Three Strikes Protest Run, 5 May

[Gearup]

Thats not a very fair comment matey
As one well experienced in organising motorcycle protest events I must say its a bit harsh to put it like that

I do however agree that the timing is not very well thought out (all due respect to me friends in MAG)

For a mid week event to go off you need a couple of months to organise and publicise, (flier drops, radio plugs, pre-protest media releases, TV time where you can get it etc etc....) and get the other like minded organisations involved as well, approach HOG, Ulysses, WIMA etc, (the National Forum of Motorcycle clubs would be a great start.)

My suggestion to all the organisers is hold off till a free weekend (eg no big sport events on) and get permission from the Speaker of the House to hold an event at Parliament, have coordinated regional events on (or close to) the same day for those outside the capital

Took well over 2 months to get the BIKEOI planned and that was an exceptional event, I dont think we will ever see those numbers again.

I still say to focus on one factor, and not such a wide spectrum, it loses its impact (I found that out in Febuary last year when 360 bikers came, and only 80 odd unionists for the UNION protest)

I'm not one to drop a comment in (unless in fun) without being able to back it up.

While you say my comment was harsh, you do agree on the timing not being well thought out and to focus on one factor.

Organisation is made up of 5 key elements/characteristics and is a bit like project management ie: Scope, budget and time but with the added human factors.

It seems to me that all the boxes weren't ticked prior to posting the thread by MAG.

For example, How long ago was this one planned?

[bogan]

Funnily enough, there isn't a 'magic bullet' single event that will fix the levies (if there was going to be I think the bikoi would have done it). So why not have a shot at a few different ideas? you could say MAG-NZ has a full clip Some of the ideas/concerns put forward in this thread are certainly worth considering, and may be applied in future events; also if you want to lead a future event log on to our forums and make it happen.

[MSTRS:Me]

I agree in principle to the demerit points component to this but the rest of it is crap. If they are going to continue with the risk based model then it has to be a better on than they currently have.

Risk based has to go...it's bullshit.
How many thousands are there out there driving/riding, who haven't had a crash or injury for years, if ever? I'm one of them, with 38 years under my belt. What sort of 'heightened risk' do I pose?

Below is an email which has been sent to all major news agencies in this country (not that I expect that any of them will run with it, they dont have the balls) which points toward some of the growing frustration I hear on a daily basis.

You're right....they won't.

I can only drive one at a time so why the hell am I penalised for having more than one. My wife and daughter both drive my vehicles yet dont pay any ACC levies for the risk they represent while driving. I ask, Is that fair??

I don't entirely disagree, but your reasoning is flawed.
The cover attaches to the vehicle, so anyone driving it is covered. You just happen to be the one paying for it. They'd be covered even if the rego was lapsed.

Should the ACC levy not be attached to the driver licence class. A class 1 licence should have the lowest fee due to the lowest risk, and, according to ACC's flawed logic, a class 6 licence should have the highest fee due to the higher risk. This would ensure that ALL motorists pay the approriate levy associated with their risk and the motor vehicle owner would be alleviated of the excessive and unfair burdon of double, tripple and sometimes mutiple dipping from ACC. This would likely increase ACC revenue as more people would be levied.

Faulty reasoning/logic there too, I'm afraid to say.
Would you want to pay (say) $500 for a yearly endorsement on your licence if you only ever drove 100kms a week? Whilst your neighbour is always on the road, does 50,000kms annually, and pays the same $500 as you? No different to now, really, as far as fair is concerned.
What about if you have a class 6, have had it for years, but no longer have a bike? If it's even possible to have an individual class removed from your licence, what if you want to keep it cos you're thinking it'd be nice to have another bike in a year or two? You don't want to go through the entire BHS, L, R + F thing again, do you?
Another problem - the bit I've bolded. How many people do you know who own multiple vehicles, yet are the sole users? I'd take a bet that there's thousands. Levies are basically set by ACC taking the yearly $ requirement and dividing it by the number of vehicles to be rego'd. So ACC would miss out on $300+ on every one of them. Since there'd by more vehicles than there are licenced users, shifting the pool of vehicle-based levies to licences would mean a huge increase across the board, hitting single vehicle owners especially badly.
I don't think so.

This has to be sorted out once and for all with a fair and equitable system introduced before the New Zealand vehicle owning public start wide spread civil disobedience and tell NZTA and ACC to get stuffed.

Absolutely!

Psst!! Put the levies on fuel.

[Little Miss Trouble]

I agree in principle to the demerit points component to this but the rest of it is crap. If they are going to continue with the risk based model then it has to be a better on than they currently have. Below is an email which has been sent to all major news agencies in this country (not that I expect that any of them will run with it, they dont have the balls) which points toward some of the growing frustration I hear on a daily basis.

I would be happy to organise a protest run in Invercargill, but my bike is on hold (and not being used) and i just got made redundant so not really of a mind to collect a fine right now. Still happy to organise it though, just not with my bike.

"Dear Sir

Perhaps you could consider a story on the ongoing and increasing rort of motor vehicle owners in this country. I draw the distinction between motorists and motor vehicle owners because there are many motorists who dont own a motor vehicle, and therefore dont pay Rego or ACC levies. Apparently non owners are not a risk and dont need to be levied. In my household there are three motorists, but only one motor vehicle owner. I have a car, a 4wd and two motorcycles (one being restored) and i pay registration and ACC on all three of them. I can only drive one at a time so why the hell am I penalised for having more than one. My wife and daughter both drive my vehicles yet dont pay any ACC levies for the risk they represent while driving. I ask, Is that fair??

