ACC proposals on motorcycle levies [Archive]

willytheekid

15th October 2015, 08:18

:oi-grr:Not interested (...and I couldn't find the option to leave a "virtual turd" on there website :confused:)

I'm sure ACC will just ignore all the commonsense suggestions posted, and will just TELL us all what there new increase in charges are for...again!

Hence...there's a bike in my shed that hasn't seen a rego for quite some time now ;)...and its gonna stay that way till they can provide the cover they promise, and at a price that is not bordering on extortion! (That money is now paying for REAL health insurance that will actually cover me when the NEXT drunk driver tries to kill me:angry2:)

And its the amount of motorcyclists NOT paying there rego anymore, that is the MAIN reason for this new BS "review"....there not worried about motorcyclists or the public they are ripping off...the lost income is hurting them!...and they want there profits back!...END OF STORY!

316567

bogan

15th October 2015, 08:25

Motorcycling brings a higher level of risk per kilometre travelled compared with other modes of transport.

Vehicle licensing still not charged per kilometre you thunderous shitlords.

And I just love paying (allegedly) the highest levy bracket for my LAMS approved bike... safe!

TheDemonLord

15th October 2015, 08:55

Vehicle licensing still not charged per kilometre you thunderous shitlords.

And I just love paying (allegedly) the highest levy bracket for my LAMS approved bike... safe!

Yep - my old GSX650 FU - over 600 CC bracket - made 40hp pays the same as my 'Busa - that makes close to 200, and pays more than a GSX-R600 that made 100 HP

Someone at ACC is a fuckwit.

swarfie

15th October 2015, 09:10

EVERYone at ACC is a fuckwit.

Fixed that for you....you're welcome:niceone:

swarfie

15th October 2015, 09:19

Taken from that site.

"You will however receive a discount through the levy you pay on your petrol. Non-petrol driven motorcycles’ levies will reduce in line with the petrol levy decrease."

Like that's going to benefit a lot of us motorcyclists...most generous of them. You're right TDL they're :tugger:

Akzle

15th October 2015, 11:32

nodrog

15th October 2015, 11:33

nodrog

15th October 2015, 11:49

No its you and the other poster who is retarded. Maybe it will take you being knocked off your bike by a car driver in the wrong to see the fault in your thinking about me.

I think you need to go to The Derek Zoolander School for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Want to Do Other Stuff Good Too.

I said Retarted, I don't think you would make a fully funcitioning Retard.

willytheekid

15th October 2015, 12:10

No its you and the other poster who is retarded. Maybe it will take you being knocked off your bike by a car driver in the wrong to see the fault in your thinking about me.

:laugh::killingme:lol:...That mans been knocked off more bikes than you have had hot dinners mate...and yet...HE'S not the one on here constantly showing signs of brain damage!...go figure eh :shifty:

316568

TheDemonLord

15th October 2015, 12:27

I debated this subject some time back on here with the suggestion that car drivers who are at fault in motorbike crashes are charged the top motorcycle level premium for life but many on here thought that was unfair so nothing will change. It would be real simple to change too and result in a more careful attitude towards motorcyclists maybe. Under the present system all crashes are our own fault irrespective of whether another party was the cause. This Kiwibiker site is the wrong site to debate this as the majority support the status quo from my experience debating on here.

Woah! way to draw conclusions there.

There are 2 schools of thought (and I agree in part with both of them)

School one says that ACC should factor in fault in accidents and then adjust levies accordingly - I tend to subscribe more to this line of reasoning
School two says that ACC's inception was based on a no fault everyone pays equally model and that the current ACC model is a bastardized hybrid between this and insurance, and should be brought back to it's founding principle (there is merit in this argument)

Me personally - I'm just working on an RPG based active protection system*, so that the next fucker that pulls out in front of me won't make the same mistake again... Ever.... and I will be safe and ride home, and the Car ACC rates will skyrocket.

*I may not actually be working on it, but it makes a nice idea to engage in a little hypothetical thought experiment and some reducto ad absurdium about the inherent failings of current ACC policy.

nodrog

15th October 2015, 13:08

what if I'm a motorcyclist who ran over a car? do I pay 150%?

what if I'm a motorcyclist who ran over another motorcyclist while driving a car? do I pay 200%?

what if I'm a motorcyclist who ran over another motorcyclist while riding a Lams approved Harley Davidson ? do I pay 400%?

Do I get a discount if I take out a bus with my motorcycle?

What if I run out onto a pedestrian crossing and clothesline a motorcyclist? do I get a 100% discount, and bonus points?

What if I run you over in my car, stop to see if you are alive, find out you have only got a broken arm, realise I'm going to get expensive rego, so I reverse back over you several times so you are dead, then I just blame you? Do I get flybuys?

TheDemonLord

15th October 2015, 14:14

At last someone who is not retarded and can see the logic in my argument (School one) With your School two comment in order to overturn the now no longer original plan of everyone paying the same that would require ACC to face a challenge in the High Court to overturn their current practise. I would imagine such a challenge would be thrown out on the grounds that no govt policy can be enforced in a way as to remain in place forever otherwise all other govt dept changes eg welfare would be challenged in the same way.

Hang on a second - before putting words in my mouth, I don't agree with your theory, it's Arbitrary and unreasonable (just like your views of speed and what is fast vs too fast) your second point is a massive strawman "if department A reverts a policy change, then all departments that have ever made a policy change will have to revert as well" - what a load of Claptrap!

Nodrog's critique of your idea is a good place to start.

ACC needs to do things better (a good place to start would be separating the registered Motorbike accidents from all the un-registered Motorbike accidents) then seeing how the cost of Motocycles compares, then do an analysis of fault vs cost.

I would hazard a guess that if a car is involved, the cost will increase - it would be interesting to see what the data tells us in terms of cost of injury vs fault.

Shaun Harris

15th October 2015, 14:36

nodrog

15th October 2015, 14:38

What if ya get the fuk off of here and go and do some work ta sterer lol

this is my job.

shouldn't you be stickering up my bike?

TheDemonLord

15th October 2015, 16:27

You sound like you are flip flopping from you previous post. If you read your school 1 theory again you say do you not that your thinking is towards those at fault having to pay more than those not at fault do you not?

Okay - consider this: We both think that those at fault should pay - you suggest that the solution is to kill those at fault, and I disagree with this course of action and then in your retort you say that I am changing my position.

You will note that my position has not changed, what you may not do is to say that since we agree on the issue of fault, that I must therefore agree with your proposed solution to fix the fault.

Nodrogs comment was no critique for the simple reason they did not produce a better solution and just got their kicks from attacking mine.

No, it was a perfectly valid critique - engaging in reducto ad absurdum - taking your idea to an extreme to show how ill-thought out it is.

My solution would work as it is applied to vehicle insurance policies in that you pay a higher premium if your accident history is through your own fault.

Except you are saying that any accident, at any point of time is grounds for permanent increase in Levies - this is Arbitrary - Even Insurance companies aren't that bad (I think the criteria is 5-7 years worth of history)

ACC does need to do a separation as in the cost of accidents where the rider is at fault as opposed to where they are not and if accidents where the rider is not at fault cost the most the cost needs to be shifted to other parties.

Firstly, based on the stats available to us - there is no way to determine the big IF there - which is whether or not accidents where the rider is at fault cost more or less than accidents where they aren't - I suspect that where a car is involved and is at fault that they may cost more - but I do not have sufficient evidence to say this is so.

Secondly - you completely contradict yourself - if the costs aren't separated out on a ledger - how can one determine which accident type costs more?

Non registered recreational offroad riding is covered by the earner premium that covers all other recreational sports/pursuits. If you read ACC policy they claim motorcycle ACC claim are still part subsidised by other vehicles which would certainly no longer be the case if those at fault were charged instead.

Whilst non-registered off-road riding may be covered by the Earner premium, it doesn't stop them from using these accidents when presenting their statistics. I suspect this may be to increase the number of 'single rider, no other vehicle' accidents in relation to other types of accidents to continue the narrative that All motorcyclists are near-suicidal nut jobs - but again, we don't have sufficient data to be able to prove or disprove this.

Whilst the notion of subsidization may be solved by attributing fault - it still leaves us where we started which is your idea for arbitrary and unreasonable levies to be a bad idea, almost as bad as some of ACCs current policies.

There is a final point on this - although I tend towards attributing fault, there is a good argument to be made from those against this notion: If it were implemented, then ACC would be compulsory insurance that one cannot opt out of, if one preferred to have private insurance - this creates a monopoly of sorts and monopolies are typically inefficient and woefully mismanaged - If one could opt out of ACC on proof of sufficient insurance cover, then this point may be rendered moot, but can you see a government department allowing people to 100% opt out, resorting to private alternatives? even those with private health care still have to pay taxes to fund the DHB.

nodrog

15th October 2015, 16:40

You sound like you are flip flopping from you previous post. If you read your school 1 theory again you say do you not that your thinking is towards those at fault having to pay more than those not at fault do you not?
Nodrogs comment was no critique for the simple reason they did not produce a better solution and just got their kicks from attacking mine.
My solution would work as it is applied to vehicle insurance policies in that you pay a higher premium if your accident history is through your own fault.

ACC does need to do a separation as in the cost of accidents where the rider is at fault as opposed to where they are not and if accidents where the rider is not at fault cost the most the cost needs to be shifted to other parties. Non registered recreational offroad riding is covered by the earner premium that covers all other recreational sports/pursuits. If you read ACC policy they claim motorcycle ACC claim are still part subsidised by other vehicles which would certainly no longer be the case if those at fault were charged instead.

What if I ride into a taxi and it drives into me, over a blind rise hill, where both of us haven't braked, on an unmarked dual direction single carriage way, in Te Aroha, in the Dark, kilometres from any witnesses, and both me and Ranjeet the taxi driver are knocked out and spend 3 years in a coma, and both suffer permanent memory loss, whos rego are they upping?

working that shit out will be far easier than your cluster fuck of an idea.

The fairest and easiest way is to have a proper user pays scheme where every year you pay appropriate fees for specific classes on your drivers licence, that way nobody is paying multiple times for 1 service (in the case of multi vehicle ownership).

yes some tard will say "what if you drive without the right class of licence?" dicks that will do that are doing that shit now, and last time I looked that's what the police are employed for not ACC.

Even though that's really simple to implement, its not going to make ACC any real money, so they do it like they do now - simple with the biggest financial gain.

yeah its not fair, but neither is a niggers arsehole.

Akzle

15th October 2015, 16:47

No its you and the other poster who is retarded. Maybe it will take you being knocked off your bike by a car driver in the wrong to see the fault in your thinking about me.

Okay - consider this: We both think that those at fault should pay - you suggest that the solution is to kill those at fault, and I disagree with this course of action and then in your retort you say that I am changing my position.

You will note that my position has not changed, what you may not do is to say that since we agree on the issue of fault, that I must therefore agree with your proposed solution to fix the fault.

No, it was a perfectly valid critique - engaging in reducto ad absurdum - taking your idea to an extreme to show how ill-thought out it is.

Except you are saying that any accident, at any point of time is grounds for permanent increase in Levies - this is Arbitrary - Even Insurance companies aren't that bad (I think the criteria is 5-7 years worth of history)

Firstly, based on the stats available to us - there is no way to determine the big IF there - which is whether or not accidents where the rider is at fault cost more or less than accidents where they aren't - I suspect that where a car is involved and is at fault that they may cost more - but I do not have sufficient evidence to say this is so.

Secondly - you completely contradict yourself - if the costs aren't separated out on a ledger - how can one determine which accident type costs more?

Whilst non-registered off-road riding may be covered by the Earner premium, it doesn't stop them from using these accidents when presenting their statistics. I suspect this may be to increase the number of 'single rider, no other vehicle' accidents in relation to other types of accidents to continue the narrative that All motorcyclists are near-suicidal nut jobs - but again, we don't have sufficient data to be able to prove or disprove this.

Whilst the notion of subsidization may be solved by attributing fault - it still leaves us where we started which is your idea for arbitrary and unreasonable levies to be a bad idea, almost as bad as some of ACCs current policies.

There is a final point on this - although I tend towards attributing fault, there is a good argument to be made from those against this notion: If it were implemented, then ACC would be compulsory insurance that one cannot opt out of, if one preferred to have private insurance - this creates a monopoly of sorts and monopolies are typically inefficient and woefully mismanaged - If one could opt out of ACC on proof of sufficient insurance cover, then this point may be rendered moot, but can you see a government department allowing people to 100% opt out, resorting to private alternatives? even those with private health care still have to pay taxes to fund the DHB.

"arguing with cassina is like wrestling a pig. It doesnt achive anything, you end up bombarded in shit and the pig enjoys it"

TheDemonLord

15th October 2015, 16:51

"arguing with cassina is like wrestling a pig. It doesnt achive anything, you end up bombarded in shit and the pig enjoys it"

It's okay - I've argued with Yokel and Katman - I've got a phD in this

AllanB

15th October 2015, 17:48

Can I replace Dot 3 brake fluid with Dot 4?

Akzle

15th October 2015, 18:15

. To sum up then I take it...

....up the arse....

Akzle

15th October 2015, 18:17

It's okay - I've argued with Yokel and Katman - I've got a phD in this

the problem being that their levels of correctness >0%

katman probably >90%.

Yokel. Well. Yokel=yokel. I think you'll agree.

Berries

15th October 2015, 18:18

Hang on a second - before putting words in my mouth, I don't agree with your theory, it's Arbitrary and unreasonable (just like your views of speed and what is fast vs too fast) your second point is a massive strawman "if department A reverts a policy change, then all departments that have ever made a policy change will have to revert as well" - what a load of Claptrap!
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Cs0IfPxvHmU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

mfc10chars

TheDemonLord

15th October 2015, 19:49

Firstly I have never said that those at fault should be killed so you really have a warped idea like no dog of my view.

Do any of these words mean anything to you:

Hyperbole, Exaggeration, reducto ad absurdum, overstatement

I know that you never said anyone should be killed, I was emphasizing the mistake in saying:

I believe X and propose Y, therefore anyone else who believes X must also agree with Y, anyone who disagrees with Y cannot believe X

by using an exaggerated position to highlight the fallacy.

As for the rest of your ramble you do not come up with a solution to the issue of bikes having to pay more

Any proposed solution must be better than the current one, yours is Arbitrary and unreasonable.

and to think you doubt that a car hitting a bike generally speaking would cost more than a rider falling off on their own I would have thought the law of physics would make that obvious but not to you which is odd.

So, you want to play the physics game: without defining any of the parameters it is impossible to determine which accident would result in a greater ACC claim - certainly any system that involves a car is going to involve a larger amount of energy (thanks to E = 1/2 * (MV2)) but how that energy is dissipated is what determines the severity of the accident. To use an analogy - a rider who highsides at 100 kph and gets hit by his bike, before wrapping around a guardrail is going to be worse off than the rider who gets clipped by a car, low sides and slides (relatively) safely down the road.

You will also note as well that I said:

I suspect that where a car is involved and is at fault that they may cost more - but I do not have sufficient evidence to say this is so.

So, either you are deliberately ignoring the points I raise to continue your rhetoric or you lack basic English comprehension skills. Your inability above to realize hyperbole when used against you does suggest the latter.

To sum up then I take it you are happier with the status quo despite giving me an illusion you are not from your previous post otherwise you would come up with a black and white solution as I have done.

No, again - you setup a strawman - I am not happy with the status quo, but your solution is equally retarded. As final proof of your mental immaturity - I want to draw your attention to this line:

you would come up with a black and white solution as I have done.

The world is not black and white, there are an infinitesimal number of grey areas between - this is why you cannot comprehend why Fast can be safe - because of your apparent world view (by your words and actions) must be that everything is Black and White - there is no Black and White Solution, there is only a solution that is better than the current one (or if you are a pessimist, less shit than the current one).

To proclaim that you have a one-size fits all solution that will work is the height of ignorance and the height of arrogance - maybe you should try a career in politics?

If you want an alternative suggestion:

It starts with getting much better data from ACC, removing erroneous results and then calculating mean cost for various types of common scenarios. Once we have that data, we can extrapolate out the most equitable solution so that everyone pays accordingly.

Akzle

15th October 2015, 20:01

fuck i hate accountants :yawn:

Do any of these words mean anything to you:

Hyperbole, Exaggeration, reducto ad absurdum, overstatement

I know that you never said anyone should be killed, I was emphasizing the mistake in saying:

I believe X and propose Y, therefore anyone else who believes X must also agree with Y, anyone who disagrees with Y cannot believe X

by using an exaggerated position to highlight the fallacy.

Any proposed solution must be better than the current one, yours is Arbitrary and unreasonable.

So, you want to play the physics game: without defining any of the parameters it is impossible to determine which accident would result in a greater ACC claim - certainly any system that involves a car is going to involve a larger amount of energy (thanks to E = 1/2 * (MV2)) but how that energy is dissipated is what determines the severity of the accident. To use an analogy - a rider who highsides at 100 kph and gets hit by his bike, before wrapping around a guardrail is going to be worse off than the rider who gets clipped by a car, low sides and slides (relatively) safely down the road.

You will also note as well that I said:

So, either you are deliberately ignoring the points I raise to continue your rhetoric or you lack basic English comprehension skills. Your inability above to realize hyperbole when used against you does suggest the latter.

No, again - you setup a strawman - I am not happy with the status quo, but your solution is equally retarded. As final proof of your mental immaturity - I want to draw your attention to this line:

The world is not black and white, there are an infinitesimal number of grey areas between - this is why you cannot comprehend why Fast can be safe - because of your apparent world view (by your words and actions) must be that everything is Black and White - there is no Black and White Solution, there is only a solution that is better than the current one (or if you are a pessimist, less shit than the current one).

To proclaim that you have a one-size fits all solution that will work is the height of ignorance and the height of arrogance - maybe you should try a career in politics?

If you want an alternative suggestion:

It starts with getting much better data from ACC, removing erroneous results and then calculating mean cost for various types of common scenarios. Once we have that data, we can extrapolate out the most equitable solution so that everyone pays accordingly.

haydes55

15th October 2015, 20:34

ACC covers any accident, regardless of fault. Surely everyone should pay, regardless of risk?

ACC should be paid as a income tax. Everyone pays evenly.

Vehicles are not the only causes of ACC claims, near enough to 99% of the population use a vehicle at least once a week (probably). Vehicles aren't even the biggest cost to claims. Why are they even charged? Social sports clubs don't get charged ACC levies, housewives don't get charged extra ACC levies. Drunk guys at a BBQ aren't charged extra ACC before they say "watch this".

I've been taken care of by ACC from playing hockey, racing speedway, horsing around and from a push bike. Never once had ACC pay for a single injury from a road crash. Yet I've only been charged for riding on the road.

Yes I know, everyone's different, some people have only ever cost ACC in vehicle crashes. But they are the minority. 99.9% of kiwis earn an income, surely this is what should fund the 100% of people's health care.

Why is ACC a separate entity at all? Why does it need income, case managers, admin staff, call centres, office buildings, advertising etc. When the government could just implement free health care? Increase taxes a percentage. Have auditors at hospitals monitoring who is receiving medical care and why. Allow OSH to punish unsafe work places. Save the country billions.

Yes I'm aware the start of this post has a different point to the end of this post. I changed my mind.

Obamacare for NZ! Haha

nodrog

15th October 2015, 20:37

Firstly I have never said that those at fault should be killed so you really have a warped idea like no dog of my view. As for the rest of your ramble you do not come up with a solution to the issue of bikes having to pay more and to think you doubt that a car hitting a bike generally speaking would cost more than a rider falling off on their own I would have thought the law of physics would make that obvious but not to you which is odd. To sum up then I take it you are happier with the status quo despite giving me an illusion you are not from your previous post otherwise you would come up with a black and white solution as I have done.

I think you are retarted.

TheDemonLord

15th October 2015, 21:01

Its funny how you say the solution is not black and white when ACC itself has made a decision that all motorcyclists irrespective of who is at fault will pay more and that is very black and white if you ask me.

Do you not see the contradiction: Black and White solutions are bad when ACC do them, to fix them I shall propose a Black and White Solution!

I could not see any statistics proving such a decision to be fair.

Correct - all the relevant information is not available - so rather than jump to conclusions without the relevant information, it would seem wiser to get said information first.

You sound like a person who is into beuracracy with your inability to come up with an opposing idea to the status quo.

Or I could be a person who is into understanding something before making a suggestion on how to fix it, instead of knee-jerking based on my own personal experience.

I notice on another website some bikers who want the ACC for bikers to come down want a $40,000 movie funded by other motorcyclists to cause it too happen. I dont see ACC being influenced by the movie either as it is obvious they are set in their way.

Thats nice, who cares?

For the ACC to come down all bikers need to be united in how they want it to happen which is not going to happen unless everybiker had been knocked off though the fault of another party and only then would there be agreement on the most sensible solution being to hit those who cause accidents with higher premiums.

Suppose I agree in part about the higher premiums part - your suggestion on how to implement this was completely naive and it doesn't address the problem of it being a monopolised compulsory insurance.

Berries

17th October 2015, 07:58

I thought bikies were what you dipped in your tea?

Bikies-to-rally-in-protest-of-unfair-acc-levies (https://nz.news.yahoo.com/top-stories/a/29835655/bikies-to-rally-in-protest-of-unfair-acc-levies/)

GrayWolf

17th October 2015, 09:20

here we go again, bleat, bleat, bleat........
They put out a 'negotiating' figure, we bit, and got it 'reduced'? to 500, walked away thinking we'd won?
Bikoi, we had our chance to REALLY show some teeth, and rolled over baaaa'ing like sheep... they played a better game, they won, they know it.
Suck it up buttercups, coz we blew it.

Digitdion

17th October 2015, 09:41

People need to stop bleating BS on kiwibiker about ACC unfairly targeting motorcyclists and actually do something constructive to try for change.
Constructive would be using the link at the start of this thread and give ACC rational feedback. Backed up by a solid argument to help out our issue of being unfairly targeted by ACC with big ACC levies.
For me it's simple. Why are motorcyclists targeted when cyclists, pedestrians, rugby players, skiers, foriegners traveling here, going hiking in the mountains for days dressed in sandals and t shirt. Then getting airlifted out by helicopter with hyperthermia at taxpayer expense.
If they single out motorcyclists, they must also target everyother user group That are disproportional when it comes to ACC directly recieving income compare to there costs for there treatment.
So with ACC's theory or argument they should therefore impose a direct levy on everybody who walks down the street and crosses a road. Imagine that. Every one having to pay a pedestrian ACC levy. Yeah it's stupid. But that's how I interpret ACC's argument who Motorcyclists should pay more.

So to answer ACC's reasonings. Yes I do think that Car users should subsidize ( as they say) motorcyclists injury care.

Chur!

bogan

17th October 2015, 10:25

The reality is most motorcyclists on KB anyway are happy to pay whatever. Out of all the members of this site very few have posted in this thread and some of those who have, have attacked my idea of shifting the higher motorcycle cost to those who are actually at fault. Maybe they have actually been at fault themselves for the reason to have the attitude they have.

Or those who don't pay at all. That's cos its a shit idea. Though perhaps we should at least partially defer to your vast experience of having at-fault accidents.

bogan

17th October 2015, 11:12

Dummy if I was at fault in my accidents why would I advocate those at fault having to pay more???? Grow a brain!!!!!

Because you received debilitating head injuries in those same accidents? Another option could be that you don't make decisions based solely on what benefits you (though I think the former is more likey). In any case you've described a number of at fault accidents you've been in so that point is not up for discussion.

nodrog

17th October 2015, 11:37

onearmedbandit

17th October 2015, 12:28

The reality is most motorcyclists on KB anyway are happy to pay whatever. Out of all the members of this site very few have posted in this thread and some of those who have, have attacked my idea of shifting the higher motorcycle cost to those who are actually at fault. Maybe they have actually been at fault themselves for the reason to have the attitude they have.

Or because this topic has been done over plenty of times here before and a lot of people don't want to get into a debate with you over it...

onearmedbandit

17th October 2015, 12:42

You are correct if few want to debate or agree with my view it must mean the majority are happy as i said in my previous post.

No it doesn't. It amazes me the conclusions you jump to. It could also mean (don't take this personally as I don't know you) that they don't like you, or don't care what you have to say, or have discussed this topic before and don't want to waste keyboard time. It does not mean 'must mean the majority are happy...'.

nodrog

17th October 2015, 12:43

You have not come up with a better idea have you so who is the retard ????? Forget about things going back to the old system as the money has come from somewhere and no better than from those at fault.

once again, I said Retart not Retard.

I have come up with a far better solution, I have also specified why it (along with any other ideas) will never be implemented.

You may find this of some help - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bxm5QhZIgAAAWtK.jpg

Digitdion

17th October 2015, 13:00

Well I guess my point has been proven regarding some people talking to much BS instead of actually being constructive.

FJRider

17th October 2015, 13:01

Forget about things going back to the old system as the money has come from somewhere and no better than from those at fault.

The money comes from those ... that it can be taken from NOW ... regardless of whom is at fault.

Perhaps ... the Government just bump up the Tax rates another 15% - 20% ... Result ...no ACC levies ... Problem solved (and fairly) <_<

bogan

17th October 2015, 14:23

With an at fault based fee structure there is incentive for better road safety is there not ?

No. Because most of us think not receiving a head injury is incentive enough :facepalm:

Berries

17th October 2015, 14:24

You are correct if few want to debate or agree with my view it must mean the majority are happy.
No. It is simply that you are impossible to debate with. You misinterpret the words in front of you, alter their intent and are prone to go off on tangents referring to someone who once agreed with you in some other thread meaning you must be right.

It takes two people to have a debate. Unfortunately my head hurts from banging the desk when I read some of your posts and I know there is no point responding because I know exactly how the thread will play out.

FJRider

17th October 2015, 14:27

You sound like you do not want to improve road safety by wanting all taxpayers to pay whether they are at fault or not. With an at fault based fee structure there is incentive for better road safety is there not ?

And when those who are at fault ... with no money ... who pays then .. ???

And will it then be safer on the road ... ???

onearmedbandit

17th October 2015, 14:42

No. It is simply that you are impossible to debate with. You misinterpret the words in front of you, alter their intent and are prone to go off on tangents referring to someone who once agreed with you in some other thread meaning you must be right.

It takes two people to have a debate. Unfortunately my head hurts from banging the desk when I read some of your posts and I know there is no point responding because I know exactly how the thread will play out.

This is my point.

nodrog

17th October 2015, 14:56

oneofsix

17th October 2015, 15:19

So then to use an analogy the fact you can get a fine if you are caught over the speed limit is no incentive to keep to the speed limit? People without registration through having no money still have to pay eg community service vehicle confiscation. So there is no escape if you cant pay. Most people can, otherwise the registration fees would definitly drop.

nope, because the people who can't pay don't make the rules, over paid rich farts make the rules People who cant pay, don't pay, don't turn up to community service unless a group of their mates will be there also. Vehicle confiscation just means they can't get a job even if they wanted to so can't pay taxes, can only cost. Yep really sounds like a win win. :crazy:

Katman

17th October 2015, 15:27

Out of all the members of this site very few have posted in this thread and some of those who have, have attacked my idea of shifting the higher motorcycle cost to those who are actually at fault.

Have you ever actually stopped to work out who is usually at fault in a motorcycle crash?

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but when you combine single vehicle crashes with multi-vehicle crashes, the motorcyclist carries the whole, primary, or partial blame more than 60% of the time.

Katman

17th October 2015, 15:38

onearmedbandit

17th October 2015, 15:42

Have you ever actually stopped to work out who is usually at fault in a motorcycle crash?

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but when you combine single vehicle crashes with multi-vehicle crashes, the motorcyclist carries the whole, primary, or partial blame more than 60% of the time.

Agreed.

And furthermore, in the multi-vehicle crashes where the motorcyclist (supposedly) carries none of the blame there is probably a fairly high percentage that can be attributed to the motorcyclist not concentrating sufficiently on what they're doing.

And agreed. Just motorcyclists and their loved ones don't want to hear this. Saw someone's partner of a member on here stating on FB that over 80% of motorcycle accidents were the fault of car drivers...

FJRider

17th October 2015, 16:35

nope, because the people who can't pay don't make the rules, over paid rich farts make the rules People who cant pay, don't pay, don't turn up to community service unless a group of their mates will be there also. Vehicle confiscation just means they can't get a job even if they wanted to so can't pay taxes, can only cost. Yep really sounds like a win win. :crazy:

What he said ... plus ... the poor hurting motorcyclists that these pricks run into ... need their bills paid.

AND ... as I asked you earlier ... WHO PAYS THEN ..???? I'm guessing the tax payer.

nodrog

17th October 2015, 16:59

Berries

17th October 2015, 17:19

Case dismissed.

FJRider

17th October 2015, 17:21

And furthermore, in the multi-vehicle crashes where the motorcyclist (supposedly) carries none of the blame there is probably a fairly high percentage that can be attributed to the motorcyclist not concentrating sufficiently on what they're doing.

I agree ... But plain and simply ... even the most skilled and experienced motorcyclists are still at risk from those motorists (on two wheels AND four) who have no regard whatsoever for the interests and safety of any (other than themselves).

And even those motorcyclists can be the subject of circumstances beyond their control. I believe it would be ignorant to claim that motorcycling is (and/or .. should be [in legislation]) free of the risk of injury.

At best we can reduce the risk of injury ... or be prepared to take responsibility in the times we don't.

Oblivion

17th October 2015, 17:25

FJRider

17th October 2015, 17:36

Or to simplify what you have just said you are happy with the current ACC postion that the motorcyclist should pay more for the simple reason its their own silly fault for owning a motorcycle and not a car, irrespective of who is at fault.

Few own a motorcycle and not risk health and lives by riding it. Simply owning a motorcycle is not the cause of ACC policy. It's just the end result of how many have ridden in the past. And still do.

I bet your thinking and the thinking of a few others on this MB would change if you were knocked off through the fault of someone else but whoever that someone else is you could likely let them off by saying you were not concertrating too eh?

Many have and will give up riding for this very reason. If you can't take the risk ... I might suggest you do the same.

For our safety at least .. :blank:

FJRider

17th October 2015, 18:34

And you think its fair we pay more as a result of indirect variables? That would be like when one car hits another car and despite only one car being at fault the driver of the other car is charged too due to "indirect variables" While I dont doubt that in accidents fault can be attributed to both parties generally speaking for the majority this is not the case and you are just being semantical.

An indirect variable can be ... when a vehicle pulls out in front of a motorcycle on a wet day. Reduced braking ability meaning the bike cannot stop in time. In the dry they might be able to. Is the biker still at fault ..???

Poor decisions kill ... be it your decisions ... or another's ... fault is not as cut and dry as you often suggest.

nodrog

17th October 2015, 18:49

Or to simplify what you have just said you are happy with the current ACC postion that the motorcyclist should pay more for the simple reason its their own silly fault for owning a motorcycle and not a car, irrespective of who is at fault. I bet your thinking and the thinking of a few others on this MB would change if you were knocked off through the fault of someone else but whoever that someone else is you could likely let them off by saying you were not concertrating too eh?

Your keyboard seems to be running out of full stops, I'll donate you some of mine.

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .....

FJRider

17th October 2015, 18:51

I get you message sport either pay up or give up. What I dont know though is how many other motorcyclists out there think the same way as you and the few others who have entered into the debate.

The ACC policy is (currently) the only game in town. And seems unlikely to change any time soon. My advise is get your own private health insurance. If you NEED medical assistance ... you get it NOW. NO waiting lists ... NO delay. And back on the road sooner.

ACC policy is based on the financial drain on the countries medical resources by motorcyclists (or risk thereof) ... reduce that drain ... and ACC might change their policy.

That change may also come about by the change of attitude by all motorcyclists ... be careful where you point the finger of blame. And don't be too quick to point the finger either .... blame can be a double edged sword.

FJRider

17th October 2015, 18:57

So by your warped sense of justice you would fine both the car driver and bike rider an equal amount then? In case you didnt know cars do not have as much traction in the wet either so if it was car v car I guess it will still be equal blame by your thinking too.

Best you google indirect variables. Car vs car or car vs bike ... similar result. In a car vs bike ... the result is seldom equal. Even a thick bitch as you appear to be ... would understand that.

And is English your second language .. ??? :scratch:

FJRider

17th October 2015, 19:24

You really need to be knocked off your bike as a result of someone elses fault before you will see any sense in my argument. You argument would only make sense to me if all motorcyclists came to grief as a result of THEIR OWN FAULT which is not the case if you care to do some research.

I have been ... and STILL see NO sense in your assertions. And I ask myself if there was anything I could have done that could have changed the result. Seldom was the answer NO. Experience (which you obviously lack) would be a great benefit to you.

Even you are aware (well .. should be) that when you ride .. there is a risk you will be involved in a motor vehicle (or other type) accident. YOU took a risk .. so a portion of blame is yours. If you can't take a risk ... stay in bed. You might be of some better use to somebody there at least ... ;)

A (too) large a number of motorcyclists DO come to grief on their own accord. Will you be the next one .. ??

nodrog

17th October 2015, 19:33

You really need to be knocked off your bike as a result of someone elses fault before you will see any sense in my argument.

That's like saying everybody needs to be murdered before they can see the sense in murder.

bogan

17th October 2015, 19:56

You really need to be knocked off your bike as a result of someone elses fault before you will see any sense in my argument.

Done that. Your argument is still irrecoverably senseless.

caseye

17th October 2015, 21:19

We could all say if we had stayed in bed that day we would have avoided being hit by the muppet too and like you I would have been better to have stayed in bed on the days I was hit by muppets but we all never know what days they will be eh??

Was I you, I'd stop riding motorcycles, because you are going to get hit by other vehicles again, and again, do the same thing every time and expect a different result you are either extremely silly or so bloody minded as to think you're not doing something wrong!

Akzle

17th October 2015, 21:25

So by your warped sense of justice you would f.

nonononono. What you need to do is stop thinking that you have any clue,

...as to how others think, feel, or their rationale.

Also. Drink a jug of glycol.

T.W.R

17th October 2015, 21:31

Was I you, I'd stop riding motorcycles, because you are going to get hit by other vehicles again, and again, do the same thing every time and expect a different result you are either extremely silly or so bloody minded as to think you're not doing something wrong!
Obviously hes doing something wrong :facepalm: freely stating multiple times being hit points the finger at who the Muppet really is :yes:

T.W.R

17th October 2015, 21:38

Any of us and not just me could get out of bed on the wrong day and get hit by a muppit but not all of us have crystal balls to know when that day will be.
Paranoia is a sign you'd be one dangerous prick at the controls of a motorcycle.

TheDemonLord

17th October 2015, 22:31

I tried to debate earlier in this thread - but it went even to a greater depth of nowhere than previously I thought possible.

So now, I am just sitting here wanking.

It was difficult to do in this thread, but I managed.

Daffyd

18th October 2015, 01:04

I'll prolly be crucified for this, but I would be interested in which classes of bikes feature in the highest number of claims. I have my own ideas but for the moment will keep them to myself.

onearmedbandit

18th October 2015, 06:45

I'll prolly be crucified for this, but I would be interested in which classes of bikes feature in the highest number of claims. I have my own ideas but for the moment will keep them to myself.

Scooters hahaha.

GrayWolf

18th October 2015, 06:52

Any of us and not just me could get out of bed on the wrong day and get hit by a muppit but not all of us have crystal balls to know when that day will be.

I have only one question..... are you JAW's brother? :pinch::brick:

Jin

18th October 2015, 07:53

FJRider

18th October 2015, 08:31

Any of us and not just me could get out of bed on the wrong day and get hit by a muppit but not all of us have crystal balls to know when that day will be.

The wrong day is the one you stop looking for problems and threats. The assumption that ... because you are in "the right' ... and within the bounds of law ... you will be safe ... is a crock of shit. About as pointless as pointing the finger of blame ... afterwards ...

Just expect ANY motorist (with any number of wheels) within 50 meters of you ... to do something so stupid ... that you will need to take some action to avoid them. That way you can start planning on how you can avoid them ... before your choices are limited (or non existent).

FJRider

18th October 2015, 08:44

Scooters hahaha.

Interesting reading here ...

http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Research/Documents/Motorcycles-15.pdf

FJRider

18th October 2015, 09:58

So by your theory then if you stick to the speed limit you are no safer than someone who doesn't? What a crock of shit. Like you I dont always stick to the speed limit myself so we are no safer than each other but I am guessing you would exceed it by a greater amount than me. The statistics you post state the biggest cause of single motorcycle deaths is running off the road and that is far more likely to happen over the speed limit than at it.

No ... my theory was ... that the belief that many have, is that being within the law will keep them safe ... and if they bin it ... it must be someone else's fault.

And all of MY "Off's" were UNDER the posted speed limit. Especially the one's involving other motorists. Were YOUR'S .. ???

Speed is not the dangerous factor. Speed is just one common factor in a lot of accidents. Inability to see possible problems ahead and take steps to avoid them ... is another. Following another motorist too closely ... will put you more at risk of harm than exceeding any posted speed limit. (in my opinion)

Running off the road is more likely in the twisties ... because some retards just can't go round corners. I'd even bet at least one of your "off's" was on a corner.

TheDemonLord

18th October 2015, 10:22

Just expect ANY motorist (with any number of wheels) within 50 meters of you ... to do something so stupid ... that you will need to take some action to avoid them. That way you can start planning on how you can avoid them ... before your choices are limited (or non existent).

This.

1000 times, This.

Trade_nancy

18th October 2015, 10:35

No ... my theory was ... that the belief that many have, is that being within the law will keep them safe ... and if they bin it ... it must be someone else's fault.

And all of MY "Off's" were UNDER the posted speed limit. Especially the one's involving other motorists. Were YOUR'S .. ???

Speed is not the dangerous factor. Speed is just one common factor in a lot of accidents. Inability to see possible problems ahead and take steps to avoid them ... is another. Following another motorist too closely ... will put you more at risk of harm than exceeding any posted speed limit. (in my opinion)

Running off the road is more likely in the twisties ... because some retards just can't go round corners. I'd even bet at least one of your "off's" was on a corner.

Agree - speed is often not the cause..but it is likely the cause of injury being intensified into death. Impact at 50kph in town vs at 90kph for example....a recent example happened in Hutt valley didn't it?
Whereas I expect if I T-bone a car at 100 on the highway - I'm as gone as if I do it at 120. But... maybe at 100 the smidsy offender would have gotten through in front of us...
In a group or on a solo ride I have gotten up there to warp factor 5...have to say if a road-side critter wandered out - as happened to our lead rider one time - a billy-goat wandered in front of his StreetGlide while he was still doing 90-100...after slowing down from 120...his brain chose to drive on and attempt to leap the goat - not to brake...result might have disappointed him..But the goat changed it's mind and about-faced at the exact right split-second. His wife was pillion on back and needed some alcohol at the next stop.
If a goat shot out on me while I'm doing 140 or more - I'd have no reaction time....doesn't stop me taking the risk - but I do it less often and don't believe in arguing that speed is not a serious contender in the blame..it is. It just is not the exclusive cause.

Jin

18th October 2015, 10:45

Some people need to know sporting injuries are covered by the earner premium. My guess if they imposed separate levies for different sports people would stop playing sport and perhaps they figue if people stop playing sport some would turn to crime. I still stand by what I said in that those at fault are the ones that should be paying the most and I think the statistics said in an accident with another vehicle 66% were the fault of the other vehicle.
Yeah and some people need to know there already are separate levies for different sports (which is why i said rugby has the highest risk rating for the EP). And that they only apply to professional players and not amateur sports.

bogan

18th October 2015, 10:49

No have never come off on a corner as I respect the fact there is little room for error so am not retarded. If you look at the statistics it is the mid life crisis age group that are at the most risk of coming to grief as a result of their own fault. Not all midlife crisis age riders are returning riders though and if there was statistics separating the 2 the non returning rider would likely be classed as quite safe as their bike would not have been purchased for ego/image.

Yes you have.

No they aren't, there is just more of them.

That makes three groups...

bogan

18th October 2015, 10:59

Yes I have come off but not on a corner. On icy and wet roads and hit a dog 2 times if you really want to know plus was hit by a car doing a u turn.

You missed out your panic brake front end tuck... (on a corner). Icy and wet roads have corners too btw; these tend to be the fally-off parts due to grip issues not being prevalent in straight lines.

Long fucking list for somebody who 'respect the fact there is little room for error so am not retarded' :whistle:

bogan

18th October 2015, 11:12

Things can happen too quick to panic brake. Something you are yet to experience maybe. There is a saying that there are those who have stacked and those who are yet to stack. It appears some on here do not see it as a possiblity they could ever stack and only retards do it eh?

No, the one where you panicked and locked the front end.

You seem to do so frequently enough to fill both categories, pretty sure only retards do that anyway.

FJRider

18th October 2015, 11:16

If a goat shot out on me while I'm doing 140 or more - I'd have no reaction time....doesn't stop me taking the risk - but I do it less often and don't believe in arguing that speed is not a serious contender in the blame..it is. It just is not the exclusive cause.

I agree ... and there is no risk factor built into ledglislation. That is up to the vehicle operator ... to decide how much risk they choose to take.

I've seen a 1500 gold wing hit a sheep at less than the 100 km/hr limit (he wasn't slowing down either). Not all roads are safe at the posted speed limits ... whatever limit is required.

FJRider

18th October 2015, 11:29

... and hit a dog 2 times if you really want to know plus was hit by a car doing a u turn.

I hope it wasn't the same dog you hit 2 times ... ;) ... that would be retarded (and unlucky for the poor dog) .. :laugh:

FJRider

18th October 2015, 11:46

Some people need to know sporting injuries are covered by the earner premium. My guess if they imposed separate levies for different sports people would stop playing sport and perhaps they figue if people stop playing sport some would turn to crime. I still stand by what I said in that those at fault are the ones that should be paying the most and I think the statistics said in an accident with another vehicle 66% were the fault of the other vehicle.

Using your retarded theory ... and as the large (separate) ACC levy built into the motorcycle registration ... people would stop riding and turn to crime ..

kiwi cowboy

18th October 2015, 12:08

I hope it wasn't the same dog you hit 2 times ... ;) ... that would be retarded (and unlucky for the poor dog) .. :laugh:

Prolly run over it with front AND back wheel = twice:killingme.

Fzr fired up last night almost ready for regd bugger it time to get poorer lol.

You still riding fj?.

Daffyd

18th October 2015, 12:10

The wrong day is the one you stop looking for problems and threats. The assumption that ... because you are in "the right' ... and within the bounds of law ... you will be safe ... is a crock of shit. About as pointless as pointing the finger of blame ... afterwards ...

Just expect ANY motorist (with any number of wheels) within 50 meters of you ... to do something so stupid ... that you will need to take some action to avoid them. That way you can start planning on how you can avoid them ... before your choices are limited (or non existent).

Exactly... I put my three years of accident free ringing in the Philippines down to this very philosophy.

kiwi cowboy

18th October 2015, 12:11

Using your retarded theory ... and as the large (separate) ACC levy built into the motorcycle registration ... people would stop riding and turn to crime ..

Actually FJ I remember when I last layed rugby I had a charge on top or my subs that went straight to acc from every player.

Don't know if that still happens.

FJRider

18th October 2015, 12:25

Actually FJ I remember when I last layed rugby I had a charge on top or my subs that went straight to acc from every player.

Don't know if that still happens.

Did you turn to crime when you stopped playing .. ??

FJRider

18th October 2015, 12:27

Prolly run over it with front AND back wheel = twice:killingme.

Fzr fired up last night almost ready for regd bugger it time to get poorer lol.

You still riding fj?.

Not riding as much as I would like.

kiwi cowboy

18th October 2015, 16:38

Did you turn to crime when you stopped playing .. ??

Does a 116 km speed ticket count?? :innocent: or is this not the best place to talk about speed :facepalm:.
Other than that pretty tame I am:innocent::innocent::innocent::innocent::innocen t:.

Digitdion

18th October 2015, 18:33

My bikes got ABS , traction control etc etc.
Abit simplistic but, if you go by what they are doing with cars why am I not getting an ACC discount because of these safety devices on my bike?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Swoop

18th October 2015, 19:30

You are correct if few want to debate or agree with my view it must mean the majority are happy...
No. Most people here know that you are a retarded cocksucker and choose not to waste their time debating with the mentally insane.

I tried to debate earlier in this thread - but it went even to a greater depth of nowhere than previously I thought possible.
Wise move.

I hope it wasn't the same dog you hit 2 times ... ;) ... that would be retarded (and unlucky for the poor dog) .. :laugh:
I was wondering that when she first posted it. I wouldn't eliminate the fact that it was the same dog. Probably her own and it was attempting to commit suicide to get away from her.

Berries

18th October 2015, 22:45

There is a saying that there are those who have stacked and those who are yet to stack.
A saying that would only come from two groups of people, non riders who don't have a clue and riders who have crashed but believe that it was inevitable and there was nothing they could have done about it. A nice little get out clause that one to save people looking in a mirror too closely.

On icy and wet roads and hit a dog 2 times if you really want to know plus was hit by a car doing a u turn.
You go on about how most motorbike crashes are the fault of a car driver yet I look at these five and only see one that involved another vehicle. And you didn't hit them, oh no, you were hit by them.

It would appear that you are the reason we have to pay so much to ACC.

Berries

19th October 2015, 06:15

There you go with the inevitability again. There is nothing heroic about trying not to crash.

You should try it sometime.

TheDemonLord

19th October 2015, 07:51

There you go with the inevitability again. There is nothing heroic about trying not to crash.

You should try it sometime.

Unless you are trying not to crash while fighting the Evil dragon, from the north lands who is soul bound to the Ancient Dark lord who lurks in the desecrated plains where none return from.

Then it's pretty heroic.

PSYCHO

21st October 2015, 10:47

better stock up on some lube because we're gonna get shafted, and deep, balls deep.

PrincessBandit

23rd October 2015, 15:40

So now, I am just sitting here wanking.

It was difficult to do in this thread, but I managed.

At least you should be deriving some pleasure then? I'd would be a bit worried if flogging the log to cassina's posts was a turn on for you though.

TheDemonLord

23rd October 2015, 16:04

I'd would be a bit worried if flogging the log to cassina's posts was a turn on for you though.

I dunno - glaring logical fallacies have been known to be highly erotic.

PrincessBandit

23rd October 2015, 16:20

I dunno - glaring phalluses have been known to be highly erotic.

Hmmmm, mebbeh

bogan

23rd October 2015, 18:58

I wonder how many of you would still happy for those at fault to not have to pay more, if ACC for over 600cc went to over $2000 which is what they believe is the true cost. I have just read comments on the ACC site and there is no to very little thinking the way you lot think with a few coments from people like me who think those that cause accidents are the ones who should be paying a higher premium.

Feel free to migrate there to be with your own kind then.

Matt Bleck

23rd October 2015, 19:42

I wonder how many of you would still happy for those at fault to not have to pay more, if ACC for over 600cc went to over $2000 which is what they believe is the true cost. I have just read comments on the ACC site and there is no to very little thinking the way you lot think with a few coments from people like me who think those that cause accidents are the ones who should be paying a higher premium.

Ahhhh, you do realize that ACC is a no fault system aye?

The reason your rego is high is because you choose to ride a vehicle that offers no protection in a accident therefore costing ACC more to fix/rehabilitate you regardless of who's fault it was.

TheDemonLord

23rd October 2015, 20:06

Hmmmm, mebbeh

Always back to the Phalluses eh?

bogan

23rd October 2015, 20:10

You are wrong thinking its a no fault system because if that was the case everyone would be paying the same premium would they not? Going by your logic trucks should be paying even less because they can crush a car in the same way a car can crush a bike. Also going by your logic diesel 4WDs must be as unsafe as motorcycles as they cost the same as a big bike to register too.

People like you who blame motorcyclists for being at fault by buying a bike are very much in the minority.

No, since fault is not the same as risk.

You are the one blaming the bikers, with your ideas that those who have crashes should pay more; since the govt has found bikers crash 17x more often.

PrincessBandit

23rd October 2015, 20:11

Always back to the Phalluses eh?

Well, I thought it went quite well pronounced as "phallus-ies".

bogan

23rd October 2015, 20:36

You need to read my previous posts again. I have said those that "ARE AT FAULT" in crashes should be paying more. It is that simple.

So you do want us to be paying 2k regos then? Or are you saying specifically the specific person who falls off should pay for their own treatment? cos that isn't ACC at all, that isn't vehicle rego at all. That isn't any semblance of a good idea at all.

PS, I'm not reading that crap again, I'm allergic to stupidity and barely comprehensible grammar so feel free to go felate a dictionary...

bogan

23rd October 2015, 21:11

Instead of your ramble why not just say you are happy with the current fee structure or maybe paying more irrespective of who is at fault. Now that is putting your ramble/belief into plain english.

I think it you who needs to read more things, the current fee structure overcharges motorcyclists based on socialist healthcare ideals that shit is simply not up for debate. Your proposed system seeks to either increase that ratio of overcharging, or do away with socialist healthcare entirely. Your incoherent mumblings do not specify which.

bogan

23rd October 2015, 21:40

We are overcharged because we do not have a metal cage around us on the road and are considered to be at fault because of it.

risk, not fault.

So what you are saying then for registration to drop the cost of healthcare needs to come down? Well I can tell you that will never happen.

No, for registration to come down for us, it has to go up for others, equalise it across the board (which perhaps ironically, means I wouldn't mind paying twice as much due to multi vehicle ownership.)

ACC have actually invited debate from the public on their website if you care to have a read but

86% of respondants think it’s fair that other road users contribute towards covering motorcycle injuries. That's socialist healthcare. That's what I'd like to see. I know you're shit at words, but to get the message that wrong takes a special kind of moron; so, congrats on that :facepalm:

people who think like me or similar outnumber people like you.
Hahaha, god help us all if that actually ever happens; see above for why you are a completely and utterly wrong to think you speak for anyone but the most deranged moronic window licking oxygen thieving shitlords.

bogan

24th October 2015, 04:06

The only ones that have anything to fear if ACC brings in an at fault premium are those who have a history of being at fault and I think you are one of them. Maybe you should get a bicycle so if you are ever found at fault on that you will not have to pay anything.
So now it's repeat crashers? (how many have you had again? 7?) I've had 0 recorded ones btw, and two pushbikes (which also prevent one from being a fat slag).

We know your ideas are shit so its good to see you changing them, but how about thinking about them a little more first...

Matt Bleck

24th October 2015, 05:30

You are wrong thinking its a no fault system because if that was the case everyone would be paying the same premium would they not? Going by your logic trucks should be paying even less because they can crush a car in the same way a car can crush a bike. Also going by your logic diesel 4WDs must be as unsafe as motorcycles as they cost the same as a big bike to register too.

People like you who blame motorcyclists for being at fault by buying a bike are very much in the minority.
It's not my logic, that's how ACC works. That's why cars with a higher ANCAP rating have a lower rego. People who have accidents in those car's have a lower risk of serious injury.

If you still can't get it go back and read the text in the OPs link its explained there.

And yes if trucks didn't pay road user charges they would have lower rego.

Robbo

24th October 2015, 07:25

You need to read my previous posts again. I have said those that "ARE AT FAULT" in crashes should be paying more. It is that simple.

