This email I received from a another motorcyclist highlights a lot of good ideas.  I may consider adopting some or all of the thoughts - and I will surely be sending a copy to the Chairman.




Mr John Judge
Chairman
Accident Compensation Corporation
PO Box 242
Wellington 6140



Dear Sir

As a result of your levy proposals unfairly targeting motorcycles I will not be registering my vehicle for the road in 2010 and beyond. 

I am a law-abiding rider with many years and kilometres of recreational riding experience.  For each of those years I have faithfully registered and fully insured my vehicle to cover myself and my fellow road users.  I have even paid a parking fine on time and in full without question.

Now, as a result of your proposals, I will choose to deliberately flout the law and accept the consequences of driving illegally on New Zealand roads.  This is not a decision I take lightly given the implications it has for both myself and my fellow road users.

Traffic violations
Should I be caught driving an unregistered vehicle or incur any other traffic infringement I will choose to contest this in court in an effort to deliberately slow the process AND increase the cost to the State to enforce any penalty.  Regardless of whether my fellow motorcyclists choose to adopt my actions with respect to registration I call upon them to contest any traffic violation in court to deliberately increase the cost to the State.  I’m certain that gratitude to you from the Ministry of Justice will be forthcoming.

This also increases the likelihood that I will choose not to stop for any violation of the law.  And I’m sure that you’ll recognise the increased risk of damage to both property and person of myself and third parties from a police pursuit.  Luckily I have the ACC to fall back upon should I become injured or killed as a result of such an action.   And I recognise the increased burden to the State from investigation both a serious crash and a police pursuit.  I’m sure that the New Zealand Police will similarly extend their gratitude to you for the changes in behaviour that you will have caused.

Insurance
As I will not be able to insure an unregistered vehicle this will result in increased risks for my fellow motorists should I be involved in an accident. 
* Any accident where I am not at fault will require me to deal directly with other parties to recover any reparation or, where no other vehicle is involved, will require my own financial contribution to repair my vehicle. 
* Any accident where I am at fault will require the third party to undertake court action to recover any reparation.  As I will not be in a financial position to “make whole” the third party I imagine that a small weekly payment for an extended period of time will have to suffice.

The increased burden to the private insurance industry will undoubtedly result in higher premiums for all motorists.  To the wider New Zealand public that choose to take motor vehicle insurance I extend my apologies.

Ironically I understand that my personal accident coverage will be unchanged regardless of whether I chose to register my vehicle or ride it illegally.   This suggests that I will join the other freeloading activities where personal health and rehabilitation are covered by the ACC without any additional payment by myself (beyond the ACC workers levy deducted at source to cover all other recreational accidents and injuries). 

I acknowledge that electing to take this course of action increases the “burden” on my fellow (and law abiding) motorcyclists as the “burden” that you chose to apportion directly on the motorcycle community will be spread across one fewer ACC levy payer.  Unfortunately as more and more motorcyclists choose to adopt a similar behaviour to my own it will result in a smaller and smaller pool across which to share the “burden”.  And will result in you increasing the ACC levy for motorcyclists at an increasing rate each year – further perpetuating the behaviour you have spawned. 

While I find your proposal to unfairly target motorcyclists (while allowing many other recreational activities to be completely subsidised by workers) abhorrent I must thank you for substantially increasing my disposable income.  From next year I will save more than $1,000 (more from when the ACC adopts its exorbitant and farcically derived new levies) in registration fees, ACC levies and insurance premiums.  This amount will not go unnoticed by my family who needs it more than does your organisation.


Signed





A frustrated motorcyclist

Its unfair to single out cyclists but as motorcyclists are in the ACC's crosshairs I suppose anyone is fair game.  However some information about cycling injuries forms a good basis for analysis.


At the heart of the matter is the cost of injuries for motorcyclists and the requirement for the ACC to fully fund their costs.  According to the ACC the cost to society is $319m (source: 2010/11 Consultation document) although this includes the pre-1999 claim which constitutes ~50% of the overall levy ($213 of the $417 per vehicle levy). So the actual post-1999 annual cost to society is $160m.

