MAG-NZ opposes the Motorcycle Safety Levy

[Mom]

MAG-NZ is opposed to the Motorcycle Safety Levy

MAG-NZ is opposed to the Motorcycle Safety Levy (MSL) due to the discriminatory funding model it is based on, and believes any motorcycle specific campaigns should be funded from the general account as other campaigns are. We intend to help ACC achieve their target of lowering motorcycle accidents by highlighting roads for improvement, and encouraging the provision and participation in rider training courses, for both learner and experienced motorcyclists, and reducing the severity of remaining accidents by promoting the use motorcycle friendly road furniture.

Motorcycle Action Group of New Zealand Inc, (MAG-NZ) believes that as private road users we all have a right to travel and enjoy our great country – whether we chose to drive a car, van or 4x4, or ride a motorcycle, scooter or trike – we should all be equal on our roads.

Because the MSL is based on an inequality of road users, MAG-NZ cannot support it. Additionally the ACC levy increase from which the MSL is collected is based on inconsistent and heavily manipulated statistics. The establishment of such a group undermines the "No Fault" principles on which ACC was founded, and puts the scheme in danger of becoming simply “Victim Pays”.

The MSL has been introduced along with the heavily opposed increase in levies as an additional charge; ostensibly to be channeled towards “safety initiatives”. A number of representatives from motorcycling groups are currently proposing how the funding could be spent to benefit their members and the wider motorcycling community. MAG-NZ will not have any representation in the MSL establishment group; now, or at any time in the future, due to the reasons outlined above.

MAG-NZ is currently taking action to work with local authorities and alongside regional ACC offices to provide for tangible, meaningful and measurable improvement in safety for motorcyclists. Utilising proactive, effective ACTION along with member contribution, donations and sponsorship, MAG-NZ hopes to achieve significantly more than the MSL or any other mandatory or penalty based schemes will ever be able to.

[Eyegasm]

I can understand opposing the MSL, but it aint going away. No matter how many toys you throw out of the cot. The best thing we can do is have a voice in the way it is utilised.

As the MSL team is consisted of mainly bike organisations I feel much better about where the funding will go.

[Mom]

As the MSL team is consisted of mainly bike organisations I feel much better about where the funding will go.

All well and good, but that just means they have accepted the levies and the changes that are being brought to ACC and have in fact gone back on some of their core beliefs.

It is one thing to say that there should only be one levy for all road users, quite another to help spend the unjust levy increases. Personally I dont think you can have it both ways.

[MSTRS:Me]

Besides, there's this little snippet....
Most? clubs are affiliated to MNZ. At a recent event, a club member was heard to say, and I quote, "The levy on each bike is to be spent in that bike's home region. This club wants our share of those funds."

Made me sick.

And MNZ claim to be the ultimate spokesmen for bikers, because "they have the largest membership of any bike organisation'. Really? The claim is spurious, although true. MNZ control racing in this country, and because most racers also belong to a club, such as AMCC, VMCC, PMCC etc, which are all affiliated to MNZ, giving rise to the so-called huge membership. The truth is very few individuals would go anywhere near MNZ as a representative body.

[StoneY]

The MSL is OUR funds not ACC's as set by law Anne.
You really dont understand what it is obviously.

ACC foot the entire cost of administration and process design for how the MSL will run from the general operations budget, not from the MSL itself. At great cost to, I will add.
ACC have NO say in how the MSL will be spent at all, the reps from the motorcycle community will be approving or declining the porposals that are placed before the advisory council (still being formed at ACC's cost not ours)

I have been privy to much data as of late that shows where the true cost lies in ACC's outgoings related to Biker injuries
While 250cc bikes make up 80+% of crashes, they still cost way less than the 601cc+ accidents in total outgoings - take deep breath please

Us BIG bike riders do crash at faster speed, often outside 'The Golden Hour' (eg Forgotten Highway etc) and require airlifts in many cases as opposed to being dropped off at AnE by a mate with a sprained ankle needing 2 days off work.
We also tend to be higher earners needing more time off work

While I still agree with your viewpoint on 'the core beliefes of ACC being compromised' unfortunately we are unable to repeal the levy increase, and we are unable to have it made any lower until our injury costs/frequency comes down.
Ergo, the only recourse left is to work WITH ACC and the current government (note the use of current) proactively for the current term.

