Proposed new ACC campaign association - a new direction

[Squiggles]

will sue your arse off. And yes the lawyers will make some money out of the process.

Will this be a $1 a week arse being sued off?

[FastBikeGear]

You do realise that in Victoria with TAC (Compulsory 3rd party insurance) its costly and with what is currently a $50 extra if you're on a bike...

Only $50 dollars extra if your on a bike in Australia....and remind me again, how much extra do you pay in ACC levies in New Zealand if you are on a bike?

[FastBikeGear]

How? Will i even be able to afford the lawyer who'll help me sue the guy with no money???

You could just buy this type of legal cover. http://www.autonetinsurance.co.uk/le...urance=Bikenet

It's very cheap.

[bogan]

Nice idea. But what's your confidence level on achieving this?

not huge but well worth a shot

No but you will be paying into the earners account once you get a job.

not if i get maimed and am on ACC for rest of my life

What's the point of having separate accounts if you are going to treat them as one account?

dunno, though its not treated as the same account, as levies are collected for each to pay the claims for each, its just easier to assume it all cross subsidises and evens out good enough (ive pretty much forgotten what the original discussion was about for this point though). Did the woodhouse principals have them set as different account or was that a later development?

[Squiggles]

Only $50 dollars extra if your on a bike in Australia....and remind me again, how much extra do you pay in ACC levies in New Zealand if you are on a bike?

Thus the outrage we've got here? Doesnt make it the way forward

You could just buy this type of legal cover. http://www.autonetinsurance.co.uk/le...urance=Bikenet

It's very cheap.

Run through the terms and conditions... I laughed at this one:

Your Motorcycle:

* must not have been modified from the manufacturer's standard specification.

Regardless, its one more thing i'd need to get, how many different covers would i need, people i'd pay???

/im playing devils advocate, quite interested in the vic system myself

[koba]

No.... No what?

The ideas put foward in the opening posts of this thread, I disagree.

[Jiminy]

I like the 'No Fault' part of ACC, so no privatisation for me, thanks. With privatisation, the only real winners are lawyers.

No matter what system you come up with, there will always be some people enjoying a 'free ride'.

[FastBikeGear]

I like the 'No Fault' part of ACC, so no privatisation for me, thanks.

I like you, like the idea of no-fault. However the way that National is currently interpreting this and explaining it to Joe Public means we have to pay a premium to cover our costs when we are hit by a motorist. If it wasn't no-fault they would have to pay a premium to cover this cost/risk... and if it was a true no-fault system we would share the cost/risk equally with cars and pay the same levy/premium.

No matter what system you come up with, there will always be some people enjoying a 'free ride'.

With a privatised insurance scheme no one gets a free ride. Every one pays according to their risk (plus a little more for the lawyers).

[bogan]

I like you, like the idea of no-fault. However the way that National is currently interpreting this and explaining it to Joe Public means we have to pay a premium to cover our costs when we are hit by a motorist. If it wasn't no-fault they would have to pay a premium to cover this cost/risk... and if it was a true no-fault system we would share the cost/risk equally with cars and pay the same levy/premium.

Exactly, and thats what we should aim for, equality, not privatization.

[MacD]

While I understand the intellectual argument for a fully privatised fault-based system, the reality of such systems is completely different from what is proposed (as is pretty much true for any neo-con economic theory).

The epitome of such a health and injury insurance system, as operates in the USA, provides the least coverage for the population as a whole, while costing the greatest percentage of GDP of any developed nation. It is hideously inefficient with around 40% of the population unable to afford insurance or unable to get insurance.

Also you are only discussing third party personal liability insurance and forgetting that ACC also covers first party insurance. In other words you also need cover for when you injure yourself (ie. single vehicle lost control on a corner accidents) and there is nobody else at fault to sue.

While I personally could indeed benefit from a fully privatised fault-based system, I wouldn't want to live in a country that operated one.

Making ACC unpalatable and increasing support for privatisation is just part of the long game that is being played out.

[candor]

Mac D you and others would have less injury, all other things equal under such a scheme. Consequences of behaviour on the pocket and strongly linking ones ability to use the roads to ones safety record, quickly improves safety.
3rd party culls the idiots - who are too motorised here. There is a reason only one in 100 Ozzies dies on the road, whereas here its one in 40 or 50 people get the torture death. Worse torture rate than in the dark ages no doubt.

A shared scheme could see ACC do first party and privates do the mandatory third.

Can't find full study right now only an article here http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/sep99/sen.pdf
but I remember it showed over a 20 year study of thousands of deaths compared in different provinces that increased numbers of liquor stores and third party insurance were the most powerful reducers of drink driving harm - while increased speed and drink drive penalties achieved bugger all.
CULL menace numbers and reduce travel

Wobbly you wanted this - its on 3rd party thread
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...d+party+injury

[eelracing]

While I understand the intellectual argument for a fully privatised fault-based system, the reality of such systems is completely different from what is proposed (as is pretty much true for any neo-con economic theory).

The epitome of such a health and injury insurance system, as operates in the USA, provides the least coverage for the population as a whole, while costing the greatest percentage of GDP of any developed nation. It is hideously inefficient with around 40% of the population unable to afford insurance or unable to get insurance.

Also you are only discussing third party personal liability insurance and forgetting that ACC also covers first party insurance. In other words you also need cover for when you injure yourself (ie. single vehicle lost control on a corner accidents) and there is nobody else at fault to sue.

While I personally could indeed benefit from a fully privatised fault-based system, I wouldn't want to live in a country that operated one.

Making ACC unpalatable and increasing support for privatisation is just part of the long game that is being played out.

At last some common sense amongst the self serving rhetoric going on here.

Re; single vehicle accident/corner etc.How many here have been out on a lone ride and have had to take emergency action in avoiding oncoming vehicles on your side of road or pulling out in front etc.

With private insurance all i can see is an increase in hit and run merchants.

[bogan]

Mac D you and others would have less injury, all other things equal under such a scheme. Consequences of behaviour on the pocket and strongly linking ones ability to use the roads to ones safety record, quickly improves safety.

I would have thought the pain and disability (sometimes permanent) would be more of a deterrent than a loss of no claims bonus, wouldn't you agree?

[candor]

ACC is heinous - it does not look after many crash victims and forces back to work asap. Girl killed (then revived by ambos) by head on by drug driver... with broken back, head injury (significant brain damage), face had to be rebuilt age 19 - 2 years learning to walk and still drugged up for chronic pain was forced by ACC to take job as waitress on feet all day - in chronic pain.

Not really the best scheme in the world for many.

[candor]

I would have thought the pain and disability (sometimes permanent) would be more of a deterrent than a loss of no claims bonus, wouldn't you agree?

No - idiots aren't like us - don't think of injury consequences as bulletproof. Money drives the reality home. It's not no claims bonus, its having to pay a lot more if you repeatedly have offences/incidents causes risk modification and in some cases finding no insurer (not likely tho as there are high risk insurers in NZ that even insure full on repeat drunks.... at a price