So, wodda we going to do about? It's down to us

[mister.koz]

I do hear what you are saying. However, in the scheme of things, few bikers crash and an equal few want to 'ride like Rossi'. We are all up in arms about being asked to pay more because of the few who crash...in equal measure, why should we pay to subsidise the few that want to let rip?
But, as I said, if that subsidy was for training days, proper ones at that, I'm all for it.

I agree with you. Training days definately! (like this weekend - yes i am excited!) but not so much track days. Track days are pretty cheap anyways (<$200 from memory).

[MSTRS:Me]

Regardless we still pay for the "ride like Rossi" brigade, so its the lesser of 2 evils - $60 trackday subsidy or $19,000 repair bill.

If by chance they still crash on the track at least its going to be a whole lot cheaper to fix them.

It seems like we are missing something in understanding...
I don't want to pay more because squids are crashing. I also don't want to pay more so they can have cheap track time.
Is that clear enough?

[vtec]

Compulsory kilometres/time for all road users on a scooter or bicycle before they are issued a full licence of any kind in this country. You would be amazed how much that would increase driver awareness.

Also, subsidised track time for increasing riders/drivers skills, and for teaching people the limits of their motorcycles. Having track time personally makes me far less likely to try anything stupid on the roads. It settles me down, and it teaches vital riding skills.

Otherwise, leave it as it is, currently I feel safe with my own abilities and judgement. It's just looking back on the period where I was learning and gaining experience I wonder how I survived.

Not just squids getting subisidised track time... everybody. Should include car drivers getting track time in cars.

However to counter the ACC subsidy personally, I will be putting my motorcycle rego on hold. My father has 3 over 1000 cc bikes a Landcruiser and a van, he will be putting those 3 motorcycles on hold also, a saving of over $2000. We just bought a pro-twin between us $2500 each ($5000 total), that rego saving will buy the pro twin in just over two years.

I also love the idea of making the licencing for cars and motorbikes one and the same. Just make it harder to get than currently it is to get one individually, focussing more on rider/driver ability and awareness.

[NinjaNanna]

It seems like we are missing something in understanding...
I don't want to pay more because squids are crashing. I also don't want to pay more so they can have cheap track time.
Is that clear enough?

Ok that's fine - let's drop it for now - lets talk about it when we are paying more.

Once we are paying more then we can have the discussion about how we can decrease the crash rate and perhaps even get better value for money.

But of course by then they'll have our money and won't give a rats arse.

[MSTRS:Me]

Ok that's fine - let's drop it for now - lets talk about it when we are paying more.

Once we are paying more then we can have the discussion about how we can decrease the crash rate and perhaps even get better value for money.

But of course by then they'll have our money and won't give a rats arse.

What's this 'when'? That's defeatist talk. And we won't have that round here.
That last line has the ring of all the church bells in the world at once about it.

[phred]

The ACC structure and system is where we should be looking, it is that that is actually being manipulated far away from its original intent.

I agree. Everyone keeps banging on about how they shouldn't subsidise anyone else and please make it cheap for me. This is the attitude that successive governments have used to pervert the intent of a scheme that was predicated on the basis that if society as a whole believed it would benefit by providing compensation and injury recovery then society as a whole would get to foot the bill equally.

As many people have highlighted not all people are paying at present and this would go a long way to sharing the load. It is time for ACC to include off road motorcycles, cyclists and other freeloaders in the catchment pool.

We may not get the ACC structure repaired however the issue of equally shared cost should be raised when addressing the outrageous levy increase for motorcyclists as it is a fundamental deviation from the intent of the scheme.

The current government strategy is to divide and rule. Interestingly it appears to have been the strategy of both socialist and capitalist governments.

[mister.koz]

I agree. Everyone keeps banging on about how they shouldn't subsidise anyone else and please make it cheap for me. This is the attitude that successive governments have used to pervert the intent of a scheme that was predicated on the basis that if society as a whole believed it would benefit by providing compensation and injury recovery then society as a whole would get to foot the bill equally.

As many people have highlighted not all people are paying at present and this would go a long way to sharing the load. It is time for ACC to include off road motorcycles, cyclists and other freeloaders in the catchment pool.

We may not get the ACC structure repaired however the issue of equally shared cost should be raised when addressing the outrageous levy increase for motorcyclists as it is a fundamental deviation from the intent of the scheme.

The current government strategy is to divide and rule. Interestingly it appears to have been the strategy of both socialist and capitalist governments.

Bang on, one of the creators of ACC talked to the papers and said that what is going on is wrong and that ACC was designed as a blameless and relatively uncategorised social welfare system - I think this is the most important point.

The sports and leisure subsidisation is a tricky one, you can't really put it on the buy price of pushbikes/trail bikes etc... I think it should really be put onto the whole of society in the employer's and/or fuel side of things... Or the sporting unions (commercial ones maybe?). Drunken injuries should be represented in alcohol tax, thats a given.

Most of all I think that the whole re-think about ACC should stick to the origonal ideas it was created with and re-visit the costs involved including the salary of the employees etc etc... Where's the pay drop for the people who lost all that money from poor estimates in investments.

The safety, awareness and training initiatives (for cars and bikes) should be a given really.

[JohnR]

I do hear what you are saying. However, in the scheme of things, few bikers crash and an equal few want to 'ride like Rossi'. We are all up in arms about being asked to pay more because of the few who crash...in equal measure, why should we pay to subsidise the few that want to let rip?
But, as I said, if that subsidy was for training days, proper ones at that, I'm all for it.

My sentiments exactly.

I for one am not interested in trackdays, proper training sessions...hell yes.

Riding on a track does not represent road conditions in any way, shape or form. No opposing traffic, no vehicles entering the track from intersections, a relatively clean, uniform surface and no blind brows or corners.

I can not see ACC subsidizing an activity (Trackdays) that is inherently more risky than what we do now.
Of course the chances of a crash are greater! Riders pushing themselves and their bikes to the limit at great speed must have more risk of ending in tears.

[Bounce001]

Subsidised rider training is a good starting point. The time spent during learners & restricted licences should be based on kilometres done not time. Too many people sit their learners and just wait out the time without doing any actual riding. When I sat my full licence, my time was cut down because I did a defensive driving course 20 years ago. Driving a car has no bearing on how I ride. This should be an advanced rider training.

Fix the roads - or at least to a better standard and sweep the gravel off them properly. Alternatively, at least put signs out notifying the public.

Driver awareness campaigns. There are so many different road safety campaigns, why have they left 'Look ot for Motorcyclists' out. How about big signs on the roadside saying: "Have you looked in your rearview mirror recently?"

Mandatory safety gear is a curly one. I agree with gloves, helmet, boots and jacket. and all should meet safety standards. Full face helmet should be optional. I disagree with compulsory Hi-vis. I have read posts on this site that people have stated bright gear and Hi-vis don't make a lot of difference to bikers visibility. Often wearing all black makes you 'intimidating' and drivers actually take more notice of you.

If ACC levies were put onto petrol, everyone would pay and it would be a fairer system. The more you are out on the road, the more at risk you are, the more petrol you buy, the more ACC levies you pay.

Just my 2 cents worth!