MAG NZ Taking Action

[Bikemad]

The problem is some of us think the current system is pretty shit and it lumps safe and unsafe motorists in the same boat. If you dont mind paying more if you are found at fault why do you
not like the idea of paying less if you are not? You have an odd sense of logic cuntface!!

from what i have gleened from this thread........YOU.....seem to be the only one who thinks the current system is shit.......while i might agree it is somewhat expensive for motorcyclists......it is a pretty good system which i have had the pleasure or misfortune depending on ones perspective of using from time to time.
your second statement about paying less if you are not found at fault doesn't even make sense..........no one is at fault until post incident......we are ALL at risk however which is the basis of the current system........

[Bikemad]

and as for safe/unsafe motorists.......whats the criteria for determining that........so after a crash if it is my fault......do i have to backpay ACC contributions....because it could be argued that i was just masquerading as a safe motorist....or is it only going to go up after the crash........assuming i survive of course...........and if i do how long before i am deemed to be a safe motorist again........do i need to pass a test or something.......whats the criteria that says i'm a safe driver once again...........

[Madness]

The problem is some of us think the current system is pretty shit and it lumps safe and unsafe motorists in the same boat. If you dont mind paying more if you are found at fault why do you
not like the idea of paying less if you are not? You have an odd sense of logic cuntface!!

So if I'm a good boy and don't claim ACC I get to pay less? What if the cost of determining my lesser rate of contribution and subsequent cost of administering a unique account, relative to my profile, is higher than the money saved from my non-claim?

Back to the dog scenario for a moment. Are you suggesting the owner of the dog that ran out causing an accident would subsequently pay a higher ACC contribution or pay for the cost of the victims medical treatment, rehabilitation and loss of earnings?

[MadDuck]

Great to see some debate on this subject. Not so great that the MAG commitee have not contributed either in a point of view or a summary of what action they are proposing to take
I assume they are too busy blowing smoke up each other's arses on Facebook where all the happy people live
Oooohhhhh, sounds like cyber bullying doesn't it? On Facebook it does but KB is where you can at least express an opinion, good bad or abusive
Come on MAG, grow some balls and jump in to this debate, let those you profess to represent hear what you are doing

Hahahaha. Cheers Mark. I for one have been working and riding and having a life. Sorry I did not respond immediately - read that as fuck you :P. Only reason I bother with KB these days is because I like to hang out at the track with one of the guys here. Occasionally I see a thread kind of worth looking at.

I am the only member of the committee that has a KB log in and these days- and you know it! Oh and we dont represent you anymore...apparently.

[Bikemad]

My statement about paying less was if you get through a year and are free of fault with any claim you pay less than those who are. For example when you insure your car and get through the year with zero or a no fault claim you get a no claims bonus or do not have to pay an excess if the other person is found at fault. Why not apply this sort of thinking to ACC is what I am saying. If you are injured through the carelessness of another motorist who is paying say $175 for registration/ACC while if you have a big bike you pay about $550 reg/ACC maybe then you will get an undersatnding of where I am coming from.

i sort of understand where you are coming from but you dont seem to understand that your "idea" is totally impractable and too subjective and expensive to implement
as has been explained to you countless time we have a NO fault system......you pay according to perceived risk and possible/probable costs asscociated from injuries sustained from the worst outcome of said risk........it's your choice if you want to take that risk.......user pays effectively
and please go back a couple of posts and answer the questions about what the dogs owner would have to pay.....

[Akzle]

They can not think up a fairer system which I have done so indirectly i consider their stance as being happy with the status quo.

you're a fucken thick cunt.

[Moi]

ACC is not an insurance policy. Most of the current unrest stems from attempts to make it so.

I agree, it is not an insurance company, however the changes made in the early 2000s appeared to have been made to make it appear to be an insurance compnay so it could be sold off. Heaven helpus if it did become a fully-blown insurance scheme...

They do. It's worked through the national sport admin who levy clubs, who tack it onto club annual fees. Similar to most sports.

That's good to know. I had looked but was unable to find that info... can't have looked hard enough.

Would that we could declare ourselves a sport and pay a similar pittance.

I consider my riding to be a hobby, don't sports people consider they are involved in a 'hobby' - OK, slightly cynical...

The driver behind ACC was the view of the American litigation based system some local squabbles of the time afforded. The consensus was "let's nip this hideous waste of money in the bud and include a "no fault" clause in the new accident compensation system.

I remember when ACC first started and there was an accident on the Queenstown gondola which involved some tourists, the ACC scheme meant they were treated and there was not need for them to sue anyone... So the original scheme and the present, as I see them not as the same scheme, both removed any reason to sue. I believe that the original, although not perfect, was a far more pragmatic solution than the current scheme...

The US spends much more than NZ on health care in general, and gets less for it's dollar than we do. That's due to roughly 30% of health spending going to legal costs, and a further 20% to various other non-health-specific services like professional indemnity insurance.

And right back into lawyer country. Turns out spending most of your health budget on health rather legal and insurance costs gets you better value. Go figure.

One of those little conundrums of life...

I believe that the present ACC scheme is not a better iteration of the original...

[Akzle]

I mentioned some posts back that large penalties for neglegence/at fault accidents are already in place and happen. Its just that they only apply to industrial accidents so dont give me bullshit that a similar punishment for those at fault can not be applied to motor vehicle accidents. If it was as expensive as you claim to administer there would be no penalties for those at fault in industrial accidents either now would there?

i have a sneaking suspicion theres a larger number of fuckwits riding into dogs than there are working in industry. An incident investigation for every injury causing mva?

Who pays for that? What if, as suggested to you and ignored by you, the at fault is deceased?

[bogan]

Hahahaha. Cheers Mark. I for one have been working and riding and having a life. Sorry I did not respond immediately - read that as fuck you :P. Only reason I bother with KB these days is because I like to hang out at the track with one of the guys here. Occasionally I see a thread kind of worth looking at.

I am the only member of the committee that has a KB log in and these days- and you know it! Oh and we dont represent you anymore...apparently.

You posted that at 11pm on NYE, glass houses on that having a life thing

TBBH, MAG looks like it's going the slacktivism route with the niche FB representation etc. A pity, but with the slackness bikers often exhibit on such issues, perhaps not undeserved.

[Bikemad]

I mentioned some posts back that large penalties for neglegence/at fault accidents are already in place and happen. Its just that they only apply to industrial accidents so dont give me bullshit that a similar punishment for those at fault can not be applied to motor vehicle accidents. If it was as expensive as you claim to administer there would be no penalties for those at fault in industrial accidents either now would there?

oh good grief.......i notice you avoided the dog question again.........
what if a drunk decides to jaywalk in front of you making you swerve to avoid and you crash........he keeps walking and isn't identified.....and an independent witness seems to think you may have been going a little over the speed limit although you actually weren't........who pays?
at the moment most non death accidents aren't investigated.......people get payed out and/or repaired............with your system ALL incidents would have to be fully investigated which would incur huge costs for 1... investigaters 2...road closures 3....future litigation and arguement re said investigation.....and who will these investigaters be.........where do they come from?..........as you have all the answers just how much do you think it will cost to administer?

[BMWST?]

I mentioned some posts back that large penalties for neglegence/at fault accidents are already in place and happen. Its just that they only apply to industrial accidents so dont give me bullshit that a similar punishment for those at fault can not be applied to motor vehicle accidents. If it was as expensive as you claim to administer there would be no penalties for those at fault in industrial accidents either now would there?

that is a completely different kettle of fish.Workplace health and safety is its own subject.The penalties you describe are to prevent the employer from taking advantage of his employees .A lot of these penalties are eventually decided in court,which is one of the reasons ACC was set up in the first place.(To avoid court)

[Bikemad]

Its odd you can not see how applying industrial ACC law to the road would not make sense. By punishing motorists at fault in the same way why do you not think it would create a better safety culture as that is the purpose of industrial safety prosecutions is it not?

so clearly you did not read BMWs statement correctly........a better safety culture is a byproduct of ensuring employers do all they can to ensure the safety of their workers and not exploit them for extra profits.
what do you do for a job......please tell me it's not in finance or education

[Madness]

We're wasting our bandwidth on this fucker. Red rep the cunt and move on I say.

[BMWST?]

Its odd you can not see how applying industrial ACC law to the road would not make sense. By punishing motorists at fault in the same way why do you not think it would create a better safety culture as that is the purpose of industrial safety prosecutions is it not?

industrial health and safety has nothing to do with ACC.OHS or workplace NZ(or whatever) administer it.Any benefit to ACC is not the intent.Your system would be hugely expensive,very slow,(some kind of court case for every accident?) and as i already said is against one of the whole principles of ACC.Your system may as well get rid of ACC and go back to a purely private insurance based system which would than need to be compulsory

[Bikemad]

So you by your response are happy with everything that is being done to promote safer roads then? I bet if you were injured by someone found at fault you would think differently expecially if you were paying the top level of bike registration and they were paying only a car reg.

ever heard the saying ....ya cant please all the people all of the time..........
your responses seem to entail putting words in other peoples mouths instead of answering the questions or addressing the pitfalls put to you regarding your idea............while not everyone is entirely happy about the cost of the current system it is still way better than your idea........the fact not one person has supported you with this idea should tell you it's a lemon
now go back and answer my questions in post 393 if you can