MAG NZ Taking Action

[Akzle]

If the fault is the deceased the claim then goes on their estate. If you hit a dog one day that will make you a fuckwit too by your own definition eh?

yes. If i hit anything i'd be a fuckwit. Which is why i dont.

You really are too stupid to live.

[GrayWolf]

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.

So, just because you ride your bike 4 times a year, you feel your risk is less? {using your example}. Why should I, as a 'motorcycle as transport rider', riding every day, fund you for riding Sunday afternoons, in summer, for a few hours pretending to be a 'one piece leather wearing' Valentino Rossi, or a Sonny Barger, wearing t shirt, jerry helmet etc? My 'risk' is higher than either of those?? Have you ever followed a 'Sonny Barger' wannabe, on his 'hands higher than head' apehangered, rear end wobbling, overloud 1%er mobile' over the Rimutaka's? Or 'Valentino' who has probably done a few 'track days', {whose hyperpenisextension CBGSRR does around 3-5,000km's a year} KNOWS how to ride, because of said track days, as he carves the best 'race line' engine screaming between corners, knee and arse hanging off the side of the bike.
Yup my risk is definitely higher isnt it?

[Big Dog]

Something missing from the discussion any digression from a no fault to a fault based system will also have a flow on effect to how our insurance is paid out.
For a fault to be laid means an investigation or an admission of fault. Some insurance policies I have read include an out clause that they will not pay out on an accident you admitted fault on. The companies when questioned about this always say it is to protect them if ACC ever goes to fault based application or ceases to exist.


Sent via tapatalk.

[pritch]

Is there anyone out there from the MAG commitee who wishes to comment on what your group sees as the issues and how you as a group are working towards your goal?

I hope you get an answer to this. The few "pro motorcycling" groups I have seen rapidly turn into anti cycling groups. The cause is already lost because the idiots can't maintain focus. Keep their eyes on the prize, so to speak. What cyclists are doing - or not doing - f'rinstance paying ACC levies, is completely irrelevant to motorcycling.

These groups seem in desperate need of people with an IQ above room temperature and who can actually remember what they are supposed to be doing.
Any of them who even mentions cyclists should be immediately booted into touch.

[Bikemad]

The only pitfalls with my idea fall on those found at fault everyone else benefits. You obviously don't believe in the idea of improving behaviour by putting in place an incentive to improve. Road accidents will continue on the up without change and its only when you are affected maybe that you will think differently.

there you go again......putting words in my mouth or telling me what i do or do not believe while still not answering any of the questions put to you......like who is going to pay for all the investigations into ascertaining who is or is not at fault........assuming you are going to try and attribute blame to someone you must remember they are entitled to defend any such action....and even if they lose they are entitled to an appeal of said decision........one last time.......WHO PAYS?.......HOW LONG DO YOU EXPECT THAT PROCESS WILL TAKE?........don't forget all of these expenses have to be paid for by someone above and beyond the original costs of the incident......presumably by the taxpayer one way or another....so who benefits.....apart from some ambulance chasing lawyers....do tell
and give us the name of at least one other person who thinks your idea has any merit.........ya mum doesn't count
and how the hell is your idea an incentive to improve........are you saying i drive without due care and dillagence?..........how the fuck would you know......as has been said to you before the possibility of death is the biggest incentive to drive sensibly.......is it not
and i have been involved in accidents before.......some my fault some not......"and its only when you are affected maybe that you will think differently"....why would i think differently..........please explain this
so how about answering the questions asked of you instead of ending you responses with the wanky all knowing condescending remarks you have been making......come on genius
the way i see it it's......Cassinas idea :1(cassina)...........the current system:everyone else(everyone else)

[Bikemad]

Who do you think pays for investigations now Santa Claus? It will be exactly the same people doing exactly the same being paid from the same source. Did you think motor accidents were not investigated now because there is "no such thing as fault" according to ACC? me thinks you are a muppet!!

oh dear.....getting abusive now eh......
at present only serious injury and death incidents are investigated........under your genius scheme EVERY incident would require investigation would it not?
please now answer the other questions if you can..........the one about the dog owners......and the one about the drunk stepping infront of you etc........and we are still waiting for you to supply one....just one other person who thinks your idea has any merit.......go on.....just one
you also haven't told us exactly who benefits under your scheme...........or why my thinking will change post accident.........c'mon do tell

[Akzle]

bikemad>cassina.

/thread

[RGVforme]

The only pitfalls with my idea fall on those found at fault everyone else benefits. You obviously don't believe in the idea of improving behaviour by putting in place an incentive to improve. Road accidents will continue on the up without change and its only when you are affected maybe that you will think differently.

The other pitfall I see with your idea is that there is already a system in place to charge the person at fault more in the case of a motor vehicle crash.

This of course is being found at fault and charged by the police.This is my incentive to improve be more cautious next time.
If I don't then next time the fines are more or I get locked up ect ect.

Your way of recovering costs is based on assumption.I had a crash 6 months ago that was my fault therefore I am a muppet on the road who wont learn my lesson will prob do it again so must continue to pay more for my rego.

