ACC - How to get the nation's motorbike bill down

[CookMySock]

I would support excluding ACC paying if insufficient gear.

Ditto, or at least reduced coverage.

Personally I think we have lost to much freedom and we should let darwin rule

Yeah but you and I have to pay for their idiocy.

more rules isnt freedom

Sometimes it is, especially when those rules protect you and guarantee your freedom. I'd love to have many more bikes, and have the choice of riding whichever took my fancy, but because of the high costs to ACC I am unable. Those are someone elses actions, and my consequences. In this case, more rules might actually enable me, not restrict me.

Steve

[Jantar]

JD, I think you have jumped to a conclusion that is not envisioned or intended. In the submission I shall prepare I shall simply mention motorcycle riding gear (with examples). I shall not be recommending any minimum standard. So that if someone spends $150 on HardAs kevlar jeans rather than $600 on top of the line leather trous they get a $15 reduction on ACC levies rather than a $60 reduction.

As long as the receipt they produce lists the product as "Motorcycle Trousers" that would be sufficient. The idea is to save injuries, not to increase beauracracy.

[MacD]

The issue is those that don't choose to wear safety gear, the minority, cause us, the majority, to pay more for our ACC premiums.

What proof do you have for this statement? Most accidents causing serious injury or death occur on the open road and are single vehicle accidents, primarily lost control on a corner. These statistics are available from the LTNZ or whatever they're called now. Were these people not wearing protective gear? I suspect a lot of them were trussed up like MotoGP riders.

Protective gear is not magic. You cannot beat the laws of physics (now who said that?). It is very good at reducing abrasion injuries, at best it can redistribute the force of an impact, but if you slow from 100km/h to 0 km/h when you hit a tree or something similar, no gear can save you from the internal injuries.

I'm with J2 on this one, if you want to reduce the cost of ACC, stop falling off on corners on the open road.

On another note, Standards are not all that they seem. They are the result of a highly political process and in some cases it could even be argued that they are used for protecting industry from competition, rather than protecting the end user, and yes, I have sat on Standards committees.

[Pedrostt500]

I think the idea is recreational accidents (off road, soccer, rugby, etc) are covered by your work place ACC levy.

But when some one rocks into an A&E with a motorcycle accident victim the nurse just ticks one box, then ACC tally up the years no of motorcycle accidents, and lumps them all together, hence the ACC component of you REG hikes up each year, as ACC only give an over all tally of motorcycle accidents, and does not defer between on road off road, work off road ie Farmers, or work on road ie Posties & traffic cops motorcycle.

What we need from ACC is a better break down of the Statistics, wich may require better information gathering, by ACC. It will not change the overall ACC bill but will bring better understanding, and better ability to know wich groups that should be targeted for training / education.

[Max Preload]

I don't know anything about the coastguard. If it is a membership, how did the rule change occurr? Was it something the membership voted on?

Not too sure how it came about but it happened about 3 years ago.

Not even third party? Brave man. What if the 1 in 1000 happens and you crash into a really expensive car, and end up oweing $100k or something?

Statistically highly unlikely - have you seen how cheap most cars are?. Besides you could end up in the exact same situation even if you think you are covered. I don't buy lotto either, for pretty much the same reason.

[Big Dave]

I think I need to put this more subtly and succinctly.

Some Govt knob telling me what clothing I must wear on a motorcycle can get fucked.

Trust me - I'm a professional.

[Kickaha]

I've been pondering ways we could reduce the half billions dollars ACC spends on fixing up motorbike riders who have had an accident each year.

Ban Motorcycling

[Max Preload]

But when some one rocks into an A&E with a motorcycle accident victim the nurse just ticks one box, then ACC tally up the years no of motorcycle accidents, and lumps them all together, hence the ACC component of you REG hikes up each year, as ACC only give an over all tally of motorcycle accidents, and does not defer between on road off road, work off road ie Farmers, or work on road ie Posties & traffic cops motorcycle.

