What are you fighting for?

[R6_kid:Me]

From reading all the 'spam' posts that have come up about the proposed ACC levy increase it would seem that many people are simply opposed to paying more for their ACC levy, whether that be $50 more or $500 more.

I think what people need to understand is that an increase maybe justified (given that the books don't balance) and that it would be better if we are seen as campaigning for a fairer amount, rather than just out and out bitching/complaining that 'we don't/can't pay upto $750+ a year for ACC levy on our rego'.

The majority of people who have taken proper action regarding the increase, such as looking at the statistics and doing some research into what we 'actually' cost etc, are already on the right path.

One thought that did cross my mind is how many dangerous/reckless riders are going to be priced out of riding by the increase? In my eyes the riders who are not doing anything 'wrong' (sensible riders) are most likely able to afford the increase although they may have more trouble justifying the expense to their better half! I know a number of people that pay more in speeding tickets in a 12 month period than the proposed increase will be!

[firefighter]

Me personally?

Well the levy needs to be raised, fair enough. $200 across the board is a more plateable and reasonable ask, however what they are asking is absolutely astonishing.

It's hardly reasonable to expect people to cough up an extra $500 a year on top of what they already pay and just declaring the rise out of the blue.

ACC finding it's a gazillion dollars in deficeit "all of a sudden" then screaming out and a sudden raise in levys by $500 has pretty much gone and created an anti ACC monster. They deserve any protest action they have to put up with and I personally think someone should be held responsible for not catching this out earlier.....

It's like a child standing in front of it's parents, shitting themselves and then asking if they can go to the toilet.

[James Deuce]

You need to understand that the founding principle of ACC is a no fault system and even the chap who proposed and implemented ACC never accepted or agreed that motorcyclists needed to or should be singled out.

By far the most dangerous activities undertaken in NZ are DIY/Gardening, cooking, and bathing. They cost $610 million a year. A levy on home and contents insurance would do more to address the perceived loss that ACC makes. It isn't making a loss. It can afford us. ACC more than breaks even, largely thanks to the efforts of its investment arm. ACC are not losing money. At present even the Police are making statistics up. In the Herald article today that Squiggles was quoted in, we've gone from 16 times more likey (1600%) to 18 times (1800%) more likely to have an accident by distance travelled. Which is it?

Car passengers cost more to fix than motorcyclists. You're arguing from the a perception that is both faulty and insulting to the vast majority of motorcyclists, who aren't the fuckwits you assume them to be.

[Katman]

Personally I think we should be fighting for a fairer system. In that regard those who currently pay no ACC levy (i.e off-road bikes) should be charged a comparable levy and those who are currently paying and repeatedly claiming from ACC should be the ones to carry the burden of any increases.

[Squiggles]

In the Herald article today that Squiggles was quoted in, we've gone from 16 times more likey (1600%) to 18 times (1800%) more likely to have an accident by distance travelled. Which is it?

18 is the MoT claim in the 2008 factsheet... if Ixion is right about either claim though, they're based on a survey of 300ish riders back in 97/98... hardly relevant today given the increase in bikes and % decrease in accidents. Perhaps it should have been "Motorcycles were, in 1998, approximately 16 times more likely to be involved in an accident than car drivers for an equivalent distance travelled, based on a survey of 3xx riders"

I expect an increase, but a reasonable one and one based on good, transparent data. The cross-subsidisation argument can fuckoff, the majority accommodates the minority these days, and we're simply the easiest minority to have a go at without legislative changes.

[R6_kid:Me]

Perhaps it should have been "Motorcycles were, in 1998, approximately 16/18 times more likely to be involved in an accident than car drivers for an equivalent distance travelled, based on a survey of 3xx riders"

That is how they teach you to present 'findings' in stage one statistics at University.

[danielle]

I personally am really farked of with the motorcyle levy increase, but am also worried with the cuts to survivor victims of sexual abuse etc


Its all bullshit

[Squiggles]

That is how they teach you to present 'findings' in stage one statistics at University.

And its alot clearer for that... given ACC couldnt tell the reporter where they came up with 16x it really shouldn't have ever been mentioned.

[Ixion]

18 is the MoT claim in the 2008 factsheet... if Ixion is right about either claim though, they're based on a survey of 300ish riders back in 97/98... hardly relevant today given the increase in bikes and % decrease in accidents. Perhaps it should have been "Motorcycles were, in 1998, approximately 16 times more likely to be involved in an accident than car drivers for an equivalent distance travelled, based on a survey of 3xx riders"

I expect an increase, but a reasonable one and one based on good, transparent data. The cross-subsidisation argument can fuckoff, the majority accommodates the minority these days, and we're simply the easiest minority to have a go at without legislative changes.