Should the ACC levy not be attached to the driver licence class. A class 1 licence should have the lowest fee due to the lowest risk, and, according to ACC's flawed logic, a class 6 licence should have the highest fee due to the higher risk. This would ensure that ALL motorists pay the approriate levy associated with their risk and the motor vehicle owner would be alleviated of the excessive and unfair burdon of double, tripple and sometimes mutiple dipping from ACC. This would likely increase ACC revenue as more people would be levied.

This has to be sorted out once and for all with a fair and equitable system introduced before the New Zealand vehicle owning public start wide spread civil disobedience and tell NZTA and ACC to get stuffed.

Regards
Brian Walker"

How is that fair or equitable? I'm still paying a levy for both car and bike, when I can still only use one at a time AND I am still being unfairly discriminated against for choosing a mode of transport that differs from the 'norm.'

What you are suggesting still differs from the Woodhouse principles that ACC was founded on, one equal fee per user for communal cover.

[MSTRS:Me]

What you are suggesting still differs from the Woodhouse principles that ACC was founded on, one equal fee per user for communal cover.

As soon as a govt of the past introduced variable levies based on actual cost (in the workplace, say) the Woodhouse Principle/s were compromised.
Woodhouse proposed that everything we do carries some sort of variable risk, that some individuals would be a higher risk than others doing the same job/activity...but overall, society benefited in ways that offset any increase in costs for specific activities. Therefore - one fee fits all, for the benefit of all.

[Katman]

Woodhouse proposed that everything we do carries some sort of variable risk, that some individuals would be a higher risk than others doing the same job/activity...but overall, society benefited in ways that offset any increase in costs for specific activities. Therefore - one fee fits all, for the benefit of all.

As said before John, that sort of enlightened thinking worked well in an age gone by - when we were more inclined to consider the welfare of others.

It doesn't work in today's dog eat dog world where no-one seems to give a fuck how their actions affect others.

[MSTRS:Me]

As said before John, that sort of enlightened thinking worked well in an age gone by - when we were more inclined to consider the welfare of others.

It doesn't work in today's dog eat dog world where no-one seems to give a fuck how their actions affect others.

True. There does seem to be a lot more selfish types out there. But at the same time, what's the difference to as it was? Individuals who were injured in the course of whatever were covered and the collective whole paid an equal share of the costs. All that's happened is areas of increased cost attract a higher levy. How fair is that on the majority who partake in such an area without becoming a cost to it?
Where does one draw the line in breaking down the so-called risk within any activity?

[oneofsix]

As said before John, that sort of enlightened thinking worked well in an age gone by - when we were more inclined to consider the welfare of others.

It doesn't work in today's dog eat dog world where no-one seems to give a fuck how their actions affect others.

aren't we meant to be trying to achieve enlightenment? Therefore shouldn't we protest when selfishness takes the country in the wrong direction? Or should we just standby, watch it happen and shake our heads in sorrow?

[Katman]

aren't we meant to be trying to achieve enlightenment?

Hey, I'm doing my bit.

[MSTRS:Me]

Hey, I'm doing my bit.

Aren't we all...
Getting back to my last comment. Take the entire fleet of motorcycles, and just pretend for a minute that there are more Suzukis than any other brand. It stands to reason that there will be more Suzukis in the accident stats, right? So ACC increase the levy on Suzukis. Sounding familiar?
Or maybe every idiot out on a bike just happen to be attracted to and ride KTMs, so there is a very high crash rate for KTMs. Up go the levies just on that brand.
Ludicrous? Maybe. But it's the logical extension of what has already been set in motion re risk rating.

[Katman]

Ludicrous? Maybe. But it's the logical extension of what has already been set in motion re risk rating.

That is why the only sensible risk-rating (if we were to go down that path) is on the individual.

[MSTRS:Me]

That is why the only sensible risk-rating (if we were to go down that path) is on the individual.

Could only be managed by going to licence based levies. The huge inequities that would come from that don't bear thinking about...

[wharfy]

The whole point of National fucking with the ACC is to set it up for privatization.
They are shifting it to an insurance model. They will not take any notice of anything anyone does while they still have the numbers in parliament.
This needs to be an election issue.

I'm keen to protest, it won't change this governments mind, the best I can hope for is that some voters will notice. It's a pretty forlorn hope though, most voters have no fucking clue what the policies are and vote for the leader of the party if he looks OK on TV and can "neck a stynie round the barbie" with prince fucking William.

[bogan]

The whole point of National fucking with the ACC is to set it up for privatization.
They are shifting it to an insurance model. They will not take any notice of anything anyone does while they still have the numbers in parliament.
This needs to be an election issue.

I'm keen to protest, it won't change this governments mind, the best I can hope for is that some voters will notice. It's a pretty forlorn hope though, most voters have no fucking clue what the policies are and vote for the leader of the party if he looks OK on TV and can "neck a stynie round the barbie" with prince fucking William.

You may be right, we tried sending out a press thingumy to get some attention along those line, musta sent it to over 20 addresses, not a single reply. The union protest had a shit turnout, seems fuck all people will care until after the fact, at which point those in parliament (leadership or opposition) probably won't care

But there is most certainly still a core of bikers who care, so do what we can, when we can, and at the very least we will get noticed. And any time spent on two wheels is a good time anyway

[Spearfish]

I think the only way ACC will be based on an individuals risk is if ACC is either partly or wholly privatised or opened up to competition. (probably not ideal)
The problem then is are the small number in high risk sector going to be paying enough to cover the damage they are responsible for?
The bit that annoys me is a car can rear end me at the lights and break my leg along with a few plastic panels, my vet bill comes out of the ACC bike fund not the ACC car fund but my damaged plastic would be covered by my insurance taking money from the cars insurance company.
I cringe at privatisation but can also see the benefits...

Bring on 2016