Gareth Morgan in the Herald on ACC levies for bikers

[flyingcrocodile46]

trust us, we checked. We can argue til the cows come home about the accuracy but at the end of the day the general story is not going to change. I haven't any more to add than that.

Is this the hobbles or lamingtons talking now

[Flip]

I would be ashamed of myself if I was a member of motonz at this stage, you are going to remembered with infamy by the larger motorcycle community for what you are doing to the sport you seem believe you are representing.

[rustic101]

Sweet Jesus there are some arse kissers around. This is for The Chair of MOTONZ.

My five cents worth, without throwing statistical information into the mix.

I’ve read the Dr’s blog and am still not impressed by the ACC mouth Piece. Look, you either run with the hares or hunt with the hounds, you can’t do both Dr Morgan. Your appointment was purely a Political one as is the nature and function of the MSAC. Is this statement representative of you or is it the view of MOTNZ, perhaps ACC?

“Shagging round with road design, conspicuity of rider and bike, and roadside ads to tell motorists to look out for the motorcycle – is the sort of fiddling about that occurred while Rome burned.”

Either way I’m sure Police/NZTA and MoT would strongly disagree. They have contributed a lot and spent thousands working on a little number called ‘Safer Journeys’. Now I may be wrong but I’m sure this work is directed to contribute to rider and other road user’s safety. I find the statement you made very disrespectful of those Agencies efforts and potentially undermines it.

As I see it the Levies are a side issue, they are here, and we need to accept that (for now). A greater issue for me is the ineffectiveness of the MOTONZ Council and their outputs and management.

A few direct questions for Dr Morgan. Some of these questions are rhetorical but have been unanswered officially:

• When will MOTONZ be fronted and managed by a Safety Expert with knowledge and experience?
• How are individuals selected to serve on the committee, or who appoints the Council members?
• When are the next round of elections/nominations/appointments?
• How do I or other individuals express an interest in being nominated/selected/appointed?
• Will MOTONZ open their books and be transparent around their outputs/funding/assets and expenditure?
• What value added products/services/processes or procedures have MOTONZ introduced or are introducing that are not already provided by other Agencies.
• When will MOTONZ sort our their Communications?
• Would you fire the coach of the soccer team you co-own and coach them yourself?

Dr Morgan. By making inflammatory statements in the mass media such as you have, regardless if they are your personal opinions or not, you are the Chair of MOTONZ. It is my belief you have crossed the line and are in direct conflict with what other Agencies and professional bodies are undertaking. These statements you make also do not reflect the greater majority or Motorcyclists.

What you have done (successfully) is reinforce to the general public that riders are a higher risk than they actually are. ACC no doubt will be happy with your claims as its reinforcing their rational to gouge like a wounded bull.

MOTONZ, if operated and managed better could achieve so much more added value for the individuals it represents!!!

The question that remains and came from the original champaign - Who's Next???

Road safety is every road users responsibility! If by, shagging around with road design, conspicuity of rider and bike, and roadside ads to tell motorists to look out for the motorcycle, is not achieving a higher profile and reducing fatalities or injuries of riders and other road users, then you had better get some wood to throw on the fire and help Rome burn

[Motig]

Actually this whole debate doesn't matter to me. All I'm interested in is the cost because as I said in an earlier post at least with the current system you can opt out for short periods to bring the cost down. If it became compulsory to have to pay for a full year that would be it - goodbye motorcycle, I just would not be able to justify the cost when most of my riding is in summertime. Sort of pertaining to what I'm talking about-ACC would love a system where you had to pay a full years levy because if the posters on Kiwibiker are to be believed full registrations for the year must have fallen drastically and would be hitting their income target. You can do all the safety courses in the world, have a flashing lighthouse mounted on your bike but like the education system knows not everyone is going to be a rocket scientist. Mind you I've always felt that before anybody got their car/bike license they should spend a 6 months on a scooter, that would make them much more aware of their surroundings and self preservation. But otherwise (sorry mr dorset) its all about ME.