Bloody hell. The 300 odd bikes included those that weren't in use!

They asked "what vehicles does your household have". Then added up the distance travelled in each (even if zero). Totalled all the responses, and divided that distance by the number of crashes a year!

That's why the average usage for bikes worked out at 44 hours per year!

Oh, and this was based on only two days of the week!. Given that bikes get more use at weekends, ...

Moreover, the distance travelled is irrelevant. On that basis skateboards are fiendish dangerous, think of the injuries per kilometre travelled by them

If someone is looking at how dangerous something is, what they want to know is "If I ride around on one of those things, how likely am I to have a crash each year". The distance travelled is irrelevant.

[danielle]

One thought that did cross my mind is how many dangerous/reckless riders are going to be priced out of riding by the increase? In my eyes the riders who are not doing anything 'wrong' (sensible riders) are most likely able to afford the increase although they may have more trouble justifying the expense to their better half! I know a number of people that pay more in speeding tickets in a 12 month period than the proposed increase will be!

I consider myself a sensible rider, im only on my learners but thus far have done everything as carefully and safely as i can. BUT because im a 19 year old student living on minimum wage i will NOT be able to afford 500 bucks for my 150cc bike, I've also never had a speeding ticket, so think that was a gross generalisation

[caseye]

From reading all the 'spam' posts that have come up about the proposed ACC levy increase it would seem that many people are simply opposed to paying more for their ACC levy, whether that be $50 more or $500 more.

I think what people need to understand is that an increase is justified (given that the books don't balance) and that it would be better if we are seen as campaigning for a fairer amount, rather than just out and out bitching/complaining that 'we don't/can't pay upto $750+ a year for ACC levy on our rego'.

The majority of people who have taken proper action regarding the increase, such as looking at the statistics and doing some research into what we 'actually' cost etc, are already on the right path.

One thought that did cross my mind is how many dangerous/reckless riders are going to be priced out of riding by the increase? In my eyes the riders who are not doing anything 'wrong' (sensible riders) are most likely able to afford the increase although they may have more trouble justifying the expense to their better half! I know a number of people that pay more in speeding tickets in a 12 month period than the proposed increase will be!

A good point/s but as things have happened at pace and we've been left standing still, ACC deserves everything we can thow it's way while this mess is sorted out.
If this happens many riders who have nurtured their bikes and included their families in their pastime are going to have to walk away. Criminally inclined and speeding ticket gathers will simply ride unregistered and of course uninsured as always.So guess what, we the ordianry riders will still cop the flak for them as always.

[MSTRS:Me]

Personally I think we should be fighting for a fairer system. In that regard those who currently pay no ACC levy (i.e off-road bikes) should be charged a comparable levy and those who are currently paying and repeatedly claiming from ACC should be the ones to carry the burden of any increases.

Can't do that, without moving to licence-based levies. Under 'no fault' the individual is not tracked, only their input to the stats counts.
(not worded well, but I hope my meaning is clear)

[Headbanger]

I think what people need to understand is that an increase is justified (given that the books don't balance) and that it would be better if we are seen as campaigning for a fairer amount, rather than just out and out bitching/complaining that 'we don't/can't pay upto $750+ a year for ACC levy on our rego'.

I think what you need to understand is this runs contrary to the fundamentals ACC was founded and operates on, and that motorcycle owners have been singled out to be treated different from every other facet of society.

And of course the system of charging based on CC is just plain retarded.

Which is why it may look like to some that everyone is just bitching because its a hit in the pocket.

[PrincessBandit]

Increases in premiums/costs/taxes are a part of everyday life as each year progresses. People are balking at the amount of the increase. If it had been thought out sensibly, and dare I say in a more fair fashion, there would not have been anywhere near the same level of resistance as we're seeing now.

I just reckon that the perceived easiest path of picking on a group who do have a slightly less-than-desirable profile when it comes to accident statistics (combined with a perhaps-less-than-desirable public image in general to boot) appealed to them. Despite the stats screaming loud and clear that injuries in the home, sports (how could we be so blasphemous as to besmirch the god "Sport"), cyclists etc. add up even worse they wouldn't dream of picking on exemplary Mr and Mrs Everyday Joe Public.

p.s. of course they conveniently overlook the fact that motorcyclists generally are Mr and Mrs Joe Public, not some seedy lowlife breed which come lower down the caste system.

[firefighter]

I personally am really farked of with the motorcyle levy increase, but am also worried with the cuts to survivor victims of sexual abuse etc


Its all bullshit

Why the fuck are they covered by ACC anyway?

There should really be another organisation to cover this sort of thing, not the Accident Compensation Corp, nor should it cover bloody depression or all the other crap that has been lumped in, that's what the sickness benefit is for.....(should be for)