ACC proposals on motorcycle levies

[Shaun Harris]

what if I'm a motorcyclist who ran over a car? do I pay 150%?

what if I'm a motorcyclist who ran over another motorcyclist while driving a car? do I pay 200%?

what if I'm a motorcyclist who ran over another motorcyclist while riding a Lams approved Harley Davidson ? do I pay 400%?

Do I get a discount if I take out a bus with my motorcycle?

What if I run out onto a pedestrian crossing and clothesline a motorcyclist? do I get a 100% discount, and bonus points?

What if I run you over in my car, stop to see if you are alive, find out you have only got a broken arm, realise I'm going to get expensive rego, so I reverse back over you several times so you are dead, then I just blame you? Do I get flybuys?

What if ya get the fuk off of here and go and do some work ta sterer lol

[nodrog:Me]

What if ya get the fuk off of here and go and do some work ta sterer lol

this is my job.

shouldn't you be stickering up my bike?

[TheDemonLord]

You sound like you are flip flopping from you previous post. If you read your school 1 theory again you say do you not that your thinking is towards those at fault having to pay more than those not at fault do you not?

Okay - consider this: We both think that those at fault should pay - you suggest that the solution is to kill those at fault, and I disagree with this course of action and then in your retort you say that I am changing my position.

You will note that my position has not changed, what you may not do is to say that since we agree on the issue of fault, that I must therefore agree with your proposed solution to fix the fault.

Nodrogs comment was no critique for the simple reason they did not produce a better solution and just got their kicks from attacking mine.

No, it was a perfectly valid critique - engaging in reducto ad absurdum - taking your idea to an extreme to show how ill-thought out it is.

My solution would work as it is applied to vehicle insurance policies in that you pay a higher premium if your accident history is through your own fault.

Except you are saying that any accident, at any point of time is grounds for permanent increase in Levies - this is Arbitrary - Even Insurance companies aren't that bad (I think the criteria is 5-7 years worth of history)

ACC does need to do a separation as in the cost of accidents where the rider is at fault as opposed to where they are not and if accidents where the rider is not at fault cost the most the cost needs to be shifted to other parties.

Firstly, based on the stats available to us - there is no way to determine the big IF there - which is whether or not accidents where the rider is at fault cost more or less than accidents where they aren't - I suspect that where a car is involved and is at fault that they may cost more - but I do not have sufficient evidence to say this is so.

Secondly - you completely contradict yourself - if the costs aren't separated out on a ledger - how can one determine which accident type costs more?

Non registered recreational offroad riding is covered by the earner premium that covers all other recreational sports/pursuits. If you read ACC policy they claim motorcycle ACC claim are still part subsidised by other vehicles which would certainly no longer be the case if those at fault were charged instead.

Whilst non-registered off-road riding may be covered by the Earner premium, it doesn't stop them from using these accidents when presenting their statistics. I suspect this may be to increase the number of 'single rider, no other vehicle' accidents in relation to other types of accidents to continue the narrative that All motorcyclists are near-suicidal nut jobs - but again, we don't have sufficient data to be able to prove or disprove this.

Whilst the notion of subsidization may be solved by attributing fault - it still leaves us where we started which is your idea for arbitrary and unreasonable levies to be a bad idea, almost as bad as some of ACCs current policies.

There is a final point on this - although I tend towards attributing fault, there is a good argument to be made from those against this notion: If it were implemented, then ACC would be compulsory insurance that one cannot opt out of, if one preferred to have private insurance - this creates a monopoly of sorts and monopolies are typically inefficient and woefully mismanaged - If one could opt out of ACC on proof of sufficient insurance cover, then this point may be rendered moot, but can you see a government department allowing people to 100% opt out, resorting to private alternatives? even those with private health care still have to pay taxes to fund the DHB.

[nodrog:Me]

You sound like you are flip flopping from you previous post. If you read your school 1 theory again you say do you not that your thinking is towards those at fault having to pay more than those not at fault do you not?
Nodrogs comment was no critique for the simple reason they did not produce a better solution and just got their kicks from attacking mine.
My solution would work as it is applied to vehicle insurance policies in that you pay a higher premium if your accident history is through your own fault.

