Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[Voltaire]

ACC give me great rates on some of my bikes, I think my weekend go to bike is less than $60 a year to register.

Must be the additional safety of under 50 BHP and Lockheed brake.

[Moi]

So if the payment is compulsory its called a Levy but if its not its called a Premium (private insurance payment definition). Which ever of the 2 you prefer to call your payments it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue I am debating in that motorcycle ACC "levies" to use a word you better understand are set at an unfair level for those of us with a no "at fault" history...

The levy is not compulsory. You do not HAVE to pay the levy on your vehicle's annual licence. You can "not licence your vehicle" and so avoid paying the levy. However, by doing that you can not use your vehicle on a public road.

It is a levy because that is what it is called in the ACC Act. I strongly suspect the Owen Woodhouse used that word to show that it was a compensation scheme and not an insurance policy.

You are not really arguing that the levies [please not the spelling of the plural] are "set at an unfair level for those of us with a no "at fault" history". I'd suggest you are arguing that you have been unfairly treated by having to pay such levies.

Before we go any further... have you ever claimed for ACC as a result of any of your "not at fault" crashes?

If you have claimed and been treated to medical care and wage compensation by ACC then I'd suggest that you are being grossly ingenuous - in other words a whining little weasel!

Private insurance rewards those with no fault by charging lower premiums and you for some warped reason think because ACC is compulsory there is no way it can change from a mode of transport based fee structure to an at fault based fee structure so those not at fault can be charged less...

My reasoning is not warped... but my "does not tolerate fools gladly" has been known to go into warp-drive...

Please read my comment above about "being compulsory"...

As I am sure has been explained before, the way that ACC sets levies is set out in the Act under which it operates. The corporation is also directed by the Minister as to how it should act. The way the Act is written means that the levies are set in a particular manner which is different to the manner in which insurance companies set their premiums. If ACC was to change to a "not at fault" charging methodology then the Act would need to be amended.

... I think some years back ACC introduced lower levies for industries that were claim free. So if that is true there is your proof ACC can change their fee structure for motorists too.

It possibly did do so... however, it would be for a group - read for that, forestry workers - rather than for individuals. I think it was not so much "claim free" but rather that the injuries those involved in that industry suffered cost less to rehabilitate than the cost for those injured in other industries.

Finally, this thread was an interesting, thoughtful and though-provoking discussion until you came along and started on your " mid-life crisis" and/or "not at fault" mantras. I have bitten my tongue over your continual rabbiting on until I could no longer suffer either the pain in my tongue or the blood in my mouth... If you have something to say, please make it worthwhile and on-topic or keep out of the discussion.

[Viking01]

Motorcycles - See items 66 onwards.

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/publications...C%20Levies.pdf

[Akzle]

I am sorry that you can not comprehend my analogy with how vehicle insurance companies work with respect to their higher premiums for those at fault and how I could see it easily applying to ACC.

To say a higher ACC premium will never work for those at fault, in altering their behaviour we will never know though UNLESS ITS TRIED which it has never been. When it has been tried and if it fails I only then will agree with you.
You are another muppet who likes claiming just because i was an innocent victim in a crash you call me a "significant contributor" You are another one on here that needs to experience a "not at fault crash" before you "grow a brain" and see my logic.

you're a fuckwit

[Akzle]

If you found this thread only interesting untill I came into it I have to question your logic in wasting your time replying to any of my comments then and the in-depth technobabble replies you have made? I can only assume you work as a beurocrat in some organization with the way you comprehend.

you're a fuckwit

[Akzle]

That is the only good thing about the current system in that if either of us screw up and crash into someone else we are not going to lose our houses over it. I dont know why you think things would go that way if a simple "at fault" levy was put on all those at fault though. In the meantime expect road safety to never improve. I read in an article once that life was cheap on NZ roads and if we dont lose our houses if we screw up bad enough it just proves it is.

you're a fuckwit

[FJRider]

i doubt riffer is referring to dumbing down the road everywhere.
just start to cleanup some of the death traps, here and there.

Not everyone should travel at the speed target. Some can’t handle it. Some roads aren’t suited. some can’t recognise these facts.

i have been on one of those ‘safe roads’, all I remember is the cheese cutters and it would be useful if you wanted a straight trip. I do prefer the back roads if I have time.

Dumb down the roads and the end result is dumbing down the vehicle operators ... and some are dumb enough already.

Regardless of road conditions ... many wont know what the facts are. Or care. Until they prang. Then ... the "I wasn't speeding" line is heard.

There have been quite a few threads started in these forums about "their" crash ... with all the blame going in every direction but inwards.

Every road is safe if you ride and drive it to the (road) conditions on the day. Riding(or driving) any road ... while assuming it is in the same condition as the last time you rode (or drove) it (at speed) two years previous ... is expecting a lot.

I worry about stuff ON the road ... not the stuff off the road. The stuff on the road is more likely to give me trouble.

If I have time ... I take the long way.

[FJRider]

That is the only good thing about the current system in that if either of us screw up and crash into someone else we are not going to lose our houses over it. I dont know why you think things would go that way if a simple "at fault" levy was put on all those at fault though.

There is two actually ... one called "Fines" and the other "reparation" ... with a possible addition of court costs ...

In the meantime expect road safety to never improve. I read in an article once that life was cheap on NZ roads and if we dont lose our houses if we screw up bad enough it just proves it is.

Roads are only as safe as those using it ... we look at your advice on road craft ... and cringe.

And by the way ... You are a fuckwit ...

[FJRider]

If you found this thread only interesting untill I came into it I have to question your logic in wasting your time replying to any of my comments then and the in-depth technobabble replies you have made? I can only assume you work as a beurocrat in some organization with the way you comprehend.

From your logic ... you must work in a kindergarten ...

[Woodman]

No I am just not into bullshit like so many on here.

You only talk bullshit so you saying you are not into bullshit is bullshit. You are not even entertaining any more. Oh, and I gladly pay my ACC levy.

[Akzle]

No I am just not into bullshit like so many on here.

yeah right. bullshit is all you ever post!

you're a fuckwit

[Murray]

Motorcycles - See items 66 onwards.

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/publications...C%20Levies.pdf

Love item 70 -what a load of crap

[FJRider]

No I am just not into bullshit like so many on here.

You wouldn't know bullshit if you stood in it. You're a fuckwit.

[Moi]

You wouldn't know bullshit if you stood in it. You're a fuckwit.

Cowshit is useful on a cold morning and you have bare feet...

[awayatc]

no 71.....

Investment in the Ride Forever skills training programme has seen 7,950 riders
participate in the skills training programme since 2013. Preliminary results are very
encouraging with a 50% reduction in entitlement claims and a 24% reduction in
medical fees, per 1,000 riders.


now imagine if everybody would be doing skill training.....

not only motorcyclistas, but also cagers.

that would at least be a start....