ACC proposals on motorcycle levies

[bogan]

Interesting perspective.

Speed features as a causative factor as the stats are drawn from crash reports filled out by humans. Every time they attend a crash the internal question "Would this have happened if they had been going slower?" arises. So they tick the box saying speed was a factor. I personally see speed as a factor in a small number of crashes, but not really a lot. I see human error as the major cause.

However..........

Indulge me. Just imagine for a minute that speed isn't the causative factor in a crash. It's caused by, say, inattention, SMIDSY, whatever.

Is it better to be going slower or faster when the crash happens?

Have you stopped fucking goats yet? One word answer please.

See, sometimes a question is so stupid or misleading it deserves no answer.

[Jin]

Is cassina arguing for a user pays system for healthcare, insurance etc or a slight skewering of the socialist ACC system? All im reading is confused incoherent mumbling.

[Bikemad]

You cant even come up with an idea for cheaper registration yourself so to compensate for not being bright enough you put down the ideas of others. Just because you have plently of cash it does not mean everyone else does.

ok diddums lets try this...........the actual cost of registration is only $24.50..........the rest of the cost being ACC and the next biggest component being GST.........how about as motorcyclists we are given the option of having private healthcare insurance at which point we would not have to pay the ACC component,$397.18 + the safety levy of $30.00 on each bike i own and therefore the GST would be significantly reduced as well.......i have 3 bikes i register so if we did this then i would have $1200 dollars to throw at private insurance........if i crash and burn my premiums go up.....sounds fair.........if you are a SAFE rider ie no crashes or claims ya premiums go down..........Register or insure the rider i feel is a better way to go........please don't respond ....i tire of your nonsense

[bogan]

ok diddums lets try this...........the actual cost of registration is only $24.50..........the rest of the cost being ACC and the next biggest component being GST.........how about as motorcyclists we are given the option of having private healthcare insurance at which point we would not have to pay the ACC component,$397.18 + the safety levy of $30.00 on each bike i own and therefore the GST would be significantly reduced as well.......i have 3 bikes i register so if we did this then i would have $1200 dollars to throw at private insurance........if i crash and burn my premiums go up.....sounds fair.........if you are a SAFE rider ie no crashes or claims ya premiums go down..........Register or insure the rider i feel is a better way to go........please don't respond ....i tire of your nonsense

That'd be more expensive overall though. How do you then prove you have private instead of ACC cover when the plod pulls you over. Insurance to risk weighting groups too, you can have had no crashes and ride safe as, but still get slammed simply for being young, or old...

[Bikemad]

That'd be more expensive overall though. How do you then prove you have private instead of ACC cover when the plod pulls you over. Insurance to risk weighting groups too, you can have had no crashes and ride safe as, but still get slammed simply for being young, or old...

you carry your current health insurance card along with your license which you are also obliged to carry as it stands now
why would you get slammed, as i said,its private,shop around get the best deal for you..........
you might get slammed when you crash and make a claim.....depending on fault.....fair enough

[rastuscat]

Have you stopped fucking goats yet? One word answer please.

See, sometimes a question is so stupid or misleading it deserves no answer.

My goat reserved the right to remain silent on this question.

I note that by not answering the obvious question, you agreed with me.

Congratulations on your change of heart.

[bogan]

you carry your current health insurance card along with your license which you are also obliged to carry as it stands now
why would you get slammed, as i said,its private,shop around get the best deal for you..........
you might get slammed when you crash and make a claim.....depending on fault.....fair enough

Yes, but as it is now, you put the rego on the vehicle. You'd need ACC put onthe person first in your system wouldn't you?

Look to the UK prices, they get absolutely slammed, what would be different here?

My goat reserved the right to remain silent on this question.

I note that by not answering the obvious question, you agreed with me.

Congratulations on your change of heart.

I see you miss the point. Perhaps another stupid question is warranted.

Would staying at home drastically (almost completely in fact) reduce your risk of having a vehicle accident?

[rastuscat]

For clarity, I'll outline my point in different terms.

When a crash happens, regardless of the cause, the energy dissapated is equal to the energy input.

Prevent crashes by all means. But until you prevent every crash, it reduces the impact if the people involved are going slower.

I'm off to take some outrageous risk. I'm walking the dog.

[Tazz]

For clarity, I'll outline my point in different terms.

When a crash happens, regardless of the cause, the energy dissapated is equal to the energy input.

Prevent crashes by all means. But until you prevent every crash, it reduces the impact if the people involved are going slower.

I'm off to take some outrageous risk. I'm walking the dog.

The point I think you miss is the only way you'll prevent all those crashes, is by having no energy to dissipate in the first place, which would happen by going no where at all, hence why the question is redundant and staying at home is brought up because that is essentially what you're arguing.

I believe you've said as much yourself in the past that speed limits are a guesstimate line in the sand anyway.

If people can't accept that every time they jump on the road they risk dying no matter the speed or conditions and potentially through no fault of their own, they should stay at home.

[rastuscat]

The point I think you miss is the only way you'll prevent all those crashes, is by having no energy to dissipate in the first place, which would happen by going no where at all, hence why the question is redundant and staying at home is brought up because that is essentially what you're arguing.

I believe you've said as much yourself in the past that speed limits are a guesstimate line in the sand anyway.

If people can't accept that every time they jump on the road they risk dying no matter the speed or conditions and potentially through no fault of their own, they should stay at home.

Right, now we are getting somewhere.

The speed limits are a collection of limits set by the national gubbermint (the 100 kmh limit) and varied by the various road controlling authorities. District councils and city councils get to vary the limits according to local decisions.

The limit is intended to allow a flow of traffic, which is a trade off between complete safety ( 0 kmh) and total mayhem (warp factor 7). It has to allow the normal flow of traffic, while trying to balance the need to move with the public safety thingy.

I agree that there is always going to be issues around the decisions made. People will disagree, clearly. I disagree with some of them too.

What doesn't change, and what can't be argued with, is Newtons laws of motion. In summary, the faster you go, the greater your momentum, and the greater the energy involved in any subsequent crash.

So let's have a discussion about that, instead of the inane "It's safer to go faster" stuff we get. Sometimes it is safer to go faster, but sometimes it isn't.

What needs to get set is a number which we all understand, and which gets agreement from most folk. That's what largely happens. As a rule, it's impractical to vary it for traffic conditions, weather conditions, road conditions. That's why a limit is commonly arbitrary.

What has to be hoped is that those who enforce those limits do so with a degree of understanding of the bigger picture. So uncommon, sadly.

[bogan]

Right, now we are getting somewhere.

The speed limits are a collection of limits set by the national gubbermint (the 100 kmh limit) and varied by the various road controlling authorities. District councils and city councils get to vary the limits according to local decisions.

The limit is intended to allow a flow of traffic, which is a trade off between complete safety ( 0 kmh) and total mayhem (warp factor 7). It has to allow the normal flow of traffic, while trying to balance the need to move with the public safety thingy.

I agree that there is always going to be issues around the decisions made. People will disagree, clearly. I disagree with some of them too.

What doesn't change, and what can't be argued with, is Newtons laws of motion. In summary, the faster you go, the greater your momentum, and the greater the energy involved in any subsequent crash.

So let's have a discussion about that, instead of the inane "It's safer to go faster" stuff we get. Sometimes it is safer to go faster, but sometimes it isn't.

What needs to get set is a number which we all understand, and which gets agreement from most folk. That's what largely happens. As a rule, it's impractical to vary it for traffic conditions, weather conditions, road conditions. That's why a limit is commonly arbitrary.

What has to be hoped is that those who enforce those limits do so with a degree of understanding of the bigger picture. So uncommon, sadly.

Mate, we were there ages ago, you're just a bit slow (it's funny cos it's topical, too)

The point that was being discussed (before you put it in reverse) was about our own discretion, based on that arbitrary number and current circumstances. It was being discussing cos some fucking muppet seems to think those current circumstances are so irrelevant that any time they are gone over our ACC levy should increase. Now, can you keep up with that?

[swbarnett]

Is it better to be going slower or faster when the crash happens?

Faster if you're being rear-ended. Even if you're not going faster can mean the difference between a glancing blow and a full-on square impact.

[swbarnett]

When a crash happens, regardless of the cause, the energy dissapated is equal to the energy input.

While technically correct this is almost completely irrelevant. What's important is the rate at which energy is dissipated, not how much. Travelling faster may lead to the energy being dissipated at a lower rate by completely changing the geometry of the impact.

[swbarnett]

What needs to get set is a number which we all understand, and which gets agreement from most folk.

Absolutely not. What we need is to allow everyone to "ride their own ride" etc. A rider/driver is more dangerous when forced to travel under (or over) their own natural speed.

[eldog]

Absolutely not. What we need is to allow everyone to "ride their own ride" etc. A rider/driver is more dangerous when forced to travel under (or over) their own natural speed.

agree about a rider/drivers natural speed.
They arent forced to drive at the speed limit, its not a target.

When I am not comfortable with the speed limit indicated I ride at the speed I am ok with.
If I am slow, I try and find a decent location and allow the people behind me pass safely, everyone is ok with that?

I dont travel faster than the indicated limit (if its 70 or above), but thats me.

Is Rustacat suggesting that there could be more places were the speed limit could be raised above 100 or whatever the current limit is for that area. I feel sure there are pmore places that could see the 50 limit raised to 60 and more consistant speed limits in similar areas.

There are expressways which could easily see 110 limit like overseas.