Thank you Slippery Nick, please can we have some more?

[shrub]

Slippery Nick, the man Our Masters put in charge of ACC has been incredibly generous - aside from only increasing levies ridiculously (as opposed to astronomically), he's taking $30.00 from each of us to introduce something similar to the Victorian motorcycle safety model.

Now, I know I should be incredibly grateful to the kind Slippery Nick, and bend over appropriately, but I have a couple of problems with that.

1. $30.00 out of $170.00 is 5/8ths of F All, and will only generate $3m. I know a bit about marketing and advertising, and $3m won't even pay for the cost of communicating a new strategy, let alone implementing it. It certainly won't even begin to tell the people who cause 40% of our accidents what they should do differently.

2. All due respects to Slippery Nick and our Masters in Wellington, but I think we know a little bit about motorcycle safety - after all, I wonder how many years SN has been riding? My guess is probably about as long as I've been an astronaut. And I will stake my reputation as a dodgy bastard that SN et al are a lot less concerned about motorcycle safety than you or I.

So my problem is this: When did we get asked what we thought should happen? When were motorcyclists invited to make a submission? After all, we have people like Charley Lamb who really know their stuff and would love to help Our Masters make our lives safer, so they have no excuse.

I don't think the levies will drop as long as National are in power - after all, they made a concession that SN reckons is fair, and pollies don't back down twice, least of all pollies in a popular government. I think we're stuck with being screwed, but I think we need to demand that they kiss us and buy us dinner. If we're going to pay more, I want to get more, and I don't want to get given what Our Masters think we should have.

Any thoughts?

[spookytooth]

Yea'chocolate coated armonds are bloody nice

[oldrider]

Any thoughts?

Didn't our representatives put this to him during "consultation" in Wellington at the various Bikeoi's etc?

NS will claim it as consultation, that was always going to be a danger anyway!

[YellowDog]

There doesn't seem to be a shortage of cash to fund road safety advertisements.

Surely they can divert some of the wasted money on crap adverts to some that are more appropriate to all road users.

[BMWST?]

There doesn't seem to be a shortage of cash to fund road safety advertisements.

Surely they can divert some of the wasted money on crap adverts to some that are more appropriate to all road users.

agreed ...

[paddy]

. . .something similar to the Victorian motorcycle safety model.

Victorian in era, or Victorian as in NSW. :-)

. . . won't even pay for the cost of communicating a new strategy, let alone implementing it. . .

Yes. Definitely agree with you there. Personally, I don't see the $3M as contributing much to motorcycle safety. I'd like to see it go towards things that keep motorcycles in the public eye and legitimise them as a form of transport. Lots of signs, roadside, on buses, whatever, "Look for motorcycles" complete with the ACC logo (and whatever other government agency logos). That will be much better for us in the long run from a political lobby perspective than $3M a year spent on a rider training.

. . . It certainly won't even begin to tell the people who cause 40% of our accidents what they should do differently . . .

It also won't even begin to tell the people of cause 60% of our accidents what they should do differently.

. . . So my problem is this: When did we get asked what we thought should happen? When were motorcyclists invited to make a submission? . . .

My understanding is that this was pushed for by BRONZ and Ulyses.

Any thoughts?

We need a proper (no offence to the efforts of BRONZ and Ulyses) political lobby group that is properly resourced - both financially and from a people perspective. In fact we probably need several as different factions within the motorcycling community will have different views. The problem with that in NZ is lack of population/finance to support such lobby groups.

[NONONO]

Victorian in era, or Victorian as in NSW. :-)



Yes. Definitely agree with you there. Personally, I don't see the $3M as contributing much to motorcycle safety. I'd like to see it go towards things that keep motorcycles in the public eye and legitimise them as a form of transport. Lots of signs, roadside, on buses, whatever, "Look for motorcycles" complete with the ACC logo (and whatever other government agency logos). That will be much better for us in the long run from a political lobby perspective than $3M a year spent on a rider training.



It also won't even begin to tell the people of cause 60% of our accidents what they should do differently.



My understanding is that this was pushed for by BRONZ and Ulyses.



We need a proper (no offence to the efforts of BRONZ and Ulyses) political lobby group that is properly resourced - both financially and from a people perspective. In fact we probably need several as different factions within the motorcycling community will have different views. The problem with that in NZ is lack of population/finance to support such lobby groups.

So join BRONZ and provide the financial and human capital to make it so.

[oldrider]

So join BRONZ and provide the financial and human capital to make it so.

Plus one on BRONZ, why try to reinvent the wheel, especially when it ain't broke, just needs all the support it can get, so get in behind them!

[paddy]

So join BRONZ and provide the financial and human capital to make it so.

When I say "proper" I mean with professional lobbyists, lawyers, marketing folk, commercial fundraisers, and PR folk. Don't get me wrong, BRONZ is doing good work, but they are an amateur organisation. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. It's like amateur theatre versus professional theatre. I spent many years in amateur theatre - but it was never going to be as successful as professional theatre. The capital to achieve that is considerable. It isn't going to be supplied by individual biker donations. I'm not sure that we have the ability to support such an organisation in NZ - but if we did, it would be good.

I hope that makes sense without knocking BRONZ. That is not my intent here.

[NONONO]

So the alternative is....?
If we all join up, or as many as possible, Bronz will have considerable financial and human clout. Give it a go, it's only $20 mate.

