you're wrong AGAIN, Nick. Critique please

[caseye]

As promised that letter to the editor.
I note that in todays Herald Tuesday 24th Nov 2009. Mr McLea General Manager of ACC New Zealand has spent time and effort, time and money which I'm sure as a taxpayer that he has used during working hours, further denouncing Motorcyclists of NZ.
I'd like to ask him directly why it is that in this letter,which all new Zealanders can read he signs himself off as General Manager ACC, whereas in the submision reply confirmation I and 2,750 other motorcyclists/members of the public received he quite plainly signed himself off as General Manager ACC INSURANCE.
I'd like to make it quite clear, I have an email confirmation with this title on it as do many others.
Further I 'd like to ask why it is that taxpayer money was spent on full page Herald, Dominion. Waikato Times, newspapers hitting out at motorcyclists and again denying them a fair opportunity to be heard without bias in their submissions process.This advertisment campaign approved and authorised by him as GM of ACC Insurance?
Should this add have been allowed?
Do the general public of new Zealand understand that ACC has spent their money telling them that motorcyclists are dangereous and bad before a submission process had closed?
I sincerely hope this letter is published in it's entirety.

[Mom]

Btw where are cyclist road accidents paid from?? The general fund or our road account??

Cyclists and pedestrain claims are paid out of the motor vehicle fund if a vehicle was involved. Off road accidents including off road vehicles apart from bikes are paid out of the motorvehicle fund. The only funding into that specific fund comes from motorvehicle registrations.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

The only funding into that specific fund comes from motorvehicle registrations.

so where is the 100 million or so in fuel levies gone?

[Mom]

so where is the 100 million or so in fuel levies gone?

Ahhhh good question, I maybe full of shit it seems.

[Reckless]

Cyclists and pedestrain claims are paid out of the motor vehicle fund if a vehicle was involved. Off road accidents including off road vehicles apart from bikes are paid out of the motorvehicle fund. The only funding into that specific fund comes from motorvehicle registrations.

So surly the ACC must have these figures/stats to work out their $77 sum??

We should be able to ask for the off road accidents to be deducted off our increase

and

I'd like to see what sort of figure the ACC reckon car drivers are funding Pedestrians and Cyclists road accidents!!

Surely this country hasn't git so bad someone can send you a bil l and not jusify it! Consumer rights act and all??

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Surely this country hasn't git so bad someone can send you a bil l and not jusify it! Consumer rights act and all??

where have you been for the last 12 years?

[twinkle]

We should be able to ask for the off road accidents to be deducted off our increase

Mom said that they aren't included already

Off road accidents including off road vehicles apart from bikes are paid out of the motorvehicle fund.

[Subike]

Mom said that they aren't included already

thats only if they are recorded as off road accidents.
sadly many are reported as just motorcycle accidents, which means they go onto our tally.
But now I am interested to know
Are all motorsport accidents under the motorvehicle levey?
It seems strange to me that road users are paying for race cars, 4WD off road racing, motorised boating events, speedway, to name a few?????

[Ixion]

I posted the orignal, less the table, in the Bikeoi coordinators group for critqiue.

Those who have access, please annotate. Others, sorry, I tried.

I'll leave this thread for Mr katman's hobby horse exercise.

[MSTRS:Me]

We should be able to ask for the off road accidents to be deducted off our increase

Not possible. Because no-one knows how many there are, that are included. If the ACC claim form is filled in saying 'motorcycle' involved, then it's on the list. No place to seperate regd or not.

[Reckless]

I'll leave this thread for Mr katman's hobby horse exercise.

oh shit thats me outa here!

[FastBikeGear]

Seems to me that we are all trying to reverse engineer the claims that Nick Smith, Keith McLea and John Judge are spouting.

Why don't we just ask and insist that they provide the data and calculations that were used to derive the figures they are quoting

1. The new levies reflect the fact that motorcycle riders are 16 times more likely to be involved in a road crash than any other road users and are far more likely to be seriously injured.
2. Even with the proposed levy increases every car driver will be subsidising motorcyclists by $77.
3. And why does keith McLea sign himself off sometimes as General Manager of ACC Insurance (thought I ran that company) and sometimes as General Manager ACC.

I have asked these questions under the OIA and am yet to get an answer...I expect it could take some time... but perhaps Phil Goff or Mr Clendon could ask for an explanation in the house for us?

Or perhaps if everyone thought it was a good idea I could ask a reporter I know, to ask these questions for us?

Ixion, what do you think?

[Katman]

I posted the orignal, less the table, in the Bikeoi coordinators group for critqiue.

Those who have access, please annotate. Others, sorry, I tried.

I'll leave this thread for Mr katman's hobby horse exercise.

Pick your bottom lip up Les.

Just remember, you won't be able to run off and hide in any 'invite only' group when ACC starts asking the really hard questions.

[mashman]

Pick your bottom lip up Les.

Just remember, you won't be able to run off and hide in any 'invite only' group when ACC start asking the really hard questions.

Are you going to answer my question from earlier. You asked if anyone could account for the 10% accidents v 2% road utilisation... I believe i have an answer for you. I just need a couple of questions answered!

[Reckless]

Not possible. Because no-one knows how many there are, that are included. If the ACC claim form is filled in saying 'motorcycle' involved, then it's on the list. No place to seperate regd or not.

Exactly my point! Should this not be the main response in making their $77 figure false. To my mind they simply cannot prove we are due any amount as their base figures are not finite enough.

But how can we get this across to Joe public thats the hard bit??

Once we get past the basic Woodhouse/no fault thing of coarse!