Nick's Nightmare off-topic posts

**raster** · 26th November 2009, 19:59

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

You know what I mean..even a 1970 Holden is safer than a bike

For who??? the pedestrian it just run over....

...

PT

**Grahameeboy** · 26th November 2009, 21:28

Originally Posted by gwigs

Still equals $500 no matter how to try to sell it..you should get a job with Nick,
Obviously you have plenty of money otherwise $500 would not bother you?
Unfortunately as a solo parent $500 is a lot to me..

No I don't...and I would rather pay less but I am just looking at the perspective....the other side of the debate

Never assume....

**Grahameeboy** · 26th November 2009, 21:29

Originally Posted by raster

For who??? the pedestrian it just run over....

...

PT

But unlike a biker, only one person would need ACC if they survived

**mashman** · 26th November 2009, 22:52

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

What has freedom of speech been banned now....and on a Biker site no less.

I am here to say my view point..your words are more fighting than I have.

Sorry if my message seemed hostile, it was not meant that way. Generally, as a courtesy, when someone asks for a clean thread, it usually given, ya know, politeness

. I was merely requesting that you move your posts to another thread.

Sorry for thread jack!

**short-circuit** · 27th November 2009, 06:01

Originally Posted by paddy

Ixion, just a couple of quick thoughts:

I think it's safe to release the details of a protest in terms of "Nick will be here", "we are looking for a turnout >100 bikers", etc. I think what you are probably trying to keep secret is the content of your questions so that Mr Smith cannot develop pre-tested answers. That is to say you would like to keep him of guard. The reality is that if 100 bikers turn up, very few will likely get to speak. To me, that means that very few need to know the specifics of the questions that will be asked. The rest of us just need to know the date/time and the general feel of the questions (so we know that we agree with you approach). In that respect those things would seem to me to be quite safe to be made public.

P.

Thanks for the large dollop of state the obvious

**NighthawkNZ:Me** · 27th November 2009, 06:34

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

Over $1.37 a day?

would do for me

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

If the benefit of ACC remains but in private hands whats the problem

ACC already have lawyers out and about so they don't have to make payouts... in private hands where the company is bent on profit only it will be worse... you will have less cover

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

You know what I mean..even a 1970 Holden is safer than a bike

Why is I always feel safer on my bike than in any car or other vehicle? maybe cause I know if there is an accident I ain't going to get trapped inside it.. i don't know... I just feel safer on the bike...

could be a only a point of prospective...

**Grahameeboy** · 27th November 2009, 06:39

Originally Posted by NighthawkNZ

would do for me

ACC already have lawyers out and about so they don't have to make payouts... in private hands where the company is bent on profit only it will be worse... you will have less cover

Why is I always feel safer on my bike than in any car or other vehicle? maybe cause I know if there is an accident I ain't going to get trapped inside it.. i don't know... I just feel safer on the bike...

could be a only a point of prospective...

Fair enough....I agree with your last point though....

One point...if ACC made $1 billion surplus why would private insurance be tighter?

**NighthawkNZ:Me** · 27th November 2009, 06:47

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

One point...if ACC made $1 billion surplus why would private insurance be tighter?

the 1 billion was ACC as a whole... they would sell the seperate accounts err seperately

all of a sudden the 1 billion dollars split per account is not much comparitively since the traffic account is probably the smallest and the one that is struggling to make money... does it get any if it is sold

so the new owner has to make huge cut backs on payout and services, and huge levy increases to make a profit

Hence why I have said the seperate accounts must be rejoined to the super account where the cross subsidising works as it was designed to work... the day the accounts were seperated was the day ACC started to truly fall apart.

**RiderInBlack** · 27th November 2009, 07:02

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

Fair enough....I agree with your last point though....

One point...if ACC made $1 billion surplus why would private insurance be tighter?

The main part answer to that is Fully Funded Vs Funded for yearly expenses. Up until now ACC only got enough funds to pay for each year's expenses plus a slight buffer. Private Insurance uses a Fully Funded Model and try to take in each year, enough funds to cover the total cost for each claim for the life of the claim plus a much larger buffer. The Government is trying to push ACC into the Fully Funded type system like Insurance use. This type of system requires at lot larger buffer to run than ACC's present system. To do this they are pumping up the levies. The system doesn't need to be changed as it has been more than covering the expenses. Hope that answer your question.

**paddy** · 27th November 2009, 07:45

Originally Posted by short-circuit

Thanks for the large dollop of state the obvious

There was no need to be vitriolic.

**NighthawkNZ:Me** · 27th November 2009, 08:10

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

No I don't...and I would rather pay less but I am just looking at the perspective....the other side of the debate

Never assume....

Tell Nick Smith to actually look at the other side of the debate...

**Grahameeboy** · 27th November 2009, 13:02

Originally Posted by mashman

Seconded! Can i hear a "MOTION CARRIED"???

Still waiting..................

**mashman** · 28th November 2009, 15:05

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

Still waiting..................

Thanks for the pic of me carrying my motion!

Aaaaaand i'm still waiting for your response Graham:

You said: "Car protection is a standard...seat belts are a legal requirement....."

I said: Is a helmet not a legal requirement? Ya got me there, car protection is standard, it always has been hasn't it?

Then again, once upon a time ther were no seatbelts in a car, airbags where an optional extra, there was no such thing as a crumple zone, cars where just metal cages that spat lead out of their rear end and shifted more than 2 people around... Protective motorcycle clothing is an optional extra!

**Grahameeboy** · 28th November 2009, 15:09

Originally Posted by mashman

Thanks for the pic of me carrying my motion!

Aaaaaand i'm still waiting for your response Graham:

You said: "Car protection is a standard...seat belts are a legal requirement....."

I said: Is a helmet not a legal requirement? Ya got me there, car protection is standard, it always has been hasn't it?

Then again, once upon a time ther were no seatbelts in a car, airbags where an optional extra, there was no such thing as a crumple zone, cars where just metal cages that spat lead out of their rear end and shifted more than 2 people around... Protective motorcycle clothing is an optional extra!

I thought I had...