Road toll - Police stupid obsession blaming speed

[Moi]

The govt is only interested in seeking public opinion on policy changes when they propose to change policy though.

Prove that not to be the case with your petition to change ACC...

... Guys on this site are actually the only ones who feel that the current motorcycle ACC charges are fair...

True, some on here do say they see the current ACC levies are unfair. Perhaps they'll be the first to sign your petition to change it to an accident insurance scheme where you pay premiums dependent on the amount of cover you wish in case you have an accident.

... On other sites there is desire for charges to be lowered and if they were to lower charges for motorcyclists what better way to fund those charges but to put up ACC for those with an at fault accident history.

What other sites?

Perhaps a few more folks who'll sign your petition...

If you think it is such a great idea to change ACC from an "at risk" levied scheme to an insured "at fault" premium scheme, then you need to write a discussion paper, as viking did, outlining your reasoning for the changes to the present scheme. May I suggest you look at the USA model as a guide...

[Moi]

I have never advocated a change to the scheme just a change to how levies/premiums are applied. Its not rocket science but maybe to some on here it is,

What? Never advocated for a change? What is your constant repetition of "charging those at fault more" then?

That would necessitate a change to the scheme because the legislation is written to charge levies according to the "risk" involved with particular activities. That has been explained by others in the last few days.

So, you are advocating a change to the scheme and if you can't see that, then, to quote you, it's not rocket science but maybe I'd suggest definitely to some on here it is

[Viking01]

Wow what a ramble!! Sure what I propose lacks technical detail but a simple vehicle insurance model could be applied to ACC by imposing a higher charge for those with an at fault history. For example when you apply for vehicle insurance you are asked to declare any past "at fault crashes" going back a number of years and your premium is set at a higher rate because of it.

"Wow. What a ramble !! "

I do apologise. I should have remembered your attention deficit issue and your problem
with reading more than a few sentences at any one time, let alone comprehending them.

But ramble or not, it does however present only a very small subset of the various points
your "proposal" would have to answer in order to be considered.


But more importantly, your reply didn't even answer the fundamental question I asked you
up-front:
What exactly were you trying to achieve ?

Go back and read it again. Perhaps if you could just start with a clear answer to that
simple question.


"Sure what I propose lacks technical detail ..."

Look, please don't sell yourself short. What you've put up to date lacks ANY detail.
Business, functional, process, technical, the whole shooting match.

Normally, it's about this stage when I'd ask the person that had put forward such a
proposal to go forth and multiply, and to come back when they have some information
(and a clue what they were talking about). In the nicest of manner, you understand.

So how about you go do the same. [ Well, at least the first part ]


"But a simple vehicle insurance model could be applied to ACC ..."

"Simple insurance model" ? Have you ever worked for an insurance company and with
some of their systems ? Have you even read your own car insurance policy recently ?

There is no such thing as "a simple insurance model", vehicular or otherwise. Your
cluelessness is really showing.


ACC has never been an insurance based system, and never will be. Never architected
or developed for that purpose. As others have already kindly advised you within earlier
threads.

And while some may have performed studies for (and written papers advising) Ministers
on the viability of involving the insurance industry (or at least giving them access to
those ever-so-tempting pools of money), it's never happened. Not even in the last ten
years.


So, please, don't keep coming back making the same stupid statement (about insurance
schemes and systems) in class every day. It was wrong the first time that you uttered it,
and it will continue to be wrong. Please do try to learn from your mistakes.

And when one of the other students in class (FJRider) kindly tries to help you and school
you on the difference between a premium and a levy, please do try and pay more attention.
Maybe even thank him.


Now, if I could have an answer back on my first simple question (What exactly were you
trying to achieve ?) before end of day, that would be a helpful start.

[Akzle]

Wow what a ramble!! Sure what I propose lacks technical detail but a simple vehicle insurance model could be applied to ACC by imposing a higher charge for those with an at fault history. For example when you apply for vehicle insurance you are asked to declare any past "at fault crashes" going back a number of years and your premium is set at a higher rate because of it.

which didn't answer any of his questions, and is just you repeating what you've already said a hundred times before. you fuckwit.

[Akzle]

. I hope and pray you have absolutely nothing to do with education...

quite obviosuly not.

[Akzle]

Ok, read it as having to resit driving test every 2 to 5 years. If you take an approved defensive driving course maybe you can have a longer licence term? It raises the standard over time. Has to be self funding by savings in road trauma overall, be cheaper for taxpayer me thinks. Plenty of jobs in there as well.
.

oh i see. you think a driving license is indicative of some kind of ability.

dont get to see the road much huh?

[Akzle]

Someone on here posted yesterday that compulsary schooling will not work as it will create over confidence or people will just go back to their old ways after they get out of school anyway. Financial penalties do work as a deterrant as when you pay rates or power bill (as examples) there is a financial penalty applied if you do not pay on time.

i'm pretty sure the same post you refer, fairly explicitly, stated "financial penalties have no effect"


yes, see, look, right there in THE FIRST FUCKING SENTENCE. you retarded cunt.

Oh piss off - that is stupid. The reason why I don't want a higher premium is that it simply does not work ..

We get fined for speeding - a fault-payment linked system. That never stopped me speeding ... It just makes me more aware of the popo - and tempts my to buy a radar detector (as many have). The fine system has not stopped people speeding .. a higher premium ACC for riders at fault will have bugger all impact.

Compulsory riding schools are highly unlikely to work either ... and could even have the effect of making people over-confident.

If you force people to go to school they will not learn - they will simply do the time ... with no impact at all.

What needs to change is rider attitude - and fines or compulsory training will have no impact - peer pressure is what has changed our attitudes about drink-driving ...

