Waikato Times Editorial - and reply

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Ah fuck it. I've missed something in there then. I did work it out the other day, trying to see how they'd come up with it.
Fecking Oldtimers

They couldn't so he smashed his fist on the calculator and then the buttons pushed were $3770 and that is how they come to that figure...

See with stats you start with the figure you want and then work you calculation around it

[ckai]

Attached is the Waikato Times editorial of Wednesday 4 November. "Bikers should pay their bill."

The content is not quite as contentious as the heading but it warranted a reply IMO. Which went as follows:


Your editorial headline of 4 November, "Bikers should pay their bill," suggests that you believe that each individual user group should pay its own way within ACC, despite this being in contradiction of the founding principles of the ACC fund.

Given this headline, are we to assume that you will also call for other user groups to "pay their bill?" Can we expect you to call for ACC contributions from, for example, cyclists and pedestrians since they too call upon the resources of the motor vehicles account?
ACC's Injury Statistics 2008 report (http://tr.im/BV1k) details claims against the Motor Vehicles account in that year. It seems there were 567 claims by cyclists, at a cost of $22,174 per claim and there were 1115 claims by pedestrians at a cost of $21,967 per claim.

I am sure similar arguments could be levelled against many sporting codes as well.

When will you be asking these groups to "pay their bill?"


Ya reckon they'll print that?

Nice reply mate, fully legit and good points. Although reading the article, I got the impression Mr Editor is sitting on the fence and just saying there are valid points for both for and against. Could have got it wrong.

I do notice he's using the same 16x bullshit that has been handed him. Why don't people with so-called brains actually use their brains and work shit out?

Or, heaven forbid, do some actual reporting and research the topic from both angles?

Actually scratch that, it's an editorial, meaning only an opinion and editors don't need to "report".

[slofox]

Nice reply mate, fully legit and good points. Although reading the article, I got the impression Mr Editor is sitting on the fence and just saying there are valid points for both for and against. Could have got it wrong.

I do notice he's using the same 16x bullshit that has been handed him. Why don't people with so-called brains actually use their brains and work shit out?

Or, heaven forbid, do some actual reporting and research the topic from both angles?

Actually scratch that, it's an editorial, meaning only an opinion and editors don't need to "report".

Yeah - true. Like I said, the content is less contentious than the headline. But the headline is all most people would have seen...as in "Yeah! Fukkin' Bikers!!!"

I have already sent in a much fuller letter outlining the dodgy maths involved in the ACC claims. But it will be way too big for them to publish. In that one, I invited them to do a bit of research on it and maybe publish their findings. Bet they don't bother though...

[Crasherfromwayback]

ACC levy-hike proposals



The proposals to hike the ACC Motor Registration Levies for motorcycles in particular, are not only outrageous in their extent, but also they are discriminatory and therefore contrary to our Bill of Rights, and contrary to the founding principles of ACC.



Maybe it is a good thing that the proposed levies for motorcyclists are so high. If they were only small increases they may have gone un-noticed, whereas now they are a signal for politicians, beaurocrats and the general public to consider the ACC performance as a whole. Motorcyclists encompass the full range of citizens and the full range of competencies in all areas. Any harsh, discriminatory treatment of motorcyclists is certain to evoke extremely strong resistance, as witnessed in token form so far, by the various demonstrations to date. Should the proposals be implemented, the reaction to them could be far reaching and ugly indeed.

a

The ACC system purports to be universal in application and separated from fault.



Correctly, ACC cover is universal and consequently should be funded by universal means. General taxation in its legitimate forms is the fairest and most universal method for the Government to fund anything. To charge GST on a levy, as is currently the case, is to charge a tax on a tax and therefore is not legitimate.



All present and proposed levies which relate to risk of different levels for different groups are discriminatory and therefore illegal.



Finding any risk-taker justifies different treatment for taking a risk, and for being vulnerable to risk, is to hold them as being at fault for engaging in risky activity. The no-fault principle should mean that no-one is levied according to the risk they pose or are vulnerable to.



Are motorcyclists being singled out by ACC unfairly? I believe they are for two reasons:



First, because even if anyone is to be levied according to risk, then everyone should be, which at the moment isn’t the case. Eg. Cyclists, those playing sport and involved in other recreational activities aren’t levied in any similar way to motorcyclists. Any targeted risk exposure should also be directed at those who pose risk exposure, not just at those who are exposed to it. Eg. Large SUVs loaded with people pose a huge risk, not only to their occupants, but to other road users, yet are not singled out for special levies.



Secondly, because of the crude criteria and un-reliable collection methods used, the statistics used to justify a special levy are dubious to say the least. Before statistics can have any validity there should be reliable figures for the following, and relating only to road-registered motorcycles.



The number of road-registered motorcycles. Race bikes of all kinds and many farm bikes and ATVs aren’t registered and so attract no ACC levy. To include accidents and costs related to their riders and passengers when assessing motorcycle risk would be grossly unfair and distort other statistics.


The number and cost of injuries to riders and passengers.


The number and cost of injuries to riders and passengers where the accidents did not involve another vehicle.


The number and cost of injuries to riders and passengers where the accidents did involve another vehicle.


The number and cost of injuries to riders and passengers where the accidents did involve another vehicle and the motorcyclist caused the accident.


The number and cost of injuries to riders and passengers where the accidents did involve another vehicle and the motorcyclist did not cause the accident.


The number and cost of injuries to riders and passengers where the accident was caused by the road surface not being fit-for-purpose but warning signage did exist.


The number and cost of injuries to riders and passengers where the accident was caused by the road surface not being fit-for-purpose but warning signage did not exist.


