ACC proposals on motorcycle levies

[Berries]

I thought bikies were what you dipped in your tea?

Bikies-to-rally-in-protest-of-unfair-acc-levies

[GrayWolf]

here we go again, bleat, bleat, bleat........
They put out a 'negotiating' figure, we bit, and got it 'reduced'? to 500, walked away thinking we'd won?
Bikoi, we had our chance to REALLY show some teeth, and rolled over baaaa'ing like sheep... they played a better game, they won, they know it.
Suck it up buttercups, coz we blew it.

[Digitdion]

People need to stop bleating BS on kiwibiker about ACC unfairly targeting motorcyclists and actually do something constructive to try for change.
Constructive would be using the link at the start of this thread and give ACC rational feedback. Backed up by a solid argument to help out our issue of being unfairly targeted by ACC with big ACC levies.
For me it's simple. Why are motorcyclists targeted when cyclists, pedestrians, rugby players, skiers, foriegners traveling here, going hiking in the mountains for days dressed in sandals and t shirt. Then getting airlifted out by helicopter with hyperthermia at taxpayer expense.
If they single out motorcyclists, they must also target everyother user group That are disproportional when it comes to ACC directly recieving income compare to there costs for there treatment.
So with ACC's theory or argument they should therefore impose a direct levy on everybody who walks down the street and crosses a road. Imagine that. Every one having to pay a pedestrian ACC levy. Yeah it's stupid. But that's how I interpret ACC's argument who Motorcyclists should pay more.

So to answer ACC's reasonings. Yes I do think that Car users should subsidize ( as they say) motorcyclists injury care.

Chur!

[bogan]

The reality is most motorcyclists on KB anyway are happy to pay whatever. Out of all the members of this site very few have posted in this thread and some of those who have, have attacked my idea of shifting the higher motorcycle cost to those who are actually at fault. Maybe they have actually been at fault themselves for the reason to have the attitude they have.

Or those who don't pay at all. That's cos its a shit idea. Though perhaps we should at least partially defer to your vast experience of having at-fault accidents.

[bogan]

Dummy if I was at fault in my accidents why would I advocate those at fault having to pay more???? Grow a brain!!!!!

Because you received debilitating head injuries in those same accidents? Another option could be that you don't make decisions based solely on what benefits you (though I think the former is more likey). In any case you've described a number of at fault accidents you've been in so that point is not up for discussion.

[nodrog:Me]

The reality is most motorcyclists on KB anyway are happy to pay whatever. Out of all the members of this site very few have posted in this thread and some of those who have, have attacked my idea of shifting the higher motorcycle cost to those who are actually at fault. Maybe they have actually been at fault themselves for the reason to have the attitude they have.

cos its a fucken retarted idea, from a retart.

[onearmedbandit]

The reality is most motorcyclists on KB anyway are happy to pay whatever. Out of all the members of this site very few have posted in this thread and some of those who have, have attacked my idea of shifting the higher motorcycle cost to those who are actually at fault. Maybe they have actually been at fault themselves for the reason to have the attitude they have.

Or because this topic has been done over plenty of times here before and a lot of people don't want to get into a debate with you over it...

[onearmedbandit]

You are correct if few want to debate or agree with my view it must mean the majority are happy as i said in my previous post.

No it doesn't. It amazes me the conclusions you jump to. It could also mean (don't take this personally as I don't know you) that they don't like you, or don't care what you have to say, or have discussed this topic before and don't want to waste keyboard time. It does not mean 'must mean the majority are happy...'.

[nodrog:Me]

You have not come up with a better idea have you so who is the retard ????? Forget about things going back to the old system as the money has come from somewhere and no better than from those at fault.

once again, I said Retart not Retard.

I have come up with a far better solution, I have also specified why it (along with any other ideas) will never be implemented.

You may find this of some help - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bxm5QhZIgAAAWtK.jpg

[Digitdion]

Well I guess my point has been proven regarding some people talking to much BS instead of actually being constructive.

[FJRider]

Forget about things going back to the old system as the money has come from somewhere and no better than from those at fault.

The money comes from those ... that it can be taken from NOW ... regardless of whom is at fault.


Perhaps ... the Government just bump up the Tax rates another 15% - 20% ... Result ...no ACC levies ... Problem solved (and fairly)

[bogan]

With an at fault based fee structure there is incentive for better road safety is there not ?

No. Because most of us think not receiving a head injury is incentive enough

[Berries]

You are correct if few want to debate or agree with my view it must mean the majority are happy.

No. It is simply that you are impossible to debate with. You misinterpret the words in front of you, alter their intent and are prone to go off on tangents referring to someone who once agreed with you in some other thread meaning you must be right.

It takes two people to have a debate. Unfortunately my head hurts from banging the desk when I read some of your posts and I know there is no point responding because I know exactly how the thread will play out.

[FJRider]

You sound like you do not want to improve road safety by wanting all taxpayers to pay whether they are at fault or not. With an at fault based fee structure there is incentive for better road safety is there not ?

And when those who are at fault ... with no money ... who pays then .. ???

And will it then be safer on the road ... ???

[onearmedbandit]

No. It is simply that you are impossible to debate with. You misinterpret the words in front of you, alter their intent and are prone to go off on tangents referring to someone who once agreed with you in some other thread meaning you must be right.

It takes two people to have a debate. Unfortunately my head hurts from banging the desk when I read some of your posts and I know there is no point responding because I know exactly how the thread will play out.

This is my point.