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
Other related posts:
A call to arms: Civil Disobedience
ACC - motorcycling as a social activity. Levelling the playing field with cyclists.
Comment by marcus4nz, on 27-Oct-2009 15:32
Agreed- car drivers are usually the ones at fault so surely their acc levies should reflect their input/damage, they also travel the most miles (or k's if you prefer). I have one of each vehicle but would prefer to use the m/c, cheaper on gas, but at $800 per year for the bike rego it will now be cheaper to run the 3.0litre v6 twin turbo,not the best for the environment but thats the govt's way for you. and i cant even take my frustration out slapping the children(only joking)
Comment by sbiddle, on 27-Oct-2009 17:29
I suggest you read a little more about ACC, the different funds that operate, how these are funded and what they cover.
I'm not for one minute suggesting that what ACC want to do is write - I'm merely point out that weekend sportspeople, pedestrians and cyslists are already covered under the general fund. Taxing cyclists individually would simply not be possible or enforceable, hence they come out of the general fund.
ACC no longer cross subsidise funds - to do so was absolutely crazy. If you're a motorcyclist (like a car owner) your treatment costs come from your own levy which funds your own fund. This is a basic requirement for full funding to occur.
Comment by sleemanj, on 27-Oct-2009 23:15
There's little point trying to debate wether or not separate funding is fair when the ACC and government is using what can only be described as "made up maths" to justify it.
We need to get to the root of this issue, which is the figures that ACC and government are throwing about and how they got to them, because simply, they don't add up. They are so far away FROM adding up it's just ridiculous, 100 million dollars out. The figures are completely contradictory.
As BRONZ Auckland dude Les said on closeup the other night, the government claims after the changes drivers will still subsidise bikers by $77 each driver, that's two HUNDRED million dollars, a year, that's so far and away more than the total claims it's just nonsense.
ACC still have not coughed up with the actual data, they won't, they are stone walling every attempt, all you get out of them is this same summary with the same figures and no justification.
Comment by simon14, on 28-Oct-2009 14:28
It makes absolutely no difference whose fault the crash is.
Motorbike drivers know the risks involved.
If they are in a crash, they will most likely be much worse off than if they were in a car - it doesn’t matter whose fault the crash is, the fact is, the person on the bike had a choice to ride a bike or drive a car.
That choice has a cost associated with it – higher ACC levy’s.
I don’t know why they are complaining, the car drivers are still heavily subsidising the motorbike drivers even after the increases.
If you don’t like it, don’t ride a bike – simple.
Comment by stuzzo, on 28-Oct-2009 16:17
I would agree that most motorcycle accidents are not the fault of the rider but would also suggest that motorcyclists are, in general, big risk takers, especially on the open road.
I have sympathy for the argument that they shouldn't cover the costs of accidents they don't cause but, if you accept that the fees suggested are still heavily subsidised, they are not, in fact, being asked to.
Maybe we have to ask the question of weather modern road transport has a place for this more dangerous mode.
Comment by Not a Biker, on 28-Oct-2009 22:05
What? 200 million dollars divided by $77 per rider = 2.6 million motorcyclists (more or less). Those numbers don't add up either!
Comment by SIMON, on 18-Nov-2009 09:51
I have a suggestion then to all those car drivers who believe that motorcyclists know the risks on the roads. Yes, increase the levy for m/c BUT SLIGHTLY.Then when the accidents occur, investigate who is at fault. 9 times out of 10 the fault is with the car driver so make the car driver PAY ALL MEDICAL COSTS for the motorcylist. I ride a m/c and drive a car, and if i hit a motorcyclist with my car and it was deemed to be my fault, then i would be prepared to pay for that persons medical treatment. I think car drivers would be a bit more considerate on the roads if this was to happen.