BRONZ submission - draft

[Ixion]

Still needs checking, spelling etc. Definitely going to be some .

Open to review, especially if anyone wants to check the numbers - especially make sure I got them the right way round. My eyeballs are going in and out at the moment I'll review it tomorrow

I'll CONSIDER comments about content - removing or adding same . But only briefly it needs to go in tomorrow morning. Anything REALLY vital I've missed.

But I'm not getting into the Who causes the most crashes argument. Or the ones about the $77 etc. I don't really want to bat numbers about, they're not on our side. With the exception of the capacity thing where we can knock them down.

[yachtie10]

Well done


your table on page 9 needs some figures fixed

the table mentions 1988 twice i assume that the second should be 1998

the sentence above it
In fact the accident rate in 2008 was LOWER than that of 1998 and HALF that of 1998

should that be?
In fact the accident rate in 2008 was LOWER than that of 1998 and HALF that of 1988

mine will use some of your s if that is OK
Cheers

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Still needs checking, spelling etc. Definitely going to be some .

Main error I was was in one of the tables it had 1988 twice when the 2nd should 1998

but I not a proof reader

[Squiggles]

Education not legislation saves lives

[Jantar]

The 1988, 1998 error is in section 8. The other error i picked up was in section 10: "base don" should be "based on"

[riffer]

There's a number of grammatical and spelling errors. Give me ten minutes and I'll fix it up.

[Ronin]

I'm uncomfortable with the references to ACC managers driving big expensive flash cars. I personally feel that it detracts from what is otherwise a very well written, researched and presented document.

My 10 cents worth.

[riffer]

I'm not.

We've hear a lot lately about their large salaries. Let them know we ain't happy.

Here's a new draft.

Grammar fixed, and laid out a bit nicer.

[MacD]

I'm uncomfortable with the references to ACC managers driving big expensive flash cars. I personally feel that it detracts from what is otherwise a very well written, researched and presented document.

My 10 cents worth.

Yes, I'd drop the ad hominem comments about flash cars as they too closely resemble the claims that "motorcycles are just toys" which you argue against.

I'd use the word "misrepresent" rather than "fudge and juggle" figures, as ACC can probably demonstrate how they calculate the figures. The issue is whether they are highly selective figures and used to misrepresent the situation to paint motorcyclists in a bad light to justify outrageous levy increases to other road users.

Otherwise thank you for putting together a well thought-out document.

[FastBikeGear]

Ixion some great points well made as always.

You make some comment on wanting the ACC to stop trying to be an insurance company and stick to the no fault Woodhouse principles and then you say....

"If I ride a Yamaha for 10000 kilometres a year I incur a certain risk of injury. And I, like every other motorcyclist am prepared to pay my fair contribution toward the cost of any injury consequent to that risk."

Do you want the Woodhouse principles or are you willing to accept and insurance style risk/premium business model for ACC? It seems a bit contradictory.

"Likewise again, failure to require diesel vehicles to have non return vales in their fuel lines" I think you could consider changing "fuel lines" "fuel filler necks".

Ixion, many thanks for the incredible efforts you have put into this campaign so far.

[phred]

SO - I also thought I would be helpful and fix up some formatting etc although I kept my hands off nearly all of the content. There were a couple of "ands" I couldn't leave alone.

Hope this was helpful or at least not irritating.

Well done Les. Next step Wellington.

[Squiggles]

The SMC submission is here

[scissorhands]

Hooray for Bronz! Very impressive to see people with a passion and determination to fight for themselves and others. Hats off.

[FastBikeGear]

The SMC submission is here

Brilliant and a grate rebutall to all the peeples who sed a unifersity edumication was a waist of time.

Seriously wonderful work guys!

[motorbyclist]

there are still a few typos here and there, but I do have a concern:

A levy based on driver’s licence would mean that risk was associated with the person and would lend itself to even more logical extensions, such as charging a higher levy for those with convictions or demerit points. This would be a very effective deterrent to unsafe driving

demerits can have little bearing on claim rate, which is the risk we refer to.

As soon as you introduce levies specific to the individual's history of claims, there is a fault assigned. No thanks, not without the right to sue, which is a process I'd like to avoid.

*amends my own one*

otherwise she looks good