RUC Petition for Motorcyclists

[jasonu]

Unfortunately you're right. Those that know nothing about those of us that live the motorcycle lifestyle do tend to insist on judging us.


Yes, the concequences of an accident and receiving injuries that require medical attention are greater if you're on a bike. However, there is often more you can do on a bike to avoid the accident.

Fixed for accuracy.

[jasonu]

The higher fee for being "at fault" would be determined by historical "at fault" accidents. For example when I insured my bike with a new company recently they wanted to know of all "at fault" claims in the last 5 years and if I had had any I would have been charged a higher premium. If the system works for vehicles it can work for drivers/riders too if ACC were to think outside the square.

But how would you know to charge someone extra based on what hasn't yet happened?

[jasonu]

As I said in my previous post it would be determined from historical "At Fault" claims in the same way vehicle premiums are set.

But why would funny at fault claims get charged more?

[Moi]

As I said in my previous post it would be determined from historical "At Fault" claims in the same way vehicle premiums are set.

Premiums equates with insurance, ACC is not an insurance, it's Accident Compensation Corporation, ... hence we pay a levy...


For goodness sake... don't encourage the sods to think of themselves as an insurance company!

[jasonu]

Whats funny about being at fault?

That's what i asked. You said people that have histerical at fault accidents should be charged more and you have still not said how you would know to charge someone more because of future accidents.

[FJRider]

You have never heard of the fact that vehicle insurers charge more to those who have had "at fault" accidents than those who dont? So based on that model ACC being charged at a higher rate to those at fault is perfectly doable. There is a roadsafety spinoff too with this as people will drive more carefully to avoid facing a higher "at fault" ACC premium. ACC has already labeled motorcyclists "At Fault" for just riding a motorbike.

It's real simple ... ACC are not vehicle insurers.

They provide a NO FAULT medical assistance to those injured in an "Accident" ... Who caused the accident is immaterial. That is why they call it accident compensation. Not accident insurance.

Doable but unethical with ACC NO FAULT basis.

If the safety "spinoff" you mention had any merit or social standing ... "The Faster you go, the bigger the mess" policy might/should also carry more impact socially. Simply because nobody will ever admit THEY could ever be at fault. So it couldn't possibly happen to THEM ... it is then ignored.
People can afford (it seems) multiple speeding fines ... and get upset when the Demerits mount up enough their license is suspended. Bugger eh .. !!!


ACC do not label us AT FAULT ... They label us as MORE AT RISK OF INJURY. Which ... is basically true. Two totally different policy's ... and/or concepts.

[FJRider]

Yes, but is that fair? I would not want someone to miss out, just thinking about all those who claim to ride unregistered because I only ride that one "once in a blue moon", this would mean they ride it licenced and pay ACC for only the time they want. It would men a rethink of licencing and 'on-hold' licences - a halfway point between on-hold and full everyday use licence. It might actually increase ACC's income... It would also require a rethink of the "them and us" attitude of some...

Fair ...

ACC is a no fault medical assistance scheme. Nobody misses out due to them being found at fault ... or for any other reason.

Remember ... ALL tax-payers contribute to the coffers of ACC in one form or another. Some pay in multiple forms ... Such is the system.

I do not foresee ANY rethink of the system anytime soon.

The "On Hold" system was instigated to restore / rebuild vehicles and still keep them in the system. Not as a method to avoid/reduce registration costs.

The lower rego costs for SAFER vehicles is my pet hate. Vehicles don't kill ... stupid drivers DO. The people in safe vehicles may be saf(er) ... but they can STILL kill a motorcyclist riding safely and within legislation.

[flashg]

This whole thread reminds me of the old saying "There's more than one way to skin a cat"
The talented people on here that have explained, exactly how the system works, must be ready to hold a gun to ones own head. All because one female member is either the thickest person this side of the black stump or is indeed a troll laughing her tits off.
Stop feeding it.

[FJRider]

Yeah, but "you're" a bit of a cunt though at the same time, eh?

CUNTS need money too. Such is the current system in place in NZ at this time.

If fingers need to be pointed ... the fingers should be pointed at ourselves in far to many of the "motorcyclist involved" accidents. Not bleating about who pays more $$$ to be given assistance.

[FJRider]

This whole thread reminds me of the old saying "There's more than one way to skin a cat"
The talented people on here that have explained, exactly how the system works, must be ready to hold a gun to ones own head. All because one female member is either the thickest person this side of the black stump or is indeed a troll laughing her tits off.
Stop feeding it.

YOU FIRST ...

[FJRider]

That's what i asked. You said people that have histerical at fault accidents should be charged more and you have still not said how you would know to charge someone more because of future accidents.

There are historical accidents ... and hysterical accidents ... to which do you refer .. ???

[Akzle]

CUNTS need money too. Such is the current system in place in NZ at this time.

If fingers need to be pointed ... the fingers should be pointed at

...fucken jew cunts

[FJRider]

...fucken jew cunts

That's YOU ... right .. ??

[Moi]

Fair ...

ACC is a no fault medical assistance scheme. Nobody misses out due to them being found at fault ... or for any other reason.

What you say is why I believe that ACC is a great scheme, not perfect but certainly worth supporting.

Remember ... ALL tax-payers contribute to the coffers of ACC in one form or another. Some pay in multiple forms ... Such is the system.

I do not foresee ANY rethink of the system anytime soon.

The "On Hold" system was instigated to restore / rebuild vehicles and still keep them in the system. Not as a method to avoid/reduce registration costs.

I don't advocate what you're suggesting - I agree with On-Hold for restoration etc.

What I don't agree with is those who put vehicles on-hold to avoid ACC levies but still, sneakily, use them. If you could buy ACC for a few days at a time or several weeks while the bike is licenced continuously might be a way to "encourage" those who are at present abusing the system by using "On-Hold" for non-restoration purposes. I know there'll be those who'll suggest that they already pay for one full-time levy for one bike they use most of the time and why pay for other bikes that are used occasionally, and I can understand that, hence my thinking of being able to buy ACC on-demand a possible solution.

The lower rego costs for SAFER vehicles is my pet hate. Vehicles don't kill ... stupid drivers DO. The people in safe vehicles may be saf(er) ... but they can STILL kill a motorcyclist riding safely and within legislation.

Can't argue with you on that...

I do wonder how some drivers would cope if all the electronic aides were turned off on their latest pride and joy...

[Moi]

There are historical accidents ... and hysterical accidents ... to which do you refer .. ???

hysterectomial accidents perhaps?