
Originally Posted by
Toast
it's about the fact that his decision not to wear a helmet costs the rest of us financially, in ACC...and is that fair?
Compared to what we used to have, it most certainly is. We used to have to sue somebody, to do that successfully you needed to prove blame. If the Police were to busy to attend the accident you were shit out of luck right there. (That happened to my brother.)
If you had an accident at work you had to sue your employer to get compensation. Since we tend to get exactly the justice we can afford this didn't always end well.
ACC was supposed to be a no fault, no liability, system. If a guy broke his leg jumping over a prison wall he got ACC. That's OK, that's a small price to pay.
Over the years ACC has been watered down and the "social contract" the populace entrered into when they gave up the right to sue has been corrupted. As corrupted as it has become though, ACC is still just possibly more fair than what existed previously.
I would suspect, however, that all prudent travellers would have insurance. Unless we *know* that Ingles didn't have insurance we can't even comment.
There is a grey blur, and a green blur. I try to stay on the grey one. - Joey Dunlop
Bookmarks