TAC writeoffs in Oz

[MSTRS:Me]

So - it's too much to expect that riders take some extra steps to protect their bodies? And not pay for the privilege of their personal choice of what they wear?

[p.dath]

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.

I guess you also need to contrast that Australia has an "insurance" scheme, while NZ has a "compensation" scheme. So these comparisons aren't that valid.

In Australia if you are insuring against personal hand injuries, then of course the insurance company is going to consider what was done to mitigate that risk. They may refuse to insure you if you don't meet certain criteria, or perhaps adjust your excess.

In NZ you present at Hosipital for treatment. ACC pays for that (or rather "compensates" you) for that treatment. There is no risk to consider.

Do you see the fine difference? It is because of this difference everyone road user should be paying the same ACC fee, and co-incidentally, the same reason that pre-funding should be dropped.

[p.dath]

So - it's too much to expect that riders take some extra steps to protect their bodies? And not pay for the privilege of their personal choice of what they wear?

Ahh personal choice. I would like to think we could educate riders about the risk of riding completely stark naked, tell them about impacts and abrasion resistance, and then let them decide what extra steps they need to take to protect their bodies. I'd also like to educate them on empathy, and the impact their decisions have not only on their own personal safety, but the impacts of failure on their family, friends and other road users. Sometimes we'd all like to do something, but don't, because we realise it will hurt those who we love.

Personally, I'm pro ATGATT. But some riders feel that a pair of shorts, jandals and a T-shirt provides the protection that their naked body requires. I don't agree, but do I have the right to enforce my ideology on them? I think not.

But there is a fine line, where doing absolutely nothing becomes fatally reckless. So we do have some legislation, such as you must wear helmets. I personally think there is huge evidence about the life saving qualities of Helmets (and let me cite the example of Texas and what happened there when they made helmet use optional). For me, it's the "life saving" bit combined with the activity having a high probability of death that says we have reached the point of legislation being needed. Hence I support the mandatory wearing of helmets.

[MSTRS:Me]

I guess you also need to contrast that Australia has an "insurance" scheme, while NZ has a "compensation" scheme. So these comparisons aren't that valid.

In Australia if you are insuring against personal hand injuries, then of course the insurance company is going to consider what was done to mitigate that risk. They may refuse to insure you if you don't meet certain criteria, or perhaps adjust your excess.

In NZ you present at Hosipital for treatment. ACC pays for that (or rather "compensates" you) for that treatment. There is no risk to consider.

Do you see the fine difference? It is because of this difference everyone road user should be paying the same ACC fee, and co-incidentally, the same reason that pre-funding should be dropped.

In 1973, you were injured, presented yourself to A+E and were treated/fixed, no cost to you...the hospital paid from their general taxation allocation.
Then - If your injuries were someone else's fault, you sued them for loss of income/cost of modifying your home etc. This process was often/mostly not ideal, so we got ACC. And all was well again in Godzone.
Then the bludgers/politicians started in on their thing...and we got to where we are now.
Returning to the Woodhouse principles is the only thing that will stop NZ going back to pre-1974 days. But realistically, some things have gone too far to change back. And taking personal responsibility is one of them.
IMHO.

[mashman]

So - it's too much to expect that riders take some extra steps to protect their bodies? And not pay for the privilege of their personal choice of what they wear?

Nope, absolutely not, but personally, i wouldn't condone the punishement you're talking about, it's a slippery slope that one... Something a little less extreme maybe, like a kick in the bollocks, or a removal of bike for a month, public flogging, anything that would make them "pay" for and remember their mistake...

[p.dath]

Returning to the Woodhouse principles is the only thing that will stop NZ going back to pre-1974 days. But realistically, some things have gone too far to change back. And taking personal responsibility is one of them.
IMHO.

Let me put my rose coloured glasses on, that helps me to only see good.

Things haven't not gone too far. All we need to do is abandon pre-funding, and consequently, risk ratings.

There has always been a need for personal responsibility. I don't honestly think any person would like to spend 8 months recovering from a severe gravel rash injury. And people need to take personal responsibility if they don't want this to happen (or any other of a zillion injuries).

I suspect a lot of our issue is education. If new riders got to see a human body stripped of 80% of its flesh from gravel; if they got to see the gravel being scrubbed out, and the pain and suffering that followed; if they got to see a foot rotated off the leg because of a lack of boots; do you perhaps think they might make different decisions?

I guess if I had to some it up - you can only reasonably expect people to exercise personal responsibility if they know the risks for their actions that they have to take responsibility for.

[MSTRS:Me]

One assumes that they will be paying in extra levels of pain. And perhaps will learn from that in the future. But the rest of 'us' shouldn't have to provide to coin to cover the cost of what they 'could' have avoided? Perhaps we should...once. But not for repeats...

