Ongoing ACC protest actions - discussion thread

**Subike** · 25th March 2010, 10:21

Pervention and education
Are these not the two objectives that ACC would get on board with if there was a medium to bring this directly to riders?
In a way that they would accept as not being in contradtction to their right to personal choice?
What if?
Instead of discussing the pros and cons of all the aspects of rider saftey, skill, cost factors, statistics and injury prevention..
Could we be more pro active and collectivly produce a quality teaching aid for All riders that the ACC could fund, Goverment support and the TSL could distribute.
A simple interactive DVD
Issued to new riders upon applying for their learners
Posted to licenced riders with thier registration renewal forms.
DVD?

Reduce the accedent rate first, levies next!
There are thousands of hours of vidios and discusions on the web showing...
how to ride a bike safley and dangerously, footage of dangerous riding, and safe riding i.
how to reconise road dangers , such as pea shingle, tar snakes, and footage of what damage they can cause.
how to avoid accidents and what dose happen, not what might happen, footage of simple error accedents?
what protective gear is recomended to wear
Vidio footage of acual accedents showing injury caused by not wearing any saftey gear, some saftey gear, full saftey gear..
how to load you bike for touring, what over loading, unbalanced loads, can do on the road.
how to do basic maintenance , and show how a deflated tyre or loose chain can cause injury
who to contact for advanced training in NZ
where and how to make a claim when and if an incident happens.

I dont think it takes much to inmagine how this could be put togeather, if I, an uneducated can conceive the idea.

It would be designed as a tool for education for all, including those who have little understanding of the art of "riding to survive"
especially those who make the rules.

If such a DVD was to come from a Govt source, it would most likley be ignored and would be one sided.
If it was produced and presented as coming from fellow riders,
Then I am sure that it would reach a high percentage of riders who may never otherwise think about these things.
The information can be ignored or taken up, at the choice of the viewer.
It could be made as a serries inside the DVD, which could be used by television as a mini serries.
It could be used by so many as an education tool.

AND

If it came from us, was accepted, used, distibuted.
THEN WE ARE MAKING A DIFFERENCE.

instead of just talking.

**FatHead** · 27th May 2010, 13:40

Had a bit of a brain wave while I was stopped behind a truck and a large SUV that wouldn't allow enough room for me to filter through.

I wondered if the next target of ACC on our roads would be the large SUV's drivn by Soccer mums and the like. From what I have read previously they are less than terrific when it comes to road statistics and although since I read that info they have no doubt become more agile on the road as soon as you get one of those hitting your average corolla size shopping cart even at 50kph there is going to be one side that comes off better.

My point being maybe we should do as our adversary is doing and divide and conka, target any new efforts on the "Your Next" front at our 4WD/AWD fleet. I dont see that any of them is going to want to spend more on rego just because they choose to drive a vehicle that protects them and theirs but causes serious grief to the majority of the rest of the fleet when there is an incident.

And yes I did think about ANCAP crash test type ratings ut they are harder to recognise than SUV's if we are going to apply window flyers.

**CrAzYMoFo** · 31st May 2010, 00:07

Originally Posted by caseye

Theres always ONE aye MSTRS?
bloody rasim fasim baldy Birds.
LOL too true mate, it is the "sliding" scale .
I've lamented the lack of gear worn by many only to be told that they're big boys(and girls) an if they wanna play without protective gear they will.
If there was one thing wrong with ACC as it stood, it's the complete absence of blame with regards to prevention of injury on the part of the victims and protagonists.
In other words if you wore all the gear and got hurt, no worries.
Didn't have protective trou lost a leg, OK, well um,l cover for all other injuries sustained but not for the leg.WHY, simple, encourage the rider to wear the right type of clothing.
Yes, I know, with or without protective gear some are going to be so badly hurt that it won't matter.
What matters , IS that they made an effort to prevent! In which case they are covered completely.
Might be hard initially to ascertain if gear of any sort was used, but once a way is found to determine that, it should only be a matter of, yes protective gear was in use, claim OK'd, no it wasn't claim paid on injuries prevented by use of gear but not where it was not in use.
This is a touchy subject, but what is upsetting me is the number of people who think it is a right to travel on our roads unprotected and be looked after, without lifting a finger to help themsleves first.
It's not just us motorcyclists, take a look at the dumbarses riding pushbikes wearing LYCRA suits, um they stop what happening to the wearer?
Car drivers, no seat belts!
The list goes on.

