DOM POST says - bikers should pay

[FastBikeGear]

And union and league players aren't trying to hurt each other when they tackle or hit up their opponents ?

Keep it real.

Go rugby eh - http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/a...burning-desire

Brilliant link Deano. It would seem that the dom post has some inconsistencies inwhat's healthy and what's not. I would love to see you point this out in a letter to the editor.

It's almost as if the Dom Post realised on the afternoon after the BIKEOI that they had missed the best story of the month and panicked after they saw the response form the public.

Shit we haven't been following this and we don't know the back ground and the story is much bigger than we realised...shit it effects every New Zealander...and the changes go much wider than motorbike leveies. I know lets write a piece this afternoon...now wheres that press release from ACC for some background 'facts' are there it is...16 x more likely...hmm lets print that!....it's guaranteed to provoke a response and get us into the game.

Regardless the dom post are the most influential paper in the country - let's use them as a conduit to talk to their readers. Let's flood their letters-to-the-editor department and make sure all of their readers know where the ACC is going with our compensation scheme.

If you want your letter printed don't attack the dom post - attack what they said. There's a subtle difference.

If you are writing a letter to the editor for the Dominion Post, please note the following rules that I was directed to after I sent mine in. If you don't follow the rules you won't get printed and we can't use them to reach their readership.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post...-Dominion-Post

Rules for Letters to the Editor of the Dominion Post.-

* Our e-mail address is letters@dompost.co.nz. Please do not send attachments.

* Our fax number is (04) 474-0350.

* Or send your letter to: Letters to the Editor, PO Box 1297, Wellington. Please write or type on one side of the paper only.

* Letters must include the writer's full name, verifiable home address, and daytime phone number. PO Box numbers are not acceptable.

* Letters should not exceed 200 words and should be exclusive.

* Letters will be edited for clarity and length.

[Winston001]

I have 2 cars and 2 bikes. So using their logic, I should be paying nothing extra. Each extra $77 I pay for my 2 cars goes against the $77 that car drivers are subsidising for my 2 bikes. I know 5 year olds that can do that maths. $77 - $77 = $0 . Not rocket science is it.

.

Mmmm.....I can think of several families with multiple vehicles and multiple drivers. One example - 5 vehicles all owned and insured by the dad and driven by mum, dad, and three teenagers. Simply paying the registration doesn't mean you are the sole user.

[Spratt]

I should like to strangle the writer of the Editorial for being such a biased and uninformed git! Sure they're trying to stir things up but come on.

I sent in my 2 cents worth, but this is the 3rd letter i've sent them and none published so far - still better to say something than nothing.

Dear Editor

I refer to the Editorial - Bikers should pay but let's be fair

Did Minister Smith pen this Editorial himself, as it is full of the same “bulls**t” he was shouted down for at Tuesday’s Bikoi protest! For a start, the statistics noted in the Editorial are incorrect; by way of example, the risk of having a motorcycle accident has actually seen a three fold decrease over the past 50 years.

Almost all motorcycle riders wear protective equipment, not ‘clothing’. It is fair to say that greater injury will occur if this equipment is not used, but the same can be said for any motor vehicle, witness the recent death of two teenagers who were sitting on couches without seatbelts in the back of a van.

The argument that other ‘risky activities’ are inherently healthy so therefore beneficial to society is a joke! These activities are undertaken for the excitement and risk involved, not for ‘healthy exercise’. The majority of motorcyclists, myself included, use their bike for general transport, not as a ‘recreational toy’.

ACC is meant to be a socially equitable, no-fault system, singling out one group of society is contrary to this basic principle. If the proposed levy increase is adopted this time, as they chanted at the protest, “who’s next”!

[Winston001]

Good letter. I do suggest there is no purpose in attacking the editor or the paper - we need the media on our side. If I wasn't a biker I'd have read that editorial as being well balanced. It's pretty low key compared with the ACC press releases.

[Winston001]

Put an ACC levy on GST to compensate there solved.

GST is still 12.5% and the levy say 2.5%...... Business can only reclaim GST but not the levy.

Good ideas NH. Tell me - I've just bought an office chair for $289. How do I handle that in my GST return?

Also if the ACC component cannot be deducted by anyone, then there is a huge multiplier effect as 2.5% is added to every invoice from the manufacturer upwards.

[MSTRS:Me]

Good ideas NH. Tell me - I've just bought an office chair for $289. How do I handle that in my GST return?

Also if the ACC component cannot be deducted by anyone, then there is a huge multiplier effect as 2.5% is added to every invoice from the manufacturer upwards.

You can't deduct it as a cost. That's the whole point. Levies need not be sourced from anywhere else. That means that every time a product/service is onsold, ACC get paid. The various 'steps' ensure that all people and processes involved since the last 2.5% levy was paid, have now paid their share of the fund.
You may see that as double dipping by ACC...but it's not. They double/triple dip now

[dipshit]

"However, there is no disputing the fact that a motorcyclist who hits a lamp-post with only clothing for protection is likely to do a great deal more damage to him or herself than the driver of a modern car equipped with crumple zones and airbags."

Surprisingly as the following ACC's statistics show this is not an indisputable fact or even a fact. The cost per motorcycle injury claim was actually less than the claim per car driver in 2006, 2007 and 2008!

