Cyclist accidents v motorcycle accidents

**baptist** · 18th November 2010, 18:16

Originally Posted by chasio

Show me a cyclist that doesn't already pay a shit load of ACC and I'll show you a tourist.

Now, when do the silly hats start?

I love the silly hats but lets look at this for a little longer?

We all pay heaps in ACC, but every motorcycle and car etc gets hit with a levy for ACC (well should be anyway

) Push bikes do not.

Of more concern to me is who is going to foot the bill for all the new proposals for safe cycle lanes etc. Tamaki drive is one but there will be a lot of others I am sure. We do not all use push bikes or have the option of doing so.

Should cycalists be made to pay an ACC levy? dunno, but it is a sorry situation when people are killed on the road. As for ATGATT, can you imagine a guy on a push bike in full leathers and a full face brain bucket!!!

Now

Click image for larger version.

Name: vikinghat.jpg
Views: 5
Size: 59.3 KB
ID: 223824

normal service is resumed

**neels** · 18th November 2010, 18:23

There is no easy solution. People in cars are ignorant of cyclists even more than they are of motorcyclists. Some cyclists insist on riding their bikes in really stupid places, or in an ignorant fashion that pisses off other road users.

We had an interesting discussion with a policeman about this after a minor motorcycle accident partially caused by cyclists, his attitude was he is sick of motorcyclists hooning on his patch but cyclists had a right to use the road, so don't expect much help there.

And by the way, I pay a shitload of ACC levies so I'll ride my fucking bike on the road if I want to, OK?

**steve_t** · 18th November 2010, 18:23

Originally Posted by The Stranger

Fuck the lot of them. They should learn to obey the road rules and pay for their past time like the rest of us.

I don't get the whole us and them thing. You make it sound like every cyclist can't follow road rules nor do they pay ACC levies. Yeah, I've got the ZX6R (and a 250R for the missus), but I've also got a car, and I've also got a road bike and a mountain bike. Along with income related ACC levies, I think I contribute adequately.

**JudaBaker** · 18th November 2010, 18:32

So if cyclists end up having to register their bicycles does that mean that little Timmy riding to school every morning needs to apply for a licence? It's a bit retarded if you expect someone should have to pay registration for a fucking pushbike..

**The Stranger:Me** · 18th November 2010, 18:33

Originally Posted by steve_t

I don't get the whole us and them thing. You make it sound like every cyclist can't follow road rules nor do they pay ACC levies. Yeah, I've got the ZX6R (and a 250R for the missus), but I've also got a car, and I've also got a road bike and a mountain bike. Along with income related ACC levies, I think I contribute adequately.

WTF, user pays and pays and pays (ad infinitum) is a well established principal. I pay for work and recreation and motor vehicle and motorcycle (which happens to be both recreation and motor vehicle). Why should treadlys be given special treatment?

**neels** · 18th November 2010, 18:40

Originally Posted by The Stranger

Why should treadlys be given special treatment?

Because they don't have an engine, so that means they are exempt because, ummmm

But seriously, you'd better add skis, rugby boots, running shoes and tramping boots to your list of levyable items, they could cost ACC money as well.

**steve_t** · 18th November 2010, 18:42

Originally Posted by The Stranger

WTF, user pays and pays and pays (ad infinitum) is a well established principal. I pay for work and recreation and motor vehicle and motorcycle (which happens to be both recreation and motor vehicle). Why should treadlys be given special treatment?

I didn't know ACC was user pays

**bogan** · 18th November 2010, 18:44

Originally Posted by The Stranger

WTF, user pays and pays and pays (ad infinitum) is a well established principal. I pay for work and recreation and motor vehicle and motorcycle (which happens to be both recreation and motor vehicle). Why should treadlys be given special treatment?

not well established yet (within ACC anyway), but they are working on a 'fair' way to levy other user groups such as cyclist, it was in their consultation document a few weeks ago. But they haven't though of anything yet so they're safe for a little while...

**BMWST?** · 18th November 2010, 18:45

Originally Posted by Bassmatt

Really?!! I didn't need to hear that. I'm a kiwifruit grower and they only want to spend $25 million to to help save a $1.4 billion industry.
Pity Zespri isn't a finance company eh?

