Comments on: Gutting ACC – There is hope! http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/10/27/gutting-acc-there-is-hope/ hopping along the corridors of power Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:16:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: bjchip http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/10/27/gutting-acc-there-is-hope/#comment-94391 bjchip Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:03:47 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7270#comment-94391 Perhaps Liberty, you'd prefer to have road insurances separated from ACC? The problem I think, is that the injury happens to a person. It may happen due to risk taking behaviour, but it is the "setting right" that counts. We currently do a decent job of "setting right". We also have somewhat more risk-taking than I am used to seeing. Setting an economic penalty for risk-taking seems reasonable. Not at all sure this needs to be (or not to be) associated with ACC. BJ

Perhaps Liberty, you’d prefer to have road insurances separated from ACC?

The problem I think, is that the injury happens to a person. It may happen due to risk taking behaviour, but it is the “setting right” that counts. We currently do a decent job of “setting right”. We also have somewhat more risk-taking than I am used to seeing.

Setting an economic penalty for risk-taking seems reasonable. Not at all sure this needs to be (or not to be) associated with ACC.

BJ

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

]]> By: frog http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/10/27/gutting-acc-there-is-hope/#comment-94390 frog Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:53:08 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7270#comment-94390 @libertyscott 12:44 AM If only life were that simple, Scott. But it's not. The community responsibility principle recognises that the various activities we undertake in society are all inter-related, and that benefit and harm flow on to others, rather than rest solely with the people undertaking those activities. With the particular example of motorcycle use, the community responsibility principle recognises that even though a disproportionately high number of motor vehicle injuries involve motorcyclists, a substantial proportion of those injuries are actually caused by someone other than the motorcyclist. It also recognises that increased use of motorcycles where practicable has environmental benefits if single occupant car usage is consequently reduced, since the greenhouse gas emissions generated by a motorcycles are significantly less than from cars and the fossil fuel use per kilometre of travel is significantly less for a motorcycle than a car. From that perspective, the Green Party would want to encourage motorcycle use as opposed to car use - however, the Government's proposed ACC levy increase for motorcycles does the opposite because it deals with injury risk in isolation. Your approach would have pedestrians being required to keep a log book to record every time they cross the road and pay ACC levies according to their frequency of road use. See how ridiculous it gets!
@libertyscott 12:44 AM

If only life were that simple, Scott. But it’s not.

The community responsibility principle recognises that the various activities we undertake in society are all inter-related, and that benefit and harm flow on to others, rather than rest solely with the people undertaking those activities.

With the particular example of motorcycle use, the community responsibility principle recognises that even though a disproportionately high number of motor vehicle injuries involve motorcyclists, a substantial proportion of those injuries are actually caused by someone other than the motorcyclist.

It also recognises that increased use of motorcycles where practicable has environmental benefits if single occupant car usage is consequently reduced, since the greenhouse gas emissions generated by a motorcycles are significantly less than from cars and the fossil fuel use per kilometre of travel is significantly less for a motorcycle than a car.

From that perspective, the Green Party would want to encourage motorcycle use as opposed to car use – however, the Government’s proposed ACC levy increase for motorcycles does the opposite because it deals with injury risk in isolation.

Your approach would have pedestrians being required to keep a log book to record every time they cross the road and pay ACC levies according to their frequency of road use. See how ridiculous it gets!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 (+5)

]]> By: turnip28 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/10/27/gutting-acc-there-is-hope/#comment-94388 turnip28 Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:14:46 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7270#comment-94388 Isn't it also interesting how the Green Cyclists don't pay an ACC Levy yet all other road users do. Of course you need to remember the green party is only about making evil corporations pay their fair share. "All animals are equal however some animals are more equal than others"

Isn’t it also interesting how the Green Cyclists don’t pay an ACC Levy yet all other road users do. Of course you need to remember the green party is only about making evil corporations pay their fair share.

“All animals are equal however some animals are more equal than others”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 (-6)

]]> By: turnip28 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/10/27/gutting-acc-there-is-hope/#comment-94387 turnip28 Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:32:56 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7270#comment-94387 The double standard green party logic has been detected in this thread.

The double standard green party logic has been detected in this thread.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 (-7)

]]> By: libertyscott http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/10/27/gutting-acc-there-is-hope/#comment-94378 libertyscott Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:44:35 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7270#comment-94378 So if motorcyclists shouldn't pay for the disproportionate share of the costs they impose by being high risk road users, who should? Other motorists or non-motorists? If someone wants to ride around protected by a helmet and clothing at 100km/h on the open road and take that risk, why should others bear it? You lobby against car users and the trucking sector about allegedly not paying their costs, but motorcyclists are special? Or is it just politics?

So if motorcyclists shouldn’t pay for the disproportionate share of the costs they impose by being high risk road users, who should?

Other motorists or non-motorists?

If someone wants to ride around protected by a helmet and clothing at 100km/h on the open road and take that risk, why should others bear it? You lobby against car users and the trucking sector about allegedly not paying their costs, but motorcyclists are special? Or is it just politics?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 (-6)

]]> By: greenfly http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/10/27/gutting-acc-there-is-hope/#comment-94366 greenfly Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:14:48 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7270#comment-94366 National will relent on a couple of aspects of the proposed changes and graciously 'gift' special interest groups, like bikers and sexual abuse victims, with a partial reinstatement of their 'entitlements' and the public will see that they <i> listen </i> to the people and, as they did with the Herceptin issue, 'give' people what they want. What a very responsive and caring government they will be seen to be and that John Key, isn't he <i> nice </i> !

National will relent on a couple of aspects of the proposed changes and graciously ‘gift’ special interest groups, like bikers and sexual abuse victims, with a partial reinstatement of their ‘entitlements’ and the public will see that they listen to the people and, as they did with the Herceptin issue, ‘give’ people what they want. What a very responsive and caring government they will be seen to be and that John Key, isn’t he nice !

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

]]> By: Trevor29 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/10/27/gutting-acc-there-is-hope/#comment-94363 Trevor29 Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:52:43 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7270#comment-94363 This was on the news: http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/6394244/smith-defends-cuts-to-programme-aimed-at-elderly/ It would appear that Nick Smith is not interested in the human cost of pain or suffering, or the community cost in assisting those who have been injured by a fall. He may also have a problem grasping the notion of a long term benefit, probably because he always translates "benefit" as "payout". Good luck with your struggles on this one Frog - you'll need it! Trevor.

This was on the news:
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/6394244/smith-defends-cuts-to-programme-aimed-at-elderly/

It would appear that Nick Smith is not interested in the human cost of pain or suffering, or the community cost in assisting those who have been injured by a fall. He may also have a problem grasping the notion of a long term benefit, probably because he always translates “benefit” as “payout”.

Good luck with your struggles on this one Frog – you’ll need it!

Trevor.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

]]>