MAG NZ Taking Action

[bogan]

At least I am bright enough to come up with something unlike people like yourself who love to knock others idea but lack the brains to come up with anything of merit themselves.

Perhaps you should work on being bright enough to remember the ideas others have come up with

The solution is simple, minimise societal cost of accidents and healthcare by adopting socialist policies towards each, as neither are significantly correlated with societal merit by the affected individuals.

[Bikemad]

At least I am bright enough to come up with something unlike people like yourself who love to knock others idea but lack the brains to come up with anything of merit themselves.

what a fuckin sooky bubba diddums

[Moi]

...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...

If the bike is unlicenced, as in licence on-hold, and it is being used on the road then is the WoF also "on-hold"?

Perhaps those who do ride a bike that has licence on-hold might re-think their riding if instead of being fined for having an on-hold vehicle on the road the vehicle was impounded there and then and could only be recovered upon payment of ALL licence fees owing... [naturally there may well be very a genuine reason for doing so and if that can be proved then no consequence].



Devil's advocate here: If you are not prepared to pay the costs to ride legally on the road then why should you be treated beyond emergency medical assistance. If you haven't contributed through your bike's licence to ACC and you have an accident on that bike, then you will be "fixed up" by A&E and have whatever medical treatment after that is required but you miss out on the extras such as the 80% of your wages and you then have ACC take you to court to recover the costs incurred... You have gambled and lost... no different to losing on the fourth race at Addington...

[bogan]

If the bike is unlicenced, as in licence on-hold, and it is being used on the road then is the WoF also "on-hold"?

Perhaps those who do ride a bike that has licence on-hold might re-think their riding if instead of being fined for having an on-hold vehicle on the road the vehicle was impounded there and then and could only be recovered upon payment of ALL licence fees owing... [naturally there may well be very a genuine reason for doing so and if that can be proved then no consequence].



Devil's advocate here: If you are not prepared to pay the costs to ride legally on the road then why should you be treated beyond emergency medical assistance. If you haven't contributed through your bike's licence to ACC and you have an accident on that bike, then you will be "fixed up" by A&E and have whatever medical treatment after that is required but you miss out on the extras such as the 80% of your wages and you then have ACC take you to court to recover the costs incurred... You have gambled and lost... no different to losing on the fourth race at Addington...

Nah, you need a wof to get a rego, not the other way around.

So what about those who are borrowing the vehicle? do they get treated beyond emergency assistance? what about those who own 7 and have only paid for 3, do they get treated when out on the other 4?

[Moi]

Nah, you need a wof to get a rego, not the other way around.

So what about those who are borrowing the vehicle? do they get treated beyond emergency assistance? what about those who own 7 and have only paid for 3, do they get treated when out on the other 4?

Yes, I know you need a WoF to licence a vehicle, what I am saying is that if the licence is on-hold then is the WoF expired as well...

You borrow a vehicle, as the driver / rider you need to make sure the vehicle is roadworthy before you use it... if it is unlicenced / no WoF you don't use it...

You own seven vehicles and only three are licenced then you use only those three...

If the vehicle is unlicenced you will be treated but expect to pay the price. People need to move beyond "expecting the piper to play a tune and then not pay the piper".

[bogan]

Yes, I know you need a WoF to licence a vehicle, what I am saying is that if the licence is on-hold then is the WoF expired as well...

You borrow a vehicle, as the driver / rider you need to make sure the vehicle is roadworthy before you use it... if it is unlicenced / no WoF you don't use it...

You own seven vehicles and only three are licenced then you use only those three...

If the vehicle is unlicenced you will be treated but expect to pay the price. People need to move beyond "expecting the piper to play a tune and then not pay the piper".

No.

Yeh, but the borrowee has paid exactly as much as the owner of a non-rego'd vehicle. Yet gets treated differently.

So it's not about a person paying for their share, it's about tax.

And that's utter bullshit, as I've just illustrated.

[Moi]

No.

Yeh, but the borrowee has paid exactly as much as the owner of a non-rego'd vehicle. Yet gets treated differently.

So it's not about a person paying for their share, it's about tax.

And that's utter bullshit, as I've just illustrated.

Sorry, you are going to have to explain that...

How has the borrowee paid exactly as much as the owner of the non-licenced vehicle?

