Hi attached is a copy of a letter I received from the Hon Nick Smith in response to my submission last year.
I think that he makes some interesting points.
I have copied some extracts from the submission below so that the attached response which is the interesting part of this post can be seen in light of the controversial submission made.
Choice 1
To adhere fully to the pure Woodhouse principles upon which the ACC was originally conceived and founded. The ACC was designed as a no-fault comprehensive system of cover and compensation for anyone who suffered an injury - regardless of what caused it. A system where some users of the scheme must pay more than others because the former are “responsible” for costing the scheme more than the latter, is contrary to the foundation principles of the scheme and it also re-introduces the notion of fault into the scheme when it was set up in the first place to avoid it.
However there are a number of changes that can be made to make this more equitable and too reduce costs.
1.Single Flat Rate ACC Levy per road user (SFRAL): All road users pay an identical flat rate levy fee whether they drive a car or truck or ride a motorbike or cycle, as per the ACC levy for cyclists proposal in section 5 of this submission. Drivers would be required to show an SFRAL receipt from the ACC when purchasing their registration. This option is not only more equitable it also makes it easier for the ACC to increase the income it receives.
For example, a family of four licensed drivers with two vehicles currently pays two levies. If levies were collected on a per licensed driver/SFRAL basis, ACC revenues would be greater and means of gathering it seen as more equitable. Ownership of a vehicle does not attribute risk, driving or riding a vehicle does, thus the charge should be on drivers not on registered vehicles. Currently many motorcyclists put their motorbike registrations on hold over winter and switch to using their cars. This results in a loss of income for ACC. Provision could still be made so that road users could ask for a 'hold' to be put on their SFRALs (in an identical manner that is currently done when a registration is put on hold) if a road user does not plan on driving for a period of over 3 months.
2.Drop all ACC levies on fuel. (For the reasons mentioned previously concerning petrol consumption this is inequitable). With the advent of fully electric vehicles, etc it will become harder to levy fuel in the future. It is also expensive and economically inefficient to administer and collect, for both the ACC and petrol stations. The reduced ACC levy income from petrol levies could be compensated for by a higher Single Flat Rate ACC Levy (SFRAL).
Choice 2
Fully abandon the Woodhouse no fault principles and to adopt a complete 'insurance' business model.
1. Under an insurance model, premiums would need to be calculated based on the risks that the insured takes.
2. As with any private medical cover the insured parties premiums are individually calculated based on the risk profile they present.
3.Individual risk profiles are broadly assessed on the known (and defined) risk activities that the insured party identifies that they do.
4. When the insured party enters the contract they select from a list of the defined risk activities they participate in.
5. Adopt personal ACC insurance and drop ACC levies from vehicle registration costs
6. In the event an insured party is injured while involved in an activity that is defined and listed on the insurance contact they are covered by ACC.
7. In the event an insured party is injured while involved in an activity that is defined but not listed on their insurance contact they are not covered by ACC.
8. Drop ACC levies on petrol (for the reasons mentioned previously concerning petrol consumption this is inequitable). It is also expensive and economically inefficient to administer and collect for both the ACC and petrol stations. The reduced ACC levy income from petrol levies could be compensated for by a higher personal premiums.
Choice 2 would also provide the option of opening ACC up to private competition at a later date.
Section 5. ACC levy proposal for cyclists.
I am an active cyclist. I began riding to work eight years ago. I typically ride over 200km per week and I am still an active competitor in endurance events such as the around Taupo race. It is unfair that other insured parties premiums should be subsidising the cost of ACC for cyclists who do not pay ACC 'road user' levies. The practicalities of charging an ACC levy for a cyclist is very straight forward.
Single Flat Rate ACC Levy per road user (SFRAL): All road users pay an identical flat rat levy fee whether they drive a car or truck or ride a motorbike or cycle as per the ACC levy for cyclists proposal in section 5 of this submission. Riders would be required to carry a photo SFRAL 'receipt' on them and present this on demand by an enforcement officer.
It should be noted that most cyclists are also car drivers and under the proposals in this submission they would only be required to pay a Single Flat Rate ACC Levy (SFRAL), that would entitle them to operate any type of vehicle on the road.
What's the justification?
According figures published by ACC:
In 2008 there were 1,475 motorcycle accidents and 50 deaths costing $62,545 million dollars in entitlement claims.
In 2008 there were 1,170 bicycle accidents and 36 deaths costing $15,543 million dollars in entitlement claims. Cyclists paid no ACC levies.
One very important and valuable spin off safety advantage of requiring cyclists to pay an ACC SFRAL levy is that many motorists currently feel that as cyclists don't pay and contribution to road user charges or ACC levies, we have no right on the road. Consequently they resent the space we take on the road and it is a weekly occurrence for the group I ride with to encounter irate and aggressive car drivers who cut us off, throw objects and abuse us.
Proposed cycle levy details
Within the motor vehicle levy changes the ACC should be proposing an introduction of cycle levies/premiums which take into account the fact that for years other motorists have been subsidising cyclists. If as in '1.' above new motorcyclists should be assume the debts of previous motorcyclists to achieve equality we should expect the same of cyclists.
