IMPORTANT - Submission To The Government

[dpex]

I look at ACC as a form of Insurance....most important thing is to protect our wellbeing.

Your bike levy also covers a) your pillion b) a pedestrian that you hit....remember that fault does not come into it.

I would be very impressed if you could buy private insurance that would provide the extent of cover provided by ACC for anything remotely close to what you pay in motorbike ACC levies...I would take a punt and say unlikely.

Say you end up being paralysed from the waste down after a crash on your bike.

ACC will cover:

• Health Care
• Rehab
• Occupational Therapy
• 80% of your salary - future earnings
• Housing Mods
• Mobility Vehicle that you can drive - $120,000
• Paid Family Care

Call Asteron, Sovereign, Tower etc and ask what they would cover...those in Bold are what you do not get if you are born with a disability.

If you had the choice of either taking ACC or taking Private, you will realise that paying extra ACC levies is the best option

ACC charges (in your words "Targets") people like any other form of Insurance..so what is wrong with a variable rate for cc's

Hmmmm. You make an interesting point, Grahameboy, except for one small issue. That is, ACC is about to be privatised. The gov can no longer accept the toll of ACC.

It was a sort've fine idea when first introduced, especially to by-pass the American, litigious ethic AKA sue, for the slightest.

But as with all social freebies, and that is what ACC really is; a get out of jail card free, despite the gross ineptitude of the claimant.... it has bred an 'I don't have to care because I'm covered,' mentality.

Crash ya bike? Make a mess of ya self? 'Ho hum. I could do with a few months holiday on 80% of my current income.'

Make a mess of someone else? 'Ho hum. Sorry about that, but ACC will see you right.'

But ACC is looking not just at road injuries. They're looking at a whole bunch of costs.

Just latterly they put out a moot that sexual abuse claimants actually had to demonstrate that they have been actually hurt by the 'abuse'.

The psychologists are screaming 'Not fair!' Every sexual abuse victim has been hurt.

They probably have but ACC's actual thrust is to determine if in fact a claimant has been sexually abused or is just playing the system.

In the new regime the 'victim' has to identify the abuser and then demonstrate some DSM1V level of damage.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not minimizing the pain of genuine victims, simply highlighting the fact that ACC has become a good earn for so many.

Sadly, that good earn is about to cease because we, the people, can no longer afford to pay folk to step out on Sunday morning with absolutely no care for their self preservation.

Thus ACC IS driving the road-safe issue because, very soon now, ACC will be put in the hands of private insurers. And so, behind ACC's demands for greater self protection is a requirement from the private insurers that their risk will be minimised.

So submit something intelligent.

[Grahameeboy]

.

So who will fund the non work place "ACC" then? Is that an intelligent comment?

[dpex]

So who will fund the non work place "ACC" then? Is that an intelligent comment?

I think that's all a part of the scheme to reduce ACC costs. Private insurance will be required, but I'll lay odds they will still keep the concept of no-fault as regards suing a third party for a real or imagined injury.

[Grahameeboy]

I think that's all a part of the scheme to reduce ACC costs. Private insurance will be required, but I'll lay odds they will still keep the concept of no-fault as regards suing a third party for a real or imagined injury.

I think you will find that they will just privatise "In The Workplace" ACC because Employers pay this anyway so it has less impact.

No Health provider is going to cover the costs that ACC can end up paying out i.e. quadraplegic motorcycle accident...if they did the premiums would be sky high...and they cannot sue a TP for injury anyway...

You would have to have Health cover plus Income Protection cover amongst others...it would not be cheap

[rocketman1]

It's not about fair, and I can guarantee that you wouldn't like the increased ACC levies the bureacracy around your idea would bring.

Fair? Don't make me laugh. Motorcyclists are a minority and do not even comprise a credible, threatening voting bloc, because they can't even stop giving each other shit for the type of bike they ride, let alone mount a campaign to prevent a change in Government policy.

A ride on Parliament doesn't let "them" know anything, show 'them" anything, inform "them" of anything.

Protest is a thing of the past. Governments need sound economic reasons to not ban motorcycles, and they need to be informed by professional lobby groups who can demonstrate the sound political and economic benefits of doing so.

Public submissions are a waste of time and change nothing.

Political power is horse trading. If keeping motorcycles legal in NZ came down to banning adventure riding to gain Green support against the bill banning motorcycling would the Adventure riders give publicly voiced support to the idea?

