or is that dildoes. at it.... seems to get the Medias attention.

nzspokes

23rd February 2016, 06:58

How about they park outside the ACC ministers office and throw dildo's or is that dildoes. at it.... seems to get the Medias attention.

That's to much like protest action.

rambaldi

23rd February 2016, 13:07

pritch

23rd February 2016, 14:02

Neither does decent coffee.

You need to get out more. :whistle:

RGVforme

23rd February 2016, 14:44

Its a lie, life does not exist beyond the Bombays. Neither does decent coffee.

Life does....Intelligent life is another story lol.

Moi

23rd February 2016, 14:59

You need to get out more. :whistle:

There's a little cafe in Waverley on the left when travelling north - nice coffee and yummy food... :drool:
plus a big verandah to park under while it rained :2thumbsup

The cafe in Bennydale is worth stopping at as well... :niceone:

Moi

23rd February 2016, 15:01

Life does....Intelligent life is another story lol.

Intelligent life may not exist too far north of the Bombays either... :eek5:

except in very small isolated pockets... :bleh:

pritch

23rd February 2016, 16:16

There's a little cafe in Waverley on the left when travelling north - nice coffee and yummy food... :drool:
plus a big verandah to park under while it rained :2thumbsup

The cafe in Bennydale is worth stopping at as well... :niceone:

These days we are lucky, there are some fine cafes around the country side.

NZ coffee used to be crap. Then I visited Europe and tasted the great coffee that was available everywhere there.

Now though, there seem to be small scale coffee roasters around the country and some of these people are doing a great job. Fortunately for me there is one here in town of truly international class, so I don't need to go anywhere near Ponsonby to enjoy a good caffeine fix.

Moi

23rd February 2016, 16:25

These days we are lucky, there are some fine cafes around the country side.

NZ coffee used to be crap. Then I visited Europe and tasted the great coffee that was available everywhere there.

Now though, there seem to be small scale coffee roasters around the country and some of these people are doing a great job. Fortunately for me there is one here in town of truly international class, so I don't need to go anywhere near Ponsonby to enjoy a good caffeine fix.

Agree, have found some really great little cafes away from the so-called civilised areas...

also, depends on how you drink coffee... as far as I'm concerned it should be either an espresso or small long black...:niceone:

can't stand coffee that has been ruined by stuff being added to it... apart from a little hot water...

Isn't that why we ride? to go from one cafe to the next sampling excellent coffee and delicious ginger crunch, especially if it has lumps of crystallised ginger in it...