Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[eldog]

Bullshit.

The most recent SAFEST roads built and recently opened ... have a set speed limit of 110 km/hr. Simply because there are too many people on the roads believing that 100 km/hr is safe (in/on whatever vehicle they are in control of) because that is the set limit. As do those that ignore warning signs near corners. This road being two lanes in each direction with all the barriers ... how long before the first motorist dies on it ... bets anyone .. ???

There is (and always will be) a large portion of public (sealed) highways that are unsafe / impossible to travel at or near 100 km/hr.


You think dumbing down the NZ roading system is really a valid response to the road death toll ... ???

i doubt riffer is referring to dumbing down the road everywhere.
just start to cleanup some of the death traps, here and there.

Not everyone should travel at the speed target. Some can’t handle it. Some roads aren’t suited. some can’t recognise these facts.

i have been on one of those ‘safe roads’, all I remember is the cheese cutters and it would be useful if you wanted a straight trip. I do prefer the back roads if I have time.

[awayatc]

Experience a "not at fault" crash sport and your thinking may be different.

You are a fuckwit......

The biggest one ever

[Old Steve]

Actually, I quite accept the ACC levy for motorcyclists. We do have more accidents, and it's more expensive to repair us.

I've been the recipient over the last year of ACC's payment to my upkeep, surgery, recovery and physiotherapy following my accident. Yeah, the accident was caused by a taxi driver who was convicted of careless use causing an accident and leaving the scene, but I still received 80% of my wages following the accident and surgery, surgery at a private hospital and physiotherapy to build up my wasted muscles. I was lucky that I could work from home over most of the time I was off work, I worked an hour or so every day on the computer and the company paid me the remainder of my salary.

I have also done a couple of Ride Forever courses, and swear by them. In the event of my accident I slowed down before the side street because there could be cars coming out of it, but the taxi driver turned across me from the right turning into the side street and stopped right in front of me blocking 3/4 of the lane. I went around the front of him, but the bike lifted as it went over the camber of the side street (I can remember thinking, "I'm going to high side, how is that happening") and the loss of traction caused the bike to low side. Without the side street camber I think I would have made it around the front of the taxi and back into the lane, maybe, maybe not.

If I'd been in a car I'd have braked, gone straight into the side of the taxi, and the seat belt and air bag would have saved me from injury. But we motorcyclists are more exposed than a car driver, so we get injured more and it takes more time and money to fix us up. I also think there are more single motorcycle crashes than there are single car crashes. Of the three motorcycle crashes I've come upon, all were single bike crashes, one at 30 - 40 km/hr at a roundabout and two at 100 km/hr on a straight road.

So, my personal experience is the ACC does a good job for a fair price, I'm still about 4 to 1 in my favour over the ACC. And everyone should take a Ride Forever course just to top up what they know, or think they know, already.

[Viking01]

"Lets say I was at fault and knocked you or one of the others who are happy
paying higher ACC than car owners on here off with my big 4WD, will you or
one of the others happy with the ACC fee structure still be happy or would
you start thinking about the current fee structure as being unfair I wonder?"


Why do you think that raising the ACC levy for at-fault drivers is going to
make a difference to their daily driving behaviours ?

What level do you think the levy needs to be raised (or raised to) before
drivers or riders will modify their behaviour on a permanent basis?

Which do you think is going to be more productive re improving road safety
longer term: an increased financial penalty after the fact (in terms of an
increased ACC levy), or action to try and achieve better driver habits through
training?


If you knocked me down in your SUV - assuming you were at-fault and that
I survived, I'd much rather (i) that you had some decent driver training in the
first place (ii) that you'd pay more attention to the task in hand on a regular
basis.

[Old Steve]

What he said.

Yeah, at what level would car drivers pay attention, look over their shoulder when changing lane, not text while driving, etc.

Look, its just my personal opinion based on my own experience. After years in the engineering industry I've learned that the simplest way may not be the best but its always the simplest. The current ACC levy isn't fair, but it works and there was enough money there to fix me up. And no-one is looking at ways to alter our accident statistics that may restrict our enjoyment of our riding. Our safety is our concern and we should be training ourselves rigorously to improve our chances of survival.

If you don't agree with me, and many of you don't, then we must agree to differ. If you do gain some reduction in our ACC levies without incurring restrictions to our riding freedom, then I'll accept them and thank you graciously for your hard work.

[Voltaire]

I was in the SI the last two weeks and one day riding down the Molesworth a lamb ran out in front of me and I had to reduce my speed using both the front and rear brakes to avoid it.