[MSTRS:Me]

I guess if I had to sum it up - you can only reasonably expect people to exercise personal responsibility if they know the risks for their actions that they have to take responsibility for.

Fair enough too...for teenagers.

[p.dath]

One assumes that they will be paying in extra levels of pain. And perhaps will learn from that in the future. But the rest of 'us' shouldn't have to provide to coin to cover the cost of what they 'could' have avoided? Perhaps we should...once. But not for repeats...

Well, you can only have a fatality once. And from all the posts I have read on here, those that ave non fatal injuries the first time never want a second time to happen.

[Pascal]

Can I just pay for my own cover, please? No ACC and I would not expect them to treat me or any of my family for free. We'd like to talk to our Insurance brokers and get them to cover our costs, then they can charge me whatever they think is a reasonable fee given the level of risk I'm willing to put myself to. And yeah, I'd expect then to pay more because I'm on a bike, but I'd also expect to pay less than some because I am ATGATT and do take the appropriate safety courses.

I'd much rather accept responsibility for myself and mine, rather than having to accept responsibility for a bunch of other people.

[p.dath]

Can I just pay for my own cover, please? No ACC and I would not expect them to treat me or any of my family for free. We'd like to talk to our Insurance brokers and get them to cover our costs, then they can charge me whatever they think is a reasonable fee given the level of risk I'm willing to put myself to. And yeah, I'd expect then to pay more because I'm on a bike, but I'd also expect to pay less than some because I am ATGATT and do take the appropriate safety courses.

I'd much rather accept responsibility for myself and mine, rather than having to accept responsibility for a bunch of other people.

That's what NZ used to have, and it was havoc, which is why a royal commission of inquiry was commissioned to resolve that issue. The inquiry created what was known as the Woodhouse Report. It was very comprehensive, and surveyed the world looking for solutions. I'd suggest you take a read if you want to know how severe the problems were at the time.

The resulting solution was the creation of ACC, which even now, is considered a world leading solution. I guess we don't know how good we really have it - till you look outside your own forest of trees and see how bad some other people have it.

If you want an example of what private accident insurance is like, check out the USA. And then ask yourself how come Barrack Obama is currently looking at the NZ model of doing things.

[Pascal]

If you want an example of what private accident insurance is like, check out the USA. And then ask yourself how come Barrack Obama is currently looking at the NZ model of doing things.

I've only been in NZ for the last ... oh ... 10 years or so roughly so yes, I haven't got the depth of historical knowledge about details like that. Have heard about Woodhouse though

I don't disagree with ACC. I simply want the choice to go my own way.

[p.dath]

I've only been in NZ for the last ... oh ... 10 years or so roughly so yes, I haven't got the depth of historical knowledge about details like that. Have heard about Woodhouse though

I don't disagree with ACC. I simply want the choice to go my own way.

Alas one of the five principles of the Woodhouse report is that as the community is the benefactor of ACC then all in the community must contribute equally.

Another one of the five principles is that the scheme must be administrationally efficent (aka, not waste money running it). Woodhouse did look at the possibility of differential premiums, but concluded that the administrative cost exceeded the benefit, and hence violated the administrative efficiency principle.
No point introducing something that saves 10% of users money, and everyone else has to pay the accountants more to track it.

[MSTRS:Me]

I don't disagree with ACC. I simply want the choice to go my own way.

The whole point of ACC (under Woodhouse) was that it took away our choice/s. It's strength lay in the fact that everybody was treated equally. But not any more.
We want it back.
And I think that we, as individuals, owe a duty of care to the other contributors to minimise whatever risk we choose to subject ourselves to. Such as gearing-up, when riding...

[Ixion]

So - it's too much to expect that riders take some extra steps to protect their bodies? And not pay for the privilege of their personal choice of what they wear?

Not necessarily. But you CAN'T have that with a Woodhouse scheme. Woodhouse depends absolutely on being "no fault". As soon as you say "if you do / don't do X then you have no cover" then you have to revert to an insurance scheme.

Consider. You say that if I don't wear gloves , I don't get cover for hand injuries. But, then, I am sitting on my scooter at the lights, minding my own business. And a drunken millionaire driver running from the cops plows into the back of me. My hands are injured. No ACC. You had better believe that I am going to be DEMANDING the right to sue that guy. And indeed, I can. ACC Act is clear - if there is no ACC cover , I regain the right to sue. So, you and me (as well as millionaire drunk) are going to need private third party cover. As well as private first party cover, to cover those hand injuries (which means that my insurance company will ALSO be demanding the right to sue) . At this point, ACC becomes irrelevant. No point in it .

So, over to you. Choose Woodhouse. Or choose insurance. But you can't have both