Proposed new ACC campaign association - a new direction

[k2w3]

Don't Approach The Geese!

There's a credo by which to live.

[yachtie10]

Having read this entire thread I suspect Wobbly is actually (on some level) trolling here. His idea to change tack and embrace private ensurance may just be a backhanded way to shup-up those car owners who are complaining of subsidising bike accidents by pointing out that actually, if ACC were out of the picture it's the liable party who will pick up the costs not, as present, the injured party. As car accidents cause more dammage in general, privatising insurance would push the costs back their way.

I'd accept that his suggestion may be an effective strategy but think that it would be a vary dangeous path to take. Make no mistake, private insurace replacement for ACC would cost this county a fotune in both money and misery and the risk is too high that this strategy would back-fire on us all. For that reason, I'd be unwilling to support it.

As far as ERC being paid from the Motor Vehicle Account, who came up with that stupid idea? This practice should end immediately and I suggested as much in the manifesto thread!

eczackery
has caused some interesting debate

[drummer]

Its no secret im red through and through, card carrying party member in fact
So what?

I agree.. so what... it would effect your bias though however with this subject we have to agree to put politics aside for the common good of the biking community. You being a Commie oops Labour doesn't worry me or put me against you in the fight for fairness in ACC and it shouldn't worry anyone!

The people we are fighting I believe are Smith and John Judge.. and the way to them is thru the Nats.. I may still semi support National but I differentiate that from this fight..

Take care

Peter

[raster]

Stoney say you have 2 choices:

- Privatisation of ACC

or

- Proposed increase in levies

Which would you pick?

You left out:

Manage what we already have correctly!!

ACC is not broke and the reason for the increase of levies is to make it into an Insurance Co, (fully funded), which it never has been.
They spout off about the cost to the future, what will the cost be the future economy to rip millions of $ out of the current economy to fill the ACC coffers.

[FastBikeGear]

As far as ERC being paid from the Motor Vehicle Account, who came up with that stupid idea? This practice should end immediately and I suggested as much in the manifesto thread!

Absolutely. And nor should cyclists and pedestrians be paid out of the motor vehicle account for two reasons.

1. they are not motorvehicles
2. they don't contribute to the account

[FastBikeGear]

Having read this entire thread I suspect Wobbly is actually (on some level) trolling here. His idea to change tack and embrace private ensurance may just be a backhanded way to shup-up those car owners who are complaining of subsidising bike accidents by pointing out that actually, if ACC were out of the picture it's the liable party who will pick up the costs not, as present, the injured party. As car accidents cause more dammage in general, privatising insurance would push the costs back their way.

At this stage we can't turn the clock back to what ACC used to be (Phil goff has already promised that Labour will roll back the changes but he's not in government and I am not sure I would rely on this promise!) and we can't argue about the size of the levy hikes, if we accept the principal that financial responsibility for those accidents caused by car drivers lies with the victims.

In the fantasy insurance world that ACC alone lives in, where they would have us accept risk ratings that assign the risk to the victims (rather than those who cause accidents) then maybe it is fair that we pay higher levies than car drivers.

In the real world private injury insurers don't charge motorcyclists more than car drivers.

So far we have achieved nothing that we weren't going to achieve anyway with just a little bit of noise. We shouldn't be saying that we are OK with our revised ACC levies! We need to still be saying that we don't accept the disparity of ACC levies between car and bike drivers.

Because we can't turn back the clock we should push it forward and let the public know that a faction of us want to opt out of ACC and opt into private personal injury insurance because this would mean that our insurance premiums would be cheaper than those for car drivers and insurance companies would take into account that we can only drive one vechicle at a time, etc.

Got a better idea?
Then start another thread and lets discuss it there.

[Noidy]

Havent read the whole thread but has anyone done the math?

I guestimated my ACC payments on three vehicles (2 commercial at a higer rate), 3 bikes, mine and my wifes earner premium and 12% of our (estimated)fuel and came up with a figure of approx $130 per month. Going to an american wesite, to privately insure my whole family would cost approx 320 USD. Dont know what that would be in NZD, not a simple conversion, too many variables. Acc is bloody cheap IMO

[FastBikeGear]

Havent read the whole thread but has anyone done the math?

I guestimated my ACC payments on three vehicles (2 commercial at a higer rate), 3 bikes, mine and my wifes earner premium and 12% of our (estimated)fuel and came up with a figure of approx $130 per month. Going to an american wesite, to privately insure my whole family would cost approx 320 USD. Dont know what that would be in NZD, not a simple conversion, too many variables. Acc is bloody cheap IMO

It's hard to compare eggs for eggs, because very few of the eggs are the same. However if you are just making comparisons on personal injury motorcycle insurance you could start here http://www.mac.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/...al%20aug09.pdf. In South Australia compulsory third pary insurance for a car driver costs $483.00 but only $390 for a motorcyle greater than 660cc.[/B][/SIZE]

[Laxi]

No.

dito

[shrub]

I worked in insurance for many years, and insurance companies identify risk and probability of an event happening, and charge their premiums accordingly.
If you look at income protection insurance, most insurers either decline cover or put loadings on "high risk" professions and often put a loading on premiums for high risk activities.

If ACC was privatised, the owner would take one look at motorcyclists and decide that we're just too risky to cover and either decline cover, and/or crank up the premiums - is that what you want?

[FastBikeGear]

I worked in insurance for many years, and insurance companies identify risk and probability of an event happening, and charge their premiums accordingly.
If you look at income protection insurance, most insurers either decline cover or put loadings on "high risk" professions and often put a loading on premiums for high risk activities.

Yes in an insurance model there should be loading on premiums for hight risk activities. When it comes to ERC high cost equals high salary professions. This is why there is a loading on premiums for higher salary earners. Just imagine what the premium loading would be for John Judge who is purported to earn $500,000!

If ACC was privatised, the owner would take one look at motorcyclists and decide that we're just too risky to cover and either decline cover, and/or crank up the premiums - is that what you want?

Bollocks, insurance companies hate uncertainties not high risk.

It's very hard to sell insurance to people who have next to no risk. The higher the risk the more you can charge for a premium and the greater the profit the insurance company makes.