ACC Levies. BRONZ meeting

[RiderInBlack]

Even $500 a year is way too much. $700+ is just mad. Yep this is obviously a "Shock Ta Soften Them For What Ya Really Want Ta Slip Through"job Have joined BRONZ today. Can't be there for the meeting, but will put my hand up for a Protest Ride Action.

Are ACC going ta increase "Boy Racer"car reg to $700 too? Now where did I put that Tuis.

[Reckless]

Can't make the meeting, but assuming we can't make the Government change its mind on he principal, we might be able to influence when the increase applies. 600cc seems pretty random. maybe it would be fairer if based on power to weight, or 600 cc raised to say 900cc

Don't wanna steal the thread but cc rating is totally flawed.
IE my mate has a VS1400 Cruiser ,the thing doesn't go that fast even flat out!!

If I had a 599cc Yamaha (or whatever) I wouldn't be registering it in the 600 to 1000cc bracket!! And Triumph have just lost the sale of a 675 to me thats for sure!!

I'll be at the meeting Xion!! Pay my subs and try and help!!

[Blackbird]

For what it's worth, I've just sent this response to the ACC consultation process. You may argue that my logic is flawed as is your right but to sit around and do nothing but whinge is unacceptable.

Dear Sirs/Mesdames,

I’d like to add my comments and recommendations to the undoubtedly large volume of feedback which will arise form yesterday’s announcements. My comments arise from the proposal to substantially increase motorcycle levies. To be perfectly honest, the increase in dollar terms is not of huge concern to me but the apparent injustice and possibly discriminatory nature of the proposal certainly is.

I have 40+ years of experience driving cars and riding motorcycles. I’m passionate enough about riding and driving to believe that you never stop learning and have put myself through a number of driving and riding courses to continually raise my skills and I’m not about to stop now. I’ve also contributed to safety-related motoring initiatives over a good many years. ACC has to make the books balance. I have no issue with that. I do however; have an issue with the methodology.

The following comments relate to the ACC proposal.

1. Raising ACC does absolutely nothing to address the root cause of motorcycle or car accidents, it is almost literally just providing more ambulances at the bottom of the cliff. As a competent driver/rider with a good history, I would be discriminated against by paying for those with a less acceptable accident record. Surely, raising the standard of driving is truly addressing the root cause, whether it be on a motorcycle or a 4-wheeled vehicle? The techniques which I learned on my advanced courses, particularly the ones concerned with situational awareness should be mandatory at the most basic level as part of tuition. The standards required to attain a licence are laughable compared with many other western countries. This really is the nub of the issue. PLEASE CONCENTRATE ON RAISING DRIVING STANDARDS LIKE MANY OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES.

2. Where does the 600cc plus capacity have a bearing on ACC payments? Irrespective of capacity, the critical factor is the competence of the rider and also the competence of the driver if there is a car/motorcycle accident. On the surface, this appears to be an arbitrary and discriminatory decision.

3. I have deep concerns with respect to the way in which road statistics are used to make a point. The way in which some so-called critical data which was presented at the national safety roadshows a few years back by a number of officials were little short of disgraceful and lacked statistical rigour – “cherry picking” was very much in evidence and there were some admissions to that effect following the roadshows. Statistics have to be correct in both identifying root cause and developing a solution.

There are other related issues which deserve comment but I’ve kept to the most important issues in the hope that due notice will be taken.

With kindest regards etc

[TonyB]

My two cents- some stuff to bring up at the meeting:

Ask ACC to provide hard data on how the figures are calculated. It has long been said that ACC lump ALL motorcycle accidents (track, dirt, farm and road) onto the road category. If this is the case it is clearly unfair and biased- the figures will be heavily skewed by clowns like me who fall off at a race track on an unregistered bike and then claim ACC. Perhaps non registered bike users should have to pay for private insurance such as that provided by Combined Insurance, and no longer be covered by ACC.

If they insist on this huge levy, perhaps road bikers can be given the option of finding another insurance company to cover them for road accidents. ACC levies on bike registrations for those people would be dropped.

Point out that asking people to pay $700+ a year is short sited and tantamount to funding the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, rather than stopping people from falling off it in the first place. It has been said that ACC data shows that 50% of payouts are for people who fall off their bikes without outside influences. If this is the case, the money would be better put towards rider training. Again, perhaps the bulk of the levy can be waived if riders take part in a regular training course.

Point out that the massive increases will have unexpected results. More people will opt not to register their bike, as the fine for not being registered is $200. Police resources will be used persecuting bikers. The fine will naturally be put up. But then people will start doing runners....leading to far more injuries.

Point out that for the majority of bikers, motorcycling is a recreational activity. Yes it involves more risk than driving a car. But so does rugby, mountainbiking, netball, road cycling, mountain climbing etc etc. As such, bikers are being unfairly singled out, as they are the only 'risky' recreational group that can be taxed directly. Human rights??

[Genestho]

*snip* Human rights??

A brief of the NZ Human Rights Act 1993 regarding Discrimination wikipedia

There is further info available if you follow the links

[Marmoot]

May I also draw the gentlemen's attention to my insights on how motorcycling has been viewed as "sport activity" yet been unfairly treated compared to other high ACC consumers such as netball, soccer, and rugby. We should be keen to know what the ACC has in mind to tackle the loss on these parts (will the sports people be levied, etc?).

Secondary, from road users perspective, what would be done on ACC consumptions on cyclists? Why are they not levied despite them having similar or worse injury risk to motorcyclists?

Thirdly, alcohol-related injuries. What would be done in respect to this? Will there be similar ACC levy on alcohol tax? Why is this not in the current plan?

[J-rod]

Hi everyone,

If someone can point me in the right direction to obtain raw accident data I can build some stat models for use.
Like practically everyone on this site, i've had too many accidents and many more near misses, and i'm f$%^d if i'm gonna pay for other peoples in ability to pay attention.

FYI, here is the email I sent to National Radio this morning after I nearly suck my fist through my radio:

Good Morning Jim,

On my way to work this morning I became quite angry listening to your discussion about motorcycle ACC levy increases, because I think you are missing the point.

Yes, riding a motorcycle (or as you put it a bicycle) increases your likelihood of having an accident on the road, but lets not forget that the majority of people who do the daily commute on a motorcycle, do so because it is a cheap, efficient, socially and environmentally responsible form of transport, that if employed by more of your listeners would go a very long way toward reducing vehicle emissions volumes.

With less than 50% of cars on the road carrying less than two occupants, our environmental footprint as drivers is quite shameful, and increasing the levy against those who act to reduce it is more so.

I recently went for a ride on my motorbike and was very nearly cut in half by a car and single occupant trying to scream across Mt Eden rd, I was driving in a straight line with my lights on at 2pm on a sunny Sunday afternoon and having just exited a lighted intersection, I was not speeding. Had this fool hit me, do you think it right that I be fined $700.00 for the pleasure of being scittled. I did absolutely nothing wrong.

Think for the moment of the terror that seizes a person when something like this happens..... you are not at fault, yet this situation is suddenly thrust upon you, and you must deal with it in real time, and the consequences.
As motorcyclists we live this moment on an all to regular basis which is why we: turn on our lights, wear florescent bibs, paint our bikes white and yellow, install loud exhausts and buy bright colourful; helmets... We want to be seen.
The list is endless, but we cannot change the one thing that causes the greater majority of our accidents, untrained and inattentive CAR drivers.

A fairer approach would be to introduce this penalty to the at fault party in an accident. Somehow I think you'd find accident rates would not change, but lets face it, its not about reducing accidents, its about collecting more money by way victimising a majority.... sounds familiar doesn't it.

My final shot at this discriminatory penalty is that it draws a strong resemblance to that age old argument that somehow women are responsible for rape because they dress attractively and flaunt themselves... No, the simple fact is, they came upon the wrong person at the wrong time, and have a lifetime to deal with the consequences.


If you drive a vehicle, you have a responsibility to protect others on the road, be alert, be attentive, drive to the conditions and LOOK first.

[Mikkel]

After having thought a bit about this whole issue, my recommendation for the BRONZ response would be to steer clear of a debate based upon statistics and focus on what ACC is - or more importantly what we (kiwis in general, not just motorcyclists) would like it to be.
I.e. do we want privatisation or do we want a no fault scheme? Or are we insane enough that we actually want some bastard amalgam situated at a point, somewhere half way between these two extremes, which is dictated by the whims of the current government?

Personally I'd say that the no fault scheme is a great thing and I can even sort of accept that there is an ACC levy included in road vehicle registration, but distinguishing between different vehicle types and sizes is patently ridiculous. If a levy should be extracted from road users it should be done in relation to their drivers license - as has been pointed out many times, you can not operate more than one motor vehicle at a time, even if you have ten different ones to choose from.

