Bikers Against ACC website

[chch_zed]

A new website has been created to provide information about the campaign against the ACC levies. Early days yet but more to come.

See http://www.bikersagainstacc.org.nz/

[Maki]

Great, bling awarded.

[Ixion]

BTW the 62 million figure is correct but very misleading.

That figure is for 2008. But it covers the cost of 3173 active claims. BUT - only 1336 of those claims were for accidents in 2008.

And the 12million , so much quoted ,was the collection for 2008 only.

And, because ACC is now a full funding model, the claims for previous years will have been fully funded in those years. That is, if a claim occurs in 2007, then in 2007 ACC will put aside enough to cover the cost of that claim in 2007 AND ALL SUBSEQUENT YEARS.

So, cost of claims prior to 2008 HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR. They don't have to be paid from the 2008 revenue. In effect ACC are trying to con us that the same claim ahs to be paid for twice over.

Doing a bit of maths, based on th eavergae cost of those 3173 claims, and extending it across the 1336 NEW claims, gives 26 million as the cost of 2008 claims

And, if that revenue was what it should be , based on the number of REGISTERED bikes, it would be about 19 million. Not much of a short flal at all to 26 million

[Oakie]

BTW the 62 million figure is correct but very misleading.

That figure is for 2008. But it covers the cost of 3173 active claims. BUT - only 1336 of those claims were for accidents in 2008.

And the 12million , so much quoted ,was the collection for 2008 only.

And, because ACC is now a full funding model, the claims for previous years will have been fully funded in those years. That is, if a claim occurs in 2007, then in 2007 ACC will put aside enough to cover the cost of that claim in 2007 AND ALL SUBSEQUENT YEARS.

So, cost of claims prior to 2008 HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR. They don't have to be paid from the 2008 revenue. In effect ACC are trying to con us that the same claim ahs to be paid for twice over.

Doing a bit of maths, based on th eavergae cost of those 3173 claims, and extending it across the 1336 NEW claims, gives 26 million as the cost of 2008 claims

And, if that revenue was what it should be , based on the number of REGISTERED bikes, it would be about 19 million. Not much of a short flal at all to 26 million

Well don't tell us. Tell the media! They love that stuff

[Ixion]

Well don't tell us. Tell the media! They love that stuff

Patience laddie, patience.

[nothingflash]

Great site - maybe this should be referred to on Spankme's t-shirts?

[Nasty]

I am sorry, but would never wear a t-shirt with bikers against acc ...

I am not against ACC ... I am against the changes that they are proposing ... which as we all say seem rather outlandish. I have had reasonable dealings with ACC in dealing with the death of my partner ... and they were as helpful as allowed and forthcoming with information and assistance.

[sunhuntin]

here here nasty. for the most part, acc do a great job, but it is the increases that get my back up. also the cutting of counselling for those that were raped etc.
at the proposed price, i would be better off taking out private medical and life insurance or something. which is something i would do, IF i didnt have to pay acc as well. one or the other. its not like i can die twice.

[ajdarrell]

Good website, we need to get behind them

[howdamnhard]

Excellent. I notice in all the news reports that ACC or Nick Smith always has a rebuttal along the lines " yes but car drivers are still subsidising bikers by $77". If this is false when is it going to be challenged in the media where the public can see it as it aint helping our cause?

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Excellent. I notice in all the news reports that ACC or Nick Smith always has a rebuttal along the lines " yes but car drivers are still subsidising bikers by $77". If this is false when is it going to be challenged in the media where the public can see it as it aint helping our cause?

Media need to get the info and do there own figures... but they probably don't care

[howdamnhard]

Media need to get the info and do there own figures... but they probably don't care

Yip they like the work done for them.

[nothingflash]

I am sorry, but would never wear a t-shirt with bikers against acc ...

I am not against ACC ... I am against the changes that they are proposing ... which as we all say seem rather outlandish. I have had reasonable dealings with ACC in dealing with the death of my partner ... and they were as helpful as allowed and forthcoming with information and assistance.

I don't believe the website is anti ACC in content - same can't be said for the name though. Shame really - especially for the point you make.

[zahria]

Excellent. I notice in all the news reports that ACC or Nick Smith always has a rebuttal along the lines " yes but car drivers are still subsidising bikers by $77". If this is false when is it going to be challenged in the media where the public can see it as it aint helping our cause?

Most of us have a car tho... I have 2, so what? are we subsidising ourselves?

[howdamnhard]

Most of us have a car tho... I have 2, so what? are we subsidising ourselves?

Yip so do I, this needs to be and indeed has been pointed out. Of course ACC & Mr Nick Smith will be trying their damndest to skew things in their favour and attempting to alienate us from the rest of the population. Of course if ACC is successful at alienating us bikers ( introducing a blame culture) then it will open the gates into picking on other minority groups until they will have everybody paying extra for ACC and the cash will be flowing in to be squandered unwisely. That or the general public will baulk against ACC at the idea when they realise they will be the next victim and then National will be able to either privatise or scrap it in its entiety. Which will be a pity as essentialy its a good idea but needs to be cleaned up ( just like our tax system).