[Crasherfromwayback]

"Next, some have suggested that if the accident is the fault of a car say then it’s unfair to have levied the motorcyclist in the way I suggest. That is confused logic. The levy amount reflects the risk of the activity not who causes the accidents. Generally speaking if two cars collide the passengers don’t get injured as much as motorcyclists do in a car vs motorcycle situation. So no matter who causes the injury to the motorcyclist, the activity of motorcycling is more risky, and with that the injury bill is higher".

So Gareth...are you happy to pay a huge amount more for driving your car on our roads as compared to a Logging truck? Because I can tell you now who's gonna come off second best no matter who's at fault.

[Paul in NZ]

What breaks my heart about this is what its done to motorcyclists. These sorts of things tear communities like ours apart and cause rifts that will never heal. Its a damn shame and quite possibly not even really needed, its just becoming an exercise in wielding power and while I'd like to think it's not deliberate - I worry that its not.

This coupled with an ever increasing legal disincentive to modify, change or do anything to a vehicle has almost altered the whole experience to a point where I'm not even sure I want a motorcycle some days.

I hate feeling like that.

I've now gotten to the point where as soon as someone quotes a number or statistic in this context I just assume they are lying. Some of the numbers are just so unbelievable that they must be challenged and yet, as always they are backed up by such complex machinations and (unreliable) number gathering that it would take an army of auditors a lifetimes to un pick it all.

Its just plain bollocks...

Yes - without doubt it costs a lot to repair some people but modern medicine does cost a lot.

My feeling is still that nothing is being done to identify those that seem to have a habit of writing off bikes. I sit in wonder when I hear of people (even here) who have had incident after incident yet still consider themselves competent riders?? Surely its easy to track these time bombs down? I suppose in our modern society we can't do that? It seems easier just to wipe out an entire sector instead.

[MrKiwi]

I only have two things to say to motonz, firstly you are only representing the interest of ACC to the motorcycling community not the other was around, secondly seriously FUCK OFF we are not interested.

I'm not going anywhere...

[MrKiwi]

Is this the hobbles or lamingtons talking now

If you are going to quote me please quote as I wrote, changing them and implying I wrote them is not acceptable. You can ask is this what I meant.

[MrKiwi]

Sweet Jesus there are some arse kissers around. This is for The Chair of MOTONZ.

My five cents worth, without throwing statistical information into the mix.

I’ve read the Dr’s blog and am still not impressed by the ACC mouth Piece. Look, you either run with the hares or hunt with the hounds, you can’t do both Dr Morgan. Your appointment was purely a Political one as is the nature and function of the MSAC. Is this statement representative of you or is it the view of MOTNZ, perhaps ACC?

“Shagging round with road design, conspicuity of rider and bike, and roadside ads to tell motorists to look out for the motorcycle – is the sort of fiddling about that occurred while Rome burned.”

Either way I’m sure Police/NZTA and MoT would strongly disagree. They have contributed a lot and spent thousands working on a little number called ‘Safer Journeys’. Now I may be wrong but I’m sure this work is directed to contribute to rider and other road user’s safety. I find the statement you made very disrespectful of those Agencies efforts and potentially undermines it.

As I see it the Levies are a side issue, they are here, and we need to accept that (for now). A greater issue for me is the ineffectiveness of the MOTONZ Council and their outputs and management.

A few direct questions for Dr Morgan. Some of these questions are rhetorical but have been unanswered officially:

• When will MOTONZ be fronted and managed by a Safety Expert with knowledge and experience?
• How are individuals selected to serve on the committee, or who appoints the Council members?
• When are the next round of elections/nominations/appointments?
• How do I or other individuals express an interest in being nominated/selected/appointed?
• Will MOTONZ open their books and be transparent around their outputs/funding/assets and expenditure?
• What value added products/services/processes or procedures have MOTONZ introduced or are introducing that are not already provided by other Agencies.
• When will MOTONZ sort our their Communications?
• Would you fire the coach of the soccer team you co-own and coach them yourself?

Dr Morgan. By making inflammatory statements in the mass media such as you have, regardless if they are your personal opinions or not, you are the Chair of MOTONZ. It is my belief you have crossed the line and are in direct conflict with what other Agencies and professional bodies are undertaking. These statements you make also do not reflect the greater majority or Motorcyclists.

What you have done (successfully) is reinforce to the general public that riders are a higher risk than they actually are. ACC no doubt will be happy with your claims as its reinforcing their rational to gouge like a wounded bull.

