Gareth Morgan in the Herald on ACC levies for bikers

[wide chicken strips]

No doubt ACC will be using my accident in January to wave around and say "See see.. look how much this costs."

While it might have been a bumper nudge and swearing when in a car, on a bike it was ass to the grass and permanent disability in my right arm.

Nevermind the fact that the driver of the car was ticketed on the spot by the police, for what he did that caused me to crash.

Why should I lose an ACC no claims for an accident that was proven to not have anything to do with me other than I was the victim?

As Gareth Morgan has just painfully pointed out to us whinging about being "the victim" and quoting the "No fault" provisions of the ACC Act is to perpetuate the myth about ACC. "No Fault" means that no parties involved in an accident have the need or right to sue another party in the same accident because ACC is not interested in "fault" or "blame". What ACC does have to do by law is recover the cost of the accident from the relevant user group so "No Fault' simply doesn't come into the equation!

[bogan]

Analysing motorcycle safety on a "per km" basis is quite valid. The airline industry measures flight safety by "flight miles" which is a totally fair measurement of risk versus the amount of activity undertaken.

Depends on the groupings, would the airline industry include helicopters for that stat? Military? Hang gliders? Wing suits? Cos MOTONZ though it was fair to group the scooters in with the rest of the bikes, 30% of a fleet being barely capable of doing 50kmhr, might skew the km data just a tad wouldn't you agree?

And then there's the fact that he often uses it as justification to charge us more, we are not charged by the amount of activity undertaken, so it is a useless metric there anyway.

As Gareth Morgan has just painfully pointed out to us whinging about being "the victim" and quoting the "No fault" provisions of the ACC Act is to perpetuate the myth about ACC. "No Fault" means that no parties involved in an accident have the need or right to sue another party in the same accident because ACC is not interested in "fault" or "blame". What ACC does have to do by law is recover the cost of the accident from the relevant user group so "No Fault' simply doesn't come into the equation!

Just noticed you're quoting from the beginning of the thread. Perhaps read in a bit more, this stuff has been addressed at length.

[oneofsix]

As Gareth Morgan has just painfully pointed out to us whinging about being "the victim" and quoting the "No fault" provisions of the ACC Act is to perpetuate the myth about ACC. "No Fault" means that no parties involved in an accident have the need or right to sue another party in the same accident because ACC is not interested in "fault" or "blame". What ACC does have to do by law is recover the cost of the accident from the relevant user group so "No Fault' simply doesn't come into the equation!

But only from motorist, especially motorcyclists. No cost recovery from cyclists, horse riders nor pedestrians even though one or more of those groups cost ACC more than motorcyclist.

One smells Political propaganda, where a part or small truth is taken and massaged into a big misrepresentation