ACC - How to get the nation's motorbike bill down

[p.dath]

JD, I think you have jumped to a conclusion that is not envisioned or intended. In the submission I shall prepare I shall simply mention motorcycle riding gear (with examples). I shall not be recommending any minimum standard. So that if someone spends $150 on HardAs kevlar jeans rather than $600 on top of the line leather trous they get a $15 reduction on ACC levies rather than a $60 reduction.

As long as the receipt they produce lists the product as "Motorcycle Trousers" that would be sufficient. The idea is to save injuries, not to increase beauracracy.

There is one big danger you need to consider with this Jantar. ACC is a not for profit Government agency.

So lets say ACC issues $10 million in credits, and in the first years achieves an $2 million saving. That means all the other motorcyclists will have their ACC premium increased by 8 million to pay the short fall.

[Big Dave]

What difference would it make to you? You wear full gear anyway... Why the angst?

Steve

How often do 'they' get it right?

I wear appropriate gear. That isn't always the full kit on a stinkin' hot summer's day. Maybe I'd go armour underneath a tee - eg for pootling around town. But I decide, pay my taxes and carry my own private health insurance. I have no desire to be dictated to because of some dick on a scooter in Jandals.

Education, training and incentives are a very good idea and I'd do what I can to help.

[p.dath]

What proof do you have for this statement? Most accidents causing serious injury or death occur on the open road and are single vehicle accidents, primarily lost control on a corner. These statistics are available from the LTNZ or whatever they're called now. Were these people not wearing protective gear? I suspect a lot of them were trussed up like MotoGP riders...

If you refer to my first post, I was not talking about these kinds of accidents. I was talking about abarasion based accidents - the kind were wearing safety gear makes a big difference.

[p.dath]

I think I need to put this more subtly and succinctly.

Some Govt knob telling me what clothing I must wear on a motorcycle can get fucked.

Trust me - I'm a professional.

They already tell you what helmet to wear ...
They tell you what standard you bike has to reach before you can take it on a road ...
They tell you how much your allowed to drink before riding ...

And you pay them to do it - I'm just trying to reduce how much we are paying.

It seems your happy with what you pay them, you just want less talk from "them". haha.

[AllanB]

Remember the goal isn't to make motorcycling safer. ACC want us off the road, period.

Hmm. So lets just imagine that motorcycle injuries are no longer covered by ACC. However they give you the right to sue another party if they caused the accident.

I wonder how the statistics would look?

Probably find that we do ourselves more damage than secondary parties.

[FJRider]

If ACC's motorcycle statistics were based solely on road registered motorcycles, involved in accidents on the road. Some input by ACC on what should be seen as required garments for the purpose, would be seen as acceptable.
Sadly this is not the case. Mr lifestyle block owner, on his 175 cc four wheeler, crossing the road to the other half of his property. In his t-shirt and jeans ... mid-summer. Is not going to put "proper" motorcycling gear on for 20 minutes of sheep moving/feeding . Nor is the farmer going to put the gear on to go round the farm in.... and spend the day in. Yet these people are included in ACC statistics regarding motorcycle accidents.

[Big Dave]

And it was more pun than angst DB.

[p.dath]

Hmm. So lets just imagine that motorcycle injuries are no longer covered by ACC. However they give you the right to sue another party if they caused the accident.
...

Lets never do that. That is the US system, and it is far worse than ours.

Lets stick with our ACC no fault system. While we all complain, it isn't that bad.

Very happy to work on reducing the cost of accident care and what we pay though!

[Genestho]

According to the Social cost of crashes and Injuries paper, each Minor Injury still on average costs the taxpayer $61.000, each serious $563.000, each fatal 3,211.000. Work out 34 Motorcycling ALONE - fatals in a year, and I don't think the year is done yet.

Loss of life/ Permanent Disability
Loss of output (Temporary disability)
Medical
-Hospital/Medical
-Emergency/Pre hospital
-Follow on

Legal and Court
Property Damage

(And that was 2007 prices)
Personally, I really don't think you can put a true price on a loss of life, particularly from contributing members of society.

[Pedrostt500]

So what is the solution for that? Stop racing on public roads? But how? Punish people heavily for it? Free trackdays?

Even the boyracers could get in on the free trackday stuff.. I'm sure they'd love that. Everyone says thats what they need - a place to race and play up. Maybe bikers are the same.

Steve

I don't think the problem is how fast you are going, its how you stop that is the defining factor, one of my worst accidents was at 20 kmh, dropping the front wheel into a pot hole, and collecting my kidneys on the mirrors as I went over the handel bars, Pissed Blood for a week after that one. Ive dropped bikes many times faster than that and walked away with only a few scratches.

[Big Dave]

I could see a proposal to a gear manufacturer where they pay a 'rebate' towards your ACC levy for using their products.

[FJRider]

I could see a proposal to a gear manufacturer where they pay a 'rebate' towards your ACC levy for using their products.

Or ACC listing "reccomended" or "acceptable" gear manufacturers...

[sleemanj]

Cost based rebate won't fly IMHO, because it would mean that ACC is specifically saying "this gear which costs $900 is better than that gear which costs $100", when that is not only possibly an incorrect statement, but also ACC has no way of knowing from just a receipt (or even visual inspection).

Secondly, how long does this rebate remain in play, just one registration period? Hardly worth it. More than that, well how does ACC know you still have the gear.

Of course, having gear and wearing it are two different things. And secondly of course, how does the NZ Post person who is printing your reg label know that this receipt they are being shown is actually genuine. What about second hand gear, is the gear you bought second hand but almost like new not as good as if you'd bought it for $200 off the shop floor?

ACC not paying out when gear not worn also won't fly IMHO, because what happens when some dirt poor guy comes to A&E, with no gear. Hospital going to say "oh, sorry, you'll have to leave, ACC not going to pay your bill".

No way that will work in New Zealand, not to mention it would set a dangerous precedent - how about things like trampers who get lost without gear do we say "oh, too bad, we're not looking for you", hunters who get accidentally shot but weren't wearing high vis do we say "oh sorry, you'll have to die or pay better let us know quick eh"... you see where it's going.

I think that the both of these ideas are go-no-where.

You could perhaps require at a most basic level the wearing of "gear" in addition to the current helmet laws. Gloves, upper body covering (jacket) with sleeves to your wrists, full leg trousers, boots which extend above the ankle. Placing any further requirement on the nature of the gear than that would be far too complicated and expensive for everybody concerned, especialy the tax payer who would have to pay to develop and police the certifications.

In conclusion, ACC & Government should be putting money into prevention of accidents in the first place, not ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff, and that means continued and expanded support of qualified and organised rider training establishments.

There is one other option. Allow competition for ACC. Rider specific accident insurance, if ACC really is overcharging, then that's the way to go.

[Big Dave]

I wasn't thinking that complicated.

Buy Jacket A and they send you a cheque for $X towards levy.

Message not messenger.

[p.dath]

I could see a proposal to a gear manufacturer where they pay a 'rebate' towards your ACC levy for using their products.

Rather than paying you a rebate, why not just reduce the cost of their product in the first place - much less paper work.

And for the same reason why they wouldn't just reduce their prices in the first place is also the same reason they wouldn't pay a rebate.