MAG NZ Taking Action

[nzspokes]

This thread is like the Christmas gift that just keeps on giving.

That is rather funny.

[Big Dog]

Maybe they dont want to comment on here due to a lot of posters prefering the current fee to any change eg those at fault being the ones who end up paying more instead.

I don't see anyone liking the status quo regarding price.
I do see a few who don't see the value in continuing the method that have had so little impact. Opportunity has passed for these methods to continue without change.

Sent via tapatalk.

[James Deuce]

Don't sound very likely.

Let's face it, risk of having to patch them up is only the No2 reason bikers are so substantially pinged. The main reason is the risk of having to pay their wages, and that they're a bunch of high earners.

Rich pricks. Always a politically safe target.

So are horse owners and riders. Fucking ping them. They cost ACC MORE than motorcyclists and there are LESS of them.

Also anyone over 70 with stairs, linoleum, or a tiled floor in their house needs to have their ACC levy raised about 4000%.

[BMWST?]

What you dont seem to get is not all motorcycle accidents are caused as a result of the motorcyclists own fault. The learning experience for many involves buying a car. So you
want all motorcyclists who come off for any reason to not be allowed to ride again?

so do you propose that your scheme charges those AT FAULT a higher levy?Would tht also include the other motorist at fault?

[RGVforme]

I don't see anyone liking the status quo regarding price.
I do see a few who don't see the value in continuing the method that have had so little impact. Opportunity has passed for these methods to continue without change.

Sent via tapatalk.

Yep seen little bang for my buck apart form cheap CBTA courses now.This suited me that has always struggled with the whole classroom testy stuff having been taught mostly by looking over a shoulder and being shown

MSAC input for one.The group waved as a banner when the Levy was contested in the first place.

I emailed them some ideas/Suggestions and questioned what they infact did as I had not seen much evidence of their good work and 4 months later got the stock "Thanks for that" reply.

Suspected MSAC is just an e mail address and some person in an office somewhere.

I understand that the levy is there as an ambo at the base of a cliff deal mostly but think more prevention would of course be better.

More motorcycle awareness content for learner car drivers in tests.
Subsidised (spelling?) good qual riding gear for learners or full Class 6 born agains on passing a CBTA refresh course/licence stage may be a start. I think there is always time for change if it is wanted for the right reasons by the right people for long enough

[Ocean1]

So are horse owners and riders. Fucking ping them. They cost ACC MORE than motorcyclists and there are LESS of them.

Also anyone over 70 with stairs, linoleum, or a tiled floor in their house needs to have their ACC levy raised about 4000%.

And, as 'er indoors was known to point out when is was her budget being abused: rugby players.

And, as I pointed out at the time: all those lazy, sedentary pricks that sit around all day doing fuck all.

Here's a novel idea: Why don't we forget all the bullshit finger pointing and targeted taxes and just pay for it from the consolidated fund?

Still no lawyers, though.

[Madness]

And you sir, are a cunt

I'd appreciate it very much if you could please refrain from calling me sir.

I guess if there is fault on both sides they both are charged a higher levy based on degree of fault.

Your crackpot scheme would cost more to administer than would pay out for claims. Twat.

[Moi]

so do you propose that your scheme charges those AT FAULT a higher levy? Would that also include the other motorist at fault?

Why not? If we consider the present ACC system to be akin to an insurance policy, then under an insurance policy you pay more if you make a claim... so if you make a claim against ACC you pay more... quite how to administer that for the workplace is another question...

And, as 'er indoors was known to point out when is was her budget being abused: rugby players.

And, as I pointed out at the time: all those lazy, sedentary pricks that sit around all day doing fuck all.

Here's a novel idea: Why don't we forget all the bullshit finger pointing and targeted taxes and just pay for it from the consolidated fund?

Still no lawyers, though.

Do rugby clubs pay a levy? I presume the 'professional' teams pay levies...

Would be an excellent solution, though the lawyers might not think so...

Your crackpot scheme would cost more to administer than would pay out for claims. Twat.

Why?

Don't insurance companies operate that way? Don't remember hearing of an insurance company not making a profit?

Just saying...

[Ocean1]

Why not? If we consider the present ACC system to be akin to an insurance policy, then under an insurance policy you pay more if you make a claim... so if you make a claim against ACC you pay more... quite how to administer that for the workplace is another question...