MOTONZ, if operated and managed better could achieve so much more added value for the individuals it represents!!!

The question that remains and came from the original champaign - Who's Next???

Road safety is every road users responsibility! If by, shagging around with road design, conspicuity of rider and bike, and roadside ads to tell motorists to look out for the motorcycle, is not achieving a higher profile and reducing fatalities or injuries of riders and other road users, then you had better get some wood to throw on the fire and help Rome burn

This is one area where there is some difference of opinion:
- just because someone is on the Council does not mean they can't express an opinion in their own name and right as an ordinary citizen so long as those views do not bring the Council in disrepute.
- The article is not put out by the Council
- I for one don't under estimate the value of making our roads safer for motorcyclists. You might expect me to say that since I was heavily involved in the creation of the safer journeys road safety strategy and therein lies why I agree with some of what Gareth says and not other bits to the point that in our personal discussions on his views Gareth suggested I was being irrational. To be fair, I might have been just a tad!
- However, I have huge respect for his effort to lift the level of debate even if I don't agree with all the points he makes, and I don't. I'm not sure quite a few people on this forum know how to lift the level of debate, it's more how to run it into the ground - just saying! However, your post above, I can understand and appreciate your views.

[Katman]

secondly seriously FUCK OFF we are not interested.

Who the fuck are you to speak for me?

[Katman]

My feeling is still that nothing is being done to identify those that seem to have a habit of writing off bikes. I sit in wonder when I hear of people (even here) who have had incident after incident yet still consider themselves competent riders?? Surely its easy to track these time bombs down? I suppose in our modern society we can't do that? It seems easier just to wipe out an entire sector instead.

By and large I believe that is what Gareth is suggesting - rewarding those that make the effort to avoid crashing and penalising those that ride in a manner that make them an accident waiting to happen.

[bogan]

This is one area where there is some difference of opinion:
- just because someone is on the Council does not mean they can't express an opinion in their own name and right as an ordinary citizen so long as those views do not bring the Council in disrepute.

And you don't consider the very recent remarks made by the chairman to bring the Council in disrepute? Have you been reading the thread or comments made on your own site? Or is it just another case of motorcyclists having the 'wrong' (different) opinions so they can be discounted?

[Paul in NZ]

By and large I believe that is what Gareth is suggesting - rewarding those that make the effort to avoid crashing and penalising those that ride in a manner that make them an accident waiting to happen.

I get that but I can't quite see how we can do it yet... (fairly) I mean I know one poor beggar who has been left permanently disabled after getting cleared out (with malice) by a drunk driver while he was sitting at a red light. Sure he was on his motorcycle but.... You could hardly ping him for that.

[bogan]

By and large I believe that is what Gareth is suggesting - rewarding those that make the effort to avoid crashing and penalising those that ride in a manner that make them an accident waiting to happen.

Already being done, those who avoid crashing have to pay less for repairs, have bikes in better nick, and don't get injured. Those who don't make the effort, find the opposite. I'm still struggling to see how adding extra cost for those who crash, will change the 'it'll never happen to me (again)' mindset?

"Next, some have suggested that if the accident is the fault of a car say then it’s unfair to have levied the motorcyclist in the way I suggest. That is confused logic. The levy amount reflects the risk of the activity not who causes the accidents. Generally speaking if two cars collide the passengers don’t get injured as much as motorcyclists do in a car vs motorcycle situation. So no matter who causes the injury to the motorcyclist, the activity of motorcycling is more risky, and with that the injury bill is higher".

So Gareth...are you happy to pay a huge amount more for driving your car on our roads as compared to a Logging truck? Because I can tell you now who's gonna come off second best no matter who's at fault.

Yeh, bit strange that, wasn't there some cop over in Europe who got in a bit of trouble for suggesting it was the victims problem as well? Bit more rapey than crashey, but the same logic applies.

[Katman]

And you don't consider the very recent remarks made by the chairman to bring the Council in disrepute? Have you been reading the thread or comments made on your own site? Or is it just another case of motorcyclists having the 'wrong' (different) opinions so they can be discounted?

And of course, your comments couldn't possibly be read as a display of bitterness at your failure to raise an army under your own flag, could it?