The problem with that is nobody knows in advance that they are going to have a crash. Some may have a few while many have none.
Although I agree with the concept of ACC and its many benefits, I disagree with its method of collection as it is very one-sided and unfair.
Having been, in the past, a collector of motorcycles as a passionate hobby of mine, I was paying seven ACC levies per year. One on my income, Two on my vehicles and Four on my motorcycles. All this for just the One cover on myself. How can this seriously be considered to be fair?
Prior to ACC being introduced, I used to carry my own private insurance for accident, injury and loss of income. One premium per year and this was calculated by taking into account what your job or profession was and what your hobbies, sports and activities were.
If one of these activities were showing a higher than expected risk one year, for example motorcycle riding, then your next years premiums were adjusted accordingly.
Why ACC did not study and copy a system that was working I do not know, other than to say that when you let a politician loose to do a job you know that in most cases it is going to end up badly.
Sure, a motorcyclist can and often does, sustain injuries that are costly to repair, but so can a sports person or a cyclist and if they don’t own a car then they are only paying one premium per year on their income. This is where the totally unfair and unbalanced method of collection comes in.

GrayWolf

24th October 2015, 09:28

It's not my logic, that's how ACC works. That's why cars with a higher ANCAP rating have a lower rego. People who have accidents in those car's have a lower risk of serious injury.

If you still can't get it go back and read the text in the OPs link its explained there.

And yes if trucks didn't pay road user charges they would have lower rego.

Here's a thought, Canam Spyder's, registered as a car, treated otherwise as a motorcycle. They are starting to gain numbers around the country, and, the new F3, is a whole lot quicker than the old ones. {read an Aussie bike mag review, and on tight twisty bits, he was tracking a sprotbike all the way through them} Now when they have an accident, are the stat's put on bikes or cars? Because, if on cars, it'll start bumping up car healthcare costs.

James Deuce

24th October 2015, 09:53

Why ACC did not study and copy a system that was working I do not know, other than to say that when you let a politician loose to do a job you know that in most cases it is going to end up badly.

Wasn't designed by a politician and it was originally paid by an employer levy because that was the activity with the most risk that most people faced on a day to day basis. It's been fucked with ever since to try and turn a compensation scheme into an Insurance System.

The motorcycle levy increase was predicated by the notion that Insurance companies have to be able to pay out if everyone claimed at the same time. This was because of the hard lessons of the 2008 GFC when the companies that hold most of the world's commercial funds, Insurance companies, were found wanting when their debt was called in leaving practically the entire world's insured-base exposed if anyone claimed. The Christchurch "rebuild" has been such a dire fuck up because it came on the back of the GFC and 3 years later Insurance companies still hadn't learned that they needed to keep their funds solvent instead of investing in vapour. Bye AMI.

Back to ACC. The clever cunts who make up the National party, along with cassina and every other upper middle class fuckhead who think that poor people are taking the piss, decided that ACC had to be fully funded. Not very many stopped to think back then what that meant. It means that instead of a compensation scheme that covers the small percentage of a population who are hurt or permanently incapacitated or killed at any given time, ACC had to have the funds to pay for every Kiwi suddenly becoming a tertraplegic. That was the one fucking point we could have won the whole argument on. Instead "we" fucking bleated on about, "you'll be next", and "it's soooooo unfair".

The basic premise of the levy increase was so fucking dumb as to have been laughed out of a year 10 Enterprise Studies class.

Your Government, that you voted in, thinks you are so fucking thick that you couldn't spot the gaping whole in their theory of funding a compensation scheme. That's because we'd let a previous bunch of cocksucking Labour politicians turn part of it into an Insurance scheme, so the legal/constitutional precedent was available for baby-killing, mother-raping National party Cabinet Ministers to say, "You fullas are thick and we're going to prove it."

mossy1200

24th October 2015, 10:11

We are overcharged because we do not have a metal cage around us on the road and are considered to be at fault because of it. So what you are saying then for registration to drop the cost of healthcare needs to come down? Well I can tell you that will never happen. ACC have actually invited debate from the public on their website if you care to have a read but people who think like me or similar outnumber people like you.

Skiers, horse riders and cyclists don't have metal cages around them or pay 2k acc insurance policy fees.
Only difference is they dont have a way of collecting from them yet.

When they have fuked us over to the point of extinction we will be their success case to base all future minority bullying to come.

Bikemad

24th October 2015, 10:15

While you dont know in advance you are going to crash you do know in advance mostly if you are likely to be at fault eg going through a red light or going over the speed limit. The issue of having to pay ACC on multiple vehicles applies to eveyone and that is not something they are seeking opinion on. You can get around it legally by just registering each for so many months of the year although it still costs a little more than single registration. It is disappointing that all those who have rubbished my view of charging those at fault a higher premium have not come up with an alternative method of premium collection. After reading the posts on the ACC site it seems many do want a fairer system of charging unlike some on here who fear they would be worse off if ACC charged in a fairer way which as I said must be due to them having been at fault or very likely to be at fault the way they ride. At the moment ACC consider motorcyclists to all be at RISK for simply owning a motorcycle.

so you want to charge people who are at Fault more for their premiums........presumably after the event as how would you know who is at fault otherwise......how would that work if the person at fault is killed in the event..........who ya gonna call

bogan

24th October 2015, 10:21

The issue of having to pay ACC on multiple vehicles applies to eveyone and that is not something they are seeking opinion on. You can get around it legally by just registering each for so many months of the year although it still costs a little more than single registration. It is disappointing that all those who have rubbished my view of charging those at fault a higher premium have not come up with an alternative method of premium collection.

Nor are they seeking opinion on removal of ACC in its entirety, or removal on the no-fault aspect. So what is your point?

But we have come up with exactly that. Flat rate. Vehicle or person, there are pros and cons to each, it doesn't really matter which.

If I was upper middle class sport I would be rich enough like you lot (debating with me) to not have an issue with the high ACC premiums we are paying. ACC has been over funded otherwise there would have been no cut to car registration. Maybe the govt feels that as the majority of the voting public own cars it is them they will look after more than motorcyclists with reduced premiums.

Why do you think we are all as self centered as you are? I want bikers to pay less because I think that is fairer. I don't pay rego for my bikes, so if anything I'm arguing for myself to pay more (since I would pay if it were fair. Ironically, you are also arguing for yourself to pay more, but somehow are doing so for selfish reasons; it's convolutedly hilarious; that's why I'm still replying (debating implies you have some degree of validity, you don't).

Robbo

24th October 2015, 11:04

Wasn't designed by a politician and it was originally paid by an employer levy because that was the activity with the most risk that most people faced on a day to day basis. It's been fucked with ever since to try and turn a compensation scheme into an Insurance System.

It may not have been designed directly by a politician but the scheme was sanctioned by the government of the day. Obviously they did'nt see the shortcomings in the design or chose to ignore them.
I was the employer back then so i had to try and recover these imposed costs by passing them onto my customers or absorbing them as best as i could.
As i have already stated, i don't have a problem with paying a fair premium to be covered based on my perceived risk factor but i do object to having to pay multiple times just to cover me. This is the key area that needs to be addressed to make it a level playing field for everyone.

James Deuce

24th October 2015, 11:10

It may not have been designed directly by a politician but the scheme was sanctioned by the government of the day. Obviously they did'nt see the shortcomings in the design or chose to ignore them.
I was the employer back then so i had to try and recover these imposed costs by passing them onto my customers or absorbing them as best as i could.
As i have already stated, i don't have a problem with paying a fair premium to be covered based on my perceived risk factor but i do object to having to pay multiple times just to cover me. This is the key area that needs to be addressed to make it a level playing field for everyone.

The "design" has been completely altered since then. It is not the same animal at all. It is designed to extract funding from as many channels as possible. It's primary function is profit so that the profit can be invested and returned to the general fund.

It's secondary function is a stick to smack "risky" minorities around with publicly.

It was implemented with a single funding stream. Do not conflate the ACC of today with what was implemented in the '70s. The shortcomings you perceive now did not exist then and have been introduced over the the last 4 decades stealthily via changes to both the ACC Act and the Insurance Act. The initial 'Woodhouse Principles" were genius in their simplicity and scope. We're on the cusp of being a society where people over the age of 50 who lose their job because they broke their hand at work end up living in a box.

Robbo

24th October 2015, 11:51

Yep, agreed Jim, it is quite a different beast nowdays and one of its main objectives appears to be to shaft us motorcycle riders.
Surely someone in ACC with half a brain can see and understand the collection system and how unfair it is and come up with
some sensible solutions.

Akzle

24th October 2015, 14:41

Somebody should do something!

bwaaaaahahahahahahah

Robbo

24th October 2015, 15:00

bwaaaaahahahahahahah

HaHa, There ya go Rob, how about we nominate you as our official KB spokesperson

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance just baffle them with bullshit.

I'm sure you can sort them out. Just don't get it wrong and cost us more. LOL

Berries

24th October 2015, 15:19

HaHa, There ya go Rob, how about we nominate you as our official KB spokesperson
Akzle and Cassina would be a match made in heaven.

bogan

24th October 2015, 15:21

Akzle and Cassina would be a match made in heaven.

...and a fantastic case for mandatory sterilisation.

bogan

24th October 2015, 15:30

Anyone who dies as a result of being at fault becomes "paid up" as they impose little or any future cost on the health system.

So, if you kill somebody your rego doesn't go up either? only for maimings? how wonderful...

If everyone knew in advance their registration would double or more if they caused a crash in a year we may actually find the roads becoming safer too.

Some of us actually see debilitating head injuries as bad things in themselves regardless of costs incurred; just in general aren't so plebby that reducing additional cost is a higher priority than our health and wellbeing.

Akzle

24th October 2015, 15:42

Akzle and Cassina would be a match made in heaven.

far queue cant. Far queue.

bogan

24th October 2015, 15:50

Since you dont pay anything at all you have really wasted your time debating. If you come off through your own fault there needs to be a mechanisim to make you pay as you are nothing but a freeloader but I bet you would have no hesitation in paying if they brought in a policy of those without evidence of current ACC cover for the type of vehicle they have, not getting medical attention. I dont actually think there has been a black and white limitation on the sort of submissions ACC have been seeking but from looking at what they are thinking it is little more than juggling the fees (slightly) paid by different ccs of bike. Lets hope they will look outside the square and embrace ideas beyond just juggling fees charged for different ccs as all that will do is increase the market for some bikes and reduce it for others while doing nothing to improve safety as my proposal would.

Pay it on my car and commercial vehicles, and my workplace levy, and my earners levy... I'm not going to come off through my own fault anyway, cos I really don't want to.

Like I said, it's cute you think you're debating, but we're just having a laugh at your self delusion.

Do you have a proposal? you just keep muttering about how you, personally, pay too much since your myriad of crashes have all been somebody elses fault (especially the ones where nobody else was present); and that those who's fault it was (which was whom again?) should pay more

bogan

24th October 2015, 15:56

If you kill someone through your own fault you pay through court action being taken against you and there would certainly be nothing wrong with the court imposing a higher ACC premium on you as well as further punishment.

What court action? this isn't US and we can't sue people for accidents like that (it's one of the reasons ACC came into being).

bogan

24th October 2015, 16:14

You may as well say everyone who has put in a submission is deluded too. There is always the possibility something on your bike could fail causing you to crash or a bit of gravel/wet road/animal and you would be free loading would you not for seeking medical attention if you crashed as a result of any of those 4 things? What you may perhaps like is a registration for the person and not their vehicles and some of the submissions have proposed exactly that. I would agree with that too but i think we would be dreaming to think it could ever happen as the income ACC gets would drop substantially. Those at fault would have to make up the substantial shortfall which you dont want. So that would be deluded to you too eh?

No, their's often make sense.

Not my fault though, so why should I pay? (by your logic this is, in case you didn't get that) This is why your ideas are terrible, you have to keep changing shit to come up with something that is even remotely workable, which is still far worse than the current system, not to mention how it used to be. BTW, you see that list of other payment sources they get from me, that means it isn't free :facepalm:

A change to per person would necessitate an increase from the per vehicle amount. It's idiotic to think that number would stay the same and you and the other at-faulters would have to make up the shortfall.

TheDemonLord

24th October 2015, 16:14

What you may perhaps like is a registration for the person and not their vehicles and some of the submissions have proposed exactly that. I would agree with that too but i think we would be dreaming to think it could ever happen as the income ACC gets would drop substantially.

*profit would drop

bogan

24th October 2015, 16:27

So you dont believe court action can be taken against you for killing anyone through you own fault? In NZ its taken by the police for your information. You should do a google search of some cases.
The only difference between NZ and the States is you dont loose your house if you are prosecuted. I thinnk generally speaking fines can be up to $20,000, 12 months loss of license and perhaps jail time if you
dont have the money to pay.

Police do for criminal things. Ie, criminal negligence causing death.

Now this next bit (the distinction between at fault, and criminaly negligent) is important, see if you can figure it out, eh sport!

bogan

24th October 2015, 16:33

You are making things up by claiming that I said those not at fault should pay nothing as what they do pay for is the odd accident they have due to the 4 things and maybe a few more eg medical that I mentioned in my other post.
You are under no more obligation to pay ACC for your vehicles and I am guessing the reason why you pay it for them is because you drive them more than ride your bike making the chance of being caught far greater. I dont think you would get off a ticket on your bike by saying what you pay on your other vehicles is sufficiant to cover the bike too. What would you actually say if you were caught on your bike?

You work on that distinction and get back to us eh...

No, the reason I pay it for them is to pay my share.