ACC does need to do a separation as in the cost of accidents where the rider is at fault as opposed to where they are not and if accidents where the rider is not at fault cost the most the cost needs to be shifted to other parties. Non registered recreational offroad riding is covered by the earner premium that covers all other recreational sports/pursuits. If you read ACC policy they claim motorcycle ACC claim are still part subsidised by other vehicles which would certainly no longer be the case if those at fault were charged instead.

What if I ride into a taxi and it drives into me, over a blind rise hill, where both of us haven't braked, on an unmarked dual direction single carriage way, in Te Aroha, in the Dark, kilometres from any witnesses, and both me and Ranjeet the taxi driver are knocked out and spend 3 years in a coma, and both suffer permanent memory loss, whos rego are they upping?

working that shit out will be far easier than your cluster fuck of an idea.

The fairest and easiest way is to have a proper user pays scheme where every year you pay appropriate fees for specific classes on your drivers licence, that way nobody is paying multiple times for 1 service (in the case of multi vehicle ownership).

yes some tard will say "what if you drive without the right class of licence?" dicks that will do that are doing that shit now, and last time I looked that's what the police are employed for not ACC.

Even though that's really simple to implement, its not going to make ACC any real money, so they do it like they do now - simple with the biggest financial gain.

yeah its not fair, but neither is a niggers arsehole.

[Akzle]

No its you and the other poster who is retarded. Maybe it will take you being knocked off your bike by a car driver in the wrong to see the fault in your thinking about me.

Okay - consider this: We both think that those at fault should pay - you suggest that the solution is to kill those at fault, and I disagree with this course of action and then in your retort you say that I am changing my position.

You will note that my position has not changed, what you may not do is to say that since we agree on the issue of fault, that I must therefore agree with your proposed solution to fix the fault.



No, it was a perfectly valid critique - engaging in reducto ad absurdum - taking your idea to an extreme to show how ill-thought out it is.



Except you are saying that any accident, at any point of time is grounds for permanent increase in Levies - this is Arbitrary - Even Insurance companies aren't that bad (I think the criteria is 5-7 years worth of history)



Firstly, based on the stats available to us - there is no way to determine the big IF there - which is whether or not accidents where the rider is at fault cost more or less than accidents where they aren't - I suspect that where a car is involved and is at fault that they may cost more - but I do not have sufficient evidence to say this is so.

Secondly - you completely contradict yourself - if the costs aren't separated out on a ledger - how can one determine which accident type costs more?



Whilst non-registered off-road riding may be covered by the Earner premium, it doesn't stop them from using these accidents when presenting their statistics. I suspect this may be to increase the number of 'single rider, no other vehicle' accidents in relation to other types of accidents to continue the narrative that All motorcyclists are near-suicidal nut jobs - but again, we don't have sufficient data to be able to prove or disprove this.

Whilst the notion of subsidization may be solved by attributing fault - it still leaves us where we started which is your idea for arbitrary and unreasonable levies to be a bad idea, almost as bad as some of ACCs current policies.

There is a final point on this - although I tend towards attributing fault, there is a good argument to be made from those against this notion: If it were implemented, then ACC would be compulsory insurance that one cannot opt out of, if one preferred to have private insurance - this creates a monopoly of sorts and monopolies are typically inefficient and woefully mismanaged - If one could opt out of ACC on proof of sufficient insurance cover, then this point may be rendered moot, but can you see a government department allowing people to 100% opt out, resorting to private alternatives? even those with private health care still have to pay taxes to fund the DHB.

"arguing with cassina is like wrestling a pig. It doesnt achive anything, you end up bombarded in shit and the pig enjoys it"

[TheDemonLord]

"arguing with cassina is like wrestling a pig. It doesnt achive anything, you end up bombarded in shit and the pig enjoys it"

It's okay - I've argued with Yokel and Katman - I've got a phD in this

[AllanB]

Can I replace Dot 3 brake fluid with Dot 4?