ACC is not an insurance policy. Most of the current unrest stems from attempts to make it so.

Do rugby clubs pay a levy? I presume the 'professional' teams pay levies...

They do. It's worked through the national sport admin who levy clubs, who tack it onto club annual fees. Similar to most sports.

Would that we could declare ourselves a sport and pay a similar pittance.

Would be an excellent solution, though the lawyers might not think so...

The driver behind ACC was the view of the American litigation based system some local squabbles of the time afforded. The consensus was "let's nip this hideous waste of money in the bud and include a "no fault" clause in the new accident compensation system.

The US spends much more than NZ on health care in general, and gets less for it's dollar than we do. That's due to roughly 30% of health spending going to legal costs, and a further 20% to various other non-health-specific services like professional indemnity insurance.

Why?

Don't insurance companies operate that way? Don't remember hearing of an insurance company not making a profit?

Just saying...

And right back into lawyer country. Turns out spending most of your health budget on health rather legal and insurance costs gets you better value. Go figure.

[Big Dog]

They can not think up a fairer system which I have done so indirectly i consider their stance as being happy with the status quo.

Self love is not real love.
Neither is your approval of your own system actual approval.

To say you have come up with a fairer system is to say it had been peer reviewed and noone will be disadvantaged.
To label your suggestion as fairer is asinine because got have not:
* Provided for how this would be administered without additional cost.
* Shown how fault would be deigned,
what of both parties carry some blame?
* Would it not be simpler to put a no claims bonus on registration given systems to apply this already exist? Like no ACC claims (not respective of blame ) from an mva in 2 years gets you 60% off your ACC levy portion of registration?
* Is it fair that car registration has gone down? How many people would be disadvantaged putting that back up?

Your proposal is more a starting point for a wider discussion than a solution.
Should there now be an annual tariff on mobiles because humans are stupid? http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/us-dea...use-2015123018

Or should we as a collective go back to taking from the tax pool? Or would that disadvantage those who choose to not use motorised transport...

No, not apathy. Lacking in other options that in the end are not just selfish desire to offload the risk of my chosen lifestyle into the pockets of others.

I don't protest the cost. I protest the unfair application of the tariff given claims this is a no fault system.

Either way I am not sufficiently narcissistic to say I have the answer.

Sent via tapatalk.

[Big Dog]

But whatever it cost it would be funded by those at fault. You are just frightened of being at fault and paying more yourself which is the sole reason why so many on this site knock my idea.
I have mentioned that the higher levies on those at fault will act as an incentive to drive safer too.

Actually the reason I object to your proposal is it would tax our newer drivers into not learning because of a fear of trying new things and failing.

We were all first time riders once.
Most of us when finance was a struggle.



Sent via tapatalk.

[swbarnett]

Or should we as a collective go back to taking from the tax pool?

Definitely. Only fair way that I can see. We all pay according to what we can afford (i.e. based on income).

Or would that disadvantage those who choose to not use motorised transport...

It wouldn't if we merge all the accounts into one.

...offload the risk of my chosen lifestyle into the pockets of others.

This is the definition of both insurance and ACC. One of the cornerstones of a caring community is that we all pay our fair share to support the individuals within that community. Thus allowing all to live the life they choose and achieve a greater level of fulfillment.

[FJRider]

What you dont seem to get is not all motorcycle accidents are caused as a result of the motorcyclists own fault. The learning experience for many involves buying a car. So you
want all motorcyclists who come off for any reason to not be allowed to ride again?

When you hit your next dog when riding your motorcycle ... what happens if it's the dogs fault ... ???? Who pays the .. ??? (the dog or the dog owner ??)

[Madness]

You are just frightened of being at fault and paying more yourself which is the sole reason why so many on this site knock my idea.

I'm not frightened of being at fault in an accident and having to pay a higher ACC premium as a result at all, thanks all the same cuntface.

I'm frightened that some retard politician (like Peter Dunne) will tinker with ACC along the lines of your poorly thought out plan and fuck what is an excellent scheme as it stands.

I think you'll find the sole reason why so many on this site knock your idea is actually because like most of your ideas, it's pretty shit.

[Bikemad]

Idealy it would be the dog owner as it was with 1 dog I hit. It is illegal for dog owners to let their dogs run wild on the street so no law change would be necessary there.

what if the dog is a stray and/or is not chipped/tagged and no one claims ownership of said dog......who pays?