Mandatory Safety Gear

[dpex]

Frankly, I think Greminn's poll was a bit specious, but he did bring up a manifestly complex issue.

On the one hand was have NZ with ACC, a process which denies the individual the right to sue a malefactor.

On the other hand we have the American system (sans an ACC programme) which enables any person to sue any other person for the slightest infraction.

In NZ, the actions of (mainly) professionals..health, legal, accounting, employers, etc, are finely ground down to often a near standstill due to ACC and OSH requirements. However, malefactors are, at worst, exposed to various fines from the Court system which, of itself is both quick and limited. The limited part being; fines are directly related to precedent.

But, in the States, no such precedent operates. Thus even a non-malefactor can end up in a court, faced with frequently the most ridiculous law suit.

For example: In the States a mother could sue a helmet supplier after her son/daughter died from head injuries resulting from a bike crash where head-injury was the executioner.

And so, by wearing a helmet, in the States, one, or one's remaining family have the right to sue a helmet maker...in the event of some head-damage which the helmet failed to resist. Oddly enough, the litigious advantage lays in the hands of the helmet wearer. So who would wish to be a helmet supplier?

But, in NZ, due to the ACC law, the tax-payer foots the bill for all 'accidents' and so the 'presumed' advantage of wearing a helmet lays with the tax-payer, not the helmeted.

And so, on the one hand we have the freedom of the individual to do with his mind and body as he wishes (the American system) or we have the NZ system which protects the individual against errant law-suites yet demands one bows to an agreement to revoke individual rights.

I guess the answer to all this is somewhere within a court system which allows utterly ridiculous litigants to have their day in a court, and a social system which refuses to allow such excesses.

We know that getting money out of ACC is about as likely as getting sperm out of the pope, but at least the legislation protects us from felonious law suites. Maybe that's cause enough to retain it.

But as regards ACC and OSH, and the freedom of the individual; it's a vexing question.

[Ocean1]

Dude, there's no difference. Here ACC are the one-stop blame shop, they take ownership all of the ugly aspects of the injury, the bureaucratically bloated health costs, the systemic safety procedural overkill and the self righteous, litigious fanaticism in pursuit of any transgressor.

And no, we didn’t give them the right to dictate lifestyle choices to us when they arbitrarily assumed fiscal and legal responsibility for our sins.

Fuck ‘em.