• Login:
Welcome, Register Here
follow PropertyTalk on facebook follow PropertyTalk on twitter Newsletter follow PropertyTalk on LinkedIn follow PropertyTalk on facebook
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 57
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,656

    Default ACC Levy Changes

    Any motorcycling PI's here?

    If so, get your arses over to here: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/fo...play.php?f=108

    and support the cause.

    If not, we're happy to accept the support of the general public. Remember, if you're not a biker, you may be a cyclist or even a pedestrian, and therefore you may be next in ACC's sights.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k1w1 View Post
    Any motorcycling PI's here?

    If so, get your arses over to here: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/fo...play.php?f=108

    and support the cause.

    If not, we're happy to accept the support of the general public. Remember, if you're not a biker, you may be a cyclist or even a pedestrian, and therefore you may be next in ACC's sights.
    Is there a website to register support for this ACC policy, its great that the gang members and such who ride motorbikes will finally be forced to pay their fair share instead of the non-bikers always subsidizing them, now if they can only charge ACC for rugby club memberships

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,656

    Default

    And cyclists for road-using
    And offroaders for their claims
    etc
    etc

    You're taking the piss, right?

    If they DID charge high-risk sporting participants their share of the costs, seeing as it's no longer a "no fault" system, then our collective costs would be a WHOLE LOT lower.

    You did know that sports injuries and cyclist injuries require a higher per person claim than motorcyclists, right?

    Yes, we're ALL gang members.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,656

    Default

    Seriously, I'd encourage you to look at the numbers. The per person claim for injuries in car accidents is higher than bikes. The $77 being quoted by the politicians as the amount being subsidised by car owners is complete bollocks, by ACC's own numbers.

    The ministers are, at best, citing stats to suit their cause (so what's new?).

    What is their cause? Now, that's the question.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,578

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k1w1 View Post
    If they DID charge high-risk sporting participants their share of the costs, seeing as it's no longer a "no fault" system, then our collective costs would be a WHOLE LOT lower.
    What no fault means is then when a car hits a bike, the biker is the one with the most injuries. Therefore by choosing to ride a bike you should pay more, regardless of whether or not it is your fault you are more likely to have a serious injury.
    Last edited by Perry; 11-11-2009 at 11:51 AM. Reason: fixed typo

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,656

    Default

    Then how do you explain the figures that say the per-person claim for car accidents is higher than bikes?

    It has nothing to do with risk. The ONLY reason the Govt is selecting bikers is that they are an easy target. If it was to do with risk then other sectors of the community would pay more too.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    2,662

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CJ View Post
    What no fault means is then went a car hits a bike, the biker is the one with the most injuries. Therefore by choosing to ride a bike you should pay more, regardless of whether or not it is your fault you are more likely to have a serious injury.
    ACC is so corupted now its time to get rid of the no fault clause. At the very least in a motor accident if one person is found in a court to be responsible that person should also be responsible for the ACC payments.

    As for the ignorance regarding bikers...... the illegal lot are known as 1%ers for one reason.................but it seems some on this forum are prejudiced against the 99%.
    The mission of any business enterprise should include the aim to develop economic conditions rather than simply react to them.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Tauranga
    Posts
    1,518

    Default

    Nope, the answer is that more motor cyclists have a terminal injury therefore smaller on going claims. Cars are safer, survival rates are higher and there is therefore more medical expenses and on going lifetime claims. Dead ones don't need that.
    Want more ACC support, ride in a car itts safer and you get to acheoive more care.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    2,662

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Nope, the answer is that more motor cyclists have a terminal injury therefore smaller on going claims. Cars are safer, survival rates are higher and there is therefore more medical expenses and on going lifetime claims. Dead ones don't need that.
    Want more ACC support, ride in a car itts safer and you get to acheoive more care.

    So Viking you don't believe in user/abuser pays: You seem to be saying that if some one is proved responsible for an injury motor accident(Whether it be car to car or car to bike), the tax payer should pay the costs of that error...........that isn't accountability!!!!
    The mission of any business enterprise should include the aim to develop economic conditions rather than simply react to them.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,578

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k1w1 View Post
    Then how do you explain the figures that say the per-person claim for car accidents is higher than bikes?
    But what is the rate of accident. My guess is that there would be more claims per 1000 bike than per 1000 car.


 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Ripped off by insurance on EQC Levy for house.Charged double!
    By mrsaneperson in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 17-07-2018, 01:31 PM
  2. ACC Earners Levy Skyrockets
    By PC in forum General (NZ)
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 31-10-2014, 10:18 AM
  3. EQC cut contents cover, hikes levy
    By muppet in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-07-2014, 08:54 AM
  4. Bach owners could be hit with levy, says Dunne
    By muppet in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 23-01-2010, 07:05 PM
  5. Body corp raises $100k leaky building levy to be paid in 3 months !!!!
    By Keithw in forum Finance, legal and tax (NZ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-12-2009, 12:05 PM
  6. ACC Earner's Levy and Losses from LACQ
    By brendan in forum Finance, legal and tax (NZ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 29-07-2009, 03:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •