ACC - Should wearing safety gear be a legal requirement?

[p.dath]

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

That's what the statistics are currently indicating. Those people on bigger bikes that have an accident require more expensive treatment.

When I think of an extreme case if seems reasonable. Those on a 50cc scooter are probably going to require cheaper treatments than those on 1000cc bikes. The probability of surviving a 50km/h accident is much higher than a 100km/h accident.

What's your reasoning for thinking it is wrong?

[p.dath]

...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.
...
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.

I would be interested to know the cost of running ACC, but I doubt its more than 10%. Probably much less.

The problem with education is that it only teaches the risk - and then only to those that want to be educated. Some people accept the risk at the expense of others.
The other problem is, even if I give you a fist full of cash, its almost impossible to find places that teach defensive riding skills. Plenty of courses for car drivers. Motorcyclists miss out. It seems the training providers don't feel that such a market exists - and why is that? Probably because insufficient people are wanting to do defensive riding courses.

So what do you want to do about those who don't want to be educated? Make them go to "school"?

I would have to conclude from your last statement that the motorcycle industry does not wish to bring down the cost of accidents, or that self regulation has not worked, because the cost of ACC is not reducing.

[Pedrostt500]

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

I'm certain the answer to that is no, it is all lumped together under the one heading, and when ACC gets that bit of paper they traet all motorcycle Accidents as road Accidents.

[mstriumph]

too many laws already

personally i'm dead against removing any more freedoms ...

[Elysium]

I can see a vast amount of female scooter owners deciding that it's better off with a car then carry all that bulky gear around.

[James Deuce]

Oi dath. Stop it.

Join BRONZ and piss them off instead of us.

People have gone into this in greater granularity than you have and they need man power, so go join a lobby group (BRONZ, or Ulysses - if you're old enough) with an understanding of how Government works.

A poll on KB does nothing. Especially one written by what looks like a Referedum expert - Ask fact-seeking questions, don't imply an emotive response when there is no need to. It's rude.

Go do some real work and stop wasting time here.

[James Deuce]

I would be interested to know the cost of running ACC, but I doubt its more than 10%. Probably much less.

The problem with education is that it only teaches the risk - and then only to those that want to be educated. Some people accept the risk at the expense of others.
The other problem is, even if I give you a fist full of cash, its almost impossible to find places that teach defensive riding skills. Plenty of courses for car drivers. Motorcyclists miss out. It seems the training providers don't feel that such a market exists - and why is that? Probably because insufficient people are wanting to do defensive riding courses.

So what do you want to do about those who don't want to be educated? Make them go to "school"?

I would have to conclude from your last statement that the motorcycle industry does not wish to bring down the cost of accidents, or that self regulation has not worked, because the cost of ACC is not reducing.

And the problem with your attitude is the incredibly rude assumption that we're all too thick to make up our own minds, to evaluate the available information and come to a decision that suits our own needs.

You should be an MP, preferably a Labour one, because they think we're too thick to look after ourselves too.

Take the flame proof suit off. The retardant bit is the only part that seems to be working.

[scracha]

So what do you want to do about those who don't want to be educated? Make them go to "school"?

Yeah. There's this thing called a "drivers license". You make people go to "school" before giving them one.

Why not do a teensy weensy bit of research on how other countries do things before posting more daft polls?

[Usarka]

Did the question get answered about how many of the riders in these accident's were wearing substandard gear?

ps - acc kiss my arse.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

That's what the statistics are currently indicating. Those people on bigger bikes that have an accident require more expensive treatment.

When I think of an extreme case if seems reasonable. Those on a 50cc scooter are probably going to require cheaper treatments than those on 1000cc bikes. The probability of surviving a 50km/h accident is much higher than a 100km/h accident.

What's your reasoning for thinking it is wrong?

I could make the stats look like anything I want to make them look like as well... Go hit a brick wall at a 100kph on a 250cc (or any bike under the 600cc range), then go and do the same thing on a 1000cc at 100kph then tell me just because you rode the 1000 you will require more expensive treatment...

The main reason the stats show there is more so called accidents is because there are more bikes on the road in the suggested size range... (and then you get gits on here suggesting a newbie just getting full should upgrade from a 250 -1000cc and wonder why accident rates are up... hmmm take so responsibility )

If well all rode 250's, it show that 250's should be band as they are the major cause ...

Well for a start its not the bike... its the rider

[scracha]

Who's more likely to have an accident....these guys or the folks with the regular gear?
[youtube]DSK5fmGnXi0[/youtube]

[Headbanger]

[Usarka]

[bogan]

how am i sposed to vote on this when you havent even defined what a basic level of safety gear is?

Im all for getting people to wear more gear, but from the comments here, maybe legislation is not the best way to go about achieving that, rider education is probably a better idea. Get the govt to trial a mandatory 5 day skills and theory course for new rider, and follow thier accident rates, hopefully they would be less than the nations average, thus reducing the social and treatment costs, therefor paying for the mandatory course in the first place.

[red675]

better suggestion:

scrap the ACC, which having been a soft touch in the past now plays hard ball like the worst of the insurance companies when it comes to settling claims

then maybe we could sue people who let us down