My question is:
How many posts can I use this story in?

[SVboy]

If you or any others on here are worried about your survival on a bike you need to seriously think about giving up riding. I can remember my parents telling me a number of times over the years when I was younger how they heard of guys giving up riding because of the risk but if you think going to riding school will make to just as safe as giving up good luck with that.

I would imagine your parents were only too keen to see you on a bike as soon as possible and with as little training as possible. Say hi to your mum from me, will you sport?

[Viking01]

Vehicle insurance companies if you did not know impose higher premiums for those that have a history of being at fault and you will find they ask you to state all at fault crashes when you apply. By doing this they are able to keep premiums for all others lower. So if such a system can be applied to vehicle insurance why not ACC? What you are saying if I applied your logic to vehicle insurance this means you would prefer to see everyone paying the same amount which would be much higher irrespective of how many at fault crashes have been had in a year?

I personally would be far more motivated to change my driver behaviour if I was at fault in a crash if I knew my ACC would rise over training as I would end up being charged with a specific offence and unless I disputed it what good would training be if I had already been told by the police/court what I did wrong? Some of us have the ability to "self correct" our "on road behaviour" and if this was not the case whenever we get stopped for a driving offense we would be ordered to go to a driving/riding school instead of being fined would we not.?

As for what level of ACC premium it would take to change driver behaviour it would depend on what they earn I guess. Occasionally there are stories in the media about countries that have a lower crash rate than ours and it would be interesting to know if they have greater financial disincentives than NZ to achieve this.

Why don't you just answer the actual questions asked, instead of avoiding
them (or wandering off on a tangent each time). Every time !

We're not talking about insurance companies. I'm perfectly familiar with
insurance company behaviours (having worked for two, as well as at ACC
in the past).

we're talking about the ACC Scheme !


Your supposition was that "a rise in ACC levy would somehow modify driver
or rider behaviour in a positive manner".

Explain to me how this phenomenon would work. And at what threshold
$ value it would trigger.

Because I can think of other behaviours that it would more likely drive -
and improved driver or rider behaviour isn't one of them !



"I personally would be far more motivated to change my driver behaviour
if I was at fault in a crash if I knew my ACC would rise" ....

What utter bollocks !!

Given that your behaviour - as a driver or rider - is probably affected
by all of (i) Experience (ii) Education (iii) Enforcement Regime (3E's)
to varying degrees, the Enforcement Regime is probably the factor that
would contribute least to a positive improvement in your driving or your
riding behaviour in the future. [ Ignore confiscating your vehicle ]

The fact that you had caused (or significantly contributed) to a non-fatal
accident would be far more front-of-mind and far more sobering upon your
future driving or riding behaviour. [ Experience ]

Whether you then chose to seek some driver or rider training - to improve
your game - would be up to you. [ Education ]



"As for what level of ACC premium it would take to change driver behaviour
it would depend on what they earn, I guess".

You guess ? You're the one telling the story. You're the one that's been
saying that an increase in ACC levy is "the answer".

Your supposition (again) was that "a rise in ACC levy would somehow modify
driver or rider behaviour in a positive manner".

Are you now trying to tell me that it might not be as effective as you had
thought, because of driver or rider earning capacity or willingness to pay ?

Are you trying to tell me that there might be some unintended side-effects ?



"Occasionally there are stories in the media about countries that have a
lower crash rate than ours, and it would be interesting to know if they have
greater financial disincentives than NZ to achieve this".

Yes, there are often stories in the media. Every day. And occasionally there
are studies with reviewed and published findings. Which (sometimes) make
interesting reading.

So, why don't YOU go and do a little online research yourself (say Finland or
Sweden, for example) ?

Why don't YOU find some studies that support your assertion ?

And when YOU have, why don't YOU come back and tell us what they concluded
(i.e. whether an increase in fines or other financial penalty was deemed to be the
most productive avenue to go down, bearing in mind a goal of improved road safety).

[Moi]

Who was the previous minister for ACC who wanted to change ACC so it resembled an insurance company so it could be sold off?

Who on this site is always going on about making ACC more like an insurance company? If you're at fault you pay more...

Is there a connection between the two?

Have I stumbled onto the true identity of the "C" person?

[nerrrd]

To say a higher ACC premium will never work for those at fault, in altering their behaviour we will never know though UNLESS ITS TRIED which it has never been.

