No Claims Bonus 2.

[dpex]

Here's my letter to Nick Smith.

Take from it wat you will but go at him. The point I make is valid and he knows it because he's agreed to apply it to business.



Dear Sir,

You have revealed what appears to be a genuine understanding of the unfairness of ACC levies in your latest announcement of what is to be more or less a no-claims bonus for business is a definite step in the right direction. Well done.

Clearly, you have come to understand that a group, per se, cannot be a defined target for levy settings. In fact it is individuals within a specific group which can be targeted. Ergo, some forestry operators are way less safe than others. And some burger-flippers are way less safe than others.

And so it is with motorists. Identified as a group one could argue they represent a significant claminant group. But the group, per se, cannot be identified. Only the individual claimants.

In my case I can assert I have never been involved in a road accident (either fault or non-fault) during the last 45 years of driving. And period includes the period up till about 1980ish when driving, pissed as a fiddler's bitch was accepted as the norm. A condition, may I add, in which I have driven many, many times prior to the institution of the DIC campaign. And still no accidents.

Whether I am a good driver or just plain damned lucky is a moot point. Let's assume a bit of each. And of course, one must accept that the many close-calls, over the years, have been a combination of my lack and the lack of others. But they remain as only close-calls.

It seems to me that 45 years of driving/riding, including God knows how many close-calls, and zero ACC motorist claims, suggests I should be rewarded for my good behaviour so long as I maintain it.

If I maintain my accident-free record for the following 12 months, surely it follows that I should be entitled to a discount on the ACC fees I pay on my motorcycle, my car, and my van; only one of which I can use at any one time.

I would be quite prepared to have my ACC fees doubled, tripled or more if, during the following 12 months I was involved in an accident which required medical attention at ACC's expense....on all three of my vehicles.

That alone would prove a useful incentive to maintain my clean record. Although, I must say I maintain my clean record because I really quite dislike being physically impoverished.

I get insurance at the least possible cost because I've never made a claim. Why can I not get the same treatment from the ACC regime, as you are proposing for business?

Remember; the 'target' groups (drivers/bikers, et al) do not represent me as regards my driving history. I represent me.

I would hasten to add that the foregoing suggestion of an ACC no-claims bonus be applied only to road use of my vehicles.

By that I mean when I race my motorcycle, or ride my dirt-bike, or ride my bycycle and crash, then all bets are off.

Mind you; at the moment, my racing motorcycle, my dirt-bike and my bicycle are not subject of specific ACC levies.

[fossil]

Here's my letter to Nick Smith.

Take from it wat you will but go at him. The point I make is valid and he knows it because he's agreed to apply it to business.



Dear Sir,

You have revealed what appears to be a genuine understanding of the unfairness of ACC levies in your latest announcement of what is to be more or less a no-claims bonus for business is a definite step in the right direction. Well done.

Clearly, you have come to understand that a group, per se, cannot be a defined target for levy settings. In fact it is individuals within a specific group which can be targeted. Ergo, some forestry operators are way less safe than others. And some burger-flippers are way less safe than others.

And so it is with motorists. Identified as a group one could argue they represent a significant claminant group. But the group, per se, cannot be identified. Only the individual claimants.

In my case I can assert I have never been involved in a road accident (either fault or non-fault) during the last 45 years of driving. And period includes the period up till about 1980ish when driving, pissed as a fiddler's bitch was accepted as the norm. A condition, may I add, in which I have driven many, many times prior to the institution of the DIC campaign. And still no accidents.

Whether I am a good driver or just plain damned lucky is a moot point. Let's assume a bit of each. And of course, one must accept that the many close-calls, over the years, have been a combination of my lack and the lack of others. But they remain as only close-calls.

It seems to me that 45 years of driving/riding, including God knows how many close-calls, and zero ACC motorist claims, suggests I should be rewarded for my good behaviour so long as I maintain it.

If I maintain my accident-free record for the following 12 months, surely it follows that I should be entitled to a discount on the ACC fees I pay on my motorcycle, my car, and my van; only one of which I can use at any one time.

I would be quite prepared to have my ACC fees doubled, tripled or more if, during the following 12 months I was involved in an accident which required medical attention at ACC's expense....on all three of my vehicles.

That alone would prove a useful incentive to maintain my clean record. Although, I must say I maintain my clean record because I really quite dislike being physically impoverished.

I get insurance at the least possible cost because I've never made a claim. Why can I not get the same treatment from the ACC regime, as you are proposing for business?

Remember; the 'target' groups (drivers/bikers, et al) do not represent me as regards my driving history. I represent me.

I would hasten to add that the foregoing suggestion of an ACC no-claims bonus be applied only to road use of my vehicles.

By that I mean when I race my motorcycle, or ride my dirt-bike, or ride my bycycle and crash, then all bets are off.

Mind you; at the moment, my racing motorcycle, my dirt-bike and my bicycle are not subject of specific ACC levies.

I guess that Mr Smith will be unlikely to move against sport riding because they are paid for from a different pool (earners and non-earners accounts) any changes to this would effect all sports not just motorcycling, it would be political suicide.

[breakaway]

Fuck em. I'm going to buy a 600 and crash twice as often. That'll learn em good.

[pete376403]

It's a nice thought but - for your idea (no claims) to work, you, not the vehicle, would have to be registered. Otherwise once you crashed and your rego went up, you'd get someone else with a clean record to register the vehicle. And once you were registered, you could have as many vehicles as you wanted, and they'd all be covered (which is how it should be, but they'll never give away that revenue stream)