• Three Strikes Protest Run, 5 May

    Support the three strikes demonstration ride
    Thursday 5th May 12 noon

    The government has struck out at us three times now. We will not tolerate this any longer, and it is time we showed them!

    What they have done:

    1) Used bikers as a smokescreen to mask the introduction of risk based levies, and massive levy increases.
    2) Attempted to justify the hike with misleading statistics and unjustified financial model changes.
    3) Ramped up roadside 'safety' checks - in reality poorly disguised rego and WOF checks - and now the introduction of demerits for unlicensed vehicles.
    What they deliberately overlook:


    They tout the risk based system as being fairer for everyone, by arbitrarily creating different road user groups and charging based on the likely treatment cost. Well many of us own multiple vehicles, so appear in those groups and pay more than once. How is it fair we pay multiple levies yet are only eligible for a single treatment? How can they justify a minimum three month on hold period, when that makes it so expensive to be law abiding with infrequently ridden bikes? And to assume all drivers in each class have the same level of risk is at the very least idiotic, if not irresponsible; with the implication that safer vehicles are more important than safer drivers. The myriad of different variables needed to create a truly fair risk based system would create massive administrative overheads to process. This is a system that is not required, not wanted and moves ACC yet further away from the Woodhouse principles towards private insurance.


    What we demand they do:

    1) Remove the vehicle-based levies, to be replaced with a fuel-based levy collection system as a first step, ultimately returning to the Woodhouse Principles.
    2) The minimum on-hold period of three months to be removed.
    3) All political parties make their stance known about ACC: whether they are in favour of the no-fault Woodhouse system, if they agree with the move to full future funding, where they stand on risk-based levies and if they would agree to private insurers in the system.


    What can you do?

    Support the three strikes demonstration ride; this will take place on Thursday 5th May 12 noon. The idea is that you meet up with other protesters, ride together to the local ACC offices, then ride to the National party offices (because we all know who is really behind this crap). At both locations you will arrange yourselves to present a smokescreen of motorcycles: well let them see us and hear us! There will be a letter to noisily deliver to each location stating our grievances and demands. Meeting points to be announced when finalised.

    Currently we have ride coordinators for Auckland, Wellington and Tauranga if you would like to organise one in your region let us know!
    This article was originally published in forum thread: Three Strikes Protest Run, 5 May started by MAG-NZ Inc View original post
    Comments 273 Comments
    1. Fatt Max's Avatar
      Fatt Max -
      Good on you guys for getting out there. I shall be there if I can possibly make it
    1. StoneY's Avatar
      StoneY -
      I completely agree on protesting the demerit points for registration breaches, but simply cant find time mid week to participate, its a very busy time for me the month of May.

      I know you want to hit TPTB during their office hours, but think you will struggle for numbers.

      Note, if you iontend to hit Parlaiment you need the Speakers permission to enter the grounds.....
      Good luck, I support your effort in principle but also think you risk losing the message by including too many issues in a single event.

      Brent
    1. BoristheBiter's Avatar
      BoristheBiter -
      Quote Originally Posted by StoneY View Post
      I completely agree on protesting the demerit points for registration breaches, but simply cant find time mid week to participate, its a very busy time for me the month of May.

      I know you want to hit TPTB during their office hours, but think you will struggle for numbers.

      Note, if you iontend to hit Parlaiment you need the Speakers permission to enter the grounds.....
      Good luck, I support your effort in principle but also think you risk losing the message by including too many issues in a single event.

      Brent
      What is so bad about demerits for unpaid rego?
      Why should you just get away with driving/riding for free on the roads?
      Half these people never pay the fines so maybe this might be a deterrent because otherwise it's just a slap in the face for the people that do pay it.



      The rest i do agree with so please carry on.



      PS not having a go just you are one of the only ones on here that makes sense.
    1. swbarnett's Avatar
      swbarnett -
      Quote Originally Posted by BoristheBiter View Post
      What is so bad about demerits for unpaid rego?
      The intent of the demerit system is to get drivers who show themselves to be dangerous by offending repeatedly off the road. Not having rego has nothing to do with the act of driving or the state in which you keep your vehicle.
    1. Chancebmx25's Avatar
      Chancebmx25 -
      yerrr im thea!!
    1. bogan's Avatar
      bogan -
      Quote Originally Posted by BoristheBiter View Post
      What is so bad about demerits for unpaid rego?
      Why should you just get away with driving/riding for free on the roads?
      Half these people never pay the fines so maybe this might be a deterrent because otherwise it's just a slap in the face for the people that do pay it.
      Those that don't pay may drive without a license too? I don't think you should be able to drive for free on the roads, nor do I think some users should have to pay upwards of double what others pay, for the same service.

      The main thing that pisses me off is it is just further steps to enforce an unjust rego system. In fact our demands are focused on making the levy/registration costs fairer, rather than easier to avoid.
    1. BoristheBiter's Avatar
      BoristheBiter -
      Quote Originally Posted by swbarnett View Post
      The intent of the demerit system is to get drivers who show themselves to be dangerous by offending repeatedly off the road. Not having rego has nothing to do with the act of driving or the state in which you keep your vehicle.
      Yep and if you don't have a current rego then you shouldn't be on the road, end of story. If you choose not to purchase your rego then prepare to suffer the consequence. As just a fine is no longer a deterrent TPTB have decided maybe using demerits might make people pay up. I somehow doubt it.

      Quote Originally Posted by bogan View Post
      Those that don't pay may drive without a license too? I don't think you should be able to drive for free on the roads, nor do I think some users should have to pay upwards of double what others pay, for the same service.

