MAG NZ Taking Action

[Duncan74]

Agree that these are good initiatives. However, they could be seen as ambulance at the bottom of the cliff solutions - it could be argued that better riders, in this instance, might see that gravel fan across the road and so adjust their riding to accommodate it. The two you mentioned are of most benefit to riders than drivers - yes, hitting gravel mid-corner in a car is not pleasant but far less of an issue than doing so on two wheels.

Somehow NZ drivers and riders need to move from the "I'm a superdriver / rider" mentality to "I'm an average driver / rider who could do with a bit of on-going training".

[But this might be problematic as it may reflect badly on their imagined penile size...]

Well, the ride forever I think is about the proactive education, althgouh of course does nothing for the drivers. As is frequently quoted, 75% of NZ drivers rate themselves better than average..... One of the peculiarities of the NZ ACC system that negates the need for mandatory insurance is that it fails to provide any incentive for people to be good drivers. Where insurance is compulsary, then there is a significant incentive to be more careful, or where the premiums are getting too high, then to undertake advanced driving courses to benefit from discounts on the insurance.

Perhaps this could help, if drivers received rebates to ACC contributions by attending 'drive forever' courses. However, in the short term then any discounts woud need to be offset by increases to others. Also rego and acc is levied on vehicles, not drivers. (intereting point, I pay 2 lots of bike ACC contribution, so do I get to go on 4 ride forever courses a year? ) And also the type of people that would voluntarly go on a drive forever are potentially the ones least likely to be those in most need.

[Moi]

Well, the ride forever I think is about the proactive education, although of course does nothing for the drivers. As is frequently quoted, 75% of NZ drivers rate themselves better than average..... One of the peculiarities of the NZ ACC system that negates the need for mandatory insurance is that it fails to provide any incentive for people to be good drivers. Where insurance is compulsory, then there is a significant incentive to be more careful, or where the premiums are getting too high, then to undertake advanced driving courses to benefit from discounts on the insurance.

Perhaps this could help, if drivers received rebates to ACC contributions by attending 'drive forever' courses. However, in the short term then any discounts would need to be offset by increases to others. Also rego and ACC is levied on vehicles, not drivers. (interesting point, I pay 2 lots of bike ACC contribution, so do I get to go on 4 ride forever courses a year? ) And also the type of people that would voluntarily go on a drive forever are potentially the ones least likely to be those in most need.

Agree that the Ride Forever courses are great and are proactive... but it is an interesting question: Why not for drivers? I'm sure ACC would say that drivers cost us less to fix than bikers...

The idea of insurance type levies / fees increases and rebates raises the question: "Do we need a 'conversation' about that?" I believe it is one that needs to be had. Nothing may change as a result of that conversation but then something might. However, without that conversation we will never know.

[Berries]

I agree with you that ACC fails to provide an incentive for people to be safer drivers but when I suggested that those who ride safely pay less and those who are at fault in accidents pay more no one on this site who replyed to my suggestion wanted that. So to sum up some on this site are just too spooked into being found at fault to want things to change in a way that may go against them. Some have also said creating an incentive system would be too expensive. So not only are they spooked about being found at fault they dont want road safety improved because it will cost too much bringing in an incentive scheme.

(Apparently that smiley is now called the cassina)

You are talking about half a dozen people max. You should stop referring to what someone somewhere on some forum once said and actually post something with some content.

For me I think it is unfair that if I own two bikes I have to pay twice. I can only ride one at the time so the risk to the ACC is the same however many bikes I own. If this ridiculous rule did not exist perhaps I would ride a 'safer' bike at times instead of being forced to ride a widow maker every day. But I am fucked if I am paying $521.51pa or whatever for that luxury so ACC lose out and so do I.

I accept that motorcyclists on average will cost more to fix up than car drivers due to the protection that four wheels and a cage provides. I am therefore not that concerned about the fact that two wheels cost more than four. Incentives? With 20+ years clean insurance/crash history I should be be discounted to some extent compared to someone with the same years of experience and five crashes (regardless of 'fault') and certainly compared with some 19 year old on an R1. And that is where ACC falls over. It is partly risked based but only on vehicles and not rider/driver experience/history. I would hazard a guess that it is the person not the vehicle that is the greater risk to the ACC.

To summarise, fuck them. But I don't see how taking over car parking spaces in a town centre will do anything whatsoever to further the cause, whatever the cause is.

[Akzle]

I agree with you that ACC fails to provide an incentive for people to be safer drivers but when I suggested that those who ride safely pay less and those who are at fault in accidents pay more no one on this site who replyed to my suggestion wanted that. So to sum up some on this site are just too spooked into being found at fault to want things to change in a way that may go against them. Some have also said creating an incentive system would be too expensive. So not only are they spooked about being found at fault they dont want road safety improved because it will cost too much bringing in an incentive scheme.

remind the class how many accidents you've had.