At least the MSL is OURS to manage, by law, and will never be spent on such already funded systems as road improvements or enforcement, and will be channeled into education, training and genuine motorcycle related projects.
I would like to see the 30$ ring fenced become 60$ (without further increase mind you)

I agree to continue campainging to see motorcycles treated exactly as any other passneger vehicle, but reallity is it is no longer 1972 and we are no longer enjoying the priveledges of a largely welfare based support system.

I have chosen to move ahead with what we do have, and make sure the MSL is utilized as intended.

When the government changes again, maybe we can have the unfair treatment we experienced under this one turned around, untill then we should work at reducing our injury rate as best we can, and be satisfied with the gains we made from BIKEOI and Mr Macintosh's intervention to get the MSL established and protected by law, a small victory but a victory all the same.

Brent

[StoneY]

Besides, there's this little snippet....

"The levy on each bike is to be spent in that bike's home region. This club wants our share of those funds." .

Thats serious misinformation MRSTRS
It will not be spent regionally at all, and MNZ are only one of 8 organisation involved.

Myth busted have a great day

Ciao

[MSTRS:Me]

Mis-information it may be. It came directly from a respected club member (who had certain other things to say, as well). He was reporting what had 'come out of a recent get together of the MSL members'.
Something stinks, and it aint my armpits.

[Ronin]

The MSL is OUR funds not ACC's as set by law Anne.
You really dont understand what it is obviously.

ACC foot the entire cost of administration and process design for how the MSL will run from the general operations budget, not from the MSL itself. At great cost to, I will add.
ACC have NO say in how the MSL will be spent at all, the reps from the motorcycle community will be approving or declining the porposals that are placed before the advisory council (still being formed at ACC's cost not ours)

I have been privy to much data as of late that shows where the true cost lies in ACC's outgoings related to Biker injuries
While 250cc bikes make up 80+% of crashes, they still cost way less than the 601cc+ accidents in total outgoings - take deep breath please

Us BIG bike riders do crash at faster speed, often outside 'The Golden Hour' (eg Forgotten Highway etc) and require airlifts in many cases as opposed to being dropped off at AnE by a mate with a sprained ankle needing 2 days off work.
We also tend to be higher earners needing more time off work

While I still agree with your viewpoint on 'the core beliefes of ACC being compromised' unfortunately we are unable to repeal the levy increase, and we are unable to have it made any lower until our injury costs/frequency comes down.
Ergo, the only recourse left is to work WITH ACC and the current government (note the use of current) proactively for the current term.

At least the MSL is OURS to manage, by law, and will never be spent on such already funded systems as road improvements or enforcement, and will be channeled into education, training and genuine motorcycle related projects.
I would like to see the 30$ ring fenced become 60$ (without further increase mind you)

I agree to continue campainging to see motorcycles treated exactly as any other passneger vehicle, but reallity is it is no longer 1972 and we are no longer enjoying the priveledges of a largely welfare based support system.

I have chosen to move ahead with what we do have, and make sure the MSL is utilized as intended.

When the government changes again, maybe we can have the unfair treatment we experienced under this one turned around, untill then we should work at reducing our injury rate as best we can, and be satisfied with the gains we made from BIKEOI and Mr Macintosh's intervention to get the MSL established and protected by law, a small victory but a victory all the same.

Brent

So how the worm turns. The govenment tactic of absorb and redirect seems to be working well for them. What you have written above is in direct contradiction to everything you have written before.

The saying "Et tu, Brute" springs to mind.

[Eyegasm]

So how the worm turns. The govenment tactic of absorb and redirect seems to be working well for them. What you have written above is in direct contradiction to everything you have written before.