An interesting number given the estimated cost to society for cycling accidents is $172m (source: Ministry of Transport cycle factsheet).  Rather than share this cost across the estimated 1.3m cyclists (which would be $132 per annum and which is not considerably more than the post-1999 levy for passenger vehicles) this is funded from the Earners Account or by the 2,054,000 income earners. 

To me this says I pay $83 per annum for the privilege of cyclists to enjoy their pastime on and off New Zealand roads.  But the cyclist that you see whizzing past you on the way to work tomorrow (and using the road rather than the cycleway in the weekend) doesn’t contribute 1 red cent to my pastime of motorcycling at the weekend to enjoy an orange juice or latte at some idyllic location. 


 

So what is an equitable solution? 

As the ACC is a no-liability scheme I think that all motorcyclists, nay all road users whether they be passenger or goods service vehicles, should pay a flat fee.  There are two possible solutions:  share all costs across all vehicles which lifts the ACC levy to $417 per annum OR apportion some of the motorcycle levy to the Earners Account to reflect the sport/recreation element of motorcycling (similar to cyclists). 



If one were to charge motorcyclists an amount equal to the proposed passenger vehicle of $313 per annum then this leads to, by the ACC calculations, a deficit of $280m to the motor vehicle account. This is roughly $137 per earner per annum (less than $3 per week) or 0.3 cents per $100 earned.




 

Another weekend, another example of the travesty proposed by the ACC.
An accident that appears to be caused by a car driver.  And yet all motorcyclists are expected to pay for that car drivers mistake. 

You'll note that the accident is not related to the size of his motorcycle and yet the proposed levy is.

Is the ACC a no-liability scheme?  Or not?  If motorcyclists pay then why not cyclists - their burden to the ACC when they are hit by a car must be as great. 
How about pedestrians? 
Weekend sports players? 

Who is next?


"A man and a toddler were critically injured after a car was forced into the path of a motorbike yesterday near Huntly.

The 3-year-old was due to be transferred from Waikato Hospital's intensive care unit to the Starship hospital in Auckland last night and the 52-year-old male motorcyclist was in a serious condition, and to undergo surgery.

Initial analysis by the Waikato police serious crash unit indicated the southbound car had tried to turn across State Highway 1 about 3pm and was shunted in the rear, forcing it into the path of the motorcycle."

 NZ Herald 26 October 2009

 

Media reports indicate that TVNZ is seeking to transfer Commonwealth Games 2010 coverage to Sky despite winning the coverage previously.

Apparently the high cost of the Games and the loss that TVNZ would make on providing coverage is unacceptable in this economic environment.  Sky is assuring the public that it will offer comprehensive FTA coverage, and TVNZ has not ruled out Sky licensing some content back to TVNZ. 

This occurs less than 12 months after TVNZ campaigned aggressively for anti-siphoning restrictions in the NZ market.  And that the market mechanism for premium content needed regulating.

If significant changes had been enacted, and Sky restricted from broadcasting, would that have meant that if TVNZ walked away for economic reasons then NZ may not have seen the Commonwealth Games next year?

Sanity has prevailed with respect to regulation.  The market mechanism isnt broken (and never was) and such deals as TVNZ is currently proposing means that the public is not denied coverage of sporting events.  But expect the politicans to decry such an announcement.  Remember TVNZ won coverage rights but now doesnt want them.  They were never denied them through an overbidder.

Ideally dual FTA and paytv coverage (possibily even simulcast of key events) should occur on these types of sporting events.  There are far too many events for a single network to carry and the NZ public still needs to see some events broadcast FTA.

An article on Campbell Live (TV3, 20 May) highlighted the irony of the proposed Fibre-to-the-Home build and the prospective companies lining up to jostle for the right to build.  It suggested that the panacea of introducing new network companies may not result in any change from the status quo.  High prices for connections and high prices for providing super-fast broadband irrespective of the network owner/operator.  High prices that the NZ public doesn’t fully appreciate.

The segment in question reported on the significant increase (600%) in providing a gas connection to a home just 48 metres away from a gas pipeline on the street.  Last year the company quoted c$1000 to connect the home but this year c$6000 for the same product and the same distance.  The reason – how the company chose to allocate the cost of connection within its network.  I suspect it was related to the recovery of incremental costs from the network as allowed by the Commerce Commission.  Previously the total cost (n+1 users) would have been reflected by higher prices across all users to recover the cost of the incremental user and earn the appropriate return on the total (regulated) asset base.  This leads to “rampant” price increases that would be considered to high for an efficient operator.  As such the company moved to direct costing (or pure user pays) for any new connection to the network.

How does this spillover onto FTTH?  Essentially any new connection to an existing network is based on fully costed pricing.  Ask any Christchurch business that wants to join their local network or any North Shore School that wants to join the North Shore Education Access Loop (NEAL).  It also means that as potential users of a FTTH network we can probably expect to see high connection prices (final drop and inhome wiring) for any connection to the network that passes down our street.  Rule of thumb $50/metre for overhead and $150/metre for underground plus any inhome wiring.  Walk into your front yard and pace out the distance to the road.  Better yet, obtain a quote from your local gas company and start saving.

The company response to the television article – to suggest alternatives to the user.  Cold comfort to consider LPG cylinders or electricity which are less efficient than the direct natural gas connection that the householder wanted.  But entirely suitable alternatives.  Similarly DSL and wireless broadband are suitable alternatives to those not willing to pay the price of a FTTH connection.  Cold comfort to internet users but I’m sure that we’ll have plenty of complaints posted on Geekzone when reality bites.  If you see utility in super fast broadband then step up and pay for it.  

I’m certain that there will be howls of derision at “how economically important” FTTH is to New Zealand and its households.  Just bear in mind the economic importance of gas versus electricity.  More gas connections lends to more efficient heating, reduced demand on the national grid & our rainfall-pattern-dependent power stations and hence lower electricity prices for all households.  There is only one way to see more generation assets in New Zealand, through investment in those assets and that will require higher electricity prices for all to generate an appropriate risk-adjusted return (note the irony here – the only way we’ll see FTTH in New Zealand is via higher prices to generate an appropriate risk-adjusted return).  If we can reduce the demand for new generation assets via alternative networks this will result in favourable economic outcomes.  It will be of little benefit to us all if we cant access the internet due to brownouts and blackouts.

 

Simple!  Abolish their positions.  Ask anyone in the public hospital system and they will tell you that New Zealand, like any Western healthcare system, needs more doctors.  A situation that can only get worse as the demographics change over time.  Add to this the known issue that New Zealand struggles to keep its skilled graduates as it has an excellent education system and mobile workforce.

So when you have persistent shortages of doctors (and nurses) how do you overcome the growing gap between the labour force required and the labour force available?  Abolish the positions and stop advertising for workers. 

As reported on Newstalk ZB today the Auckland District Health Board is considering reducing the number of listed junior doctor positions by between 10-20%.  Politically this will look fantastic:

Minister to DHB:  Is there a recruitment and retention issue?
DHB to Minister:  No sir, we have very few vacancies for doctors at the moment.

But it doesnt avoid the issue that rather than recruit and remunerate talented hard-working healthcare professionals we'll rather share the burden amongst those that are still here to look after the sick and ailing.

This has all the echoes of the "How to reduce waiting lists" solution which says that if you havent been seen within 6 months then you have to go back to your GP to be re-referred to be on the list.  ie if not seen to within 6 months then you're no longer on the waiting list!  Naturally you'll need to be reseen by your GP who, I'm sure, doesnt need the extra work.

Next time you or someone you know is waiting for treatment at an Auckland hospital just remember that the Auckland DHB will be saving money by having you wait longer and longer and longer for service.

This year the festive season didn’t eventuate until viewing an American Football game and seeing the ground blanketed in snow, with fluffy snowflakes falling around the players in New England.  Only then does one feel the full spirit of Christmas.  And the dawning realisation that NFL playoffs are so tangibly close. And in 2009 it appears that a treat is in store for the Kiwi couch potato - virtually every NFL playoff game beamed live into the home.

In the past American Football fans have endured either matches from one conference or another dependent on ESPN Internationals broadcast arrangements with the American networks.  No chance to watch their own team flourish or their darkest rivals demise.  This year with broadcasts from ESPN and Fox Sports a viewer has been treated to back-to-back live games of wildcard AFC and NFC games albeit on Sunday and Monday mornings.  Soon to be followed by the Divisional finals, the Conference Finals and the grand finale of the season SuperBowl on February 2 (NZT). 

