ACC - Here we go again

[Berries]

.

ACC to raise levies (https://www.odt.co.nz/business/acc-raise-levies-cover-1b-revenue-hole)

So I had a look at the ACC website to see how much they wanted to sting us this time round and I found out that it is motorcycle awareness month. Cool.

Also found this nugget -

In 2023, we accepted 4,487 motorbike-related injuries at a cost of $133 million to help recover. This was the highest number of injuries and the highest cost in the past five years.

Time to strap in again. Or on, to be inclusive.

[neels]

There are a couple of bits in there that are interesting....

The motor vehicle levy, which averages $113.94 per vehicle each year - is less than the total rego cost for a car, would be interesting to see more of a breakdown on who is paying what to get the average to that level

The restructure was part of a $700m overhaul of ACC's systems that was meant to produce $438m in cost savings by 2030. - spending money to save less money than you're spending?

Unless something has changed significantly from the 2023 annual report the Motor Vehicle account appears to be in good health with $14b in assets producing $900m of income and a $578m surplus, so at face value not much justification for any increase of motor vehicle levies....
354978

[nerrrd]

In 2013/14, the earners' levy was $1.70 per $100 earned (22.3 percent higher than today), the work levy was $1.15 per $100 of payroll (82.5 percent higher), and the average motor vehicle levy was $330.68 (190 percent higher).

Anyone know why the average motor vehicle levy has been lowered so much since then (in the same article the current average is $113.94)?

[SaferRides]

.

ACC to raise levies (https://www.odt.co.nz/business/acc-raise-levies-cover-1b-revenue-hole)

So I had a look at the ACC website to see how much they wanted to sting us this time round and I found out that it is motorcycle awareness month. Cool.

Also found this nugget -

In 2023, we accepted 4,487 motorbike-related injuries at a cost of $133 million to help recover. This was the highest number of injuries and the highest cost in the past five years.

Time to strap in again. Or on, to be inclusive.

That article in the ODT (by RNZ) is unbelievable.

"It recently had to ditch part of a $74 million restructure that had removed personal case managers for clients, because the new system wasn't working.

The restructure was part of a $700m overhaul of ACC's systems that was meant to produce $438m in cost savings by 2030.

The 2022 review found there was a "high degree of uncertainty" over whether those forecast benefits would be achieved."

If this is typical of the performance of ACC, no wonder they need us all to pay more.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[rastuscat]

https://www.shapeyouracc.co.nz/have-your-say/changing-the-classification-of-motorcycles

Interesting. My guess is a higher proportion of bikes going on hold.

[nerrrd]

https://www.shapeyouracc.co.nz/have-your-say/changing-the-classification-of-motorcycles

Interesting. My guess is a higher proportion of bikes going on hold.

I’d wager that the Honda NC750X is almost exclusively responsible for the lower cost and claim frequency in the 601-750cc category :lol:.

[Berries]

I’d wager that the Honda NC750X is almost exclusively responsible for the lower cost and claim frequency in the 601-750cc category :lol:.
They would be better off taking make and model into consideration rather than a simple engine size category but that would be way too much like actual risk profiling which is something the wankers just won't do. Yeah, lump me in with an uninsured twice banned rider with a zero alcohol licence and a history of ACC claims.

And once again, consultation will be a complete and utter waste of time and effort.

[SaferRides]

https://www.shapeyouracc.co.nz/have-your-say/changing-the-classification-of-motorcycles

Interesting. My guess is a higher proportion of bikes going on hold.Or going on hold for longer.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[JimO]

Or going on hold for longer.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk
pretty much everyone i know with a bike has them on hold over winter and just takes them off for the summer period

[SaferRides]

They would be better off taking make and model into consideration rather than a simple engine size category but that would be way too much like actual risk profiling which is something the wankers just won't do. Yeah, lump me in with an uninsured twice banned rider with a zero alcohol licence and a history of ACC claims.

And once again, consultation will be a complete and utter waste of time and effort.As the owner of a litre sports bike, not sure I'd support that!

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[rastuscat]

As the owner of a litre sports bike, not sure I'd support that!

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

And there's the conundrum. Some will think it's better, as it costs them less. Others will dislike it, because it costs them more.

When ultimately, the societal need is for things to be paid for. It's how we pay for things that causes debate. Inequity and unfairness, real or perceived, is what causes the angst.

And here we are.

[pete376403]

Or going on hold for longer.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

Or not coming off hold at all. Ride the thing and take a chance on being stopped. Make sure the bike is warranted and safe and dont ride like twat to avoid attention. Penalty for unreg bike is a lot less than reg cost.

[Berries]

As the owner of a litre sports bike, not sure I'd support that!
I have the same. I just get thoroughly pissed off paying through the nose for arseholes on any size bike that contribute to the statistics. All well and good them posting the engine size breakdowns vs claims on their website but that tells us basically nothing.

What about bike type?
Rider experience?
Riding currency?
Claim history?
Licence history?
Weight of chrome?

ACC has its place but IMO it does not work for motor vehicles. Jumping from an RF900 to a CBR600RRRRRR hardly lowers the risk profile which is what they imply. Sold my 2016 non-ABS GSXR750 a few years ago and now they are going to lower the levy by nearly 15 percent. Yeah, that makes perfect sense if you are concerned about injury prevention. My issue is that bike engine size is not an ideal determinant for likelihood of making an ACC claim.

Don't start me on cars. How does my Nissan Skyline GTR Mugen Duff Duff Gazoo GTI have the same ACC levy component as my Daewoo Snugglebug?

I have previously done research into make, model and engine size when it comes to motorcycle involvement, posted on here at various times over the years. I think I might have to update it, not that it will make a difference. Consultation is just a sham.

[jellywrestler]

Or not coming off hold at all. Ride the thing and take a chance on being stopped. Make sure the bike is warranted and safe and dont ride like twat to avoid attention. Penalty for unreg bike is a lot less than reg cost.

whatever did happen to the ANPR hit squad that was around checking this stuff, they had a van a set of cops to pull you up and another set with road spikes????

[SaferRides]

whatever did happen to the ANPR hit squad that was around checking this stuff, they had a van a set of cops to pull you up and another set with road spikes????Many of these activities, including breath testing, pretty much stopped during covid, and haven't started again with other police work being a higher priority.

A friend leaves his rego on hold for 9 months at a time. He's never been ticketed in maybe 20 years.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[nerrrd]

Or not coming off hold at all. Ride the thing and take a chance on being stopped. Make sure the bike is warranted and safe and dont ride like twat to avoid attention. Penalty for unreg bike is a lot less than reg cost.

OK for those living in the countryside, but not wanting to buy into any local conspiracy theories I imagine in the main centres they're working towards a lot more camera surveillance and automation for this kind of thing. Already experienced not being able to get a warrant when my bike wasn't registered (or it might have been the other way around) a few years ago.

Next thing will be a front facing number plate to make it easier for the cameras...

[neels]

Or not coming off hold at all. Ride the thing and take a chance on being stopped. Make sure the bike is warranted and safe and dont ride like twat to avoid attention. Penalty for unreg bike is a lot less than reg cost.
I believe that's why they added the demerit points, with discussion at the time about the fact that previously they had only been applied to safety related offences rather failure to pay a fee, the economics were such that you had a couple of strikes before you were were worse off than having paid.

It's intriguing that they're still focused on engine size, which puts a 35hp DR650 in the same category as a 120hp GSXR750. Perhaps there could be consideration of the fact that if a bike is low risk enough to be LAMS approved this could be reflected in the acc levy applied?

[SaferRides]

OK for those living in the countryside, but not wanting to buy into any local conspiracy theories I imagine in the main centres they're working towards a lot more camera surveillance and automation for this kind of thing. Already experienced not being able to get a warrant when my bike wasn't registered (or it might have been the other way around) a few years ago.

Next thing will be a front facing number plate to make it easier for the cameras...The police have copped a lot of grief over their use of cameras for minor offences, so I expect they are treading carefully at the moment.

Before Covid, I did hear of the occasional person being pulled over for not complying with learner conditions. But otherwise the chances of getting a letter in the post for no rego are pretty slim in Auckland, unless you get a parking ticket from a warden. AT are now using car-mounted cameras for parking offences, so the chances of being ticketed are even lower.

My experience at licence checkpoints is the police normally just wave you through. I have been breath tested once wearing a full face helmet, but they didn't even look at the bike.

It's interesting riding with no rego. I'm definitely more compliant with speed limits!

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[pete376403]

I have the same. I just get thoroughly pissed off paying through the nose for arseholes on any size bike that contribute to the statistics. All well and good them posting the engine size breakdowns vs claims on their website but that tells us basically nothing.

What about bike type?
Rider experience?
Riding currency?
Claim history?
Licence history?
Weight of chrome?

ACC has its place but IMO it does not work for motor vehicles. Jumping from an RF900 to a CBR600RRRRRR hardly lowers the risk profile which is what they imply. Sold my 2016 non-ABS GSXR750 a few years ago and now they are going to lower the levy by nearly 15 percent. Yeah, that makes perfect sense if you are concerned about injury prevention. My issue is that bike engine size is not an ideal determinant for likelihood of making an ACC claim.

Don't start me on cars. How does my Nissan Skyline GTR Mugen Duff Duff Gazoo GTI have the same ACC levy component as my Daewoo Snugglebug?

I have previously done research into make, model and engine size when it comes to motorcycle involvement, posted on here at various times over the years. I think I might have to update it, not that it will make a difference. Consultation is just a sham.

The (previous) 600 cutoff was just ridiculous Somehow my 49 (on a really good day) HP KLR650 was considered more dangerous than a 117 HP R6 (599.8 cc so safe). Now we are going to be on an equal ACC footing

[pete376403]

OK for those living in the countryside, but not wanting to buy into any local conspiracy theories I imagine in the main centres they're working towards a lot more camera surveillance and automation for this kind of thing. Already experienced not being able to get a warrant when my bike wasn't registered (or it might have been the other way around) a few years ago.

Next thing will be a front facing number plate to make it easier for the cameras...

It is the other way around - cant register without a WoF

[Berries]

Looking at the stats, if they put Harleys in the agricultural category where they should be rather than the motor vehicle fund the >1000cc category would disappear as a risk.

i jest, but it is surprising how many people riding Harleys who crash don't have a motorbike licence, or are disqualified. Guessing a few of these outlaws won't have rego either......... And that's the rub. People who don't pay their rego will still get treated due to the way ACC works so in the end the levy goes up so the ones who do pay subsidise those who don't. Eventually it must reach a tipping point where those who have always paid in the past just think fuck it, why should I subsidise everyone else, and stop paying. And so it goes up again.

Time for an overhaul of ACC I think.

[Pixie]

ahh well lots will be leaving them on hold........ how often do you see a policeman ???/ :msn-wink:

Not often
I have had one fine for not being registered since the last ACC increase . When was that? 2010?
$200 fine against $7500 rego for 15 years Bargain!

I actually got a fine for doing 100kmh in a newly changed 80 kmh zone and the cop looked at my expired rego label but did not add that to the ticket

On the other hand ,some say the rego label is so secure that the text on it could not possibly be partially erased and the expiry date changed. https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/images/smilies/msn-wink.gif


What I do recall from that time was that ACC said that when the levy increase achieved self funded status , the levy would be reduced . Well that was a gigantic load of bovine shite , wasn't it?

[R650R]

I believe that's why they added the demerit points, with discussion at the time about the fact that previously they had only been applied to safety related offences rather failure to pay a fee, the economics were such that you had a couple of strikes before you were were worse off than having paid.

It's intriguing that they're still focused on engine size, which puts a 35hp DR650 in the same category as a 120hp GSXR750. Perhaps there could be consideration of the fact that if a bike is low risk enough to be LAMS approved this could be reflected in the acc levy applied?

If you look at how some people ride in the adventure scene… At a guess I’d say they are perhaps a surprisingly large part of the claim pool? Anyone have data??? A lot of people are in the adventure scene now that sports bikes are out of fashion and even low dpeed crashes regardless of bike size often seem to result in broken ankles and helicopter rides due to the awkward nature of falling on steep terrain etc.

[Moi]

Let's just have a look at a few figures...

Annual Licence Fee for a motorbike = $24.50 -> that's 47c a week.

Proposed ACC Levy for a bike over 751cc = $485.98 -> that's $9.35 a week

So far, $9.82 a week plus the other few licence incidental costs which come to about $2 a week including GST.

That's $12 a week...


If your bike is a "need-to-have", then you just need to budget for that cost along with the others costs involved with running a bike.

If your bike is a "nice-to-have", then you have to accept that the above amount is part of the cost of the "nice-to-have" toy.

Now for those who think they could just put the bike's licence 'on-hold' and still ride it, I think ACC should seriously consider taking those riders to court to recover the costs involved with the rider's initial medical care and any other in-hospital medical care plus any other costs that ACC have paid for to get the rider back on their feet. Why should they bludge off the system?

I guess that last paragraph is not going down well with some, tough!

Also, if you consider the ACC levy is too steep, try finding a private accident insurance that covers you riding your bike to the same standard as that provided by ACC. And if you do find one, see how much a week that cover will cost you - doubt you get it for under $10 a week.

[nerrrd]

Is ACC just overlooking the power-to-weight ratio that's required for LAMs bikes?


