Minutes from BRONZ meeting with ACC minister on safety and levy reduction

[James Deuce]

I'll make sure not to mention your name Jim.

Cheers. I owe you a beer.

[FJRider]

Also you could have a re entry course for those that have been on hold longer than 2 years to ensure the midlife crisis riders are ready to start riding again. Small discounts for those that have attended the new ride safe courses bronze/ silver/ gold and urban. There seems to be more effort getting revenue to cover accidents than being imaginative enough to reduce accidents at the same time.

Bonus is you could create a punishment for riding unlicensed that would put people off more like loss of all licence types and still retain the road user side of registration without ACC content on the vehicle itself.

How about ... if you have FULL health insurance cover ... you need not pay any ACC levy ... as you OWN provider will cover your medical costs after an accident ...

[James Deuce]

How about ... if you have FULL health insurance cover ... you need not pay any ACC levy ... as you OWN provider will cover your medical costs after an accident ...

They won't. They never have. Premiums would have to go up significantly to support that idea and to levels that would require a greater level of income than enjoyed by 70% of people in NZ.

[Ocean1]

They won't. They never have. Premiums would have to go up significantly to support that idea and to levels that would require a greater level of income than enjoyed by 70% of people in NZ.

Which simply demonstrates what a good deal ACC is, generally. Sure, some of us pay more than others, particularly in road licencing fees, and in a lot of cases that's not fair, but even the most hard done by levy payer get's a fucking good deal from ACC.

It's just a pity we don't have the option of paying a tad more to make ACC's petty claim denial tactics for the more mundane injuries go away.

[Robbo]

How about ... if you have FULL health insurance cover ... you need not pay any ACC levy ... as you OWN provider will cover your medical costs after an accident ...

Yep, and that's what I used to have, including loss of income cover etc. until ACC was introduced and forced on me and the tax deductions on my premiums were removed. Premiums were calculated on your risk factors at the time and your expected income.
You signed a declaration pertaining to your risk factors and could modify these at any time and your premiums could be re assessed accordingly. This was a fair and just system.
ACC are just a bunch of thieving cunts. For quite a long time I was paying levies on my annual income, my work vehicle, my private vehicle and four motorbikes. That is SEVEN times I am being charged for the one cover on myself. If I could do my job whilst driving both vehicles and riding all four bikes at the same time then I could accept paying seven times. If I had tried to run my business on the same format as ACC I would have been done for fraud.
Motorcycle owners are subsidising cyclists, joggers, sports players, etc who only pay ONCE on their annual income.
It's method of levey payments is a total rhort and was obviously dreamed up by a total fuckwit and has continued to be carried out by similar fuckwits ever since.

[mossy1200]

So unless they are able to see a bigger picture nothing will change.

There is a bigger picture?

[James Deuce]

While handling skills courses may prevent riders from coming to grief as a result of their own actions they offer no gurantee of avoiding coming to grief as a result of the actions of others but ACC expects us riders to pay for the screwups of others as well which the formal correspondance from poster 1 says nothing about. So unless they are able to see a bigger picture nothing will change.

Handling Skills courses provide no guarantees of preventing your own screw ups either. They're simply a feel good exercise that the current Government is cynically manipulating to be able to say, "Look! We helped, but they still crashed their brains out!"

I took a lot of grief from people on here about my accident in 2010. I was hurt badly and I sure as hell didn't get sympathy or help from people on KB. Instead I just got reminded that I was a useless fuck up, ruining the ACC stats for everyone else. My head injury was bad enough that I've only been able to start enjoying reading and sit still for more than an hour in the last 12 months. But of course it's my own fault for:

A. Riding a motorcycle.
B. Not anticipating flying sheep.

Nothing is going to change. Most Governments worldwide in developed countries have already painted motorcyclists as irresponsible, greedy, violent, medical resource hogging, grief-causing villains and will only record data and present a picture that leads to motorcycling being banned altogether. In the UK, announcing to a judge in a court hearing post-accident that you're an IAM Observer, or you've done your RoSPA Gold badge is likely to increase your sentence and/or reduce the %age of the awarded compensation as the court system there apportions blame between parties.

The days of personal vehicles are numbered and motorcycles will be the first to go.

Just enjoy it while you can. If you can bring yourself to go around a corner without coming to a complete stop before the apex, because as you've said before, that's the only way to be safe while cornering.

[nzspokes]

Handling Skills courses provide no guarantees of preventing your own screw ups either. They're simply a feel good exercise that the current Government is cynically manipulating to be able to say, "Look! We helped, but they still crashed their brains out!"

