ACC Response to Nash

[xwhatsit]

I just wish they would start charging those who play rugby something to cover their costs. I understand more people are injured playing sport on the weekends than ACC would like to admit. Do you see sports people being asked to contribute $200 a year for their desire to play injury-prone sports?

Er he covered that.

He seems to be saying the big money is in long-term care and lifetime rehabilitation (modifying houses, looking after paraplegics etc.). They only get three of these a year since 2003. He doesn't give figures for motorcyclists, but given 40 were killed between 2007 and 2008, you'd have to expect that number to be much higher.

[boman]

3. Survivors benefits - I think its 80% of their income for a period of 5 years and/or for kids a percentage of that.

Correct. Although in reality it dosn't really help with the loss and the greif that you suffer every day. But it does help pay the bills that still roll in, so that is something for sure.

[Nasty]

Correct. Although in reality it dosn't really help with the loss and the greif that you suffer every day. But it does help pay the bills that still roll in, so that is something for sure.

Nothing that ANYONE .. no matter who they are can fix the hole in a persons life once their life partner is gone ... NOTHING .... but the reality is that life no matter how much we want it to stop goes on .. with or without us ... and that means that there is an time of adapting to new circumstances .. at least it was recognised by ACC and they assist in what they can do. Personally I get no survivors benefit ... but where they were able to help me was gratefully accepted.

[Ixion]

I still don't understand why it boils the bums of some motorcyclists that they have to pay more for their injury insurance than they would if they drove a car.

I mean, WTF? It's insurance. You pay a premium based on your level of risk. It seems so obvious as to not be worth commenting on.

Because it is only motorcycles to which the "level of risk" argument is applied.

No other road users are thus treated.

F'instance, I'd lay kiddy-fiddling money that Subaru and Skyline drivers cost ACC a lot more than Toyota Echo drivers. But they don't pay any extra.

Nor do those with a lower level of risk receive lower premiums. SUVs must cost the ACC less, because their design is such that they cause injury to others, but protect their own occupants. But I don't get a discount on my Pajero

Likewise owners of heavy trucks would have a good case for griping. In the nature of a big truck, it's pretty hard to hurt the driver - and truckies tend (usually!) to be pretty skilled drivers. They should be paying a lot less than they are. They haven't bitched, probably because the ACC levy is a very small component of the total cost of running a big truck. Whereas for bikes, the levy is a big part of running costs.

In fact, car drivers are probably being subsidised by heavier vehicles. Not as much subsidised as some other road users , of course. Like push bikes. Who pay nothing , but have an even big risk factor than motorbikes.

Yet the only group where ACC apply the "risk factor" weighting is bikes.

Bikers would be more accepting if risk factor was applied across the board not just to bikes.

[Elysium]

But I don't get a discount on my Pajero

On a side note, do you really own a Pajero?

[MaxCannon]

F'instance, I'd lay kiddy-fiddling money that Subaru and Skyline drivers cost ACC a lot more than Toyota Echo drivers. But they don't pay any extra.

I dunno - I've done 180,000kms in Subaru's and the only accident I was ever in was a motorcycle crashing into me while I was stopped at traffic lights.

My Ex has written off 3 cars and been in dozens of other accidents - she drives an Echo, after destroying an Accord, a Civic and a Hyndai Excel (she drives like shit and blows up when it's pointed out that she drives like shit).

The main thing worthy of note is that NZ drivers (irrespective of what they drive) are fucking rubbish, it is way too easy to get a license (car and bike test were a joke).
I've had a full car license for 12 years and a full bike license for 12 months. Little has changed in the test process.
Seems to be that if you don't crash in the 30 minutes that you are being watched it's good enough for a pass.
If ACC want the reduce payouts then they need to push for better driver training.
Check out the Top Gear when they go to Finland and 14 year olds are being trained on a skidpan a full 3 years before they can sit the test.
They train drivers and test them extensively because their roads are hazardous.
We have many of the same hazards here, wandering stock, poor road surfaces, narrow roads, heavy rain, fog, ice and snow - yet we let anyone sit a scratch and win test, hop in automatic car and take a forward and back drive around a quiet suburb.
Do that twice and you don't have to worry for another 50 years.