Approved motorcycles must have a power–to-weight ratio of not more than 150kw per tonne

It's not obvious on the website, but this is a requirement on the application form for LAMs approval – which presumably all the manufacturers have to complete. I don't think an R6 would meet this requirement, however your average policeman might just look at the cc rating and say all good, on your way.

So it's not quite as blunt as it seems.

[rastuscat]

Is ACC just overlooking the power-to-weight ratio that's required for LAMs bikes?



It's not obvious on the website, but this is a requirement on the application form for LAMs approval – which presumably all the manufacturers have to complete. I don't think an R6 would meet this requirement, however your average policeman might just look at the cc rating and say all good, on your way.

So it's not quite as blunt as it seems.

10 years after the LAMS rule was introduced my guess is less than 30% of cops have any idea what a LAMS bike looks like.

Every cop is expected to be a specialist in everything, which simply isn't possible.

[pete376403]

Let's just have a look at a few figures...

Annual Licence Fee for a motorbike = $24.50 -> that's 47c a week.

Proposed ACC Levy for a bike over 751cc = $485.98 -> that's $9.35 a week

So far, $9.82 a week plus the other few licence incidental costs which come to about $2 a week including GST.

That's $12 a week...


If your bike is a "need-to-have", then you just need to budget for that cost along with the others costs involved with running a bike.

If your bike is a "nice-to-have", then you have to accept that the above amount is part of the cost of the "nice-to-have" toy.

Now for those who think they could just put the bike's licence 'on-hold' and still ride it, I think ACC should seriously consider taking those riders to court to recover the costs involved with the rider's initial medical care and any other in-hospital medical care plus any other costs that ACC have paid for to get the rider back on their feet. Why should they bludge off the system?

I guess that last paragraph is not going down well with some, tough!

Also, if you consider the ACC levy is too steep, try finding a private accident insurance that covers you riding your bike to the same standard as that provided by ACC. And if you do find one, see how much a week that cover will cost you - doubt you get it for under $10 a week.
Which is all well and good but would you have the same applied to other "risky" pastimes? Rugby players? Horse riders? This has been hashed out before but it remains the same - the essential fairness that was the driver of ACC has been subverted over the years. Break you leg (or your neck) on a game of rugby or falling off a horse? You get fixed at no cost. Do the same on a bike - you're going to pay - before you do it or even if you never do it

[jellywrestler]

10 years after the LAMS rule was introduced my guess is less than 30% of cops have any idea what a LAMS bike looks like.

Every cop is expected to be a specialist in everything, which simply isn't possible.

so why doesn't the system show whether it's lams then so when they check rego and warrant it's also flagged?

[Moi]

Which is all well and good but would you have the same applied to other "risky" pastimes? Rugby players? Horse riders? This has been hashed out before but it remains the same - the essential fairness that was the driver of ACC has been subverted over the years. Break you leg (or your neck) on a game of rugby or falling off a horse? You get fixed at no cost. Do the same on a bike - you're going to pay - before you do it or even if you never do it

What happens in other "risky" pastimes is not what we're discussing. The moaning is about the ACC levy applied to the licence fee when we licence a bike. Yes, we could spend a great deal of time debating the fairness or not of the system and I agree it's not fair.

However, what we have is what we have and we either live with it and accept that one of the rules of playing the game of riding a bike is "you shall pay an ACC levy with your licence fee" or we change it. I don't see it changing. What I do see is some who don't want to play by the rules of riding a bike and appear to have an entitled belief that they don't need to pay the levy. It would be like saying "I want to play football but I don't like that particular rule so I'm not playing by that rule."

It's simply, these are the rules and if you want to play follow the rules and if you don't then go away...

[Beekeeper]

ACC levies on motorcyclists are unfair, particularly if you own multiple bikes for the simple reason you can only ride one bike at a time.
If you had private insurance (and we dont want that, ACC is a very good system) your person is insured, even if you owned 10 bikes the premium is the same. the second point is that we are sucked into the userpays bullshit and take it lying down, apart from there being a social contract implied in ACC to benefit all of society fairly, what about the car drivers who cause a significant amount of bike accidents?


What we need is a national body with some political clout to act on our behalf so these clowns running the show get the message they work for us, btw ACC year in and year out ACC has a massive surplus of cash sloshing about, if there is a such an organisation who are they because I've never heard of them?

[Berries]

What happens in other "risky" pastimes is not what we're discussing. The moaning is about the ACC levy applied to the licence fee when we licence a bike. Yes, we could spend a great deal of time debating the fairness or not of the system and I agree it's not fair.

However, what we have is what we have and we either live with it and accept that one of the rules of playing the game of riding a bike is "you shall pay an ACC levy with your licence fee" or we change it. I don't see it changing. What I do see is some who don't want to play by the rules of riding a bike and appear to have an entitled belief that they don't need to pay the levy.
Like it or not we have ACC. I don't mind paying more than a car driver for that ‘cover', I accept that in any kind of incident I am far less protected and far more likely to suffer serious injuries with life-long consequences than if I was wrapped inside a car.

What I object to is being targeted further by the size of bike I ride when I have seen no evidence whatsoever that I am more at risk on my S1000 than some 20 year old on an FZR250. So bikes over 1000cc make up a significant share of the claims. Could that be because they make up a significant share of the bikes on the road? I have not seen anything to suggest that this is not the case. Age, experience and blood alcohol level would appear to be much more likely determinants based on my involvement in crash data over the years. [Am working on a review of 2023 injury data but 574 DSI crashes involving motorbikes will take a few days to look at]. If ACC are going to base the levy on some idea of risk then they should do it properly.

I also object to the way the funds are collected because it allows people to opt out. Not only does this add to the burden to the riders who do pay but those who refuse to pay still get cover. That’s fucked up. There are other ways to collect the money that could be directly linked to the km's that you cover and thus the exposure you face on the road.

This would also stop penalising riders with more than one bike who can only possibly ride one of them at a time. I would love a multi bike garage so I can pull out a little enduro bike on those shitty cold and wet days but unfortunately the ACC funding model encourages me to just have one bike which inadvertently increases my risk on those shitty days.

As I said, an overhaul is needed otherwise income will drop further as more people opt out. Nothing will change however, they are just advertising the foregone conclusion as they did last time.

[jellywrestler]

ACC levies on motorcyclists are unfair, particularly if you own multiple bikes for the simple reason you can only ride one bike at a time.


that's simply the dumbest argument ever put forward, others can ride one of your bikes at the same time, just like your cars. How do grown ups even think that this is a plausible thing.
My partners name is on two cars here, many times we drive both of her cars at the same time, is that even legal??

[jellywrestler]

This would also stop penalising riders with more than one bike who can only possibly ride one of them at a time.

another one? You mentioned a system where people could 'opt out' so what's stopping me being the registered owner of all the bikes in the house and when
me my wife and three kids get pulled up on a ride telling the cop he's lying cause I can only possibly ride one at a time?

[Berries]

another one? You mentioned a system where people could 'opt out' so what's stopping me being the registered owner of all the bikes in the house and when
me my wife and three kids get pulled up on a ride telling the cop he's lying cause I can only possibly ride one at a time?
Fucks sake, you know what I meant. There must be a better way of collecting the money than through vehicle registration was my point.

[jellywrestler]

However, what we have is what we have and we either live with it and accept that one of the rules of playing the game of riding a bike is "you shall pay an ACC levy with your licence fee" or we change it. I don't see it changing.

they don't give a fuck about us, just look at the $30 charge on rego for the safety fund or whatever it is called, been piling up for years and yet it is still being taxed on us. Motorcyclists may grizzle and pretty much every single one does but collectively we don't get tigether in any sort of number to even be noticed, and a just part of the ever increasing whingers around.
Maybe if we used the term racist we'd get noticed, of culturally inappropriate of something?

[Beekeeper]

that's simply the dumbest argument ever put forward, others can ride one of your bikes at the same time, just like your cars. How do grown ups even think that this is a plausible thing.
My partners name is on two cars here, many times we drive both of her cars at the same time, is that even legal??

Stop being a knob and whose side are you on anyway? Sounds like you really drank the neo liberal user pays kool aid. I have multiple biker mates who own between 1 (rare) to as many as 15 bikes, like everytime they ride do they ask the general public to join them on the other bikes? Everyone pays ACC one way or another, as a business person I pay shitloads and never use it, do you really think that paying full acc fees on that 2nd or third bike is fair?

All that shows is that you are incapable of creative thinking and actually like getting rammed in the arse by the govt.

[onearmedbandit]

I've heard the 'can only ride one bike at a time' argument, but here is where it falls flat. Let's say ACC needs $10,000,000 a year to cover costs that it wants to recoup from ACC levies on motorcycling. For ease of numbers we'll say there are 100,000 motorcycles 'registered'. So they need to collect $100 per motorcycle registered. Now lets look at that if we did it by owners. Obviously there isn't 100,000 owners, maybe there are 30,000 owners. Now they need to collect $333 from all registered owners. So for those that only own one bike their levy has just risen considerably to subsidise those that choose to own more than one bike. One could argue that choosing to own more than one bike is your choice, so you should pay for that choice, not be subsidised by those that own only one.

[jellywrestler]

Stop being a knob and whose side are you on anyway? .

So it's sides now? i've got more than 20 road bikes, and been listening to this same regurgitated thing for decades, and no one has come up with an answer, what about the sidecar that carries two passengers and two on the bike, why aren't you whingeing with them getting away with it all?

maybe you should try facebook if you want likes??

[Beekeeper]

I've heard the 'can only ride one bike at a time' argument, but here is where it falls flat. Let's say ACC needs $10,000,000 a year to cover costs that it wants to recoup from ACC levies on motorcycling. For ease of numbers we'll say there are 100,000 motorcycles 'registered'. So they need to collect $100 per motorcycle registered. Now lets look at that if we did it by owners. Obviously there isn't 100,000 owners, maybe there are 30,000 owners. Now they need to collect $333 from all registered owners. So for those that only own one bike their levy has just risen considerably to subsidise those that choose to own more than one bike. One could argue that choosing to own more than one bike is your choice, so you should pay for that choice, not be subsidised by those that own only one.

ACC is insurance, they collect levies from everyone in various ways to cover the whole group, but in terms of fairness shouldnt they collect $10 more from car rego to cover the main cause of accidents?

This is where your argument falls down, we like high risk recreational activities but no one pays for Rugby do they?

Quote from ACC

"Rugby is by far our most dangerous - and expensive - sport. The latest statistics released by ACC show a quarter of new sport and recreation claims are for rugby-related injuries."s

So who pays? when Bozo Bill and Mullet Murray bash their heads together on Saturday and end up paralysed? There are no levies on rugby balls or Jerseys, and I am sure the clubs pay sweet FA. Where does the money come from, clearly from the general pool.

[onearmedbandit]

ACC is insurance, they collect levies from everyone in various ways to cover the whole group, but in terms of fairness shouldnt they collect $10 more from car rego to cover the main cause of accidents?

This is where your argument falls down, we like high risk recreational activities but no one pays for Rugby do they?

Quote from ACC

"Rugby is by far our most dangerous - and expensive - sport. The latest statistics released by ACC show a quarter of new sport and recreation claims are for rugby-related injuries."s

So who pays? when Bozo Bill and Mullet Murray bash their heads together on Saturday and end up paralysed? There are no levies on rugby balls or Jerseys, and I am sure the clubs pay sweet FA. Where does the money come from, clearly from the general pool.





We're not discussing 'other activities'. You haven't countered my post with anything that about why someone with 1 bike should subsidise someone with 15, because in your scenario that's exactly what will happen.

[Beekeeper]

So it's sides now? i've got more than 20 road bikes, and been listening to this same regurgitated thing for decades, and no one has come up with an answer, what about the sidecar that carries two passengers and two on the bike, why aren't you whingeing with them getting away with it all?

maybe you should try facebook if you want likes??

As I said whose side are you on here, people who pay $400 more for each bike they own or for some ideological argument? ACC is not strapped for cash, it has an embarrassment of riches because it has overcharged for its services

[Beekeeper]

We're not discussing 'other activities'. You haven't countered my post with anything that about why someone with 1 bike should subsidise someone with 15, because in your scenario that's exactly what will happen.

We are discussing principles are we not? User pays- ok fine, clearly you think rugby is not subsidised from the general pool. Owners with multiple bikes are clearly subsiding those who own one so how is that fair?

[onearmedbandit]

We are discussing principles are we not? User pays- ok fine, clearly you think rugby is not subsidised from the general pool. Owners with multiple bikes are clearly subsiding those who own one so how is that fair?

Because that's your choice to own more than one. Don't like it? Sell some then, that'll save you a lot of money right there. That's better than having someone who relies on their single motorcycle for their transport having to subsidise someone choosing to own 15. And stop making assumptions about what I think about rugby and ACC when I haven't even spoken on the matter.

[Beekeeper]

In fact if your argument holds water then you should be demanding ACC levies from unregistered bikes such as my track bike or someone mx bike. No one ever crashed off road and required acc care.. yeah right... So I am subsidising them which I dont mind at all btw.

[onearmedbandit]

For the record I own two 1000cc bikes and a car, that's my choice to own multiple vehicles and I make that choice knowing there are costs associated with that decision. I don't expect someone who is in a less fortunate position than me subsidise my choices.

[onearmedbandit]

In fact if your argument holds water then you should be demanding ACC levies from unregistered bikes such as my track bike or someone mx bike. No one ever crashed off road and required acc care.. yeah right... So I am subsidising them which I dont mind at all btw.

The Sport and Recreation account in ACC covers off road (including racing) accident costs. Nothing to do with the levy applied to road vehicles. So you're not subsidising them at all through your registration.

[Beekeeper]

Because that's your choice to own more than one. Don't like it? Sell some then, that'll save you a lot of money right there. That's better than having someone who relies on their single motorcycle for their transport having to subsidise someone choosing to own 15. And stop making assumptions about what I think about rugby and ACC when I haven't even spoken on the matter.

Explain your logic, how does an owner who owns multiple bikes but rides one at a time for 200 hours a year not subsidise an owner who rides one 200 hours? Nonsensical, if anything you are demanding the 14 bikes in the shed pay for your single owner without any added risk.

If your argument is that biker should cover 100% of their injury costs from their levies then I am afraid you are an ideologue and dont understand how insurance works, let alone what a social contract means

[Beekeeper]

The Sport and Recreation account in ACC covers off road (including racing) accident costs. Nothing to do with the levy applied to road vehicles. So you're not subsidising them at all.

I rest my case, what about all the single riders who never venture off road or to the track? They are subsidising those who do

[onearmedbandit]

Explain your logic, how does an owner who rides multiple bike at a time for 200 hours a year subsidise an owner who rides one 200 hours? Nonsensical, if anything you are demanding the 14 bikes in the shed pay for your single owner without any added risk.

If your argument is that biker should cover 100% of their injury costs from their levies then I am afraid you are an ideologue and dont understand how insurance works, let alone what a social contract means

No that's not my argument, stop making assumptions about me and whatever ideology you may think I have (and for the record you are so wrong that it's funny, I've only spent over 20yrs in the car industry dealing with everything from sales, finance and insurance).

No one is discussing numbers of hours ridden, you are just continually trying to shape the argument to suit your ideals. The system is not perfect but I'm quite happy with how it is now, where those that can afford to have extra 'toys' pay for those extra toys. So yup they can subsidise those that only have one bike, better than those who only choose to have only one (or maybe can only afford one) subsidise those that choose to have more. If you're not happy about it, take action!

[Berries]

I've heard the 'can only ride one bike at a time' argument, but here is where it falls flat. Let's say ACC needs $10,000,000 a year to cover costs that it wants to recoup from ACC levies on motorcycling. For ease of numbers we'll say there are 100,000 motorcycles 'registered'. So they need to collect $100 per motorcycle registered. Now lets look at that if we did it by owners. Obviously there isn't 100,000 owners, maybe there are 30,000 owners. Now they need to collect $333 from all registered owners. So for those that only own one bike their levy has just risen considerably to subsidise those that choose to own more than one bike. One could argue that choosing to own more than one bike is your choice, so you should pay for that choice, not be subsidised by those that own only one.
Let’s say that your 100,000 bikes average 1,000km per year so a total of 100,000,000km is covered per year. To get the $10,000,000 required means 10c per km would cover it. So if you had the average bike you would pay $100. If you had the bike in the garage you would pay nothing (and be at zero risk of injuring yourself). If you did 10,000km you would be exposed to more risk and pay $1,000.

Amongst many other factors, surely the more km you ride the more exposed you are to an event and the more likely you will need ACC? It has nothing to do with the number of bikes in your garage and I would argue less to do with engine size than is assumed.

In the current scenario if 50% of people don’t bother registering their bike then the 50% who do would face a 100% increase in their charge to pay for the others who would still get treated by ACC funding regardless. I see that as subsidising a group. There must be a fairer way of capturing the funds that what is done now.

[onearmedbandit]

Let’s say that your 100,000 bikes average 1,000km per year so a total of 100,000,000km is covered per year. To get the $10,000,000 required means 10c per km would cover it. So if you had the average bike you would pay $100. If you had the bike in the garage you would pay nothing (and be at zero risk of injuring yourself). If you did 10,000km you would be exposed to more risk and pay $1,000.

Amongst many other factors, surely the more km you ride the more exposed you are to an event and the more likely you will need ACC? It has nothing to do with the number of bikes in your garage.

In the current scenario if 50% of people don’t bother registering their bike then the 50% who do would face a 100% increase in their charge to pay for the others who would still get treated by ACC funding regardless. I see that as subsidising a group. There must be a fairer way of capturing the funds that what is done now.

A RUC would most likely be a better way of administrating it, even better than placing it on petrol usage.

[Berries]

A RUC would most likely be a better way of administrating it, even better than placing it on petrol usage.
That was my thinking, I couldn't see how they could do it at a petrol pump.

[onearmedbandit]

That was my thinking, I couldn't see how they could do it at a petrol pump.

Neither, too many variables involved. We'd still see an increase in costs using a RUC system but it would be a more fair way of applying it (still not perfect mind you).

[Moi]

Let’s say that your 100,000 bikes average 1,000km per year so a total of 100,000,000km is covered per year. To get the $10,000,000 required means 10c per km would cover it. So if you had the average bike you would pay $100. If you had the bike in the garage you would pay nothing (and be at zero risk of injuring yourself). If you did 10,000km you would be exposed to more risk and pay $1,000.

Amongst many other factors, surely the more km you ride the more exposed you are to an event and the more likely you will need ACC? It has nothing to do with the number of bikes in your garage and I would argue less to do with engine size than is assumed.

In the current scenario if 50% of people don’t bother registering their bike then the 50% who do would face a 100% increase in their charge to pay for the others who would still get treated by ACC funding regardless. I see that as subsidising a group. There must be a fairer way of capturing the funds that what is done now.

As you and another have implied, ACC isn't perfect but it's a damn sight better than what happens in other countries and there's no way I'd like to see it scraped in favour of something else.

But, that doesn't mean it can't be improved and your idea of mileage based ACC levy seems much fairer than the present levy system. It could be made to work with little effort, even if done electronically and without some label on the bike. It might even appeal to those who support 'user-pays'...

[Moi]

... We'd still see an increase in costs using a RUC system but it would be a more fair way of applying it (still not perfect mind you).

Perhaps not perfect, but better than the present system which seems like a sledge-hammer approach to knocking a thumb tack into the wall.

[Beekeeper]

No that's not my argument, stop making assumptions about me and whatever ideology you may think I have (and for the record you are so wrong that it's funny, I've only spent over 20yrs in the car industry dealing with everything from sales, finance and insurance).

No one is discussing numbers of hours ridden, you are just continually trying to shape the argument to suit your ideals. The system is not perfect but I'm quite happy with how it is now, where those that can afford to have extra 'toys' pay for those extra toys. So yup they can subsidise those that only have one bike, better than those who only choose to have only one (or maybe can only afford one) subsidise those that choose to have more. If you're not happy about it, take action!


I am sure you understand the mechanics of insurance but you still miss the my point about fairness and of ACC which is all about sharing the costs across all of society. I dont mind paying more tax because I get benefits in some other way, but if you cant see that paying ACC levies on a shed full of parked bikes is unfair then there is no point in further discussion with you and by ideologue you reveal your inability to expand the definition of fairness beyond a very narrow interpretation.

Why should I pay an elevated acc fee if I own more than one bike? No reason except its easy to administer. To call them toys is to denigrate people for their passion, you dont have to be wealthy to have multiple bikes and you still havent explained why I should subsidise your acc just because I own more bikes. You are happy because you are not paying your share and that doesnt mean we are all supportive of your conceited attitude.

As for action, when I read the uninformed comments for people arguing for the status quo then I wonder if it's worth it. I remember when they put the fees up in the 90's frenzy of right wing reforms, it was clearly an anti motorcyclist fee justified by whatever numbers they pulled out of their arse. Look to Rugby or other sporting injuries as evidence of double standards as to fee paying but no one is asking players to register and pay up.

This is a biker forum, so my question is does it serve our interests when stealth taxes are imposed by nameless members of the party because hoping we dont notice. If the fee was the same as a car, meh... but its not and for that matter one of the reasons ACC was implemented was to create a no fault environment. That means we save everyone a huge amount of money not pursuing civil cases against the cunts who run us down every single day.

[onearmedbandit]

Why should I pay an elevated acc fee if I own more than one bike? No reason except its easy to administer. To call them toys is to denigrate people for their passion, you dont have to be wealthy to have multiple bikes and you still havent explained why I should subsidise your acc just because I own more bikes. You are happy because you are not paying your share and that doesnt mean we are all supportive of your conceited attitude.



I own two bikes so I also subsidise someone who owns only one. Maybe I don't own as many as you, but that doesn't mean I have a 'conceited attitude'. I'm not degenerating anyone's passion, that's your interpretation of what I mean by 'toy'. Another assumption.

Anyway, moving on, I like berries idea of a km based levy system, would be a much fairer way of applying it than either the current method or the method you are suggesting. So I'm not really interested in arguing this with you any further. Current system sucks, your proposal is just as bad, I'm now swayed to a km traveled based levy.

[jellywrestler]

As I said whose side are you on here, people who pay $400 more for each bike they own or for some ideological argument? ACC is not strapped for cash, it has an embarrassment of riches because it has overcharged for its services

All I pointed out is it's a waste of time turning up at ACC with that weak statement and expecting them not to laugh at you, what's your plan?

Or are you are incapable of creative thinking and actually like getting rammed in the arse by the govt.

I ran a dealer plate for over twenty years, found a niche that suited me, cost me $40 for some business cards to validate it and loved it
The maths don't work any more, as many bikes are over fourty years old, now they must have a warrant, prior to that I did a check sheet prior to riding.
I've literally saved many many thousands of bucks over that twenty years, and you can sell the old plates on trade me too

[jellywrestler]

I rest my case, what about all the single riders who never venture off road or to the track? They are subsidising those who do

I haven't filled out an accident form for decades but it used to ask whether you were on a registered bike on a public road

[SaferRides]

Some interesting discussion, but it all misses the point. The ACC scheme was originally set up on the basis that the public of NZ would give up their right to sue for damages in exchange for comprehensive, no fault accident cover. The present situation with motorcyclists specifically targeted to pay more for cover than any other high risk group is the antithesis of what was originally intended.

Our mistake was to give into this and pay the exorbitant registration fees. Motorcyclists putting their rego on hold are in some way a continuing protest against the excessive rego cost for daring to own a motorcycle.

Disclaimer: I've had a few Friday night drinks!

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[nerrrd]

Our mistake was to give into this and pay the exorbitant registration fees. Motorcyclists putting their rego on hold are in some way a continuing protest against the excessive rego cost for daring to own a motorcycle.


If there was a mass movement of motorcyclists who were all refusing to pay, I would agree with you.

Refusing to pay at least one registration fee as an individual for those that can afford it is at best a futile gesture and at worst an unintentional act of self sabotage that’s only going to make things worse for everyone in the long run…in my opinion.

There was a mass movement when the levies were first increased, the government paid lip service to it at the time, then it all ran out of steam. If someone could come up with a way for a significant number of motorcyclists to all stop paying at the same time, it might get their attention again.

[SaferRides]

If there was a mass movement of motorcyclists who were all refusing to pay, I would agree with you.

Refusing to pay at least one registration fee as an individual for those that can afford it is at best a futile gesture and at worst an unintentional act of self sabotage that’s only going to make things worse for everyone in the long run…in my opinion.

There was a mass movement when the levies were first increased, the government paid lip service to it at the time, then it all ran out of steam. If someone could come up with a way for a significant number of motorcyclists to all stop paying at the same time, it might get their attention again.I meant when the fees first went up. At least you can get something back from the safety levy by doing a Ride Forever course - I must book one soon.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[roogazza]

I meant when the fees first went up. At least you can get something back from the safety levy by doing a Ride Forever course - I must book one soon.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

lol ex Motor Mech
Driving Instructor
ex bike racer
ex police
riding Exp 60 yrs ..............
I ain't doing no ride forever course !!! I rego a couple of months a year.

[jellywrestler]

lol ex Motor Mech
Driving Instructor
ex bike racer
ex police
riding Exp 60 yrs ..............
I ain't doing no ride forever course !!! I rego a couple of months a year.

I'd be very surpised if you didn't learn at least one thing in the day, do it for the free ali express tyre guage and a day out if nothing else.....

[Berries]

riding Exp 60 yrs ..............
I ain't doing no ride forever course !!! I rego a couple of months a year.

Yeah, if I was your age I think doing 12 months registration would be a bit presumptuous.




:bleh:

[jellywrestler]

Bugger, jellywrestler mentioned a free air gauge !!! (and I've just bought a new one !!!).

these things probably cost ten cents to make, i have a friend in the tyre industry who says he got one, 4 PSI out, that's not a very safe thing to trust your life now is it. Fucking stupid if you ask me giving away dangerous stuff like that

[SaferRides]

I'd be very surpised if you didn't learn at least one thing in the day, do it for the free ali express tyre guage and a day out if nothing else.....It's a perfect tyre pressure gauge for motorbikes! Checked against the Michelin gauge and it's spot on.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[Indiana_Jones]

Brace yourselves, they're going in dry....

