ACC Levies. BRONZ meeting

[caseye]

I heard that theres a protect ride going to beehive on the 17th of this month .......... Is this true ?? Im keen as to get the day off and head down etc.

Oi!go tell all your mates who don't read the papers or these threads, the more the merrier or in this case the better it is for our cause.
On ya mate.

[Mom]

I heard that theres a protect ride going to beehive on the 17th of this month .......... Is this true ?? Im keen as to get the day off and head down etc.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...d.php?t=111306

Here are the details of what is happening

[klingon]

I heard that theres a protect ride going to beehive on the 17th of this month .......... Is this true ?? Im keen as to get the day off and head down etc.

Interesting.

SpankMe sent out an email to all members of KB announcing the BRONZ meeting where the date was decided. But I am hearing from more and more people who are members of KB but have never heard of the event (or are just catching up with it now through different channels)

Unfortunately the original email that went out had some naughty words in it, and was blocked by a LOT of companies (especially really big and/or really sensitive ones - like govt departments)

Perhaps it is time to request another email to be sent ou to all KB members with the final date & details - aonly this time more carefully composed for the purpose so it is more likely to get through?

Just thinking aloud...

[GOONR]

Interesting.
SpankMe sent out an email to all members of KB announcing the BRONZ meeting where the date was decided. But I am hearing from more and more people who are members of KB but have never heard of the event (or are just catching up with it now through different channels)
Unfortunately the original email that went out had some naughty words in it, and was blocked by a LOT of companies (especially really big and/or really sensitive ones - like govt departments)
Perhaps it is time to request another email to be sent ou to all KB members with the final date & details aonly this time more carefully composed for the purpose so it is more likely to get through?
Just thinking aloud...

I didn't get the email, checked my settings to make sure I receive emails fromsite admin's all good there. I use gmail, checked my spam folder but nope, no email.

[Ronin]

Interesting.

SpankMe sent out an email to all members of KB announcing the BRONZ meeting where the date was decided. But I am hearing from more and more people who are members of KB but have never heard of the event (or are just catching up with it now through different channels)

Unfortunately the original email that went out had some naughty words in it, and was blocked by a LOT of companies (especially really big and/or really sensitive ones - like govt departments)

Perhaps it is time to request another email to be sent ou to all KB members with the final date & details - aonly this time more carefully composed for the purpose so it is more likely to get through?

Just thinking aloud...

Don't users need to have receive emails from administrators ticked to get them?

[pete376403]

Yes, and I do have that option selected, and no I haven't recieved the e-mail

[temaori]

I may be too late for my contribution, but I would like to share my thoughts:

- First of all, ACC are trying to extort money from us riders, there's no doubt about it, so we need an intelligent and coherent argument to build our case around. We also need to engage with the public to help them see our plight. They will support us if they see the facts.

May I suggest we construct our defense on the idea of the impact that these ACC levies will have on us, and the environment. The crux of my idea is this, these levies will raise the price of riding to such an extent that we will have to go back to riding in cages, and that will increase traffic congestion and our carbon emissions.

For this to work, we will need the research to back up my conclusions, and I would suggest we contact the Green Party and regional transport authorities such as ARTA to join in in our lobbying. Motorcycle companies could help us as well.

If we can show that the whole entire country benefits from us choosing to ride instead of flossing in cages, I'm sure we'll be able to successfully lobby ACC to stop their protection ring.

If theres anyone with connections, research skills and facts to back up this argument, we're gonna need ya.

[James Deuce]

I may be too late for my contribution, but I would like to share my thoughts:

- First of all, ACC are trying to extort money from us riders, there's no doubt about it, so we need an intelligent and coherent argument to build our case around. We also need to engage with the public to help them see our plight. They will support us if they see the facts.

May I suggest we construct our defense on the idea of the impact that these ACC levies will have on us, and the environment. The crux of my idea is this, these levies will raise the price of riding to such an extent that we will have to go back to riding in cages, and that will increase traffic congestion and our carbon emissions.

For this to work, we will need the research to back up my conclusions, and I would suggest we contact the Green Party and regional transport authorities such as ARTA to join in in our lobbying. Motorcycle companies could help us as well.

If we can show that the whole entire country benefits from us choosing to ride instead of flossing in cages, I'm sure we'll be able to successfully lobby ACC to stop their protection ring.

If theres anyone with connections, research skills and facts to back up this argument, we're gonna need ya.

Good thoughts, but -

You need to have a good read of a few of the threads to get a handle on the Terms of Reference BRONZ and the Govt are operating under.

I wouldn't push the Green argument as most bikes aren't particularly fuel efficient, especially compared to a 2 litre or smaller engined passenger car of the last four or five years, and any turbo-diesel under that capacity will make everything including your Keeway look like Dodge Ram running nitro-methane and water injection.

[kwaka_crasher]

SpankMe sent out an email to all members of KB announcing the BRONZ meeting where the date was decided. But I am hearing from more and more people who are members of KB but have never heard of the event (or are just catching up with it now through different channels).

I never got it either. I'm with Xtra and it's not in the SPAM folder on webmail. I have "Receive Email from Administrators" enabled in options.

[Genestho]

Don't take this the wrong way?
But.... maybe these emails could refrain from the C word in future?

It's not really a necessary word, the email could've been forwarded alot further, you may find that word restricted the email from inboxes.

I'm not precious - just assuming you're attempting to reach anyone and everyone?

My two cents

[klingon]

Don't take this the wrong way?
But.... maybe these emails could refrain from the C word in future?

It's not really a necessary word, the email could've been forwarded alot further, you may find that word restricted the email from inboxes.

I'm not precious - just assuming you're attempting to reach anyone and everyone?

My two cents

Yes. I think (hope) that this message has been received loud and clear. It's exactly why the email didn't get to a lot of people, and apparently in some systems the sender may now be blocked by the server due to sending unsolicited offensive emails.

To be fair to those involved, I think what happened was Ixion wrote the message as an 'internal' KB thing (where we're kind of used to that kind of language) then a helpful admin picked it up and mailed it out - perhaps without reading the full content first.

However it happened, I think it is important to be aware of the problems associated with it and make sure it doesn't happen again.

[jistdowit]

Here is the answer I got from Jim Anderton to my email to him, some moot points!!!

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your message regarding the proposal to increase the ACC
levy payable by owners of motor bikes, in some cases by several hundred
per cent.

I am opposed to this for two principal reasons:

The first is that it is not necessary. The ACC fund is not in a
financial crisis as the current National led government claims. The
scheme as originally constituted was a 'pay as you go' scheme i.e. the
levies received in any one year meet the requirements for payments in
that year. In fact the recent history of the scheme has been that the
income more than meets the payment requirements. The same applies to,
for example, national superannuation. In that case the identification
of the effect of the 'baby boom' generation coming to retirement and
creating a demand 'bulge' on the commitment to pay universal pensions at
a reasonable level can be anticipated and planned for ( the so-called
'Cullen' fund). If the ACC funding was in crisis this could be handled
in the same way, but it is not in crisis and no amount of insisting that
it is on the part of the present Minister can make it so.

The problem arises because the current government insists that all of
the future financial obligations of the fund must be funded in the
present. That would make sense if the ACC was an insurance scheme -
which it is not and was never intended to be. It makes even more sense
if the government has a hidden agenda - which looks increasingly likely
- to privatise the ACC or farm parts of it out to insurance companies.
In those circumstances, a fully funded scheme in which the fund has been
paid for by taxpayers would look a very attractive proposition to a
private insurer, but it is one to which I am entirely opposed.

The second reason is that the ACC scheme was never intended to be a user
pays scheme in which those who allegedly incur specific costs must, as a
group, also meet those costs in full. The scheme is intended to draw
upon the overall resources of the community to ensure that those who
suffer an accident do not find themselves disadvantaged because they
cannot afford treatment or rehabilitation, or meet the expenses
associated with a lengthy court case. I note that Sir Owen Woodhouse,
whose report led to the setting up of the scheme in 1973 has very
recently said precisely that. Saying that motor cyclists must pay much
more than presently because they are 'responsible' for their accidents
not only breaches the principal behind the scheme, it also re-introduces
the notion of fault into the scheme when it was set up in the first
place to avoid it.

Please be assured that I will be opposing the proposed increased levy
and that we in the Progressive Party are committed to restoring the
scheme to its original basis when we return to government.

Warm regards,

Jim Anderton
MP for Wigram
Progressive Party Leader

[idleidolidyll]

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

I have pvt insurance too but I'm still happy to pay a fair ACC levy as a tax from income.

My bet is that a better society is a more equal one and we all benefit from the relative peace that comes from a happy society

[idleidolidyll]

All the other major non national parties are saying that national is making this whole ACC deficit up and I believe them

damn!
You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

[idleidolidyll]

You need highly visible, positive action that does not piss off a car driver with a 1 tone weapon, wanting to get even for delaying their morning run by an hour. It need to be one that has a cost to the law makers, and puts no one in danger. It needs to be one that reduces the chance of some dumb ass
rider crashing through stupid riding on the event, proving the ACC's point.

I suggest we start by very slow riding in close circles around the bus depots, in such a way as it makes it impossible for buses to
get out. Hit the commuter, but not the one driving the car. This will have several effects. It show the people that we don't want to be in
our cars adding to the congestion. Getting us off our bikes, wont make us move to public transport. If you hold up the cars, people
may move to public transport, which is exactly one of their plans. Given the latest bus problems, such a thing would get good news cover

come on get real !!

some excellent ideas, i've just purloined them to offer here: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...d.php?t=112498

i'll reference you of course, plagiarism is a sin