The number and cost of injuries to other road users where the motorcyclist was to blame. The impression I’ve always had is that motorcyclists tend to kill themselves and their passengers but seldom other road users.




Multiple levy charging



Even if levies are held to be justified, in the case of motor vehicles it should relate to the driver/rider, not to the vehicle because ACC relates to drivers/riders, not to vehicles as is the case with motor-vehicle insurance. Many motorists own multiple vehicles for their own, often infrequent use, and the present system of applying levies to them all is contrary to natural justice. At the very least, any levy should apply only to the owned vehicle posing the greatest risk. Would that mean that a large SUV poses less risk than even a small motor scooter, as the present proposals would have? The proposed levy application suggests that the scooter poses the greater risk, which again is contrary to natural justice and logic.



The time is ripe for a complete re-organisation of the ACC system to return it to its original, and highly praiseworthy principles. Honourable Politicians will ensure that that happens.





Graham Allardice

Motorcyclist for 51 years - without a related ACC or insurance claim.

Author of the book, The Biker’s Bible – Fun and Survival on Road-going Motorcycles, partly supported by ACC.

Writer for much of the ACC website for motorcyclists – Ride for Ever.

[RavenR44]

Good response. Thanks for posting that. It'll be bookmarked for reference for its clarity and utter logic.

Have a little bling from me dude.

Cheers,
Andy.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Good response. Thanks for posting that. It'll be bookmarked for reference for its clarity and utter logic.

Have a little bling from me dude.

Cheers,
Andy.

Graham is a smart fellow indeed! I'm sure it's been suggested a million times...but my take on it is they should simply add a dollar to the price of petrol. Despite what we think...fuel here is still relatively cheap...and then it reallly is user pays. Fuck...I ride/race off road and eat hospital food all the time...yet don't pay rego...hardly fair. Farmers use fuel..then they pay acc levies more...as do I for my dirt bikes. You drive your car more...stands to reason you're more likely to (eventually) have an acc...you pay more acc levies.

Seems pretty simple and straight forward to me.

[Ixion]

No need for a dolalr. i have copies of calculations done by harry Duynhoven, when he was Minister,which show that and extra 9c /litre of petrola nd diesel would eliminate ANY need for levies for ANYBODY.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Graham is a smart fellow indeed! I'm sure it's been suggested a million times...but my take on it is they should simply add a dollar to the price of petrol.

My take would be add a levy on all traffic infringements (gawd knows how much but would be a huge chunk of the traffic account), a $5 levy on WoFs (around $51million a year) and $50 on all vehicles bought and paid at the change of ownership. plus fuel. this combined would just about eliminate the ned to have a levy on a vehicle it self.

[Mom]

No need for a dolalr. i have copies of calculations done by harry Duynhoven, when he was Minister,which show that and extra 9c /litre of petrola nd diesel would eliminate ANY need for levies for ANYBODY.

Interesting, but the bigger question is what do they actually DO with our money? I might support a fuel tax increase if I was assured that later down the track they actually accounted for that moey honestly and used to for the purpose intended. We dont have to look very far down the track to see that infact that is not the reality in times gone by.

[Crasherfromwayback]

My take would be add a levy on all traffic infringements (gawd knows how much but would be a huge chunk of the traffic account), a $5 levy on WoFs (around $51million a year) and $50 on all vehicles bought and paid at the change of ownership. plus fuel. this combined would just about eliminate the ned to have a levy on a vehicle it self.

A couple of good ideas...but the traffic infringement bit...most fines go unpaid by the very cunts that need to be topping up acc.

[Jantar]

My take would be add a levy on all traffic infringements (gawd knows how much but would be a huge chunk of the traffic account), a $5 levy on WoFs (around $51million a year) and $50 on all vehicles bought and paid at the change of ownership. plus fuel. this combined would just about eliminate the ned to have a levy on a vehicle it self.

I've just about finished my submission. here is the section on fines:

Surcharge on Traffic fines: I would ask that a surcharge of 100% be added to all traffic infringement notices and court imposed traffic fines. This would add a further $663m (based on treasury figures for 2005). This is a new method of collecting ACC revenue, but one that is aimed at those who are most likely to be causing accidents rather than those who drive or ride safely.

Note that figure is almost exactly equal to the total amount collected in levies last year for the entire motor vehicle account.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Note that figure is almost exactly equal to the total amount collected in levies last year for the entire motor vehicle account.

Cool I said something similar in mine... but didn't have and figures to work on. But thought that would just about cover the total account. means they can lower the regos on all vehicles and have them equal. to help with the fully funded model... once funded drop the rego levy

[Crasherfromwayback]

No need for a dolalr. i have copies of calculations done by harry Duynhoven, when he was Minister,which show that and extra 9c /litre of petrola nd diesel would eliminate ANY need for levies for ANYBODY.

Even better...but the idea is right in my eyes. Use fuel...pay up. On or off road..car or quad. Dirtbike/road bike. And while we're at at...at least every cunt that drives their car to go play rugby/league/soccer gets hit too.

[What?]

I'm with Crasher. A levy on fines is useless if the fine isn't paid, and that is becoming more and more common as the yoof realise that they can get away with non-payment.
A fuel levy would cover all except those who are using stolen fuel. It would also cover accidents involving lawn mowers, chainsaws, powerboats and anything else with an internal combustion engine that people can hurt themselves with.
And those who hurt themselves whilst driving or riding in a stolen vehicle should not be entitled to any cover.

[yachtie10]

Even better...but the idea is right in my eyes. Use fuel...pay up. On or off road..car or quad. Dirtbike/road bike. And while we're at at...at least every cunt that drives their car to go play rugby/league/soccer gets hit too.

not criticising but how do we allow for electric (or other powered) vehicles which are becoming a reality