And how many were your fault.

[nzspokes]

None have been my fault that have required an ACC claim. Sorry to disapoint you.

Which is the core of the problem. Riders always believing they did nothing wrong.

[nzspokes]

So are you "Mr Perfect" rider eh sport?

And Bingo. There is the attitude that kills people. Never wrong.

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

[Akzle]

None have been my fault that have required an ACC claim. Sorry to disapoint you.

i never qualified it with "required an acc claim"

simply.
1) How many accidents have you been in?

2) how many, in you mr perfect estimation, were your fault?

You disappoint me every day you choose not to kill yourself, so dont worry about that.

[Madness]

Which is the core of the problem. Riders always believing they did nothing wrong.

It'll be those pesky side-stand springs, eh?

[rambaldi]

It'll be those pesky side-stand springs, eh?

Nah, it was all the previous owner.

[pritch]

Which is the core of the problem. Riders always believing they did nothing wrong.

Queue Katman?

[nzspokes]

It'll be those pesky side-stand springs, eh?

Yerp.

[caseye]

None have been my fault that have required an ACC claim. Sorry to disapoint you.

Really?, seriously, 7 from memory, 2 with cars involved, one of which was the car driver's fault, but when questioned further, you claimed you'd seen them but couldn't stop or avoid them, therefore, you really didn't do a good job of being a rider and making sure you don't get tangled up with other vehicles.
2 or was it 3 with dogs running onto the road in front of you, please, you expect us to believe that not once, twice but 3 times you weren't expecting a dog to run out at you?
At least 1 maybe two involving icy roads, again, it happened so fast you couldn't react in time.
Each and every instance one of a rider believing they were better than they are and thinking it won't happen to me.
not once have you ever suggested that after seeing dogs on the side fo the road these days you slow up a little, swing a bit wider, not once have we heard that these days on icy roads you look for the warm tracks.

You have learnt nothing from riding in circumstances where most people never have a repeat of such an event.

No one here or anywhere else is a perfect rider, many do get involved in accidents by no fault of their own, but most having had that sort of experience make a habit of avoiding similar events by remembering what happened and placing themselves and their machines in different places or being a bit faster or slower so as not to be in THAT spot again.
If you stopped, took a breath, before you posted you might actually learn something, no one here wants you to crash,we'd all much rather you learn't from you experiences and were able to report productively that you'd avoided an incident and were feeling safer for having the knowledge to avoid a similar thing happening again. Truly, we would.

You don't deserve this, but, happy new year cassina.
Try to learn from the mistakes you/we all make.
is that clear enough?

[bogan]

At least 1 maybe two involving icy roads, again, it happened so fast you couldn't react in time.

Must have been one hell of a cold 'snap' then!

[RGVforme]

Well, the ride forever I think is about the proactive education, althgouh of course does nothing for the drivers. As is frequently quoted, 75% of NZ drivers rate themselves better than average..... One of the peculiarities of the NZ ACC system that negates the need for mandatory insurance is that it fails to provide any incentive for people to be good drivers. Where insurance is compulsary, then there is a significant incentive to be more careful, or where the premiums are getting too high, then to undertake advanced driving courses to benefit from discounts on the insurance.

Perhaps this could help, if drivers received rebates to ACC contributions by attending 'drive forever' courses. However, in the short term then any discounts woud need to be offset by increases to others. Also rego and acc is levied on vehicles, not drivers. (intereting point, I pay 2 lots of bike ACC contribution, so do I get to go on 4 ride forever courses a year? ) And also the type of people that would voluntarly go on a drive forever are potentially the ones least likely to be those in most need.

A good point on insurance regos and a sad fact all compiled into one here.

The incentive should be we all hope not killing or hurting anyone else or ourselves while driving not saving us money or getting a fine by being a good alert driver.

But put a horror blood thirsty crash Ad on TV at 6pm(at a time to be the most cost effective and seen by the most people) to bring home the message of carnage and the emotional result of a crash and have the moaners and cotton wool police jumping on their computers and E mailing the broadcasting commission about the gore and time frame it was shown!.

Then they wonder why hitting people in the wallet is just not working ie the 4kmh base limit that I now see is being bantered about by the media as perhaps full time thing. and shun off those who cry foul that its a cash gathering tactic by the law itself instead.

Put you mum or sisters face in the very few crash ads on TV and see if that makes you take more care while riding or driving more than a days wages or $5 a week from your benny from WINZ.

[Swoop]

To do this of course they may need to leave Devonport ...

Well, that will occupy most of January.
An absolute shithole of a place because of it's single road in/out. And the locals who NIMBY'd an alternative road which would alleviate the congestion into the place.