The saying "Et tu, Brute" springs to mind.

Or it could be that they were running around half-cocked with misinformation.

Also, MAG is going on about one road user levy for all But then is trying to get the road toll charges removed...

If we are to be as "One" then shouldn't we be treated as "One" not fight for dispensation from a particular part that we do not like?

[bogan]

While I still agree with your viewpoint on 'the core beliefes of ACC being compromised' unfortunately we are unable to repeal the levy increase, and we are unable to have it made any lower until our injury costs/frequency comes down.
Ergo, the only recourse left is to work WITH ACC and the current government (note the use of current) proactively for the current term.

well not with that attitude we won't! Can we still count on BRONZ to support (by encouraging members to turn up) MAG-NZ rides and rallys on this issue? Cos we certainly haven't given up.

[MSTRS:Me]

It's all about perceptions, innit?

A line from an old song comes to mind...
The working class can kiss my arse
I've got the foreman's job at last

[bogan]

Also, MAG is going on about one road user levy for all But then is trying to get the road toll charges removed...

If we are to be as "One" then shouldn't we be treated as "One" not fight for dispensation from a particular part that we do not like?

The road toll principals differ to the woodhouse principals, road tolls are based on wear and tear to the road (generally because they must pay for the build cost, or operation of said road), while the woodhouse principals are no fault and one levy for all. Road users all create wear and tear so there is no discrimination by charging some more than others, not all road users have the same accident rate/payout rate/risk factor so it is discriminatory to charge some far more than others.

I hope this answers your question, as being an MSL thread we don't want to get too sidetracked.

[Eyegasm]

The road toll principals differ to the woodhouse principals, road tolls are based on wear and tear to the road (generally because they must pay for the build cost, or operation of said road), while the woodhouse principals are no fault and one levy for all. Road users all create wear and tear so there is no discrimination by charging some more than others, not all road users have the same accident rate/payout rate/risk factor so it is discriminatory to charge some far more than others.

I hope this answers your question, as being an MSL thread we don't want to get too sidetracked.

I am not trying to sidetrack the thread, as this is about MAG opposing the MSL.

Yet what I am trying to understand is that they believe that we should be treated the
same as other road users in regards to the levy but believe we should be treated differently
in regards to road tolls.

The way I see it is that we want the pie but want to pick out the bits we do not like.

[bogan]

I am not trying to sidetrack the thread, as this is about MAG opposing the MSL.

Yet what I am trying to understand is that they believe that we should be treated the
same as other road users in regards to the levy but believe we should be treated differently
in regards to road tolls.

The way I see it is that we want the pie but want to pick out the bits we do not like.

Fair enough. I can't really put it any better than I have above, in one case there is discrimination against us, in one there is not and nor is their discrimination against others for our benefit.

[rustic101]

Because the MSL is based on an inequality of road users, MAG-NZ cannot support it. Additionally the ACC levy increase from which the MSL is collected is based on inconsistent and heavily manipulated statistics. The establishment of such a group undermines the "No Fault" principles on which ACC was founded, and puts the scheme in danger of becoming simply “Victim Pays”.

No disrespect meant in my post.

I believe MAG will be selling their members short by not being included in the future shape and direction of the MSL. A reality is it (MSL) will go ahead, there is no way it will be rolled back. How can MAG will influence or contribute from the 'outside'? You will be seen as 'just another minority'.

There is strength in unity; not just with what we are all trying to achieve but also in the message fed back to our community, which is evident in some of the misunderstanding and miscommunication I have seen, even in this thread.

MAG comment on addressing; 'lowering motorcycle accidents by highlighting roads for improvement, and encouraging the provision and participation in rider training courses, for both learner and experienced motorcyclists, and reducing the severity of remaining accidents by promoting the use motorcycle friendly road furniture'. What MAG is not addressing is rider psychology and attitudes towards safety - this is not covered off in rider training, and is a message that needs to be continually addressed.

My five cents..