The following are the key elements of the proposed cyclist levy.
1. While the cover for motorists has traditionally been paid by through licensing fees & petrol levy, the cover for cyclists would need to be recovered solely from bicycle registrations.
2. Students who ride motorcycles to school (as I did) are required to register their motorcycles and pay ACC levies. However ACC levy legislation could never be carried through parliament that required parents to pay an ACC levy for school children. Cyclists who are attending primary, intermediate or secondary school would be exempt from being required to ride a registered bicycle. However students attending tertiary education would be required to pay a single road user ACC levy. It is noted that many of these students already qualify for student loans which may be used to meet registration costs in the same way they currently use their student loans to pay for their motorcycle ACC levies and petrol.
3. Riders would be required to carry a photo SFRAL 'receipt' on them and present this on demand by an enforcement officer. This could be manufactured in the style of a drivers license.
4. An SFRAL card also offers benefits for law enforcement and rider identification in the case of fatal accidents.
Section 6. Reducing ACC's costs
The ACC's proposal focuses on funding past and future liability funding issues. The proposal does not deal with how to reduce future liabilities.
The current focus is on the cost of sending ambulances to the bottom of the cliff rather than developing preventative skills and informed advisory notices at the top of the cliff.
The ACC needs to take the lead role (with the eager support of the motorcycling community) in specific motorcycle injury prevention education and training.
Despite claims made in ACC's 2009 annual report I have had no visibility of the ACC doing anything to educate me or in any other way reduce my chances of having a motor cycle injury.
Some possible proactive suggestions are:
Every five years require all drivers and riders to undertake a practical driving course and practical evaluation.
In 1989 Telecom New Zealand bought new low powered 1600cc Toyota Corollas for 34 of it's sales fleet within six weeks a high percentage of these cars were damaged. Two of them were written off. Telecom entered into a driver evaluation programme. This programme consisted solely of each driver driving a 30km circuit around Auckland with a Traffic Officer in the car, who evaluated the driver's performance, gave them feedback and a safety performance score out of 50. I was one of the 34 participants in this program. Overnight the high accident rate was curtailed. I have attended multiple driver safety training courses and motorcycle street skills training sessions I can still say that this exercise by Telecom New Zealand still rates as having the single greatest beneficial effect on the reduction of accident rates that I have ever seen.
The basic bike handling skills test is insufficient. In some cases learners are allowed to do this on the instructor's/examiners automatic scooters instead of their own bikes. The test in some cases lasts as little as a total of 3 minutes. The current twenty minute road tests are equally lightweight. Many riders are evaluated by a tester who follows them in a car and has never had a bike license. Likewise Car drivers are not required to demonstrate any vehicle handling or collision avoidance skills. I suggest that the ACC fund and undertake studies around more comprehensive overseas Graduated Driver Licensing Schemes such as that used in France to ascertain what benefits may be available in a New Zealand context. I would suggest that the ACC make strong recommendations to the Minister of Transport in relation to speeding up the implementation of the proposed improved graduated driver licensing system, Driver Licensing Amendment
Remove the dangerous 70km/h restriction for learner motorcyclists. as proposed as part of the above rule 91001/6. The current restriction is widely acknowledged to be one of the most dangerous road rules ever devised. The previous minister of transport Harry Duynhoven stated in the plan for revising the Graduate Driver Licensing Scheme
“Remove the 70km/h speed limit restriction which currently applies to learner motorcycle licence holders. This restriction is largely ignored. When this speed restriction is adhered to it creates a large difference in the speed of vehicles traveling on the open road, which is a known road safety problem. Road safety research indicates this speed difference issue outweighs any benefit of lower open road speed limits for novice motorcycle riders;”
This statement was endorsed by all the major road safety stake holders in a subsequent Regulatory Impact Statement. I extensively studied the research on this issue earlier this year (research which I would be eager to share with the ACC) and made submissions to Stephen Joyce, the Minister of Transport. However despite all the evidence (from Monash University, etc) and support from numerous road safety groups this dangerous rule is still on the books. The ACC needs to follow through on this and make strong recommendations to the LTSA to urgently scrap this law.
Research should be conducted into what effect the standard of road repairs and maintenance are contributing to accidents. When road repair gangs leave a light layer of gravel on top of tarmac after doing repairs this is of non consequence and very little risk to cars. However at speeds well below posted speed limits this same condition is extremely challenging for motorcyclists. This is one of the most common complaints and causes of accidents claimed by motorcyclists.
In New Zealand we confuse statistics with research. Anyone who has attempted to research safety issues in New Zealand soon realises that the quantity and quality of accident statistics, is threadbare. We are the victims of safety and danger myths perpetuated by our peers and others who really don't know the answers. ACC needs to be directly funding traffic safety research and the results of this research needs to be made transparently available and acted upon. I think the results could be very profitable for the ACC.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Pixie
Bookmarks