Response from the AA

**p.dath** · 19th January 2010, 23:02

Originally Posted by jeffs

In you meeting will you be discussing the fact that the UK AA advicate for bikers, and their insurance arm recognise that the car on bike rate is approx 80% ( more cars in the uk).

I'm probably going to try and avoid a discussion that pitches motorcyclists against car drivers. I don't want to develop a them versus us attitude. I want a unifying discussion so that they represent all motorists equally against the ACC increases. I want the AA to fight the Government, not us!

**jeffs** · 20th January 2010, 07:13

Originally Posted by p.dath

I'm probably going to try and avoid a discussion that pitches motorcyclists against car drivers. I don't want to develop a them versus us attitude. I want a unifying discussion so that they represent all motorists equally against the ACC increases. I want the AA to fight the Government, not us!

I do understand, but it is better to be armed when in your meeting. This may be your agenda, but if AA are "Flying in 2 people", they will have there own agenda.

Just do not loose sight of the facts

AA have already been very active in lobbying for the shift of ACC levies to be moved onto bikes, or you would not require to have a meeting.

AA are primarily funded by cars, to them it is better to loose the bikes than the cars.

AA are reading this thread.

So " Hello AA

"

**Ixion** · 20th January 2010, 09:12

Originally Posted by p.dath

Forgive my ignorance. What would the effect be if such a motion was carried?

Well, it depends on how experienced the chairman is. A very experienced chairman will handle it correcttly. But usually (almost always) the chairman panics, because he has never experienced such a motion. The end result is that the meeting either falls apart or, the party that moved the motion get to elect a new chairman (depending on numbers). If you have enough numbers to carry the motion, then you get to chair the meeting (or appoint the chair). if your motion is defeated - though often trhe chairman doesn't even know how to put such a motion to the vote- , you have crippled the existing chairman . At the very elast you have made an absoltely unmistakable statement.

Of course, it is folly to make such a motion unless you have strong backing, enough to carry it, or at least come close. Which can be tricky if there are proxies. But, most proxies simply go for appointing "the chairman of the meeting" as their proxy. And the chairman can't vote, or vote his proxies, in a motion of no confidence in himself . So such a motion can be a good tactic if you are faced with a meeting where you will always be outvoted by proxies.

**p.dath** · 21st January 2010, 15:03

I had my meeting this morning with the senior policy analyst and the general manager of motoring affairs this morning. I have to say I entered the meeting expecting that I would achieve nothing. I thought the AA would be firmly entrenched in their position.

I'm happy to say I walked away with a positive attitude, as I feel I have actually given them pause for thought, and they indicated they were going to working on some of the issues I have raised.

I started the meeting by saying I was not a representative of the motorcycling community, but that the view I hold is also held by a lot of others in the motorcycling community. I told them that the motorcycling community was disappointed with the response from the AA, and felt the policy choices by the AA had acted against the motorcycling community.

The meeting lasted for an hour, and that was pretty much solid talking by both parties. I'll try and summarise the major bits. So much was talked about. They bought up lots of numbers, but luckily I had studied up the prior two nights on a lot of the statistics released by ACC. I was able to counter a lot of the numbers mentioned, or at least cast doubt on them. Weather they believed me or not, by the end of the meeting I think I gave them considerable pause for thought on information that has been released by ACC.

I spoke for sometime on the Woodhouse report, and the community values. I think I have almost completely turned them on the issue of pre-funding. They told me they were meeting with Nick Smith (ACC minister) tomorrow, and would talk to him about the continued need for pre-funding. They said they had invited someone from Ulysses to the meeting, and would like to invite another motorycycle related group along, but weren't sure who to approach. So if someone from BRONZ is interested in attending ministerial meetings in Wellington along with the AA and Ulyses, put your hand up and I'll put you in contact with the right people.
Now your probably thinking they are just going to mention this to the minister. I'm pretty confident they are going to take it further, and I think there is a very good chance this will become a formal policy of the AA (it has to go before the national board before this can happen). Expect to see some press on this issue during 2010.

I spoke to them about how I felt there the costs of ACC should be shared equally by all. I said the risk assessment system should be dropped. Anything that looks like insurance should be gotten rid of. They said that the risk assessment is enshrined in law now, and that it would be difficult to change. They were reluctant on this one, but said if they could get pre-funding dropped, then they would take another look at this one.
I did point out that if pre-funding was dropped then all motorists could have an ACC cut immediately.

We spoke a lot about taxes, enforcement, education. I said I personally opposed solutions where the Government tried to tax a problem out of existence (tickets, fees, etc). They already have the same view. I said I was very much in favour of education to solve issues instead. They told me they held the same view, and had already been working on the issue with the Government. They are pushing the Government to offer subsidised advanced rider/driver training courses. I told them with regard to rider training, that it is unlikely that a commercial operator could make money from it, and hence I didn't think we would get many people entering the market. I suggested to them that perhaps the AA (being a non-profit group) could consider offering nation wide rider training. They didn't say no, but weren't keen on it, but are going to take it under advisement. I say put your money where your mouth is if your preaching it ... haha.

I spoke to them about the AGM in March, and asked them how they feel if I made some motions that forced the AA to adopt policies, such as a return to the Woodhouse principles. He didn't look so happy about this idea, but said if such a motion was made and carried by the members at the AGM then they would abide by it.

He said three of the AA districts already want a return to the Woodhouse principles. If a few more districts come on board then they would probably adopt the policy (which also means all motorists paying the same equal share of ACC).

I spoke about collection of ACC levies. The AA is of the opinion that the fees should be mostly levied against Petrol, and a tiny bit against the rego. I'm happy with that.

I told them I would be in further contact to ask about their progress on the issues I have mentioned.

So much was talked about. If more comes back to my memory I'll make some other posts. I think that was all the major bits.

**MSTRS:Me** · 21st January 2010, 15:10

Well done. That sounds very encouraging. I especially like the bit about some districts already calling for a return to Woodhouse.
Of course, the cynical view would be that 'they' had their fingers crossed behind their backs...

**Pedrostt500** · 21st January 2010, 17:17

Well done, though I do have a feeling of skeptsisium about their, saying / doing much or anything at all on the behalf of motorcyclists.
I would rather see Motorcycle Clubs, be certified to do advanced rider training courses than the AA, ie at least the Motorcycle clubs have a genuine interest, where in my mind the AAs intrest is doubtful at best.
As for another representitve for their meeting PM Stoney or Nasty, though this may be to short a notice.

**kb_SF1** · 21st January 2010, 17:49

Excellent result and good report, you are to be congratulated on your reasoned approach and ability to put the case directly to those who have some influence on the decision makers.
Your plan to raise issues and motions at AGMs will have got their attention and to have 2 people fly up to meet with you instead you have ing to go and meet them shows how serious the AA are taking you and the issues you have raidsed.
Please keep us informed, a good news story is alway welcome.

**caseye** · 21st January 2010, 19:54

pdath you deserve high praise for what you have already achieved, largely on your own.
Now i'd like to say to all KB'ers and those who are intereseted enough, It's time to get off our collective backsides and get behind this and other iniatives actioned by ordinary folk such as pdath.
Not to take anything away from BRONZ, and all the other tireless people who have got us this far in the fight against unfair ACC Levies and a total undermnining of the ACC's fundamental core business. Accident Compensation
Iixion of BRONZ suggested sometime ago that as many KB'ers and motorcyclists as can, should join/rejoin the AA with the intention of fighting their apparent anti motorcycle ideas with our own people installed in the top echelons of the AA.
From what pdath has come back to us with after his meeting with top level AA officials it would seem that this is not an unachieveable goal.
I recently rejoined the AA, my wife a new biker is also a full 20 plus year member , we know other motorcyclists who are members.We will be doing whatever we can to help pdath take his case further from now on.
I/we will continue to do everything else we can too with regards to their continued fight against ACC and National.

**jeffs** · 21st January 2010, 22:23

Originally Posted by p.dath

So much was talked about. If more comes back to my memory I'll make some other posts. I think that was all the major bits.

Good work pdath

In your talk was there any acknowledgment that AA NZ accepted the main incident rate was Car on bike ? Whoever's statistic you use it is still over 50%

Unless they are willing to acknowledge this, like the UK have, they will not push for Car driver education.

Bike Rider education is very important, but it must be in conjunction with car driver education, or you will not substantially reduce accident rates.

I am not denying that bikes have accidents that do not involve cars, and a lot of those are very high profile.
But only focusing on rider education, and that rider education may have poor take up, means that if the accident rate does not reduce nothing changes.

**p.dath** · 22nd January 2010, 07:15

Originally Posted by jeffs

Good work pdath

In your talk was there any acknowledgment that AA NZ accepted the main incident rate was Car on bike ? Whoever's statistic you use it is still over 50%

They have a different number, but I only devoted about 30s of the discussion to the number itself. They do accept that cars are responsible for a large number of the accidents.

I also told them that the average ACC bill for a motorbike accident is less than a car accident, and reminded them if they are doing comparisons they need to take this lower cost into account.

Originally Posted by jeffs

Unless they are willing to acknowledge this, like the UK have, they will not push for Car driver education.

Funny you should say that. They spoke about the UK system a bit, and definately favour that model.

They said their vision is to have 5 star riders/drivers on 5 star machines on 5 star roads. And when they formulate policy it is towards achieving those three aims.

They are very pro driver/rider education. They feel there should be an education program *after* someone gets their learner licence. They also feel there should be advanced driver/rider programs that people can attend. They gave me some figures (from the UK I think) that showed people who had attended additonal advanced training had lower accident rates.

**p.dath** · 22nd January 2010, 07:19

Originally Posted by Pedrostt500

I would rather see Motorcycle Clubs, be certified to do advanced rider training courses than the AA, ie at least the Motorcycle clubs have a genuine interest, where in my mind the AAs intrest is doubtful at best.

Funnily enough, that is exactly what the AA thought. They consider that motorcycle clubs would be better positioned to offer advanced courses of real value.

Pragmatically, do you think 50 motorcycle clubs across NZ would approach the Government in a unified manner to get funding approved for their courses - or a single nationwide body with the AA who employes their own political lobyists?
That is what I put to the AA. I think that unless the AA starts the ball rolling on this one it wont happen. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to communicate with (say) 50 clubs, versus one organisation.

Perhaps if Motorcycling NZ got into the picture - but they are very racing focused, which is bound to give the Government shivers (racing group running road rider training!).

**MSTRS:Me** · 22nd January 2010, 07:20

Originally Posted by p.dath

They are very pro driver/rider education. They feel there should be an education program *after* someone gets their learner licence. They also feel there should be advanced driver/rider programs that people can attend. They gave me some figures (from the UK I think) that showed people who had attended additonal advanced training had lower accident rates.

This is good. But why haven't they thrown those figures at TPTB, who claim Advanced driver training is bad?

**FastBikeGear** · 22nd January 2010, 12:12

P.dath brilliant work!

**p.dath** · 22nd January 2010, 14:25

Originally Posted by MSTRS

This is good. But why haven't they thrown those figures at TPTB, who claim Advanced driver training is bad?

I don't know if they have or haven't. We talked about a lot of things at the meeting, but I primarily wanted to talk about ACC, so I didn't let them dwell on other subjects too much.

You might be interested to know that the AA isn't happy with the quality of NZ roads either, and in particular tar bleed. Alas I told them we didn't have time to discuss the quality of roading in NZ as we might be there for the rest of the day.