No. Part of the questionaire asks if the accident involved a road registered vehicle. At least it did when I fell off my bicycle while doing stunts earlier this year...

[Genestho]

Again, Safer Journeys Consultation paper, presented to the public at MOT:

"Carry out more crash reduction studies and make these more targeted"

Don't take this the wrong way, but you could be spending the same amount of time reading the paper, and seeing what is actually in there, making a submssion, over at MOT, and actually contributing, versus just talking about it on KB!
No offence intended!

If you're not into all the blah blah blah here's the summary

If you want targeted crash stats, go for gold!

[James Deuce]

JD, I think you have jumped to a conclusion that is not envisioned or intended. In the submission I shall prepare I shall simply mention motorcycle riding gear (with examples). I shall not be recommending any minimum standard. So that if someone spends $150 on HardAs kevlar jeans rather than $600 on top of the line leather trous they get a $15 reduction on ACC levies rather than a $60 reduction.

As long as the receipt they produce lists the product as "Motorcycle Trousers" that would be sufficient. The idea is to save injuries, not to increase beauracracy.

It's an excellent idea, as is the one Paul in NZ posited.

It won't happen though. Both ideas foster continued motorcycling at their core. ACC are not interested in that at all.

One thing though, you will increase bureacracy with both ideas which will add costs, probably at the rego level. You will need, at minimum, an understanding at a bureaucratic level about what constitues motorcycle safety apparel and that will mean manufacturers submitting gear for approval. You can't step around that approach once a government bureaucracy is involved.

Remember the goal isn't to make motorcycling safer. ACC want us off the road, period.

[Jonno.]

So that if someone spends $150 on HardAs kevlar jeans rather than $600 on top of the line leather trous they get a $15 reduction on ACC levies rather than a $60 reduction.

I don't think people would spend $150 on a jacket to save $15, especially people on scooters who think don't need it.

[James Deuce]

You may have missed it Mr Dath, but one of the most consistent thread themes on KB is: I saw someone doing or wearing something on a motorcycle that I can't/won't/wouldn't myself, so they are an idiot and I shall rant about them and it will be a righteous rant, and yea, verily I shall smote them should I ever be so foully unfortunate as to meet them.

You OP is simply a polite extension of that philosophy. One of the fantastic things about motorcycling the low ratio of idiots compared to just about any other activity I can think of. Idiots get weeded out rapidly. Just because someone can stunt, is happy in Draggin jeans, leather jacket, open face helmet and ankle boots, and happens to be able to get from point A to point B quicker than you, doesn't give you the right to determine that they need protecting from themselves.

Where does it stop? Cotton underpants because they don't melt into the skin like nylon ones? Wool socks only because they prevent chill blains in cold weather?

[Pedrostt500]

It's an excellent idea, as is the one Paul in NZ posited.

It won't happen though. Both ideas foster continued motorcycling at their core. ACC are not interested in that at all.

One thing though, you will increase bureacracy with both ideas which will add costs, probably at the rego level. You will need, at minimum, and understanding at a bureaucratic level about what constitues motorcycle safety apparel and that will mean manufacturers submitting gear for approval. You can't step around that approach once a government bureaucracy is involved.

Remember the goal isn't to make motorcycling safer. ACC want us off the road, period.

Have to agree with you on this statement, particurly the last sentence, some heads of ACC over the years have publicly stated this.

[CookMySock]

Most accidents causing serious injury or death [are] primarily "lost control on a corner." [...] I suspect a lot of them were trussed up like MotoGP riders.

[...] if you want to reduce the cost of ACC, stop falling off on corners on the open road.

So what is the solution for that? Stop racing on public roads? But how? Punish people heavily for it? Free trackdays?

Even the boyracers could get in on the free trackday stuff.. I'm sure they'd love that. Everyone says thats what they need - a place to race and play up. Maybe bikers are the same.

Steve

[CookMySock]

Some Govt knob telling me what clothing I must wear on a motorcycle can get fucked.

What difference would it make to you? You wear full gear anyway... Why the angst?

Steve