      The main thing that pisses me off is it is just further steps to enforce an unjust rego system. In fact our demands are focused on making the levy/registration costs fairer, rather than easier to avoid.
      But that comes down to all vehicles, just like RUC, and GST on petrol tax, trucks that hold me up, and people doing 80 in the outside lane.
      I agree that there are a shit load things that need fixing i feel the protest should be focused on why we pay more acc and not get bogged down with a list of things that piss us off.

      Some things in life are just unfair.
    1. bogan's Avatar
      bogan -
      Quote Originally Posted by BoristheBiter View Post
      I agree that there are a shit load things that need fixing i feel the protest should be focused on why we pay more acc and not get bogged down with a list of things that piss us off.
      But what we want out of this does address why we pay more ACC, or is a good place to start at any rate.
    1. BoristheBiter's Avatar
      BoristheBiter -
      Quote Originally Posted by bogan View Post
      But what we want out of this does address why we pay more ACC, or is a good place to start at any rate.
      I suppose so. It doesn't help that it's all fucked up to start with.

      Good luck.
    1. JohnR's Avatar
      JohnR -
      Quote Originally Posted by BoristheBiter View Post
      I agree that there are a shit load things that need fixing i feel the protest should be focused on why we pay more acc and not get bogged down with a list of things that piss us off.

      Some things in life are just unfair.
      Never mind. You just sit home and watch Jeremy Kyle and someone else will sort it all out.
    1. swbarnett's Avatar
      swbarnett -
      Quote Originally Posted by BoristheBiter View Post
      Yep and if you don't have a current rego then you shouldn't be on the road, end of story.
      Genuine question - what is your reasoning for this?

      Quote Originally Posted by BoristheBiter View Post
      If you choose not to purchase your rego then prepare to suffer the consequence.
      Totally agree but why should the concequences of having no rego be worse than the concequences of not having a WOF, something that can be argued is a genuine safety issue?
    1. BoristheBiter's Avatar
      BoristheBiter -
      Quote Originally Posted by JohnR View Post
      Never mind. You just sit home and watch Jeremy Kyle and someone else will sort it all out.
      Will do thanks for your blessing to do so.
    1. BoristheBiter's Avatar
      BoristheBiter -
      Quote Originally Posted by swbarnett View Post
      Genuine question - what is your reasoning for this?


      Totally agree but why should the concequences of having no rego be worse than the concequences of not having a WOF, something that can be argued is a genuine safety issue?
      1) Because it is the law. Why do some people think that they have a right to do things with out paying for them? or think that they are above the law?

      2) It shouldn't. IMHO there should be demerits on every road infringement. It might then get people to start obeying the road rules and it might then become safer on the roads.
    1. Maha's Avatar
      Maha -
      Yeah...Pro Demerits.....
    1. oneofsix's Avatar
      oneofsix -
      Quote Originally Posted by BoristheBiter View Post
      1) Because it is the law. .
      Used to be the law that woman, maori and non land owners couldn't vote. Ever here the law is an ass? Demerits should be for bad driving offences. If they made a law that said you got demerits for not paying your taxes would you support that as well (btw the answer is yes because that is what you are supporting)
    1. Spearfish's Avatar
      Spearfish -
      at least 10 characters.
    1. BoristheBiter's Avatar
      BoristheBiter -
      Quote Originally Posted by oneofsix View Post
      Used to be the law that woman, maori and non land owners couldn't vote. Ever here the law is an ass? Demerits should be for bad driving offences. If they made a law that said you got demerits for not paying your taxes would you support that as well (btw the answer is yes because that is what you are supporting)
      Actually you do get demerits for not paying your taxes, they are called penalty's.

      you are talking about two different types of laws, one is basic human rights, the other is the right to drive on the road.
      When are some of you going to realise that driving in NZ is not a right.

      There should be demerits for incorrect word use, its "hear" not here.
    1. oneofsix's Avatar
      oneofsix -
      Quote Originally Posted by BoristheBiter View Post
      Actually you do get demerits for not paying your taxes, they are called penalty's.

      you are talking about two different types of laws, one is basic human rights, the other is the right to drive on the road.
      When are some of you going to realise that driving in NZ is not a right.

      There should be demerits for incorrect word use, its "hear" not here.
      Demerit points and fines are both penalties it is the type of penalty applied in the correct circumstance. Let the penalty fit the crime and demerits don't fit non payment of taxes. The original higher finer was better than the lower fine plus demerits.

      Who ever said driving was a right? in NZ you don't have rights, you have privileges and responsibilities. As a commuter my bike has just been registered and will be registered when on the road even though it is in the top ACC bracket but it doesn't mean I think the penalty system is correct.

      Please if you insist on acting as spelling/grammar police get it right yourself, penalties is plural they don't owe anything especially not the taxes.
    1. BoristheBiter's Avatar
      BoristheBiter -
      Quote Originally Posted by oneofsix View Post
      Demerit points and fines are both penalties it is the type of penalty applied in the correct circumstance. Let the penalty fit the crime and demerits don't fit non payment of taxes. The original higher finer was better than the lower fine plus demerits.

      Who ever said driving was a right? in NZ you don't have rights, you have privileges and responsibilities. As a commuter my bike has just been registered and will be registered when on the road even though it is in the top ACC bracket but it doesn't mean I think the penalty system is correct.

      Please if you insist on acting as spelling/grammar police get it right yourself, penalties is plural they don't owe anything especially not the taxes.
      So what's your point?
      Except for the rights or wrongs of the penalty system, which is fucked up for everything, you have just agreed with what I just said.
    1. Big Dave's Avatar
      Big Dave -
      Quote Originally Posted by Spearfish View Post
      Are bikers getting just a little paranoid or developing a persecution complex?
      Only on this web site.