Well bikers are screwed - ACC levy

[Ixion]

Is this an open meeting to all or a BRONZ closed committee meeting.

Open to all

I agree. We need an organisation like BRONZ to step up and provide a unified voice. An organisation that knows HOW to lobby a government and knows how to "play" politics. I know it's a lot about money, but lobby groups in the United States are extremely effective.

Money. And heads. Twenty people turn out to protest about something, they're ignored. 2000 turn out, that gets attention. And for many years only an infinetesimal percentage of bikers have been bothered to turn out. Other than to complain that someone else should do something. Twenty would have been good.

So, we'll see how many folk are prepared to put their money where their mouth is.

Signup forms for BRONZ here

[Elysium]

Nick Smith best watch out for himself now.....

-Indy

Yep. Gangs like bikes too.

[ready4whatever]

Its hard to protest on bikes. People need buses to get around, people need trucks to deliver all sorts of stuff. People other than bikers dont need bikes. If we all clog the motorways the cops are gonna have a field day like they did with the truckers. im not sure how to go about it

[R6_kid:Me]

I think the rise is justified, but badly thought out in terms of payment breakdown.

Doing the bracketing by engine size doesn't make sense. It would be smarter to do it by power output, cross referenced against rider experience.

The difficulty then becomes how do you obtain accurate HP/torque/kW figures for all the different models, and also take into account any modifications that have been done that improve safety/power etc... Also how do you measure experience? Is there a reliable way to measure and individuals cost to ACC before an accident happens?

It would cost too much to work out the costing on a case by case basis so that is out of the question.

How about getting an ACC rebate? You haven't made a claim in the last X years so you can get a XX% rebate on your payments - force people to ride safer and pay for their own accidents???

[Pixie]

I'd like to send a friendly email to ACC but what grounds do I have to what they have proposed?

"Oh, please don't increase the levies, motorcycles are cool as, bro!

Cheers"

Seriously, what am I to write that would have any impact?

Time to contact the motorbike industry & MPs that use motorbikes.

Don't contact ACC - their ultimate plan is to get bikes off the road

[Gubb]

Signup forms for BRONZ here

How long have you been marketing yourself as Bro NZ Quality Street wear?

Maybe that's why new members are scarce.

[rosie631]

Well, off to get an RS125 and kit it out with a turbo I suppose.

I'm going to check whether my insurance will cover if my rego isn't current, but the WOF is up to date.

Me too. Insurance is the only reason I pay the fucking thing. Don't actually see why being registered or not should affect insurance. Can understand WOF.

[dipshit]

Guys, we really do need to fight this - especially as most bike accidents are caused by cages in the first place...

Motorcyclists that believe this BRONZ bullshit and keep falling off the roads every weekend are a big part of the reason why we are seeing huge ACC increases.

[Reckless]

Signup forms for BRONZ here

That looked like a t shirt shop?? Didn't see any biker organization stuff??

[James Deuce]

I think the rise is justified, but badly thought out in terms of payment breakdown.

Doing the bracketing by engine size doesn't make sense. It would be smarter to do it by power output, cross referenced against rider experience.

The difficulty then becomes how do you obtain accurate HP/torque/kW figures for all the different models, and also take into account any modifications that have been done that improve safety/power etc... Also how do you measure experience? Is there a reliable way to measure and individuals cost to ACC before an accident happens?

It would cost too much to work out the costing on a case by case basis so that is out of the question.

How about getting an ACC rebate? You haven't made a claim in the last X years so you can get a XX% rebate on your payments - force people to ride safer and pay for their own accidents???

Write your submission chap.

[ital916]

Open to all



Money. And heads. Twenty people turn out to protest about something, they're ignored. 2000 turn out, that gets attention. And for many years only an infinetesimal percentage of bikers have been bothered to turn out. Other than to complain that someone else should do something. Twenty would have been good.

So, we'll see how many folk are prepared to put their money where their mouth is.

Signup forms for BRONZ here

If we are protesting, best make a weekend out of it, I reckon. Instead of three protests nationwide, make it one protest in the capital with as many bikes as possible. Thousands of bikers outside parliment will get their attention.

Cash on the night is accepted for membership?

Edit: that link goes to a clothing store.

[ckai]

How long have you been marketing yourself as Bro NZ Quality Street wear?

Maybe that's why new members are scarce.

That looked like a t shirt shop?? Didn't see any biker organization stuff??

And here's me thinking their shirts were quite cool!

[chasio]

I have had the same thought process myself its fair to say, but I have come to the view that this proposed increase is iniquitous, and I do intend to exercise my demoratic rights in relation to it.

My thought process is this:

The ACC system was introduced in 1974 to prevent the lottery that was personal injury litigation. For example I am knocked off my motorbike by my business partner: his fault, I get heaps of compensation from him or his insurers because of the fact he has pots of money. But compare the result with I am knocked off my bike by our office junior. She has no money, no insurance, I get nothing, even though I have the same legal rights against both parties.

ACC said, "Hey, the social contract is this: You give up the right to sue, and we (the nanny state to use a phrase popular a year ago) will look after you, on a no fault basis. Everyone pays a bit, and we all get looked after. Its marvellous".

And so it was.

But then in the '80's there were some pretty hardheaded attempts from people to get rid of this system. "Its anachronistic, it unfairly makes people pay who've never had a claim, I do only X but you do Y and so you should pay more."

And thats the real problem. What we now have is the expression of that mindset: One of the smallest groups of individuals by number, who by the nature of their activity, and the fact that pretty much any claim they make will be major are being targeted to pay "their "fair" share".

It is almost a complete abrogation from that principle that we all pay a bit and we all get looked after to one of "user pays".

And that, in my view, is why its so very wrong.

Excellent point. Sadly I fear it is too complicated to get the wider public on board with it.

Surely if the principle is being abandoned, the sensible thing to do is to scrap ACC altogether and let the insurance industry sort out who should pay and how much? They are really quite good at that sort of thing, unlike the ACC.

Of course without ACC we won't have a health system quite as all encompassing, but I expect they won't let so many uninsured idiots die that people are put off.

[rosie631]

Submissions closed October 2nd.

Yep and someone had a thread on here with a link so we could all make submissions. Think it was peasea?? I put mine in. Did you???

[Pixie]

Saw an article recently about how someone in NZ hurts themselves every 48 seconds doing jobs around the house, at a cost 641mil in ACC just last year.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10595342

Find out who this cunt is and kill him