ACC Levies. BRONZ meeting

[joha]

I'm pretty peeved about this ACC levy "covert" non-direct tax increases
but rather than just camp outside parliment or ride up and down queen st with signs yelling.

Lets just do it like French Farmers park our tractors (bikes)on mass, on the motorways and block up the system every rush hour, every day!!!

When the increase happens;...

Thoses that can still afford to own/ride will have to combat with an increase in car drivers on the road with no insurance, no WOF and or car REG and hence probably cause or be involved in more accidents.

ACC should provide a way of opting out and allow bike riders to seek a private insurance method with another company. ie Bike insurance!?

[Mikkel]

The tenor of Rick's tone was mainly the social injustice of No Fault Insurance penalising a nominated group.

Yep, that's the angle that it should be approached from.

[chasio]

Secondary, from road users perspective, what would be done on ACC consumptions on cyclists? Why are they not levied despite them having similar or worse injury risk to motorcyclists?

Imagine the incredible bureaucracy that would be required to collect from cyclists. They'll stay in the 'too hard' basket as there is no convenient way to collect from them, i.e. the ACC has no way of knowing who they are or where to find them (apart from Tamaki and Scenic Drives on a Sunday morning carrying nothing but coffee money) and no license plates to know which vehicle is paid up and which is not.

We do cost a lot to patch up, but so do many other groups including rugby players and DIYers. But those other groups are too hard to target.

Surely they are attempting to stick it to motorcyclists because it is convenient to do so. If we want to ride on the road, we are required by law to get rego for our vehicles (like cars) and this gives the ACC a cheap and easy opportunity to hit us while we have our wallets open. And the majority of NZ voters will think that's fair because we do cost more than we pay, after all...

As others have said, the injustice lies in targetting a minority group for extra payments just because it is convenient and cost effective for ACC to do so. It makes a mockery of the 'no fault' principle on which ACC is supposedly based.

So tactically, do bikers concentrate on the no fault principle or do we just accept we are fighting a losing battle and try and make the way costs are apprortioned more reasonable and maybe get a cap on contributions for multiple bikes?

And demand more compulsory training for both drivers and riders (although that is not under the ACC remit)?

[Ixion]

I wish people would stop claiming that cars cause the majority of our accidents.

That sort of statement will come back and bite us in the arse when the figures are placed in front of us showing that it isn't the case.

At present it appears to be that 58% of motorcycle accidents are the fault of the motorcyclist.

Sure, this is not very far over the 50% mark - but to claim that cars are responsible for the majority of our accidents is clearly wrong.

Whether they do or not is irrelevant for our purpose here.

ACC is a "no fault" system. That means they don't care who CAUSED the accident. All they care about is who they are SPENDING the money on. From that point of view, if a biker is mashed up in an accident with a car, even if the car IS totally to blame, it's still the biker costing them money.

That's the way it works, and no matter whether we agree or not, there is no way on earth we are going to persuade TPTB to change it , certainly not in the time frame we have.

So arguments about who is to blame are just distracting, and are not helpful at all.

[NiggleC]

Why doesn't ACC put a levy on every registered rugby / netball player in the country - say $50 each payable with club subs?
Because they represent a far larger group of voters than motorcyclists ever will. And because BRONZ has stuttered along through no fault of its own but because of a lack of interest by motorcyclists in general we are percieved to be disorganised. Its politics pure and simple.

My opinion is that if you have an accident wearing the gear that most people on this website would wear anyway then you are covered.
If you fall off your nifty 50 (you have seen them) wearing jandals, shorts and a singlet and resemble being assaulted by a cheese grater then you pay for your treatment from the moment the ambulance leaves its base.

[Voltaire]

We just lost 4 billion dollars......
so....

Cost of injured motorists divided by amount of registered vehicles.

cost of injured motorcyclists divided by amount of registered bikes.

bikers costing more, motorists costing less...

charge bikers lots more
Charge motorists a bit more.

What about non registered activities.....

Oh thats to hard...

Nick....Nick...we're finished.

[The Stranger:Me]

I wish people would stop claiming that cars cause the majority of our accidents.

That sort of statement will come back and bite us in the arse when the figures are placed in front of us showing that it isn't the case.

At present it appears to be that 58% of motorcycle accidents are the fault of the motorcyclist.

Sure, this is not very far over the 50% mark - but to claim that cars are responsible for the majority of our accidents is clearly wrong.

I wouldn't get too hung up on this point either way Katman.
It is supposedly a reaction to cost, not the number of accidents.
All accidents are not created equal.
Ones involving a cage tend to be the more expensive ones for ACC. Sure some single vehicle ones are bad - or fatal, but I know damn well I would rather lose it on a right hander into a farmer's paddock than head on a cage on my side of the road. The difference in ACC cost is astronomical.
Multi vehicle accidents tend to be consistently expensive for ACC due to smashed pelvi etc.

[Mom]

What about non registered activities.....

Oh thats to hard...

Nick....Nick...we're finished.

Look this is not the time to pull out the us against them card amongst ourselves. We all ride bikes, the off road unregistered riders can appreciate our pain, even if they are really pleased it is not them.

However, I think that they will understand also that it wont be too long until they find a way to get them to pay a levy too, perhaps at purchase time?

We are getting potentially hammered at the moment, the more noise we make against it the better it will be, the more time will be spent finding alternatives.

Imagine this if you will...

All player members that join a sports club, whether it be a rugby club, a football club, , a netball club, a pony club, an athletics club, a gymnastics club, a what ever you can imagine club get slammed with an ACC levy for the season to cover any potential claims that will be made to ACC for injury. Imagine the outcry!

