I demand an apology

[motorbyclist]

ACC's handling of this consultation has been as unequitable as the proposal itself.

I request an apology and an explanation issued for the biased propaganda spread by ACC in our national paper, from both ACC and the NZ Herald (and anywhere else the ad was shown).

It is misleading and incorrect, is strongly biased and is designed to incite anti-biker sentiment amongst the general population. It then tells the public to make a submission all without any mention of the increases affecting them personally.

This is not democratic as it skews a consultation process clearly not going their way while spreading misinformation.

This is downright offensive.

‘ACC Explains Proposed Levy Increases’, New Zealand Herald, 05/11/09, B5

It is even listed as the "motorcycle levy FAQ" as the first FAQ on the consultation webpage

[PirateJafa]

I'm sorry.

[Whynot]

me too ...

[Slyer]

You'd have better luck squeezing fun out of a Honda.

[motorbyclist]

I'm sorry.

me too ...

:slap:

You'd have better luck squeezing fun out of a Honda.

so I can expect it tomorrow then?

sweet

[LBD]

ACC's handling of this consultation has been as unequitable as the proposal itself.

I request an apology and an explanation issued for the biased propaganda spread by ACC in our national paper, from both ACC and the NZ Herald (and anywhere else the ad was shown).

It is misleading and incorrect, is strongly biased and is designed to incite anti-biker sentiment amongst the general population. It then tells the public to make a submission all without any mention of the increases affecting them personally.

This is not democratic as it skews a consultation process clearly not going their way while spreading misinformation.

This is downright offensive.

‘ACC Explains Proposed Levy Increases’, New Zealand Herald, 05/11/09, B5

It is even listed as the "motorcycle levy FAQ" as the first FAQ on the consultation webpage

I too am saddened by the whole business....Pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders should be licensed, horses and bycicles must be registered .....etc

How about including a point by point explaination of the advert with the facts behind your indignation...I would like your perspective.

[marty]

We're all sorry.

[DidJit]

Welcome to politics and social engineering.

[dipshit]

Most of it is quite true though despite what BRONZ would have us believe.

[Mystic13]

Most of it is quite true though despite what BRONZ would have us believe.

Yes you're right, the sky is falling, ACC are in financial trouble, and motorcyclists are at the core of all problems in the universe.

What have you been smoking? Most of it is quite untrue and mostly we're coming to the same independant views as Bronz.

[Quasievil]

Im not sorry on behalf of the ACC.

I was recently appointed as the liaison Spokesman for ACC's motorcycle levy policies, pay up n shut up, sick of ya whining the lot of ya

[Jizah]

I too am saddened by the whole business....Pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders should be licensed, horses and bycicles must be registered .....etc

How about including a point by point explaination of the advert with the facts behind your indignation...I would like your perspective.

We should all hire horses for the day and take them to parliament instead. Make sure they shit everywhere too. That'll show them!

[motorbyclist]

I too am saddened by the whole business....Pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders should be licensed, horses and bycicles must be registered .....etc

How about including a point by point explaination of the advert with the facts behind your indignation...I would like your perspective.

I would rather see a fairer approach (woodhouse principles etc etc) where the majorities use their finincial weight to help subsidise the minority - and in the case of bikes/cycles we're helping the majority get to work sooner and find a park easier in return, AND we often also own a car so are paying ACC as part of that majority anyway


unfortunately this is all I've got on the matter in my submission:

.....Furthermore, given ACC’s calculated relativities, the claim that passenger vehicles subsidise motorcyclists to the tune of $77 each is entirely false. ACC is no fault scheme, yet levies are being set according to the cost of a particular group. While this cost is typically calculated as the cost of claims of people in that group, should it not also include the costs of claims caused by people in that group? Incidentally, in 42% of cases it is not the motorcyclist’s fault for being in the path of a careless motorist, and that is how the “adjusted” relativity was calculated. To then compare the levy reduction against the so-called “true” relativity is to simply show that each passenger vehicle is responsible for $77 of the total of motorcycle claims for that levy period. .......

......The propaganda posted in the NZ Herald is downright offensive to be shown during consultation as a means of inciting car drivers to submit against motorcyclists without any mention of their own increases. It is misleading (as described above), and the insurance example completely ignores that ACC is not an insurer in the normal sense, and that $750 is not only a high price for motorcycle insurance but the $1500 total “insurance” could well be more that the value of a motorcycle. .....

read the BRONZ submission for interesting light on some more of the issues

[dipshit]

What have you been smoking? Most of it is quite untrue and mostly we're coming to the same independant views as Bronz.

Well most motorcycle accidents aren't caused by car drivers as many motorcyclists keep telling the media. (Hence the problem of spreading bullshit of our own)

Motorcyclists have 3.5 times the amount of accidents compared to car drivers when based on the number of registered vehicles. When based on per kilometres travelled - bikes with their typically lower usage compared to cars has the figure jumping significantly higher. Other countries like the US also have at least 16 times greater risk than cars as well when based on miles travelled per accident.

[Jantar]

.... Other countries like the US also have at least 16 times greater risk than cars as well when based on miles travelled per accident.

Do you have a reference for this? The data I have seen suggests 3 to 4 times.