by frog
The motorbikes are coming, and there are a lot of them!
This photo was taken from quite a distance so the perspective makes it look like there are fewer people, but basically the entire of the area outside the beehive is covered in people. Click the picture for a larger version.
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
When the Nats review their demands on the bikers down, we’ll all cheer and say, “What a jolly Government that listens to its people. Nasty, nasty, ACC! How could you have tried to do that to our biker friends.”
baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Nick “Sewer-side” Smith is already playing that game. ‘fly:
Let’s see how he responds when he gets heaps of submissions on the Bill to cut entitlements as well.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Like Hinkle-horns, our honking holes are being played.
Who’s the Conductor here and who will pay the Piper?
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Bikers were paid out $60M in ACC claims yet contributed only $12M.
http://www.3news.co.nz/ACC-Minister-says-talks-needed-over-motorcycle-increases/tabid/423/articleID/125671/cat/415/Default.aspx
So all the other ACC contributors are subsidising the bikers.
Fair?
We again have people (bikers in this case) not facing up to the economic reality that the ACC cannot be funded to care for every eventuality.
Ponzi scheme that is ACC must crash soon, it is totally unsustainable at curent claim levels and without increases in levies.
Either increase levies or cut the scheme. Do the greens have other choices for ACC or are you happy to keep borrowing from future generations to pay for it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
It was founded on the basis of “community responsibility” – not on everyone’s levies being set according to their injury risk (whether they are at fault or not).
The so-called “crisis” is almost wholly created by the decision to fully pre-fund the scheme as if it were private sector insurance. There is an argument for not reverting to pay-as-you-go – see economist Susan St John here.
But get away from the accounting smoke and mirrors created by charging future potential liability on existing claims against this year’s revenue that the full pre-fund insurance model necessitates, and you will see that ACC took in over $1.2 billion more in revenue last year than it paid out in claims.
Then look at HIH Insurance last decade, and AIG last year. Then look at whether you still trust actuarial projections by ACC for decades into the future.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
toad,
Got a reference (link)for that?
Figures I saw say 0.7 billion from ACC and 1.4 billion ftom the superfund surpluses
http://business.scoop.co.nz/2009/11/04/acc-super-fund-recoveries-help-nz-govt-finances/
which offset by decreases in tax revemue for a total deficit off
We are still deeply in depth and to not get the total budget balanced is criminal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad,
The idea that one individual should bear the cost of the risky practices of another individual is naught but a subsidy from the careful to the careless. The purpose for which the scheme was initially created has no place in dictating how it is presently run, instead the logic of the situation will tend to produce far more desirable results.
If an individual works in a risky job then the employer should pay higher premiums such that the employer is motivated to minimise that risk to the individual, in this way a greater social good is achieved the incentive is to minimise harm. A flat rate within industry or between industry only encourages employers to ignore the safety of workers such that their profits are maximised.
In a similar manner those whom partake in risky activities such as rugby ought incur higher levies than those whom partake, alternatively, in chess or else the subsidies from the careful to the careless encourage behaviour detrimental to the public good. With transport some vehicles are more likely to damage than others and it is these that pose the greater risk. Just as the biker should not have to pay for the misgivings of the SUV driver nor should the motorcyclist be made to pay for those risks levied by the car nor visa versa.
If the rate for motorcyclists is to high relative to the risk of motorcycle to motorcycle, motorcycle to object, and motorcycle to person then the rate should be decreased but if the rate is too low it should be increased.
As to pre-funding, this makes sense also. Like it or not, ACC does operate as an insurer. If the greater social benefit is desired then risk must bare its own cost or the motivation to avoid risk falls away. If an individual is not funding relative to the potential for them to become a receiver of funds then they are not paying the full cost associated with their activities and are instead being subsidized by those whom did not take such risks, be it through higher rates to other or tax-payer assistance.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
I couldn’t make it down to see this yesterday, I was double-booked.
The footage is great, makes me wish I’d never traded in my helmet.
The sound of a lot of CC’s of motorcycle engines roaring past on Jervois Quay was a very nostaligic one for me, but it’s been a few years since I went to the track at Manfield to help on training runs with my friends’ hi-spec’d italian racing bike. (Mostly, I took photo’s, timed laps with the stopwatch, and helped them change out of their leathers – ie: one more day on the production crew …)
I’ve ridden pillion on Ducatis all over the country, and never felt in danger, whether it was Waikato, urban Auckland, or the rural Wairarapa. Never once had a motorcycle accident, wish my van could’ve said the same thing about my ability to scrunch bits of the panelling on various environmental hazards…
This policy change is ridiculous; cars, trucks, vans etc, all engage in more traffic accidents than motorcycles. Put up the ACC levy for all vehicles, if you think road accidents contribute unevenly to the cost of administering the shceme, but don’t penalise just one very visibly at-risk group of road users.
BTW, I worked in the MOT back-in-the-day, handled accident reports for processing and prosecution for a year, and have a very good idea of the Wellington Region black spots, and the likliehood of traffic accidents in any location, at various times of day/days of week.
It’s one of the reasons I generally support an increase in public transport provison, as fewer tired drivers on the roads at the end of a working day is better for all of us, whether we be passengers, drivers, or pedestrians.
Less congestion, swifter movement from CBD to suburbs or motorway, and professional bus & train drivers who are alert & prepared for the rush hour, ‘cos that’s their workday shift.
Pejorative policy aimed at one class of road users is merely a red herring.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
@Sapient November 17, 2009 at 8:57 PM:
Sapient, are you really suggesting people are willing to risk killing themselves or suffering serious injury for the sake of a few dollars of saved levies?
I would suggest that it is the risk of death or serious injury itself that mitigates peoples’ risk-taking – not the cost of insuring against it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)