And how is it bullshit?

[bogan]

Sorry, you are going to have to explain that...

How has the borrowee paid exactly as much as the owner of the non-licenced vehicle?

And how is it bullshit?

How much as the borrowee paid? and how much has the non-licensed vehicle owner paid? $0

It's bullshit because it's based on how many vehicles you own, not a flat fee per person. If you think paying the piper means the guy with 7 vehicles pays 7x as much as you average person, and the guy who just borrows a car pays nothing; that's what's bullshit.

[Moi]

How much as the borrowee paid? and how much has the non-licensed vehicle owner paid? $0

It's bullshit because it's based on how many vehicles you own, not a flat fee per person. If you think paying the piper means the guy with 7 vehicles pays 7x as much as you average person, and the guy who just borrows a car pays nothing; that's what's bullshit.

You seem to have forgotten that I am playing Devil's Advocate...

If John owns a vehicle, what is irrelevant, and decides he has had enough of paying ACC fees and so puts vehicle's licence on-hold to avoid paying ACC fees but continues to use the vehicle then has an injury accident, he will be admitted to hospital and medically attended to. Because it is an injury accident the Police may well investigate and ACC will also because it was "vehicle related". Upon discovering that he was driving a vehicle which was unlicenced, ACC continues to pay for his injury recovery and prepares a case against him to recover costs.

However, if John should loan his vehicle to Jill who then has an injury accident and is admitted to hospital and medically attended to. Because it is an injury accident the Police may well investigate and ACC will also because it was "vehicle related". Upon discovering that she was driving a vehicle which was unlicenced, ACC continues to pay for her injury recovery and prepares a case against John to recover costs, because the vehicle involved is registered to him. He can then sue his friend Jill after he has been sued by ACC to recover his costs.

So far, the only ones winning with this are ACC and the lawyers... but it is a possibility...


Now back to what you said... if neither the borrower or borrowee have paid any ACC under the present scheme they are taken care of and those who have licenced their vehicles are picking up the tab - is that fair?

Under the present system the fees are charged against vehicles and as an owner of three I pay three lots of ACC fees - is that fair?

I don't think that is fair at all but it is the present system. However, because I believe in the social contract then I am willing to accept the present system until such time it can be changed to a more fair and equitable system, whether that be a return to the original construct of ACC or a scheme which is funded through taxation. The present scheme, from my perspective, is that of an insurance policy and the fees we pay are in fact an insurance premium. However, unlike many insurance policies, I do not get a discount for not claiming against the "insurance" [ACC] nor do I see those who are claiming against it paying more for their "premium" or being sued because they had not paid any premium.

Let's look at the flat fee per person scenario - yes, has merit. So each person who holds a driver's licence will be charged an annual fee that will cover the cost of motor vehicle accidents only? Or will they be charged an annual fee that covers the cost of all accidents? The former would be fairer, the later is unfair. So what do you do to those who don't pay their annual fee? Will they still be treated? if yes, then again we are back to an unfair system where some are supported by others because they will not pay their "fair-share".

Perhaps what we have at the moment is the best of a bad deal?

Then again, we could scrap ACC and let everyone be responsible for their own accident insurance...

[bogan]

You seem to have forgotten that I am playing Devil's Advocate...

If John owns a vehicle, what is irrelevant, and decides he has had enough of paying ACC fees and so puts vehicle's licence on-hold to avoid paying ACC fees but continues to use the vehicle then has an injury accident, he will be admitted to hospital and medically attended to. Because it is an injury accident the Police may well investigate and ACC will also because it was "vehicle related". Upon discovering that he was driving a vehicle which was unlicenced, ACC continues to pay for his injury recovery and prepares a case against him to recover costs.

However, if John should loan his vehicle to Jill who then has an injury accident and is admitted to hospital and medically attended to. Because it is an injury accident the Police may well investigate and ACC will also because it was "vehicle related". Upon discovering that she was driving a vehicle which was unlicenced, ACC continues to pay for her injury recovery and prepares a case against John to recover costs, because the vehicle involved is registered to him. He can then sue his friend Jill after he has been sued by ACC to recover his costs.

So far, the only ones winning with this are ACC and the lawyers... but it is a possibility...