I think not. We're not a political movement, we have no clear long term goals or motivation to meet them and our Modus Operandi seems to consist of impotent whining in forums that have no bearing on outcomes. Like Public Submissions.

The submission letter we are suppose to sign IMHO is a waste of time. If I was a minister of this government I would not take any more notice of that than a scammed email. What ever we as a minority will not make the slightest bit of difference. It may help if some of the ministers actually ride bikes themselves. I'm not sure many do. Its all about money $$, far to many bikers are killing and injuring themselves, this costs big bucks to the tax payers that have to pay for fixing up busted bodies on ACC. You will get very little support from Joe Public to stop the Govt introducing rules to stop bikers getting hurt. If Govt changes are considered to save lives it will happen.

If I were making the rules I would, ensure all born again bikers, eg.that can now go and buy a 1200cc bike... attend rider training and biker education courses. Which you should have to pass, before you get permission to insure, register, and ride a large bike.
I can say this because I have been there and done that, and would have welcomed that ruling when I returned to the biking fraternity. It wouldnt have done me any harm at all.

[Ixion]

BRONZ submission. 15 pages of it.

Note that this does not necessary represent my personal opinions.

[Katman]

Some great suggestions in there Ixion.

I particularly like the suggestion for an added license class between restricted and full.

Interesting (and very valid) view on the lowering of the breath/alcohol limit too.

[James Deuce]

I had a similar discussion with another couple of KBer's the other day. Their attitude being like yours..."What's the point? After all, the Gov ignored the anti-smacking referendum results, so why would they consider any biker submissions?"

Oh yes. That's the guaranteed method of losing. Just assume you're beaten before you start.

It takes so little effort to put in a submission; so why not do one?

For example, you might like to submit on the issues regarding moped riders. They require no bike licence, yet a 70Kg Moped rider, plus 50KG moped, hitting a solid object at 50Ks will see the moped rider either very ill or very dead.

What about ABS brakes? Great for straight-line stopping, but do they help when a frightened biker squeezes the lever during an 'Oh Fuck! I'm too hot into this corner'?

What about saying something about engine size? Surely, if the wee girl from Orewa can get around the track on a 125 at near the same speed...and frequently better than those on way bigger bikes, is the size of the bike the issue?

You see, on the one side the panel looking into submissions are being driven by ACC and the cops. The warts from ACC have no idea about bikes and bikers, other than what they cost ACC. The cops, like our good friend Scumdog spend their days picking up after some twit splats. And so the cops have a seriously jaundiced view (and quite reasonably in the circumstances).

But we, the riders, being from neither the ACC or the cops can contribute with well-crafted, well-reasoned submissions.

Remember, the main driver behind this 'Let's get the crash-rate to zero,' crap is being driven by ACC who are under huge pressure to reduce costs.


And so the focus is on reducing costs. Costs will not be reduced by invoking ever-more penalty rules. Understanding the issues and applying reasoned solutions might.

But if you don't tell them what you know or believe, they'll never know and therefore make their decisions in a one-sided vacuum.

I simply don't agree with you. ACC levies for over-600cc bikes are going up whether you like it or not. The request for submissions is simply regarded as "Fair Warning" by the Government.

I don't think many people understand that the guys & gals forcing these changes aren't doing it because they don't like bikes. They're doing it because they have been charged with reducing casualty stats and the ongoing social cost of road deaths and injuries and Motorcycles are an easy start due to the general lack of impulse control exhibited by motorcycling in general.

Save dosh, or recover the cost.

You also seem to be unable to grasp the idea I am pushing.

Active participation in politics for a motorcycle lobby.

Not grievance based entitlement oriented whinging, active partnership with the aspects of Government that have the most scope to make sure that motorcycling is too expensive for kiddies to get into in the first instance.

Adversarial attitudes will achieve nothing, neither will letters from individuals. Motorcycling as a group needs to identify where its political and economic power lies (albeit limited) and leverage from that. By far the best suited and most active political group open to motorcyclists are Farmers. Banning motorcycles altogether can be presented as a negative cost benefit for the NZ farming economy.

Personally, I think your Mum spent far too much time telling you you were special. Individuals hold no power in a Democracy. The key to preserving rights is organisation, a solid support base, lots of money, and a genial mode of operation.

[dpex]

The submission letter we are suppose to sign IMHO is a waste of time. If I was a minister of this government I would not take any more notice of that than a scammed email. What ever we as a minority will not make the slightest bit of difference. It may help if some of the ministers actually ride bikes themselves. I'm not sure many do. Its all about money $$, far to many bikers are killing and injuring themselves, this costs big bucks to the tax payers that have to pay for fixing up busted bodies on ACC. You will get very little support from Joe Public to stop the Govt introducing rules to stop bikers getting hurt. If Govt changes are considered to save lives it will happen.

If I were making the rules I would, ensure all born again bikers, eg.that can now go and buy a 1200cc bike... attend rider training and biker education courses. Which you should have to pass, before you get permission to insure, register, and ride a large bike.
I can say this because I have been there and done that, and would have welcomed that ruling when I returned to the biking fraternity. It wouldnt have done me any harm at all.

Let me see if I've got this right.

1. You're in 'What's the point of submitting cos nobody cares," camp. Right?

2. You assert bikers are costing ACC big bucks, but in a way suggestion we have no peers. So what about rugby, league, bicycling, scate-boarding, falling off ladders, falling off mountains, falling over when pissed? The list could take a book. The fact is, compared to many 'other' groups claiming ACC, Bikers are small fry.

3. But what really first laugh then almost spit was reading that instead of having sufficient intelligence to go do some training courses, you reveal you didn't, then splatted then have the gargantuan temerity to blame the system because you weren't forced to do some training.

That very statement of yours, rocketman, encapsulates all which is wrong with modern society. Nobody has personal responsibility unless they have been told.

And I used to think Katman was a dickhead. Jesus, compared to you he's a genius.

[dpex]

Personally, I think your Mum spent far too much time telling you you were special. Individuals hold no power in a Democracy. The key to preserving rights is organisation, a solid support base, lots of money, and a genial mode of operation.[/QUOTE]

Two points. The first being, my mother made both Atilla The Hun, and Vlad The Impaler look like pussycats who never spoke, only screamed. Good stuff. Served to toughen me up.

Second, this site does not have the space available for me to list the number of individuals who have made a small to a huge difference.

But what fascinates me about you, "What's the point submitting," lot is, 'Why not? What have you got to lose?' Or are you so inarticulate that you simply can't craft a half-readable letter?

[dpex]

Speak for yourself Graham.

I have no desire to hand more money over to ACC.

Jesus H Christ! What an end to the week. Not only were the fish hard to catch in Tongariro over the first two days of the season, now I have to clutch for the barf-bag as I find a need to agree with Katman.

Bugger me. I might just suicide.:--((((

[glanvillejon]

Look here all you winers and wingers who obviously enjoy all this banter! lol JUST FILL IN THE BLOODY SUBMISSION! IT TAKES 2 MINUTES OF YOUR TIME AND YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE!

[dpex]

You have no excuse for not making a submission to the latest Road-Safe discussion.

To make the submission effective, pick on just one point and discourse a little on that.

You can submit as many opinions as you wish, but to be affective, do one at a time.

Counterpoint is a very affective method. Bikes V Cyclists (as regards risk and cost) Bikers V In-home accidents. Bikers V Rugby or League players.

Enough submitters submitting counterpoints gets the thinking of the panel shifted off their current target (bikers) and onto something else.

Don't attack their attitude or ideas. Submit short, to the point, interesting stuff.

But, if you don't submit then don't bleat when the hammer falls and you find yourself paying more and suffering greater restrictions.

[p.dath]

You can no longer make a submission. Submissions closed at 5pm on Friday 2 October 2009.

http://www.transport.govt.nz/saferjo...keasubmission/

[Grahameeboy]

Let me see if I've got this right.

1. You're in 'What's the point of submitting cos nobody cares," camp. Right?

2. You assert bikers are costing ACC big bucks, but in a way suggestion we have no peers. So what about rugby, league, bicycling, scate-boarding, falling off ladders, falling off mountains, falling over when pissed? The list could take a book. The fact is, compared to many 'other' groups claiming ACC, Bikers are small fry.

3. But what really first laugh then almost spit was reading that instead of having sufficient intelligence to go do some training courses, you reveal you didn't, then splatted then have the gargantuan temerity to blame the system because you weren't forced to do some training.

That very statement of yours, rocketman, encapsulates all which is wrong with modern society. Nobody has personal responsibility unless they have been told.

And I used to think Katman was a dickhead. Jesus, compared to you he's a genius.

2. I disagree that that we have peers as you suggest...rugby..even mountain climbing are no where near being our peers...
3. Fair comment