TAC writeoffs in Oz

[rastuscat]

Chatted to a bloke from Oz recently. They don't have ACC, but they have a thing that provides insurance cover for injuries in crashes. Anyway, whatever.

He tells me that if you ride a bike without gloves and crash, suffering hand injuries, they refuse to cover the cost of the hand injuries due to them being your own damn fault.

Now, that's what I call personal accountability. Odd that we spend a lot of time expecting govt depts to be more and more accountable, when we continue to cause damage to ourselves (and yes, sometimes it's other peoples fault too, I'm well aware of that) and then expect the govt to pay.

Actually, it's not the govt who pays, it's the mug taxpayer.

Just my rant.

[Miscreant]

Chatted to a bloke from Oz recently. They don't have ACC, but they have a thing that provides insurance cover for injuries in crashes. Anyway, whatever.

He tells me that if you ride a bike without gloves and crash, suffering hand injuries, they refuse to cover the cost of the hand injuries due to them being your own damn fault.

Now, that's what I call personal accountability. Odd that we spend a lot of time expecting govt depts to be more and more accountable, when we continue to cause damage to ourselves (and yes, sometimes it's other peoples fault too, I'm well aware of that) and then expect the govt to pay.

Actually, it's not the govt who pays, it's the mug taxpayer.

Just my rant.

I don't get it. Why stop at wearing gloves? Why not stop paying if they aren't the best gloves available. Or better still. If they weren't riding a bike they probaly wouldn't have fallen off at all.
So they should stop paying for anyone riding a motorcycle as those thing are the ultimate in personal irresponsibility.
Makes good sense to me.

[The Pastor]

I don't get it. Why stop at wearing gloves? Why not stop paying if they aren't the best gloves available. Or better still. If they weren't riding a bike they probaly wouldn't have fallen off at all.
So they should stop paying for anyone riding a motorcycle as those thing are the ultimate in personal irresponsibility.
Makes good sense to me.

yeah if the gloves are more than 1 month old too, cos you know they degrade in sunlight.

[MSTRS:Me]

I don't get it. Why stop at wearing gloves? Why not stop paying if they aren't the best gloves available.

Bugger off.
It's the fact that a rider doesn't take reasonable steps to protect themselves with gear that is the problem. I'd agree with ACC if they introduced a policy of diminishing cover amount dependent on gear worn. That is to say...no gloves=no cover for hand injury...nice cool t-shirt=no cover for upper body grazes etc.

[Ixion]

He tells me that if you ride a bike and crash, suffering injuries, they refuse to cover the cost of the injuries due to them being your own damn fault

It's the fact that a rider doesn't take reasonable steps to protect themselves by not riding those dangerous motorcycles that is the problem.

Not really the quotes, but the inevitable result. Since motorcycling is known to be more dangerous than driving a car, why should ACC be expected to cover the cost of injuries that are the injured person's own damn fault for delibertely doing something they know is dangerous.

Now that's what I call personal responsibility.

Going to be lonely out on the roads.

[saxet]

I have noticed alot of people riding without gloves of late. I can only assume they don't like themselves and their hands.

[mashman]

Yup and those guys that get shitfaced at the weekend and fuck up theirs and other peoples weekends... or perhaps the old, they're always falling over themselves, get rid of the old, especially if they have a recurring injury. Perhaps the emergency services should only attend any incidents that involve potential death, because death looks bad on the statistics... What if the guy can't afford to get his hands fixed? It's all going to be up to some insurance officer to decide, well a claims officer...

This is what will happen if ACC is privatised/sold/replaced with an insurance system... and I don't like it at all!

[MSTRS:Me]

I suppose some of the posters in here refuse to wear a seatbelt when in a cage, due to it being against their principles of freedom of choice?
What happened to the choice of those who do wear one, having to contribute to fixing up the more serious injuries likely for the above?

[mashman]

Bugger off.
It's the fact that a rider doesn't take reasonable steps to protect themselves with gear that is the problem. I'd agree with ACC if they introduced a policy of diminishing cover amount dependent on gear worn. That is to say...no gloves=no cover for hand injury...nice cool t-shirt=no cover for upper body grazes etc.

Sorry. I gotta disagree with you there. Whilst the responsible thing to do is prescribe to ATGATT, what's the difference between a motorcycle crash and a bicycle crash??? they don't need to wear full body armour, and depending on the level of rider fitness they could well be both travelling at 50kph. How would you explain to the motorcyclist that you can't have your injuries treated because you weren't wearing gloves and yet the bicyclist next to you is getting treated... it just doesn't work!

[MSTRS:Me]

Fair point. If my attitude seems unfair, well - ACC started it...

[mashman]

Fair point. If my attitude seems unfair, well - ACC started it...

ha ha ha, quickly, steal their lunch money!

tis just the potential "unfairness" that stops me from leaping aboard the good ship it's your own fault...

[Ixion]

Fair point. If my attitude seems unfair, well - ACC started it...

And yet you advocate the exact position that ACC use to put our levies up?

Motorcyclists' injuries cost more than we contribute, say ACC. Why should other road users have " to contribute to fixing up the more serious injuries likely for the above", they ask.

If you buy into the Woodhouse concept, then "it's your own fault, so you miss out" has no place.

[Ixion]

If a rider comes off on a corner and is injured, it's certainly his "own damn fault" . So, presumably, no ACC for him either ?

[MSTRS:Me]

And yet you advocate the exact position that ACC use to put our levies up?

Motorcyclists' injuries cost more than we contribute, say ACC. Why should other road users have " to contribute to fixing up the more serious injuries likely for the above", they ask.

If you buy into the Woodhouse concept, then "it's your own fault, so you miss out" has no place.

No...I simply mean that riders should take all reasonable steps to protect themselves with 'proper' gear. The type, or severity, of injury in a subsequent off will like as not be determined by the gear worn. If a rider 'refuses' to wear, say, gloves, and suffers hand injuries as a result, then they should also suffer the responsibility of paying for that injury. Personal choice shouldn't come with a price tag picked up by others.
I do draw the line at the gear stage, though. Not paying for m/c injuries is a step too far.

[Ixion]

No...I simply mean that riders should take all reasonable steps to protect themselves with 'proper' gear. The type, or severity, of injury in a subsequent off will like as not be determined by the gear worn. If a rider 'refuses' to wear, say, gloves, and suffers hand injuries as a result, then they should also suffer the responsibility of paying for that injury. Personal choice shouldn't come with a price tag picked up by others.
I do draw the line at the gear stage, though. Not paying for m/c injuries is a step too far.

Why? Once you accept the principle the extension seems inevitable. If a person "refuses" to drive a nice safe car and suffers injury as a result "then they should also suffer the responsibility of paying for that injury. Personal choice shouldn't come with a price tag picked up by others". Your choice to ride a dangerous motorcycle, instead of driving a safe car (that provides the same transport capability, and more) is a personal choice . " Personal choice shouldn't come with a price tag picked up by others". Exactly what ACC said.