But that is just and fair as far as I am concerned. I have ridden bikes for better than 30 years and have NEVER made a claim for cover under ACC for a bkie related injury, I have however made the odd claim for twisting a knee playing badminton etc, I once broke my cruciate ligament rounding up sheep too. Why the hell should I penalised for the misfortune of others?

[Katman]

I wouldn't get too hung up on this point either way Katman.

What worries me though is how the general public (who we surely should be trying to get on our side) might react when it comes to light that motorcyclists are talking shit by blaming the majority of their accidents on someone else.

[Vern]

Cross posted - sorry - I stuck it in the wrong thread first.

I just got off the phone with the Hon. Rick Barker. He's on board, still rides a Rocket III and will do his best to attend the BRONZ meeting on Wednesday night.

He asked me if I knew of a lawyer with an interest and any statisticians who can lend a hand. Please PM me and I'll pass it on?

He's writing a press release now and told me he wants a big ride to Wellington organised.

Beaks and number crunchers now welcome.

I am in on this as the more the better. Vern

[Voltaire]

Look this is not the time to pull out the us against them card amongst ourselves. We all ride bikes, the off road unregistered riders can appreciate our pain, even if they are really pleased it is not them.

However, I think that they will understand also that it wont be too long until they find a way to get them to pay a levy too, perhaps at purchase time?

We are getting potentially hammered at the moment, the more noise we make against it the better it will be, the more time will be spent finding alternatives.

Imagine this if you will...

All player members that join a sports club, whether it be a rugby club, a football club, , a netball club, a pony club, an athletics club, a gymnastics club, a what ever you can imagine club get slammed with an ACC levy for the season to cover any potential claims that will be made to ACC for injury. Imagine the outcry!

But that is just and fair as far as I am concerned. I have ridden bikes for better than 30 years and have NEVER made a claim for cover under ACC for a bkie related injury, I have however made the odd claim for twisting a knee playing badminton etc, I once broke my cruciate ligament rounding up sheep too. Why the hell should I penalised for the misfortune of others?

You misread my waffle...non registered activities meant activities that can't easily have $$$ attached to them as easily as vehicles.
You thought I meant dirt bikes.....but I have one of those too.
I think sports players should contribute to ACC.The reason NZ is the adventure capital of the world is other places have to have insurance to operate, EG, when I lived in Ireland the skating rink closed as it could not get insurance....we had to pay 5 euros for the kids to go on field trips.... thats user pays.
I haven't been on ACC for years....but when I'm skiing or dirt bike riding its good to know its there.....( isn't that the attitude that ACC has given us).

[jonbuoy]

The fact that NZ decision makers are still relating the overall engine capacity of the bike directly with its performance and risk shows how little they actually know and care about bikes. DR650 VS GSXR600 in the same risk bracket?? A bit like the 33BHP learner limit in Europe. It seems like they view bikes as purely luxury items and not day to day transport. How about they make some efforts to reduce the road toll - safety adverts on TV before the biking season. I've never seen a speeding or fast riding informercial aimed at motorcyclists in NZ. Perfect example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH34xzIdY58

[MadDuck]

DR650 VS GSXR600 in the same risk bracket??

Yes thats how I see it. I sent an email to my local MP (Lockwood Smith) with this as my main argument. No ranting about $ or statistics just that their notion of capacity rating and risk appear flawed.

Unless of course there are numbers or statistics "somewhere" that show I am barking up the wrong tree????

[5150]

Imagine the incredible bureaucracy that would be required to collect from cyclists. They'll stay in the 'too hard' basket as there is no convenient way to collect from them, i.e. the ACC has no way of knowing who they are or where to find them (apart from Tamaki and Scenic Drives on a Sunday morning carrying nothing but coffee money) and no license plates to know which vehicle is paid up and which is not.

We do cost a lot to patch up, but so do many other groups including rugby players and DIYers. But those other groups are too hard to target.

Surely they are attempting to stick it to motorcyclists because it is convenient to do so. If we want to ride on the road, we are required by law to get rego for our vehicles (like cars) and this gives the ACC a cheap and easy opportunity to hit us while we have our wallets open. And the majority of NZ voters will think that's fair because we do cost more than we pay, after all...

As others have said, the injustice lies in targetting a minority group for extra payments just because it is convenient and cost effective for ACC to do so. It makes a mockery of the 'no fault' principle on which ACC is supposedly based.

So tactically, do bikers concentrate on the no fault principle or do we just accept we are fighting a losing battle and try and make the way costs are apprortioned more reasonable and maybe get a cap on contributions for multiple bikes?

And demand more compulsory training for both drivers and riders (although that is not under the ACC remit)?

EASY. Do what they do in some eastern countries. Rego bicycles as well. Back where i come from, you needed license to ride a push bike. Kids were learning to respect road rules from young age.

[That looks like fun]

http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...-Factsheet.pdf
Makes for sobering reading. The facts are against us unfortunatly. Which means we still have choices but we have limited them with our own actions.
(we being bikers as a collective which is how ACC is treating us).
ACC funds tied to licence fees?
The right to opt out of ACC at registration time by providing proof of private Insurance? (My favorite as then those who need the most pay the most)
ACC funding included as petrol Tax?
ACC by Horse power?
ACC funded by Carvers legal defense fund?

How much will ACC be asked to shell out for riders on the Coro loop and Forgotten Highway this year?
We all have the potential to fall of and get hurt, matter of fact I am pretty darn good at it. So we all need some form of Insurance be it ACC or something else
Time to stop claiming innocence and find methods to ensure that we get to keep our toys and can still play with them