I think we also need to agree on what constitutes success at the end of the day as well. From day one I've believed the main aim is to driver through a smaller (eg $300) increase - but to get it past us, have said they want $500. When we've finished our protests, and made our point, Nick Smith will stand there and say - "Ok, we're a good government, we listen to our people and we're only going to charge a $300 increase."
what will it take to make us go away?
If we all agree $500 is too much - what compromise will make us happy - because in the end that's what we're likely to be faced with.
I know 2 things - we are off topic - and Devil went down to Georgia was a better song.
As well as parity with cars, what we really want is a return to a no fault COMPENSATION scheme not a fully funded INSURANCE scheme. That's probably too much of an ask until after the revolution so I'll settle for the same relative percentage increase as applied to cars without the engine capacity weighting.
To me, a realistic "best result" expectation would be for bikes to get the same percentage increase as the cars are getting. (Same price for all bikes).
(edit: oh. Same as "Bald Eagle" said).
"Parity" (paying the same as cars) is less realistic as it not only halts the big increase but reverses the situation we already have. Essentially we'd be asking for the cars to get an increase and us not to. That isn't going to happen.
Even bigger stuff, like changing the whole way ACC fees are gathered is going to take a lot more work over a long time.
Measure once, cut twice. Practice makes perfect.
Ixion re-word these however you think but I didn't see these points.
- The collection of statistics for motorcycle injuries doesn't specify whether the injury was incurred on a road registered motorcycle or not and it is likely that road registered users are being asked to contribute for others. (Because there is no specific figure you could just as easily say we estimate 50% of motorcycle injuries are for riders of non-registered motorcycles - it can't be proved. Dr Keith has said that they determine which bikes are road rego'd from the information written about the accident - as a motorcycle rider I can imagine what was written and would bet that most non road rego'd injuries are being applied to roadies.)
- in excess of 99% of road registered users own a car and as such the two premiums combined mean they are already paying significantly higher. ACC have ignored this fact.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single motorcycle
Click here for: - Changing Dyslexia, Depression, Anxiety, Trauma, Phobia's, Allergies etc
2nd one (more than one vehicle) is the ninth point. I'll add the other one.
Originally Posted by skidmarkOriginally Posted by Phil Vincent
They are SUPPOSED to be specifically excluded. Subject to unknown error at the point of inital data capture .
Originally Posted by skidmarkOriginally Posted by Phil Vincent
Thanks Ixion - Your example in the radio interview tonight answered that one just nicely - Cheers!
Is it worth pointing out that those wire-rope barriers which Motocyclists almost unanimously oppose, while saving the ACC money on car related claims would probably have exactly the opposite effect on a motorcycle claim.
"There must be a one-to-one correspondence between left and right parentheses, with each left parenthesis to the left of its corresponding right parenthesis."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks