ACC proposals on motorcycle levies

[bogan]

Instead of your ramble why not just say you are happy with the current fee structure or maybe paying more irrespective of who is at fault. Now that is putting your ramble/belief into plain english.

I think it you who needs to read more things, the current fee structure overcharges motorcyclists based on socialist healthcare ideals that shit is simply not up for debate. Your proposed system seeks to either increase that ratio of overcharging, or do away with socialist healthcare entirely. Your incoherent mumblings do not specify which.

[bogan]

We are overcharged because we do not have a metal cage around us on the road and are considered to be at fault because of it.

risk, not fault.

So what you are saying then for registration to drop the cost of healthcare needs to come down? Well I can tell you that will never happen.

No, for registration to come down for us, it has to go up for others, equalise it across the board (which perhaps ironically, means I wouldn't mind paying twice as much due to multi vehicle ownership.)

ACC have actually invited debate from the public on their website if you care to have a read but

86% of respondants think it’s fair that other road users contribute towards covering motorcycle injuries. That's socialist healthcare. That's what I'd like to see. I know you're shit at words, but to get the message that wrong takes a special kind of moron; so, congrats on that

people who think like me or similar outnumber people like you.

Hahaha, god help us all if that actually ever happens; see above for why you are a completely and utterly wrong to think you speak for anyone but the most deranged moronic window licking oxygen thieving shitlords.

[bogan]

The only ones that have anything to fear if ACC brings in an at fault premium are those who have a history of being at fault and I think you are one of them. Maybe you should get a bicycle so if you are ever found at fault on that you will not have to pay anything.

So now it's repeat crashers? (how many have you had again? 7?) I've had 0 recorded ones btw, and two pushbikes (which also prevent one from being a fat slag).

We know your ideas are shit so its good to see you changing them, but how about thinking about them a little more first...

[Matt Bleck]

You are wrong thinking its a no fault system because if that was the case everyone would be paying the same premium would they not? Going by your logic trucks should be paying even less because they can crush a car in the same way a car can crush a bike. Also going by your logic diesel 4WDs must be as unsafe as motorcycles as they cost the same as a big bike to register too.

People like you who blame motorcyclists for being at fault by buying a bike are very much in the minority.

It's not my logic, that's how ACC works. That's why cars with a higher ANCAP rating have a lower rego. People who have accidents in those car's have a lower risk of serious injury.

If you still can't get it go back and read the text in the OPs link its explained there.

And yes if trucks didn't pay road user charges they would have lower rego.

[Robbo]

You need to read my previous posts again. I have said those that "ARE AT FAULT" in crashes should be paying more. It is that simple.

The problem with that is nobody knows in advance that they are going to have a crash. Some may have a few while many have none.
Although I agree with the concept of ACC and its many benefits, I disagree with its method of collection as it is very one-sided and unfair.
Having been, in the past, a collector of motorcycles as a passionate hobby of mine, I was paying seven ACC levies per year. One on my income, Two on my vehicles and Four on my motorcycles. All this for just the One cover on myself. How can this seriously be considered to be fair?
Prior to ACC being introduced, I used to carry my own private insurance for accident, injury and loss of income. One premium per year and this was calculated by taking into account what your job or profession was and what your hobbies, sports and activities were.
If one of these activities were showing a higher than expected risk one year, for example motorcycle riding, then your next years premiums were adjusted accordingly.
Why ACC did not study and copy a system that was working I do not know, other than to say that when you let a politician loose to do a job you know that in most cases it is going to end up badly.
Sure, a motorcyclist can and often does, sustain injuries that are costly to repair, but so can a sports person or a cyclist and if they don’t own a car then they are only paying one premium per year on their income. This is where the totally unfair and unbalanced method of collection comes in.

[GrayWolf]

It's not my logic, that's how ACC works. That's why cars with a higher ANCAP rating have a lower rego. People who have accidents in those car's have a lower risk of serious injury.

If you still can't get it go back and read the text in the OPs link its explained there.

And yes if trucks didn't pay road user charges they would have lower rego.

Here's a thought, Canam Spyder's, registered as a car, treated otherwise as a motorcycle. They are starting to gain numbers around the country, and, the new F3, is a whole lot quicker than the old ones. {read an Aussie bike mag review, and on tight twisty bits, he was tracking a sprotbike all the way through them} Now when they have an accident, are the stat's put on bikes or cars? Because, if on cars, it'll start bumping up car healthcare costs.

[James Deuce]

Why ACC did not study and copy a system that was working I do not know, other than to say that when you let a politician loose to do a job you know that in most cases it is going to end up badly.

Wasn't designed by a politician and it was originally paid by an employer levy because that was the activity with the most risk that most people faced on a day to day basis. It's been fucked with ever since to try and turn a compensation scheme into an Insurance System.

The motorcycle levy increase was predicated by the notion that Insurance companies have to be able to pay out if everyone claimed at the same time. This was because of the hard lessons of the 2008 GFC when the companies that hold most of the world's commercial funds, Insurance companies, were found wanting when their debt was called in leaving practically the entire world's insured-base exposed if anyone claimed. The Christchurch "rebuild" has been such a dire fuck up because it came on the back of the GFC and 3 years later Insurance companies still hadn't learned that they needed to keep their funds solvent instead of investing in vapour. Bye AMI.

Back to ACC. The clever cunts who make up the National party, along with cassina and every other upper middle class fuckhead who think that poor people are taking the piss, decided that ACC had to be fully funded. Not very many stopped to think back then what that meant. It means that instead of a compensation scheme that covers the small percentage of a population who are hurt or permanently incapacitated or killed at any given time, ACC had to have the funds to pay for every Kiwi suddenly becoming a tertraplegic. That was the one fucking point we could have won the whole argument on. Instead "we" fucking bleated on about, "you'll be next", and "it's soooooo unfair".