But that is not likely to work in this case either - My attitude is total resistance - good luck with any efforts to change that.

You can fuck off ..

you're a fuckwit.

[Akzle]

I have never advocated a change to the scheme just a change to how levies/premiums are applied. Its not rocket science but maybe to some on here it is,

you're a fuckwit

[Akzle]

So you cant work out what I am trying to achieve? Well that proves you are not very bright then despite the length of your ramblings creating an illusion that you are but only to you maybe. What would be achieved by ACC premiums becoming fault based is simply those who do not have an at fault history are "REWARDED" WITH LOWER PREMIUMS AND THOSE WITH AN AT FAULT HISTORY PAY "HIGHER PREMIUMS". If you dont understand that I am sorry I can not explain it any simpler.

you're a fuckwit

[Akzle]

I will agree with you but only as far as the rich go. For anyone else financial penalties will hurt. Fuckwit

i would challenge you to provide even one example of where anyone (not a fuckwit) has ever not-done anything because of legislation, or infringement fees.
...WOULD. but:

you're a fuckwit.

[Moi]

... But more importantly, your reply didn't even answer the fundamental question I asked you up-front:
What exactly were you trying to achieve ?

Go back and read it again. Perhaps if you could just start with a clear answer to that
simple question.

I think you are expecting a great deal... I'm doubtful if any straightforward questions have ever been answered.

... Normally, it's about this stage when I'd ask the person that had put forward such a proposal to go forth and multiply,

NO!

Oh, wait... you mean in the old Anglo-Saxon way...

[Banditbandit]

You are being semantical as to whether its called a premium or a levy the cost remains the same but if you feel by calling it a levy makes you feel better all the best.

Wow what a ramble!! Sure what I propose lacks technical detail but a simple vehicle insurance model could be applied to ACC by imposing a higher charge for those with an at fault history. For example when you apply for vehicle insurance you are asked to declare any past "at fault crashes" going back a number of years and your premium is set at a higher rate because of it.

Someone on here posted yesterday that compulsary schooling will not work as it will create over confidence or people will just go back to their old ways after they get out of school anyway. Financial penalties do work as a deterrant as when you pay rates or power bill (as examples) there is a financial penalty applied if you do not pay on time.

Can I recommend a good basic English school for you?

I think I will just go with Akzle's approach

You're a fuckwit ..

[Banditbandit]

What you are saying then is that if all fines for everything were dumped there would be no behavioural change made by anyone? Your a fuckwit if you think that.

I can't help responding to this one

If all the penalties were removed there would be behaviour change - someone you have driven crazy would kill you ..

[actungbaby]

Anybody else here the radio this morning where some guy said "motorcyclists over 40 should have to re-sit their test once a year." This following the 13th serious bike accident in 2018.

I think it was the breeze playing in the physio this morning (Yep over 40 and dropped my bike front end slide Nov last year first time in 25 years...body does not bounce back like it once did...been riding the whole time too )

Yeah well its a Shock when u realise shit this thing doesint stand upright by itself . i did that going to work in 80,s lucky was just pick up

Ride to work do my days work ride home . know be like limp for a week compain for 3 days .

That idea daft . u cant test a persons abilty to avoid a car driver so whats the point ditto loosing the front end just bad luck .

MM is a pro and even he does it .

[Viking01]

So you cant work out what I am trying to achieve? Well that proves you are not very bright then despite the length of your ramblings creating an illusion that you are but only to you maybe. What would be achieved by ACC premiums becoming fault based is simply those who do not have an at fault history are "REWARDED" WITH LOWER PREMIUMS AND THOSE WITH AN AT FAULT HISTORY PAY "HIGHER PREMIUMS". If you dont understand that I am sorry I can not explain it any simpler.

"So you can't work out what I am trying to achieve?"

I doubt that I'm the only one in that space. Now, and in the future.


Before continuing the discussion further, when will you ever understand that:

- The ACC system was purposely never architected as an insurance-based system,
but as a means of funding accident treatment and rehabilitation. Hence its 'no fault'
basis, its risk based model, levy calculation (funding the various ACC scheme pools)
and contributions being non-optional.

- That one main benefit of ACC not being fault-based is that it allows ACC to focus
on funding of injury treatment and rehabilitation activity [as per its charter]. And to
be able to make approved payments in a timely manner.

In the process, avoiding lumbering ACC with legal costs associated with determination
of fault, having to sue parties to secure payment, collection of associated debt etc.

Helping to avoid crowding up our court systems even further. And probably incurring
a lower overall cost to the taxpayer along the way.



From your last reply, you want "not-at-fault" riders or drivers to be able to be financially
rewarded, and "at fault" riders or drivers to be able to be penalised further ?

So why don't you just go down the "vehicle insurance" route e.g.

- Implement mandatory third party insurance (law change)
- Allow insurance rewards for no "at fault" claims (via lower insurance premiums)
- Allow insurance penalty for one or more "at fault" claims (via higher insurance premiums)
and let people use the Courts as an enforcement mechanism for non-payment by offenders
as and when needed ?

And if there was such a compelling business case, surely the Insurance industry would have
already investigated and be quite supportive of an Insurance industry approach ?

Why should ACC even be involved ? You even said in a following post that you didn't want
to change the ACC system.


Lastly, why do you feel the ACC scheme pools - targeted for funding of injury treatment
and rehabilitation - should now be able to be tapped to also pay out "rewards" (for good
driving behaviour or fewer "at fault" accidents) ?

Assuming existing levies are focused solely on funding injury treatment and rehabilitation,
where would the additional funding needed to support "rewards" payment come from ?

I'm sure all will become more evident when you provide us with more details on your proposal.