I took a lot of grief from people on here about my accident in 2010. I was hurt badly and I sure as hell didn't get sympathy or help from people on KB. Instead I just got reminded that I was a useless fuck up, ruining the ACC stats for everyone else. My head injury was bad enough that I've only been able to start enjoying reading and sit still for more than an hour in the last 12 months. But of course it's my own fault for:

A. Riding a motorcycle.
B. Not anticipating flying sheep.

Nothing is going to change. Most Governments worldwide in developed countries have already painted motorcyclists as irresponsible, greedy, violent, medical resource hogging, grief-causing villains and will only record data and present a picture that leads to motorcycling being banned altogether. In the UK, announcing to a judge in a court hearing post-accident that you're an IAM Observer, or you've done your RoSPA Gold badge is likely to increase your sentence and/or reduce the %age of the awarded compensation as the court system there apportions blame between parties.

The days of personal vehicles are numbered and motorcycles will be the first to go.

Just enjoy it while you can. If you can bring yourself to go around a corner without coming to a complete stop before the apex, because as you've said before, that's the only way to be safe while cornering.

I believe you are correct. I suspect we will be one of the last generations to have motorcycles in common use.

[RDJ]

In the UK, announcing to a judge in a court hearing post-accident that you're an IAM Observer, or you've done your RoSPA Gold badge is likely to increase your sentence and/or reduce the %age of the awarded compensation as the court system there apportions blame between parties.

there is similar "judicial activism" evident in Arizona. There is no helmet law in Arizona. But the judges there on the basis of a precedent set a few years ago, will disallow damages for head injuries if the rider was not wearing a helmet, on the basis that he could have avoided the injury but chose not to. Of course, judges there and elsewhere never apply the same logic to rugby players, bicycle riders, people falling off balconies etc... I guess the only solution is for more motorcyclists to become judges!

[Berries]

If I was ACC I'd give a discount on the ACC portion of the rego for attendance at The California Superbike School or similar rider training.

If I was ACC I would just ban the bloody death traps and sod the lunatic minority that insists on riding around on them.

[RDJ]

if I was ACC I would stick with the original intent of the Woodhouse report and the subsequent legislation... = No fault compensation.

[Voltaire]

I believe you are correct. I suspect we will be one of the last generations to have motorcycles in common use.

Dang might have to move to Vietnam where there are 60 million of them

Will motorcycles become like horses....you see them being ridden in paddocks and sometimes on the Tele?

[davebullet]

if I was ACC I would stick with the original intent of the Woodhouse report and the subsequent legislation... = No fault compensation.

Are people thinking no fault compensation means we all pay the same? To me they are completely different. One is a risk rating meaning you pay more than another group. This happens across all 3 levy accounts. The no fault means on an injury claim no blame or legal recourse will apply , suing etc..

[davebullet]

I believe you are correct. I suspect we will be one of the last generations to have motorcycles in common use.

Tobacco is the lead here. Good news is we still have time. Bad news the pricing squeeze could continue unless we clean up our act. They gray area is the 30% of accidents where the cause was not the motorcyclist.

[RDJ]

Are people thinking no fault compensation means we all pay the same? To me they are completely different. One is a risk rating meaning you pay more than another group. This happens across all 3 levy accounts. The no fault means on an injury claim no blame or legal recourse will apply , suing etc..

in terms of the original report and legislation, no-fault included the concept of contributory negligence (contributed to by the injured person) being ignored so that was it not just "it was not your fault", it was also "it was not my fault either." In the early years this resulted in some really strange payouts, for example criminals who broke a leg escaping over the prison wall got compensated, a man who blew off his own 2 feet and claimed some strangers did it to him, (not a joke) got a lifetime disability payout etc.

The present thinking by ACC is that motorcyclists have contributed to our injuries by being careless about our self protection, by riding a two-wheeled vehicle with no cage protection... it's not a matter of risk, because although many motorcyclists contribute to our own accidents, a simple majority of accidents are the result of car drivers, road surfaces etc.

From a philosophical point of view, if every potential recipient of ACC payouts was made to pay contributory risk levies, that wouldn't be the intent of the original legislation but it would be what we claim we always want, a level playing field. Instead, ACC have (for the present) singled out particular occupational and recreational groups for increased levies, whereas other groups get away with paying literally nothing. The most egregious examples of these are in my mind, i.e. based on all the injuries I see coming through the doors, rugby players and cyclists. Compounded by the most recent risk assessment stupidity, that of using flawed (being charitable, the data are actually crap) data from an Australian university (Monash) to assess vehicle risk ratings. Of course in this matter I am definitely biased... paying levies for multiple bikes but riding just one at a time (like many of y'all).



a fascinating insight into the bureaucratic mind, I think unintended by the group who put it together
http://www.dol.govt.nz/initiatives/w...es-2014-15.pdf