In 2008 there were:

852,928 ACC claims from car occupants with a total cost of just over $208 million equating to $24,427 per claim.

3,174 ACC entitlement claims from motorcyclists with a total cost of $62.5 million equating to just $19,705 per claim

The average cost per claim does no such thing. Drive off the end of the road and go through a farmer's fence in a car then do the same on your bike and tell me the difference.

The average cost per claim for a motorcycle being lower simply reflects the large amount of minor injuries. Two cars have a fender bender around town - nobody gets hurt. A motorcyclists has a small incident around town and an ambulance is called and taken to hospital for a checkup etc.

The average claim being a bit lower still doesn't negate the small number of motorcycles making 1/4 to a 3rd of the claims that car drivers do.

If editors of newspapers keep getting nonsensical garbage from motorcyclists like what is common in KB land - then no wonder they aren't publishing it.

[MSTRS:Me]

If editors of newspapers keep getting nonsensical garbage from motorcyclists like what is common in KB land - then no wonder they aren't publishing it.

I don't think any of us have lied to the media. Unlike Smith et al. Presenting something in such a way as to make it look good is spin doctoring, and we can legitimately do that too.
If I say bikers cost less per claim than cars, that is a proveable truth. I don't have to say that 1335/100,000 are hurt, compared to 8500/2,500,000.

[bogan]

I don't think any of us have lied to the media. Unlike Smith et al. Presenting something in such a way as to make it look good is spin doctoring, and we can legitimately do that too.
If I say bikers cost less per claim than cars, that is a proveable truth. I don't have to say that 1335/100,000 are hurt, compared to 8500/2,500,000.

Exactly, and as shown above it is EASILY proven that bikes do cost less PER claim than other private passenger vehicles. It is also easily proven that bikes crash more often, making the cost per registered bike higher than cars.

The point is we gotta dispute nick's myths any and all ways possible, and even more importantly, show the public that this isnt just about bikes, its about national trying to remove the no fault system from acc, and I'm betting heaps of the public are against that, I'm also betting national knows this too which is why they are trying to put this through using the anti-biker opinion a lot of kiwis seem to have.

[Winston001]

I don't think any of us have lied to the media. Unlike Smith et al. Presenting something in such a way as to make it look good is spin doctoring, and we can legitimately do that too.
If I say bikers cost less per claim than cars, that is a proveable truth. I don't have to say that 1335/100,000 are hurt, compared to 8500/2,500,000.

Agreed. It's legitimate to use the opposing party's statistics against them. Let them find any logical holes.

What is important however is to show how our figures are reached. We can't just say "the cost of bike accidents is lower" and expect them to somehow find out how that is calculated. Gotta have facts.

[MSTRS:Me]

What is important however is to show how our figures are reached. We can't just say "the cost of bike accidents is lower" and expect them to somehow find out how that is calculated. Gotta have facts.

Not sure that is necessary. If we know the figures, we can discuss with those who want to know more. The rest are happy to read 'we cost less'.

[koba]

And union and league players aren't trying to hurt each other when they tackle or hit up their opponents ?

Keep it real.

Go rugby eh - http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/a...burning-desire

If I was a Journo I would also look into how taking Creatine as a suppliment might effect such tests...

[FastBikeGear]

.
The average cost per claim for a motorcycle being lower simply reflects the large amount of minor injuries. Two cars have a fender bender around town - nobody gets hurt. A motorcyclists has a small incident around town and an ambulance is called and taken to hospital for a checkup etc.
.

Dipshit I think that you are making an assumption here.

But first things first what matters to ACC is the cost and their stats do show that per claim we cost less.

Back to the assumption. There are many plausible reasons why the average motorcycle claim could be less and your speculative guess could be right but there are other explanations i.e.

• Motorcyclists are on average younger than car drivers and heal and recover quicker.
  
• Motorcyclists are a hardier breed and shrug off and work through injurys that the softer folk need months of physio and other pampering.
  
• Car drivers get different types of injuries (e.g. whiplash) that take longer to recover from.
  
• Motorcyclists are on average from a lower economic group and earn less hence loss of earnings claims are lower for motorcyclists.
  
• etc, etc

However as said before what matters to ACC is the cost and their stats do show that per claim we cost less.

So I think the stats I have quoted are what matters and the average costs per claim are indisputable. What's more Keigh Mclea will probably tell us that they have probably been audited by Price Waterhouse.

[dpex]

Bikers should not have to bear the cost of crashes caused by careless motorists. But neither should they expect other road users to subsidise their pleasures.[/QUOTE]

'Eh? So what's it suggesting? That one of the 66% of bikers taken out by cagers should get an ACC refund?

Jesus H Christ! I've met toadstools with a better grip on reality than this opinionator.

Maybe we should arrange to blockade the Dom Post.

[dpex]

However, there is no disputing the fact that a motorcyclist who hits a lamp-post with only clothing for protection is likely to do a great deal more damage to him or herself than the driver of a modern car equipped with crumple zones and airbags.

This is priceless; in as much as it highlights the complete ignorance of the opinionator.

What happens when a cyclist hits a lamppost, dressed in Lycra and no undies....to show off his nethers!? This being the self same cyclist who pays no extra ACC levy.

Oh yeah. I forgot, Cycling is healthy even when you hit a lamppost.

Yup. I reckon it's time we did a five-thousand visit to the Dom's doorsteps.