DOM POST says - bikers should pay

**FastBikeGear** · 20th November 2009, 18:46

Originally Posted by dpex

What happens when a cyclist hits a lamppost, dressed in Lycra and no undies....to show off his nethers!? This being the self same cyclist who pays no extra ACC levy.

Oh yeah. I forgot, Cycling is healthy even when you hit a lamppost.

Yup. I reckon it's time we did a five-thousand visit to the Dom's doorsteps.

Perhaps we should just send them lots of clips and photos of healthy activity injuries. After his healthy rugby playing youth Nick doesn't get around the tennis court as well as he might.

**dipshit** · 20th November 2009, 19:29

Originally Posted by Wobblyas

So I think the stats I have quoted are what matters and the average costs per claim are indisputable.

Not if a small section of road users are costing a significantly large portion of the payouts. The average motorcyclist costing 3.5 times what the average car driver costs is what they are worried about.

Having a lot more claims per registered vehicle (even if on average they cost less) is what the problem is.

**dipshit** · 20th November 2009, 19:32

Originally Posted by dpex

'Eh? So what's it suggesting? That one of the 66% of bikers taken out by cagers should get an ACC refund?

40% of motorcycle accidents can be blamed on car drivers.

**StoneY** · 20th November 2009, 19:47

Originally Posted by dipshit

40% of motorcycle accidents can be blamed on car drivers.

You try telling Professor Charlie Lamb that dude
Speech available right here, Nix Myth.... BUSTED as is your misinformed take on the statistics
http://kiwiridermagazine.blogspot.co...sions-and.html

The good Prof is no dumb ranting web whore, he is a PHD and a respected world authority in marketing and analysis

**specter** · 20th November 2009, 19:49

im not 1 to write big rants.. but im just pointing out
* we are footing the acc bill for having powerful recreational toys!
- how about the tens of thousands of boy racers who drive barely legal cars, in a racy manner and have a high disrespect for the law, having illegal meetings every week and are on the news at least twice weekly for accidents...

just a thought

plus drivers have the chance to injure between 1 and 10 (vans) people per car-compared to our mere 2

**dipshit** · 20th November 2009, 20:00

Originally Posted by StoneY

You try telling Professor Charlie Lamb that dude

He was saying 66% of car vs bike accidents was the car driver's fault. (the other 44% of multivehicle accidents being the motorcyclist's fault)

Then there is all the single vehicle motorcycle accidents.

Overall, 40% of motorcycle accidents can be blamed on car drivers.

**koba** · 20th November 2009, 20:07

Originally Posted by specter

how about the tens of thousands of boy racers who drive barely legal cars, in a racy manner and have a high disrespect for the law, having illegal meetings every week and are on the news at least twice weekly for accidents...

Bad call to start talking shit about boy racers when we are all pissed about "them" talking shit about us.

**specter** · 20th November 2009, 22:01

Originally Posted by koba

Bad call to start talking shit about boy racers when we are all pissed about "them" talking shit about us.

im just saying tht y dont they foot the bill also for being "HIGH RISK"

**mashman** · 20th November 2009, 22:42

Originally Posted by specter

im just saying tht y dont they foot the bill also for being "HIGH RISK"

because if every citizen wants a first class health service, then everyone has to pay the same (it may be that the bludgers get away with it, but one step at a time

)... dickheads and accidents will both appear once in a while, but that's the point! we're all covered by each other!

**RavenR44** · 21st November 2009, 07:06

Sent a letter to the editor via the email addy. 200 words Ed Zachary, and pointed out that whatever the perceived 'health benefit' might be, it's easily trumped by the inherent danger in many sports.

And reminded the editor of the ACC's supposed 'no fault' nature (as I'm sure many others have).

Not that I believe for one minute that it'll get published. And even if it did, I have no doubt that it'd be edited to give an opposite slant to my intent.

Still, I'd rather respond than do nothing.

**Jiminy** · 21st November 2009, 09:06

Originally Posted by dipshit

He was saying 66% of car vs bike accidents was the car driver's fault. (the other 44% of multivehicle accidents being the motorcyclist's fault)

Then there is all the single vehicle motorcycle accidents.

Overall, 40% of motorcycle accidents can be blamed on car drivers.

That would be 34% caused by motorcyclists. And the number of single vehicle motorcycle accidents is about 25%, so 66% of 75% still makes about 50%. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

**bogan** · 21st November 2009, 09:15

Originally Posted by dipshit

Not if a small section of road users are costing a significantly large portion of the payouts. The average motorcyclist costing 3.5 times what the average car driver costs is what they are worried about.

Having a lot more claims per registered vehicle (even if on average they cost less) is what the problem is.

Originally Posted by dipshit

He was saying 66% of car vs bike accidents was the car driver's fault. (the other 44% of multivehicle accidents being the motorcyclist's fault)

Then there is all the single vehicle motorcycle accidents.

Overall, 40% of motorcycle accidents can be blamed on car drivers.

combine those figures, 3.5x more cost, but 40% of that cost can be sent to car drivers, so we would only pay 2.1x as much as car drivers in a risk/fault based insurance scheme. Firstly the current car levy cost is more than the true cost of car ACC. Secondly, thats not how acc works, either acc scraps the no fault/risk policy across the board, or rejects the proposed levy, those are the only two non-discrimanatory options they have, and I for one will not stop protesting until one of these things happens. Obviously I'd prefer ACC went back to the way it was, Its a great system, but unfotunately national has other plans.

**koba** · 21st November 2009, 09:20

Originally Posted by specter

im just saying tht y dont they foot the bill also for being "HIGH RISK"

Becuse no one should be singled out as higher risk, as per the original (and sound) concept of ACC.

I think they would have trouble gathering statistics on such a proposal, I have never seen the "Boy racer" box to tick on a rego form.

If you are being attacked by the govt for being a purple person does it make sense to you to employ "But that guy is blue, he should be attacked too" as a defence? No! you say "Oi, stop picking on us coloureds".

**koba** · 21st November 2009, 09:22

Originally Posted by bogan

Obviously I'd prefer ACC went back to the way it was, Its a great system, but unfotunately national has other plans.

+1

Aye! Bastards!

**bogan** · 21st November 2009, 09:22

Originally Posted by koba

Becuse no one should be singled out as higher risk, as per the original (and sound) concept of ACC.

I think they would have trouble gathering statistics on such a proposal, I have never seen the "Boy racer" box to tick on a rego form.

If you are being attacked by the govt for being a purple person does it make sense to you to employ "But that guy is blue, he should be attacked too" as a defence? No! you say "Oi, stop picking on us coloureds".

yes, but if there are only a few purple people, you can gather support by illustrating that blues and greens and..... will be next.