I'd say exactly that, then pay the fine or get compliance; it really doesn't bother me.

bogan

24th October 2015, 16:44

On the road they mean the same thing as I have yet to read of a case of a motorist being found at fault casing death and not being prosecuted have you?

Absolutely, hundreds of them, each year. Have another go at that distinction, eh sport.

Its legally not your share though is it? (by the way they would think about it)

And this is relevant how?

Jin

24th October 2015, 19:08

If everyone knew in advance their registration would double or more if they caused a crash in a year we may actually find the roads becoming safer too.
Do you know someone who is happy to crash because they think registration is cheap? Or are you referring to yourself?

Bikemad

24th October 2015, 19:55

Plenty of people speed because they consider the fine not high enough so would they still consider risky behaviour if their registration went up as well?

what a crock of shit......you really think people stop to consider the consequences and possible fines incurred before speeding.........fuck that belongs in the stupid quote thread for sure......
Ask yourself this.......would they still consider risky behaviour if there was the possibility they might pay the ultimate price.......you know........DYING
seems they do eh sherlock.........so i strongly doubt the idea of rego going up will make any difference at all........

bogan

24th October 2015, 20:17

Plenty of people speed because they consider the fine not high enough so would they still consider risky behaviour if their registration went up as well?

Changing the idea again? If you're putting rego up on a vehicle basis for speeding fines, that's gonna fuck with resale real good; assuming said info is made available and aquired buy the buyer, otherwise there'll be some pretty fucked off buyers.

98tls

24th October 2015, 20:28

On the road they mean the same thing as I have yet to read of a case of a motorist being found at fault casing death and not being prosecuted have you?

Within an hours ride from where you are at most there must be a cliff for fucks sake take a ride eh your shits annoying.

Jin

24th October 2015, 21:11

Plenty of people speed because they consider the fine not high enough so would they still consider risky behaviour if their registration went up as well?
You didnt say speeding you said crashing. Try to grasp that is not the same thing. No sane person would willingly crash because they think they can afford it.

caseye

25th October 2015, 07:40

W0t! is SHE still here?
I like the cliff idea, you lot are seriously wasting your time, she knows not what she's saying.
On ignore and left there, is the only possible answer for this one.

pritch

25th October 2015, 08:01

W0t! is SHE still here?
(snip)
On ignore and left there, is the only possible answer for this one.

I'll second that motion. :whistle:

bogan

25th October 2015, 08:32

Dont be silly it would be the person who committed the offense who would have to wear the higher registration on their vehicles not the new owner.

So now your idea is levy per person, which increases with each traffic infringement, and assumedly the number of vehicles you have in your name has no bearing on this, but the types do?

Have you figured out the distinction between at fault, and prosecutable yet?

bogan

25th October 2015, 08:41

So going over the speed limit is not willingly risking crashing? The greater the speed the greater the chance of a crash. If there was a big enough financial deterrant most except for the crazys would not risk it.

No, it isn't. I can do 1.5x the limit on a nice straight road, with clear edging, and be safer than some twat who thinks doing the speed limit makes removes the risk, so is doing it around some tight twisty corners (you've experience falling off on this too don't you?).

Replacement bikes aren't free you know, so there is already a 1k-20k+ hit, so how big a financial hit were you going to add with speeding and crashing, respectively?

How about you come up with a brighter idea as the money has to come from somewhere. Maybe in your case a big enough punishment needs to be developed so you dont freeload on other motorcyclists. Maybe impoundment plus a fine would motivate you to pay.

Already have, it's called socialist accident healthcare and compensation. Flat rate or flat rate on tax, per person. Less money required overall.

Bikemad

25th October 2015, 11:45

So going over the speed limit is not willingly risking crashing? The greater the speed the greater the chance of a crash. If there was a big enough financial deterrant most except for the crazys would not risk it.

go back and read post 180 regarding paying the ultimate price..........people are aware of this ........but still speed do they not..........you think they stop to count their pennies beforehand..........:brick:

Bikemad

25th October 2015, 17:28

For the majority this is not the case other wise everyone would speed would they not?

but you are not talking about the majority are you ..........you want people at RISK/Fault to pay more don't you.........not the majority.......
do you understand how ENGLISH works.........

Berries

25th October 2015, 17:36

So going over the speed limit is not willingly risking crashing? The greater the speed the greater the chance of a crash.
How much over the speed limit were you going in your five crashes then?

Bikemad

25th October 2015, 17:36

the majority understand if they speed there is a RISK they might crash and die.......therefore they dont speed...........you are suggesting the minority who do like to speed would reconsider their actions because money is more important to them than living.........are you serious.......are you on meds......or perhaps you should be..........basically you have argued both sides of the same arguement and still have no clue what you are saying

bogan

25th October 2015, 17:55

For the majority this is not the case other wise everyone would speed would they not?

You'll find the plebs don't sped since they have been indoctrinated. Some of the safest motorists have no problems with speeding when it is safe to do so.

I speed many, many times this afternoon and didn't die once (can't say the same for the bugs massacred on my visor).

Interestingly enough, the most dangerous moment was when I found my rear wheel doing right on the speed limit, while the rest of the bike was about 20kmhr under it; the viffer enjoys gravel roads :2thumbsup

How much over the speed limit were you going in your five crashes then?

Which five? :dodge:

Bikemad

25th October 2015, 19:42

I think you would find for most people a fear of getting a speeding ticket would be a more likely deterrant than crashing and dying. Why do you think radar detectors were invented? I think you are clueless too.

once again you have forgotton about your original point.........we were not talking about the majority...........you want the minority,who are prepared to take the risk and speed,for whatever reason and maybe crash,and therefore according to you are at FAULT,to pay more.........correct?
i am saying any possible fines imposed are not even considered when said speeder decides he is going to speed.......never enters his/her mind..........the thought of losing ones license is a far greater deterent.......trust me ....i have lost my license for 40 kph over...........the $500 fine oh well ho hum...............28 days walking a pain in the arse.........if you are going to impose huge fines and rego hikes all that will happen is there will be a bunch of people driving/riding with their eyes glued to the speedo and not on the road in front of them.......ergo.....more crashes
radar detectors were invented because like any other law/rule that is imposed on society someone somewhere sees it as an oppurtunity to make a buck....

Jin

25th October 2015, 23:21

You think majority of riders think like you? Lol

PrincessBandit

26th October 2015, 06:49

So to cut your long story short then you do not want those who misbehave on the road paying a higher registration than those who behave. It makes absolutly no sense as far as I am concerned and I dont think the majority of riders would think your way.

I would imagine that "sensible" "careful" whatever you want to call them riders probably feel somewhat aggrieved that they have to pay the same 'penalty/risk fee' that dickheads and idiots pay for the privilege of being on two wheels. Unfortunately the whole concept would be in the too-hard basket when it comes down to it. While mathematically a two wheeled dipshit with the brain cell of an aemoba is more likely to cost big bucks to our health system, the careful rider in an accident is just as much a "burden" to thar same health system.

Bikemad

26th October 2015, 08:31

So to cut your long story short then you do not want those who misbehave on the road paying a higher registration than those who behave. It makes absolutly no sense as far as I am concerned and I dont think the majority of riders would think your way.

no i don't..........thats their call/risk and the punishments are already in place......you love trying to put words in other peoples mouths don't you.........a sure sign of someone with no solid reasoning or point to make........

rastuscat

26th October 2015, 08:36

You'll find the plebs don't sped since they have been indoctrinated. Some of the safest motorists have no problems with speeding when it is safe to do so.

I speed many, many times this afternoon and didn't die once (can't say the same for the bugs massacred on my visor).

Interestingly enough, the most dangerous moment was when I found my rear wheel doing right on the speed limit, while the rest of the bike was about 20kmhr under it; the viffer enjoys gravel roads :2thumbsup

Which five? :dodge:

Interesting perspective.

Speed features as a causative factor as the stats are drawn from crash reports filled out by humans. Every time they attend a crash the internal question "Would this have happened if they had been going slower?" arises. So they tick the box saying speed was a factor. I personally see speed as a factor in a small number of crashes, but not really a lot. I see human error as the major cause.

However..........

Indulge me. Just imagine for a minute that speed isn't the causative factor in a crash. It's caused by, say, inattention, SMIDSY, whatever.

Is it better to be going slower or faster when the crash happens?

bogan

26th October 2015, 08:55

Interesting perspective.

Speed features as a causative factor as the stats are drawn from crash reports filled out by humans. Every time they attend a crash the internal question "Would this have happened if they had been going slower?" arises. So they tick the box saying speed was a factor. I personally see speed as a factor in a small number of crashes, but not really a lot. I see human error as the major cause.

However..........

Indulge me. Just imagine for a minute that speed isn't the causative factor in a crash. It's caused by, say, inattention, SMIDSY, whatever.

Is it better to be going slower or faster when the crash happens?

Have you stopped fucking goats yet? One word answer please.

See, sometimes a question is so stupid or misleading it deserves no answer.

Jin

26th October 2015, 09:35

Is cassina arguing for a user pays system for healthcare, insurance etc or a slight skewering of the socialist ACC system? All im reading is confused incoherent mumbling.

Bikemad

26th October 2015, 09:46

You cant even come up with an idea for cheaper registration yourself so to compensate for not being bright enough you put down the ideas of others. Just because you have plently of cash it does not mean everyone else does.

ok diddums lets try this...........the actual cost of registration is only $24.50..........the rest of the cost being ACC and the next biggest component being GST.........how about as motorcyclists we are given the option of having private healthcare insurance at which point we would not have to pay the ACC component,$397.18 + the safety levy of $30.00 on each bike i own and therefore the GST would be significantly reduced as well.......i have 3 bikes i register so if we did this then i would have $1200 dollars to throw at private insurance........if i crash and burn my premiums go up.....sounds fair.........if you are a SAFE rider ie no crashes or claims ya premiums go down..........Register or insure the rider i feel is a better way to go........please don't respond ....i tire of your nonsense

bogan

26th October 2015, 09:50

ok diddums lets try this...........the actual cost of registration is only $24.50..........the rest of the cost being ACC and the next biggest component being GST.........how about as motorcyclists we are given the option of having private healthcare insurance at which point we would not have to pay the ACC component,$397.18 + the safety levy of $30.00 on each bike i own and therefore the GST would be significantly reduced as well.......i have 3 bikes i register so if we did this then i would have $1200 dollars to throw at private insurance........if i crash and burn my premiums go up.....sounds fair.........if you are a SAFE rider ie no crashes or claims ya premiums go down..........Register or insure the rider i feel is a better way to go........please don't respond ....i tire of your nonsense

That'd be more expensive overall though. How do you then prove you have private instead of ACC cover when the plod pulls you over. Insurance to risk weighting groups too, you can have had no crashes and ride safe as, but still get slammed simply for being young, or old...

Bikemad

26th October 2015, 10:18

That'd be more expensive overall though. How do you then prove you have private instead of ACC cover when the plod pulls you over. Insurance to risk weighting groups too, you can have had no crashes and ride safe as, but still get slammed simply for being young, or old...

you carry your current health insurance card along with your license which you are also obliged to carry as it stands now
why would you get slammed, as i said,its private,shop around get the best deal for you..........
you might get slammed when you crash and make a claim.....depending on fault.....fair enough

rastuscat

26th October 2015, 10:59

Have you stopped fucking goats yet? One word answer please.

See, sometimes a question is so stupid or misleading it deserves no answer.

My goat reserved the right to remain silent on this question.

I note that by not answering the obvious question, you agreed with me.

Congratulations on your change of heart.

bogan

26th October 2015, 11:16

you carry your current health insurance card along with your license which you are also obliged to carry as it stands now
why would you get slammed, as i said,its private,shop around get the best deal for you..........
you might get slammed when you crash and make a claim.....depending on fault.....fair enough

Yes, but as it is now, you put the rego on the vehicle. You'd need ACC put onthe person first in your system wouldn't you?

Look to the UK prices, they get absolutely slammed, what would be different here?

My goat reserved the right to remain silent on this question.

I note that by not answering the obvious question, you agreed with me.

Congratulations on your change of heart.

I see you miss the point. Perhaps another stupid question is warranted.

Would staying at home drastically (almost completely in fact) reduce your risk of having a vehicle accident?

rastuscat

26th October 2015, 12:32

Tazz

26th October 2015, 13:00

For clarity, I'll outline my point in different terms.

When a crash happens, regardless of the cause, the energy dissapated is equal to the energy input.

Prevent crashes by all means. But until you prevent every crash, it reduces the impact if the people involved are going slower.

I'm off to take some outrageous risk. I'm walking the dog.

The point I think you miss is the only way you'll prevent all those crashes, is by having no energy to dissipate in the first place, which would happen by going no where at all, hence why the question is redundant and staying at home is brought up because that is essentially what you're arguing.

I believe you've said as much yourself in the past that speed limits are a guesstimate line in the sand anyway.

If people can't accept that every time they jump on the road they risk dying no matter the speed or conditions and potentially through no fault of their own, they should stay at home.

rastuscat

26th October 2015, 15:09

The point I think you miss is the only way you'll prevent all those crashes, is by having no energy to dissipate in the first place, which would happen by going no where at all, hence why the question is redundant and staying at home is brought up because that is essentially what you're arguing.

