Kiwirider: Gareth Morgan's ACC position

[Katman]

Like I've said before, society was a very different place back when Woodhouse was a cowboy.

[p.dath]

Surely only those that crash a lot and cost the rest of us money at the moment will be against any personal style of ACC cover. I would have earnt a lifetime no claim bonus long ago if it had been like that, but instead at our peak me and Mrs merv were paying ACC levies on 15 vehicles between us, costing a fortune at the time, but we rationalised the fleet before it cost the megafortune it otherwise would have today.

Back before ACC when there was only personal income cover, it cost about 30% more than ACC. Also, which is once of the reasons why the Royal Commission was created, was that insurance companies routinely declined to payout on serious claims, forcing their clients to take them to court. However these claims often failed to complete the court process - because the people were seriously injured and unable to complete the process - or died waiting to get money to pay for the treatment they needed.

[p.dath]

... but if this was a proper insurance scheme I would have my own personal cover based on my personal record, no one else's, and it would be way less than I pay now through rego, that I do know.

History says otherwise - but alas we have to wait for the future to prove if you are correct.

There was nothing in place before ACC ... insurance companies would not have a bar of it!

The original Woodhouse concept worked until it got choked up with debt and subsequent political interference and tinkering!

Before ACC was the "Workers Compensation Act 1967". Basically, creating a way to make private accident insurance work better. The problem was, it didn't. It worked much like how it does in the US. Everyone, apart from the insurance companies, considered it a failure, and we then moved onto ACC.


In short, we have it *really good*. We just don't recognize this.

[Katman]

In short, we have it *really good*. We just don't recognize this.

In short, we have managed to turn 'having it really good' into 'taking the piss' and we're doing a really good job of it.

[merv]

Nah, when the rego for any of my bikes was under $200 and similar to that for a car it was OK with me, but now it does piss me off when it seems I am now paying for too may miscreants just because I like bikes.

[scott411]

what gets me about his articles is the fact he is not willing to fight for the unfairness that only motorcyclists are being targeted to pay their fair share, young drivers have more ACC claims but do not have to pay more than older drivers, cyclists have a heap of ACC claims but pay nothing,

It seems like he is there to justify the increase to us,

[Flip]

He was appointed by ACC not the motorcycle community.

Mr Morgan is representing the interests of himself and the National Goverment.

[sleemanj]

The trouble is, this is a "religious argument".

On the one hand we have (left wing socially liberals) say that everybody should chip in to a consolidated fund based on their ability to do so. Those who can contribute more, should, those that can't should not be disadvantaged. This is what ACC was supposed to be.

And on the other, we have (right wing socially conservatives) say that everybody should pay their own way, if you can't afford to pay your insurance/medical, then why should they have to pay for you. This is what some want ACC to be.

Presently ACC is somewhere in the middle of the two but being dragged further towards the conservative end of the spectrum.

Then we have people's often mistaken ideas about insurance, short memories, ideal worlds, and inter-societal economic blindness ("everybody I know can afford [insert thing a group of society can't afford here] so I don't see the problem" and vice versa), put these all together and we have a complete impasse in getting an agreement.

This is why at each switch of government between left, and right simplistically, we have a change in the direction of ACC.

Gareth Morgan is right wing socially conservative, I think that in motorcyclists there are more than an expected proportion in his camp than against it (really just going by the discussions here over the years on ACC and other topics), I don't quite know why though.

Personally, I am his polar opposite, I would like to see ACC funded completely as a part of income tax just like the rest of our national expenditure is funded, add a couple of percent to income tax rates and that would probably cover it pretty well.

[MSTRS:Me]

Gareth Morgan is right wing socially conservative, I think that in motorcyclists there are more than an expected proportion in his camp than against it (really just going by the discussions here over the years on ACC and other topics), I don't quite know why though.

Because motorcycling is no longer a poor man's sport, nor is it the poor man's choice of cheap transport.

[James Deuce]

Gareth Morgan is right wing socially conservative, I think that in motorcyclists there are more than an expected proportion in his camp than against it (really just going by the discussions here over the years on ACC and other topics), I don't quite know why though.

Because owning a motorcycle requires a certain level of income, and that level of income tends to achievable by the right-wing socially conservative. A motorcycle is a lot more expensive to run, per kilometer, than a car. Anyone who thinks they are cheap transport is barking mad.

[Howie]

that level of income tends to achievable by the right-wing socially conservative. A motorcycle is a lot more expensive to run, per kilometre, than a car. Anyone who thinks they are cheap transport is barking mad.

Interesting statements those. As Motorcycling can be a lot cheaper than a car per/km. The price per km depends on what sort of bike, and what you expect from it.

Many years ago I used a CX400E brought for not a lot as a commuter bike it was very cheap to run, Economic on fuel, change the oil regularly myself, fit touring type tyres. shaft drive so no chain maintenance etc, cheaper/free parking during the day, and 3rd party insurance. It lasted for about 6 years while supporting a young family.

Motorcycling can be cheaper per km than a car if you want it to be, it all depends on what you want out of it.

Why do we have so many scooters appearing on the roads these days if not that the cost/benefit ratio is good?

[MSTRS:Me]

Many years ago ...

Agreed. It was cheap many years ago. Not anymore.

And scooters have never been classed as motorbikes - so they don't count.

[Howie]

Agreed. It was cheap many years ago. Not anymore.

And scooters have never been classed as motorbikes - so they don't count.

It still can be cheap, depends on how you set yourself up, and what you expect from your bike.

I know of one person who rides a early 2000's DR650 as a commuter bike, runs cheaper brand road tyres on it, and rides it probably 50-60 km per day, and that’s all he does with it. It'll probably last many more years in that role. Cheap transport from a bike is possible.

Scooters are lumped in with Motorcycles for registration purposes, if over 50cc, or capable of more than 50km/h. see
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicle/clas...rds/class.html

[James Deuce]

I'll expand on that a bit more - People who use a motorcycle as cheap transport will achieve their goal. The vast majority of motorcycle owners who ride on the road in NZ, are reasonably affluent, or are sacrificing a lot to keep a bike on the road. The shift over the last 20 years to 17" wheels and a 120/70, 180/55 pairing has done more than anything to to make motorcycling expensive, along with grippy tyre compounds. As much as you'd like to think so, you don't need that sort of rubber on the road, especially when it only last 3-4000 kms and costs the better part of $800 to replace.

If you're not into sportsbikes or sporting nakeds and sports tourers, then you're riding a particular brand of cruiser and spending a bit on other accessories. The core of motorcycling has moved from C90s being ridden to work to weekend toys that cost lots to buy, insure, run and accessorise.

Scooters and motorcycles are two different things.

[MSTRS:Me]

I'll expand on that a bit more -

Scooters and motorcycles are two different things.

I've condensed your post a little...

Scooters are designed as small, short distance commuters and this is what they are used for. They rarely, if ever, double as one's tourer (for instance).

Pre-80s and the advent of the used jap import, all forms of 2 wheels were cheap, relatively speaking. Since then, cars have become so much cheaper, and near-enough everything involved with running a PTW has gone up exponentially. Which is where Jim and I are coming from. Motorcycling can be cheaper than 4 wheels, but it does take a very narrow choice of bike and a lot of commitment from the rider.