Is it worth mentioning that with a rise in levy most bikers will only reg their bike for summer months therefore reducing the amount of money the ACC will collect anyway. It will also result in fewer people registering their extra bikes as they currently do so less money again. Not to mention those who cannot afford the rise and will ride without rego, any tickets they incur will go to the police and the ACC will see none of it.
Manifesto is a statement of principles. The effects of the levy changes are a matter for submissions.
Ideally a manifesto is not specific to a single issue - it should last for years.
Tamworth manifesto of 1834 is still pretty much the statement of UK Conservative principles.
Originally Posted by skidmarkOriginally Posted by Phil Vincent
Bumpity.
I think the orde rof the pints could be improved .
Originally Posted by skidmarkOriginally Posted by Phil Vincent
Is what's outlined in Post #1 now the definitive version?
"Standing on your mother's corpse you told me that you'd wait forever." [Bryan Adams: Summer of 69]
Moved the points around to give a more logical flow. Content unchanged
Unless someone has a very good reason nbot, I propose to run with this
Note that the reordering also means that the first 8 are specific to the levy issue while the rest are a "springboard" for broader future action
- The principles of the Woodhouse report should be preserved and respected
- ACC is not in financial crisis and is not broke. The "crisis" is an artificially engendered one to give spurious justification for actions that the Government could not otherwise justify
- Motorcyclists should not be discriminated against because of their transport choices.
- The ACC scheme was never intended to be a user pays scheme in which those who allegedly incur specific costs must, as a group, also meet those costs in full. The scheme is intended to draw upon the overall resources of the community to ensure that those who suffer an accident do not find themselves disadvantaged .
- Saying that motor cyclists must pay much more than presently because they are ‘responsible’ for their accidents not only breaches the principal behind the scheme, it also re-introduces the notion of fault into the scheme when it was set up in the first place to avoid it.
- There is no justification for treating a (small) subgroup of private passenger vehicles differently to others. Motorcycles should be in the same classification group as cars . And pay the same levies
- The statistical data produced by ACC to justify their claims is slanted, distorted and incomplete, and does not present a fair and unbiased viewpoint. This one sided presentation is unacceptable from a government organisation.
- There is no justification, statistical or otherwise , for different levy rates on different capacities of motorcycles. The figures put forward by ACC to justify this are fundamentally flawed and do not support their case.
- Those who choose motorcycles instead of cars make a positive social and environmental contribution. motorcycles use less fuel, have a smaller footprint, cause less emission, congestion and pollution
- ACC should be requried, as public policy to take account of social and environmental benefits when setting levies and accept a responsibility for promoting those
- The present method of allocating costs is manifestly unjust to motorcyclists, who must pay whether they are in the right or in the wrong. No other group in society is expected to pay for the privilege of being injured
- The present method of levying vehicle registrations causes unjustifiable anomalies and injustice, not only to motorcyclists but to anyone who has more than one vehicle but drives only one at a time. Fairer, alternative collection methods should be introduced as soon as possible
Originally Posted by skidmarkOriginally Posted by Phil Vincent
Mopeds have been a low cost bike class for the poor and students. To do away with this reduced registration would leave the door open in the future, and weaken the biking public's position. Many people start on scooters before moving on and becoming bikers. Biker population/numbers/strength relies heavily on this class.
Where I live most bikes on the road are scooters. That presence is important. Bikers may be tempted to use scooters as bait to defend their own interests. This may seem a good idea and tempting to burn those faggy scooterists....
To leave scooters out in the cold in negotiations would come back to bite bikers on the bum re ACC and the long term effect would weaken bike culture, overall, by a large reduction in riding numbers. And ethically a cheap class for workers and students should exist
Its like managing an ecosystem, take away one species and what will happen to the others?
Also looking forward, electric mopeds have a fantastic future for our cities unless big oil has its way. Ethically and environmentally, this class should remain.
Earnings related compensation should be drawn from the earner account NOT Road User Account?
"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."
Apparently not. If injury was sustained through a vehicle ALL compensation comes from that account.
