Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

VIC TAC comes under media attack

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by titus, Sep 20, 2012.

  1. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/crash-victims-complain-of-pennypinching-tac-20120920-267sx.html


    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/c...inching-tac-20120920-267sx.html#ixzz26ydMmbcL

    I for one would like to know the details of those changes to legislation.
    • Like Like x 5
  2. I for one support no benefits for people who drink drive, drive unregistered vehicles or are not licensed. I know it's harsh and I'll get torn to shreds over it, but so be it. If you're in an unregistered vehicle you haven't paid the TAC premium, why receive the benefit? If you drink drive, your injuries are self-inflicted. If you're unlicensed, why were you operating a vehicle you're not licensed to operate?

    Our society all too often accomodates the lowest common denominator. We set the speed limits to cater for grandpa from China (or Italy, or England, or born here, who cares) who can't see properly. We set Centrelink benefits so foreigners can come here and have 9 kids, and bogans can pretend to get hurt at work and claim welfare. The list goes on. The only thing I'd have a problem with is, I'm crossing the road at a green light and a drink driver knocks me over, I'm not covered by TAC. I know s/he wouldn't be if after he hit me he swerved into a pole. Serves him/her right. But what about the person who's not at-fault?

    Now feel free to burn me on the stake.
    • Like Like x 8
  3. I think you'll find that if you are hit by a drunk driver you are still covered (he/she isn't). What the article is saying is that in addition to cutting compensation for at fault parties, the TAC is also forcing down the level of care for ALL parties, guilty or innocent.
  4. medicare pays out for every other sort of misadventure due to dumbassery... TAC was meant to pay for misadventure on the roads... and road users paid EXTRA for this extra insurance.

    when legislation was introduced that reduced the TAC's risk exposure (ie not paying for people over .05 or whos car rego ran out the day before) did we all get cut a break on our CTP fees?

    surely as drink and drug drivers used to be reponsible for 60% of accidents not covering them should have seen our costs plummet... and with it the tax we pay on top of CTP insurance.

    if we're still paying the premium then we should still get the cover.

    personally i'm fine with NOT covering dumbasses, but if thats the case they should halve my CTP fee, and while they're at it they should attach it to peoples licenses cause personally i can only operate one vehicle at a time, certainly not the 5 that i pay CTP on, but there's plenty of out of practice numbnutz out there who are allowed to drive but dont have to pay CTP cause they dont own a vehicle.
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Those dumbasses should be able to apply to be covered if their dumbarsery is going to impact on their families.

    We live in an egalitarian society. Why put a family on the scrap heap, especially if their dumbass was just over the BAC limit?

    This is the thin edge of the wedge. It's a NO FAULT SYSTEM.

    The next step is removing TAC coverage because you were 3km over. THIS BULLSHIT HAS GOT TO STOP.
    • Like Like x 9
  6. And don't get me started on the real leeches on the system those bloody motorbike riders
    doing 8ks over and getting hit by cars why should they get a pay out ""
    lane splitting too" no pay out for them "" motorbike riders not wearing leathers no pay out for them ""

    they should wear HiViz vests too .no pay out for them" bloody victims and tax payers what a wast of the wonderful TACs money .think I'll contact today tonight .yes great idea ""

    Paying insurance and expecting a pay out"" never heard of such a silly thing
  7. Cover everybody, or close the scheme and cover nobody.
  8. Before I find myself leading a lynch mob out to Geelong, let's remember that the original concept of TAC was to ensure that innocent victims of stupid and dangerous behaviour should not be left without medical care and income just because the guilty couldn't pay.
    There is nothing wrong with that concept. What is wrong is that 1) dividends should never be paid outside the scheme; and 2) the current administration are undermining the very concept it is based on, because it conflicts with their corporate, profit-driven model of administration.

    If anything good can come of this, it would be the removal of that administration and a restructuring that returns the no-fault integrity to the scheme.
    • Like Like x 3
  9.  Top
  10. Was thinking about the amendment that allowed a dividend to be paid to the government (?)
  11. Is it a dividend per se or can big Ted just put his hand in the TAC pot whenever he likes ??
  12. I'd avoid using the word egalitarian as it is a textbook definition for Left wing mindset. Last thing we need to bring in this conversation is politics. :) Sorry just had to say that ..
  13. Then what is the correct word that describes a society where all are treated equal before the law or have equal rights in a society?
  14. Utopia? :bolt:


    • Like Like x 2
  15. It is described in the media, and (I think) in the TAC annual report, as a dividend. the change was made under the Brumby government FWIW.

    Not interested in the party politics here - it's an insurance issue IMO, and therefore also a consumer and governance issue.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. How so? Mr Voyage is a TAC law specialist. You aren't.

    Over 150 changes have been made, and for an explanation in layman's terms, always refer to Hansard.

    • Like Like x 1
  17. i'll read that later if i have trouble sleeping.
    • Like Like x 3
  18. Justice - TAC Law specialist or not doesn't give Mr Voyage the right to grossly stretch the truth.....

    I kept it simple by only focusing on the driving offenses he specifically highlights in the bolded bit. What is strange is that all of the offenses he mentioned have always affected your income, and there have been no changes about these during the past few years.

    What changed in 2010 was that the offense of "dangerous driving causing death or serious injury" stops your right to any income and an impairment lump sum, which was included to be in-line with the similar charge of "culpable driving".

    At the same time they also expanded the drink-driving provisions to include drug-driving so your income can either be reduced by a third during the first 18 months, or you get no income at all for the first 18 months depending on which charge is laid.

    Looking through the amendments I cannot see how any affects a person's Medical, rehab or disability which are paid under section 60 of TAC's Act. If anything they have allowed more people access by allowing 'minors' up to the age of 21 years old to lodge their claim.

    I am not a TAC law specialist and don't profess to be, but I do work in Policy and Legislation and I do speak with my TAC counterpart fairly often.
  19. I think you are missing the point - its called a "No Fault" scheme.

    That means that anyone who is injured, has No Fault attributed to them.

    John Voyage is correct in what he is saying - after the amendments it is now no longer a No Fault scheme, because some elements of Fault can now be attributed to individual's who contribute to an accident - which results in their not receiving equal treatment or financial recompense - under the terms of No Fault.

    This is why we all got upset last year over the way TAC treats some of its motorcycle rider clients. They are examples to which John Voyage is referring.
  20. Where has TAC reduced no fault compensation, medical treatment, lost wages etc in relation to blame towards the rider?

    The lump sum payment side I think has a few clear bogus contributory negligence pursuits, but not the no fault side AFAIK.