Ulysses please explain why you're selling us out

**idleidolidyll** · 30th November 2009, 21:06

Thankyou Ulysseus for confirming that the following is nothing less than more Nick Smith lies and that Ulysseus is not working with the liar in charge to push through levy increases: you have my apology and support

Tonight Nick Smith told the crowd at the Akarana Royal Yacht Club that Ulysseus had agreed to accept levy increases in exchange for a portion of that money being set aside for accident prevention.

While that may seem worthy at first glance, shouldn't we ALREADY have said accident prevention programmes without having to pay extra levies?

National sells itself as fiscally responsible and is actively cutting social service costs (often by cutting services) to reduce government spending.

However, in the levy issue, instead of cutting costs by cleaning roads and educating riders and motorists; they are massively overcharging bikers for accidents which are to a great extent; not their fault.

Ulysseus; you don't represent me and you don't represent most motorcyclists; please don't sell us short. The only acceptable result is no increase at all.

In fact, going further, the MOST acceptable result is for motorists not to be singled out when rugby players, horse riders, cyclists and other risky groups are not charged at all.

**hayd3n** · 30th November 2009, 21:13

somthings not right y would uselesess do that to us?

**Mully** · 30th November 2009, 21:14

Originally Posted by idleidolidyll

[COLOR=DarkOrange]Tonight Nick Smith told the crowd at the Akarana Royal Yacht Club that Ulysseus had agreed to accept levy increases in exchange for a portion of that money being set aside for accident prevention.

I'd like to know if this is even true. It's not like politicians are bastions of truth and honesty. I suspect Smithy has twisted something that has been said to him. (i.e. "We accept the need for a possible minor increase" and "we want money for accident prevention training" as two stand-alone statements)

(Do you use the "Dark Universe" view? That orange is a bit of a prick to read in the "Light Universe")

**idleidolidyll** · 30th November 2009, 21:15

Maybe Smith is lying; he was caught in about 3 lies on the night

Ulysseus please explain..................are you negotiating as above?

**AD345** · 30th November 2009, 21:16

Fragmentation is always a threat in a community as diverse as motorcyclists.

Ulysses can fairly claim to represent its membership but that's as far as it goes IMO. They do, however, have a reasonably large public profile and, to their credit, they have been very proactive in leading protests against the ACC changes.

It would be nice if the different representative groups (BRONZ, Ulysses, HOG et.al.) got together to thrash out a common message and goal.

Mind you - just cos Nick says something doesn't make it so...

**Grahameeboy** · 30th November 2009, 21:20

And how do they think that money will help prevent accidents....money cannot buy attitude.

Yesterday coming back from a ride a woman driving a 4WD comes onto the motorway, goes into the left lane, then the middle lane...I was about to pass in the fast lane when she indicates and starts to move across..I sounded my noisy horn..she looks in her mirror...carrys on moving into my path..money will not solve that.

If you cannot see a red bike with twin headlights, LED running lights with a 6ft guy wearing red leathers...even spec save will not offer a solution.

On the other side of the coin, if it is generally accepted that 60% of accidents are caused by car drivers...to be honest if 40% of accidents are caused by bikers this is nothing to write home about given that we are a minority...

**Blackbird** · 30th November 2009, 21:24

Who is "us"? The problem is that motorcyclists are as diverse as the rest of the population in their views. I wouldn't actually object to paying more if it was equitable i.e if the groups you mentioned paid their share too.

However, there is something I object to even more. However much money we pay, it's simply "cost plus" inasmuch that it's not addressing the root cause of accidents so the position will never improve unless there are initiatives to reduce accidents by raising driving standards. Just paying out as ACC suggest is simply a gross waste of taxpayer money and there's no way I would support that on its own.

I didn't know about the Ulysses suggestion but it sounds that they're trying to address the route cause.

You say that Ulysses don't represent you. Possibly not, but your views as stated don't represent me either. No offence intended.

**P38** · 30th November 2009, 21:27

As a Ulysses member I suspect it is not true and I certainly would not support this view.

However you can check out yourself what the offical Ulysses stance is by contacting Peter McIntosh at "president{at}ulysses.org.nz*"

or via our website http://www.ulysses.org.nz/national.html

You can also read Howard Mansels (National Ulysses Secretary) report here.
Howard attended the meeting with Nick Smith at Parliament on the day of the Bikeoi.
http://www.ulysses.org.nz/vbulletin/...read.php?t=792

**idleidolidyll** · 30th November 2009, 21:30

I take no offence blackbird; i don't offer my opinions as anything but my own.

I am not negotiating with Govt but sadly a few groups ARE negotiating on all our behalfs (as far as Govt is concerned) with no agreement across the general biker community on what we would accept.

As noted; Smith may be distorting or perhaps lying outright as he has done tonight and in the past.

I'd like Ulysseus to explain what they are negotiating because Govt seems to think they ARE representative and they WILL use whatever they agree on with Ulysseus to justify the inevitable increases.

Of course it is equally fair for Ulysseus to state clearly to Govt that they are negotiating ONLY on behalf of their organisation which represents a minority of bikers.

**retro asian** · 30th November 2009, 21:32

I thought he said Ulysees were happy to work with them on a portion of the ACC levy going to funding for accident prevention.
That does not imply they are negotiating with anyone.

He then thought tha BRONZ had given them the finger, to which Les replied "No we have not, you've lied..."

idleidolidyll I'm sure you misheard, and it might be a good idea to delete this thread mate....

**NighthawkNZ:Me** · 30th November 2009, 21:33

Originally Posted by P38

As a Ulysses member I suspect it is not true and I certainly would not support this view.

However you can check out yourself what the offical Ulysses stance is by contacting Peter McIntosh at "president{at}ulysses.org.nz*"

or via our website http://www.ulysses.org.nz/national.html

You can also read Howard Mansels (National Ulysses Secretary) report here.
Howard attended the meeting with Nick Smith at Parliament on the day of the Bikeoi.
http://www.ulysses.org.nz/vbulletin/...read.php?t=792

from the website

Statement of Position from the National Committee 8th November 2009

The Ulysses Club is against the current changes to ACC put forward by the government. They will adversely impact on many New Zealanders by increasing levies and/or reducing services. In particular, we are very concerned at the punitive approach being taken with regard to the heavy increases in ACC levies being proposed on motorcycle registration. This has been done without consultation with the motorcycling fraternity and totally disregards the efforts made by this club and others to improve safety on the road for all riders. We believe that it is time for a comprehensive review of ACC and the way in which it is now operating. The government should establish a robust and transparent public investigation to conduct this review and to include the accuracy of ACC’s stated statistics on its present costings, the methodology of acquiring the statistics, and the analysis of them in the review. We offer the opportunity to ACC and the government to engage in comprehensive dialogue on all matters relating to motorcycles and to work towards a fair and equitable resolution for all concerned. The Ulysses Club would also support a return to injury prevention and other programmes focussed on reducing the risks to motorcyclists.

**idleidolidyll** · 30th November 2009, 21:36

Originally Posted by retro asian

I thought he said Ulysees were happy to work with them on a portion of the ACC levy going to funding for accident prevention.
That does not imply they are negotiating with anyone.

He then thought tha BRONZ had given them the finger, to which Les replied "No we have not, you've lied..."

idleidolidyll I'm sure you misheard, and it might be a good idea to delete this thread mate....

Actually he was very specific:

he said Ulysseus had agreed to negotiate the "ringfencing" of some of the levy increase for use in safety initiatives.

**P38** · 30th November 2009, 21:37

Originally Posted by NighthawkNZ

from the website

Yep thats what I heard at our last meeting too.

**KoroJ** · 30th November 2009, 21:40

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

And how do they think that money will help prevent accidents....money cannot buy attitude....

Can't buy or change attitude of dickhead cage drivers like the tart you mentioned, but would you have seen it coming and known how to react had you not been an experienced rider?

Any money spent on rider development has to be a positive step toward reducing biker accidents by improving the level of rider competence.

**jafar** · 30th November 2009, 21:51

Nick is playing the game of divide & conquer, he gets us all fighting amongst ourselves & then does whatever he likes.
It would pay to get confirmation from the heirachy of Ulysses BEFORE this gets out of hand !

Wouldn't be a bad idea to get the groups together so we can show a united front.... Mabey Ulysses & Bronz can organize this ?