ACC - Why automatically renew licences?

[p.dath]

Here goes, my first multi-quote attempt:

...
The main issue is cost how do people who dont have a good income afford this?
maybe the poor dont deserve to have a licence

That is a toughy. People shouldn't be excluded from riding because of their income, but we also don't want people getting unnecessarily hurt, and if more education at the right points in time can help reduce the nations ACC bill for motorcycle accidents ...

Call it targeted education.

Anyway, it was just an idea I was throwing out there.

Even though my my newest licence was issued last september, it still expires next year due to a retarded fucken system.

Had that happen myself this year. Had to sit an exam for a licence class just two weeks before my licence expired. I had to go back and fill in exactly same form to renew my licence as I did to do the other licence class. Was not happy either.

What has license renewal got to do with ACC?

I was considering the returning riders who figure highly in accident figures, and are likely to figure more highly due to the aging population shift, and how to help them reduce the medical expense that ACC incurs.

It would be a way of helping ensure they got some education to help them back into riding safely.

[Hitcher]

I was considering the returning riders who figure highly in accident figures, and are likely to figure more highly due to the aging population shift, and how to help them reduce the medical expense that ACC incurs.

It would be a way of helping ensure they got some education to help them back into riding safely.

Very few motorcycle riders set out with the deliberate intention of falling off and hurting themselves, this is particularly true of "older" riders, whoever they are.

"Returning riders" being more at risk than others is a statistical manipulation. ACC and other agencies like NZTA have data sets with limited precision -- they can't distinguish between motorcycle types, particularly scroters, so I doubt that they have little meaningful data about age vs experience for motorcyclists other than data collected from accidents reported to ACC.

Unless the bar is going to be set substantially higher in terms of driver/rider competence, whether for licensing or compulsory insurance purposes, people will not seek road skills "education" unless they see value in it. Road transport officials are passionately against increasing driver/rider skills training because they believe that that makes drivers/riders overconfident. Compulsory third-party insurance isn't likely to be a goer at any time in the near future either.

Hypothetical speculative nonsense serves little value.

[sleemanj]

The idea, as has been said, isn't worthless.

In aviation, every 2 years you need a check ride, a Biennial Flight Review, even if you only fly a single seat microlight, you need a BFR.

As the name suggests, it's not a test, it's a review, you go for a flight with an instructor who will have a look at how your flying, maybe give you some advice, and see if there is anything you want some help with.

For road users, 2 years would be a bit overkill. But 10 years might not be a bad idea.

How it's implemented is another question.

[p.dath]

"Returning riders" being more at risk than others is a statistical manipulation. ACC and other agencies like NZTA have data sets with limited precision -- they can't distinguish between motorcycle types, particularly scroters, so I doubt that they have little meaningful data about age vs experience for motorcyclists other than data collected from accidents reported to ACC.

Granted, when you have a raw data set, and an opinion already in mind, you search for statistics that support your view.

ACC do have statistics for engine size, so they can distinguish crudely motorcycle type.

And they certainly collect statistics about age. I would think you are correct about experience. I don't think they collect any data in this area.

I can see however you are firmly of the opinion that all of their statistics are created with a view to getting rid of motorcyclists.

Perhaps you could present some statistics to support an alternative view?

Unless the bar is going to be set substantially higher in terms of driver/rider competence, whether for licensing or compulsory insurance purposes, people will not seek road skills "education" unless they see value in it

Which is why I suggested having an education session at the ten year re-licensing period. Not much different to the education phase when you sit your learners licence (aka, education is effectively compulsory).

[prettybillie]

Has some merit

I agree....my Dad hasn't been on a bike in 20 years and is thinking of getting one. He has no idea of the power of some of these bikes out there now....

[Taz]

So he should not get an insanely powerful bike. Duh. But even a powerful bike can be ridden sensibly.

[Hitcher]

I can see however you are firmly of the opinion that all of their statistics are created with a view to getting rid of motorcyclists.

Perhaps you could present some statistics to support an alternative view?

An alternative view to what? It's the regulators who have the "official" statistics and the motivation to get rid of motorcyclists. Only a holocaust denier would postulate that motorcycling is safe. It isn't. That's why I enjoy it.

People would still ride motorcycles even if there was no ACC. I would. Hell, I'd even sign a waiver saying that I'd self insure and ACC wouldn't have to cough up a cent in the event of me banging myself up, or worse. Nanny State, however, has a different world view.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

People would still ride motorcycles even if there was no ACC. I would. Hell, I'd even sign a waiver saying that I'd self insure and ACC wouldn't have to cough up a cent in the event of me banging myself up, or worse. Nanny State, however, has different world view.

I would sign the waiver... where do I sign... where do I sign... where do I sign...

And I wouldn't mind that they will still take ACC from my fuel...

[cheshirecat]

If there are to be courses they should be meaningful. I'm a returning biker after a 20 year gap. Bikes are faster yes but they are also now considerably safer. Two of the best courses I ever did were a UK Police bike course as a teenager and some years as a London despatch rider. I use the lessons learnt everytime I ride. There should be incentives not law. If you pass certain courses ACC goes down, along with insurance and perhaps you could so 120 on motorways etc etc

[Hitcher]

I agree....my Dad hasn't been on a bike in 20 years and is thinking of getting one. He has no idea of the power of some of these bikes out there now....

He'll get the idea as soon as he gets on.

There's no requirement to wring the shit out of a bike. Even a nuts-on-fire ZX10 or GSXR can be nerdled along -- they don't explode if they're not wound out to the limiter at every gear change. Indeed most have great throttle response and are lovely predictable things to ride. I would suggest that they are safer to ride than the kangaroo clutch, sticky carb, spaghetti framed, brakeless wonders that your dad and his ilk rode in their youth.

It's not the bike's fault if people fall off them and get hurt.

[MacD]

I agree....my Dad hasn't been on a bike in 20 years and is thinking of getting one. He has no idea of the power of some of these bikes out there now....

One thing you will learn as you get older is that people don't actually get more stupid with age, in fact exactly the opposite.

As Hitcher points out modern bikes are generally much easier to ride than bikes of 20 years ago, despite their peak power (which most people never actually use).

He's also unlikely to post complaining about gravel on roads, cold tyres, white lines, and all the other completely expected issues associated with riding that people constantly complain about on KB.

[Taz]

It's not the bike's fault if people fall off them and get hurt.

Bullshit! It's gotta be! You trying to tell me it's my fault? how? Are you crazy?

[Pedrostt500]

Of course it has merit. he "other" thread did as well

This has already tried with older people and was removed by the labour government becuase it was too stressful for some old folks. IMHO should never have been removed

The main issue is cost how do people who dont have a good income afford this?
maybe the poor dont deserve to have a licence


Please remember I do tend to play devils advocate a bit

What we have Poor people just Driving about, my god how dear they!!.

[Genestho]

So what say all of you? Another bad idea, or it has some merit?

Has merit.

[Pedrostt500]

What about a graduated motor cycle licence system, rather than totaly remove some ones bike licence, allow them to keep it, but hve may be 3 or 4 catorgories, all power to weight ratio, segrigated, to move up the classes, you have to sit courses, with the relivant practical and theory, lessons involved, ie track days etc.
But how do you tell that some one has not been riding in the last ten yrs?, you can't use bike ownership records, as they may own a bike but it is for some one else to ride, or not own a bike but ride some one elses.