[Kickaha]

A RUC would most likely be a better way of administrating it, even better than placing it on petrol usage.

A speedo can be disconnected, you have to have petrol, RUC you pay as a lump sum 1000km minimum, petrol is a few extra cents per litre when you fill up

[Berries]

Fuel is definitely the fairest way, you could even try and argue that the bigger the engine the more fuel per km used so no need for ACC to seperate bikes by engine size giving a flat rate of fuel levy. I just can't come up with a practical way of delivering this on a forecourt. I also cannot see the fuel companies wanting to spend money on the pumps to provide whatever facility some bright spark comes up with.

Letting your rego lapse or going out for a fang on a sunny day while it is on hold is one thing. Disconnecting the speedo to avoid RUC is actual and deliberate fraud so perhaps a bigger step to take?

[jellywrestler]

It's a perfect tyre pressure gauge for motorbikes! Checked against the Michelin gauge and it's spot on.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

your one might be, the pirelli reps was 4 psi out, thats quite critical really

[SaferRides]

your one might be, the pirelli reps was 4 psi out, thats quite critical reallyI've got 2, they're both good. I haven't checked them over the full range because for my use, they only need to be accurate at 30-40 psi.

I cross check my digital gauges about once a year.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[roogazza]

When my digital jobbie died on me, I found a new one at Repco for 20 odd bucks on special lol.

I like the digital gauges and it has a light as well . (my buggered old eyes).
I can pretty much tell within a couple of psi what the 1400 pressures are when it drops below 36psi (front) the 14 starts to plough like a tractor. :facepalm: :yes:

ps beaut sunny day here in the Horowhenua, Wednesday is looking good for my weekly fang as well..... xx

[onearmedbandit]

A speedo can be disconnected, you have to have petrol, RUC you pay as a lump sum 1000km minimum, petrol is a few extra cents per litre when you fill up

True. I used to disconnect the speedo on my fathers car as a kid. Not to avoid R.U.C. mind, to avoid a B.E.A.T.I.N.G.

[Kickaha]

I cross check my digital gauges about once a year.

That doesn't mean they're accurate, only that they agree with each other


your one might be, the pirelli reps was 4 psi out

Checked against what ?

[pritch]

I ain't doing no ride forever course !!!


About twelve years back I attended a course to support the local Honda dealer who was supplying all his staff to assist with the running of the course. The guy who was running the course was very "my way or the highway" though and he upset the dealer so he wasn't going to get any Honda staff in future.

The course kicked off with the main man telling us all how extraordinarily qualified he was to manage this event. He went on and on and on. And on some more. I was thinking that's OK if he knows what he doing and he's allowed time for this. Then he explained that we were now running late so we would not be having the emergency braking part of the course. Wanker!

After the theory and some slow pace stuff around a kart track when he would shout criticism and instructions as you circulated, none of which was audible to the rider. We went for a ride on the road. We were doing a very sedate and boring 80kph yet two riders somehow managed to bin it.

The road ride ended at a pub, a strange choice perhaps as some of these people couldn't stay upright sober. We were given a cleaning cloth and some visor demister but apart from that the day was a farcical waste of time.

[SaferRides]

That doesn't mean they're accurate, only that they agree with each other

How do you know whether any gauge is accurate without a traceable calibration certificate?

They are all different brands and read within 0.5 psi. That's good enough for me.



Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[SaferRides]

When my digital jobbie died on me, I found a new one at Repco for 20 odd bucks on special lol.

I like the digital gauges and it has a light as well . (my buggered old eyes).
I can pretty much tell within a couple of psi what the 1400 pressures are when it drops below 36psi (front) the 14 starts to plough like a tractor. :facepalm: :yes:

ps beaut sunny day here in the Horowhenua, Wednesday is looking good for my weekly fang as well..... xx

Which gauge did you get? Two of mine are LED and difficult to read outside, and the display on the Ride Forever gauge is a bit small for me.

I can usually tell when the front is low on the R1, but the Road 6 front seems less sensitive to pressure than the 5. I usually check the pressures before every ride.

I persuaded myself to get the bike out on Sunday and go for a ride. It was sunny in the north Waikato but a cold ride home. The back roads were dry and very quiet, just had to watch for dirt tracked from farm gates.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[rastuscat]

I ain't doing no ride forever course

No problemo. Totally personal choice. Instructors would probably prefer not to have someone on course who already knows everything.

FIGJAM ring any bells?

[pritch]

How do you know whether any gauge is accurate without a traceable calibration certificate?


When I was concerned about such things I took mine somewhere that had calibrated gauges and compared the readings.

[roogazza]

Which gauge did you get? Two of mine are LED and difficult to read outside, and the display on the Ride Forever gauge is a bit small for me.

I can usually tell when the front is low on the R1, but the Road 6 front seems less sensitive to pressure than the 5. I usually check the pressures before every ride.

I persuaded myself to get the bike out on Sunday and go for a ride. It was sunny in the north Waikato but a cold ride home. The back roads were dry and very quiet, just had to watch for dirt tracked from farm gates.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

Gauge is stamped Maxi , sport gauge. Orange plastic with a right angle kink for easy access to bike valves. Has all the measurements with PSI etc etc
Didn't think of the light being handy but in the shed it is !

Like you I'm a bit anal about pressures , it pays off tho as my road 6's are wearing great.
Keep those pressures up !!!!

[roogazza]

No problemo. Totally personal choice. Instructors would probably prefer not to have someone on course who already knows everything.

FIGJAM ring any bells?

haha got a Figjam hat somewhere !!!! But yes I've always practiced driving /riding as an art.

Being and ex mech (way back) my lectures at the Police College always drifted off into the mechanics .
Talking tyres for cars and bikes... etc
Of course you never stop after doing a course,practice and applying skills go on forever !

[jellywrestler]

haha got a Figjam hat somewhere !!!! But yes I've always practiced driving /riding as an art.

Being and ex mech (way back) my lectures at the Police College always drifted off into the mechanics .
Talking tyres for cars and bikes... etc
Of course you never stop after doing a course,practice and applying skills go on forever !

when is the last time you slammed your brakes on at 80kms an hour to the point where if you had ABS it set to work? is it something you practice?

[rastuscat]

haha got a Figjam hat somewhere !!!! But yes I've always practiced driving /riding as an art.

Being and ex mech (way back) my lectures at the Police College always drifted off into the mechanics .
Talking tyres for cars and bikes... etc
Of course you never stop after doing a course,practice and applying skills go on forever !

My lectures at Chateau Papakowhai generally depended on whether I was giving them or receiving them.

Thing with motorcycle skills, is they are a decaying subset. Having an ACC funded reminder each year never hurts.

I really benefit from the Ride Forever courses I do. I chose a different instructor each time, everyone has a different background, so has a different spin on the curriculum.

The day gives me a chance to forget about everything else, and just think about my techniques.

All personal choice. I believe in continual personal improvement.

Ironically, I also know that ACC pays for these courses from the Motorcycle Safety Levy, where I take advantage of the courses or not. Effectively, I'm paying for them, so I might as well take advantage of them.

[jellywrestler]

apart from training, I've never had ABS cut in, ever ! Maybe its because I'm always looking way,way ahead...But It wouldn't be a surprise as I am aware of how ABS works.

Trying to teach braking is another thing of course, stopping with the wheels at locking point is a skill you have to work at.

that's one area we covered and repeated it till it wasn't stressful, I'd never lost trust in my ability for extreme braking, but practising it certainly has been a great thing to do, and the day i need it my energy and concentration won't be going into doing that, that will be more second nature then it was prior to my course, my brain will then be able to work on other things

i found too that the hairpin at the bottom of my hill was just better after the course, whatever they taught me worked, it was a very good day out.

swallow your pride and do one, even if it's just to dust off your Figjam hat for a day

[F5 Dave]

True. I used to disconnect the speedo on my fathers car as a kid. Not to avoid R.U.C. mind, to avoid a B.E.A.T.I.N.G.

Ha! Was at a mates funeral on Thursday and his wife mentioned how that mysterious happened to the family Laser when I borrowed it as we kids drove around all night.

Then we got a *onda City. Boy street cred went down several notches. First time that was tried the inner cable slinkied it's way out never to be found. I offered to arrange a replacement for the 'broken' cable as it was like my motorbikes.

I'm sure he probably knew but never called me on it.

[F5 Dave]

that's one area we covered and repeated it till it wasn't stressful, I'd never lost trust in my ability for extreme braking, but practising it certainly has been a great thing to do, and the day i need it my energy and concentration won't be going into doing that, that will be more second nature then it was prior to my course, my brain will then be able to work on other things

i found too that the hairpin at the bottom of my hill was just better after the course, whatever they taught me worked, it was a very good day out.

swallow your pride and do one, even if it's just to dust off your Figjam hat for a day
Whenever we did Advanced courses (pre ABS days of course) we always noticed how dramatic the improvement of the students over a session of quite a few metres from 80km/h. Racing and dirtbikes keep you sharp and yes I believe you remember that feeling if you have done it on the limit so many times, unlike the road.

Actually, in the wet now I have ABS on 1 bike, I'll often just test the limit of the rear brake just so I know how much traction I have before it cuts in.

[SaferRides]

Whenever we did Advanced courses (pre ABS days of course) we always noticed how dramatic the improvement of the students over a session of quite a few metres from 80km/h. Racing and dirtbikes keep you sharp and yes I believe you remember that feeling if you have done it on the limit so many times, unlike the road.

Actually, in the wet now I have ABS on 1 bike, I'll often just test the limit of the rear brake just so I know how much traction I have before it cuts in.I think most people would be surprised how hard you can brake once you have transferred the weight on to the front wheel. Even more impressive are modern tyres in the wet, especially for those of us who learnt to ride on Japanese motorbikes in the 70's!

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[JimO]

im just back from Vietnam and if ACC saw the way the 90 million scooter riders ride they would have a conniption

[rastuscat]

im just back from Vietnam and if ACC saw the way the 90 million scooter riders ride they would have a conniption

Really interesting correlation with chaos theory, Vietnam. When nobody has an expectation of the actions of other road users, they ride with less expectation, and more care.

For example, coming up to a side road, when travelling on a main road, we all expect the car in the side road to give way to us. It's the law.

But if as we travel we have no such expectation of that guy in the car in the side road, we can be ready for that person to not give way.

Multiply that by about 2 zillion, and you get Vietnam.

When I visited in the 90s most people in S Vietnam rode bikes or motorbikes. On a more recent visit, the population had become more affluent, and cars had started to dominate. Having a car used to be for the rich, then everyone became better off, and got a car. So now cities are becoming clogged with cars.

North Vietnam is quite a few years behind the south, economically. Thank the war for that. The American influence in Hi Chi Minh City still exists, as does capitalism in general. In the North, there are still more bikes and motorbikes, as they are still more communist-influenced.

[BMWST?]

Many of these activities, including breath testing, pretty much stopped during covid, and haven't started again with other police work being a higher priority.

A friend leaves his rego on hold for 9 months at a time. He's never been ticketed in maybe 20 years.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk
I have a friend who is the same .

[nerrrd]

Really interesting correlation with chaos theory, Vietnam. When nobody has an expectation of the actions of other road users, they ride with less expectation, and more care…

Do the every-person-for-themselves countries have comparable road tolls to ours? The data might be hard for them to collect I guess.

[R650R]

How do you know whether any gauge is accurate without a traceable calibration certificate?

They are all different brands and read within 0.5 psi. That's good enough for me.



Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

Dare I say it the likely piezo transducer used to turn a pressure reading into a voltage are probably mass produced by probably a single manufacturer. And likely ditto for what’s probably an off the shelf surface mount chip that does the maths.

Anything calibrated whether it’s a tyre gauge or a micrometer it’s only accurate till the first time it’s dropped on garage floor.

[R650R]

Really interesting correlation with chaos theory, Vietnam. When nobody has an expectation of the actions of other road users, they ride with less expectation, and more care.

North Vietnam is quite a few years behind the south, economically. Thank the war for that. In the North, there are still more bikes and motorbikes

There’s a new metric to consider though, growing up in an era of guerilla warfare alongside foreign invasion. Where never mind traffic crashes, your survival is dependant on spotting mines/booby traps or govt agents and having to make instant decisions that will impact on your survival. Perhaps war culls all the slower thinkers(and sadly some of the better minds too).

Given all the last few decades of experimental implementation of democracy via airmail it would be interesting to see road safety stats pre and post invasion around the world.

[Berries]

Do the every-person-for-themselves countries have comparable road tolls to ours? The data might be hard for them to collect I guess.
No. They are far worse. I have been working on a number of road safety projects in Vietnam over the last few years and the numbers are terrible. I came to the conclusion that in NZ we have pretty much got as far as we can go with road safety while keeping the general population on side while in Vietnam and many other countries low cost improvements can make huge improvements. Much more satisfying working over there where you can actually see the results in front of your own eyes.

Check out this list of countries. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate)



Perhaps war culls all the slower thinkers(and sadly some of the better minds too).
Much like motorbikes in that respect.

[jellywrestler]

No. They are far worse. I have been working on a number of road safety projects in Vietnam over the last few years and the numbers are terrible. I came to the conclusion that in NZ we have pretty much got as far as we can go with road safety while keeping the general population on side while in Vietnam and many other countries low cost improvements can make huge improvements. Much more satisfying working over there where you can actually see the results in front of your own eyes.