I believe you've said as much yourself in the past that speed limits are a guesstimate line in the sand anyway.

If people can't accept that every time they jump on the road they risk dying no matter the speed or conditions and potentially through no fault of their own, they should stay at home.

Right, now we are getting somewhere.

The speed limits are a collection of limits set by the national gubbermint (the 100 kmh limit) and varied by the various road controlling authorities. District councils and city councils get to vary the limits according to local decisions.

The limit is intended to allow a flow of traffic, which is a trade off between complete safety ( 0 kmh) and total mayhem (warp factor 7). It has to allow the normal flow of traffic, while trying to balance the need to move with the public safety thingy.

I agree that there is always going to be issues around the decisions made. People will disagree, clearly. I disagree with some of them too.

What doesn't change, and what can't be argued with, is Newtons laws of motion. In summary, the faster you go, the greater your momentum, and the greater the energy involved in any subsequent crash.

So let's have a discussion about that, instead of the inane "It's safer to go faster" stuff we get. Sometimes it is safer to go faster, but sometimes it isn't.

What needs to get set is a number which we all understand, and which gets agreement from most folk. That's what largely happens. As a rule, it's impractical to vary it for traffic conditions, weather conditions, road conditions. That's why a limit is commonly arbitrary.

What has to be hoped is that those who enforce those limits do so with a degree of understanding of the bigger picture. So uncommon, sadly.

bogan

26th October 2015, 15:13

Right, now we are getting somewhere.

The speed limits are a collection of limits set by the national gubbermint (the 100 kmh limit) and varied by the various road controlling authorities. District councils and city councils get to vary the limits according to local decisions.

The limit is intended to allow a flow of traffic, which is a trade off between complete safety ( 0 kmh) and total mayhem (warp factor 7). It has to allow the normal flow of traffic, while trying to balance the need to move with the public safety thingy.

I agree that there is always going to be issues around the decisions made. People will disagree, clearly. I disagree with some of them too.

What doesn't change, and what can't be argued with, is Newtons laws of motion. In summary, the faster you go, the greater your momentum, and the greater the energy involved in any subsequent crash.

So let's have a discussion about that, instead of the inane "It's safer to go faster" stuff we get. Sometimes it is safer to go faster, but sometimes it isn't.

What needs to get set is a number which we all understand, and which gets agreement from most folk. That's what largely happens. As a rule, it's impractical to vary it for traffic conditions, weather conditions, road conditions. That's why a limit is commonly arbitrary.

What has to be hoped is that those who enforce those limits do so with a degree of understanding of the bigger picture. So uncommon, sadly.

Mate, we were there ages ago, you're just a bit slow :bleh: (it's funny cos it's topical, too)

The point that was being discussed (before you put it in reverse) was about our own discretion, based on that arbitrary number and current circumstances. It was being discussing cos some fucking muppet seems to think those current circumstances are so irrelevant that any time they are gone over our ACC levy should increase. Now, can you keep up with that?

swbarnett

26th October 2015, 17:18

Is it better to be going slower or faster when the crash happens?
Faster if you're being rear-ended. Even if you're not going faster can mean the difference between a glancing blow and a full-on square impact.

swbarnett

26th October 2015, 17:23

When a crash happens, regardless of the cause, the energy dissapated is equal to the energy input.
While technically correct this is almost completely irrelevant. What's important is the rate at which energy is dissipated, not how much. Travelling faster may lead to the energy being dissipated at a lower rate by completely changing the geometry of the impact.

swbarnett

26th October 2015, 17:29

What needs to get set is a number which we all understand, and which gets agreement from most folk.
Absolutely not. What we need is to allow everyone to "ride their own ride" etc. A rider/driver is more dangerous when forced to travel under (or over) their own natural speed.

eldog

26th October 2015, 18:49

Absolutely not. What we need is to allow everyone to "ride their own ride" etc. A rider/driver is more dangerous when forced to travel under (or over) their own natural speed.

agree about a rider/drivers natural speed.
They arent forced to drive at the speed limit, its not a target.

When I am not comfortable with the speed limit indicated I ride at the speed I am ok with.
If I am slow, I try and find a decent location and allow the people behind me pass safely, everyone is ok with that?

I dont travel faster than the indicated limit (if its 70 or above), but thats me.

Is Rustacat suggesting that there could be more places were the speed limit could be raised above 100 or whatever the current limit is for that area. I feel sure there are pmore places that could see the 50 limit raised to 60 and more consistant speed limits in similar areas.

There are expressways which could easily see 110 limit like overseas.

eldog

26th October 2015, 18:55

Faster if you're being rear-ended. Even if you're not going faster can mean the difference between a glancing blow and a full-on square impact.

I would think its the difference of speed and direction that is mostly at stake here.
if your travelling at similar speeds and directions the amount of damage you would expect to be less (no matter what the speed)

eldog

26th October 2015, 19:05

My own 2c worth

I would like to see drivers/riders pay for ACC or pay for use of a vehicle, not sure how this would work, maybe part of license. 1 payment would be for use of 1 vehicle no matter how many they own.

ACC pays for health care as it does now?
Insurance companies care of bikes and whose to blame, they deal with each other.
Police take care of whos to blame if traffic offence.

So if your in an accident - ACC covers your health costs, if you also have private health care you can use that too.

if you were speeding and crashed you would expect the police to pay you a visit not the ACC

if your bike is damaged and you caused the accident (needs to be proven beyond doubt) then you wont expect the insurance company to foot the bill to pay for the other parties repair.

if you had an accident and damaged your bike the insurance company should cover you as per normal

or am I missing something about how the current system works?

basically your health is covered to a basic level if your injured no matter what
you did a crime you get penalised
you caused damage to someones property the insurance covers it but maybe not repairs to your bike.
If someone ran you over their insurance covers you

my little scheme falls over when one or both of the parties doesnt have 3rd party or any insurance.

do we really want to get compulsory insurnace like the UK before we can drive/ride?

Bikemad

26th October 2015, 19:27

my little scheme falls over when one or both of the parties doesnt have 3rd party or any insurance.

do we really want to get compulsory insurnace like the UK before we can drive/ride?

wasn't so long ago that 3rd party insurance was part of your rego payment..........i wouldn't have a problem with compulsory 3rd party insurance.....at least you would then know in a situation where you were not at fault you would be compensated/repaired.....if you were at fault the innocent party would be compensated and you would bear the cost of your own repairs....seems fair to me

eldog

26th October 2015, 19:56

wasn't so long ago that 3rd party insurance was part of your rego payment..........i wouldn't have a problem with compulsory 3rd party insurance.....at least you would then know in a situation where you were not at fault you would be compensated/repaired.....if you were at fault the innocent party would be compensated and you would bear the cost of your own repairs....seems fair to me

I tend to agree.

There was obviously a problem thats why it changed, typical NZders always wanting cheaper.
User pays I guess.

I didnt realise it was part of rego, stuff like insurance I am now having to deal with myself rather than looked after by others.

So what am I missing so that each license holder pays ACC, that way it covers multivehicle owners. You would have to pay one basic rate for general use and another as an extension for mbike? Could be carried as part of license. Not sure how this would apply to farmers (they would pay ACC anyway?) and offroad riders - would they have a greater accident risk than road riders? or do more road riders die and offroaders just have broken bits and pieces.

someone bring me upto speed. Obviosuly we are paying too much for ACC but this is due to the high rate of accidents and the cost of hospital/care increasing as well.

TheDemonLord

27th October 2015, 09:39

Indulge me. Just imagine for a minute that speed isn't the causative factor in a crash. It's caused by, say, inattention, SMIDSY, whatever.

Is it better to be going slower or faster when the crash happens?

Its better to have an RPG mounted to the front of my Bike that removes the obstacle from my path and prevents the crash....

But that wouldn't go down to well.....

To engage in a little reducto as absurdum - if both objects in a scenario remained stationary relative to themselves and relative to the road they were on, then there would be no crash - therefore the safest speed limit is 0.

This is effectively the line you are arguing - we are going to crash, so by going slower there is less injury, likelyhood of death - however, at what arbitrary number do you then set the speed limit at? and more importantly - at any number greater than 0 someone could make the same argument to make it lower 'Well they suffered a broken bone traveling at the speed limit of 5 kph, so maybe we should lower it to 4...'

I accept a certain amount of risk on my Bike - but as you say - the greatest factor is human error, so I ask you this:

How do we address that factor? I would put forward that a much Much MUCH more stringent and restrictive testing system would be a start - a similar model to say the path to getting a PPL (Private Pilots Licence) - with a minimum number of hours in a vehicle with a certified instructor - as a case in point: Look at Germany's Licencing system and the Autobahn that they get to drive on. I would even add compulsory re-testing every 5 years (on the grounds that the retest is free, but if you fail it first time, you have to pay to take it again) and for anyone who has failed a licence test more than 3 times in a 6 month period, a minimum wait time of 6 months before they can try again (as they clearly can't fucking drive....) and for anyone who has had to take a test more than 4 times to pass - a mandatory retest at the 6 month mark to make sure it wasn't a fluke.

TheDemonLord

27th October 2015, 11:17

I dont think making getting a license as expensive as getting a pilots license would be fair to those who are not that wealthy. However your idea of making people resit their tests does make sense but I would make it compulsary for all those at fault rather than the whole population.

Mein Gott im Himmel! Sprechen sie Englisch?

(English clearly isn't your first language - I thought I would try Deutsch)

Did I say we should make it the same or the same cost of getting a pilots licence? No I specifically said:

a similar model to say the path to getting a PPL (Private Pilots Licence) - with a minimum number of hours in a vehicle with a certified instructor

The cost is dependent on the hourly rate of the driving instructor (which is considerably less than a Pilot Instuctor) and the number of hours (a PPL the minimum is 50) as an aside - it would still be cheaper for a car as you don't have to pay the hourly rate for the Plane as well.

As another aside - Why do I care if poor people can't afford to drive? Last time I checked driving is a privilege (and not a right, although it is commonly perceived as one) so long as there is adequate public transport available to them (but that is a completely separate can of worms)

and finally - at fault for what? are you suggesting that each time you have a crash you have to resit your test? I'm pretty sure if the crash is bad enough you can have your licence revoked and be forced by the courts to re-take your licence test. You seem to arguing for something that already exists?

TheDemonLord

27th October 2015, 12:49

So what you are saying wealthy people would make the best drivers? I think you would find the death toll would not go down if only the rich could afford to drive other than they would be able to afford safer cars.

No - I'm saying less cars on the road means less other road users to crash into.

But also not driving a barely Warrantable shitbox and having airbags for africa etc. probably helps too

Heres an exercise for you - look at the crash stats for NZ and compare them with the fuel price - its interesting that on the long weekend when there were no fatailities, Petrol was at one of its highest prices ($2.20/ltr). I'm not saying correlation equals causation - but it certainly merits further investigation.

Not all offenses are punished by a loss of license and having to resit. Maybe increasing the number could make a difference.

First you suggested that people at fault should have to resit, then when I pointed out that if the offence is serious enough - you have to do that anyway - now you are trying to expand the scope of the what is serious enough - as it stands, any loss of licence for more than 1 year means the person will have to be re-tested.

I would suggest that you understand the current laws and systems before trying to 'improve' them.

onearmedbandit

27th October 2015, 13:09

Reading text on a computer screen can be damaging to the eyes it is said. Reading cassina's comments is definitely damaging to the brain.

bogan

27th October 2015, 14:26

You were the one that felt driver training was not good enough and I just said making resitting the test, by more people at fault could make the roads safer. Everyone has sat different complexities of tests over the years so if those at fault do a current resit they may improve. Certainly if petrol got up high enough there would be less accidents but it would get to a point where people would trade their gas guzzling cars in on motorbikes and maybe then there would be a big enough critical mass to lobby for lower ACC premiums for bikes.

Perhaps you could even make them sit the test before they even have the (at fault) accident... Might be a safer option?

TheDemonLord

27th October 2015, 14:53

You were the one that felt driver training was not good enough and I just said making resitting the test, by more people at fault could make the roads safer.

You see - here is the issue:

I am saying that the standard of the typical NZ driver is rather low - especially when compared with other first world nations. This could be remedied by better driver training/stricter license tests/periodic re-testing (all of which doesn't exist atm)

You are saying that if people are at fault in accident (and therefore by extension have committed some form of driving offence) they should be re-tested - this currently exists in NZ law.

where the two ideas are not the same (yet you seem to make them the same) is that under the current system, those that loose their licence go through the same limp wristed testing requirements that we currently have. Under the system I propose, everyone gets tested periodically, those that loose their licence for more than a year still have to re-take their licence test, but under much stricter requirements.

Certainly if petrol got up high enough there would be less accidents but it would get to a point where people would trade their gas guzzling cars in on motorbikes and maybe then there would be a big enough critical mass to lobby for lower ACC premiums for bikes.

Yah ever tried to move a Drum kit using a Motorbike? or how about a Somoan family on a Motorbike? People will always need cars - so again you are leaping a to conclusion that isn't supported by logic.

