Thin edge of the wedge

[Brian d marge]

Yepper, but I am not comfortable sitting back and taking this, and interestingly enough neither are many of my peers. This is biting on so many levels, and so many people are not happy in their own little sphere of reality. Imagine if we can bring a few of these groups together?

but why is it that the changes go through?

I heard the same when Roger , was slashing and burning

Stephen

[Phreak]

I bloody well knew ACC would target someone else after us. What happens if you are a doctor on a bike?

For f**k sake, its just getting ridiculous.

Someone book me a plane ticket outta here. Obviously TPTB are on 'mental leave'...

[swbarnett]

I'll happily stand up and say that I'm sick and fucking tired of paying for the repairs to fuckwits.

I'm sure I'm not the only one.

You're completely missing the whole point of ACC. The road down which you would have us travel leads inexorably to a society full of brainwashed couch potatoes who believe any movement beyond breathing and eating is just too dangerous to contemplate.

Your sensible biker is some cagers fuckwit.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

The road down which you would have us travel leads inexorably to a society full of brainwashed couch potatoes who believe any movement beyond breathing and eating is just too dangerous to contemplate.

We are there now...

[Katman]

You're completely missing the whole point of ACC. The road down which you would have us travel leads inexorably to a society full of brainwashed couch potatoes who believe any movement beyond breathing and eating is just too dangerous to contemplate.

Your sensible biker is some cagers fuckwit.

Don't be ridiculous.

The road down which I would have us travel leads to people taking responsibility for their own actions.

If someone wishes to act like a fuckwit and injures themselves in the process why the fuck should I have to pay to fix them up?

[Bass]

Don't be ridiculous.

The road down which I would have us travel leads to people taking responsibility for their own actions.

If someone wishes to act like a fuckwit and injures themselves in the process why the fuck should I have to pay to fix them up?

You ask a fair question, but at the same time I don't think that he's being ridiculous.
The definition of "acting like a fuckwit" depends so very much on the individual.
You and I are likely to be fairly closely aligned on it, but even then I'll bet that there are finer points that we won't agree on.
The consequence of that is a definition that suits the majority. It would be such a nanny one that you wouldn't even have cover for blisters on your knob during your honeymoon.

Personally, I think that the problem for us in all this, is the way that ACC was set up in the first place, despite what everyone says about getting back to the original concept.
To put it simply, ACC costs were (and mostly are) covered by employers and motorists.
The logic that is being applied to us now is that, " since employers have long been levied according to the risk that they generate, then the same should apply to motorists". It's actually not an entirely unreasonable point of view, but only if we accept the original premise that motorists and employers should pay to cover everybody.
That premise is the unreasonable part of the whole deal and I think that it was set up that way because it's relatively easy to do and easy to administer.
My problem is that I have no idea about how to attack it or what to suggest as a reasonable alternative.

[mashman]

sounds like Judge is preparing a statement just in case there's a backlash in regards to how many cases are being turned down, at ACC, because you can't be tried for the same crime twice... i mean can't get ACC cover for the same injury twice... What better way to do it than to put FINANCIAL pressure on a Dr... you did half a job the first time, you can pay for the next round of treatment... in all honesty Doctors would have be the last group of people i'd want to be under such pressure... It's insanity to even consider such a proposal...

[Katman]

The definition of "acting like a fuckwit" depends so very much on the individual.

So we are then faced with having to either define 'acting like a fuckwit' or we could simply set about reducing the prevalence of the 'fuckwit' behaviour that is costing us all dearly.

[mashman]

I'll happily stand up and say that I'm sick and fucking tired of paying for the repairs to fuckwits.

I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Of course you're not... but that attitude is a HUGE part of the problem... you seem to be missing the fact that whether people are covered by ACC or whether people have their own insurance, you still won't stop them from fucking things up, crashing cars, bikes, smoking etc... primarily because they're insured for it and they've CHOSEN to be a five minute fuckwit... i'm kinda surprised you still don't understand that yet... you're as ignorant as the government here, any entity that thinks financial penalties are the way to "control" peoples behaviours is out of their fuckin mind...

[Katman]

you're as ignorant as the government here, any entity that thinks financial penalties are the way to "control" peoples behaviours is out of their fuckin mind...

Really? Financial immunity sure as hell isn't working.

[Bass]

So we are then faced with having to either define 'acting like a fuckwit' or we could simply set about reducing the prevalence of the 'fuckwit' behaviour that is costing us all dearly.

I don't think that I have seen anyone in here who does not think that reducing the carnage is a worthy aim, although they have many different reasons for their agreement.
So, by definition then, we are all on the same team as regards the overall aim. What we are arguing about is the methods employed to achieve that aim.
You suggest that we could "simply set about reducing the prevalence", but 10 minutes reading proves that it's anything but simple.

[Katman]

You suggest that we could "simply set about reducing the prevalence", but 10 minutes reading proves that it's anything but simple.

Believe me, I'll well aware that it's anything but simple.

(This is Katman you're talking to).

[mashman]

Really? Financial immunity sure as hell isn't working.

I must have blacked out for a decade or two there, when did we have financial immunity? We pay our rego (always have), we pay our earners levy (always have)... sorry i don't see your point.

[Katman]

I don't think that I have seen anyone in here who does not think that reducing the carnage is a worthy aim, although they have many different reasons for their agreement.

And unfortunately, I think that there are a number on here who see the carnage is an acceptable cost for them to be able to ride in whatever manner they choose.

[MSTRS:Me]

I don't know about 'seeing carnage as acceptable'...but there is no doubt some who accept that there is an inherent risk to riding, which is part of the attraction.