It might actually be being done already everywhere else in the world, since our ACC system is pretty unique. Is it a factor in reducing crashes in other countries? Someone could probably look up some statistics.

[pritch]

To say a higher ACC premium will never work for those at fault, in altering their behaviour we will never know though UNLESS ITS TRIED which it has never been. When it has been tried and if it fails I only then will agree with you.
.

Again, you miss the point. ACC is a no fault, no liability scheme. That's at the very foundation of it - and that's a good thing. Previously we had to prove someone else was at fault and then take them to court to seek damages. If the other driver wasn't prosecuted because the Police attended the accident and couldn't be bothered prosecuting, you were just shit out of luck. Back then you had to get the Transport Dept to attend to get a prosecution, if that was appropriate, but not everybody knew that.

So a guy broke his ankle trying to jump a wall to escape prison and he got ACC. There was an uproar, but the moaners missed the point too. ACC is a no fault, no liability, scheme and the benefits that provides outweigh the bad points like some twat prisoner getting free treatment for his busted ankle.

Your proposal to financially punish miscreant drivers goes totally against the very basis of the scheme. Until that changes your idea is therefore completely unrealistic.

[Viking01]

I am sorry that you can not comprehend my analogy with how vehicle insurance companies work with respect to their higher premiums for those at fault and how I could see it easily applying to ACC.

To say a higher ACC premium will never work for those at fault, in altering their behaviour we will never know though UNLESS ITS TRIED which it has never been. When it has been tried and if it fails I only then will agree with you.
You are another muppet who likes claiming just because i was an innocent victim in a crash you call me a "significant contributor" You are another one on here that needs to experience a "not at fault crash" before you "grow a brain" and see my logic.

Is there a "shaking one's head in wonder" icon on here somewhere ?


"I am sorry that you can not comprehend my analogy ..."

I have no problem with understanding either a direct ACC levy increase, or
your insurance analogy.

I'm just objecting to you using the "insurance analogy" to argue a course of
action for ACC. They're different business models with completely different
business and social objectives.



"To say a higher ACC premium will never work for those at fault, ... "

Again, you chose to put words in people's mouths to suit your needs.

But why implement a course of action [ levy increase ] when you know that there
are better methods [ Improved education ] for achieving improvement in outcome
[ safer riding and fewer injuries ] across a driving / riding population ?



"You are another muppet who likes claiming just because i was an innocent
victim in a crash... "

I have no in-depth knowledge of any of your [4] accidents, other than comments
you've made in respect to the bridge and dog incidents. So I've not made any
claims as to your possible innocence or culpability.



"You are another one on here that needs to experience a "not at fault crash"
before you "grow a brain" and see my logic".

Why ?

I do my best to avoid accidents in the first place, through increased education
and safe riding practices.

And while it's no guarantee to my future longlevity, it helps improve my odds.

[Moi]

ACC needs to do a survey to find out how many motorcyclists would prefer a person weighted premium over a mode of transport weighted premium and i bet if this was done most would be in favour of it being person based just like vehicle insurance is. The end result and it would be set so there was no loss of income to ACC would see some car drivers paying similar premiums to what motorcyclists pay or even more.

I'm sure it's been said before, but just in case it hasn't...

if you pay a PREMIUM then you are buying insurance, however ACC charges a LEVY because it is not an insurance

Stop talking as if it is an insurance, accept that it is NOT an insurance...

Also accept that, I'd suggest, the majority of NZers prefer ACC to remain as a "no fault" compensation scheme even if we do grumble about it from time to time.

[Banditbandit]

Well the no fault policy needs to change then and if you try and think about it which I know is hard for some on here, they have already changed their no fault practise but rather place it on the person, have placed it on their mode of transport motorbikes. If the situation was changed where the police no longer attened crashes which I doubt would ever happen we now have dash cam technology at our disposal to aid estabishing proof of fault.

You're still a fuckwit ...

And the no fault scheme was accompanied by forbidding court prosecutions in such cases

If we change that we will be like the USA - where people get sued for anything from standing on a person's foot to breathing germs ..

[Banditbandit]

ACC needs to do a survey to find out how many motorcyclists would prefer a person weighted premium over a mode of transport weighted premium and i bet if this was done most would be in favour of it being person based just like vehicle insurance is. The end result and it would be set so there was no loss of income to ACC would see some car drivers paying similar premiums to what motorcyclists pay or even more.

That suggestion was made to ACC - tag it to the licence, not the vehicle - then higher levies could be imposed on those who crash a lot

ACC turned it down