Proposed new ACC campaign association - a new direction

**scissorhands** · 3rd December 2009, 08:13

The recent media backpedal made me think National was going to come at this from a differnt angle.

If that angle includes higher payments/costs for responsible motorcyclists, I'm against it.

This proposal offers no guarantee that higher costs could be imposed via a back door, at a later date.

And, if a possibility for this exists, dollars for doughnuts the taxing national government we have now will impose these greater costs, at the nearest opportunity

**Dadpole** · 3rd December 2009, 08:40

Using the risk assessment model, how would anyone get into the world of motorcycling? No previous history and experience would leave a 17 year old getting a 125 with a possible yearly premium far higher than the price of the bike.
End result of this is no new riders and the eventual end of biking in this country. Perhaps this is what ACC and the safety brigade ultimately want.

**bogan** · 3rd December 2009, 10:30

Originally Posted by Dadpole

Using the risk assessment model, how would anyone get into the world of motorcycling? No previous history and experience would leave a 17 year old getting a 125 with a possible yearly premium far higher than the price of the bike.
End result of this is no new riders and the eventual end of biking in this country. Perhaps this is what ACC and the safety brigade ultimately want.

exactly, private insurance is a bad way to go, I like that i can pay similar levies throughout my lifetime instead of high when im learning (and when i have the least money) and low when im experienced and have more money, better to subsidise my learning self from my experienced self levies!

And private insurance costs more overall due to the litigation fees, payouts take longer due to the lengthy litigation process.

Though you are right about this being about more than just bikers, we are the tip of the wedge national is trying to use to drive ACC apart, lets go back to the original ACC principals!

**FastBikeGear** · 3rd December 2009, 10:31

Originally Posted by Dadpole

Using the risk assessment model, how would anyone get into the world of motorcycling? No previous history and experience would leave a 17 year old getting a 125 with a possible yearly premium far higher than the price of the bike.
End result of this is no new riders and the eventual end of biking in this country. Perhaps this is what ACC and the safety brigade ultimately want.

Do people ride motorbikes in the US?
They have private personal injury insurance there.
I wonder how much more expensive personal insurance is in the states than our ACC system?
I wonder how much of this extra expense is consumed by the lawyers?
I don't expect privatised personal insurance to be cheaper than the ACC system, but I do expect it to be fairer than the cockeyed and falsely skewed system we have here.

It's a well established fact that if the public believe that a taxation system is unfair, then it will not survive. There must be wide spread support of any taxation system for it to work. ACC is now getting so far out of whack that it doesn't pass this test.

I like many other motorcyclists will not pay the proposed ACC motor vehicle levies. However if I have an accident ACC will still pick up the tab for medical and rehabilitation but not ERC. But aI am not eligiible for ERC anyway as I am retired.

When someone charges at me, I will attempt to step out of the way and add some extra momentum to their direction.

It's easier than trying to block the charge and getting wounded in the process.

National is breaking ACC deliberately and I support them whole heartedly with the same intent.

**Genestho** · 3rd December 2009, 10:39

Originally Posted by Gixxer 4 ever

Who covers the ones that thumbs their nose at the system and crash anyway? Do we leave them to die? Obviously not, but what do we do? Take them to hospital and keep them alive and then send them home to manage themselves with no further help from the Heath system?

As I understand it -the proposal regarding this states, emergency care, and rehabilitaive care.

The rest of entitlements (lump sum and income subsidy) will be automatically removed based on a 2 year sentence, if that proposal is implemented..

See, I've always thought this levy raising was about fully funding, to make an attractive case for Insurance. And I still do.

But I also know it is WRONG, to be paid for ignorant stupidity while putting other lives at risk or killing them.

Are people really keen on subsidising the high risk behaviour on our roads?

Thankyou for killing or injuring my family member with a history of dangerous behaviour, now here's a lump sum and some income subsidy for your work while you comitted this offence?

EDIT I don't support this proposal in its current form, but I would like to see it reviewed somewhat

**Pussy** · 3rd December 2009, 10:43

Originally Posted by T.G.W

As I understand it -the proposal regarding this states, emergency care, and rehabilitaive care.

The rest of entitlements (lump sum and income subsidy) will be removed if that proposal is implemented..

See, I've always thought this levy raising was about fully funding, to make an attractive case for Insurance. And I still do.

But I also know it is WRONG, to be paid for ignorant stupidity while putting other lives at risk or killing them.

Are people really keen on subsidising the high risk behaviour on our roads?

Thankyou for killing or injuring my family member with a history of dangerous behaviour, now here's a lump sum and some income subsidy for your work while you comitted this offence?

Brilliant post and sentiment, TGW!

**candor** · 3rd December 2009, 11:14

Total support and what I've always thought was the solution. This plan preserves ACC for the future - and enhances road safety.

But a form of insurance whether state or competitor must be mandatory at least so far as third party.

Not a motorcyclist myself, just a supporter of motorcycling - can I join?

Guzzi, at select committee we said the criminal provision ought include drink drivers but not if they die - as families shouldn't cop it unless they did not take reasonable precautions to stop the driver. The committee said it wasn't possible to prosecute a dead man - but I'm sure private insurers would consider the blood alcohol level before granting claims. See the incentive to prevent drink drive if it were privatised

**bogan** · 3rd December 2009, 11:19

Originally Posted by Wobblyas

It's a well established fact that if the public believe that a taxation system is unfair that it will not survive. There must be wide spread support of any taxation system for it to work. ACC is now getting so far out of whack that it doesn't pass this test.

Is there a poll on here somewhere to see if kb'ers feel private is a better option over the Original ACC (not the BS that it has/is turning into)? cos maybe there shud be

**glegge** · 3rd December 2009, 11:20

I love the link out - go and look at it, very very funny,.. well done that man..

**FastBikeGear** · 3rd December 2009, 11:27

Originally Posted by candor

But a form of insurance whether state or competitor must be mandatory at least so far as third party.

Agreed P.A.I.N is fully committed to mandatory full insurance for motor vehicle personal injury.

Originally Posted by candor

Not a motorcyclist myself, just a supporter of motorcycling - can I join?

Yes, as the self appointed President, I now hereby formally accept you as an honary member of P.A.I.N. (Privatise ACC Insurance Now).

P.A.I.N. now has two memebers - we are now a formidable voting block...umm some more members would make us an even stronger force.

roll up! roll up!

**Genestho** · 3rd December 2009, 11:27

Originally Posted by candor

Total support and what I've always thought was the solution. This plan preserves ACC for the future - and enhances road safety.

But a form of insurance whether state or competitor must be mandatory at least so far as third party.

Not a motorcyclist myself, just a supporter of motorcycling - can I join?

Guzzi, at select committee we said the criminal provision ought include drink drivers but not if they die - as families shouldn't cop it unless they did not take reasonable precautions to stop the driver. The committee said it wasn't possible to prosecute a dead man - but I'm sure private insurers would consider the blood alcohol level before granting claims. See the incentive to prevent drink drive if it were privatised

I agree families shouldn't cop it either. They should'nt be held to suffer/ransom unless proved there could've been intervention.

I wonder if it did get to the point of privatisation, whether you could opt out????

I have all my insurances covered, I'm quite happy to be responsible for myself.
The proposed levy increases across the board will be WAY more than what I would pay each year anyway?
level of cover not the same though...

ALSO, the number one ranked intiative in Safer Journeys was compulsary third party....

**FastBikeGear** · 3rd December 2009, 11:31

Originally Posted by bogan

Is there a poll on here somewhere to see if kb'ers feel private is a better option over the Original ACC (not the BS that it has/is turning into)? cos maybe there shud be

Let's hold off on a poll until we develop this idea further.

I think that when the general motoring public hear that many motorcyclists are for privatising ACC they are going to do a big rethink.

**Pussy** · 3rd December 2009, 11:35

Originally Posted by T.G.W

I'm quite happy to be responsible for myself.

There are too many that aren't......

**bogan** · 3rd December 2009, 11:36

Originally Posted by Wobblyas

Let's hold off on a poll until we develop this idea further.

I think that when the general motoring public hear that many motorcyclists are for privatising ACC they are going to do a big rethink.

but thats not what is happening, an unknown portion of motorcyclist thing privatisation is the way to go, and an unknown proportion think ACC should be kept but returned to its original principals. If you were to figure out the proportions before jumping the gun and saying this and that to the non motorcyclists some embarrassment could be avoided, (westfeild mall protest...).

If you want to take more time to weight the pro's and cons of each then that is a different matter, maybe start an ACC vs Private thread, get pros and cons (add to first post), then add a poll