Now back to what you said... if neither the borrower or borrowee have paid any ACC under the present scheme they are taken care of and those who have licenced their vehicles are picking up the tab - is that fair?

Under the present system the fees are charged against vehicles and as an owner of three I pay three lots of ACC fees - is that fair?

I don't think that is fair at all but it is the present system. However, because I believe in the social contract then I am willing to accept the present system until such time it can be changed to a more fair and equitable system, whether that be a return to the original construct of ACC or a scheme which is funded through taxation. The present scheme, from my perspective, is that of an insurance policy and the fees we pay are in fact an insurance premium. However, unlike many insurance policies, I do not get a discount for not claiming against the "insurance" [ACC] nor do I see those who are claiming against it paying more for their "premium" or being sued because they had not paid any premium.

Let's look at the flat fee per person scenario - yes, has merit. So each person who holds a driver's licence will be charged an annual fee that will cover the cost of motor vehicle accidents only? Or will they be charged an annual fee that covers the cost of all accidents? The former would be fairer, the later is unfair. So what do you do to those who don't pay their annual fee? Will they still be treated? if yes, then again we are back to an unfair system where some are supported by others because they will not pay their "fair-share".

Perhaps what we have at the moment is the best of a bad deal?

Then again, we could scrap ACC and let everyone be responsible for their own accident insurance...

In what way is that relevant?

Not in the current system, there's no legal case made for those who have no current rego.

Nope, never said it was fair that you could opt out (albeit illegally). But simply changing the bit that is unfair while increasing the overall cost is even stupider, though some may argue from a personal point of view at least it is more fair.

And nope, nor is it fair to charge multi vehicle owners more times.

Motor vehicle account should be flat fee per license. Other accidents come from ACC general fund, which is tax generated. There's no point charging those who have accidents more, by all means feed a portion of dangerous driving tickets back into this fund; but the deterrent cost of having an accident is one's wellbeing, financial cost will always pale in comparison to that.

What we have at the moment is a the butchering of a great deal.

Which hasn't worked out all that well for countries like the US...

[Big Dog]

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".

Yep. A very real cost for me was instead of three bikes registered and using the best bike for the job at hand I now only have one at a time. If I want to be able to take the DR for a spin I have to wait until the CB can go on hold and ride the DR until that is able to go back on hold.

The struggle is real.

Sent via tapatalk.

[Big Dog]

You have just thought of the ultimate protest if every motorcyclist in the country put their reg on hold for a year. The masses are not brave enough to go through with it though.

Except for some this is a way of life not a hobby.
Realistically the reduction in key metrics would mean ACC were jumping for joy not pissed about this change.
Realistic result would be another hike they would blame on reduction in revenue.

Sent via tapatalk.

[Moi]

In what way is that relevant?

Not in the current system, there's no legal case made for those who have no current rego. - #1

Nope, never said it was fair that you could opt out (albeit illegally). But simply changing the bit that is unfair while increasing the overall cost is even stupider, though some may argue from a personal point of view at least it is more fair. - #2

And nope, nor is it fair to charge multi vehicle owners more times.

Motor vehicle account should be flat fee per license. Other accidents come from ACC general fund, which is tax generated. There's no point charging those who have accidents more, by all means feed a portion of dangerous driving tickets back into this fund; but the deterrent cost of having an accident is one's wellbeing, financial cost will always pale in comparison to that. #3

What we have at the moment is a the butchering of a great deal. #4

Which hasn't worked out all that well for countries like the US...

1. In relation to the present ACC scheme then it is not relevant, however as devil's advocate it raises a concept that could be a reality if the political will was there for such a system.

2. Very true, but perhaps as part of the discussion about ACC then that aspect could be included within the discussion...

3. I would whole-heartedly agree with you on that...

4. Started sometime in the mid-1990s...

[Akzle]

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.....

i didnt say that at all. Jackass. You extrapolate like bogan.

[bogan]

1. In relation to the present ACC scheme then it is not relevant, however as devil's advocate it raises a concept that could be a reality if the political will was there for such a system.

2. Very true, but perhaps as part of the discussion about ACC then that aspect could be included within the discussion...

3. I would whole-heartedly agree with you on that...

4. Started sometime in the mid-1990s...

Indeed, so it's another downside to such a fault based system...

It has been here.