The current system is based on assessment of the situation at the time.Because anyone can go 6 years without having a crash but don't give way at that sign one day because your a bit sleepy and boom your at fault so will be charged more at the time.

The ACC levy is a blanket insurance like system that covers the outcome of a accident not matter if your at fault or not.Stuff that may happen anyway.Injury loss of work income ect.
This does a very good job of covering anyone for accidents anyone can have where no one is at fault also.Ie being struck by lighting.

Your idea is a good one don't get me wrong.But its already in place just not in a form your choosing to see thus would not apply when it comes as an idea for reducing the levy in a motorcycle rego.

[Bikemad]

How many investigations take place would depend on a willingness of one of the parties at an accident to admit fault and it is something insurance companies want to know is it not? If you read you insurance policy it will likely say never admit fault at the time of an accident and if fault is not admitted an investigation must take place must it not? I remember with one of my accidents I had to threaten to take the cop to the police complaints authority as I was getting sick of waiting for the outcome of the investigation or maybe as you think the cop did not consider it serious enough to investigate. So if you push for an investigation where the other party has not admitted fault they will do it.

good god....english is my first language but whats written above doesn't really compute sorry.........you are talking about doing investigations at accidents so you can charge whoever was at fault more for their rego in the future..........correct?.......cops do not always attend non injury accidents.....correct?..........not everyone on the roads have insurance.....correct?........i suppose there was meant to be a point to your ramblings above but fucked if i can see it............now have a crack at the other questions i asked earlier.....i won't hold my breath for an answer though

[RGVforme]

How many investigations take place would depend on a willingness of one of the parties at an accident to admit fault and it is something insurance companies want to know is it not? If you read you insurance policy it will likely say never admit fault at the time of an accident and if fault is not admitted an investigation must take place must it not? I remember with one of my accidents I had to threaten to take the cop to the police complaints authority as I was getting sick of waiting for the outcome of the investigation or maybe as you think the cop did not consider it serious enough to investigate. So if you push for an investigation where the other party has not admitted fault they will do it.

In fact an insurance company will always do an investigation if one party or both have insurance.If someone admits fault this just makes their job quicker and easier so is promoted.Better still if backed up by the cops.

This may be because not everyone tells the truth perhaps.

"One of my accidents" ????

[Bikemad]

Niether does your ramble compute with me so I wont waste my time trying to decipher it.

and still you won't or should i say can't answer my earlier questions.........
but i must say congratulations are in order........in a sea of otherwise sensible discussion and debate you stand alone as a shining beacon of stubborness and unwillingness to comprehend or acknowledge reason and evidence to the contrary of the wiseness of your obviously flawed scheme.......well done you

[RGVforme]

But when making an insurance claim dont insurance companies require proof of police involvement which I would assume to prove the claim is not fraudulent? I can't see the insurance company doing as good a job as investigating as the police as the most critical details when making an investigation are obtained at the scene and in my case I was not in a well enough state to even ring the police let alone an insurance company. So if you are in an accident that is not too bad but the other party will not admit fault do you call your insurance company out to the accident scene and take photos and interview any witnesses instead?

No they don't in the case of a minor crash where no one is hurt.
Prob frees the police up to do other minor stuff like fight crime ect I guess.
The one minor crash i did have involved no police was not my fault and the other driver argued this.We both had insurance.

Went through the whole drawing a nice little picture on paper of what went down along with the location time ect.I Was asked to take photos of the damage to my car and let our insurance companys fight it out.

I won by the way so jobs tidy.

Im sure an insurance company dealing with the number of crash claims they do would be just as apt at finding out who is at fault as the police when it comes to minor claims.Prob better at spotting a case of fraud than a beat cop also.

[Akzle]

"One of my accidents" ????

qed .


And he's never been at fault. Of course.

[FJRider]

But when making an insurance claim dont insurance companies require proof of police involvement which I would assume to prove the claim is not fraudulent?

Reporting an accident :If you are involved in a accident while driving, and you are not badly injured, the first thing you must do is stop and check to see if anyone is hurt, and provide assistance.

If someone is hurt, you must tell a police officer as soon as possible and no later than 24 hours after the crash.

If no one is hurt, you must give your name, address and vehicle registration (and, if asked, the name and address of the owner of the vehicle you are driving, if it isn't your vehicle) as soon as possible but no later than 48 hours after the crash to:

(a) the owner or driver of any other vehicle that has been damaged
(b) the owner of any property that has been damaged.

If you can't find these people, you must tell a police officer as soon as possible and no later than 60 hours after the crash.

If your vehicle is insured, tell your insurance company as soon as possible after the crash.


So ... Police are not always required to be involved. But if the accident was not your fault (in your opinion) you can make a complaint to Police. They may choose to pursue the matter (or not). But it may be helpful to your claim if Police charge another person for causing your accident. The Insurance Company may pursue the guilty person for recovery of their costs ...

[Big Dog]

Once again a thread has evolved into the world vs cassina with cassina selectively responding...

Once again I call troll and suggest we selectively respond to cassina.

Sent via tapatalk.