[Akzle]

. To sum up then I take it...

....up the arse....

[Akzle]

It's okay - I've argued with Yokel and Katman - I've got a phD in this

the problem being that their levels of correctness >0%

katman probably >90%.

Yokel. Well. Yokel=yokel. I think you'll agree.

[Berries]

Hang on a second - before putting words in my mouth, I don't agree with your theory, it's Arbitrary and unreasonable (just like your views of speed and what is fast vs too fast) your second point is a massive strawman "if department A reverts a policy change, then all departments that have ever made a policy change will have to revert as well" - what a load of Claptrap!

mfc10chars

[TheDemonLord]

Firstly I have never said that those at fault should be killed so you really have a warped idea like no dog of my view.

Do any of these words mean anything to you:

Hyperbole, Exaggeration, reducto ad absurdum, overstatement

I know that you never said anyone should be killed, I was emphasizing the mistake in saying:

I believe X and propose Y, therefore anyone else who believes X must also agree with Y, anyone who disagrees with Y cannot believe X

by using an exaggerated position to highlight the fallacy.

As for the rest of your ramble you do not come up with a solution to the issue of bikes having to pay more

Any proposed solution must be better than the current one, yours is Arbitrary and unreasonable.

and to think you doubt that a car hitting a bike generally speaking would cost more than a rider falling off on their own I would have thought the law of physics would make that obvious but not to you which is odd.

So, you want to play the physics game: without defining any of the parameters it is impossible to determine which accident would result in a greater ACC claim - certainly any system that involves a car is going to involve a larger amount of energy (thanks to E = 1/2 * (MV2)) but how that energy is dissipated is what determines the severity of the accident. To use an analogy - a rider who highsides at 100 kph and gets hit by his bike, before wrapping around a guardrail is going to be worse off than the rider who gets clipped by a car, low sides and slides (relatively) safely down the road.

You will also note as well that I said:

I suspect that where a car is involved and is at fault that they may cost more - but I do not have sufficient evidence to say this is so.

So, either you are deliberately ignoring the points I raise to continue your rhetoric or you lack basic English comprehension skills. Your inability above to realize hyperbole when used against you does suggest the latter.

To sum up then I take it you are happier with the status quo despite giving me an illusion you are not from your previous post otherwise you would come up with a black and white solution as I have done.

No, again - you setup a strawman - I am not happy with the status quo, but your solution is equally retarded. As final proof of your mental immaturity - I want to draw your attention to this line:

you would come up with a black and white solution as I have done.

The world is not black and white, there are an infinitesimal number of grey areas between - this is why you cannot comprehend why Fast can be safe - because of your apparent world view (by your words and actions) must be that everything is Black and White - there is no Black and White Solution, there is only a solution that is better than the current one (or if you are a pessimist, less shit than the current one).

To proclaim that you have a one-size fits all solution that will work is the height of ignorance and the height of arrogance - maybe you should try a career in politics?

If you want an alternative suggestion:

It starts with getting much better data from ACC, removing erroneous results and then calculating mean cost for various types of common scenarios. Once we have that data, we can extrapolate out the most equitable solution so that everyone pays accordingly.

[Akzle]

fuck i hate accountants

Do any of these words mean anything to you:

Hyperbole, Exaggeration, reducto ad absurdum, overstatement

I know that you never said anyone should be killed, I was emphasizing the mistake in saying:

I believe X and propose Y, therefore anyone else who believes X must also agree with Y, anyone who disagrees with Y cannot believe X

by using an exaggerated position to highlight the fallacy.



Any proposed solution must be better than the current one, yours is Arbitrary and unreasonable.



So, you want to play the physics game: without defining any of the parameters it is impossible to determine which accident would result in a greater ACC claim - certainly any system that involves a car is going to involve a larger amount of energy (thanks to E = 1/2 * (MV2)) but how that energy is dissipated is what determines the severity of the accident. To use an analogy - a rider who highsides at 100 kph and gets hit by his bike, before wrapping around a guardrail is going to be worse off than the rider who gets clipped by a car, low sides and slides (relatively) safely down the road.