Check out this list of countries. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate)



Much like motorbikes in that respect.

so road to zero, Veitnam?

[rastuscat]

Do the every-person-for-themselves countries have comparable road tolls to ours? The data might be hard for them to collect I guess.

When I was first in Thailand, they didn't even attend fatal crashes. People crashed, ambulances might arrive, maybe not. People sorted themselves out.

So the country had no real idea how many people were being killed on the roads. Even now, the number they give is a best estimate.

What gets measured gets done. You can't properly address a problem you don't measure.

[pritch]

There’s a new metric to consider though, growing up in an era of guerilla warfare alongside foreign invasion. Where never mind traffic crashes, your survival is dependant on spotting mines/booby traps or govt agents and having to make instant decisions that will impact on your survival. Perhaps war culls all the slower thinkers(and sadly some of the better minds too).



Sean Flynn and Dana Stone might agree. Except they can't. Perhaps unwisely they went for a motorbike ride. They never returned.

[Berries]

so road to zero, Veitnam?
No chance there like no chance here.

it is dangerous moving forward. Did anyone know that Genghis Kahn died from a fall from a horse? Or William the Conqueror. As did the great Saladin's father, Robert the Bruce's daughter and the original bobby himself Sir Robert Peel. Even Superman was paralysed by a horse. Bet none of them were exceeding 30km/h.

[nerrrd]

No chance there like no chance here.

it is dangerous moving forward. Did anyone know that Genghis Kahn died from a fall from a horse? Or William the Conqueror. As did the great Saladin's father, Robert the Bruce's daughter and the original bobby himself Sir Robert Peel. Even Superman was paralysed by a horse. Bet none of them were exceeding 30km/h.

Weren't there a couple of deaths from falls on ice recently in the news? When I see one of my neighbours riding his electric scooter at 40kph in rush hour traffic with his shaved head glinting in the sun, it does makes me wonder how he gets away with it...but he does seem to.

[neels]

Did anyone know that Genghis Kahn died from a fall from a horse? Or William the Conqueror. As did the great Saladin's father, Robert the Bruce's daughter and the original bobby himself Sir Robert Peel. Even Superman was paralysed by a horse. Bet none of them were exceeding 30km/h.


Weren't there a couple of deaths from falls on ice recently in the news? When I see one of my neighbours riding his electric scooter at 40kph in rush hour traffic with his shaved head glinting in the sun, it does makes me wonder how he gets away with it...but he does seem to.
Falling is just another way of moving at speed to a sudden stop.

If I remember correctly acceleration due to gravity is 10m/s/s, so in simple terms if it takes your head 1/2 second to get from it's normal height to ice it's doing 18km/h when it stops, add more height from a horse and you add more speed, at which point force = mass x acceleration. As these cases have demonstrated, enough force to break things in your brain.

Electric scooter with no helmet is a great way to decelerate your head very quickly to 0km/h against the side of a car.

[SaferRides]

I drove around a blind corner at the weekend to find a Lime scooter on my side of the road coming straight for me. No helmet of course.

Then last night someone at a stop sign turned right as I was going straight ahead. It's scary out there sometimes!

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[Moi]

...

Check out this list of countries. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate)



...

Interesting to read the difference between the number of road deaths per 100000 population in Australia and NZ. They have a population 5x ours, much greater distances between 'here and there' in rural Australia and much denser traffic in urban areas and yet they have a much lower road death rate per 100000 people. Why? What are they doing that we aren't?

I'm going to suggest that Australian authorities have embraced the second E of the three Es to lower road deaths. For those wondering, second E = enforcement.

Their whole approach to road rules enforcement is 'in your face' almost. Speed through a road works zone, limit 40km/h, and the excess speed is doubled and you are fined by that amount plus get demerit points. There are both highly visible traffic patrol vehicles and plain vehicles, plus the everyday police also act on driving issues.

Perhaps the Minister could forget about fancy roads and focus on spending big money on a traffic police force in this country.

How much it would lower the road death rate per 100000 I don't know, but I do suspect that the general standard of driving would improve.

[F5 Dave]

We live in a country full of squiggles and they don't.

[geoffm]

Any insurance underwriters out there? I wonder how much private health insurance would cost if you had the option of forgoing ACC, especially if you have multiple bikes.
I have health insurnace, even though we supposedly have state funded health care, because I want to be treated before I die.

[pete376403]

Interesting to read the difference between the number of road deaths per 100000 population in Australia and NZ. They have a population 5x ours, much greater distances between 'here and there' in rural Australia and much denser traffic in urban areas and yet they have a much lower road death rate per 100000 people. Why? What are they doing that we aren't?

I'm going to suggest that Australian authorities have embraced the second E of the three Es to lower road deaths. For those wondering, second E = enforcement.

Their whole approach to road rules enforcement is 'in your face' almost. Speed through a road works zone, limit 40km/h, and the excess speed is doubled and you are fined by that amount plus get demerit points. There are both highly visible traffic patrol vehicles and plain vehicles, plus the everyday police also act on driving issues.

Perhaps the Minister could forget about fancy roads and focus on spending big money on a traffic police force in this country.

How much it would lower the road death rate per 100000 I don't know, but I do suspect that the general standard of driving would improve.

What was it like in NT when they had no open road limit? Crash fatality stats available for that era?

[onearmedbandit]

Check out this list of countries. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate)



.

I didn't realise we punched so far above our weight!

[pritch]

I drove around a blind corner at the weekend to find a Lime scooter on my side of the road coming straight for me. No helmet of course.

Then last night someone at a stop sign turned right as I was going straight ahead. It's scary out there sometimes!



It's the full moon. That affects some people unduly.

[Moi]

What was it like in NT when they had no open road limit? Crash fatality stats available for that era?

Sorry, no idea. I was using the figures in the data that Berries had linked.

[SaferRides]

What was it like in NT when they had no open road limit? Crash fatality stats available for that era?I don't have the numbers, but I remember that it wasn't pretty compared to the rest of the country. But then not much of NT is urban with lower average speeds.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[SaferRides]

It's the full moon. That affects some people unduly.Of course, that's as good an explanation as any! Has this been investigated? Maybe there should be a curfew when there's a full moon?

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[jellywrestler]

Of course, that's as good an explanation as any! Has this been investigated? Maybe there should be a curfew when there's a full moon?

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

fuck no, everyone needs to escape their wives somehow then

[Kickaha]

What was it like in NT when they had no open road limit? Crash fatality stats available for that era?

Fatalities went up

https://www.webbikeworld.com/nt-restricts-speed-despite-evidence/

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/07/australia-deaths-go-up-after-speed-limits-imposed/

However that may not still be the same now and the NT overall has the worst crash statistics of any state

[rastuscat]

Perhaps the Minister could forget about fancy roads and focus on spending big money on a traffic police force in this country.
.

They have actually done that. The funding for road safety promotion and education has been significantly cut, while the budget for enforcement has been increased.

The argument for a separate traffic dept like we used to have is strong, but it's not supported at a high level, so won't fly any time soon.

[onearmedbandit]

They have actually done that. The funding for road safety promotion and education has been significantly cut, while the budget for enforcement has been increased.

The argument for a separate traffic dept like we used to have is strong, but it's not supported at a high level, so won't fly any time soon.

Are you able to elaborate on why it's not supported?

[rastuscat]

Are you able to elaborate on why it's not supported?


They would have to admit the merger was a mistake.
They would have to establish a second adminstration system.
They would have to reduce the number of people in the Police to staff the new dept
A separate set of buildings, a separate vehicle fleet


There were efficiencies gained when the merger happened. But it was at the cost of a lost focus on traffic policing.

That cost remains, where road policing FTEs get drawn off to general duties jobs, as happens regularly. The public expects the Police to do everything, which can never happen. Staff get allocated depending on priorities, which ebb and flow. The focus on enforcement is increasing under this government, but it's still inadequate to actually influence driver behaviour much.

A former District Road Policing Manager I know estimates that we would need around 10 times the current Road Policing FTEs to have an appreciable influence on driver behaviour. And that's not going to happen.

[pete376403]

Fatalities went up

https://www.webbikeworld.com/nt-restricts-speed-despite-evidence/

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/07/australia-deaths-go-up-after-speed-limits-imposed/

However that may not still be the same now and the NT overall has the worst crash statistics of any state

Thanks for the links - appears that when there was no limit " "Territorians have always acted sensibly in open speed limit zones, with 85 per cent of drivers travelling between 133-139km/h; and most driving to the conditions," the minister said." so MOST people drove at around just over what the new limit has been set at. The other 15% will continue to ignore limits regardless. Pretty much what happens here as well.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/news/81914774/australias-northern-territorys-open-speed-limits-extended

[onearmedbandit]

There were efficiencies gained when the merger happened. But it was at the cost of a lost focus on traffic policing.



Cheers. One other possible cost I can think of is the public image of the police took a beating now that they were tasked with the unenviable job of ticketing drivers instead of solely focusing on 'police' work. I was only 17 when the merger happened but I remember prior to that most of the public feared/hated the 'black and whites' and the police just did police stuff.

[rastuscat]

Cheers. One other possible cost I can think of is the public image of the police took a beating now that they were tasked with the unenviable job of ticketing drivers instead of solely focusing on 'police' work. I was only 17 when the merger happened but I remember prior to that most of the public feared/hated the 'black and whites' and the police just did police stuff.

Add to that the number of people who join the Police who don't want to do traffic work. It's regarded as second level, not "real policing".

When you had a separate department, the people who worked there were those who wanted to do that work. Like me, I got paid to ride a motorbike, what's not to like ?

[F5 Dave]

Think it was National that promised More Police. Delivered by merging TOs. Brilliant Spin Doctoring.

[rastuscat]

Thats not to say I didn't like to use the Police Offences Act when needed....:lol:

Are you an Ernie? I am.

I was more a Fish and Chip Act observant.

[rastuscat]

Just confirming for the lurkers.

At the time of the merger with Police (1 July 1992), there were just over 1000 traffic cops.

The collar numbers assigned were E001 through to F10-something.

So most former traffic cops were "Ernies", with some who got Fs escaping what was regarded as a mark of dishonour by "real" cops.

When I left in 2015 there were still "real" cops who looked down their noses at Ernies. Funny really, given that they had higher numbers, so had been in the police often for far less time.

The collar number is a symbol of credibility within police, as it dates the holders join date. It often tells a story and imparts respect, but only in some circumstances.

If someone leaves then comes back, they get a new collar number. Which doesn't reflect their length of service. Funny when someone who doesn't know the circumstances assumes someone is new, when they have years of prior service.

Just for anyone who isn't sure WTF an Ernie is.

[R650R]

Thanks Rastus that’s quite interesting.That phenomenon happens quite often these days as people change jobs more often. Nothing quite as satisfying as the expert who knows everything coming back five mins later to ask how do you do that?
It would be interesting to see proper arrest stats these days, surely a lot of our “most wanted” are getting nicked after traffic stops and with modern electronic technology making it quick to see outstanding warrants etc

[R650R]

Any insurance underwriters out there? I wonder how much private health insurance would cost if you had the option of forgoing ACC, especially if you have multiple bikes.
I have health insurnace, even though we supposedly have state funded health care, because I want to be treated before I die.

I suspect it would be much higher as the industry up for the entire population. It would be like compulsory car insurance in UK, you pay a lot more for third party on an older car than you would here.
At the moment it’s mostly wealthy (used loosely compared to average wages) that can afford health insurance. Most of those people can afford to eat healthier, more time for exercise and afford to go to doctor earlier to catch things early.

But a seperate accident/trauma insurance could be plausible based on risk profile, but I suspect it wouldn’t end well for bikers if what acc says about our injury costs and earnings profiles is true.
At least all the rugby players and cyclists might pay their fair share though! And if your doing home DIY I’d bet insurance company would insist on you using proper scaffold etc if your painting house roof or similar tasks.

[rastuscat]

As regards the unfairness of people with more than 1 bike having to pay more than 1 ACC levy, I'd be interested in hearing the system that people propose to address that unfairness.

But there are some flags to address. There's no point in proposing a system which does not address these flags, as they matter to the decision makers.

ACC largely pays the bill for motorcycle injury and rehab costs, some of which are ongoing claim liabilities, years or decades after the unfortunate crash happened. So they know how much they are spending on motorcycle crashes.

They then decide how much they need to recover from motorcycle ACC levies, and that figure is around 30% of the cost of injuries and rehab, the rest coming from the general roading fund. I believe the current consultation proposes increasing the percentage that motorcyclists pay, which is what started this discussion.

If we go to a system where each person pays based on their status as a motorcyclists, rather than based on the registration of the number of bikes they own, the amount of money collected would decrease. The money has to come from somewhere, so likely there would be an increase across the board for all riders, to address the balance. So people with 1 bike (most people, I suggest) would effectively be subsidising those with more than 1. This just to maintain the current percentage riders pay.

If we levied people based on those who hold a Class 6, well, that's 450000 people, of which only 130000 actually ride. So that can't work.

So we than levy those who have a Class 6 licence, who have a bike registered in their name. Sounds fair. Until everyone twigs, and registers their bike in the name of a friend or relative who doesn't have a Class 6. If people can, people will.

So come on, tell me about a fool proof system that meets these criteria


Collects the amount of money needed to pay the percentage of the cost of injuries and rehab.
Is actually practically applicable, from an enforcement point of view.
Pie in the sky ideas like "I don't want to pay anything" can't work. Cool to say that, but it's aint going to happen.


Every system I've ever heard, that can actually be applied, has equity issues. We can moan about how fabulous the system in this country or that country is, but New Zealand is not going to disestablish ACC, or similar, any time soon.

So, post away.

P.S. I don't want to pay more either, I just accept that collectively, we probably need to do so.

[roogazza]

Just confirming for the lurkers.

At the time of the merger with Police (1 July 1992), there were just over 1000 traffic cops.

The collar numbers assigned were E001 through to F10-something.

So most former traffic cops were "Ernies", with some who got Fs escaping what was regarded as a mark of dishonour by "real" cops.

If someone leaves then comes back, they get a new collar number. Which doesn't reflect their length of service. Funny when someone who doesn't know the circumstances assumes someone is new, when they have years of prior service.

Just for anyone who isn't sure WTF an Ernie is.

Thanks for that Rasta, I'd never known that ! In my day graduation 1974 I got a number 4590P "P' was dropped after two years and passing probation exam. So I became just 4590.
I resigned in 1985 after getting the shits with the job. Went to Aussie for 13 years and returned in 1998. Rejoined and was given the new number GN868 (initials and number). HQ said I only had to do the physical tests as I had worked at the College for 8 years (instructor ). They slotted me into DPS . Diplomatic squad. Retired 2008.

Lol remember getting into the lift at Central and a middle aged Sgt grinned and said, fuck you still alive !!!! Turned out to be one of my ex cadets from way back. hahahaha

[pete376403]

As regards the unfairness of people with more than 1 bike having to pay more than 1 ACC levy, I'd be interested in hearing the system that people propose to address that unfairness.

But there are some flags to address. There's no point in proposing a system which does not address these flags, as they matter to the decision makers.

ACC largely pays the bill for motorcycle injury and rehab costs, some of which are ongoing claim liabilities, years or decades after the unfortunate crash happened. So they know how much they are spending on motorcycle crashes.

They then decide how much they need to recover from motorcycle ACC levies, and that figure is around 30% of the cost of injuries and rehab, the rest coming from the general roading fund. I believe the current consultation proposes increasing the percentage that motorcyclists pay, which is what started this discussion.

If we go to a system where each person pays based on their status as a motorcyclists, rather than based on the registration of the number of bikes they own, the amount of money collected would decrease. The money has to come from somewhere, so likely there would be an increase across the board for all riders, to address the balance. So people with 1 bike (most people, I suggest) would effectively be subsidising those with more than 1. This just to maintain the current percentage riders pay.

If we levied people based on those who hold a Class 6, well, that's 450000 people, of which only 130000 actually ride. So that can't work.

So we than levy those who have a Class 6 licence, who have a bike registered in their name. Sounds fair. Until everyone twigs, and registers their bike in the name of a friend or relative who doesn't have a Class 6. If people can, people will.

So come on, tell me about a fool proof system that meets these criteria


Collects the amount of money needed to pay the percentage of the cost of injuries and rehab.
Is actually practically applicable, from an enforcement point of view.
Pie in the sky ideas like "I don't want to pay anything" can't work. Cool to say that, but it's aint going to happen.


Every system I've ever heard, that can actually be applied, has equity issues. We can moan about how fabulous the system in this country or that country is, but New Zealand is not going to disestablish ACC, or similar, any time soon.

So, post away.

P.S. I don't want to pay more either, I just accept that collectively, we probably need to do so.

I think what gets most of us (certainly gets me) that motorists (just about any wheeled vehicle used on public roads) are penalised for the apparent risk profile whereas any other activity, is not, even though ACC has any amount of statistics to show these other activities can be equally risky to the person and expensive to ACC. We are hit with double whammy, paying out of our wage/salary/company ownership into the general fund, and then via the registration. Yet you are correct, it is not going to change anytime soon, and will only get worse

[Racing Dave]

As regards the unfairness of people with more than 1 bike having to pay more than 1 ACC levy, I'd be interested in hearing the system that people propose to address that unfairness.

But there are some flags to address. There's no point in proposing a system which does not address these flags, as they matter to the decision makers.

ACC largely pays the bill for motorcycle injury and rehab costs, some of which are ongoing claim liabilities, years or decades after the unfortunate crash happened. So they know how much they are spending on motorcycle crashes.

They then decide how much they need to recover from motorcycle ACC levies, and that figure is around 30% of the cost of injuries and rehab, the rest coming from the general roading fund. I believe the current consultation proposes increasing the percentage that motorcyclists pay, which is what started this discussion.

If we go to a system where each person pays based on their status as a motorcyclists, rather than based on the registration of the number of bikes they own, the amount of money collected would decrease. The money has to come from somewhere, so likely there would be an increase across the board for all riders, to address the balance. So people with 1 bike (most people, I suggest) would effectively be subsidising those with more than 1. This just to maintain the current percentage riders pay.

If we levied people based on those who hold a Class 6, well, that's 450000 people, of which only 130000 actually ride. So that can't work.

So we than levy those who have a Class 6 licence, who have a bike registered in their name. Sounds fair. Until everyone twigs, and registers their bike in the name of a friend or relative who doesn't have a Class 6. If people can, people will.

So come on, tell me about a fool proof system that meets these criteria


Collects the amount of money needed to pay the percentage of the cost of injuries and rehab.
Is actually practically applicable, from an enforcement point of view.
Pie in the sky ideas like "I don't want to pay anything" can't work. Cool to say that, but it's aint going to happen.


Every system I've ever heard, that can actually be applied, has equity issues. We can moan about how fabulous the system in this country or that country is, but New Zealand is not going to disestablish ACC, or similar, any time soon.

So, post away.

P.S. I don't want to pay more either, I just accept that collectively, we probably need to do so.

Fairness, or otherwise, is the biggest issue.

How can it be fair for an owner of 10 bikes, covering the same annual distance as an owner with one bike, who is expected to pay 10 times the cost for exactly the same risk?

Some years ago, when Nick Smith was Minister for ACC, we had some correspondence on the very topic of multiple motorcycle ownership with only one bike ridden at a time, concluding when he advised me that ‘the system had to be fair for everyone’. Which it wasn’t then and isn’t now.

I can think of a way to (approximately fairly) collect the necessary revenue. Know how much is needed, divide that by the ‘average’ fuel consumption of an ‘average’ bike, and add that cost to the per litre price at the petrol pump. Bigger bikes, generally, use more fuel than smaller ones, and this is more or less in line with the stepped level of levy that we now enjoy.

Likewise, it addresses another unfairness, being that of the fellow who rides 1000km a year being a lesser risk of a claim than the fellow who rides 10,000km per year.

Nothing addresses the issue of the idiot rider who zooms everywhere, compared to the risk of an (possibly) older chap being cautious everywhere. Why should Mr Steady-As-She-Goes pay the same as Joe Rocket?

It is, of course, not fair to car drivers (who currently pay a much lower ACC component), but at least it addresses the issue of multiple bike ownership and cuts across those who ride with their bike’s rego on hold.

It doesn’t need enforcement.

[SaferRides]

I think what gets most of us (certainly gets me) that motorists (just about any wheeled vehicle used on public roads) are penalised for the apparent risk profile whereas any other activity, is not, even though ACC has any amount of statistics to show these other activities can be equally risky to the person and expensive to ACC. We are hit with double whammy, paying out of our wage/salary/company ownership into the general fund, and then via the registration. Yet you are correct, it is not going to change anytime soon, and will only get worseExactly. But ACC play similar games with Workplace Cover, and you could question the fairness of charging higher levies just because some occupations are riskier.

ACC has been around for a long time and is probably well overdue for a major review. But successive governments continue to ignore the issues and leave it all in the Too Hard basket.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[Berries]

So anyway, I am interested in the engine size breakdown because I think it is a too simplistic way of determining risk and does not match the view I have in my mind of crashes being due to the rider more than it is the size of the engine.

There were 1,371 reported crashes in total last year involving a moped or motorbike where someone was injured. This is a long way from the 4,487 people ACC said were treated. I have just concentrated on the fatal and serious crashes of which there were 574.

20 of these crashes occurred off the public road, on beaches mainly. I have ignored them. 46 of these crashes involved unregistered dirt bikes crashing on a public road. I have taken those out of the following analysis. Quick tip. If you are going to ride a dirt bike on the road and be a dickhead it is probably a good idea to wear a helmet and may I suggest doing it during daylight.

17 crashes involved non-registered quads which I have ignored as I have two farm bikes and a pit bike. So 15 percent of the motorbikes crashing on a public road were not actually registered and contributing to the ACC motor vehicle fund.

There are 15 crashes where the bike details are not recorded so they are of no use so are ignored. Some of these are rubbish data while others are where ‘associates’ turned up before the Police and removed the bike. Finally, there are four crashes where it was not the bike rider who was injured so I deleted them.

So in total we have 470 on road crashes last year where a road registered bike crashed and a rider was killed or seriously injured, what’s that, one every day of the week but two on Saturdays and Sundays. Table below shows make of bike and engine size. To make it legible I have deleted from the table 17 manufacturers who had three or fewer bikes listed however the total across the bottom is still the actual total.

Take from it what you will. Some facts.

472 bikes involved. 247 full licences. 83 learner, 39 restricted. 73 no bike licence at all and 23 disqualified. Table of those by bike as well.

Harley are top of the list re crash involvement. Why are they top of the list? This graph might help –

Registered motorbikes in NZ. (https://figure.nz/chart/mTtqAzmnm6Dat9K8-yisXjrcu6DxAPROw)

No surprise then if most claims come from this group given they make up such a large part of the fleet and 85 percent of them are >1,000cc. To be honest I never knew a V Rod was such a popular learners bike.

Crash data does not include the rego status of the bikes involved although it was noted that quite a few bikes were not current. WOF data is there though, 78 had expired prior to 2023, the best being 2006, 41 had expired earlier in 2023, 48 were unknown – mainly mopeds that don’t need a WOF, and 304 were current.

ACC are not bothered about fault but I am. My estimate is that 110 riders were (arguably) not at fault, 40 where the rider was partly at fault and 315 where the rider was clearly at fault. Every one of those crashes is a lesson to us all and is worthy of a thread of its own.

Reckless riding, lots of oh shit moments the wrong side of 140km/h, lots of examples where the rider crossed the centre line on a left hander or ran off the road on a right, basic skills stuff. A few group rides in there, a few gang fails in the mix. Some big alcohol readings, generally associated with riding like a twat and missing corners at warp factor nine. Ride Forever courses get a mention more than once which is a little bit ironic. A few people on stolen bikes getting mangled so it is not all bad news. Meth seems to be quite a popular riding aid as well. We could all learn something from knowing more of what actually happened in these events. Could even turn out to be more useful than a pressure gauge.

My favourite comment was “I came round the corner and the next thing I’m in the ambulance” as well as “Put some drugs in me you cunts.”

But I digress. Table below of crash involvement just because I was interested and wanted some background for a submission. A review of the actual crashes confirmed my believe that engine size alone is not a good determinant of risk if you are simply going to ignore the rider and the exposure based on mileage and reinforces some of my long held prejudices about big cruisers. There you go, I said it, and I was really trying hard not to. We are all however part of a minority and in the end this will turn out to be a waste of time as the decision has already been made. Hope someone finds it interesting though.

:corn:

[SaferRides]

There clearly should be a separate category for >1000 cc.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[rastuscat]

There clearly should be a separate category for >1000 cc.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

Hmmm. Why? Power to weight ratio says my 1200GSA is far less risky than a 900 race replica Yamaha currently on sale.

Never mind that big beemers don't seem to be the choice for risk takers. More the cloth cap, pipe smoking types.

I'm sure everyone can mount an argument as to why they are less risk, and so should pay less.

[SaferRides]

Hmmm. Why? Power to weight ratio says my 1200GSA is far less risky than a 900 race replica Yamaha currently on sale.

Never mind that big beemers don't seem to be the choice for risk takers. More the cloth cap, pipe smoking types.

I'm sure everyone can mount an argument as to why they are less risk, and so should pay less.

From the data that Berries posted. One third of the crashes were on bikes over 1000 cc.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[R650R]

Likewise, it addresses another unfairness, being that of the fellow who rides 1000km a year being a lesser risk of a claim than the fellow who rides 10,000km per year.

Nothing addresses the issue of the idiot rider who zooms everywhere, compared to the risk of an (possibly) older chap being cautious everywhere. Why should Mr Steady-As-She-Goes pay the same as Joe Rocket?.

I have several mates who are in the low km bracket for various reasons work hours/money/wife/kids etc and I think a lack of kms is higher risk. Although they are exposed less they are not keeping their eye in and maintaining skill level. There’s a reason why the USAF wastes thousands of tons of jet fuel on training when pilots are already at top gun level.