TheDemonLord

27th October 2015, 14:54

perhaps you could even make them sit the test before they even have the (at fault) accident... Might be a safer option?

holy logic batman!

Bikemad

27th October 2015, 15:29

So what you are saying wealthy people would make the best drivers? I think you would find the death toll would not go down if only the rich could afford to drive other than they would be able to afford safer cars. Not all offenses are punished by a loss of license and having to resit. Maybe increasing the number could make a difference.

there you go again........trying to put words in other peoples mouths.........
how long have you been driving/riding and reading/speaking english?..........really......i think we are all curious to know

bogan

27th October 2015, 15:51

So what would your idea be of a better driving test than what we have now? In another thread when the issue of compulsary advanced driver training was brought up someone made a claim that the govt did not want this as people would become "Over Confident". I wonder how they would reach this conclusion when you say it works overseas. You may not have been around in the mid 70s but there were substantially more bikes on the road that there are now due to the substantial difference in price between a car and a bike which was brought to an end by the dropping of tarrifs/import duties which allowed cheap jap import cars to be priced about the same as a big bike. So while bikes boomed due to the differential in purchase price exactly the same thing could happen again if the cost of fuel went up high enough.

One which you'd be incapable of passing...

It was possibly a conclusion they wanted to reach to continue the 'speed kills' campaign.

swbarnett

27th October 2015, 17:26

agree about a rider/drivers natural speed.
They arent forced to drive at the speed limit, its not a target.
No, they're not legally forced to drive at the speed limit. However, if your natural speed is above the limit you are legally forced to drive below your natural speed (just to be clear this all has to be with consideration for a sensible speed for the conditions).

Also, someone whose natural speed is below the limit will often find faster drivers annoyed with them because they're being held up. Without a speed limit the faster driver has no "target" to base their frustration on.

When I am not comfortable with the speed limit indicated I ride at the speed I am ok with.
If I am slow, I try and find a decent location and allow the people behind me pass safely, everyone is ok with that?
This is exactly what I'm advocating. Good for you.

I would think its the difference of speed and direction that is mostly at stake here.
if your travelling at similar speeds and directions the amount of damage you would expect to be less (no matter what the speed)
Agreed. My last off was due to shit weather at night and the car behind me not taking account of me gingerly taking a corner full of white paint. Had it been dry it would never have happened.

What I'm really getting at is that no-one can predict ahead of time whether a higher or lower speed will result in more damage for any given incident. Sometimes going faster will allow you to completely avoid an accident. Sometimes it will make it worse. Only the rider/driver can say what's appropriate for them without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

swbarnett

27th October 2015, 17:30

Here's a thought. Why don't we all just accept the fact that carnage and death is a part of life. Hell, there'd be no life without them.

Accept the fact that we are all human and that we ALL benefit to the same degree from a publicly funded, no fault, recovery and compensation scheme.

I see no other plausible option than to fund ACC completely from the general public purse and to hell with all this "your life is more dangerous than mine so you should pay more" bullshit.

Tazz

27th October 2015, 17:51

Here's a thought. Why don't we all just accept the fact that carnage and death is a part of life. Hell, there'd be no life without them.

No!

Then we can't blame other people and lack of instructions for shit happening and the people making rules will run out of new rules to make and we will all spontaneously explode from the utter lack of 'safety!

I think anyone who can't handle the risk of death on a daily basis, probably because they have been mollycoddled by society and have a higher value on themselves than the universe does, should stay at home, where they can die from heart disease, cancer or an accident involving the words 'here mate, hold my beer and check this out...', which are all statistically more likely to happen than getting bowled by a farkwit doing 1kph over, 1kph under or 10kph to the left of some unscientific limit/rule on the road.

FJRider

27th October 2015, 18:02

Here's a thought. Why don't we all just accept the fact that carnage and death is a part of life. Hell, there'd be no life without them.

You cannot have life if there will be no death ..

Accept the fact that we are all human and that we ALL benefit to the same degree from a publicly funded, no fault, recovery and compensation scheme.

The jury is still out on the ALL human bit ... but another 10% tax increase across the board should cover the required funding.

If ACC "Assistance" was not available to visitors to NZ .... there might be more funding available to New Zealander's ..

I see no other plausible option than to fund ACC completely from the general public purse and to hell with all this "your life is more dangerous than mine so you should pay more" bullshit.

But ... we have a 26 million dollar flag change to fund first ..

Priority's ... right ...

And .. We as motorcyclists are at more risk of injury in an accident. No getting around THAT ... take a risk .. pay the price.

Safety records of any rider count for little ... it is the increased actual risk as a motorcyclist that is the basis of policy.

Individual personal safety records count for little. It is the RISK of injury being higher for motorcyclists ... that other motorists that policy is based on.

eldog

27th October 2015, 18:29

You cannot have life if there will be no death ..

I thought we were promised eternal life and/or 72 virgins depending on your point of view/orientation :scratch:

FJRider

27th October 2015, 18:37

I thought we were promised eternal life and/or 72 virgins depending on your point of view/orientation :scratch:

Virgins are over-rated ... just stick with your tried and true slut.

And eternal life is what it seems like .. when IRD have their claws in you ..

bogan

27th October 2015, 19:12

The one time when going over the speed limit is certainly of assistance in order to avoid a crash is during an overtake.

You should try english!

I hovered over your rep indicator, but I think hope may be futile in this case...

swbarnett

27th October 2015, 21:21

We as motorcyclists are at more risk of injury in an accident. No getting around THAT ... take a risk .. pay the price.

Safety records of any rider count for little ... it is the increased actual risk as a motorcyclist that is the basis of policy.

Individual personal safety records count for little. It is the RISK of injury being higher for motorcyclists ... that other motorists that policy is based on.
Classing us as motorcyclists for the purpose of risk assessment is extremely arbitrary and, IMO, totally wrong.

Let's say we class people by race instead of mode of transport. Let's assume that Maori are over represented in the accident stats (just for argument's sake, I don't know if this is true or not). How do you think it would go down if they had to pay massively higher ACC levies?

Digitdion

28th October 2015, 11:10

RDJ

28th October 2015, 11:35

Classing us as motorcyclists for the purpose of risk assessment is extremely arbitrary and, IMO, totally wrong.

Let's say we class people by race instead of mode of transport. Let's assume that Maori are over represented in the accident stats (just for argument's sake, I don't know if this is true or not). How do you think it would go down if they had to pay massively higher ACC levies?

Acccording to MP Rahui Katene, Maori are indeed over represented in the accident statistics, both in the workplace and outside it - as he said, "There is a clear hierarchy of accident rates by industry, with energy and water, forestry, construction, transport and storage and agriculture in the top five – and Maori are over-represented in all of these."

It's even worse for kids: Safekids via TV One reported that Maori children are 65% more likely to be killed and injured in road traffic-related incidents (and Pacific Island children are 31% more likely to be killed and injured).

TheDemonLord

28th October 2015, 11:45

Acccording to MP Rahui Katene, Maori are indeed over represented in the accident statistics, both in the workplace and outside it - as he said, "There is a clear hierarchy of accident rates by industry, with energy and water, forestry, construction, transport and storage and agriculture in the top five – and Maori are over-represented in all of these."

It's even worse for kids: Safekids via TV One reported that Maori children are 65% more likely to be killed and injured in road traffic-related incidents (and Pacific Island children are 31% more likely to be killed and injured).

Interesting....

rastuscat

28th October 2015, 19:26

Wow. This thread is turning out to be a vacuous mind game.

Maybe we should all just accept that we can't change things, and just build a bridge and get over it.

For sure, all the arguing hasn't changed anything. Why bother.

bogan

28th October 2015, 19:31

eldog

28th October 2015, 19:37

Still like to see 1 ACC charge per license holder separate from registration of bike, so its transferrable (multi bike owners)

just not sure how that works implementation wise

and what would happen if you didn't pay for it and had an accident

ATM its a way of making riders more aware they are more at risk than other road users (and comparative industries)

still have to register bike etc if want to use it.

is there some way of removing non registered (ACC component) from the ACC accident statistics so we get a true cost of the road registered ACC cost.

RDJ

29th October 2015, 10:41

swbarnett

29th October 2015, 10:56

Wow. This thread is turning out to be a vacuous mind game.
These are the words of one that has been shown the truth and refuses to accept it.

Maybe we should all just accept that we can't change things, and just build a bridge and get over it.
If we did that we'd all still be living in caves. Indeed we may have never even thought to use caves in the first place.

For sure, all the arguing hasn't changed anything. Why bother.
Ah, but it might. Forums like this are the modern equivalent of the gatherings where Aristotle, Plato et al. developed their philosophy.

caspernz

29th October 2015, 14:49

wasn't so long ago that 3rd party insurance was part of your rego payment..........i wouldn't have a problem with compulsory 3rd party insurance.....at least you would then know in a situation where you were not at fault you would be compensated/repaired.....if you were at fault the innocent party would be compensated and you would bear the cost of your own repairs....seems fair to me

Define not so long ago? My first foray to NZ was in 1984 and I don't recall 3rd party insurance being a part of rego then or since... Fully agree compulsory 3rd party insurance should be introduced in one form or another. But then penalties for driving without licence/rego/wof are just a joke, so compulsory insurance would end up in that category as well.

The whole ACC debate is near on a waste of time, for unless enough bikers stand together and protest as one (now there's a Tui ad), nothing will change. Makes for amusing reading though, ok frustrating to read...:baby:

swbarnett

29th October 2015, 16:33

The whole ACC debate is near on a waste of time, for unless enough bikers stand together and protest as one (now there's a Tui ad), nothing will change.
We certainly won't get change without the debate.

Debate is never a waste of time. It's not necessarily about affecting change. It's about thrashing out ideas and perhaps maximizing the number of people considering those ideas.

I do agree though that we do, at times, seem to be going around in circles with this particular debate.

caspernz

29th October 2015, 17:38

We certainly won't get change without the debate.

Debate is never a waste of time. It's not necessarily about affecting change. It's about thrashing out ideas and perhaps maximizing the number of people considering those ideas.

I do agree though that we do, at times, seem to be going around in circles with this particular debate.

The group of motorcyclists, and by that I mean the group who is largely law-abiding, actually has a licence, registers and warrants their bike...is relatively small.

Yes debate can distill ideas down, yet for the moment I do see officialdom winning by virtue of the 'divide and conquer' routine. Overall I don't have an issue with the running costs of my bike, far cheaper to own a bike in this country than my home country for starters. Mind you, would be nice to see the playing field levelled, by having all bikers licensed, registered, warranted etc.

And yeah the ACC component being varied according to vehicle type or subtype is not exactly how I'd perceived the ACC no fault scheme to work.

swbarnett

29th October 2015, 20:15

The group of motorcyclists, and by that I mean the group who is largely law-abiding, actually has a licence, registers and warrants their bike...is relatively small.
Agreed. I actually think we were better of a few decades ago when this group was even smaller - small enough to fly under the radar of public view.

Yes debate can distill ideas down, yet for the moment I do see officialdom winning by virtue of the 'divide and conquer' routine.
Indeed, for the moment. Having the ideas out there means that when the time is right...

Overall I don't have an issue with the running costs of my bike, far cheaper to own a bike in this country than my home country for starters. Mind you, would be nice to see the playing field levelled, by having all bikers licensed, registered, warranted etc.
Agreed. What really irks me is the discrimination.

rastuscat

29th October 2015, 20:53

I'm a bit embarrassed by my post a couple of days back.

Debate is important. I agree with debate.

What I don't agree with is when the debates turn into a personal slang in match. Just cos we disagree doesn't give us the right to slag others off on their personal beliefs.

So bring it on y'all.

Just fir the record, I is no longer a Popo, but donuts still rock

swbarnett

29th October 2015, 20:58

caspernz

30th October 2015, 03:36

5150

30th October 2015, 13:34

BLA BLA BLA BLA.......

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/73474699/middleaged-men-top-motorbike-insurance-claims--iag

TheDemonLord

30th October 2015, 14:43

BLA BLA BLA BLA.......

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/73474699/middleaged-men-top-motorbike-insurance-claims--iag

Sweet, I'm under 40 - wheres my ACC rebate?

Jizah

4th November 2015, 16:39

I put my bike down on the way to work this morning. Couple of small scrapes and bruises. So should I go to the hospital, fill out the ACC forms and leave with the prescribed sticking plaster? This would at least bring down the average cost per claim of a motorcycle accident, which was taken into consideration when the levies were set...

RDJ

4th November 2015, 16:49

I take your point, but I don't think that the ACC people look at the micro environment.

I think they're all about the "big picture", which is that motorcyclists are an unsympathetic group in terms of the wider population, and we are therefore extremely easy to malign and tax without any negative blowback or PR.

And I think they're right in those assumptions.

The fact that rugby players, quad bike riders, pedestrians, human power of cyclists and marathon runners and so forth get to do themselves serious damage on a daily basis and get their problems uncomplainingly paid for by the rest of the population without any PR downside, I think, simply validates this point.

Personally, I just keep paying the ACC levy all my bikes and therefore feel fully justified to grump about the subsidized rabble.