How well do results score against BRONZ manifesto?

[FastBikeGear]

So how do you score us so far, out of 12 against the BRONZ 12 point manifesto?

Here's the 12 point list from the BRONZ manifesto thread.

1. The principles of the Woodhouse report should be preserved and respected
2. The ACC scheme was never intended to be a user pays scheme in which those who allegedly incur specific costs must, as a group, also meet those costs in full. The scheme is intended to draw upon the overall resources of the community to ensure that those who suffer an accident do not find themselves disadvantaged.
3. Saying that motor cyclists must pay much more than presently because they are ‘responsible’ for their accidents not only breaches the principal behind the scheme, it also re-introduces the notion of fault into the scheme when it was set up in the first place to avoid it.
4. Motorcyclists should not be discriminated against because of their transport choices.
5. Those who choose motorcycles instead of cars make a positive social and environmental contribution. motorcycles use less fuel, have a smaller footprint, cause less emission, congestion and pollution
6. ACC should be requried, as public policy to take account of social and environmental benefits whn setting levies and accept a responsibility for promoting those
7. There is no justification for treating a (small) subgroup of private passenger vehicles differently to othrs. Motorcycles should be in the same classification group as cars (nb this leaves us with an issue re mopeds). And pay the same levies
8. The present method of allocating costs is manifestly unjust to motorcyclists, who must pay whether they are in the right or in the wrong. No other group in society is expected to pay for the privilege of being injured
9. The present method of levying vehicle registrations causes unjustifiable anomalies and injustice, not only to motorcyclists but to anyone who has more than one vehicle but drives only one at a time. Fairer, alternative collection methods should be introduced as soon as possible
10. ACC is not in financial crisis and is not broke. The "crisis" is an artificially engendered one to give spurious justification for actions that the Government could not otherwise justify
11. The statistical data produced by ACC to justify their claims is slanted, distorted and incomplete, and does not present a fair and unbiased viewpoint. This one sided presentation is unacceptable from a government organisation.
12. There is no justification, statistical or otherwise , for different levy rates on different capacities of motorcycles. The figures put forward by ACC to justify this are fundamentally flawed and do not support their case. (NB this leaves us with the moped problem again)

[riffer]

Not so good I would say.

1. The principles of the Woodhouse report should be preserved and respected
   FAIL
2. The ACC scheme was never intended to be a user pays scheme in which those who allegedly incur specific costs must, as a group, also meet those costs in full. The scheme is intended to draw upon the overall resources of the community to ensure that those who suffer an accident do not find themselves disadvantaged.
   FAIL
3. Saying that motor cyclists must pay much more than presently because they are ‘responsible’ for their accidents not only breaches the principal behind the scheme, it also re-introduces the notion of fault into the scheme when it was set up in the first place to avoid it.
   FAIL
4. Motorcyclists should not be discriminated against because of their transport choices.
   FAIL
5. Those who choose motorcycles instead of cars make a positive social and environmental contribution. motorcycles use less fuel, have a smaller footprint, cause less emission, congestion and pollution
   FAIL
6. ACC should be requried, as public policy to take account of social and environmental benefits when setting levies and accept a responsibility for promoting those
   FAIL
7. There is no justification for treating a (small) subgroup of private passenger vehicles differently to othrs. Motorcycles should be in the same classification group as cars (nb this leaves us with an issue re mopeds). And pay the same levies
   FAIL
8. The present method of allocating costs is manifestly unjust to motorcyclists, who must pay whether they are in the right or in the wrong. No other group in society is expected to pay for the privilege of being injured
   FAIL
9. The present method of levying vehicle registrations causes unjustifiable anomalies and injustice, not only to motorcyclists but to anyone who has more than one vehicle but drives only one at a time. Fairer, alternative collection methods should be introduced as soon as possible
   FAIL
10. ACC is not in financial crisis and is not broke. The "crisis" is an artificially engendered one to give spurious justification for actions that the Government could not otherwise justify
    FAIL
11. The statistical data produced by ACC to justify their claims is slanted, distorted and incomplete, and does not present a fair and unbiased viewpoint. This one sided presentation is unacceptable from a government organisation.
    FAIL
12. There is no justification, statistical or otherwise , for different levy rates on different capacities of motorcycles. The figures put forward by ACC to justify this are fundamentally flawed and do not support their case. (NB this leaves us with the moped problem again)
    FAIL

[FastBikeGear]

I think that Les and BRONZ has done a fantastic job so far and while I am sure that National was always going to reduce the levies somewhat from the original proposal, I am not sure they would have reduced them as far as they have.

BRONZ's manifesto never talked about reducing the levies. Ixon's focus (just like many of us) has always been about the principals.

So far we haven't won anything we set out to. National are still progressing down the road of turning ACC into an insurance company.

Which just means that as Les predicted this is going to be a longer campaign.

[NONONO]

Eh?

BRONZ's manifesto never talked about reducing the levies. Ixon's focus (just like many of us) has always been about the principals.

# There is no justification for treating a (small) subgroup of private passenger vehicles differently to othrs. Motorcycles should be in the same classification group as cars (nb this leaves us with an issue re mopeds). And pay the same levies

So the plan is to RAISE car levies then?
We just keep on keeping on!