problem with this approach is that if u take this way bikes are more "risky" than cars so u are putting yourself at more risk by riding one

and then theres the difference between cars as well .... if ur in a old " clanker " or a cheep modern car that dose not have the maximum safety rating then you are putting yourself at risk too

fact is you can always be safer .... you could go live in a bubble in a park somewhere as most accidents occur at home..... or you could just shoot yourself here and now and then nothing can injure you

ya cant draw a line in the sand and say this is a reasonable amount of protection cause who knows where the hell to draw it

and for the record i wear full leathers

**caseye** · 31st May 2010, 07:23

I agree, drawing a line in the sand is difficult at the best of times.
Sooner or later though someone is going to do it. Regardless of their qualification or experience to do so.
If it's not one of us or "ALL" of us pushing it, then for sure it's going to be a total balls up.
My "suggestion" was just that, it's provoked some debate and some antagonisim, I'm not worried about the antagonists, they'll still be sitting on thier hands, saying "it can't be done that way" while SOMEONE makes the decisions (right or wrong) to do something about the appalling rate of single motorcycle accidents in which the rider/s were seriously hurt, as much by the fact of the accident happening at all as by the amount of protective gear they may or may not have been wearing at the time.
I would rather be thrashing out some sort of proactive, encouraging system of positive ( yes that means automatically that theres a negative aspect) accident prevention than simply bemoaning the facts as they stand right now.
Motorcyclists v road = road wins HEAVILY if the rider/s are wearing none or minimal protective gear.
" " " " " " " = road wins but not by nearly as much, if the rider/s are wearing all or as much safety gear as they can.

for the record, I wear a good quality (yes price was a factor) leather jacket ,leather Q moto full SP (ouch, but oh so comfy) gloves. I now use a bell full face helmet,either rhino jeans or full leather trou depending on how far I'm going, traffic and road conditions.
I also cary a pretty comprehensive first aid kit, a not bad array of tools, 2 hi vis vests, wet weather trou and a couple of balaclava's/head warmers as a matter of course.Oh and the tyre repair kit.

**Fatt Max** · 1st June 2010, 18:09

I am battling ASB /AIG with regards to their policy of protective clothing being grouped with normal clothing. I have asked them twice now to give me the policy definitions of 'clothing' and so far they have declined. They also back tracked when I suggested that their policy penalises people who take responsibility for their own safety and in addition, supports bikers wearing sub standard or cheap gear because they deppreciate protective clothing......apart from crash helmets that is. When I said that they are ok with saving a responsible biker from a head injury but not from broken arms, shoulders etc etc, the phone went very quiet.

Anyway, ongoing battle with a bastard corporate scumbag and I'm loving it.

I am now starting to get some perspective about my accident on 10th May 2010. I have had conversations with the police, medical people, witnesses etc. When I hit the car (and I was travelling at 40km/hr, just for the record) I was thrown 8ft into the air (as per the witness statements) abd landed on my right shoulder smack on the road. The armour in my IXON jacket shattered on impact and saved me, as did the elbow, forearm and backplate armour. After rolling for about 5 metres, I then skidded on my head for another 5 or so. My lid stayed on because I had one with a good quality clasp and of the correct fit. I was also lucky that my bike pants took the brunt of the skate resulting in a small 20mm rip in my jeans.

I am fucking lucky that I got away with the injuries I got away with. I attrinute my luck to the gear I was wearing which saved me from much, much worse. I was doing 40km / hr. Tonight, as I was driving home along greasy roads after todays rain, I was passed by at least 3 scooters with riders wearing business suits, a chick in a skirt and some crazy dude in shorts.

My point here I suppose is that wearing the gear saves injuries and lives. There is no excuse not to wear it unless you want to injure yourself or worse. I am right behind the 'gear up' message if that is what we are saying.

Of course, all the gear doesnt matter diddly if you ride like a dick, and that is the other side of the coin. It is a long hard road to educate the masses but it's as much relevant and important as kicking the ACC levies up the arse. We have to look after oursleves kiddy winks.

Bottom line is, for me, that I have met and grown to like and respect so many people through KB, I dont want to be without any of them.....and I fucking mean that my lovelies.....

**caseye** · 4th June 2010, 07:43

What Mark just said!
Two sides to every coin.
Dick heads don't just ride bikes, some of em pilot scooters, pushbikes, cars and trucks.
We should be involved in our own destiny.
We need to do it before the gubbermint do.
LUCK With the ASB my bruver.

**Corse1** · 4th June 2010, 08:03

Sure the fees have gone up and after reading the "Casual Factors in Multiple Vehicle Accidents involving Motorcycles: An Analysis of New Zealand 2008 Accident Data" document, the ACC and Government have screwed us big time.......but I am more interested in the injustice for people who own more than one bike. Surely you can only ride one at a time so why pay double ACC fees compared to single bike owners? There is no greater risk.
In Melbourne they can claim that compnent of the rego back if owning more than one bike. The liklihood of reducing fees is extremely remote now that they have passed and put into law.

**Conquiztador** · 7th June 2010, 00:15

Originally Posted by Corse1

Sure the fees have gone up and after reading the "Casual Factors in Multiple Vehicle Accidents involving Motorcycles: An Analysis of New Zealand 2008 Accident Data" document, the ACC and Government have screwed us big time.......but I am more interested in the injustice for people who own more than one bike. Surely you can only ride one at a time so why pay double ACC fees compared to single bike owners? There is no greater risk.
In Melbourne they can claim that compnent of the rego back if owning more than one bike. The liklihood of reducing fees is extremely remote now that they have passed and put into law.

Nothing more to see here. Too late. Life goes on and we get on with paying the bills.