Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 78

Thread: Manifesto

  1. #46
    Join Date
    28th April 2008 - 22:35
    Bike
    2007 VN1600
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by Bald Eagle View Post
    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.
    +1
    I say bring on the Revolution
    Last edited by phred; 5th November 2009 at 08:42. Reason: user error

  2. #47
    Join Date
    9th March 2006 - 14:43
    Bike
    Chopper
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    33
    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.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    19th September 2006 - 22:02
    Bike
    02 Ducati ST4s
    Location
    Here there everywhere
    Posts
    5,458
    Quote Originally Posted by choppedxs View Post
    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.
    I put all that in my submission and document... it ended up 8 page attachment plus that email submission which was seperate...

  4. #49
    Join Date
    26th February 2005 - 15:10
    Bike
    Ubrfarter V Klunkn,ffwabbit,Petal,phoebe
    Location
    In the cave of Adullam
    Posts
    13,624
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark
    This world has lost it's drive, everybody just wants to fit in the be the norm as it were.
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Vincent
    The manufacturers go to a lot of trouble to find out what the average rider prefers, because the maker who guesses closest to the average preference gets the largest sales. But the average rider is mainly interested in silly (as opposed to useful) “goodies” to try to kid the public that he is riding a racer

  5. #50
    Join Date
    26th February 2005 - 15:10
    Bike
    Ubrfarter V Klunkn,ffwabbit,Petal,phoebe
    Location
    In the cave of Adullam
    Posts
    13,624
    Bumpity.

    I think the orde rof the pints could be improved .
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark
    This world has lost it's drive, everybody just wants to fit in the be the norm as it were.
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Vincent
    The manufacturers go to a lot of trouble to find out what the average rider prefers, because the maker who guesses closest to the average preference gets the largest sales. But the average rider is mainly interested in silly (as opposed to useful) “goodies” to try to kid the public that he is riding a racer

  6. #51
    Join Date
    27th November 2003 - 12:00
    Bike
    None any more
    Location
    Ngaio, Wellington
    Posts
    13,111
    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]

  7. #52
    Join Date
    26th February 2005 - 15:10
    Bike
    Ubrfarter V Klunkn,ffwabbit,Petal,phoebe
    Location
    In the cave of Adullam
    Posts
    13,624
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark
    This world has lost it's drive, everybody just wants to fit in the be the norm as it were.
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Vincent
    The manufacturers go to a lot of trouble to find out what the average rider prefers, because the maker who guesses closest to the average preference gets the largest sales. But the average rider is mainly interested in silly (as opposed to useful) “goodies” to try to kid the public that he is riding a racer

  8. #53
    Join Date
    16th December 2006 - 01:50
    Bike
    Trans NZ Broliner
    Location
    Stuck on a roundabout
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by slofox View Post
    Mopeds: Just class all motorised forms of transport in the same way. i.e. one bin for all and one levy for all.
    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.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    31st December 2004 - 07:28
    Bike
    SV1000s
    Location
    Upper Hutt
    Posts
    360
    Blog Entries
    1
    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."

  10. #55
    Join Date
    8th November 2004 - 11:00
    Bike
    GSXR 750 the wanton hussy
    Location
    Not in Napier now
    Posts
    12,765
    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?

  11. #56
    Join Date
    26th February 2005 - 15:10
    Bike
    Ubrfarter V Klunkn,ffwabbit,Petal,phoebe
    Location
    In the cave of Adullam
    Posts
    13,624
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark
    This world has lost it's drive, everybody just wants to fit in the be the norm as it were.
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Vincent
    The manufacturers go to a lot of trouble to find out what the average rider prefers, because the maker who guesses closest to the average preference gets the largest sales. But the average rider is mainly interested in silly (as opposed to useful) “goodies” to try to kid the public that he is riding a racer

  12. #57
    Join Date
    19th September 2006 - 22:02
    Bike
    02 Ducati ST4s
    Location
    Here there everywhere
    Posts
    5,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Clockwork View Post
    Earnings related compensation should be drawn from the earner account NOT Road User Account?
    Quote Originally Posted by MSTRS View Post
    Apparently not. If injury was sustained through a vehicle ALL compensation comes from that account.
    Which is why ACC was never designed to have seperate accounts and just have the one huge pool to draw the funds from...

  13. #58
    Join Date
    18th December 2004 - 08:09
    Bike
    Triumph Tiger
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Ixion View Post
    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
    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."

  14. #59
    Join Date
    16th December 2006 - 01:50
    Bike
    Trans NZ Broliner
    Location
    Stuck on a roundabout
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by Ixion View Post
    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.
    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.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    27th October 2006 - 05:46
    Bike
    orange, light, loud: all i need
    Location
    Machete Rd, Sarf Orklind
    Posts
    2,046
    Blog Entries
    2
    [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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •