ACC Response to Nash

[Big Dave]

http://www.kiwirider.co.nz/acc/acclevy.html

[Devil]

Good letter.

[Elysium]

Be good if they're able to bill the people who cause the accidents by increasing their ACC levys. But it still stands that us bikies cost me to care for when we tumble.

[CookMySock]

Haha, listen to some of the wording..

"We are very open to discussion with riders..."

"We do welcome feedback..."

"Every year there is a consultation process..."

"we don’t levy one group of people or vehicles more highly because they appear to cause more crashes." Um yes thats exactly what they are doing.

"often the crash wasn’t caused by the rider." uh huh.. some numbers please? Do we then get close to the 62M/12M ratio ?

"If you are injured, ACC can pay for: [long list].." uh huh, but often they don't, or they worm out of it a few years down the track.

Not a credible reply IMO.

Steve

[jrandom]

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.

You don't hear obese smokers complaining about paying more for general health insurance.

Also, as a side point, we've had the NZ statistics up here before; the majority of motorcycle crashes are not another vehicle's 'fault'.

[Sully60]

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.

I take no issue with higher levies for bikers, I myself have cashed in more than my fair share.
But we also own two four wheeled vehicles as well as the SV and pay levies on each of those even though we can only use two at any one time, what about multiple bike owners?
Surely they can't hurt themselves on both of their machines at the same time?
Though I can see the arguement that if you tried you probably would.

And still there is a funding shortfall!?!

[2much]

Kiwi's are fucken lucky to have the acc system... pray the govt never bins it. It's worth twice what motorcyclists pay easy.

[Nasty]

...You don't hear obese smokers complaining about paying more for general health insurance...

Wow .. that was a great comment .. .most obese smokers don't pay insurance .. they rely on the health system ... which is covered by regular taxes.

Maybe there is a lack of understanding as to what ACC pays for when a motorcyclist dies or has an accident.

Myself I was amazed at the two things they helped with and the other stuff on offer.

1. Funeral expenses - there was a contribution to that

2. Survivors Grant - moeny to assist as a sudden lack of income and/or partnership can lead to difficulties.

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

These are not great figures .. but they help if there has been a death.

In the case of accident - my sister had one 18 years ago ... she still has to have surgeries etcf - these are paid for and any period off work ACC continues to cover if it is due to the injuries.

Oh well ... some food for thought. This does not mean I agree to paying huge amounts ... what it means is I understand what some of these huge amounts go to.

[smoky]

"we don’t levy one group of people or vehicles more highly because they appear to cause more crashes." Um yes thats exactly what they are doing.

Read in context; they are a 'no fault' insurance, meaning they don't look at who's fault it was - they treat everyone regardless of fault, that's why a burglar can trip over your coffee table and hurt themselves, then receive treatment via ACC - even compensation if the injury is serious enough

"If you are injured, ACC can pay for: [long list].." uh huh, but often they don't, or they worm out of it a few years down the track.

Not a credible reply IMO.

the reply was in answer to comments about ACC levies not claims assessments, the answer was credible, actually a good answer if you ask me
Your point about worming out of making payments may be valid and is where most people struggle with ACC - you should craft a good factual open letter about it, and send it into KR, see if they publish it and if ACC bother to answer

[EJT]

Thought it was a good response myself. The figures speak for themselves. Be thankful for what we have. Heaven forbid if we have to sue someone with all the cost and delay that would cause to get some financial support after an accident.

The only weakness is that having no fault cover might result in some lack of care by public authorities - ie if an authority thought it might be exposed to being sued for not ensuring a road was properly swept after roadworks it might actually get off its bum and do it and not leave loose metal everywhere.

[Big Dave]

The only weakness is that having no fault cover might result in some lack of care by public authorities - ie if an authority thought it might be exposed to being sued for not ensuring a road was properly swept after roadworks it might actually get off its bum and do it and not leave loose metal everywhere.

Yes - they are and a legal precedent has been set. If it is not properly warned & signposted the Authority is liable.

[AllanB]

I considered it a good reply.

Stop riding around like racers and falling off, pay extra attention to other road users and it may well go down again............ (Katman was channeling through me then).


PS - just paid the rego on my Trailer $35 for the year - NO ACC levies.

[Robbo]

Yes, that was a good response and explains clearly how the system works. Unfortunately we motorcyclists are a higher risk whether it be our fault or not and i don't have a problem with the levey placed on me if it gives me the coverage as said in the letter in the event of an accident.
Hopefully i never need to use it but it is good to know it is there if i do.
If the accidents were leveyed on blame then ACC would be wasting more money and effort on court cases for all the obvious not guilty pleas instead of getting on with the job of repairs so it does make sense when you analyze it.

[trumpy]

Getting rid of ACC will simply create a new income stream for the legal profession.

[Beemer]

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?

We have three cars and seven bikes so don't even get me started on how 'fair' the system is. If we had an accident on any one of the bikes (after all, it's not like we can ride more than one each at a time), do you think we'd get paid out for the fact we register and licence ALL of them, even when we are not using them? Yeah, right!

I'm self-employed and pay a horrendous amount ($460 a year - and I work from home) in ACC levies and yet as a journalist and editor the only injuries I am likely to suffer are repetitive strain injuries - oh, and guess what, ACC doesn't recognise them as 'accidents' but as long-term injuries and they don't cover me for them. So I pay nearly $500 a year for NOTHING because if I had an accident I would be covered in any case. VERY fair - NOT.