ACC Levy Changes

[k1w1]

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.

[WBuffett]

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

[k1w1]

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.

[k1w1]

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.

[CJ]

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.

[k1w1]

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.

[Austrokiwi]

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%.

[Viking]

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.

[Austrokiwi]

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!!!!

[CJ]

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.

[muppet]

Hey Kiwi
Have you heard of the Auto Moto?
If so are they available in New Zealand?

[WBuffett]

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.

Cycylists for road using ...yes

off roaders for their claims ..yes

I understand you hate the concept that those who make higher ACC claims and so are a greater burden on the honest taxpayer should pay higher ACC levies.
But we're in the real world now, your party lost the last election so we have to sort out the stuff ups they made by using a fair and equitable system rather than the car drivers subsidising the crimminals on motor bikes, no not all motor bike riders are gang members but a majority are.

I dont mean to generalise but the fact of the matter is if you dent a car in a accident the car owner will discuss with you his insurance details, if you dent a motor cycle, the owner will probably attack you with a machete or similar in many cases, I am not saying they are all violent thugs but most are ..no offense I am sure you are not one of those but you must have encounterd that so understand I am right.

I did'nt know for a fact that sports injuries and cyclists have a higher claim per person than motorcyclists but I am in no way suprised, which is why I believe rugby clubs should have to pay high ACC levys as part of the membership dues.

[k1w1]

Most are violent thugs? You need to lose those stereotypes you obviously hold so dear.

Given car accidents claims (per claimant) are higher than bikers claims (per claimant) I argue that car drivers are NOT subsidising motorcyclists. That is the falacy put out by John Judge and repeated by Dr Nick Smith. And you'd swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Did you see Backbenchers on TV7? ALl the biking organisations want is the opportunity to demonstrate their interpretation of the stats (ACC's OWN NUMBERS!) to show that we are not the risk they are making us out to be.

[CJ]

Given car accidents claims (per claimant) are higher than bikers claims (per claimant) I argue that car drivers are NOT subsidising motorcyclists.

The amount claimed by smokers for lung cancer treatment is the same as the amount claimed by non smokers for lung cancer treatment. You could therefore argue there should be no excise on Cigarettes to cover health costs. The fact is smokers are disproportionally represented.

What do your/ACC's stats say about the number of claims per 1000 registered bike vs number of claims per 1000 registered cars. I don't disagree with the statistic you are relying on, just I don't believe it is the correct statistic to rely on.

[k1w1]

The "per 1000" stat isn't the right way to look at it. It's the "total cost". How much do bikers cost in total per annum. How much do drivers cost in total per annum.

For precisely this reason, we have tax on tobacco. B/c the TOTAL COST of treating lung disease on smokers is much higher than those with lung cancer on non-smokers. The total incidence is less.

I hear what you're saying, and basically we're using the same stats to promote differing perspectives. At the end of the day, though, do you think it's "fair" (something all politicians like to spout) that any section of society has a not insubstantial portion of their tax bill TRIPLED?

IMO, they are targeting the bikers b/c it's the easy option. It's much more difficult to get the money from existing structures than attempt to get money out of cyclists or sports clubs/teams. Not to mention the vote-loser that would be. Bikers are scapegoats, funding the shortfall not only of biker's costs.

I don't want to hear any more "green" bullshit issued by this Govt. Bikes are also cleaner and reduce congestion.