Important message for all bikers to read - They are trying to ban you!

[SPORK]

This cop has been in meetings and seen big posters on the walls with a picture of a bike inside a circle and yes you guessed it...a big slash across the circle...

Here, let me show you my perpetual motion device and my proof of reptillians controlling the white house.

[Devil]

Mildly concerning

[Badjelly]

I think the 16x risk figure is likely to be pretty accurate. So, if (and I say if!) you think safety trumps all other considerations, reducing motorcycle use is clearly a good idea. And bicycle use, obviously. And as for those mountain bikes! But I digress...

So I don't think the bureaucrats are stupid or even wrong about the facts. I just disagree with their priorities.

[pzkpfw]

I think the 16x risk figure is likely to be pretty accurate.

It's based on multiplying the motorcycle crash rate (which is higher than cars on a crashes-per-vehicle basis) by a factor that takes into account that bikes tend to do fewer kilometres.

i.e. the bike crash rate is multiplied by about 4, because they do on average 4 times less k's than cars. (My figures here are for illustration only.)

As subjective opinion is that it's the weekend warriors who crash most, this 16x figure is unfair on the "hard core" riders who do do many k's.


(And as ACC should be worrying about paying for crashes (after worrying about preventing them) they should focus on the number of crashes that actually happen - not the number that MIGHT happen if we all rode more k's.)

[Badjelly]

I think the 16x risk figure is likely to be pretty accurate.

It's based on multiplying the motorcycle crash rate (which is higher than cars on a crashes-per-vehicle basis) by a factor that takes into account that bikes tend to do fewer kilometres.

There are various figures around but motorcyclists tend to suffer serious injury or death at a rate 16-30 times that of car occupants per kilometre travelled, but only 4 times on a per-vehicle basis. There's a Wikipedia article on this and there are some NZ figures in a fact sheet that I've mislaid.

The per vehicle figure is arguably relevant for ACC levies but if I'm thinking of taking a trip by car vs bike the per-kilometre figure is more relevant. (If you want to think about risk, that is.)

Riding a bike is more dangerous, in general, than driving a car. Cope with it or quit.

As subjective opinion is that it's the weekend warriors who crash most, this 16x figure is unfair on the "hard core" riders who do do many k's.

Maybe. I don't think subjective opinion counts for much (except my opinion of course).

[Bald Eagle]

There are various figures around but motorcyclists tend to suffer serious injury or death at a rate 16-30 times that of car occupants per kilometre travelled, but only 4 times on a per-vehicle basis. There's a Wikipedia article on this and there are some NZ figures in a fact sheet that I've mislaid.

The per vehicle figure is arguably relevant for ACC levies but if I'm thinking of taking a trip by car vs bike the per-kilometre figure is more relevant. (If you want to think about risk, that is.)

Riding a bike is more dangerous, in general, than driving a car. Cope with it or quit.



Maybe. I don't think subjective opinion counts for much (except my opinion of course).

It's not the numbers that are the concern, and they can be manipulated in all sorts of ways.
The core principal of a social compensation environemtn where we all contribute equitably and all benefit from the global safety net is what's at stake here.
The motorbike levy is contrary to that principal and also directly discriminates because of my lifestyle choice.

[jeffs]

There's a Wikipedia article on this

God we are not now using wikipedia to come up with numbers now ?

I understand that Wikipedia is used by lots of people as reference sources, but its a do it your self encyclopedia.

Any one can post numbers or facts in Wikipedia.

Don't get fooled by things, just because they are on the internet.

Please

[pzkpfw]

There are various figures around but motorcyclists tend to suffer serious injury or death at a rate 16-30 times that of car occupants per kilometre travelled, but only 4 times on a per-vehicle basis. There's a Wikipedia article on this and there are some NZ figures in a fact sheet that I've mislaid.

Um, why bother echoing my own numbers back at me?

The per vehicle figure is arguably relevant for ACC levies but if I'm thinking of taking a trip by car vs bike the per-kilometre figure is more relevant. (If you want to think about risk, that is.)

We are talking about ACC though aren't we? i.e. not whether you plan to use your bike or car.

Riding a bike is more dangerous, in general, than driving a car. Cope with it or quit.

Did you read my post? Where did I imply a bike wasn't more dangerous?

Maybe. I don't think subjective opinion counts for much (except my opinion of course).

All I was doing was pointing out that the multiplication of risk based on kilometres is possibly naive, and maybe is unbalances the stats - when compared to individuals within the population. Do you think I should just take the 16-30 times figure at face value? Do you?

[Badjelly]

Um, why bother echoing my own numbers back at me?

Misunderstood what you were getting at. Peace, bro.

[peasea]

The sky is falling etc etc.

[BikerDazz]

There are other parties having a battle royale with ACC too.
Those involved with counselling victims of sex abuse have been well shafted (no pun intended!).

I understand that changes were dropped on them without consultation, in spite of having regualr contact on other matters. When the parties effected kicked up a stink there was a delay put in place to allow consultation, however what came back was apparently not consultation but dictation on what the intended changes are to be.

It has been reported that attempts to have consultation with the minister were ignored.

I think that the Govt is tring to slash expenditure in whatever ways they can (as they do) and if you voted National then you can't complain.

I'm looking forward to getting rid of the bastards at the next election - if only the Left could get their shit together!

[Conquiztador]

Important message for all bikers to read - They are trying to ban you
............... ....................

We have got one mother of a fight on our hands people!
Its no joke to say that whats happening now is just the beginning.

I can not comment on your statements, but nothing surprises me re all this. When anyone with a little common sense has a look at the ACC figures that are being fed the plebs, it should be clear that it is all BS. Does not add up. Not even close to. So clearly there is something else driving this.

And I do not believe it has anything to do with injuries or deaths. Personally I have a much bigger conspiracy theory that I sbuscribe to:

- Oil companies have for many years been buying up any new technology that some inventor has come up with. And then buried it.
- Battery cars and hybrids are becoming better, and there is not much they can do about it.
- Motorbikes and scooters are getting more economical.
- There is a big drive to stop pollution and there is not much stopping that movement now.
- If everyone did drive Remuera Tractors there would be a higher demand for oil...
- Wars are supported on weak grounds in areas where there is oil, and the ones supported are the ones who subscribe to the oil copany's homelands.

The oil companies can se that there is not far to go. But they are hell bent of milking it until the last drop before it dies. So getting rid of motorbikes that use little oil is a good short term plan as long as they can be replaced with big cars.

Their time is running out. But until then it is all go and nothing is taboo.

So add the NZ ACC increases for bikes to that.

Think about it: If you were the CEO of a oil producing company, your job (and bonus) is reliant on selling more and more. Come up with innovative ideas and you get a medal.

So yep, we have a fight on our hands allright.

But the upside to all this is that our earth is starting to give up. It can not sustain what we are doing to it. Our planet is not able to fix what we do to her anymore. And our time is running out. If the plan is to get rid of bikes by 2050 I predict that it will be one of mankinds smaller problems in 40 years.

I predict that the Mad Max vision (as in the movie) is the future.

[pritch]

I predict that the Mad Max vision (as in the movie) is the future.

Selfish I know, but then at my age what happens in forty years won't be of much interest to me...

As for there being signs in Parliament suggestive of banning bikes, that's not a new idea. True or not, there are people in Parliament that would be happy to see bikes done away with. As with firearms, they don't own a bike, nobody they know owns a bike, therefore nobody needs a bike. Lets get rid of the anti-social things. "If it saves just one life it's worth it."
Blah blah blah etcetera.

Reformers just love to get stuck into things that don't effect them. The only defence we have against this is to occasionally remind them that we do actually have a significant number of votes. Votes which they need. Hopefully the more pragmatic influences can then restrain the reformers...

[Pixie]

The relative safety of vehicles is irrelevant.
Because of road safety fanaticism,their aim is to have us all travelling robotic electric commuter pods with no control by the occupants.

The human race is quickly becoming adventureless and afraid,and it will be the species' demise.

[Pixie]

Selfish I know, but then at my age what happens in forty years won't be of much interest to me...

As for there being signs in Parliament suggestive of banning bikes, that's not a new idea. True or not, there are people in Parliament that would be happy to see bikes done away with. As with firearms, they don't own a bike, nobody they know owns a bike, therefore nobody needs a bike. Lets get rid of the anti-social things. "If it saves just one life it's worth it."
Blah blah blah etcetera.

Reformers just love to get stuck into things that don't effect them. The only defence we have against this is to occasionally remind them that we do actually have a significant number of votes. Votes which they need. Hopefully the more pragmatic influences can then restrain the reformers...

These people are not parliamentarians.They run the govt.departments and do not get voted in or out.