The unpopular view

**AD345** · 25th October 2009, 16:48

Using unpopular in the sense that this view does not seem to be either the majority one being expressed nor will it sit well with some of those views that ARE being expressed. Nonetheless....

I will be joining in with the protest activities and contributing where I can in other areas. I am, however, doing so for reasons other than those expressed by some.
I'm not outraged by an apparent targeting of my favourite form of recreation.
I'm not hell bent on proving that motorcycling is just as valid a means of transportation as a car.
I could not give 2 shits about my carbon footprint either on my bike, or not.
I spend not one second raging about "other motorcyclists" giving "us" a bad name with their behaviour. Nor do I subscribe to the absurd view that levy hikes are a response to such behaviour.

Thats an excuse - not a reason.

There is only one reason that I am protesting:

The Government is betraying its citizens and breaking (explicitly breaking) a social compact that was formed 34 years ago and is intrinsic to the identity of this nation.

ACC is NOT an insurance scheme. For those morons that keep rabbiting on about comparisons to private insurance - learn what it means to be a citizen of this country you twats.

ACC is a 24/7 NO FAULT accident COMPENSATION scheme set in place so that the citizens of New Zealand should not be financially disadvantaged in the event of injury. In return for universal coverage of this compensation we forwent the ability to sue anyone who might have been deemed to have been liable for the injury

THAT'S IT

FULL STOP

This is only marginally about bikes, basically they are doing it to us because they think that they can.

For me this protest is to show the goverment that they cannot.

Don't ask me to be polite

Don't ask me to be "responsible"

Especially don't ask me to justify my recreational pasttime

I'm a citizen amd I'm fucked off

I'm going to stay fucked off until this gets fixed and I will do whatever I think is necessary to remind those in elected positions that they are there to carry out the duties of their office in the service of the citizenry.

**Katman** · 25th October 2009, 16:53

Originally Posted by AD345

ACC is a 24/7 NO FAULT accident COMPENSATION scheme set in place so that the citizens of New Zealand should not be financially disadvantaged in the event of injury.

It is a scheme whereby I'm being expected to pay more to fix up habitual idiots.

That's why I'm protesting.

**AD345** · 25th October 2009, 17:02

Originally Posted by Katman

It is a scheme whereby I'm expected to pay more to fix up habitual idiots.

That's why I'm protesting.

You seem to have missed a couple of pertinent words there - let me show you them:

NO FAULT

Hope that helps

In a more serious vein - the "no fault" part of the ACC scheme is intrinsic to its existance and the single biggest reason that it came into existence.

Protest THAT

**Katman** · 25th October 2009, 17:05

Originally Posted by AD345

You seem to have missed a couple of pertinent words there - let me show you them:

NO FAULT

Hope that helps

Exactly - it's not my fault that idiots can't stay upright.

**ducatilover** · 25th October 2009, 17:08

Originally Posted by Katman

It is a scheme whereby I'm being expected to pay more to fix up habitual idiots.

That's why I'm protesting.

I agree with you Katman.

But I also agree with AD345
I have been covered by ACC myself, not in compensation for loss of wages [which I should have been entitled to but never received] But I have been covered with my treatment and operations for the crash I had in 2005, I am still undergoing treatment for these injuries and may be for a very long time. I am happy to pay my ACC levies, but, I think they are being fucking ridiculous about it, as AD345 said, they are doing it because they think they can.

**Winston001** · 25th October 2009, 17:14

Originally Posted by AD345

Y

NO FAULT

Hope that helps

In a more serious vein - the "no fault" part of the ACC scheme is intrinsic to its existance and the single biggest reason that it came into existence.

Good stuff and I'm pleased to see a robust alternative view on the issue.

"No Fault" means "No Blame" in the compensation/damages sense. However it does not mean "No Risk".

So.......if you choose a risky occupation then you pay more ACC. The problem arises in the context of non-work injuries. At present there is no distinction or levy imposed for high risk activities.

Personally I'm happy for that to continue and support the protest actions.

**short-circuit** · 25th October 2009, 17:19

Originally Posted by Katman

It is a scheme whereby I'm being expected to pay more to fix up habitual idiots.

That's why I'm protesting.

Irrevelant and erroneous sorry Katman.

And AD345 I agree wholeheartedly with your position. The fact that as a motorcyclist these changes impact on me in a more immediate way does make it a slightly more bitter pill to swallow however.

**Katman** · 25th October 2009, 17:26

Originally Posted by short-circuit

Irrevelant and erroneous sorry Katman.

Irrelevant - yes

Erroneous - no

**FJRider** · 25th October 2009, 17:36

Originally Posted by Katman

It is a scheme whereby I'm being expected to pay more to fix up habitual idiots.

That's why I'm protesting.

It is good to find a motorcyclist that never has ... and never will need the assistance of ACC in the course of his motorcycling activities ...

**Katman** · 25th October 2009, 17:42

Originally Posted by FJRider

It is good to find a motorcyclist that never has ... and never will need the assistance of ACC in the course of his motorcycling activities ...

Where did I say that?

I have no problem paying a levy on the off-chance that I have an accident.

But to increase my levy when I haven't claimed off ACC for over 20 years is morally unjust.

**FJRider** · 25th October 2009, 17:50

Originally Posted by Katman

Exactly - it's not my fault that idiots can't stay upright.

So ... on the "off chance" you "can't stay upright" ... that would instantly make you "an idiot" ????

How many crashes will it take to be described as "habitual" ???