The demerit system and insurance premiums partly address those who go hard everywhere…

[R650R]

Nice work Berries must spread rep although your cc breakdown is a little biased as all other groups stepped by 100cc ish although it’s prob correct that the big baggers are over represented.
Just thinking of making a sudden direction change or effective emergency braking with the mass and geometry of that style of bike mitigates the desire to own something like that purely to experience the big cc twin torque outputs.
Yes perhaps we argue a bigger cc bracket to seperate that lot but trouble is the likes of your big ktms and Africa twins keep sneaking up in cc to pass emissions tests so we’d end up penalising some slightly safer riders also.
Is there any data on riders type and quality of protective wear?

[Berries]

Nice work Berries must spread rep although your cc breakdown is a little biased as all other groups stepped by 100cc ish although it’s prob correct that the big baggers are over represented.
Just thinking of making a sudden direction change or effective emergency braking with the mass and geometry of that style of bike mitigates the desire to own something like that purely to experience the big cc twin torque outputs.
Yes perhaps we argue a bigger cc bracket to seperate that lot but trouble is the likes of your big ktms and Africa twins keep sneaking up in cc to pass emissions tests so we’d end up penalising some slightly safer riders also.
Is there any data on riders type and quality of protective wear?
They might record 'restraint use' for a car occupant but there is no field for helmet use. Certainly nothing in the crash data about clothing.

The cc breakdown was just because that is what I was interested in, so bias was intended. With a couple of Triumph Rockets in there it would have doubled the number of columns required to split everything by 100cc.

One issue shown on this ACC graph is that the actual number of claims isn't that much different between bike sizes, it is just that the average cost per claim goes up with engine size. I don't really get why that is given that if you come off a bike at 100km/h it doesn't really matter what bike you were sitting on a few seconds earlier.

changing-the-classification-of-motorcycles (https://www.shapeyouracc.co.nz/have-your-say/changing-the-classification-of-motorcycles)

[jellywrestler]

One issue shown on this ACC graph is that the actual number of claims isn't that much different between bike sizes, it is just that the average cost per claim goes up with engine size. I don't really get why that is given that if you come off a bike at 100km/h it doesn't really matter what bike you were sitting on a few seconds earlier.

changing-the-classification-of-motorcycles (https://www.shapeyouracc.co.nz/have-your-say/changing-the-classification-of-motorcycles)

older riders taking longer to rehabilitate?

[Berries]

This table shows age and engine size. You can interpret it in many ways but you are probably right. Old bones etc.

[SaferRides]

One issue shown on this ACC graph is that the actual number of claims isn't that much different between bike sizes, it is just that the average cost per claim goes up with engine size. I don't really get why that is given that if you come off a bike at 100km/h it doesn't really matter what bike you were sitting on a few seconds earlier.

changing-the-classification-of-motorcycles (https://www.shapeyouracc.co.nz/have-your-say/changing-the-classification-of-motorcycles)
It does matter what protection you have, and the typical cruiser rider dresses more for style than protection. One simple example is helmet type, as I've damaged the front of two full face helmets in crashes over the years. There could have been significant treatment costs otherwise.



Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[R650R]

Bigger engine size could be behind more complex injury. Even a low speed fall becomes nasty if you have an ankle smasher due to bigger bike size. Seems a common theme in ADV circles.
Then there’s the increased likelihood of high side style crashes with more horsepower.

[onearmedbandit]

Then there’s the increased likelihood of high side style crashes with more horsepower.

Even on a cruiser? Maybe torque related lower speed incidents I guess (slippery roundabouts etc).

[pete376403]

older riders taking longer to rehabilitate?


But old riders will die sooner (aging out, not crash injury) so wont need to be supported by ACC for so long.

[Racing Dave]

I have several mates who are in the low km bracket for various reasons work hours/money/wife/kids etc and I think a lack of kms is higher risk. Although they are exposed less they are not keeping their eye in and maintaining skill level. There’s a reason why the USAF wastes thousands of tons of jet fuel on training when pilots are already at top gun level.

You may THINK that lack of km is an aggravating factor, but is there any data to back that up? I'm not aware that annual distance traveled is recorded anywhere in the crash statistics. Anecdotal evidence isn't the same as actual evidence.

The top gun analogy is a red herring. It's like saying that riders should have racetrack experience at the highest level.

[rastuscat]

You may THINK that lack of km is an aggravating factor, but is there any data to back that up?

Police re-certifications tend to prove this premise.

Police riders have to recertify each year to remain operational. If they don't ride much through the year, they have to do practise runs before trying the test.

Because riding skills are decaying skills. I know that myself, it takes a few kms to get back to the sharpness I once had.

Of course. I could be wrong. It's the interweb, after all.

[SpankMe]

Getting sick of this.

ACC is to pay to fix the person, not the vehicle, so why is it on the vehicle registration? Why not associate it with the person's driver's license. That way everyone just pays once and pays the same amount no matter what modes of transport they use through the year. Car, truck, motorbike, bicycle, electric scooter, half track, steam roller, whatever.

But it will same as last time. We have our little protest ride and the National party fucks us anyway.

[Hoonicorn]

​Engine size is probably because the rider goes out on the open road more. Smaller CC bikes like 250s are mostly owned by learners who stick to urban and suburban environments. There is possibly a link to aggressive rider behaviour on bigger cc bikes too (read: more likely to speed, do risky over-takes).

I definitely get the message that half the accidents don't involve other road users, ACC never fail to remind us of that stat. That still leaves a huge number of accidents being caused by car drivers. In fact, car drivers are so negligent, we've been spending hundreds of millions nationwide to create safe cycle lanes with cycle cam footage showing cars turning in front of cyclists and cutting them off.

If ACC were like an insurance policy based on liability, I think splitting the levy between drivers and riders seems fair until the government pushes for a higher standard of driver education.

[rastuscat]

​

If ACC were like an insurance policy based on liability, I think splitting the levy between drivers and riders seems fair until the government pushes for a higher standard of driver education.

That's a can of worms, right there.

Everyone thinks driver education is the answer, but they don't go and get driver education themselves.

And if they do, nobody wants to pay $300 for a day of being told how to keep left, how to not drive while using a phone or intoxicated, how to stop at stop signs, and how to indicate. Those who pay fro driver training get skid control, hazard avoidance sort of stuff, which they enjoy, and talk it up.

Take Ride Forever. ACC pays most of the cost of the attendance at Ride Forever courses. It's because ACC knows that Ride Forever courses reduce the injury risk (by up to 50%) for those riders who attend. But there are many who don't think they need it. Or who don't think it's necessary. Most, actually.

So yes, driver education is the key. But it's in a locked box at the bottom of a very deep ravine.

[nerrrd]

Been doing a bit more driving around Auckland city lately, I'd have to say that by far the majority of drivers are good, don't know if that's due to the lower speed limits around town calming things down (I guess we'll find out when they go back up again), but instances of people tailgating or trying to push others along seem to be rare. I have however noticed many pedestrians not checking for traffic before walking out onto the roads in the city, that's something you need to be on constant alert about, going back to the higher limits are going to make that a lot harder.

Road works are a different story, there are a lot of major road closures around the place at the moment, and the longer they're there, the less notice we seem to be able to take of the lower limits around them. I've noticed a few strategically placed 'your speed' signs popping up to remind people. If AT wanted to put some speed cameras around those sites, it'd be a bonanza for them.

So familiarity with the driving environment seems to be a big factor in driver behaviour, I'm not sure how you can 'educate' that out of people, especially given we tend to learn from experience, and the more often we push the limits without any adverse consequences, the less attention we pay to those limits.

[R650R]

You can educate but it’s a shift in attitude that is prob more important. There’s still too much of a culture of cats do this trucks do this instead of hey, here’s a risk how do I limit my exposure to that risk?
It seems ride forever participants reduce crash incidents by 27% and injury claims by 45%and that injury/death rates have levelled off since bad days of 90’s despite more bikers.
One thing worthy of note while browsing stats though is less injury accidents happen on open road and not for a good reason. It seems with higher speed it’s more likely a fatal outcome for motorcyclist interacting with roadside scenery or a moving object no matter whose fault it is. And of course ACC ends up paying out zero in that outcome.
The only clear thing from stats is life experience known as age seems to be a reduced risk group most likely as our health slowly deteriorates and we visit others in hospital our awareness of the need to avoid being there seems to rise exponentially.

[jellywrestler]

Cheers mate, Can't drive at the mo after new knee.Wife drove me to Palmy Hosp this morning.
Tell ya what, no way she'd be driving a Patrol car if she was a recruit !!!!!!!!!! Fail !!!
I just sat with my gob shut hahahahahahahahaha :laugh:

it was only a few posts ago how you were saying how wonderful you were as a teacher and a role model on the road, what happened?

[jellywrestler]

i see elsewhere a whole lot of random protests by people wo think they have the answer for this.One is lets all put our bikes on hold.
Firstly they dont all expire on the same day so if everyone did it it would take a year, secondly, it's a good way for the government to remove the on hold option, and legislate unregistered vehicles are crushed.
Be careful for what you wish for eh?

[SaferRides]

Last day for feedback is 9 October

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[Berries]

i see elsewhere a whole lot of random protests by people wo think they have the answer for this.One is lets all put our bikes on hold.
Firstly they dont all expire on the same day so if everyone did it it would take a year, secondly, it's a good way for the government to remove the on hold option, and legislate unregistered vehicles are crushed.
Be careful for what you wish for eh?

I don't think they were listening - motorcycle-advocacy-group-says-dont-pay-your-rego (https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK2410/S00913/motorcycle-advocacy-group-says-dont-pay-your-rego.htm)

And a protest ride tomorrow I just read about - opposition-fee-hike-prompts-bike-rally (https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/opposition-fee-hike-prompts-bike-rally). Never really knew how many people were on KB but thought it might have been posted here. More details on FaceBook I guess if anyone fancies riding with a large group of people and proving the point by falling off.

[rastuscat]

A couple of thoughts on this one.

If the price goes up, the number of people paying is likely to go down. This is likely to have been factored into any decision, as the actuaries at ACC have been down this road before. It's not their first rodeo.

But I recently put some reg on my bike, as I was going to be riding it somewhere that detection was far more likely. And now that I have it licenced, I am more inclined to ride it.

Odd, but putting the price up may cause more riding, as those who do licence their bikes are more likely to want to get use from them.

Funny where the mind goes when it's empty.

[Berries]

But I recently put some reg on my bike, as I was going to be riding it somewhere that detection was far more likely.
Of all the people on KB I thought you would be the one riding legal, not just riding legal where detection was more likely.

[rastuscat]

Of all the people on KB I thought you would be the one riding legal, not just riding legal where detection was more likely.

The bike has been on hold and unused for months, just popped a new WoF and some reg on it to do the work commute, just to keep the bike ticking over. Used it again yesterday.

Once the reg expires, I'll be having to decide if it's worth doing, as I use it infrequently at the best of times.

Worry not, I've not used it illegally. You're right, I'm basically a hyper-compliant plonker.

[SaferRides]

The bike has been on hold and unused for months, just popped a new WoF and some reg on it to do the work commute, just to keep the bike ticking over. Used it again yesterday.

Once the reg expires, I'll be having to decide if it's worth doing, as I use it infrequently at the best of times.

Worry not, I've not used it illegally. You're right, I'm basically a hyper-compliant plonker.
I suspect you're in the minority. I have a friend who regos his bike 3 months a year. I do better than that, but my bike is never regoed for 12 months.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[pritch]

Worry not, I've not used it illegally. You're right, I'm basically a hyper-compliant plonker.

Which is kinda how it should be. Next door neighbour works in a safety related role in the oil industry. When he mows his lawn he wears full ppe: boots, glasses, ear muffs. What you do all day at work carries over into your own time.

[nerrrd]

I understand there might be an automatic discount coming as part of these changes for doing the Rideforever courses?

If so that's a baby step in the right direction, now I want my no claims bonus.

[rastuscat]

I understand there might be an automatic discount coming as part of these changes for doing the Rideforever courses?

If so that's a baby step in the right direction, now I want my no claims bonus.

The Cashback scheme is effectively a discount system.

When it was proposed, it arose from the consultation where people said that safer riders should get cheaper vehicle licensing.

Thing is, it's not easy to prove who is a safer rider. People with no ACC injury history might be lucky, or live in a dark room they never leave. They might only have ever ridden one bike 5 km when they were young, 37 years ago.

ACC knows that people who do Ride Forever courses are statistically between 27% and 50% safer than the equivalent rider who hasn't done a course. So they set up cashback, where you get money back each year dependant on attendance at Ride Forever courses.

It was an incentive to attract experienced riders to attend. The Bronze and Silver courses don't qualify, as those riders get the advantage of a faster licence progression, that's their incentive.

When proposed, the idea was that someone who does Ride Forever courses pay less for the vehicle licencing. But it's a multi million dollar endeavour to integrate the POS system at NZTA agents with the various Ride Forever contractor attendance records.

So the cashback system was set up as a manual process, where it's a bit of a faff, but it's as good as it can be until Govt agencies integrate their payment systems, and Ride Forever trainers can provide real time records as to who has completed the training courses.

You can see the problem. Someone does a course on a Sunday, then on Monday they want cheaper bike licensing when they re-licence their bike. It can't happen that way, as it takes time for their attendance to be lodged with ACC, who require their providers to send in attendance records monthly. There's no live reporting system. Each training company uses different booking and reporting systems, as they are separate companies.

