Unexpected Spanish inquisition
It's not just Eastern countries, many states in the US require bicycle licencing as do some European countries. When you look at the cost to ACC of bicycle accidents (http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/stati...aims/IS0800367) this probably stacks up here...Originally Posted by 5150
Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes. After that, who cares? ...He's a mile away and you've got his shoes
Forum whore
Thanks for the heads up Ixion, I'll be there.
Toxteth O'Grady
I can't attend as its too far away but I would hope Bronz acts on this outrage PUBLICALLY with a show of protest and LEGALLY with a challenge to the inequalities of these proposals.
A flash of lightning
"4. What IS required is reasons WHY we shouldn't pay what ACC *claim* we cost. Factual. Specific. So if you know something, or you are good at crunching statistics, that might be useful."
The reason is that we are being singled out as a group and unfairly discriminated against. This could well be in breach of international law and of UN resolutions. Any biker lawyers should look into that.
http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/stati...aims/IS0800367
The fact is that in 2007-07/2008-06 push bike claims cost $10,447,000 while motorcycle claims cost $7,227,000 proves this. Making motorcyclists pay through the nose for their sport while others pay nothing is unfair and to me it is a clear violation of human rights. Netball costs $11,496,000
Further, rugby in it's various forms cost a total of $57,183,000 during the same period. Feel free to check these numbers at the acc site.
The fact that motorcyclists have been singled out as a target above other groups that cost ACC more can not be interpretet as anything other than illegal discrimination that has to stop. We should not be paying a cent more for our ACC attached to our rego than other road users, car drivers. the system is already grossly unfair as it is but the National plan goes above and beyond that into the realm of the criminal.
Kind regards...
Ride fast or be last.
L-Plate Rider
If we allow these increased ACC costs to go ahead many businesses will suffer, adversely effecting everyone in the economy:
motorcycle rental and tourism companies (NZ is a very popular destination)
NZ Post (posties) and other mail service courier riders
pizza deliveries
mechanics
retail shops
dispatch riders
police
traffic wardens
lifeguard beach patrols
farm bikes registered to travel between rural properties
students - scooters use just 2/3litres of fuel to travel 100km therefore students borrow less and stay out of debt (and hopefully remain in NZ after attaining a degree)!
UK uses fast-bikes to transport organs for emergency transplants, not sure about NZ. Richard Branson has a motorcycle taxi service in London - Virgin Limobike (Piaggio tilting tree-wheeled scooters are used in Moscow) – these options could become viable here with population growth.
Fewer motorised bicycles on the road will result in increased congestion, parking woes, wear and tear of the road infrastructure, further pressure on public transport (more strikes) and increased pollution.
A motorcycle requires around 10 barrels of oil to manufacture whereas an average car around 65! The engines of vehicles stuck in winter traffic don’t reach normal operating temperatures therefore are very inefficient – catalytic converters don’t operate as intended therefore release many toxins and burn too much fuel.
An after-work ride for many people is the only way to release the build-up of stress and enjoy the childhood sensation of riding a bicycle downhill – taking this pleasure away (with an increase in ACC cost) will result in more cases of clinical depression and potentially suicide.
If someone could estimate the cost of this on the economy, perhaps the government will see their error.
Forum whore
Not picking on you personally, but if people are going to be using ACC figures, they'd better be damn sure they know what the data means.
http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/stati...aims/IS0800020 Scroll down to Driving/Passenger Motorcycle- $62,545,000
My daughter telling me like it is:"There is an old man in your face daddy!"
A flash of lightning
Thanks Tony.
Ride fast or be last.
Unexpected Spanish inquisition
At the top of that page it says 'This section includes accidents that do not involve a motor vehicle (for example cycle only accidents).'
Now I'm confused.... In fact the whole statistics section of ACC's site is bloody confusing (probably on purpose, like most bloody Govt. websites)
From your post you obviously have a better understanding of ACC's statistics, could you explain to us dweebs?
Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes. After that, who cares? ...He's a mile away and you've got his shoes
Come warm yourself by the fire
I have personal health insurance - in theory i should be able to pay the meager reg fee and provide my receipt for my personal health insurance for my rego.
I noticed this is not an option - so my alternative is to "take the bike off the road" according to LTSA, and forge a fake rego for it.
SCAN, EDIT, PRINT, LAMINATE - all for less than $500
Hardcore Biker
http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/stati...aims/IS0800367
So many of the other activities listed are WAY more costly then Motorcyling.
Rugby,Netball,and Horse riding are right up there.
L-Plate Rider
There are some really good threads on this subject but whichever way you look at it, the ACC system is managed by a bunch of useless overpaid bureaucrats and the most effective way to be heard is through collective voice. I agree the system is flawed, unfair and bikers are an easy target because of their relatively small numbers. With this in mind, it is important that all road users stick together to protest the hike in levies and suggest, either diplomatically or forcefully, that the government have a bit of a re-think. They must see sense and work to reduce ACC expenditure (STOP paying out for accidents to criminals, tourists, sports people, families of those who choose to commit suicide, other non-payers etc) and even out the areas of income (payment from cyclists, horseriders, sports clubs).
About a decade ago when I lived in the UK the labour government increased fuel levies to an all time high resulting in British farmers and truck drivers launching a dramatic campaign of direct action to protest the fuel duty. Their campaign followed a similar one by farmers, truckers, and fishermen in France, which had resulted in concessions from the French government. The UK protesters blockaded fuel refineries and distribution depots and, within days, created a fuel crisis that paralysed CI sectors and brought the country to a virtual halt.
My involvement was riding my XTZ 750 at idle and in bottom gear of the fast lane of the M1 for several hours a day with the truckies and other motorists all around doing the same which caused massive gridlock. It was an eerie and exciting time especially seeing the huge queues of vehicles trying to access the last remaining fuel pump at the local station, like something out of Mad Max. Eventually the government backed down as they were totally unprepared for this amount of direct action. Admittedly the fuel companies had a major hand in it as well for various reasons but the main point is that the government will have to listen if enough people get together and protest.
Live every day as if it were your last, because one day it will be.
Lost In Translation
That would certainly put a lot more people off ever riding a bike. I know many will disagree with me, but I actually believe that would be a bad thing (puts hard hat on) due to the overall health benefits and associated long term health care cost reductions of a fitter populace.
Overall, though, either they need to find a way to target all groups fairly (cyclists, horse riders, rugby players etc. - plenty of ideas above) or stop persecuting the crap out of bikers. No?
L-Plate Rider
Personally, I would like to see a something proportional to use. May not be so fair for safe riders that use their bikes every day, but there are a lot of us that only use a weekend here and there.
If a rego could be done for shorter periods, i.e 1 month (or why not buy a 1 day registration online) then people can pay more proportionally for use.
So my proposal would be:
1) Registrations in short periods. 1 month at a time.
2) Remind them that 42% (read but don’t quote me) of bike accidents are caused by other motorists, so take that off the proposed amount. (Add it to cars and trucks if they like)
3) Prove they are charging Road Bike users for the cost of offroad bikes, which is unfair, so the level should be reduced accordingly for this round of implementations.
4) When ACC has a mechanism to charge a fair amount for offroad bikes and other sports participants, i.e cycles, rugby, horse riding and the like, then come back to Roadbike users, we will gladly pay our fair share. But they cannot apply this UNFAIRLY to one minority group until they can do for all.
needs to work harder
I'm a little slow coming up to speed on all this, but having lightly scatted across the thread I believe I have a different approach and one that may be worth pursuing.
The proposed levy increases won't work. Motorcycling is already a borderline affordable activity for many of us and when push comes to shove the first thing to go is insurance, followed by registration. Trebling the registration cost is going to lead to an increase in unregistered bikes; runners from the police; and subsequently a rise in the number of accidents which, you may have noticed, the ACC will have to pay for. ACC will, in essence, be digging it's own grave not to mention the social cost of deliberately raising the number of accidents involving motorcyclists. Besides, ACC's website lists the organisation's number one priority as preventing injury and this hardly seems a step in the right direction.
Something like that, anyway.
I also wonder if what they *really* want is a political impetus to reduce what is covered under ACC. Something interesting to note is that the chairman of the board (of ACC) is one John Judge - appointed only in March. Now, he was previously the chairman of a bank and appears to have been bringing a rather more adult approach to ACC's balance sheet and in the process has made a nasty discovery....
ACC currently has a future liability of nearly twenty four billion dollars, thirteen billion dollars more than they actually have. Observe the words "future liability" - it's not that ACC is broke, it's just that if they fulfil their promises, they will be. Indeed:
ACC need to, pretty much, halve this future liability and without the figures at hand I imagine this boils down to no longer supporting the worst long term cases. People with spinal injuries, for instance. In fact with the situation how it is, I imagine that someone giving up motorcycling (and hence no longer paying their ACC levy) is actually a net win for ACC. Perhaps the thing that ACC would like the most is to be able to provide some statute of limitation as to how long they have to continue to pay out post-crash.Historically the focus has been on current costs rather than the long-term cost implications of accidents. That's at the root of our problem.
Oh, here we go:
To be quite frank, fighting this levy increase may be a question of accepting that there will be a loss of protection from ACC. Sometimes, if you want to get something out of someone, you have to ask yourself what you can do for them ... and ACC are currently in deep deep shit.Mr Judge said that ACC had begun implementing wide-ranging measures aimed at reducing external cost pressure and improving rehabilitation performance. For example: improving the way we manage claims negotiating better value for money and outcomes from health professionals being tougher on the extent and duration of ACC support, such as weekly compensation ensuring we're not providing more or less than we are legally required to provide encouraging more personal responsibility for "getting-back-on-your-feet" after an injury reducing administrative costs
Dave
Edit: The Mrs is studying accounting and points out that insurance companies never have enough money to pay for their future liabilities. The same way that banks have a liquidity ratio. Hmmm.
Signature needed. Apply within.
Unexpected Spanish inquisition
No disagreement on the health benefits, but I really do think it's about time cyclists started to take some responsibility for themselves.
generalising here for a minute, but how many times do you see cyclists riding 3 , 4 or more abreast, running red lights and stop signs and generally flouting the law? Helmets are supposed to be compulsory for them but I still see cyclists every day not wearing them or even worse riding with them hanging off the handlebars. And then on top of all the irresponsible riding they wear nothing more protective than a thin layer of lycra and then expect our ACC levies to pay for their accident care. And they bleat like crazy about other road users who are actually paying for the damn roads.
I think if they are going to use the road then like all other road users they need to pay for the privilege and abide by the same rules.
I know there are many responsible cyclists, but there are a sizable bunch who act in the manner I've described and if it's good enough for the ACC to tar all motorcyclists with the same brush, then I can bloody well do it to cyclists....
Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes. After that, who cares? ...He's a mile away and you've got his shoes
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks