Not allowed to hand out BikersAgainstACCLevies pamphlet at CHCH Biketoberfest

[Mikkel]

Some days I am so proud to be part of this community. We really should go find an island somewhere and start our "own thing". If it wasn't for the fact that someone else already had cornered the market on torches and pitchforks, that'd be where I'd invest my KB$.

This thread clearly illustrates why you do NOT want to piss off a biker, EVER - he's going to pack a sad and have a whinge on KB, blowing everything out of proportion. Seriously, harden the fuck up - if only a smidgeon!

Anyone who has ever tried organising a largish public event would be able to understand why you do not want to, in any conceivable way, instigate negative emotions amongst a large group (potentially mob) of inebriated people. And that's not just because happy drunk people on motorcycles are preferable to angry drunk people on motorcycles.

The Police have clearly stated that rider training is counter productive. Their "logic" is that confident rider/drivers drive faster and speed kills ergo training kills.

Yes, because squids with no training are fairly reluctant to verify the top speed of their bikes...

...and we all know that the "speed kills" message is at best vague and at worst extremely misguiding. Worst of all, it's a shit-poor excuse for failing to confront the real issue at hand: operator incompetence due to lack of training.

Man what a paragon of patience.

I woulda told 'em to fuck off and mind their own business by now.

You aren't wrong, although patience is a waste of time.

And so is this thread, all of this - the ACC levies most likely as well - will be long gone from everyones memories inside a year. Ever $750 ACC levies not withstanding.

I am not aware of anyone on this forum or elsewhere who has a strong rational argument to remove occupational risk rating for ACC levies. Its accepted as fair and reasonable.

One very good reason is we do not want to encourage employers in dangerous occupations to be careless. If they paid the same levies as for office workers but the claim rate was 6 times as high, that wouldn't be fair.

We've been over this before and either your memory fails you and you didn't respond to my statement:

When considering occupational risks and increased ACC levies, the ACC levy is paid for by the employer, not the employee. What ACC is currently proposing, in regards to motorcycles, is that we disregard who causes the injury but punish the party who suffers the injury. Which is, obviously, a reversal of the logic behind the extraction of work-related ACC levies.

This proposition is patently unfair, and if it goes ahead a lot of people are going to loose a lot of faith in a system which, at the basic level, is a great idea.

That said, we shouldn't loose track of the fact that the proposal can only go ahead with the consent of the politicians. No need banging ACC unnecessarily and most definitely no reason to stir up an atmosphere which will make ACC employees feel threatened by motorcyclists - your average ACC employee won't have a say in this. (That said, by increasing the risk that they are subjected to bodily harm through their occupation we do make their employers (i.e. big kahunas responsible for current proposals) pay a larger ACC levy... and yes, I am just kidding.)

[lakedaemonian]

Lakedaemonian, I would like to see a copy of your submission to the ACC committee (if you think that is appropriate). It might help me get off my butt and also write something.

Here's my first draft........found some good stuff on this forum to blatantly plagiarize.....it might stand a bit more hard quantifiable data....putting this on in good faith, feedback appreciated but please keep it constructive.......

-------

Chris Elles



Rolling Thunder Harley-Davidson

35 Manchester Street

Christchurch 8011



03 353 2424



My name is Chris Elles and I am the Managing Director of Rolling Thunder Motor Co. Ltd., established in 1964 we are one of New Zealand's oldest and largest motorcycle dealerships.

As a member of the New Zealand motorcycling industry; employer of 17 full-time, part-time, and casual staff dependant on a healthy motorcycle industry; commercial partner of many businesses employing many New Zealanders in support of the New Zealand motorcycling industry; and as a life-long motorcycle enthusiast, I believe I am qualified to make this submission.

My desire is to see an ACC compensation system that is firstly and lastly, fair.

I believe that the current effort to inaccurately and crudely ring-fence motorcycle related costs and applying them strictly and unfairly to motorcyclists risks setting a dangerous precedent.

By inaccurately segmenting cost by cause the ACC is breaching it's historical no-fault purpose.

The ACC was founded to compensate the injured, paid by the entire community.

While currently outside the ACC's charter, the many positive impacts motorcycling has on our economy and society need to be included in the decision making process, which include:

Less harmful emissions

Less congestion

Less pollution

Less wear and tear on roading

Less energy consumed

Policies that directly and indirectly have a negative impact on motorcycling risk placing future national energy efficiency and environmental emission targets even further out of reach than they already are.

