How about we take a deep breath...

[Okey Dokey]

Perception is everything. We need to be seen to be a responsible "group".
Kneejerk crowd mentallity will work against motorcyclists

That is exactly what I think, too. I hope bikers in the boonies like me will be able to strike a blow and protest- I've alraedy sent my letters to Key, Smith and local MP this morning. Next up ACC. Oh, and voted on stuff poll, too.

[Rhubarb]

.......and relax just for the moment.

BRONZ, but I believe that this is the time for them to take firm hold of any protest organisation.

I also believe that they are probably the only group within NZ who have the potential to do the job justice.

I agree.

A few bikes here and there won't have an impact.

Hundreds of bikes in each city or town at the same time on the same day will get some media attention. It needs to be a National Bronz event.

A form letter that all bikers need just put their name to and a massive mail protest to the minister will also get some attention.

What then?

[The Stranger:Me]

I'm still looking for cogent arguments about why we shouldn't have to pay what ACC claim we cost .

Protests work a lot better if we can offer some valid reasons why the increases are unfair or unjustified.

Not seen any so far.

As I posted elsewhere -

I'll try.
For a start we are the only group outside of industry that is singled out for special treatment. ACC was no fault. Sure many of us have used ACC, as has many a rugby player, are they lining up to pay? So lets have some consistency here, it's user pays or it's no fault.

If I smoke I pay huge tax to the govt. Not sure of the figures, but that was a move taken over many years toward user pays. Fair enough we say, if I kill myself with smoke then why shouldn't I pay for my health care, it's my choice after all.

In our case frequently enough someone else kills us - and we pay. It's inequitable. The cagers should be subsidising us for their share of the carnage.

So if it's no fault then make it no fault, if it is a fault system then make it so, leave the costs on the cagers to cover their 50% (round figures).


Another issue stems from the way ACC is set up.
If I go and rip down a mountain side on a bicycle and head butt a tree, that's not a problem. Why should it be? After all we have a no fault system and the govt sees this as all dandy because I was partaking in a recreational activity.

I don't go flying down mountains on bicycles for recreation, but i do ride a motorcycle for recreation. Much - if not most of my motorcycle riding is for recreation. If I bin it on a recreational ride, well guess what. That is very bad, evil infact. Now how does this differ to the bicyclist? None, why aren't I funded from the recreational fund? Just because i choose the road for my recreation I am discriminated against.

Motorcyclsts are unique in using the road for recreation (OK not entirely, but none others use it to anywhere near the same degree) Why isn't our recreation funded from the recreation fund as well as the MV fund? That's where a huge portion of the cost properly lies.

It's like lumping the costs of recreational rugby in with the professional rugby players and expecting the professional guys to cover the recreational ones. It's bullshit.


Yet another issue is this. I have 2 bikes and a car. I only ever ride one or drive the car. Now ok, if we are going to have consumer pays, make it consumer pays across the board AND user pays once. Again, it is inequitable to have some users paying once and some paying 3 times - that's not user pays, it's user pays and pays and pays. Will I get triple the benefit if I have a claim?


Make no mistake this is a dire situation. I have mentioned on here a couple of times in the past that ACC's stated position is that motorcycles should be taxed off the road. Like cigarettes we are being singled out and this is just a first salvo, if they get this in the next few years we will be hit again and again.

[R6_kid:Me]

Remove ACC cover for minor/superficial injuries - such as those one would sustain through not wearing appropriate safety gear. This would mean that those taking the right precautions don't end up forking out for those who wear no safety gear other than the required helmet.

How many scooter riders do you see only wearing a helmet? They are lumped in with all other motorcyclists in the statistics.

Separate ACC charge for MX bikes. Why should their injury stats be lumped in with ours (if they are)???

For across the board - make the ACC payment a subsidy, so that XX% of costs are covered from a slush fund, and then the remaining cost is user pays via interest free loan - just like with student loans.

Revise the breakdown of 'bracketing' so that it makes more sense - the <125,126-600,601+ makes no sense at all.

Changing the ACC levy to an RUC based system where you pay for distance on the road, not time registered. Alternatively, ACC levy/registration per driver per year - that way drivers with a history of dangerous/careless/drunk/accidents etc can be charged accordingly, thus targeting the individuals - not the groups. This removes the problem of one person paying for multiple vehicles which they cannot use at the same time.

Creating a more in-depth and comprehensive licensing structure so as to compensate for the skills required to ride larger motorcycles, and also introducing a scooter-specific licence. On top of this they could campaign to raise awareness about the need to wear proper protective gear and to get proper training.

What about higher ACC for powerful cars? Drunk drivers?

At the end of the day we have to swallow the pill and realise that we do cost more, there is no way around this fact. It's not right for other people to be covering our cost. It'd also be advisable for all the people who keep moaning on about 'it's the car drivers fault' to shut up and get a reality check.

[The Stranger:Me]

For across the board - make the ACC payment a subsidy, so that XX% of costs are covered from a slush fund, and then the remaining cost is user pays via interest free loan - just like with student loans.

A cop pulls a U turn in front of you and you wind up with a loan as a result. Hardly equitable, so you need to have the ability to aportion blame, which is one of the reasons ACC was set up in the first place.

[Katman]

In our case frequently enough someone else kills us - and we pay. It's inequitable. The cagers should be subsidising us for their share of the carnage.

So if it's no fault then make it no fault, if it is a fault system then make it so, leave the costs on the cagers to cover their 50% (round figures).

And this is why I believe that one of the first steps should be that BRONZ request full disclosure of motorcycle related accidents be made available for independent study.

We need to be sure on our facts and figures - because you can rest assured that we will be bombarded with their facts and figures.

We will need to be able to answer (if 50% of motorcycle accidents do not even involve another vehicle) - why are so many motorcyclists seemingly falling off of their own accord?

It is imperative that we recognise our own faults because ACC will take great pleasure in pointing them out to us.

[monkeymcbean]

And this is why I believe that one of the first steps should be that BRONZ request full disclosure of motorcycle related accidents be made available for independent study.

We need to be sure on our facts and figures - because you can rest assured that we will be bombarded with their facts and figures.

We will need to be able to answer (if 50% of motorcycle accidents do not even involve another vehicle) - why are so many motorcyclists falling off seemingly of their own accord?

It is imperative that we recognise our own faults because ACC will take great pleasure in pointing them out to us.

I would also like the breakdown, which i reckon ACC will not be able to show, between off road motorbike accidents and on road motorbike accidents, one group pays acc leivy, while one does not directly in registratin fees!

[MarkH]

In our case frequently enough someone else kills us - and we pay. It's inequitable. The cagers should be subsidising us for their share of the carnage.

I agree soooo much it hurts!

To illustrate:
My friend of about 30 years was riding his Honda CX500 a couple of decades ago and was hit by a drunk driver - he spent MONTHS in hospital and lost his right leg just below the knee. Unable to do his previous job and not having the skills or abilities for jobs he could do he ended up on ACC for a few YEARS. At the time my friend owned a bike & a car - 2 ACC levies. The drunk driver was convicted and fined HUNDREDS of dollars, while my friend received many tens of thousands of dollars in costs from ACC.

Now that drunk driver would be paying maybe $250 per year in rego. My friend would like to get back into biking and if he did then his choice would be a 2nd hand 650cc scooter - he lives in a small town in the Waikato so would ride mainly longer distances and wants similar performance to his old CX500. So my friend could find himself paying maybe $850 in rego on a scooter and $250 rego on a car. Person that caused an accident which cost ACC a HUGE amount of money pays maybe $180 per year in ACC levies on his vehicle, victim of the accident pays maybe $930 per year in ACC levies. Fair? I think not!

[Clockwork]

How about this:

If they don't put up the levies for bikes then car drivers are subsidizing bike riders - But since car drivers are responsible for at least SOME of the bike claims then that is not entirely unfair.

So ACC doesn't have enough money coming in - they want to increase the bill to bikers because they pay out heaps each year for biking accidents.
But they pay out more each year for sporting injuries and they aren't going after people that play sports, why not?
They also pay out more for DIY injuries, but there isn't a huge levy on ladders & circular saw, why not?

Why are we to be the ones to pay up?

One thing about the car drivers covering the shortfall for motorcyclists - apart from the accidents that the car drivers cause, some of the money collected from car drivers is actually from motorcyclists themselves - plenty of bikers also own cars!

Also the gross unfairness of this proposed levy increase is incredible - someone buys a Vespa PX-150 and they pay the same levy as a squid on a GSXR-600 or R6 - WTF? An experienced rider that has held a bike license for 40+ years without a single claim is getting charged how much for registering his 1200cc tourer?

Not everyone with a bike is a rich bugger riding a flash luxury toy. Plenty of riders are students or super annuitants. Someone riding an SV650 is not necessarily a high speed racer. I could buy a 750cc bike in good running condition for less than $2K from trademe - over $800 to reg it for a year is just bloody ridiculous!

Take a look at these 2 emoticons guess which one is ACC and which one is the motorcyclist!

I would also like to see some justifcation of costs against the new engine CC' categories that they've dreamed up. My gut says that while the headline accidents may tend to involve large road bikes on open roads I suspect many claims come from smaller, round town journies in which case it wont really matter what size of bike you're riding. I'd also expect that when a rider spills on the open road the extent of their injuries will relate to what they hit after impact, not what they are riding on.

If cars do contribute to more than 50% of accidents it's only reasonable that they also cross subside the cost of our care and you wont find too many bike riders that dont own and register a car also!

As far as protest is concerned, I feel we should try to avoid action that will piss off other road users. Perhaps we could remove our number plates as protest? what's the penalty for that? where woud they post any tickets without being able to identify the bike? Would the Police attempt to stop every bike they see to issue the ticket, or would they need to give up and get on with other duties?

[Devil]

We will need to be able to answer (if 50% of motorcycle accidents do not even involve another vehicle) - why are so many motorcyclists seemingly falling off of their own accord?

The need for education and training aside...

What I think is also relevant here is how that compares to cars when it comes to single vehicle accidents. I think that will show that we aren't really the odd ones out here...

[Katman]

What I think is also relevant here is how that compares to cars when it comes to single vehicle accidents. I think that will show that we aren't really the odd ones out here...

Unfortunately, I think it may be the other way round.

What percentage of car accidents are single vehicle as opposed to car versus car?

[vifferman]

As someone pointed out in another thread, it's only $2/day for the proposed ACC - cheaper'n other countries' compulsory insurance, and much less than I currently pay for medical insurance, yet with much better coverage.

[MarkH]

If cars do contribute to more than 50% of accidents it's only reasonable that they also cross subside the cost of our care

Why if more than 50%? Even if car drivers are only to blame for 20% of the motorcycle costs to ACC they should still subsidise the cost of motorcycle claims. Car drivers do more damage to motorcycle riders than vice versa - so some degree of subsidising is definitely fair!

[modboy]

I'm still looking for cogent arguments about why we shouldn't have to pay what ACC claim we cost .

Protests work a lot better if we can offer some valid reasons why the increases are unfair or unjustified.

Not seen any so far.

It is the blatant inconsistency.

How much does it cost to pull idiots off mountains who go up there unprepared, get lost or are out of their depth? Do they ever have to pay?

No one seems to be considering the CAUSE of many motorcycle accidents. The motorcyclist gets hit twice, once in the pocket and also by the dumb cager who was too busy eating a pie, or fiddling with the stereo, or txt'ing to see the biker.

So, the "oh sorry, I didn't see you..." cager is being subsidised for his incompetence and inattention - whilst we pay and suffer.

This is just another cynical example of how car drivers take precedent over everyone else on the road. In a time when we should be encouraging cars to get off the road - our stupid Government, goes against trends in throughout the rest of the world and encourages people to get into their SUVs thereby further fucking the environment...

They are arseholes - I'm totally resigned to the fact that all our moaning won't change a thing. I blame the fucktards that voted this bunch of fuckwits in in the first place.

John Key - we are going to stop the flow of people leaving this country by making it financially more attractive to live and work here - yea right. Provided you are a fat rich SUV driving stock exchange broker - everyone else can get fucked.

[Katman]

I'm totally resigned to the fact that all our moaning won't change a thing.

I agree.

That's why this whole process needs to be addressed and undertaken with intelligence, logic and maturity. Foaming at the mouth will achieve nothing.