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
I too am a bit uncomfortable about the moped issue. Sort of seems like throwing them to the wolves.
On the other hand, of all the ACC proposals , that one is probably most justified.
When the moped class was introduced mopeds were exactly that. Bicycles with an auxiliary motor, and pedals. Which were needed on any slight hill.
Nowadays , a "moped" is really a 50cc motorbike.
Originally Posted by skidmarkOriginally Posted by Phil Vincent
Ixion and BRONZ, some thoughts for you....
Point 3:No-one should be discriminated against for their transport choices.
Remember, it is not just motorcyclists who will be targeted, it is just us this time. Making a political statement that is inclusive of others, makes it more likely to be supported by those not in the 'motorcyclist' part of society. This puts the emphasis on the actual 'wrong' in the concept not on the victim of the result.
Points 4, 5 and 6 seem to be saying very much the same thing, in slightly different ways. Basically, condense the key information and use the rest as supporting information.
Perhaps something like,
Raising levies against any one group in society is ignoring the 'no fault' nature of the scheme and unfairly penalises people who may have limited resources and finances.
Point 9, perhaps include the term 'carbon footprint' to make it clearer that the environmental impact is reduced? (that may be a little too semantic.)
Point 10, sorry I just don't think that is workable. how will this be measured and enacted? what would be the social and environmental benefits of sports players or truck drivers? This will lead to placing different levies against groups with lower social and economic benefits, which I thought we were not in favour of? Besides, promoting social benefits is not really part of ACC's mission.
Point 11, it is also unjust towards all road users, even the un-injured ones. Perhaps making it clear that the concept of 'user pays' is already flawed when rugby players and other sports injuries are not charged anything at all but they make up a huge part of the costs of the scheme. Why should motorists of any type be subsidising them? Why target just one group that already pays significantly more than others for the 'service' of ACC.
Point 12, I agree, and while they are at it they should put a charge on all other users of the scheme. Sports players, divers, skiers, mountain climbers, and anyone else that ends up costing the scheme without contributing to it.
The point here is that the LOGIC is wrong, the justification for raising the levies against motorcycles is the costs they incur relative to other motorists. ACC claims it's not fair to expect others to pay for motorcyclists extra costs. My answer would be, why not? All motorists pay for the costs of the other injuries in areas where there are no levies like sports, so what is the difference? There isn't one, it is not fair to anyone, but ACC still do it.
As for the mopeds/scooters, if we are saying that no group should be targeted for paying more, we kind of have to accept all groups paying the same amount is reasonable, that would have to include scooter/mopeds. (sorry guys)
My 2c.
Finally, good luck and thanks to everyone who is working to do something about it.
"If you can't laugh at yourself, you're just not paying attention!"
"There is no limit to dumb."
"Resolve to live with all your might while you do live, and as you shall wish you had done ten thousand years hence."
Most mopeds only do 55km/hr. Letting them go will weaken bikers numbers and strength now and in the future. To divide here would be a mistake. Strong numbers on bikes is good? no? especially at times like now?
Environmentally we are on the verge of 200kg electric 3 wheel 2 person bubbles and electric mopeds. The big oil/insurance jackels should not be allowed leverage via differing points of view between biking sub cultures.
Could be like shooting yourself in the foot.
[QUOTE=Ixion;1129497493]Manifesto is a statement of principles. QUOTE]
Indeed it is.
How about this principle:
Unsignposted roadworks, or the dangerous results of 'finished' roadworks, which put single track vehicle users at lethal risk, are criminally negligent.
here's another:
A Government which raises the health cover charges for a section of road users whose accident rate is largely due to the dangerous work of companies, and the careless driving of other motorists; is guilty of fascism and is anti democratic.
Once more: The outrageous rates rises did not happen under Labour. Phil Goff stood in front of us at our rally in Auckland and said they would not happen with Labour in power. The Government didn't even respect us enough to show up
Obviously the rates rise is a decision based on specfic party policy and attacking the messenger (ACC Corp) instead of the instigator (National Govt), is ignorant or negligent.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks