MAG NZ Taking Action

[bogan]

Maybe if you ever get knocked off through the fault of someone else and get injured you will have enough time to understand why it isn't shit. My idea is not user pays but those at fault paying more. What you dont seem to get is ACC have classed all motorcyclists at fault for owning a bike and not a car and by being knocked off through the fault of someone else I am sure your thinking will change. Or you have more money than sense?

Why? in the current system that is all paid for, how is your shit idea any sort of improvement?

What you don't seem to get, is that the cost of implementing such a retarded system makes it unappealing for society as a whole. What you don't seem to get is people who crash don't think they are at risk (you are a perfect case in point crashinna); your terrible idea does nothing to reduce the number of accidents, but does increase the total burden to society for those that do happen.

[swbarnett]

So kind of like the whole village putting in for when the village idiot hurts himself again and again and again just so when I hurt myself there is some coin for my treatment.This of course was my point.

Misfortune does tend to visit the slow of mind more often does it not?.

I do understand how and why ACC works.

Fair enough. I didn't read this from your post (possibly me being dim).

My feeling is that I'd far rather pay repeatedly for the odd village idiot than put up with what is required to weed them out. I heard a corporate CEO once say that he'd far rather have 1% of his workforce doing nothing to earn their salary than deal with the fallout from the level of accountability and surveillance required to stop them.

[RGVforme]

Fair enough. I didn't read this from your post (possibly me being dim).

My feeling is that I'd far rather pay repeatedly for the odd village idiot than put up with what is required to weed them out. I heard a corporate CEO once say that he'd far rather have 1% of his workforce doing nothing to earn their salary than deal with the fallout from the level of accountability and surveillance required to stop them.

Good point.Each way someone will have to cover the cost I guess.

Perhaps a better way to cover the cost fairly and the valid point ACC has about lack of protection on motorcycles is a RUC based system like trucks?.

The bigger CC rating the more you pay thing does not make sense when it comes to being slammed into by a car but does when it comes to speed=risk=damage.

If I only ride my 650 four times a year and Timmy two toes in Auckland rides his every day to work but we both pay the same high cost in rego am i not covering his increased exposure to injury he is putting himself in just to cover myself?.

If he has to prepay for more kms to ride than I do but with the same lower base rego fee would this be a fair way to offset the difference in exposure to injury between us but still feed the coffers to cover us both to the fault of others?.

Or perhaps there is simply not enough bikes on the road doing enough kms to make this work.

[Akzle]

it comes to speed=risk=damage.

except it doesnt.

[Moi]

... My feeling is that I'd far rather pay repeatedly for the odd village idiot ...

Unfortunately, there seems to be more than the "odd" village idiot riding bikes.

Good point.Each way someone will have to cover the cost I guess.

Perhaps a better way to cover the cost fairly and the valid point ACC has about lack of protection on motorcycles is a RUC based system like trucks?.

The bigger CC rating the more you pay thing does not make sense when it comes to being slammed into by a car but does when it comes to speed=risk=damage.

If I only ride my 650 four times a year and Timmy two toes in Auckland rides his every day to work but we both pay the same high cost in rego am i not covering his increased exposure to injury he is putting himself in just to cover myself?.

If he has to prepay for more kms to ride than I do but with the same lower base rego fee would this be a fair way to offset the difference in exposure to injury between us but still feed the coffers to cover us both to the fault of others?.

Or perhaps there is simply not enough bikes on the road doing enough kms to make this work.

This would certainly fall within the user pays concept which has been talked about else where.

However, although the daily commuter rider is exposed to a greater chance of being involved in an accident because they are on the road more than the rider who rides occasionally, I would question whether the occasional rider is less likely to be involved in an accident. Why? The commuter is more aware and more vigilant when riding - they feel more 'at home' in the traffic - and it is possible they are less likely to be surprised by something unusual happening [but then again they might be because the ride in auto-pilot mode] than the occasional rider who has not honed their skills to the same level as the commuter. The occasional rider is, possibly, less aware and less vigilant about the traffic round them and what is happening and is taken by surprise when something unusual, or perhaps not so unusual, happens.

Whether the fees were collected through a RUC based method or through, say, a licence method which provided for non-continuous licences that could be paid for for just when it is required could be worked out if the authorities were prepared to adopt a method like this.

As has also been said else where, motorcycles are an easy target for the ACC - imagine the screams of horror if the same graduated fees were applied to motor vehicles?

[nerrrd]

None of these whizz-bang user-pays risk-assessment systems are ever going to be fair to everyone because there are too many variables in the real world, so there always has to be compromise (well maybe when quantum computing goes mainstream...)

Which is why the original ACC idea was the 'fairest' in my opinion - everybody pays the least amount possible regardless of risk.

But the insurance companies and their politician shareholders (of all persuasions) won't have it.

[Moi]

None of these whizz-bang user-pays risk-assessment systems are ever going to be fair to everyone because there are too many variables in the real world, so there always has to be compromise (well maybe when quantum computing goes mainstream...)

Which is why the original ACC idea was the 'fairest' in my opinion - everybody pays the least amount possible regardless of risk.

But the insurance companies and their politician shareholders (of all persuasions) won't have it.

Agree, no system under the present regime of ACC will be fair, there will always be winners and losers - and those who milk the system...

Plus a big tick for the rest of your post, we have been seen off and I am sure that the original scheme would never get past the "think tank" in today's politics.

[swbarnett]

Perhaps a better way to cover the cost fairly and the valid point ACC has about lack of protection on motorcycles is a RUC based system like trucks?.

For my money there's only one way to fairly fund ACC and that's from the general tax take. That way we all pay pro-rata based on income.

I'm quite happy to pay my fair share to keep the general populace healthy. Helping the unfortunate recover is of benefit to all.

[Big Dog]

Perhaps the perceived unfairness has more to do with the slackers who actively don't pay but still collect while there are long term over payers who get denied claims?

Weekend rider who thinks ACC a rort goes for a ride on his bike that is on hold, just as he has every other weekend for the 3 years is been on hold. Smashes his pride and joy into a lamp pay pretending to be Valentino Rossi he still gets a bed in hospital on ACC. He still gets some of his recovery time funded by ACC. He still gets the best surgeons money can buy on ACC.
Meanwhile NZ is littered with self employed with long histories of paying more than most who then get denied for various claims.

I have no doubt that in my life time I will have consumed more ACC than I have paid before I go in the ground. (As related to this conversation very little in relation to motorcycle related injury vs levies collected via registration probably about even.)

This obviously means others will have the balance sheet the other way.

I don't object to paying.
I object to shirkers.
I object to being singled out when there are far more dangerous hobbies that are not.

I am in favour of making motorbikes the sane as cars and applying the deficit to fuel. You can't shirk that and it would encourage people to be more frugal with our limited resources. I am also in favour of businesses being able to offset the additional burden from their ACC charge.

Sent via tapatalk.

[bogan]

So you dont want those at fault bearing a greater financial burden then? Well your idea is shit. Have you never considered that fines for going over the speed limit as an example provide motivation for many to stay within it? Now applying this to those at fault with ACC could have the same effect could it not? You forget ACC already imposes fines for those at fault but so far it only applies to industrial accidents so it would hardy be as complex as you think to apply fines to those at fault in road accidents as well. Be honest you are just in fear of being at fault eh?

No, I don't. But in your system they wouldn't anyway cos they'd just register their vehicle in somebody else's name. So you'd just drive up the price for all registrations to compensate for your impotent 'at-fault' levy addition. Fucking well done you

Speeding fines is a rubbish example because it is the only disincentive not to speed. Having a crash is already a disincentive not to crash. And lets face it, there are far more incidents of speeding than there are crashing, so fines don't work.

I couldn't give a fuck what shit ideas ACC already does; just like I couldn't give a fuck the UK are already implementing the only remotely logical version of this crap you are spouting.

Again, you're just so far off the mark it's almost stopping being funny. I couldn't give a fuck what the financial implications for me personally are with such a scheme; this is why your arguments are consistently horrendously shit, you lack the ability to think outside yourself; it's also why you keep having so many accidents.

[bogan]

If you only ride 4 times a year it could be more economical to just hire a bike. Some on here have said you can get single day registrations by filling out a special form. The risk of getting caught on 4 days a year could be worth taking too.

It's been worth it for 100 days a year, 4 is nothing.

[swbarnett]

Perhaps the perceived unfairness has more to do with the slackers who actively don't pay but still collect while there are long term over payers who get denied claims?

Weekend rider who thinks ACC a rort goes for a ride on his bike that is on hold, just as he has every other weekend for the 3 years is been on hold. Smashes his pride and joy into a lamp pay pretending to be Valentino Rossi he still gets a bed in hospital on ACC. He still gets some of his recovery time funded by ACC. He still gets the best surgeons money can buy on ACC.
Meanwhile NZ is littered with self employed with long histories of paying more than most who then get denied for various claims.

I have no doubt that in my life time I will have consumed more ACC than I have paid before I go in the ground. (As related to this conversation very little in relation to motorcycle related injury vs levies collected via registration probably about even.)

This obviously means others will have the balance sheet the other way.

All of which is solved in one fell swoop if ACC where to be funded through the general tax take.

[Big Dog]

Yes indeed.

Sent via tapatalk.

[RGVforme]

except it doesnt.

So are you saying that if I go faster then I still will be increasing my stopping distance giving myself more time to react to a hazard or damaging myself less by slamming into something harder?.....Hmmm Interesting.....

[RGVforme]

If you only ride 4 times a year it could be more economical to just hire a bike. Some on here have said you can get single day registrations by filling out a special form. The risk of getting caught on 4 days a year could be worth taking too.

You are right.If I did ride four times a year it would be worth the risk.I could get caught several times with my rego on hold before the fines added up to the cost of a rego itself.

These wallet protesters making the pool of tax payers even smaller to draw from is the other reason I think this system is flawed and our regos are so high.Rego or not if they have a prang they will still get hospital treatment and 80% of their weekly wage while off work.

But like the guy who rides in jandals we cant no treat them because of a little thing called being Moral and a good human being.

Im sure I seen a statement from MAG on their FB page when the levy increased saying"Oh well more bike regos on hold this year".