How about we turn this on its head. The Devil should not have all the good songs

[Ixion]

The ACC Act says

Prevention of personal injury
(1) A primary function of the Corporation is to promote measures to reduce the incidence and severity of personal injury, including measures that—
(a) create supportive environments that reduce the incidence and severity of personal injury; and
(b) strengthen community action to prevent personal injury; and
(c) encourage the development of personal skills that prevent personal injury.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), such measures may include research, the provision of information or advice, the publication and dissemination of literature and information, campaigns, exhibitions, courses, and the promotion of safety management practices.

(3) The Corporation must undertake or fund such measures only if—
(a) satisfied that such measures are likely to result in a cost-effective reduction in actual or projected levy rates set under Part 6 or expenditure from the Non-Earners' Account under that Part; or

(4) The Corporation may, in its discretion, conduct, participate in, commission, or subsidise research into the reduction of the incidence and severity of accidents and other causes of personal injury that is directed at reducing the cost of compensation and rehabilitation provided under this Act.

So:

a primary function of Acc is to

Promote measures to reduce injuries
Create supportive environments
Including courses for the development of skills that reduce injury

Now one can very readily argue that if the ACC are claiming that our levies must go up because our injury rates are too high , then that clearly shows that the ACC is in fact in breach of one of its primary functions. It HASN'T been promoting measures to reduce injurys.

How much money has ACC spent on promoting supportive environments in motorcycling? Or funding courses (of any sort) ? Sweet FA. A little but absolutely tiny on their scale.

Think now. If the ACC had put in , say, $5,000,000 a year to fund rider training courses, track days,, safety campaigns , etc , how many injuries would have been prevented?

Such courses as there are , like RRRS and Frosty's track days run on the smell of an oily rag and only get by because volunteers give their time for free. Meanwhile ACC which is supposed to fund this stuff as a primary function is sitting on 12 BILLION dollars .

In short, if motor cycle injury rates are so bad, in a context where the ACC have done bugger all to prevent injuries (I know they have done a bit, but chicken feed ) then that shows :

ACC are not performing their primary function .

The name of the Act that gives them existence is "Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001".

Note. The word "insurance" does not appear. And the very first words are "injury prevention".They have decided to ignore their primary function , and pretend they are an insurance company. Even though the act specifically says they are not.

And now they complain that injury rates are too high !

Sort your shit out John Judge. The law says you should be working to reduce injury. You're trying to make us pay for the fact that you are not doing your job.

[Squiggles]

Last year the Auckland group (at least) gave out vouchers for rider training courses, i believe they printed around 1000 of these (lost the bit of paper), the first hundred would get $50 off the course. So they spent ~ the same amount there as they did with just the herald ad.

[Ixion]

Yes . I grant they spend a bit. But chicken feed.

Overlal income about 4 Billion dollars . And they spent 5000 on vouchers for training (if these were with RRRS they don't get charged the full 50 anyway).

That's what , 0.000125% ?

or, they claim to be losing 50 million per year on bikes (62 less 12). So to reduce their losses they invest 5000. Hardly a bold stroke toward accident prevention is it. And even then they are just coattailing on RRRS. If the volunteers that run that (for free) pulled out , would ACC replace them ?

I ask again - if ACC invested one tenth of their claimed annual loss (ie five million dolalrs) in motorcycle training and in effective campaigns to reduce motorcycle casualties, what would be the result ?

We talk about the need for good gear. but it's expensive. for a fraction of their annjual lose, ACC could invest in injury prevention (as the act rwquires them to) and supply every rider with a full set of gear. (subject to an undertaking to wear it ) .

Their PRIMARY JOB is accident prevention, NOT INSURANCE. By law. And they're not doing it.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

I ask again - if ACC invested one tenth of their claimed annual loss (ie five million dolalrs) in motorcycle training and in effective campaigns to reduce motorcycle casualties, what would be the result ?

Haven't we been asking for this for the last 25 years or so???

[Ixion]

Yeah , but this is the first time they've turned round and said that it's our fault they're not doing their job.

Personally, I'd HAPPILY pay 750 , if I knew that the extra $500 was going into training and accident prevention. Instead of half million dollar salaries.

[Conquiztador]

And I stated somewhere that I happily pay $750 too, as it will cut the idjots from the road and only leave the ones who WANT to ride come hell or highwater.

So being the Devils Advocate here, perhaps it will work?

[Ixion]

No. because
a) the money won't go to accident prevention it will go to paying half million dollar salaries
b) there is no reason to suppose that idiots aren't rich. In fact, the reverse is probably indicated. Most of the idiots I see are in/on expensive cars/bikes

[Conquiztador]

No. because
a) the money won't go to accident prevention it will go to paying half million dollar salaries
b) there is no reason to suppose that idiots aren't rich. In fact, the reverse is probably indicated. Most of the idiots I see are in/on expensive cars/bikes

Ok, so if the ACC levy (rego) would be set at $2,5K we would have a reduction in bike injuries then? (I would still pay and ride)

[Ixion]

Possibly, possibly not. If you can afford $40000 for a Harley you can afford 2.5k .

But, what would actually happen is more / most people would simply ride with out rego. Then the government would increase the penalty for no rego, so those riding without would be more likely to try a runner. And thus, injuries and fatalities go UP.

[Brian d marge]

Just a thought

Me old mother is an ACC smart person ,,,Knows ACC inside out and backwards takes ACC to court , and is generally making life a misery for the Judges

would you need her ACC knowledge in any way

Stephen

[Mrs Busa Pete]

And i still say if all the gear all the time was compulsory there would be a hell of a lot more savings especially when it comes to scooters. Many a time i have read on here after a bin thank god for good gear.


No thats wright they can't afford all the gear next year because of the rego.

[SARGE]

The ACC Act says


So:

[I]a primary function of Acc is to

Promote measures to reduce injuries

i think ACC should buy me a new set of leathers.. for each bike ...to prevent injury of course

[Pixie]

ACC used to replace safety gear.I've had several gloves ,jackets and helmets replaced back in the dark depths

[yungatart]

When I organised a RRRS course here, I rang ACC. I was put on to some bunny who was away from his phone. I left a message, explaining what I was doing and what I wanted...several times. My calls were NEVER returned...injury prevention, MY ARSE!!!

[MSTRS:Me]

I recall those naff DVDs that were available for a short time. I think they were bundled with one issue of one of the bike mags, or through RRRS? Nothing else.