So, Cashback bascailly gives you some of your money back, for attending a Gold course. It's a discount, it just doesn't look like one.

[nerrrd]

The Cashback scheme is effectively a discount system.

When it was proposed, it arose from the consultation where people said that safer riders should get cheaper vehicle licensing.

Thing is, it's not easy to prove who is a safer rider. People with no ACC injury history might be lucky, or live in a dark room they never leave. They might only have ever ridden one bike 5 km when they were young, 37 years ago.

ACC knows that people who do Ride Forever courses are statistically between 27% and 50% safer than the equivalent rider who hasn't done a course. So they set up cashback, where you get money back each year dependant on attendance at Ride Forever courses.

It was an incentive to attract experienced riders to attend. The Bronze and Silver courses don't qualify, as those riders get the advantage of a faster licence progression, that's their incentive.

When proposed, the idea was that someone who does Ride Forever courses pay less for the vehicle licencing. But it's a multi million dollar endeavour to integrate the POS system at NZTA agents with the various Ride Forever contractor attendance records.

So the cashback system was set up as a manual process, where it's a bit of a faff, but it's as good as it can be until Govt agencies integrate their payment systems, and Ride Forever trainers can provide real time records as to who has completed the training courses.

You can see the problem. Someone does a course on a Sunday, then on Monday they want cheaper bike licensing when they re-licence their bike. It can't happen that way, as it takes time for their attendance to be lodged with ACC, who require their providers to send in attendance records monthly. There's no live reporting system. Each training company uses different booking and reporting systems, as they are separate companies.

So, Cashback bascailly gives you some of your money back, for attending a Gold course. It's a discount, it just doesn't look like one.

I'm aware of that and have taken advantage of it, but it's an opt in system, not automatic (and since your eligibility is judged over a series of two year periods, it can be hard to keep track of.)

If they're able to offer it in a simpler way, that suits me (yes, for the obvious reason), and maybe opens up the possibility of further discounts?

I am too simple to not pay.

[neels]

From memory the last time I looked at this I didn't qualify for a discount, as I'd only done one course and it required more than that.

I'll have to have another look and see if there's something I can do that involves riding a bike and saving money, that's usually a rare combination.

From a bigger picture point of view, if I pay my rego for the year it's $10 a week, there's a lot of other optional shit in life that costs more than that.

[pritch]

From a bigger picture point of view, if I pay my rego for the year it's $10 a week, there's a lot of other optional shit in life that costs more than that.

True. A great many people pay more than that for their recreational chemical of choice. $10 would barely pay for a beer in a pub? (That's a guess, I'm outa touch.)

[onearmedbandit]

$10 a week is how I look at it too. Now it might be heading to $15 or thereabouts. As Pritch pointed out, that wouldn't get you two beers in a pub, or a packet of cigarettes.

[jellywrestler]

$10 a week is how I look at it too. Now it might be heading to $15 or thereabouts. As Pritch pointed out, that wouldn't get you two beers in a pub, or a packet of cigarettes.

two beers in a pub? where as you'd walk a long way to find prices anywhere near that; as for ciggies, dont think so

[onearmedbandit]

two beers in a pub? where as you'd walk a long way to find prices anywhere near that; as for ciggies, dont think so

Yeah I said $15 wouldn't buy you two beers or a pack of cigarettes. Glad I gave up smoking years ago.

[roogazza]

Just rego'd the car and bike on line.

Car 12 mths ........ $107 for 12 mths.

Bike 3 mths ........ $141 for 3 mths. ( $538 the bike for 12 mths !!! ).


ps can't wait to get out on bike , it's been 8wks since new right knee. Next week I'll be out there, cigars and all.

pps Funny , I had a guy come round to look at my roller door. He said he had 3 bikes Beemers etc ... So we got chatting. Fuck he said looking at my bike. I see you get to the edge of your tyres, I can't do that !!!!! hahahaha
Oh, no charge for the roller door either . Nice bloke !

[Berries]

Just bought a pint in Queenstown ........ $16.

[pritch]

Perhaps I've mentioned it before but it's a bugger getting old, you tend to repeat yourself. A few years back I was at a conference in Wellington, beer in the hotel was $11.00 a "pint" of Panhead.

Next weekend I was in the Sergeants' Mess at Burnham. Not knowing how much the beer was I ordered a Stella and handed over a twenty. There seemed to be a lot of change so I asked how much it had cost. "$1.70 it's happy hour."

Discombobulating difference.

[pete376403]

Perhaps I've mentioned it before but it's a bugger getting old, you tend to repeat yourself. A few years back I was at a conference in Wellington, beer in the hotel was $11.00 a "pint" of Panhead.

Next weekend I was in the Sergeants' Mess at Burnham. Not knowing how much the beer was I ordered a Stella and handed over a twenty. There seemed to be a lot of change so I asked how much it had cost. "$1.70 it's happy hour."

Discombobulating difference.
Pint at Panhead bar at Brewtown now $13. Paying over $50 for a round of four beers is a new experience for me

[R650R]

The Cashback scheme is effectively a discount system.

When it was proposed, it arose from the consultation where people said that safer riders should get cheaper vehicle licensing.

Thing is, it's not easy to prove who is a safer rider. People with no ACC injury history might be lucky, or live in a dark room they never leave. They might only have ever ridden one bike 5 km when they were young, 37 years ago.

ACC knows that people who do Ride Forever courses are statistically between 27% and 50% safer than the equivalent rider who hasn't done a course. So they set up cashback, where you get money back each year dependant on attendance at Ride Forever courses.

It was an incentive to attract experienced riders to attend. The Bronze and Silver courses don't qualify, as those riders get the advantage of a faster licence progression, that's their incentive.

When proposed, the idea was that someone who does Ride Forever courses pay less for the vehicle licencing. But it's a multi million dollar endeavour to integrate the POS system at NZTA agents with the various Ride Forever contractor attendance records.


So, Cashback bascailly gives you some of your money back, for attending a Gold course. It's a discount, it just doesn't look like one.

We all know airbags are a good safety device. However in this vid a helicopter EMS says he’s never been to a serious crash where a rider was wearing an airbag.
Inline with your comments though he goes on to say he doesn’t know if it’s because the vest prevents injury or if the type of people smart enough to buy a airbag just crash less often to start with. Very interesting….


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0219r4QPLs

[Berries]

We all know airbags are a good safety device. However in this vid a helicopter EMS says heÂ’s never been to a serious crash where a rider was wearing an airbag.
Inline with your comments though he goes on to say he doesnÂ’t know if itÂ’s because the vest prevents injury or if the type of people smart enough to buy a airbag just crash less often to start with. Very interestingÂ….

I would suggest part of the reason will be the relatively low number of airbags out there - I don't know anybody who has one. But the other reasons involve assumptions, stereotypes and generalisations which I am always happy to make.

Dickheads on dirtbikes won't have them.
Those on the bones of their arse who ride because they have to won't have them.
Under 25's very unlikely to have one.
Those who are riding drunk or on meth won't have one on.
Very few Harley riders will have one. That is a big assumption based on my own unconscious subconscious conscious bias. Maybe I am wrong but I am thinking that an airbag does not fit that particular image.

And they don't come in 10XL.

:jerry:

So that covers about 90 percent of your crash stats. Then you get your older bike rider who has a bit more cash to splash and wants to add to their ATGATT wardrobe. I am thinking BMW riders and older blokes on sports bikes. Experience will generally keep them away from the rescue chopper but if they count for ten percent of the crash stats and ten percent of those riders wear airbags then what, one in a hundred crashes will involve someone with an airbag? Bet it is more like 1:500. Plus, you have to hope they reduce injuries in an off like the helicopter man says otherwise the whole thing is a con. Like the levy.

[R650R]

I would suggest part of the reason will be the relatively low number of airbags out there - I don't know anybody who has one. But the other reasons involve assumptions, stereotypes and generalisations which I am always happy to make.

Dickheads on dirtbikes won't have them.
Those on the bones of their arse who ride because they have to won't have them.
Under 25's very unlikely to have one.
Those who are riding drunk or on meth won't have one on.
Very few Harley riders will have one. That is a big assumption based on my own unconscious subconscious conscious bias. Maybe I am wrong but I am thinking that an airbag does not fit that particular image.

And they don't come in 10XL.

:jerry:

So that covers about 90 percent of your crash stats. Then you get your older bike rider who has a bit more cash to splash and wants to add to their ATGATT wardrobe. I am thinking BMW riders and older blokes on sports bikes. Experience will generally keep them away from the rescue chopper but if they count for ten percent of the crash stats and ten percent of those riders wear airbags then what, one in a hundred crashes will involve someone with an airbag? Bet it is more like 1:500. Plus, you have to hope they reduce injuries in an off like the helicopter man says otherwise the whole thing is a con. Like the levy.

We do have a seperate thread on this but I’ll reply here. Agree with your comments but some added thoughts.

At first I thought too perhaps they are a bit over the top but once you realise how they work and what they protect they are 100% worthwhile especially if your in the risk group mentioned in your final sentences.

From what I’ve read and watched the good ones provide protection to the chest cavity, where those kinda vital organs like your heart and lungs are. Helicopter dude says that is your number one vulnerable area that’s usually poorly protected. He often sees serious injury’s there from striking front screen/bars on bike or roadside furniture.
Next most important is most of them stabilise the neck providing vital spinal cord protection. The good ones provide protection against hyper extension which occurs when your head rocks violently backwards.Apparently this action majorly stresses spinal cord and in us older buggers that matters as your top vertebrae are less stronger. Couple that with age related disc deterioration and your paralysed before you know it in a crash that a younger body would have got up and walked away from.

Anyhow I’ve been browsing awhile and next time I do a gear upgrade it’s going to be part of gear upgrade. $1500 over say a five year lifespan, that’s $300 a year for insurance on not being paralysed or dead. The only thing stopping me from going out and buying now is my current gear does not have enough space underneath for it to fit and work properly, too many pies.

[SaferRides]

I recently had a bone density scan (precautionary, all OK), and it's a bit scary to see how it decreases with age after 70. I'll definitely look at getting an airbag next time, although my current jacket is still going strong after about 10 years!

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[jellywrestler]

We do have a seperate thread on this but I’ll reply here. Agree with your comments but some added thoughts.

At first I thought too perhaps they are a bit over the top but once you realise how they work and what they protect they are 100% worthwhile especially if your in the risk group mentioned in your final sentences.

From what I’ve read and watched the good ones provide protection to the chest cavity, where those kinda vital organs like your heart and lungs are. Helicopter dude says that is your number one vulnerable area that’s usually poorly protected. He often sees serious injury’s there from striking front screen/bars on bike or roadside furniture.
Next most important is most of them stabilise the neck providing vital spinal cord protection. The good ones provide protection against hyper extension which occurs when your head rocks violently backwards.Apparently this action majorly stresses spinal cord and in us older buggers that matters as your top vertebrae are less stronger. Couple that with age related disc deterioration and your paralysed before you know it in a crash that a younger body would have got up and walked away from.

Anyhow I’ve been browsing awhile and next time I do a gear upgrade it’s going to be part of gear upgrade. $1500 over say a five year lifespan, that’s $300 a year for insurance on not being paralysed or dead. The only thing stopping me from going out and buying now is my current gear does not have enough space underneath for it to fit and work properly, too many pies.

so why not get an external option?

[R650R]

so why not get an external option?

My preferred model of choice was an internal style. External could be a stop gap choice. Also some manufacturers of riding gear are now incorporating them into leather and textile gear so another option there too.

One drawback to external is the abrasion damage in a slide.

[jellywrestler]

One drawback to external is the abrasion damage in a slide. yeah, much cheaper to have you get abraded as that can grow back...

[nerrrd]

Maybe ACC will bring in an airbag discount eventually, if the results are so good.

Not sure I'm all that keen on surviving in the event of a major accident, though.

[rastuscat]

Maybe ACC will bring in an airbag discount eventually, if the results are so good..

They don't differentiate between people with excellent PPE and those with none, so it's hard to see them taking account of whether you had an airbag vest on.

[Berries]

Get an external cage fitted and perhaps two extra wheels and there is quite a discount. The wearing of a helmet even becomes optional.

[R650R]

Not even a mention of motorcyclists so our claims must be much lower.

“Cycling accidents caused the most ACC claims in Hawke’s Bay in 2024, with 901 claims.
James Whitaker, of ACC, urges safety measures for cyclists and mountain bikers to prevent injuries.
ACC highlights preventable injuries from swimming, surfing and barbecuing, emphasising risk assessment and safety.
Accidents caused while cycling resulted in the most ACC claims in Hawke’s Bay for 2024.

Up to November 1, road cycling caused 901 new ACC claims at a cost of $1.7 million, and mountain biking with 143 claims cost $407,000.

Other big causes of injuries leading to ACC claims in Hawke’s Bay in 2024 include swimming with 227 claims ($1.2m), surfing with 124 claims ($126,000), beach and sand injuries with 357 claims ($563,000), and barbecuing injuries with 48 claims ($126,000).”

ACC man also says ““Remember that where you look is where you’ll go – keep your eyes on the track or path you wish to take rather than obstacles or the scenery.”

It was also important for cyclists to stop in places where they were not in the way of other riders.”

So cyclists ramming other cyclists, are they not giving their own kind 1.5m?