Adding to the excitement is the glorious High-Definition of the Fox Sports games, which are truly beautiful.  The Miami Dolphins - Baltimore Ravens matchup in Florida with stunning sunshine and rich glorious detail was stark contrast to SuperBowl clash between Indianapolis and Chicago two years ago.  On that fateful day the driving rain almost rivalled the wintery blast of a Mt Smart Stadium Warriors match or, I imagine, a Auckland Blues game at Eden Park.  Of course Florida delivers significantly higher temperatures even during mid-winter. Of course nothing compares to being there but having a picture quality that looks as realistic as being there is a far cry to the snowy pixelated days of the 1990's when Monday Night Football first came to New Zealand.

And so now each weekend is an eager anticipation of the pageantry associated with the culmination of the football season.  Followed by a regular evening diet of catching up on the Monday games and steadfastly avoiding any news of the results.  Its not quite the heart-stopping watching as when the Bears made their relentless march to SuperBowl but the prospect of watching every playoff game of the Greatest Show on Turf gladdens this sports fan's heart.

Countdown to the SuperBowl has begun.

While I hear complaints internally that our broadband speeds are pathetically low and that NZ is dragging behind the rest of the world it appears that we are not alone.

According to the UK's Office of National Statistics more than 42% of British homes are getting less than 2Mbps.  While I admit I have to read the report and I acknowledge that the UK has geographical characteristics I can say that its geotypes and average line lengths are not dissimilar to NZ.

So it appears we are not alone.  And the majority of customers had no idea what speed they were getting.  A straw poll in the office knew about data caps but not speed (and had no idea what speed they signed up for). 

So the solution?  Well the Commerce Commission would have you think that regulation is the answer cos clearly there is no competition and no investment due to the market structure.  In that case the highly competitive broadband market in the UK and the years of unbundling and regulated prices would suggest that British Telecom needs to be separated.  Ooops, done that one already. 

Short answer - unbundling, price regulation (at a wholesale and retail level) and separation dont seem to have delivered the panacea of fast broadband.  I would suggest that analysis needs to be undertaken to work out exactly what people want this fast broadband for and what utility it provides and work out whether there is any additional utiility in faster speeds.  Logic (and basic economics) would dictate that greater utility should lead to higher prices for such a service.  This may even justify the investment case for faster infrastructure.  Who would have thought?

For most rugby fanatics a Northern Hemisphere tour usually means broken sleep or rearranging life around replays.  With the advent of Personal Video Recorders and Sky’s OnDemand November will herald an improvement in viewer experience.

According to November’s SkyWatch subscribers with MySky will have All Blacks games automatically recorded to their device as part of Sky’s OnDemand service.  This gives the viewer the convenience of pause, rewind and repeat viewing without having to remember to record the game.  

For those not familiar with OnDemand it is the Pay-per-view facility for MySky.  Rather than the traditional staggered start of PPV (near Video-on-demand) there are a collection of programs, mainly Box Office movies, pushed to the MySky hard drive that allow subscribers to purchase a 24-hour viewing window for that content.  Sky constantly refreshes the content but at this stage doesn’t allow the subscriber to choose the playlist for purchase.

Now the All Blacks games will be pushed down to the hard drive and subscribers can watch in their own time.  The great news is that it’s free (ie you wont pay to watch that game) but no indication of whether this is only available to Sports subscribers.  The not-so-great news is that Sky will delete the game at some stage (not disclosed but one could hazard that it will disappear before the next game!).

One would hope that eventually Sky will offer “Season Ticket” style programming.  Imagine being able to have all of your favorite Premier League teams games (or, as some of my colleagues would prefer, the Uefa Champions League matches) automatically downloaded to the MySky to watch – regardless of whether the game was being broadcast live.  Personally I’d live to see my Chicago Bears games available every week.

In my opinion November’s development from Sky is a step in the right direction.  Of course the rugby purist will still rouse themselves in the wee small hours to watch the game live.  

The author may have an indirect financial interest in Sky, but no direct interest.  He does, however, have a direct interest in watching entertaining sport.