Thats a bit different situation.Who are "they".What part of that 1.4 billion actually goes back to "them".What part of the 1.4 Billion goes directly to John Q Public taxpayer?

**shrub** · 18th November 2010, 18:46

and the media is filled with articles about what needs to be done and what a terrible tragedy is - roads and roading design have come under close scrutiny and driver behaviour is being roundly condemned, and on the cycling organisations websites are calls for driver licensing to be tested every 10 years, more cycle lanes, higher penalties for car drivers causing crashes with cyclists etc. Cyclists are up in arms over it.

But when motorcyclists die on the road, motorcyclists get the blame, especially from other motorcyclists.

We're so PC that we're terrified to say "hey, driver behaviour and road conditions are costing us our lives". No, instead we say "yes, it's all our fault and we promise to try harder next time and we're dreadfully sorry and it won't happen again".

Sure, most crashes are preventable by the rider concerned, but then so are most pushbike crashes, and the cycling bodies accept that. The difference is that instead of cyclists trying to be even more defensive and finding even more creative ways to take the blame for what is, frequently, the poor driving of other road users and poor roads, they're demanding that other people also change their behaviour. Take the chick who swerved around an opening car door and got run over by a truck.

if she had been a motorcyclist she would have been blamed for not knowing the car door was going to be opened, for not riding on the footpath, for not braking instead of going around or for not hitting the door in preference to being run over by the truck. Instead the cycling community have demanded the road get changed and condemned car drivers who don't look in their mirrors before they open their doors.

And yes, I am expecting to be attacked over this thread because I am holding a red flag to the PC set, and yes I know that the only person I can directly influence over my safety is me, but I'm also sick of putting up with crap behaviour from other road users that puts me in danger while us motorcyclists bend over and take it. If it's OK for people on pushbikes to stand up and demand change, I think it's Ok for us to do the same.

Or should we just accept that cyclists have more balls than us?

**Bassmatt** · 18th November 2010, 18:47

Originally Posted by chasio

Show me a cyclist that doesn't already pay a shit load of ACC and I'll show you a tourist.

Now, when do the silly hats start?

Yeah so do i mate, + paying for the privilege of using the road, twice.

**Hitcher** · 18th November 2010, 18:51

Originally Posted by Bassmatt

It seems a few cyclists have been bowled and killed on the road recently.
Whats the bet those fuckers in parliament throw money at this problem rather than screwing cyclists over like motorcyclists have been, for essentially the same reason.

Only because treadly riders don't have to register to use the road. ACC also believes that motorcycles are evel and should be taxed out of existance. That's why the collect so many stats on treadly accidents that they don't collect on motorcycles -- they plan to do away with us, whereas they haven't figured out how to impose a user-pays system for pedal-powered road-using devices.

**Bassmatt** · 18th November 2010, 18:51

Originally Posted by BMWST?

Thats a bit different situation.Who are "they".What part of that 1.4 billion actually goes back to "them".What part of the 1.4 Billion goes directly to John Q Public taxpayer?

They=Govt=taxpayer
I would suggest 3-400 million in tax revenue to they=govt=taxpayer
not to mention the 10,000 odd who will be out of work if the worst came to the worst.
Its a real industry that actually produces something and brings money into the country,think about it bro.

**Bassmatt** · 18th November 2010, 18:55

Originally Posted by BMWST?

Thats a bit different situation.Who are "they".What part of that 1.4 billion actually goes back to "them".What part of the 1.4 Billion goes directly to John Q Public taxpayer?

How much will "they" see from the billion dollar payout to Cunterbury Finance.

**shrub** · 18th November 2010, 19:04

hell, at the end of the day we pay about $10.00 a week rego - I can afford that easily and while I'm not that happy about it, the reason I'm not happy is that I get special treatment. If I get good cover and if my safety as a road user is taken seroiously I'm quite happy to pay that and more. What is the issue is that we're treated like naughty children and second class road users whereas cyclists and their concerns are taken seriously. Maybe if we were a little less whimpy and PC about our issues and didn't spend all our time apologising?