You will also note as well that I said:



So, either you are deliberately ignoring the points I raise to continue your rhetoric or you lack basic English comprehension skills. Your inability above to realize hyperbole when used against you does suggest the latter.



No, again - you setup a strawman - I am not happy with the status quo, but your solution is equally retarded. As final proof of your mental immaturity - I want to draw your attention to this line:



The world is not black and white, there are an infinitesimal number of grey areas between - this is why you cannot comprehend why Fast can be safe - because of your apparent world view (by your words and actions) must be that everything is Black and White - there is no Black and White Solution, there is only a solution that is better than the current one (or if you are a pessimist, less shit than the current one).

To proclaim that you have a one-size fits all solution that will work is the height of ignorance and the height of arrogance - maybe you should try a career in politics?

If you want an alternative suggestion:

It starts with getting much better data from ACC, removing erroneous results and then calculating mean cost for various types of common scenarios. Once we have that data, we can extrapolate out the most equitable solution so that everyone pays accordingly.

[haydes55]

ACC covers any accident, regardless of fault. Surely everyone should pay, regardless of risk?

ACC should be paid as a income tax. Everyone pays evenly.

Vehicles are not the only causes of ACC claims, near enough to 99% of the population use a vehicle at least once a week (probably). Vehicles aren't even the biggest cost to claims. Why are they even charged? Social sports clubs don't get charged ACC levies, housewives don't get charged extra ACC levies. Drunk guys at a BBQ aren't charged extra ACC before they say "watch this".

I've been taken care of by ACC from playing hockey, racing speedway, horsing around and from a push bike. Never once had ACC pay for a single injury from a road crash. Yet I've only been charged for riding on the road.

Yes I know, everyone's different, some people have only ever cost ACC in vehicle crashes. But they are the minority. 99.9% of kiwis earn an income, surely this is what should fund the 100% of people's health care.

Why is ACC a separate entity at all? Why does it need income, case managers, admin staff, call centres, office buildings, advertising etc. When the government could just implement free health care? Increase taxes a percentage. Have auditors at hospitals monitoring who is receiving medical care and why. Allow OSH to punish unsafe work places. Save the country billions.

Yes I'm aware the start of this post has a different point to the end of this post. I changed my mind.

Obamacare for NZ! Haha

[nodrog:Me]

Firstly I have never said that those at fault should be killed so you really have a warped idea like no dog of my view. As for the rest of your ramble you do not come up with a solution to the issue of bikes having to pay more and to think you doubt that a car hitting a bike generally speaking would cost more than a rider falling off on their own I would have thought the law of physics would make that obvious but not to you which is odd. To sum up then I take it you are happier with the status quo despite giving me an illusion you are not from your previous post otherwise you would come up with a black and white solution as I have done.

I think you are retarted.

[TheDemonLord]

Its funny how you say the solution is not black and white when ACC itself has made a decision that all motorcyclists irrespective of who is at fault will pay more and that is very black and white if you ask me.

Do you not see the contradiction: Black and White solutions are bad when ACC do them, to fix them I shall propose a Black and White Solution!

I could not see any statistics proving such a decision to be fair.

Correct - all the relevant information is not available - so rather than jump to conclusions without the relevant information, it would seem wiser to get said information first.

You sound like a person who is into beuracracy with your inability to come up with an opposing idea to the status quo.

Or I could be a person who is into understanding something before making a suggestion on how to fix it, instead of knee-jerking based on my own personal experience.

I notice on another website some bikers who want the ACC for bikers to come down want a $40,000 movie funded by other motorcyclists to cause it too happen. I dont see ACC being influenced by the movie either as it is obvious they are set in their way.

Thats nice, who cares?

For the ACC to come down all bikers need to be united in how they want it to happen which is not going to happen unless everybiker had been knocked off though the fault of another party and only then would there be agreement on the most sensible solution being to hit those who cause accidents with higher premiums.

Suppose I agree in part about the higher premiums part - your suggestion on how to implement this was completely naive and it doesn't address the problem of it being a monopolised compulsory insurance.