Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
To see a life newly created.To watch it grow and prosper. Isn't that the greatest gift a human being can be given?
I distinguish that , though. Because ALL employers are classified by risk Whereas ONLY motorcycles in the road account are classified by risk. If all road users were risk rated then I'd say "fair enough" (I'd still think that such a concept was wrong in that it would violate the Woodhouse rpinciples, but that's another matter)
And the process of determining each industry group risk rating is quite a consultative and transparent one, which the bike risk process certainly is not.
Originally Posted by skidmark
Originally Posted by Phil Vincent
Many small injuries like a wire strand through a finger are not claimed against as the paper work and proceedure let alone the increase in levies due to a claim are horendous and it is easier and cheaper to carry the workers time off work. From a mate (someone I know in passing) who runs a logging business.
"I think men who have a pierced ear are better prepared for marriage.
They've experienced pain and brought jewelry." - Rita Rudner
A man is only as big as the dreams he dares to live
No and yes.
My point in the "sound bites" thread was that ACC want me to pay more for my "risky" motorcycle yet I pay the same for my 5-star-safety rated car as someone driving an old clunker [e.g. with (gasp) zero air bags and no ABS].
But I wouldn't actually want ACC fees differentiated by "safety rating" for cars. (I've read Nick Smith wants this!).
Although safety WAS one reason why I chose my car, another was budget - I could afford it.
"Safety" ratings tend to be about new technologies and designs; but you need to buy new cars to get these things.
A higher ACC fee would disadvantage people who simply can't afford a new "5-star-safety rated" car. It would unfairly disadvantage the "poor" - by making them "poorer"!
...and ACC is supposed to be a fair ("no fault") thing we all get.
(The current system, where new standards mean new cars get "better" is fine; todays new car is tommorrows second-hand car...)
Measure once, cut twice. Practice makes perfect.
They are thinking of changing this too... which again I disagree with... it simply goes agains the princples of ACC
Targeting motorcyclists with this hike goes against everything ACC stands for. Sir Owen Woodhouse one of the founders of ACC says it breaches the principles of the scheme.Originally Posted by Tapu Misa
for for those that don't know he came up with the idea of ACC
Ya do see my point though.ACC has been changing from totally NO fault for quite some time. transparent or not acc levvies are adjusted by claim numbers by employers and the industry. so you could argue a precident has been set.
NOW STOP --before ya start slagging ME its Im not saying its right. I'm saying a real counter arguement to that needs to be available cos sure as eggs is eggs it WILL be raised in debate some time.
The same applies to the CURRENT and up to date facts.
To see a life newly created.To watch it grow and prosper. Isn't that the greatest gift a human being can be given?
ACC are presenting as fact the cost of motorcycle accidents is $X and this cost needs to be covered by registered motorcycles.
If this value is correct then we have nothing to argue with.
However if one accident off road is included in the stats then the $X becomes incorrect. Current collection methods do not provide adequate clarity in this split. Therefore neither us nor the ACC can determine the true cost until a statistically representative sample can be collected using a clear method which ascertains which group the accident falls in to. This may take 12+ months to obtain, given change to forms and changes to collection methods.
The line may be fuzzy in places e.g. an off road motorcycle on a public road like a beach or a registered motorcycle on an off road track.
Until we have correct data we can only guess that there is a substantial percentage of "off road" accidents. However from experience I have fallen off hundreds of times off road but, on the road, touch wood, only a few.
Quoting our own numbers is dangerous as they may be able to prove them wrong by providing more statistics. Whereas if we can undermine their collection methods all of their numbers become useless and their argument falls.
We should also remember that they have web browsers too...
Motorbike only search
YOU ONLY NEED TWO TOOLS IN LIFE - CRC AND DUCT TAPE. IF IT DOESN'T MOVE AND SHOULD, USE THE CRC. IF IT SHOULDN'T MOVE AND DOES, USE THE DUCT TAPE
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks