ACC Levies. BRONZ meeting

[cold comfort]

You can argue one way or another that your big bike is not dangerous but the reality is that it is.
If you take all the big bikes off the road and put everyone on 250s or 400s it would no doubt result in less accidents and we are fooling ourselves by trying to say any differently

Not according to Prof Lamb of the Australasian Institute of Motorcycle studies- " of 420 crashes in Auck and Chch last yr 43% did not even mention the engine size. Of the remaining 57% the most common size was 250c" (from the ChCh Press)

[kunoichi]

sounds like there just isn't enough data to support either point. if they don't record the engine size then there simply is no reliable data to suggest either way. In which case it should b no discrimination until proof that discrimination needs to occur...??

[Eng_dave]

Not according to Prof Lamb of the Australasian Institute of Motorcycle studies- " of 420 crashes in Auck and Chch last yr 43% did not even mention the engine size. Of the remaining 57% the most common size was 250c" (from the ChCh Press)

All that means is that people who ride bigger cc are in general more experienced and have gone through the Stats games before so never say what CC bike they were on. If im ever going to be asked i'll say push bike. I would like to see them prove that im talking shit.

[Littlewheels]

I sent an email to as many MPs as I could got some interesting replies, the Nats are all towing the party line, however this is the reply from the green Party.
Dear Barbara



I have been asked to respond on behalf of all nine Green Party MPs Metiria Turei, Russel Norman, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Sue Bradford, Sue Kedgley, Keith Locke, Kevin Hague, Catherine Delahunty and Kennedy Graham, to your email below.



The Green Party opposes the proposed levy increase for motorcycles. We consider this levy increase to be contrary to the original principles set out by Sir Owen Woodhouse under which ACC was established. One of those principles was that of "community responsibility". Sir Owen himself, at the age of 93, has spoken out against the approach the Government is taking to ACC, stating that proposals to double and treble levies on heavy motorbikes and mopeds, and to push accident victims back to work on much lower incomes than they earned before their accidents, breach the principles of the scheme he authored as head of the 1967 Royal Commission that recommended the ACC scheme.



The community responsibility principle recognises that the various activities that we undertake in society are all inter-related, and that harm and benefit flow on to others, rather than rest solely with the people undertaking those activities.



In the particular example of motorcycle use, the community responsibility principle recognises that even though a disproportionately high number of motor vehicle injuries involve motorcyclists, a significant proportion of those injuries are actually caused by someone other than the motorcyclist. It also recognises that increased use of motorcycles where practicable has environmental benefits if single driver car usage is consequently reduced, since the greenhouse gas emissions generated by a motorcycles is significantly less than from cars and the fuel used per kilometre of travel is significantly less for a motorcycle than a car. From that perspective, the Green Party would want to encourage motorcycle use as opposed to car use - however, the Government's proposed levy increase for motorcycles does the opposite.



It is Green Party policy to restore the social contract envisioned in Sir Owen Woodhouse's report from which the original ACC scheme was derived, including the community responsibility principle, and we therefore oppose pinch-paring measures such as the Government's proposals that attempt to assess the injury risk of every specific activity undertaken in society and set levies based solely on that risk.



Thank you for the figures you have provided. They affirm the view the Green Party MPs already have that much of the so-called "crisis" in ACC is manufactured by the Government to suit its political agenda.





Kind regards

Ivan Sowry

Issues Assistant to Green Party MPs

[buellbabe]

Does your policy actually say this?
My understanding is that incorrect (even against the law)
i.e. Insurance companies need a reason to deny the claim and rego running out isnt one of them

It maybe different if you choose not to pay your rego long term (that would be an individual policy issue)


I am happy to not pay my rego as part of a protest and if it becomes an issue i wont pay my insurance either

Yes my policy does say this. End of story.

Choosing to keep my bikes FULLY covered does not make me spineless.

I couldn't give a shit about being pulled over and getting fined for no rego but I do care very MUCH about being involved in an accident and having no $$s to get my bike back on the road or having the bike stolen...

I will do every protest ride I am able to and I have already written to my local paper. Plus I am gonna hammer the MPs and ACC as well.
If it comes down to it I will contact my insurance company and get a waiver added to my policy as well. Afterall I have 3 bikes insured with them so I am hoping they will play ball.

I am NOT spineless and am deeply offended at the suggestion.

[Eng_dave]

Nice reply good work

[James Deuce]

I am NOT spineless and am deeply offended at the suggestion.

Good you are supposed to be, and as many other people as possible are supposed to be too.

There is only one way to make the point required and Kiwis aren't prepared to do it, so there is no way to make a committed politically motivated response to public servants attempting to keep motorcyclists out of the no fault accident compensation scheme and from demanding that they pay their way.

So so long as everyone understands that without all motorcyclists refusing to pay rego, there is no point some of you doing it.

So what we're actually saying is that we don't oppose motorcyclists being excluded from the no fault Accident Comensation scheme every other Kiwi irrespective of lifestyle enjoys, we just don't want to pay the proposed increase and will settle for a smaller increase?

Just so it's clear.

[Pixie]

i think most of us will be doing that anyways. The whole point of fines is that it will cost u more to get a fine, than it is to actually do what ever it was needed to avoid the infringement. In this case, it's cheaper to get fined twice a year (200 per ticket) for an unregistered bike, than it is to register our bikes for a year.
Plus there is always the option of scanning the rego, changing the date and stickign it back on the bike, doubt the cops would be pulling out the rego to check if it's genuine if just go through a check point, might b a different issue if u got pulled over for speeding though...

I thought of this too,What's the penalty for this kind of fraud?

[kunoichi]

that's a good point.
And james, i think u'r going about doing exactly what the govt is hoping to do, that we end up dividing off into little groups, which makes each group easier to target. Best to stick together on this one, put aside the name calling or other bones u have to pick with people and get everyone on board.

[James Deuce]

that's a good point.
And james, i think u'r going about doing exactly what the govt is hoping to do, that we end up dividing off into little groups, which makes each group easier to target. Best to stick together on this one, put aside the name calling or other bones u have to pick with people and get everyone on board.

I haven't changed my theme on this issue.

Many of you have.

Hence my spineless comment.

[R-Soul]

Exactly, that and being effectively priced off the road are my primary objections here.

Frankly I'm so over all the statistic analysing flying around, but essentially we are a small portion of the overall pie, as far as payouts go. Any number of other categories suck up bigger wedges of the ACC pot, yet I see no other sport/pastime /hobby, being singled out for massive increases due to the likelihood of accident frequency and or expensive after-care.

We are therefore effectively being excluded as you rightly point out, it's not fair, it's not right and it makes little sense to me unless, 1. the ultimate goal is simply to get us off the road, or 2.this is simply the tester, pick on a minority group with little clout then move on to the bigger boys? ACC levies for every Rugby game ? No payouts for DIY, who bloody knows.

Actually we are a bigger payout than any sport besides rugby.
FACT:
We DO have a lot of injuries for the number of riders
A lot of it is self inflicted by speed.
But not all o fit.


BUT:
I think that the ACC figures have been assigned to incorrect divisions.
The ACC divisions are currently between cars and bikes (easy to do I guess).
They should actually be between sober and drunken road users, or between responsible and speeding road users.

Having the designations merely between cars and bikes is arbitrary - as the spotless rcord of many old bike riders can attest to. And especially when the bike riders are being asked to pay for carneage that in many cases has been wreaked on them by car drivers!

The level of ACC levies for ALL road users (actually boat users too) should go up massively for people caught DUI, or nabbed on drug or speeding charges.

Further, to preven the "rider losing control" type accidents (that dont involve booze or speed) , ACC levies should be reduced for all riders attending regular riding courses.

These type of suggestions show the ACC broadsword up for wht it is - lazy and uncreative. They also get to the root of the problem - that fact that so many bike riders are getting hurt (regardless of fault or reason). Its pointless asking the injured to pay after the fact, the policies should try and target the problem.

If we present ideas like these as an alternative, public sentiment will swing towards us. If they see that we recognise we have a subversive element amongst us, and that we dont mind these few being targetted for their irresponsible actons, but we want the same response from car drivers, I cant see them objecting to policies like this.

I can see them objecting to being lumped with yet more fuel tax.

[vifferman]

The problem is, Noo Zilund drivers are tards. They can get away with being tards while driving a car, as they can crash them mostly with impunity (as far as injury goes). However, get them on a bike, and the paucity of skills, and poor attitudes, show up very quickly indeed.
It's only right that motorcyclists (including scroterists) pay, but it should be up-front, in the form of decent training, and some testing designed to weed out of the chronically inept. Any that survive this should be happy to pay for the privilege of riding.
Some people just shouldn't be on a bike, and they demonstrate this by crashing. Many times, even when it's 'technically' or 'legally' not their fault, it still is, as they haven't done all they could to prevent the incident.
So. Think of the ACC levy as part of the entrance fee for enjoying your expensive toy. Pay up or take up knitting or macrame.

(Yes, I am actually Katman thinky disguised as vifferdork).

[jeffs]

Asking people to break the law, then calling them spineless or explain themselfs for not wanting to break the law, is really helping unify the biking community NOT !!!.

One thing about Kiwibiker.co.nz that needs to be made very clear is, this is a very public forum with the ability for any media to read. Keep putting crap like this on the forum and we might as well all just pay the $500 extra now, because no one is going to listen to 1000 different voices shouting 1000 different point of views. If there is not 1 or 2 focused approaches and ones that are legal, we will look like a bunch of dipshits who are to stupid to fight for our rights.

If you want to ride around without a rego, then you do so, but DO NOT ASK OTHERS TO DO SO.

If you do not get what I am saying, then I for one will not be at any rally that proves the point that ACC are making. And I would not be the only one not at the rally.

[Clubbie]

Here you go, looks like this guy is the man to crunch the numbers, or at least offer advice- see attached PDF

And the web link to the same article....
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2969...ike-levy-logic

[Brian d marge]

Good you are supposed to be, and as many other people as possible are supposed to be too.

There is only one way to make the point required and Kiwis aren't prepared to do it, so there is no way to make a committed politically motivated response to public servants attempting to keep motorcyclists out of the no fault accident compensation scheme and from demanding that they pay their way.

So so long as everyone understands that without all motorcyclists refusing to pay rego, there is no point some of you doing it.

So what we're actually saying is that we don't oppose motorcyclists being excluded from the no fault Accident Comensation scheme every other Kiwi irrespective of lifestyle enjoys, we just don't want to pay the proposed increase and will settle for a smaller increase?

Just so it's clear.

Now you have done it ....... Now look what you have gone an did

Toys will start appearing from cots

Ya cant go tellin em they have to do something , its just not cricket ....

Stephen