ACC - Should wearing safety gear be a legal requirement?

[p.dath]

The is a poll for an existing thread:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...d.php?t=107044

Here is a re-post of the first article:
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.

The big problem is striking the balance between maintaining peoples freedom and enjoyment of an activity with the cost of it to the rest of the population.

For example, wearing a helmet. I bet when this was bought in there was a huge uproar, but the cost and damage to the pocket of everyone else in the nation is so great that this personal choice was removed.

Education always come up as a constant theme. Car drivers can attend safe driving courses and get recognised. Try and find a course that is actually for motorcycle riders that is recognised. There almost non-existent. Simply speaking, the market has not stepped up to fill a need that exists.

But education alone is still not enough. That's because everyone has a different risk profile, and although they may be educated about those risks, they consider that risk acceptable. However we do have the sense of a nationally acceptable risk profile - which is why we have a law saying you must wear a helmet. Even though someone personally may not want to wear a helmet, the majority of us don't want to accept the risk of them having an accident, or risk that person being hurt, or pay for the resulting harm.

I wonder if we have reached the point were another freedom needs to be removed to get that half billion we spend down, and protect more riders.

I was thinking about the different kinds of injuries, and what could be done to prevent them. One area I have settled on is that of skin grafts, re-constructive cosmetic surgery, and expenses that generally relate to the issue of insufficient protective garments having been used.
A lot of these style injuries occur because of riders using no protective clothing. You see it all the time. Riders wearing a T-shirt, non-kevlar jeans, and sneakers.

I know it would be very much opposed and despised by many, like when helmet requirements were introduced, but do you think we have reached the point where regulation needs to be introduced to enforce people using a minimum level of protective clothing?

I don't particularly know what that level should be, and don't want to start discussing the specifications of boots, leathers, cordura, or any other garment.

However, I'm starting to lean towards the idea that there should be some kind of minimum level of protection that has to be worn - and that the use of such garments needs to be regulated, like helmets. I do think this standard should be relatively low so as to be not overly expensive. Much like we have a minimum helmet standard (some helmets are quite cheap, but nothing prevents you from buying something "better").


Okay, I know this topic can be a bit hot, so I'll put on my protective flame suit for the responses that will follow.

[SMOKEU]

Moped riders should be encouraged to wear more safety gear, after all they pay fuckall ACC on their rego, they often wear no more safety gear than a cheap helmet and they don't usually know how to ride as well as the average motorcyclist. 50kmh is still fast enough to do serious damage.

[nosebleed]

Sorry I've kind of lost what it is your asking.
The cost of Road accidents is covered by the levies in our registration
The cost of Workplace accidents is covered by levies in our salaries

Past-times however, are not covered by levies anywhere and they must surely make up a large percentage of ACC costs.
Cyclists also require skin-grafts and surgeries. Rugby players incur a myriad of injuries.
Off-roaders (bikes and 4wd's) also have injuries, Snowboarders, horse riding etc etc etc

There has always been a shortfall in ACC, which until recently has been managed with some very shrewd investments (brokers have been known to follow the lead of those investing the ACC portfolio)
It follows therefore that the main reason there is a shortfall is that like investments by just about everyone else around the world, investments by ACC have turned sour.

So unless there is there a quid pro quo agreement that when motorcycle injuries reduce this will be reflected in a reduction of our ACC levies, I don't see why there should be this movement to further regulation.

[Squiggles]

Where would you draw the line ultimately? Legislation is a dangerous path to head down... Safety gear followed by visi vests then limiting power output or setting special speed limits (70k's for all bikes?)... ban bikes from roads where there are lots of crashes? (Already done elsewhere in the world)

A star rating would be good as it gives the chance for an informed decision...

[p.dath]

...
Past-times however, are not covered by levies anywhere and they must surely make up a large percentage of ACC costs.
Cyclists also require skin-grafts and surgeries. Rugby players incur a myriad of injuries.
Off-roaders (bikes and 4wd's) also have injuries, Snowboarders, horse riding etc etc etc
...

"Past time" injuries are funded from the "Earner's Account", which you pay for in workplace levies. It's quite separate from road accidents. It's detailed here:

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/overv...nded/index.htm

[ducatilover]

Wear leather more, it's sexy

[p.dath]

... limiting power output ...

They are currently looking at an increased ACC levy for bikes of 600cc and over, because the injuries occurring from these bikes are more serious and costing ACC more than those on smaller bikes. It's detailed in the Safer Journeys discussion paper.

I can't tell you why. I was surprised by the statistic. Perhaps there are a lot of mature riders who return to riding, by a big bike, and have nastier accidents.