The basic premise of the levy increase was so fucking dumb as to have been laughed out of a year 10 Enterprise Studies class.

Your Government, that you voted in, thinks you are so fucking thick that you couldn't spot the gaping whole in their theory of funding a compensation scheme. That's because we'd let a previous bunch of cocksucking Labour politicians turn part of it into an Insurance scheme, so the legal/constitutional precedent was available for baby-killing, mother-raping National party Cabinet Ministers to say, "You fullas are thick and we're going to prove it."

[mossy1200]

We are overcharged because we do not have a metal cage around us on the road and are considered to be at fault because of it. So what you are saying then for registration to drop the cost of healthcare needs to come down? Well I can tell you that will never happen. ACC have actually invited debate from the public on their website if you care to have a read but people who think like me or similar outnumber people like you.

Skiers, horse riders and cyclists don't have metal cages around them or pay 2k acc insurance policy fees.
Only difference is they dont have a way of collecting from them yet.

When they have fuked us over to the point of extinction we will be their success case to base all future minority bullying to come.

[Bikemad]

While you dont know in advance you are going to crash you do know in advance mostly if you are likely to be at fault eg going through a red light or going over the speed limit. The issue of having to pay ACC on multiple vehicles applies to eveyone and that is not something they are seeking opinion on. You can get around it legally by just registering each for so many months of the year although it still costs a little more than single registration. It is disappointing that all those who have rubbished my view of charging those at fault a higher premium have not come up with an alternative method of premium collection. After reading the posts on the ACC site it seems many do want a fairer system of charging unlike some on here who fear they would be worse off if ACC charged in a fairer way which as I said must be due to them having been at fault or very likely to be at fault the way they ride. At the moment ACC consider motorcyclists to all be at RISK for simply owning a motorcycle.

so you want to charge people who are at Fault more for their premiums........presumably after the event as how would you know who is at fault otherwise......how would that work if the person at fault is killed in the event..........who ya gonna call

[bogan]

The issue of having to pay ACC on multiple vehicles applies to eveyone and that is not something they are seeking opinion on. You can get around it legally by just registering each for so many months of the year although it still costs a little more than single registration. It is disappointing that all those who have rubbished my view of charging those at fault a higher premium have not come up with an alternative method of premium collection.

Nor are they seeking opinion on removal of ACC in its entirety, or removal on the no-fault aspect. So what is your point?

But we have come up with exactly that. Flat rate. Vehicle or person, there are pros and cons to each, it doesn't really matter which.

If I was upper middle class sport I would be rich enough like you lot (debating with me) to not have an issue with the high ACC premiums we are paying. ACC has been over funded otherwise there would have been no cut to car registration. Maybe the govt feels that as the majority of the voting public own cars it is them they will look after more than motorcyclists with reduced premiums.

Why do you think we are all as self centered as you are? I want bikers to pay less because I think that is fairer. I don't pay rego for my bikes, so if anything I'm arguing for myself to pay more (since I would pay if it were fair. Ironically, you are also arguing for yourself to pay more, but somehow are doing so for selfish reasons; it's convolutedly hilarious; that's why I'm still replying (debating implies you have some degree of validity, you don't).

[Robbo]

Wasn't designed by a politician and it was originally paid by an employer levy because that was the activity with the most risk that most people faced on a day to day basis. It's been fucked with ever since to try and turn a compensation scheme into an Insurance System.

It may not have been designed directly by a politician but the scheme was sanctioned by the government of the day. Obviously they did'nt see the shortcomings in the design or chose to ignore them.
I was the employer back then so i had to try and recover these imposed costs by passing them onto my customers or absorbing them as best as i could.
As i have already stated, i don't have a problem with paying a fair premium to be covered based on my perceived risk factor but i do object to having to pay multiple times just to cover me. This is the key area that needs to be addressed to make it a level playing field for everyone.

[James Deuce]

It may not have been designed directly by a politician but the scheme was sanctioned by the government of the day. Obviously they did'nt see the shortcomings in the design or chose to ignore them.
I was the employer back then so i had to try and recover these imposed costs by passing them onto my customers or absorbing them as best as i could.
As i have already stated, i don't have a problem with paying a fair premium to be covered based on my perceived risk factor but i do object to having to pay multiple times just to cover me. This is the key area that needs to be addressed to make it a level playing field for everyone.

The "design" has been completely altered since then. It is not the same animal at all. It is designed to extract funding from as many channels as possible. It's primary function is profit so that the profit can be invested and returned to the general fund.

It's secondary function is a stick to smack "risky" minorities around with publicly.

It was implemented with a single funding stream. Do not conflate the ACC of today with what was implemented in the '70s. The shortcomings you perceive now did not exist then and have been introduced over the the last 4 decades stealthily via changes to both the ACC Act and the Insurance Act. The initial 'Woodhouse Principles" were genius in their simplicity and scope. We're on the cusp of being a society where people over the age of 50 who lose their job because they broke their hand at work end up living in a box.

[Robbo]

Yep, agreed Jim, it is quite a different beast nowdays and one of its main objectives appears to be to shaft us motorcycle riders.
Surely someone in ACC with half a brain can see and understand the collection system and how unfair it is and come up with
some sensible solutions.

[Akzle]

Somebody should do something!

bwaaaaahahahahahahah

[Robbo]

bwaaaaahahahahahahah

HaHa, There ya go Rob, how about we nominate you as our official KB spokesperson

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance just baffle them with bullshit.

I'm sure you can sort them out. Just don't get it wrong and cost us more. LOL