Culture of Protest

[Pixie]

I'd be a starter for a "think tank". I know a bit about thinking and tanks are way cool...

Cool!
A tank with an AI.Probably made by some corp. called CyberDyne Systems.
And then we can make a defence system called SkyNet.
What a good idea!

[Hitcher]

There is little value in creating "another" biker lobby group -- too many brands in the marketplace, etc. Unless the fundamental objectives of the organisations are poles apart.

AA is about commercial objectives based on swelling its coffers from insurance, travel, advertising revenues, etc. Forget them.

BRONZ? I know little about it, other than it's supposed to be about "biker's rights", whatever those are. But it seems like a good place to start, unless its charter and value offering are something that are incapable of generating a groundswell of interest sufficient to secure a strong membership base.

[oldrider]

If every bike club/association/etc member paid one extra dollar per member and that club provided 1 or 2 delegates per branch to the closest active BRONZ, we could have a ready vehicle to stage a stand against negative bureaucracy.
The delegates would have to make sure that the clubs contributions and interests were well represented and not just used for trivial pursuits.
The backing of all the clubs memberships would give BRONZ a bit of extra clout numerically/financially and it's all there without reinventing the wheel.
Uniting motorcyclists is a bit like trying to unite Arabs or Maori tribes but by remaining in established clubs and pledging support to BRONZ we might just about make it.
Just thinking out loud for you guys to consider the option. Cheers John.

[TwoSeven]

My question is with lobby groups is what process are you going to use to ensure what you lobby for is in the members best interest and is based on correct information and not assumptions, vested interest or value sets.

For example, lets say you want to lobby for a reduction in ACC levies. Is this a vested interest in that you dont want to pay so much, or based on some sound research that there is no justification for it being so high, or a value set that you dont believe people should have to pay that kind of thing and the government should. How did the lobby group reach the conclusion that ACC levy reduction was the correct thing to target and invest resources in, and not say perhaps a systemic lack of driver training leading to a higher accident rate. Perhaps lobbying for increased driver ed, may reduce the ACC levey indirectly ?

The other thing, its alright saying lets increase the number of delegates, but if the delegates are as clueless of the rest of us, is that not the blind leading the blind.

[James Deuce]

Yeah, I thought about that too John, but having been involved with BRONZ in the past in just that capacity I'm not keen to repeat it.

This isn't about representing a particular club's interests with BRONZ, it is about trying to ignite a professional lobby group, one that follows up the inarticulate, impassioned grunting of protest groups on Parliament's steps with a consistent communications strategy, a consistent vision for the future of motorcycling in NZ, and a marketing strategy that ensures the accessibility of product, riding gear, and road user training.

I have issues with BRONZ, in particular that "Rights" bit in the title. It's evocative of a long dead era, it's confrontational, and it sets the tone for any communication with the organisation. The word "Rights" is a virtual table thump, and I react badly to confrontation from people I trust, let alone from and organisation that, if I were the LTNZ/ACC cabal, I would like to see out of a job thanks to there being no bikes on or off the road.

I'd much rather see professional negotiators, marketing people, communications people, and outright politicians arguing the case for motorcycling than a bunch of amateurs with no resources trying to do a half-arsed job, and in the end only embittering themselves. Believe me, that is what happens when people of conscience debate with politicians.

The very first thing that needs to happen is for the, Squids, Sprotbike "professionals", dirt bike riders, HOG, RAT, and MANZ cliques to get their heads out of their collective arses and stop treating each other like aliens. We need leadership with a vested interest in the survival of motorcycling, and who can speak softly, even when carrying a big stick. Or make a little stick seem bigger than it is.

[James Deuce]

My question is with lobby groups is what process are you going to use to ensure what you lobby for is in the members best interest and is based on correct information and not assumptions, vested interest or value sets.

It has to be based on vested interests or there is no point. That is the whole point of a lobby group - to push the case for one issue/value/lifestyle to the forefront of policy makers minds.

For example, lets say you want to lobby for a reduction in ACC levies. Is this a vested interest in that you dont want to pay so much, or based on some sound research that there is no justification for it being so high, or a value set that you dont believe people should have to pay that kind of thing and the government should. How did the lobby group reach the conclusion that ACC levy reduction was the correct thing to target and invest resources in, and not say perhaps a systemic lack of driver training leading to a higher accident rate. Perhaps lobbying for increased driver ed, may reduce the ACC levey indirectly ?

That battle has already been won. The Ulysses Club used some of their influential membership to stymie the last attempted raise in ACC levies from within the Government, using Govt. stats to show that the majority of motorcyle injuries were actually in the off-road arena and on vehicles that were unregistered.

The other thing, its alright saying lets increase the number of delegates, but if the delegates are as clueless of the rest of us, is that not the blind leading the blind.

Yes, I'm very shy of that too. The collective IQ of any group is the IQ of the "least smart" member, divided by the number of legs. The ideal number of lobbyists for any group is one. Sure every person relying on that lobbyist will probably be pissed of at some point, but a dictator with his eye on the big picture is usually far more successful at establishing a particular culture than a support group comprised of hippies.