[maxf]

When I say "proper" I mean with professional lobbyists, lawyers, marketing folk, commercial fundraisers, and PR folk. Don't get me wrong, BRONZ is doing good work, but they are an amateur organisation. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. It's like amateur theatre versus professional theatre. I spent many years in amateur theatre - but it was never going to be as successful as professional theatre. The capital to achieve that is considerable. It isn't going to be supplied by individual biker donations. I'm not sure that we have the ability to support such an organisation in NZ - but if we did, it would be good.

I hope that makes sense without knocking BRONZ. That is not my intent here.

You mean we need to get an ex-MP like the Road Transport Users Forum and from then all we do shall be coated in Teflon - we'll get special ACC dispensation to regulate ourselves, extra LTSA consideration/input for any new roading designs, etc?

I agree on the support of BRONZ - but am still considering membership, there are pros & cons (mainly I don't know much about them past Les!)... Also, re the original post to this - don't forget Mr Key himself. NS maybe the figurehead, but JK is the captain of the team and knows exactly what trials he's sending his pawns out to undertake - I know he does, I CCed him on a nice reminder to NS when all this propaganda started coming out that the stats he was supporting by standing behind NS with all this BS were total mathematical crapola, I've got a nice cookie-cutter reply from his office thanking me and referring me to NS's press releases...

I guess from all this, we really need to join the dots for the general public - the press should be doing it, but they're not (guessing conflict of interest on RWC rights / ACC/govt advertising and/or editorial control being pro-Oz & pro-privatization) eg

- abandonment of the original Woodhouse no-fault reasoning & principals
- panic to get a cash-positive business with a captive market for sale
- segmentation of risk pools to maximise bidding opportunities and/or return
- too much political control of an SOE & it's board who have legistated rights to tithe every NZer as they deem fit
- discontinuity of the SOE creating blanket levies under law, but don't call it a tax!, then claiming commercial sensitivity around the funds raised
- supporting acts - Bill English, for new bill removing requirement that principals of NZ-operating insurance companies are required to "be of good character" (sorry, NZ operators have to adhere, foreigners don't)
- Law Commission - changes to Official Information Act, proposing hiding even more under "commercial sensitivites" for SOEs

We really need to bring this lot out - and once JK feels some personal impact (his popularity? God forbid, some in-depth, awkward questions?) maybe he will realise his layers of "insulation" have failed... we definitely need to do something before we become the defacto "poor cousin" next state of Australia - owned from there, run from there but with no legal input there!

[James Deuce]

So the alternative is....?
If we all join up, or as many as possible, Bronz will have considerable financial and human clout. Give it a go, it's only $20 mate.

No it won't.

Professional lobbying is just that. You need a decent constitutional lawyer, a PR whiz, and an admin person or two who can juggle frantically without looking stressed and you need to pay them enough to keep their interest piqued.

Organisations like BRONZ can provide human capital to a professional lobby group to make a public point as required, but a professional lobby group needs to be researching and releasing data on a daily basis and needs to be unfettered from the political ideology that tends to dominate the thinking of Interest groups with the word "Rights" in their name. They need to be looking for angles in unlikely places and convincing organisations like BRONZ or VMCC to support certain campaigns over others.

[paddy]

No it won't.

Professional lobbying is just that. You need a decent constitutional lawyer, a PR whiz, and an admin person or two who can juggle frantically without looking stressed and you need to pay them enough to keep their interest piqued.

Organisations like BRONZ can provide human capital to a professional lobby group to make a public point as required, but a professional lobby group needs to be researching and releasing data on a daily basis and needs to be unfettered from the political ideology that tends to dominate the thinking of Interest groups with the word "Rights" in their name. They need to be looking for angles in unlikely places and convincing organisations like BRONZ or VMCC to support certain campaigns over others.

Thanks. That's a much more eloquent version of what I was trying to convey.

[BMWST?]

No it won't.

Professional lobbying is just that. You need a decent constitutional lawyer, a PR whiz, and an admin person or two who can juggle frantically without looking stressed and you need to pay them enough to keep their interest piqued.

Organisations like BRONZ can provide human capital to a professional lobby group to make a public point as required, but a professional lobby group needs to be researching and releasing data on a daily basis and needs to be unfettered from the political ideology that tends to dominate the thinking of Interest groups with the word "Rights" in their name. They need to be looking for angles in unlikely places and convincing organisations like BRONZ or VMCC to support certain campaigns over others.

but in the meantime BRONZ is all we have...VMCC???Not the huge organisation it once was

[NONONO]

No it won't.

Professional lobbying is just that. You need a decent constitutional lawyer, a PR whiz, and an admin person or two who can juggle frantically without looking stressed and you need to pay them enough to keep their interest piqued.

Organisations like BRONZ can provide human capital to a professional lobby group to make a public point as required, but a professional lobby group needs to be researching and releasing data on a daily basis and needs to be unfettered from the political ideology that tends to dominate the thinking of Interest groups with the word "Rights" in their name. They need to be looking for angles in unlikely places and convincing organisations like BRONZ or VMCC to support certain campaigns over others.

And who is going to employ this professional lobby group?
And when employed, professional lobby groups become "fettered" by the ideology of the employing agency.
If BRONZ had the financial capital it could employ just such an agency. But without a large membership it can not.