[p.dath]

...There has always been a shortfall in ACC, which until recently has been managed with some very shrewd investments
...
It follows therefore that the main reason there is a shortfall is that like investments by just about everyone else around the world, investments by ACC have turned sour.

I guess I should also point out that in 1999 ACC funding was fundamentally changed.

Up to 1999 ACC had to collect enough money to pay for its running for just that year.

From 2000 onwards they funding was changed so that they had to collect enough money to pay for the injuries that occurred during the year - and not when the treatment occurred. So if an accident is likely to take 30 years of pay outs, they had to collect all 30 years in the year the accident occurred.

Can you see how we also developed this shortfall on paper ...

[SMOKEU]

They are currently looking at an increased ACC levy for bikes of 600cc and over, because the injuries occurring from these bikes are more serious and costing ACC more than those on smaller bikes. It's detailed in the Safer Journeys discussion paper.

I can't tell you why. I was surprised by the statistic. Perhaps there are a lot of mature riders who return to riding, by a big bike, and have nastier accidents.

Going by those statistics, then people on litre bikes are more likely to kill themselves than on a 500cc bike which won't cost ACC anything (unless there is a 3rd party which is injured in the crash).

[p.dath]

Going by those statistics, then people on litre bikes are more likely to kill themselves than on a 500cc bike which won't cost ACC anything (unless there is a 3rd party which is injured in the crash).

Negative. The average cost of someone dying is far greater than someone being seriously injured.
A lot of those who die don't just die. They use some incredibly expensive resources and then die.

I don't quite recall which report it was in. Something like a name like "Social Cost of Injuries".

[MarkH]

Negative. The average cost of someone dying is far greater than someone being seriously injured.
A lot of those who die don't just die. They use some incredibly expensive resources and then die.

I don't quite recall which report it was in. Something like a name like "Social Cost of Injuries".

I thought we were talking about ACC cost, not social cost.

[The Stranger:Me]

"Past time" injuries are funded from the "Earner's Account", which you pay for in workplace levies. It's quite separate from road accidents. It's detailed here:

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/overv...nded/index.htm

Well yes and no. That's the way it should be.
However, as motorcycles are soooo bad we get our own check box on the ACC form the doctor fills out. Should you have an accident on a motorcycle off road and go to a quack and he hears the word motorcycle he ticks the motorcycle box (why wouldn't he?) - thus putting the cost on those wot ride road bikes (MV account) - where as it should be on the eraners account. Then they divide the costs by the number of registered motorcycles and determine we are real expensive to insure.

And yes ACC (well certain representitives) are aware of and have acknowledged this anomoly.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

They are currently looking at an increased ACC levy for bikes of 600cc and over, because the injuries occurring from these bikes are more serious and costing ACC more than those on smaller bikes.

And that's the biggest load of bull shit crap I have seen and heard for a long time... If you believe that you and buying into their bullshit

[p.dath]

Well yes and no. That's the way it should be.
However, as motorcycles are soooo bad we get our own check box on the ACC form the doctor fills out. Should you have an accident on a motorcycle off road and go to a quack and he hears the word motorcycle he ticks the motorcycle box (why wouldn't he?) - thus putting the cost on those wot ride road bikes (MV account) - where as it should be on the eraners account. Then they divide the costs by the number of registered motorcycles and determine we are real expensive to insure.

And yes ACC (well certain representitives) are aware of and have acknowledged this anomoly.

Don't they also note on that same form weather it was a road accident or not?

[Pedrostt500]

The last thing we need in the world of motorcycles is more beauracrats dictating to us what where when and how, the beauracrats will want to exstract their pound of flesh for getting involved, and it will not be in the average Kiwi motorcyclists best intrests that they get involved, how much of the ACC fee collected of NZ road REG motorcyclists gets burned up in beauracratic fees, my geuss is about half of it.

If you are serious about making a difference to Motorcyclists Saftey then the answer is education of all road users, regardless of what they ride or drive. We know one of the major groups that realy could do with some Motorcycle Education is the older rider returning to the fold, they last rode a honda XL 185 in 1983, now they are back with avengence, with the latest, $25k European tarseal burning go faster bike that the sales man could flog him. yep he will have good gear with what ever brand name splattered all over it, but it will not give him the knoledge of realy how much the industry has changed in 30 yrs, and how much bikes have advanced in the same period of time.

If the NZ motorcycle industry and riding comunity wish to bring down the costs of accidents, then self regulation will do far more than impossed regulations by any Government, and would cost a hell of alot less.