On the topic of levies and fairness/equity, the proposed system is unfair for the following reasons:

The arbitrary selection of 600cc as an ACC levy cost step unfairly burdens many motorcyclists without any fair and reasonable justification to support it.

The statistical data the ACC has produced is flawed and in desperate need of some impartial perspective.

Multiple vehicle owners are unfairly treated.

Just because ACC is able to data capture and collect some of it's revenue from some segments of some populations like on-road motorcycling, does not make it fair and reasonable to abuse this policy.

By significantly revising the proposed levy increases downwards, the ACC will prevent the many New Zealanders employed by the motorcycling industry from being adversly affected, tens of thousands of New Zealanders will be able to afford to continue motorcycling instead of choosing less palatable transport options, and ALL New Zealanders will benefit from the reduced emissions, reduced pollution, reduced congestion, reduced roading wear and tear, and reduced energy consumption of affordable motorcycling.

Thank you for your consideration of my submission and I strongly encourage ACC to significantly revise the proposed levy increases downwards.

Regards,



Chris Elles

Managing Director

Rolling Thunder Harley-Davidson

[Winston001]

We've been over this before and either your memory fails you and you didn't respond to my statement:

When considering occupational risks and increased ACC levies, the ACC levy is paid for by the employer, not the employee. What ACC is currently proposing, in regards to motorcycles, is that we disregard who causes the injury but punish the party who suffers the injury. Which is, obviously, a reversal of the logic behind the extraction of work-related ACC levies.

I understand your reasoning which is shared by many others here but I suggest its in error. Many people in high risk occupations are self-employed. Farmers. Builders. Spray contractors. Roofers. They pay the high risk ACC levy themselves. As for employees, the risk levy is part of the cost of employment and limits the number of employees. At its most basic, we all bear the cost of the risk levies because they have to be covered in the cost of the job. Too high and there is no job.

It's completely logical to impose a risk premium on motorcyclists. This is not punishment any more than expecting a builder to pay more because he has a higher risk of injury.

I disagee with ACC because I think it is a broad compensation system and the motorvehicle premium should remain flat across all types. My rationale for making the above point is we need to be ready for pro ACC arguments along that line. Always anticipate the opposition.

[Ixion]

..
While currently outside the ACC's charter, the many positive impacts motorcycling has on our economy and society need to be included in the decision making process, which include:

Less harmful emissions

Less congestion

Less pollution

Less wear and tear on roading

Less energy consumed

Policies that directly and indirectly have a negative impact on motorcycling risk placing future national energy efficiency and environmental emission targets even further out of reach than they already are.

.

Good submission.

Not strictly outside their competence to consider environmental effects

S 300 of the Act says

Public interest

• In exercising any functions or powers under this Act or the Crown Entities Act 2004, the Minister must have regard to the public interest and, in particular, the interests of taxpayers, levy payers, claimants, and potential claimants.
  

[Mikkel]

I understand your reasoning which is shared by many others here but I suggest its in error. Many people in high risk occupations are self-employed. Farmers. Builders. Spray contractors. Roofers. They pay the high risk ACC levy themselves. As for employees, the risk levy is part of the cost of employment and limits the number of employees. At its most basic, we all bear the cost of the risk levies because they have to be covered in the cost of the job. Too high and there is no job.

Indeed, but as you say we all bear the cost of the risk levies, to some extent, for occupational risk assessment. However, the proposed ACC levy increase goes in the opposite direction - it places the bill firmly (and seemingly without a factual basis on which to support this move) with where the risk is identified, and only there. The only ways in which a motorcyclist can get a "fair" treatment with the proposed increases is to fold or break the law - i.e. sell the bike or choose not to register it.

It's completely logical to impose a risk premium on motorcyclists. This is not punishment any more than expecting a builder to pay more because he has a higher risk of injury.

Except the builder will be able to recoup his expenses in the form of increased cost for his work - which will occur since all builders will be charged the same.
As a result less work will get done, since all building has now become more expensive relative to the rest of the economy.

I can't see how I should be able to cut back $500 in bike related expenses a year without going for cheap tyres and cutting way back on maintenance. I am sure that wouldn't make me less likely to cost ACC money.

I disagee with ACC because I think it is a broad compensation system and the motorvehicle premium should remain flat across all types. My rationale for making the above point is we need to be ready for pro ACC arguments along that line. Always anticipate the opposition.

We very much agree on that.