Ultimately it really ought be handled entirely over the taxes - it is after all something that everyone benefits from one way or the other.

Anyway, I digress - my point was to give recommendations for the BRONZ meeting so excuse my diatribe. I regards to the statistics - I would recommend abstaining from basing any statements on those since, as we all are very well aware, statistics can be presented in a way that will support almost any imaginable claim... very few people who have not had some training in dealing with statistics will be able to distinguish between bullshit and sound statistics. However, if the statement is based on fundamental values, that many people will agree with, then it is likely to have a much higher impact. That is not to say that it isn't worth going over the statistics and being aware of what is going on - if for no other reason, then to be able to call bullshit whenever ACC plays a fallacious statistics card.

[Katman]

I wish people would stop claiming that cars cause the majority of our accidents.

That sort of statement will come back and bite us in the arse when the figures are placed in front of us showing that it isn't the case.

At present it appears to be that 58% of motorcycle accidents are the fault of the motorcyclist.

Sure, this is not very far over the 50% mark - but to claim that cars are responsible for the majority of our accidents is clearly wrong.

[Marmoot]

I agree with the above poster to some degree too.

Steer clear from the debate on statistics involving motorcyclists and/or who's causing the accidents.

Focus it on the problems with ACC and why we are suddenly required to bear the cost of which we may or may not be the real cause:
- Leakage on sports: there are huge costs to people with no contribution (e.g., sports such as soccer/rugby/netball). Why is there no contribution from these?
- Leakage on transport: there are huge costs to cyclists/horseriders with no perceived contribution from them. Why is this? When they argue about cross-subsidisation, why the cyclists are never brought up?
- Mismanagement: compensation from injuries caused by crime (I mean the victims instead of the criminals). Why is there no measures to recoup the ACC cost from the criminals who cause the injuries?
- Losses from investments: why do we suddenly need to bear the ACC blowout if part of the blowout was due to bad decision in past investments?

And I agree with Katman. Stop alienating the car drivers. If anything, we should include them in our protests. The car drivers are getting shafted as well albeit less than us. Plus, their number guarantees more voice than our puny thousands. In the end, it would end in "how many votes are at stake".

[Big Dave]

Cross posted - sorry - I stuck it in the wrong thread first.

I just got off the phone with the Hon. Rick Barker. He's on board, still rides a Rocket III and will do his best to attend the BRONZ meeting on Wednesday night.

He asked me if I knew of a lawyer with an interest and any statisticians who can lend a hand. Please PM me and I'll pass it on?

He's writing a press release now and told me he wants a big ride to Wellington organised.

Beaks and number crunchers now welcome.

[Mikkel]

Cross posted - sorry - I stuck it in the wrong thread first.

I just got off the phone with the Hon. Rick Barker. He's on board, still rides a Rocket III and will do his best to attend the BRONZ meeting on Wednesday night.

He asked me if I knew of a lawyer with an interest and any statisticians who can lend a hand. Please PM me and I'll pass it on?

He's writing a press release now and told me he wants a big ride to Wellington organised.

Beaks and number crunchers now welcome.

If you want credibility - and you need that - you want to get non-motorcyclist lawyers and statisticians... (at the very least the statisticians!) How about trying to get a comment from either someone from the LTSA or an insurance company on the way that ACC has been presenting the statistics.

However, ultimately, I think you'll be making a mistake to base the campaign on statistics.

[Maha]

Even $500 a year is way too much. $700+ is just mad. Yep this is obviously a "Shock Ta Soften Them For What Ya Really Want Ta Slip Through"job Have joined BRONZ today. Can't be there for the meeting, but will put my hand up for a Protest Ride Action.

Are ACC going ta increase "Boy Racer"car reg to $700 too? Now where did I put that Tuis.

The $500 dollar increase for the likes of us Doug is just the Levy part of the Rego right?? which brings the Levy up over $750 plus the Rego on top?

[Big Dave]

However, ultimately, I think you'll be making a mistake to base the campaign on statistics.

Depends what statistic I imagine, but I am only the messenger.

The tenor of Rick's tone was mainly the social injustice of No Fault Insurance penalising a nominated group.

[yachtie10]

Im up for helping out specially if we can get the data to see how much they are twisting the stats. I have time available so can help if needed

I will attend the bronz meeting next wednesday. hopefully we can come up with a sensible approach to this.